   Why you should not vote for Kerry
John Kerry Supports the pre-emption doctrineNow seriously. What makes this guy better than Bush, other than the fact that he's "not bush"?Quote:Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Friday he would be willing to launch a pre-emptive strike against terrorists if he had adequate intelligence of a threat. Kerry offered some support for one of the most controversial aspects of President Bush's national security policy, even as he criticized the president for not reforming intelligence agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. My neighbor owns a gun. My neighbor doesn't particularly like me. He thinks it's offensive that I would dare speak out against Bush when our country is at war. After all, speaking out against a "war president" is "traitorous" and "giving moral support to the enemy".I think one day he might shoot me. So I'm going to shoot him first. After all, he poses a threat.But seriously, pre-emption is the refuge of tyrants. All my life I was taught that America stood for integrity, honor, justice, and freedom. When some asshat country goes out and invades another country for some stupid reason, we're the ones who go in and fix the problem. Pre-emption isn't right, damnit!Then all of a sudden it is?Pre-emption is evil.Vote Green or Libertarian, or whatever, depending on your preferences. But for the love of God, don't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. They're tyrants who pretend to disagree with each other. Two wolves wearing different coats, if you ask me.   
Quote:Original post by MithrandirVote Green or Libertarian, or whatever, depending on your preferences. But for the love of God, don't vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. They're tyrants who pretend to disagree with each other. Two wolves wearing different coats, if you ask me.Here here.Vote Michael Badnarik! [smile]   ;Quote:Original post by MithrandirMy neighbor owns a gun. My neighbor doesn't particularly like me. He thinks it's offensive that I would dare speak out against Bush when our country is at war. After all, speaking out against a "war president" is "traitorous" and "giving moral support to the enemy".I think one day he might shoot me. So I'm going to shoot him first. After all, he poses a threat.If you had concrete evidence that he was going to shoot you, then certainly you have every right to preemption. But if you want to preempt simply because you think one day he might shoot you, then preemption is wrong.I believe both Kerry and Bush are saying preemption is right when you have concrete evidence of a threat.   ;  I'd actually like to see the US function under the libertarians, if under is even the right word. More as a social experiment than anything, but yeah.   ;  I like preemption, it makes my 2.6 linux desktop more responsive.Sorry, I had to. :)   ;Quote:Original post by KhawkIf you had concrete evidence that he was going to shoot you, then certainly you have every right to preemption. But if you want to preempt simply because you think one day he might shoot you, then preemption is wrong.I believe both Kerry and Bush are saying preemption is right when you have concrete evidence of a threat.As Iraq and even this "war on terror" has shown, if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that your neighbor is going to shoot you -- he would've already shot you. I mean think about what you're suggesting. It can be expected that if Bush was reelected we will almost definitely invade another country, let's assume its Iran. Does this mean that Iran has the legal or even moral right to attack the United States now?   ;  I don't think that preemtion is bad, as long as there is no bias. Bush wanted to invade Iraq ever since he became the president, and we all know that he didn't invade Iraq because he thought they have WMDs, but for their oil and strategic teritory.For example, a preemtive strike against NK might be a good thing (as long as you are willing to give up some cities on the west coast, that is).[edit] I believe in diplomacy, and I don't like the idea of war. But if everything fails, and they are preparing to launch their ICBMs, then a preemtive strike becomes needed.   ;Quote:Original post by KhawkQuote:Original post by MithrandirMy neighbor owns a gun. My neighbor doesn't particularly like me. He thinks it's offensive that I would dare speak out against Bush when our country is at war. After all, speaking out against a "war president" is "traitorous" and "giving moral support to the enemy".I think one day he might shoot me. So I'm going to shoot him first. After all, he poses a threat.If you had concrete evidence that he was going to shoot you, then certainly you have every right to preemption. But if you want to preempt simply because you think one day he might shoot you, then preemption is wrong.I believe both Kerry and Bush are saying preemption is right when you have concrete evidence of a threat.Personally, in that situation, I would ask the police for assistance (read: the UN). But I guess vigilante justice has come into style of late. Yep Mith, you're probably right; Kerry is more centrist than liberal, and he even pushes conservative on some issues, such as this. I think you answered your own question, though: he is better than Bush because he's "not Bush". Even if it isn't much, any movement toward a more progressive nation is a good thing. Kerry's the only chance to get there. I refuse to vote Green or Libertarian in this election. There is no chance in hell they will win, and Kerry needs all the votes he can get. Yes, I know it is a self-fulfilling prophecy: 3rd parties don't get many votes, so you don't vote for them, so they get less votes. I'll feel more comfortable voting Green when we have a Democratic incumbent, not a neocon. It's truly a shame, but that's the way the system is working.I have a suspicion, though, that Kerry will be more liberal than people are giving him credit for. I think that he is playing to the centrists and Republicans that are mad at Bush. Once he's in office, I really believe that he'll return to his base and implement some liberal policies. I hope.   ;  Look like this Kerry wants to prove Bush and co he'is not a she-male. That does not work for me.When politicians take refuge behind intelligence flaws, à la Blair, and get untouchable even by the supposed enquiries of supposedly honorable high courts, it tells a lot about their morality. Correct intelligence flaws ? WTF ! There were no intelligence flaws at all but political corruption. As in many other institutions. This is not true only the USA BTW.Every Jack should know who commanded, tortured and finally forged pseudo Int. reports, in the backyards of sinister politics. By just looking at their eyes, any intelligence professionnal would see that Blair or Bush did not believe 10% of what they said about 'imminent threats that might destroy us in 40 minutes'.Right preamble for any leader of tomorow to do anything he feels good for his agenda, as long as servants of the parties rule the offices and media, and no servant of state still has any power. I have no name for these crooks that do not even deserve being named politicians in rememberance for their far better predecessors.[Edited by - Charles B on July 18, 2004 12:01:02 AM];Quote:Original post by andromedaI have a suspicion, though, that Kerry will be more liberal than people are giving him credit for. I think that he is playing to the centrists and Republicans that are mad at Bush. Once he's in office, I really believe that he'll return to his base and implement some liberal policies. I hope.That's just what I was thinking.   