Oh yeah. Didn't Arnold call senators who disagreed with him "girly men?" PATHETIC.
*Whaps self for threading incorrectly*
A few months ago, I said Canadian politics were petty and idiodic. I changed my mind; at least our elections haven't <i>completely</i> turned into &$%#-swinging contests yet.
No. Arnold called special-interest group lobbyists "girly men", not the senators who opposed him.
Ah, well I heard it second hand. But who he was talking about wasn't the point. It might've been a joke (since I didn't hear his tone myself), but if it wasn't, I think it's a very bad way to try to critixize someone.
*Whacks self for doing it again*
Speaking of special interests, I wonder how much Hummer paid Arnold to drive their trucks around on the campaign trail?
Quote:
You mentioned Bush's war record and Kerry's war record. Unless you are a serviceman please don't speak for us.
I'm not a serviceman, and I apologize. However, I still feel (speaking for myself only) that Bush acted inappropriately when he left National Guard duty in 1973 eight months early to go to Harvard Business School. This is not to say that he was AWOL (though I'd thought so earlier, I'm wrong):
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?DocID=140
This article supports your view. (Factcheck.org is a wonderful site, by the way, to get impartial info about the issues. Articles on this site criticize slander against both Bush and Kerry, and correct misleading economics statistics.)
In response to swiftvets.com,
http://www.spinsanity.com (note that this site, while countering the swiftvets website, also does criticize Edwards for exaggerating Kerry's war records)
and
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
I think some of the most noteable facts are that Swiftvets is funded by a major Republican campaign contributer, and that none of the vets opposed to Kerry were actually in his crew.
In the NG/Reserve system you are evaluated by your superior at your unit even if you don't serve at your unit. An example is that I live 110 miles from my unit, I have the option to find a closer unit and drill with them, fill out a DA 1380 and get paid for serving in the Reserves. The fact that W's evaluation paperwork says "Not Observed" in all category's is exactly what would happen when someone is drilling with another unit.
The one weekend a month, two weeks in the summer is also not entirely correct. The reserve point system recquires 50 points to have a "good" year. There are 24 drill days in each year, each day worth 2 points. Drilling alone give you 48 points, and being in a TPU (troop program unit) gives you 15. The two weeks of training in the summer only gives one point per day, or 14 points.
The fact that W got 56 points for the year in question is not surprising. He did 9 active days, so 56-9=47. 47-15=32
32/2=16 days of drill. 16 out of 24 days of drill aint too bad for bouncing around the country between units. His CO (Commanding Officer) would probably have been disapointed in the poor attendance, but I've seen soldiers miss more and not be punished.
Jimro
I know I said earlier that I hate how candidates' military records are even being considered in a democratic process, but I have a bone to pick with an organisation called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Last week, thanks largely to constant plugs by Internet news brothel Drudge Report, a book entitled "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" reached Amazon's number 1 spot based on pre-orders. At the same time, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released a TV ad which attempted to call Kerry's honesty into question and insisted that he'd "betrayed" his fellow troops and was not fit to lead the country. The ad begins with a clip of John Edwards saying, "If you have any questions about what John Kerry's made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him." The screen goes black, and writing appears which says "Here's what those men think about John Kerry," before launching into a series of clips of Vietnam veterans personally attacking Kerry and accusing him of lying. Let's break this down, shall we?
- Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is supposed to be a non-partisan organization. But it was organized with the assistance of Merrie Spaeth, a Republican public relations executive "whose late husband, Tex Lezar, ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush's ticket in 1994," according to Salon.com.
- Also according to Salon, the Swift Boat Veterans' website "was put up courtesy of William Franke, a St. Louis businessman with longstanding ties to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Missouri Republican Party. Its chief financiers, according to the group's last quarterly IRS filing, are Houston builder Bob J. Perry and the Crow family, both major Republican donors from Texas." During the past four years Perry has apparently given "$5 million to candidates and causes, nearly all of them Republican and extremely conservative."
- Again, according to Salon, "the group's IRS filing names several experienced Washington political operatives. The June 30 filing shows payments to Robert A. Hahn, a right-wing Internet activist and Web designer who also runs something called the Free Republic Network."
- Swift Boat Veterans head honcho and co-author of the book, John O'Neill, is a partisan hack who used to clerk for William Rehnquist and has had a long-standing feud with Kerry since the early seventies, when he was hand-picked by Richard Nixon in an effort to discredit Kerry's anti-war activities.
- The other co-author of Unfit for Command, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD, has in the past called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"; said of Muslims that, "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters - it all goes together"; said of Catholics that, "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"; said of John Kerry, "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"; and said of Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?" And there's plenty more where that came from (if you can stomach it).
- None of the veterans in the commercial served on a boat with John Kerry. Despite saying in the ad that they "served with" Kerry, they only served in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. All but one of the surviving veterans who actually served under Kerry's command have endorsed him and strongly support him. Jim Rassmann called the ad "pure fabrication."
- One of the veterans who appears in the ad - Kerry's commander in Vietnam, George Elliott - <a href=" http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry/said" last week that he had made a "terrible mistake" by suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star. Elliott originally recommended Kerry for the award, saying he was "calm, professional, and highly courageous in the face of enemy fire." Elliott - along with one of the other Swift Boat Veterans - even came to Boston during Kerry's Senate campaign in 1996 to support him. Now he says that his contradictory statements "makes me look kind of silly, to be perfectly honest." By the way, Elliott has since retracted his retraction. Guess the guy just can't decide what he believes. Either that or his "pals" gently reminded him that it ain't so easy to back out of a signed affidavit.
- John McCain, chairman of Bush's campaign in Arizona, denounced the ads last week, saying, "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire." Referring to the dirty tricks Team Bush used against McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries, he said, "It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me."
- Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said, "We have been very clear in stating that, you know, we will not - and we have not and we will not question Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam," but refused to condemn or criticize the ad, instead using the opportunity to complain about "unregulated soft-money activity."
- None of the veterans in the commercial served on a boat with John Kerry. Despite saying in the ad that they "served with" Kerry, they only served in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry. All but one of the surviving veterans who actually served under Kerry's command have endorsed him and strongly support him. Jim Rassmann called the ad "pure fabrication."
Jim Rassman did not serve under Kerry. Rassman may have got a boat ride a couple times, but he was 5th SF. All of the surviving veterans who served under Kerry were enlisted, Kerry's subordinates, not his peers.
Spend some time going through the swiftvets sight and read up on who did what in CD 11.
Only 1 of 23 fellow OIC (Officer In Charge, or fellow Swift Boat commanders) support Kerry. The men who served under him were subordinates, fellow OIC's were peers.
The smear campaign that Kerry led against the war in Vietnam is the main issue that these peers have against Kerry. He lied about witnessing atrocities.
If Kerry were such a great leader, CD 11 would have denied his transfer request. You just don't let go of good officers. Kerry wasn't a good officer, read his released fitreps.
Jimro
While I'm grateful for the fact-check, again, I don't know nor care whether Kerry was a good commander or a bad one. It's just that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is full of crap.
On the myth that Bush doesn't flip-flop, last week Bush floated the possibility of - get this - abolishing income tax and introducing a national sales tax. "It's an interesting idea," Bush said. "You know, I'm not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it's the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously." Well that's just GREAT! What an exciting election-time issue! And so well-thought out and well-presented! Still, if there's one thing you can say about George W. Bush, it's that he doesn't flip-flop. Which is why, three days later, the Associated Press reported that "President Bush is distancing himself from suggestions that he wants to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax ... The administration quickly denied the president was seriously considering such a tax."
Quote:
That kind of makes sense, you know, considering the Bush Administration LIED to Congress about Iraq's weapons, and Saddam's nonexistent involvement with 9/11.
Quote:
Only later did he and the rest of the world (at least, those who hadn't already clued in on the obvious truth) learn that the Bush Administration LIED about both.
I don't know why I'm doing this again, but...
Yeah, sure. I don't see how you can repeatedly say that "Bush LIED", when there are countless amounts of evidence around showing that tons of people, both democrat and republican, both in the US and in other countries, thought there were WMDs, and thought that Saddam was an immediate threat. Saying it repeatedly in boldface capital letters isn't going to make it true. Yet you repeatedly single out Bush and call him a liar because one of the reasons that he and countless others believed we should've gone war over may have not been true. I don't see how you can call him a liar, when so many others thought the same exact thing. What about the idea that he, like so many others, thought there where WMDs, and truthfully went to war under that belief?
I don't see how you can repeatedly say that "Bush LIED", when there are countless amounts of evidence around showing that tons of people, both democrat and republican, both in the US and in other countries, thought there were WMDs, and thought that Saddam was an immediate threat.
I do believe that it was the Bush Administration that floated the idea first.
Saying it repeatedly in boldface capital letters isn't going to make it true.
That's actually not the plan. The reason I'm doing that is because some people don't quite grasp the concept of lying unless it involves Bill Clinton describing the whereabouts of his penis. See, it's a little pet peeve of mine. When Bill Clinton perjured on a matter that is not only trivial but also private, the far-right was up in arms yelling "IMPEACH HIM! IMPEACH HIM! LIAR!!!! ADULTEROR!!!!! WOMANIZER!!!! IMPEACH HIM!!!!!!!!", but suddenly it doesn't really matter that not only George Bush, but many, many others, lied repeatedly in order to start a war. War kills people. Adultery does not. Explain why Bill Clinton's lie was such a big deal to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and the rest, when the entire Bush Administration's lie, plus that of hundreds of other government officials, is not.
Yet you repeatedly single out Bush and call him a liar
Actually, if you read the post again you'll notice that I never single out Bush himself.
because one of the reasons that he and countless others believed we should've gone war over may have not been true.
Correction: the PRIMARY GROUP OF REASONS (WMDs, al-Qaeda links, preparations to attack the United States and its allies, involvement in 9/11) that he and countless others SAID we should've gone to war over HAS YET TO BE PROVEN IN ANY WAY.
What about the idea that he, like so many others, thought there where WMDs, and truthfully went to war under that belief?
Picture this: person x sees a man walking down the street with a big jacket. The man reaches into his jacket as if to take out a gun, so person x yells for the police to check him out. The police begin to search the man, but person x gets impatient and shoots the man in the head. After a thorough search, it turns out that there is no gun anywhere near the man. Was it right of person x to shoot him? Should he be cleared of all charges? Should he not be convicted of and tried in court for second-degree murder? You can't just say "Oops, sorry." It doesn't work that way. If you ask me, Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and the lot should be tried in international court for war crimes.
That pretty much sums up the War on Iraaq completely. I've never thought of it in such a simplified form before.
Quote:
I do believe that it was the Bush Administration that floated the idea first.
Clinton said it back in 1998. Long before the Bush Administration.
Quote:
Explain why Bill Clinton's lie was such a big deal to Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and the rest, when the entire Bush Administration's lie, plus that of hundreds of other government officials, is not.
My point again, you keep saying the Bush administration lied, never considering the possibility that they believed it themselves.
Quote:
the PRIMARY GROUP OF REASONS (WMDs, al-Qaeda links, preparations to attack the United States and its allies, involvement in 9/11) that he and countless others SAID we should've gone to war over HAS YET TO BE PROVEN IN ANY WAY.
Again, you single out the Bush administration as having lied, when countless others agreed and said the same thing they were saying.
Quote:
Picture this: person x sees a man walking down the street with a big jacket. The man reaches into his jacket as if to take out a gun, so person x yells for the police to check him out. The police begin to search the man, but person x gets impatient and shoots the man in the head. After a thorough search, it turns out that there is no gun anywhere near the man. Was it right of person x to shoot him? Should he be cleared of all charges? Should he not be convicted of and tried in court for second-degree murder? You can't just say "Oops, sorry." It doesn't work that way.
I didn't say it was right. But you keep singling out the Bush administration as having lied, when countless others thought the same thing. Many others said the exact same thing, both before and after Bush, but when things don't turn out the way people thought it would, everyone turns and blames Bush (and/or the Bush administration, depending on the person) for it all.
And that analogy of yours doesn't completely fit anyway. There are many other factors involved, like the Iraqi people who are thrilled to have Saddam gone, but past experience tells me it's pointless to try to go into that.
Clinton said it back in 1998.
I stand corrected. But did Clinton start a war over it? No.
But you keep singling out the Bush administration as having lied, when countless others thought the same thing.
Mainly because they're the ones who started a war for those reasons, but yes, you are right.
There are many other factors involved, like the Iraqi people who are thrilled to have Saddam gone
Okay, let's say the man is a complete jackass who beats his wife and hell, even committed murder at some point. It would still be murder on person x's part.
ZeroSky, Bush continues to claim that 'Iraq's WMD's' posed a threat and that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda and 9/11, despite the fruitless efforts of Coalition troops and recent inquiries in the USA finding no evidence to support his claims.
I mostly agree with Cycle here. But the way I look at it is this: Bush is either a liar or he's incompetant. Either way, I don't believe the world, or even just the USA, would suffer to see him gone from the Oval Office.
Quote:
ZeroSky, Bush continues to claim that 'Iraq's WMD's' posed a threat and that Saddam Hussein had links to al-Qaeda and 9/11, despite the fruitless efforts of Coalition troops and recent inquiries in the USA finding no evidence to support his claims.
While I don't have the info handy at the moment, there have been links proven between him and Al-Qaeda. (Note that I'm not say specific links to the 9/11 attacks)
Quote:
Bush is either a liar or he's incompetant.
Does that mean that everyone else who thought the same thing is also incompetent?
Quote:
Does that mean that everyone else who thought the same thing is also incompetent?
Well, Tony Blair comes to mind, never the less it was Bush who started the war on false terms.
The Bush buddies lied because they used false evidence. It would be very difficult to find an article now with the exact date we'd need, but it was known to be bad evidence. The theory doesn't even make sense because bin Laden hated Saddam. I remember when I debated war with Byron Nightshade (who may be over there now, I don't know since he was in the military), before the war started, and he absolutely agreed the connection was bogus, even though he was pro-war. This is not some "oops there weren't WMDs" hindsight.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Bush really believed this absurdity about Iraq and Al-Qaeda, or even the evidence, because he's basically controlled by his "advisors." But if you believe something to be true and use a lie to support it, that's still lying. And they gambled hundreds of thousands of lives on it.
Quote:
Does that mean that everyone else who thought the same thing is also incompetent?
That would be determined by what kind of info they had access to. Bush's advisors wanted the intelligence services to come up with the info THEY wanted. They probably ignored anything contrary, and I would call that either incompetent or immoral depending on their knowledge and motivations.
To get this off the war thing, Bush doesn't have a great record with intelligence (pun a coincidence), considering that at least one of his advisors intentionally leaked the name of an active spy just to get revenge on her husband. Anyone else doing that might be arrested or even executed. Now Bush has appointed the guy who opposed investigating this abuse (and BTW wants to give the CIA dangerous abilities) to head the CIA.
I also heard, second hand, that the top Al-Qaeda undercover double agent was mistakenly arrested, and Condoleeza Rice revealed his identity to "prove we were really doing something about terrorists" or some nonsense. Does anyone have details on this?
This could have something to do with it.
Reuters recently reported that security experts were "shocked" when Bush Administration officials outed Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan as an al-Qaeda mole during the recent Orange Alert scare. "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Jane's Defense security expert Tim Ripley. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?" No, it isn't - but it's par for the course for Team Bush. First they blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame, now they're outing valuable intelligence assets working undercover within al Qaeda - and all to get a political leg-up in this year's election. Pretty stupid, for a party whose election platform consists almost solely of the war on terror.
Also, the civilian body count in Iraq is now up to at least 11 605.
Bush is too Christian to rule the country.
As much as I agree with the seperation of church and state, I also believe that just because a person IS Christian doesn't mean that it effects the way that they do anything, even ruling a country.
Could you be a bit more indepth with your comment? It comes off as awfully racist (ok, I know Christian is a faith and not a race, but I don't know the proper word).
The word your looking for is prejudice.
While I agree that Greedylord should've elaborated, it's likely that he doesn't mean being a Christian is a bad thing. He might mean that it's wrong to base your politics too heavily on your own Christian beliefs in a government that's supposed to be separate from the church.
That I would agree with. I've no problem with what Bush chooses to believe. It's when he tries to enforce aspects of his beliefs on his people (particularly prejudiced aspects such as restricting homosexual rights) that I object.
Cycle,
iraqbodycount.net does not distinguish between civilians killed by coalition forces and civilians killed by terrorists, and includes the deaths of terrorists as civilians.
When terrorists ambush a coalition patrol and get killed by return fire iraqbodycount.net lists it as civilian deaths.
When a car bomb kills 60 people outside an Iraqi recruiting station iraqbodycount.net lists it as civilian deaths.
When a smart bomb takes out a terrorist safe house iraqbodycount.net lists it as civilian deaths.
It doesn't matter to them who does the killing or who is killed, they assign the blame to coalition forces. If you look at their database you can see this for yourself.
There is a huge difference between a terrorist, a combatant, and a civilian. Iraqbodycoun.net doesn't make that distinction.
Jimro
In looking at the next four years with the mindset of the present, would Kerry really be a better president than Bush?
The answer is clearly "no". The choice of John Kerry as Democratic presidential Nominee was laughable. There were several more promising candidates with much more consistent backgrounds.
All the complaints that folks have about GWBush won't go away with a new president. From where we are right now there is nothing to do but go forward with the plan of action already set forth in Iraq.
If the population of this nation truly want political revolution then the change in regime must happen in the House and Senate. Congress has more power than the president. Congress writes the laws, changes laws, and has the power to amend the constitution.
The first two years of the Clinton administration had a Democratic majority in the House and Senate but still failed to pass ANY of Clinton's campaign promises. Remember universal health care? Kerry is campaigning the same issue under a different name.
Life under Kerry would not be an improvement from Bush. Bush may have been wrong about Iraq, but so was everyone else. Kerry has a history of lieing when it suits him, his experience in Vietnam being the most noticable.
The "Anyone but Bush" mentality is quite stupid because there are a lot worse alternatives to GWB. Kerry is a worse alternative.
Bush has other nations fearing US action.
Kerry doesn't
Bush believes in US sovereignty.
Kerry believes in globalism.
If Kerry became president, the international setting for terrorism would go back to the Clinton era. Remember what happened because of that.
Jimro
Quote:
Kerry believes in globalism.
I thought Kerry believed in protectionism... or is that one of his many flip-flops?
Bush has other nations fearing US action.
Kerry doesn't
Bush believes in US sovereignty.
Kerry believes in globalism.
Sounds like imperialism to me. You can call it "realism" or "defending the free world" or whatever the hell you like, but the rest of the world calls it imperialist bullying.
Quote:
The "Anyone but Bush" mentality is quite stupid because there are a lot worse alternatives to GWB. Kerry is a worse alternative.
Bush has other nations fearing US action.
Kerry doesn'tBush believes in US sovereignty.
Kerry believes in globalism.
GO KERRY! America shouldn't rule and bully the world.
Well said, Cycle, and Lee. 
Put your foot in it there, Jimro. 
Do you know where Kerry stands? Does Kerry? Does anybody?
Kerry claimed to be a globalist in the 70's after coming back from 'nam. Kerry opposes free trade, right now, in this campaign. Will he still oppose free trade in six months? Or will he "change his mind" again?
The only thing that people know about Kerry is that he isn't Bush.
Imperialism is a buzzword bandied about by the critics of the Bush administration about the Iraq war. Where was "imperialism" when Clinton sent troops to Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, etc. If you want to claim "imperialism" at least back it up with something. Try to show how the US is benefitting from the Iraqi war, how the US is not giving sovereignty back to the Iraqi's (oops, a little late for that accusation), or any other evidence.
Bullying? No, the US is only acting in our own best interest. Bullying is a pointless exercise to make someone who is weak feel strong.
You accusations are groundless. If I put my foot in anything it might be the excrement issued forth by the mindless accusations of an uninformed opinion.
Jimro
Forgive me, Eon, but shut it. I like you. I really do. But it's not at all helpful when you make us look like idiots by declaring victory in a political argument. Unless you're going to add something of your own, all that does is flush my and Lee's credibility down the toilet.
Jimro:
Firstly, this discussion had nothing to do with Iraq until you brought it up. If I were asked to speculate, I'd say you brought it up because you want to turn this into another argument about Iraq, a topic where you're particularly good at repeatedly echoing the party line and completely ignoring the arguments presented by other people. I could be wrong, but hey, I'm not the only one making assumptions about the political beliefs of someone I didn't know until about a month ago (Where was "imperialism" when Clinton sent troops to Serbia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti, etc. -- as if you had any idea what I thought of those actions at the time).
Secondly, imperialism is not a buzzword at all. Imperialism dates back to ancient Rome. In modern times, it is characterized by the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. And technically, sending troops to a country in an attempt to settle an existing conflict is one thing, but starting a brand-new conflict for false reasons is another thing entirely.
Thirdly, for someone who claims to be concerned about the wellbeing of other nations, you certainly show a lot of support for a party that you believe to be acting in the best interest of the United States. As in not that of other countries.
This is all miles away from the point. If you don't want the entire world to be pissed at your country 24/7, if you want to increase the United States' moral standing in the world community, and if you want the US to have friends other than Saudi Arabia, electing a leader who doesn't want to "have other nations fearing US action" would probably be a good place to start.
Can we please start adding the word GOVERNMENT after the world America(n). I'm pretty sure that not every aspect that involves the broad word "America" (including all of it's populace) is "ruling and bullying the world".
Oh and Eon,shut up kthx? 
Secondly, imperialism is not a buzzword at all. Imperialism dates back to ancient Rome. In modern times, it is characterized by the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. And technically, sending troops to a country in an attempt to settle an existing conflict is one thing, but starting a brand-new conflict for false reasons is another thing entirely.
Thirdly, for someone who claims to be concerned about the wellbeing of other nations, you certainly show a lot of support for a party that you believe to be acting in the best interest of the United States. As in not that of other countries.
This is all miles away from the point. If you don't want the entire world to be pissed at your country 24/7, if you want to increase the United States' moral standing in the world community, and if you want the US to have friends other than Saudi Arabia, electing a leader who doesn't want to "have other nations fearing US action" would probably be a good place to start.
Cycle, I think you misunderstand imperialism, AKA empire building. I've read through more than enough articles and listened to enough anti Bush diatribes that "imperialism" is a buzzword in liberal circles. I think you may be confusing Fascism with Imperialism in the case of Musollini.
I brought up the Iraq war because no matter who is elected president the only prudent course of action is to continue with the existing plan. I've read the reports from the Senate Intel commitee, you might find them interesting as well.
I am very concerned about the wellbeing of other countries. That being said I care MORE about he wellbeing of the US. It is not our responsibility to fix the entire world, but we do what we can, when we can.
I don't care if the entire world is pissed at my country 24/7. I don't care about "moral standing" in an amoral world. Friends other than Saudi Arabia? Sure, Poland likes us. Japan too for that matter. Just remember that Nations don't have friends, only interests.
Bush believes in negotiating from a position of strength. Kerry would lick the boots of the UN and work to give away US sovereignty. I would rather that other nations fear the US than dismiss us as an ineffectual puppet for the UN.
International politics are not as simple as interpersonal relationships. Allies are not friends. Competitors are not enemies. We like to think of the Axis powers of WWII as being in the "wrong" when the worst thing they did continues to this day in several spots the world over.
Jimro
I brought up the Iraq war because no matter who is elected president the only prudent course of action is to continue with the existing plan.
Well, of course. I'm not disputing that, and I do believe that John Kerry said he is committed to sorting things out. Of course, this could be another famous flip-flop, so we'll just consider that an aside. (Seriously, I know what you think, so don't even bother.)
Still, the main mentality is that Bush shouldn't have done what he did in the first place, and how can you possibly trust him as a leader now that it's plain as day that he lied to start a war that killed thousands of people. Who's to say that he won't pretty much abandon it like he did in Afghanistan to start another war with another sovereign country that may or may not plan to attack the US?
Bush believes in negotiating from a position of strength. Kerry would lick the boots of the UN and work to give away US sovereignty. I would rather that other nations fear the US than dismiss us as an ineffectual puppet for the UN.
But why? What good would that do? The United Nations was founded to promote peace (you do want peace, don't you?), and it would work a lot better if its strongest and most influential member didn't drag its feet all the time and break UN regulations by starting wars with small countries that have no way of fighting back, for reasons that are clearly false. Since they're the ones with the resources to do so, western nations should work together to promote peace, not oppose it.
I remember Clinton refusing to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty because it jeopardized US sovereignty or impeded their ability to protect it or something idiodic like that. How so? You can keep your sovereignty; all we're asking is that if you must have war, don't leave explosives in other countries that blow people's legs off long after the conflict is over. Now, I don't deny that the US leads the world in funding for mine clearance in other nations, hasn't used them since 1991, and hasn't produced them since 1997. In fact, they may have abandoned the Mine Ban, but they opted instead for their own ten-year policy. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration (who else?) cancelled that policy. The new policy is a giant step backwards which goes against the emerging international norm that rejects antipersonnel landmines and undermines efforts to universalise the Mine Ban Treaty. Apart from Cuba, the US is the only nation in the Western Hemisphere that has not joined the treaty. All other members of NATO are party to the treaty. The US has not used antipersonnel mines in its recent operations in Iraq or elsewhere, it still reserves the right to do so.
Anyways, as I was saying. You can keep your sovereignty, but all I'm asking is that you don't start wars unless there's a damn good reason why. For example, if the leader of a country verbally threatens you, or is visibly preparing to attack you, then by all means, bombs away. Hell, it'd be even better if you didn't fire the first shot, as this allows you to at least stay on the moral high ground. I mean, you didn't seem too worried about thousands of "necessary" civilian deaths in Iraq in the name of freedom, so what's a couple hundred dead American civilians, hmm?
Still, if Bush doesn't like the UN, then why doesn't he sever the United States' membership with it? I wouldn't particularly mind that. If some army general doesn't want to follow the Geneva Convention, then as soon as "United States of America" is removed from it, he and his soldiers could rape and torture away and I wouldn't care nearly as much.
Quote:
But why? What good would that do? The United Nations was founded to promote peace (you do want peace, don't you?),
Quote:
I mean, you didn't seem too worried about thousands of "necessary" civilian deaths in Iraq in the name of freedom, so what's a couple hundred dead American civilians, hmm?
TheCycle. Tone it down. There's no need for rhetorical personal attacks against other Forumers. It's absolutely inappropriate and considered flaming to, even indirectly, insinuate that other Forumers are murderous, jingoistic warmongers. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate being called a gay pinko commie or other negative lefty stereotypes in return. If you wouldn't say something hateful about a Forumer in a religious discussion, you shouldn't do such things in a political discussion.
Quote:
If Rumsfeld doesn't want to follow the Geneva Convention, then as soon as "United States of America" is removed from it, his minions could rape and torture away and I wouldn't care nearly as much.
Donald Rumsfeld doesn't read this board, but on principle, no flaming. Criticism of policy is fine; calling anyone the mastermind of rape and torture is inappropriate.
--
Anyway, my contribution to the discussion:
Iraqi Soccer Players Angered By Bush Campaign Ads
I think it's wrong for Bush to use the soccer team in his campaign, if only because it implies that they endorse and feel grateful towards him, which is false. It's the same reason Ray Bradbury opposes Michael Moore using the title Fahrenheit 9/11 without his permission. Or Bush claiming the support of the 9/11 families when many are vocal in opposing him. Or Kerry saying, "All Vietnman vets LOVE me!"
However, I also think the soccer team has something of a simplistic view of the issue: "Look at all this mayhem! It's the coalition's fault!"
I'm not insinuating anything. Nowhere in writing that post did I intend to make any personal inferences about Jimro. Maybe you're new to this "discussing politics" thing, but many of us like to use tough questions to drive a point home. You know, like during the recent election, when I asked John Cummins (my Conservative parliamentary candidate) "If you're so big on economic growth, why do you personally support a war that cost the United States billions of dollars?" (Note: the actual question was a bit more articulate than that, but you get the picture.)
Criticism of policy is fine; calling anyone the mastermind of rape and torture is inappropriate.
Again, nowhere did I directly call Donald Rumsfeld a "mastermind of rape and torture", nor did I intend to infer such a thing. However, since it is not a certainty that the orders to sexually humiliate prisoners came from his office (which is what I was actually inferring), I will change that statement.
The Liberal Admin Finally Clamp Down! 😛
Hehehehe....
Cycle, if you couldn't see, from the emoticons, that that was a joke, then I apologise.
I wasn't 'declaring victory'. I know better. I've been around this place long enough to know that in arguments with sides as polarised as this, there can be no victory for either side.
You really need to stop taking yourself so seriously. No offence.
And, Astrid. It wasn't that long ago that you were whining about everything here being too serious and depressing. Lighten up, okay?
I don't think I'll bother trying to see the funny side of a political argument in future.
Cycle, if you couldn't see, from the emoticons, that that was a joke, then I apologise.
Accepted, but you should probably tell that to Jimro as well, who also missed the joke.
I'll just use your excuse,Eon It was a joke!
Quote:
Firstly, this discussion had nothing to do with Iraq until you brought it up.
Uh, no, Iraq was mentioned multiple times in this topic before Jimro said anything.
Quote:
it's plain as day that he lied to start a war that killed thousands of people.
Heh, sure, I don't think so. The ridiculousness of that claim never fails to astound me. Unless you really truly believe that, out of the countless numbers of people who thought Iraq was a threat, Bush was the only one who knew that it really wasn't a threat, and decided to go along with what everyone else believed as an excuse to start the war. That plan being devised by the person most liberals refer to as a stupid moron.
Sure.
Anyway, I fully agree with pretty much everything Jimro is saying.
For the record:
Afganistan has not "been abandoned". US troops are still on the ground, still assisting the Karzi led government. I don't know if other western soldiers are still serving in Afganistan but I know that Canadian and British forces were a great source of help in Afganistan.
One of the key issues is supporting the Afgan govt so that a Taliban like regime cannot come into power. I was very disapointed to see the current govt. embrace the Koran as the supreme law of the land.
Also for the record:
Iraq was not "defenseless" by any definition of the word.
Jimro
Cultural note, Jimro:
Islam is unlike other religions, in that it has rules regarding how a country should be run. It pretty much demands theocracy, and teaches that there can be no disagreement amongst those with power, hence you'll most likely end up with a theocratic dictatorship every time.
I don't agree with that, but Arab culture is very different to western culture and will not easily embrace secular democracy.
Eon,
Judaism also has divine law given from God, but Israel is a secular state that allows the different factions of Judaism to flourish as they will.
Islam has as many sects yet it is the Muslim countries with "secular" governments that are prospering. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.
Your view is an oversimplification of a complex issue. Arabs have lived in "clans" under one Sheik for centuries, much like feudal Japan. For the greater part of Islamic history, there was no such thing as a "theocracy". That is a modern development.
However, at no point in their history have they had a democratic tradition. We stand at the crossroads of history, and I hope that the Iraqi people choose a democracy for themselves.
Jimro
This is an anecdotal thing; I was reading pamphlets passed out by Muslim organizations at my school, and one of the things it said in multiple pamphlets was that nations with Christian majorities required separation of church and state because Christian was a religion that had deviated from the true path, Islam. Since Islam was the perfect religion, Islamic countries had no need for separation of religion and government. -_-
This is not to say that this is necessarily representative Islam in general; there are some pretty wacky Christian groups (and atheist groups) at my school too. But I do think that a lack of desire to separate mosque and state is a problem among certain Islamic sects.
-Troophead's noncommital answer.
Unfortunately for all religions the most vocal idiots spewing forth dogma are the ones that get attention.
However, in my experience most Muslims view non-muslims as "spiritually dead" or "mentally asleep" and are quite vocal in telling you so. Most Christians I know realize that they aren't going to make up your mind for you and respect your choice because you made it. But it's that vocal minority causing trouble.
The squeeky wheel gets the oil.
Jimro
Saying his minions rape and torture is perfectly appropriate because that's exactly what went on and somebody ordered it. Whether he ordered it is unknown, but we do know that he knew about it for months and did nothing until the media got the pictures. And of course when the public found out the Bushies were suddenly shocked by the abuses they'd at best ignored and at worst ordered. Bush is so dishonest that he bragged about how the torture chambers of Iraq are in disuse even with this stuff going on. Then there's the report that 70-90% of them were arrested mistakenly, and tortured anyway.
If most people went around exposing spies over personal feuds, they'd be in prison, or even executed. So what's Bush's excuse? What's even worse is that it was an attempt to scare off the press, which is another thing about Bush. Has any government ever been so in love with secrets without being totalitarian?
Bush lying can't be excused by other people thinking Iraq had WMDs.
According to Bob Woodward, Bush pressured the government to give him evidence. The conclusion drove the "reasons," not the other way around. If you've heard of Project for a New American Century, you know that the advisors who are holding his strings have wanted a war with Iraq for years, and even suggested that some kind of foreign attack would be the perfect excuse to start their plans, not for imperialism, but for militarism. They wanted to make an example of Saddam to spread fear of the U.S. military and ensure dominance. Using violence to influence people through fear, there's a word for that isn't there?
Saddam's human rights abuses were probably part of the rationalization. That's not a reason to go to war by itself, though, because there are plenty of other tyrants to kick out, many of them actually supported by the U.S. While Saddam was horrible and deserved to be ousted, the reconstruction has been screwed up so far and there's a good chance Iraq could go into religious rule that would be just as bad as Saddam's secular but cruel government.
If you wonder about Kerry in Vietnam, read this, written by somebody who was actually on the boat (click here for username and password). The swift boat veterans for lying ran a commercial with soldiers who had nothing to do with him and were never in contact with Kerry, even though it claimed otherwise. It claimed to feature a doctor who treated him, but in fact that doctor never treated him. McCain condemned the ad, and he should be familiar with this sort of fraud. Cycle linked an article about how Bush supporters spread rumors that his adopted, dark-skinned daughter was from an interracial affair.
The difference in how they want to handle Iraq is that Kerry wants to transfer at least some responsibility to the UN. That means greatly reduced costs for the U.S. and probably greater legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush wants to run up the deficit unnecessarily just to keep control. And he's currently using that control to get around competition by throwing contracts into the laps of companies without competitive bids. Of course, Halliburton and others are gouging both the American taxpayer and Iraq. So he's hampering reconstruction for his payouts. Another difference is that Kerry probably won't reveal the names of spies just to get revenge on them.
Anybody but Bush is fine. There is no potential candidate with a realistic chance who is worse than Bush. Perhaps the only exception was Joe Lieberman, but even him I'm not sure about. In almost every area I could possibly have a complaint against a candidate, Bush is much worse. Jimro, you called Kerry a worse alternative, but the few explanations you gave for that statement don't make sense. You said other nations fear U.S. action. That is true, but most of them are allies. Do you think terorists don't want the population of the Middle East to fear the U.S.? That is exactly what they want. And there is no reason for countries to respect the U.S. less with Kerry. If anything, getting rid of Bush could increase respect of the U.S. You said that Bush supports U.S. sovereignty but I see absolutely no way in which he supports it more than Kerry. I don't see Bush trying to get the U.S. out of the WTO. You called Kerry a globalist, even though he is campaigning for mild protectionism. You then said that Kerry could revert anti-terrorism to the Clinton era, but there is nothing to suggest that whatsoever. What is your reason for saying this?
Kerry is ok as politicians go. Far from ideal, but a lot better than Bush. I dislike almost all of them, but there are plenty of things in his favor. The only issue he's taken so far that pissed me off was wanting to use oil reserves. He has a pretty good record on environmental votes. He wants to close loopholes that pay corporations to leave and allow them to avoid billions in taxes. He's for reducing deficit spending and sharing the cost of Iraq.
Are you saying that Rumsfeld personally ordered just 20 low ranking soldiers to put Iraqi prisoners in humiliating positions? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Almost as ridiculous as Nixon ordering the ransacking of...of course Nixon wouldn't have been caught if he didn't keep tapes.
You will not find any evidence to support your claims.
You say that the info he had had been debunked. The same info that was available to congress that voted for war. Look at the timeline again, most of the intel wasn't debunked until after the sand cleared.
"He misrepresented the amount of evidence for WMD's" Dude, the same "evidence" that was available to congress that blah de blah yada yada yada. Take a look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions, I did.
The rood article doesn't shed any light on the subject, and he specifically avoids supporting kerry politically while sharing his memories. If he spoke up and said "John Kerry is a helluva guy who always looked out for his men and was a patriotic sailor" then maybe Kerry's fitness for command wouldn't be in question. The main focus of the swiftvets deals with the Kerry's lies before congress on what went on in Vietnam. The fact that his medals sometimes had shady beginnings is just political fire.
You say Kerry wants to transfer some responsibility to the UN? What the heck to do you think the Bush administration has been working for? For the past couple of months they have been seeking assistance from France, Germany, and our host of NATO allies to build up the Iraqi military.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middl...791377.stm
www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/09/g8.summit/
www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/S...36,00.html
imro, you called Kerry a worse alternative, but the few explanations you gave for that statement don't make sense. You said other nations fear U.S. action. That is true, but most of them are allies. Do you think terorists don't want the population of the Middle East to fear the U.S.? That is exactly what they want. And there is no reason for countries to respect the U.S. less with Kerry. If anything, getting rid of Bush could increase respect of the U.S. You said that Bush supports U.S. sovereignty but I see absolutely no way in which he supports it more than Kerry. I don't see Bush trying to get the U.S. out of the WTO. You called Kerry a globalist, even though he is campaigning for mild protectionism. You then said that Kerry could revert anti-terrorism to the Clinton era, but there is nothing to suggest that whatsoever. What is your reason for saying this?
If my statements don't make sense to you that's not my fault.
What the population of the Middle East feels doesn't matter, they are being preached to by fundamentalist Mullah's to hate Americans. Most centrists Muslims don't give a fig about the US, but the hardliners will hate us no matter what. It is better that they hate in fear than hate in courage.
Getting rid of Bush would not increase the respect for the US. Do you respect Spain more because they succombed to terrorist pressure? I don't.
US Soveriegnty. Bush doesn't lick the heels of the UN. Kerry would, just like Clinton did. Kerry called himself a globalist, I just quoted him.
Why Kerry as president would turn back the pressure on terrorists. Instead of DOING things we would be ASKING permission from the UN. Can it be any more simple than that?
Kerry is ok as politicians go. Far from ideal, but a lot better than Bush. I dislike almost all of them, but there are plenty of things in his favor. The only issue he's taken so far that pissed me off was wanting to use oil reserves. He has a pretty good record on environmental votes. He wants to close loopholes that pay corporations to leave and allow them to avoid billions in taxes. He's for reducing deficit spending and sharing the cost of Iraq.
And you are saying what? You listed nothing that would favor Kerry and yet said there were many things. Remember who gave the US free trade agreements? Yup, that's right, the democrats under Bill Clinton. Free trade makes money, protectionism goes the way of the USSR. Protectionism works ok in the short term but artificially inflates the domestic economy to the point where the bubble bursts and a recession ensues due to the dollar losing ground to foreign currency.
Deficit spending is different than national debt. Deficits don't matter unless the projected tax doesn't come in, and so far that's never been the case. However, everyone recognizes that deficit spending cannot continue forever.
Yeah, I'm all for sharing the cost of Iraq, but wait, who is going to willingly pick up the tab with us? Obviously no one when you think about it, it's just a campaign promise that can never be fulfilled.
Jimro
