[ Outline ] · Standard · Linear+ Election..., ...

[Pikaporeon]

First and formost this is what i posted on another forum where im much more involved in political debates. Therefore you may not have seen me as so much antibush...


As EVERYONE has noticed I was an (over)zealous supporter of Mr. Kerry in his persuit to defeat Bush. This article touches on that partly, the election in general, my thoughts on its unfolding, and how im pissed off at the general immaturity of people on BOTH sides.

First and formost, congradulations to the Bush administration on winning a rather tight race... he legitimately won this one.

The voters sent a clear message via the results, and I think that we can accept the message. The voters want Bush's mess cleaned up, and they think that its best he fix his own problems. Denying Bush fucked up at this point is impossible, but the American people have had a tendancy to let people fix their own problems (or be incredibly stupid, but unlike my fellow Left-Supporters i disagree in this case). Bush has claimed he will be in touch with Kerry on trying to win over SOME support from Kerry supporters, and if he legitimately takes the advice the US should be in FAIRLY good hands. The Left/Right arguments dont really matter in this scenario as there were far to many different issues surrounding the election.

And now for my messages to those without a shred of poli-scientific knowledge, common courtesy, or respect.

To Bush supporters - Having your man win by 2% is great. Celebrate. you should. BUT you should never bash your opponents supporters. Its bad form. Leading up to the election they gave you a good fight, but you dont kick someone when their down, you leave them to recover. Dont go saying things like "Take that you fucking liberals" "I told you Kerry sucks.. See!" or anything along those lines. Have respect, as Bush has given Kerry's supporters.

To Kerry supporters - Im as dissappointed in you as the Bush supporters. Firstly, running around yelling "Fucking Bush!" is a dumb idea... he DID win by popular vote this year, if only just. Dont blame Bush on all your problems postelection, dont call yoru fellow voters "stupid" or "blinded by the media" as you NEVER KNOW. Let the dog die... four years isnt enough to destroy the world and Bush is not as much an idiot as we claim him to be. He may not be as smart as Kerry but he DOES have the capability to start cleaning his mess.

Finally, from a Canadian perspective with heavy bias, I pity those who were told to vote without being given a broad view if this was the case. I also in a perverse sence hope Bush's presidency continues to raise the Canadian dollar.

[artzelda]

The UN allows nations to act in their defense. This is what the US did and is the reason for the Iraq war - (the threat that Iraq was to use WMD or allow their use via transfer to other groups) . At the time the US government believed that Iraq was an imminent threat. This is what the Congress of the US voted when they gave the president authorizaiton to go to war against Iraq. You can argue what imminent means but that was and is the justification - fully within the UN charter. (When did the attack on 911 become imminent - during the planning, when the attackers entered the US, when they bought a ticket for the flight - the term imminent depends on your outlook). The UN is not allowed to determine or have the final say when another country will be attacked or decide when a country is allowed to defend itself or when a country feels it is being threatened.

The need to support the statement that other countries believed Iraq had WMD is ridiculous. Every member of the Security Council stated they had WMD and voted the resolutions on this belief. This should need no further justification for anyone knowledgeable of the events. The fact other countries do not participate in the war does not mean these countries did not belive Iraq possessed WMD. In fact Iraq never denied they had them. France, Germany, and the other European countries believed Iraq possessed WMD as evidenced by the reports from their own intelligence agencies. This should require no further discussion.

The fact Bush may have taken a long vacation is one thing. But to argue this vacation was taken in lieu of preparing for a missile attack, as was alleged, makes no sense and there is no evidence to show otherwise. This connection is ludicrous. The arguement that Bush was not briefed on terrorism is also completely incorrect. One has only to review the sworn testimony before the 911 commission to be made aware of this. Statements made on TV are not the same as sworn testimony and do not have the same level of validity or credibilty. After all, Dan Rather had documents he presented on TV to prove Bush's dereliction of duty that were later shown to be forgories. The statement that because Bush was informed about terrorist activities required him to take some action presupposes knowledge of specific actions, locations, and timing so an interdiction could occur. If this were to occur on foreign territory, would the world have accepted this as being within international law?? I doubt it. England never took action against the IRA based on loose intelligence, and neither has any other country.

The fact that countries are involved in Afganistan does not mean they are fully committed to the war on terror. The difference is that a defined country and group could be targeted in Afganistan - in other words a conventional war. However the war in Iraq is not against the Iraqi government but againt those who wish to prevent a legitimate Iraqi government from being formed by free elections. Look who is being targeted by the murderers and terrorists- Iraqi police, civilians, Shiite mosques and worshippers. If these people are not stopped and destroyed, then the governments that allow this to occur are also responsible for this murder.

Bush in not attempting to blacklist homosexual marriage. He believes marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Is this blacklisting???. No it is not. Homosexuals never were allowed to be legally married. This is not an issue of civil rights because marriage is not a civil right. It is a legal status conveyed by government and government can decide what the definition of marriage is. In the US the people's representatives decide. Government can convey legitimate status to polygamy if it wishes or allow siblings to marry or allow sons and daughters to marry their mothers and fathers. This is all within the legitimate authority of government. Does this mean polygamists are being discriminated against, or brothers and sisters are being discriminated against, or children and their parents are being discriminated against??? I guess if that is the definition of discrimination then these people are being discriminated against by a bigoted government. Does this mean government is prejudiced against these people??? I guess if this is the definition of prejudice then government is prejudiced. I would guess an overwhelming number of people would agree government is neither discriminating or prejudiced against polygamist marrying, siblings marrying, or parents and children marrying by preventing their marriage. On the same basis government is not prejudiced or discriminating against homosexuals.

This post has been edited by artzelda: Dec 4 2004, 04:35 PM