Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[SCompRacer]

A good friend told me a free fire zone was what you would fly over in a slick with guys that didn't see action, and wanted to fire the M60 mounted on the pus..., er kitty-pole. The bolt of the '60 might be closed on an empty chamber, with a worn barrel not locked in place. They try to fire and experience no joy, then look around for guidance. The crew chief would motion for them to cycle the bolt. When they did, the barrel would fall to the ground. Said it was good for a laugh.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

It's the same thinking that got us / kept us in Vietnam for so long. As Lothar5150 says, that war is purely of academic interest at this point - which means we're free to repeat the mistake, I guess.
FWIW, the parallels between 1968 and now are a bit scary - including the "support our troops" bit - as though putting our brave folks in harm's way in a place they didn't need to be was "supporting" them. Given this morning's election results, it looks like a majority here thinks this is a good way to go - just glad I don't have any draft-age children.
Of course, I live in New England, and we're very out of step with the rest of the nation (except maybe the Pacific NW). I do think we should'a left the CSA go its own way, back when they wanted to (that war wasn't originally about slavery but about money and control of it).

Vietnam and Iraq are not even close to the same war from a geo political standpoint. The only likeness between Vietnam and Iraq is that they are both now counter insurgences. Further, the Geo politics of 1968 and today don’t even compare. North Vietnam had very generous support from China and the Soviet Union. The insurgence in Iraq are on their own. Despite popular (un-educated) thought we were actually winning in Vietnam Operationally. However, don’t believe me you can read it form General Vo Nguyen Giap himself., this is required reading in my circle. When I said that Vietnam was academic, I meant that literally.

No one wants a draft, especially not the Pentagon. It would be the absolute worst thing to happen to the US military in 30 years. Therefore, you can, can the scare tactics. I went to war with officers with masters and PhDs and non-commissioned officers/enlisted who had Bachelors degrees. Everyone knew there job and how it fit into the big picture. "We" want to keep that way (no room for second string).

Your comments about the CSA must make you a darling among your black friends.

[Joe]

Like on the daily show:

"Which side of the civil war will you be on?"

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by pHaestus

... unless you live in Ontario then you don't really see any benefit for the tax money that you put into the federal coffers.

I had thought the Quebequois got a disproportionate amount as well. I've been wrong all these years?

[BillA]

clearly bk is 'liberal white'
nothing at all to do with freedom or liberty - or choice

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Your comments about the CSA must make you a darling among your black friends.

I do have black friends and we have discussed this over beers on at least a couple of occasions. Don't think that I'm pro slavery (never was) or think that people should get judged based on the color of their skin (never did). But IMHO the war did not start over slavery and wasn't about slavery until Lincoln made it so (very savvy move as it cut the South off from any possible support from Europe and increased support for the war in the North and (longer term) undermined some of the "will to fight" in the South).
Are they now teaching that the Civil War started over slavery?
Not that there weren't wars in North America over slavery. The Texan war of independence from Mexico certainly had that as one cause. Only they wanted to keep slavery, and , as heroes of the Alamo, we don't read about the slavery part - at least not here in New England - Texan school history books might have a more complete coverage (same way we could tell you what boneheads the Puritans were).

Thanks for mentioning Giap's book. Looks like I should add it to my stack. May want to discuss it later - although this is likely the wrong forum...

[cybrsamurai]

No I didn't have children but want to adopt some time in the future. Bill do you think it is I that is naive or you that is calloused? No offense intended just shedding some light on the perspective. Bertrand Russel, I've never been a fan. I have a friend who is in the philosophy prog at stanford we have discussed this book before (he was saying it was good for modern philosophy but an example of how not to intepret many philosophers). He wasn't a fan but I guess I can give it a read anyway.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

I do have black friends and we have discussed this over beers on at least a couple of occasions. Don't think that I'm pro slavery (never was) or think that people should get judged based on the color of their skin (never did). But IMHO the war did not start over slavery and wasn't about slavery until Lincoln made it so (very savvy move as it cut the South off from any possible support from Europe and increased support for the war in the North and (longer term) undermined some of the "will to fight" in the South).
Are they now teaching that the Civil War started over slavery?
Not that there weren't wars in North America over slavery. The Texan war of independence from Mexico certainly had that as one cause. Only they wanted to keep slavery, and , as heroes of the Alamo, we don't read about the slavery part - at least not here in New England - Texan school history books might have a more complete coverage (same way we could tell you what boneheads the Puritans were).

Thanks for mentioning Giap's book. Looks like I should add it to my stack. May want to discuss it later - although this is likely the wrong forum...

Yes, the Civil War was over money...the southern economy was built on plantations utilizing slave labor. I would go back and read the Lincoln Douglas debates if I were you. The move to take emphasis away from slavery has been used to let the South save face for past sin.

[pHaTtYaSs2x4]

Did you see the election results? I guess Americans are dumber than i thought. WWIII is right around the corner, Osama attacked us, lets attack Iran this time! Lets attack whoever we want! We're america! And ours is bigger than yours! Church and state? SURE! Jesus is my buddy and should be EVERYONES buddy! I'm going to force my beliefs on you, because jesus is on my side and jesus is always right. TIME TO MOVE TO CANADA

[bigben2k]

Ok, it's all over.

I'm dissapointed, but not surprised. I think I'm going start following Bill's ideologie...

For the record, here are Bush's promises (in case we dig up this thread again, 4 years from now):

Chapter1:
Creating Opportunity for American Workers

• Reforming America’s High Schools: President Bush will provide $250 million annually to extend state assessment of student reading and math skills.
• Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative: President Bush will provide $500 million for Jobs for the 21st Century, which will help educate and train high-skilled American workers in schools and community colleges.
• Tax Reform: President Bush will work to make the tax code simpler for taxpayers, encourage saving and investment, and improve the economy’s ability to create jobs and raise wages.
• Opportunity Zones: President Bush will create new Opportunity Zones, which will encourage public and private investment and provide priority consideration for Federal benefits to communities that are under economic hardship.
• Read the Chapter Now


Chapter2:
Helping American Families in a Changing World

• Helping the Working Uninsured by Expanding Health Savings Accounts: President Bush will propose a tax credit for Health Savings Account contributions to help individuals and families who work for small businesses fund their Health Savings Accounts.
• Make Health Care Accessible: President Bush will call for a community health center in every poor county in America.
• Promote Comp-Time and Flex-Time: President Bush will work to enable employees to choose paid time off as an alternative to overtime pay and to give employees the option of shifting work hours during a pay period.
• Crack Down On Drugs in Schools: President Bush will increase funding for school drug testing to help students resist peer pressure and help parents intervene with students in need.
• Read the Chapter Now


Chapter3:
Promoting an Era of Ownership

• Homeownership: President Bush will provide assistance to help America to meet his new goal of creating 7 million new, affordable homes in 10 years.
• Social Security Reform: President Bush will strengthen and enhance Social Security, guaranteeing no changes in benefits for current retirees and near-retirees, while giving younger workers the opportunity to use their Social Security payroll taxes to build a nest egg for retirement that can be passed on to their families.
• Help Small Businesses: President Bush will help small businesses in a number of ways, including by allowing them to band together to provide more affordable health care for their employees through Association Health Plans.
• Read the Chapter Now


Chapter4:
Defending American Lives and Liberty

• Fight the War On Offense: President Bush will continue to lead a worldwide coalition to fight terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.
• Intelligence Reform: President Bush will work with a new National Intelligence Director to improve the quality and quantity of our intelligence and our ability to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks.
• Troop Redeployment: President Bush will restructure American forces overseas to use existing forces more effectively and to support servicemen, servicewomen, and their families more efficiently.
• Read the Chapter Now


Chapter5:
Supporting Our Communities and Honoring American Values of Compassion and Service

• Judges: President Bush will continue to appoint to the Federal courts well-qualified judges who share his commitment to strictly interpret the law.
• Welfare Reform: President Bush will continue to press for reauthorization of welfare reform and to build on its successes, strengthening families and helping more welfare recipients achieve independence through work.
• Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: President Bush will continue to support the good work of community and faith-based groups and help ensure that these charities can participate in Federal, state, and local programs without discrimination.

(quoted from http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/ )

We can compare notes in 2008...

[mastermind2004]

Did you see the election results? I guess Americans are dumber than i thought. WWIII is right around the corner, Osama attacked us, lets attack Iran this time! Lets attack whoever we want! We're america! And ours is bigger than yours! Church and state? SURE! Jesus is my buddy and should be EVERYONES buddy! I'm going to force my beliefs on you, because jesus is on my side and jesus is always right. TIME TO MOVE TO CANADA

Good to know that everyone that doesn't agree with you is stupid.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The move to take emphasis away from slavery has been used to let the South save face for past sin.

The original emphasis that the war started because of slavery was northern propaganda. Yes, it needed to end. Yes Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was not about to start a civil war over it, though.
The money I was talking about was the tarrifs paid primarily by the south in that they were still "colonial" (in the sense of producing raw materials for remote factories. Yes, a lot of that money was from slave labor (which we as a country have never paid them back for, BTW).
IMHO, the slaves needed to rise up themselves. John Brown was right about a lot of things. Their descendants would have had a more equal place in this "equal" society (or, of course, it might have turned out like Haiti).
I suppose this makes me a southern apologist as well as a white liberal. Guess I'll have to go join the ACLU and carry the card around so you can add another label

[aaronspink]

Originally Posted by unregistered

agreed pH, the deficit is the problem with the present GOP (religious) party control

Hey, I voted on the deficit. The vast majority of the federal debt has occured during Republican presidencies.

The Last two Democratic presidents oversaw a shrinking of the yearly deficit.

I've never understood the popular impression that Democratic presidents are fiscally irresponsible while Republican presidents are fiscally responsible, don't match with reality.

Aaron Spink
speaking for myself inc.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by unregistered

clearly bk is 'liberal white'

Depends on where you are. I'm pretty middle of the road for here - and would be on the "right" if I lived in Australia or NZ - at least as far as the "liberal" part goes. Yes I'm a Caucasian (as in bloodlines from the Caucasus mountains, marker characteristics like that bump on the back of my skull) and would be that where ever I go. Of course the "white" designation might change from place to place.

On a different note - why think I'm trying to make myself look "morally superior"? I have no idea whether I am or not (probably am not) and am not trying to come off that way. Was just expressing my opinion. If you are reacting to some feeling of being morally inferior, don't put it on me. If you mean I'm being smug, I'm certainly not feeling that way, don't mean to express things that way, am just expressing my opinion

Originally Posted by unregistered

...get ****ed, ...

BTW, I know you're grumpy, but isn't this a bit "over the line" - or do the stars make it OK?

Not sure why Cheney/Bush folks should be so exercised. You got four more years. Be happy! Rejoice!
If nothing else, you won't have to say "well, we would have won in Iraq if only Kerry hadn't becpme president and [done whatever you'd blame him for]". You get to succeed or fail on your own, now...

[BillA]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

. . . . I do think we should'a left the CSA go its own way, back when they wanted to (that war wasn't originally about slavery but about money and control of it).

this is objectionable ("over the line" ?? why introduce this element ?)
post facto judgment is facile, you would 'credit' only those 'good' deeds done because of the understanding at that moment ?
pfft, bad deeds can also have good results - though not to those exposed at the time


cs, you are correct, I am a cynic due to the education and experiences over my life,
others may have a more felicitous view of the world

agreed, BR is not to my taste at all; nor am I enthused with his appraisal of the content of some (most ?) philosophers; my recommendation was based on the historical overview and the philosophical 'product' of the respective times

[Kobuchi]

Citizenship and Immigration Canada - Welcome

***

I was not much interested in which candidate would win, personally. As many Americans have said, neither is good. What I was curious about was how democracy would fair in the election. It was blown away: "other" received less than 1% of the popular vote. We'd expect more from ballot error! I must conclude that US electoral politics have now reached full reduction, voters bound to authorise one wing or the other of what is in effect a unified regime. I'm sure to Americans Bush and Kerry look different. They always stress their differences.

Americans may find positive spin for these bizzarely close contests, to reassure themselves nothing is wrong.

Ironically, the only Americans to sway campaign strategy (and therefore election promises, party policy, and maybe concrete action later) was an unwitting cadre of some undecided voters in a few swing states. They numbered few, and - again a paradox - were found to be politically illiterate. There is your engine of political change.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

I'm just trying to figure out which country I want to move to.... Any ideas?

If they'll let you emigrate, New Zealand or Australia. I'd personally pick NZ, but I'm big on the outdoors and NZ is just jaw-droppingly beautiful, not to mention it's the best place I've ever been to ride a motorcycle (Tazzie in Aus is fairly amazing as well, but the weather changes a bit too quickly for my tastes - and I'm a New Englander).
At least go for an extended vacation...
Hey Cathar, if you're reading this thread, what are chances of a techie getting a work visa to Aus? I know I'm too old (50+), but what are cybersamurai's chances?

[BillA]

Kobuchi
I cannot imagine what else you were expecting
an informed electorate ?
that is a joke, as is the presumed 'Independence' of voters
there is a bedrock core devoted to each party, then those that are left
do not think that political stragetists are "unwitting"

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

The original emphasis that the war started because of slavery was northern propaganda. Yes, it needed to end. Yes Lincoln was an abolitionist. He was not about to start a civil war over it, though.
The money I was talking about was the tarrifs paid primarily by the south in that they were still "colonial" (in the sense of producing raw materials for remote factories. Yes, a lot of that money was from slave labor (which we as a country have never paid them back for, BTW).
IMHO, the slaves needed to rise up themselves. John Brown was right about a lot of things. Their descendants would have had a more equal place in this "equal" society (or, of course, it might have turned out like Haiti).
I suppose this makes me a southern apologist as well as a white liberal. Guess I'll have to go join the ACLU and carry the card around so you can add another label

I agree Lincoln was not going to start a civil war over slavery. However, you need to look closer at the South's reasons for succession from the union. Don't think for a second that plantation owners interests in maintain slavery as a business practice was a heavy influence.

Once you see a system of control in place, you will understand why people don’t rise up against authority easily. However, there where uprisings and a few were put down by US troops. Generally, they were limited to the local plantations. If you Google it you will find some good stuff.

I don't knock the ACLU, I think they are a good orgainzation.

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

Hey Cathar, if you're reading this thread, what are chances of a techie getting a work visa to Aus? I know I'm too old (50+), but what are cybersamurai's chances?

If you're white, have a tertiary education, and at least $1M US of assets to your name to prove that you won't be a burden to the country, then the door's wide open.

If you're white, young (<35), with a tertiary education, and have at least $250K US worth of liquid assets, you too can walk right in.

If you're not white but have over about $4M US of assets, you too can walk in with red-carpet treatment.

If you have a tertiary education in some technical/medical field, getting in won't be too hard, but not as easy as above.

All else need to fight with the general masses/boat people.

I reserve comment on my view of the US election result as vehement outburts liberally laced with expletives tends to offend...

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Cathar

I reserve comment on my view of the US election result as vehement outburts liberally laced with expletives tends to offend...

Feel free Australia has always been a faithful friend of the US. I'd say you have more that earned the right to be critical.

Just curious...I know Australia has a Republican movement. What is the common person on the streets view on replacing the head of state with a president?

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Just curious...I know Australia has a Republican movement. What is the common person on the streets view on replacing the head of state with a president?

Australia should have been a republic about 4 years ago. John Howard, the Prime Minister that we are "blessed" with, organised a referendum on the matter. Howard is a staunch monarchist though, unlike the previous Prime Minister who set up the path towards the referendum. Sadly he got voted out before he could complete the monumental task of preparing for it, and Howard took steps to derail any change.

Rather than ask two questions, such as:

1) Do you want Australia to become a republic?
2) If Australia becomes a republic, do you want a popularly elected president (US style), or a parliamentary appointed president (much like what the Governer-General position already is today - but just removing the Queen as the next step up)?

Instead Howard worded the question as:

1) Do you want the present monarchy system, a popularly elected president, or a parliamentary appointed president?

Now for a referendum to be made law, 51% of the people, plus 4 out of the 6 states of Australia need to vote in the positive sense for any one option to enact the requires constitutional change.

About 60% of Australia want a Republic, but they were split over the appointed/elected president model. As such, there was not enough support to push either option over the 51%, 4/6 state mark. The monarchy portion got 40%, and the two presidential options got around 30% each.

Howard then had the cheek of declaring this as overwhelming support for keeping the status quo with the Monarchy.

It was all a total farce.

Personally I fall into the parliamentary appointed presidential model myself. Have to remember that a president here would not have the same level of powers as a US president, basically having only the power to dissolve the parliament if he deems them unfit to govern. A popularly elected presidential model would be a waste of resources and voter's time given that they are already electing the parliamentary persons into power who would then choose the president.

[cybrsamurai]

I have always wanted to visit NZ and AUS. I think I'll do that and look into citizenship if I think its somewhere I could live. Thanks for the advice. I just got back from Hawaii so I'll have to save up some money first. I don't fit into the 1M of US assets category. But im less than 30 and will have a degree in CS so who knows.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Australia should have been a republic about 4 years ago. John Howard, the Prime Minister that we are "blessed" with, organised a referendum on the matter. Howard is a staunch monarchist though, unlike the previous Prime Minister who set up the path towards the referendum. Sadly he got voted out before he could complete the monumental task of preparing for it, and Howard took steps to derail any change.

Rather than ask two questions, such as:

1) Do you want Australia to become a republic?
2) If Australia becomes a republic, do you want a popularly elected president (US style), or a parliamentary appointed president (much like what the Governer-General position already is today - but just removing the Queen as the next step up)?

Instead Howard worded the question as:

1) Do you want the present monarchy system, a popularly elected president, or a parliamentary appointed president?

Now for a referendum to be made law, 51% of the people, plus 4 out of the 6 states of Australia need to vote in the positive sense for any one option to enact the requires constitutional change.

About 60% of Australia want a Republic, but they were split over the appointed/elected president model. As such, there was not enough support to push either option over the 51%, 4/6 state mark. The monarchy portion got 40%, and the two presidential options got around 30% each.

Howard then had the cheek of declaring this as overwhelming support for keeping the status quo with the Monarchy.

It was all a total farce.

Personally I fall into the parliamentary appointed presidential model myself. Have to remember that a president here would not have the same level of powers as a US president, basically having only the power to dissolve the parliament if he deems them unfit to govern. A popularly elected presidential model would be a waste of resources and voter's time given that they are already electing the parliamentary persons into power who would then choose the president.

Interesting, is there a big push to get it back on the ballot? It seems your democracy is already structured a lot like the US. If you just did away with the prime minister and voted for a president in a general election there would me no difference.

What are the mechanics of passing laws and what are the roles of your courts in government.

[bobkoure]

And not having a constitutional monarch has helped us?
I personally think that Ronald Reagan would have made a great constitutional monarch. Someone we all look up to, sort of a collective "Dad" - without too much power. I totally disagreed with most of his policies - and James Watt's free-for-all on federal lands was driving me crazy. IMHO, JFK would have made a good one, too, and maybe even Andy Jackson who was arguably the worst president (in terms of dereliction of duty) we've ever had.

IMHO, the counties I've visited that have constitutional monarchies seem to view their politicians as, well, politicians. Not someone who embodies their state, someone to look up to. Makes it seem worthwhile keeping the monarch around, so long as he/she hasn't got a lot of power. Oh - and putting this in perspective, I don't know anyone else in the states with this opinion (it's not a new england white liberal aclu thing). The only one even slightly close, was Mark Twain, who thought we'd ought to have a royal family of cats. Come to think of it, he eventually became a new englander, so maybe this is a regional thing.

What I'm trying to get at is that the office of president has become somewhat confused with that of monarch. Many people vote for a president because he has kingly qualities - when what we need is a competent politician. Having a separate (somewhat powerless) monarch might keep that tendency in check...

All that said, have I misread the Queen's power in Aus? Is there something she's done in the last twenty years that really changed things for Australians? (note non-rhetorical question - please correct me if she has done something - big apologies for not being as up on Australian history as I'd ought to be.). And feel free to call me names - seems I'm the keeper of unpopular opinions here today/tonight