2004 election

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Mar 23rd 2004, 12:01 pm

Personally, I don't think invading Iraq and toppling Saddam were worth the costs. I'm sorry, but that how I feel. Containment of Saddam was working just fine for the US. The primary consideration for the usage of a country's military power should be how the usage of that power benefits the country. Are the infrastructure needs of the US more important than Iraqis getting raped and killed by Saddam? If you look at the situation through the Nixon/Kissinger real politic lens, the answer is self-evident.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Mar 23rd 2004, 1:13 pm

TomSpeed wrote:The primary consideration for the usage of a country's military power should be how the usage of that power benefits the country.
I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree here - that's a pretty deep statement.... the kind of thing I imagine graduates of military history had to 'discuss' in their examination essays...

Anyway, I note your use of the word 'primary' - it certainly shouldn't be the only consideration. some people feel that America only gets involved when it perceives that its interests are at stake - you could argue either way that it's a good or bad thing to have that attitude. I think it is important to have the guts to use military force to help humanity, even where your own interests are not directly affected.

However, in the case of Iraq the waters have become become muddied as the multiple issues surface; the human rights of the Iraqi people (as I've said all along, if this were used as the initial justification, the likelihood is that I'd have felt more comfortable with the war), the WMDs (oops where did they go?), the 'imminent threat' (what?) blah blah blah.
I think if governments would just tell the truth about why they do the things they do, whilst it may prove controversial, alot of people would be alot happier.

The point I suppose I am trying to make is that Bush felt (as mglenn pointed out) that the US's interests were at stake and made the case for war on that basis, same as my own government did to me. I think he was wrong about that, but I don't think that it follows that your primary reason for going to war should always be that your interests are directly affected.

You should fight for something you believe in... I like to think that things I believe in don't always have my own selfish interests at heart.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Mar 23rd 2004, 1:15 pm

PS - on the basis of my post above, I think a coalition should invade Zimbabwe and topple mugabe. I have long held the opinion that I would back a government who would do this.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Post by fnordboy » Mar 23rd 2004, 4:05 pm

starbug wrote:However, in the case of Iraq the waters have become become muddied as the multiple issues surface; the human rights of the Iraqi people (as I've said all along, if this were used as the initial justification, the likelihood is that I'd have felt more comfortable with the war), the WMDs (oops where did they go?), the 'imminent threat' (what?) blah blah blah.
I think if governments would just tell the truth about why they do the things they do, whilst it may prove controversial, alot of people would be alot happier.
If the human rights issue was used as the initial justification I would feel a little bit more comfortable with the war also, but not at this time. The war was/is a total diversion from the real issue at hand. Terrorism by Al Quaeda/Osama against the US and our allies and interests. That was the only real military action that the majority of people had backed before all the falsehoods were brought out tying Iraq to 9/11 :roll: and the 'imminent threat' that saddam was to us :roll: . Who cares about Osama, let's get Saddam! Pointless diversion at this time.

Now, really. Who thinks Dubya actually did this for humanitarian reasons? :lol: Come on. Did he go after Saddam for personal reasons (finishing daddys job)? No, I highly doubt it. Did he go in to help his oil friends? Most likely. It is not just coincidence that he and Cheney are big oil people and friendly with other big oil people and he decides to go after an oil hot spot like that. He had a hard on for Iraq for a long time. He is looking after his own interests.

In reality none of us have any clue why he went in there, political gain? Fame and a historical greatness long after he is gone? Who knows... and we probably never will.

I just can not in any way think that the guy responsible for the amount of EXECUTIONS passed on his watch gives a damn about people. How many of the mentally retarded did he kill? Yep, that there my friends is a damn fine case of philanthropy.

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Mar 23rd 2004, 5:16 pm

fnordboy wrote:The war was/is a total diversion from the real issue at hand. Terrorism by Al Quaeda/Osama against the US and our allies and interests.
Duh, don't you realize that by attacking Iraq we've created a playground for all the terrorists to congregate so we can sweep them all up at once? Just forget about all the new converts to their cause.

Huh? You don't buy that one? Lets see...whats the Bush excuse of the week...

Oh, forget about the Iraq war, its in the past, and he knows how to get us into the future. He's a good leader, just don't look at his record. Thats all in the past anyway.
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Mar 23rd 2004, 8:30 pm

mglenn wrote:Is someone not allowed to disagree, without being accused of siding with the terrorists?

Sorry it was not intended that way. It was more a point of taking things to extremes. I understand that you don't agree that Iraq has anything to do with terrorism, but in my, and many others, opinions it does.
It didn't before but certianly does now.
We have destroyed the military center of extremist islam. We've provided a gathering point for every nut with a gun and a bone to pick with America a place to go and attempt to pick that bone. And it doing so we are eliminating those people who could later bring harm to America.
No, we haven't. Iraq was a secular regime. Now it is in the grips or rising Islamic fervor that was not there before. Our soliders getting killed in Iraq in no way guarantees our safety anywhere else in the world.

We are also greatly improving the quality of life in Iraq which will reflect on the rest of the middle east countries. Its fairly easy to convince a guy with nothing to live for to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a local restaurant and kill a few Jews and westerners. Its much harder if that same guy has a good job and a family won't be receiving a check from Saddam for blowing his ass up.
Good for them, I hope conditions approve here as well. Do you think we could convince Dubya to invade America and provide us with jobs and affordable healthcare?
The simple fact is that in claiming that invading Iraq was wrong you are supporting all that happened there and saying that the status quo should have been maintained. The Killing, Raping and Torturing of Men, Women and Children most of who simply did exactly what you are doing with me, They disagreed with someone! I just don't see how you can say that you disagree with the Iraq invasion, without that meaning that you then agreed with the Iraqis form of government? And Iraq used islamic law to justify these atrocities, and as such if a person is to agree with Iraq's justifications they agree with using the perversion of islamic law as a reasoning for killing those that disagree with it... and who do we know that lives by those beliefs???
Wrong, this does not follow. By this logic you must agree with the policies and humitarian rights abuses of the government of Burma. Since we haven't invaded them then everything there must be peacky keen. Again, Saddam's regime was a secular one, not Islamic. He suppressed the Islamic Shiites (spelling?) and the Sunni Kurds.

Things are not black and white, there are multiple, multiple shades of grey. The reason Bush and Crew pounded us with daily was not about Saddam's humitarian abuses it was about WMDs, mushroom clouds and imment threats.

Speaking of Burma apparently Bush campaign gear is being made there. Check it out

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzse ... -headlines

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Mar 23rd 2004, 8:35 pm

mglenn wrote:
We will be supporting Iraq for years.

Kinda like we did in Germany and Japan and those seemed to turn out OK. Of course it did take 7 years, in Germany, to get to point we are at now in Iraq.
Of course in postwar Germany and Japan we didn't have 447 servicemen and women killed and at least 3,343 wounded.

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

-LanceMan

User avatar
mglenn
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 552
Joined: May 25th 1999, 4:46 pm
Location: Butler, PA ( AKA: Three Rivers, PA )
Contact:

Post by mglenn » Mar 24th 2004, 10:58 am

Due to time I'm only gonna be able to address Lance right now.
Of course in postwar Germany and Japan we didn't have 447 servicemen and women killed...
Nope your absolutely right, we had 400,000 dead military servicemen at that point!
..Iraq was a secular regime. Now it is in the grips or rising Islamic fervor that was not there before.
Iraq was a secular regime. But Saddam used Islam to his advantage. He portrayed himself as "Saladin, the great Muslim general of the 1100s. Saladin, like Saddam, was born in Tikrit, and at the Battle of Hattin in Galilee in 1187, he won the bloodiest and most comprehensive victory that Muslim armies ever achieved against Christian Crusaders. The murals in Baghdad of Saddam on a white horse, with a drawn sword ... were a deliberate attempt to link him to Saladin’s memory." (quote of Michael Elliot from Time magazine)

As for the religious fervor, how do you address the issue that women in Iraq demanded and received many many rights in the new constitution, which is strictly against Islamic law. The simplest facts are that Iraq is the perfect place to begin changing attitudes in the middle east for just the reasons you mention. The people of Iraq are more secular, because of Saddam, than other countries in the region. And as such will be quicker to accept western civilization than the more radical governments of Iran and Syria for instance. But those views of western civilization will migrate out from Iraq with each new generation.
Our soldiers getting killed in Iraq in no way guarantees our safety anywhere else in the world.
To paraphrase one of the Delta soldiers interviewed by Mark Bowden for his book Blackhawk Down: "the politicians need to realize that there is really only one thing people respect in this part of the world and that is a man with a gun and a willingness to die for what he wants!"
Do you think we could convince Dubya to invade America and provide us with jobs and affordable health care?
Lance please start another thread and explain to me how reimporting drugs from Canada makes any economic sense. I fear that if we get into these issues here we'll lose this thread to tangents of thought, but I'd love to discuss them! :D
Wrong, this does not follow. By this logic you must agree with the policies and humitarian rights abuses of the government of Burma. Since we haven't invaded them then everything there must be peacky keen.
Hey your preachin to the choir here. If theres a dictator oppressing people I think we should be dealing with it... but if we did how long till the moveon.org starts screaming that we are no better than japan and Germany before WWII or the British of the 16 century with the Make the world British campaign?
Again, Saddam's regime was a secular one, not Islamic. He suppressed the Islamic Shiites (spelling?) and the Sunni Kurds.
I stated that Saddam used the perversion of Islam, he used it when it was to his advantage. He portrayed the war as an attack on Islam. This perversion of Islam is exactly what the other extremist do as well. Thats the similarity between Saddam and Bin Lauden.
The reason Bush and Crew pounded us with daily was not about Saddam's humitarian abuses it was about WMDs, mushroom clouds and imminent threats.
Yes there are many shades and some you must look through to see whats going on. Like if Bush did as you all want and stood up on the white house lawn and said were coming in to change Islam. To make you understand that America will no sit idly by and succumb to your attacks. we are coming for you and your religion and we will make you like us! How exactly would that play out?
"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." - Ayn Rand

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Mar 24th 2004, 1:02 pm

mglenn wrote: Like if Bush did as you all want and stood up on the white house lawn and said were coming in to change Islam. To make you understand that America will no sit idly by and succumb to your attacks. we are coming for you and your religion and we will make you like us! How exactly would that play out?
No, that wouldn't be acceptable. The only thing that would have made the invasion even vaguely acceptable (and you're right, I probably wouldn't have been happy even with this) was for Bush and Blair to stand up and say 'we're going to go in because we think the Iraqi people are dangerously oppressed and we're doing it out of human kindness, one nation to the people of another.' Not bringing in religion at all. It's not the religion of islam that's at fault, its Saddam.

You're right, I still would have said 'hey, let's think about this. what about Zimbabwe, and all the other nations with just-as-evil dictators? What makes Iraq stand out?' Oil, that's what. Let's not even factor in the arguments of cultural imperialism at the moment...

But as it is, they misled the public as to the reasons for going to war, and now they're trying to a) distract us and b) deny they said things they damn well did say.
I'm not impressed.

All of this is just a distraction about the fact that Osama is still out there. And still attacking. You should see how fortified London is right now.

I have never been against rooting out terrorists but capturing Saddam hasn't helped one iota with that, and like others said, people took their eyes off the ball of Osama.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

election

Post by lance » Apr 6th 2004, 6:18 pm

Interesting day,

At lunch I went with a couple of co-workers to go hear John Kerry speak. Beautiful day here in Cincy, 60 degree weather and sunshine. By the time we got down there a couple hundred people had gathered. Local democratic politicans spoke: the mayor (not so good speech), the vice mayor (better speech) and the democratic canidate for senator (decent speech).

Only heard about half of Kerry's speech, had to get back to work. Kerry is a decent stump speaker. Not the smoothest, not the most concise but overall pretty good. He spoke at length about economic issues like jobs, budget deficits, education and health care.

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Kerry's VP choice

Post by lance » Jul 6th 2004, 8:43 pm

So Kerry decided on John Edwards.


What do you guys think? Good move, bad move, makes no difference, no opinion?

-LanceMan

User avatar
fnordboy
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sep 25th 2002, 10:29 am
Location: Exit 16E, NJ
Contact:

Re: Kerry's VP choice

Post by fnordboy » Jul 6th 2004, 10:18 pm

lance wrote:So Kerry decided on John Edwards.


What do you guys think? Good move, bad move, makes no difference, no opinion?
Good move...i think. I know a lot of people who wanted Edwards so that IMO is a plus. He is from the south which will help, and even though he is rich now he wasn't always and isn't a northeast liberal elitist like Kerry is supposed to be. All good things.

He is inexperienced, and may not help him enough in some of the states he needs it in. So I don't know.

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Jul 7th 2004, 10:30 am

Seemed like the best option to me. I think Edwards has a carrisma and energy that will help on the campain trail. He's upbeat and aggreable but won't steal the show from Kerry, I think it's what you want in a wingman. I like the feeling that they didn't have to unpack him and brush off the the moth balls like so many other vice presidential cannidates.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
TomSpeed
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1226
Joined: Jan 13th 2003, 3:37 pm
Location: Tampa, FL, USA
Contact:

Post by TomSpeed » Jul 7th 2004, 12:09 pm

I don't think many Southerners will vote for Kerry because he picked Edwards to be his running mate. The days of balancing the ticket are over. Of course, if this election is as close as 2002, any votes this pick garners could tilt the election Kerry's way. I look forward to the veep debate. Edwards will have to talk about more than how he grew up poor and is now rich. The fact that the large fees Kerry generated for a few clients as a trial lawyer has played a role in high health insurance costs and lack of health care coverage for many people, as well costly Caesarian sections with no medical value, will be hard to spin. Cheney might be tied to Haliburton, but Edwards is tied to trial lawyers (AKA ambulance chasers). I'd call it a push.
TomSpeed

Patty: If Rayanne's not seeing you, and we're not seeing you, who is seeing you?
Graham: And how much of you?
Angela: Dad!
Graham: Oh, I'm sorry! I asked a question about your life, didn't I? Woah, what came over me?
http://www.last.fm/user/TomSpeed/

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jul 8th 2004, 4:38 am

Does anyone think Kerry will actually lose votes because he's picked Edwards?

We don't have the 'running mate' system in Britain really, so I'm finding it difficult to understand the significance... is the potential VP something that most voters will take into consideration....?

What I sincerely hope will happen in this election, is a marked increase in voter turnout. If this contest inspires people to get out and vote, that's a good thing (so long as they don't vote for Bush, of course :wink: )

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests