Why Bush over Kerry

[Glengoyne]

A lot of folks seem to be asking this question. I have no trouble with that. I'll gladly answer the question. The thing that bothers me is that attitude that a number of people who "lost" this election are throwing around. A number of people are labeling Bush's supporters as intollerant and ignorant fools who bought into a lie. I've seen it on this board From Delebar "Ultimately I viewed this election as a battle between ignorance and enlightenment. I fear that a dark, dark age has dawned...", Across the internet George R.R. Martin's "Mourning for America" piece, and in my own personal relationships. My best friend has been livid ever since the results came in. The morning after, he decried that my vote was one for bigotry and discrimination.

This attitude, is what I don't understand. I supported Bush, but fully expected Kerry to win. I figured to be disappointed on Election night, and in the days following. The thing I think I was dreading most with regard to personal relationships was putting up with the Kerry supporters going on about what a horrible person Bush was, and how much a better place the world was now that Kerry was our president. Instead, a number of Kerry's supporters have gone on to proclaim themselves intelectually and morally superior to those that supported Bush. It seems like if they didn't hate me and what they believe I stand for so much, that they would pity me. Instead they just seek to lecture me, and cite ridiculous scenarios where Bush brings the nation to ruin. I think I would have preferred the former diatribes. The second, just pisses me off. If you think I stand for bigotry and ignorance because I voted for President Bush, You can go Fuck yourself. I don't often agree with Mr. Cheney, but I think he'd back me up on that.

Since so many folks seem to be unable to understand how someone could vote for Bush, I'll try and go over it here.

I'll start with what I do like about him.
I actually appreciate that he is a leader. He has made a number of decisions that were unpopular, because he believed that he was taking the right course of action. I didn't always agree with him. Sometimes I disagreed to the core of my being, but I still admire the fact that he is making hard calls, and doesn't appear to be doing so with a polling sheet in his hand.

The second thing, is really tied to the first, and happened long enough ago that it really didn't come into my mind when I voted. It is the day he won me over to his "camp". It was his appearance at the World Trade Center site after September 11th. That day he made me proud that he was my President. Until then, I was still thinking that Gore might have been his equal as President.

The war in Iraq: I was absolutely behind the President's decision to press for regime change in Iraq. I felt it had to be done, because Saddam had thumbed his nose at the U.N. for over a decade. If the U.N. never put teeth to it's resolutions, then they would become the League of Nations. The fact that the U.N. didn't sign off on the invasion didn't really bother me. In my mind, it needed to be done. The administration made WMDs the poster boy among the reasons for war. There were a number of reasons that were equally valid in my mind, but they chose to parade the threat of WMDs above all others. In retrospect that was a mistake, but it was a mistake based on the collective intelligence of a number of nations.

The war on Terror: I applauded the President's "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists" speech. It was a clear message to all foreign nations, that when the United States comes asking for cooperation in defeating Terror, you had damn well better side against the terrorists. I am still baffled a bit by those critical of those words. It was a
demand to stand up against terrorism, not a demand to blindly stand with the U.S.

The economy: Well, here I can't say that the Tax Cut has turned the economy around, but I can say I appreciated it. The economy has turned around, and I believe it will continue to pick up steam. I don't know if the President has done anything to bring that about, but I certainly don't think he has done anything to harm the economy.

I think that is enough about Why Bush...now for what I don't like about him.

The Stem Cell Decision. I think the limitations he placed on the research funding were a play to the Far Right, who are opposed for moral reasons. The sanctity of life is important, but so is a sense of reallity. The fact is, that embryos being used for these studies are doomed for destruction in any case.

Gay Marriage amendment: In California we passed one of these ballot measures, and I voted against it then. I opposed it because it didn't allow for civil unions. I was bothered when President Bush came out supporting an amendment to the constitution banning Gay Marriage. I see no need to write discrimination right back into the constitution. I mean if we do, why don't we just say that homosexuals count as 4/5ths of a person with regards to calculating representation. We fought a war to remove discrimination from that document, I see no reason to put it back in.

War in Iraq. I felt the initial invasion was rushed. I believe, that if we had waited for the 4th Infantry Division we would have been better able to protect the support troops, and we would have been in a much better position when it came to actually securing the nation after the invasion had completed it's objectives. I also am very aware of the sickening feeling I felt when I realized that we had only 10,000 troops in Afghanistan while 150,000 in Iraq. We really should have finished the first Nation building program we started instead of moving on to the second.

Post War Iraq: I think it is rather obvious that there was a lack of or at least exceedingly poor planning on what to do with Iraq, once we had decapitated the nation's government.

His Justice Department/The Patriot Act. I'm pretty disappointed in Ashcroft, and one or two of the terrorism cases he has brought forth. I fully understand the want or need for expanded intrusion on citizen's rights to help combat Terrorism, but if we grant Law Enforcement the authority to exceed their normal restrictions, I expect that authority to be used sparingly and judiciously. I don't really know how often the patriot act is used by law enforcement, but there have been a couple of cases where it's application wasn't very judicious. As for the defacto suspension of "habeus corpus", I believe the Supreme Court handled that appropriately.

That is good enough for now, I'm sure there are more.

Since I characterized my vote as being a vote "against Kerry" or at best a vote for "the Devil I know", I'll move on to why not Kerry.

His Vote against the first war in Iraq. It seemed like a pretty obvious right thing to do at the time, yet Kerry joined a distinct minority who voted against defending Saudi Arabia and liberating Kuwait. The fact that he is a Dove, doesn't lend credence to his promise to execute the war on Terror to a degree where he could stand behind "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists".

He didn't seem to stand for anything. This is where Bush's Leadership appeal comes to play. I really did figure that Kerry would govern by opinion poll. He can say his opinion on the War in Iraq never changed, but when America's support for the war was running around 60% for the war, Howard Dean was in a distinct minority among Democratic candidates for President. When public opinion started to turn, Dean had plenty of company.

His campaign. Bush always said he honored Kerry's service. Kerry actually entered the debate on Bush's National Guard service, but instead of saying that Bush's service and those of other National Guard members was honorable, he said that Bush couldn't prove he had done his service. He allowed documents questioning Bush's service up on his official website. He ran ads saying that Bush had ducked serving his country. This bothered me a lot. He should have left the demagoguery to Michael Moore and Howard Dean. Instead he lowered himself to their level.

Kerry never really expressed a plan, he did maintain he would do things "smarter", which doesn't really count. Also during the debates he kept spending that Tax cut for the wealthiest 1% to cure all that ails the nation. He spent it to put his healthcare plan in place, he spent it to better education, and he spent it to pay down the national debt. No matter how much he talked, he couldn't sell himself to me as a deficit hawk. He wanted to increase spending, and I believe that his plan to repeal tax cuts would have trickled down to my modest income bracket.

Kerry's assertion that the economy was in the tank, and that the president was allowing jobs to be shipped overseas rang empty on me. According to the news and economists, the economy had rebounded, and was continuing to grow. The job losses, especially in manufacturing, are an extension of NAFTA. Free Trade is a bitter pill now, that theoretically will pay off in a big way in the future. The funny thing is that back when Clinton started the Free Trade ball rolling, the Republicans opposed it because it would lead to losses in the manufacturing sector. Now the Dems are opposing the very effects the Republicans pointed to back then. It seems to me that this issue will be a bitter pill for any administration in power until we start to reap the dividends of our "investment" in other economies.

There are a lot of other things I don't like about Kerry, that are probably more attributed to my dislike of the Democratic party.

Social Security: Eventhough it is on course for bankruptcy, Kerry promised to do nothing about it"Hands off". Promising to Ignoring a real problem, is a problem.

Medicare Drug Benefit: Yes I agree it would have been better to negotiate aggressive discounts for Drugs, but to say that the plan wouldn't help, and would even harm seniors is pretty outrageous. Just ask the AARP.

Education: I believe the educational system in this country could use some fairly dramatic reform. The Democratic Party's ties to the Teachers' Unions prevents them from being behind any serious attempt at this.

Selection of Judges: I kind of like the make up of the Supreme Court now. Some extremists at each end, and a couple of moderates to make most of the tough decisions. I have a lot of faith in the current court to get things right, see the Unlawful detention cases. I wouldn't want to see Kerry appoint three judges to the Court, that would tip it possibly far to the left. I don't really know who he would have appointed, but I know he never expressed any trouble with the Justices in his own home state who essentially legistated a Gay Marriage law. While I am against a ban on gay marriage, I am also against judges who would seek to make laws from the bench.


I could go on, and probably will in responses here(assuming I stay logged in), but In a nutshell although I didn't think President Bush was doing all that great a job. I didn't think he was doing an exceedingly bad job either. Kerry didn't offer me any sort of moderate alternative, so I was left erring on the side of ....well Caution. I think Bush will essentially be held in check by the Democrats and their contempt, and while minor elements of his agenda might get put in place, I don't think it will amount to anything substantial.

Sorry to have droned on. It must be a byproduct of not being able to respond to threads for three days now.

[Desnudo]

I felt like I was the opposite of the "Anyone but Bush" camp. I easily could have voted Democrat this election if they'd run someone I felt comfortable voting for.

[Glengoyne]

I felt like I was the opposite of the "Anyone but Bush" camp. I easily could have voted Democrat this election if they'd run someone I felt comfortable voting for.

Lieberman comes to mind, and possibly Wes Clark.

[Desnudo]

Lieberman comes to mind, and possibly Wes Clark.

I was excited about Wesley Clark and I would have been interested to learn more about Lieberman had he been nominated. Overall though, there definitely wasn't a shining star out of the democratic field. Had there been, he'd probably be taking office in January. I grew up in the Boston area so I was fully familiar with what Kerry was all about. I was really suprised he won the nomination and once he was nominated it pretty much came down to throwing my vote away on a third party or voting for Bush.

[Tekneek]

I was really suprised he won the nomination and once he was nominated it pretty much came down to throwing my vote away on a third party or voting for Bush.

Depending on the state you live in, a vote for a third party that actually is more in-line with your principles would have been more beneficial than a vote for either Bush or Kerry. In Georgia, Bush dominated such that a vote for him or Kerry was a waste (if you agree more with a different party/candidate), and a vote for any of the other candidates would actually help them have a good shot at beating our awful ballot access restrictions next time around.

[Flasch186]

Ill counter:

I appreciate his leadership, my problem is when evidence mounts up to show that perhaps his decision was wrong, or at least based on Faulty information he refuses, steadfastly to admit and therefore accept tweaking or change. I believe had he been able to do this we couldve resolved or made rpogress on the insurgency better than we have thus far in Iraq. I would like to see him accept other differing opinions in his camp, like Powell's, without running them off or firing them, chinseki.

I think any and all presidnets wouldve handled 9/11 sufficiently well. Any president wouldve acted in a way I think all people wouldve been proud, its just a shame it happened, and the president did a good job off handling the immediacy after it. I think he did not take advantage of the moment, worldwide, in garnering worldwide support for us when it was there for the taking.

We agree on Iraq, WMD was a bad thing to hang the hat on, saving lives and securing a future for the country was a good thing. For George to make me forget about Halliburton's influence here, we must must must go to Sudan in haste. Or else I have to believe the fact that there isnt any major natural resource in the country must play a small roll even if its just trying to protect our economy.

I didnt mind the idea behind the "yopu or us" stuff, I think it shouldve been kept behind closed doors and not be thrown out there like a wrestler talking about his upcoming matches. He shoudlve saved that stuff for his trump card when a country failed or even looked to be supporting terror. Perhaps we'll see some movement in a direction on Saudi Arabia as they obviously do nothing but protect there hides and support almost anything in their country as long as it means the king gets to keep power.

The economy while to some looks like its improving, IMO has not. The middle of the country is suffering mightily and the boom towns are enjoying it. Florida being one. Unfortunately it is the manufacturing sector that rests almost solely in the part that is doing bad. I would hesisitate to assert that they are turning the corner there.

We agree on the wrong stuff he's done.

With Kerry I dont disagree much with what you asserted, just that I think Bush and Kerry were equally caustic in their campaign's and neither of them deserves commendation for their campaign's. Rove is just better at the Game.

The medicare plan IMO is such a waste of an opportunity its criminal. yes, I believe that the special interests, campaign contributors forced that hand. It was a real oportunity for change and instead the drug companies made out like bandits with our tax dollars. That pisses me off, then to lump the Canadaian drugs as illegal and then not negotiate for lower prescription drugs. That IMO was simply awful.

NCLB simply leaves too many needy schools, that were needs before NCLB holding the bag. The reason they are behind is because they were behind before. They dont need to be benchmarked now when they're already trying to play catch up. That I think is a travesty. Do I have a better solution? not off the top of my head, but IMO NCLB means rich schools get rich and poor schools get forgotten.



and there you have it - in the above, most importantly IMO is "FUCKIN' A!! STOP THE GENOCIDE IN SUDAN."

[ChifBastard]

and there you have it - in the above, most importantly IMO is "FUCKIN' A!! STOP THE GENOCIDE IN SUDAN."

Nah, "AMERICA" ha's no political or economical interest in that area. Like oil for example. Just let those people die. It's the best for the nation.

[stevew]

Pull back a bit. It's not 51-48 for Bush, with 48 who "don't get it" and who won't ever figure it out. It's billions, yes billions, to 59 million. Maybe, just maybe, it's the 59 million who "don't get it" and who arrogantly think they don't have to try.



Its such a shame that the "billions" dont get to vote. Oh well, fuck them. :rolleyes:

[Tekneek]

Conservatives didn't "get it" back in 1996 either.

[sachmo71]

Because Bush is the pitcher, silly.

[oliegirl]

I disagree. I don't think there's anything to get. Except this: George Bush's presidency and campaign have been ones of unprecedented cynicism and contempt for the electorate's intelligence. Facts, actions, and consequences mean nothing. Religion, prejudice, and vague qualities like "leadership" entirely untethered to any actual "leading" mean all. Americans who voted for Bush - excepting those super-rich who care only for themselves - voted against their self-interest, against "moral values," and against the principles that made this country a city of the hill. They were fooled.

That is YOUR opinion, and you are entitled to it...but don't make a broad general statement like that. You supported Kerry and don't think Bush deserved to win, and you have stated why. Some of us support Bush and don't think that Kerry deserved to win. There had to be a winner and there had to be a loser...it sucks for you that your man lost, but don't try and tell those of us that like the outcome that we are wrong for not thinking like you. The original poster made sure that he conveyed his opinions as his opinions, not as the "right" way to think and never implied that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid or ignorant or wrong.

[Cuckoo]

That is YOUR opinion, and you are entitled to it...but don't make a broad general statement like that. You supported Kerry and don't think Bush deserved to win, and you have stated why. Some of us support Bush and don't think that Kerry deserved to win. There had to be a winner and there had to be a loser...it sucks for you that your man lost, but don't try and tell those of us that like the outcome that we are wrong for not thinking like you. The original poster made sure that he conveyed his opinions as his opinions, not as the "right" way to think and never implied that anyone who disagreed with him was stupid or ignorant or wrong.


This is what I've been saying for three days, but people like Delebar won't get it. He doesn't see that it's simply his opinion, that his priorities are different than other people, that he simply sees a different path for the country than others. He doesn't think that we should try to find points of compromise and that maybe somewhere in the middle of the extremes might just be the best course of action.

He thinks if you voted for Bush, you're ignorant. Plain and simple. And he'll continue to think it. And I think it's sad. In all of his claims of enlightenment, he comes off looking so terrifically the opposite.

[Tekneek]

I am surprised that Bush won, and the GOP did as well as it did. That's not to say that I wanted Kerry to win either. I just didn't think sending troops off to get killed in a war where the biggest selling point turned out to be fiction would get you and your party that much support. I don't think it was the gay marriage thing, because those amendments seemed to draw a lot of support from both Republican and Democrat voters.

[Ben E Lou]

Pull back a bit. It's not 51-48 for Bush, with 48 who "don't get it" and who won't ever figure it out. It's billions, yes billions, to 59 million. Maybe, just maybe, it's the 59 million who "don't get it" and who arrogantly think they don't have to try.Well, there's clearly a fundamental difference of opinion here. You obviously believe that the opinions of those billions matter significantly, while some would say that they don't matter one iota.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, there's clearly a fundamental difference of opinion here. You obviously believe that the opinions of those billions matter significantly, while some would say that they don't matter one iota.

Or even an tiny fraction of an iota.

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Actually, this would be an argument in favor of Jon's point (one that I agree with mostly, but not fully). This is such a fundamental difference of core values that there's no point in even arguing about it. As a result of my core value on this, Kerry's "Global Test", coupled with his demonstrated instinct to trust the UN/International Community above the US, made him an unacceptable candidate for me. Although I'm not a big fan of Dubya, I was immediately left with a choice of Dubya vs. 3rd party candidate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is such a fundamental difference of core values that there's no point in even arguing about it.

Y'know, that's a powerful phrase considering how few words it requires.

And it fits very well with my repeated point about the whole notion of "divisive politics". There's an increasing number of these "fundamental difference of core values" that ultimately connect to the majority of the hot-button issues.

[Ksyrup]

I never expressed my true view of this election on this board or anywhere else before the election. I talked about about facts and ideas and never called anyone stupid because I believed that "enlightenment" would prevail.

I was wrong.
Read: "I didn't say what I was really thinking about you idiots before the election, because I figured there was no way in hell Bush would win and I could stay above the fray. But now that Bush has won, I've got nothing left to do but express my utter dismay and amazement at how stupid you are."

[Radii]

Well, there's clearly a fundamental difference of opinion here. You obviously believe that the opinions of those billions matter significantly, while some would say that they don't matter one iota.


I believe that the opinions of those billions matter, in a sense that how the rest of the world views us and our standing in the world matters very much to me. But those opinions in no way mandate a new president. There is a major leap between someone saying "I voted against Bush in part because of how bush handled foreign policy and how Bush impacted those billions", and saying "those billions are right, and the 51% majority in the USA are wrong." That leap is just far too big for me to be willing to make.

[MJ4H]

So why would we assume that people in other countries would have our best interests in mind when deciding who we should have for our president? Wouldn't it be safer to conclude that they have THEIR best interests in mind? I did not vote for who I thought would be better for Hungary. I voted for who I thought would be better for the United States.

[Aylmar]

Americans who voted for Bush - excepting those super-rich who care only for themselves - voted against their self-interest, against "moral values," and against the principles that made this country a city of the hill. They were fooled.

Look, I usually try to stay out of these things, but this type of tripe really makes my blood boil. Let me preface this by saying that I'm nothing more than a dumb farmboy from Oklahoma. I moved to Illinois because I wanted to work in software development and opportunities for that type of career are limited out in the panhandle.

Here's the one thing I know: The quickest way to get me (or anyone I know back home) to stop listening to you is to say something like 'You need my help! Please, let me share my enlightenment with you and save you from yourself.' There's a reason why guys like Limbaugh harp on this topic. It resonates, espeically with small town hicks like my parents and extended family. Of course, who cares about them? They're rednecks! Probably bigots too! None of them even have a college degree! How can we possibly expect them to form opinions and make up their own minds? They were all, millions of them, fooled by the dumbest man in America! They need our help! After all, if they all die, who'll grow our food?

I don't want pity for feeling the way I feel and voting the way I vote. You do your research and vote the way you want and I'll do mine and vote the way I want. If I 'vote against my own self-interests', well, that type of thing will work itself out in the long run, won't it? All the better for your cause, I should think. There will certainly be fewer ignorant fools running around the country...

Now Bush voters like you express outrage that people like me don't "understand" how smart you really are. "You don't get it, and you will continue to be marginalized because you make no effort to get it." But here is the iceberg you don't see. I might ask you why the world overwhelmningly supported Kerry, including very conservative publications in our strongest ally. What about the rest of the world don't you get? Are you trying to understand that? No, of course not.

Screaming that 'the world agrees with us' doesn't help your cause with rural/suburban America. If this is a strategy or justification, those voters are just going to continue to say what they said in this election: 'We don't care'. It doesn't make them ignorant, just indifferent.

And before you tell me this is why Kerry lost - because his supporters are arrogant assholes who think they're smarter than everyone else, know this. I never expressed my true view of this election on this board or anywhere else before the election.

You may not have expressed those opinions personally, but there were enough of them floating around out there that it really didn't matter all that much. We got the message. The sentiment was loud and clear, both before and after the election. Only stupid people vote Bush. Color me stupid.

[Ben E Lou]

I believe that the opinions of those billions matter, in a sense that how the rest of the world views us and our standing in the world matters very much to me.For the record, I do see where you're coming from there. Our standing in the world matters to some degree to me--just probably a bit less than it does to you.

[jetpunk2000]

I think Glen made some really good points in his original post. One of my biggest issues with Bush was not the war in Iraq per se, but the handling of the aftermath. When the dust had settled and Saddam was ousted, it became clear that there was no post-regime plan. It's like he went in there with all guns blazin, and suddenly realized, "Oh crap, we actually have to help them rebuild their country now?" I am sure there had to be some plan that had been developed, but the execution of it hasn't been so smooth.

Having said that, I think the anti-Bush people predicting doom and gloom for the country are overreacting. Plus, I have yet to see a convincing reason as to why Kerry would have done a better job than Bush besides the arguement that he isn't Bush. And before anyone labels me a Bush supporter, I voted for Kerry. Do I believe that he was a much better candidate than Bush, no. Do I think he could have done a better job? I don't know, and now we will never find out.

In the end, I just couldn't allow myself to vote for somebody in favor of outlawing civil unions between same sex partners. It's not the 19th century anymore. Is it wrong for me to not vote for somebody because of personal stake in a certain issue even though I'm not convinced that the other candidate is any better? I don't think so.

It's just unfortunate, in my opinion, that we as citizens didn't really have a solid candidate that made people say, wow how can't I vote for him.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I didnt vote Kerry because if he were elected The UN Soldiers hiding in the mountains would come out and take my Guns,God, and all my conservative values.
That's my humble opinion though.

[Glengoyne]

I can certainly understand why someone who voted for Bush would be offended by my opinion that this election was a contest between ignorance and enlightenment. But offense doesn't equal lack of ignorance.

...Except this: George Bush's presidency and campaign have been ones of unprecedented cynicism and contempt for the electorate's intelligence. Facts, actions, and consequences mean nothing. Religion, prejudice, and vague qualities like "leadership" entirely untethered to any actual "leading" mean all. Americans who voted for Bush - excepting those super-rich who care only for themselves - voted against their self-interest, against "moral values," and against the principles that made this country a city of the hill. They were fooled.


Look Duhlebar,

You know, I started typed a response here, but really just go back and read the end of the second paragraph in my original post. I mean it with all certainty. You need to grow in your enlightenment and intellect, and discover that someone who is your equal can evaluate the same set of facts and evidence, and legitimately come to a conclusion that is wholly different from your own.

[gstelmack]

Look Duhlebar,

You know, I started typed a response here, but really just go back and read the end of the second paragraph in my original post. I mean it with all certainty. You need to grow in your enlightenment and intellect, and discover that someone who is your equal can evaluate the same set of facts and evidence, and legitimately come to a conclusion that is wholly different from your own.

This is why he's on my Ignore list. I just hate the fact that this board does not wipe out quotes from ignored people, so I end up stuck reading his latest word-twisting anyway.

[Glengoyne]

and there you have it - in the above, most importantly IMO is "FUCKIN' A!! STOP THE GENOCIDE IN SUDAN."

I second that, but I am a war monger. I wanted us to stay in Somalia. I hold Clinton's inaction in Rawanda out as possibly the biggest blunder in his presidency. I was fully behind the operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. In short I do believe that we are the good guys, and should stand up against oppression whereever it rears it's head. All the whacko dictators of the world need to know that when they start lining folks up and pushing them into graves, the U.S. won't stand idly by twiddling it's thumbs.

I tell myself that the reason we haven't gone in is because the policing of Iraq has got our troops tied down. I just dont' know though. I am appalled that the UN has done nothing. I was wishing that Kerry would make this a campaign issue, because it would have forced action by the winner.

[Tekneek]

I was wishing that Kerry would make this a campaign issue, because it would have forced action by the winner.

The military seems to be stretched too thinly. Assuming he knew that, what good is gained by backing both himself AND Bush into that kind of corner?

[Dutch]

Back to the original post by Glengoyne,

That was a great post. You made my day!

[Warhammer]

Now Bush voters like you express outrage that people like me don't "understand" how smart you really are. "You don't get it, and you will continue to be marginalized because you make no effort to get it." But here is the iceberg you don't see. I might ask you why the world overwhelmningly supported Kerry, including very conservative publications in our strongest ally. What about the rest of the world don't you get? Are you trying to understand that? No, of course not.


Why do we need to worry about who the rest of the world would elect as our president? I do not worry about who my next door neighbor wants as president, why should I care about those on the other side of the world.

I will start out with a hypothesis, most countries want to feel powerful enough to maintain their sovereignty. I think this is something that we can all agree on.

First, Old Europe believes in a balance of power in the world. Some liberals in this country subscribe to this belief as well. Basically, the belief is you must have two equally strong political centers to balance one another. Europe had this for years, with England playing the "swing" vote in European conflicts. Many people have written that had Mr. Grey, the English foreign minister prior to WWI, not committed England to coming down on the side of the Allies, WWI would never have started. They also point to the blance of power as a reason why there was no major European war from 1815 until 1914. By having a balance of power in the world, those without a lot of power can feel secure by having other countries stand with them against a common enemy.

Second, this is almost a subsection of the above, many countries believe that we are too strong. We should be using our strength and resources to better others, and not worry about the effect it would have on us. A good example of this is the Kyoto Accords. This would affect us more than any other nation due to our vast, albeit shrinking, manufacturing base. We should be in every country sorting out every problem in the world, because we are the one global superpower.

Third, other countries want to increase their stature. Many countries acquire political capital by standing up to the US. To increase their power, they try to be at odds with us. Sort of like movie reviewers, if everyone gives something glowing reviews, they are going along with the crowd. But if one guy says it sucks, and people agree with him, suddenly he is a prominent reviewer because he got it "right".

The reason countries like France do not like us is that:

1) They do not feel like they are as strong as the US, or the "Hey, we got small missiles" factor.
2) They feel threatened by our greater power, or the "Hey, they've got huge missiles!" factor.
3) They want to increase their power by diminishing ours in a variety of ways, politically, economically, militarily, etc., or the "We need bigger missiles" factor.
4) They do not want any changes in the global make up, or the "We don't want to upgrade our missiles" factor.

Most of the countries that wanted Kerry in did so because he would mean a weaker America. As a result, their power would increase! I find it interesting that countries such as Poland, Australia, and Russia preferred Bush to Kerry. These are countries that are either secure in their global position, or feel that a strong America is good for them.

I have a few questions for the liberals out there:

1) If people do not like us so much, why do they want us in Sudan? Can't some one else sort out the problem there?

2) Why is it always the US that has to broker an agreement in the Middle East? Why not France, or England?

3) Have you heard of the Oil for Food program in Iraq? Do you know how much money Russia, Germany, and France stood to lose with Saddam out of power?

4) If Kerry was against so many weapons programs, how would he have kept America strong?

[John Kerry]

Thank god I don't have to actually come up with a plan now.

I was getting worried.

[Desnudo]

Thank god I don't have to actually come up with a plan now.

I was getting worried.

Just go on back to taxachussetts and don't come back now you hear?

[John Galt]

I have a few questions for the liberals out there:

1) If people do not like us so much, why do they want us in Sudan? Can't some one else sort out the problem there?

2) Why is it always the US that has to broker an agreement in the Middle East? Why not France, or England?

3) Have you heard of the Oil for Food program in Iraq? Do you know how much money Russia, Germany, and France stood to lose with Saddam out of power?

4) If Kerry was against so many weapons programs, how would he have kept America strong?

1) Any question that assumes the people of the world are a monolithic entity is problematic from the start.

2) Who says it "has" to be the US?

3) A small drop in the bucket. And if you believe that money is motivation for anti-US sentiment, you really are missing 99% of the "big picture."

4) A flawed assumption that Kerry is against so many programs, but either way - do you really believe the number of new weapons does ANYTHING to decrease terrorism? This is not a high tech war. There are good reasons to spend money on the military, but building stealth bombers accomplishes nothing in this conflict.

[Raiders Army]

I felt like I was the opposite of the "Anyone but Bush" camp. I easily could have voted Democrat this election if they'd run someone I felt comfortable voting for.

If you were the opposite of the "Anyone but Bush" camp, wouldn't that make you pro-Bush? :rolleyes: :D :p ;) :confused: :) :cool:

[sachmo71]

1) 4) A flawed assumption that Kerry is against so many programs, but either way - do you really believe the number of new weapons does ANYTHING to decrease terrorism? This is not a high tech war. There are good reasons to spend money on the military, but building stealth bombers accomplishes nothing in this conflict.


"Nothing in this conflict"? Mister Galt, have you ever SEEN a stealth bomber? They look like the Batplane, and they can wipe out a small country singlehandedly!

I say more, and cooler weapons!

[GrantDawg]

I believe that the opinions of those billions matter, in a sense that how the rest of the world views us and our standing in the world matters very much to me. But those opinions in no way mandate a new president. There is a major leap between someone saying "I voted against Bush in part because of how bush handled foreign policy and how Bush impacted those billions", and saying "those billions are right, and the 51% majority in the USA are wrong." That leap is just far too big for me to be willing to make.I think how the world views us matters because it makes it easier/harder to get things done. I think we do need to weigh the importantance of any mission against the world view (a "global test" so to speak) to decide if going forward is worth the diplomatic damage it would cause. I think that even though Bush pretends he didn't have that "global test," he did do just that. His conclusion was that the War was more improtant than the damage and went ahead. Kerry would disagree (and so did I).

If you honestly suggest that this or any administration should not consider the diplomatic implication of any action before making a move, then I would have to say that is a very stupid world view. To say they have complete veto would be stupid also, but I have yet to see Kerry, Kennedy, or any other liberal boogey-man say that.

[Warhammer]

1) Any question that assumes the people of the world are a monolithic entity is problematic from the start.

No, I am not assuming that, but a number of people on these boards and elsewhere have asked the question, "Why has the US not gone into Sudan?"


2) Who says it "has" to be the US?

Exactly my point! Everyone points to that has a source of many problems in the world, yet no other country is interested in trying to solve the Israeli/Arab problem.

3) A small drop in the bucket. And if you believe that money is motivation for anti-US sentiment, you really are missing 99% of the "big picture."

Exactly, it is a small drop in the bucket. Since US companies were locked out of Iraq, many French and German companies were selling equipment in the country with very little competition. I have been asked for quotes for several projects in the past that I had to turn down because they were going to Iraq. However, sister companies were able to go after the projects because they were not located in the States, so I know how big these projects were.

4) A flawed assumption that Kerry is against so many programs, but either way - do you really believe the number of new weapons does ANYTHING to decrease terrorism? This is not a high tech war. There are good reasons to spend money on the military, but building stealth bombers accomplishes nothing in this conflict.

This was going back to my previous point in my post. It was not limited to the terrorist war, but to our military in general. This is a war for F-15s, M-1s, M-2s, etc. We should be increasing our military spending. I question how much Kerry would have increased it.

Also, what is the "Big Picture" that the enlightened ones see, that I do not?

Switching gears, when I was a junior in high school I was much less conservative than I am now, everything was shades of grey. But then it dawned on me, most issues that I thought were grey were really black and white. I just chose to see them as grey because I lacked the conviction to make a decision, because I was afraid I would be wrong. Or, I was trying to come up with a reason to support a preconceived view, rather than build a consistent viewpoint from the ground up. I thought that vascilating between the two viewpoints and seeing every side of every argument made me look intelligent. However, I realized all I was doing was spouting off facts and figures, memorizing things, without one using my brain to make a decision based upon that data. Once I figured this out, almost every single issue that I thought was grey was now clearly black or white, no more grey.

[John Galt]

No, I am not assuming that, but a number of people on these boards and elsewhere have asked the question, "Why has the US not gone into Sudan?"




Exactly my point! Everyone points to that has a source of many problems in the world, yet no other country is interested in trying to solve the Israeli/Arab problem.



Exactly, it is a small drop in the bucket. Since US companies were locked out of Iraq, many French and German companies were selling equipment in the country with very little competition. I have been asked for quotes for several projects in the past that I had to turn down because they were going to Iraq. However, sister companies were able to go after the projects because they were not located in the States, so I know how big these projects were.



This was going back to my previous point in my post. It was not limited to the terrorist war, but to our military in general. This is a war for F-15s, M-1s, M-2s, etc. We should be increasing our military spending. I question how much Kerry would have increased it.

Also, what is the "Big Picture" that the enlightened ones see, that I do not?

Switching gears, when I was a junior in high school I was much less conservative than I am now, everything was shades of grey. But then it dawned on me, most issues that I thought were grey were really black and white. I just chose to see them as grey because I lacked the conviction to make a decision, because I was afraid I would be wrong. Or, I was trying to come up with a reason to support a preconceived view, rather than build a consistent viewpoint from the ground up. I thought that vascilating between the two viewpoints and seeing every side of every argument made me look intelligent. However, I realized all I was doing was spouting off facts and figures, memorizing things, without one using my brain to make a decision based upon that data. Once I figured this out, almost every single issue that I thought was grey was now clearly black or white, no more grey.

1) You don't seem to have a point so I'll move on.

2) As to no other country caring about the Middle East, read a little bit about the Oslo Accords. The US took control of the process from England and France. It was our decision to assume that responsibility. Either way, we are part of the problem (see Israel and Camp David accord funding to Israel and Egypt), so we have to be part of the solution.

3) I have no idea what your point is.

4) Our troops in Iraq don't have armored vehicles - that is a concern. That Kerry opposed weapon systems poorly fitted for the post Cold War world speaks well of him.

As for the Big Picture, saying things like "the world hates us" or "the world doesn't hate us" is moronic. The world is a varied place and Bush's policies ensure a lot of people hate us for different reasons (and some, but not all, of those people will take arms against the US as a result). Moral certainty and believing in black and white is a dangerous course that has been the source of most modern atrocities, IMO.

[Raiders Army]

As for the Big Picture, saying things like "the world hates us" or "the world doesn't hate us" is moronic.

Very true. I would say that the world is polarized either for or against us though. Although Bush aggravated it, it's always been that way.

[Warhammer]

My point in item #1 is that many on the left are asking why we are in Iraq and not stopping the killing in the Sudan. My point is why isn't anyone else doing it?

Regarding point #2, if we are not solving the Middle East problem why don't France and England step up to the plate again? I do not think we are part of the problem. I think the problem is the Arabs did not want to live with the UN Resolution creating Israel. They lost the war and Israel occupied Palestine. My point here is, everyone still looks to the US for a solution rather than trying to come up with one on their own.

3) My point is that the government involvement is just the tip of the iceburg regarding the economic impact of an Iraq with UN sanctions. German, French, and to a lesser extent Russian companies were making a killing over there because of laws that prohibited other companies from being over there (in the example I gave, US companies were not allowed to bid on jobs in Iraq). So not only were their governments getting kickbacks from Saddam, they were also getting a lot of export business that created jobs in their country.

4) There were a number of conventional weapon systems that Kerry voted for reduced funding or to kill. Some of those systems we are currently using in Iraq.

I would argue that most people hate us because we are not doing things to help them. Whenever we try to do something that others do not want, enforcing UN resolutions, trying to keep the lid on nukes, etc. we get bashed for doing it unilaterally. We then get bashed for not doing things faster (talking North Korea here), when we try to get other nations involved. My belief is that some people will never be happy when certain people try to do things.

Black and white is a dangerous course, but the argument that it has been the source of most modern atrocities is ridiculous. If Chamberlain had been realistic about Hitler, rather than trying to paint him in a different color, WWII could have been prevented. If England would have made clear which side they would come down on during the Sarajevo crisis, WWI could have been prevented.

Moral certainty and believing that things are right and wrong actually make things much easier to act. It frees us to quickly act and stop atrocities from occurring by elminating all the hand wringing involved in making a decision. I would argue that cultural relativism has caused more atrocities than moral certitude.

Moral certainty depends on the rules that you apply to it. Using Kantian ethics, if you take any situation and take it to its most extreme, you can see whether it is good or bad. For example, if every one murdered someone else, then the human race would kill each other off. So, that is morally wrong. Granted, there are some issues with this philosophy (you can't use it in individual cases), but it works for establishing moral absolutes, murder, rape, lying, etc.

[rdo]

Most of the countries that wanted Kerry in did so because he would mean a weaker America. As a result, their power would increase! I find it interesting that countries such as Poland, Australia, and Russia preferred Bush to Kerry. These are countries that are either secure in their global position, or feel that a strong America is good for them.


I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that Australia would prefer Bush. Our Government publicly supported Bush in the campaign, but that was more an ideological attraction than anything else, we have a centre-right government and they would support someone from the right side of politics in any election, anywhere. I would be very surprised if the Australian public as a whole felt the same way ( I did a quick google search but couldn't find any opinion polls ).

[Warhammer]

I was referring to the government in all cases mentioned above. Also, I have some Australian and English friends as well that sided with the US. That said, that is a small sample and is in no way representative of the populations of those countries.