It baffles me that so many Amercians support Bush [Archive]

IrishHand

10-09-2004, 10:01 AM

Yeah...the extraordinarily high percentage of far-right conservatives in the US is among the most striking features of this nation. Outside the US, things like intelligence, statesmanship and diplomacy - basically, the ability to run a country well with decorum and dignity - are often valued by citizens on all ends of the political spectrum. Here in the US, the election appears to be more like a sporting event than a political process. Every time I see Kerry and Bush together on a stage, I'm stunned by the difference.

I consider Kerry stiff, unimpressive and uninteresting. Despite this, he appears infinitely better suited for the role as president and commander-in-chief. His intelligence dwarfs that of the incumbent, he's well-spoken, dignified, and respectful.

I am wholly baffled that supposedly one of Bush's appeals is that people can relate to him. I don't want to relate to my nation's leader. I want him to be smarter than me and have a better grasp of both domestic and foreign issues than I do. I certainly can't say that about the current office holder, while I can say it unequivocally about his challenger.

If you put both of them in a real debate, where the moderator could ask whatever he wanted on whatever topic and was permitted follow-up questions, the incumbent would get worked like a midget in the ring with an '88 Tyson. As it is, it looks like these debates are having a significant effect on the undecides, which I think is great - despite their fluffiness and screwy rules, they're a lot more about the issues than the advertising and rantings of either campaign.

Kurn, son of Mogh

10-09-2004, 10:32 AM

I don't want to relate to my nation's leader. I want him to be smarter than me and have a better grasp of both domestic and foreign issues than I do.

In other words, you want to be led. No problem, in most of the world, the majority of people are sheep.

To me, the President is not our leader, he is our employee. We (the electorate) decide how he will discharge his office, and the constitution determines whether or not specific aspects of our will are subject to government action.

Neither major party understands this fact.

As to the rest of the world not understanding how so many Americans can support Bush, that just shows me how truly myopic most people are. Despite the fact that I don't much care for much of Bush's social agenda, I think that Europe and Canada need to wake up and understand that their zombie-like support of the nanny-state is destroying true freedom and economic power. What Americans need is to wake up and recognize that George W. Bush is as much a big-government quasi-socialist as Kerry.

Don't get stuck on stupid. Vote Libertarian.

JimBob2232

10-09-2004, 10:34 AM

The sole fact that the french and canadians would not vote for him makes me want him to be our president. That is enough right there.

Oh, and BTW, had the democrats put up a good candidate, he would be running away with the election. Kerry is a joke. Gephardt, Lieberman or even POSSIBLY edwards would be running away with this election.

tolbiny

10-09-2004, 10:42 AM

"Lieberman or even POSSIBLY edwards would be running away with this election."

I don't know much about gephart, but Edwards is far to young and has to little a record. A lot of seniors vote in this country and they aren't voting for a guy who doesn't have a grey hari yet.
And lieberman? I firmly believe that this country will elect a Woman or Black man president years before a Jewish person. I think the last Ethnicty to be voted in will be a Hispanic woman- there is a lot of racism in this country.

tolbiny

10-09-2004, 10:51 AM

"First, Americans appreciate freedom, having won it through struggle. Most other first world countries have been independent for many more centuries, or were spun off through a process of negotiation"

Ha.... Ha.... Ha.

Very few American's who support Bush have had to struggle for freedom recently. In fact the groups of people in the US who have had to struggle (Women and Minorities) actually either mildly (women) or very strongly (90% of African american's voted against Bush in the 2000 election) against Bush.
And now lets list countries -
France- went through massive upheavels during the French revolution, sadly trading one dictator for antoher over 50 years. Eventually their struggles led to a democratic country, whose government is younger than ours.
The Irish, Welsh and Scottish all had to fight the British for their rights. The Russians are basically still in a revolution that started 100 years ago and has been an immense struggle with problems far more complex than the ones American's faced in their battle for independance.
India only recently gained its independance from England, and that was not granted quickly or easily.

cardcounter0

10-09-2004, 11:15 AM

YeeeeeHaaaaaaww! We don't be caring bout what no damm fureigners think. Bush is the man!

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SinCityGuy

10-09-2004, 11:38 AM

Stay tuned.

Keep in mind, more Americans voted for Mr. Bush's opponent in 2000 than voted for Mr. Bush.

The once and future king

10-09-2004, 12:25 PM

I would never employ someone that inarticulate.

The once and future king

10-09-2004, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The sole fact that the french and canadians would not vote for him makes me want him to be our president. That is enough right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the more dumb they are the more them pesky commie forners gona hate em. Therefore you need to go out find the dumbest man you can find and give him your vote. Ahh you dont need to find him, the republican party have allready nominated him for you.

What about the Brits. We help you out and are perhaps your strongest allies. I cannot express how much disdain and ridicule Bush enjoys amongst the British public.

The other day on a mainstream quiz show, the contestents had to fill in the missing word in a Bushism, e.g a vocal feck up by your glorious leader. That is how low he has sunk.

MaxPower

10-09-2004, 12:36 PM

You are probably smarter than Bush, but Bush is smarter than most of the American people. I think he has a near genuis IQ. However, its not enough to be smart. You have to nurture and use that gift.

Abednego

10-09-2004, 12:52 PM

I think most Kerry supporters over-value his intelligence and place far too little emphasis on the President's character and conviction. The American people value these attributes in a leader. Kerry hasn't shown a whole lot of conviction. This business of getting our allies to join us in Iraq is wearing a little thin and is a totally bankrupt foreign policy - he can't. Americans realize that if things went according to the way Kerry has voted Saddam would be sitting on 50% of the worlds oil supply (he voted against the 1st Gulf War). For a nation at war Kerry has consistently been on the wrong side on defense issues. This does not sit well with many Americans. It shouldn't be too hard to understand why so many support Bush. He is clear on where he stands.

MMMMMM

10-09-2004, 01:08 PM

wacki

10-09-2004, 02:40 PM

Besides homeland security and other security/defense sectors, how is Bush big government and quasi socialist?

Just curious.

Kurn, son of Mogh

10-09-2004, 02:49 PM

They want the government to decide who can marry whom

They want the government to choose whether or not a woman carries a child to term.

They support state run schools

They support gun control

They support the war on drugs

They support the government deciding where you can and cannot gamble

They support the personal income tax

Enough for now? I'm in a tournament.

IrishHand

10-09-2004, 02:55 PM

Bush socialist? Now that's funny!

benfranklin

10-09-2004, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I would never employ someone that inarticulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if being extremely articulate was not necessary to do the job?

Being extremely articulate is very important to do the job of presidential candidate. Which again shows what a horrible candidate Al Gore was. But I think it is much less important than many people profess to do the job of President.

Which is not to say that Bush is a good President. I think that he was capable right up to the point of Iraq. That was handled incredibly ineptly, and in the business world would be grounds for dismissal.

I don't think that Kerry is much better than Bush in the articulation department. He drones and rambles and can't get a point across. I think that he is a worse candidate than Gore, and if he wins, it will be only because Bush did such a terrible job in Iraq. No one is voting for Kerry. Everyone is voting for or against Bush.

I personally don't think that Kerry would do any better job as President, and I say the hell with both of them. But for the most part, the Democrats' critism of Bush for being inarticulate is just a personal attack on the man they love to hate.

Felix_Nietsche

10-09-2004, 04:31 PM

Earth to World !!! Adam Smith Won, Karl Marx Lost

What makes the USA different is we have a large number of people who believe that suckling on the goverment *** (breast) is a bad thing. The American Democrat party wants to move the USA towards a Europe "Democratic" socialist state. Then we Americans can also enjoy having 10-15% of the population unemployed and on the dole. The American Republican party, though DEEPLY flawed, is holding back the American Democratic party's dream of a socialist utopia.

I have a lot of problems with George Bush on domestic spending, but I have HUGE problems with John Kerry who is a classic socialist. His is a dishonest man pretending that he is not a socialist when his entire voting record would make Karl Marx proud. He is smart enough to know if he talks about his voting record, then he'd never get elected. With Bush we know what we are getting...

But actions speak louder than words. Which country has the MOST people line up for miles wishing they could live there? The American Republic party is the best choice to keep the USA the best country in the world.

Stu Pidasso

10-09-2004, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush would have little or no chance to be Prime Minister or Presedent in any other democratic country around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

A Kerry administration would be influenced to a greater degree by international politics than the Bush administration. It stands to reason that most people outside the United States would want Kerry to win over Bush because it would mean their countries would gain a greater influence over the actions of the worlds sole super power. If I lived in France, Germany, or Canada, I'd say I wanted Kerry to be elected over Bush too.

I live in the United States. I think countries like France, Germany, and Canada are screwed up and to be honest, I'm glad I live here and not in one of those places. The less influence these countries have over America the better IMO. My vote goes to Bush on '04.

Stu

crash

10-09-2004, 06:17 PM

"In other words, you want to be led."

In many areas, yes I do. I want to vote for a guy who is close to my position in some key areas, then let him or her make decisions for me. What, am I going to weigh in on every decision the Prez has to make?

"No problem, in most of the world, the majority of people are sheep."

Well, yeah. It's just psychology/evolution.

"To me, the President is not our leader, he is our employee. We (the electorate) decide how he will discharge his office,"

No. Even if I could "decide how he will discharge his office", I wouldn't want to. What does that mean, anyway? I let him decide. He has access to the experts. I don't know crap about foreign affairs and economics and all kinds of things. Let him make the decisions. If he makes one bad enough, I'll try to vote him out.

"and the constitution determines whether or not specific aspects of our will are subject to government action."

"Neither major party understands this fact."

What fact?

"As to the rest of the world not understanding how so many Americans can support Bush, that just shows me how truly myopic most people are. Despite the fact that I don't much care for much of Bush's social agenda, I think that Europe and Canada need to wake up and understand that their zombie-like support of the nanny-state is destroying true freedom and economic power."

"What Americans need is to wake up and recognize that George W. Bush is as much a big-government quasi-socialist as Kerry."

This is true w/respect to "big-gov", but I'm not sure about w/respect to "quasi-socialist".

"Don't get stuck on stupid. Vote Libertarian."

I like the Libertarain view on a lot of issues.

Dave/crash

BusterStacks

10-09-2004, 06:23 PM

Bush rocks, you arrogant hippies who think your opinion matters have a rude awakening coming. The beauty is most of you will just whine and not vote so we don't care. We need someone to lead the country, not someone who's only selling point is "I'm not George Bush." As far as the rest of the world questioning why we like Bush, I don't know why you're so concerned with us. Worry about sanitizing your drinking water or whatever, when you run the world like we do, then you can make important decisions. Yes this is an inflamatory post, but which part is not true? heh...

Plzr

10-09-2004, 07:22 PM

West

10-09-2004, 07:54 PM

aces961

10-09-2004, 09:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

"and the constitution determines whether or not specific aspects of our will are subject to government action."

"Neither major party understands this fact."

What fact?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever the goverment does something it should be because it is mandated to do it by the consitution, not because it would be popular with the electorate to do so. This pretty much sums up the entire platform of the libertarian party.

Jim Kuhn

10-09-2004, 10:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Gephardt, Lieberman or even POSSIBLY edwards would be running away with this election.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gephardt was beaten in his last election in his home state, Missouri, by a dead man.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4U
/images/graemlins/spade.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/club.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 02:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the President's character and conviction

[/ QUOTE ]
It should be obvious to even the determinedly ignorant that Bush's "convictions" about Iraq were pretextual fabrications. His "character" is no better than that of any other cruel military aggressor, on a lesser moral plane than mere retail terrorists who can count their victims in the mere tens or hundreds, like Abu Nidal or Carlos the Jackal.

What your're referring to is simply spin by the public and private legitmators for the state, aimed at the most credulous and sadistic.

MMMMMM

10-10-2004, 03:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
His "character" is no better than that of any other cruel military aggressor, on a lesser moral plane than mere retail terrorists who can count their victims in the mere tens or hundreds, like Abu Nidal or Carlos the Jackal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post truly shows your warped view of reality, Chris. A terrible tyrant was removed and the blood shed thus far to effect his removal has been far les than the blood he himself had spilled, even of his own people.

Focusing on Bush's supposed "cruelty", instead of Saddam's regime's well-documented cruelty and torture, displays your inverted view of right and wrong in the world. Your terrier-holding-onto-a-bone-like determination is to paint the U.S. as the great evil-doer---when in fact the U.S. in this case was the great liberator of the Iraqis from the statist terror-machine of Saddam. (Now, if we can only quell the Saddamite insurgent holdovers and the Islamist terror fanatics which are yet plaguing Iraq...)

[ QUOTE ]
"What your're referring to is simply spin by the public and private legitmators for the state, aimed at the most credulous and sadistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are an absolute piece of work, having the GALL to talk about "the sadistic", when Iraq's Baathist Party made Sadism and Terror a part of everyday life for ordinary Iraqis. You really do live in a topsy-turvy world, don't you, Chris?

Care to discuss Saddam's torture chambers, his Stalinist executions, political prisoners having their tongues cut out, Uday's and Qusay's rape rooms, and the entire rest of Saddam's Little Shop Of Horrors? But NOOOOOOOO, you think the USA is the terrorist and the cruel military leader. Are you actually insane or something?

Do you not think a tyrant such as Saddam is better removed, and the Iraqis better off not forced to suffer many years longer under a veritable mini-Stalin and his depraved sons? What planet are you on, anyway? Can't you even compare the numbers killed (heavily more by Saddam) and the horrors enacted (again, much more heavily by Saddam and his regime)? Are you completely bereft of reason and compassion, due to your blind hatred of the USA? Why can't you see which is worse and more cruel, and who forced the Iraqi people to suffer the most???

Kenrick

10-10-2004, 04:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush rocks, you arrogant hippies who think your opinion matters have a rude awakening coming. The beauty is most of you will just whine and not vote so we don't care. We need someone to lead the country, not someone who's only selling point is "I'm not George Bush." As far as the rest of the world questioning why we like Bush, I don't know why you're so concerned with us. Worry about sanitizing your drinking water or whatever, when you run the world like we do, then you can make important decisions. Yes this is an inflamatory post, but which part is not true? heh...

[/ QUOTE ]

You made me do a spit-take while reading this. That was great.

There was a news story on liberals trying to get college students to vote because most would vote for Kerry. Why's that? Because mush-headed people vote liberal because it's the easiest thing to do. Everything sounds good and so you just have to agree with good-sounding things that have no basis in reality and common sense. "Bush bad, war bad, Republicans bad," ad nauseum. Liberalism is the easiest way in the world to never have to make a hard decision.

As for other countries, other countries such as Canada are like the kid brother whose big brother takes care of all his fights for him. I think Canada is great, but some of its citizens need to wake up and look out their window at the rest of the world. Those people get to sit on the sidelines and point their finger because the United States of America is taking care of business for them. If the U.S. was half as evil as some people want to pretend it is, our Salvation Army would have invaded and taken over Canada a long time ago.

John Kerry talks a lot about the United Nations. The United Nations has proven itself to be worthless time after time. Do the math. 2+2.

Boopotts

10-10-2004, 04:13 AM

Chris' hyperbole aside, the question isn't whether or not the world is better off without Saddam. Instead, the question is this: with a towering deficit, plummeting employment figures, a bankrupt social security program, etc., should the US be spending $200,000,000,000-- and counting-- to liberate some little rathole halfway around the globe? Is this the best use of our resources? And if so, then what distinguishes this particular rathole from all the other ratholes ruled by thugs, dictators and assorted warlords?

That's the part of it that most Bush supporters don't seem to get. Yeah, Saddam was a 'bad guy'. Nobody disputes that. But he's just one of many. He didn't have any ties to Bin Laden, so why the hell are we there? You hear that dippy little playboy who was installed in the Oval Office chirping about 'keeping the free world safe', and you wonder-- just what part of 'no hard, clear evidence'(Rumsfeld's words) don't you fricking understand?

Would Kerry have done better? Who knows? But I will say he probably would have waited until either a) Blix announced he was done, or b) he'd built a real coalition to help spread the cost around. How anyone can argue with that logic is utterly beyond me.

BusterStacks

10-10-2004, 04:52 AM

MMMMMM

10-10-2004, 04:57 AM

You raise reasonable questions.

I believe Chris was engaging in more than mere hyperbole: he actually meant what he wrote.

Kash

10-10-2004, 06:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush would have little or no chance to be Prime Minister or Presedent in any other democratic country around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Socialist countries like Canada? you're probably right

[ QUOTE ]
In Canada for example, a recent poll suggested that only 13% of the population would vote for him if they had to choose betwen Bush and Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last time I looked, Canadians could not vote for an American president, so who cares

[ QUOTE ]
Listening to him try and convince the American public to stay with him reminds me of when I was in grade 10 and was listening to my sports coach try and scare the chit out of us to play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean trying to tell ppl that there are things to worry about in this world and that negotiation never stopped a terrorist act?

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 01:21 PM

Of course I meant what I wrote. You could care less about Saddam's crimes as people like you were delighted when he was our clinet just as your delighted that he's been replaced his former accomplice (the U.S.) who's installed a U.S.-appointed, US.-dependent vichy regime headed a former Saddam henchman, one of who's first acts was to clamp down on critical press. What you call "liberation" is hated military occupation. According to the Coalition Provisional Authority four months ago, "82% percent [of Iraqis] said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq." Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22403-2004May12?language=printer). But since we're not liberators and care not a whit about Iraqi democracy, we have no intention of leaving.

Adding insult and injury to a traumatized people and bragging about it. That's what I call sadistic.

MMMMMM

10-10-2004, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I meant what I wrote. You could care less about Saddam's crimes as people like you were delighted when he was our clinet just as your delighted that he's been replaced his former accomplice (the U.S.) who's installed a U.S.-appointed, US.-dependent vichy regime headed a former Saddam henchman, one of who's first acts was to clamp down on critical press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullsh!t. I was never "delighted" Saddam was in power nor do I champion Allawi.

[ QUOTE ]
What you call "liberation" is hated military occupation. According to the Coalition Provisional Authority four months ago, "82% percent [of Iraqis] said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq." Washington Post. But since we're not liberators and care not a whit about Iraqi democracy, we have no intention of leaving.

Adding insult and injury to a traumatized people and bragging about it. That's what I call sadistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Removing a tyrant by force inevitably involves some degree of trauma. What matters is that the tyranny is lifted, and the trauma inflicted by the removal is less than the trauma inflicted by the tyrant himself. How such an elementary calculus manages to escape you is quite baffling.

Cyrus

10-10-2004, 02:47 PM

When you find the answers to your questions, be a pal and let us know. Alright?

[ QUOTE ]
With a towering deficit, plummeting employment figures, a bankrupt social security program, etc., should the US be spending $200,000,000,000-- and counting-- to liberate some little rathole halfway around the globe?

Is this the best use of our resources?

And if so, then what distinguishes this particular rathole from all the other ratholes ruled by thugs, dictators and assorted warlords?

Yeah, Saddam was a 'bad guy'. Nobody disputes that. But he's just one of many. He didn't have any ties to Bin Laden, so why the hell are we there?

You hear that dippy little playboy who was installed in the Oval Office chirping about 'keeping the free world safe', and you wonder-- just what part of 'no hard, clear evidence'(Rumsfeld's words) don't you fricking understand?

Would Kerry have done better? Who knows? But I will say he probably would have waited until either a) Blix announced he was done, or b) he'd built a real coalition to help spread the cost around.

How anyone can argue with that logic is utterly beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 04:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was never "delighted" Saddam was in power nor do I champion Allawi.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh sure. Confronted with prior U.S. support for Saddam by officials and companies, you offer nothing other than a shrug of the shoulders, "that was then, this is now." If someone used the same argument for freeing Saddam and his henchmen, you'd call him a craven apoplogist for atrocities and a "Saddam supporter." You champion Allawi by championing his boss, the U.S. As the New Republic noted this week, Allawi's and Bush's rhetoric is so identical that it has to be written by the same person.

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is that the tyranny is lifted, and the trauma inflicted by the removal is less than the trauma inflicted by the tyrant himself. How such an elementary calculus manages to escape you is quite baffling.

[/ QUOTE ]
This utterly insane formula would justify Iraq's invasion and conquest by anyone (Iran, China, North Korea, etc.), as well as the Soviet approach to Eastern Europe.

No, what also matters is the track record of the removing party, something you insist must be ignored if that party is the U.S. The reason for this is hardly baffling: you just want the U.S. to expand its empire, preferably by force, better yet if Muslims die. This is true even if it means supporting Saddam or some comparable (or even worse) Vichy-on-the Tigris.

All autocrats die. More than score have been replaced by better regimes during the last 20 years, nearly all without firing a shot, none by foreign invasion. [1]

Therefore, the issues that can justify military force to effect a premature removal by military force and the slaughter of thousands of innocents include those you refuse to discuss: <ul type="square"> (1) is there a mass human rights catastrophe in progress that requires drastic action requiring mass fatalities (no);

(2) prior to the invasion, did the invader make serious, strenuous efforts to improve human rights and mitigate their violation in the target country (no);

(3) does the invading and occupying country have any record of supporting democracy in the target country or affected region (no) [2];

(4) does the invading and occupying country have interests that will conflict with those of the local population (duh); and

(5) does the invasion and occupation carry a blowback risk of greater disaster, especially for the population it purports to liberate (obviously). [/list]The U.S. and the enemies it has created have probably killed more Iraqis in the last two years than Saddam had during his last ten years in power. For you, more Arab deaths is always better as long as we get to do the killing.
__________________________
[1] "In the vast major of cases [of auotcratic regimes that fell during the last 20 years], dictatorships were toppled through massive nonviolent action, 'people power' movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes aside. Some succeeded in a dramatic contestation of public space that toppled dictators in a matter of days or weeks, such as those that brought down the Communist regimes in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, overthrew Southeast Asian strongmen like Marcos and Suharto, and ousted military juntas from Bangladesh to Bolivia. Other pro-democracy movements engaged in more protracted struggles that eventually forced dramatic democratic reforms in such countries as Poland, South Korea, South Africa, Kenya, Brazil, and Chile. In the fall of 2000, nonviolent action by the people of Serbia did in a matter of days what eleven weeks of NATO bombing a year and half earlier could not: oust the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Prof. Stephen Zunes, Univ. S. Francisco (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0301iraq.html)

[2] The U.S. has been "the primary backer of the Mubarak government in Egypt, Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, the family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the medieval sultanate of Oman, the military regime of Pakistan, and the crypto-communist rulers of Uzbekistan." Zunes

busguy

10-10-2004, 04:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

A Kerry administration would be influenced to a greater degree by international politics than the Bush administration. It stands to reason that most people outside the United States would want Kerry to win over Bush because it would mean their countries would gain a greater influence over the actions of the worlds sole super power. If I lived in France, Germany, or Canada, I'd say I wanted Kerry to be elected over Bush too.

I live in the United States. I think countries like France, Germany, and Canada are screwed up and to be honest, I'm glad I live here and not in one of those places. The less influence these countries have over America the better IMO. My vote goes to Bush on '04.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your missing the point completely. We (the rest of the world) do not give a flying XXXX who you vote for. We just find it so damn amusing.

I think it was Chris Rock who said something to the effect of " most C average students couldn't get a job managing a Burger King . . . . . but in America, he can be President"

Two words : Male Cheerleader

Now that is funny

/images/graemlins/grin.gif busguy

MMMMMM

10-10-2004, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was never "delighted" Saddam was in power nor do I champion Allawi.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Oh sure. Confronted with prior U.S. support for Saddam by officials and companies, you offer nothing other than a shrug of the shoulders, "that was then, this is now." If someone used the same argument for freeing Saddam and his henchmen, you'd call him a craven apoplogist for atrocities and a "Saddam supporter." You champion Allawi by championing his boss, the U.S. As the New Republic noted this week, Allawi's and Bush's rhetoric is so identical that it has to be written by the same person.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are totally out to lunch.

Being an American, or supporting America, does NOT EQUATE to supporting Saddam in the past (or Allawi in the present). I never supported Saddam, period. I know virtually nothing about Allawi. You have used this nonsensical approach in the past by claiming all US citizens are responsible for each and every act of the American government (as if we all vote on every issue by referendum, which we don't. And even if we did, those voting against an issue would obviously not be responsible, but in your flawed worldview, they would).

[ QUOTE ]
What matters is that the tyranny is lifted, and the trauma inflicted by the removal is less than the trauma inflicted by the tyrant himself. How such an elementary calculus manages to escape you is quite baffling.
------------------------------------------------------------

This utterly insane formula would justify Iraq's invasion and conquest by anyone (Iran, China, North Korea, etc.), as well as the Soviet approach to Eastern Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wouldn't, because those countries are horribly repressive and totalitarian as well. Those countries would not represent a great improvement over Iraq, and in the case of North Korea, might well be even worse. However I would have been fine with say France or Australia or Sweden or Japan invading Iraq, deposing Saddam, and trying to establish a democratic society there.

[ QUOTE ]
No, what also matters is the track record of the removing party, something you insist must be ignored if that party is the U.S. The reason for this is hardly baffling: you just want the U.S. to expand its empire, preferably by force, better yet if Muslims die. This is true even if it means supporting Saddam or some comparable (or even worse) Vichy-on-the Tigris.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US is not an expansionist empire or we would have grabbed much land that we didn't during the past century. WEe certainly had the opportunity after WWIIW.

What we are, actually, is a commercial republic. We want trade with other free countries because this benefits us, and it happens to benefit others as well. Free prosperous countries are also rather unlikely to war with one another, so democracy and fredom are a good bulwark against war as well. If you'll notice, the wars recently are always between free and unfree countries. Guess which is the better side to be on? But you probably wouldn't want to make such a "value judgment". Well I will. Free countries are better for their citizens and for pretty much everyone else as well. The current problems of the world stem mostly from unfree countries.

Your claim that I like seeing Muslims or Arabs die is unfounded and unprincipled.

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. and the enemies it has created have probably killed more Iraqis in the last two years than Saddam had during his last ten years in power. For you, more Arab deaths is always better as long as we get to do the killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This strikes me as a ludicrous claim, numerically speaking. And let's not forget that by saying "and the enemies it has created" you are laying 100% of the blame on the U.S. for the actions of others who choose terror as a weapon. Typically Chomskyian approach but flawed and totally lopsided.

They CHOOSE to be enemies and to use terror--we don't force them to do it, as shown by the fact that most Muslims and Arabs DO NOT choose to be terrorists. And guess what, Chris: if the terrorists weren't so backwards, superstitious, and ignorant--and filled with hatred and zero conscience--they wouldn't choose to be terrorists in the first place. So it's primarily THEIR fault for being fukin' idiots.

jcx

10-10-2004, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush would have little or no chance to be Prime Minister or Presedent in any other democratic country around the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you weren't watching the Australian election, where the conservative won handily.

I can smell your Canadian inferiority complex from 2K miles away. A few Europeans in this thread are also quite bitter over the fact they don't run the world anymore.

And while I watch with horror as the US descends into absolute democracy, this nation was founded as a republic. The tyranny of the majority was foreseen by the framers of the Constitution. Pure democracy is evil. The descendants (few as they will be considering Europe's birth rate) of today's smug Europeans will change their mind about democracy too when Muslims begin to outnumber them in a few generations.

The once and future king

10-10-2004, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
smug Europeans

[/ QUOTE ]

Read your post and then tell me this isnt pot meet kettle.

busguy

10-10-2004, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I can smell your Canadian inferiority complex from 2K miles away.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that 2 km's (kilometers) away or 2000 miles ?. I only ask because one implies a much more sensitive nose. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Inferiority complex ?? Your talking about a Canadian ?? And this from an American ?? Walk into any youth hostel in the world and ask the Americans to put up thier hands. When was the last time you were travelling anywhere (outside the USA) and saw an American flag sewn onto a backpack ?? You would be hard pressed to find either, not for the lack of pure numbers, but rather a bit of a . . . . complex ? . . . because of how the rest of the world view Americans.

Trust me. Canadians do not have any inferiority complex (or one of superiority, for that matter) in relation to anyone (including the USA).

Canadians do not think . . . we KNOW (without feeling the need to constantly tell everyone) that we live in one of the best countries in the world.

/images/graemlins/wink.gif busguy

jcx

10-10-2004, 06:19 PM

I do not wish to control anyone's life, nor rule the world. I wish the US would stay out of other people's business. But it isn't going to happen any time soon. Our empire will fall one day just like all the great empires of the past. But it probably won't happen tomorrow.

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 06:25 PM

"Being an American, or supporting America, does NOT EQUATE to supporting Saddam in the past (or Allawi in the present)."

Which is like saying being a member of Hamas or doesn't equate to support for suicide bombings, the standard test you refuse to apply in your many calls to "wipe out" everyone belonging to Hamas. One standard for them, another for you.

And of course your notion that "being an American" doesn't equate to support for those who owe thier power to Americans is just another dodge of your responsibility. You pay taxes, you have the right to vote, and even voted for the guy who put Allawi in power. You like the power but hate the responsiblity. Typical conservative.

[ QUOTE ]
No, it wouldn't, because those countries are horribly repressive and totalitarian as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
But since Iraqis aren't citizens of the U.S. and enjoy none of the powers and privileges of Americans, this fact is irrelevant. By your thinking, a free country that enslaves another would always be justified and a autocracy that liberates another wouldn't be.

[ QUOTE ]
The US is not an expansionist empire or we would have grabbed much land that we didn't during the past century. WEe certainly had the opportunity after WWIIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Modern empires don't "grab land" they control people and resources, and the U.S. government has more influence beyond its borders than any country in the history of the world, and covets even more. All you're saying is that any country with over 700 foreign military bases, ten carrier batttle groups, 8,000 or so nuclear weapons and a doctrine of "preventative war" isn't an empire because it doesn't actually annex territory, hardly the standard you'd apply if you were on the receiving end of the military might of this "commercial republic."

[ QUOTE ]
And let's not forget that by saying "and the enemies it has created" you are laying 100% of the blame on the U.S. for the actions of others who choose terror as a weapon"

[/ QUOTE ]
No, what you're saying is that there's an insufficient causal nexus between the invasion and the terrorist response, which is absurd given that the terrorists weren't active at all in Iraq until the U.S. invaded.

Kurn, son of Mogh

10-10-2004, 06:35 PM

All autocrats die.

Apparently not Castro. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Chris' hyperbole aside, the question isn't whether or not the world is better off without Saddam. Instead, the question is this: with a towering deficit, plummeting employment figures, a bankrupt social security program, etc., should the US be spending $200,000,000,000-- and counting-- to liberate some little rathole halfway around the globe? Is this the best use of our resources? And if so, then what distinguishes this particular rathole from all the other ratholes ruled by thugs, dictators and assorted warlords?

That's the part of it that most Bush supporters don't seem to get. Yeah, Saddam was a 'bad guy'. Nobody disputes that. But he's just one of many. He didn't have any ties to Bin Laden, so why the hell are we there? You hear that dippy little playboy who was installed in the Oval Office chirping about 'keeping the free world safe', and you wonder-- just what part of 'no hard, clear evidence'(Rumsfeld's words) don't you fricking understand?

Would Kerry have done better? Who knows? But I will say he probably would have waited until either a) Blix announced he was done, or b) he'd built a real coalition to help spread the cost around. How anyone can argue with that logic is utterly beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

People can argue with your "logic" cause it isn't logic. First of all, the employment figures aren't plummeting, unemployment has been decreasing every month for over a year. Secondly, social security is in no more trouble now than it ever has been. It will eventually fail if left to itself because it's just a huge pyramid scheme (invented by a democrat). Also, the $200 billion is an overstatement, though it has been a lot.

Most importantly, if you're questioning our presence in Iraq because there is no known direct connection between Saddam and Al Queda, you don't understand why we are there. Your ignorance is further displayed when you fall back on Kerry's complaints for "more inspections" and "build a REAL coalition". Knowing what we knew then and now, neither of those things is even reasonable to talk about. Do you need me to tell you why?

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 07:02 PM

Yeah, you can especially tell we don't care about Iraqi democracy cause we're staying until they can hold free elections. If there's anything undemocratic, it's free elections.

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 07:11 PM

Uh, I think Chris Rock wasn't talking about C students at Yale. You may not know about Ivy League schools cause you're a foreigner, but C students at Yale often get much better jobs than straight A students at a public school. Not that they necessarily deserve it, but faulting Bush for getting C's is ridiculous considering where he got them. This is an entirely ad hominem attack anyway. Schoolwork has nothing to do with why someone should be elected president.

And in response to the original post, if a candidate here were well liked and supported by the masses of a socialist country like Canada, France, whatever, I'd be worried.

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 07:13 PM

And what will make the elections free? Why wouldn't, for example, the U.S. bar parties it doesn't like, refuse to hold balloting where out guy is unpopular, give all the campaign dough, media attention and security to the guy it likes, coupled with threats to terminate reconstruction if the wrong guy wins? Because this is the word the administration and the media like to bandy about, which is all the argument you can offer.

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 07:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do not wish to control anyone's life, nor rule the world. I wish the US would stay out of other people's business. But it isn't going to happen any time soon. Our empire will fall one day just like all the great empires of the past. But it probably won't happen tomorrow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this is a joke. America is not an empire. That is rhetoric and propaganda used by Europeans and ultra-liberals in the United States, as well as the terrorist and tyrannical enemies we are fighting against. Only someone who is being completely dishonest with themself and others can call what America is doing in Iraq "imperial". Next time you want to say this, ask yourself the purpose of our presence in Iraq. And if you can't answer that question you have no business talking about the subject.

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 07:23 PM

If you can demonstrate this is occuring, or cite a credible source which says it is occurring, I'd like to hear it. Your accusations are of a person who wants the USA to be evil and overbearing, who wants us to go to another country and exploit it, just so you can feel you're morally superior to someone. This is a pathetic and dishonest attitude, and is the one most Europeans seem to be taking. If there are any Europeans who don't feel the same way this guy feels, I apologize for including you in this description.

jcx

10-10-2004, 08:10 PM

A youth hostel? Thanks for the laugh.

wacki

10-10-2004, 08:19 PM

Ya, after all, Iraq is very profitable for our Empire. The American people are very easy to decieve, the press is easily bribed, and it wasn't for the stupid little uprising we would of brushed Iraq carpet by now. The price of oil for Americans is dropping by the day and we are making hand over fist in $$$$$!!!!!!!! The logic of it all makes total sense. Business this brilliant could only of been learned at the Harvard Business School.

See how silly that sounds people?

tolbiny

10-10-2004, 08:46 PM

Wacki i think that you should read "sleeping with the devil" by robert Baer. Hes a former CIA operative who has an interesting perspective on why we are in Iraq.

superleeds

10-10-2004, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, you want to be led. No problem, in most of the world, the majority of people are sheep

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever lived in another part of the world? Ever been to another part of the world? If you have then you know this is an absurd thing to say, if, you are implying the American people are any less sheeplike. Compared to Industralised First World nations the good ole US of A is right up there when it comes to being led by the nose.

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the President is not our leader, he is our employee. We (the electorate) decide how he will discharge his office, and the constitution determines whether or not specific aspects of our will are subject to government action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolute rubbish. You vote for someone to make decisions for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Neither major party understands this fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes they do. And that is why the Electoral College will remain, don't want some independent coming along getting a reasonable percentage of the vote and upsetting the applecart do we.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the rest of the world not understanding how so many Americans can support Bush, that just shows me how truly myopic most people are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming now you have never been abroad

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the fact that I don't much care for much of Bush's social agenda, I think that Europe and Canada need to wake up and understand that their zombie-like support of the nanny-state is destroying true freedom and economic power. What Americans need is to wake up and recognize that George W. Bush is as much a big-government quasi-socialist as Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reallity check. Big Countries. Big populations. Big Economies. Of course you have big government, you couldn't run it any other way.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get stuck on stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try not to

[ QUOTE ]
Vote Libertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok

tolbiny

10-10-2004, 08:56 PM

"Only someone who is being completely dishonest with themself and others can call what America is doing in Iraq "imperial"."

Really? Invading a country that had not attacked us, and has been since shown to have no capability to attack us, that sits on a natural resource that drives our economy. Not only this we are attempting to spread a version of government that we would perferbe in power.
This invasion has the potential to increase our political and economic influence into an area of the world we desperately want to. Any intelligent person who looks at the evidence doesn't have to agree that we are part of an imperial advance, but to blindly state that there isn't evidence there is very intellectually dishonest.

"Next time you want to say this, ask yourself the purpose of our presence in Iraq. And if you can't answer that question you have no business talking about the subject."

There has been a lot of discussion on these boards as to the real reasons for our invasion in Iraq, can you give us your opinions why we are there?

wacki

10-10-2004, 09:02 PM

I've heard of this book, and I've heard its a very interesting read and he is a very observant agent. I've also heard that virtually no sources are cited, and most of the book is about things he heard people say or things he saw. Is this true?

tolbiny

10-10-2004, 09:18 PM

I've also heard that virtually no sources are cited, and most of the book is about things he heard people say or things he saw. Is this true?

Sadly there aren't any sources cited, and names are changed. A lot of the beginning goes into which american cooperations make large amounts of profits from Saudi oil, and how many of them are chaired by former secretaries of state ect- this type of information is verifieble, as are the large donations made to presidential libraries and the like. On the other hand he asks the reader to accept his word that certain things are going on, and that the reason for a lot of this undocumentation is about the state department looking the other way, intentionally leaving the situation alone.

All in all i think it would be a worthwhile read even ifyou decided that you ultimately couln't accept his views.

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 09:25 PM

Imperialism isn't just spreading influence, or influencing democracy in another nation, or allowing such a nation to enter the global economy. Maybe I was wrong, and the problem is the aweful definition of the word "imperial" floating around.

To be very simple, the reasons we are in Iraq are that, for of a couple of reasons, Saddam's reign as tyrannical leader of that country was a danger to us and other nations. It is simply absurd to think we invaded to capture their oil. That type of conspiracy theory should seem ridiculous even to someone who disagrees with all of Bush's policies.

Spreading democracy is not imperial. If we intended to stay there indefinitely and rule them ourselves, that would be imperial. We could invade every (dictator-ran) country in the middle east and not act imperially (I'm not suggesting we do this). Throwing that word around is "intellectually dishonest", or just unintelligent.

People like to pretend like the conflict with Saddam started when we invaded Iraq a year and a half ago. Is it imperial that the UN had like 16 resolutions condemning Saddam? Is it imperial to try and inforce the word of an international body, or to act in one's national defense? No.

tolbiny

10-10-2004, 09:43 PM

"People like to pretend like the conflict with Saddam started when we invaded Iraq a year and a half ago"

No, this conflict started shortly after WW1 ended when the winners divided up the spoils and created a nation that did not previously exist, which briton then exploited for their oil for nearly 40 years.

"Imperialism isn't just spreading influence, or influencing democracy in another nation, or allowing such a nation to enter the global economy. Maybe I was wrong, and the problem is the aweful definition of the word "imperial" floating around."

Simply put imperialism is about spreading influence that will benefit the "empire", Weather or not the recent actions fully warrent the use of the word empire is up for debate, I was trying to point out that there is some evidence to support such a claim, and that to ignore al evidence that doesn't support the side you believe in is intellectually dishonest.

"Spreading democracy is not imperial. If we intended to stay there indefinitely and rule them ourselves, that would be imperial"

Spreading democracy may not be imperial- but the fact is we have an enourmous interest in the middle east and that we are attempting to set up a governing system similar to our own over which we will likely have a large influence.

I don't really care to go into the reasons for this invasion anymore as they have generally been rehashed, and each of us has to choose what we believe personally, but to dismiss out of hand other's views that we are acting in an imperial manner, and to ignore evidence to the contrary is intelletually dishonest. Intelletual dishonesty is about not looking at all the facts objectively and basing your conclusions on as much information as is available. Weather or not you determine that america is acting imperially i don't care, when people are willfully blind to some of the evidence out there irritates me, and that is why i made the post.

wacki

10-10-2004, 09:49 PM

My interest is peaked. The only problem with that book is, it will only cause me agony if I can't fact check or cross examine anything he says. There are plenty of loons out there, and some of them are even ex CIA or FBI agents. I have alot of respect for an ex-DEA agent's (Michael Levine) abilities, but look what he has on his radio show.

Absolutely Rediculous.
Levine Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=1065954&Fo rum=f20&Words=Levine&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=10 65954&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1& newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypr ev=#Post1065954)

People like this can get you into alot of trouble. I will take your advise under consideration though. If I proceed, I will only proceed with extreme caution.

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 10:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you can demonstrate this is occuring, or cite a credible source which says it is occurring

[/ QUOTE ]
"Time Magazine reports that the Bush administration had had a plan to use the Central Intelligence Agency to funnel money to candidates it favored in the forthcoming Iraqi elections." This plan was reportedly shut down by Nancy Pelosi. Juan Cole, Informed Comment (http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040928Cole.shtml)

Anti-democratic scams likes these follow efforts to prevent national elections to date, such as Sistani's call for elections last summer. "In December (12/4/03), the New York Times revealed that census experts in the Iraqi Planning Ministry had compiled a comprehensive proposal to hold a national population tally followed by elections within the space of 10 months. The plan was completed in October--a month before the U.S.-backed "caucus" plan was unveiled--but the Americans secretly rejected it and never told the Iraqi Governing Council of its existence." FAIR (http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/caucuses.html)

Rumsfeld has already floated the idea of "limited elections," excluding those areas where violence persists. Allawi has tried to minimize this by claiming that only three provinces would be affected, but one fo these is Baghdad, where about a fifth of the country lives. For a compendium of U.S.-run election to make sure the right side wins, see Ed Hermann's "Demonstration Elections." For more recent examples, look up the facts surrounding Violeta Chamorro's "free election" in Nicaragua and Yeltin's in Russia.

Did it ever occur to you that there are reasons why the U.S. has never even encouraged much less insisted on "free elections" in the other Arab countries it supports (like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia)? Why do you presume Iraq will be different? And what if the Iraqi public wants to sue the U.S. over the invasion (as one Iraqi leader has demanded), remain hostile toward Israel, kick out the U.S. military or invade Kuwait over the border dispute. Do you really think that the U.S. officials are driven to give Iraqis whatever they want, or more inclined to protect U.S. interests by helping the election go the preferred way, such as a referendum for Allawi?

You're the one with the crystal ball that says the elections will be "free." Your implication is that the adjective "free" when used by U.S. officials to describe future elections should be taken so seriously that it excuses U.S. mass violence. So let's see your evidence that the U.S. is so dedicated to Iraqi democracy that it is willing to sacrifice the influence its purchased with so much blood and treasure.

Chris Alger

10-10-2004, 10:48 PM

It sounds silly because it is. No try to find someone who's said it.

vulturesrow

10-10-2004, 11:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Simply put imperialism is about spreading influence that will benefit the "empire",

[/ QUOTE ]

By this definition, every country in the world is imperialistic. In some form or fashion every country tries to spread their influence in order to benefit themselves. You can call it imperialism or hocus pocus or whatever word you like but its the way of the world.

Even if you dont agree with our going into Iraq, what were we supposed to do afterward? Setup a theocracy? Maybe a monarchy? Maybe we couldve just handed the whole shebang over to Iran? Of course we were going to try to put a democracy into place. We may have some initial influence (as we should) but the way I see it, when we are gone and Iraq is fully back in the hands of its people, we will see a pointed attempt by the Iraqi government to distance itself from the USA in order to show the world they arent stooges for the Americans.

vulturesrow

10-10-2004, 11:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Time Magazine reports that the Bush administration had had a plan to use the Central Intelligence Agency to funnel money to candidates it favored in the forthcoming Iraqi elections." This plan was reportedly shut down by Nancy Pelosi. Juan Cole, Informed Comment

[/ QUOTE ]

And you had the gall to rebuke me for posting an article from CSN. LOL.

tolbiny

10-10-2004, 11:24 PM

I would say that most countries do exhibit some imperialst tendencies, weather or not a country is creating an empire is left up to personal defiitions.

"Even if you dont agree with our going into Iraq, what were we supposed to do afterward?"

Point is we went into Iraq with the intentions of setting up a democracy- pushing our form of life on another group of people. Weather our system is better isn't the argument, its that we can expect to gain influence in a region that we greatly desire influence in.

"when we are gone and Iraq is fully back in the hands of its people, we will see a pointed attempt by the Iraqi government to distance itself from the USA in order to show the world they arent stooges for the Americans"

I think we can expect the Iraqi government to face insurgencies for a long time, and to be very dependant on forgien aid/outside investors to rebuild what has been destroyed throughout the war with Iran/first Gulf war/ UN sanctions. How long we will maintain that infulence we shall see, but i believe that the US government will attemp to wield it for as long as possible.

InfernoLL

10-10-2004, 11:54 PM

"So let's see your evidence that the U.S. is so dedicated to Iraqi democracy that it is willing to sacrifice the influence its purchased with so much blood and treasure."

Well, uh, according to your story, that's exactly what's happening. Nancy Pelosi shut down the plan right? So they're not gonna do it any more. You said that.

"Did it ever occur to you that there are reasons why the U.S. has never even encouraged much less insisted on "free elections" in the other Arab countries it supports (like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia)? Why do you presume Iraq will be different?"

Well, um, we kinda didn't invade and depose the rulers of those other countries, did we? And who's to say we don't support further democratization of these countries? It's one thing to support it and another thing to force it. This is irrelevant anyway, it has absolutely nothing to do with the current state of Iraq.

And would you really make the argument that supporting a candidate who would support a more American type of democracy is wrong when Iran, a theocracy, is apparently funneling money to fundamentalist candidates? If you were president and faced with the Iraq situation as it is today, you would do the same thing. We didn't liberate Iraq to hand it back into the hands of another dictator.

"Your implication is that the adjective "free" when used by U.S. officials to describe future elections should be taken so seriously that it excuses U.S. mass violence."

You mean the mass violence against the terrorists that use car bombs to kill children on their way to school? Yeah, I'm fresh out of excuses for defending the lives of young children. You've convinced me, we should kill more children.

InfernoLL

10-11-2004, 12:06 AM

Would it be intellectually dishonest to dismiss the possibility that space aliens abducted George Bush and replaced him with a war mongering clone? No, because that is ridiculous. That's an extreme example, but conspiracy theories are unnecessarily extreme, too.

"Simply put imperialism is about spreading influence that will benefit the 'empire'"

So joining the UN is an imperial action, because it will give us international influence. And entering into treaties is imperial. And supporting free trade is imperial. This word is meaningless, not just "debatable", in the context you're using it.

Will the US benefit from the liberation of Iraq? Of course. Openning a long sanctioned country with a huge pile of natural resources to international trade helps everyone, most of all the Iraqis. And not to mention the minor fact that an evil tyrant with ambitions for dangerous weapons and ties to terrorists is no longer in power. That's somewhat of a benefit, too.

InfernoLL

10-11-2004, 12:20 AM

"Point is we went into Iraq with the intentions of setting up a democracy- pushing our form of life on another group of people. Weather our system is better isn't the argument, its that we can expect to gain influence in a region that we greatly desire influence in."

It's this type of thinking that I just find ridiculous. So the appropriate Iraqi way of life is to have no rights and get tortured and killed at any moment by the dictator of the country? Given this, it is inappropriate to "push" our form of life onto them and force them to not allow arbitrary state killings?

You cannot both believe that the government under Saddam was alright (just a different "way of life") and that going in to end it is bad, even if going in to end it means a lot of senseless killing. Their way of life was already filled with senseless killing.

What you can believe is either:
A) That senseless killing of people by their ruler was ended by senseless killing of people by an outside force, which has the same effect, or
B) That senseless killing of people by their ruler was ended by violence directed at the makers of this senseless killing in an effort to liberate those who are being senselessly killed.

Keep in mind I've left out the actual reasons we went into Iraq, but those don't seem to be quite as important to some people as the cultural impact we might be having on that part of the world.

Chris Alger

10-11-2004, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nancy Pelosi shut down the plan right? So they're not gonna do it any more. You said that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pelosi shut down a plan that proved that the CIA was trying to drive the election results. Far from proving that the CIA (or the National Endowment for Democracy, which we used in Nicaragua) can no longer do anything like this, it did nevertheless show what the CIA really thinks about Iraqi "democracy."

[ QUOTE ]
we kinda didn't invade and depose the rulers of those other countries, did we?

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. We didn't need to take such extreme measures in order to try to influence them to become more democratic. So in those cases you'd think our efforts (cheaper, easier) would be more apparant. They aren't.

[ QUOTE ]
And who's to say we don't support further democratization of these countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
Get real.

[ QUOTE ]
Other countries have "absolutely nothing to do with the current state of Iraq"

[/ QUOTE ]
They show a general disdain for efforts to create democracy in the Middle East, and a preference for autocracy. Your claim that the history of U.S. policy has "aboslutely nothing to do with" predicting U.S. policy is silly.

[ QUOTE ]
And would you really make the argument that supporting a candidate who would support a more American type of democracy is wrong when Iran, a theocracy, is apparently funneling money to fundamentalist candidates

[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen evidence of any "fundamentalist" candidates that the U.S. will tolerate -- certainly none of the approved parties fit this description -- much less evidence that Iran is funnelling money to them. Your assumptiont that the U.S. might only seek to level the playing field is naive. You think anyone would pay attention if Iran said it might not free up development money or pull out its troops (as the U.S. probably will)?

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't liberate Iraq to hand it back into the hands of another dictator.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? You think that if the U.S. managed to install a pro-U.S., pro-Israel and anti-Iran dictator in Iraq ("elected" just like Saddam was) that the GOP faithful would complain? Like the way they contantly complain about Musharaf of Pakistan or the dictators of the Central Asian states?

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the mass violence against the terrorists that use car bombs to kill children on their way to school?

[/ QUOTE ]
The same guy that promised you the elctions would be free is probably the one that told you that the thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed, including the children, are really just terrorists.

Chris Alger

10-11-2004, 01:12 AM

I criticized your stupid CSN article as typical of right-wing fringe reporting, and explained why. You think Time magazine is on the same plane? What Pelosi did is a matter of public record. If you want to deny it happened, then look it up (like I looked up your ridiculous "documents" cited by CSN). Don't be stupid.

MMMMMM

10-11-2004, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Being an American, or supporting America, does NOT EQUATE to supporting Saddam in the past (or Allawi in the present)."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Which is like saying being a member of Hamas or doesn't equate to support for suicide bombings, the standard test you refuse to apply in your many calls to "wipe out" everyone belonging to Hamas. One standard for them, another for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't like saying that. Being a citizen of a country is not the same as being a member of a political organization.

A better analogy might be that being a member of the KKK is like being a member of Hamas. Although that analogy has defects too, it isn't so blatantly flawed as your claim, or the claim that all Soviet citizens were communists or Stalinists. Why are appropriate analogies, conceptually speaking, seemingly so hard for you?

[ QUOTE ]
And of course your notion that "being an American" doesn't equate to support for those who owe thier power to Americans is just another dodge of your responsibility. You pay taxes, you have the right to vote, and even voted for the guy who put Allawi in power. You like the power but hate the responsiblity. Typical conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are assigning overbroad responsibility. And to correct another of your unfounded preconceptions, I did not vote for "the guy who put Allawi in power", if by that you mean Bush. Even if I had, though, that would not mean you could ascribe responsibility for everything an elected official does, to everyone who voted for him. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
No, it wouldn't, because those countries are horribly repressive and totalitarian as well.
----------------------------------------------------------

But since Iraqis aren't citizens of the U.S. and enjoy none of the powers and privileges of Americans, this fact is irrelevant. By your thinking, a free country that enslaves another would always be justified and a autocracy that liberates another wouldn't be.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US certainly isn't enslaving Iraq, except maybe in your fevered imaginary world.

[ QUOTE ]
The US is not an expansionist empire or we would have grabbed much land that we didn't during the past century. We certainly had the opportunity after WWII.
------------------------------------------------------------

Modern empires don't "grab land" they control people and resources, and the U.S. government has more influence beyond its borders than any country in the history of the world, and covets even more. All you're saying is that any country with over 700 foreign military bases, ten carrier batttle groups, 8,000 or so nuclear weapons and a doctrine of "preventative war" isn't an empire because it doesn't actually annex territory, hardly the standard you'd apply if you were on the receiving end of the military might of this "commercial republic."

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who trade with us benefit as well. They are free states, not our vassals. And no country that is not a tyranny or dictatorship is on the receiving end of our military might.

You appear to think that tyrants enslaving their own people are just as valid and good a form of government as anything else.

[ QUOTE ]
And let's not forget that by saying "and the enemies it has created" you are laying 100% of the blame on the U.S. for the actions of others who choose terror as a weapon"
------------------------------------------------------------

No, what you're saying is that there's an insufficient causal nexus between the invasion and the terrorist response, which is absurd given that the terrorists weren't actve at all in Iraq until the U.S. invaded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't dispute that there is some causal nexus. You however are saying that 100% of that terrorist response is the fault of the U.S., which cannot be so, for that line of thinking completely lifts the burden of blame from all those who choose to become terrorists.

Cyrus

10-11-2004, 03:12 AM

"Adam Smith Won, Karl Marx Lost."

I hear Karl is asking for a re-match. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"The American Democrat party wants to move the USA towards a Europe "Democratic" socialist state."

OK, now you are deep into fantasies.

"The American Republican party, though DEEPLY flawed, is holding back the American Democratic party's dream of a socialist utopia."

You seriously think that there is one iota, one inkling of socialist thought in the Democratic platform?! You seriously believe that a mere raise in taxation (if the Dems do what you fear) amounts to "socialism"?! Is anything to do with public good, like welfare, social security, highways, traffic lights, an indication of creeping socialism to you?!

This sounds like delirium. But I've seen worse.

"I have a lot of problems with George Bush on domestic spending, but I have HUGE problems with John Kerry who is a classic socialist."

Your reality is totally warped: The crazy spending by Bush would have, at any other times, scared shirtless everyone across the political spectrum. Now, the neo-cons spin this as "necessary for the war against terror"! Yeah, right... (here's more terror now in Iraq than there ever was, for a start.)

As to Senator John Kerry being a "classical socialist", what can I say? Intelligent conversation is impossible when you engage in pure fantasy and arbitrary labelling.

Rooster71

10-11-2004, 03:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
First, Americans appreciate freedom, having won it through struggle. Most other first world countries have been independent for many more centuries, or were spun off through a process of negotiation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...so Bush stands for freedom. Every prior president and all current and former members of Congress support freedom. This is a good soundbite, however it doesn't provide any reason to support Bush.

The once and future king

10-11-2004, 05:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you weren't watching the Australian election, where the conservative won handily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the party that matters its the candidate.

The once and future king

10-11-2004, 05:08 AM

However your post was still smug.

The once and future king

10-11-2004, 05:25 AM

In answer to the original question.

On Brit TV any comedy scetch show woth its salt has to spend at least 10 minutes taking the Piss out of Pres "easy target" Bush.

Having read this thread, this scetch summed it up nicely for me.

Here is a very abridged version.

Kerry: Look, Iraq is a total mess and the economy is underperforming, but Im still behind in the polls , what do I have to do.

Advisor: We have the latest focus group data, the conclusion is obvious.

Kerry: Well

Advisor: The voters want you to be more stupid.

Kerry: What?

Advisor: To say something like (insert favourite Bushism here)

Kerry: Are you joking, Id never say anything that stupid.

Advisor : Well president Bush said it and hes ahead in the Polls.

It went on but thats it in a nutshell.

As for Kerry being a socialist. Only some one who was foaming at the mouth and bug eyed as they hammered the keyboard could assert anything that hysterical.

I didnt realise he stood for nationalisation of the means of production.

tolbiny

10-11-2004, 10:50 AM

"It's this type of thinking that I just find ridiculous. So the appropriate Iraqi way of life is to have no rights and get tortured and killed at any moment by the dictator of the country? Given this, it is inappropriate to "push" our form of life onto them and force them to not allow arbitrary state killings? "

You are making a basic mistake- you assume that i have labled the invasion as "right" or "wrong". I was only discussing the aspects of it that would lead someone to feel that it was an imperialistic action. I don't believe that i have stated a personal belief about weather the invasion of Iraq was justified.

"You cannot both believe that the government under Saddam was alright (just a different "way of life") and that going in to end it is bad, even if going in to end it means a lot of senseless killing. Their way of life was already filled with senseless killing."

I can believe many things- but again i have made no such statements in this thread.

"What you can believe is either:
A) That senseless killing of people by their ruler was ended by senseless killing of people by an outside force, which has the same effect, or
B) That senseless killing of people by their ruler was ended by violence directed at the makers of this senseless killing in an effort to liberate those who are being senselessly killed."

Ok- now i am going to state my feelings on the invasion in Iraq. I think that one of the most dangerous positions to have is to look at the situation this simply. The ramafications of this war are going to be felt throughout the world for a long time. I doubt that you (or anyone) has the knowledge or clairvoyence to be able to narrow down these possibilities to what you have stated above.

"Keep in mind I've left out the actual reasons we went into Iraq, but those don't seem to be quite as important to some people as the cultural impact we might be having on that part of the world"

YOu dont know the actual reasons we went to Iraq, you (and I) only know the stated reasons for going to Iraq. As i recall they were.
a. Saddam's weapons of Mass Destruction. As it turns out saddam didn't have any, and that his abilities to produce them were severly diminished.
b. Links to Al Queda. Has not been established by a reliable source.

If these are you reasons for invading we should have spend more energy on
1. Pakistan- who has actual ties to Al Queda and has Nuclear technology (which it has sold to other nations not friendly to the us)
2. N korea who has a nuclear aresonal and has threatened to use it.
3. Iran- who is advancing their nuclear technology further than saddam ever did, and has been known for years to support terroist activities.
4. Saudi Arabia- 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi's, they have an open boarder across which weapons and terroists move freely in and out of the country.

All of these countries also have large human rights abuses, and all of them posed a greater threat than saddam did at the beginning of the invasion.
So there are 2 possibilities here as i see it.
1. We had other reasons for going into Iraq than the stated ones. or
2. We made a mistake in going into Iraq when there were other threats that we had to ignore in order to invade.

Chris Alger

10-11-2004, 03:51 PM

1. You are dodging the issue of the resonsibility of Americans for their government, quibbling with "overbreadth" while refusing to acknowledge even any minimal responsibility. Why don't you just tell us what that responsibility is, as you see it? For example, if someone supports a policy, urges others to do the same, and takes some action to see that officials who also support that policy get elected (like voting), how are they absolved of all moral responsiblity if the policy is implemented and innocent people are foreseeably harmed as a result?

2. Once again, you can't get over your stupid assumption that the test for the morality of foreign conquest isn't the rights of the conquored, but the rights of the conquerors, or more specifically the rights of citizens in the conquoring country, as if the motivating force for conquest was some desire to "make the world British" or some such other imperial nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
"And no country that is not a tyranny or dictatorship is on the receiving end of our military might."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is false. But if we assume that the people living under a tyranny or dictatorship are the primary victims of that regime, you are saying that it is usually appropriate to kill these people because of political problems beyond their control. Whereas most people believe that the tree of liberty must be occasionally nourished by blood, you use the absence of liberty anywhere as a general excuse to kill innocents. Lets' see. How many countries on this forum have you urged the use of direct or indirect military force? Five? Ten? Probably closer to the latter. The best that can be said for it is that it reflects an adolescent inability to distinguish actual people and the various conditions they confront from the abstraction of a "country."

[ QUOTE ]
I don't dispute that there is some causal nexus.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then just assume that I'm referring to the degree of causality you'll admit, and that whatever that is, the U.S. is 100% responsible for it.

John Cole

10-11-2004, 04:37 PM

One good political observer I know sort of put it this way: Kerry knows America's mission--manager of world capitalism. Bush, on the other hand, doesn't get it. Even his Daddy can't reach him (and has begun to scheme against the kid to get him to see the light).

InfernoLL

10-11-2004, 04:56 PM

"Far from proving that the CIA (or the National Endowment for Democracy, which we used in Nicaragua) can no longer do anything like this, it did nevertheless show what the CIA really thinks about Iraqi 'democracy.'"

The reason given for this plan, which was to fund a candidate, not rig the election, was that Iran was funding it's cadidate(s) in an effort to gain control of Iraq. Allowing them to do this unopposed would be just as undemocratic than backing your own candidate.

"We didn't need to take such extreme measures in order to try to influence them to become more democratic. So in those cases you'd think our efforts (cheaper, easier) would be more apparant. They aren't."

We both agreed that the US wasn't exterting any large influence on these other countries. I was telling why we were exerting democratizing influence in Iraq: we completely destroyed their former government. We don't have to institued our kind of democracy in Egypt or whatever because we didn't destroy their governments. You completely missed my point. And you're wrong anyway. Why would cheaper, easier efforts be more apparent than invade the country and occupy type efforts. That is an irrational claim.

"Get real."

Why don't you make a real argument. As I said in the previous post, and as you did not respond to, there is a difference between supporting something and making an effort to enforce that thing. We don't really have a huge reason to stand on trying to democratize countries we consider mostly peaceful and friendly to us.

"They show a general disdain for efforts to create democracy in the Middle East, and a preference for autocracy. Your claim that the history of U.S. policy has "aboslutely nothing to do with" predicting U.S. policy is silly."

I'd like to thank you for misquoting me. I didn't say our history of foreign policy didn't affect our current foreign policy. I said our lack of overthrowing and democratizing other middle eastern countries (which are mostly peaceful and friendly) had nothing to do with why we did overthrow Iraq - you try to act like we have to treat all middle eastern countries the same. They aren't all the same. Do you see why?

"I haven't seen evidence of any "fundamentalist" candidates that the U.S. will tolerate -- certainly none of the approved parties fit this description -- much less evidence that Iran is funnelling money to them."

Is this not the reason given in your article for the program you mentioned?

"Your assumptiont that the U.S. might only seek to level the playing field is naive."

Why? What does the US have to gain from having a specific person leading Iraq that the Iraqis themselves don't gain from? Our best bet is a ruler who will stablize the country, persue terrorists within it's boarders, and participate at will in the global market place. Do you have any personal objections to these things?

"Why not? You think that if the U.S. managed to install a pro-U.S., pro-Israel and anti-Iran dictator in Iraq ("elected" just like Saddam was) that the GOP faithful would complain?"

Well yes, but this is a moot point. Until you can demonstrate that both the US is rigging the election and that the new president of Iraq will be a dictator, what you want to believe the GOP would do is irrelevant.

"The same guy that promised you the elctions would be free is probably the one that told you that the thousands of Iraqi civilians we've killed, including the children, are really just terrorists."

This is a perfect point to conclude with because it basically sums up everything we disagree about. You want to believe the US, Bush, the GOP, or whoever, is evil. You want to believe that they're doing everything in Iraq because they are power hungry imperialists. For whatever reason, you want to think these things. It's probably a result of either a latent pacifism or you're still mad that Al Gore lost, or maybe you really do support killing school children (you didn't deny that, did you?). We disagree because I believe we went to Iraq for self defense, and that it had the added bonus of liberating millions of people from a brutal dictator. I don't expect any argument to change your mind.

InfernoLL

10-11-2004, 05:16 PM

I apologize for assuming you were against invading Iraq, but your posts seemed to indicate that. Anyway, by the end of your response you seemed pretty against it, but I won't say so anymore.

"The ramafications of this war are going to be felt throughout the world for a long time. I doubt that you (or anyone) has the knowledge or clairvoyence to be able to narrow down these possibilities to what you have stated above."

I agree that the war in Iraq has extended ramifications, but you seem to be assuming they are all or mostly bad. I would argue that the long term widespread ramifications of the war are almost entirely positive, especially if we manage to deal with Iran and Syria correctly in the next few years.

"YOu dont know the actual reasons we went to Iraq, you (and I) only know the stated reasons for going to Iraq."

I guess I've been making the mistake of arguing the reasons I believe rather than the reasons various members of the executive branch may have had themselves. Even so, I think it's entirely speculative to assume the two are different without any real reason. Bush/his advisors didn't know there were no WMDs, because every intelligence agency in the world they had access to said there were. I'm not positive about the specific references to Al Queda, but I believe the connection with terrorists in general was the reason. And there are at least a few cases of Al Queda leaders working in Iraq and with the aid of Iraqi officials, so this is not as faulty as you portray it.

I agree that is looks like Iran may be a bigger problem than Iraq, but the difference is that, as far as I know, up until the time we decided to go to war, Iran had not severely violated UN resolutions to the extent that Iraq had.

North Korea is a different problem entirely, as they have a million person standing army and several nuclear weapons already. Any military conflict with them would have to be absolutely necessary. By that I mean they've already taken some action or say they will soon take an action against us or another nation. The terrorism factor is missing from N Korea, so the threat they pose is much more visible and negotiable.

I think it's a mistake to lump Saudi Arabia in with the rest of these countries. They really don't pose a bigger threat to us than Iraq (at all) and any government sponsorship of terrorism is mere speculation and not enough to act on.

I disagree that either of your 2 possibilities is necessary. It is completely feasible, and I think most people believe, that the stated reasons for going are the reasons we went.

tolbiny

10-11-2004, 06:08 PM

"It is completely feasible, and I think most people believe, that the stated reasons for going are the reasons we went"

If the the reason that we went was WMD's and ties to terroist organizations then i submit that serious errors were made. I am trying to avoid laying the blame in this thread as i have zero acess to the information this stuff is based upon. However it is clear (to me) that erros were either made in intelligence gathering, or interpreting of that intelligence or ignoring certain aspects that didn't fit whith what they wanted to hear. If the main cause for this war was the WMD program then i believe that the war should be considered a mistake- regardless of the positive outcomes of "freeing" the Iraqi people.
I feel it has also been shown that the ties to terroist organizations in Iraq were minimal when compared to other countries in the area. I also believe that several times Bush stated that the Iraqi government had direct connections to the terrorists that were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and so far there has been no evidence that i have seen supporting this claim. Ultimately what concerns me is the fact that the administration has refused to accept that they made a mistake in going to war, but have constantly changed their reasons for going to war, and refused to accept any responsibility for it. Even if faulty intelligence is to blame, they are still the people who acted on that intelligence and they need to take some advice from Truman.

"I agree that the war in Iraq has extended ramifications, but you seem to be assuming they are all or mostly bad."

I am assuming that they are as likely to be bad as they are to be good.

"I agree that is looks like Iran may be a bigger problem than Iraq, but the difference is that, as far as I know, up until the time we decided to go to war, Iran had not severely violated UN resolutions to the extent that Iraq had"

"North Korea is a different problem entirely"

Yes, but over the past 2 years the administration has done little with Iran and N Korea, and nearly everyone in the intelligence community has stated that they are more dangerous now than they were prior to this administration. Simply becuase we could justify going into Iraq but not Iran does not make it correct to do so. I think the opportunity cost of ignoring other situations while focusing on Iraq will prove to be very, very costly to us.

"I think it's a mistake to lump Saudi Arabia in with the rest of these countries. They really don't pose a bigger threat to us than Iraq (at all) and any government sponsorship of terrorism is mere speculation and not enough to act on."

What we know know is that Iraq didn't actually pose any threa to us. The royal family in Saudi Arabia has been shown to have donated tens of millions of dollars to the "charitable" oraganizations that funded the attackers of 9/11, and that 15 saudi's were involved in said attacks. Evidence like this would normally provoke some type of investigation, but so far the administration (and clinton's and the first bush) has largely avaoided doing so. For one man's reason's i suggest "Sleeping with the Devil" by Robert Baer, i don't know if i agree with all of his conclusions, but if he is even partially right Saudi Arabia is much more of a threat to us than Saddam ever was.

"I apologize for assuming you were against invading Iraq, but your posts seemed to indicate that."

I am against the invasion of iraq, but the points i was trying to make in the earlier posts were to show that reasonable person could look at the same eveidence as you and come up with a different conclusion. I think that to many peoople are yelling "We're not imperialistic" and another group are yelling "Of course we are", and it isn't helping any.

Chris Alger

10-11-2004, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We both agreed that the US wasn't exterting any large influence on these other countries.

[/ QUOTE ]
No we don't. The U.S. exercises huge influence over these countries. It doesn't use that influence, however, to aggressively promote things like democracy and human rights, ultimately minor concerns for policy makers. Therefore, the claim that "Iraq will be different," which you implied, is pie-in-the-sky nonsense. That was the obvious point I made. Since you evidently don't even grasp this, I've stopped reading.

The bottom line is that you think the U.S. is out to do great things for ordinary Iraqis, apparently because you heard it on TV and are naive enough to believe it. Thanks in to people like you, ordinary Iraqis are instead being bombed and burned every day while the rest of the world looks on with outrage.

3rdEye

10-11-2004, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Ha.... Ha.... Ha.

Very few American's who support Bush have had to struggle for freedom recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummmm.........I can't think of very many Americans who *don't* support Bush who "have had to struggle for freedom recently" either.

tolbiny

10-11-2004, 07:35 PM

I can think of a signifigant portion of our population that was fighting for civil rights in the 60's and 70's. do you realize that over 90% of african american's who voted voted against bush in 2000?

ThaSaltCracka

10-11-2004, 07:50 PM

It baffles me that Canadians all think they know how to run our country properly, while in the mean time their countries is so [censored] up.

Kurn, son of Mogh

10-11-2004, 08:31 PM

I'm assuming now you have never been abroad

Wrong. I've spent a great deal of time in Spain (my favorite vacation place), as well as traveling extensively on business to France, England, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Venezuela and of course Canada. I speak 5 languages (with varying degrees of competence) and have many good friends from all over the world (one of the benefits of being in charge of global operations for a consulting company).

My point on Europe was that to most Europeans accept the welfare state as a given of "modern" government. I respectfully disagree. They are myopic because that don't have the insight to understand how basically different the average American is from the average European in his or her view of the world. Americans are similarly myopic regarding other cultures.

if, you are implying the American people are any less sheeplike

Not at all. In fact, our pseudo 2-party system is proof most Americans are more sheeplike. If my post suggested otherwise, I apologize for being unclear.

Absolute rubbish. You vote for someone to make decisions for you.

You may. I don't.

And that is why the Electoral College will remain, don't want some independent coming along getting a reasonable percentage of the vote and upsetting the applecart do we.

Reasonable observation.

Of course you have big government, you couldn't run it any other way.

I disagree, but let's take another tack. How big is too big? What are the rational limits on what government should do in your opinion?

superleeds

10-11-2004, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. I've spent a great deal of time in Spain (my favorite vacation place), as well as traveling extensively on business to France, England, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Venezuela and of course Canada. I speak 5 languages (with varying degrees of competence) and have many good friends from all over the world (one of the benefits of being in charge of global operations for a consulting company).

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies.

[ QUOTE ]
My point on Europe was that to most Europeans accept the welfare state as a given of "modern" government. I respectfully disagree. They are myopic because that don't have the insight to understand how basically different the average American is from the average European in his or her view of the world. Americans are similarly myopic regarding other cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that Europeans accept a certain level of welfare should be available but I don't see how the average American is any different. They may act a little more bullish in a 'I can take care of myself' kinda way but ultimately they are glad it's there, at least in my experience, limited to NYC and suburbia, CT, I admit. As an Englishman who has lived here for the last 5 years I think that how the one continent views the other is deeply myopic but that Europeans are more 'worldly' simply because they travel more, are exposed to more cultures and are impacted on far more by America than they recipricate.

[ QUOTE ]
You may. I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I respectfully suggest you run and win, otherwise people are making decisions for you. By voting you just register who think is going to bend your way on most things.

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, but let's take another tack. How big is too big? What are the rational limits on what government should do in your opinion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Government should be responsible for defense, civil order and facilitating trade. Defense is just limited to what a country perceives necessary, but regardless, in a world power will always be a sizeable budget. Civil Order is many things from a Police force to Garbage collection, from Education to Medical care. A certain amount of welfare aids civil order and is therefore a necessity.

Various issues which get a lot of press, such as Gay marriage for example, are just a smokescreen by the right for to much government interferance IMO. These things are miniscule when compared to what the vast majority of tax dollers are rightly (if not always wisely) spent on.

Dr Wogga

10-12-2004, 12:18 AM

....the cities with heavy black populationsm continue to vote in black thugs / black criminals /black drug addicts [see: Sharp James, Marion Barry to name a few] and are represented by Jesse "The spitter of white people's food" Jackson and Al "Tawanna Brawley's lying spokes-person" Sharpton. How can any clear thinkning individual take anything in the black community seriously? Hell, the blacks are being chastised publicly by blatant racist Bill Cosby. Also, there is historically a low black voter turn-out, as many hard-working inner city blacks fear for their safety to go out at night and vote. Of course, if you listen to the Sharpton thugs, its "whitey" and "crackas" that are keeping the black man down. Of course, if one points these truths out, they become branded as racists. What a country!!!! Go darkies!!!!!

wacki

10-12-2004, 12:32 AM

Ahhhhhhh Dr. Wogga! Where you and your CrAzY talk been?

Didn't know about the Bill Cosby thing..

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=/SpecialReports/archive/200407/SPE20040702a.html

"Eight-year-old, nine-year-old boys have no business teaming up to rape a nine-year or ten-year-old girl. And if it's in that TV set, don't bring it into your home, if it's on your record player, don't bring it in your home," he said.

That's funny.

vulturesrow

10-12-2004, 12:33 AM

Oh Wacki, you posted a link to CSN. Dont you know that is a right wing spin service and nothing posted on it can ever be true or newsworthy? At least thats what I was told when I posted a link from there.

wacki

10-12-2004, 12:40 AM

Didn't realize that was CNS.... lol

I get the same crap about this article because it's from PNAC.

Never mind that it's just 47 quotes and little or no editorial. It's thoroughly sourced, but still it's all lies. Clinton, Gore and Albright are all saying we have to invade Iraq because of WMD's but when Bush says it, it's a lie.

Damn Bush for repeating Clinton!
Damn Bush for repeating Gore!
Damn Bush for repeating Albright!

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm

IrishHand

10-12-2004, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton, Gore and Albright are all saying we have to invade Iraq because of WMD's but when Bush says it, it's a lie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have said it was a lie no matter who said it. I find it nearly impossible to believe that the intelligence agencies of all the Western nations (meaning us and Europe) could be so completely bamboozled as to the existence of massive quantities of WMD (and/or the ability to produce such).

More to the point, I just don't think that invasion and occupation is an initial solution to the problem of other (uncooperative) nations having undesirable items (WMD, nukes, etc). UN weapons inspectors got a took of disdain in this country pre-Iraq-invasion, but it should be pretty clear now that they both did their job to the best of their ability, and their presence there was surely a significant deterrent to Iraq's creation/possession of WMD (assuming that you are among those who continue to believe that his goal in life was to re-constitute this portion of his military "power").

Just some thoughts...
Irish

vulturesrow

10-12-2004, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd have said it was a lie no matter who said it. I find it nearly impossible to believe that the intelligence agencies of all the Western nations (meaning us and Europe) could be so completely bamboozled as to the existence of massive quantities of WMD (and/or the ability to produce such).

[/ QUOTE ]

The Duelfer report points out the fact that even the top military leadership thought they still had WMD. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he still had WMD. It worked and he got hammered. But it wasnt a lie and I can honestly say that had a Democratic party rep been the President, I wouldve supported him too. Take that for what you think its worth.

[ QUOTE ]
More to the point, I just don't think that invasion and occupation is an initial solution to the problem of other (uncooperative) nations having undesirable items (WMD, nukes, etc). UN weapons inspectors got a took of disdain in this country pre-Iraq-invasion, but it should be pretty clear now that they both did their job to the best of their ability, and their presence there was surely a significant deterrent to Iraq's creation/possession of WMD.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the best of their ability being a key point. The 'Hussein regime was notoriously stubborn and evasive during the inspections and in fact it took 200,000 American troops on his borders to even convince him to readmit inspectors. 17 UN resolutions were flouted.

[ QUOTE ]
assuming that you are among those who continue to believe that his goal in life was to re-constitute this portion of his military "power").

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the Duelfer report specifically says that Saddam's overarching goal was to reconstitute his WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted. Did everyone just read the part where we didnt find stockpiles and immediately commence finger pointing? In effect, the sanctions were useless because Saddam's corruption of Oil-for-food.

wacki

10-12-2004, 05:59 PM

Did everyone just read the part where we didnt find stockpiles and immediately commence finger pointing?

http://www.froggybloggy.com/froggy_contents/pictures/20040109_204800_site.jpg

It's called tunnel vision.

ThaSaltCracka

10-12-2004, 06:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Duelfer report points out the fact that even the top military leadership thought they still had WMD. Saddam wanted everyone to believe he still had WMD.

[/ QUOTE ] This is very interesting, because I saw this guy say this on O'Reilly as well, and he was saying the reason Saddam wanted people to think he had WMD's is because he was worried about Iran and I believe Israel. Also, Saddam didn't think the U.S. would invade either, clearly Saddam made a huge mistake because if he had been open with the world he likely would still be rich and in power.

wacki

10-12-2004, 06:08 PM

That sucks for Saddam. Talk about being put in a tight spot. Fearing Iran and Israel if you don't have WMD's, yet fearing the US if you do. Oh well, what comes around goes around.

ThaSaltCracka

10-12-2004, 06:16 PM

HAHA, yeah poor Saddam, damned if you do and damned if you don't. Maybe if he wasn't such a bastard he wouldn't of had to worry so much.

But yeah, honestly, that was a tough spot for him because Israel has nukes, and Iran is most certainly developing them(not to mention Pakistan has them as well), and you can see why he was worried.

John Feeney

10-13-2004, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
(1) is there a mass human rights catastrophe in progress that requires drastic action requiring mass fatalities (no);

(2) prior to the invasion, did the invader make serious, strenuous efforts to improve human rights and mitigate their violation in the target country (no);

(3) does the invading and occupying country have any record of supporting democracy in the target country or affected region (no) [2];

(4) does the invading and occupying country have interests that will conflict with those of the local population (duh); and

(5) does the invasion and occupation carry a blowback risk of greater disaster, especially for the population it purports to liberate (obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good list. When the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq I was struck by their failure to consider such points. I would add the question of whether extensive efforts at non-military solutions had been clearly and totally exhausted. They hadn't.

[ QUOTE ]
"In the vast major of cases [of auotcratic regimes that fell during the last 20 years], dictatorships were toppled through massive nonviolent action, 'people power' movements that faced down the tanks and guns and swept these regimes aside. Some succeeded in a dramatic contestation of public space that toppled dictators in a matter of days or weeks, such as those that brought down the Communist regimes in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, overthrew Southeast Asian strongmen like Marcos and Suharto, and ousted military juntas from Bangladesh to Bolivia. Other pro-democracy movements engaged in more protracted struggles that eventually forced dramatic democratic reforms in such countries as Poland, South Korea, South Africa, Kenya, Brazil, and Chile. In the fall of 2000, nonviolent action by the people of Serbia did in a matter of days what eleven weeks of NATO bombing a year and half earlier could not: oust the regime of Slobodan Milosevic." Prof. Stephen Zunes, Univ. S. Francisco

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is why it's incredible to me that, relative to our military budget, virtually no resources are aimed at developing additional, effective non-military means of conflict resolution. The examples cited above showed varying levels of success with presumably meager funding and minimal development of their methods. What might be possible if more serious resources were thrown at the problem? An idea such as the School for Peace (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=exchange&Number=105363 1&Forum=c5&Words=peace&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main= 1053631&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=187&dateran ge=1&newerval=1&newertype=m&olderval=&oldertype=&b odyprev=#Post1053631) which Andy posted about is just one of scores of examples of things which might be investigated. Military solutions are just so pathetically primative.

ThaSaltCracka

10-13-2004, 01:30 PM

I think there are some good points in your post, but I have a simple question though. How successful do you think some of these democractic coups would have been without the implicit support of the U.S. military and its allies?

I really like this concept of "people power" and I think it is a valuable "weapon" when it comes to regime change, but I don't think the people could do it without the help of foreign countries who support and promote democracy around the world, and by support I mean militarily.

TorontoCFE

10-13-2004, 02:13 PM

Perspective - most people prefer their country to another.

I don't like the generality that ALL Canadians think that way.

I'd love someone to point out a country that it can be agreed upon that doesn't have serious issues.

ThaSaltCracka

10-13-2004, 02:15 PM

You may be the wisest Canadian I have ever met.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love someone to point out a country that it can be agreed upon that doesn't have serious issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of Jesus, "Those who have not sinned shall cast the first stone."

John Feeney

10-13-2004, 11:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How successful do you think some of these democractic coups would have been without the implicit support of the U.S. military and its allies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not well enough versed in the histories of the movements cited to know the relative degrees to which such implicit support played a role in one or another. It certainly must play a role some of the time. But it would be tough to assess its impact unless we could compare the results of movements against totalitarian regimes which went unsupported by outside countries, with those that had such support.

I want to emphasize, though, that the non-violent successes we've seen to date surely reflect a low level of evolution for such movements. Compared to military budgets, there has been so little invested in the development of non-military solutions to conflict, that we must assume we've seen only the smallest hint of what such methods might be be able to accomplish.

Cyrus

10-14-2004, 02:34 AM

"When the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq I was struck by their failure to consider such points. I would add the question of whether extensive efforts at non-military solutions had been clearly and totally exhausted. They hadn't."

Listen. When we need logic and sobriety in the discussion of politics we'll make sure to give ya a call.

Now, split!

Cyrus

10-14-2004, 02:36 AM

I guess the State Department was asleep at the wheel, at the time. Typical.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Chris Alger

10-14-2004, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
How successful do you think some of these democractic coups would have been without the implicit support of the U.S. military and its allies?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's rather mean, don't you think, given that some of the countries on the list include the Philippines, Indonesia, S. Korea and, good grief, Chile (one could also add Brazil and Argentina)? In these cases, the bad guys either came into power or maintained it, or both, with U.S. support. To attribute the success of democratic reformists to U.S. "help" doesn't jibe our record of helping their opponents.

Neither the U.S. military nor its' "allies" played any significant role in fomenting or supporting the popular rebellions in Eastern Europe. If anything, they tended to make reformers nervous about the possibility of U.S. intervention.

John Feeney

10-14-2004, 01:53 PM

In the midst of debate <font color="red">fever</font>, I just had to try give the neocons a little dusting down. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

jakethebake

10-14-2004, 01:59 PM

I don't know how many of us "support" Bush. It's probably just a case of the lesser of two evils since on the other side we have Kerry/Edwards that lean waaaaay over to the left.

wacki

10-14-2004, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how many of us "support" Bush. It's probably just a case of the lesser of two evils since on the other side we have Kerry/Edwards that lean waaaaay over to the left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. People are scarred of Bush, well I am scared of Kerry. Just look at his record on civil rights. It's hard to predict what he will do with foreign politics, but I don't like the fact that he puts so much emphasis on the corrupt UN.

"It baffles me that so many Amercians support Bush"?

Well, it baffles me that so many amercians support Kerry. Read civilizations and it's enemies by Lee Harris to understand more concepts of why I think this.

jakethebake

10-14-2004, 02:14 PM

The UN should have been booted out of the country years ago. Can anyone list a single good thing the UN has ever accomplished?

ThaSaltCracka

10-14-2004, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Neither the U.S. military nor its' "allies" played any significant role in fomenting or supporting the popular rebellions in Eastern Europe.

[/ QUOTE ] Do you honestly think that the reform leaders of Eastern European countries didn't look west and see Western Europe and the U.S. and their implicit support to overthrow communism? Please. NATO and the U.S. may not have been ready to invade, but just knowing there are countries and armies around the world supporting their cause is an incredible confidence boost.

As for your other comment, you have a point, and unfortunately the U.S. has made mistakes in some situations, but ultimately I still think having the support(implicit or expressed) of other countries(and their armies) helps these causes enormously.

BTW, John Fenney, you may have a point as well. It's is one that is interesting, but I honestly wonder what other peaceful endeavors could help in these situations.

ThaSaltCracka

10-14-2004, 02:18 PM

east timor.
clearing land mines.
probably some other stuff as well.

TorontoCFE

10-14-2004, 02:57 PM

Saved South Korea in 1950.
Cared for refugees all over the world.

I'll resist saying that maybe the UN would be more effective if the members actually paid their dues. I'm surprised the UN didn't boot the US out when they were so far in arrears.

Victor

10-14-2004, 03:45 PM

weapons inspections.....

Felix_Nietsche

10-14-2004, 07:20 PM

Please kick us out PLLLLLLLLLLEASE !!!!!

ThaSaltCracka

10-14-2004, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll resist saying that maybe the UN would be more effective if the members actually paid their dues. I'm surprised the UN didn't boot the US out when they were so far in arrears.

[/ QUOTE ] Laughable, can you imagine the UN without the U.S.? Seriously, think about how much more worthless it would be.

TheGrifter

10-14-2004, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Lieberman or even POSSIBLY edwards would be running away with this election."

I don't know much about gephart, but Edwards is far to young and has to little a record. A lot of seniors vote in this country and they aren't voting for a guy who doesn't have a grey hari yet.
And lieberman? I firmly believe that this country will elect a Woman or Black man president years before a Jewish person. I think the last Ethnicty to be voted in will be a Hispanic woman- there is a lot of racism in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't Edwards in his 50's....dyyyyyyyyye job. Another thing the senior american can relate to.

Danenania

10-15-2004, 02:16 AM

I have no respect (on a personal level) for anyone who lives in and is aware of the state of our world today and supports George W. Bush and/or his administration. I think in the face of all that we know, to do so is shameful and disgusting.

I don't care what you think of the Bush administration's "economic" policies, their "social" policies. I don't care if you are a staunch republican and have reasonable justification for being so.

None of these issues amount to a pinhead compared to the mass, unjustified campaign of terror and death that the United States has inflicted on the men, women, and children of Iraq, the men, women, and children of Afghanistan, and the men and women of the US military. Were there a rational, defensible motivation for this bloodshed, it would still be tragic, but would not amount to the senseless atrocity that we witness today. The only motivation of the Bush administration is a psychopathic greed, an obsessive desire for the accumulation of more and more wealth, more and more comfort, more and more security, stability, convenience, and power at the cost of widespread UNNECESSARY human death and suffering.

Listen. Money is not as important as human life. Okay? Do we all understand this? Because in our country, as we speak, the two are constantly exchanged. They have intertwined. Human slaughter begets "favorable business scenarios". No one can even tell the difference anymore. It is as I said, utterly disgusting. Look at us. Greedy murdering slobbering pigs. More more more. Disgusting.

Therefore, Bush supporters, regardless of your reasons, as far as human dignity goes, I equate your worth with the dirt you walk on and the [censored] you drop into the toilet bowl. Your position is unjustifiable. You deserve absolutely no respect. You barely deserve acknowledgement. You make me feel sick.

natedogg

10-15-2004, 02:21 AM

You DO realize that Kerry supported the war and voted for it and believed in all the same intelligence Bush trusted before going in?

You DO realize that one of Kerry's criticisms has been that we didnt send ENOUGH troops, and that Kerry has no intention of pulling out of Iraq until we finish the job?

So if Iraq is your only concern, how is voting for Bush some kind of moral crime while voting for Kerry, who mirrors Bush when it comes to Iraq, is not?

natedogg

$DEADSEXE$

10-15-2004, 02:32 AM

Ok..heres the dirty little secret that everyone who is voting for Kerry knows...We'll be outa Iraq by his second term...if not earlyer. Yeh we may have some active military there but it will be a very small force.

Why?
Cuz he's not the one who went in..thus he can hold the elections say the iraq forces are good to go...and then say bye bye.

I'de actually be shocked if Bush doesn't do the same himself...no republican will be elected president in 2008 if we're still in iraq

natedogg

10-15-2004, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'de actually be shocked if Bush doesn't do the same himself...no republican will be elected president in 2008 if we're still in iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

So again, why is voting for Bush some kind of moral crime when it is expected that he and Kerry will do the same thing going forward in Iraq?

natedogg

Danenania

10-15-2004, 02:43 AM

I didn't say that anyone should vote for Kerry. I said that to continue supporting Bush and his administration would be despicable.

Danenania

10-15-2004, 02:50 AM

Also: I am so angry about this situation because I believe the primary motivation of the war was material greed.

Now that the country of Iraq has been senselessly ravaged, keeping troops there might actually serve some sort of purpose besides lining pockets. It would still be a terrible situation but at least there would be a purpose.

Also, I believe that Kerry was under the impression when he voted to go to war against Iraq that Saddam was harboring WMD's just like the rest of America. That means he thought the war was going to have a justifiable purpose. As it turns out, it did NOT have a purpose besides making some rich people richer.

All this puts Kerry miles and miles above the snivelling murderous coward Bush in my eyes, despite any faults he may have.

natedogg

10-15-2004, 02:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say that anyone should vote for Kerry. I said that to continue supporting Bush and his administartion would be despicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty self righteous judgement. Suppose someone feels they must choose the lesser of two evils? A lot of people subscribe to that view. I don't myself. But I'm not going to label someone else as "lower than dirt" if they do and happen to side with Bush after evaluating both candidates through and through.

You probably wrote that post in a moment of feeling particularly emotional about Iraq, but the sentiments were pretty scary. I hope you do realize that there are people who actually think it was a good thing for Iraq.

They aren't murderous greedy pigs they just have a different opinion.

natedogg

Danenania

10-15-2004, 03:00 AM

Obviously it's self-righteous. That's the point.

I think if Bush is the lesser of two evils that rebellion would be more suitable than voting. I don't actually feel that way but I don't see "lesser of two evils" as a defense in this case.

I also don't think whether it was a good thing for Iraq or not is relevant. If the justifications for the war were honest, it would be one thing, but they WERE NOT. They were fabrications. The real motivator was money. That's what my problem is.

I think the idea of "just having a different opinion" is what I was addressing in my first post. I feel like I can't allow people to hide behind that sentiment any longer. I generally try to respect all varieties of differing opinions, but for this one I can find no grounds that don't disgust me. I don't really feel good about this but it's the conclusion that I've reached.

Cyrus

10-15-2004, 03:05 AM

Is this TheGrifter?

Original, striped-shirted, BJ paladin Grifter?

ohiou

10-15-2004, 05:31 AM

Nobody in the Bush Whitehouse has ever claimed that there was connection between Iraq and 9/11, they have, and rightfully so IMO, claimed that there is a connection between Iraq, Bin Laden and terrorism in general (a belief that was held worldwide as early as 1998 [please read the 9-11 Report for an unbiased perspective]).
-----------------
Well, if Canada says so we should all jump on board

MMMMMM

10-15-2004, 10:22 AM

It might interest you to hear that:

1) you are wrong on your assessments of why we went into Afghanistan and Iraq (it wasn't "greed"). By the way both wars have been extremely expensive from a financial standpoint and there are no net financial gains from them projected anywhere in the foreseeable future. Even if Iraq should stabilize AND Halliburton get to do a lot more work in the next 5 years, the profits from that wouldn't even remotely approach the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war.

2) those who will vote for Bush have merely reached a different conclusion than you; that doesn't make them moral scumbags

3) hating people who reach different conclusions than you is really quite stupid, and is very emotionally immature. It is also a dangerous mindset: just picture what the world would be like if everyone voting for Bush were to hate you with the same fervor, and to proclaim that you have zero self-worth because of the conclusions you have reached.

4) you really, really, really need to grow up.

MMMMMM

10-15-2004, 10:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also: I am so angry about this situation because I believe the primary motivation of the war was material greed.

Now that the country of Iraq has been senselessly ravaged, keeping troops there might actually serve some sort of purpose besides lining pockets. It would still be a terrible situation but at least there would be a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't what is happening. The war is an immense net cost to America, and I doubt Halliburton is getting fabulously rich on it or anything like that. If you think the war is just about making money and lining pockets then let's have some actual figures and specifics from you to support your claim.

Danenania

10-15-2004, 11:14 AM

1.) Both wars have been extremely expensive for the taxpayers. They have been extremely profitable for all those involved with the companies that have recieved Iraq contracts.

2.) You'll have to do better than that. I still think it does. I don't see relativism as a valid defense here.

3.) I don't actually hate anyone. That's not what I said. A lack of respect and hatred are very different things. I have a profound lack of respect for the character of someone who can continue to support Bush. I do not think they themselves are worthless. I think their character and dignity are not worth very much if they can live with an administration who murders innocent people out of greed, regardless of other political standpoints. This may be immature, but it's how I feel.

4.) You're entitled to your opinion.

Danenania

10-15-2004, 11:18 AM

I'll let others dig up figures if they want. I don't have time. But let me assure you that the net cost to America as a whole is not the same thing as the cost to a small percentage of American companies who have received contracts to develop Iraq. This should be pretty plain to see.

jakethebake

10-15-2004, 11:50 AM

Are you serious? Yea...Those have accomplished a lot!

jakethebake

10-15-2004, 11:52 AM

OMG! You Canadians. Go get an education & catch up on 50+ years of news. Then post again. This doesn't even warrant a response!

MMMMMM

10-15-2004, 11:53 AM

This is PRECISELY what is wrong with people like you.

You claim pockets are being lined and Halliburton is making a ton, and that this is why the US government went to war at a cost of $200 billion, but when asked for some figures, ANY figures, you haven't a clue and are unwilling to do any research or Googling to back up your position.

Listen, I'm not just asking you to post figures to make it hard on you or to win a debate. If you don't have any figures then that throws your entire premise into doubt, and THAT should be something that concerns you.

It isn't enough to just presume that Halliburton and Bush/Cheney cronies are making a ton of money on this. For all you freakin' know, Halliburton could actually be losing money (not that I think they are, but you see the point right? That they might not be making nearly what you would guess they are).

How can you claim that the war is about profit and greed when you don't have a single profit figure to back that up? Then since you take that premise as a certainty, you think that there is something wrong with the people who don't share your view that the Iraq war is all about profit and greed. Well maybe it's not! You obviously have no grounds, other than your suppositions, to claim that it is.

Can't you see what a flawed (and dangerous) thinking process you are engaging in--regardless of whether you are wrong or right?

TheGrifter

10-15-2004, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is this TheGrifter?

Original, striped-shirted, BJ paladin Grifter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Different Grifter.

Danenania

10-15-2004, 12:05 PM

I've seen plenty of profit figures. Anyone who reads or watches the news has. I just don't have them readily available for posting.

You're making a large logical misstep in thinking the huge net cost to the American government as a whole somehow stops key members of that government from making money off the war.

Since you're the one refuting me, why don't you prove that Haliburton and friends are losing money because of Iraq? Too much work?

My view is much less dangerous than a view that allows for the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians, the suspension of rights of many Arab US citizens, and the torture of many Iraqi POW's among other horrors with no justifiable basis (except for lies).

MMMMMM

10-15-2004, 12:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen plenty of profit figures. Anyone who reads or watches the news has. I just don't have them readily available for posting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah right.

[ QUOTE ]
You're making a large logical misstep in thinking the huge net cost to the American government as a whole somehow stops key members of that government from making money off the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that and I didn't claim that.

[ QUOTE ]
Since you're the one refuting me, why don't you prove that Haliburton and friends are losing money because of Iraq? Too much work?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't claim that they are losing money in Iraq; learn to read please. And you're the one making the assertion that the war is about profit and greed so the burden falls on you to at least cite SOME figure to back it up.

You made a bold assertion and posted nothing to back it up. You extended from your premise to conclusions which are necessarily false if your premise is false. Worse, you show absolutely zero interest in finding out if your premise is factually true or if it is false.

[ QUOTE ]
My view is much less dangerous than a view that allows for the mass murder of thousands of innocent civilians, the suspension of rights of many Arab US citizens, and the torture of many Iraqi POW's among other horrors with no justifiable basis (except for lies).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you are presuming there was no justifiable basis. For one thing, how about the sheer humanitarian basis, in that Saddam Hussein won't be murdering or torturing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis anymore? That sort of argument was deemed sufficient by liberals regarding Kosovo etc. so I don't see why it shouldn't be applied by liberals to Iraq as well.

Anyway this thread clearly shows that you desperately need to take an introductory course in formal Logic. That should be your number one mission at the institution at which you are currently studying. Don't feel bad; most people desperately need to take a course in formal Logic also. But you will encounter problems throughout your life if you continue to process information so illogically, REGARDLESS of whether you are right or wrong on this issue of Iraq.

MMMMMM

10-15-2004, 12:44 PM

Apparently, Halliburton and Kellog, Brown & Root are having a very hard time making money in Iraq.

"Profitless Profiteering
Why can't Halliburton make good money in Iraq?
By Daniel Gross
Posted Thursday, April 29, 2004, at 12:47 PM PT

Illustration by Mark Alan Stamaty
Is it war profiteering if you barely make a profit on your war work?

In March 2003, the KBR unit of Halliburton, the oil-services company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, controversially received huge no-bid contracts to provide a range of services in Iraq—everything from fixing oil fields to delivering fuel to feeding soldiers. For many administration critics, KBR's central role in the reconstruction of Iraq stands as evidence that the war in Iraq was a pretext for crony capitalists to grow fat on borrowed taxpayer dollars.

But here's the funny thing. So far, the Iraq war hasn't proved much of a boon for Halliburton's shareholders. Because of incompetence, the chaos of working in the war zone, and a contract that limits profits, KBR's margins on its hazardous work are pretty marginal.

The Wall Street Journal notes that the Iraq contracts call for KBR to be reimbursed for its costs plus 1 percent. The company can also bill the military for a portion of its administration and overhead and can earn performance bonuses. KBR spends a lot of effort funneling taxpayer money to subcontractors, who may themselves be getting rich off of Iraq-related work. Meanwhile, the Iraq work has required KBR to incur big expenses of its own—higher insurance costs for operating in a hazardous region, recruiting costs for hiring new employees for dangerous duty, and administrative costs for handling a huge amount of new business quickly.

An excellent front-page article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by Russell Gold shows that, depending on how you look at it, KBR has either made the best of a horrible situation or has screwed up big time. At times, KBR seems to function more like a dot-com on its last legs than the ultra-efficient logistics unit of a Fortune 500 company. Suppliers don't get paid and invoices are routinely lost. As KBR rushed into Iraq, "Many of its systems, from procurement to billing, got overloaded, creating a breeding ground for potential corruption and more inflated prices—not to mention inefficiency on a huge scale," Gold writes.

When you're a logistics company—and one working on a 1 percent profit margin—inefficiency is a killer. That's why for service companies like Halliburton, landing huge contracts is less than half the battle. Improperly executed, a huge contract can become a gigantic liability. So while KBR may land deals because of its connections and experience, it hasn't shown much ability of late to carry them out profitably.

According to Halliburton's most recent quarterly results, released yesterday, its KBR unit lost $15 million in the first quarter, largely because of a $97 million loss on an ill-fated project in Brazil, even though revenues for the unit doubled to $3.7 billion. Iraq was a fairly dim bright light. "Halliburton's Iraq-related work contributed approximately $2.1 billion in revenues in the first quarter 2004 and $32 million in operating income," the company reported. That's a margin of 1.5 percent.

The previous quarter, KBR reported $2.2 billion in Iraq-related revenues and operating income of $44 million—a 2 percent margin. And in the third quarter of 2003, KBR had $900 million in Iraq revenues and operating income of $34 million—a 3.7 percent margin. As time goes on, in other words, KBR's profits in Iraq are shrinking in both real and proportional terms. Worse, for KBR, this may be as good as it gets. Even though it received a $1.2 billion contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue working on the Restore Iraqi Oil program in January, the unit's backlog of work has shrunk.

What's more, KBR may ultimately pay the price for its success in monopolizing Pentagon business in Iraq. Halliburton and the Pentagon have become dependent on each other, and that may be bad for both of them. It would be extremely difficult for the Pentagon to switch master contractors in the middle of a war. And for Halliburton, the Pentagon may prove to be a capricious, highly demanding, and unpredictable client.

KBR is now under criminal investigation by the Pentagon over claims it overcharged for fuel delivered from Kuwait. The Pentagon is also looking into dining-hall contracts allegedly awarded without competitive bids. And annoyed at repeated billing screw-ups, the Pentagon is withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to KBR. Any of these conflicts could further erode KBR's margins.

KBR hasn't lost money on its sweetheart Iraq contracts—yet. It has made a small profit. But the amounts are nothing to write home about—and they're certainly not worth starting a war over."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099680/

adios

10-15-2004, 01:09 PM

I posted an article a week or so ago regarding how Halliburton was seeking to divest itself of KBR. The article also stated that KBR hasn't made a profit since 2001 if memory serves. I've also pointed out that there aren't a lot of companies that have the expertise that KBR has and going through the competitive contract process is time consumming. There isn't a doubt in my mind that KBR has received much closer scrutiny from the government (not a bad thing IMO btw) on the Iraqi contracts due to the fact that Cheney was CEO at one time. To me the accusations against Halliburton that the ABB crowd dregs up are perfect examples of the illogic employed by the ABB crowd that I discussed in my reply to Max. I've asked the question what other prime contractor would be better, no takers from the ABB faction.

MMMMMM

10-17-2004, 06:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1. You are dodging the issue of the resonsibility of Americans for their government, quibbling with "overbreadth" while refusing to acknowledge even any minimal responsibility. Why don't you just tell us what that responsibility is, as you see it? For example, if someone supports a policy, urges others to do the same, and takes some action to see that officials who also support that policy get elected (like voting), how are they absolved of all moral responsiblity if the policy is implemented and innocent people are foreseeably harmed as a result?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have on more than one occasion blamed ALL Americans for EVERYTHING bad ANY elected officials have accomplished. I say that is a crock. Now you may be softening your stance to attacking only those who support such policies by vote, but if so, you can't include me in your criticism, because I didn't vote for Bush in 2000.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Once again, you can't get over your stupid assumption that the test for the morality of foreign conquest isn't the rights of the conquored, but the rights of the conquerors, or more specifically the rights of citizens in the conquoring country, as if the motivating force for conquest was some desire to "make the world British" or some such other imperial nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rights of the citizens of the conquering country are a fairly good indicator as to what rights the conquered will enjoy. Look at Germany and Japan after they were conquered in WWII, for example, then contrast that with what rights the East Germans and bloc countries had when they were controlled by the USSR for decades. West Germany's citizens' rights more or less reflected the rights of citizens in the USA, whereas East Germany's citizens rights' reflected the rights of Soviet citizens. No freakin' comparison at all. Additionally the USA is trying to get democracy going in Iraq and Afghanistan, so you can't point to instances of dictatorships the USA has supported as contraindicatory examples, because in those cases the USA was not trying to get democracy going. Where the USA tried to get democracy going (Japan) it succeeded; only time will tell if it will succeed in the Middle East.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
"And no country that is not a tyranny or dictatorship is on the receiving end of our military might."

This is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

So name one country please--in the present, not the past.

[ QUOTE ]
But if we assume that the people living under a tyranny or dictatorship are the primary victims of that regime, you are saying that it is usually appropriate to kill these people because of political problems beyond their control.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, quit twisting my words. That was a BAD twist there, Chris. What I'm saying is that it can be reasoned as morally acceptable to remove a bloody tyrant even at the (inevitable) cost of some innocent lives through collateral damage. Comparing numbers may provide some indication as to whether it is acceptable or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Whereas most people believe that the tree of liberty must be occasionally nourished by blood, you use the absence of liberty anywhere as a general excuse to kill innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. I suggest considering targeting the worst tyrannical dictators, and taking other things into consideration as well, including our own interests.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets' see. How many countries on this forum have you urged the use of direct or indirect military force? Five? Ten? Probably closer to the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have suggested that some countries might best be presented with ultimatums, most especially certain terrorist-supporting countries.

[ QUOTE ]
The best that can be said for it is that it reflects an adolescent inability to distinguish actual people and the various conditions they confront from the abstraction of a "country."

[/ QUOTE ]

quote]Quote:
"I don't dispute that there is some causal nexus."

Then just assume that I'm referring to the degree of causality you'll admit, and that whatever that is, the U.S. is 100% responsible for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. In your view that the USA is responsible for all these new terrorists, you are discounting two important factors: 1) the stupidity and fanatacism of the terrorists themselves, which should not be discounted; in other words, they, not the USA, are primarily responsible for their own actions, and 2) that some number of new terrorists were going to spring forth regardless of whether or not the USA had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. This should be obvious based on past terror attacks including 9/11, and because Saudi schools and Pakistani madrassas regularly teach hatred of the West to their youths.