Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[Torin]

I think this thread is getting a little too out of hand for me to contribute to. After reading the stuff that beerhunter says, my stomach literally aches. Obviously my mindset and how I feel this country should be run differs so far from the right that to contrast it is to compare day and night.

First, we've got Lothar talking about "a government of the people and by the people(freedom)", where in the current state of things, and the arguments he's already posted about leaders doing what they think is right irregardless of how the (uninformed, etc.) populace feel about, totally contradict themselves. The USA is the "land of the free", yes, and unless we're actually expanding our land to encompass the rest of the world, we have no reason to force feed the same ideas onto other soverign nations. If this was really a government of the people and by the people, then how is it that the government is doing so much that the people object to and feel is wrong? Sure, we've got the far right who think war in any form is a good thing, and going out with "the sword" to spread freedom and justice is right, but then we've got everyone to the left of that... even including people right of the center that feel that this war is wrong. If this was really a representative government, wouldn't we have more than such a small percentage of people (mainly the actual members of the military and the far right) thinking it's the best thing to do?

What I find funny is that the more the war goes on, the more the soldiers are actually disagreeing and blantantly disobeying orders to continue the war in Iraq, if that's what you want to call it. This forced reconstruction is ripping up the lives of nearly the entire country just so we can put into place a system we think is best for another soverign nation. This is their land, this is their oil, this is their people, these are their cities, but WE are choosing how they should live, they should build, they should work. I don't think that's right at all. And you know, the general public wouldn't think all of this is so wrong if GWB went into Iraq in the first place saying we were going to fix the situation, to right the wrongs of the past, and to make good on our mistakes. But no, he uses the war on terror as a scapegoat, and goes in to enforce his agenda without the public knowing a thing about it. I bet if the Iraqi public knew that's why we were going in, and this occupation wasn't just the end result of forced weapons inspections because we didn't believe the UN's task force knew what they were doing, that we wouldn't have so much insurgence in the first place.

I too see no wrong in the spreading of freedom and repetitive government IF they (other soverign nations) willing choose to go that route on their own. I do however see everything wrong with force feeding these ideals onto them, and making them be a model after us. These people have lived under tyranny (a lot of them their entire lives), you can't just go in and totally rip the system apart from the ground up, and expect it to work. The reconstruction of Iraq is something that needed international planning, from A-Z, and not this fly-by-night do as we go crap that's going on now. We should have had a plan for everything from the beginning, but sadly going into Iraq in the first place was not to force reconstruction at all, so this is more or less doomed to either fail, or be an eteranally ongoing process. I totally disagree with "requiring the sword" to make people follow OUR IDEAS of how a government should be run. And what's going to happen when we go into North Korea and try to do the same thing and they unleash nuclear weapons on us? That's gonna be quite lovely, and all you far-right military extremists will get to share in the wealth of birth defects and absolute ruin that is left of our country. And who are we going to blame? It sure isn't going to be me.

Back to beerhunter.... democracies don't practice wars of aggression or fundamentalism? What do you think the civil war was? Or does that one not count because we did it to each other? You don't think this force feeding of democracy in the middle east is any way fundamental? Just because our basic principles aren't in line with those of say Islamic beliefs, doesn't mean we aren't being fundamentalistic in our foreign policy. If anything, one could say that our basic ideas of freedom and justice are the very things we're going to war over, and in that case this is a war of fundamentalism. Maybe you need to go look fundamentalism up in the dictionairy. Democratic societies don't practice slavery either? Hahaha, yeah, you seriously need a history lesson. The only thing our democratic society hasn't practiced, is genocide. And I totally disagree that it is our duty to enforce this on other people. Maybe my history is a little rusty, but I don't remember the founding fathers saying anything about spread this sense of freedom and justice to the entire world. That's why it's our land of the free. They created a country, a society, a government based on these ideas of freedom and justice so we could live in peace, not us and any parts of the world we felt it necessary to spread our ideas upon.

This forced fed democracy crap is just as bad as the forced fed spiritulism/religion as it is in North Korea. There is little different from us imposing "freedom and justice in the form of democracy" on the Middle East than there is the Middle East imposing their strict and literal Islamic beliefs on us. I would venture to say there is almost no difference at all. And it makes me sick. I think it's all well and good that we (the population of the US and those who voluntarily come here) enjoy our freedom and justice, but it is definitely not our duty to force it on other people, and in that I will always disagree with Lothar and beerhunter.

And to reference all of this "in the interest of their people" makes me want to throw up. Yeah, I'm sure it was really in the interest of their people, that's why they stood by and did nothing on their own. It's not like we're going in to help the people rise up and overcome tyranny... no, we're going in to force our agenda as we see fit.

pH, if you look at the big picture, the U.S. has probably caused more civilian deaths in our night-time missiles strikes than this entire terrorist movement has. Yeah, I'm sure we try to minimize the collateral damage, but when you send a missile in to take out an entire building in order to kill 2 or 3 intended targets, I bet the civilians don't take notice that you were trying to minimize collateral damage. We may not be doing it to draw attention to our cause, but we're still killing civilians just like everyone else. It's obvious you don't agree with the fundamentals of Islam or the ideas of martys, but a lot of the people we're trying to work with in the middle east do. To them, it's honorable and the highest level of righteousness they could achieve to strap a bomb to their chest and to martyr themselves for their religion. These are religious differences to them, the politics just get in the way. To us, this is politics, to them, this is right and wrong.

Obviously I disagree with our foreign policy, but I don't think it's our job to go out and fix the rest of the world. If there was some global unification and agreement on it, then it would be about humanity, but as it stands, it's about us being world police because our leader says it's right. This isn't about terror right now, it's about us doing what we think is right, the rest of the world be damned. I'm more inclined to let the ideas of Survival of the Fittest take over, and for the Middle East to weed itself out. If eventually they destroy each other, then so be it... this is the byproduct of religious extremism. As we can never hope to get religion as a factor out of this equation, we really can't hope to solve their problems. Our country has such a huge deficit that I don't feel we're in any place to be spending the kind of money like we are in Iraq. Not to mention, if the situation in Iraq ever is concluded, are we going to move onto to another country and spend a few more hundred billion fixing their problems? No wonder my health insurance is goign up, and I can't count on society security to be there when I'm older... because we're spending all this money worrying about other countries and their problems, and seem to totally be ignoring the future of our own people. I think there is a fine line between spending our excess effort and resources making the world a better place, and spending what we would normally spend on our own people and instead on the rest of the world. I believe GWB and his administration have crossed that line distinctly, and unless something changes, I won't be able to live out the course of my life as I should in our society, because we ended up spending too many hundreds of billions on other countries, and not enough on our own. And that's why I resent the way the government is spending my tax dollars.

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

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.

OK, given that this is a proper counter-argument , and makes good sense to boot, one more reply...

I agree with your view that where the river ends is more important than its bends, so to speak. But at some point the river (to stick with the metaphor) is in danger of taking too many twists and turns and drowning too many lives for it to end anywhere that you can look back and say: "But wasn't it worth it though?". Sometimes the end does not justify the means, because the end is the means. Democracy cannot be imposed (sic) when, and only when, it suits us.

About blame: I'm not pointing fingers to the US (or the UK, or Holland for that matter) and going: "You were a bad boy!". For me it is a matter of not forgetting the past so we are not forced to repeat it. Examining where we went wrong, and making sure we learn from this in our foreign policy, is part of fixing the problem. An ounce of prevention, you know?

See, Bush would have gained far more respect in my eyes if his let's-invade-Iraq speech went something like this:

"My fellow Americans. As you know, there is an evil dictator at work in Iraq. He is a threat to his neighbours, and an oppressor of his people. He kills men, women and children without regard. More seriously, he has been able to do so because past governments in the West supported him, or tacitly condoned his actions.

I am not shirking off our share in the responsibility for this. Past US governments have supported this dictator, and sold him arms. But today this is going to change.

Today, we, the present United States goverment, will accept responsibility. The US is a Nation that is prepared to admit to its mistakes, to learn from them, and to change its ways. It is prepared to make amends and to be an example in a new world policy where justice and responsibility prevails over selfish interest and economic greed. We are going to make this world a better place, a just place for everyone, where terrorism will find no fertile soil in the discontent and suffering of disenfranchised people.

And we are going to start by cleaning up the mess that we, the Western nations of this world, helped create. We will depose the dictator Saddam Hussein and do everything in our effort to return democracy to the Iraqi people."

Instead, we get contrived shit like "Oh, that oblong shadow in this aerial photograph just might be a WMD laboratory... And Saddam just might have some spurious connection with the 9/11 terrorists, like occupied the same world continent at some point in time...". If his motives were so pure and noble, why didn't he just say what they were?

[Torin]

Originally Posted by nexxo

If his motives were so pure and noble, why didn't he just say what they were?

Because they weren't so pure and noble.

[BillA]

excellent speech nexxo
if you run I'll vote for you
but not any of the other politicians (aka liars)

[Lothar5150]

Joe- Nations moving toward democracy we leave alone and there will always be a few that fall inside a grey area. However, others are clearly fair game, i.e. North Korea.

Torin- Obviously that was well thought out and well written. However, I think the weakness in your argument is that it assumes that the people in these countries have some type of collective voice and choose to live under a dictatorship.

In terms of a democratically elected leader making unpopular decisions…The Presidency was set up for that very reason. The idea behind the office is to ensure stable continuity of government and to have someone who could make unpopular decisions in the best long-term interests of the Republic. It is not meant to be a populous office. The same is true of the US Supreme Court. On the other had the Senate and House of Reps are very populous bodies and are meant to be politically unstable. If you really like government, I highly recommend reading the Federalist Papers.

Look at civil rights a civil rights for example. It was not popular to give African Americas/minorities equal rights in this county. In fact, President Johnson knew that a vote in the house and senate would fail. Thus, much of civil rights was “ridden” into bills and some was made law by an “activest” Supreme Court.

nexxo- I agree the guiding philosophy must always be widening freedom. I think for the most part America has held the position. I agree in advance there are some instances where that was not true. However, wining the cold war was the only way to get us to where we are right now...look at eastern Europe, German reunification etc...

In terms of Saddam having something to do with 9/11, I never gave that much credence anyway since the BA'ATH Part is extremely secular. However, the WMD was a valid concern and as I have said earlier. Saddam certainly lead on as though he had the WMD and intelligence is usually a lot of educated guessing.

[pHaestus]

It's obvious you don't agree with the fundamentals of Islam or the ideas of martys, but a lot of the people we're trying to work with in the middle east do. To them, it's honorable and the highest level of righteousness they could achieve to strap a bomb to their chest and to martyr themselves

There is nothing in the Koran that condones this sort of activity. It's the same thing as bombers of abortion clinics operating in the name of God. Because some people do this, does that make it right in the eyes of all Christians? It's the equivalent of the Manson murders where someone told gullible people that a higher power compelled them to do wicked things. Or the Japanese doomsday cult with poison gas in the subways. Should that be ok? It was endorsed by their leader after all.

A pretty weak argument.

[nOv1c3]

Here you go a nice little read

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog...kritik_vs.html

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

There is nothing in the Koran that condones this sort of activity. It's the same thing as bombers of abortion clinics operating in the name of God. Because some people do this, does that make it right in the eyes of all Christians? It's the equivalent of the Manson murders where someone told gullible people that a higher power compelled them to do wicked things. Or the Japanese doomsday cult with poison gas in the subways. Should that be ok? It was endorsed by their leader after all.

A pretty weak argument.

My guess is that I have had the most exposure living and working with Muslims of anyone posting in this thread. I am with you on this one. My experience is that Muslims come in all flavors, just like Christians, Jew and Buddhists and most are not extremists.

As a note most of the Muslim men, I met had one wife...and she seemed to be the one really in charge. That phone would ring and you could tell by the look on their face. Not much different from our culture

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

There is nothing in the Koran that condones this sort of activity. It's the same thing as bombers of abortion clinics operating in the name of God.

There will always be some segment of a population acting out a widespread cultural belief in its logical extreme. Precious few belief systems are harmless when fully thought through and acted upon.

There is a vague line between the evil acts of nationals and their government's ultimate responsibility. We shift this line pragmatically, deliberately obscuring it. So when soldiers do torture it is some bad apples acting alone. Certainly no foreign governments should launch commando operations to "take out" those criminals. When the US demanded Afghanistan hand over Osama bin Laden, just after 9/11, the sovereign state Afghanistan responded that while it condemned whoever planned or facilitated the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden was effectively a Afghani national and the US must provide some evidence of his guilt first. In the meantime, Afghanistan would investigate the allegations. The US decided to set a precedent then by refusing to produce evidence, rather invading Afghanistan.

EDIT: Swapping Panistan with Afkhistan.

[Lothar5150]

New poll numbers are out

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/pa...es/000661.html

http://www.gallup.com/election2004/

[Joe]

Remember when Kerry was off teh charts low on polls before the primaries for the democrats? and everyone put clark and dean as the best chance since polls showed that kerry wasnt even a consideration.... then... he rolled over them?

Hmm... after that I could care less what polls say.

[pHaestus]

Kerry hasn't ever had anything going for him other than "someone high up in the DNC decided he had the best chance of beating Bush" as far as I am concerned. He's just not a compelling candidate and is pretty much running on an "Im not Bush" platform

[deathBOB]

Thats not a bad platform to a lot of people...

[Joe]

Umm pH there’s this things called primaries, not one person in the DNC. Money is controlled and regulated for what the DNC can provide to any candidate. In fact I don’t believe its legal for the DNC to have a hand in much of anything pre-primaries. the others saw based on the primaries that were held that it was a statistical impossibility to get more delegates than Kerry on their own.

Although conspiracy theories are fun!

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Joe

I could care less what polls say.

It has been pointed out that, as well as missing those who often arrive home late in the evening, people who use cell phones for their primary number are not polled. Any Americans care to speculate on how that (younger) demographic will vote?

[superart]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

It has been pointed out that, as well as missing those who often arrive home late in the evening, people who use cell phones for their primary number are not polled. Any Americans care to speculate on how that (younger) demographic will vote?

that (younger) demographic will probably be too hungover to get up early enough to vote, and too drunk/high to vote later. And the ones that arn't just wont give a shit.

You think if the (younger) demographic voted we would have a 21 year old age limit on alcahol and pot be illigal?

[Kobuchi]

I suppose you're right. The vast majority of voters are people who can be surveyed by ringing residential land-lines at intervals over the course of a day and evening.

EDIT: Bush vs. Kerry it is! Candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green), were arrested when they crossed a police line at the second presidential debate. Pepper spray and tasers would have been a nice touch.

[Joe]

I can bet Bush is praying that the young people dont go and vote..... must disturb him to hear that people registered to vote this year at colleges is up like 400%. And few if anyone at colleges get polled in the polls that are posted around the web (gallup, etc..)

[Joe]

"If a man isn't a liberal in his youth he has no heart. If
he isn't a conservative in his maturity he has no brain."
- Winston Churchill

I think thats a very accurate quote. Go Winnie!

[pHaestus]

College students are not good voters. Many are at college away from their home and aren't going to drive/fly home to vote. So they have to vote via absentee ballot. That's fine but this requires forethought and preparedness; not the hallmark of the 18-22 college student.

[psychofunk]

Some more levity to lighten up a crappy situation

To avoid the confusion of last year, the new Florida ballot

[Joe]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

College students are not good voters. Many are at college away from their home and aren't going to drive/fly home to vote. So they have to vote via absentee ballot. That's fine but this requires forethought and preparedness; not the hallmark of the 18-22 college student.

Umm most colleges offer free absentee ballot services for their students here. There are people around UW all the time with applications to not only register but handle getting absentee ballots for students.

[superart]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

College students are not good voters. Many are at college away from their home and aren't going to drive/fly home to vote. So they have to vote via absentee ballot. That's fine but this requires forethought and preparedness; not the hallmark of the 18-22 college student.

Or you could just change the address on your drivers licence, and register to vote where you go to school, thus making your life easier and your parent's car insurance bill lower.

[pHaestus]

Joe: Can you find examples of college students voting en masse and making a difference? I just don't think historically they are much of a factor. Shit Louisiana passed a law to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 when I was in college (I was 21 and unaffected); seems like if you couldn't get the college kids mobilized against THAT then there's no hope

Art it depends. If you live in dorms or on campus housing you may not be able to list that as your permanent address and register. LSU was that way in the 90s as I recall.

[superart]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

Art it depends. If you live in dorms or on campus housing you may not be able to list that as your permanent address and register. LSU was that way in the 90s as I recall.

I live in dorms.
I just didnt list the room/mailbox on the licence.
Just the schools street address.

Haven't had any problems. Used it to register to vote and to get onto planes with no problems and on car insurance with no problems.