Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-15 18:37:59

I'm not American and this isn't my election. Apart from a keen interest in space exploration and a perception that Kerry will almost certainly back away from the big decisions in that field, it isn't going to make much difference to me personally whether Bush or Kerry wins.
Contrary to any conclusions people here may have drawn from my previous comments, I have no particular love of President Bush. In truth, I think he's something of an intellectual lightweight. I think Kerry is too but he's learned to disguise it better by appearing sincere! As they say in Hollywood, sincerity is the most important thing - if you can fake that, you've got it made.

But there is something important here, which I think we need to consider. Bush, Blair and Howard went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of how you might interpret this, Al-Q'aida sees it as strength. (Libya sure did.) But they are confident the West is morally decadent and weak, and lacks the stomach for a fight. The unfortunate behaviour of the Spanish people has reinforced that belief.
On a brighter note, Australia has just returned Howard as Prime Minister, and with a larger majority. While the Spanish have bowed to Al-Q'aida and its sibling terrorist groups all over the world, Australians have said to them: "Up yours! It'll take more than you've got to frighten us!"

But America's election is much more important to Al-Q'aida than Australia's, or even Britain's. America is currently the military top dog and leader of the free world. However you may see it, a defeat for Bush will inevitably send a message to terrorists everywhere; a message we really don't want to send. It will tell them the majority of Americans have wavered in their determination. Even if you don't see it that way at all; they will.

Reiterating again what I've been trying to say to people here at new Mars for many months, the real enemies aren't Bush, Howard or Blair, however much you might hate them. This is bigger than Republican versus Democrat, though I fear many Americans are just too parochial to see that.
By all means, kick the Republicans out in 2008. Elect Democrats for the next 16 years or more after that, if you want to - I honestly couldn't give two hoots!
But not now. Don't do it now.
???

Rxke · 2004-10-15 18:58:16

I think the world (or you, Shaun,) is too quik with the "Spain bowed to the terrorists" thing...

The Spanish have more experience with terrorism than since the Al-Quaida attack, and I wonder how the Australian people would've voted if something similar happened days before the elections and Howard screaming it was the Aboriginals doing it. (Not a totally fair comparison, I know...)

It was a combination of factors, IMO. Their ruling party tried to use the bombings to their advantage in a really cynical way, but did it in a very clumsy way... (Saying it was the ETA, despite of all proof against it, how low can you go?) and i think a significant percentage voted against them, because of that. Of course a lot of people probably 'bowed' too, in shock, but not all of them...

They had this crisis, and their leaders outright lied to them. For power. I'd vote against those XXXXXXXXXX too.

BWhite · 2004-10-15 19:03:46

I think the world (or you, Shaun,) is too quik with the "Spain bowed to the terrorists" thing...
The Spanish have more experience with terrorism than since the Al-Quaida attack, and I wonder how the Australian people would've voted if something similar happened days before the elections and Howard screaming it was the Aboriginals doing it. (Not a totally fair comparison, I know...)
It was a combination of factors, IMO. Their ruling party tried to use the bombings to their advantage in a really cynical way, but did it in a very clumsy way... (Saying it was the ETA, despite of all proof against it, how low can you go?) and i think a significant percentage voted against them, because of that. Of course a lot of people probably 'bowed' too, in shock, but not all of them...
They had this crisis, and their leaders outright lied to them. For power. I'd vote against those XXXXXXXXXX too.

As for Spain and France, didn't they recently do a superb job of arresting a ring of Basque terrorists responsible for some recent bombings.

And for those who like to portray the French as cheese eating surrender monkeys - - when Islamicists hi-jacked an airliner with the intention of smashing it into the Eiffel Tower, when the plane refueled French commandos stormed the plane and shot all the hi-jackers.

Yup. Wimpy. Real wimpy.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-15 19:10:08

Good point, Rik, and I know there were extenuating circumstances. But that doesn't change the world's perception of what happened.
If president Bush is thrown out, it may well be for a thousand good reasons other than Afghanistan/Iraq. But the perception ...
???

Rxke · 2004-10-16 02:17:39

Yes, The international perception.

I was dog-tired yesterday night when I typed that, so a bit too telex-like...

I think the Spanish people (or English or *any* country living with a decades old terrorism errrr... situation,) don't reason 'what will the world think?'
They saw their leader(s) trying to make electoral gain by using the terrorism-problem to their advantage in a less-than-subtle way, and they (rightfully, IMO) *punished* them for it, saying: hey, you think we're *that* stupid? We recognize an ETA attack if we see one, and this was not it. This is something different, you want us to vote for someone who wants to 'protect' our beautiful country by WILFULLY IGNORING THE REAL SITUATION because spindoctoring it could be better for your image? Bzzzt. Wrong, very wrong, pal. You lost your credibility. Even worse: you're insulting our intelligence, hurting the feelings of people who've lost familymembers in the bombings... We will vote *against* you, even if it means we've got to vote for someone we don't like. Hey, and if *he* messes up, we can always demand new elections or something, within a year.

Spain, England, (Israel?) etc etc (the list is long, if you start thinking about it...) governments/mindsets work differently politically, because of long-time existant terrorism within their own borders. For a lot of countries, terrorism is new. For a lot of countries it isn't.
The reasons of the terrorists are different, oftentimes, wanting their own land, political system, faith...

But Al-Quaida is (I think) different from the 'nationalstic' terrorist orgs: expansionist instead of regional. Trying to spread *their version* of Islam, which makes them more similar to a sect.
(ramble ramble)

In short: a lot of countries have experience with terrorism of 'nationalistic' pedigree, it might be interesting to see how they cope with *security*.

But politically, it would be more interesting to look how expantionist sects work (But most of them were, till today, rather small, so short lived..)

Al Quaida, the succesful sect: channeling the universal vast resource of 'hot-headed' energy of the young, using a successful, complex religion, tweaked to their goals. Giving the older a recognizable structure to relate to.
A tough nut to crack.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-16 02:48:02

I agree with you completely, Bill, that France is not 'wimpy'. That is a misperception of their character. When the French government sees something it wants, it will go after it with astonishing determination and a total disregard for international condemnation.

This is amply demonstrated by their actions since WWII:-

1946-1954. The French Indochina War to crush resistance to
their rule in south-east Asia. 600,000 dead.
1954-1962. The French Algerian War to crush resistance to
their rule in North Africa (aggravated in 1960 by
De Gaulle's detonation of a nuclear bomb in the
Sahara). Between 350,000 and 1.5 million dead,
2 million refugees.
1977. The construction of a nuclear reactor for Saddam
Hussein, despite strong Israeli objections. All manner of
assistance sold to Saddam, together with 12.5 kg of
93% enriched uranium-235 'fuel'.
1985. The sinking of the "Rainbow Warrior" vessel by French
agents in Auckland harbour, killing a photographer in
the process.
1995 and 1996. The resumption of thermonuclear weapons
testing in the South Pacific, leaving a total of
20 kg of plutonium in the sediment of Muroroa
Atoll, now leaking into the food chain.
1990s onward. Ongoing investigations into French
involvement with Saddam Hussein to misuse
the oil-for-food sanctions. More scandals to
come.

What does this mean? Does it mean that France is worse than the U.S. or Britain, or even Australia?
No, not at all; I'm not stupid enough to imagine that. All countries do things they see as being in their own interests, however underhanded those things may be.
What amazes me is how France is allowed to quietly live down a bloody and self-serving history, defended by left-leaning people with normally high moral standards when it comes to colonial wars, radioactive pollution, and selling human-life for oil.

What worries me is that those same people can be so blinded by an irrational hatred for Bush, Blair and Howard that they are perfectly willing to climb into bed with people they wouldn't normally want to associate with.

This is fiddling while Rome burns; a total and dangerous disregard for the big picture by people who claim to have a vision for a fairer world. We need to present a united front against Islamofascism and abandon this irresponsibly petty party-politics.

Palomar · 2004-10-16 06:58:35

*What if Kerry is elected and the terrorism only continues to escalate? Have mentioned before (sorry if this seems repetitive): The Islamic extremists have been plotting, bombing, hijacking, etc. since the early 1970s by my memory. I remember the 1972 Berlin games; that man with the black stocking (or whatever) pulled down over his head, carrying an assault rifle. I was 7 years old; that image scared the hell out of me.

Is it always about Palestine? Is it always our fault somehow?

We're constantly reminded of how bad and horrible we Americans are. Well, why aren't our "betters" taking the higher road of decency in conduct then? They aren't convincing me (drastic understatement).

What if Kerry IS elected and the assaults continue? They will. The first bombing of the WTC was on Clinton's early watch.

--Cindy

P.S.: Wanted to add that we'd better be careful not to be guilt induced and psychologized into surrendering our rights and etc. No one respects a pushover. On the other hand, standing up for one's self isn't always appreciated either, but I'd *much* rather have someone hate me for standing up for myself (and my self-respect is intact, my self-esteem is healthy) than to have someone despise me for letting them do whatever they want to me. The same goes with nations and etc.

BWhite · 2004-10-16 08:07:29

This is an excerpt from a piece to appear to the Sunday NY Times (or so I read):

Bruce Bartlett, a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan and a treasury official for the first President Bush, told me recently that ''if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3.'' The nature of that conflict, as Bartlett sees it? Essentially, the same as the one raging across much of the world: a battle between modernists and fundamentalists, pragmatists and true believers, reason and religion.
''Just in the past few months,'' Bartlett said, ''I think a light has gone off for people who've spent time up close to Bush: that this instinct he's always talking about is this sort of weird, Messianic idea of what he thinks God has told him to do.'' Bartlett, a 53-year-old columnist and self-described libertarian Republican who has lately been a champion for traditional Republicans concerned about Bush's governance, went on to say: ''This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .
''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

Pay close attention to WHO is saying this. Hint, he is not a Democrat.

If Bush is motivated by faith (as he sees it) and ignores facts (Saddam's WMD? al Qaeda = Saddam) then God help us all.

Think that is scary, try this:

In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-10-16 11:23:34

Bush will trash Kerry in the debates

So, who won ?

small video clip with highlights from the Bush Vs Kerry debate

http://www.ericblumrich.com/wmf/switch. … switch.wmv

Palomar · 2004-10-18 20:25:54

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … e_1]Voting in orbit

*Too bad this wasn't an option for Jack Swigert. :laugh:

"U.S. astronauts, most of whom live around Houston, won the right to vote from space under a Texas bill signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush."

--Cindy

::edit:: Whoops! Swigert's dilemma wasn't voting...it was filing his income taxes. Oh well.

DonPanic · 2004-10-20 15:59:34

LO

What worries me is that those same people can be so blinded by an irrational hatred for Bush, Blair and Howard that they are perfectly willing to climb into bed with people they wouldn't normally want to associate with.
This is fiddling while Rome burns; a total and dangerous disregard for the big picture by people who claim to have a vision for a fairer world. We need to present a united front against Islamofascism and abandon this irresponsibly petty party-politics.

The hate for Bush and all his supporters isn't irrationnal, it's thought, it's analysed, and most of us consider that Bush feeds and spreads Islamoterrorism with the most stupid and cynical politic USA has ever led. With our Algeria war experience, we know what we are talking about.
We are not alone, more than half the Englishmen, majority of public opinion among USA so called allies in Irak and more than 60% of Europe reject Bush, and America, what I regret.
It's not hate at America that leads froggies, we'll have to take among our strategic reserves to send to America 58 millions anti-Influenza vaccin doses, fast as we can.

You are blind, while killing Irakis, Al Qaeda has now active bases in 60 countries.

http://mapage.noos.fr/padpanic/les_amus … 1.pdf]Bush wisdom

DonPanic · 2004-10-21 02:18:02

LO
So, you want rationnal for reject for Bush ?
How an administration unable to protect the eldest against influenza can claim it will protect american citizens against a bacteriologic attack ?
What was oil price before war at Irak ?
How much money nowadays gazoline price is taken from american citizens ?
In which pockets oil price rise benefits go if not in Bush and friends ones ?
What economic growth and how many jobs oil price rise will cost ?

Bush administration attitude at froggies leads french government to prepare to build ITER fusion reactor without USA and Japan, is that the way to prepare to oilless future ?

Rxke · 2004-10-21 05:42:32

Some comic relief:

http://www.boomchicago.nl/images/Voting … mov]Voting Machine (.mov)

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-21 07:30:07

Messianic Prophet, ca. AD 30 :-

Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Palomar · 2004-10-21 07:56:03

How an administration unable to protect the eldest against influenza can claim it will protect american citizens against a bacteriologic attack ?

*Hi DonPanic: I can't remember the exact problem (although I work in the medical field, I get tired of hearing about medical-related stuff -- 50 hours a week! -- so after a point simply tune it out), but IIRC the supply [from England?] was unfit (due to contamination or flaw...) for use. I'm not sure of the shelf life of the vaccine. Anyway, senior citizens will be covered. Repeated requests have been made for healthy and young to middle-aged people to skip their flu shot this year, so the elderly and little children can have a vaccination.

Actually, I think the matter has been blown entirely out of proportion. But then medicine is Big Business in America and quite a few healthcare professionals -- IMO -- manipulate people and prey on their fears. Also, I've known people to go to the doctor for an antibiotic at the first sniffle or to check into an *emergency room* because of a cut on a finger (which the doctor simply applied an over-the-counter Band-Aid to)...you get my drift. Over-reaction (hypochondriacs).

This is just "one of those things" this year, unfortunately.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-10-21 08:01:59

Messianc President, ca AD 2004, July 9th

I trust God speaks through me.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-21 08:07:36

Actually, I think the matter has been blown entirely out of proportion.

Ah, a voice of reason.

Glimmer of hope in humanity restored, revolution off.

BWhite · 2004-10-21 11:27:37

Messianic Prophet, ca. AD 30 :-
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

That quote cuts lots of different ways, Shaun.

BWhite · 2004-10-21 11:29:03

You are blind, while killing Irakis, Al Qaeda has now active bases in 60 countries.

Precisely - - its not about whether to fight al Qaeda, its about how to fight al Qaeda.

RobertDyck · 2004-10-21 19:27:08

I may be Canadian, but I had met a woman from the US at this year's Mars Society conference, and we sort of had a "long distance relationship". It blew up this week, but this has kept my attention on the US. Dubya's position is well established, and he is unapologetic during this campaign; but John Kerry has been promising to "Win the war on terrorism." How do you win a war on a tactic? Terrorism is a military tactic, not an opponent. You can never win when you don't have a clear objective. Al Qaeda mounted the attack of 9/11; everyone would support taking them out. However, "terrorism" is so nebulous an objective that it can never be won. So the options appear to be Bush, who attacked Iraq instead of Al Qaeda and has grumbled about attacking just about everyone else (Iran, North Korea, and who else?), vs. Kerry who talks about a nebulous objective that can't be won. When is anyone going to take out the perpetrators who took out the WTC? When is anyone going to defend the values that founded the United States, rather than perpetuating an excuse for the violation of American values that is the so called "Patriot Act"? When is anyone going to defend American security rather than antagonizing potential rivals by dropping bombs on their homes; or worse yet, killing them by dropping a can of food through their kitchen ceiling? Do American voters have anyone they can vote for?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 04:56:47

Do American voters have anyone they can vote for?

In a word, no. Not only are both candidates unfit to be President, the system is broken, it has been buckling under its own rotting bulk for years but the 2000 election seems to have been the breaking point. We now have a precedent for fighting election results in court to determine which unfit candidate will take on the Presidency, those candidates increasingly selected on the one hand to please a broad coalition within each party (thus undermining whatever principles they may have had) while at the same time being answerable to the most extreme elements within that party, virtually guaranteeing one or two wacko policy decisions within their term.

I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be the least bit surprised if the whole American democracy game blows up after this election.

Canada, or secessionist insurrection? Decisions decisions...

Palomar · 2004-10-22 05:27:46

*Maybe Cobra.

Ours is such a hypocritical society in so many ways. We tout nonconformity while at the same time our pop culture and its media outlets push conformity (men must all look this way, women must all look that way...and everyone's got anorexia practically or are stampeding for the plastic surgeon's office).

We tout family values while our divorce rate is over 50% now and PRE-teen girls are encouraged to look like tramps.

In the face of this hypocrisy, I think most people expect FOX News and other sources to truly be objective, fair and balanced. But we're not balanced in any other way, it seems, so why trust that those media outlets are? Apparently the extensive media coverage and all the talking heads have enough people in a frenzy that reports continue to come in the news about people vandalizing political signs on others' private property -- defacing, ripping, even urinating on political signs.

I'm beginning to seriously wonder if we shouldn't be GLAD for the Electoral College.

It used to seem that extensive media was a god-send, a blessing. Now it's one big circus crowded with wannabe celebrities (how many big-name journalists aren't also seeking to break into the movies, don't hob-nob around with Hollywood celebs? And we're supposed to trust that THEY are "fair and balanced"? It seems they care more about how perfectly straight the part in their hair is) and talking heads with agendas.

If Bush does win this election, I won't be surprised to see actual riots (maybe small and easily contained, but rioting nonetheless).

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-10-22 06:06:40

What amazes me is how France is allowed to quietly live down a bloody and self-serving history, defended by left-leaning people with normally high moral standards when it comes to colonial wars, radioactive pollution, and selling human-life for oil.

Reason lies in 20th century history. The French are habitually admonished because the need to put blame on the the 'really bad guys', the Germans. Even when the opposite is true like regarding the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. I'm sure most people actually believe this was started by Bismarck and not Napoleon III.
But really, the immense spiritual power of the left is a no brainer. There are no repurcussions for regarding the mass-murderer Lenin as a hero either.

I'd say the War on Terror is the perfect war, simply because it cannot be won and therefore will go on forever. Without an identifiable enemy, you can launch any sort of military campaign, invade any country, revise any matter of history with a simple reference to the neccessity of fighting "terrorism". It's the perfect excuse, straight out of 1984.

In reality, there is no such thing as the global terrorism the shadow of al-Qaeda is supposed to foment, although some is probably growing as a result of current events. I'll hand it to you and I'll say terrorism is not a threat to America and never has been. There's the instant of 9/11 but I'll wait with any judgement on that episode until the case is actually investigated. The world is still waiting for this to happen.
Only the fact that the very decision-makers in Washington held close ties to the bin Ladin family should be enough to cause some concern. Strangely, it doesn't. Nor the fact that the only aircraft that flew on the week following 9/11 were those that carried Saudi citizens, among them Osama bin Ladin's relations, back to their homeland.
If the government had ever taken its obligations seriously, why didn't it start with grounding and questioning these people?

Terrorism, or wide-ranged opposition and nearby hatred, is a reality for Israel, however, and it was Israeli affiliated proponents, regarding US and Israel as more or less the same thing, bridging both, who drew up the policy that the US government has been carrying out for the last couple of years under the formal head of that dim-witted president and all that started well before 9/11. This is a fact and you all know it. I could give you the names. The question is why you trust these people to have any particular concern for America and Americans?
It's not Israeli body bags that get shipped home every week.

By the way, saw a documentary yesterday with several re-runs of public speeches made at the eve of the second Iraqi War. Among other things, they repeatedly told the US public Iraq was making plans to produce or was already producing Anthrax. Well, the only source behind the Anthrax scare (anyone remember it?) I believe was traced back to the interior of the US.
Considering it took on such a role in describing Iraq's arsenal of "WMD's", I find it somewhat discomforting. In fact, it all looks, smells and feels like just a big farce!

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-22 06:38:37

But really, the immense spiritual power of the left is a no brainer. There are no repurcussions for regarding the mass-murderer Lenin as a hero either.

Can't argue with that.

I'd say the War on Terror is the perfect war, simply because it cannot be won and therefore will go on forever. Without an identifiable enemy, you can launch any sort of military campaign, invade any country, revise any matter of history with a simple reference to the neccessity of fighting "terrorism". It's the perfect excuse, straight out of 1984.

In a sense I can agree with that as well, though I'm neither in full agreement over the sinister implications nor entirely convinced that it's 100% negative.

I'll hand it to you and I'll say terrorism is not a threat to America and never has been.

Depending on what one considers a threat. Can al Qaeda destroy the US? Of course not, the idea is absurd. But they can kill alot of people, right here, and the effects range far beyond ground zero. Economic consequences are severe, and too many failures of the government to protect its citizens will make people begin to question its value. "Why am I paying 1/3-1/2 in various taxes if they can't even prevent foreign yahoos from coming over and killing me?" people start to wonder. An unpopular war somewhere else is far better for internal security and stability than sporadic attacks here coupled with the sympathy of the world.

Only the fact that the very decision-makers in Washington held close ties to the bin Ladin family should be enough to cause some concern.

The decision-makers in Washington always have close ties to the Saudis, regardless of who's in power. The bin Laden family is very influential in that country, very big, very rich. Osama is the black sheep, shunned for a multitude of reasons. There are alot of Saudis with the name "bin Laden" who abhor what their infamous relative is doing.

Nor the fact that the only aircraft that flew on the week following 9/11 were those that carried Saudi citizens, among them Osama bin Ladin's relations, back to their homeland.
If the government had ever taken its obligations seriously, why didn't it start with grounding and questioning these people?

Not true. The ban on air travel was lifted on the 13th of September, on that day some Saudis left, as I would too in their place. No special arrangments were made, they simply got on a plane and left. The feds were aware but saw no reason to investigate them, just sharing a last name in a huge family is meaningless. If I were to bomb something would it make sense to arrest my third cousin who I've only met once when I was 10?

That said, the greatest peril at the moment isn't the degradation of American political discourse, or the war, or international Islamic terrorism. But those three things together may be a potent mix. One of our parties has engaged in an unpopular war that we must now win while the other is consumed with irrational rage and determined to regain control, even if they have to destroy the system to do so. Each has become a monster in its own way, and I fear that we've reached a point now when switching monsters may bring more misery and death than either could have wrought on its own.

EDIT::

Apparently the extensive media coverage and all the talking heads have enough people in a frenzy that reports continue to come in the news about people vandalizing political signs on others' private property -- defacing, ripping, even urinating on political signs.

Which reminds me, several years back I volunteered some time for a Republican campaign, state-level office. It was all very straightforward and civil, passing out flyers, putting up signs, sending out mailers and the like. A few years later I had an extremely brief involvement with a predominately Democrat-aligned organization. Single issue thing, didn't work out. Whenever they got the chance between distorting the facts and inducing guilt they'd simply steal or vandalize signs for candidates they didn't approve of, going so far as to key a vehicle in one case because of a bumper sticker. This is but one of many cases, both from my own observation as well as others, that indicates to me that while one side is motivated primarily by genuine belief that their way is best for the country, the other is motivated increasingly by blind, irrational gut-level loathing. While they like to bandy the term around too freely, today's Democrat fringe are the new nazis. When I argue face to face with a hardline conservative I see a determination to convince me and concern that I don't agree. When I argue with a fringe liberal I all too often see the fire of fanaticism in their eyes. The Right dislikes John Kerry, the Left hates George Bush. The "imperialist, oil stealing warmongers" aren't the scariest bunch out there.

Gennaro · 2004-10-22 08:23:11

Allright, thanks for correcting me on the Saudis. I saw this on TV last night and it could have been they said the day following 9/11.
Anyway, wouldn't some sort of interrogation have been in order? Why should the USA suck up to the Saudis?

Depending on what one considers a threat. Can al Qaeda destroy the US? Of course not, the idea is absurd. But they can kill alot of people, right here, and the effects range far beyond ground zero. Economic consequences are severe, and too many failures of the government to protect its citizens will make people begin to question its value. "Why am I paying 1/3-1/2 in various taxes if they can't even prevent foreign yahoos from coming over and killing me?" people start to wonder. An unpopular war somewhere else is far better for internal security and stability than sporadic attacks here coupled with the sympathy of the world.

Well, I don't agree. If they were so dangerous, where are all the bombs going off? Haven't seen any on US soil for the last three years. Protecting oneself from possible attempts, provided the Islamicists were really behind it, is the simplest thing in the world. Just shut off the immigration and repatriate any remaining Arabs. It's better than endangering the US liberties in any case.
The thing is 10,000 Iraqis have been killed as of yet and counting. If anything is creating threats, hatred and terrorism it's this irresponsible foreign policy. The longer the occupation goes on the worse it will get and contemplating refugees and displacement of persons, it will eventually hurt us all, not only the US. If I was an American I could never look an incapacitated soldier in the eye and tell him it was worth being the dog getting wagged by the tail.
As for the US taxpayers money, they are currently being spent in exchange for increased insecurity and to no avail, save from some corporate interests and arms manufacturers.

Considering the last line of your quote, about an unpopular war being preferable, well, the lives of maimed and killed Arabs actually count in my book still.

Best thing to do is to get out now, bring the boys back home and don't look back. Count the costs, it will still be cheaper both financially and in terms of presige than any alternative. We, I mean the rest of the world, won't mind as much as you think. Everyone has lost a war at some time or another. Big deal, especially as you were deluded into this one.
Yeah, Iraq will turn into an Islamist state once it gets its freedom but it's not much to be done about that right now. Saddam Hussein kept a country together with Shias being a major element, now that structure is shattered. Personally, I don't think the Iraqis deserve any democracy, they don't want it, so why make vain attempts imposing it? Vietnam all over.

Then we need only to build this wall around the mid-east, like a gigantic "Manhattan maximum security penetantiary". Let them live in the world they themselves have created.

And if someday they want to change their system, like many do in Iran, let them come to us, not the west trying to impose itself on them. Look, I wish to repatriate the Muslims from Europe. It will be much harder to do so convincingly if the area is a constant warzone because of us.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-15 18:37:59

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#27 2004-10-15 18:58:16

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#28 2004-10-15 19:03:46

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#29 2004-10-15 19:10:08

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#30 2004-10-16 02:17:39

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#31 2004-10-16 02:48:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#32 2004-10-16 06:58:35

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#33 2004-10-16 08:07:29

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#34 2004-10-16 11:23:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#35 2004-10-18 20:25:54

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#36 2004-10-20 15:59:34

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#37 2004-10-21 02:18:02

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#38 2004-10-21 05:42:32

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#39 2004-10-21 07:30:07

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#40 2004-10-21 07:56:03

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#41 2004-10-21 08:01:59

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#42 2004-10-21 08:07:36

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#43 2004-10-21 11:27:37

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#44 2004-10-21 11:29:03

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#45 2004-10-21 19:27:08

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#46 2004-10-22 04:56:47

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#47 2004-10-22 05:27:46

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#48 2004-10-22 06:06:40

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#49 2004-10-22 06:38:37

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

#50 2004-10-22 08:23:11

Re: Presidential Elections - ...and other political discussion.

Board footer