You would see the day with me as well. But first things first, to suggest that his ratings are not low because of Katrina, I would take issue with. Just because you didn't see it on TV doesn't make it so. Back to your newest issue. I'm not happy with the selection. In fact, pissed about it as many others are. The primary reasoning being that there were plenty of more qualified candidates with excellent records that have far more experience that should have been considered. I'm disappointed with border security. It should be of highest priority, especially when we have reports all along the border of Mexico of not only illegals from Mexico, but reports of middle easterners as well. There's other things I take issue with. But they are never really brought up here. Instead, people resort to making things up that end up being proven incorrect. And we move on to the next illogical claim, which is proven incorrect. There's plenty of issues to attack Bush with. Resorting to lying and making things up just makes it easy to correct.
Not saying they aren't low because of Katrina, but it isn't the entire picture. If some of these right wingers on TV continue what I watched last night I can only suspect his ratings will go down even further, as republicans will listen to other republicans they often see on tv in interviews and possibly change their mind as it appears a decent chunk already have begun to do. ---Adding, there were also errors on the feds end and Bush's end for Katrina. No not all fault goes directly to him, much was on the local level, but even some blame directed back to the white house can and will hurt his ratings and rightfully so.
They were made in Iraq, I stand corrected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455_pf.html
I didn't say it was his fault. I'm trying to make a point with Sudan. If we really needed to go invade some country because it's people needed "liberating and freedom" as Bush claims Iraqi's need, then it should have been Sudan. Were they ever real or credible? Most likely not. Most likely just propaganda to get Bush's ratings back up. We were stopping terrorist plots years before Bush so even if we did stop some, then doesn't mean it's a result of operation's in Iraq. Long gone are the days when Americans stood for something, were loyal, caring and had a set of moral values and respect for life. When everyday I wake up and see people with no regard to human life, racism, murder, rape, and not to mention the torture and careless slaughtering of animals and our environment. That's not a place I'm willing to sacrifice my life for. And it's not just our country, it's nearly the entire world. Kind of sad.
Not realy, right wingers attacking Bush and him losing his base I honestly don't believe had anything to do with Katrina. Maybe support among indepenants, not hardcore supporters.
Oh so now you want us to go into other coutries and take out people? Before they attack? The "kid" argument is starting to sound very lame, do you call our military "kids" to their face? Try doing that to a Marine straight out of training. I would like to be there to watch that. Sure I think we need to help those who are being slaughtered, but then again I am not in the government.. I bet if we voted in Kerry he would be helping??? Do you understand that just killing a bunch of arabs, doesn't fix anything, it pointless and even murderous unless you are targeting our real enemies. [/quote] I will agree with helping those in parts of Africa also, but then we open up the can of worms were you will be saying: "Why are we getting involved?" "The U.S. is only pissing off more muslims." etc...
You don't have to make the point, I'm not opposed to taking action in Sudan. But they do have oil. Who is committing the genocide? You'll understand if I don't take your personal opinion on that? I know of a number that have been stopped. It's of interest to me. History shows a poor job, if any, at stopping terrorist plots before Bush, which is why our country and it's interests were blasted time and again during the 90s. That Clinton let bin laden go through times when he had the opportunity to take him out, didn't help. Yet you want to pull out of Iraq and let terrorists do this on a grand scale: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090500313_pf.html What moral values and respect for life do you attribute to that? This is your example of what would happen. So why give credit for zarqawi's actions to the US? All this bothers you and we see what this thug and his estimated (as I read) 30,000 thug terrorist group does, yet you never take issue with it. Always blaming it, and apparently 9/11 on anyone but terrorists. Just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't mesh with what you say.
18 and 19 years of age going to fight an unjust war and dying is disgraceful. I think 2pac said it best: ..and did u ever stop to think i'm old enough to go to war but i aint old enough to drink Hypocrisy at it's finest. They're grown men when you want them to go kill and die for you, but they're not mature enough to drink
I was 18 when I joined the army - I would have fought for the country and didn't care that I was able to drink. The law for drinking is seperate from war, I see no connection and didn't then. If you really want to change the law for drinking go fight for it, it didn't have the value then when I did drink and I could care less now.
The rebel groups and leaders currently in control of Sudan and the majority of Africa. I don't think I've ever said we should "pull out of Iraq". I'm debating that the invasion should have never taken place. Now that we've gone and done it we're stuck there. We took out all of the stability and control the government had and turned iraq into a country full of anarchy and chaos... Leaving now would just make things 100x worse than befor. When I said I wake up everyday and see murder, rape, etc I was talking about right here in the good old US Of A. I was talking about our own citizens committing crimes against each other, nothing to do with terrorism.
You're totally overlooking the entire concept. The government doesn't seem to think 18-20 year olds are responsible and mature enough to drink (i agree with them) but they don't have any problem coaxing them into joining the military and dying... If you can't see the hypocrisy there I think your head was injured why you were in the military
You completely misunderstand me. I know there are terrorist, and I know they kill people, and I know they want to kill us. I agree with you on all of that. Where we disagree is the way of deterring and stopping that threat. Personally, I don't think bombing and killing innocent people and taking over countries is going to deter terrorists. I think it's going to upset more of them and make it easier to recruit.
Don't know what the rules are today, but when I served, we could buy alcohol on post under 21. You might want to clarify that soldiers cannot. I've been out for quite a while, but on post, we were not subjected to the age of 21 to consume alcohol.
I appreciate the civil debate yo-yo. I'll try my best to afford the same you are offering. So you know my position to disagree with. You mention that we disagree with the way of deterring and stopping the threat. What would be your way?
at 18 I was able to vote and others who are 18 get to vote too. I suppose that I was disenfranchised not being able to vote whether or not I could drink or join the military? If the drinking thing is such a huge issue than why is there not a big thing on the news about it? I chose to join the army, no one and I mean no one cohersed me or tricked me or even forced me to join at 18. I also have yet to meet someone who has. I will bring it back to this - do a webcast of you telling a group of 18 to 20 year old marines or maybe just some of them navy seals, that they are just kids. I think you will get your answer.
I honestly don't know. I think we need to ask ourselves why exactly do they hate us so much? Are they really just mindless crazed killers, or do they have a reason to hate us? For example: If we just bombed and killed (not even purposely) 20,000 Iraqi civilians in the beginning of this war, do you not think the survivors of those dead will have hate for us? Are we not creating MORE terrorists by doing that? Hate and terrorism will never be stopped as long as there's a single person who isn't happy. I honestly don't see any way of fully stopping it. There's no easy answer, but for starters how about making it harder for these people to cross into the US? I'm sure with $200 billion we could have secured our borders quite a bit more... Maybe violence and war are a must, but they should always be a last resort when nothing else can possibly work. And in that case we should do it right...
It's not a big thing on the news because it's always been that way. Who ever said the news/media were reliable and unbiased anyway. And maybe you weren't tricked into the military but others have been. Signed up before 9/11 thinking we'll never be in a real war and now they're forced to go and die. I had the recuiters telling me the same crap... I never said they were "kids".. I said the government doesn't think they're mature/responible enough to drink so what are they doing putting them behind the wheel of tanks and plains and putting peoples lives in their hands? I really don't care what a webcast of mentally abused and most likely uneducated group of marines says about that either. I've seen personally what these wars do to people, they come back mentally unstable and messed up. Just the other day my friend's neighbor (flew apaches chopters in dessert storm) snapped on his roomate and threw him out of a window. Now he's in jail for assault. And he's not an isolated incident.
There's a long history of attacks, prior to 9/11 to base the foundation of that question on. "They" hate us because of religious ideology. We were not in Iraq in 1993 or 2001. Or any of the other attacks that took place in between. Beslan I'm sure some do. But whether someone will or will not hate us should not be a determining factor in taking care of business. I still struggle with the war myself. Knowing what I know today, if we could go back in time, I would most likely not support it. I fight with that often. I also fight with the attrocities that have since come out about saddam. We knew some going in, but I've seen things that I simply cannot fathom someone doing to another. Hundreds of thousands killed by this man and his sons, in manners I could never think of. I see those things doing research, and I sway back to the other side. People were going to die whether we were there or not. I don't believe happiness has anything to do with it. And I agree, I don't think it can be fully stopped either. Don't disagree at all. That we have volunteers doing this task of their own free will is respectable, yet is one the biggest disappointments for me with Bush. Can't say any war was ever done right (right/wrong is always speculative), but they've all made a difference, whether good or bad. Many of the same things espoused from the left today were said of WWII. Yet I'm sure Germany, France and others appreciate the freedom they have today.