This is topic Excellent video about the "War Against Terror" (and Libby and Gore and other things) in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
[ July 17, 2007, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I don't think that the definition of this war is the source of the current debate so much as the capacity of those who we fight to be a true threat.
There are those who feel that radical islamic elements will never really have the military or political capacity to cause any real influence to the western way of life. If that is truly the case then the current conflict really is about western greed and corruption.
So the debate lies in the motive and means of two civilizations.
Are the worst elements of Islam, those driven by raw violence, hatred and need to control, a threat; Can they really get to us? Or is this conflict just a cloak for imperialists to gain more lucre, all the while supported by the breaking back or lifeblood of the common man.
Nothing is ever so simple as checking box A or box B.
Looking through history wars seem an unconcionable inevitability, but has one ever been fought that was right?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Was fighting the Nazis not right? Was Israel's defense against 6 invading Arab armies not right? Was the US War of Independence not right?
And those who think that radical Islamic elements won't be able to cause any real influence to our way of life need to go and visit Ground Zero.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I don't think war should ever be described as "right". Necessary or justified, perhaps, but never right.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"And those who think that radical Islamic elements won't be able to cause any real influence to our way of life need to go and visit Ground Zero."
My thoughts as well.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
EDIT: I refuse to allow myself to be captive to pleas of nationalism. I'm as much a patriot as someone who decorates their car with images (or actual) of flags.
The horrible tragedy at Ground Zero did not affect our way of life, or you would have seen a concerted effort to reduce our rampant consumerism, and, perhaps, see an large, sustained increase in military volunteerism. It affected the way we look at other people's ways of life, but not really our own.
Is radical Islam a threat? Yes. It isn't the only threat for the US, nor are the ways we currently engage it necessarily the best. Further, those executing our current strategies don't appear to be competent in succeeding in the strategies it devises.
-Bok
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"The horrible tragedy at Ground Zero did not affect our way of life, or you would have seen a concerted effort to reduce our rampant consumerism, and, perhaps, see an large, sustained increase in military volunteerism. It affected the way we look at other people's ways of life, but not really our own."
That really depends on who you talk to and what they consider important.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Was fighting the Nazis not right? Was Israel's defense against 6 invading Arab armies not right? Was the US War of Independence not right?
And those who think that radical Islamic elements won't be able to cause any real influence to our way of life need to go and visit Ground Zero.
There are voices that not a few people listen to saying otherwise. They say these conflicts were business as usual and the specifics such as WW1&2, The Civil war, US War of Independance and especially everything about Israel were all brought about by machinations of imperialists for reasons of profit. They usually don't like to spell it out that way but when someone is talking about western civilization as the villain that how it usually ends up being painted.
I actually grew up hearing alot of this type of rhetoric so I have a bit of an understanding thought process.
As for ground zero, there are more than I would have thought who are willing to believe the conspiracy theories out there. This plays right in to the hands of the people who really believe western civilization has been the problem and not the solution.
To me it is a convoluted way of thinking. The problem is how pervasive it is, especially at the university level where impressionable youth are often facing heavy pressure from peers and professors to conform to what has become the reactionary stance of our day. Western Civilization is bad.
The funny thing about all this self hate is that it exists in the midst of one the few societies since Rome that has produced the necessary freedoms to allow such open self criticism.
Ultimately I belive the Nazis needed to be stopped. I believe Islamofascists need to be stopped as well.
I also sometimes speculate how well WW2 would have gone if the political climate of the United States was like it is now during that war.
Would that effort survive loosing three or four times the current total of casualties in Iraq in one month or at some times in one day?
Would those who ran that war in all thier humanity, mistakes and successes, be held to the impossible task of always choosing the exact right strategy by the armchair generals with perfect hindight?
Would the populace be able to make the needed sacrifice to overcome the enemy?
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I don't think war should ever be described as "right". Necessary or justified, perhaps, but never right.
Well said.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I consider the continuation of the United States as pretty darn important, since I consider it, on the whole, a pretty awesome place to live and be a citizen of.
Did it affect many people lives? Yes, absolutely, but the "American Way of Life", the nationalistic myth, did not lose many (any?) adherents.
-Bok
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Just asking for clarification here. Are you saying that because the "american way of life" didn't fundamentally change as a result of 9/11 Islamofascism did not change our lifestyle?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
calaban, WWII had a president that declared war (officially and fully) against nation states, not against an abstract entity. I think if Bush did likewise, it would have been much more similar than you think. Further, we've been told to NOT make any real sacrifices in the current war. You want to implement the draft and march against particular nations? Please feel free to advocate it.
Basically, I think any reference to WWII to be that much more an attempt to link a noble time with our time, to thus make it as noble. It's hard to argue against; even now I feel guilty for doing it, but I think these attempts are misplaced.
Oh, and the imperialist argument is a vocal minority with which you are painting a much larger group of people. Well done. There really aren't that many liberal effete out in the wild, and I would bet political views vary much more in a university setting than, say, your average American small town.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it changed it in some very small ways, given the way some people make out the threat to be. If it's a huge threat, then advocate the necessary lifestyle changes! Instead, the president repeatedly told us to go out and shop, and act normally... And here's a secret, for about 90% of America in those days, that was easily possible (even if many decided instead to be glued to the television that decided to cover only this for weeks and weeks).
How do you think Islamofascism has forced us into change? I see most of the civilian side being related to airport security.
-Bok
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The religious fundamentalists in America frighten me more than the Islamic fundamentalists abroad. The chance that any one particular person in America will ever be killed by an Islamic terrorist is tiny.
Meanwhile, fundamentalists within our own country are daily working to bend America to their way of thinking, reduce freedoms, and spread the very fear of the terrorists they want to cow us with. They use fear to gain control as much as Islamic terrorists, and while they may not strap on a bomb or hijack an airplane, their capacity to change our standard of living is many times more real.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Against which specific nation could war be declared. We were not attacked by a single nation we have been attacked by an ideology that is exclusive from ours. It is every bit as separated from beliefs of western civilization as were fascist beliefs of Nazis. The link between WW2 and this conflict is valid because of the exclusionary viewpoint of those who we fight.
I agree that group think in a small town is probably more homologous than at a university. The issue is that the University communities as a whole are teaching this at all as curriculum. I am not saying that thier viewppoint shouldn't be considered, I'm just saying it has a very large following at an exclusive level of our educational system where it is presented as truth rather than a viewpoint to consider.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Change: I agree mostly there, except for those who are in the military and thier families, this is a very convenient war.
My caveat is the things that were definitely effected by that day. I don't believe that we are the same America and world that would have existed if 9/11 had not happened. So while many things about daily life are not effected we are living different lives because of this war. There is just no way to predict how it could have been. For starters the current administration would most likely not have been reelected.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
We were attacked by PEOPLE following a particular ideology. We can target those that act on it, and target nations that aid and abet it (like Afghanistan, NOT like pre-Invasion Iraq, whose totalitarianism was of a much more Western bent under Saddam).
For the record, the ideology of the Nazis were every bit a part born from, and informed by, Western Civilization at the time. It's only after the fact that we drew the line that was crossed by Nazi fascism.
The link you make, I might add, makes no comment on the willingness of the peoples. In fact, I say we've done BETTER this time around. We were in Afghanistan breaking up Taliban and Al-Qaeda camps within two months of 9/11. It took us 2 years to become involved in WWII, largely because few people wanted to be involved.
RE: liberals. Your observation is that of any group of people of any ideology. It's a failing of people commonly. It's just that it's impolite (even unPC in general society) to make the same comment of various religious or even secular conservative groups.
EDIT: It should probably be noted that religious groups/people usually get the first crack at children, often by people who are in greater positions of trust. If you're worried about indoctrination of 18-year-olds because they are being indoctrinated, then you should be similarly worried about 3-year-olds being indoctrinated. Except that isn't what you worry about (nor what one can honestly say is happening in either case), you just don't like that people actually get convinced of ideas you disagree with.
-Bok
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It's an interesting clip; to a degree, I agree. Where the comparison breaks down, however, is the sense of national identity tied to Naziism and Japanese Imperialism. While many tied to the movement the speaker identifies as Islamic Totalitarianism may strongly identify with particular nations or regions (whether the region they identify as Palestine or, say, the historical limits of Saladin's conquests), they continue to exist when driven from those nations or regions and eventually creep back both militarily and culturally. Consider the resurgance of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example.
While identifying the culture and ideology of those we oppose is helpful, it is not clear that the basic tactics used to take on Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany will be effective here.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
calaban, can you give me any concrete examples. I will say this, a partial mindset change has occurred. We do all the same things, but it appears many fellow citizens now have a more untrusting undercurrent in their opinions. That was probably helped by a lot of the excess attention to protecting children from all ills, and the change in what was considered adequate.
My parents would probably be looked at as reckless today; when I was growing up, it was reasonable to let 9/10-year-olds play for ours in the neighborhood with other kids, unattended by adults.
-Bok
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bokonon,
quote:The horrible tragedy at Ground Zero did not affect our way of life, or you would have seen a concerted effort to reduce our rampant consumerism, and, perhaps, see an large, sustained increase in military volunteerism. It affected the way we look at other people's ways of life, but not really our own.
Even if I agreed with the first statement (which I don't), wouldn't the second portion contradict the first? How Americans in particular, building our way of life so deliberately on an amalgamation of everyone else's, view the ways of life of other peoples would seem to be very much a part of the American way of life.
quote:Is radical Islam a threat? Yes. It isn't the only threat for the US, nor are the ways we currently engage it necessarily the best. Further, those executing our current strategies don't appear to be competent in succeeding in the strategies it devises.
This I agree with. Honestly, if history is any judge, we should be cowboying up for trouble with the PRC more than anything, but the truth is large bodies of people don't think that way.
quote:Did it affect many people lives? Yes, absolutely, but the "American Way of Life", the nationalistic myth, did not lose many (any?) adherents.
On the contrary, the "American Way of Life" lost many adherents (or at least, forced them to admit they weren't truly adherents) in the areas of our criminal justice system, our approach to use of military force, the style of our politics, the rights of suspects, the rights of enemies, among other things. Given that America is rooted very strongly in the rights of its citizens (or lack thereof), surely this counts as a change to the way of life?
quote:Basically, I think any reference to WWII to be that much more an attempt to link a noble time with our time, to thus make it as noble.
Actually, I don't really think that America's participation in WWII was very noble. When viewed from a macro perspective, as a nation as a whole, that is. No, we lost that particular claim to honor-although there are others we didn't lose-when we waited until we were directly attacked by the allies of a monstrous culture to take action.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, I am sympathetic to your last two points, but much like you said in your second response, large bodies of people don't think that way. I was willing to concede ground to keep (somewhat) focused on a few issues.
As for the effects of 9/11 on the day-to-day life of Americans, can you come up with something concrete? I suppose I've contradicted myself, saying there was no effect, and then adding later my perceptions of change in other people's behaviors, but when I think of our way of life, I think can-do attitude, independence, and "we're the best". None of those ideas appear to be less popular, even up here in liberal MA.
As for your second response, I will that that our methods and strategies to combat radical Islam may have made it a more pressing threat than even the PRC at this point, or than it was even immediately after 9/11.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rakeesh, I realized I didn't answer your first bit. I think our lifestyle is decorated with an amalgamation of other cultures, but that this is a symptom of the underlying independent streak Americans have, not something intrinsic in our way of life.
-Bok
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: ...
people who really believe western civilization has been the problem and not the solution.
To me it is a convoluted way of thinking. The problem is how pervasive it is, especially at the university level where impressionable youth are often facing heavy pressure from peers and professors to conform to what has become the reactionary stance of our day. Western Civilization is bad.
Did you go to a liberal school? I go to a University where most people are progressive, and you do not understand the sort of discourse that goes on at such a place, if you're saying something like this.
quote: The funny thing about all this self hate is that it exists in the midst of one the few societies since Rome that has produced the necessary freedoms to allow such open self criticism.[/QB]
Self-hate? Again, you are clueless. People who are fighting against the policies of this government don't do it because they hate what the government IS, but because they are ashamed of what the government DOES. (You conflate gov't with the nation as a whole, and that only works for structural realists, which most people are not.)
In a country where the current president was elected by the electoral votes from a state he, by all current accounts, lost, where an American citizen could be subject to unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping or detention as an enemy combatant without the right of habeas corpus, where the prison industry is making huge money off of hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug arrests every year, where corporations are virtually unaccountable for gross environmental damage, where the order of the day for military spending is wasteful and unaccountable no-bid contracts given to cronies who have their hands in policymaking, where the democratically elected government is unaccountable to the subpoena of the Congress in resisting investigation for far greater crimes, you would really just tell people they should be happy with the freedoms they have because they're better off than the many fine civilizations of the dark ages? You would dare tell somebody they shouldn't even agitate for something better than this?
Your priorities are messed up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: There are voices that not a few people listen to saying otherwise.
You know, this really disturbs me. In your previous post, you wrote:
quote:There are those who feel
And that bothered me, but I let it go. But now you're doing it again. I don't care if "there are those who say" X. And I don't care if "there are voices that not a few people listen to". If you have something to say on your own behalf, say it. And if I have something to say about it, I'll say it. But there's something tremendously weaselly about putting everything in terms of "some say". There are "some" who say the Earth is flat. Who cares?
quote:Originally posted by calaban: As for ground zero, there are more than I would have thought who are willing to believe the conspiracy theories out there.
But who cares? I mean, really. Who cares that there are conspiracy nuts out there? What's your point in pointing that out? Is it that you think it means there's something to those conspiracy theories? Do you believe in them? If so, say so, and don't waffle. If not, stop wasting my time telling me that there are nuts out there. I know there are. We all know there are. There's nothing fruitful to be gained when discussing an issue by bringing in every half-baked idea out there. Only the views of those engaged in the discussion are relevant to the discussion.
quote:Originally posted by calaban: This plays right in to the hands of the people who really believe western civilization has been the problem and not the solution.
Are you one of those people? If so, say so. If not, why do you care that there are people who believe western civilization has been the problem and not the solution?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: There are those who feel that radical islamic elements will never really have the military or political capacity to cause any real influence to the western way of life.
At present, there is significant influence on the Western way of life in Israel, where people don't dare to go to restaurants because of suicide bombers. Also in parts of Europe, where women fear to go out without a burka because of what Moslem men might do to them. These influences in Europe can be expected to continue, since the Islamic population there is growing.
quote:If that is truly the case then the current conflict really is about western greed and corruption.
This is called "false dilemma." It is possible to fight an enemy for reasons other than greed and protecting a way of life (if that's different from greed somehow). For example, we might fight because we object to having our citizens murdered, even if those murders do not significantly influence the way the rest of us live.
So: why would anyone ignore real influences of Islam, and ignore the possibilities of fighting for self-defense (!), and leap immediately to the conclusion that the reason for fighting al-Qaeda is corporate greed?
The conclusion in this post does not derive from its arguments, so the only explanation I can find is that it comes from a previously held belief, which was arrived at some other way.
quote:Are the worst elements of Islam, those driven by raw violence, hatred and need to control, a threat; Can they really get to us? Or is this conflict just a cloak for imperialists to gain more lucre, all the while supported by the breaking back or lifeblood of the common man.
Besides the repeated false dilemma, this shows I think the reason for this conclusion: an image of imperialists eager to gain more lucre (which is different from money?) supported by the breaking back of the common man. It's an emotionally powerful image. But it does not make economic sense. You can make a lot more money by selling the common man socks and electricity and Happy Meals than by breaking his back. That way, when you make your money, you have his cooperation, by the hundreds of millions.
The same problem applies to making up phony wars to make money. Wars *cost* money. They disrupt business. They make your insurance rates go up. In this case, the war also stopped the Oil-For-Food corruption, which was pretty lucrative. If you were a greedy corporate industrialist who didn't care about defending the country except as a pretext for corruption, you'd rake in a lot more by selling underwear than by getting someone to blow up bridges.
quote:Nothing is ever so simple as checking box A or box B.
If this isn't that simple, then why reduce it to simply checking box A or box B? How can you reduce this entire question to two options (Islamic killers might change our way of life, or it's a corporate scam), and point out that it's silly to reduce it to two options, without noticing the self-reference?
quote:Looking through history wars seem an unconcionable inevitability, but has one ever been fought that was right?
Wow.
Is this the real basis for the post? Because this vast generalization is *way* bigger than everything else in it, and you didn't try to establish it! If this is the basis of the post, you might paraphrase the post as
quote:All war is wrong. Therefore fighting terrorists with war is wrong.
It would be sound, although it would be hard to establish the first part.
Or maybe that wasn't a rhetorical question. My best answer is that when people are coming to kill my family, I believe it is right to stop them, even if they get hurt in the process. And if it is wrong, I will still do it, because preventing my family from being murdered is that important.
A passionate post, to be sure, and sound argument isn't easy. But it is worth the effort.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "And those who think that radical Islamic elements won't be able to cause any real influence to our way of life need to go and visit Ground Zero."
My thoughts as well.
Its a nice soundbite, but...
quote: Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, however, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began its accounting) is about the same as the number killed over the same period by lightning--or by accident-causing deer or by severe allergic reaction to peanuts. In almost all years the total number of people worldwide who die at the hands of international terrorists is not much more than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States.
quote: The conclusion is that there would have to be one set of 9/11 crashes a month for the risks to balance out (with costs from automobile accidents). More generally, they calculate that an American's chance of being killed in one non-stop airline flight is about one in 13 million (even taking the September 11 crashes into account), while to reach that same level of risk when driving on America's safest roads, rural interstate highways, one would have to travel a mere 11.2 miles. ... people tend to be more alarmed by dramatic fatalities--which the September 11 crashes certainly provided--than by ones that cumulate statistically. Thus in the United State the 3000 deaths of September 11 inspire far more grief and fear than the 150,000 deaths from auto accidents that have taken place there since then
link This is an interesting analysis of both the direct costs of terrorism (which are negligible) and the cost of the reaction (where the real "influence" occurs) to terrorism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In a country where the current president was elected by the electoral votes from a state he, by all current accounts, lost, where an American citizen could be subject to unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping or detention as an enemy combatant without the right of habeas corpus, where the prison industry is making huge money off of hundreds of thousands of non-violent drug arrests every year, where corporations are virtually unaccountable for gross environmental damage, where the order of the day for military spending is wasteful and unaccountable no-bid contracts given to cronies who have their hands in policymaking, where the democratically elected government is unaccountable to the subpoena of the Congress in resisting investigation for far greater crimes, you would really just tell people they should be happy with the freedoms they have because they're better off than the many fine civilizations of the dark ages? You would dare tell somebody they shouldn't even agitate for something better than this?
'By all current accounts'? Has there been some new news about the 2000 election results that I've missed or just forgotten?
It's a point of contention that what you're discussing is, in fact, constitutional.
'Virtually unaccountable'? Right, they can just do whatever they want. Why don't you leave the hyperbole at the door?
His priorities are messed up, but your partisan-colored glasses clearly need polishing.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree with the video that the Totalitarian aspect of radical Islam is part of what puts us at odds, but radical Christianity has a totalitarian aspect, as does radical capitalism. Any movement that not only wants to control how you act, but wants to control how you think about right and wrong and is willing to employ coercive measures is totalitarian.
Party politics promotes totalitarianism, as does the private corporate environment. It starts out with people dressing the same, and it ends with people thinking the same way, not just practically, but morally. It's all soft pressure and by degrees, but one can sell ones soul piecemeal, quietly for daily bread or family comfort, until one convinces herself that that's just the way the "real world" operates, and at that moment, one has fallen prey to a totalitarian system. _________
As an aside: We staged a war from Saudi Arabia. I mean, if we eminent domained a base or a power plant in the middle of Amish country in the US, we'd have similar problems.
[ July 16, 2007, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: radical Christianity has a totalitarian aspect
I don't know -- the Amish have been kind of quiet lately. Not much from LDS, either, except a disturbing rumor found on Hatrack that they are secretly working with Hamas. On the other hand, sometimes people at Amy Grant concerts sing along with "Love Will Find a Way."
quote:Party politics promotes totalitarianism, as does the private corporate environment. It starts out with people dressing the same, and it ends with people thinking the same way, not just practically, but morally. It's all soft pressure and by degrees, but one can sell ones soul piecemeal, quietly for daily bread or family comfort, until one convinces herself that that's just the way the "real world" operates, and at that moment, one has fallen prey to a totalitarian system.
By "totalitarian" do you mean "groupthink"? Because my workplace isn't at all totalitarian, but I think every place does some groupthink. Even a group of friends, to some degree.
quote:We staged a war from Saudi Arabia. I mean, if we eminent domained a base or a power plant in the middle of Amish country in the US, we'd have similar problems.
They would park exploding buggies next to our troop headquarters?
Did we seize Saudi property? That's the first I've heard of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:radical Christianity has a totalitarian aspect
And it has been responded to in a sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate manner. It right now however is not as significant a threat as Islamo-Facism.
If anything I see a continued ignorance of Islamo-Facism as something that will stimulate the formation of radical Christian elements more surely then just about anything else right now.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Did we seize Saudi property? That's the first I've heard of it.
We didn't care about popular support. We are a democratic nation with democratic ideals, who made a deal with a non-democratic authority, and then were surprised that the people of that nation were upset. ________
Qaz, let's say we did put a military base or a tech institute in the middle of Amish country, would it make it any better or worse if they didn't fight back? If the Amish bowed and accepted it, quietly resenting us instead of throwing rocks, would it make the decision any more a less inconsiderate?
Totalitarianism is groupthink, usually with the force of law. That's what makes Nazism so scary. By 1936, the Nazies weren't back room dealing, cigar smoking conspirators, the movement was perpetuated by working stiffs, bureaucrats, and soccer moms who considered liquidating Jews as a distasteful but appropriate procedure, like the slaughtering of cows for meat.
In the Origins of Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt details the varied forces that induce and perpetuated totalitarianism, and in Eichmann in Jerusalem, the issue turns on the fact that Eichmann, on an individual level, is a simply a benign douche bag, and the ramifications of the fact that the great civilized Holocaust of the 20th century was executed not by great men with terrible, grand ideas, but men of middling imagination like Scooter Libby.
Blackblade,
The video argued that the problem isn't the terrorism tactics, the problem lies with totalitarianism, and I don't think that's the case. I think the problem is the tactics, because we are okay with totalitarianism, as long as it's the right kind. Totalitarianism is going to happen when you have a powerful homogeneous group who want to "get things done," because it's easier to "get things done" when everyone is the same. The powerful group uses its influence to role over or assimilate the not so powerful group, consciously or unconsciously. The one true guard against totalitarianism is to seriously respect diversity, and when I say seriously respect diversity, that means the homogeneous group is going to have to be willing to sacrifice, and not on it's own terms The trick is convincing the powerful homogeneous group that they should have to give up anything, when all the homogeneous group wants to do is "get things done," and is that so bad?
[ July 16, 2007, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:We didn't care about popular support. We are a democratic nation with democratic ideals, who made a deal with a non-democratic authority, and then were surprised that the people of that nation were upset. It wasn't the Louisiana Purchase or anything, we, of all people, should have known better.
Could you list the specific offenses against Saudi Arabia that we committed?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The video argued that the problem isn't the terrorism tactics, the problem lies with totalitarianism, and I don't think that's the case. I think the problem is the tactic, because we are okay with totalitarianism, as long as it's the right kind.
You might as well argue that because households are often run like a dictatorship or sometimes a facist regime that in the US we are OK with both.
Totalitarianism can have degrees just as any other ideology. Nobody believes absolute democracy is a good idea. The problem with this particular brand of totalitarianism is that it believes it has the will of God on it's side, and that it's God's will that others conform to it or die. It refuses to blame itself for it's problems and instead blames others merely existing as the root cause of its humiliation. There is no head to the movement, its a mass of unorganized chaos that needs to be stopped BEFORE it organizes, and it is quite capable of finding a head, he/she could be working his/her way up the ranks even now.
Those ideas are what spawn the tactics. Anyway you slice it the ideas have to be confronted.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Could you list the specific offenses against Saudi Arabia that we committed?
15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11th were Saudi Arabian, as well as Bin Laden himself. Do you really think those facts are unrelated to military troops stationed there from the first Gulf War on? We pulled out the bulk of those troops in 2003 and now house them in Iraq, but I can't help wondering if we would have been better served if they hadn't have been there in the first place.
quote:Nobody believes absolute democracy is a good idea.
Some people do, they just aren't very popular.
Blackblade, the tactics of terrorism are as old as Time. It's blackmail and extortion under a different guise. Truthfully, I don't mind terrorism as a tactic. I've never been one for a fair fight. I don't like fighting, so I don't see why it must just involve soldiers and be done by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Nuclear proliferation has never made sense to me. When the US has access to an army the scope of the next 20 countries combined, do we really need the bomb? I can't see why the Earth wouldn't be a better place if every nation got rid of Nuclear weapons, including the US, then we wouldn't be this morally untenable position which advocates for some nations to possess the bomb and some not to. Giving up the bomb is the kind of sacrifice I'm talking about.
[ July 16, 2007, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Some people do, they just aren't very popular.
Why does that even matter? Some people think Jesus should be acknowledged as the one true God and head of the United States, and there are petitions submitted to congress to pass ammendments stating as much almost ALL the time.
If they started gaining political ground and using hate speech to glorify their efforts as well as stating that once they get the legislation passed its the will of Jesus that non believers be killed or reeducated then we'd have to stop the idea. If they managed to take over the United States and started saying we need to reclaim the Holy Land or the rest of the world for Jesus, I HOPE some other power steps up and stops us, and hopefully they do it in a humane way rather then just fighting our suicide bombers. Christianity in its early days also had people who thought martyrdom was the easiest way into heaven and TRIED to get thrown into the arena and executed by defiling Roman shrines and temples.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If they started gaining political ground and using hate speech to glorify their efforts as well as stating that once they get the legislation passed its the will of Jesus that non believers be killed or reeducated then we'd have to stop the idea.
What measures would you resort to to stop the idea?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We station troops in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia lets us station troops there. This would be generally true of most any country in the middle east or other volatile region.
I do agree many individual Saudi Arabians have issues with us, just like many residents of the general area. That definitely does not include the government of Saudi Arabia, and I'm not sure whether it includes the majority of citizens (though I have no doubt the majority have at least a vague distrust of us). But regardless, the Saudi government welcomed and welcomes us with open arms, so its a bit hard to claim an analogy to eminent domain or other siezure.
Our presence is something the Saudi government loves, for several reason. Dislike of our legal presence welcomed by the current government of Saudi Arabia is not a legitimate cause for attacking US forces. You are right that it might be part of what is causing the influx of Saudi fighters (though that's hardly the most major cause; the Saudi government itself has done far more to stir up Wahabbists), but you seem to be implying the Saudi fighters are justified in their violent acts because of it. Are you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:If they started gaining political ground and using hate speech to glorify their efforts as well as stating that once they get the legislation passed its the will of Jesus that non believers be killed or reeducated then we'd have to stop the idea.
What measures would you resort to to stop the idea?
Depends on how advanced the problem is.
Right now we have groups that espouse that idea, we let them talk all they want so long as they don't interefere with other people's right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
If they started getting congressmen to agree with them, I'd find my own congressmen who will oppose theirs. Same deal for senators. If a presidential candidate agreed with them I wouldn't vote for him and I would encourage others not to as well. If a president agreed with him I'd push for him to be removed from office if he actively enforced that idea.
If the majority of the nation supported it and I was in the minority I'd use passive resistance, and I'd refuse to serve in an army enforcing that agenda. I'd go to jail or die if need be, but I'd do as much as I could reasonably do to avoid dying. I'd still combat the idea rather then enlisting in some foreign military so I could shoot at my own countrymen.
Say we devised some sort of electrical device that could prevent combustion of all kinds within its radius. Terrorist's ability to use suicide bombers and IED's would be completely stopped. Do you think they'd all just go home? No they find another way to persue their agenda of destruction. They wouldn't think, "Well if Allah really was on our side he wouldn't have let them come up with such a device." More likely they'd say, "Satan who is with them is trying to stop us, but Allah will give us the victory if we use all our cunning to find a way to keep attacking them."
The root of the problem are the ideas, the, "God wants the whole world to be Muslim regardless of free will, and he wants US to be his tools" deal.
For every tactic they come up with, we can come up with a counter. But if we convince them stop persuing a particular goal, the tactics stop, it does now however work the other way around, at least not usually.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We station troops in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia lets us station troops there.
Political scientists start talking like this, and I get a little queasy. "Saudi Arabia" didn't let us do anything. A monarchy recognized the world over as susceptible to bribery let us station troops there. Let's say Kim Jong rented out Trump Towers in New York, and stationed 1,000 troops there, saying, "I have the rental agreement signed by Donald Trump himself." Would it be appropriate to say that the American business world let Kim Jong station troops in New York?
quote:But if we convince them stop pursuing a particular goal, the tactics stop, it does now however work the other way around, at least not usually.
You want to change their soul, you are courting a soft form of Totalitarianism. Some people actually believe that if we get these guys loaded down with mortgages and credit card debt, they'll be too busy trying to pay them off to worry about spreading the word of Allah.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We hardly have to bribe him directly, he does well by having us over there. I'm being quite literal. Every nation that might let us station troops there, we station troops there (and protest when asked to take them out). We don't have a bunch to pick and choose from, we take what we can.
And your analogy is rather flimsy. Donald Trump is not the internationally and nationally recognized government of the American business world. The House of Saud forms the internationally (including by the UN, if you like to respect the views of that body) and nationally recognized (unless you have evidence the majority of the Saudi population wants them gone?) government of Saudi Arabia.
I don't particularly like them either, but saying it is violently actionable by Saudis for us to have stationed troops there at the behest of their government is going too far. Are you saying that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:You want to change their soul, you are courting a soft form of Totalitarianism.
I certainly am not. Unless you are saying that when two ideas cannot coexist that it is impossible for one idea to avoid being called totalitarian when it triumphs, as by vanquishing the other idea it becomes totalitarian.
quote:Some people actually believe that if we get these guys loaded down with mortgages and credit card debt, they'll be too busy trying to pay them off to worry about spreading the word of Allah.
Its more likely they'd max em out, buy weapons and then claim that Allah is pleased with their cunning in that they stole the infidels money in order to get the tools they'd need to kill them.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'By all current accounts'? Has there been some new news about the 2000 election results that I've missed or just forgotten?
It's a point of contention that what you're discussing is, in fact, constitutional.
Is it really a democracy if this group (the group of people who get the privilege of turning in a ballot that correctly identifies the candidates they select) doesn't decide the election?
quote: 'Virtually unaccountable'? Right, they can just do whatever they want. Why don't you leave the hyperbole at the door?
His priorities are messed up, but your partisan-colored glasses clearly need polishing.
Why do you support the public only having a "moment of accountability" every four years? Don't you think a more transparent government would be better? Keep in mind Libby was convicted of PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. That means the public was unable to attain justice for the crimes that were committed. (Just because Libby doesn't have to endure his sentence, doesn't automatically mean that no crime existed or that we must assume that there was no crime committed. All we know is that we are trying to investigate a crime and Bush is the greatest defender of the obstruction of that investigation. Wouldn't a country where justice is attainable be better?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
quote:Here's one of many different analyses that would have justified a Gore victory: If all voters had access to machines that would have allowed them to correct mistakes on their confusing ballots, Gore would have won Florida by over 46,000 votes.
That's rich. So...we should guess at what voters meant when they voted, and base the elections on that? I cannot imagine anything more harmful to democracy than using the recount you're suggesting-one where, instead of using the ballots actually submitted, we guess.
I guess I just take voting more seriously than you do, Nato. While I agree that ballots should be as clear and straightforward as possible, I don't for a moment think that excuses knuckleheads who can't read instructions carefully for a vote screwing up. Is it reasonable to expect that when there's an inferior ballot, there will be problems? Sure. It it reasonable to say, "OK, let's use a recount that guesses at voter intent after the election," not remotely.
When on Earth did we get onto the Libby pardons?
...and I'll be sure to look you up in four (or eight) years when it's a Democrat in office putting out some questionable pardons. No, I'm not suggesting that because Democratic Presidents issue questionable pardons and commutations, it makes Republicans doing so acceptable, just pointing out your obvious partisanship...which calls into question your noble words about fairness and justice.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I still want to know what Saudi assets were seized by the US government.
I can answer the question of whether the Amish should turn to car-bombing civilians if the US had military bases or power plants in Pennsylvania: no. But that is not what I was saying. There is not one trace of evidence that the Amish would turn to murdering civilians if they got cross about something, and to say that they would insults the good name of a peaceful people.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Qaz: he doesn't think any were, he think its analogous to us siezing Saudi assets to put a military base on Saudi territory that we were told we could establish (and its worth pointing out, Saudi public opinion when we established our presence was much more favorable).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Irami: We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq.
This got several Arab groups upset, not because of US Imperialism, but because it made them look week, unable to protect their homeland from Persian maniacs.
So Osama chose to be mad about those troops, built up Al Queda, did 9/11, and the result--the US Troops invaded Iraq, allowing most of the troops to leave Saudi Arabia. Did we capitulate to terrorists by invading Iraq? Was that the true reason we went to war? To stop Al Queda by giving them what they wanted?
Fugu: Whether are not our troops were there for good reasons or bad reasons, the spin has been spun that we are imperialists bent on Arabic domination. Its a shame that we spawn the greatest spinmeisters and ad-men in the world, but have been losing this fight on the "Hearts and minds" front for decades. Truly patriotic spin-masters would not make millions helping people be president, they would focus on fixing the US Image in the mid-East.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nato,
quote:Here's one of many different analyses that would have justified a Gore victory: If all voters had access to machines that would have allowed them to correct mistakes on their confusing ballots, Gore would have won Florida by over 46,000 votes.
That's rich. So...we should guess at what voters meant when they voted, and base the elections on that? I cannot imagine anything more harmful to democracy than using the recount you're suggesting-one where, instead of using the ballots actually submitted, we guess.
I guess I just take voting more seriously than you do, Nato. While I agree that ballots should be as clear and straightforward as possible, I don't for a moment think that excuses knuckleheads who can't read instructions carefully for a vote screwing up. Is it reasonable to expect that when there's an inferior ballot, there will be problems? Sure. It it reasonable to say, "OK, let's use a recount that guesses at voter intent after the election," not remotely.
When on Earth did we get onto the Libby pardons?
...and I'll be sure to look you up in four (or eight) years when it's a Democrat in office putting out some questionable pardons. No, I'm not suggesting that because Democratic Presidents issue questionable pardons and commutations, it makes Republicans doing so acceptable, just pointing out your obvious partisanship...which calls into question your noble words about fairness and justice.
You don't understand what I'm saying.
First of all, feel free to talk to me about the shortcomings of any Democratic candidate or officeholder. I don't have any particular love for them, but I frequently write a couple of them that represent my district and state to tell them what is important to me. I'd welcome hearing any valid criticisms from anybody.
I think the President's support of Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice does serve as an example of the government being unaccountable (the topic of government being accountable to the people is something I brought up in my first post in this thread, and it is something critical to democracy.) You ignored the questions I asked you about it.
The people tried to investigate a crime that was committed (the outing of a CIA operative, a federal felony). Libby led in obstructing this investigation through perjury and not answering information. For this, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. Since you ignored my questions last time to post "When on Earth did we get onto the Libby pardons?", could you please answer them this time if you wish to keep talking to me?
Do you support Bush's notion of the public only having a "moment of accountability" every four years? (I don't.) Do you think a more transparent government would be better? (I do.) Wouldn't a country where justice (for federal crimes like the outing of a CIA operative) was attainable be better? (I think so.)
Bush is the biggest defender of Libby's obstruction of justice in this case. This obstruction went against the people's ability to hold their government accountable for real crimes that were committed. Do you support this obstruction of justice?
The 2000 election:
I didn't say we should use the figure from that WaPo story to invalidate the 2000 election. I think that figure is evidence that the Florida 2000 election was unfair and hurtful to democracy. (Do you think the Florida election was fair, and that people shouldn't be worried about the sate of our democracy because of it?)
I resent your insinuation that I don't take voting very seriously, because I take it very seriously. I want tamper-evident election results in every election. I want everybody to be able to cast a ballot for the candidate that they intend to vote for? Since you claim to take voting so seriously, I would be interested in hearing what you would answer to the question in my previous post: Is it really a democracy if this group (the group of people who get the privilege of turning in a ballot that correctly identifies the candidates they select) doesn't decide the election?
It is very easy to create a ballot that is fair, easy to understand, that allows correction of mistakes. The optical scan ballots here in Oregon are rarely spoiled by overvoting, because they are easy to understand and many counties make you use a #2 pencil to vote. (The spoilage rate in my county is very low even though we fill ours out in pen).
It is very easy to create a voting machine that is fair, and easy to understand, and is completely tamper-proof. If it simply was connected to a receipt printer that coughed up two identical receipts for every vote, one for the voter to take home, and one to put in a box at the polling place, it would be very easy to verify if a voting machine was turning out false results. (In addition to making horrible tamperable voting machines, Diebold makes ATMs that never lose a penny and spit out a receipt.) A fair and transparent election is attainable with today's capabilities.
If you want to continue a conversation about the Florida election in 2000, at least acknowledge that there were huge problems with it that we would hope to never see in a modern democracy. At least address the "scrub lists" that Florida Secretary of State and Bush's Florida Campaign co-chair Katherine Harris commissioned that incorrectly identified thousands of people, mostly African-Americans, as felons, preventing them from voting.
You might also remember the scene of angry voters banging on the doors of the building in which the recount was occurring, demanding that the recount stop. I don't know if you knew that several people in that picture were flown down from Washington DC with Republican campaign money in order to agitate to stop the recount. (The famous picture of this event includes a Tom Delay aide and a few other Republican staffers). This is what an election in America looks like, and I don't like the looks of it.
My original post was simply to reject the view (from calaban's post) that we should not complain about the state of our democracy because we have it so much better than people in pre-democracy states. This position is absolutely ridiculous, and I hope you agree.
I hope you reconsider the last line of this post, about my "obvious partisanship." I am no partisan, and anybody who thinks so is not paying attention. If you want to keep talking about this, please answer my boldface questions, and I will consider responding again. Your style of replying to people is to ignore their main points (especially ignoring any times when you are asked to clarify your position) and nitpick based on assumptions you make about their position on supporting points. You were wrong in your assumption that I would support a recount based on that WaPo article, for example, and you did not even address the broader philosophical questions about how a democracy should be. I really don't think your style of arguing helps Hatrack talk productively about anything. If you want to actually talk about the issues here, I would be happy to, but if you are just going to ignore everything I have to say and dismiss me as an "obvious partisan," then it's not worth talking to you.
edit: sorry to Lisa for derailing your thread
[ July 17, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
>The people tried to investigate a crime that was committed (the outing of a CIA operative, a federal felony).
That statement is not correct. Valerie Plame was not a CIA operative; referring to her in public was not a crime. There also was no investigation of this non-crime, because the prosecutor knew full well who did it. There were no charges for this non-crime, because there was nothing to charge him with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If it simply was connected to a receipt printer that coughed up two identical receipts for every vote, one for the voter to take home, and one to put in a box at the polling place, it would be very easy to verify if a voting machine was turning out false results.
The lack of a permanent, personal record of how specific voters voted is a serious safeguard of voting. People keep suggesting this, but it doesn't look to me as if they've researched the many reasons why receipts for voting aren't given out. At the least, I would expect to see an acknowledgment of the reasons for it and some explanation as to why the safeguard isn't needed any more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Qaz, the disclosure by Armitage wasn't a crime because he lacked knowledge of her status as covert. If someone in the administration intentionally caused the disclosure through Armitage and they knew that her identity as CIA employee was covert, then they would be guilty of the crime as a principal. So there was plenty to investigate after they knew who disclosed.
As for Plame not being covert, the CIA disagrees, and they're the ones who classify their people as covert or not.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, one thing he said wasn't false. Valerie Plame wasn't - as far as we know, anyway - an operative at the time when her employment by the CIA was disclosed. The role she seemed to be filling at that time was an analyst/administrator.
That's pretty much irrelevant, however, because she was recently, and for a large part of her career, a covert operative. Disclosing her status both potentially compromises (i.e. gets tortured and killed) sources and agents she built up during her career. Besides hurting our current intelligence gathering abilities, this damages our future abilities by making people less likely to become assets in the future and increasing scrutiny of the (according to the CIA) relatively disregarded wives and husbands of ambassadors.
I care about the security of our country and in our current situation, our intelligence assests, especially our human intelligence assests are perhaps our most important resource in detecting and preparing for developing threats. So, I get upset when our government damages them for any reason, but I am especially incensed when it is for ones as petty and self-serving as this one seems to have likely been.
Qaz, Could you explain to me why this doesn't seem like any sort of deal at all to you, let alone the big one that I think it is? Do you not think it weakens America's security?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to defend Saudi Arabia from Iraq.
Whether Hussein's regime invaded Kuwait en route as part of a plan to eventually invade Saudi Arabia, or whether the regime invaded Kuwait because they thought Kuwait would be an easy target, without allies, to make up for the costly Iran/Iraq war is a controversial question.
quote: The lack of a permanent, personal record of how specific voters voted is a serious safeguard of voting.
I'm curious as to what added benefit people think that having a personal receipt would add.
Most of the proposals I know of have a paper receipt printed out so the voter can verify it and then have that receipt deposited at the polling place for potential auditing. That seems to me to be extremely reasonable to the point of it being a no-brainer.
I'm not sure I understand why you'd want a person to have a personal record of their vote.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand why you'd want a person to have a personal record of their vote.
Me either. It's not like they could conduct a recount off it.
The only use I see is if a precinct shows no or very few votes for a given candidate, and you can gather enough receipts to demonstrate otherwise.
But it seems to me that's not necessary - to prove anything, they'd need to be authenticated by each person who cast each vote. Just get them to swear who they voted for if fraud or error on that scale needs to be proved.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote: If it simply was connected to a receipt printer that coughed up two identical receipts for every vote, one for the voter to take home, and one to put in a box at the polling place, it would be very easy to verify if a voting machine was turning out false results.
The lack of a permanent, personal record of how specific voters voted is a serious safeguard of voting. People keep suggesting this, but it doesn't look to me as if they've researched the many reasons why receipts for voting aren't given out. At the least, I would expect to see an acknowledgment of the reasons for it and some explanation as to why the safeguard isn't needed any more.
I didn't imagine the receipts as identifying the particular voter. I just want a system where the voter can examine the machine record of his or her vote and store that physical record (in a secure box at the polling place) of that so that in a recount, the final total that a machine reports can be verifiable.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm curious as to what added benefit people think that having a personal receipt would add.
Most of the proposals I know of have a paper receipt printed out so the voter can verify it and then have that receipt deposited at the polling place for potential auditing. That seems to me to be extremely reasonable to the point of it being a no-brainer.
I'm not sure I understand why you'd want a person to have a personal record of their vote.
I suppose the second receipt isn't totally necessary, because the voter can examine the first before depositing it. The personal receipt would be useless in a recount. The only use for it I would want is just an extra layer of verification that the machine recorded their vote right. One anonymous receipt would probably be enough to make sure machines were not tampered with.
Edit: Upon scanning the receipt-freeness article, I realize that a receipt wouldn't be ideal without some extra considerations. Because you must assume that a voter will cooperate with a coercer as much as possible, she could show a coercer her receipt before depositing it in a box. Perhaps if the receipt were viewable to the voter through a plexiglass panel after the on-screen verification of the vote and then fell into a collection hopper without ever actually being in the physical possession of the voter, it would be good enough to make it coercion-proof. What do you think? (Then the only way for a coercer to verify the vote would be to stand in the polling booth, and any system would fail in that case)
I think it is highly important that voters get to verify that the machine recorded the vote that it tells them it did. ES&S's and Diebold's voting machines were so insecure that I don't think we should ever trust what the screen tells us. There has to be a separate, uneditable record of votes recorded on each machine to verify that those machines are tallying up the votes correctly.
[ July 18, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I didn't imagine the receipts as identifying the particular voter. I just want a system where the voter can examine the machine record of his or her vote and store that physical record (in a secure box at the polling place) of that so that in a recount, the final total that a machine reports can be verifiable.
If he's got it in his hands to hand over to either the vote buyer or the vote coercer, then it's personally identifiable. If you're not talking about taking the receipt out of the voting booth, then I have no issue with it - a printed record is simply a Good Thing.
The thing we want to avoid is "bring me proof you voted for our candidate and your store won't burn down tonight."
Edit: Your edit shows we're thinking along the same lines here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Perhaps if the receipt were viewable to the voter through a plexiglass panel after the on-screen verification of the vote and then fell into a collection hopper without ever actually being in the physical possession of the voter, it would be good enough to make it coercion-proof.
That's exactly what the voting machines did when I voted last time. After each "page" the voter was asked to check the printed ballot thru a window and verify that it recorded the voted that the voter intended. It seems like a pretty good system.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: The thing we want to avoid is "bring me proof you voted for our candidate and your store won't burn down tonight.
Even subtle variations. I read a story about ten years ago where a significant percentage of wives lied to their husbands in '92 and voted for Clinton while saying they voted for Bush Sr. I can fully imagine something like that happened with Kennedy and could happen with Obama.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
The only other issue I can think of are with digital cameras and camera-phones.
The presence of these devices in the voting booth is both good and bad: They are good if the machines are in fact corrupted and the result on the receipt is not the same as the result on the screen. A quick snapshot would be able to reveal such inconsistency.
Hmm... I suppose my own state's vote-by-mail elections, while mostly unmarred by spoilage, are highly susceptible to coercion, so this is a tough problem to figure out.
Edited to add: (because I didn't see kmb's post earlier)
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That's exactly what the voting machines did when I voted last time. After each "page" the voter was asked to check the printed ballot thru a window and verify that it recorded the voted that the voter intended. It seems like a pretty good system.
I wish the company that made this voting machine would get the contract instead of ES&S/Diebold.
[ July 18, 2007, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: As for the effects of 9/11 on the day-to-day life of Americans, can you come up with something concrete? -Bok
I have had a concealed-carry permit for a while, but I started actually carrying my pistol pretty much 24/7 since the Long War started. I have to add, however, that it was not actually 9/11 that convinced me to carry all the time. It was Beslan. If al-qaeda can hit a school in Russia, they can hit a school here. If they try to take down a school, or church, or mall, or whatever, anywhere near me, they're going to get an extremely nasty surprise.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE]The only use I see is if a precinct shows no or very few votes for a given candidate, and you can gather enough receipts to demonstrate otherwise.
The people who most commonly push for receipts are members of third parties. I have heard numerous third party activists complain that although they and several of their friends or family members cast votes in a given district for a third party candidate, the official counts showed zero votes for the candidate.
I think that what they are looking for is some method by which ordinary citizens can prove a miscount of votes believing that this would force polls to have greater fidelity in their counting.
I don't see that receipts would be a very effective way to accomplish this since as Dag points out they would only be useful in unusual cases that are unlikely to change the outcome of an election.
Still, I think there have been enough problems in the past decade with vote counting that many americans have lost confidents in process. We do need to find someway to restore voter confidence in the system and its difficult to think of how that can be done without greater transparency in the counting process.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Interesting clip.
To be perfectly honest, I didn't, nor do I now see, any daily change in the life of most Americans after 9/11. We aren't planting victory gardens or recycling tires, we aren't rationing gasoline or anything else, hell, we aren't even paying more taxes to pay for the war, we're paying LESS!
The man is very correct when he says you don't fight a tactic, and so far, getting to the root of the problem has been something our current leaders have either been unwilling or unable to do. Invading Afghanistan was a good move, leaving it to the wolves so shortly after a brilliant victory was a colossal military blunder. Attacking Iraq was a colossal military blunder. Not doing much to drastically reduce and eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is a colossal economic blunder that has military side effects.
Americans have a lot of tools to fight this war, ones that involve personal sacrifice and we not only are being told not to use them, we're being told to live our lives as if nothing had changed...except when Bush wants something from us, then it's FEAR FEAR FEAR, but once he gets it, we're supposed to go back to our carefree lives. Frankly I'm sick to death of the assumption we're supposed to flick our Fear Switch every time he wants something new. I have a Pavlovian response to his little speeches now, and it's not fear or respect, it's revulsion and disgust.
To fight a war on radical Islam, we need to identify the leaders, identify the bases of power, identify the motivations, and eliminate them. That means we don't buy oil from them ever again. It means we cut off all funds that flow into the coffers of leaders who turn around and siphon it off into funding wahaabist schools of radical Islam or to buy weapons for them. It means call a spade a spade and stop propping up leaders who support radical Islam, and it means we take the fight to them whenever we find them.
I think it involves a lot of diplomacy too. I think it means we make a sincere heartfelt effort to solve the Palestine/Israel Crisis in a manner that pacifies both sides, and removes the single greatest sticking point that these radical terrorists have against us. The other point is Iraq, which we may just have to live down for a couple decades, but let's solve what we can, or at least try.
Fact of the matter is, since the best way to fight this war is to fight the ideology, one of the biggest battlegrounds is the PR war, and at home and abroad, we're losing it spectacularly. I'm much more wary of China at this point, and I think we should be actively engaging them at every turn, while doing our best to secure closer ties to India. I don't ever expect to fight a land war against China, and I know we'll never be invaded by crazy Muslims, but that doesn't mean we let our knives go dull.
Incidentally, I don't much think it matters whether or not Saudi terrorists were right or wrong when it comes to their feelings towards the US over our base in Saudi Arabia. The fact of the matter is that they DO feel that way, and you aren't really going to be able to argue with them and get them to change their minds, therefore it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask whether or not, knowing what we know now, we should have ever gone there to begin with.
Approval of the government and approval of the country don't mean the same thing over there.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Irami--While the threat Iraq posed to Saudi Arabia in the 1990's was debatable, the fact is that the Saudi government was afraid that the threat was real and requested the US protect it.
As far as effects that 9/11 had on Western and US Society, there have been changes, but since we've lived with those changes for 6 years almost, we no longer see them as changes, but as Status Quo.
Those changes were not major. They did not dampen capitalistic tendencies or alter basic belief systems.
What I find most disturbing is that there is so little change in the majority of US society since the start of the war in Iraq. If you are not in the military, or have friends or relatives in the military, then the war in Iraq has changed your life very little. Sure, its brought us fun things to argue about on Hatrack, and its interesting to watch the talking heads discuss things, but in reality, the American civilian has no ownership of this war. It is Mr. Bush's War. So when asked, do we want to keep fighting it, we think, "Hey people are getting hurt" or "Hey its helping recruit terrorists" or "Hey its going to increase my taxes" and we say "Pull Out!"
The present administration has worked hard trying to distance the American public from the war, believing that if it doesn't cost us an inconvenience then we won't try and shut it down.
They don't understand US personality.
Get us involved. Get us to sacrifice and care and believe that this is not Mr. Bush's War, or the Iraq war, but that it is Our War. Then there will be no shortage of recruits, no talk of pulling out, no end except victory allowed by our people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we're past the point where that would work, but if they had done it from the get go, I think we'd either have a different war, or a different country.