posted
Assuming that Bush ends up winning the election, that will mean the American people have endorsed unilateralism and unprovoked invasion as a foreign policy. It will mean we've endorsed the invasion of Iraq, among many other very questionable things.
Thus, the question is, when and if Al Qaeda attacks us again, can any of us call ourselves innocents? Can we claim we didn't deserve it? Will the world believe us or support us if we do? It's one thing to be attacked for interfering too much in the Middle East. But it's another thing to be attacked for endorsing the conquest of Middle Eastern nations.
Can we still simply blame Bush for everything we do wrong? Or are we all now to blame? (Or, perhaps, just the Bush voters?)
posted
Wait, so Tres, are you saying that people who voted for Bush deserve to be killed in terrorist attacks?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's saying they deserve to be killed, but rather that if we can justify the death of civilians in Middle Eastern countries for the pursuit of the administration's and majority of voter's ideals, then retaliation for these sorts of actions is justified to a greater extent then it was before the election.
posted
A vote for Bush could ALSO be seen as an endorsement for the idea that it is worth risking — and sacrificing — American lives to bring democracy to Middle Eastern countries.
And I have a lot of trouble seeing a vote for Kerry doing very much to make the terrorists LIKE us. As much as he criticizes the war, he still represents quite a lot of what can be obnoxious about America. If you choose to adopt a terrorist's ideals as legitimate, then just about any act by an American is proof that we "deserve" to die.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*frustrated* I don't think it's about bringing democracy to the Iraqis anymore... Maybe I just don't trust that admistration and that system. Maybe if I felt their motives were pure and really noble, but... I just don't see it. All I can see is mostly lies, corruption and incompetence and I don't want these people representing me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue is determining what a person's ideals and motivations for acting truly are. We hear from both sides changing reasons for the actions they undertake to the extent that it becomes dificult to accurately make a judgement according to your own ideals. I'd like to say with certainty that person X is wrong for doing something, but the problem is that we all have to make assumptions about others, which someone else may see as erroneous.
posted
I don't think Americans in any way deserve death no matter who wins. But I think another terrorist attack is more likely if Bush is re-elected, because a lot of militants int ehMiddle East are fighting mad about all the death he has caused.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wish there was a way of knowing who's telling the truth. There's no HONOUR in the political system and it gets worse all the time. There just isn't anything that can be done about it either. *hopeless*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thus, the question is, when and if Al Qaeda attacks us again, can any of us call ourselves innocents?
No, we can't.
quote:Can we claim we didn't deserve it?
Yes, we can. We don't deserve to be killed.
But we do deserve blame for what we've done, what we've endorsed. I didn't truly believe it would happen, but here it is. Four more years of the New American Century.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think alot of us have conceded that justice will not be visited upon this world in our lifetime. Perhaps that is why religion has its enduring appeal.
quote:Assuming that Bush ends up winning the election, that will mean the American people have endorsed unilateralism and unprovoked invasion as a foreign policy. It will mean we've endorsed the invasion of Iraq, among many other very questionable things.
The invasion of Iraq was neither unilateral or unprovoked.
Just thought that little detail needed to be mentioned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think American innocence was taken into account on 9/10/01, and I don't think that it will be taken into account from here on out, no matter who is in office.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is why it's perfectly okay for us to be scumbags: because our enemies honestly could care less whether we are or not, so it's more convenient in the long run for us to just give up on the whole "goodness" bit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait, so Tres, are you saying that people who voted for Bush deserve to be killed in terrorist attacks?
Nobody deserves to be killed in any way for any reason.
But if one person breaks into another person's house and gets shot at, the first person can't really complain that he's innocent. Similarly, if one nation invades another and the people of the first nation endorse it, those people shouldn't be outraged if they are attacked back or claim innocence.
But at the same time, it's unclear whether we should consider it just the Bush territories that are endorsing these policies, or whether we should consider it all of America. The irony is that while rural America, the South, and the center of the country are helping Bush get reelected, it is the Kerry territory (New York, DC, California, big cities) that is likely to be hit with terrorist attacks.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why it's perfectly okay for us to be scumbags: because our enemies honestly could care less whether we are or not, so it's more convenient in the long run for us to just give up on the whole "goodness" bit.
Which is why it's so important that the opposition to Bush et al., stay in the country and stay active, politically. So that there is a check for their power. So that there is an opposing conscience. So that every move is questioned by someone.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: The irony is that while rural America, the South, and the center of the country are helping Bush get reelected, it is the Kerry territory (New York, DC, California, big cities) that is likely to be hit with terrorist attacks.
quote:Which is why it's so important that the opposition to Bush et al., stay in the country and stay active, politically.
I have a feeling people of conscience are going to stay active. What's more, they'll become more active. They're going to fill the streets.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, a vote for Dubya is expressing the belief that the lives of some other Americans should be sacrificed to satisfy the lust for bloodsport of the majority.
Proof being that that majority isn't heading to Iraq. If the 60million people really endorsed Dubya's stated goals or trusted his leadership, they would wanna help US troops to pacify&rebuild Iraq. Instead they prefer just keeping a contigent large enough to provide themselves with amusement while too small to end the chaos&destruction.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, this characterization of people's votes is kind of ridiculous. People voted the way they did specifically because they DON'T see Bush and his policies the way you do. Not because they agree with your demonization of him and like it.
I voted for Bush because even though I thought the way he pursued the Iraq war was a world-class example of terrible diplomacy, I anticipated that switching to Kerry right now would lead to things getting worse, not better. Sure, if the alternate history that Kerry created (in which he was elected four years ago, and repeated all of Bush's successes while avoiding his failures) were in any way convincing, I might have hopped into a time machine and voted for him back in 2000. But given the situation he would be stepping into now, I think Kerry would take Bush's mistakes and make them worse.
In 2000, we didn't know what Bush was going to do. We didn't think he had it in him to pull off a success like Afghanistan, nor did we think he would fall so short of his father's record in uniting the world against Saddam Hussein before attacking Iraq. All we had was his criticism of the Clinton administration's policies to go on, and as he has proved, that didn't actually tell us much.
With Kerry, we are now in the same situation. He has a lot of 20/20 hindsight about Bush's choices during the past four years. In private, I'm sure Bush does, too. But would Kerry actually make better ones in the coming four years, with the new and surprising situations he is sure to face, without the benefit of knowing what Bush would do, and what would go wrong when he did it? No, I don't think so. He wouldn't make the same mistakes as Bush. He'd create his own kind of disaster.
I voted as I did, not to punish a president who disappointed me by replacing him with whoever else was close at hand. Rather, I voted to keep the flawed president we elected four years ago, give him a stronger margin of initial popular support, and let him finish the job he started. I voted as I did because as obnoxious as our current president is, I thought Kerry would make a bigger mess.
If the Democratic party had nominated a decent candidate that I felt I could trust with my future, it would have been pathetically easy to earn my vote. That they could fail this year is a sign that they need to do some serious self-examination as a party.
[ November 03, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the Democratic party had nominated a decent candidate that I felt I could trust with my future, it would have been pathetically easy to earn my vote. That they could fail this year is a sign that they need to do some serious self-examination as a party.
posted
Coincidentally, though, I'm heartened by the fact that Barak Obama won his race ... there may yet be a bright future for Democrats Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: that will mean the American people have endorsed unilateralism and unprovoked invasion as a foreign policy.
Unprovoked is untrue. It calls into question the whole post. Neither country invaded was done so "unprovoked" and that's a fact.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the Democratic party had nominated a decent candidate that I felt I could trust with my future, it would have been pathetically easy to earn my vote. That they could fail this year is a sign that they need to do some serious self-examination as a party.
I agree with this, and I voted Dem. Yes, I did vote for Kerry just because he is not Bush and I could not endorse all Bush has done with jis term. But the Democrats could have choisen someone who did not waffle so much, who inspired people, who actually has a personality.....he was a big mistake.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an IL resident Obama was the only person I actually felt *good* about voting for.
It appears many others IL felt the same way. He won 70% of the vote while Kerry only won 55% of the vote. A notable 15% difference. Clearly a lot of party line crossing was going on with Obama.
posted
I still wonder what exactly it is that people have against Kerry that makes them think electing someone who they are pretty sure will do a poor job is better than electing Kerry.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If the Democratic party had nominated a decent candidate...That they could fail this year is a sign that they need to do some serious self-examination as a party."
I certainly agree. Agreed by the end of the first set of primary elections: Kerry came in seventh out of the nine primary candidates on my list of preferences. Had my evaluation confirmed by his embarassing "JohnKerry reporting for duty, sir..." opening statement of his Democratic nomination acceptance speech.
posted
Xaso, I have no doubt Dean would have won. I really feel like the DNC shot itself in the foot with Kerry.
Obama...now him I like. I see in him the potential for President someday, one that can cross both partisan and racial lines.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing wrong with using "tyrant" to describe a self-labeled "war president". Originally, a tyrant was an individual elected and granted an extraordinary amount of executive power to lead a city-state at war.
quote:If the Democratic party had nominated a decent candidate that I felt I could trust with my future, it would have been pathetically easy to earn my vote. That they could fail this year is a sign that they need to do some serious self-examination as a party.
I hear you, Rat, rivka, romany, and all.
But Obama sure did slam that one home, didn't he? Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As an IL resident Obama was the only person I actually felt *good* about voting for.
It appears many others IL felt the same way. He won 70% of the vote while Kerry only won 55% of the vote. A notable 15% difference. Clearly a lot of party line crossing was going on with Obama.
I wonder how much of Obama's landslide victory was voter frustration with the GOP for bringing in a ringer from - I think - Maryland because they couldn't find ANYONE willing to take Jack Ryan's place on the ballot. I mean, come on, they even went so far as to feel out Da Coach!
I don't know anything about Keyes except the publicized circumstances around his "nomination", and to be honest I was concerned when I met Obama at one of those meet-and-greet things and he couldn't come up with any kind of answer for me about his stance on NAFTA, but in the end I voted for Obama anyway.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
