[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leave

When did it become the responsibility of the US to "free" people from an evil dictator? Did I miss the announcement? And what sort of precedent does that set? Should the US now free folks all over the world from the "evil dictators" they live under? Do we have the right to impose our definition of who is good and who is bad on other coutries? What if the leader of another country woke up one day and decided that President Bush is an evil dictator and decided to free us from his rule? We'd call that a war of aggression. The only thing that keeps another country from doing that is our military power. So it boils down to "might makes right", and that's wrong. That's a bully mentality.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

What gives the US the right to decide who can and cannot have WMDs? I'm not in favor of all countries having them, but the fact is the US has no more right to dictate to other countries about what they can and cannot have than other countries have to dictate to us. The purpose of having the WMDs is immaterial. A soverign nation has the right to do anything it wants to do, much the same as I have a right to do anything I want to do until my exercise of that right infringes on someone else's rights. There is no international law prohibiting WMDs, at least not that I'm aware of. If Iraq uses WMDs on its own people, then that's a problem for the Iraqis. There are many more people killed with conventional weapons by repressive regimes every day. Are we to invade and save all of them?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Economy is picking up thanks to taxcuts and good old american optimism. We just had the biggest quarter of growth in something odd years. And no the taxcuts are not just for the rich like the Democrats would like you to believe. They help everyone.

The tax cuts are a placebo. Does anyone really believe that the $500 most Americans receive as their tax cut is going to do anything to boost the economy? It's a joke. And yes, the cuts are for the rich. Is it a coincidence that the Bush administration has so many millionaires in it? Or that so many members came from Enron, a company that was cooking the books and defrauding its stock holders and employees? Is it just happenstance that umpteen billion dollars in contracts went to Halliburton, the VP's former company, without the normal bidding process? Bush and his administration is all about money, power, and the rich.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Also some people complain about the current budget deficit. I am not happy about it either but sometimes there just isn't another way and I am happy that Bush kept his promise and did not raise taxes.

I believe Clinton left a balanced budget. The current administration has spent and spent and spent, and to what end? The budget deficit is less a problem for me. I'm older and won't be saddled with paying it off. That'll be left to the younger folk in this country. I wish them luck.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment

There is more to life than money and business. It won't do businesses much good to make money if the planet dies and we go with it. Drilling in national parks, logging in national parks, repealing air pollution laws and treaties is about money and nothing else. It's about putting business before people. It's about paying off the political debts a candidate acquired on the way to the White House. Does it seem likely that businesses left to their own devices will do the right thing and take care of the environment? The only reason they behave at all right now is because of laws that force them to. As the Bush administration makes it easier for them to rape the enviroment, they most certainly will.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

That has got to be the most incredibly cynical view of the world I have ever heard. And how did Bush "rig" the election?

I'd say Dogscoff's opinion is right on the money. Watch the news. We have representatives who speed through intersections and kill people and try to get off. We have senators who left a young woman to drown in their car to save their career. We have presidents who lie about sexual escapades. We have governors who take bribes. Need I go on? Someone please point out the noble politician who we can look up to. Where are the Lincolns and Washingtons today?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.

I disagree. A candidate's military service comes into the picture for two reasons. First, a candidate who has served in the military and potentially put his life on the line for the country can certainly be viewed as more patriotic than the candidate who dodged the draft, got his/her rich daddy to pull strings to keep them out of harms way. People who really care about something are willing to fight in support of it. It sends a bad message when a person dodges their nation's call to sevice and then aspires to lead that nation. Second, a candidate who has been in the military and especially one who saw combat is going to be much more judicious about sending troops in harm's way. They have an appreciation for what it is to fight, kill, see friends killed and are much less likely to send others off to die in frivilous wars or police actions. They are also much less likely to allow a war to be drawn out because they know the cost in lives and suffering that entails. Bush used his dad's position to avoid having to go. Kerry risked his life while Bush partied. Bush is certainly better than Clinton on that point but both of them appear cowardly in the face of Kerry.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.

No, there is something wrong with it being there. It violates the separation of church and state guaranteed in the constitution. That aside, would you feel the same way if the pledge included something that was patently offensive to you so long as you weren't required to say it?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful)

I love a good discussion. I appreciate your opinion, although I don't agree with it, and tried to stick with the issues and avoid any personal attacks.