[Politics Poll]Who will win?

[Maveric169]

if you read what I posted its very obvious...

your analogy is flawed but it proves my point exactly... if you have a math problem and are working on it and then give it up and work on another math problem how do you plan on solving the first one?

its not possible to do so competently...

Hold on, first I never said anything about giving up and working on another problem, what I said was "I gave you a long math problem, and a short time into it I simply said stop, you failed, yet you were still working the problem, how can I say you failed?"

Let me make it clearer, if I don't give you the time to complete the problem, how can I say you failed.

I don't know how long it will take... do you?

its a loaded question as well..

bush HAS failed because he has failed to secure afghanistan.. he has failed to deal with al-qaeda adequately.. they are STILL a threat... explain to me how smoothly the electoral process in afghanistan has been going?

Your right I have no idea how long it will take, it is a loaded question. But one you would have to be able to answer if your going to say that a person failed at doing it. You said Bush took too long already to get Al-queda, and therefore failed. How long is too long to say that he failed? These are your words, not mine brother.

So now according to you we have to invade and occupy Afghanistan to suceed in dealing with al-qaeda? Al-Qaeda cells have been found in nearly every country on the planet, so I supose by your logic that we are going to have to invade every country, get all the Al-Qaeda terrorist, and do it in less than 3 years. If we do that then we will succeed? I think that borders on insanity.

had he actually continued on his path post 9/11 in pursuing and limiting al-qaeda I would not have issues with them still popping up here and there...
bush has already shown what he will do given a particular situation... kerry has not... so i cannot conclude anything about kerry right now... I just know that bush has already shown what he is made of and its not pretty...

you are entitled to your opinion but putting forth loaded analogies to disprove something that IMO is effectively fact doesn't mean that my logic is flawed

The analogy is inline with the basis of your claim that Bush failed. If you can't state conditions that would determine failure, then how can you claim he failed? What is the basis that you are using to determine sucess or failure?

bush changed his priorities from terrorists to soverign nations... obviously bush felt that 1 year was sufficient in afghanistan and that a skeleton force should be able to prevail

bush said osama was priority number 1 and that he would not rest till he had hunted him down and smoked him out of his caves...

a year later he is saying that osama is no longer a priority...

/me shrugs...

I think your "facts" are a bit confused. We currently have 4 SF teams in Afghanistan. And I have never heard or read ANYTHING that that even comes close to Bush ever saying that Osama is no longer a priority. If you have something that contrdicts that I would be interested in a link to that effect.

wrt afghanistan they will not do anything to protect him there only al-qaeda and the taliban will.... not the people in north iraq and not most of the rest of the population...

You are way off track here my friend. You might want to take another look at this. The people of Afghanistan idol and admire Osama as well as fear him.

we have already invaded afghanistan and I am sure syria is one of the nations bush is willing to pull his itchy trigger finger on...

right then...

And just and FYI for everyone following me a Sazars exchange of views, we are not attcking each other, I enjoy our respectfull discussion and difference of oppinion and views.

 

[gonaads]

Alice Cooper for Prez!

 

[ThePatriot]

Alice Cooper for Prez!

YES!! ...Ever see his "First Lady"? Hhhhhhhot!

 

[Pheonix]

Either way your f0cked. You need more choice over there

 

[Sazar]

Hold on, first I never said anything about giving up and working on another problem, what I said was "I gave you a long math problem, and a short time into it I simply said stop, you failed, yet you were still working the problem, how can I say you failed?"

Let me make it clearer, if I don't give you the time to complete the problem, how can I say you failed.

you're analogy is again flawed... if bush was working on one problem and sticking to it your analogy works... since he hasn't therefore your analogy cannot work...

Your right I have no idea how long it will take, it is a loaded question. But one you would have to be able to answer if your going to say that a person failed at doing it. You said Bush took too long already to get Al-queda, and therefore failed. How long is too long to say that he failed? These are your words, not mine brother.

I said bush has not spent the efforts required to fight against terrorism as he said he would... he said very clearly post 9/11 he would not rest till the perpetrators were captured dead or alive... making an analogy to the old west posters...

saddam was not a perpetrator and I am still waiting for half the time/effort/money spent so far in iraq to be expended in afghanistan... I really don't see why this is an issue... bush has failed to make the same kind of effort in afghanistan as he has done in iraq... had he spent the same resources we would not be seeing a resurgence of al-qaeda over the past 2 years and a return of the taliban either...

he has not done what he said he would do... that is a failure... the timeline is not important because bush himself has changed his priorities...

So now according to you we have to invade and occupy Afghanistan to suceed in dealing with al-qaeda? Al-Qaeda cells have been found in nearly every country on the planet, so I supose by your logic that we are going to have to invade every country, get all the Al-Qaeda terrorist, and do it in less than 3 years. If we do that then we will succeed? I think that borders on insanity.

not quite... but we are not even expending the required effort to help a fair elections be held in afghanistan... medicins sans frontiers... doctors who have been in afghanistan since the worst days of the US/Russian tussle in the country recently left afghanistan citing security concerns... they stayed through the taliban's reign and also the attacks on the taliban/al-qaeda by United States forces and yet they leave now? I think thats very telling...

further... you are inventing new things that I am supposedly saying my point is very simple and very clear and I have maintained it throughout this discussion... bush said he would do something... he didn't and instead focused his efforts on something else... that constitutes a failure... its quite simple...

The analogy is inline with the basis of your claim that Bush failed. If you can't state conditions that would determine failure, then how can you claim he failed? What is the basis that you are using to determine sucess or failure?

i have stated very clearly why he failed... the conditions are he changed his priorities from the perpetrators of the greatest attack on US soil to saddam leading people to believe that saddam was in fact somewhat responsible for the 9/11 attacks... his failed to do what he said he would do... thats a failure and I will keep repeating it till you understand exactly what it is that I am saying...

I think your "facts" are a bit confused. We currently have 4 SF teams in Afghanistan. And I have never heard or read ANYTHING that that even comes close to Bush ever saying that Osama is no longer a priority. If you have something that contrdicts that I would be interested in a link to that effect.

well let me refresh your memory...

Bush called Osama a number one priority. "There's an old poster out West that says, `Wanted: Dead or Alive.' . . . The most important thing is to find Osama bin Laden. It's our Number One priority. We will not rest until we have found him." (Sept. 13 and 16, 2001.)

Bush more recently on Osama Bin Laden..."I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important." (March 13, 2002.)

google it and enlighten yourself... to ease your troubles somewhat...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/Bush.news.conference/

just because you did not hear him say it does not mean he did not... I know what he said.. I watched the news report...

further keep in mind since bush said on that day that the fighters were rooting out terrorists all over the place in afghanistan there has been a widespread resurgence of them...

You are way off track here my friend. You might want to take another look at this. The people of Afghanistan idol and admire Osama as well as fear him.

really? the people of afghanistan are constituted of various ethnicities... they don't get along between themselves therefore i have a very hard time believing that osama is popular and has a big following in afghanistan...

undoubtedly the resurgence of the taliban will make a base of operations for him to work from but this does not mean he is an idol or widely respected...

I would appreciate any information you have (other than op-eds) saying that osama is well liked and popular in afghanistan...

 

[Perris Calderon]

that's an excellent post sazar...as far as I'm concerned, this quote from you says it all, and who in any mind what so ever could possibly argue the point;

bush has not spent the efforts required to fight against terrorism as he said he would

not only as he said he would, but as we NEEDED him to...he has failed us, and it certainly LOOKS as if he has willingly ignored the defense of this nation...both before the attack, when he was breifed that it would happen and yet did nothing, and after the attack, when he refused to respond as was advised.

he said very clearly post 9/11 he would not rest till the perpetrators were captured dead or alive...

yet when he was advised to send our defense IMMEDIATELY to Afghanistan, he said NO...how little can a man do to defend America, and why do Americans look away?

a simple question for any American to ask them selfs ;

**what would I have done if I were president, if I was told who attacked us, and if I was told that we were poised, prepared, and expecting to go to war with Afghanistan?**...would I have stood down?

I for one cannot POSSIBLY understand how ANYONE can forgive this head of state fo not attacking Afghanistan as soon as advised, bugt instead, trying to talk everyone into starting a war in Iraq where he KNEW the attack DID NOT COME FROM

Saddam was not a perpetrator and I am still waiting for half the time/effort/money spent so far in Iraq to be expended in Afghanistan

I challenge anyone that supports this president to post a counter point to the very obvious, (once told) point posed by sazar...ask yourself the following if you might;

Why has this president used more resources excessing a war in a country that's unassociated with the the one that attacked us then he has used against the country that attacked us?

I really don't see why this is an issue... bush has failed to make the same kind of effort in Afghanistan as he has done in iraq... had he spent the same resources we would not be seeing a resurgence of al-qaeda over the past 2 years and a return of the taliban either...

and there you have it

 

[Sazar]

I don't think it was prudent to attack as soon as he was informed about bin laden... I can understand his hesitation at attacking in light of the incoming information... he attacked when he had sufficient information..

in light of that I think him hesitating on afghanistan is what any president would have done... i would rather look before I lept rather than regret the move...

this did not happen wrt iraq however...

 

[gonaads]

Now remember the middle east was trained armed and advised by westrn powers (U.S. too ). The middle east is our own f00k up, to a point. A really bad point.

 

[Perris Calderon]

he attacked when he had sufficient information

sazar, I agree if we didn't KNOW who attacked us, but in point of fact, he attacked long after he had clear and precise information

let's not foget that this administration received a clear warning before the attack that bin laden would highjack commercial aircraft, and use them to attack financial institutions in new york a month before the event.

this president did nothing with that information and kept to his vacation, thinking that breifing was "historical" even though the very authors of the breif told him in no uncertain terms that the wraning was current and real...we knew as a fact who attacked us, even as the attack was taking place

furhtermore, the issue goes much deeper then the attack on september 11th;

America was prepared to attack afghanistan for any terrorist attack on America;

afghanistan was warned before the attack on the cole, and president clinton wsa about to attack afghanistan for that attack, but he didn't want to give Bush a war, so he left it to Bush.

Bush said no to that, and then again, to the attack on our land, though he was advised to take immediate action

 

[Maveric169]

Thank you Sazar for clearing up your point of view. You were making things very confusing by the way you were phrasing your statements, or perhaps the way I was interpeting them. Your post was the clarification I was looking for. And in many ways I agree with that point of view reguarding efforts and allocations of resources. As I have stated in the past, and in this discussion I have always felt that the "slight of hand" move to push the admininstrations Iraq agenda was wrong. Not to say I am totally against us going into Iraq, but the way it was contrived was wrong IMO.

When I have a bit more time than I do now I will pull up some info on how the Afghans support and protect Osama. I found that article that you provided very interesting and disappointing. I am going to see if Bush has made other statements of that kind (just to make sure it wasn't taken out of context). But still very dissapointing.

Will post more later on this, just need a bit more time than I have at the moment.

 

[Lee]

So the 'we nearly have bin laden', the abortion debate, lower taxes, more bombs, more millitancy will get Bush through this time?

 

[Sazar]

perhaps...

I think its come down to dick cheney declaring that a vote for kerry will lead to terror attacks on america...

 

[Xie]

I think its come down to dick cheney declaring that a vote for kerry will lead to terror attacks on america...

Yeah sad how many people will buy into the FUD.

 

[ThePatriot]

perhaps...

I think its come down to dick cheney declaring that a vote for kerry will lead to terror attacks on america...

Now even I don't agree with that, but I still think electing John Kerry would be a big mistake.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Now even I don't agree with that, but I still think electing John Kerry would be a big mistake.

I think it's not possible that Kerry would be a bigger mistake then the current president

as a majority, the world has always respected the former heads of state from america...un the span of these four years, look at what this president has done to the image of this land.

now, the vast majority of the world hate this president more then any other president in history,and possible more then any head of state in history

yet the majority of Americans like this president...he probably will get four more years.

this is to be expected since the wealthy owned media in America continue to protect his image, and promote him as a genious...I am ever amazed that the marketing of this man works as well as it does

I'm wondering the patriot, and anyone else that thinks four more years of these decisions is a good idea;

are you guys wealthy?

because if you are not wealthy, then you'll be among the rest of us that will be paying the price of the bush "we need to give as much money to rich people as we can get away with" (trickle down) economics

this is not speculation boys and girls..greenspan ( the economic advisor to this administration) aready told us that the largest deficit in the history of the planet, caused by the Bush tax give away to wealthy people, will be funded with the money that we, the middle class have payed toward our social security!

so, bush is giving my money to rich people, and your money to rich people

you like this idea?...I'm missing something here...how does this rediculous "trickle down" stratagy get made out to be anything but stealing from you and me, I don't know...someone explain that to me please

you've already been told that it's you and me and the other middle class people that bush is taking money from so he can give it to rich people

the only thing I can think of is that you guys are actually buying the marketing ploy that the wealthy owned media uses...saying that this "trickle down"strategy is some really good economic philosophy..."give money to rich people, that's the ticket to a booming economy" ...they say it, and I guess there are people that beleive it... so that makes at least some sense to me...you guys bought the notion, and you think this is a good economic idea...that must be why you like bush I guess.

mind you, this is not only the largest money taking from the middle class in history guys...bush started with the largest surplus in history!!!... he took that extra money, gave it to rich people, then he figured he should borrow more money against my future comfort, your future comfort, so he could give even more money to rich people.

so I guess you guys think this is some kind of promising economic strategy and there's my answer to why you guys like this president.

or I guess you think it's good that bush took the greatest appreciation the world has ever had for America (due to sympathy and sorrow for us when we were attacked on that faitfull day in the middle of September), somehow managed to turn that appreciation for America into the greatest hate the world has ever seen

maybe that's what you like about him...is this it?...it's nice to have the world hate us I guess, and that is the reason you like him...this must be it then

if not, I suppose some of you like him for making believe we were in "imminent danger and need to start a war immediately to protect ourselfs" even though he was told by his very advisor's that we were not in any of this "imminent danger".

so I guess you like sending our children off to die for reasons that bush made up....what's that?...not your children so it's ok?

you also must like the idea that he circumvented the American government so he could start his little war...witheld information he is obligated by law and his office to show the other branches of government...the very branches put in place to prevent madmen from starting these kinds of made up wars...I'm guessing this doesn't bother you one smidge....this is a good thing as far as bush supporters are concerned isn't it.

unbeleivable!

or I guess you like the idea that this country is now in more danger of terrorist attacts due to bushes make believe war then could have possibly been if he didn't make up this war.

is that what you like about him?...tell me if this is it...I really need to know what it is that is likable about this man.

is it his stellar performance as president?

I would like any pro bush American to show me a president that has a record as miserable as bush, or had done more harm to this nation...show me another president with those credentials...is this it...there is a place in your heart for failures?

I get it now...for instance, the redsox and the cubs have a massive fan base because they are miserable failures...so maybe the same phsycology is at work here...is this it?

or that this made up war of bush will now be a rallying point against America for generations...your children and their children will be in more danger of terrorism because of his made up war...is that what you like about him?

well then, if none of these things, or if I've exagerated any of these things. or if any of these things aren't true...then tell me, just what it is that the majority of Americans continue to like about this man

what success do you want to give bush credit for?

tell me one.

ah...he cought saddam...there's one...oops...wait a minute...the war wasn't about regime change, it was about weapons of mass destruction...bush said that, not me....so that couldn't be it

oh well, another failure...not a bad try though...create the problem so you can have an easy solution...this works on some people I guess.

or is it that you think it's a fine idea to actually stand down when we get attacked, and refuse to defend this nation against those that attacked us even though we were poised, prepared and expecting for our defense to be swift and devastating...that was a good one from this president in your minds I guess

I'll tell you...the love affair the media has and the republicans have, and the majority of America has for what this man has done to America defies reason

 

[Xie]

this is to be expected since the wealthy owned media in America continue to protect his image, and promote him as a genious...I am ever amazed that the marketing of this man works as well as it does

Surely not this media?

Clear Channel’s political connections and actions also are troubling. The report cites more than $50,000 in contributions from Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays to George W. Bush’s gubernatorial campaign in 1998 and more than $1 million in contributions by Clear Channel to Republican candidates between 2000 and 2002. At the same time, media watchdog groups say some Clear Channel stations have refused to air ads paid for by the Democratic National Committee.

 

[Perris Calderon]

it goes on and on xie...great link there by the way

 

[ThePatriot]

Perris, you bring up some interesting points...none of which inspire me to choose Kerry, mind you. But interesting, nonetheless.
All I can say is, in my opinion...and you have it right, the majority of Americans support President Bush, is that most of us are sick and tired of the Clinton capitulation years. We sat back and did nothing for too long. America loves to be strong, loves to be on top, and for years we weren't.

Yes, the world felt sorry for us after 9/11. Until we said we were gonna do something about it. Then we were the bullies again. Reminds me of the "zero tolerance" policy instituted in local schools. Basically, from my expierience, that means that the bullies can hit my kid, but my kid can't hit back. Don't think so. That's exactly what the world expected from the US after 9/11.

Yeah, sure, we had a great rep at the UN, because we'd bend over and take it every time someone asked. Need troops to fight your wars? Call the US, they'll do it! Need troops to keep the peace? Call the US, they'll do it! Need money to rebuild? Call the US, they'll give hand over fist if we tell them what they want to hear. But as soon as we'd turn our backs...we'd get it with our pants still on. If someone didn't cooperate with us, we'd fire a few Cruise Missles their way and startle them, but they'd get over it quickly.

Now, in direct contrast to your views on the worlds "hatred" for the US, I will show you the same worlds respect for the US. Think I'm joking? Does North Korea or Iran or Syria, among many others now feel they can conduct anti-democratic, anti-US programs unchecked anymore? You bet your asss they don't. With fear comes respect, and I personally don't have a problem with that. It's about damn time we were feared again. It keeps the unsavory types in line. You love and respect your parents, don't you? But at the same time you fear them, or at least did when you were a kid, because you knew if you got outta line you dad would kick your butt. Well, it's time we started kicking butt. Afghanistan was a great start. It proves to be a tactical nightmare, but we're still there, everyday, fighting, dying, for what we believe in.

Iraq was a good logical next step. Saudi has, in my book, proven to be deceitful, and where better to make a large presence in the mideast but somewhere where somebody needed to go anyhow? Blood for oil? No. Blood for land? Maybe. Prime, centralized land for taking on the not-so-friendly regimes of the mid east. Sorry kids, that's where the majority of this crap eminates from. The mideast and the horn of Africa are probably the two largest regions for supporting and promoting terrorism as we know it today. Better to bring the fight there and get them in their homeland, vs letting them come to us. And they will come, make no mistake. But the more we tackle them in their homeland, the less they'll come to ours. We knew damn well what we were doing, and it ain't about oil. It's keeping the terrorism out of the US. No, it won't be 100 percent effective, but it's sure alot better than doing nothing and letting them take the reigns.

Oh, and I am not rich, not even close. I do have a son coming of military age (16), and no, I don't want to see him, or any of your children go to war. I'd gladly go in any of their places. But that old corny saying is true, "Freedom isn't free". Who's freedom? Ours...the Iraqis...anyone suffering from the effects of terrorism or dictatorship or oppressive regimes. It had to start somewhere, sometime, and nobody else was going to do it, as usual. Bush gave the money to the rich? I don't know, I got a pretty good tax rebate check and I'm middle class.

Elect John Kerry for President? And let him drag us back down to the Clinton years? I can't. I just can't. Besides, I don't have any respect for the man. Maybe my opinion doesn't hold too much weight with anyone, but if you want a more "respected" mans opinion, see Congressman Sam Johnson from Texas. He'll tell you what kind of "man" John Kerry is. Ever hear the story of John Kerry and Felix Rogriguez? It's sure shows Mr. Kerrys integrity(agenda).

Enough ranting, it's lunchtime.

 

[Perris Calderon]

drag us back to the clinton years?

you mean the years that though we were warned of attacks like bush was warned, the years the president put this country won high alert and the years that attacks like the one that happened on Bush's watch were prevented?..those years you don't like?

you mean the years that a president would actually use the best ideas form both parties, and so get more accomplished then if he simply towed the party line...you mean those years you don't want to get "dragged back to"?

the greatest years of this countries history in world opinion and social influence?...you don't want to get dragged back to those?

oh

interesting perspective thepatriot , I don't think there are too many people would take these Bush years over those years...find me a man, even yourself.

as far as kerrys's integrety, you surely can't be trying to say tha Bush has more integrety then kerry...I know you're not saying that

there is no president with a more miserable record of performance then the man in office...I sure wish the repbulican party feilded a differant candidate...but they didn't.

I am amazed there are people that want four more years with the kinds of decisions this head of state makes

enough ranting for me too

 

[ThePatriot]

drag us back to the clin years?

the greatest years of this countries history?

LOL! Funny!

interesting perspective thepatriotto a man in this country, I don't think there are too many people would take these years over those years

as far as kerrys's integrety, you surely can't be trying to say tha Bush has more integrety then kerry...I know you're not saying that

I am saying EXACTLY that.

there is no president with a more miserable record of performance then the man in office...I sure wish the repbulican party feilded a differant candidate...but they didn't.

I am amazed there are people that want four more years with the kinds of decisions this head of state makes

enough ranting for me too

I'm done with political ranting...call it quits?