General Agreement with my Compatriot, and a State of Affairs

I return to blogland after a long hiatus. The reason for the hiatus was partly due to lack of time I chose to devote to things of this nature, but mostly due to the weakness in my arguments. In my mind I constantly have an argument brewing to defend the things that I believe it, but recent developments have undermined my arguments and made glaring holes in them. I often choose to avoid arguing when it is hard to discern a right and a wrong course of action. As is the case with the biggest political issue in the United States today, the War in Iraq.

Now I believe the War in Iraq was right when it started, and I do believe that it is still right and that we need to stay the course. But the blaring hole that anyone, including myself, can rip apart is the fact that our main focus for going into Iraq was WMDs, and while I really could care less if they were there or not. It is the fact that the other two countries that President Bush named in one of his famous post-9/11 speechs, Iran and North Korea, are ignored despite the fact one is confirmed to have developed a nuclear weapon, and the other is blatantly trying to get them. This paradox puts my argument in severe jeopardy. How can one argue for something based on a cause, than can be used for two other, and more dangerous countries?

Another thing is the blatant idiocy of our political system. The common people all the time pull out random quotes from people like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Confucius, that say powerful messages. It's quotes like these that people use to strengthen their arguments, but there are always quotes on the other side of the spectrum that say the exact opposite, and yet, are ignored. Are they less valid, just because they don't agree with the majority of people? That's the way it seems to be. I'll bring up a certain quote, by one of our "Greatest Presidents" according to polling of the American Public.... Jorge Washingtino.... or George Washington. I knew that George Washington said this, but he says it in a way that is much more supporting of my argument than I thought.
In relation to partisan politics:

"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

People use George Washington quotes for a variety of arguments, but this is one that attacks exactly what we have become, so it is pushed to the backburner. I am disgusted at how the American government has become a mass of two bickering parties that result in nothing productive getting done. Anyone who says American's are "united" should really think if that's true. Andrew brings up a good point:

"The magical Democrats have won based on one thing: they're not Republicans. They're not special, they're less bad."

In presidential elections, it is a shocker if a candidate gets above 50% of the popular vote. 50% of 300 million people? Half of our country agrees on one thing, and the other half agrees on something that is distinctly different. And it is very likely that a large portion of each 50% doesn't even agree with their party, they just like Andrew said, are less bad than the other. And with the latest general elections, it is clear that we have taken a turn for the worse. Democrats have triumped on the fact that they are not republicans, and even more specifically, that they are not George Bush. The opinions of the masses are contradictory to each other. George Washington advised against a multi-party system for the sake of the country. For a country to be successful and prosperous, they need to be united under a common belief or cause. Oh and just another fun fact, George Washington believed in the use of morality and RELIGION in government. People take a reference to religion in any political statement as a violation of the constitution. Washington didn't see it this way, and more than likely the founding fathers didn't either.

Andrew mentions that there will never be a draft again, and I agree unless someone takes hostile actions against us, i.e. someone gets nuked. There will not be a draft for a US-induced war. It will be a defensive war is their is a draft.

Everyone's beliefs are different, I for one believe in a powerful, and strong central government, I would not rule out warrantless arrests, unless done in an unacceptable manner. If done right, I belive it could be the right choice, but there is always that chance that it gets out of hand. There is a delicate balance between security and oppression, and that is another argument I will avoid, because it is one of those arguments where someone else's opinion I don't necessarily view as wrong, I view it as different. I could argue against myself with ease, because it is a thing that is a matter of sheer opinion. In closing, that guy is an idiot.