Wow where to start?
Originally Posted by vassil3427
Islam has always been about hate
Christianity has a bloodier and more violent history, with everything ranging from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the occupation of the New World. Islam has a significantly more benign history until recently.
Originally Posted by LT6916
And people saying "oh...another Vietnam" need to stfu. This is a new kind of war...not fought on battlefields, this is where the enemy hides and just plants bombs.
Vietnam was not fought strictly in battlefields either, which contributed to our defeat. It was fought village to village as well, with locals taking up arms against American troops. Did you forget about the grenade traps, staked pits, and jungle ambushes that troops in Vietnam had to deal with? And on a more global scale, we entered Vietnam in the early 60's in a similar role as in Iraq now, to provide training to police and Vietnamese troops. In Vietnam we ended up being dragged into a decade long conflict with 50000 casualties only to pull out in 1973; the national pride of the Vietnamese people basically pushed out the American presence. The question is whether or not the same thing will happen in Iraq.
Originally Posted by MrFatBooty
Why assume that one particular issue is everyone's primary concern? Frankly, even if war hawks are supposedly better at fighting wars, they in my opinion screw up too many other things to just hand the reigns of the country over to them.
:werd:
My choice of president isn't simply a function of whether I believe in the Iraqi invasion. To be quite frank, I don't think that without significant breaches to our Constitution (namely privacy, firearms, search and seizure, trial by jury, and cruel and unusual punishment) that we can ever be "terrorist proof," regardless of who is president. Countries like Britain, Spain, and Israel grant their security forces significantly more leeway and still suffer from bombings from terrorist groups, and significantly more in number. The key to anti-terrorism is intelligence, and in the Middle East fair-skinned Caucasians tend to have a hard time getting info.
I don't believe Bush's anti-terrorism strategy will work. He is attacking nations in the hopes of destroying a non-national entity. In particular, Al-Qaeda has just moved on to other places. One could argue that by attacking Iraq and Afghanistan, we have made it more difficult to trace the movements of Al-Qaeda.
I also disagree with Bush's domestic policies. Yeah, I'm a moderately left person, and I don't see eye to eye with Republicans on many issues, and this does matter to me when I choose who to vote for. Some of Bush's highlights: cessation of stem cell research, proposed amendment to ban gay marriage, tax refunds in the face of increased military expenditure (bullets cost money) and at the cost of other programs. I agree with Kerry's stances on many more issues than I do with Bush. Say what you will about Kerry's voting record, or about how he is a career politician or how he's just full of hot air; in the end, Bush is no less of a career politican, and no less bombastic. I disagree with the direction that Bush is taking this country, and my vote is going to reflect that.