?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Okay, it's 11:30, and I managed to sign off of AIM, but I can't seem… - love like me ・ 日記
non solum memento mori, memento vivere sed etiam
気持: grumpy
Okay, it's 11:30, and I managed to sign off of AIM, but I can't seem to close the browser window containing that nifty BBC page with the election results. And I have to work in the morning. Not only that, but I have to write a paper as well... Very disappointed in my lack of self-discipline...

At least Bush is winning so far.

EDIT: Screw. I bet I fall asleep here on the couch with the laptop looking at that BBC election results page. >
Link Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Comments
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2004 15.20 (UTC) (Link)
At least Bush is winning so far.

So you think this is a good thing?
Please explain why.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2004 16.07 (UTC) (Link)
Please explain why.

If you can explain why Kerry winning would be a good thing, because I don't understand that either.

Honestly, I think pulling completely out of Iraq at this point would be the wrong thing to do. No matter what all the major news outlets say, I know people in the military who are actually there, and they tell me things are going well, and I'm much more inclined to believe people I know and trust than the media, who always concentrate on how many people died rather than on what is actually being accomplished. Remember, we still have military bases in Japan and Germany, both of which we occupied for a damn sight longer than even the long-range projections for our presence in Iraq. Furthermore, the Iraqis who oppose our presence do so because they are a minority group who is used to power, and they have a lot to lose if democracy succeeds.
I believe that social problems can't be solved by creating a government subsidy and throwing money at them.
I believe that lower taxes benefit everyone (statistics have shown that even with taxes as low as they are now, nearly 3/4 of the total tax revenue comes from the richest 5% of the population), and that it's a practical impossibility to raise (or lower) taxes on just one segment of the population without affecting all the rest as well.
I believe that gun control == bad.

Granted, I do rather hate Bush's stances on abortion and gay marriage (I actually agree with Cheney wrt gay marriage, and his position is quite different from Bush's), and I absolutely loathe the PATRIOT Act, but I think these other issues are a lot more important as far as our immediate liberty and safety are concerned.
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2004 17.34 (UTC) (Link)
Honestly, I think pulling completely out of Iraq at this point would be the wrong thing to do.

And why are we in Iraq in the first place? I don't see Osama bin Laden hanging out there...

I believe that social problems can't be solved by creating a government subsidy and throwing money at them.

I believe that diplomatic problems can't be solved by sending soldiers over and throwing money at them.

I believe that lower taxes benefit everyone (statistics have shown that even with taxes as low as they are now, nearly 3/4 of the total tax revenue comes from the richest 5% of the population), and that it's a practical impossibility to raise (or lower) taxes on just one segment of the population without affecting all the rest as well.

If taxes are lower, spending has to be cut from somewhere.
And cut the defense budget? Heavens no!

Granted, I do rather hate Bush's stances on abortion and gay marriage (I actually agree with Cheney wrt gay marriage, and his position is quite different from Bush's), and I absolutely loathe the PATRIOT Act, but I think these other issues are a lot more important as far as our immediate liberty and safety are concerned.

I believe that George Bush is only protecting us from things that he brought onto us himself. It's self-fulfilling.

Also, as far as other things that affect me personally, Bush and Kerry's stances on immigrants are vastly different. Under Kerry, there was a chance of my girlfriend (and people in her situation) gaining permanent residence (and/or citizenship) based on "good behavior" (having a SSN, paying taxes, etc etc). Under Bush, all immigrants seem to be terrorists until proven innocent.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2004 20.03 (UTC) (Link)
And why are we in Iraq in the first place? I don't see Osama bin Laden hanging out there...

The point is that even though we left Iraq in 1991(iirc?) and stopped fighting, they didn't stop fighting us. No, it wasn't just Iraq, and I personally think Iran would have made a better example, but Iran would also be a much more difficult fight, and I think that now that we've started something over there, we should see it through, otherwise we'll be leaving it even worse than we found it.

If taxes are lower, spending has to be cut from somewhere.

Um... 'Lower tax rates' is not the same as 'lower tax revenue'. If you look at the figures, you'll see that in most cases, when the tax rate is lowered, revenue actually increases.

And cut the defense budget? Heavens no!

As if anyone with a (D) beside their name has ever cut spending in any area besides defense... I think all the Socialist welfare programs are better places to cut, personally.

I believe that George Bush is only protecting us from things that he brought onto us himself.

Um, no. There were actually several terrorist attacks throughout the '90s, albeit on a smaller scale, that went completely ignored and unpunished. This is something that existed before, but nobody cared or thought it was a big threat. Now that we're acting like we should have done all along (not that we should have to be paranoid, but things really should have been more secure beforehand), people blame Bush because they're inconvenienced. The problem with doing nothing is that it invites more violence.
From: lobotomymonkey Date: Wednesday 3rd November 2004 21.31 (UTC) (Link)
The point is that even though we left Iraq in 1991(iirc?) and stopped fighting, they didn't stop fighting us.

But why did "we" decide to go back in, right after the World Trade Center attacks, when the declaration was "War on Terror" and none of those Terrorists were from Iraq?

now that we've started something over there, we should see it through, otherwise we'll be leaving it even worse than we found it.

Well, that's what we call "job security". Making a mess yourself that only you can clean up.

As if anyone with a (D) beside their name has ever cut spending in any area besides defense...

Damn straight. We already spend more on our military than at least the next 5 or 6 countries combined, if not the rest of the world combined. We can afford to give it a little slack...

Now that we're acting like we should have done all along (not that we should have to be paranoid, but things really should have been more secure beforehand), people blame Bush because they're inconvenienced. The problem with doing nothing is that it invites more violence.

Personal freedoms are the basis upon which this country was founded. The violation of them is what we were trying to get away from.
And I never said we shouldn't have done anything in response to terrorism. It's just that Bush isn't exactly going at the source. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, yet they somehow got twisted together by the time 2002 rolled around. That's what pisses a lot of people off. We'd be perfectly happy if we were at war with the right people.
valamelmeo From: valamelmeo Date: Thursday 4th November 2004 00.09 (UTC) (Link)
We already spend more on our military than at least the next 5 or 6 countries combined, if not the rest of the world combined.

Yes, and that's because the entire world depends on our military to protect them. A majority of the NATO troops are American, as is most of NATO's funding, so Kerry's happy little idea to send NATO into Iraq is still going to cost American lives. What I don't understand is why nobody said anything when Clinton sent a bunch of troops into Yugoslavia to do basically exactly the same thing Bush did in Iraq, troops that are still there today. There wasn't any "OMG Imperialism! TEH SKY IS FALLING!!1" then.

Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, yet they somehow got twisted together by the time 2002 rolled around. That's what pisses a lot of people off. We'd be perfectly happy if we were at war with the right people.

Iraq had plenty to do with it. Not because Saddam Hussein was affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or because any of those terrorists were Iraqis (because neither of those is true), but because they subscribe to the same ideology as those terrorists, we had an unfinished war with them (you can't say the Gulf War was ever really resolved, just that both sides stopped fighting), and because an example had to be made. I doubt we'll ever know the real truth behind the whole thing, but the fact remains that there is an entire Middle-Eastern bloc that does pose a real threat to us, even if each individual country in it does not. Overthrowing the Iraqi government, justified or not, and installing democracy there helps break up that power.

I really think both sides of the argument smack a little too much of "white man's burden", and that it would have been best to leave well enough alone after we ransacked Afghanistan, but what's done is done. I know too many people who are over there fighting right now to endanger them in the way they would have been endangered if Kerry had won.
6つのコメントを見るコメントをする