Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[superart]

The Civil War was never about slavery, that's just Yankee propaganda. The Emancipation Proclamation was not meant to free slaves, but to disrupt the South's economy, thus making it much much harder for them to fight a war. Thats why it only freed the slaves in the states that were part of the confederacy.


Also, as you said, in WWII we were allied with Russia and England, which were 2 huge world powers. Also, they were a sovereign nation, being invaded and asking for our help. That is not the case today. It is more similar to the Gulf War where Kuwait asked for our help and we lead a true alliance to help them. Today, we may be in a "coalition" with England, but the US is doing the vast majority of the work. That is not a true alliance.


Like I said before, I believe it is good that we deposed an autocratic dictator and think we should do it all over the world, but I am just sad that we went about it in the wrong way.

[pHaestus]

Well... from a certain point of view the US should be in Iraq and Afghanistan changing regimes. After all, that part of the world looks the way it does at least in part to the foreign policy decisions we made in the Cold War. We are no longer bound by "big picture us vs. Soviet" diplomacy constraints, it's been long enough since Vietnam that the US populace can stand military action on the other side of the war, and those regimes certainly hadn't been running their countries in a way designed to garner world support.

Bob have you seen the estimates on the cost of dealing with our "nuclear legacy" in the ground at Hanford and Savannah River and Oak Ridge? They were building an $18B vitrification center at Hanford for the low level waste; the high level stuff they don't even have the tech to fully deal with regardless of price at this time.

Dealing with Ba'athists in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as staggering problems at the waste repositories are really just the long term cost of making hard choices. How will we fund these choices (however correct or incorrect they may be?) I'll get to that in a moment...

In retrospect I personally believe the decisions Reagan made re: running a deficit, lowering the USD, and switching the arms race from bigass bombs to silicon chips, microelectronics, and supercomputers at a critical time have made the world a much better place. The way we live our lives with PCs and the Internet are undoubtedly related to the defense spending in those areas, the way that eastern Europe and the former Soviet states have embraced democracy and become part of the rest of the world is of course a larger side effect of those choices. Sure there were growing pains and missteps along that path and work still to be done but I think most of the world is pleased with the outcome.

So let's look at the current military actions in the same frame of mind. Is the framework being lain for these islamic extremists to eventually find themselves in a war they cannot win with little public support? I dunno honestly; the news is so filtered that it's hard to say.

But if I were to look at the future and the mounting deficit with concern, it would be because of non-defense policies that the GOP has made. My firm belief is that (a) nanotech, (b) genetics and (c) molecular biology are the next huge revolutions that will change the world. That's a pretty safe bet actually. The US benefitted greatly from the exodus of scientists during WW2 at the time physics and chemistry were king. The US managed to be at the forefront of the computer revolution, and that pulled us out of the deficit caused by Reagan's decisions. But today the US is making it a less than ideal place to do molecular biology and genetics research. Stem cell research is going to be hugely profitable to SOMEONE; that work is not being supported by the US govt. Genetics work is getting iffy because of the possibility to use it for WMD; it's not so easy for researchers to find post docs (who drive academic research) because people from "sensitive countries" arent given the visas/clearance. I don't see outsourcing of routine jobs as a bad thing; it's merely a sign of an industry's maturity. But I see the exodus of US competitive advantage in genetics/molecular biology research as a BIG DEAL.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

The Civil War was never about slavery, that's just Yankee propaganda. The Emancipation Proclamation was not meant to free slaves, but to disrupt the South's economy, thus making it much much harder for them to fight a war. Thats why it only freed the slaves in the states that were part of the confederacy.


Also, as you said, in WWII we were allied with Russia and England, which were 2 huge world powers. Also, they were a sovereign nation, being invaded and asking for our help. That is not the case today. It is more similar to the Gulf War where Kuwait asked for our help and we lead a true alliance to help them. Today, we may be in a "coalition" with England, but the US is doing the vast majority of the work. That is not a true alliance.


Like I said before, I believe it is good that we deposed an autocratic dictator and think we should do it all over the world, but I am just sad that we went about it in the wrong way.

I hear southerners say that it had nothing to do with slavery and I must laugh. Slavery was a key issue in the Lincoln Douglas debates. Often this is glossed over as states rights issues. Nevertheless, it was over states rights to continue to own blacks as cattle. Look this issue was settled by a war. The south lost, the slaves were set free...done deal. Before you get all defensive this is coming from a guy whose Great Great Granddad was a hero Reb Cavalrymen....BillA should find that somewhat amusing. Kinda like the bay res

Here is food for thought. The British and the Russians did ask for our help. However, the French government surrenders and then supported the Germans. Did we liberate or occupy France?

I agree we should set down a firm policy that it is open season dictators.

[BillA]

L5, knowing you, I'm not surprised;
genes count equally with parental programming, having both is a significant advantage
- the luck of the draw where parents are concerned

[greenman100]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I agree we should set down a firm policy that it is open season dictators.

then you won't mind if others set down an open season policy on democracies, eh?

[pHaestus]

I think the rest of the world's stance/record on actually doing anything besides consulting the wishes of tiny third world countries makes democracies pretty safe

[beerhunter]

BUSH!!

I love President Bush.

He's starving the beast with low taxes. By next year even demorats will vote to slash welfare/social spending which make up, 67% of the federal budget!!! All it's done is breed an entilement mentality among Americans who are lazy, lawless and disrepectful.



Needless to say I think any public program should be eliminated from education to SS. All we need is national defense then just get that cash off excise... smokers, drinkers and such, and elminate all other taxes, especially capital gains since they already pay taxes by employing people. Basically America Circa 1850.

It's real simple want more socialism, people stealing from the fruits of your labor and redistribution of wealth, vote KERRY. Want to keep what you make, like economic and business freedom, Vote for President BUSH.

This will be my first election and I'm very excited

[beerhunter]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

John Kerry (49%) and George W. Bush (48%) remain in a statistical dead heat among likely voters, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll

Flip a coin 2% or less and it is anyone’s election...any beats on a Constitutional crisis

That's the problem with democrats, they don't know how to count or how president gets elected. Does this mean anything to them?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[beerhunter]

RE IRAQ war, terror and debt.

The "war on terror" is costly. Would you have preferred we threw up our hands like Clinton did and said "Oh those Middle Eastern rascals! What could we have done differently so that they wouldn't slaughter our people like sheep?!" BS! Hunt them down and KILL the Muslim extremists who want us dead for our lifestyle and support of Israel. Screw'em. I think they found out what happens to people who slaughter American citizens. Whether or not you buy that terrorists were being trained/funded in Iraq or not, Hussein has been in violation of his UN agreement for YEARS, and a cancer in the region. I think Iraq and Afganistan are better places now, and that a line has been drawn that illustrates pretty clearly to any penny ante dictator that wants to take potshots at us that their country will be forfeit should they do so.

Once again Bush is da man...

[talcum]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

And the quote is: "In a tv documentary about the liberation of Europe, they said that nearly 80% of the german military casualties occurred on the Eastern Front. (That would be around 2.800.000 deads."

And somehow the Russians overcame the weather well enough to make it to Berlin about the same time the allies did. Yeah, the Germans were arrogant and stupid, but if that were enough to kill 2.8 million the US would have a lot fewer politicians.

pH: BIG bucks. There's a scheme for doing isotope separation using a spin off of tokomak technology using ICH to ionize the waste. http://www.archimedestechnology.com/index.asp

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by greenman100

then you won't mind if others set down an open season policy on democracies, eh?

Don't you think "they" already have.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by beerhunter

That's the problem with democrats, they don't know how to count or how president gets elected. Does this mean anything to you?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Yes it means that nether has enough electoral votes to be elected, 270 is required. I ran a projection the other night for fun. A few scenarios end up in a complete draw with nether having enough votes.

Moreover, don't start the Democrat/Republican crap with me...party hacks I can hear the IIII VOOOTTTTEEE PARRRTTTYYSSS

[beerhunter]

Teehee ya my dads same way, in fact he's voting for Michael Badnarik but Im college rep so it comes all too easy...anyway I told him that's fine, just whatever you do don't vote kerry

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by beerhunter

Teehee ya my dads same way, in fact he's voting for Michael Badnarik but Im college rep so it comes all too easy...anyway I told him that's fine, just whatever you do don't vote kerry

If you have read my post, you know I'm not a big fan of Kerry. Not that it matters my states 55 electoral votes will go to Kerry regardless...but you never know

[superart]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Moreover, don't start the Democrat/Republican crap with me...party hacks I can hear the IIII VOOOTTTTEEE PARRRTTTYYSSS

"The party system will be the death of the union"
-- George Washington

[SysCrusher]

Originally Posted by beerhunter

RE IRAQ war, terror and debt.

The "war on terror" is costly. Would you have preferred we threw up our hands like Clinton did and said "Oh those Middle Eastern rascals!

I don't think that is entirely true. Clinton did go after them only to have the UN and other elected officials to chew his ass about it. But then it wasn't a huge problem compared to now. Then it was Yugoslavia that got all the attention. Either one was a problem but Milosevic more than likely would of controlled one of THE biggest terrorist states if it wasn't stopped or better yet, take Europe into another repeat of WW1&2. Austria blamed Serbia for the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914 which led to the Austrian invasion of Serbia and World War I. If Milosevic got an itch to dig up old wounds over once by gone territory disputes, it would of been another down ward spiral towards an unstable Europe.

[SysCrusher]

Originally Posted by Torin

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.

People seemed to forget the evidence found after we went in that there was WMD in Iraq at sometime before we went into this war. Saddam surely lead on like he did. Who was working on Nuclear weapons before us? Why did Stalin make such a mad rush to Berlin at all cost? Where did we find Germany and Japan's most technological weapons of the time?

Look at it this way. Who has or had all the cash flow and the means to fund terrorist organizations/states to no end. If your fighting a battle/war, what do you do strategically? Look at a map of the middle east and what do you see? What do responsible adults do with fighting kids?

Do you honestly think our leaders are going to let us in on any kind of strategic plan? Only for the opponent to get the gest of what we're up too?

What is happening in Africa that is so different from the middle east? Isn't it Muslim extremist commiting genocide against it's neighbors and funded by who?

Genocide is defined by the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Do you see what is happening?

Does anyone think of these things? LOL

Ben, your right their sheep. LOL

[greenman100]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Don't you think "they" already have.

my point exactly

you have a problem with their policy on YOU

but think it's okay to enforce the same policy on THEM

eye for an eye eh?

or the golden rule?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by greenman100

my point exactly

you have a problem with their policy on YOU

but think it's okay to enforce the same policy on THEM

eye for an eye eh?

or the golden rule?

There is no moral equivalence here. One offers a government of the people and by the people(freedom); the other offers fear and a life under tyranny. Greenman you sound like a fan of Prime Mister Chamberlain.

I see no wrong in spreading freedom and repetitive government. In some cases, governments will move that direction on their own, others will need economic coercion and others will require the sword.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I see no wrong in spreading freedom and repetitive government. In some cases, governments will move that direction on their own, others will need economic coercion and others will require the sword.

So you judge the worth of repetitive government vs. continuous government balances the collateral damage of installing it or reinstalling it? And these repetitive governments would have the legitimacy to launch wars and crush internal resistance continuous governments lack?

[beerhunter]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

There is no moral equivalence here. One offers a government of the people and by the people(freedom); the other offers fear and a life under tyranny. Greenman you sound like a fan of Prime Mister Chamberlain.

I see no wrong in spreading freedom and repetitive government. In some cases, governments will move that direction on their own, others will need economic coercion and others will require the sword.

100% correct. Why? History has proven Democratic societies do not practice wars of aggression, fundamentaism, terrorist training camps, genocide, slavery and a bunch of other discusting things. It's our duty, as the biggest dawg on the planet, to move when we see it, especially when it affects our or our allies intrests, not only to make the world a better place for the free peoples around globe but in the intrest of thier people.

[babybunny]

Originally Posted by beerhunter

100% correct. Why? History has proven Democratic societies do not practice wars of aggression, fundamentaism, terrorist training camps, genocide, slavery and a bunch of other discusting things. It's our duty, as the biggest dawg on the planet, to move when we see it, especially when it affects our or our allies intrests, not only to make the world a better place for the free peoples around globe but in the intrest of thier people.

Agreed. We just need to do it right... No politics. No greed. Just go in and help those that are unfortunate.

[Gulp35]

beerhunter your last post made me think of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" It is good reading (but very complex, I had to read each paragraph 3 times before I could understand it). It deals with ultimate truth and those who think they know the truth and the interations between them. I just finished reading it for English class.

now that I'm done with with my reading advice, Even if we have the duty, do we have the right to go and cause instabilities in governments to inject models of our own? Wouldn't those people find it hard that you are changing the basis of their lives? Wouldn't this influence their views of us? A liberating army could become a occupying army in the eye of the public. And in the long run I think that will only hurt us, Mainly by influencing the lives of this future generation to hate the US, which leads to more attacks against the USA.

PS What are the opinions of the word "terrorist." IMHO I think that it is the worst word ever, it shows how blind the american public is to outside views. Instead of calling a attacker a, lets say, Al Qaida supporter, they are immeadiatly labeled as a terrorist, grouping them together as just a group that hates the US.*Got to go eat, my continue later*

Nevertheless I think we'll all be alright if we just remember my sig.

[pHaestus]

Gulp:
I think terrorists are defined as someone who uses deadly force on civilian targets to draw attention to their cause. It's surely not limited to al Queda; the western world identifies many groups as terrorists rather than legitimate political parties. Are you arguing that it's part of the culture of the middle east to blow themselves and women and children up with bombs over political differences? Because I don't believe that at all. I believe that it's a bunch of assholes who lack the courage or ability to make change in their region with nonviolent means. For nonviolent (not necessarily peaceful) political change mechanisms, look to Ghandi and how India changed; look at the US civil rights movement and how it transformed America. For a better feel about how much culture influences action in the middle east, get some friends from there and listen.

When your cause is not so just, though, you rely on fear and intimidation. I'm sure you'll turn this around on the USA, but you don't see the US Army blowing up civilians just to make a point; every care is taken to prevent collateral damage.

I find it funny that the same people who would NEVER go into Iraq or other dictatorships will bitch and moan that the US isn't doing enough to provide AIDS drugs to Africa and isn't redistributing wealth more fairly around the world. Is your goal then to prolong the plight of those suffering in tyranny as long as possible? The rest of the world should be glad that the US still has the blind optimism and the courage to TRY and improve things rather than just sitting in a committee, hearing that it's impossible, and just settling for the current status quo. Did you see the Afghanistan women at the Olympics for the first time since the Taliban? Have you seen some of the interviews with Afghan women doctors and lawyers allowed to practice their skills again? That level of oppression was ok for the world though, right, because the Taliban had the strength to take over and oppress and who are we to say "that's not right"? Give me a break.

[Joe]

But who are we to enforce right or wrong? (since right and wrong are detemined by morals and ethics, which are mostly detemined by religous beliefs in the world) Just because we can doesnt mean we always should. I mean... lets go after Russia, I mean Putin is becoming more and more oppressive, what about China... lets go kick some asian ass they are oppressive and have bad people.

I dont get the whole "they are bad people we should fight them" aspect of how the US works currently. I can understand Afghanistan, but Iraq was stupid and pointless. yes there was a bad man there... But there are many other bad men with many more tools and money at their disposal. But none of them tried to kill lil boy bush's daddy!

Also via Islamic teachings, oppression of women is just how it is. (I know 2 women who married into pakistani families and have become property more or less. they live normal lives here but when they travel to Pakistan yearly they must remain in the gowns, and must follow all the male insecurity aspects of Islamic culture). Its hard to conduct a "hey now lets not be oppressive" war on a religious belief.

And no I dont believe the US should provide more foreign aid. the US should stop funding all middle east countries ie: Egypt and Isreal.