ABC News poll

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
ABC News poll
80
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 2:56pm




I keep hearing that polls are showing Kerry the winner, but in this poll at least, more people feel it was a tie or that Bush was the winner than that Kerry won.

Personally I thought Kerry was the better debater, but when people go back and think about his responses they'll find that he's not said anything different, just polished up the act a bit. He still wants to put the UN in charge of our national security, he still claims both that Saddam was a threat yet insists that Bush misled the American people on that very issue, he still has no plans for Iraq that differ from the president's, aside from his boasting that he will get other countries to share the burden, even though they have repeatedly said they won't no matter who is president, he still claims to be better at building alliances even as he disrepsects the very allies who supported us and disrespects our vital ally Prime Minister Allawi. He claims nuclear proliferation is our biggest threat but he wants to dismantle one of OUR nuclear programs, a "bunker buster" bomb that could be crucial to deterring nuclear strikes for the folks who actually LIVE in bunkers (aka terrorists), so I guess he's still back with those who felt a nuclear freeze was the best way to end the Cold War. After all these years he still doens't understand the doctrine of peace through strength.

Bush as usual did not express himself very well, but his positions are better for the country IMO.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 6:59pm
>>No, I didn't see Saddam bombing NY, but he was a threat to our security, as Kerry flat out stated he was last night. We do not need permission from other countries to act against threats to our security.<<

Don't know how old you are, but in my lifetime there have been lots of threats to our security. And in the big picture, Iraq was way down the threat list. I've never seen this country take action first, and in my opinion it goes against what I was taught to believe we are all about. There is no justification for this. Brazil is developing a bomb... do we attack Brazil? Cuba? It is a dangerous attitude to have, and dangerous precedent. China could move against Taiwan and claim they felt threatened.

>>The anti-American sentiment in the world did not just magically appear during George Bush's presidency.<<

I agree, we have been working on it for decades now, but Bush finished it off, and is by far the biggest contributor.

>>In any case, sometimes some of the world loves us, sometimes they hate us. Sometimes some of us agree with their reasoning, sometimes most of us don't. That's the whole point-I don't believe we ought to allow other countries with varying and fluctuating degrees of liking or hating us to be deciding on the legality of what our own troops do in combat, even handing out the death penalty as they see fit.<<

Then why should we be having people brought to trial? You may think we are right, but the world doesn't see it that way... they see us as bullies. If opposition forces had done to American troops what we did in Abu Ghraib, how would you have reacted? Rumsfeld is clearly culpable in those events, and should at least resign... but he won't, because... we can do what we damn well please. If America was always righteous and good, maybe I'd agree with you, but we know that isn't the case.

>>Reagan was roundly ridiculed (as well as disliked by much of the world) for his peace through strength stance. Turns out he was right and his critics were wrong.<<

I see no overwhelming evidence Reagan did anything more than raise our national debt and move up the collapse of the Soviet bloc by 5 years or so... it was heading that way on it's own.

>>Once again, there's a difference between rogue nations having nukes and a country who fights for liberty around the world having them.<<

Who is fighting for liberty? We fought to rid Iraq of wmd's and Saddam, remember? You see the world through our eyes, thinking we can impose our view on other countries... but not everyone wishes to live as we do, and that counts for much. Who are we to decide? Are we going to go everywhere in the world to fight for liberty? Are we going to take on the Chinese?

BTW, I am not in favour of giving up all our nukes... but think developing new technologies to blow people up is a bad idea. It leaves us a warrior culture, and I despise being so.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:02pm
Yes, I do... but my point about 62% not supporting Bush is equally valid. Look at it another way... Bush has been leading in polls with somewhere around an 8 point differential, depending on the poll... now a debate results in a 9 point spread for Kerry... and that is a significant difference from how America viewed the two... doesn't mean the votes changed, but it is still a significant result. And other polls showed a far larger difference, not less... so this is a best case scenario for Bush, not worst case.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:56pm
"Who decides if the war is legal?"

The UN has a charter that determines appropriate and inappropriate international behavior and they call it international law. Some people who fail to obey international law can be brought to the international courts and tried. You can find the charter at:

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter

Be warned, independent! It is loooonnnngggg, but interesting in a dry sort of way :)

The real issues here, I think, which should probably debated in another post, is how much teeth does the law really have? And how can we respond helpfully and rationally to security issues without one? OK. I digress.

"The UN which is run by thugs?"

Hard to respond to this one. Kofi Annan runs the UN at the moment, and I checked his bio, and I wouldn't characterize the guy as a thug. The UN has hundreds of members. I'll bet, like most large groups of people, some could definitely be characterized as thugs and other could be characterized as honest, hard working people. Who, exactly, are you referring to here?

"What if there is a dissenting vote and NO wars are considered legal?"

International disputes are debated one-at-a-time in the Security Council, so no particular dissenting vote can declare all wars illegal. It would be impossible.

"Either way, Kerry wants to give away US sovereignty."

OK. I'll assume here that you mean that by cooperating with international organizations or with other countries, that the US loses its stature as a nation and its sovereignty. Bush is already cooperating with other countries in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. This is the much-ballyhooed alliance he was mentioning in the debate last night. I don't see either of these candidates implying or suggesting that the US "go it alone" in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

"I fully enjoy my freedoms and will support President Bush."

I did not mention anything about freedoms or about who to support in my previous posting. I assume this is not in response to my posting? The purpose of my post was to try and decipher what Kerry was talking about. My favorite hobby. Not to imply or suggest that some Amercans should not enjoy their freedoms fully, and certainly not to suggest a particular candidate.

"It's people like Kerry who have let communists to continue to proliferate (Viet Nam being one of the nations that benefitted from Kerry's politicking."

No clue what you're talking about here. By my reckoning, "proliferate" means to increase or cause to increase rapidly. But since the fall of the Berlin wall, we've seen a net decrease in the number of communist nations, rather than an increase. Are you talking about the situation in Nepal, perhaps?

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 7:57pm
Wow! The debate really brought out a lot of familar faces!

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 8:18pm

So in your book, Bosnia & Kosovo, along with every other military action we've ever been involved with the exception of Korea & the Gulf War was illegal?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 8:42pm
Hope ya don't mind my jumping in... don't think most have problems with the Balkan involvements, Grenada, Panama, the DR... we were doing so to protect Americans and keep peace, which is quite different than our action in Iraq. Nor is there a problem with Afghanistan, which was a haven for people who did attack us.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 8:55pm
Well, it ain't my book, it's the UN's. And I'm still slogging through it as we speak! Did I mention it was long? Oh, and did I mention that it's dry? Yes, I did :)

The UN authorized action in Bosnia/Herzegovina under IFOR in December of 1995.

http://www.un.org/spanish/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/untaes/ifor.htm

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 11:31pm


The difference is, Brazil hasn't invaded another country, been defeated, accepted terms of surrender and then defied them year after year, UN resolution after UN resolution, the way that Saddam did.



I would have hoped that their countries prosecuted those responsible and punished them as we did. We have people abducting our citizens and beheading them-do I trust Fidel Castro to try those folks and decide their punishment? You bet I don't.



No nation nor all of its citizens is ever always righteous and good-as evidenced by the Abu Ghraib situation we have a fair legal system by which those in this country who don't act righteously will be prosecuted. We won't be chopping off anyone's head for putting a dog collar on someone, but these people will receive JUST punishment. There are many countries in this world who care little for due process, and I wouldn't put the lives of our American troops in their hands.



Well, even if you're right, 5 more years may have been five years too many for a desperate, collapsing republic armed with nuclear weapons.



We've had this conversation before, it's another fundamental difference between you and I, and between Bush and Kerry. I don't believe liberty is just an American desire, I believe it is a universal human desire. We'll just ahve to agree to disagree on that one.



No, we probably won't take on China because the costs would be too great. But where we can, and where we are justified in doing so for our awn national security interests, we SHOULD spread freedom. If there is any reason to vote for President Bush it is that core belief that I share with him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Fri, 10-01-2004 - 11:32pm

Agreed, and as I've said before it is my opinion that Kerry did win the debate. We will just have to wait and see whether that translates to any real movement in the election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Sat, 10-02-2004 - 12:07am
>>The difference is, Brazil hasn't invaded another country, been defeated, accepted terms of surrender and then defied them year after year, UN resolution after UN resolution, the way that Saddam did.<<

Bush Sr wisely stopped our forces from overrunning Iraq in 1991, because he and those around him were aware of what the consequences would be. He knew all about wmd's, etc then, but still chose not to go further. Nothing changed going forward, accept Saddam stalling and ignoring... inspectors found nothing of consequences, and we only had suspicion and suspect evidence, which our intelligence authorities knew was suspect, but the political types ignored their views (only to shoulder them with the blame later... so much for Bush's support the troops comments. Would think that our intelligence people fall under the support pov as well.)

>>I would have hoped that their countries prosecuted those responsible and punished them as we did. We have people abducting our citizens and beheading them-do I trust Fidel Castro to try those folks and decide their punishment? You bet I don't.<<

So do you believe their should be no world body, and only the conquerors get to try people? Hmmmm... I would like a whole lot more accountability than that standard. We were *the* moving force for the League of Nations, and bailed on it, never joining. We were the moving force for the UN, and fortunately learned our lesson and became a prominent member. We led by example... and leading by example means you are not above. We aren't perfect, and it is time we stopped trying to act like we are. None of us are.

>>No nation nor all of its citizens is ever always righteous and good-as evidenced by the Abu Ghraib situation we have a fair legal system by which those in this country who don't act righteously will be prosecuted. We won't be chopping off anyone's head for putting a dog collar on someone, but these people will receive JUST punishment. There are many countries in this world who care little for due process, and I wouldn't put the lives of our American troops in their hands.<<

Agreed with most of that except this... the World Court is hardly a sham operation. And if we were a part of it, it would only be stronger, now wouldn't it?

>>Well, even if you're right, 5 more years may have been five years too many for a desperate, collapsing republic armed with nuclear weapons.<<

The collapse was as chaotic as it can get, short of a free for all civil war, and we had no input, no say in what was transpiring, nor could we have under virtually any circumstance... we and the world were bystanders. I totally agree with Kerry that this has been ignored (by the last *two* administrations) and we need to get those weapons out and destroyed sooner, not later. I applaud Kerry for this initiative.

>>We've had this conversation before, it's another fundamental difference between you and I, and between Bush and Kerry. I don't believe liberty is just an American desire, I believe it is a universal human desire. We'll just ahve to agree to disagree on that one.<<

rofl, I was rather tired writing that, still am I agree liberty is a universal desire... but some just aren't quite there yet. Ya have to want it sooooooo badly... look at the Russia now, they want a strong leader and are rolling over for Putin... I can't even begin to understand that mentality, it is totally foreign to me, because being free is in my blood and my soul. Yet I still don't think we impose this on anyone. If people don't have that burning desire to rise up and cast out, our help counts for nothing. We can only help them help themselves, and that isn't what is happening in Iraq.

Pages