CaptainHaplo campaign straw poll

Aramike · 01-30-09, 02:34 AM

I think it's clear where I stand (if you've read the other thread). I understand Haplo's intentions and I would probably be more dismissive of him if not given in the context of being POTUS.

I consider myself a "centrist" because I try to always debate my points from a neutral perspective (and because there are some social issues I really couldn't give a damn about). However, when it comes to national defense I lean decidedly Conservative. I believe in a strong military and a proactive defense of our interests. I agree with the Iraq War (if not completely in its execution) as I believe it will serve our future interests immeasurably.

The problem with Haplo's idea is that it is extreme and unnecessary as it is doomed to failure. But that's not all.

I've intellectually grappled with whether or not I'd support the plan if it were guaranteed to work (even though it would undoubtedly fail) and I've concluded that I would not. One of the things that most morally distinguishes us from terrorist is that we select our targets with respect and care for civilian populations. Haplo's plan would remove that distinction. 1.7 MILLION PEOPLE live in Mecca, and it is host to countless more visitors. Any plan that would suggest their destruction makes me literally sick to my stomach. Sometimes, ideologies just aren't important.

He also argues that the carpet bombing prevailent in World War II is somehow a justification for his idea. I submit that the reason he must go as far back as World War II is because we've since developed technologies that have antiquated the practice, therefore it is not used (it was even morally questionable in those days prior to the "smart" bomb, although, given the context, I support its use in WWII).

Even so, WWII had nations and populations defined. The War on Terror has no such parallel.

Oh, and if you think that destorying cities would actually work, I submit the USSR in WWII...

View Poll Results: If the presidential election were held today would you vote for CaptainHaplo?
I am an American Citizen and I would vote FOR CaptainHaplo	2	8.70%
I am an American Citizen and I would vote AGAINST CaptainHaplo	10	43.48%
I am NOT an American Citizen but I would vote FOR CaptainHaplo if I could.	1	4.35%
I am NOT an Americian Citizen but I would vote AGAINST CaptainHaplo if I could	5	21.74%
Undecided at this time	5	21.74%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-30-09, 02:34 AM	#1
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	I think it's clear where I stand (if you've read the other thread). I understand Haplo's intentions and I would probably be more dismissive of him if not given in the context of being POTUS. I consider myself a "centrist" because I try to always debate my points from a neutral perspective (and because there are some social issues I really couldn't give a damn about). However, when it comes to national defense I lean decidedly Conservative. I believe in a strong military and a proactive defense of our interests. I agree with the Iraq War (if not completely in its execution) as I believe it will serve our future interests immeasurably. The problem with Haplo's idea is that it is extreme and unnecessary as it is doomed to failure. But that's not all. I've intellectually grappled with whether or not I'd support the plan if it were guaranteed to work (even though it would undoubtedly fail) and I've concluded that I would not. One of the things that most morally distinguishes us from terrorist is that we select our targets with respect and care for civilian populations. Haplo's plan would remove that distinction. 1.7 MILLION PEOPLE live in Mecca, and it is host to countless more visitors. Any plan that would suggest their destruction makes me literally sick to my stomach. Sometimes, ideologies just aren't important. He also argues that the carpet bombing prevailent in World War II is somehow a justification for his idea. I submit that the reason he must go as far back as World War II is because we've since developed technologies that have antiquated the practice, therefore it is not used (it was even morally questionable in those days prior to the "smart" bomb, although, given the context, I support its use in WWII). Even so, WWII had nations and populations defined. The War on Terror has no such parallel. Oh, and if you think that destorying cities would actually work, I submit the USSR in WWII...