This is my absolute last response. The discussion is truly pointless. But
I will state my beliefs since you seem to keep asking for them.
1. Bush is scientifically illiterate (not saying Kerry is scientifically
literate, but chances are he's got a better handle on facts, just given the
differences in the way each politican can present his views). I do not
trust people who cannot express themselves in their native tongue with some
eloquence, especially those in positions of political power. In other
words, I think Bush is a complete and utter moron, and I'd rather have
someone who's not a moron in the office of the president.
2. "Miachiavellian diplomacy" is an oxymoron. It makes no sense. Use it
if you wish - but at your own peril. Go look up "diplomacy" in the
dictionary again. Read the definition. There can't be any such thing as
diplomacy that is Machiavellian. If you want to say that Kerry is
Machiavellian, go ahead. But diplomacy, as a word, bars the idea of
anything Machiavellian - it's, as I stated earlier and supported by at
least the online dictionary, negotiation without engendering hostility. Go
look up the word "negotiation" if you want to argue this point further.
You'll find you're wrong.
3. Yes, Bush has basically come to the conclusion that the justification
for the war in Iraq is now that Sadam Hussein had vague plans to produce
weapons of mass destruction "sometime in the future", even though the
latest full investigation came to the distinct, inarguable conclusion that
there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor have there been for
the last ten years. Neither were there any plans in development. So, now
Bush has to back-pedal with absolutely no evidence to support our invasion
of a country that was posing no threat to us whatsoever.
How is Kerry an improvement?
1. He's not a religious fool. I truly think George Bush has the
intelligence of a penlight.
2. He knows how to communicate his ideas. Bush is emotional, religious,
and is very very bad at public speaking. He's bad at speaking, period. I
don't, as I said, trust anyone who can't utilize their native tongue to at
least some acceptable level that demonstrates a modicum of intelligence.
3. Apparently, Kerry's interested in listening to others' opinions and
reviewing facts, something in which I believe (and history has proved this
to be true) Bush has absolutely no interest. Isn't this the president who
doesn't read the newspapers? I guess he gets all his news from Fox. You
can debate all you like about the CIA's wrong intelligence, but what was
that overwhelming proof they had that so convinced the president we had to
go to war this instant? Whatever it was (is it declassified yet?), if I
were in charge, I'd be doing a little more fact-finding.
Primarily, I am in favor of the rights of individuals to do with their
lives what they wish including the ingesting of whatever drugs they want,
removal of fetuses they don't want, and marrying whomever they want. I am
in favor of stem cell research. I am in favor of humanity's doing its best
not to destroy itself and the only world it inhabits. I am, in truth, less
concerned about such things as war (although war in general is something I
oppose in almost any case), and I believe Mr. Bush is far too religious to
support anything closely resembling my view of the world. I don't think
Kerry is either, but he's got a better shot at protecting civil rights and
keeping religion out of politics.
Religion, to me, is frightening and ominous when it comes to its imposition
upon politics and governmental policies. I am so offended at "faith based"
charities taking tax money, it's hard for me to refrain from spitting up
when I think about it. These are the kinds of things our president
supports. To my view, he is a right-wing religious zealot, probably not
too far off the mark from the likes of Pat Robertson.
As far as war being a last resort, I think our war in Iraq is a case in
point. Why are we there? Nobody can answer that question since Iraq isn't
harboring terrorists, (well, they weren't until we got there) they were not
a direct threat to the security of this country, and lastly, they possessed
no weapons of mass destruction. While I certainly wouldn't say Sadam
Hussein was a leader anybody would want to be governing any country, I do
not believe it is the job of the United States to decide who gets to govern
what countries. There's nothing wrong with the United Nations. It was
designed for just such reasons -- yet the Bush administration blithely went
ahead and did what it wanted, regardless of anything the United Nations
said or did. You can point all you like to the pretenses of cooperation
that ostensibly took place before we slammed into Iraq, but the truth is:
we slammed into Iraq regardless of what the rest of the world thought of
it.
The dictum that the Bush administration issued about preemptive action
(i.e., "we can do whatever we want whenever we want" -- lovely, isn't it?)
was enough to frighten me into voting for anyone who would run against him
and had a chance in hell of winning. Of course, I'd never vote for any
Bush in the first place -- they're far too conservative and religious for
my tastes.
Done with discussion. Go ahead and vote for Bush. Use whatever terms
you'd like to invent. However, I am truly done with this.
John Testa
SLPS Homewood
708-647-4346
[log in to unmask]
Brice Yokem
<[log in to unmask] To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
Sent by: HP-3000 Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: US Politics
Systems
Discussion
<[log in to unmask]
TC.EDU>
10/21/2004 03:06
PM
Please respond to
Brice Yokem
John
I will try one more time - Try this -
Machiavellian Diplomacy
----------------------
Bush's laughable response to this finding is
"well, he [Sadam] was THINKING about it!"
----------------------
I don't recall GWB saying this, but maybe. It is certianly no more
foolish than what John Kerry is saying.
----------------------
Tony Blair, as far as I'm concerned, is a yes-man, and he's paying for
that right now.
----------------------
His intel came to the same conclusion as the CIA. If I knew nothing
of Tony Blair other than his support of GWB regarding the invasion of
Iraq. I would come to the same conclusion. But tell me, do you see
anything that does not support this conclusion?
----------------------
Regardless, I believe war is a last resort, just as I believe violence of
any sort in any situation is a last resort. I don't think we have leaders
in place who share those opinions.
----------------------
Iraq had a decade or more to clean up his act and was in violation of
other UN resolutions than the one regarding WMD. How long do we wait
before war is the 'last resort', what needs to happen before it is
obvious 'diplomacy' is not going to work?
----------------------
And frankly, if you're curious, I'm voting for Kerry because he's not Bush.
If I were voting my conscience, I'd vote libertarian.
----------------------
I have to agree that GWB preformance is not what I would call stellar,
but Kerry, how is this any improvement?
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
