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.
That is so off the mark that I wonder if you even actually know any Muslims.
The truth of the matter is, what the Muslim people feel is VERY important. Because, you know, they make up 1/6th - almost 2/6th - of the world's population and are the fastest growing religious sect. You can't just turn a deaf ear to that kind of population. Or does no one remember the civil rights movement, which is being reversed by Bush because he opposes affirmative action, among other things?
And if one could say that Muslims are being taught to hate Americans, one could say, of course, that this is partially the Americans' fault, since they funded bin Laden in the 1980's which allowed him to grow a fundamentalist base, funded Saddam in the 1980's so he could fund his WMD programs, and funded the Shah of Iran, whose near-puppet status and opulent living allowed the ayatollahs to emerge in the first place, in the 1970's.
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.
Well, certainly, then the millions of people worldwide who simultaneously protested Bush on the war must not exist, right?
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.
Except, funnily enough, the UN was started by the US. The US helped to found the US as a peace perrogative, to ensure a world war didn't happen again. As one of the founders - and as one of the bigger members of the UN - it is expected to at least abide by the rules and not go off and start a war that still has yet to be really justified.
It would be like in a cub scout group. You joined the cub scout group, and as such you're expected to abide by a set of rules. One of those rules is not to run off alone in the woods during camp. You wouldn't run off if the rules said not to, right? And if you did, you would - should - be punished, because quite frankly, you broke the rules.
That's the same principle with the US. They, as the sole superpower of the world, are at least expected to abide by the rules they helped to create. Shouldn't we be punished by the global countries in some form for breaking them? I think the hate around the world that the Bush administration has generated for us is the least that could have been done. We should be sanctioned, to be honest.
Cook,
Wonder away.
What some guy in the states feels about the middle east doesn't matter a hill of beans to the Ayatollah. I could think that he's a prince but he wouldn't know, care, or hate me any the less. From the news I get from my buddies in the sand most of the Iraqi's are very happy that Saddam is gone, and most are very hopeful for the future.
But what the population of the middle east feels about American politics doesn't matter a lick. Electing our next president on how the middle east feels about him is letting someone else dictate who our leader will be. Before you ask how that's any different than what the US is doing in Iraq and Afganistan I'll answer. The US takes down foreign leaders when necessary, and props them up when necessary, and the only reason other nations don't do it to us is because they lack the military might to do so.
Funding Bin Laden was fine when he was fighting for the freedom of Afganistan back in the 80's. Of course the Evil Empire of the USSR fell and he figured he'd find a new enemy.
The UN has always been ineffectual and while a noble idea, fails in reality. The UN doesn't provide any service that private charity doesn't also provide. The UN cannot make and keep a lasting peace, it just won't happen until the human race is extinct.
Millions protest around the world. Yup, all those Iraqi's protesting US led action (sarcasm). For every Iraqi protesting their are 90 who are supportive and thankful. Most of those "millions protesting" protest EVERY war out of habit.
The UN passed resolution after resolution about Iraq and accomplished nothing. Had Saddam complied with the UN resolutions the US wouldn't have had to go to war. So WE have to play by the rules but THEY don't? Kinda like NATO forces follow the Geneva convention when NO ONE else does?
Go figure. Remember that life isn't fair, if it were, it wouldn't be interesting.
Jimro
The UN doesn't provide any service that private charity doesn't also provide.
That's so hopelessly wrong that I'm not going to even bother articulating a rebuttal. Seriously -- if Bill Gates were to form an international health committee and organize a special peacekeeping task force tomorrow, I'd still have reason to disagree.
The UN cannot make and keep a lasting peace, it just won't happen until the human race is extinct.
It may or it may not. One thing's for sure, though: it won't happen if we take a negative attitude like that.
Most of those "millions protesting" protest EVERY war out of habit.
I'm personally offended by that. You say this as though pacifists protest for the sake of protesting. Before the war began, I attended a peace march -- one of the largest in North America -- because I didn't want innocent people to be killed needlessly. Not "out of habit". The same could be said about my family, my girlfriend, and my coworkers who were with me. And it could probably be said about the majority of the people attending the protest, except maybe for the PLA guys.
Had Saddam complied with the UN resolutions the US wouldn't have had to go to war.
Had the US complied with UN resolutions 11660 civilians would still be alive.
Kinda like NATO forces follow the Geneva convention when NO ONE else does?
Technically, NATO forces have to follow the Geneva Conventions because they signed them. Un-sign them, and you don't have to follow them.
When you're playing hockey, if a guy crosschecks you while you have the puck, don't expect to be let off the hook if you drop the gloves. If you elect to play dirty like him, you're both going to the penalty box. The rules don't get put on hold when someone breaks them.
Agreed, Cycle. Not to mention a country as 'great' and powerful as the USA has a responsibility to uphold the rules it signed, irrespective of how other countries treat the rules.
Cycle,
You say my statement is wrong without saying why. It is true that charities don't provide a military force for peacekeeping duties, but that is not a service provided by the UN, but individual member nations. There is no such thing as a UN soldier. Member nations choose wether or not to send their soldiers into harms way, not the UN. Ever see a UN deployment without the US?
The WHO does a lot of good, however private charities do the same thing, providing vaccination, clean water, and sanitation training.
My attitude towards peace is not negative, it is realistic. Name one time in human history without war. You can't. History is the study of conflict, why they were started, how they were resolved. War is politics by other means according to Carl Von Clausewitz.
You quote the numbers from iraqbodycount.net and say that those people wouldn't have died if the US wouldn't have acted. First off, the bulk of those civilians were killed by insurgents, not coalition forces. If a civilian has an AK-47 or RPG-5 they are NOT a civilian, they are a combatant, and iraqbodycount.net does not make that distinction. They also don't distinguish between deaths caused by coalition forces, and deaths caused by insurgents. Look through their database and see "mortar attack on market" and "car bomb" and you can bet your bippy that wasn't coalition action. Iraqbodycount.net purposely inflates the numbers for their own propaganda purposes.
So you are personally offended? If you don't want innocent people to be killed needlessly protest automobiles. Who really needs a car anyways? According to the CDC 43,000 innocent people died on just American highways in 2000. That would mean that it's safer to be in Iraq as a civilian than a motorist on I-5. How about protesting poor diet and inactivity? 400,000 deaths in 2000. Have a diet and exercise march to get people to live healthy and die anyways.
About the geneva convention, Vietnam was a signatory member of the geneva treaty. The NVA and VC conveniently said that the treaty was signed by the previous corrupt government, that US troops were there "illegally" and therefore they could torture as they wished. What a wonderful place Vietnam has become since the US pullout, so full of educated and enlightened people enjoying the fruits of communism (sarcasm). Gotta love how tolerant the communist regime is, free press, latest technology and medical care, the works (also sarcasm). I'm sure the South Vietnamese civilians are so happy that John Kerry supported the communists. ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerr...1140357545
I must ask you what rules the US broke? Please enlighten me to the article and section of aplicable law. I'm serious here, what rules?
Eon,
You talk about responsibility to uphold rules even tho no one else follows them. There is also the responsibility to act when others would talk. Liberals like to point to a rise in terrorist activity since the US led war on terror, but they don't point out that most of those actions are against soldiers. There have been more kidnappings, less kamikaze attacks. The nature of terrorist activities has changed to reflect the nature of the conflict. We have taken the fight to them and we are winning. We will continue to win if we stay the course.
The only thing that can defeat the US war on terror is the American people pulling back the troops before the job is done.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-- John Stewart Mill
War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
-- General William Tecumseh Sherman
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
-- George Orwell
Jimro
This is so pointless it's not funny. Everyone's repeating stuff that's been said in like five or six other topics several times.
No, I'm not giving up because Jimro's won, he hasn't. Nobody has. Nobody can. I'm just pointing how stupid this has become.
Neither side of this debate is going to back down no matter what overused crap we throw at each other. Every single argument on both sides is just being dismissed as liberal/conservative rubbish, and both sides are guilty of it. Jimro won't accept any argument I, Cycle, Vec, or anyone else who DISAGREES with him as being anything other than moronic liberal propaganda, just as a lot of liberals here won't accept anything Jimro says as being more than the usual pro-Bush rhetoric.
Honestly, I think it's high time you just agreed to disagree. The argument is now on a dead issue and has been for the last few pages.
Just leave it, why don't you?
Eon,
This topic won't be dead until November 3rd.
Press hard Florida.
Jimro
Kerry or Bush?
I know who I'm voting for. Certainly not Mr. Flip Flop!
I'm having fun, Eon. Don't ruin it. 
Certainly not Mr. Flip Flop!
You mean Dick Cheney?
Seriously, "flip-flopping" is among the stupidest things one could use as a negative when comparing one politician to another. Every politician flip-flops. Only a completely inept retard could think that Kerry flip-flopping is somehow unique among politicians.
Example: Paul Martin spent most of the late 80s and early 90s haranguing Brian Mulroney's government for cutting back on social programs that provide cheap housing for homeless people, only to be later made Finance Minister by Jean Chrtien, generate a $97 billion budget surplus, and give out a measly million bucks to said programs. That amounts to approximately five bucks for every homeless person in Canada, which isn't even enough to buy a pack of cigarettes, let alone a cheap home. Despite that and many other "flip-flops", Paul Martin is now the Prime Minister of Canada. And not once was the term "flip-flop" used in the election in June.
Speaking of flip-flops, while he's not clandestinely backing shadowy smear groups, how is George W. Bush doing running the United States of America? If the recent meteoric rises in oil prices are anything to go by, not very well. According to the AFP, "World oil prices could sally past 50 dollars a barrel and hold at high levels for the foreseeable future on a combination of tight, unstable supplies and rising demand, notably from Asia." Hmm... unstable supplies. I wonder why that could be? Of course, Bush doesn't seem too concerned about the price of oil right now since he's kinda busy trying to avert an impending approval-rating trainwreck. But it might be worth taking a look at what Bush said back in 2000 when he criticized Bill Clinton for not being tough enough on oil producers: "I think the President ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say: 'We expect you to open your spigots.' The President of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price," said candidate Bush. It's probably worth pointing out that while he was talking tough about OPEC and bashing Clinton for high gas prices, oil prices were $28 a barrel. Four years of Bush, and oil is now almost $50 a barrel. Now that's the kind of leadership, not to mention straight-as-an-arrow, non-flip-floppy thinking, that surely deserves reelection!
Aren't the oil prices controlled by OPEC? I know Saudia Arabia is pumping out more oil but it seems like OPEC is dragging their feet. I do wish Bush would open those storages of oil to lower the prices...what is he thinking? I don't agree with any of Kerry's policies but I find Bush's policies infuriate me too sometimes. If I can't make up my mind, I won't vote.
Worst case scenario: Kerry gets elected, pulls out the troops from Iraq and then we see another 9/11. That is the worst case scenario but it highlights that we just need to finish the job, no matter how long it takes.
Worst case scenario: Kerry gets elected, pulls out the troops from Iraq and then we see another 9/11.
Firstly, I don't think Kerry has advocated pulling out of Iraq at any point during the last year and a half. Secondly, while I don't think it'd be a good idea, how in the hell would a pullout cause "another 9/11"?
On another note, there's a marked difference in the campaign styles of George W. Bush and John Kerry, and it's a difference that makes Bush out to be, well, a bit of a chickenshit. It seems that while John Kerry is out and about holding public rallies in front of thousands of people, George Bush is hiding himself away in smaller venues, ensuring that not only will he be able to avoid protesters, but he won't even have to face questions from people who are genuinely curious about what what he might do for them during the next four years. For example, these are the kind of "questions" that Bush faced recently at one of his ass-kissing sessions: "Mr. President, I just want to say I'm praying for you and God bless you." Follow up question... "I would just like to say that I agree with this gentleman, that we should all pray for you." Pretty incisive, huh? Or take this exchange... QUESTION: "Mr. President, you were a fighter pilot and you were with the 147th Fighter Wing?" ANSWER: "Yes." QUESTION: "And flew a very dangerous aircraft, the Delta F102?" ANSWER: "Right, and I'm still standing." QUESTION: "I want to thank you for serving our country." Brilliant!
Bush campaigning in Oregon (Reuters):
Kerry campaigning in Oregon (also from Reuters):
OPEC prices only drop when member countries are at war with each other. If all the OPEC member nations are at peace then they use their monopoly to control production, just like they are doing now. The fact of the matter is that the President of the US might as well be the president of Walmart for all OPEC cares.
On the other end of production you have speculation. Investors willing to pay a certain price per barrel and sell when the price goes higher. With the world wide fear about oil prices have been inflated. So unless OPEC disbands and the free market economy is destroyed oil prices will likely remain high. Kinda like the dotcom bust, people put money into something without much real worth and when the reality hit lots of money was lost. A barrel of oil is a barrel of oil, and the cost to produce it have not increased.
To lower prices OPEC must boost production ONLY TO DISMISS THE FEAR OF INVESTORS. But the Bush Admin has sought OPEC output increases, and over the last three months output has been increased. As long as output stays steady the prices should continue to drop.
Jimro
Well, at least we agree on one thing: OPEC are a bunch of evil bastards. Albeit evil clever bastards, but evil bastards nonetheless.
I just don't understand OPEC...
OPEC is easy to understand when you remember a few simple things:
1. The first rule of business for any organization is the self preservation of that organization.
2. Nations don't have friends, only interests.
3. The allmighty buck is the bottom line.
I wonder how many OPEC nations have speculators that purposely keep the price of crude high? That way they can make money on both ends of the spectrum....
Jimro
Cycle,
As to the campaigning differences between Bush and Kerry,
Bush is the incumbent president and is acting like it. He's campaigning to be Re-elected in the same manner as Clinton and Reagan before him. Nothing new. Smaller venues where security is tighter, no convertible vehicles, etc.
I agree that journalists often ask some trivial non-issue questions. But the journalists that kiss ass often get the interviews, which is why media objectivity has been such a hot issue in college courses across the US as of late.
Jimro
Quote:
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.
No, I'm saying someone ordered them (maybe Rumsfeld, maybe not), and there were more than 20. Those 7 wouldn't have been caught if someone hadn't sent photos to the media. 
How far up the chain of command it went I have no idea, but we know that the Red Cross told the military what was going on months before the media got the photos, and the Bushies are still trying to say it was just the actions of a few rogue soldiers. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? And I don't think the action taken in response was particularly swift or sufficient.
cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news...loc=NW_1-T
www.cnn.com/interactive/w...clude.html
www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/eu...index.html
Quote:
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.
The evidence for WMDs was not debunked until after the war started. As I said, I also thought he had WMDs. I'm talking about the Al-Qaeda excuse.
Since I don't want to search for articles to show that it was debunked before the war, let's focus simply on its being debunked at some point. Bush is still claiming they were connected, and is therefore lying.
Quote:
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?
Rephrasing is required. I meant that he's (presumably) more willing to make compromises to do so.
Quote:
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.
Why is it better? Do we get something out of it? If you think giving the general population of the Middle East good reason to fear the U.S., instead of the insane ramblings of religious leaders, is going to hurt Al-Qaeda, then I don't know what to tell you.
Confronted with a hornet's nest, all Bush can think of is to poke it.
And the fear DOES go beyond just the terrorists and religious bigots. Bush is saying right now that Iraq was involved in terrorism. There is nothing to support it except proximity. How do they know which country is next?
Now, about the theorizing on why Bush started the war, and you putting fear of the U.S. as a positive. Is a desire to spread fear a viable motive for military action (assuming the "example" targeted is a tyrant anyway)? We know that numerous Bush advisors think it is.
Quote:
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.
Who said anything about succumbing to terrorist pressure? I'm referring to getting rid of Bush.
Bush damaged U.S. credibility because he is rightfully seen as eager for war.
Quote:
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.
Well there's why it made no sense to me. I hear U.S. soveriegnty, and think ability to make laws. Globalism suggests to me compromising such ability for agreements, such as trade agreements. But you're talking about ability to start wars. So if war could become a last resort, I consider that a plus.
Quote:
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?
The UN approved the terrorist war, Afghanistan.
Bush has turned back pressure on terrorists by focusing on an unrelated war. He has exhausted and reversed the cooperative international atmosphere the U.S. had after the terrorist attacks to do so.
Kerry has never said he would not ever go against the UN if it was really important.
If it was really important, chances are the UN would vote for it anyway.
Bush asked for approval himself.
Quote:
And you are saying what? You listed nothing that would favor Kerry and yet said there were many things.
Environmental record? Possibly the most important issue of all. The "plenty of things" other than the 3 I mentioned are mostly products of not being Bush. Listing those will have to wait because they would take HOURS.
Quote:
Remember who gave the US free trade agreements? Yup, that's right, the democrats under Bill Clinton.
This is about Kerry and Bush. Neither are likely to get out of the WTO, which is not just a free trade agreement. That is how I rebutted your claim about sovereignty, which I interpret as domestic.
Since you seem to like free trade, what is your point? Are you asking if I consider that a negative? Probably, although I don't have enough info to be certain.
Quote:
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.
I wasn't aware the USSR had its corporations setting up offshore tax shelters.
Again, this is about Kerry and Bush. Kerry talked about tax reform for corporations, not tariffs. That's barely even protectionism at all. Corporations use all sorts of tricks to get out of taxes, and certainly closing some of those loopholes is a positive?
But Bush has supported protectionism. He made a controversial tariff on steel. So wasn't he going the way of the USSR?
The WTO threatened retaliatory tariffs, so Bush relented. Regardless of whether the tariffs were a bad idea, he gave in to an international organization on a law he supported. Doesn't that mean he compromised U.S. sovereignty?
Now, it would have been foolish to maintain the tariffs with those billions in threats. But I don't consider sovereignty especially important in itself, or something that has anything to do with Kerry and Bush.
Quote:
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.
Wait, how many billions or trillions are being spent per year purely on interest? How in the world can you say deficits don't matter? Deficits only add to that, and every dollar of deficit equals quite a bit more money later on thanks to interest. It's not like a $500 billion deficit means paying back $500 billion in the future. That $500 billion plus possibly even more than that on interest depending on how long it stays in the national debt.
Quote:
The UN cannot make and keep a lasting peace
Well at least we can agree on that.
Quote:
But what the population of the middle east feels about American politics doesn't matter a lick.
You brought this into the topic by saying that having other countries in fear of the U.S. was a good thing. Now you're saying it doesn't matter.
Quote:
The US takes down foreign leaders when necessary, and props them up when necessary
What about funding Saddam and giving him WMDs in the 80's because he was an enemy of Iran? Or the Shah, which is pretty much why Iran was an enemy in the first place?
The attitude that it's ok to assist tyrants if you have a common enemy is the reason for the Gulf War, the Iraq War, etc. It also contributes to terrorism. You didn't say tyrants, but unfortunately the government doesn't seem to make that distinction.
Quote:
Seriously, "flip-flopping" is among the stupidest things one could use as a negative
Absolutely. If anything it shows an ability to refine positions due to new information.
Where are the people calling Strom Thurmond a flip-flopper because he (ostensibly) stopped supporting segregation?
Quote:
I do wish Bush would open those storages of oil to lower the prices
Bad idea. Oil is going to keep getting more expensive until its use becomes obsolete. It is not a renewable resource and we're already headed for "peak oil," after which production will drop. That reserve oil will be worth a lot more later. If anything the government should be buying it up now and storing more.
Quote:
Worst case scenario: Kerry gets elected, pulls out the troops from Iraq
Kerry has already said he plans to finish Iraq, not withdraw.
Quote:
another 9/11
For people who might not have noticed yet.
Iraq and 9/11 were not related.
The only only thing between them is that Bush exploited fear to get support for Iraq. Here's an interesting question, why didn't he try to declare war on Iraq before the attacks? Saddam was supposed to have the WMDs then too, and we know Bush wanted to. The exploitation is almost undeniable.
Speaking of exploitation, on August 13th, the Bush campaign made a lame attempt to cash in on the popularity of the Olympics by releasing an ad called "Victory," which showcased the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq are currently competing in Greece. But not so fast, Team Bush. It turns out that Iraq's Olympic soccer team isn't too happy about being the star of George W. Bush's propaganda machine. Sports Illustrated reported last week that, "To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power." However, midfielder Salih Sadir then said, "Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign. He can find another way to advertise himself." Another midfielder, Ahmed Manajid, said, "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes." (As it happens, American troops killed Manajid's cousin recently.) He continued, "If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists? Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq." Meanwhile Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad said, "My problems are not with the American people. They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?" You know, I have a sneaking feeling that we won't be seeing these quotes showing up in Bush campaign ads anytime soon. If that's not enough, according to the New York Times, "The United States Olympic Committee has asked the Bush campaign to stop using the Olympic name in commercials," because, "federal law grants the U.S.O.C. exclusive rights to the name." Team Bush's response? "Go Cheney yourself."
Free trade makes money, protectionism goes the way of the USSR.
Protectionism... you mean like how Bush put ridiculous tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, which is better and cheaper than the American softwood, and refused to remove them despite being told to do so numerous times by the World Trade Organization? Or how they jumped at the first possible opportunity to close the border to Canadian beef, which is better and cheaper than American beef, after a single incidence of BSE? Or how the cow that had BSE turned out to be from the United States? Or how they have yet to open the border to said beef after over one completely BSE-free year, despite the fact that this is ruining the livelihood of thousands of Canadians?
What we need to do is stop depending on the Middle East nations to get oil. It doesn't help that some of them are harboring terrorists who want to see us wiped off the face of the map.
Then what are we supposed to make of Kerry if he can't make up his mind on an issue? He keeps changing sides (He's a politcian) and I know all of them do it but he sort of does it to a degree that is completely nuts.
Saudi an ally? I may be an elephant but something doens't smell right about this "ally"
What we need to do is stop depending on the Middle East nations to get oil.
Best way to do this: eliminate or greatly diminish the need for oil by developing an alternate fuel source (done - hydrogen fuel is pretty much ready to go to the mass market) and making it illegal to manufacture cars powered by petroleum products. Too bad that ranks somewhere near the bottom of Bush's list of priorities, right down there with "do something that benefits the poor" and "not kill people".
I forgot to mention this:
You quote the numbers from iraqbodycount.net and say that those people wouldn't have died if the US wouldn't have acted. First off, the bulk of those civilians were killed by insurgents, not coalition forces.
The initial 10000 or so were killed by US bombing. Either way, it doesn't matter; the insurgents wouldn't be blowing things up if the war hadn't been started in the first place, which is my point exactly.
Quote:
What we need to do is stop depending on the Middle East nations to get oil.
Absolutely. Hydrogen might work, but much greater effort should be taken to find and develop alternative fuels. I've even heard cannabis mentioned as a possibility, although I do not intend to say it would or would not work, just that I've heard of it.
Quote:
If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists? Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist.
Which supports the point I made earlier. By using terrorism as a buzzword, and flinging it at everything from Saddam to peaceful dissent groups, Bush has shown that he'll use it as an excuse to go after whatever he wants. It's not just the bigots in the Middle East who fear Bush. Saddam was connected with nothing but culture to back it up, so why not them?
It is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli
If foreign soldiers invaded the US and canadians snuck across the border to fight those soldiers then those canadians would be terrorists now wouldn't they. If they would stop shooting at coalition forces and IRAQI police then they would stop dieing. Cycle I think you meant 1000 not 10,000.
Al-Qaeda/Saddam ties.
www.weeklystandard.com/Co...7uwabl.asp
Afghanistan detainee information about Iraq/Al Qaeda
www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25...q.alqaeda/
a good recap article
www.washtimes.com/nationa...-3401r.htm
Iraqi exile information
www.news24.com/News24/Wor...46,00.html
Other sources of interest
www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...sp?ID=5571
www.iht.com/articles/118851.html
The HUMINT that pointed towards WMD's was debunked after the sand cleared. Slate did a whole series on the debunking process and media objectivity. The Iraq/Al-Qaeda link was first put forth by the Clinton administration.
I stopped by Barnes and Noble last night and looked through the politics section and saw a plethora of anti Bush books. If GWBush lied (the topic of the anti bush books), then the democrats in Congress would be howling for his impeachment. Clinton wasn't impeached for fooling around with an intern, he was impeached for lieing to congress. The fact that House and Senate have NOT started impeachment hearings tells you something. Go to democrats.com/elandslide/...refer=home and take a look at who HASN'T signed the impeachment petition. Not a single democrat rep or senator, what does that tell you? It tells me that they know something would come out in an impeachment trial that would exonerate Bush.
Go figure.
Jimro
Well I've got an idea to prevent another war like this from happening. We simply sever all alliances we have, refuse to help any country that thinks they need our help, and let all these countries fend for themselves.
From what I've learned in U.S. History, the U.N. is practically nothing. They may can create regulations, but they can't enforce them. Also any decision can be killed by a single country. What good is it?
Because it's always so simple isn't it?
Let's just be a selfish nation, not import any necesary goods at all, see gas prices skyrocket, sink into a depression, and have a mass starvation across the country. Flawless logic.
Actually, being a neutral power would not elimainate trade. If if it did, how on Earth is Switzerland doing so well as a neutral power? :b
The US produces more food than we need thanks to modern farming practices. We import a lot of manufactured goods because they are cheaper to produce overseas.
Jimro
This is thanks to laws regarding minimum wages not existing in countries like China, Korea and India. That's why it's so cheap to manufacture abroad - because labour-laws are non-existant.
(sarcasm)Thank you worker exploitation.(end sarcasm)
If you compare the median living standards of China and Taiwan you will see the effects of capitalism at it's finest.
Jimro
Jimro,
I didn't understand what you meant with that last statement, can you please elaborate?
The Census Bureau released a report last week which revealed that "The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million," according to the Associated Press. They continued, "It was the third straight annual increase for both categories." Third straight increase huh? I guess we're still waiting for Bush's Great Tax Cut Plan to kick in. Should be any day now. Meanwhile, the AP also noted that, "The rise was more dramatic for children. There were 12.9 million living in poverty last year, or 17.6 percent of the under-18 population. That was an increase of about 800,000 from 2002, when 16.7 percent of all children were in poverty." Leave no child behind my ass. George left 800,000 more children behind last year than he did the year before. Great work. Do the math: since George W. Bush became president, 5.2 million people have lost their health insurance and 4.3 million have fallen into poverty. Meanwhile, corrupt CEOs make more money than they ever have before. And that's supposed to be leadership?
Well Cyke, I always thought of Bush more as a puppet for Haliburton and other corporations than a leader.
I think Jimro is saying that Communist China's standard of living are horrible. See what communism does to people?
Did anyone see all the protestors at the convention? Where were the protesters during the Democratic covention?
Quote:
Where were the protesters during the Democratic covention?
Maybe they were on vacation 
Silent majority. Even though 50 percent support Bush (around that number) the anti Kerry crowd isn't as vocal as the anti Bush crowd. Both are significant in number.
But yes, it's still considered summer so they probably are all on vacation.
Silent majority. Even though 50 percent support Bush (around that number) the anti Kerry crowd isn't as vocal as the anti Bush crowd.
Oh please. You mean like -- dare I say it -- the "silent majority" of Iraqis who welcomed the harbingers of democracy with open arms as they bombed wedding parties and blew sewage mains, flooding the streets with feces?
That tidbit about the Iraqi "silent majority", I haven't given it enough thought.
But this silent majority also tends NOT to vote and thus if they refuse to vote, Kerry wins. Silent majority=Christians, right wing...etc...independents not enamored with the Democrats...etc...etc...
Republicans, like all members of successful political parties, are splendid at reinventing themselves.
Four years ago, when they nominated George W. Bush in Philadelphia, Republicans were the party of small government and something called "compassionate conservatism."
Both proved to be hoaxes. Nobody talks about "compassionate conservatism" anymore, in large part because nobody could figure out what it meant, then or now. And as for small government, spending under Mr. Bush has risen faster than in the Clinton years (and not just for security and defence), taxes have fallen (mostly for the rich), and the deficit has soared.
If the election turned on these and other domestic disappointments, including a net loss of jobs, the Republicans would lose the election faster than you can say "Moving America Forward". But just as the Republicans portrayed themselves, more or less successfully, as the sternest of anti-Communists during the Cold War, so after 9/11 they became the party of anti-terrorism with Mr. Bush offered as the best man to keep the United States safe.
The election will turn on that issue more than any other -- who best can keep America safe? -- which is why Republicans chose New York, a heavily Democratic city, for their convention. Here, the horror of 9/11 struck; here, those attending and watching the convention will be reminded ad infinitum that George W. Bush took the fight to terrorists: in Afghanistan and, considerably less plausibly, in Iraq.
The convention's first-day theme, "courage of a nation," was all about the war on terror, as will be much of the rest of the week.
On Sunday, while several hundred thousand demonstrators protested against the Bush administration and the war on Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney said his boss had been "calm in a crisis, comfortable with responsibility, and determined to do everything to protect our people." And last night, both Arizona Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani lauded Mr. Bush for his role in the fight against terrorism, with Mr. Giuliani comparing the President to Britain's wartime leader, Winston Churchill.
It was said of Mr. Churchill that he mobilized the English language, whereas it could be said of Mr. Bush that he mangled the English language. But Republicans couldn't care less about Mr. Bush's grammar. They are wildly happy with their President, who has turned out to be much more ideological than his father in the White House.
Mr. Bush has passed three Republican tests with flying colours, tests his father more or less failed. He cut taxes, a policy favoured by all red-blooded Republicans. He took the fight to terrorists and, in Republican eyes, kept the country safe. And he delivered just enough to keep content the social conservatives and "faith-based" organizations that form an integral part of the Republican coalition.
There remain, barely, inside the Republican tent a few gays, ethnic leaders and old-style balanced-budgeters, but they have been at the party's margin for some time.
These convention delegates are more conservative than the party's rank-and-file voters -- just as Democratic delegates were more liberal than their party's voters -- but Republicans as a whole have been moving to the political right for two generations. Mr. Bush understood this better than his father, and resolved to govern accordingly, despite the trappings of "compassionate conservatism" in which he wrapped himself four years ago. The party's rank and file adore him for it.
That the country might not have moved in lock step with the party explains why those you will see on television this week won't accurately reflect today's Republican Party.
Evangelicals and other "faith-based" organizations haven't been offered prominent speaking slots, in case their presence would remind independent voters what scares them about Republicans.
Blacks, Hispanics and Arab Americans will be on the podium, suggesting to the unwary that the Republicans are more multihued than they really are. And some of the party's fire-breathing right wingers have yielded to more moderate speakers such as Mr. McCain and California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger.
This obvious (if somewhat misleading) packaging, however, pales beside this week's more serious business: portraying Mr. Bush as a wartime leader who speaks plainly, acts decisively, smites the country's enemies, scorns recalcitrant allies, and will do what it takes to keep the United States safe.
And the Democrats haven't? Let me remind you that the Democrats used to be a party hostile to minorities. They have supposedly changed to accomodate the minorities when in actuallity, they still could care less about them. They throw up a few policies the black leadership thinks is important (Affirmative action and civil rights) and then that buys them the black vote. Now they're catering to the Latinos and trying to get their vote.
I'm sure you'll probably bring up the point about the Republicans being against immigration. Let me rephrase that: They are against illegal immigration. Immigration is fine as long as it's done legally.
And good ol' Bush still does things that drives the social conservatives crazy.
Cycle,
America has had the "poverty class" "soar" before, and we will again. Just the tides of the economy, nothing more, nothing less.
If a single government could control the economy the USSR wouldn't have fallen, recessions wouldn't be a world wide phenomena, and things would be pretty boring.
Just remember that "poverty" in the US, isn't the same as "poverty" in haiti. Our poor are rich by world standards. Go figure.
Jimro
So? Voters are stupid. Regardless of whether it was really the government's fault, as far as the general voting population is concerned, it's a reason to vote or not to vote Bush.
Voters are stupid.
That statement drips an attitude intellectual elitism. Would you mind explaining how you came to that concept?
Jimro
It's not intellectual elitism, it's just common knowledge. It's been proven that the average voter in both Canada and the United States still votes for politicians based on their election promises. That fact alone makes him utterly stupid and nave.
Besides, that wasn't the point. In future, try to focus on the important part of my post, not the little comments that are there pretty much for decoration.
Chicago Tribune:
NEW YORK -- Madison Square Garden, home of many prizefights and hockey brawls, seems a fitting venue for Alan Keyes to be meeting his fellow Republicans.
The candidate for U.S. Senate has miffed many members of the Illinois delegation by spending more time on national talk shows than schmoozing with them.
He has been prickly with the media, chastising reporters for asking "inappropriate" questions.
As the Republican National Convention focused on unity Tuesday, Keyes lashed out at the vice president's gay daughter.
And it was only the second day of the convention.
Keyes' first comments about Mary Cheney came during an interview Monday night on Sirius OutQ, a New York-based satellite station that provides 24-hour gay and lesbian programming.
After Keyes told the hosts that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," he was asked whether Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist."
"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."
On Tuesday, Keyes defended his remarks, adding that if his daughter were a lesbian, he would tell her she was committing a sin and should pray about it.
Thus far, Keyes' week has been defined by friction with his state party chairwoman and the Illinois delegation, who feel they're playing second fiddle to Keyes' media campaign. Some have also expressed concerns about Keyes' beliefs, calling them too far right for Illinois.
Keyes is challenging Democrat Barack Obama, who wowed his party's national convention with his keynote address.
Illinois Republican Party Chairwoman Judy Baar Topinka said Keyes' remarks about Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter shouldn't distract from key election issues.
"It's a pity that we have gotten away from the substance of the campaign and instead have gotten into personalities and things that are personal and name-calling," Topinka said. "Since this is amongst Republicans, it really needs to stop and get on course."
When informed of Keyes' comments about Mary Cheney, Bush/Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt offered a terse reply Tuesday.
"It was inappropriate," he said.
Campaigning in North Middleton Township, Pa., with President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke to reporters about Republican chances to hold the Senate and said, "I think it's clear we lose Illinois."
Informed about Keyes' comments about Mary Cheney, McCain said, "I don't think that's appropriate, but it's not the first inappropriate remark Mr. Keyes has made. He made a remark the other day that people who perform abortions are the same as terrorists. That's a very unique take on that issue and one that's very seldom espoused."
For the last two days, Keyes has frequented Radio Row, a hallway in the Garden occupied by talk show hosts. Keyes, who had his own radio show in the 1990s, appeared comfortable there, stopping for interviews when asked.
Two hosts with Sirius OutQ spoke with Keyes for four minutes Monday night in a nearby hallway. Their conversation centered on Keyes' opposition to gay marriage. Keyes said family is defined by having children.
"If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism," Keyes told hosts Michelangelo Signorile and Corey Johnson.
It was at this point that the hosts asked Keyes their question about Mary Cheney, which Keyes answered.
An interviewer then said: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."
Replied Keyes: "Dick Cheney may or many not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."
When asked Tuesday evening to explain his statements about Mary Cheney, Keyes did not back down.
"I have said that if you are actively engaging in homosexual relations, those relations are about selfish hedonism," Keyes said. "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, `That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."
Rick Garcia, director of Equality Illinois, a non-partisan gay rights group, said Keyes' views are not representative of the state's Republicans nor Democrats.
"Selfish hedonism? Has anyone seen Dr. Keyes look at a microphone or a television camera? That's hedonism," Garcia said. "The mainstream of the Illinois Republican Party is not behind Dr. Keyes."
Keyes attempted to build bridges Tuesday with the Illinois delegation. But a breakfast gathering ended messily for Keyes as he chastised reporters for not giving his candidacy a fair shake and left early.
Topinka had welcomed Keyes to a Times Square hotel for his first delegate breakfast. She said there was room under the Republican Party's tent for different beliefs, but added that a far-right candidate would not win in Illinois.
"Without social moderates this party cannot win," Topinka told a few reporters before she and Keyes shook hands for the cameras. "It has to be center-right, it can't be right-right."
When Topinka and Keyes greeted each other, the exchange was brief and awkward. It ended strangely, as Topinka ducked out, dashing behind a ficus plant.
"There you go," she said to Keyes. "You're on."
Reporters surrounded Keyes on his way out. When asked why he had not addressed the delegates, he promised it wouldn't be the last time he'd see them this week but had to tend to a schedule packed with media interviews. Pressed for a reason why he had not spent more time with his state party, Keyes responded angrily.
"The proper question would be: `What are you doing at this convention?' And that is a fact," he said.
"'What are your plans at this convention? ...What are your priorities as you deal with these matters? What do you think is your proper role?' All of these are right questions."
Though her views differ with Keyes' on several social issues, Topinka said Tuesday morning she would support him.
"The ticket is Republican. I am the Republican chairman," she said. "He is on the ticket. We will support the ticket."
Alan Keyes is a frigging madman. Why is he in politics? Why haven't the Republicans fired him yet? And WHY THE HELL does he have a PhD?! There should be some kind of law against stupid, intolerant psychos having PhDs.
Agreed. Anybody with such ridiculous, dinosauric, (blind) faith-driven views on homosexuality in the 21st century shouldn't be allowed anywhere near politics with a barge pole.
If he thinks gay marriage is taking the piss out the marriage institution then I hope he will also campaign to ban divorce and anulments.
It just sickens me though how some people, even today, actually believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice.
What Keyes said takes some guts. Even if you don't agree with him (I wouldn't even say that) that must take a huge amount of courage...if I argued with my professors about why Kerry is a worse choice than Bush...I'd be torn apart.
Quote:
What Keyes said takes some guts. Even if you don't agree with him (I wouldn't even say that) that must take a huge amount of courage
There's a difference between courage and stupidity, courage is standing up to your fears, doing something out of stupidity is ignoring the consiquences, Keyes is following his stupidity.
It is easy to condemn anothers actions as "stupid". It is difficult to live their life to come to their understanding.
For the greater part of human history homosexuality has been considered morally wrong by the judeo-christian religions because it is an un-natural act and classified as sin. To Christians and Jews homosexuality is STILL a sin.
Understanding the bible is not "stupid" and belief in the truth of God's word is not "blind faith". Love the sinner, not the sin. Similar to alcoholics, homosexuals are just people with problems. They still deserve all the love and respect accorded to everyone else simply because they are human. But I don't have to validate their lifestyle the way the enabler does with an alcoholic.
Blast away.
Jimro
He called homosexuality "selfish hedonism" on television, I'm not attacking his belief, I'm attacking his bigotry and prejudice. Also, I believe the Bible states "Judge not lest thee be judged" and that everyone has free will, by calling homosexuals sinners and should pray to god for mercy, he himself is a sinner; that's why I'm not a follower of organized religion, their rules contradict each other.
Quote:
Similar to alcoholics, homosexuals are just people with problems. They still deserve all the love and respect accorded to everyone else simply because they are human. But I don't have to validate their lifestyle the way the enabler does with an alcoholic.
See, here's the problem, homosexuals AREN'T people with a problem, they are people who are attracted too, or have fallen in love with, people of the same sex, it doesn't cause anyone harm and shouldn't be considered a sin to ANY religion anymore. The fact is that God didn't come down from the heavens and shout out "Gay's are EVIL", it's just that up until recently anyone acting in a radical way was considered evil or worse. You wouldn't burn a woman to death because someone called her a witch would you? Of course not, but christians used to believe that that was God's wish.
Agreed, Robobotnik.
Quote:
For the greater part of human history homosexuality has been considered morally wrong by the judeo-christian religions because it is an un-natural act and classified as sin.
This is what I dislike most about conservatism: the idea that because something has always happened it's perfectly fine for it to keep on happening. By that logic it'd be okay to still have slavery.
So what if the world has a history of homophobia? That doesn't make continuation of such hatred right, especially when we're supposedly living in so 'tolerant' an era. Like Robobotnik said, would you burn a woman at the stake if your neighbours called her a witch? Of course you wouldn't. The fact that it happened historically does not mean it should still happen today.
Now, 'unnatural' connotes 'man-made', therefore 'choice'. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Nobody decides to be straight, gay, or bisexual, they just develop that way... NATURALLY. I understand why you might see it as unnatural, as the purpose of relationships and sex as a species is procreation. But have you ever considered that homosexuality might be a natural device to keep the human population down? Ergo, it is not a problem.
Quote:
To Christians and Jews homosexuality is STILL a sin.
So is divorce and gambling, but that doesn't stop either from happening. So what? Isn't there a part of the constitution that's supposed to keep the church and state separate anyway? In which case, Keyes has no business writing his religious beliefs into his politics. Politicians should keep such beliefs to themselves. In a multicultural society, governments should always be secular.
You hate governments that choose the Quoran as their law, Jimro. Why is it any different when governments choose to make laws based on what the Bible says?
Hey, Eon, if the world was really conservative, we'd still be hitting each other with clubs and making sacrifices on altars to various gods!
On a more serious note, homosexuality can be a choice, but not for all men or women. Sometimes it's brought on by a severe emotional problem, such as rape. Sometimes it's inborn. But sometimes men and women make that choice. It's called bisexuallity. Why would they choose something that makes their life difficult because of homophobic saddos? Don't ask me.
The rest of your statement I agree with.
Homosexuality is not dirty, it's just different.
