Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 98
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Freedom has a high price to pay. To remain free we must be willing to pay the price. Freedom endures only if each generation is willing to fight to remain free. If we are unwilling to fight for our freedom, an enemy will come along and take that freedom from us. That is a recurring theme throughout history. Don't fight you loose....Ben
    True but we clearly fear different things. You fear some nameless outside threat while I fear that our government will take our freedom in the name of protecting us from outside threats. Perhaps we need a little sense of proportion.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by TB1024
    It was a difficult decision on some levels, but I voted for Bush (in Florida) for several reasons:......
    3. Kerry's wife is the worst - lost complete respect for her when she criticized Laura Bush as never having a real job. What a loser that woman is. Zero class. What does that say about the man who married her?.....
    Well, now there you have me. A clear winner for your side.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by TB1024
    It was a difficult decision on some levels, but I voted for Bush (in Florida) for several reasons:.....

    4. Giving up the sovereignty of the US in foreign policy. Although I've mentioned my concern about the foreign policy of this administration, I also don't believe we should give up our sovereignty to the United Nations. That said, I do believe it is important to have allies on our side in most situations. But we should never surrender our decisions to the UN. Kerry IMO would.....
    You were certainly not the only one persuaded by that argument. However, it seems to me that there is a big difference between believing that one has an obligation to attempt to convince the world at large, and particularly one's historic allies, that what one is doing is legitimate and going to war in spite of the fact that you are unable to persuade them of that legitimacy for no better reason than to demonstrate that one is sovereign.

    The Europeans did not share our fear of Saddam Hussein but they all certainly now fear us.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Interesting. In the thirty years after WWII, I was seriously concerned about the trend of the US toward socialism and secular humanism. Incidentally, our government claimed that we had to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from "Godless Communism."

    However, for the last thirty years, the thirty years that you refer to, I have been concerned about the drift of our society toward fascism. This time we are being asked to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from religious zealots.

    Like most totalitarian governments, our government seems to prosper most when it frightens us with fear of a foreign enemy.
    I can see you have a healthy mistrust of the government. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system out there. I don't like the Patriot Act either, but have yet to see evidence of the US as a totalitarian state. You seem prone to hyperbole there. However, if Martial Law is declared at some point, I'll be in agreement.

    I would like to hear your suggestions on dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I would imagine your solution is to withdraw our influence in the Middle East like OBL wants - but I'm not convinced that is a viable solution - the time we back off, Armageddon is here - ok here's my hyperbole. There are long-standing problems festering in the Middle East that have global implications. I think that was one of Bush's major goals (but far from only) for the Iraq war - trying to bring about peace for that region. Will it work? Doubt it.
    Last edited by TB1024; 11/06/2004 at 02:47 PM.
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by TB1024
    I can see you have a healthy mistrust of the government. Unfortunately, there is no perfect system out there. I don't like the Patriot Act either, but have yet to see evidence of the US as a totalitarian state. You seem prone to hyperbole there. However, if Martial Law is declared at some point, I'll be in agreement.....
    Be careful what you ask for. The problem with martial law is that it is all too easy to impose and too difficult to get rid. We currently have martial law in Iraq. It is likely to be followed by civil war and then by a dictator. The dictator will be seen as the only alternative to civil war.

    In any case, it is not clear that my mistrust of government is all that healthy. The founders understood that the threat to freedom is not from without but from within. The threat is that in a time of crisis and in a paroxysm of fear, we will trade essential Liberty for a little temporary safety.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by TB1024
    ......I would like to hear your suggestions on dealing with Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I would imagine your solution is to withdraw our influence in the Middle East like OBL wants - but I'm not convinced that is a viable solution - the time we back off, Armageddon is here - ok here's my hyperbole. There are long-standing problems festering in the Middle East that have global implications. I think that was one of Bush's major goals (but far from only) for the Iraq war - trying to bring about peace for that region. Will it work? Doubt it.
    All of the "isms" died in the 20th century. In addition to facism, socialism, and communism, also went populism, colonialism, and imperialism. (Capitalism and fundamentalism remain.)

    The history of the Pax Britannica is instructive. One of the things that it teaches is that if one steps in between waring factions, it is difficult to withdraw. If one remains, one becomes a causus belli; one is seen as the villian, the common enemy, by both sides. If one withdraws, there will be civil war. Few governments are both able and willing to withdraw and watch the bloodshed.

    Arafat was too strong to be removed but not strong enough to deliver peace. It is ironic that he received the Nobel Peace Prize for an agreement on which he was unable to deliver. It is possible that a successor to Arafat will have a narrow window of opportunity in which to make peace. One can hope.

    If Bush had succeeded in establishing a democracy in Iraq, it might have changed the deadly balance of power. It was unlikely from the get-go that he would succeed. Mesopotamia has been ruled by an autocrat for millenia. it is now clear that he has failed. We are now committed to remain in Iraq as hostages to such peace as we can maintain. It is likely that we may have to remain for two or three generations as we have in Korea and Eastern Europe.

    I think that Korea and Eastern Europe have been successful. We have put American troops in place as hostages to peace, as guarantors of good behavior on the part of both parties. I think that is the only way that we can hope to achieve peace in "the region." We will have to be willing to put 50000 troops into the region and keep them there in perpetuity. After fifty years, it appears that we can reduce our troops in Europe; it is unlikely that we will be able to do so in Korea in the next generation unless we can convince the Chinese or the Japanese to share the burden.

    Note that one does not have to have the agreement of both parties. It is sufficient to have the agreement of one party and merely the consent of the other. Germany was more than content to have our troops as insurance that the Russians would not invade. Though the Russians maintained superiority on the ground, they could not use it against Germany without killing Americans and triggering a nuclear response. Though North Korea has the artillery to destroy Seoul, they are content not to do so. Though neither the Russians or the North Koreans would or could have agreed, they could consent. If Israel agrees, then their neighbors will have to consent.

    Of course, it is difficult to decide how many troops to put in. It must be enough to have skin in the game, enough for force protection, but not enough to frighten the parties. The force must be sufficiently vulnerable to seen as hostages rather than as hegemonists.
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/06/2004 at 05:51 PM.
  7. #47  
    I find your posts interesting. However, with the rising threat and influence of terrorist groups, some of these methods you discussed could be rendered ineffective. How do we arrive at Middle East peace without bowing to terrorist groups' wishes - the full support of the Palestinian cause and the elmination of our troops there. I guess the full distruction of Israel would be up their on their agenda too.

    With another attack or two on American soil, the will of America will be tested. We face a threat unknown in our past. I didn't trust Kerry to handle it any better than Bush - and I know Bush (and his neocon advisors) are not without their faults.

    It appears we've gotten ourselves into a situation that won't be easy to get out of. I don't see a clear solution. The next few years will be interesting.
    Last edited by TB1024; 11/06/2004 at 06:23 PM.
  8. #48  
    It is wrong to call the effort to create a democracy in Iraq a failure this early. I took about 3 years after the defeat of Germany before Nazi partisans stopped killing US troops and killing newly appointed German officials. You can't expect Iraq, which has never known democracy, to stabilize overnight. It is going to take years before we will know whether or not it was genius or a mistake, but it is yet too early to tell.
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Im So Unpopular
    It is wrong to call the effort to create a democracy in Iraq a failure this early. I took about 3 years after the defeat of Germany before Nazi partisans stopped killing US troops and killing newly appointed German officials. You can't expect Iraq, which has never known democracy, to stabilize overnight. It is going to take years before we will know whether or not it was genius or a mistake, but it is yet too early to tell.
    I agree. In the future I will restrict myself to noting the evidence and avoid reaching a verdict.

    That said, (God help me) I remember the end of the WWII. Germany was defeated, humiliated, and starving. (The Iraqis are not starving.) Like Iraq today, Germany was without legitimate political leadership. But the Germans were killing us; the Iraqis are killing one another. They have been killing one another for hundreds of years. We just happen to be in the way. It was naive for George W. to conclude that they would stop killing one another when he eliminated the dictator de jour. It is naive for us to believe that there was not a justification for Saddam Hussein. We may not like it when the "legitimate" authority kills lots of people in the name of keeping them from killing one another. However, we were silent for fifty years when Tito did it. We made little enough noise when the Russians did it. We were really quiet when we thought that Hussein took our side against Iran. The amount of noise we make seems to be question of where we see our own interest rather than where we see justice.
  10. #50  
    This is a message to whmurray.

    I'm not sure you realize it, but you hijacked this thread.

    Xpat asked a very good and honest question to those of us who voted for Bush. It started out to be a very interesting thread in that it allowed us to express the reasons for our decision without having to defend every point. I found the posts to be well thought out somewhat telling. We even got a couple of posts from members who did not comment post to any of our off topic threads before the election. Perhaps the thread could have even convinced some that we really are not all right wing, religious, whaks.

    Then you jumped in. Now the thread is like all the others on the election, which puts off the lurkers and which I frankly I think at this point is getting old.

    It would have served your purpose better and not trampled on this thread if you had just started your own thread, perhaps asking why folks voted for Kerry. Hopefully those of who did not would in turn respect your thread.

    I would love to see this thread return to how it was intended. If you did not vote for President Bush, do not post to it. If you did, please don't get on a soap box. This could really be a great thread that would help many understand why so many supported the President.
  11. #51  
    Thanks, johnbdh... So hopefully I'll help put it back on track. If I could sum up the primary reason for my long-since-made (and proudly-executed) decision to vote for Bush with one word, it would be "decisiveness". W is simply a "what you see is what you get" leader. Consequently, his positions are thoroughly unambiguous. And since I happen to agree with nearly every one of them (war on terror/pre-emption, lower taxes, social security reform, gay marriage, healthcare reform, etc., etc.) it was an easy decision.

    Todd/Indy (Chicago roadshow-bound)
  12. #52  
    Out of interest: does anyone who voted for W, and who shares his stance on gay marriage, have any gay friends? My mind isn't completely made up on this yet. I don't know if the 'civil partnerships' in this country are a full solution or a fudge, but I know I've spent longer thinking about it since a friend of mine 'came out'.
    Animo et Fide
  13. #53  
    this is the TREO forum. take this discussion elsewhere.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Out of interest: does anyone who voted for W, and who shares his stance on gay marriage, have any gay friends? My mind isn't completely made up on this yet. I don't know if the 'civil partnerships' in this country are a full solution or a fudge, but I know I've spent longer thinking about it since a friend of mine 'came out'.
    Walk in someone else's shoes and the road appears a bit different. Years ago I hired a woman that did not hide her choice. In the intervening years, she has become a great friend. She has also built a solid company doing work for Fortune 50 companies. She pays more taxes to this country than the overwhelming majority of Americans. She is smart, friendly, a great cook, and a lover of animals. And she shouldn't be allowed to marry because...?
    Doug
  15. #55  
    it just so happens that the good people who are managing our auto insurance are gay. there are 4 people there who are gay. 2 are a couple and have been for 12 years. they are highly intelligent people and demand your respect, because they are acutely aware of the current political and social issues

    THEY VOTED FOR GEORGE W BUSH.

    go figure.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Out of interest: does anyone who voted for W, and who shares his stance on gay marriage, have any gay friends? My mind isn't completely made up on this yet. I don't know if the 'civil partnerships' in this country are a full solution or a fudge, but I know I've spent longer thinking about it since a friend of mine 'came out'.
    I have and have had. My wife is a Flight Attendant and so works and is friends with a greater number of folks who are gay then most and she holds the same views I do about same sex marriage. In our opinion the same sex marriage issue is not a gay issue. It's simply about the definition of Marriage.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by fmertz
    Walk in someone else's shoes and the road appears a bit different. Years ago I hired a woman that did not hide her choice. In the intervening years, she has become a great friend. She has also built a solid company doing work for Fortune 50 companies. She pays more taxes to this country than the overwhelming majority of Americans. She is smart, friendly, a great cook, and a lover of animals. And she shouldn't be allowed to marry because...?
    No one is stopping her from getting married. She, just like her heterosexual friends, cannot marry whomever she pleases. Even if we do redefine marriage to allow same sex marriages, she still will not be allowed to marry whomever she wants.
  18. #58  
    OOPS!!!! I just posted 2 messages in this thread that that I was hoping would remain on topic. Sorry. I'm still getting the sleep out of my eyes.

    Perhaps keeping this thread on topic is a lost cause???
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by jfscars48
    this is the TREO forum. take this discussion elsewhere.
    No, this isn't... it's the "Off Topic" forum and the current discussion is appropriate for this thread (read title and first post). If you choose not to participate, select another Treocentral forum, please.

    Regarding gay marriage: I don't think any reasonable person has any issues with same-sex unions; it's the change to the traditional definition of "marriage" that is troublesome. "Marriage" has been the foundation of society (procreation>family units) for thousands of years. The will of the people is clear on this one--ballot initiatives defining marriage as between a man and a woman went 11-0 this election cycle. Gay-marriage proponents have their work cut out for them before the next chance to vote. If they win over the electorate, fine--this is a representative republic we live here in the USA. But, I'll be tough to convince...

    Todd/Indy
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by tbhausen
    .....But, I'll be tough to convince...

    Todd/Indy
    Perhaps but not as tough as your grandparents. I think that your grandchildren will be a lot easier to convince than you.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions