This is topic Four reasons why nobody, liberal or conservative, should be voting for Bush in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Bickering over which policies our country should adopt is all fine and good in an election campaign, but we also should remember that sometimes a problem comes along that's so important that we need to put aside that bickering and unite to solve it. I'd argue the 2004 Presidential Election is one of those cases. We may disagree on a number of ideological issues which normally would decide who we vote upon, but this election should be a special case. This is because, in the past three years, unique events have occured to the U.S. and our nation's policies have taken a unique turn to try and confront them - a turn that we should be able to agree is completely unacceptable, on a fundamental, constitutional level.
If we reelect Bush in 2004, it will not matter why we have decidd to do it, even if it's because of a lack of quality Democratic candidates. If we reelect him, it will be an endorsement of the turn our nation has taken while his administration is in office, and this is an endorsement we cannot afford to make - for four reasons:
1. We cannot afford to endorse the elimination of basic human rights for citizens and non-citizens. Since 9/11, we have been constantly trying to find or create loopholes in the law to allow us to forego the rights of suspected terrorists or so-called "enemy combatants." The Bush Administration has made no apologies for the Patriot Act or the treatment of the captives in Guantanamo.
2. We cannot afford to endorse unilateralism and the idea that we can ignore the rest of the world. Since Bush took office in 2000, we have systematically flipped the bird to all of our prominent allies, except perhaps Britain. Few could dispute this, at this point.
3. We cannot afford to endorse the Bush Doctrine and suggest it is acceptable to invade a nation without any provocation. We have now invaded a nation with no proven association with terrorists, no proven stash of weapons of mass destruction, and that we failed to prove posed any immediate threat to us at all. The best explanation we've come up with is, it was good for the Iraqi people. Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating.
4. We cannot afford to endorse the idea that dissent is unpatriotic. Last but not least, the Bush administration has consistently portrayed dissenters to its policy as unpatriotic, and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This, I think almost everyone can agree, is not acceptable.
Some things are too important to compromise on. In 2004, liberals and conservatives need to come together. Even if you disagree with the Democratic Party platform altogether, I cannot see how you could afford to endorse these four things... unless, of course, you really believe they are the direction we should be going.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You make very good points, Tresopax. While I agree with a lot of things Bush has done, or at least claims to stand for, re-electing him would constitute an endorsement of all the abuses of power his regime has indulged in using the excuse of the 9-11 attack. The erosion of civil rights does seem to be a systematic and concerted campaign to take America in the direction of Big Brotherish tyranny, and we cannot let that go any further.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
As apathetic and apolitical as I am, I really was scared when I saw Bush's approval rating skyrocket after his two and a half hour Iraq vacation.
I think I may actually vote this year.
Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I'll be voting next year, and it definitely won't be for Bush.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I like big brother.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Those are not weighty enough reasons for me to consider voting for the opposition, Tresopax.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
::high fives scott::
I hear what you are saying tres, and I agree on some of your points. But the fact that I disagree with Bush on a few things doesn't outweigh the fact that I disagree with Dean, Kerry, Gephart, et al on just about everything. So unfortunately, I will be voting for Bush as well.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Tres- you make some good points. I agree with each of them. The prime difficulty I have is who to vote for instead of Bush.
Dean scares me with his "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" crap. I think what we need is someone who is more, not less centrist.
Clark feels like another Clinton which has both good and bad points.
Kerry doesn't seem like a leader.
Lieberman maybe?
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
I agree whole heartly with your assesment of what should happen next election. Their is little chance that I would vote for Bush in the upcoming election. Essentially telling the international community to screw themselves, we're going to invade whichever country we want to is not the best way to remain in good standings with people around the world. I may not be a Democrat, but there is no way in I'll vote for that Republican!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Really, though, what do you think are the worst trends emerging from Democrats, Scott? [edit:and others]
I tend to be split on the issues, but Bush's "screw what the rest of you think" attitude and his willingness to put civil liberties on the shelf seem much worse than any petty party difference I can think of.
Is it really worth it just to see Bush come in and stack the Supreme Court so he can keep[edit:keep] anti-abortion and anti-homosexual legislation passed? While I, personally, would like to see some good Pro-Life legislation passed, it frightens me to think of what else would be passed in the next four years.
I think the main gist of my post is: The worst I can fathom from Dems in office is far tamer than what I expect from Bush.
[ December 09, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Those are not weighty enough reasons for me to consider voting for the opposition, Tresopax.
What issues are more weighty than these?
quote:Tres- you make some good points. I agree with each of them. The prime difficulty I have is who to vote for instead of Bush.
I have that problem too, but I don't think it matters because in the end, taking a chance on a suspect candidate is a much better choice than endorsing a set of policies that seem certain to have dangerous and irreversable effects on our nation.
[ December 09, 2003, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
"We flipped the bird to the whole world."
Um, the world kind of suckerpunched us and then asked us to take it. We didn't just walk into the bar and start flapping the finger. In fact, we basically said, we're going to throw some people out of the bar, anybody want to help? I hardly call that flipping the bird, whether they wanted to help or not.
"Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating."
The message it will send is that we will respond, quickly and strongly to terrorist threats. This will accomplish two things for us. First, it will discourage leaders of nations from engaging in pro-terrorist activities, and second, it will send the message to terrorists that thier crimes will not go unpunished.
"Last but not least, the Bush administration has consistently portrayed dissenters to its policy as unpatriotic, and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This, I think almost everyone can agree, is not acceptable."
I'm going to go a step further than that:
If you think the war in Iraq was bad, you not only hate the country, but you hate my daughters, and would rather see them die in a terrorist attack then see a brutal dictator removed from power.
The uncomfortable fact (although I'm perfectly comfortable with it) is that the entire Iraq war was simply about sending a message to the Middle East, and that message was, and continues to be, clean up the mess you're making, because it's starting to spill out into the rest of the world, and while there may be some nations willing to sacrifice thier citizens to your causes, this one isn't, and will never be.
It was vital that that message be sent, and it's vital that the message say strong.
And you want to know the worst part? The entire Iraq war will be for nothing if we elect somebody who says they never would have gone in the first place. All those men's lives will be in vain, everything those men proved in order to deter future attacks and other would-be Saddams would be crushed the second some guy adresses the world from the oval office and says, "Don't worry. I would never, ever have made an attack like that."
Saddam was a known, active sponsor of terrorism. Whether or not he was actively involved with Al-Quaeda, whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction, who cares, really? He was publicly funding Palistian suicide bombers, he had terrorist training camps within the borders of his nation. Aren't we trying to fight terrorism here? In any form? Do we really think that if we crush Al-Quaida, we're done? Or should we fight terror wherever it rears it's ugly head?
Honest to goodness, anybody who even implies that we weren't justified in going to war with Saddam needs to read anything the man wrote, or spoke about. Get a book, find speeches on the internet, rent a documentary, anything. See if you don't think the world is a safer place, not just for the Iraqi people, but for your loved ones here in the states because he's gone.
It's like we're at war against the mob here--the first thing you have to do is remove the currupt mayors and police chiefs.
And do you want to know the scariest part?
When you're fighting the mob, and you meet resistance in government, it usually means the corruption runs far greater and far deeper then you thought.
Yes, I'm insinuating much of the world has ties to terrorists we have not yet begun to discover. And much of the same world delights in seeing us hurt, the same way you would have smirked to see that smug popular kid at your high school get a black eye.
But this isn't about schoolyard brawls. This is about my kid's lives, and I think what Bush did made them far safer than making some old lady take off her shoes at the airport.
So go ahead! Elect some anti-war candidate who step into the office and placate a world that hates us, and that will look the other way as more Cole Bombings and trade center attacks happen. And I'll just tell my girls to be brave, because we didn't want anybody to think we were mean when we stopped the bad men who wanted to hurt them.
Let him take with a sentance what George Bush has had to spend months, and many valuable lives, to show the nations and people of the Middle East.
It'll be great.
And you guys can rest easy, knowing that terrorists and thugs and despots are safe from "oppression" you were all-too-eager to see, because you hated George Bush so bad you'd rather see him as a ruthless dictator who needed to be thrown out of office than see Saddam as one.
So I will be voting Republican again this year, because while plenty of Democrats have told me they don't like what Bush is doing, not a one is actually voicing what they would try to do to keep my daughters safe, and drive off the men who would harm them. They all sound like they care even more about protecting the terrorists and outsting our president, than they do about protecting my kids and ousting the leaders who support terrorism.
And there are absolutely zero levels on which that appeals to me.
On the other hand, if this had been a thread about perscription drugs and medicare . . .
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Im STILL voting for Bush.
::systematically flips the bird to anyone looking::
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, if you think that people who oppose the Iraq War hate American children, and that things will be better if Middle Eastern nations get the message that we'll bomb anyone who we think is making a mess of things there, and that it's okay to invade a country unporovoked to deliver that message (even as we ignore other equally dangerous nations), and that ignoring international opinion, withdrawing from established treaties, and assigning labels like "Axis of Evil" and "Old Europe" is decent foreign policy, and if you think it's okay for us to protect American children by any means necessary, even at the expense of those children's rights and/or lives and the rights and/or lives of the children of other nations, then you should probably vote for Bush, because that's probably what you'll get.
Just don't tell me you're voting for him because you like his economic policies or because those Democrats seem like a dull bunch or something, because we really do have more important things to worry about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
For the record, while I'm Canadian, I disapproved of both Gulf Wars.
docmagik, if I distill your post down to its essence, what I get is this:
"I want America to live in a perpetual state of fear."
Good post, Tres. Speaking as a fellow North American, I really don't want to see America re-elect Bush.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:. . . it will send the message to terrorists that thier crimes will not go unpunished.
Excuse me, but when most of the terrorists the United States is targeting are willing to kill themselves for whatever end they are trying to achieve, what makes you think the threat of punishment will do any good?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Doc, I supported the war, until I found out that the reasons we were told about the war were in error.
I never supported the way President Bush tried to run the war, or to disregard anyone who had a different opinion than he did.
Does this mean I want to see your wife and children hurt? No.
It means I don't think we are accomplishing much by hurting other wives and children.
1) Iraq never had any connections with terrorism other than a few bucks it sent to some Palestinean bombers. While that is bad, it pales in comparison to the support terrorists around the world get from people in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc.
As a secular leader Hussein fought the terrorists and the religious fanatics, prefering to be the big homicidal nut in the bunch.
You argue that our invasion of Iraq sent a message to the Middle East, Terrorists will be executed.
The message I see being sent is, "Fear the Americans. They will invade anyone they want for no reason. They hate us and will kill us if we let them. Kill them all before they kill us."
Worse, your rant that bombing any mid-east country is a good revenge reeks of racism. You are painting the whole mid-east with one big brush.
I know people from those countries. They are as different as you and I. THeir politics range the entire spectrum, as do their religious beliefs. To say the only way to deal with everyone in and entire region is to bomb a few and let God sort it out is not a winning formula. To say "We have the bigger guns, so do what we say" is not that far removed from saying, "we have more suicide bombers, so do what we say."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What issues are weightier?
I have hangups on abortion and gay marriages, specifically.
I have not seen any cases of legal dissent or protest against the Patriot Act being prosecuted.
And while we're on the topic of the Patriot Act, please remember than there was only one detractor-- one nay vote.
One.
Bush didn't put it through Congress on the strength of republican majority-- just about everyone supported him when they thought that it was good for them politically.
Wow. That was really cynical. . .
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So give me four reasons to vote for...who?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know.... *sigh*
I just HATE the fact that otherwise reasonable people are going to vote for the destruction of the country because their religion is stuck in a mindset that treats homosexuals like second-class citizens, and they fear any change to the contrary.
I mean, I LIKE Christians, but I'm going to have to start blaming them for a lot of stuff pretty soon. Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
Just please don't blame all of us, Tom! Some of us can think more broadly than that. I promise.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't vote for Bush, I voted for Nader because I feel the two party system is broken. It was a genuine question. Not rhetorical. How would Dean fix these problems? The way I see it, he may get us out of Iraq, send home the detainees, but we will still be stuck with the Patriot Act and Homeland security.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Actually twinky, if you distill doc's post down to it's essence, and excise all euphemisms, what you get is "America will whip the hell out of anyone who ****s with us." Bush made it very clear long ago, either you're us, or you're them. And if you're them, we'll be more than happy to hand your ass right to you.
<---------Is definately voting for Bush and is completely unashamed of the fact.
::walks away humming "hail to the chief::
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Scott,
You're more concerned with the legal status of fetuses and the definition of a marriage than you are about wars in your name, or the refusal of due process to innocents, or threats to the culture of free speech on which our democracy is founded? I think you may be abandoning the baby to save the toaster....
For one thing, Bush has been in office for 3 years now and little has changed to resolve the abortion and homosexuaity issues. There's little reason to think reelecting him is going to achieve anything more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Bush made it very clear long ago, either you're us, or you're them."
O'Douls, who gets to define who "us" is? That seems to be a very relevant question.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
The abortion and homosexuality issues will NEVER be "solved" by any president, Democrat, Republican, Green Party, Liberal, conservative, midget, metrosexual, deosnt matter that vantage point or idealogy. NO president can please everyone on this one. there is NO compromise possible with such difficult issues fervently advocated or condemned by such extremes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How would Dean fix these problems?
Dean probably can't fix them any better than Bush can, although he can probably do it much more gracefully.
But the important thing is, since the economy is doing better now, if Bush doesn't get reelected then everyone will know why. It will send a clear message not only to our own government officials but also to the rest of the world that we are not a people that thinks its okay to "whip the hell out of anyone who ****s with us." It will send a clear message that we are a reasonable, fair people that actually does care about human rights, human lives, and interests other than our own. That's the first step in rebuilding a coalition to solve the world's terrorism problems, among many other things.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Who's "us" Any country that declares that, as a matter of policy, they are aligned with the US in rooting out elements of terrorism at the very least within their own borders and declares that, as a matter of policy, they will NOT support, sponsor or harbor, provide asylum for, or supply weapons of an y kind to terrorists of any faction, faith, or cause. (for me personally, this includes people who bomb abortion clinics in the US).
Id say that about covers it decently enough.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The way that our system works virtually guarantees that we will have two dominate political parties.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Bush made it very clear long ago, either you're us, or you're them. And if you're them, we'll be more than happy to hand your ass right to you. << (odouls)
I'm aware that he said that. I think it's one of the most ridiculous statements ever made by a Western political leader, and it scares me. It's even more ridiculous than Bush criticising Putin for spending more on his campaign than the other candidates while simultaneously raising more to fund his own next campaign than has ever been raised in American history. Even more ridiculous than Bush lifting the steel tariffs "because everyone is better off in a world that trades freely and a world that trades fairly."
"You're either with us or with them" implies that, for example, Canada is "with them," because we did not and will not support your show of force in Iraq. Iraq – who, let me remind you, has never done anything to the United States – deserved its ass handed to it because it was "with them?" With whom? Who exactly are these "terrorists?" Rogue nations? How's about Pakistan and North Korea, then? Both of them pose a far greater danger to the world than Iraq ever did, but you're content to ally with the former and ask the UN to deal with the latter.
Oh, and this:
>> "America will whip the hell out of anyone who ****s with us." << (odouls)
...is a load of $&#%, and you know it. You'll whip the hell out of anyone you please, whether they mess with you or not. That is what the Bush Doctrine is all about. You'll mess with anyone who it serves your own strategic interests to keep down.
>> I didn't vote for Bush, I voted for Nader because I feel the two party system is broken. << (pooka)
Good for you! Now if only more Americans realized that...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: You're more concerned with the legal status of fetuses and the definition of a marriage than you are about wars in your name, or the refusal of due process to innocents, or threats to the culture of free speech on which our democracy is founded? I think you may be abandoning the baby to save the toaster....
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, Tres.
quote:I just HATE the fact that otherwise reasonable people are going to vote for the destruction of the country because their religion is stuck in a mindset that treats homosexuals like second-class citizens, and they fear any change to the contrary.
The destruction of the country, Tom?
Wow. Just America? I was hoping to be a little more ambitious-- I plan on destroying California, too.
Really, me and Babe, and Paul Bunyan, and Hiawatha, Big John-- we're the League of Hyperbole. Wanna join? You'd fit right in.
[ December 09, 2003, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Negative. no country is obliged to show support for our action in iraq. Canada is however obligated not to sponser acts of terrorists through financial funding, safe haven, or supply of weapons. If it was me, i would personally ask Canada to go one step futher and work with US security agencies in ensuring that candian borders were secure against terrorist entry onto US soil through cancada or vice versa. but that would be a request for joint benefit, and certainly is no obligation.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are you planning to reply to my other points, or shall I make another post?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Just please don't blame all of us, Tom! Some of us can think more broadly than that. I promise.
First off, I agree very strongly with Vana on this one.
Tresopax, It seems you obviously don't like the turn of events that our country is taking. You blame the Bush administration for all that is going wrong. Nearly all of the actions that happened in Iraq were not only backed by our exucutive branch, but our bicameral legislature backed as well. People in that legislature that citizens of this country voted for. It was democratic choice made by the people of this country through their representatives and senators.
You just want to use Bush as a scapegoat just because you don't want him in office.
That being said, I wish I didn't have to vote for Bush, because I'm not a big fan, but the alternatives are people I have huge disagreements with.
twinky,
quote: Good for you! Now if only more Americans realized that...
I agree that the two-party system is failing. What the United States originally at the beginning was the set the Senate and the House of Representatives against each other, and the two parties in each half allied with each other. Now it's half the Senate and Half the House versus the other half, the Democrats on one side, and the Republicans on the other.
That makes no sense to me...
But....
quote: Good post, Tres. Speaking as a fellow North American, I really don't want to see America re-elect Bush.
So because I didn't agree with Tresopax's post, I'm not a "fellow North American?" Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I hear they got these libertarian candidates now a’ days.
Hobbes Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
go ahead and post. im totally unfamiliar with the campaign funds and steel tariffs.
and your opinion of the bush doctrine is just that, an opinion, which your entitled to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> So because I didn't agree with Tresopax's post, I'm not a "fellow North American?" <<
Er, what? I reread my post, including the bit you quoted there, and don't see how it says that. I'm a "fellow North American," and I'm speaking in that capacity (as opposed to, say, as a Palestinian or Kiwi Canadian; I'm both of those things as well). I don't say anything about what anyone else is or isn't. Obviously I can't speak as an American.
>> That makes no sense to me... <<
Nor to me. The Canadian Senate is a useless body that never does anything; we may as well get rid of it. Your Senate is actually important, but it doesn't balance things the way it's supposed to. I'm not sure how your system could be fixed without fairly radical changes, though...
>> im totally unfamiliar with the campaign funds and steel tariffs. <<
If I were an American, I'd file that sort of stuff under "things I need to know to be an informed voter." And I think an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all. Really, as participants in the democratic process, it is incumbent upon all voting citizens to be well-informed. Steel tariffs aren't such a big deal since it was more noticeable outside of the US, but the campaign funding issue is huge. Worth looking into, because of the impact it has on the democratic process.
>> and your opinion of the bush doctrine is just that, an opinion, which your entitled to. <<
No, it's an assertion backed by facts, there's an enormous difference. How the Bush Doctrine has been applied over the course of Bush's tenure as President demonstrates unequivocally what its goals are – and even if it didn't, the Doctrine itself states those same goals clearly, which is why it's one of the scariest documents ever put to paper in a Western nation.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Good post, Tres. Speaking as a fellow North American, I really don't want to see America re-elect Bush.
I thought you said spoken, not Speaking. My mistake.... Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:blame the Bush administration for all that is going wrong.
Well, no. I don't blame him for 9/11 or the recession. I just blame him for the policies his administration has trumpeted since he's been in office.
Actually, I was neutral on the question of who should be elected in 2000. I was one of those rolling my eyes at the liberals predicting the end of the world when Bush won. I ended up voting for Gore, largely because I was suspicious of Bush's lack of foreign policy experience (apparently rightly so), but I had no strong feelings on the matter. It was only through his administration's actions and policies that they earned my opposition.
[ December 09, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
No it is not an assertion backed by facts. It is an opinion backed by nothing but other people's opinons.
And being that you are NOT an American, you really don't have a whole lot of say in the American democratic process, including the election of the president.
And being that you are not ME, it really makes no difference to me what you would file under 'need to know to be an informed' anything.
I dont give a flying shit about campaign finance issues. I truly never have. Mud slinging between candidates about who's getting theyre money by stroking off whom never interested me. If I personally ever run for elected office ill run a clean campaign with clean money. beyond that, i dont care.
What i DO care about is the security of the nation, and the safety of the men and women defending our country and fighting to preserve the way of life that we Americans have come to love dearly. And those men and women in uniform include some of my closest and dearest friends and relatives.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: And being that you are NOT an American, you really don't have a whole lot of say in the American democratic process, including the election of the president.
No, but that doesn't invalidate his opinion. That seems like you're trying to side-step the issue. That comes across as haughty.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Psst... Nick, odouls has always come across as haughty, it's his posting style. At least, that is how it has seemed to me.
Just an FYI. I take no opinion on the substance of odouls' opinion.
I'm taking a break from this topic, for the time being.
-Bok
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
When did i ever say his opinon was invalid? If you look closely i distictly state that he IS entitled to his opinion.
what im stating in what youve quoted is in no way inaccurate. he is not american and therefore has no say in the american electoral process.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have very few rules in life.
One of them is, never trust anyone who says "trust me."
Another is never pass up free chocolate.
A third is, whenever some one says, "You are either with us or against us." get away from them.
Why? Because its egotistical to believe that everyone has the same passion for the subject that you do.
Now it has been said that where international terrorists are concerned, you are either with us or against us.
Why?
There are a lot of countries in the world that have other problems on their hands--Aids epidemics, starvation, brutal dictators who enjoy torture and murder. There are nations that face losses like ours on 9/11 every month due to other problems like those listed above. There are good people in these countries who are too busy trying to survive to spend time and resources checking through banking records for illegal deposits, or maintaining their borders.
Some say that Iraq proves we won't take @#$@ from anyone. That you are with us or against us. Don't you see how to many smaller countries this attitude means you are either our puppet or our enemy?
There are countries and people who have little to fear from terrorists, but have a lot to fear from an aggressive Super Power.
From the day he was elected President Bush has demonstrated and attitude that, "The US is big enough and strong enough that we do not need to negotiate. We do what we want."
That arrogance is why petty leaders are now fighting him every step of the way.
That fear is why others are standing up to him. No countries leader wants to be seen as President Bush's lapdog, so the President's team has to fight for everything.
And others support our enemies, not to support terror, but to keep the US busy, so we don't decide to invade some other country that we do not believe is firmly, "with us."
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
yeah bok's got me pegged. i do always come off like that. i admit it with pride. in fact, im interested to know how many threads come up on a search of "odouls" "i know im an asshole"
though the second statement leaves me at a loss as to whether or not ive been insulted. shoot off a flare if i should be. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
YEAH?! WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT I SAY TO THAT?!!!
'Bees are not toys.' that is my rule. though i may soon have to add 'never pass up free choclate.'
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It means that I have fairly well known ideas on this topic, or that people on this board could certainly extrapolate ones from previous statements (correctly or not), and I didn't want people think I was just picking on you because I may or may not disagree with you. Also, with your only recent reappearance, a lot of people may not have known this, and think I was deciding willy-nilly (<-- I like that term).
But what I wrote earlier is much more concise
-Bok
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Oh i read ya "This is not an indictment of odouls's current topic of conversation, just generally how he's been over the years. Neither here nor there about the stuff he;s talking about, but the way he's saying it is just classic odoul's"
Understood. Thanks Bok. You gotta stay around for my next reappearance, scheduled for June '04. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ridiculous. That whole black/white them vs us thing hasn't worked in the past and it isn't working now. Do you know what you call doing the same thing repeatly and expecting different results is called?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
insanity, according to a certain philsopher.
but you know what i call insane? talking to cheese. i mean really, does cheese really have anything important to say?
(apologies to anyone on the board who might be named 'cheese' i am speaking of fermented dairy.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> No it is not an assertion backed by facts. It is an opinion backed by nothing but other people's opinons. <<
Opinion: I am afraid of the Bush Doctrine.
Assertion: The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole.
The two are not one and the same.
>> And being that you are NOT an American, you really don't have a whole lot of say in the American democratic process, including the election of the president. <<
So what? So I shouldn't bother talking about it, since I don't get a vote? Since I live directly north of America, if someone decides to war with America, there's a good chance I'll be affected.
>> And being that you are not ME, it really makes no difference to me what you would file under 'need to know to be an informed' anything. <<
Obviously not. I'll just file you under "uninformed."
>> What i DO care about is the security of the nation, and the safety of the men and women defending our country and fighting to preserve the way of life that we Americans have come to love dearly. And those men and women in uniform include some of my closest and dearest friends and relatives. <<
In other words, "I'm more important than anyone else, and American interests are worth pursuing even at the expense of the interests of most of the other people in the world." I don't suppose you can see how that approach is already alienating many other nations, including some of your own "friends and allies?" There's patriotism and then there's nationalism.
Oh, and they aren't fighting to preserve your way of life at all, since it wasn't under threat from Iraq. That much was patently obvious even before the first Gulf War.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote: Negative. no country is obliged to show support for our action in iraq. Canada is however obligated not to sponser acts of terrorists through financial funding, safe haven, or supply of weapons. If it was me, i would personally ask Canada to go one step futher and work with US security agencies in ensuring that candian borders were secure against terrorist entry onto US soil through cancada or vice versa. but that would be a request for joint benefit, and certainly is no obligation.
I thought Canada was already doing this...? Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Since George W. Bush has been elected
173,000 Americans have died from Air Pollution 121,000 Americans have died in traffic accidents 52,000 Americans have died because they had inadequate access to medical care 3100 Americans have died due to terrorism.
The man is fighting the wrong war.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Which is why canada is not under the 'them' column kasie
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Not only that, but the new Prime Minister is talking like he wants to sigh on to the missile defence program
...hopefully it's just because he wants a say in how it goes seeing as how we both occupy North America.
Actually, I really don't like our new Prime Minister.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole"
That is still anopinion. You have no idea what result the Bush doctrine will have on the world as a whole. It could usher in an era of peace and prosperity, it oculd end in the annihalation of all life on earth, it could result in the over abundance of brussel sprouts in scandinavian kindergarten classrooms. you have no idea. it is your OPINION however, that it will be harmful to the world. and that is fine.
Opinion: The Bush Doctrine's application will be harmful to the world as a whole.
Fact: I have to pee.
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
Here is a question for those who oppose Bush's policies.
1) What would your ideal president have done, after the events of Sept. 11th? How would he (or she) have handled the evidence pointing to BinLaden being the mastermind of 9/11.
2) If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified? Many are saying that our war is not justified because we dont have any proof. But imagine that there was clear and ample proof that all the claims were true, then were we right to attack?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No, it's an assertion. Assertions are be supported by facts, and require factual disproof, not "it's just an opinion" dismissal.
If you were to argue that you don't have to show that the Bush Doctrine will usher in an era of global peace and prosperity because America has the biggest stick and everyone else had damn well better fall in line, that would also be a valid counter-argument, though it would kind of make my point for me.
Edit: cryuseh, I'll get to work on answers to those questions for you.
[ December 09, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Canada did do this.
The supplied information on one of their citizens stopped at an airport.
Thier police files were given to our Immigration and Naturalization people so we could question this man.
What was his crime?
He was born in Syria. (but left their 15 years ago)
His friends brother may have some yet unproven connection to Al Queda.
This friends brother signed as witness on his lease.
He was returning home from vacation, and stopped to change planes in New York City.
The US took this obviously dangerous man, and deported him.
Now to Canada where he has citizenship. They did not turn their info to the Canadian government with this detainee for prosecution in Canada.
After all, Canada would have probably let him go being a citizen who had done nothing wrong.
Instead, they sent him back to Syria.
Back to a country where he spent a year being tortured.
Why was he tortured?
Was it at the request of the US to gather info from him?
Was it because his older brother joined an Anti-government political group? The price to pay for being anti-president in Syria is torture, for you and for your family.
What is known is that he told his American captors that he would be tortured if sent to Syria. He begged and pleaded not to be sent to Syria.
He wanted to be sent home, to Canada.
Syria even refused to take him.
They shipped him off to Syria anyway, despite US Law that will not allow people to be deported to places they will face torture.
When his story leaked out, many Canadian people were upset. They started demanding that thier government explain why they would let this happen to a Canadian citizen.
Their great ally to the south, whom they helped with all this information, responded, "If you want to know why we shipped Mr. Arar to Syria, ask the Canadian Government."
Yes, the US sought hard to distance themselves from this mess. Sure, Canada was with us, but we didn't want to be with them on this.
The case of Mr. Maher Arar shows how arrogant the US's policies have become, and how scarey the US appears to be acting toward the rest of the world.
And a lot of those policies must be laid at the feet of our president. If he is not responsible for them, then he has failed to be a leader.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I dont have to counter argue anything. The fact is that you are purporting to know the future. If that is the case, Id like next week's lottery numbers. If that is not the case, admit that youre stating an opinion, accept my admission that you are entitled to that opinion, and get on with your life. Itll be ok if your opinion never festers into fact. I promise. it wont hurt.
now, about htose lottery numbers...
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
i would also like to enter into evidence this link to dictionary.com's definition of "assertion" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=assertion "n 1: a declaration that is made as if no supporting evidence were necessary" "2.Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof"
[ December 09, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> 1) What would your ideal president have done, after the events of Sept. 11th? How would he (or she) have handled the evidence pointing to BinLaden being the mastermind of 9/11. <<
I'd say that the operation in Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban denied that they were harboring Osama, but America knew he was there and went to get him. However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on. Much more attention is being paid by the Administration to the reconstruction of Iraq; after all, Afghanistan has no natural resources to speak of. In short, what I'd like to see is more overt support for the new Afghani government from America. More help in dealing with the warlords.
Also, the whole "if you're not with us, you're with them" mentality, and the Bush Doctrine itself, give me the heebie-jeebies. They could have gone to Afghanistan without declaring a global war of undefined scope that has as one of its stated aims keeping America at the top of the world heap.
>> 2) If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified? Many are saying that our war is not justified because we dont have any proof. But imagine that there was clear and ample proof that all the claims were true, then were we right to attack? <<
For me, the issue is the whole war on terror. Yes, if Hussein had been developing WMDs and contravening the ceasfire agreement of Gulf War 1, then some sort of UN action would have been justified. If there had been concrete proof, there would have been concrete UN action, so I think that unilateral American action would still have been unjustified.
However, America had already dealt with the government that harboured Osama. Iraq had no links to any non-Palestinian terrorist organizations, and Hussein's support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad did not, according to the US Administration, extend to weapons – only money for the families of suicide bombers. Iraq, then, was wholly irrelevant to the war on terror. Any action in Iraq would have had to have been declared as being wholly separate from the war on terror for me to be even partially okay with it.
So no. I don't really see any circumstances under which I'd be okay with America unilaterally attacking Iraq.
>> The fact is that you are purporting to know the future. << (odouls)
No, because it has already been harmful. Shall I choose a different word than "assertion?"
[ December 09, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: If all that has been said about Saddam and Iraq, in regards to having WMDs and the ability to release them in short amounts of time, were true. If it was all true, then was our preemtive attack justified?
Absolutely not. Turn the tables. The US has (by its own reports) enormous stocks of WMDs including the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons. We have used them repeatedly and continue to threaten to use them. We have provided ruthless dictators (i.e. Saddam) with both actual WMDs and the technology to make them. If we were justified in invading Iraq, then any country in the world is justified to invade us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Scott, I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm engaging in hyperbole -- but let's face it. From where I'm standing, your challenges to Tres' points consisted of "Yeah, all four of those points ARE pretty bad, and Bush HAS done 'em, but those other guys think homosexuals should get married."
It sounds to me like a lot of Christians really have their priorities messed up.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
We've repeatedly used nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Who have we nuked recently? Who have we dropped canisters of nerve gas on?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"I'd say that the operation in Afghanistan was justified. The Taliban denied that they were harboring Osama, but America knew he was there and went to get him. However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on. Much more attention is being paid by the Administration to the reconstruction of Iraq"
Twinky, here you and I are in total agreement. I frequent military websites and forums and Im very concerned that the media scope has all but utterly abandoned operations in afghanistan. I have two friends that were in afghanistan and it must be an absolute morale crusher to be part of a 'forgotten war' (the phrase used by a SF soldier in afghanistan). There is still shooting going on there. A lot of it, despite what the lack of mainstream intel would lead one to believe. I doubt it is because of the lack of natural resources though. I think it is more because verylittle being found there now. Our special operations forces did such a phenomenal job at the outset in finding wepons cache's and disrupting terrorist actions while training afghanis to fight the war themselves, that there is not a hwole lot left to find and/or report. Though i wish nearly as much attention was being paid to our men and women in uniform there, if for noting else to confirm to them that what they are doing is not being taken for granted. In Iraq, however, the failure to find weapons and the like IS the news. Hence the huge media push there. Is it right? hell no. is it in keeping with the media mind? i would say yes. but thats just my opinion.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I have two friends that were in afghanistan and it must be an absolute morale crusher to be part of a 'forgotten war' (the phrase used by a SF soldier in afghanistan). There is still shooting going on there. A lot of it, despite what the lack of mainstream intel would lead one to believe. <<
Yes, that's true. I should have been more accurate – less shooting than in Iraq. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan seem equally frustrated – the media only gives them the time of day when some of them die.
>> I doubt it is because of the lack of natural resources though. I think it is more because verylittle being found there now. Our special operations forces did such a phenomenal job at the outset in finding wepons cache's and disrupting terrorist actions while training afghanis to fight the war themselves, that there is not a hwole lot left to find and/or report. Though i wish nearly as much attention was being paid to our men and women in uniform there, if for noting else to confirm to them that what they are doing is not being taken for granted. <<
I do think that Afghanistan's lack of natural resources comes into play. There is no debate about the Administration's motives for going to Afghanistan, but there is debate with respect to Iraq. So I'd say that's what fuels the media focus...
>> In Iraq, however, the failure to find weapons and the like IS the news. Hence the huge media push there. Is it right? hell no. is it in keeping with the media mind? i would say yes. but thats just my opinion. <<
Very true, but I also think that the Administration is focusing more on Iraq, though for very different reasons – I think they're trying to focus on Iraq because they think it has been more successful than Afghanistan.
Edit:
To get back on topic, I really want to see more from Scott R. I want him to expand a bit more on his view, because I disagree with his chosen priorities and I want to understand why he uses these priorities as the basis of his voting choice.
[ December 09, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Twinky I agree with all you said, but I think it goes farther.
What President Bush has done since 9/11 is only part of the problem.
What he did before 9/11 is also important.
From the first days of his election campaign he was declaring US strength while declaring US atipathy toward any foriegn affairs. He backed away from the Isreali/Palestien conflict, letting it handle itself, with the resulting violence catching him by surprise.
He backed out of, or distanced himself from many international treaties and organizations. Did he have reason to keep the US out of the world court? That is debatable. Could he have done it without making it look like the US was turning isolationist? I think so.
NOTE: I am not saying that any of his policies caused or led to 9/11.
What they did lead to was the speed in which the sympathy of the world vanished.
What would I have done differently?
1) No Ashcroft to begin with. 2) No Guantanamo Gulag. We have people held in Guantanamo who are not POWs. Yet President Bush claims we are having a "War on Terrorism" and asks the court to waive US Citizens rights (whom are charged with being "Enemy Combatants") because we are in a state of war. How can it be both? 3) No Rumsfeld. He has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the worst time. 4) No Iraq in conjunction with the war on Terrorism. Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia are all more likely candiates to harbor terrorists, and two of those are our friends. 5) No them or us. Just say, "Either you are with us, or we ask you stay out of the way." Even that is a bit too black and white. 6) Fight back with information. This is a war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the mid-east. However it appears our best people are working hardest to win the hearts and votes of US citizens. The war on Terrorism is more important as Internal Politics than Foriegn Affairs. 7) I would listen to the experts. Much of the President's decision on Iraq came from Iraqi refugees who had an agenda. They wanted Iraq freed, so they lied. They were caught faking the evidence that made President Bush misspeak last year. More reliabe was the CIA and other intelligence services. These were ignored.
Iraq: What if all that was said about the WMD was true?
Then the war is justified.
However, the fact that it was not true means that our government failed in its intelligence role. Since that failure seems to have been not on behalf of the CIA or Military intelligence, but on the decision makers who reside over them. It is they who should be fired.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:We've repeatedly used nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Who have we nuked recently? Who have we dropped canisters of nerve gas on?
You miss my point. I didn't say recently, I said repeatedly. We are the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. We provided Saddam Hussein with nerve gas to use against Iraq so we are at least in part responsible for the canisters he dropped. GW threatened to use nukes against Iraq just months ago.
Whether or not you believe that the US is justified in these actions is irrelevant. If we are justified in invade Iraq simply because we feared that Saddam might have WMDs and use them, then anyone in the world is equally justified in invading the US because we do infact have large stockpiles of WMDs and because in our history we have given plenty of people reason to fear us.
Technically, Saddam Hussein hadn't dropped nerve gas on anyone recently either. That was in fact a point made repeatedly in the lead up to the war. If that Iraqs use of chemical weapons on Iran 20 years ago made along with suspisions that they still had WMDS them a "clear and present" danger -- doesn't the fact that we gave him those weapons and verifiably have stockpiles of them today make us a clear and present danger?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
The afghanistan vs iraq success question depends on the yardstick for success.
Did we find WMD? no, not really. Did we liberate the people of iraq from saddam hussein? Yes
Operation Iraqi Freedom was the swiftest, most successful campaign in American history, militarily, and from the standpoint of civilian casualties and treatment of POWs, it was the most humane. (though debates about civilities of war leave me with a bad taste. NO ONE wants to kill others. well, crazy people, but other than that, no one.)
It would seem that the 'failure' in afghanistan was the failure to find osama bin ladin, but then again, we didnt find saddam either.
The missions, as it were would seem to have been different in the minds of the public. Whereas Afghanistan was thought of as 'the hunt for bin ladin' iraq was thought of as 'the hunt for big icky bombs' by that measure, both operations were failures. The actual stated missions however, in both cases, was to liberate the opressed people and trounce out any vestiges of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations. by that measure, i believe we were successful enough on boht counts so far, though both are still very very much in progress. In afghanistan however, the forces were primarily Special Operations forces comprised mainly of Army Special Forces to fight as well as train afghan freedom fighters, Navy SEALs, and Air force combat controllers. (im sure there were pararescue jumpers as well, but i cannot verify that right now and so will not list them here) The combat capabilities, tactics, equipment, weapons and organization of these units is for the most part very secretive, and very classified in many instances. As opposed to the war in Iraq in which it was comprised mostly of main force units with reportrs embedded and 24 hour realtime picture. only one reporter was allowed to spend any time with Navy SEALs in Iraq and i dont know if there were any with other special forces units. Even the SEALs who were the doorkickers in the rescue of jessica lynch refused to be interviewed, photographed or even named in the public record. (i am of course excluding the video footage of the assault that really does not lend itself to being able to identify the SEALs themselves.)
[ December 09, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:If we are justified in invade Iraq simply because we feared that Saddam might have WMDs and use them, then anyone in the world is equally justified in invading the US because we do infact have large stockpiles of WMDs and because in our history we have given plenty of people reason to fear us.
You're leaving out an important fact: Iraq was not allowed to have WMDs. There's no such prohibition against the US. Thus, anyone in the world is not equally justified in invading the US.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Thank you Jon Boy, i was wondering if anyone was gonna say it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd like to add a few points:
We cannot afford to elect a president who ignores economic reality. I am in particular referring to his social security plan and his assertions about his tax cuts. Attempting to offload the effects of deliberately incorrect assumptions on later Presidents and the American people is vile. And yes, I said deliberately. He's an MBA and can do basic macroecon, presumably.
We cannot afford to elect a president who doesn't have the guts to (or worse, is so two faced he doesn't) fund his own declared priorities. Where is the educational funding? Where is the AmeriCorps funding? Where is the LIHEAP funding?
Perhaps some more later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Remember, fugu, none of that is as important as blowing up the terrorists and keeping homosexuals promiscuous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom, do you think any kind of society-sanctioned formal promise would stop promiscuous individuals? Why? It doesn't stop heterosexual ones.
Or are you saying that if homosexuals can get married, they'd enmass move to the no-sex-before-marriage idea?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Stop? No. Reduce? Almost certainly. There are still many people who consider their obligations.
That said, I consider it one of the least important arguments for legalizine homosexual civil unions or marriages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I consider it one of the MORE important arguments, since reducing homosexual promiscuity should I think be an important goal of society -- but, yes, I believe that allowing homosexuals to publicly declare a union that is not only sanctioned but supported by society will greatly increase the durability of such unions.
As I know a large number of homosexuals, and am reasonably familiar with the subculture, it is my opinion -- which, mind you, is not particularly popular with homosexuals themselves -- that most aspects of the so-called "gay lifestyle" which seem shocking and/or dangerous to the "straights" are merely responses to closeting and low self-esteem that will go out of vogue as future generations see less need to hide their status.
[ December 09, 2003, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That said, I consider it one of the least important arguments for legalizine homosexual civil unions or marriages.
It's been identified as the only one that has a chance of working.
Tom, I don't believe it when men blame their need for a mistress on not being understood by their wives either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, think for a moment about what you just said.
A man is unsatisfied with his current partner, so he goes and finds another partner. That's not unreasonable, but you get upset about it because he's a man who made a promise to a woman before God and before society that he'd stick with her, no matter what, and work things out.
Homosexuals have no such promise.
Do you believe that a woman should stick with a boyfriend, even if he makes her unhappy, or should she look for another boyfriend after trying to make things work for, say, two or three months?
What keeps a man with a woman he no longer prefers? Why does he take a mistress instead of dropping her altogether? Why are we MAD at him for taking this mistress? Why does society insist that he try to be satisfied by his wife, instead?
The answer to that is also the reason homosexuals need marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Marriage, in its current state in the country, is no impediment to someone seeking a new wife or a mistress if he's tired of his current one.
It can't work both ways. You can't have a loose and slidey version of marrige, and then claim that it is a binding, solemn contract that tames society.
In your above scenario, it just means that the new paramour for the promiscuous person would be an extra-marital affair.
If someone's a promiscuous person, being married doesn't stop them.
If they're not the promiscuous kind, not being married doesn't make them one.
[ December 09, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Dang it, this thread has gotten too long. I was planning to post, but I can't make it anything more than a venomous diatribe now.
One line of argument, and I'll shut up. Debate it how you will: Civil rights mean nothing to the dead.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. See, you believe that people are "the promiscuous kind" or not.
I reject that premise. I think that, sure, some people are less faithful than other people, based on their upbringing -- but I also believe that ANY person can be faithful under the right circumstances, and any person can and would cheat under opposite circumstances.
-------
Mac: how many rights should the living be grateful to give up?
[ December 09, 2003, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Wow. This turned into a homosexuality thread.
Um, okay.
:walks away:
::Mumbling, as he leaves::
. . . Living with your head in the sand and your butt up in the air to be kicked isn't the same as living without fear . . .
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"This thread is so gay." -I forgot who said it but it was said by someone else in another thread that was derailed by homosexuality debate.
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
Another reason not to vote for Bush in the upcomng election might be how is pushing for Taiwan not to break free of China grip for economic reasons. China, who has been recently been economically growing exponentially at the expense of all human rights, doesn't want China to get democracy. Bush of course doesn't want to anger China who is the largest trade giant of ours, but he does give China a slight rebuff about their lack of any human rights. And then he essentially tells Taiwan to get back into line. Apparently Bush would rather push for female circumcision to get a dollar, than to see some rights for the people in Taiwan. How depressing it is to relize we elected him. Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
I'm actually really surprised that Bush would actually say that he believes in a one china policy.
I'm sure the government of Taiwan is going to like that idea (since they've been working closer to being an independant state).
Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
Bush seems to be buying into the "What China wants; China gets" idea. China who I believe has numerous missle launchers pointed at Taiwan.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sorry to be frivolous...
quote: One of them is, never trust anyone who says "trust me."
That rules out Aladdin.
quote: A third is, whenever some one says, "You are either with us or against us." [Run away, or something to that effect]
That rules out Gaston.
What's with the Disney Film references?
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
I should be studing, not posting, but there are a few things I really want to say.
One, this taking away of rights, if someone might be a terrorist, or even related to one. There is no way we should ever be able to justify supporting it. It's like ASKING for more witch trials, or communist trials, just a new name-suspected terrorrist. On the basis of that alone, I can't see how we can justify voting for Bush.
Two, the CDC. Not a lot of publicity, but the Bush Administration has forced them to switch a LARGE portion of their budget (somewhere between 20 to 40 percent, I can't remember) to research on chemical bioagents. One, if mass attacks were made, it's unlikely that the research would be able to help much, because many of the people would already be dead. Two, people are dying of regular diseases every day. It doesn't make the news, it's nothing new, but the budget cut on research in regular diseases means that cures and medicines will come slower. Which means more people will die. It's stupid.
Three, katarina, I wish I could find the article, but it was an editorial in the newspaper about how homosexuals might save marraige, because they've already defied society by chosing to show what they are, but want it anyway, not because of society, but for it's own sake. I'll try to type out the article monday, if I can get it from my sister, who cut it out and saved it. But he made a good point. These people don't need marraige for any reason, and those who choose it....may just add some meaning back to those vows, since it will be something more important to them than it has become to many people.
[ December 09, 2003, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Slacker, the official position of the U.S. government for the past several presidents, including Republicans and Democrats, has been to accept that there is one China. But we also recognize that China is not united in government, and we will not allow the mainland government to forcibly impose it's rule on Taiwan without their consent. We consider the final form of government for all of China yet to be determined. By recognizing that Taiwan is part of China, we avoid being in a position where the mainland government can legitimately accuse us of trying to take Taiwan away from China. We just won't let them take it back, which is a wonderful diplomatic distinction.
Give the past several U.S. presidents credit. This is a clever policy.
This is actually a logical outgrowth of the history of Taiwan. Following World War II when the communists rebels led by Mao Tse Tung were taking over the Chinese mainland by force, they were taking over from Chiang Kai Shek. They drove Chiang Kai Shek and his army step by step out of the territories they previously controlled, and eventually drove them to fall back to a last stronghold, on Taiwan. Since the U.S. Seventh Fleet controlled the Taiwan Straight, or at least kept its fleet nearby and threatened to move its fleet in there if the communists tried to launch an invasion, the communists could not pursue Chiang Kai Shek to drive him out of his final stronghold.
Thus, in effect, the civil war to determine control of China has not yet been fought to completion. The issue of who controlls all of China is still up in the air, having never been settled. The Taiwanese government claims to still be the legitimate government of all of China including the mainland, and the mainland government claims to be the legitimate government for all of China including Taiwan. Chiang Kai Shek and Mao Tse Tung are both dead now, so it is left to their heirs to bring the matter to a resolution. The position of the U.S. government is that this resolution must be arrived at peacefully. And the Seventh Fleet (or whichever fleet is tasked with this) is still standing close by in international waters to make sure that this is so.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I would like to point out that you don't have to be part of the "moral majority" to oppose abortion. For example, myself. I'm religious but I don't let religion affect my political views at all. Maybe if I were in Israel religion would matter but in America absolutely not. Still abortion disgusts me. However, that's not a reason why I'll vote for Bush because he has not made it clear that he'll act on the abortion issue.
Tresopax, to go back to your original post, its just stupid. The idea of your claims that even as a conservative I should vote against Bush because of those reasons is like me claiming that you should vote for him regardless of political affiliation because of his stance on affirmative action and abortion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So why WILL you vote for Bush, NFL?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
1. Dean is way too left. 2. Clarke is insane and would be a worse leader than a brain dead Bush. 3. Lieberman, the only Democratic canidate I would consider voting for, is too right to win the nomination. 4. I support the war on terror (and I'm not going into the specific arguments and reasons in this thread). 5. I'm against affirmative action. 6. Almost every other issue Democrats disagree only in theory, such as campaign finance reform. 7. A slew of other minor reason but the previously mentioned are the ones in serious consideration.
I would almost consider voting Democratic for these reasons: 1. Gay marriage/civil unions (the difference is non-existent in my opinion) 2. Gun control Those don't outweigh the pro-Bush ones in my opinion though.
I would also like to point out that a successful third party would be the death of American democracy as it would likely that no canidate would receive a majority of the electoral votes therefore sending the vote to the House of Representative where political bargains are likely to prevail.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the two big issues for you are affirmative action and our invasion of Iraq?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
That I can think of right now...yes.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: a worse leader than a brain dead Bush.
Some wouldn't understand when you say that. They would think a brain-dead Bush already exists.
jk
[ December 10, 2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
NFL, affirmative action and abortion are serious issues, but they do not affect the basic nature of government itself. If civil liberties continue to be systematically eroded and the Bush administration is allowed to get away with behaving in a high-handed, repressive manner, trampling on the Constitution in the name of national security, then that must lead to a fundamental change in the very nature of our government.
It is instructive that the old Soviet Union had the most liberal, human rights affirming constitution on the planet. There was just the one proviso in it that in case of national emergency, the constitution could be set aside. And the thugs who ruled the Soviet Union claimed a perpetual state of national emergency, and were allowed to get away with ignoring the constitution completely. Thus because no one held them accountable to their own constitution, they made the Soviet Union one of the most repressive tyrannies in history.
What is to keep that from happening here, if people allow the present administration to follow along the same path of using a national emergency over security issues as an excuse to set aside more and more of the constitutional guarantees of civil rights? Why can't it happen here? People are people. Americans are the same species as Russians. If humans could make a mockery of a liberal, idealistic constitution and create a totalitarian state in Russia, then humans could do exactly the same thing here, if they are permitted--if too many people do not understand how important it is to prevent this from happening.
[ December 10, 2003, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What if I believe that affirmative action and abortion destroy our civil liberties? What if I believe the war on terror is necessary to preserve our civil liberty?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Nick, I knew that was coming but I had to ignore it, or at least try.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm not a Bush hater, but I like humor. Most people find that stuff funny. Just like I made fun of Clinton during his years during office. I'm trying to be apolitical in this thread.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom-- we disagree, obviously. :shrug:
To start to win me over, prove that your ideas on the slippery slope of declining civil liberties are more valid than my ideas on the slippery slope of declining morality.
If you like, I'll even furnish you a crystal ball.
[ December 10, 2003, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
But Scott, I think a lot of what you define as morals has more to do with religious conviction that it does actual law. Is it really all that good an idea to vote Bush in in order to have him push laws that are faith-based? True, they might even stand Supreme Court tests and last for a while. Until we elect another president with the opposite personal views.
It's yet another dangerous precedent to set, since Christians as a whole aren't predicted to remain in the majority for much more than 40 years at the current rate of decline.
Touch not, lest ye be touched.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Law rarely determines moral conviction, Frisco. It's the other way around.
quote:Is it really all that good an idea to vote Bush in in order to have him push laws that are faith-based?
I vote for the candidate whose views are most in line with mine. Don't you do the same? Doesn't everyone?
Tres and Tom seem to have a hard time understanding WHY exactly I hold the murder of children (little bit of fiery rhetoric there) and the reinterpretation of civil marriage to be more important than civil liberties-- my answer is, bluntly, we all have our hang-ups.
quote:It's yet another dangerous precedent to set, since Christians as a whole aren't predicted to remain in the majority for much more than 40 years at the current rate of decline.
Now THAT'S an interesting prediction, Frisco. What do you base it on? Not that I disagree with you-- nothing is more likely than the values I hold going out of style. But I wonder where you get your timeline from.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott -- I haven't had many opportunities to vote, but I've regularly advocated voting for a candidate over another whose views more closely align with mine because I consider the candidate I advocate to be a more upstanding person. A government of people out to do good who disagree with me is unimaginably superior to a government of people doing what I agree with who are without scruples. Of course, I prefer over both those states a government of people who agree with me and have scruples.
By upstanding, I mean primarily belief in the rule of law, and a true desire to bring about public good. Personal sins don't enter into it much for me, except as they are underscore public hypocrisy in many cases. Not to say I wouldn't prefer people whose stains are small, but that there've been enough great leaders devoted to their countries with taudry personal lives to persuade me that one can be publically upstanding while personally perverse.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You still haven't touched on my main reason to vote against Bush. The blossoming of Corporate America.
I don't blame it solely or even mostly on him, of course. Corporate influence on politics has been around as long as either has existed, and the number of politicians that haven't been touched by it one way or another can be counted on the fingers of one thumb.
But no other president, no other administration I know of has ever pandered so blatantly, so obviously to the corporate world. Get caught cheating your employees? Slap on the wrist, a little public embarassment, and you get to keep the money. No oversight. The main watchdog is a hand-picked idiot with no power. The heads of the regulatory boards have been personally chosen from either the leading activists against regulation, or the lobbyists from the industry being regulated whose former job was to reduce those very regulations. Regulations themselves being stripped, reduced, softened, made voluntary and therefore toothless. Tax cuts weighted to favor the rich. WHICH I wouldn't mind, since the rich would be paying more taxes anyway, EXCEPT that they don't, and loopholes that allow this have been left open. Measures to stop federal contracts from being awarded to companies with felonious records or companies that have moved their tax base out of the country were stopped cold. Overtime rules changed to favor employers, not employees. Massive expenditures to provide slight temporary relief and major deficits a few years down. Laws passed to slash environmental controls, with accountability and cleanup restrictions being removed. And when the ones that might have justification, just as the Kyoto Treaty and the arsenic levels thing, were cut, we were promised that studies would be made and an alternate suggestion proposed. No sign yet of either. Records of behind the scenes dealing and decision-making being sealed and withheld from the American people. Laws being passed so full of pork they squeal, yet money for education and the states is still tight. Riders showing up on bills that no one will take credit for, that weren't there the day before the vote.
Accountability and responsibility have been systematically removed from the corporate world in the name of free markets and tax relief. If all companies were run by honest men, good and true, this wouldn't be a problem. I'm not holding my breath.
This is why I won't vote for Bush or for any politician, Republican or Democrat or Other, who participated.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I guess we do all vote for what we think is right...but I also think that anyone should be able to stand back and look at a law objectively and say to themselves, "I don't like it, but it's acceptable according to the Constitution, so I'm going to live and let live."
Granted, I don't think this about abortion. But I think this country has a ways to go before we can fix that...merely electing a president who agrees to make it illegal is too, too little-and I'd say not even a good start. Bush, I feel, is just poking a stick into the anthill of "pro-choice".
I don't think he's doing the right thing with gays, and I don't think he can do much about abortion. On the flip side, I think the precedents Tres points out are very real, and scary. We've got a hotline for little old ladies to call if they see an arab or black man with a bookbag walking down their street. We've already legalized racial profiling (in a country which is increasingly less white). Video cameras on the street are becoming a more real possibility. It's not a big leap from there to have a database of much of the country.
Oh, and the numbers are from the 1980 and 2000 census reports. I only remember because we threw the numbers around in October's homosexuality/polygamy thread. I really have no clue on the future of Christianity, but if it indeed follows the trend of the last 20 years (87% identified themselves as Christian in 1980, compared to 79% in 2000), 40 years was their timetable for loss of majority.
*shrug* I dunno. I just know that all these words are severely affecting my image as an apathetic. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres and Tom seem to have a hard time understanding WHY exactly I hold the murder of children (little bit of fiery rhetoric there) and the reinterpretation of civil marriage to be more important than civil liberties-- my answer is, bluntly, we all have our hang-ups.
You know, we could look into electing the Nazis - they're even more against gay marriage and abortion than Bush is!
Priorities...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Godwin's Law is rumbling down the pike...
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
...And my goodness if he isn't driving one of those new VW taureogermonkerby, um, SUVs!
-Bok
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Scott-the thing is the government is about law, and civil rights. Morality is something the government can't dictate. It can influence how people think-but civil liberties is the responsibility of the government. Declining morality of the general public is not. Yes, it is something that needs fixing, but...if we ndermine allow the things the government is built on to be undermined, it's not going to be much help to try to make laws to force morality.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:Now THAT'S an interesting prediction, Frisco. What do you base it on? Not that I disagree with you-- nothing is more likely than the values I hold going out of style.
Wow. That is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever seen posted on Hatrack.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, Kasie, it didn't seem all that arrogant to me.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Wow. That is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I have ever seen posted on Hatrack.
Really? I definitely don't think so. I've seen far more arrogant things said to myself. To point out somebody's arrogance with a post is a way of being arrogant too you know....
EDIT: Tom: Agreed.
[ December 10, 2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
katharina, i want you to know that i have new wrinkles in my brain today because of your godwin's law reference. i had no idea what it was, googled it, and am now a jot or tittle smarter.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
and as far as being arrogant is concerned, i think i still hold the top spot on that one. you cant swoop in with your 'style values' stuff and take that from me.
Hell, the last time I made a hatrack return i was called a 'smug self satisfied idiot' by a person who knew nothing about me. Now THAT is proof that I exude arrogance.
Now stop making eye contact with me.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Suprisingly, most of these contracts will go to the US and Japan, since the other allies mentioned in this list do not have Haliburton sized companies to do what needs to get done.
The only true competitors for a lot of the big US companies are in France, Germany, Canada and Russia (morse so than in Poland etc).
Further, this Anti-terrorism war will be sending a lot of $ and Business to Saudi Arabia, who supplied most of the 9/11 terrorists and is the birth home of Al Queda.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
*shrug*
Okay, maybe I read it differently -- I saw it as "yes, of course, this world is degenerating morally....my value system is far superior and no one else seems to be able to hold up to my standard, and so of course MY value system will be fading."
Or something like that.
Maybe arrogant isn't the right word. But it's definitely 'holier than thou'.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Tres makes points even I agree are worth consideration. However I still think that Bush is the right man.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I forgot, more reasons to vote for or against Bush.
For: His support of Israel (which is also why Lieberman appeals to me).
Against: His willingness to involve religion in politics. Prayer in schools and Christianity being used as a justification really bothers me. In fact I think "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance although the entire pledge shouldn't be thrown out the window.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Maybe arrogant isn't the right word. But it's definitely 'holier than thou'.
Those are both one and the same.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Gotta pop in:
quote: We have now invaded a nation with no proven association with terrorists, no proven stash of weapons of mass destruction, and that we failed to prove posed any immediate threat to us at all. The best explanation we've come up with is, it was good for the Iraqi people. Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating.
Well, uh, yeah. I think it's pretty okay to invade a country that desperately NEEDS liberating. Anyone want to call that an opinion? I say to you, ONE MILLION DEAD!
quote: In other words, "I'm more important than anyone else, and American interests are worth pursuing even at the expense of the interests of most of the other people in the world." I don't suppose you can see how that approach is already alienating many other nations, including some of your own "friends and allies?" There's patriotism and then there's nationalism.
Really, this is exactly what being ANTI war on terrorism says. Your interests in "whatever Bush whatever" must far outweigh ONE MILLION DEAD.
quote: 173,000 Americans have died from Air Pollution 121,000 Americans have died in traffic accidents 52,000 Americans have died because they had inadequate access to medical care 3100 Americans have died due to terrorism
And ONE MILLION have died in Iraq from tyranny and terrorism in their own country. Do they matter? Do we care about people that don't live within our "four walls" as it were?
quote: However, notice how Afghanistan has sort of dropped off the radar now? There are no "how things are going in Afghanistan" press conferences, and the media certainly aren't paying attention to it now that there's no shooting going on.
I think what you mean is, the media isn't paying attention because it went so well. Much better if we keep focus on Iraq, that way we can go on and on about the six kids who died today, or like one guy in a helicopter or something. Makes Bush look REALLY bad. Not to say that it isn't terrible that they died, but it really isn't a huge surprise. It's a WAR.
quote: Yes, that's true. I should have been more accurate – less shooting than in Iraq. The Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan seem equally frustrated – the media only gives them the time of day when some of them die.
Once again, that's because it makes the war look really bad.
And let me just add:
ONE MILLION DEAD! ONE MILLION DEAD! ONE MILLION DEAD!
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
This stuff about foreign contracts,while I see the rationale behind letting France et al. in, reminds me an awful lot of that morality tale about the chicken who was baking bread, and the other barnyard animals who refused to help--until it was time to eat. In the interests of goodwill, I can see letting them get a hand in, but they don't deserve it.
Now as to civil liberties and national emergency--the argument cuts both ways, you know. Because it is always possible to have such a massive problem on your hands that the government will fall and its guarantees of rights will fall with it, unless those rights are suspended temporarily so that the problem can be dealt with. Certainly that time has not arrived in regard to general rights, the rights of everyone in the country. But suppose that last plane had crashed on top of the White House or the Capitol instead of in a field...what would we be saying then?
[ December 10, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But anyway, I would vote for Bush because of what's been said earlier...don't vote him in and you're handing the war to the terrorists. Bottom line...it'll be just like Vietnam.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Some random points:
1) Backup up your assertion of 1 million dead. And if it is such an important point, there are millions dead in wars and massacres in Lower Africa, why didn't we go there first? (This point of backing up figures applies to the various tallies of people dead from accidents, air pollution, and the like)
2) Afghanistan initially went well, but we are now currently screwed there. There is a very good chance that if we leave, the Taliban re-emerges. We really didn't stick around a do any due diligence in Afghanistan.
3) What, no love for my witty continuation of kat's post? I demand respect!
EDIT: 4) As for the Democrats causing Iraq to become a new Vietnam conveniently ignores the fact that other than Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton (the marginal candidates), the democratic field all agrees that immediate retreat is impossible, though increasing the international flavor of the occupying force is one that is supported to greater or lesser degrees.
-Bok
[ December 10, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Well, uh, yeah. I think it's pretty okay to invade a country that desperately NEEDS liberating.
That's easily enough said until someone decides we need to be liberated too, and smuggles a nuke into DC to do so.
quote:But anyway, I would vote for Bush because of what's been said earlier...don't vote him in and you're handing the war to the terrorists.
Why? All of the democrats plan to continue the war on terror.
[ December 10, 2003, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
And where would they get the nuke?
We should intervene when genocide occurs anywhere be it in Europe, the Middle East or Africa.
Genocide did occur in Iraq. I don't know if a million died but Kurds were certainly killed by the thousands, Shiites were oppressed, and Saddam's sons had plently of fun randomly raping and murdering people.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
The countries of the former USSR, China, It is not inconcivable that they could build it, assuming backing of some kind, a "dirty bomb" would be more than enough at any rate.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Or maybe from Iran or North Korea. Especially, the former. Or maybe Iraq if we hadn't deposed Saddam.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Wow, NFL. You're like a portable version of Andrew Card.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Thanks Tom, the point is that Tresopax wants to claim that there's no threat and that there is one at the same time. Of course, I would personally say there's something of a difference between Iraq's need for liberation and what a fundamentalist would see as our need for liberation. This is for once exactly what Bush talks about when he refers to appeasing the terrorists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps Tres questions the feasibility of invading every country that might produce or temporarily harbor terrorists capable of detonating an explosive device on our soil...?
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Some points on Iraq.
449 US soldiers who have died in Iraq. So far. This isn't counting the 2,529 US soldiers who have been wounded there and the thousands of reservists separated from their families. Do the numbers have to reach 3,500 before we realize it wasn't worth it? Wasn't Afghanistan (and the Philippines, and everywhere else we've been hunting Bin Laden) where we were striking back at terror? How many US soldiers are going to end up dying in Iraq before this thing is through? Don't US occupation forces give terrorists a nice big target in unfavorable conditions (i.e. not our turf, little to no human source intelligence on the ground, language/culture barriers of occupied country)?
We talk about how the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people. But we have supported and even put into office dictators who were just as brutal - guys like Pinochet. Is the US just schizophrenic? Do we only oust dictators when it suits us? We aren't exactly the noble Americans. Sure Bush called North Korea part of the axis of evil (yeah, that was really smart when N. Korea has nuclear weapons) but then he had to back off when they restarted their nuclear weapons program. Iraq was just easier to beat up on because we'd been pounding on them for a decade before going in. And it sits on the world's 2nd largest known oil reserve. And we're one of the world's largest oil using countries. So it makes sense to get some part of control over it. Besides it's what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz wanted to do in '91. And we get rid of a potential threat at the same time. The oil and threat reasons make sense, but I don't think it's right ethically to invade another sovereign country based on this, or worth the lives of the US soldiers, of the other parts of the Coalition forces and of Iraqi civilians. Yes, Saddam Hussein used nerve gas on 8,000 people - back in the late 80's! Why didn't we stop him then? Because we're schizophrenic!Disclaimer: I just googled this site. Tell me if it's inaccurate.
Obviously, we're there now and we need to support our troops, but I think it's fairly likely that we made a mistake invading Iraq. To say so would be impossible for the Bush administration, because it destroys trust (of the people) in the government and trust (of the armed forces) in the wisdom of the government (to send them somewhere they need to be). It would also imply that the death of those 449 soldiers was due to a mistake that we voluntarily made. And of course it destroys the possibility of reelection, one of politicians' largest motivators. So most of the congress who voted for the war won't call it a mistake. That doesn't change the truth of the situation, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Arrogant?
I'm one of the most arrogant people you're ever likely to meet. I'm an aspiring writer, for Heaven's sake. Can you be a writer and NOT be arrogant?
But in that particular post, I was trying for Puddleglum.
Kat, I had to look this up:
quote:Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: We talk about how the US invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people. But we have supported and even put into office dictators who were just as brutal - guys like Pinochet. Is the US just schizophrenic? Do we only oust dictators when it suits us?
NFL,
It gets even worse than that. When we last meddled in Iran, we ousted a democratically-elected leader and put a dictator in his place.
I really would like to be wearing the white cowboy hat, but being an American doesn't automatically entitle me to do so.
Jeff
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So...many...lies...and...distortions...
Must...control...urge...to...participate...so...I...can...study...
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I like it when people such as Johnnynotsobravo say how we have supported dicatators in the past, as if that is a good reason to stop supporting ruthless dictators now. Bush wasnt in office when the U.S. supported Pinochet so dont use that as an example as to why we shouldnt invade Iraq.
[ December 11, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott and o'douls,
Maybe that's my problem? I'm not arrogant enough to be a writer? *grin*
I like Godwin's Law. I'm considering promoting in my mind from a situational truth to a universal truth, depending on the results of more Hatrack study.
[ December 11, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: 1) Backup up your assertion of 1 million dead. And if it is such an important point, there are millions dead in wars and massacres in Lower Africa, why didn't we go there first? (This point of backing up figures applies to the various tallies of people dead from accidents, air pollution, and the like)
Okay, embarrassed to say it but I will. I mixed up the "over 900,000 thousand" count, which was more specualtion, with the "over 700,000 thousand" which we are pretty certain of. Iraqi leaders themselves have admitted to at least 250,000 killed during various rebellions. (We are thinking closer to 300,000.) Then add 13,000 or so political prisoners that were executed. Plus 400,000, mostly kids who died of malnutrition, etc, because of Hussein's regime. But we're talking about what they've ADMITTED. Do you really think that's all there were? Why should they be completely frank with us about it? I'm guessing (this is just a guess, but a reasonable one) that there will be more bodies/graves recovered as time goes by.
quote: Why? All of the democrats plan to continue the war on terror.
Really? I especially like Dean's statement of "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning." which can be found on his website, along with lots of other derogatory points. Not that he isn't entitled to his opinion. And we can argue about whether or not "Iraqi Freedom" counts as part of the war on terror. But the point remains that opposition to the war will kill us. And Kerry says the way to "fix the problem" is to get our troops out of there as fast as possible. Which you can bet will BEGIN with a stopping of the funding, which will just dishearten our troops that are STILL over there. Taking our troops out of Iraq in the middle of this will not send a message that our new leadership is kind and peaceful. We are not dealing with level-headed people over there. The only message they will see is that we have a new government in place that isn't willing to see things through and is wishy-washy about the situations in the Middle East. To a bunch of guys looking for their chance, that would be it. It says "Bush was willing to fight, but don't worry, we're on YOUR side."
Saying "I support the war on terror" doesn't mean a thing when the actual plan is to end it as quickly as possible. And as far as "support" goes, all I've seen on the various websites were vague references to being "citizen soldiers" and other things probably put there solely to placate people who are looking for a candidate that is willing to keep fighting, but who don't know enough to keep digging.
quote: That's easily enough said until someone decides we need to be liberated too, and smuggles a nuke into DC to do so.
Are you saying that the people in Iraq didn't need to be liberated? You seem to be confusing what we know is an actual threat to the people of the nation of Iraq with a semi-psychotic delusion of some tyrant...sounds like Osama. What you do in that case is blow the hell out of them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I agree we should free repressed and terrorized people everywhere. Lets do the people of Tibet next.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Really? I especially like Dean's statement of "I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning." which can be found on his website, along with lots of other derogatory points. Not that he isn't entitled to his opinion. And we can argue about whether or not "Iraqi Freedom" counts as part of the war on terror. But the point remains that opposition to the war will kill us.
In what way, exactly, is opposition to the war going to kill us?
quote:Saying "I support the war on terror" doesn't mean a thing when the actual plan is to end it as quickly as possible.
You seem to think the War on Terror is the same thing as the War on Iraq, though. None of the candidates have said they plan to end the War on Terror as quickly as possible - all of them have said exactly the opposite. Some have said they would end the War on Iraq quickly, but usually a principle reason is because they want to return to actually fighting terrorism.
quote:Are you saying that the people in Iraq didn't need to be liberated? You seem to be confusing what we know is an actual threat to the people of the nation of Iraq with a semi-psychotic delusion of some tyrant...sounds like Osama.
Unfortunately, though, there are many people around the world who think our current leadership is an actual threat, and that we are the deluded ones. If it's okay for us to attack based on our opinion about Iraq being a real threat then it's okay for them to attack based on their opinion about America being a real threat. You can't say "We can attack who we want because we're right, but you can't beause you're wrong." Because if you do, they will turn around and say the same thing right back, and probably do it with a bomb, and there won't be much we can do about it.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Gee, fugu, that would depend on your view of what terrorized is. Who are you to think that you can decide who needs liberating?
Just kidding, but it was a pretty good impression, eh?
Tres-I think you pretty much just address things I already covered.
[ December 11, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it was a way for you to avoid the question. What makes the Tibetan people's situation ignorable but the Iraqi people's not?
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
I don't think Tibet is ignorable.
I actually agreed with what you said.
I don't think there's any excuse to sit in our comfy La-Z-Boy's or whatever while there are people suffering.
(Sorry, I thought you would get my joke.)
[ December 11, 2003, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The problem, then, will be taking on a nuclear superpower to free Tibet.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
The real question, I think, is whether or not we're willing to die for people that we don't know. I hope that I am. I'd like to raise my children that way too.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think you quite understand the phrase nuclear superpower, particularly in the context of known megalomania.
We would be greatly endangering the world by attacking China.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, Dean criticized the president for going into Iraq, from the beginning. HOWEVER, he has also repeated in speeches and debates that he thinks that retreating now would be worse than staying. Why is this rationale so hard to understand?
quote:The second major challenge results from a failure to plan for peace as fully as we planned for war. General Shinseki's professional military advice that 200,000 troops would be needed was rejected. I would add at least 50,000 foreign troops to the force in Iraq.
It is imperative that we bring the international community in to help stabilize Iraq. If I were President, I would reach out to NATO, to Arab and Islamic countries, to other friends to share the burden and the risks.
We need to consider the impact on our guard and reserve troops operating in Iraq. And we should ask that the forces of foreign friends and allies increasingly assume police and security missions. Our active duty military forces are the best trained and best equipped of any military force in the world. We must continue to be able to train them and prepare for other potential war-fighting missions that arise in this dangerous world.
Note that he not only wants to keeps forces in Iraq, he wants to INCREASE the number of forces! Part of his solution for increasing troop numbers is creating a larger coalition. Yes, the response is nuanced, and yes, it seems that much of the USA is deaf to such nuances these days (and likely always), but I don't see how this stance can be construed as "leaving as quick as possible".
Of course, in any case, you are participating what in my eyes is large scale cognitive dissonance (is that the right term?). The "invade Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people" justification was largely an AFTER THE FACT justification! The primary reasons that convinced the US people to support military action was the perception of self defense, that Iraq was harboring WMD, and possibly some terrorists. The humanitarian response was minor until the first two justifications appeared to be overblown.
I mean, it must be nice to confuse cause and effect, and just think we all agreed to do invade out of charity, but it just doesn't jive with the political rhetoric pre-war. I would say the humanitarian justification wasn't a big reason until we found the mass graves... Which was obviously after we invaded!
Why is criticising policy "derogatory"? It's not like he's saying those who disagree are nearly treasonous ("with us, against us", recent Iowa (??) ads implying the dems want us to fail), just that the current policy is ultimately not a solution for the WoT.
"Fast as possible" doesn't mean "pull out at all costs". You realize this, right? It doesn't mean that we won't continue to supply constructive aid (schools, advisement, infrastructure) in the future.
BTW, your numbers are still unsubstantiated. Please provide a link, or if your source is [EDIT: not] online, at least provide the name of the publication. As for the children casualties, that can be argued as being part the international community's fault, for keeping up sanctions.
Ultimately, you hold a number of assumptions that critics don't necessarily hold. The biggest of these is that the Iraqi occupation is an integral part of the WoT. This is debateable. Another is that the only way to solve the terrorism problem, is to attack terrorists at every turn.
Of course, this also ignores the common, and convenient, use of two completely separate rationales to go into Iraq (humanitarian and WoT), and whenever one is criticised, you merely jump to the other.
-Bok
[ December 11, 2003, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
I just think kind of optimistically.
I guess ultimately I believe that sometimes many people have to lose their lives, not just to save lives, but to stand behind a principle. "Principle" is such a lousy word but I can't think of one more gut-wrenching. Obviously it would not be a good decision to do anything to endanger other people unless the vast majority of them were supportive of the cause, but just because it's not likely doesn't mean it's impossible. Plus, if the world stood together against China, they'd be alot less likely to start nuking. (At least they would if they were thinking.)
I realize the almost impossiblity of it. All I can say is, if it came down the line to me, I would say, "Yes, I'll die" even if I can't speak for anyone else. I hope that others would say the same.
How long before China gets the idea that they can do no wrong? Do you think it would take them long to start conquering as many as possible?
Maybe it's bleak but I think I would choose suffering and only a fraction survival rate, rather than bow down to China and let them take over the world, not that they're doing it, but using the premise that you just gave, they conceivably could.
(I actually just recalled a nice scripture in the Bible about a horde of invaders from the east, too numerable to count. Hmmm...)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
How long before the USA believes it can do no wrong?
I think that, as a USA citizen, this should be a more important question.
-Bok
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I don't think you quite understand the phrase nuclear superpower, particularly in the context of known megalomania.
We would be greatly endangering the world by attacking China.
Which is why we invaded Iraq instead. It's a country that's far more important in terms of regional stability and world peace than Tibet. That's why it's also a higher priority than Africa—Africa's problems don't threaten the world as much as problems in the Middle East do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Plus, if the world stood together against China, they'd be alot less likely to start nuking."
In my opinion, if the world stood together in an invasion of China, they'd be a lot MORE likely to start nuking.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Megalomaniacs do not, as a rule, see things logically. Particularly when threatened.
I see nothing noble about possibly killing everyone to save some. Heck, in a war with China we'd probably kill more innocent Chinese than there were Tibetans, ever (this isn't particularly unrealistic; there never have been many Tibetans and there are a LOT of Chinese). Somehow I don't much see the point in that.
I think you may also find in the Bible a few phrases praising nonviolence.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: The "invade Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people" justification was largely an AFTER THE FACT justification!
quote: Of course, this also ignores the common, and convenient, use of two completely separate rationales to go into Iraq (humanitarian and WoT), and whenever one is criticised, you merely jump to the other.
Quick summary of my opinions. 1. Iraq needed to be invaded. 2. I know the WonT was an excuse to go there. 3. It was a stupid reason to go, but we still should be there and finish what we started, which may be taking longer than we expected but still needs to be done. 4. Pulling out at this point would send the message that we cared about the them and now we don't. (Please keep reading for further address of this point.)
quote: "Fast as possible" doesn't mean "pull out at all costs".
I know that. But there would be no reason for the new President, whoever it may be, to consider that once he is in office. Why keep supporting something he never supported in the first place? Please remember Vietnam, after we elected a Democratic Congress. They left the soldiers there but started to pull out funding. That might be one case of NOT "pulling out at all costs". "Hey, we left soldiers there! We just aren't sending any supplies! We haven't pulled out yet!" Even though we know that it was effectively "pulling out at all costs."
quote: HOWEVER, he has also repeated in speeches and debates that he thinks that retreating now would be worse than staying. Why is this rationale so hard to understand?
I understand it. I just don't believe it.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon Boy, then can we put to rest the humanitarian justification that is trumpeted all the time?
(I tend to agree with you, at least insofar as the Administration perceived the situation. I just disagree with that perception.)
-Bok
[ December 11, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jon Boy -- that's your rationale, and I consider it a much better one. I'm attacking Maureen's rationale, which is that we should attack everyone who terrorizes/kills their own populace, and definitely extends to attacking China as she has explicitly stated.
My rationale for supporting an attack on Iraq has always been that they were almost certainly going to start a much bigger war on their own.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Whereas you'll believe a executive branch team that mislead the general public as to why we ought to invade?
I take it you are an "ends-justifies-the-means: person (not that thi stance is wrong, I'm just trying to see where your argument stems from).
A democratic president would have great pressures, inside the US and out, to remain and stay the course. First, safety of the soldiers, second, it would look WORSE to the rest of the world if we left the job half done. We would REALLY look like a rogue country.
-Bok
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
The humanitarian side is still important, but it can't be the biggest reason, or else we'd be logically obligated to invade China, North Korea, and half of the rest of the world. But I think it still helps to justify invading Iraq: We not only took out a threat to regional and world peace, but we also freed a bunch of people.
[ December 11, 2003, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's the thing, JB, Maureen does think we should invade half of the rest of the world.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Scott R, thanks for posting that explanation of "Godwin's Law." I guess then out of fear of triggering it, I should say there is no comparison at all to be made between Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler, and Hussein's Baathist Party was nothing at all like the Nazis. And I should not suggest that if it was morally justified for all civilized nations to oppose Hitler's Nazi Germany in World War II by force of arms, it should by the same token be justified for us to do the same with Hussein's Baathist Iraq. No comparison, no equivalence, totally different, one had nothing to do with the other.
I think the invasion of Iraq was justified and ten years overdue, personally. I think Bush is dangerous for other reasons.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jon, the thing is, the humanitarian benefits can't even be seriously touted as a reason, it's more of a side effect. You can't claim a side effect as a rationale if you didn't present it as such, can you?
--- Yeah, Ashcroft gives me the heebie-jeebies too, Ron.
-Bok
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Sorry—I didn't mean that it was a reason so much as a positive side-effect. Not "we're going to take out a dictator and free the people" but "we're going to topple a dictator, one of the outcomes of which will be freeing the people." Does that make more sense?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
True, but that is the case toppling any dictator (of which there are sadly many still kicking around). And the world/regional threat seems to have been overblown, and some might say that our invasion made the threat worse (the WMDs, if they exist in the quantities implied by the US government, are now possibly dispersed amongst many groups now, and more terrorists are coming into Iraq, post-war, than there ever was pre-war).
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I've been knocking this idea back and forth in my skull for a while, and I submit this for your consideration:
We are justified in invading -- but not compelled to invade -- any country whose leadership openly calls for the destruction of our country.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Maureen never said anything about invading, at least I sure didn't mean to if I did.
Maureen said we shouldn't do nothing.
Many of you are the ones saying there are ways to deal with things other than attacking.
I just think we have to be prepared to deal with some backlash, and that I was willing to die for other people. Those do not necessarily equate to attack or invade.
[ December 11, 2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think that's not a bad statement. I think that would make what I am arguing more clear.
Hmm, now why is Tom always more succinct than I?
-Bok
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I'll stand by Bush, He most defenitly better than any of the other options.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Bok, you are arguing that there were other ways to deal with Iraq possibly. Okay, that may be true. I'm arguing that now that we're in it, we need to stick it out because there's a good chance worse things will happen to us than losing the good opinion of other countries if we don't. And I'm scared that there's a real good chance that what will happen if we get an anti-war president will be a dangerous withdrawal rather than a well thought out one.
edited for extreme lack of point
The point is that those two things aren't really opposites and a reasonable person could hold both opinions.
[ December 11, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, and I thought all the willingness to die for lines were allusions to war.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Maureen, once again, it's a fact that most of the Democratic candidates do not favor withdrawal from Iraq, including none of the frontrunners.
quote:How long before the USA believes it can do no wrong?
I think that, as a USA citizen, this should be a more important question.
Ditto. And on a practical level, what will the rest of the world do to us if they come to believe we have come to believe we can do no wrong?
quote:I'll stand by Bush, He most defenitly better than any of the other options.
Why? [EDIT: Oh, wait, nevermind. You started a whole thread...]
------
There's a lot of talk about Iraq on this thread - what about the other three problems I mentioned? Even if you don't think the preemptive strike on Iraq was unacceptable, don't you have problems with the other things the Bush administration has done? I would think any one of them should be enough to drive one to take a chance on a different person as president, rather than condone the Bush administration's actions.
I also have to wonder why there aren't more concerned Republicans talking about what the Bush administartion is doing to their party. It is becoming increasingly reactionary (not to mention big-spending), and if they don't watch it, it might take the whole conservative agenda down in flames with it in the end.
[ December 11, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You mean. . . like civil rights took down the Democrats?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I hope not, in that case the least moral of the republicans would switch parties again.
(as a brief history lesson, when the Democrats stopped being the party of oppression a number of members jumped ship and went to the republicans. Those same people currently hold many of the leadership positions in the party)
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
We should liberate what be can. We can't liberate Tibet because China stands in the way. We could liberate Iraq. As a Jew I ask, "How can people claim that the US should have stopped the Holocaust in 1933 but claim the US shouldn't end the genocide of the Kurds?" I guess there just aren't enough Kurds in this country for people to care. Its also amazing how the discovery of mass graves went virtually unnoticed. My first reason for supporting this war was the liberation of Iraq. My second reason was WMD. Granted WMD was first for Bush or so he claimed at the time, but in this case the ends easily justify the means.
[ December 11, 2003, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Is that in the same way bin Laden thinks the ends justifies the means when he blows up innocent Americans to "liberate" the Arab world from us? Or is more like the way the ends justified the means for the Soviets, when they "liberated" all those countries from inferior, corrupt capitalist regimes?
[ December 12, 2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
TomD wrote:
quote:In my opinion, if the world stood together in an invasion of China, they'd be a lot MORE likely to start nuking.
I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
Promethius[sic] wrote:
quote:I like it when people such as Johnnynotsobravo say how we have supported dicatators in the past, as if that is a good reason to stop supporting ruthless dictators now.
So, you're saying that we should support ruthless dictators now?
Okay, I'm gonna be all noble and believe that what you meant to say is that the evil we have done in the past does not justify ignoring the good we can do now. In which case, there are plenty of ruthless dictators in Africa that we can kick out, where women are oppressed and there's plenty of civilians slaughtered everyday. But we're going to need to draft you and every other person of military age. Sorry. You know what, though? We're not going to invade any (more) countries in Africa! (okay, we did invade Somalia - but no more!) We could, but it's just not worth it economically, or in terms of American lives lost. Our policy in the US has never been dominated by whether dictators needed to be removed. It's about our best interests. If it doesn't cost too much or only a few of our people will get killed, then we'll go ahead and do a good humanitarian thing, like Kosovo. That's just the way America is. Bush(43) may be in public office now, but so is Rumsfeld. And so was Rumsfeld before. And if you clicked on my previous link, then you know Rumsfeld was involved in providing chemical weapons to Iraq. This administration isn't as pretty as you think it is.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Yeah, thats what I meant, my bad.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Well since the terrorists' opinions matter so much we had better start enslaving women and convert to Islam in a hurry.
Our ends are a free Iraq with an end to genocide. Bin Laden's ends are the enslavement of the US and the destruction of Israel.
[ December 12, 2003, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Or our ends are the institution of a puppet Iraq, while bin Laden's ends are the freeing of the Arabic world from western domination and an end to Palestinian oppression. It depends on who you ask.
And yes, terrorist opinions do matter, at least if you have any concern at all about stopping those terrorists. After all, if we convert the entire Muslim world to share the terrorists' opinions, they will all become terrorist supporters and we won't be able to stop them. They already believe America is the world's biggest threat (opinion polls consistently show this and our decision to teach them a lesson is going to do nothing but reenforce it). If you're then telling them it's okay to attack anyone who they think is a major threat to the world and that ends justify means, there should be no surprise whatsoever when they try to destroy us by any means necessary.
See, the irony is that there is probably an Arabic newfoundlogic over there, looking at our actions from the Arabic perspective and supporting bin Laden, claiming that any means are valid for something as important stopping the American domination of the region and that that makes all of bin Laden's questionable methods justified.
[ December 12, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by bone (Member # 5277) on :
Tres OBL uses a very demented version of Islam to justify killing other Arabs who don't fight the U.S. He is not afraid to kill men, women, and children not by accident but to deliberately target them. Yes we need to get involved in and help get Middle Eastern countries economically stable and democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan could go a long way towards doing that. But OBL would rather priests run the country and not allow women to go to school.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
JNSB,
Yes, that was Sun Tzu.
Jeff
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: We are justified in invading -- but not compelled to invade -- any country whose leadership openly calls for the destruction of our country.
By that logic, then, Iraq is justified in invading us, too.
Jeff
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: I totally agree. I think it was Sun Tzu who advised to always leave a way out because the cornered animal fights much more fiercely than one who can flee.
The irony of the situation is, that truth applies equally to the September 11 and our response to it. The political and popular debate over what the right response to such an event, while a natural course of human nature that should be expected, is ironically perhaps the worst casualty of terrorism.
The world is not so different from a family who had a strong figure who for generations had been the one who seemed to always have the most protection and success in the face of adversity. Then one day, unexpectedly, that person was diangosed with cancer. The prognosis is, you can ignore it, and it might go away. But more than likely, now that it has taken root, it will spread, and you will die a slow painful debilitating death. You can take a moderate approach and fight it with diet, exercise, meditation, etc. That's probably better than nothing, but statistics from other people show it doesn't usually work, and you don't get a second chance if it fails. Or, you can take an invasive approach and do chemotherapy. It's has the most likely chance of killing the cancer so you can survive, but it still often doesn't work, and you are guaranteed nasty side affects that will tear apart your body and family for some time even if you come out of it in the end.
In such a scenario, I find much less interesting the choice of the person afflicted with cancer, than I find the choices of those around that person. Does the family recognize the low marginal benefit of one choice of treatment over the other, and focus on other areas with better marginal benefit such as taking care of themselves and their relationships regardless of the choice of action? Or do they tear apart what they could maintain, in a futile attempt to change the decisionmaking of the afflicted.
I am not a fan of Mr. Bush's invasive war on terror, nor Mr. Clinton's half-a$$ed lobbing of a few Tommahawks now and then, nor a stick-your-head-in-the-sand-and-hope-it-goes-away doves-are-nice-but-get-eaten-by-carnivores approach. All three answers suck.
What defines the heroes and villians in the war on terror is not how the US has responded in the face of being trapped with no good choices. But rather, how its citizens, its politicians, and the broader world have responded to the tough choice the US has made. The villians are those who waste much energy bickering and deviding relationships on an issue where their taking sides can only hurt the situation. The heroes are those who act with humility, understanding, and respect of the difficulty of the situation, and focus their energies on building up in areas where the ratio of good done to effort spent is far greater than arguing over a set of bad options. The heroes are unknown because they are quiet. And the villians are the politicians and countries who fight the war on terror, not because of the common reason given -- that the war on terror is good or right or moral or better (it is bad and sucks like all the other options) -- but rather because they are doing the political equivalent of tampering with the sick person's chemotherapy session out of their own selfishness, and in so doing make the situation worse by lessening none of the nasty side affects while greatly lessening the chance that the treatment will succeed.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:What defines the heroes and villians in the war on terror is not how the US has responded in the face of being trapped with no good choices. But rather, how its citizens, its politicians, and the broader world have responded to the tough choice the US has made.
To say that the US was "trapped" with no "good" (extremely subjective wording) choices is ridiculous. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We chose to go invade Iraq, even though the UN didn't want us to. No one else would go invade another country without UN backing! You know why? Because we would stop them like we stopped Iraq from doing it to Kuwait in '91! We become the thing we fight against...
But say you weren't talking about Iraq. Let's talk Afghanistan. Did we need to invade? No. There were plenty of other options, such as bombing, or running covert ops to enter the caves and deal with the terrorist camps. Am I glad we invaded? Yes. Feeling good about it doesn't make it right, but it felt like the US was fighting back. Is the campaign in Afghanistan effective? Arguably so. So we happened to choose a viable option that worked toward our goal of destroying the people who attacked us. But we weren't trapped, by any means, into doing it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"By that logic, then, Iraq is justified in invading us, too."
I would say that, yes, Iraq WOULD have been justified in invading us.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
Your position is consistant. I have examined it and found it good.
Jeff
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If N. Korea and Iran (the other members of the Axis of Evil that we have suggested we want to destroy) attack us tommorrow, are you sure you want to say that attack is justified?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Iraq justified in invading us? Hmmm, interesting theoretical bit of belly-button contemplating.
Justified and able are two different things. But let's look at it a bit more closely. Surely a nation as pitiful as Iraq (and let's make no bones about it, this is a sorry armpit of the world and Saddam's military leadership has justifiable been called the worst in history) couldn't invade the US. The US, on the other hand, proved without a doubt, that it could successfully invade Iraq.
So, calling it justifiable for Iraq to invade us is a nice piece of rhetoric, easy to accept giving the circumstances of the argument and it also proposes something so laughable that it further heaps disdain on the US's actions, i.e., we were picking on the littlest kid in the playground. Bravo, nice work.
But sadly, it doesn't stand up. On Sept. 11, 2001, a small group of people (Al Qaeda) with limited resources (compared to even the poorest of nations) brought the United States to a standstill. Four airplanes, 20 men and box cutters left 265 million Americans and the whole world standing with mouths agape in terror at what had just happened. The war had just been brought to our doorstep. We, as a nation, were no longer safe behind the two great oceans that separate us from the rest of the world. We had taken the greatest single assault on American soil in history. And two shining towers crumbled to dust, taking with it our fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, children and friends.
War, and invasion, were no longer at such great distance. These weren't the rumblings of far off cannonry. These were real deaths. This was destruction on a scale we had never experienced before. And this was brought about by an organization that had nowhere near the resources of Saddam's Iraq. It had done what Saddam would have given his eye teeth to do. And somewhere in a viper's bunker, a very evil man watched not in awe, but with apt interest.
And, most importantly, it was something that showed us, and the world, our greatest vulnerabilities. Try as we might, we can no longer live thinking that everyone else in the world holds American lives the way we have taught ourselves to value all human lives. As difficult as it is, we have to accept that to some in this world, we are a vermin to be removed.
And all it took, was planning, time, 20 men and a handful of box cutters. You saw it, you felt it, you cried when it all came tumbling down. And others saw it, too, others who don't want to put bandages on your injuries but who would rather make those injuries more dire.
That is what invasion is from the other side of the coin. It is all about taking it to your enemy. We rolled into Iraq, we rolled into Afghanistan and we did it in the traditional manner. But on Sept. 11, 2001, we had been invaded as well. The scale was different, but consistent with how wars are being fought in the Middle East.
[ December 13, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Sopwith, you completely misunderstand. Someone stated that "We are justified in invading -- but not compelled to invade -- any country whose leadership openly calls for the destruction of our country." If that is the chosen criterion, then Iraq is justified in invading us. This is a qualified assertion.
Your entire rant is silly, because it is predicated on ignoring the primary point of the statement -- that a country's leadership calling for the destruction of another country is not sufficient reason for the latter country to go to war against the former.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you seem to be implying that September 11th was what made it justifiable to attack Iraq. Why?
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
fugu13,
Thank you. That was indeed what I intended to point out.
And while I seldom agree with Tom on matters political or ethical, I do respect that he is consistant in his viewpoint in this matter.
Jeff
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Sopwith said: Justified and able are two different things. But let's look at it a bit more closely. Surely a nation as pitiful as Iraq (and let's make no bones about it, this is a sorry armpit of the world and Saddam's military leadership has justifiable been called the worst in history) couldn't invade the US. The US, on the other hand, proved without a doubt, that it could successfully invade Iraq.
So, calling it justifiable for Iraq to invade us is a nice piece of rhetoric, easy to accept giving the circumstances of the argument and it also proposes something so laughable that it further heaps disdain on the US's actions, i.e., we were picking on the littlest kid in the playground. Bravo, nice work.
Was it just me or did you just say that Iraq was justified if it wanted to invade us but it wouldn't happen because Iraq doesn't have the resources for it? Kind of a might makes right scenario? We have the resources to invade Iraq and make it happen so it should? This seems morally flawed somehow...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Since 9/11, we have been constantly trying to find or create loopholes in the law to allow us to forego the rights of suspected terrorists or so-called "enemy combatants." The Bush Administration has made no apologies for the Patriot Act or the treatment of the captives in Guantanamo.
Trying to find or create loopholes is acceptable only when it's done by the defense, then?
And so-called?
quote:We cannot afford to endorse unilateralism and the idea that we can ignore the rest of the world. Since Bush took office in 2000, we have systematically flipped the bird to all of our prominent allies, except perhaps Britain. Few could dispute this, at this point.
So you endorse the notion that, basically, world opinion should dictate American foreign policy?
quote:We have now invaded a nation with no proven association with terrorists, no proven stash of weapons of mass destruction, and that we failed to prove posed any immediate threat to us at all. The best explanation we've come up with is, it was good for the Iraqi people. Thus, if we reelect Bush, we will be actively consenting to the idea that it is okay to invade any country that we feel like liberating.
We had legal right to do so. No proven association with terrorists? Tresopax, what about rewards to families of suicide bombers to name one? The regime in Iraq was lying about all sorts of things, and the consequence was war for their violation of treaties. End of practical discussion.
quote:Last but not least, the Bush administration has consistently portrayed dissenters to its policy as unpatriotic, and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This, I think almost everyone can agree, is not acceptable.
And others have portrayed patriotism as facism and Bush as a goose-stepping fascist moron or puppet of such.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
Since Dean opposes Bush's handling of the war, and has not yet been crushed. . . how exactly are we to view this statement?
Who has been crushed by nationalism? What competing viewpoints have been silenced? (NOT inconvenienced, mind you.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Trying to find or create loopholes is acceptable only when it's done by the defense, then?
Actually, I'm not sure it's ever acceptable for our leaders to be trying to find loopholes to get around the true intentions of laws.
quote:So you endorse the notion that, basically, world opinion should dictate American foreign policy?
Well yes, how could we possibly expect to create an effective foreign policy if we don't base it on foreign attitudes? Trying to make an effective foreign policy without basing it on world opinion is essentially like trying to fly to the moon without considering the laws of physics.
quote:Who has been crushed by nationalism? What competing viewpoints have been silenced?
I should have said "tried to use."
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Actually Fugu, you might want to look a bit more closely to the reasoning there. And I find it somewhat offensive for it to be dismissed as "silly."
What you fail to take into your reasoning is something that I feel was clearly pointed out. Sept. 11 created a paradigm shift in the morality of invading a country that voices threats to us.
Prior to that fateful day, a tin pot dictator could say, "Death to America!" or somesuch and we could pretty much roll our national eyes and make the "cuckoo" sign. Before that fateful day, it was just words on the wind, idle threats that we need not fear. And then came along this rather small organization that showed very plainly how big and open a target we and our society are.
If a foreign organization with personnel and resources that are extremely limited (compared to what would be available to a whole nation) could accomplish what they did, then how serious should we take the threats of the leader of another nation?
If Al Qaeda could do Sept. 11, what could a person like Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim do if they put their nation's resources at work? Could we, as a nation, sit idly as threats continued to be made against us? Once upon a time, we could do just that and that's what we did. Now... it's a wholely different world.
I guess we could just ignore those threats and sit around and wait. But really, isn't that really what happened with 9/11? Hindsight is telling us more and more that all of the clues to this threat were there before us, long before the incident happened. But up until then, Al Qaeda was just a bunch of religious kooks who had gotten away with some anti-American attacks in ramshackle Third World nations (the USS Cole attack in Yemen and the bombings of our Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies) and had directly threatened much on American soil. The first World Trade Center bombing was a fluke and pretty unsuccessful, it even looked like we had taken out those responsible. Up until then, they were just a small mosquito, buzzing the elephant.
And then, the paradigm shifted.
Or can you not see that?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I clearly stated why it was silly. It had naught to do with what logic it possessed, but was due to it being a response to something that was never said, and in fact a response to something that was specifically not said.
However, if you want my response to the logic of your statement:
Everything that may have changed was emotional. Anyone intelligent could see the possibility of terrorism on our soil, and anticipate it. Our intelligence agencies already regularly issued reports of people near to being ready to pull of a terrorist attack, stopped before the act. Anyone who thought we were safe from terrorism needed their head examined.
However, we felt safe. And you know what? We still do. The attitude of America about our own safety hasn't changed a whit. We were shocked out of our skins, briefly, but your typical American feels no more threatened in his home than he did five years ago. Terrorism has not been brought home, it has been made monument by its scale. It is not the plane crashing into a tower that strikes fear into the heart of an Israeli, but the suicide bomber in a restaurant, or a bus. Terrorism remains an act far away, no longer in distance but in scale. "It will never happen to me, why would they target my city?"
We're still smug and safe-feeling, and I hope we stay smug and safe-feeling. Because it means we are safe.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I bow before your clear logic.
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: quote:
To say that the US was "trapped" with no "good" (extremely subjective wording) choices is ridiculous. ... But we weren't trapped, by any means, into doing it.
JonnyNotSoBravo,
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said nor implied that we were trapped INTO DOING what we did. I said we were trapped with no good options, referring to the "cornered animal" concept.
Consider the hiker that cut his own hand off to save his life. I wouldn't say he was trapped into cutting off his hand. I would say he was trapped with no good options (choose your hand or your life but not both). I respect him for cutting of his hand as much as I would respect him for not doing so and dying on the mountain. My point (by analogy) is that it is counter-productive to fight a man in such position when he decides his action, not because his action is good (cutting off his hand sucks), but because our fighting against it isn't beneficial. Heroes recognize the difference between a trapped man making a tough decision and a foolish man ignoring obviously better options, and does not described the trapped man as a foolish man for political gain.
Mike
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. If I did so, I apologize. Please explain what you mean so I don't have to infer what you're saying.
quote:choose your hand or your life but not both
Your hiker analogy is false. Trapped by what? "Trapped" implies that we were cornered and had no way out. 9/11 was a guerilla attack. It wasn't about cornering the US. It was a quick strike, leaving no big obvious target for us at which to strike back. I think it would be near impossible to "trap" us with anything short of the threat of nuclear war. Perhaps you could make your reasoning more clear, because obviously I'm not seeing it.
And you talk about "Heroes" and "villains" like it's the Wild West and the good guys are all known by their white hats and chivalrous conduct. The US isn't a hero in this. We aren't noble. We gave chemical weapons to Iraq in the 80s. We supported Afghanistan and OBL when they were fighting against the USSR. We have put dictators as brutal as Saddam Hussein (e.g. Pinochet) into office. Don't be fooled by Bush's us vs. them and "Axis of Evil" rhetoric, which implies them=evil and us=good. Evil lies in the hearts of people.
My first response to your post was mainly because I thought you totally abused my Sun Tzu reference, and I think it doesn't apply at all to the US situation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Nothing changed after September 11. Nothing except people's attitudes. People's attitudes changed because they learned something knew. They learned that terrorism poses a real threat to our own interests and our own lives.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I maintain that our attitude has changed very little, and that we still feel completely safe.
Posted by Jeffrey Getzin (Member # 1972) on :
quote: Since Dean opposes Bush's handling of the war, and has not yet been crushed. . . how exactly are we to view this statement?
Since sin opposes Christianity, and has not yet been crushed ... how exactly are we to view this statement?
Jeff
Posted by Mr. Sir (Member # 6017) on :
quote: Your hiker analogy is false. Trapped by what? "Trapped" implies that we were cornered and had no way out. ... Perhaps you could make your reasoning more clear, because obviously I'm not seeing it.
I'll try to clarify.
I guess my point boils down to the concept that one should distinguish between these two cases when looking at other people's actions: 1. Making a bad choice instead when there are other much better choices available. 2. Making a bad choice when available other choices are similarly bad.
For example, if a guy cut his foot of because his big toe had a hang-nail, most people would think him a complete idiot because he could have just put a bandaid on it and let it heal.
But if the same guy cut his foot off because it became lodged in some rocks in an avallanche in the mountains and he was either going to 1) freeze to death that night or 2) cut the foot off and crawl to safety before nightfall, most people would think him brave and treat him with respect.
The same guy did the same thing in both cases, yet in one case we think him an idiot, and in the other we think highly of him. Why? Because we recognize that the appropriateness of the action is not defined by the action itself, appropriateness is RELATIVE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY THE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE.
Just like I wouldn't say cutting off a foot is a good thing in and of itself, I don't say the war on terror is a good thing. Frankly, it sucks. But so do the other options because the other options are guaranteed to fail to remove the terrorists from their ability to attack us and will also communicate that they can get away with it without recourse. It's kind of like fighting crime. Throwing people in jail sucks, but so does not throwing them in jail and watching crime explode because people see they can get away with it.
I'm not suggesting that people should be pro war on terror. I'm suggesting that people should realize that the US was put in a "trapped" position in that it had NO GOOD OPTIONS in terms of response and prevention of future terror, and evaluate the US response RELATIVE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY THE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE.
quote: And you talk about "Heroes" and "villains" ... The US isn't a hero in this....
I agree the US isn't a hero in this! I never said nor implied it was! I basically said that the heroes are unheard, quietly respecting that the US didn't have any GOOD choices. Heroes respect that getting involved in fighting the US war on terror isn't going to improve the situation, and therefore let it be and focus on something else that they can make positive.
The villians are like the hiker's buddy who can't dislodge the foot or get help in time, and instead of giving his buddy something to bite down on when he cuts his foot of and helping bind the wound, he fights his buddy's attempt to cut his foot off to save his life. Not only does he piss of his buddy, but he puts him through more pain and ensures the death he was trying to avoid. How foolish and irresponsible! Yet that's pretty much what some of the opposing US politicians and opposing countries did to the US in fighting the war on terror. They made a bad situation worse by prolonging action and weakening the US attempt to reduce terrorist threat, when they could have focused on something more useful like domestic problems, humanitarian aid, invention, or any other number of positive things.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Fugu, its obvious that people's attitudes have changed. One simple example is that you can't even say, "gun" at an airport. Once September 11 happened people did realize they weren't safe just because they were in the US. If attitudes haven't changed then how did they "horrible" Patriot Act pass?
Jeff, I think you should try to start making sense. You're just making random, unsubstantiated claims about Bush and refuse to back them up with logic or evidence.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It was initially an Executive Order, I believe. I'm not sure about that. That it hasn't been overturned is a function of our congressmen being scared to be seen as anti-american. It may be as simple as no one wants to be saddled with leading the charge against something called the Patriot Act.
It's kind of like gays in the military. There really isn't a mature reason that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hasn't been thrown out in the name of "Doesn't matter," but nobody wants to lead that charge.
[ December 18, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
nfl, the "gun" and "bomb" utterings in airports were a policy before 9/11, and at BWI, at least, they had signs posted about it (in 1998/1999), I believe.
9/11 didn't change this policy.
-Bok
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Bok, come on, you can't tell me its the same thing before and after 9/11.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, I can.
Sure, the lines are longer, and the like, but that particular policy (to my knowledge, I admit I might be misremembering, but since I have done 90%+ of my flying pre-9/11, I don't believe so), has been in effect since Lockerbie, at least.
Flying is different since 9/11, but not on this policy, and general security is still most accurately represented as a colander. I had at least one friend who went through security with razors and nail clippers, even though both were EXPLICITLY on the prohibited list (I believe one or the other has since been taken off, but wasn't at the time).
-Bok
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Heh. I went through security with a hunting knife, and my below-bag contained two large machetes.
Top that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Policies and attitudes are not the same thing. That a policy is in place does not imply that the populace is emotionally tied to that policy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jeffrey- you have to include the whole quote.
quote:
Tresopax:...and has used nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
Scott R: Since Dean opposes Bush's handling of the war, and has not yet been crushed. . . how exactly are we to view this statement?
My point was that Tresopax's statements regarding Bush's supposed iron grip on free speech were hyperbole-- much like a good deal of this thread.
Dean stands out against Bush's handling of the war; he has not been silenced, crushed, villified, martyred, or even reprimanded as far as I know. His campaign is flourishing.
Evidence therefore indicates that Tresopax is mistaken, at least on this one point.
Later, Tresopax amends his statement to the effect that Bush TRIED to use nationalism to crush competing viewpoints. This is an entirely subjective opinion, one that I'm not inclined to disagree with. I am not comfortable with the Patriot Act.
But apparently, all of the Democrats in the House and Senate WERE-- except one.
SO-- if we use Tresopax's reasoning-- why should we vote for ANY of the established politicians? They've all worked (according to Tres. and Co.'s reasoning) to undermine American freedom; they've all tried to use nationalism to crush competing viewpoints.
[ December 18, 2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Now if only more Americans realized that... ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I thought you said spoken, not Speaking. My mistake.... ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)