Originally Posted by rana173
He claims, that 9/11 happened "because we are there"
Please enlighten us as to why 9/11 happened? Let me guess, because we are "free and prosperous and they hate us." The CIA has talked about blowback for years and years. Our foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of other nations, putting our noses where they do not belong, is what caused the hatred and motivation for the attacks. The next example we can look to, is listening to the reasons given BY the people who attacked us. Osama Bin-Laden never said that he was waging a fatwa against us because we are "free and prosperous." It was because we had bases&troops on Holy Land in Saudi Arabia and because we supported Israel(who is responsible for thousands upon thousands of Palestinian deaths). If China had troops stationed in Washington D.C.(land that is sacred to US citizens) and was funding Mexico with money&weapons, and Mexico was in turn killing thousands of US citizens along the Mexico/US border, would many US citizens not have deep seated hatred for China? Would some of them not even be so outraged as to carry out attacks against China? If you are going to talk negatively about this candidates viewpoints thats fine, but PLEASE illustrate how those viewpoints are wrong with facts, evidence, or even your opinion.
Voted against the war in Iraq
I almost dont even want to go here. However, as we have found, this war was propagated on one lie after the other. It has plunged our country so deep into debt many wonder how we will ever repay it. It has made many private contractors (some who fund certain candidates campaigns) VERY wealthy. It has killed almost 500,000 Iraqi civilians (please refer to BLOWBACK). It has increased the base from which terrorist/hate groups have to pool from. I could go on and on.
Voted against the Patriot Act and is against NSA wire-tapping
You actually agree with your own Constitutional rights being stripped away from you with the Patriot Act. You believe that 350 million people need to sacrafice their rights and their privacy so that they can be "Safe" from an almost imaginary enemy? There were maybe 1,000 people total in the middle east who had the determination, funds, knowledge, and capability to carry out an attack on the United States. I fail to see the logic behind 350 million people sacraficing their rights to be safe from such a marginal number of people. We sacrafice our rights from a "group" who does not even have a standing army, navy, or air force. "He who sacrafices liberty for safety, deserves neither." I am BEGGING you to please provide me with a rational, logical and factually based argument for why the NSA should be able to conduct WARRANTLESS wire tapping at their discretion, and why the American citizens should surrender their rights, WHEN THEY WERE NOT EVEN ASKED IF THEY WANTED TO SURRENDER THEM! When you have a group of people in Washington making decisions on our behalf that we do not agree with, that is not Democracy, that is a dictatorship. They dictate to us what is best for us. That is un-American, and it is wrong. And anyone who supports such policies is a TYRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He is against the "Preemptive Strike" ideology.
That is because the "preemptive strike" ideology does not work. The Constitution of the United States says that our country does not goto war unless the national security of the country is at risk, which is decided by Congress. Maybe you have never heard of the Constituion, or have never read it, or maybe you're inclined to wipe your ass with it? I'm not really sure, but if you read it, then you will understand that there is no provision for "preemptive strikes" in the Constitution, unless such a strike is necessary to ensure the national security of the country. We have no way of knowing whether the threat from Iraq was threatening our national security, because Congress was never asked. Our out of control President who was using power that he clearly did not have under law, who ignored checks&balances, decided this for us. The evidence shows that Iraq was at no time a threat to our national security. They may have been a threat to their neighbors, but again that is not our problem. That region is a million times more unstable than it was prior to our engagement.
He believes in non-intervention.
Yes he does. The United States was traditionally non-interventionist. You only use the military when the countries national security is being threatened. Again, please refer back to the Constitution, the document which is the framework that our country was built on. You cannot start making opinions and forming policy while ignoring this document. You MUST abide by it, and you MUST follow it. Can you please illustrate how a policy of non-interventionism is bad for the United States? We have no business meddling in the affairs of soveriegn nations in other parts of the world. We would certainly not like them meddling in our affairs. This arrogance that exists within Americans is disturbing to me, that we somehow feel that we can run a foreign country better than its leaders can. Perhaps we can, but it is certainly not our business. It would be completely out of line for me to come into your home right now, and tell you how you should be doing things, and how you should be raising your children, what time you should goto bed, and so on. And then if you did not do those things, for me to use force against you in order that you comply. Well use this simple principle and apply it to the way that we treat the international community. We are completely out of line.
My responses are in RED....
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by convalescence69
