Do you think Kerry Would Have Done Better Job Then Bush?

[Asmir3]

Do you think Kerry Would Have Done Better Job Then Bush?

In my opinion I think yea. Because Bush just sits in his chair and tell ppl to go somewhere go make a democracy as you see in Iraq its not quit working. Lot of ppl been killed in Iraq and that still don’t send a message that Bush needs maybe stop the war because I don’t think Iraq will ever have peace.

 

[Johabius]

Even though, in the last election, I voted for John Kerry, I don't think he could have done any better given the situation. I didn't vote for Kerry because of any political affiliation, only because at the time he seemed like the lesser of two evils

 

[Camerous]

In my opinion I think yea. Because Bush just sits in his chair and tell ppl to go somewhere go make a democracy as you see in Iraq its not quit working. Lot of ppl been killed in Iraq and that still don’t send a message that Bush needs maybe stop the war because I don’t think Iraq will ever have peace.

How many people is alot? Was the hundred of thousands Sadaam killed not alot? Cause so far only 18000 Americans have died in Iraq. Let me put that into perspective for you.

2 million died in vietnam
54,000 in Korean War
300,000 in WWII
58000 in WWI

So you are saying that not even 1/2 of the lowest war death total is alot? You need to get better info. 18000 dead is nothing in terms of a war.

 

[A_Li_N]

18000 dead is nothing in terms of a war.

Tell that to their families...never call people dieing 'nothing'. Everyone that dies for their country is 'something' and it's everything to their families.

And to the point:
Bush is a terrible president, but the question is not something that can actually be factually answered. I voted for Kerry simply for the 'lesser of two evils' as well. I don't pay attention to politics enough to know or take a guess at who would actually be good.

 

[Asmir3]

my point is that there is not going to be peace in Iraq and why would someone die for nothing. They got Sadaam like long time ago and there still there.

How many people is alot? Was the hundred of thousands Sadaam killed not alot? Cause so far only 18000 Americans have died in Iraq. Let me put that into perspective for you.

2 million died in vietnam
54,000 in Korean War
300,000 in WWII
58000 in WWI

So you are saying that not even 1/2 of the lowest war death total is alot? You need to get better info. 18000 dead is nothing in terms of a war.

 

[Camerous]

I'll agree with you there. You can't control people who don't want to be controled unless you do it entirely and none of us want to see that happen. We have enough problems as it is without trying to run another country.

As for what you said, A-Li_N, I never said their deaths didn't matter I said their total numbers are nothing IN TERMS OF A WAR. If you are gonna criticize me for something atleast criticize me for something I actually said.

 

[Johabius]

Cause so far only 18000 Americans have died in Iraq. Let me put that into perspective for you.

Where are you getting your number of 18000? Here is where I'm getting a number significantly less than 18000.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Still, even used with "in terms of war" any number of deaths is too much.

 

[Radwen]

18'000 seems like a lot ..

 

[snicker7]

depending on the future direction of this thread, I may nominated it for "Dumbest, most pointless, over-argued thread of 2006". Pretty big jump of faith there, seeing as it's only late March.

 

[Asmir3]

What ever the # is its still too much should be like 0. I wonder how would you feel is someone die from your family from the war.

 

[Camerous]

You can't fight a war without killing people and people dying, sorry to burst any bubbles. Seems most of you are living in a fantasy land. Welcome to the real world.

And ya was the wrong figure was supposed to be 2300... and I got almost all my figures from http://cnn.com

 

[Johabius]

depending on the future direction of this thread, I may nominated it for "Dumbest, most pointless, over-argued thread of 2006".

I may have to agree with you. We can Monday morning quarterback til we're all blue in the face, but the truth of the matter is, there is no way to know who would do a better job with the situation in Iraq.

 

[Camerous]

What ever the # is its still too much should be like 0. I wonder how would you feel is someone die from your family from the war.

I lost a cousin and my Uncle is currently serving. And he will tell you, as well as my cousin if he were still here, some things are worth dying for. Standing up for what you believe to be right instead of rolling over for tyrants like Saddam being one of the main.

 

[Twice]

You can't fight a war without killing people and people dying, sorry to burst any bubbles. Seems most of you are living in a fantasy land. Welcome to the real world.

And ya was the wrong figure was supposed to be 2300... and I got almost all my figures from http://cnn.com

Plus, you didn't say 18,000 was nothing, you said 18,000 was nothing in terms of wars <--those are the keywords.

-2x

 

[Johabius]

You can't fight a war without killing people and people dying, sorry to burst any bubbles.

I'm guessing that those of us that are saying that any number of US deaths is too much, aren't living in a fantasy world, but maybe are thinking that we shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place...but that's not the topic. Is the Iraq a safer place now that Saddam is no longer in power? I'm not sure what to think on that matter, as it seems that more Americans have died in Iraq since Saddam was overthrown. I'll try to find some more numbers to see if I can back up my assumption.

*edit* According to the numbers from the site I listed above, from the beginning of the war in March of 2003 to December of 2003 (Saddam was captured December 13, 2003) the US military had 486 confirmed deaths. Since December of 2003, the US military has had 1834 confirmed deaths.

I'm sure though that we can all agree that Saddam is one bad dude, and deserves to have his nuts roast.

 

[PappaSmurf]

I don't think the Iraq issue would be in the sad shape it is now nor do I think the US economy would be is such shambles, I personally think other issues the one's that Bush has handled well would have bitten Kerry in the buttocks......

My view is neither of them was an acceptable canidate for President. Kerry's running mate John Edwards would have been a much better choice but that's due to one major reason.

John Edwards was a self made man he didn't inherite nor did he marry into money. He grew up working in textiles in North Carolina.

Kerry has a personal Net Worth of over 700 million dollars not counting his wife being the heirress to a food processing empire, this in my humble opinion takes his ability to see and symathize with the common everday working class american and flushes it down the toilet.

George Bush is the son of a political legacy, He has a personal net worth of over 14 million dollars namely in oil ventures which means he will sympathize with the corporate america and with the middle eastern Oil industry on the grounds of it being profitable for him.

Untill I see a working class canidate one that has walked many miles in all walks of american life I can't say we will have a qualified president in this country.

 

[Asmir3]

but again you just going to waste ppl i just have to keep telling There Will Be No Peace In Iraq You cant make peace with crazy ppl that will do anything and i mean anything

I lost a cousin and my Uncle is currently serving. And he will tell you, as well as my cousin if he were still here, some things are worth dying for. Standing up for what you believe to be right instead of rolling over for tyrants like Saddam being one of the main.

 

[PappaSmurf]

You can't fight a war without killing people and people dying, sorry to burst any bubbles. Seems most of you are living in a fantasy land. Welcome to the real world.

And ya was the wrong figure was supposed to be 2300... and I got almost all my figures from http://cnn.com

First show me a congressinal declaration of war...There is none which means no matter how many times CNN ABC CBS George Bush, and Donald Rumsfields use the word "War" it is nothing more than a conflict. The United States has taken on the role of police force for the world, The Monroe Doctorine was one thing as it only affected this hemisphere but to say that we are going to send American Military in with out request into any foriegn country with out solid undeniable proof of wrong doing which was counter productive to America's interests is flat out wrong.

I personally think that ever since the "Cold War" ended the US has been looking for something else to claim as a reason to "Show off" I mean chasing Al-Quida in Afghaniastan was justifiable after the 9-11 attacks but to say that Iraq was massing weapons of mass destruction after 10 years of UN inspectors, intentionally going agianst UN in entering into a conflict in an area where they held authoritative control, and endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers that years later will be in the same shape as Korean Conflict Veterans (Denied the benifits given to War time Vets in many cases) for a country that is hell bent on self destruction and internal conflict is just plain wrong. Saddam was the only force in that country holding the various insergent groups in check and without him there will be conflict and civil war in Iraq untill one group is victorious.

Do I support our troops there, Yes Not because I beleive they are fighting for what is right but because I feel they are in a situation where they are not only not wanted but in a situation they never shoud have been in. Once you raise your right hand and swear to "Up hold and defend the Constution of the United States of America agianst all enemies both foriegn and domestic....", you have signed and sworn away your basic rights as citizens in this country. They are there on orders, no matter if they feel it is justified or if they feel they shouldn't be there they weren't given a choice and they are risking their lives every day for something that in the long run will make no difference to the internal affairs of this country.

And before someone says I haven't a clue about what I'm talking about maybe they should read my Resume on this subject at this Link
And this Link

 

[Asmir3]

dood don’t get me start on that I went thought shit that no fucken kid did. Bosnia war one of the worst war in Europe. Barley any food, cant go outside bec fucken bombs and other shit where thrown like in front of your house.
I think living in USA is living in a fantasy there no war in USA, except a few bombing that happened

Seems most of you are living in a fantasy land. Welcome to the real world.

And ya was the wrong figure was supposed to be 2300... and I got almost all my figures from http://cnn.com

 

[Asmir3]

this is good information.

First show me a congressinal declaration of war...There is none which means no matter how many times CNN ABC CBS George Bush, and Donald Rumsfields use the word "War" it is nothing more than a conflict. The United States has taken on the role of police force for the world, The Monroe Doctorine was one thing as it only affected this hemisphere but to say that we are going to send American Military in with out request into any foriegn country with out solid undeniable proof of wrong doing which was counter productive to America's interests is flat out wrong.

I personally think that ever since the "Cold War" ended the US has been looking for something else to claim as a reason to "Show off" I mean chasing Al-Quida in Afghaniastan was justifiable after the 9-11 attacks but to say that Iraq was massing weapons of mass destruction after 10 years of UN inspectors, intentionally going agianst UN in entering into a conflict in an area where they held authoritative control, and endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers that years later will be in the same shape as Korean Conflict Veterans (Denied the benifits given to War time Vets in many cases) for a country that is hell bent on self destruction and internal conflict is just plain wrong. Saddam was the only force in that country holding the various insergent groups in check and without him there will be conflict and civil war in Iraq untill one group is victorious.

Do I support our troops there, Yes Not because I beleive they are fighting for what is right but because I feel they are in a situation where they are not only not wanted but in a situation they never shoud have been in. Once you raise your right hand and swear to "Up hold and defend the Constution of the United States of America agianst all enemies both foriegn and domestic....", you have signed and sworn away your basic rights as citizens in this country. They are there on orders, no matter if they feel it is justified or if they feel they shouldn't be there they weren't given a choice and they are risking their lives every day for something that in the long run will make no difference to the internal affairs of this country.