Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[snowwie]

looks fine to me (thanks ph)

but poor jon stewart, he seems to have good intentions, he had a slightly hard time getting his point across to the fast-talking hosts though

[pHaestus]

I honestly haven't watched the 36mb one; I grabbed a 100mb avi that I figured was a bit to big to put up on the web for general consumption. I thought Jon got his point across very well in the beginning; he used the spin doctor approach of "talking points" very well in the first half.

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

You're right I'm truly guilty of believing that every man woman and child on this earth deserves the blessings of liberty…I am an American they brain wash us like that

No, you're only brainwashed into believing that was actually our agenda for going into Iraq.

[superart]

***I just read 9 pages of posts, and I really don't want to go back through them all to get exact quotes. I will try to paraphrase as accurately as I can***


"Japan attacked us, yet we attacked Germany"
--Lothar

That is really not an accurate conclusion to make. First, Japan and Germany were official allies in a war. By attacking Germany we were hurting Japan and helping allies that could in turn help us later with Japan. Second, German U-boats had a bad habit of knowingly sinking US merchant ships, and civilian passenger liners withe US citizens on board.



--In response to the discussion of weather it was a good or bad idea to go into Iraq.

I think that it was right to go in and take out Saddam, but unfortunately, we did it for all the wrong reasons and with the wrong guy in charge. I think it is obvious that bush didn't go in because he gives a shit about the people of Iraq. If he gave a shit, he wouldn't have given 2 bullshit reasons for going in before he settled on "We did it to bring freedom to the poor people of Iraq." He also would have gone into other places such as Korea, Sudan, a bunch of shitty African countries, Iran, and his buddies in Saudi Arabia.

I whole heartedly agree that we need to fight for the rights of people in countries lead by dictators, but we need to do it right. We need to plan for a way to bring order and stability after to the country after we topple the dictator.

Also we need global support if we want to go and forcibly spread democracy thought the world. I am not referring to the UN. I agree that the UN is a piece of shit. Any organization that can appoint Sudan as head of human rights council deserves to spend eternity licking the underside of my left testicle after I spent all day outside in the shitty hot and humid Florida sun. I think it's safe to say, **** the UN. What I am saying, wouldn't it be nice if an international force of other "Free and democratic " countries, such as England, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc., all banded together and went around the world kicking dictator ass. Now what I am saying is much different than the "coalition of willing" that bush claims to have maid. When the US is supplying the main force, and other countries throw in a couple hundred troops here and there, that is not a coalition. That is a ploy, at best.


In terms of whats best, left, right, libertarian, liberal, conservative, etc. I think they are all wrong. It is dumb to think that our world is so black and white that one of these polar, one sided groups can be right. The truth is, we live in a world made up of shades of gray. I believe the solution is to find a happy medium. Sure, no one will be absolutely happy, but they won't be all pissed either. What we need to do is find compromises that maybe wont make the diehard extremists happy, but will satisfy the vast majority of the population. Compromise is really a good idea, The Constitution is full of it.



I strongly believe that government should not get too large and that it has no business directing morality and invading peoples personal lives. However I find the libertarian party just too extreme and far off. Theres a fine line between freedom and anarchy. Unfortunately, they are so far away from the line, that they can't even see it.


PH, I loved that clip from crosstalk. I have been a fan of the Daily Show for a long time, and I love John Stewart. I think it's a sad state of affairs when a comedy show provides better coverage of politicians than "reputable" news organizations.



I took that political compass test thing and I think it's quite cool. I scored -3.00/-4.92. Although, I agree with PH that some of those questions were a little arbitrary. I found the one about first generation immigrants being able to assimilate particularly hard to answer. In my opinion, it doesn't matter what generation a person is. The deciding factor in assimilation is age. The younger the person is when he is introduced to a new culture/country, the easier it is for him to be assimilated. For example, I have found that it has been much much easier for me to adapt to American culture than it has for my parents, even though we are both 1st gen. immigrants.


Now, as far as the original question that launched this thread. This will be the first time that I vote, and I'm really not sure yet who I'm going to vote for, but I'm leaning toward Nader right now. Although I think his foreign policy is shit, I do agree with his domestic. Theres that compromise I was talking about. I think his domestic policy takes all the good aspects of the libertarians, like protecting civil liberties, without going for any of their crazy shit, like turning the country upside down on its ass and giving corporations free reign to do whatever.



I'd like to close by saying that I know it seems like I just rambled on and on, but I tried to answer 9 pages of shit in one post. It's not easy. Also, please take into account that I wrote all this between 6 and 7 AM after a night of no sleep. And if you think this is bad, just wait until tonight when I'm good and drunk. Theres nothing that makes me feel more proud as an American than having access to lots and lots of free hard liquor. Would frats be considdered liberal political organizations, since their constantly giving out free alcaholic handouts? I don't think so, i mean after all, I'm entiteld :-).

Also, since the political compass showed that I am so much like the Dali Lama, let it be known that from here on in I shall be known as, and referred to as, His Holiness the Super Art.

[ymboc]

yeah turns out it was a new wmv acceleration 'feature' that didn't quite work out the way it should have.
All fixed now

[Torin]

Thanks for the link pH, I was searching all over the net last night trying to find that clip.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by nexxo

No, you're only brainwashed into believing that was actually our agenda for going into Iraq.

You are absolutely right I am a brain washed into think it was for that reason…Just like my grandfather was brainwashed into think the Nazis where bad and needed to be removed from Europe. You know many very prominent Americans wanted us to stay our of WW2. Just image the world if they had got there way.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

***I just read 9 pages of posts, and I really don't want to go back through them all to get exact quotes. I will try to paraphrase as accurately as I can***


"Japan attacked us, yet we attacked Germany"
--Lothar

That is really not an accurate conclusion to make. First, Japan and Germany were official allies in a war. By attacking Germany we were hurting Japan and helping allies that could in turn help us later with Japan. Second, German U-boats had a bad habit of knowingly sinking US merchant ships, and civilian passenger liners withe US citizens on board.

You are right, the point is as I stated above. Many very popular Americas wanted us to stay out of WW2. The lend lease program was extremely controversial and may people thought the Germans were justified in sinking our merchant ships with war material on board. The wisdom of the time was to stop sending war material to England and remain out of another European War.

Many people made the economic arguments ageist the war as well…this is for big business that have investments in Europe etc ect….It’s great stuff I high recommend reading about American foreign policy 1932 to 1942. You get to see how many arguments are just retreads.

[pHaestus]

in fairness, FDR got involved in ww2 by sending infrastructure to Britain and putting us on a clear path to wr with germany even though the us people and congress were opposed to it. That's similar to Iraq/Bush in some ways (doing what he thought was best w/o care or regard for being truthful to US populace). We'll have to see if it was the wise choice.

Isolationism doesn't work (we tried that over the objections of Wilson after ww1 right?); world consensus doesn't seem to work (see the continent of Africa in last 10-15 years under the guidance of UN forces); the only foreign strategy I can call a success is that of Reagan.

[BillA]

is it not one of the responsibilities of leadership to also do that which is necessary and correct, even and also when an ignorant/uninformed/misinformed populace does not 'support' such ?

but such did not prevail in Vietnam, and the same 'anti' group is trying again

[Torin]

Lothar5150, you're stretching pretty far comparing Saddam's regime with the Nazi's. We went to war against Germany because they were trying to take over the world.... quite a bit different I'd say.

If we did go into Iraq to "free the people", then why didn't Bush say that from the beginning? Why did he wait till his excuses turned out to be BS, before presenting the whole "free Iraq" idea?

And unregistered, no, it isn't the responsibility of the leadership to do what they personally feel is necessary and correct. It's called a democracy, not communism. If anyone was misinformed when making the decision and excuses for going into Iraq, it was Bush, not the populace. Either that, or you have to admit he was pulling the wool over everyone's head, for his own agenda.

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by Torin

...

And unregistered, no, it isn't the responsibility of the leadership to do what they personally feel is necessary and correct. It's called a democracy, not communism. If anyone was misinformed when making the decision and excuses for going into Iraq, it was Bush, not the populace. Either that, or you have to admit he was pulling the wool over everyone's head, for his own agenda.

Actually, Bill's point is that sometimes a leader has to make a decision that goes against the general will of the people, because it's in their interest, wether they like it or not. It's not a popular move, but it happens.

What gets to me is what I perceive as a lack of interest of the American people, on the issues that concern them. It's like they're all playing "follow the leader". Is this culture so lacking in wisdom that people can't think for themselves?!?

[Torin]

Well, that's still against the spirit of democracy. We elect a leader because we feel that he will properly represent us. When it comes to something as serious as deciding to go to war, a leader shouldn't be making a decision to do something against the general will of the people. Why do we assume that GWB or his administration is smarter than the populace, and know's what's best for us better than we do? He's made so many damn mistakes since being elected to office, that I for one wouldn't trust him to tie my shoes, much less decide whether it's best for me if our country goes to war.

It all comes down to the leader thinking it's in our best interest, whether it actually is or not. He's doing what he wants to do, all of us that think it's wrong be damned. Maybe there's a reason it's not a popular move....

And yeah, a lot of people like Lothar are playing follow the leader, because they believe the BS that the administration spews. I for one think War, unless absolutely necessary (see Nazi Germany) is an absolute waste of time, money, life and resources in general. If we're playing world police, why aren't we fixing Africa or a country in similiar shape to the way Iraq was? Why aren't be barging into North Korea? It's because the real reason we're in Iraq isn't to "free the misfortunate people", it's somethign else the administration knows the public won't accept. GWB knows that if he came out with the real reason we went to Iraq, he'd be impeached and out of office over a year ago.

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

You are absolutely right I am a brain washed into think it was for that reason…Just like my grandfather was brainwashed into think the Nazis where bad and needed to be removed from Europe. You know many very prominent Americans wanted us to stay our of WW2. Just image the world if they had got there way.

I think there's a difference between having an interesting discussion and deconstructing someone's obviously important core beliefs, so I will not carry on too much (also it becomes really hard to keep following up those non-sequitor responses to my arguments), but aside from that the Americans did stay out of WWII until they got zapped in Pearl Harbour and the whole thing sort of became a personal concern to them, I do not think you can keep responding to my arguments just by drawing some spurious comparison with totally unrelated scenarios.

Like the US soldiers in WWII, I respect what you personally are trying to do, and your personal motives and beliefs for doing so. But do not think that our governments have such noble motives, and do not think that in effect we are not doing anything more than cleaning up a mess we were partly responsible for making. There are US and UK chemicals in the dead bones in those mass graves.

I'll leave the rest to Torin and superart.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

is it not one of the responsibilities of leadership to also do that which is necessary and correct, even and also when an ignorant/uninformed/misinformed populace does not 'support' such ?

but such did not prevail in Vietnam, and the same 'anti' group is trying again

Your right leadership is truly about making the difficult and unpopular calls.

What is great about the 'anti' crowd is that they usually a passionate dissenters but generally offer no other reasonable or thought out alternate course of action.

[Torin]

Yeah, because your brainwashed sheep-like following of Bush into Iraq is really reasonable or thought out. That's what is so great about the pro-war crowd, they relish in not thinking for themselves, especially with an administration like this in charge.

I'll give you an alternate course of action, not going into Iraq in the first place, especially for completely false reasons.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Torin

Yeah, because your brainwashed sheep-like following of Bush into Iraq is really reasonable or thought out. That's what is so great about the pro-war crowd, they relish in not thinking for themselves, especially with an administration like this in charge.

I'll give you an alternate course of action, not going into Iraq in the first place, especially for completely false reasons.

Hummm I often think that all the party hacks on both sides are much like that scene in the Life of Brian....Brian, "Your all individuals".....Crowd, "Were all individuals"...one voice says, "I'm not"

[BillA]

so given that the past cannot be undone, what is your proposed 'correct' course of action now ?

Torin, you would set the country's course by the barking of dogs ?
loudest rules?
are you familiar with the concept of "the tyranny of the majority" ?
very truly we get just what we deserve
but it is a government, why should we expect more ?

sorry L5, when everyone has an equal voice this is just what happens
I am no better than Torin ?, piss on that system

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Torin

Lothar5150, you're stretching pretty far comparing Saddam's regime with the Nazi's. We went to war against Germany because they were trying to take over the world.... quite a bit different I'd say.

If we did go into Iraq to "free the people", then why didn't Bush say that from the beginning? Why did he wait till his excuses turned out to be BS, before presenting the whole "free Iraq" idea?

And unregistered, no, it isn't the responsibility of the leadership to do what they personally feel is necessary and correct. It's called a democracy, not communism. If anyone was misinformed when making the decision and excuses for going into Iraq, it was Bush, not the populace. Either that, or you have to admit he was pulling the wool over everyone's head, for his own agenda.

The BA'ATH party was modeled on the Nazi Party. Totalitarian, militant, secular aggressive toward their neighbors. Hell their officers even carried daggers. They killed almost a million Iraqis. Ok you got me...they didn't have blond hair and blue eyes.

As far as a leader making tuff calls that are not popular...read the Federalist Papers then lets talk further...there is a reason the founding fathers selected a representative government instead of a direct democracy....one word-Athens

[superart]

Originally Posted by unregistered

is it not one of the responsibilities of leadership to also do that which is necessary and correct, even and also when an ignorant/uninformed/misinformed populace does not 'support' such ?

but such did not prevail in Vietnam, and the same 'anti' group is trying again

I agree, sometimes this is necessary(such as WWII), but such an action requires a strong and qualified leader. I can't see how you can compare FDR to bush. FDR did what he did because he knew what he was doing. Theres a reason he was elected into office four times. Bush wasn't even elected once.

Also, it's not fair to compare WWII to Iraq. In WWII, we had allies and world support. Also, at the time Germany posed an immediate threat to our national security. The Iraq situation has none of that. I agree that Saddam being out of power is good, but first we should have taken care of the terrorism problem. Instead we gave the terrorists ammunition to recruit more followers.

"Before we went into Iraq, there were no terrorists there. Now it's got all of them"
-- John Stewart

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

I agree, sometimes this is necessary(such as WWII), but such an action requires a strong and qualified leader. I can't see how you can compare FDR to bush. FDR did what he did because he knew what he was doing. Theres a reason he was elected into office four times. Bush wasn't even elected once.

Also, it's not fair to compare WWII to Iraq. In WWII, we had allies and world support. Also, at the time Germany posed an immediate threat to our national security. The Iraq situation has none of that. I agree that Saddam being out of power is good, but first we should have taken care of the terrorism problem. Instead we gave the terrorists ammunition to recruit more followers.

"Before we went into Iraq, there were no terrorists there. Now it's got all of them"
-- John Stewart

When we joined WW2 we had only the British and their Commonwealth...everyone else who held out for peace where learning to speak German.

Sorry I forgot about the Russians..but over half of them were living under occupation

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by nexxo

I think there's a difference between having an interesting discussion and deconstructing someone's obviously important core beliefs, so I will not carry on too much (also it becomes really hard to keep following up those non-sequitor responses to my arguments), but aside from that the Americans did stay out of WWII until they got zapped in Pearl Harbour and the whole thing sort of became a personal concern to them, I do not think you can keep responding to my arguments just by drawing some spurious comparison with totally unrelated scenarios.

Like the US soldiers in WWII, I respect what you personally are trying to do, and your personal motives and beliefs for doing so. But do not think that our governments have such noble motives, and do not think that in effect we are not doing anything more than cleaning up a mess we were partly responsible for making. There are US and UK chemicals in the dead bones in those mass graves.

I'll leave the rest to Torin and superart.

If we are only cleaning up the mess that "we" created, then at least we can agree that there is a mess that needs cleaning. Honestly, I am less concerned with fixing the blame and more concerned with fixing the problem.

To be analogous I am less concerned with bends in the river and more concerned where the river ultimately ends. As a student of history and warfare, I have seen many wars the start off with one pretext and end with a new meaning. Our civil war is a prime example. Starts off about secession and ends being about slavery. Afghanistan is another example. It started being about payback for 9/11 and is ending in liberation and democracy for the Afghan people. The river took many twists but it ended in the right place.

[talcum]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

When we joined WW2 we had only the British and their Commonwealth...everyone else who held out for peace where learning to speak German.

Sorry I forgot about the Russians..but over half of them were living under occupation

Gee, then I guess it's lucky the other half took out most of the Germans and won the war.

And pHaestus, I hope you're wrong about neither of these bozos having the courage of an FDR, since to cut the deficit significantly is going to make a lot of people unhappy. And take some real diplomacy.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by talcum

Gee, then I guess it's lucky the other half took out most of the Germans and won the war.

The weather and arrogance killed the Germans in Russia, Just as it did to Napoleon over a century before.

Ike, Patton, and Montgomery must be rolling over in their graves with that part of your post.

[nOv1c3]

Some of you Need to go back and read a few transcripts , WMD's was not the one and only reason we went into Iraq :/