News & Politics - Repubs/Conservatives: Warning! May Contain Traces of Conservatives And/Or Other Nuts - Page 7

JW77 · 09-08-2004, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lexis
I was just looking for some clarification - would America not have gone into Iraq if 9/11 had never happenned? Surely if Iraq was a threat, action would have been taken. Or do you feel that the mood of the American people was changed (quite understandably) enough for a war to be supported by large sections of society?

Or something completely different that I'm totally missing? : )

I think it depends on who you ask.

Personally, I believe we would've gone into Iraq even if September 11th hadn't happened. I don't think that support would've been as great as it was if things had been different though, but I guess we'll never really know.

Lexis · 09-08-2004, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JW77
I don't think that support would've been as great as it was if things had been different though, but I guess we'll never really know.

I read an article (sorry, I can't remember where or I'd link it) that said that a large proportion of Americans believed that Iraq was somehow tied up with the events of 9/11 - do you think that's why the war had such popularity in America?

JW77 · 09-08-2004, 07:02 PM

I'm not sure. It's a possibility. I never thought Iraq was tied up in it, but after September 11th it probably didn't matter to a lot of people.

WalkingOnSunshine · 09-09-2004, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Katis
My mom said she wanted to walk up to him, shake his hand, and say "I hope that all the luck of my family is with you."

In case you didn't know the sarcasm, not knowing my mom or my family, we are extremely, extremely unlucky. As in death, accidents, major natural distasters kind of unlucky.

Would have been fun to see if it worked though

She said he was weird looking, and had the charisma of a river rock.

Too funny!

Quote:

Originally posted by mh67511
I still believe that the major catalyst for going into Iraq was 9/11.

We went into there mainly because we believed that Saddam was capabale of making WMD's and could supply them to terrorists. Before 9/11 I don't think MOST Americans thought about WMD's or even knew what that meant before 9/11.

I don't believe there were any ulterior motives other than safety, because I have yet to see anything we have gained other than a safer world (which of course some people will debate).

I agree with that. I mean I know others will question it being a "war for oil" or that he is settling "daddy's score". I believe the honest reason for going into Iraq was their threat of WMDs. The fact that Saddam was not complying with the UN inspectors and that we didn't want to be another "sitting duck" target.

Quote:

Originally posted by Lexis
I read an article (sorry, I can't remember where or I'd link it) that said that a large proportion of Americans believed that Iraq was somehow tied up with the events of 9/11 - do you think that's why the war had such popularity in America?

Yes, I think Americans wanted to take any and all steps neccessary for complete & utter protection. We were shocked and devasted that such an attack like 9/11 could happen on our soil. And we wanted to know that any countries that were attempting to use either WMDs against us or assist in harboring &/or aiding terrorists would have immediate action taken against them. That is why so many people are passionate about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

About the Swift Boat ads:
The first lady was asked by someone if she thought it was fair that the Swift Boat ads were helping her husband gain in the polls by attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. Her reply was that she didn't know but there had been many millions of dollars spent on negative ads against her husband.

I was like you go Laura!

Lexis · 09-09-2004, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WalkingOnSunshine

Yes, I think Americans wanted to take any and all steps neccessary for complete & utter protection. We were shocked and devasted that such an attack like 9/11 could happen on our soil. And we wanted to know that any countries that were attempting to use either WMDs against us or assist in harboring &/or aiding terrorists would have immediate action taken against them. That is why so many people are passionate about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

I agree with those that are passionate about the war on terror - it is so very important that we stamp it out. Obviously Iraq was hostile to the US but surely a more threatening target comes in the form of Saudi Arabia. Saudi hijackers, Saudi money, their appalling human rights record...but the Bush administration is awfully quite on the unsavoury parts of their friends.

In Afghanistan, combat was a viable option as the only way of destroying Osama's operations there was to invade and topple the Taliban. But in Iraq, war has made America (and to a lesser extent their partners) look like the aggressors. Osama and company can point to Iraq now and say 'hey, look, I told you they were trying to destroy Islam!" Going in without the support of the UN with the majoirty of the troops on the ground being American sends completely the wrong message.

Quote:

About the Swift Boat ads:
The first lady was asked by someone if she thought it was fair that the Swift Boat ads were helping her husband gain in the polls by attacking Kerry's Vietnam service. Her reply was that she didn't know but there had been many millions of dollars spent on negative ads against her husband.

I was like you go Laura!

To be fair, although some of the ads against Bush have been needlessly offensive, a lot have targeted his specific record - economic policy, decisions in Iraq etc. The Swift Boat Ad's in themselves would just be like all the others if it weren't for the extensive links with the Bush administration and the fact what they say does not seem to be backed up in fact. The men who served directly with John Kerry - I believe 11 are active in campaigning and 1 has chosen to remain out of the spotlight- have condemed these ads as untruthful.

The behaviour of some people has been awful - the purple heart bandages at the convention just an example. With the swift boat ads I see two issues - war record and the honesty of the candidate. I think Kerry proved himself in the former by volunteering for two tours of duty.

Bush however has - if not lied - misled America on a variety of issues, right from the start of his campaign. And if we start getting into war records....well, Bush does not come off very well.

When Republicans call Kerry's past into question - as they have the right to do - they invite the same examination of their people. Bush served in the Air Guard (and if the recent reports are to be believed, not well) while Cheney recieved 5 deferments and neither Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Rove served at all.

*Ledi* · 09-09-2004, 02:05 PM

The only questions I have for Republicans are, "I have no problem with people being Republicans, but to blindly follow Bush and say that he's a good president is beyond me. How can you say that? When he has done no good for your country? Even if you support the war, can you honestly think of anything good that he has done for your country? cause I can't think of one".

As Will said on the other thread, its time to stop fighting over being a republican or democrat and just look at the issues.

dawnie · 09-09-2004, 02:30 PM

[quote]Originally posted by *Ledi*
[b]The only questions I have for Republicans are, "I have no problem with people being Republicans, but to blindly follow Bush and say that he's a good president is beyond me. How can you say that? When he has done no good for your country? Even if you support the war, can you honestly think of anything good that he has done for your country? cause I can't think of one".

I think one of the most important things that Bush has done, just in my personal experience (besides Homeland Security, etc) has been Education Reform. I homeschooled my 3 kids for 8 years because the public schools here were so bad and we couldn't afford private school tuition for 3 children. Last year was the first year they all 3 went to public school, and it was due in a large part because of the reforms. Our local schools are now on a level 5 accreditation (out of 1-5), where in the past they were at the bottom. When I attended the same high school my son now attends, we were only required to have 18 credits to graduate and took only one math course my entire time at high school- and that was algebra in the 9th grade! It really hurt me when it came time for college when I had to take physics, etc for an architectural degree. I was fortunate that I was a fast learner and picked up on things fairly easily. Now my son has to have nearly 30 credits to graduate and has math every semester. He, too, is planning on going into the architectural field, and he will be so much more prepared than I was when it's time for college!

*Ledi* · 09-09-2004, 02:35 PM

Okay, awesome, but does that honestly make him such a good president? Good enough to give him 4 other years in the office?

And I don't even want to compare the bad vs the "good" he's done anyway. But thanks for answering my question...

mh67511 · 09-09-2004, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by *Ledi*
Okay, awesome, but does that honestly make him such a good president? Good enough to give him 4 other years in the office?

You know, I doubt that we can say anything that will be good enough in your eyes, but whatever.

I don't have time now, but I will post later what I like about him.

Lexis · 09-09-2004, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mh67511
You know, I doubt that we can say anything that will be good enough in your eyes, but whatever.

"Good enough" is a subjective description. For me, "good enough" means:

Good education and healthcare for all
Workers treated fairly
Reducing pollution
Strong homeland defence
Healthy economy
Only entering wars when it is the last resort
Internationally respected with close allies
Seperation of church and state

Obviously there is a lot more that could be added to that list.

I just think that in the time we live in, with the constant threat of terrorism, every country needs to work together. Instead, we're divided over a war that still rages on.

I think Bush did go into the White House with good intentions - compassionate conservative and all that- but the facts since then speak for themselves. The recent statistics about 12.9 million American children living in poverty is just unacceptable. This should not happen in the richest country in the world.

Katis · 09-09-2004, 07:20 PM

I'd just like you guys to remember that when cross posting in the Republican and Democrat threads while you can politely ask questions, or just hang out, they aren't the places for trying to get into a debate. There are either existing threads or threads that can be made to deal with that.

I'm posting this in both threads as a reminder to everyone, since we have some new members to the board.

zhusya · 09-09-2004, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lexis

I think Bush did go into the White House with good intentions - compassionate conservative and all that- but the facts since then speak for themselves. The recent statistics about 12.9 million American children living in poverty is just unacceptable. This should not happen in the richest country in the world.

America isn't the richest countryin the world, that honor goes to Japan.

Lexis · 09-09-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zhusya
America isn't the richest countryin the world, that honor goes to Japan.

Seems we're both wrong. Luxembourg is first on GDP with the United States at number 2.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_gdp_cap

JW77 · 09-10-2004, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lexis
Seems we're both wrong. Luxembourg is first on GDP with the United States at number 2.

Per capita, yes, but the US is at the top when it comes to actual GDP.

Anyway, I agree with your original statement about people living in poverty in the US.

Lexis · 09-10-2004, 11:18 AM

Let's hope that whoever wins the election makes getting those kids out of poverty a priority. It's not a party issue, it's a people issue.