Please respect other members. Please do not post links or information about hacking/warez/cheats.
Read the rules of these forums as we rarely warn before banning. Lost or need RSS check the forum map.
I don't quite relate with the terror you feel about it. I don't think Bush is capable of starting WW3, and I don't think he's going to withdraw from the UN. There is a system of checks and balances in place that makes sure the president doesn't have enough power to do something that stupid. I would like to remind you that a majority of Democrats in the senate originally voted for the war in Iraq. There is also the fact that there have not been any major terror attacks for the last three years, which I attribute to the department of homeland security and the president's actions.
George Bush is not the best candidate in any sense of the term, in my opinion. There are many things I could say about him and his policies that I disagree with. However, I really think he is better than Kerry. I personally am afraid that if Kerry is elected there will be another terrorist attack on US soil. This isn't because of what the Bush administration is telling me; this is because I don't think Kerry is nearly as aggresive as Bush and I don't think he will be willing to do enough to stop something before it happens. Not to mention that I see no way that Kerry will handle Iraq any differently than the current administration.
All in all, I'm not happy either way, but I think we'll be slightly better off if Bush wins.
I honestly don't believe that who our president is makes any difference on how much hatred there is from that side to the US. With Kerry as president, there will still be just as many corporations, just as much advertisement and media, just as much America in America. Either way, fundamentalist Islam hates us, regardless of who's in office.
I don't quite relate with the terror you feel about it. I don't think Bush is capable of starting WW3, and I don't think he's going to withdraw from the UN. There is a system of checks and balances in place that makes sure the president doesn't have enough power to do something that stupid. I would like to remind you that a majority of Democrats in the senate originally voted for the war in Iraq. There is also the fact that there have not been any major terror attacks for the last three years, which I attribute to the department of homeland security and the president's actions.
George Bush is not the best candidate in any sense of the term, in my opinion. There are many things I could say about him and his policies that I disagree with. However, I really think he is better than Kerry. I personally am afraid that if Kerry is elected there will be another terrorist attack on US soil. This isn't because of what the Bush administration is telling me; this is because I don't think Kerry is nearly as aggresive as Bush and I don't think he will be willing to do enough to stop something before it happens. Not to mention that I see no way that Kerry will handle Iraq any differently than the current administration.
All in all, I'm not happy either way, but I think we'll be slightly better off if Bush wins.
Quote:
I would like to remind you that a majority of Democrats in the senate originally voted for the war in Iraq.
Wrong. A majority of Dems voted to allow him to use force in Iraq. This was back in the days when it looked like he might actuallyl use that to get UN backing. No senator, Democratic or otherwise, voted to go war. Bush didn't bother asking them.
Hydro, I believe we could quite literally set the entire Middle East ablaze under a second Bush term. I support your fear 100%. However, I think Ohio and Florida will both flow our way, and that makes a Bush victory really damn difficult.
Wrong. A majority of Dems voted to allow him to use force in Iraq. This was back in the days when it looked like he might actuallyl use that to get UN backing. No senator, Democratic or otherwise, voted to go war. Bush didn't bother asking them.
Hydro, I believe we could quite literally set the entire Middle East ablaze under a second Bush term. I support your fear 100%. However, I think Ohio and Florida will both flow our way, and that makes a Bush victory really damn difficult.
Well the way I see it the damage is done. The consequenses(or benefits) of the war are what they are. We will be there for a long time. Terrorists will try to do what they do regardless of who the Pres. is.On a lighter note, check out the WoW.net unofficial FAQ, and read the Open Questions. This may scare you even more than the prospect of a 2nd Bush presidency, Hydro!!!
Wrong. A majority of Dems voted to allow him to use force in Iraq. This was back in the days when it looked like he might actuallyl use that to get UN backing. No senator, Democratic or otherwise, voted to go war. Bush didn't bother asking them.
Now your just argueing semantics. Technicly speaking, the U.S. hasn't actualy been at war since WW2.
Politics is semantics. Most Democrats never believed Bush would approach Iraq in the way he did. He betrayed them. And now we live with the consequences.
I don't think that changes the fact that Kerry will not do anything better than Bush regarding Iraq. Has he told anyone his plan, besides "gaining more foreign support?" I see no reason to believe that Kerry will accomplish anything in the Middle East.
Linear Mode
