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: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 12:29pm
Let's not forget that the US has been the only country that has used nuclear weapons (on civilians, no less). If 'deterrence' was such an effective method, then why is it that since 1945, there has been an arms race? It does the opposite! It makes everyone want to have the same weapons as the other guy so that they can also 'deter' the other. And so on and so on..
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:26pm


That's right, not when their national security is threatened.

< If so, then it's OK for any country to attack any other country as long as it 'feels' threatened, for example because it fears it has weapons of mass destructions? >

No, not if they "feel" it is a threat, but if there is evidence that it is a threat. In the case of Iraq, of course, the UN DID agree that Saddam was a threat, to his neighbors and to the world. They passed a resolution flatly stating so. So do we still need other countries' permission to act to eliminate a threat that all other nations agree exists? I don't believe so, particularly when it appears the other countries had completely self-serving interests in not granting us that permission, given that they were making billions of dollars stealing food out of the mouths of Iraqis and illegally selling weapons to Saddam. It's obviously a judgement call when other countries disagree with us on the timing of military action, but it is a judgement call that we DO have the right to make.

According to Kerry he believes that too, by the way, or at least he did at one point in the debate. In the same debate where he said pre-emptive action must pass the global test, he also said he would always reserve the right of the US to pre-emptively attack without the approval of other countries. So now we all have to try and figure out which side of THAT issue he's really on.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:34pm
No one said we give them what they want. We take a good hard look at our policy, because it is wrong policy...
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:39pm
Agreed.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 2:05pm


I call it a country enforcing the terms of surrender imposed on the other country by the United Nations.



Those are two completely baseless accusations. This "country" did not break the Geneva conventions nor systematically torture anyone-a few individulas in our armed forces did, and the matter was investigated and those responsible are being brought to justice by this country. I would call that a country which cares about human rights and justice.



You have no idea how I would see things. Just because you see things one way doesn't mean I would, nor does it mean that every other individual on the planet does.



No, I don't know that. I wouldn't necessarily take the popular or world majority view of things. I would weigh the facts carefully and base my decision on the evidence. If you were an American perhaps you could see some of the other motives behind anti-American sentiment-they're not all righteous and just, IMO.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 2:17pm


That's wonderful for you-though I it's generalizing of you to claim that all of your countrymen feel exactly as you do. But luckily you get to democratically elect leadership who believes the same as you. The people of Iraq had no such option.



Really? How?



I think there are basic definitions of human liberty. The right to choose one's government. The right to practice the religion of one's own choosing. The right to free speech without fear of government reprisal. I don't think anyone's advocating anarchy, only the right of self-determination so long as it does not interfere with others' rights to the same.



I disagree. The nature of freedom is simple-it's a "know it when you see it" kind of thing. For example, if people democratically choose to live under repressive Muslim regimes then that is arguably still freedom, though not freedom as we in the United States understand it. But if they are forced to do so by fear and violence, than it is not. Pretty simple.



Freedom does not mean anarchy and lawlessness. It means the ability of the people to make laws of their own choosing. It means living under self-determined guidelines of behavior, not under guidelines forced upon them by brutal dictators. Again, it seems pretty darn simple to me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 3:08pm
"This "country" did not break the Geneva conventions"

Sorry but it DID. When its prisoners are badly treated by other military officers, the US says it is breaking the Geneva convention, whether or NOT it was ordered from the top. For God's sake, when americans POW were interviewed on TV by iraqis (not even military), then the US whent on a diatriabe about it being against the Geneva convention to "display" military prisoners!!! The US DID NOT CARE then whether those who did it were military or not, and whether they were following orders or doing it on their own.

Can't have a double standard!

And I'm was not just referring to the abuse at the bagdad prison... Remember Gantanamo Bay? It has now been established by international groups that it IS AGAINST the geneva conventions.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 3:17pm
"I disagree. The nature of freedom is simple-it's a "know it when you see it" kind of thing. For example, if people democratically choose to live under repressive Muslim regimes then that is arguably still freedom, though not freedom as we in the United States understand it. But if they are forced to do so by fear and violence, than it is not. Pretty simple."

What about countries where they are imposed a government through poverty and ignorance? What about countries where less than 50% of people vote (eligible voters)? What about countries where people are manipulated to vote one way through propaganda (remember propaganda won the hearts of the nazis... the fact that so many germans agreed with the nazis hardly makes it better in my eyes.. How about you? What about countries where segments of the adult population can't vote?

Don't get me wrong. I think there are countries where it's clear cut. People are pretty free, or people are not free at all. But there's also lots of shades of grey, and it's not 'one size fits all'. The 'american definition of freedom' isn't on everyone's wish list.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 7:31pm


I didn't say the ACTIONS didn't break the Geneva conventions, they did. The United States of America did not sanction any breaking of the geneva conventions. President Bush issued a memo is 2002 stating that all prisoners (even those who were not technically POW's and therefore not covered by the Geneva conventions) were to be treated humanely. The criminals who broke the conventions and ignored the president's directive are being prosecuted. What are you saying, that President Bush, or the entire US government, ought to be prosecuted for any illegal act committed by any member of our military forces? Your argument makes no sense.



Sorry, no one has established any such thing.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: liveanew
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 7:36pm


Well I'm betting Saddam Hussein's definition is on even fewer people's wish list. Who ever said Iraq has to abide by the American definition of freedom? They have a sovereign government, they will have democratic elections, will they be perfect elections? No. Is any democracy ever perfectly free and perfectly representative? No. But we're not talking about the shades of grey here. We're talking about the difference between totalitarian rule by violence and fear, and some, even if imperfect, form of self-determination. Try to make it as complex as you want, like I said, most people know the difference when they see it.

Pages