Comments | pinklola: at saschas request

pinklola

at saschas request

Oct 14, 2004 09:22

Here is a list of 4 topics pertaining to this upcomming debate. Gimme answers and specifics and just maybe i wont vote for bush *muttering-doubtfully*. u guys have approximately 3 weeks to give it a shot ( Read more... )

Comments 13

lastplaceulook October 14 2004, 12:06:59 UTC

2) no, i'm not 100% sure, because we can't be. but i'm sure that there are nukes or the capability to build them in libya, north korea, iran...should i continue? i also know that there's a fair bit of unaccounted for nuclear material in(?) russia. so what do you want to do about it? does that mean we should search every inch of iraqi soil until we find some bit of nuclear anything, just to say, "see, i told you it was there"? what's the point? UN weapons inspectors need to be back in iraq, and they need to be in the other countries too. additionally, the US should allow inspectors in. i guess my point is, why does it matter if there are WMDs in iraq any more than it matters (or doesn't?) that they are in many other countries? i'm all for nonproliferation by everyone, not just by former dicators who the US doesn't like at the moment...

(The comment has been removed)

pop tart from a real store...like the one i just ate pinklola October 15 2004, 07:45:26 UTC

haha, first off i have to say i respect considerably that you do your own research for these things cuz everyone else (myself guilty till very recently) listen to the presidents and read the papers for our info. as to your point about bush being the liar in the bunch...dude...they are politicians...largely lawyers. DUH ;) "i did not have sexual relations with monica lewinsky" or that woman...whatever he said. every presidents lies. not all are caught, and maybe those "lies" were the lesser of two evils at the time, AND no one has answered me this yet...and it irks me...is it still lying if you didnt know that you werent telling the truth ( ... )

crazyserio October 16 2004, 09:54:23 UTC

hey jon, im not going to answer ur questions but heres my two cents on the issue. I think bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons. quite obviously there needs to be a stabilizing presence in the middle east. after the gulf war clinton backed out of there and we pretty much left it alone and then suddenly we had september 11th. the middle east is obviously a dangerous combination of oil rich countries with no reason to like us due to nations like Israel and with plenty of funds and religious zealots to do some serious damage. I dont really like either canidate but i do think that bush was right to further involve us in the middle east. good luck with the vote.

serio

pinklola October 19 2004, 10:38:22 UTC

agreed...fully...now its a matter of deciding the lesser of two evils...this election as far as im concerned isnt about their pasts...neither have very impressive pasts so i decide to eliminate that in the thinking. i am tempted to say the lesser of the two evils is bush, merely cuz so many of kerrys plans contradict what he wants to do...ie, create all those new programs (a shit load of them) and still decrease the deficit...just doesnt wring true to me