OT: Election 2004 [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 03:15 AM

Well its getting to be that time once again were we get to vote for whom we want to lead our nation.

I have no shame in admitting that I favor Bush and will vote for him this year as I did in 2000. Even though there are many who blame him for the outsourcing of jobs, poor job market, poor job growth, and the lost jobs that have occured under his watch. The truth is it was President Clinton who ratified NAFTA and gave China free reign.

Sure Bush should have placed terrifs and other disadvantages against companies that sent jobs out of the nation, and he didn't so that does not look good for him. However, he has done what he said he was going to do and despite the costly war we are now involved in, he has done a far better job at running the country than Mr. Clinton.

Clinton was lucky, he had the teflon shield of the Internet and DotCom boom, but when the bubble began to burst, 97 and on, he was on his way out and the resulting destruction to our lives, economy, and futures was dropped squarly into Bushs lap even though he had not caused this, he has been blamed for it.

No justice for the inocent I say.

I do not like the Democrat front runner as he seems to, well to much like a man who should not be president than one who should be.

I would like to see the economy continue to improve, Job growth improve, and the war to end terrorism continued to be supported and under the Democrates that will not be the case.

The Iraqies will be left to fend for themselves like the Vietiense (sp) were left out in the cold by Ford and Carter.

We are there now and we should continue to stay there until it is safe to leave. No politics involved, simply stay and do the right thing and then leave.

Fight those who wish to do the other harm through terroristic attacks and continue to hunt and kill them for as long as they continue to commit terrorist acts.

It is going to be an interesting election year. One that I am certain will be another close call.

Best of luck to both canadates, but GO BUSH. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ March 24, 2004, 01:24: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Renegade 13

March 24th, 2004, 03:54 AM

Oh no, not the dreaded politcal conversations!!

Really, I'm Canadian, so I don't know much about American politics, but it seems to me that Bush is more than a little bit bloodthirsty. Afghanistan wasn't good enough, so lets go invade Iraq!!

And yep, we're only there to stop him from having weapons of mass destruction....but wait a minute...who has the most weapons of mass destruction of all the countries in the world...hmm lets think about that.

Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the US having weapons like that. In fact, it is necessary, or else the other countries that did have such weapons would run rampant, with no counter force to stop them.

But look at it this way. Lets say that Canada started developing in earnest a whole bunch of WMD's. Would the US invade Canada, saying that Canada shouldn't have such weapons? Of course, I'm missing a lot of points here, and the comparison is not near accurate, but I think you get my meaning.

Now, to bring this back to the real reason for this thread, that is why I don't think I would vote for Bush, precisely because of his prediliction for war mongering. That's all.

Please no one be offended by this, it is merely my opinion on the matter.

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 03:56 AM

Thanks Renegade 13. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

There are two sides to every story and it is important to keep an open mind when discussing those points of view. Well done my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 03:58 AM

Oops, forgot to mention:

The US already owns Canada, so invading you would be pointless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Renegade 13

March 24th, 2004, 04:05 AM

WHAT!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

The US owns Canada, and no one told me! I think I may die of shock right here and now!

Just don't try to come here with your army or you'll find a bunch of rednecks in the hills, shooting at you with hunting rifles! And let me tell you, we've got good aim! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Azselendor

March 24th, 2004, 05:20 AM

Militant Canadians, that's just not right.

Of course, I'm voting for Kerry.

Bush had 4 years to do his job and he did a half-assed job at best. Sure, Clinton had the internet to protect him, but Bush used fear and threats against americans who critized him to protect himself.

Bush lsot any support from me a long time ago.

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 05:46 AM

No one can deny that Bush used fear to garner support for the war effort against Iraq. No one can deny that the Bush administration tried to say that people taking burger flipper jobs was an increase in the Manufacturing Job Market. No one can deny that Bush has done nothing about the loss of US jobs as companies in the US fire employees here and move their jobs to China, Mexico, and other.

However, Iraq had to be delt with before it did become a problem. Of this we can all agree. The method for getting the job done has left a bad tast in many of peoples mouths, but the job has been done. The ends do not justify the means however we are all better off now than we would be if we left Saddam in control.

The US economy has been recovering nicely, but Job growth has remained flat. This is the first time in history that this has ooccured and it is not do to Bush's economics. This is the result of Clintonomics and even CNN has achknowledged this as a fact.

Its the mistrust of the public that has hurt President Bush. Even though he may have lied, and yes, I do believe that at times things have to be done in order to get things done, but when its all said and done, step up to the bat and stand your ground. Bush has done this somewhat and I will continue to support him.

Kerry is a good man, but I simply do not trust him at this point. I feel that he is not the right man for the job this late in the game. Perhaps in 2008.

Right now we need to ride out this storm with the captain we currently have. That way when the Democrats take office in 2008, they can take credit for the economic boom that will occur as a result of Bush's economic plans just like Mr. Clinton did over the benefits of Reganomics.

This is how the game is played, and I hope that, no I pray that things improve and who ever wins in Novemeber, my rights will remain intacted, I have money in my pocket to spend, and food on my table.

If Bush really wants to win this election he needs to do two things right now. One sanction companies that send US jobs abroad and sanction the Gas and Oil companies for this price gouging we are now all forced to endure.

And I have to be honest, Kerry using the JFK intials is just plan bad politics and in bad taste. His name might share the intials of JFK, but he NOT JFK.

Captain Kwok

March 24th, 2004, 06:30 AM

The current U.S. administration thrives on fear and uses it as their primary tool to keep their hold on power. Just look at their ads and campaigning - "Terror this or terror that", "if someone else was in power then your taxes will go up" or "they'd be soft on terrorism and you'll die in a horrible bombing." and things of that sort.

Here are some things consider for the election:

Current Budget Defecit http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Misinformation about Iraq. If they had just come out and said, Saddam is a bad dude and the Iraqi people need to be liberated - it might have been a bit better. But no, they created the illusion of imminent danger (i.e. WMD) when there was clearly none while ticking off most other countries in the process. And when that didn't work out too well - it was like well we freed the Iraqi people and got rid of Saddam - the world is now safer. However, hasn't the whole Iraq mess just turned Iraq into a new terrorism breeding ground and further decreased stability in the region? What about addressing Saudi Arabia as a major sponsor (albeit silent) of terrorism?

Foreign Policy. What can I say other than Bill Maher's synopsis "Operation: Piss Off the Planet" - there's just not anything being done on a diplomatic front to make things better for the future. The actions of the U.S. right now have just fueled the fire for more anti-U.S. crazies and their "causes". This is sort of like addressing crime by only increasing police and their budgets while not working in the communities to address poverty and other social problems that are the primary factors for crime. The situation will never really improve and the residents will feel oppressed, but at least they can justity their spending (hey, that's just like the drug war isn't it?).

Bush isn't such a bad guy on his own, but I do worry about his sidekick Cheney and his shady dealings with his former company Haliburton, also Enron, and other energy matters.

Environmental record? Nothing but loosening up pollution regulations for big corps and exploiting protected wildlife areas for more fossil fuels.

The economy is doing ok because of the whole war side effect, but where it will be afterwards? The rate of good jobs leaving the country are staggering to say the least! What kind of replacement jobs are in line? Mostly low-waged service sector jobs. The corporations have these guys in their pockets. It's most unfortunate, and it's also a problem that is happening where I live too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

I'm not a huge Kerry fan either (you guys really need a third viable option there rather than republican/democrat all the time!) but I think he'd be the lesser of two evils. There needs to be at least a fresh approach to the problems that you guys are having.

Anyways, I'm just glad that I get more than just the proto-typical US news here, it really makes a difference!

narf poit chez BOOM

March 24th, 2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Oops, forgot to mention:

The US already owns Canada, so invading you would be pointless. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Aww, and here I thought the u.s. was the whole world! My, your shrinking. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Renegade 13

March 24th, 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Klvino [ORB]:
Militant Canadians, that's just not right.Muahahahahahahahahaha..... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Anyways I just speak for myself. And since when is self-defense militaristic? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 07:05 AM

Very well said CK. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif It is a sad day when Canadians know more about the political structure of the USA then most Americans.

Come to think about it, who runs Canada?

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Klvino [ORB]:
Militant Canadians, that's just not right.And since when is self-defense militaristic? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <hr /></blockquote>Since the people invading you control the media.

eol

March 24th, 2004, 10:55 AM

ahhh..nothing like a political thread to stir up folks passions. Just some minor comments:

Atrocities quote "However, Iraq had to be delt with before it did become a problem. Of this we can all agree�

I think plenty of people disagree with this statement, myself included. There are bigger threats to the US and the world that Saddam. How about a regime change in Israel or China for one. China is an upcoming superpower, need them nipped in the butt. Put China on a 100 year time line and they will be the new USSR in scope of power. As for Israel, if we just quit supporting their facist regime, we would see a significant decline in the amount of Islamic terrorism directed at the US. Let get realistic here, Iraq posed no threat to US long term interests. No more than Cuba or Libya does. Hell, Canada could do greater damage to the US than Iraq. As the US's largest trading partner, if they closed their borders tomorrow, our economy would collapse. What threat was Iraq ever to us? None. We got Saddam so he couldn't nuke Israel. USA == zionist puppets and has been since the '40's.

But enough of that and on to the bigger issue, the one that forces me to vote for Kerry (I voted for Bush in '00). The DNC is setting Kerry up to lose. They are pushing him solely to make it look like they fought the good fight. The fact is they need him to lose so Hillary can win in '08. We all know the Republicans will not take three terms in a row. If Kerry takes '04, that puts Hillary out of the whitehouse forever. Kerry would rerun in '08. That would push Hillary to '12 if Republicans took '08. If Kerry took '08, would push Hillary out to '16 as no way in hell Democrats would get three terms in a row (ala Gore losing '00 after 8 years of Clinton). Hillary will be to old to run in '16. Kerry winning '04 kills any chance for a presidential bid from her. A vote for Kerry '04 is a vote against Hillary in '08. Vote Kerry.

I don't like Kerry or trust the man, but I despise Hillary. Kerry, like Bush, is a member of Skull and Bones. I find it odd that both the president and democratic front runner belong to the same secret society. From a lifestyle point of view, Bush is better for my economic future. As an Ex-Pat, I could care less about civil liberties or terrorist attacks in the US, I don't live there anymore. Only part of US law that really effects me (or any Ex-Pat for that matter) anymore is US tax law. Bush is very good for that. But sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good and keeping Hillary out of the whitehouse is exactly that.

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 11:05 AM

eol thanks for posting and offering a counter to my statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

We will never know the true threat that Iraq could have become thanks to the war and for that I am thankful.

I did not know that both Kerry and Bush were members of this secret society. I thought that to be a myth or some bad hollywood movie.

If the vote were taken today it would be close but I think Bush would win. In six months, I think the outcome might be differant but I hope not.

Thanks again for posting.

dogscoff

March 24th, 2004, 11:37 AM

Vote for whoever you like, Bush will just rig the election again, I'm sure of it.

I really dislike Bush (as you may have noticed) and although I know next to nothing about the other guy I'm sure he couldn't possibly be any worse, but like I always say: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always wins." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

With a very few notable exceptions, all politicians of all parties in all countries are corrupt, soulless, self-serving, bribe-taking, corporate-owned parasitic scum who will happily sell your Grandmother (not their own) to the dog-food factory for the price of a new Bentley and a seat on the board of some bull**** company or advisory board that they set up in office specifically so they and their old school chums could have a nice fat paycheque until retirement. We should burn the lot of 'em (with a few exceptions) and go live in self-sufficient anarcho-syndicalist communes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And after re-reading that little rant, I've decided I'm never eating dogfood again.

Seriously, apart from Bush being toppled, humiliated and then ritually sacrificed, the one thing I would like to see from you americans on election day is a larger proportion of the votes being cast away from the two big parties. You really need to break this two-party domination of yours.

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Hey thanks DS for posting. I sincerely doubt that Bush rigged the election however given what happend I can see your point.

Then again, did we really want someone like Gore running the US? Naw, better he come in 2008.

David E. Gervais

March 24th, 2004, 01:45 PM

Want to hear a funny story?

Back in '91 I was on vacation in BC and woke up one beautiful morning and decided to take the short trip to Seattle and visit the city. I don't drive, so I just purchased return fair on the bus shuttle. When I got to the boarder I was refused entry into the US. No reason given, all attempts to find out why they would refuse me ignored. They simply handed me a paper that said "Request to enter US Denied". I had to walk accross the 6 lane highway to the Canadian boarder crossing and use my 'return' ticket to get back to Vancouver. Couldn't get a refund, ($80 down the drain) I have no criminal record, I'm a good decent fellow. I have been to the US several times before. So why was I refused entry? I guess I'll never know.

Wait I just had a thought, perhaps it was a Ticket Scam by Grayhound to rip people off. Or, perhaps there is a Customs law that says that 3 random people from every bus that crosses the boarder must be refused entry. (btw, the two other people refused entry that morning was a older man (in his 50's) and a younger girl about (20-24). They too said they were not given any reason for the 'banishment'.

Yup, very funny story, hillarious, I crack up every time I think of it.

What? US Custom's is not a political issue? Sorry for ranting then, http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Cheers! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Unknown_Enemy

March 24th, 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
you guys really need a third viable option there rather than republican/democrat all the time! Hey !
We can send you Chirac for free ! And with him comes a bunch of usel...err..excellent ministers as a gift. Cheap isnt'it ?

geoschmo

March 24th, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Captain Kwok:
you guys really need a third viable option there rather than republican/democrat all the time! Hey !
We can send you Chirac for free ! And with him comes a bunch of usel...err..excellent ministers as a gift. Cheap isnt'it ? <hr /></blockquote>I had heard Chirac could be bought, but I didn't know you could get him for free. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Alneyan

March 24th, 2004, 04:56 PM

Not only he can be bought for free, but the whole lot comes at the same price! Yes that's right, a full governement for free! This wonderful deal comes with no string attached, and we are even willing to pay for their transport to Juneau or in another similar place.

Isn't that enough? Well, then, we are even willing to pay if you buy then. You cannot possibly turn down such a generous offer! I mean, they would be about as effective as the vanilla ministers in SE4. How can you have a better reference?

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2004, 05:12 PM

ahh i though this was about the canadian elections in the fall.

Change the title to USA Election 2004 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Also my bet is on the old rich white guy to win

dogscoff

March 24th, 2004, 05:38 PM

Also my bet is on the old rich white guy to win
heheheh... I like that one.

solops

March 24th, 2004, 07:11 PM

Election? There's an election?

Hmmm... no qualified candidates...Let's just call the whole thing off and save a lot of money. A panel of talk-show hosts can run the country by poll results for 4 years.

atari_eric

March 24th, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by solops:
Election? There's an election?

Hmmm... no qualified candidates...Let's just call the whole thing off and save a lot of money. A panel of talk-show hosts can run the country by poll results for 4 years. That, strangely enough, would be far more democratic than what we've got going now. Furthermore you'd know if your voice was heard - you'd hear it again on TV.

tesco samoa

March 24th, 2004, 10:06 PM

and whats with the long long long running up to an election.... a huge waste of money and time and effort... Year 1 get in office... Year 2 do work Year 3 get ready to campaign Year 4 campaign...

I like Canada's way better. Call an election and have it in 36 days... must occur before 5 years go by.

Atrocities

March 24th, 2004, 10:59 PM

David E. Gervais want to hear a good story?

In August 1998 I went to Vancouver Island with my Grand Father and Aunt. We took the Coho (sp) out of Port Angles and had a really good time. On the Return trip I was held at US Customes and denied re-entry into the US. I am a US Citizan but they refused to let me back into the country. Finally after six hours I was "Granted" permission and ordered to get a passport. Go figure. Small world huh.

They did not let you in because you must have looked arabic to them. Or perhaps the guy just wanted to be jerk. They can do that you know.

geoschmo

March 25th, 2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by eol:
I find it odd that both the president and democratic front runner belong to the same secret society. It's not so odd. Skull and Bones is not a political organisation. You don't have to be any particular party to be in it. Unless it's the kind of party where you get drunk out of your gourd and run neekid through the girls dorm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 03:16 AM

I am not old enough to vote yet but I still have very strong political opinions.

Here is the Iraq Situation Timeline in a nutshell
1. Sadam does alot of bad things
2. Iraq Invaded Kuwait
3. US Led Coalition Stops Iraq
4. UN Passes Resolutions for Iraq
5. Iraq half-*** complies
6. Sadam does alot more bad things
7. We know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
8. US gives Iraq a boat load more time with Inspections
9. Sadam wouldn't explain what happend to the WMDs
10. Therefore they are no longer compling
11. We therefore revert back to a state of war
12. Even at the disapproval of the UN which is the one that passed the resolutions that gave Iraq a certin ammount of time to dispose of their WMDs(and show solid proof) or there would be military action taken
13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leave

Next:
Renegade 13: "And yep, we're only there to stop him from having weapons of mass destruction....but wait a minute...who has the most weapons of mass destruction of all the countries in the world...hmm lets think about that."

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

Next:

The economy gone bad:
1. Bush had 9/11
2. Bush had major corperate scandles which started during the 90's with Clinton in office
3. Bush had .com boom gone bust

But:
Economy is picking up thanks to taxcuts and good old american optimism. We just had the biggest quarter of growth in something odd years. And no the taxcuts are not just for the rich like the Democrats would like you to believe. They help everyone.

Also some people complain about the current budget deficit. I am not happy about it either but sometimes there just isn't another way and I am happy that Bush kept his promise and did not raise taxes.

Enviroment:

Captiam Kwok: "Environmental record? Nothing but loosening up pollution regulations for big corps and exploiting protected wildlife areas for more fossil fuels."

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Abortion:

I am against it not only for the moral reasons but also because of common sense. Why kill innocent babies when there are alot of people struggling to find one to adopt because they cannot have one of their own, this includes gay couples whom I have no problem allowing them to adopt considering the alternative of killing the baby.

Gay Marriage:

I am against this because marriage is between a man and a women and its sad enough what our culture has done to the word marriage with an almost 50% divorce rate, there is no reason to degrade it any further than it has gone.

dogscoff:
"Vote for whoever you like, Bush will just rig the election again, I'm sure of it.

I really dislike Bush (as you may have noticed) and although I know next to nothing about the other guy I'm sure he couldn't possibly be any worse, but like I always say: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician always wins."

With a very few notable exceptions, all politicians of all parties in all countries are corrupt, soulless, self-serving, bribe-taking, corporate-owned parasitic scum who will happily sell your Grandmother (not their own) to the dog-food factory for the price of a new Bentley and a seat on the board of some bull**** company or advisory board that they set up in office specifically so they and their old school chums could have a nice fat paycheque until retirement. We should burn the lot of 'em (with a few exceptions) and go live in self-sufficient anarcho-syndicalist communes."

That has got to be the most incredibly cynical view of the world I have ever heard. And how did Bush "rig" the election?

Well I guess this is a good spot to start my review of the canidates.

Canidates:
Bush: There is only 1 problem with basiclly anything he has done while in office and that is the Patriot Act. I find parts of this disturbing because of the power it gives the government and law enforcement and the Last thing this country needs is a government with more power.

Kerry:
Doesn't come off to me as a very nice guy, everytime I see him he has a weird cringe on his face, but this is not the main reason I dislike Kerry and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has no ideas anymore all they do is ***** and moan about everyting. Kerry also has switched back and forth on alot of key issues in a short ammount of time, he says what he thinks has the best chance of getting him elected and has no opinions of his own. Also The Democratic Party accused President Bush of being AWOL while he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard and had no evidence to back it up, these kind of unbackedup accusations from either side are unacceptable and sad.

Third Partys:

I don't know much about any third party canidates but I believe that Third Partys are a great thing because this country needs more that 2 choices. I live in Minnesota and enjoyed it when Jesse Ventura was in office, he didn't do to bad of a job and really shook up Minnesotas Political Foundation(in a good way).

Elections in general:
I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.

Future Elections:
Voteing Kerry in 2004 will not stop Hillary from winning in 2008. Infact it might do the opposite.
Vote Bush in 2004

tesco samoa: "Also my bet is on the old rich white guy to win"

If you vote for Condoleezza Rice(current national security advisor) for president in 2008(I hope she runs, but all I have heard are rumors) we can have a very good chance to get a president that isnt a rich old white guy.

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.

Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful)

[ March 25, 2004, 02:35: Message edited by: Combat Wombat ]

Phoenix-D

March 25th, 2004, 04:29 AM

Your timeline missed the part about our ultimatum to Saddam being exclusively about the WMDs..which again haven't been found.

Budget: They say there isn't another way..except every time there is a hint of surplus, the answer is tax cuts. Wasn't Reagans economic boom supposed to cancel out his deficits? It didn't, and if the pattern is followed the current plan will ALWAYS lead to sky-high debt because it will never be paid down but it will be allowed to grow.

Drilling for oil does involve enviromental damage, even if some of it is accidental (the oil pipline leaks quite a bit, for example). And any building of roads to get -to- the oil is inherent disruptive because of something called edge effects (the interior of a forest has different climate than the outside, different exposure to predators, etc)

Most forests do NOT need to be logged in a convential sense. Mianly because the best trees for logging are the old, large ones. Which are also the most fire-resistant.

The fires in California? Forget about preventing them. That habitat burns to the ground pretty frequently..IIRC the oldest stand is something like a decade old.

Abortion:

There are not a lot of people struggling to adopt, sorry. Actually the system is flooded and over-loaded.

Gay Marriage:

You're against it for sematic reasons. Hmm. Or maybe its because civil unions DON'T EXIST, and if they are created they will be able to be discriminated against that way. Seperate but Equal ring a bell?

Atrocities

March 25th, 2004, 04:38 AM

Bring the discussion back to point, who do you think is going to win the election this year?

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 04:49 AM

I changed what I wrote about gay marriages because what I posted in the first place wasn't how I really feel. Don't ask how I did this, I haven't been all together today but I realized it just 5 minutes ago while laying in bed and imiditely rushed down here to change it. I don't believe gay couples should have any of the rights a normal couple has. You can say this discrimination but they have the same oppertunity to marry a person of the oppsite sex and have all the same rights as anyone else does. If we let gay people get married where will it end, soon we will have two stright men that live together asking for the same rights or one guy and his 3 wives or even weirder situations.

The point is sadam had to prove that he got rid of them, he didnt, inspectors couldn't find them so we had to assume that he was hiding them which he wasn't supposed to do or even worse he sold them to some terrorist group.

edit: I think Bush will win

[ March 25, 2004, 02:53: Message edited by: Combat Wombat ]

Lord Chane

March 25th, 2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leave

When did it become the responsibility of the US to "free" people from an evil dictator? Did I miss the announcement? And what sort of precedent does that set? Should the US now free folks all over the world from the "evil dictators" they live under? Do we have the right to impose our definition of who is good and who is bad on other coutries? What if the leader of another country woke up one day and decided that President Bush is an evil dictator and decided to free us from his rule? We'd call that a war of aggression. The only thing that keeps another country from doing that is our military power. So it boils down to "might makes right", and that's wrong. That's a bully mentality.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

What gives the US the right to decide who can and cannot have WMDs? I'm not in favor of all countries having them, but the fact is the US has no more right to dictate to other countries about what they can and cannot have than other countries have to dictate to us. The purpose of having the WMDs is immaterial. A soverign nation has the right to do anything it wants to do, much the same as I have a right to do anything I want to do until my exercise of that right infringes on someone else's rights. There is no international law prohibiting WMDs, at least not that I'm aware of. If Iraq uses WMDs on its own people, then that's a problem for the Iraqis. There are many more people killed with conventional weapons by repressive regimes every day. Are we to invade and save all of them?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Economy is picking up thanks to taxcuts and good old american optimism. We just had the biggest quarter of growth in something odd years. And no the taxcuts are not just for the rich like the Democrats would like you to believe. They help everyone.

The tax cuts are a placebo. Does anyone really believe that the $500 most Americans receive as their tax cut is going to do anything to boost the economy? It's a joke. And yes, the cuts are for the rich. Is it a coincidence that the Bush administration has so many millionaires in it? Or that so many members came from Enron, a company that was cooking the books and defrauding its stock holders and employees? Is it just happenstance that umpteen billion dollars in contracts went to Halliburton, the VP's former company, without the normal bidding process? Bush and his administration is all about money, power, and the rich.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Also some people complain about the current budget deficit. I am not happy about it either but sometimes there just isn't another way and I am happy that Bush kept his promise and did not raise taxes.

I believe Clinton left a balanced budget. The current administration has spent and spent and spent, and to what end? The budget deficit is less a problem for me. I'm older and won't be saddled with paying it off. That'll be left to the younger folk in this country. I wish them luck.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

There is more to life than money and business. It won't do businesses much good to make money if the planet dies and we go with it. Drilling in national parks, logging in national parks, repealing air pollution laws and treaties is about money and nothing else. It's about putting business before people. It's about paying off the political debts a candidate acquired on the way to the White House. Does it seem likely that businesses left to their own devices will do the right thing and take care of the environment? The only reason they behave at all right now is because of laws that force them to. As the Bush administration makes it easier for them to rape the enviroment, they most certainly will.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

That has got to be the most incredibly cynical view of the world I have ever heard. And how did Bush "rig" the election?

I'd say Dogscoff's opinion is right on the money. Watch the news. We have representatives who speed through intersections and kill people and try to get off. We have senators who left a young woman to drown in their car to save their career. We have presidents who lie about sexual escapades. We have governors who take bribes. Need I go on? Someone please point out the noble politician who we can look up to. Where are the Lincolns and Washingtons today?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.

I disagree. A candidate's military service comes into the picture for two reasons. First, a candidate who has served in the military and potentially put his life on the line for the country can certainly be viewed as more patriotic than the candidate who dodged the draft, got his/her rich daddy to pull strings to keep them out of harms way. People who really care about something are willing to fight in support of it. It sends a bad message when a person dodges their nation's call to sevice and then aspires to lead that nation. Second, a candidate who has been in the military and especially one who saw combat is going to be much more judicious about sending troops in harm's way. They have an appreciation for what it is to fight, kill, see friends killed and are much less likely to send others off to die in frivilous wars or police actions. They are also much less likely to allow a war to be drawn out because they know the cost in lives and suffering that entails. Bush used his dad's position to avoid having to go. Kerry risked his life while Bush partied. Bush is certainly better than Clinton on that point but both of them appear cowardly in the face of Kerry.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.

No, there is something wrong with it being there. It violates the separation of church and state guaranteed in the constitution. That aside, would you feel the same way if the pledge included something that was patently offensive to you so long as you weren't required to say it?

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful)

I love a good discussion. I appreciate your opinion, although I don't agree with it, and tried to stick with the issues and avoid any personal attacks.

Joachim

March 25th, 2004, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
I am not old enough to vote yet but I still have very strong political opinions.

Next:
Renegade 13: "And yep, we're only there to stop him from having weapons of mass destruction....but wait a minute...who has the most weapons of mass destruction of all the countries in the world...hmm lets think about that."

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.

Ahh history is always forgotten when the rhetoric comes out. So Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant used in Vietnam was not a WMD?? What about its long Lasting impact on both Veterans and the Vietnamese still living there today? Lets not even consider WMDs like the Strategic Bombing campaign waged against Germany and Japan - Dresden or Tokyo anyone?
And if you can hide behind such farcical comments as 'we have only used them once' as a justification that is inhumane. The TWO atomic bombs dropped to test them on the Japanese have killed 100 000s of people - almost all civilians. There was no justification for their use, they did not end the war any earlier than it would have. As the only country to ever use atomic weapons surely the USA should not be allowed them still???
I have managed to avoid all previous debates like this, but sometimes things are said that just need commenting upon. So much for my five stars. At least we can debate these things.

As for the original point - Nader to win allthough he has a snowballs chance in a supernova. Otherwise Kerry, the USA cannot continue on this go alone foreign policy strategy, Kerry might just return to multilateral and UN actions.

Azselendor

March 25th, 2004, 06:35 AM

Sorry about not replying sooner.

Been busy at the courthouse. Those dimwits don't know thier left from thier right. Oh well.

Atrocities, I do agree Iraq was a possible threat, but bush's way of going about it was idiotic. The entire shock and awe campaign was a joke (I would prefered to see a MOAB go off just outside the city limits then a couple of cruise missiles). Of course, had the Iraqi army put up an actual fight....

Realistic threats are places like Somolia, Ethiopia, Syria, and Quebec (kidding on the Last one). And the Bush Administration turns a blind eye.

While bush cannot be held at fault for Clinton's mistakes, Bush has to be made accountable for not preventing it. In the Last year my income taxes have gone up by almost 500 dollars while my income itself has gone by nearly 9000. No one can say 'tax relief' helped me unless it was a relief from my income tax refund!

As for some of his laws, and this is also a fault of the Clinton Administration, are flat out unconstitutional. I understand the need to protect america, but tossing aside the highest laws of the land shows contempt for America itself. Laws of Ex Post Facto were forbidden because of thier usage during Colonial Occupation for a reason.

Kerry, I have to agree with. He's not totally the right man for the job, but he's better than bush. Kerry has been to war, unlike bush how got waivers to stay stateside, and seen what it does to people and families. Bush has not seen this with his own eyes and, imo, lacks the fortitude to properly direct our military.

Now if only both candidates could be reasonable enough to actually discuss thier platforms. Maybe a debate where bashing each other is forbidden and mentioning 9/11 is a foul. Then maybe we'll actually see the real candidates.

Kwok,
The two party system, no amtter how messed up it is, works because it's stable. That's why Nader, Perot, etc never have a chance. Multi-Party nations (more than 2 main parties) typically build coalition governments and that always seems to be a disaster in the making. One wrong move and the entire gov't goes to pieces. Then again, the politicans actually have to work in those systems...

Renegade 13,
Canada? Self Defense? what! Impossible! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

eol,
I agree with you on the other threats. What is needed in Isreal is a democratic government, not a one-sided government. Give everyone equal represenation and a government mandate to remain religiously neutral and let's see what happens. Maybe instead of dividing people into different countries the US should try uniting them.

That is how you build a nation, Last time I checked.

However, keep in mind the loss of civil liberities here will effect you. I'll direct your attention to the Antiterrorism & Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. As a result of the actions of an american, tim mcvay, and his bombing of a federal building, immigrants to the US now face deportation from things as little as a littering fine, DUI, or even bad credit. Is that fair to people coming to the US for business, work, or pleasure? I think not. By turning low level crimes into felonies foreigners, people can unkowningly be arrested and held in the immigration deportation system for any number of stupid reasons. And if you think that's bad, they can use anything from the 20 years prior to the date of the law going into effect just to make sure. Then we got the Secret Evidence Act, guess what that is used for http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Plus 9/11 is a reminder that jsut because it doesn't happen in my back yard now doesn't mean it won't happen in the future.

As for the skull and bones, it might be more surprising to learn that GWB's grandfather, Prescott Bush was fined a million dollars for aiding the Nazi's in WW1. It's funny how the California recall brought up arnold's father being a Nazi armyman, but no one ever mentions Prescott Bush. Then again, the Bush Family shares a line to King George the III and that's amusing because Powell's family does too.

Geo,
I'll bet you there isn't enough money in the world to pay the US to take Chirac.

Atrocities, David,
On my Last vacation abroad in 95, I found the easiest way to get through customs is to look exhausted and half awake and to have about 30 suitcases loaded on one trolly. Works best if you are entering at a Miami, LA, Texas, or Pheonix airport. The heat and the sweat will get anyone stinking up the high heaven and they'll wave you through with the air freshner can. lol

Wombat,
The tax cuts didn't help me. Don't assume everyone was helped just because the president keeps saying so. Myself and a number of my friends all got hit hard by the tax relief.

As for the debt, In real life, when someone runs up a huge debt and doesn't pay for it, it goes into collections. This is one way wars have started. I do recall Mexico was invaded once for not repaying thier debts. One of the causes of Hitler's rise was the fact Germany was placed into collections at the end of WW1. Going from a 5 trillion surplus to a 5 billion debt means a lot of money was lost real fast and someone wasn't keeping a tab on the account balance while writing bad checks.

Oil drilling does harm the enviroment. Of course, greenpeace using disel-powered boats doesn't help it. Take the tundra where it takes over a century for a footprint to fade in some places. What would oil drilling do to that ecosystem and all the frozen freshwater there? I like my ice without texas crude.

Forest fires are also a natural process of nature. By preventing them with logging operations we risk making the forest fires worse, or even speeding up growth of various deserts. A simply solution would be to make it mandatory that for every tree cut down, two or three saplings must be planted and left to grow.

Hydrogen fuel cells development, like Mars Mission and Moon Base and immigration visas for illegal workers are all fallacies produced for gaining votes. It simply won't happen. Gas prices can rise up to 10 bucks a gallon, and it still won't happen. Not until law makers get decisive.

Abortion, I can agree with you on. However, it should be allowed incase the mother's life is in danger and nother can be done to save the fetus. I have serious moral concerns about gay adoptions as it may hidner a child's emotional and social development.

Gay marriage I'm half and half, but not because it's supposed to be between a man and a women, but because it shouldn't be an issue. Leave it to the states to decide and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution to enforce. Issue resolved. To me, civil unions is jsut a way of saying 'common law marriage' and de-politicalize it. Safe way out for bush.

Anyways, now my arm is gonna hurt because I typed too damn much in one sitting.

As for who will win, I say whoever takes Dixieville Notch in upstate New Hampshire. Last year was bush and the year before was clinton. Hopefully they are back into thier stride because up until 50 years ago, they always predicted the outcome of every election.

Will

March 25th, 2004, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
I am not old enough to vote yet but I still have very strong political opinions.At least it sounds like you *want* to vote, which is refreshing, even if I don't agree with most of your points.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leaveSoon, hopefully... Unfortunately, the US will be in Iraq for some time to come, and there will not be a solid government there for even longer. Ditto for Afghanistan, which most people seem to have forgotten about. Not to mention all the other places we have "peacekeeping" troops (IIRC, N/S Korea border, former Yugoslavia (sp?), various locations in Africa, all over Latin America, etc.)

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Yes the US has the most WMDs but unlike Iraq we have used them only once(outside of tests) and we used them to do the right thing which was end WWII and save possibly Millions of lives that would have been lost in a fight using conventional weapons through the Pacific. Also we were defending ourselves while Sadam liked to use his WMDs on his own innocent citizens.Well, if you will kindly look back at your history textbooks, you will see that we in fact used them *twice* in World War II. And I'm not sure on this point, someone who has more military knowledge than I can confirm or deny, but the US Military currently uses low-yield nuclear bombs as a part of it's regular arsenal. I recall seeing a bomb used in Afghanistan which was designed to penetrate the ground several feet deep near a cave network, then detonate, and it was something on order of 1/20th the power of the "Little Boy" Hiroshima bomb.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Drilling for oil does not involve clear cutting entire forests and neither does logging. Also forests need to be logged a certin ammount to prevent situations like the massive forest fires that have plauged the west/south west. Also Bush put all that money(7 or 8 billion I think it was) into the development of Hydrogen Powered Cars, I sure he would have done that since all hes interested in is oil and destroying the enviroment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Drilling for oil has other impacts on the surrounding environment. I know, I grew up in Northwest Pennsylvania where the whole oil thing started. While most environmental Groups severely underestimate the ability of an ecosystem to recover from "oil exploration", that still doesn't mean that it's an OK thing to do.

As for the "hydrogen economy", most people who have more than superficial knowledge on the subject will tell you that it is largely a chimera. To have a hydrogen economy, you need energy to split hydrogen off of other molecules. One way to do this is split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and so far, most of the energy to do this is derived from... fossil fuels. Another way to get the hydrogen is put fossil fuels through an expensive chemical process to extract the hydrogen. So everything you've heard hyping hydrogen powered cars and the like has been just that: Hype. Hydrogen costs more energy than it generates.

The Bush energy policy tries to drive a middle road between what the industry wants (making it easier to increase supply) and what the environmental lobby wants (making it easier for consumers to conserve energy). It has been critisized a lot since it was first released because it does not promote conservation much. The issue has largely disappeared from the media since the energy plan was released, but the huge "energy crisis" it was designed to combat turns out to have not really existed, so we're left with a plan that is mostly short-term supply increase, and little effort into the long-term strategy of increasing efficiency.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
*snip*

Gay Marriage:

I am against this because marriage is between a man and a women and its sad enough what our culture has done to the word marriage with an almost 50% divorce rate, there is no reason to degrade it any further than it has gone.The Judeo-Christian religious definition of marriage that we use is between man and woman, yes. But just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it can't change. I direct your attention to the slavery debate...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Bush: There is only 1 problem with basiclly anything he has done while in office and that is the Patriot Act. I find parts of this disturbing because of the power it gives the government and law enforcement and the Last thing this country needs is a government with more power.

Kerry:
Doesn't come off to me as a very nice guy, everytime I see him he has a weird cringe on his face, but this is not the main reason I dislike Kerry and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has no ideas anymore all they do is ***** and moan about everyting. Kerry also has switched back and forth on alot of key issues in a short ammount of time, he says what he thinks has the best chance of getting him elected and has no opinions of his own. Also The Democratic Party accused President Bush of being AWOL while he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard and had no evidence to back it up, these kind of unbackedup accusations from either side are unacceptable and sad.I find many other things with the Bush presidency disturbing, other than the Patriot Acts championed by Mr. Ashcroft. For one, the extreme secrecy and lying about various issues: Clear Skies Initiative, which loosened pollution requirements on industry, Healthy Forests Initiative, which loosened logging restrictions, the continued refusal to release who had a hand in creating the administration's energy policy, pressuring intelligence agencies to come up with convenient facts about other countries' weapons, releasing severely underestimated costs for the healthcare bill and the Iraq war to Congress, on, and on, and on... Then there's the economy. You can say that the current economic situation is not the fault of the current administration all you want, but it doesn't matter when the economic policy consisted only of huge tax cuts that could not be afforded by the government, and largely ignoring the economy the rest of the time unless media started reporting on the lack of attention to the economy too much. Then a few speeches are made, and nothing is really done, and the media reports go away. Bush has absolutely no idea on how to deal with foreign policy, his economic ideas are a joke, and the military aspect of his administration is largely handled by other people, who are far too trigger-happy for my tastes. I really cannot wait for the election, so Bush can be replaced by someone who will actually *DO* something.

As for Democrats not having any "proof" of Bush going AWOL... I thought the fact that Bush didn't show up for something like 7 months for his National Guard duty was enough to show that he was Absent With Out Leave. That's the definition, in fact.

For the other charges against Democrats, I (sort of) agree. I don't like either of the two parties, but I side with Democrats far more often than I do Republicans.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Elections in general:
I think a canidates military service or lack thereof should not come into consideration in an election or at least the very high place that both sides have put it at.Ok, here I think you're just flat out wrong, at least in the case of a US Presidential election. Military service has everything to do with the position, since the President is Commander in Chief of the military. I would highly prefer a military leader who actually has some military experience. A President with no military experience will have less support from the very troops he commands, and that is not a good thing for the country. I also think a President who knows what the military life is like will be a little more hesitant to send soldiers into combat situation, and be more concerned with the duration of a conflict. These are things I think Bush has largely ignored.

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
If you vote for Condoleezza Rice(current national security advisor) for president in 2008(I hope she runs, but all I have heard are rumors) we can have a very good chance to get a president that isnt a rich old white guy.

Another issue that has come up recently but I don't think will turn into one debated by our current presidential canidates is whether it is constitutional to have "Under God" in the pledge. My opinion on this is as long as you arent made to say it then there is nothing wrong with having it in there. I myself goto a school where it is not maditory and find that this solution works very well.Sorry, but little chance of this happening. There is still a very large portion of the population around that would not take kindly to a President that is not what my friends call a WASP male (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant male). Predjudice still exists in many places in the US, and it is very hard to overcome.

For the Pledge, what most people seem to ignore is the fact that "under God" was inserted during the McCarthy witch hunt era, in addition to the "In God we Trust" on currency, etc. This can barely scratch by the Constitutions prohibition on the government from respecting the establishment of any religion, by arguing that it is a 'spiritual' god mentioned, and not the Christian god in particular. But anyone who truly believes this, in my humble opinion, is being very naive. Would it really harm someone if the pledge was reverted back to "I pledge allegience to the Flag, and to the Republic for which It stands, One Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All"? I personally think the original is far more patriotic and inclusive, which is what the US is supposed to be. All those who are complaining about changing it back also happen to be Christians it seems...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Ok well I think thats all I wanted to say for now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif but most likely I will have more later. And everyone this is a thread about politics, lets make sure it stays that way and not into a flame war as many threads like this do(I have seen this happen on other forums and highly doubt it could happen here but it doesn't hurt to be careful) Oh, I'm sure we all can remain civil.

There's probably some stuff in this post that could be considered flamebait, I'll be editing later to make things a bit more civil... but I gotta run now. Apologies in advance, no intention to insult anyone was intended (really!). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

atari_eric

March 25th, 2004, 06:50 AM

I am rather stunned by what I am reading here. Some of the people I respected have said such horrible and senseless things. Have they been mislead? Are they willfully ignorant? I have been trying to set up a rebuttal for these (IMHO) bad arguments, but my mind is so aghast with horror, it starts to cloud with every reading. Furthermore, I am not very glib to begin with. Fortunately, someone else has done a decent job, and I agree with most of what he says on his website. So I'm putting a link to him in my sig, and I hope it will at least encourage debate, if not enlighten.

Renegade 13

March 25th, 2004, 06:59 AM

Here's my opinion of politicians:

The people who want to be politicians make the worst leaders. Only the truly good people (the ones who DON'T want to be the politicians and leaders) make good leaders. That's why we don't have the Lincolns and Washingtons, because they were good people forced to do something they didn't really want to do. But they made some damn good leaders.

That I think is the real problem with the political leaders.

Renegade 13

March 25th, 2004, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by atari_eric:
I am rather stunned by what I am reading here. Some of the people I respected have said such horrible and senseless things. Have they been mislead? Are they willfully ignorant? I have been trying to set up a rebuttal for these (IMHO) bad arguments, but my mind is so aghast with horror, it starts to cloud with every reading. Furthermore, I am not very glib to begin with. Fortunately, someone else has done a decent job, and I agree with most of what he says on his website. So I'm putting a link to him in my sig, and I hope it will at least encourage debate, if not enlighten. So um....are you going to tell us up front whose opinion you agree with?

Will

March 25th, 2004, 10:18 AM

I think he means the link in his sig (http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/). Which, at quick glance, seems to be anti-Bush, and wants Kuchnich as President.

Perrin

March 25th, 2004, 03:38 PM

*sigh*

The endless debate. Never ending because people view the world and events differently.

Every time I hear Kerry speak I fear for this country. And Hilary makes me even more scared.

I am voting for Bush because America is in danger. 3000 people were murdered on 9/11. Most were Innocent civilians just going to work. Only the Pentagon was a legitimate target.

Wake up boys and girls we are at the beginning of the next World War. There are Groups out there that hate the free world and are moving to destroy us. And so far Bush is the only candidate who has done something and stands his ground. I would rather fight 5 Wars abroad then have to fight one on our own soil. And if you think that it will end with Iraq then you have not been paying attention.

atari_eric

March 25th, 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
So um....are you going to tell us up front whose opinion you agree with? Actually, I happened to agree with your post about the willfully elected leaders... I just chose to be quiet about it at the time.

Forgive me if I seem cryptic with my post - it is appearing to me that expressing one's political nature (if it's against the current administration) is becoming more and more dangerous.

dogscoff

March 25th, 2004, 04:23 PM

7. We know Iraq had weapons of mass destructionYes, once upon a time. However the ones unnaccounted for would have degraded beyond use years ago.

10. Therefore they are no longer compling [with what UN has told them to do] Israel has been defying the UN for decades. Should the US invade them as well?

13. US led coalition frees the Iraqi people from a very evil dictator and will soon hopefully get a solid government setup and leaveYeah, but the US did a crap job of it. They went in there and blew some **** up, that's fine, but they had no police force ready to pick up the pieces. They stood back and watched for a week or two while looters ripped the cities apart (apart from the oil ministry- they protected that from day 1). Then suddenly they took to shooting any civilians who looked even slightly suspicious on sight, fuelling revenge attacks and hatred.

And I've seen the footage of this, it ain''t pretty. I saw a documentary, and I watched an armoured car drive down the street at speed, shooting a guy who was just stood on the pavement. People drag him into a shop, but blood is pouring out of a hole in his head like water out of a tap. 5 US troops repeatedly kick a teenage boy who is lying on the floor, apparently he was caught shoplifting. Iraqi women look on in disgust from balconies. You wonder why they hate the US? Half of these so-called terrorist attacks against US soldiers in Iraq now are just ppl trying to avenge relatives who were killed without any particular provocation by US troops after the supposed "end of hostilities". Sure, Saddam was worse, but the US are trying to set themselves up as the good guys. The whole thing couldn't have been handled worse, and now the US will have to stay in even longer until it all calms back down. It's almost as if that's what bush wanted from the start.

1 problem with [bush] in office and that is the Patriot Act.That alone should be enough to put you off him. The Partiot act stripped away many of the fundamental rights and priveleges that differentiate America from, say, Iraq under Saddam Hussein. And that was just the foot in the door. Patriot act II is coming...

soon we will have two stright men that live together asking for the same rights or one guy and his 3 wives or even weirder situations.
Yeah... what's your point?

There are not a lot of people struggling to adopt ... Gay Marriage:
Allow gays to marry, and give them the same adoption rights as hetero married couples. That will increase the number of potential adoptive parrents. Two birds, one stone=-)

Lord Chane: Right on mate. Joachim too, I agree.

the slavery debate...There's still a debate about it???

I fear for this country. And Hilary makes me even more scared.
That sums it up, really. Bush has got you scared. He's got you so scared you'll let him do whatever the hell he likes. Strip away your civil liberties? Sure. Send your countrymen with your tax money to invade other countries for the benefit of your oil-industry buddies? No problem, just pull the covers over my head for me and protect me from the monsters under my bed.

There are Groups out there that hate the free world and are moving to destroy us. And so far Bush is the only candidate who has done something and stands his ground.
There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. That war was fought for other reasons, as was the war on Afghanistan. Most of the 11/9 hijackers were Saudis. Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi. A Saudi Prince, in fact, although he did work for the CIA for a while.
Most of the fanatical US-hating arabs you are so scared of in this world are- you guessed it- Saudi. Al-Qaeda is funded with Saudi money- lots of it, because the Saudi royal family is very very rich. So why hasn't the US attacked Saudi Arabia? Why isn't Saudi Arabia part of Bush's 'axis of evil'? Good questions with answers that might surprise you. I'll let you look up the answers for yourself.

But I digress...
Bush and his crew wanted an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. It says so in the PNAC, which is publicly available and predates 11/9/2001. A year or two before the the US attacked the Taliban, Bush's buddies were putting them up in 5-star hotels in Texas to try to get the pipeline ligitimately, but the Taliban weren't interested. So Bush invaded under the smokescreen of his "war on terror".
It's much the same story with Iraq. The PNAC says America must control Iraq and suddenly- hey presto- Iraq is not some broken-down little regime starving to death under international sanctions, it's a huge, scary bogeyman with weapons of mass destruction and links to AL-Qaeda that must be invaded immediately for the sake of world security.

we are at the beginning of the next World War
Only if you let Bush continue to push everyone toward it.

Renegade 13

March 25th, 2004, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by atari_eric:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Renegade 13:
So um....are you going to tell us up front whose opinion you agree with? Actually, I happened to agree with your post about the willfully elected leaders... I just chose to be quiet about it at the time.

Forgive me if I seem cryptic with my post - it is appearing to me that expressing one's political nature (if it's against the current administration) is becoming more and more dangerous. <hr /></blockquote>Please, tell us your opinions. They are valued, and help me attain better understanding of political situations.

dogscoff

March 25th, 2004, 05:08 PM

it is appearing to me that expressing one's political nature (if it's against the current administration) is becoming more and more dangerous.
All the more reason to speak up now while you still can!

Perrin

March 25th, 2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
we are at the beginning of the next World War
Only if you let Bush continue to push everyone toward it. [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I am sorry but I disagree. In the 90's they tried to blow up the World Trade Center with a bomb. They only did damage. On 9/11 they finally succeeded in destroying the building and killing many Americans. And do not forget what happened to the USS Cole. If you can not see that these are the actions of War then there is nothing I can say to convince you. However hiding our heads in the sand will not make it go away. George Bush is not pushing us to War he is responding to War.

I would like to see all Terrorist put out of Business no matter where or what nationality. And since they are willing to kill themselves to kill us (or our allies) then the only thing we can do is kill them before they kill us.

Will

March 25th, 2004, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> the slavery debate...There's still a debate about it???
<hr /></blockquote>No, that was my point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif There *was* a debate about slavery, with it's peak in the US around the mid 1800's. And now there isn't, except among a few white-supremacy loonies. I was just trying to say, times change, and things will not always be as they are now. Marriage will still be about love and a partnership between two people. It just won't necessarily be two of the opposite sex.

Ragnarok-X

March 25th, 2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
we are at the beginning of the next World War
 Originally posted by Perrin:

I am sorry but I disagree. In the 90's they tried to blow up the World Trade Center with a bomb. They only did damage. On 9/11 they finally succeeded in destroying the building and killing many Americans. And do not forget what happened to the USS Cole. If you can not see that these are the actions of War then there is nothing I can say to convince you. However hiding our heads in the sand will not make it go away. George Bush is not pushing us to War he is responding to War.

I would like to see all Terrorist put out of Business no matter where or what nationality. And since they are willing to kill themselves to kill us (or our allies) then the only thing we can do is kill them before they kill us. Heck are you actually KNOWING what you are writing ?
Bush. Bush.

See you once provided nations! with weapons, maybe even weapons of mass destruction.
You supported them, just for you own reaons.
You decided to supress nations, states, poeple. Man, Women, Children.
The USA has lost many of its former friends.
YEARS of surpressment, violence and hatred and you morrons actually WONDER why you are being bombed ?
You friggin forced it. The border had been reached.
HECK OPEN YOUR EYES FS. STOP LOOKING TV ALL THE TIME. LOOK AT THE WORLD, LOOK HOW THE WORLD REALLY IS !!! FS

Your Gouverments is doing friggin EVERYTHING to make you poor people stay dumb and NOT open your eyes. Most parts of the world are feeling ANGER toward your nation, weither it be civilians or soldiers.
You break treaties, you declare war without asking the world council (UN etc). You are breaking rules.
You force others to join your war. FORCE.
You kill innocent people. You are not at war because of terrorists, but because of RESSOURCES.
Because your Gouverment thinks it can establish a new world order. You try to control other. You are actually controlling others.
Your Gouverment is controlling YOU.
Poeple are dieing each day because YOU decide so. How can you let that happen ?!?
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ?!? WHERE ARE THEY ?! WHERE ?!!!! Face it, Iraq wasnt attacked because of "Americas" Security, but rather because of Oil.
I cant stand it, wars being fought because of such stupid things.
You destroy buildings in Iraq. Now you are even asking the other countries to lower the depth that iraq has. HUH ?!?! I mean come on, am i dreaming ?

Now listen, im honest.
If i had the chance to actually -kill- Bush, believe me, i would.
Im no killer, neither a terrorits, now a fanatist.
Its just that i try i would try to make a better world. For my children, even for your children. For everyone, for a better world.
I wouldnt matter what would happen to me, as long as the world would continue peacefully, people being more happy than they are now.

Your Gouverment is destroying the entire world, is infecting it with propaganda, with anger, with fear, with weapons, with stupid politics.

Your Gouverment must be stopped. I cant believe millions of americans are not seeing what is happening. How dumb are you people ? Its unbelieveable, now its just sad, how the world is going towards its end.

geoschmo

March 25th, 2004, 06:52 PM

Ragnarok-x, can I suggest you edit your Last post please. It makes it appear that Dogscoff said something that he actually did not say. He was quoting something said by someone else in the process of disagreeing with it.

Perrin

March 25th, 2004, 06:56 PM

Well I can see where you are coming from. There is as much propaganda in your words as you accuse me of having.

See you once provided nations! with weapons, maybe even weapons of mass destruction.
You supported them, just for you own reasons.
You decided to suppress nations, states, people.I agree this has all happened at one time or another. You are from Germany shall we discuss your history as well?

The USA has lost many of its former friends.Debatable. Were they true friends or we they also serving there own interests?

You break treaties, you declare war without asking the world council (UN etc).How can you say this when we asked and pleaded with the UN to enforce its own resolutions its own rulings. We waited months we even gave Sadam a chance to comply with the resolutions that he agreed to with his own signature. You supposition is preposterous.

You force others to join your war. FORCE.How? Where? Who? Bah! Edit: The only 'others' that you could even possibly claim would be Iraq itself. Other than that we have forced no one. Have we demanded that France and Germany honor NATO? No.

Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order. You try to control other. You are actually controlling others.More propaganda. Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

[ March 25, 2004, 17:09: Message edited by: Perrin ]

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 07:16 PM

RE: (Originally posted by Perrin)

"Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

Flag on the play. Ever been to the Phllipines? And, heck, depending on how far back you want to go, you could call all of "Manifest Destiny" colonialism pure and simple. Ever been to Hawai'i? How about Puerto Rico?

Perrin

March 25th, 2004, 07:20 PM

Well you got me there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.

Edit: There is also this:

Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order.Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none.

[ March 25, 2004, 17:25: Message edited by: Perrin ]

Baron Munchausen

March 25th, 2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by alarikf:
RE: (Originally posted by Perrin)

"Never in its history has America conquered another nation. Is Japan or your Germany under our rule?

Flag on the play. Ever been to the Phllipines? And, heck, depending on how far back you want to go, you could call all of "Manifest Destiny" colonialism pure and simple. Ever been to Hawai'i? How about Puerto Rico? Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2004, 08:13 PM

perrin these thoughts and feelings about america are quite common though out the world. I think it is an important issue that one in your country should ponder before they vote for a or b. As it is an important issue.

And no one is out to get your freedoms...

Its about the money. Either you control it or some one else does. Some call this self rule or self government. And until the middle east is controled by the middle east the attacks though out the world will continue.

P.S. I disagree on the concept of a military leader is a better leader. I think that civilians should run the country... To keep an eye on the military.

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest. That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

The Phllipines have their own goverment now, the downfall of Hawaiis native goverment was far from the fault of the US goverment it was mostly rich business men who did this. I am not the slighest bit familar with what happened with Puerto Rico.

The US trying to create a "New World Order", that is almost laughable take a look at the UN now there is an attempt for a new world order.
Also the UN in their great wisdom are trying to regulate and control the internet.

Europeans please don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss, Germany and its world wars, England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places, Spain with the Inqusistion, and destruction of a large part of South Americas native population and culture in its crazed quest for gold, Frances constant wars with England, and Napolean trying to take over europe, a very violent Revolutionary war(though done for the right reasons was incredibly violent)

And about Iraq and the whole war on terrorism I will offer this.
Someone said once, something like, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." In this day of relative good and evil, pacifism is the 'way that seemeth right.'

Very good points Perrin now I don't have to make them

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 08:15 PM

There are many differences between a "world order" of the US's doing and a world order of the UN's doing. There are a lot, but the most fundamental one is that rule by the UN is, by it's nature, more democratic becuase it involves input from the ruled. No matter HOW benevolent another power, would you want to live in a world that was effectively ruled by it if you weren't a citizen of it?

There is (was) a strong argument that the dominance of America as a unipole in the post-WWII order was due to the fact that they benevolently and presciently limited their own power by devolving it partly upon others. ie: America limited its own power (via the UN, various multilateral agreements, international laws, etc...and agreeing and acting as if if too was bound by them). In this way, a sort of "constitutional" arrangement was set up that gave the "ruled" a voice and even, in some cases, a veto over actions that affected them. See "After Victory" by John Ikenberry for a good enunciation of this argument.

I say this argument WAS effective and rang true but it does no longer.

I fault the Bush administration for a whole lot of things. (and I have street cred for doing so, but that we can get into later)...but one of the MOST damning things he has done is, in the course of two short years, overturned and effectively destroyed the entire post-war system of alliances and constitutional/law-like rule. By "going it alone" and excersing raw power (rather than simply convincing others of the rightness of a given action) he is returning us to a Hobbessian world of all against all.

And the conservatives NEVER get this. They rail against the UN and international law, spotuing off that "why should we be bound by some intangible thing like international law when it doesn't suit OUR interests?" Well, that's just about as stupid as I can imagine. International Laws, international agreements, coaltions built on convincing arguments rather than bribes or arm-twisting serve VERY important functions that, in the end, benefit EVERYONE. There is a very good reason the US has, up until now, abided by internaitonal laws AND, beleive it or not, been a strong proponent of many of them: becuase it helps us and everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game when it comes to things like that. By increasing transparency, reducing uncertainty, lowering transaction costs, and doing a whole host of other stuff, we and everyone else benefits.

The alternative, where we "go it alone" and say "the UN be damned" is a world of all against all. And in that world, inevitably, danger increases and, eventually, there will arise a balancing against the unipolar power.

WE live in a much more dangerous world today than we did three years ago. NOT becuase of Al Qaeda (hell, we've had terrorists for thousands of years) but becuase Bush is destroying the international system that the US built up since the second world war and which was perhaps the only example of it's kind in world history: we HAD a world in which there was a unipolar power but one which limited its own power to extend peace and prosperity across the world.

Now, we just care about ourselves.

I've gone on long enough. I try to make it a point to stay out of political discussions on game forums, but sometimes people just need to be educated. Sorry if I have offended, it was not my intention in any way. I am just passionate.

thanks,

Alarik

Originally posted by Perrin:
Well you got me there... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

OK how about in modern times then? Although I thought that the Philippines had their own government.

Edit: There is also this:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Because your Government thinks it can establish a new world order.Some Americans think that the UN/World Council is trying to do the exact same thing. Intellectually what is the difference? I see none. <hr /></blockquote>

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 08:27 PM

The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

Roanon

March 25th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it Very good point. Try to remember it next time you defend the current US politics with:
Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
Germany and its world wars, England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places, Spain with the InqusistionAlso, these are issues of the past and there is no one defending them. But you are defending what your country is doing currently, even if you recognize that it can be brought in line with these events?

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 08:49 PM

I don' think you were responding to my (too long) post below yours, for I don't think I ever stated that "sitting on one's ***" was related to the discussion about world orders. But I'll repsond anyways, since I am avoiding work.

I don't think anyone has advocated that the US just "sit on it's ***" and, if you are suggesting that the former administrations did that, you are either being intellecutally dishonest, egnaging in pure rhetoric, or exhibiting willful ignorance. (remember missile strikes into the heart of afghanistan in 92 (IIRC) to get Bin Laden? Remember all the times we dropped bombs on Iraq during the sanctions?)

Fact of the matter is, to eradicate any internationally-organized terrorist organization, you have to work with *other nations.* Getting rid of terorrists is not just a matter of dropping bombs on them. Where are they? Who are they? What resources/plans/ideas/bases do they possess?

To answer questions such as that and to address these with solutions, you have to work with other nations. So, when the US does things unilaterally, -- like it pretty much has since Bush came into office and which is entirely in keeping with what the NeoCons *always* said they would do --- it is counter productive. So we have to resort to bribes or coercion to get people to help us. And that works reallll well. Remember the 4th Infantry Division? How we bribed the Turkish government to let them in to open up a northern front? Well, funny thing, we twisted the Turkish arms behind their backs...and their people (through their reps in parliament) voted it down. And the war plans got screwed up. It was a real pain in the a** for the planners and operators in Iraq, I can tell you that...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it

primitive

March 25th, 2004, 08:50 PM

I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 08:51 PM

And, well, debate by sound bites ("those who ignore history...") is not really useful. I can just as easily say "History never repeats itself" and we have advanced the discussion no further.

tesco samoa

March 25th, 2004, 08:53 PM

If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 09:05 PM

That's exactly the question.

The problem with resorting to aphorisms and sound bites is that one can appeal to the "right" emotions without actually presenting any cogent arguments.

So...who is the bully and who is the little guy? and in any given situation, who defines them? And what if the actor who defines the bully is the one who benefits from that defintion? ad nauseum...

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 09:08 PM

And, it has been definitively shown not only that there was NO known link between AQ and Saddam (in fact, they hated/feared each other even after 9/11), but also that we knew there was no link, and, it seems pretty obvious (unless there has been willful ignorance in play) that the administration lied/misled the US and world publics about all this.

Originally posted by primitive:
I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

rextorres

March 25th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Nazi Germany is a good example of what happens when a country's leaders lie to start wars for political purposes and the citizens do nothing or go along. I think that's the real historical lesson in this particular case.

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 10:44 PM

So may I ask why is spain up in arms because they got attack by AQ because they are helping in Iraq, if Sadam and AQ hated eachother so much why are they attacking countries that helped bring down their supposed enemy.

dogscoff

March 25th, 2004, 11:09 PM

Once again, much of what I wanted to say has been said much more eloquently than I ever could, but I want to answer this:

don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss ... England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places
I'd be happy to discuss it. In fact I'll just tell you what I have to say right now:
We (Britain) were imperialistic. We were rich, we had a powerful military, but we needed more resources. We looked beyond our borders and saw resource-rich continents full of unarmed, unchristian heathens with dark skin and funny customs. In our arrogance we considered ourselves the most 'advanced', most 'civilised' people , of the time. We conquered and colonised at least half the world and we were evil, violent, vicious bastards about it, thinking we had some kind of permission slip from God to do whatever the hell we liked.

So we had our empire for a while, and then we lost it. For a long, long time afterwards, pretty much everyone hated us, and who could blame them? Many of those nations are still completely fkd up as an indirect result of now our wholesale rape, plunder and manipulation of their resources, cultures and people all that time ago. Many of those nations still hate us, but at least we have learned our lesson. Or at least I thought we had. We (The British) are a humbler people now than we were a hundred years ago- though still not humble enough IMO- and we would like the US to learn from our mistakes and stop now- for their own sake and for everyone else's.

Someone said something about history repeating itself..?

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 11:24 PM

One difference is the US and the coalition did not go to Iraq to conquer it, plunder or rape it. We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator. I will not deny that part of why we went to Iraq was because of the oil, but this is a viable reason. We cannot give an unstable middle east the opertunity to hold the world hostage by threating to cut the oil supply. This is another reason we should begin to drill in Alaska and get working on those hydrogen cars. You cannot say the world is not a better place because of what has been done in Iraq.

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Well, ok, that's a logical next question (but I think it has some pretty clear answers).

First, why is Spain up in arms? That's easy: hundreds of innocent Spaniards were just murdered in cold blood by terrorists. Who wouldn;t be outraged?

I think what you're asking is "why would AQ attack Spain becuase they are in Iraq, given that AQ hated Saddam."

A well known motivation for Terrorists are highly visible attacks that help them show their strength, display their cause, aid recruitment, and demonstrate their terror-inducing capabilities. They also have a propensity to use assymmetric means to attack targets that they can get at (you don't see terrorists rushing military bases, but instead they'll walk into ungaurded schools and shoot kids, or blow up trains, etc...)

So, after Saddam fell, you could surmies that Iraq became a "playground" for AQ where they could both recruit at will, shoot at US targets (soldiersand marines! the best targets from an AQ recruitment POV!) and have access to lots of disgruntled, well armed, and jobless muslim youth.

So, why would they attack Spain then? Spain is in Iraq. The presence of any western troops in Iraq is both a rallying cry (the west is crusading/colonizing the Dar Al Islam! throw them off!) and makes the AQ job of recruitment in Iraq that much harder.

If they can push "allied" troops out of Iraq, then they can destabilize the country, recruit much more, and perhaps turn it into a fundamentalist revolution exporting theocracy like Afghanistan was.

And, remember, Terrorists generally strike at 'soft" targets that make a very public and ideally symbolic bloodbath. The spaniard strike did just that and at a very symbolic time (right before the elections, exactly 911 days after 911 IIRC), and showed the Muslim world that AQ is a force to be reckoned with, they can strike the West at will, and they are helping to drive the west out of the Muslim world.

QED

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
So may I ask why is spain up in arms because they got attack by AQ because they are helping in Iraq, if Sadam and AQ hated eachother so much why are they attacking countries that helped bring down their supposed enemy.

AMF

March 25th, 2004, 11:31 PM

I think the jury is out on whether the world is safer because of OIF, but it is unarguably true that Saddam was evil, it is a very good thing that we have him, and ditto for when we get Osama.

Problem being not only the issues that I laid out in my Last post, but that we have totally lost any moral superiority or claim to legitimacy becuase we LIED about the reason we went to war.

The actual war I was always of two minds on it, it was both a good and bad goal, but I am unequivocally of the opinion that the WAY in which we did it was extremely damaging to our credibility, the war on terror, and the post-cold-war order.

Becuase we LIED to INVADE another country, we violated most any precepts about international law and soveriegnty that we ourselves have protected for umpteen years, and hence everyone in the world can't help but think: OK, now the US is not someone we can rely upon to do anything but what is in their interest. And since they are so powerful, we can't stop them unless we oppose them. Eventually, a counter-balancing coalition may arise becuase of this. Poof, right back to Great Power politics, and a much more dangerous world...

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
One difference is the US and the coalition did not go to Iraq to conquer it, plunder or rape it. We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator. I will not deny that part of why we went to Iraq was because of the oil, but this is a viable reason. We cannot give an unstable middle east the opertunity to hold the world hostage by threating to cut the oil supply. This is another reason we should begin to drill in Alaska and get working on those hydrogen cars. You cannot say the world is not a better place because of what has been done in Iraq.

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

March 25th, 2004, 11:34 PM

Naw, we won't learn from your mistakes. We're the inheritors of your empire unfortunantly. Whatever lessons are gonna be learned will be learned the hard way while lining the pockets of Busch's friends and Halliburton Inc.
However before you think I'm a total cynic I would like to say that Iam glad for the overthrow of the Iraqi regime. The Husseins would have been in power for many more generations and would have probably been worst than they were. I think their is no nobler cause than removing dictators from power. Baby Doc, Milosovic, Hussein & Sons, The U.N. doesn't have the guts to do it. The only country I trust is the Swiss, and they don't have aircraft carriers. So it's America and friends to the rescue once again. Unfortunantly we were lied to and that is insulting to me and dishonest to our friends. I would have respected someone saying "Let's get Hussein because he is setting up a dynasty that represses democracy and threatens his neighbors" Even then I think N. Korea should have been first anyway. Who's next on the deposed world leaders?....BUSH?
I'm kind of a militant moderate, just so you know.

I think we need U.N. Elections monitors in Florida.

Combat Wombat

March 25th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro:
Whatever lessons are gonna be learned will be learned the hard way while lining the pockets of Busch's friends and Halliburton Inc. I'm sorry but I have this pet peeve about when people state things as fact when they have no actual evidence to back up their claims. There is no proof that anything has happened with Halliburton besides the fact that they over charged the US and got caught nothing showing the President had anything to do with it, if there was Kerry and the Democratic Party would be all over it. Lets stay away from conspiracy theory.
And why because Bush and Cheny were CEOs of a large company automaticlly make them evil or automaticlly prove that there is anything like what you said is going on.

My hands are starting to make loud cracks when I move them so I am going to try to cut down on large Posts.

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

March 26th, 2004, 12:27 AM

And their never will be any evidence of collusion with Halliburton. As long as those with the gold make the rules and refuse to testify or release documents. I'm sick and pissed at the status quo and am I paranoid? Yes, and most my fears are coming true. I use to vote Republican but since the Fat Cats and Bible Thumpers have taken over the party my politics have gone just a little left. If only I could genetically combine McCain with Dean everything would be peachy.

Combat Wombat

March 26th, 2004, 12:31 AM

If this is as deep and awful as you say it is, how did the information about them over charging get out in the first place?

tesco samoa

March 26th, 2004, 12:38 AM

actually i think the fat cats are leaving the republican party for a while. Now its time for the other side for a few years.... The current party did what it thought was in the best interests of the country. This at this moment these decisions has been prooven to be a failure. I think that they should pay for their mistakes by being voted out.

If your a true republican. You should work to get your party back. And make sure that the 2012 Version is not another repeat of the 80's one and the current one.

If your a democrate. Look at the politicians. and look at who supports them via money and how they vote. And work to get rid of the right wing democrates.

America needs to get away from being a right wing country and it needs to seperate church from state. To me this is the reason why the west has advanced so much over the Last few hundred years.

Combat Wombat

March 26th, 2004, 12:46 AM

How do you feel the government is not seperated from the church?

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 01:12 AM

I really have enjoyed reading all of the Posts in this thread. You guys are very insightful.

Just as a precaution though, would everyone please keep an open mind regarding this dicussion and please keep your Posts civil and profession.

Thanks

[ March 25, 2004, 23:14: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

March 26th, 2004, 01:13 AM

I think it started under Reagan (who I voted for). Secretary of the Interior James Watt actually thought Jesus was coming soon so there fore eviromental protection wasn't really needed.

I have also heard that there are those in both the Israeli Government and the U.S. Government who think that Israel needs to carry out it's part in the end times and destroy the Mosque at The Dome of The Rock and rebuild The Temple of Solomon there. The Red Heffer is already alive and on a farm ready for it's part. Yeah, sorry no proof there though about WHO in wich government it is but you just have to trust that there are people thinking it. Hurry jesus hurry!

I work with one of those jittery end times, Art Bell listening, food hoarding, gun shinning types. He make us nervous with his talk of Chemtrails, Alien Strap on canisters (don't ask) and
Aztec Calendar stuff. There has just gotta be somemore of those types in government.

Alien Strap on Canisters = New Phong sex weapon?

dogscoff

March 26th, 2004, 01:25 AM

We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator.
Did 'we'? I was told it was to capture Osama Bin Laden... for a while. Then when it became clear no one was believing that lie I was told it was to get rid of the WMDs... for a while.Then when it became clear no one was believing that lie either I was finally told it was to get rid of Saddam.

This was a selfish, brutish and destructive war that has had many, many bad consequences because of the way it was fought. Getting rid of Saddam was just a happy side effect. A war to depose Saddam as its primary objective would have been waged differently, and would have had different results for the Iraqi ppl, and would have had my support.
You cannot say the world is not a better place because of what has been done in Iraq.I just did :-)

There is no proof that anything has happened with Halliburton
Well its links with the current US govenrment is matter of record, in terms of ex-employees, campaign contirbutions etc. On the other side, you have the fact that the contracts to rebuild Iraq were given to Halliburton (and a number of other, similarly aligned companies) after a closed bidding process.

I heard on the news today that unemplyment in Iraq is so bad that kidnapping is now one of the biggest industries. Why not give some of those rebuilding contracts to Iraqi firms? The did an impressive job of rebuilding after the first war, and that was with international sanctions in place.

Combat Wombat

March 26th, 2004, 01:30 AM

Firstly I will defend the listeners of Art Bells show. Most listeners aren't crazy alien seeing nut jobs.

I agree with the fact that there have been a few people like James Watt and I think that opinion was misplaced and crazy, but that doesn't violate the seperation of church and state, a goverment offical can base his decisions on what he feels is morally right or wrong, now how long that offical stays in his current posistion after a comment like that is another story, but this in no way constitutes the goverment endorsing a specfic religion.

This is my opinon on what Watt said: if Jesus was coming I would want to clean the place up. You clean up your house when a guest comes over why wouldnt you do the same for Jesus?

EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro

March 26th, 2004, 01:41 AM

Or if your in a hurry you could use the Ark of the Covenant. All that super suck Nazi face melting power will do wonders for my place, just don't look!

Perrin

March 26th, 2004, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by primitive:
I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Yes I do believe that there is a link however I do not draw the line with Al Qaeda. I believe that there is a link between Saddam and Terror world wide.

We already know that Saddam was paying the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore if he supports those terrorist then why would he not support others? There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. These are places that Al Qaeda could train. Why would Saddam who hates the US not support others who were fighting against us? Even if it was only with money and weapons.

Did you know that members of the IRA have trained in camps in the Middle East? I do not see terrorist Groups as individual Groups anymore. I see them all as a plague upon all of Humanity.

And although there has been no direct link found yet between Saddam and Al Qaeda the fact that he refused to comply with the UN resolutions makes me very suspicious.

I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today.

dogscoff

March 26th, 2004, 02:06 AM

There were terrorist training camps in Iraq
IIRC these were in the Kurdish- controlled part of Iraq...

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 02:19 AM

I think it is safe to say that the Iraq situation could be debated until the end of time. However what is done is done. Time to move forward and think about the future.

This war has both hurt and helped both canadates and I think it will be a minor point in the up coming election.

The big issues are going to be over the economy, and jobs not Iraq so much as in the past.

Randallw

March 26th, 2004, 02:32 AM

I personally have become disillusioned with the world recently. I used to think it was good versus evil. But lately I come to realise its realy everyone for themselves. We have countries going to war because of information which afterwards turn out to be false, or at least so far. We have the survivors of the holocaust , or Shoah, or endlosung, saying "never again" to their murder and persecution and crushing all opposition or assasinating enemy leaders. I'm not against this stuff, we need to stop those who threaten our dominant culture or the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland. It does show that things aren't black and white though. I just think its loyalty to your culture and the strongest will be the victor.

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 02:39 AM

I became disillusion when I started reading philosophy back in 2000. It was then that I discovered that nothing matters for in a 100 years non of us, or what we have done, will matter. This is simply the way thing work and have always worked.

Our voices will fade into the dim recesses of history and only the actions of those we elect will be remembered.

So we must insure that those we elect to lead us lead us well.

I like GW and would like to see him re-elected, however I am upset over some of the choices he has made and lack of involvment in important issues like Enron, and the energy crisis scams. Telling us that Manufacturing jobs were on the rise when in fact it was BURGER FLIPPER jobs that was on the rise was to say the least insulting.

But given the choice between Kerry or Bush, I would have to go with Bush. Kerry is just not the right man for the job at this point in the game.

Combat Wombat

March 26th, 2004, 02:43 AM

I think this is a good place to end this thread.

narf poit chez BOOM

March 26th, 2004, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by Randallw:
I personally have become disillusioned with the world recently. I used to think it was good versus evil. But lately I come to realise its realy everyone for themselves. We have countries going to war because of information which afterwards turn out to be false, or at least so far. We have the survivors of the holocaust , or Shoah, or endlosung, saying "never again" to their murder and persecution and crushing all opposition or assasinating enemy leaders. I'm not against this stuff, we need to stop those who threaten our dominant culture or the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland. It does show that things aren't black and white though. I just think its loyalty to your culture and the strongest will be the victor. That's the difference between the way the world works and the way it should work.

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
I think this is a good place to end this thread.

AMF

March 26th, 2004, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Perrin:
I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today. This is the easiest one to answer. Thought experiment: you're an evil dictator. You rule your people through fear, and you intimidate your enemies abroad through you military might. The US and the UN treat you gingerly, and continually demands you get rid of your WMDs "or else." Why would you do so? What is the motivation? No one, not anyone, belevies you when you tell the US you don't have them. And it is in your local and geopolitical interest to keep everyone thinking you do have them. So you play a standard game of brinksmanship with the US: telling them you don;t have WMDs while not correcting anyone who thinks you do. That way you keep your populace in check (those kurds don't wanna get gassed again!) and keeping your enemies at bay (Iran, Israel, etc...).
Unfortunately, in this case, the US called your bluff and, oops, you didn;t have them all along. QED.

It's the EXACT same reason the Israelis' let it "slip out" twenty years ago that they had a nuclear stockpile. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it sure as heck helps them if everyone THINKS they do...

Old adage in politics and war goes something like: "a secret weapon is no use if it's secret" - ie: deterring your enemies can;t be done if your hole card is secret....

So, no, Dorothy, there are no WMDs in Iraq, and after the sanctions there never were. But it sure as heck was in Saddam's interest to walk that fine line whereas everyone thought he had them...

[ March 26, 2004, 01:30: Message edited by: alarikf ]

Baron Munchausen

March 26th, 2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest. That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

<hr /></blockquote>Oh, the US citizens moved to a foreign country and then called for the US to come take it over instead of picking up guns and invading directly. This changes the injustice of taking half of Mexico in what way? Yes, Texas was technically 'independent' from Mexico but had not settled its borders when it decided to join the US. When annexing Texas, the US simply claimed all of the land that was in dispute as part of the US, touching off the war. There is no way around the fact that it was US aggression.

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
P.S. I disagree on the concept of a military leader is a better leader. I think that civilians should run the country... To keep an eye on the military. Not a military leader but a leader who has been in the military. Those who haven't are less likely to understand the horrors of war and therefore a bit more likely, in my opnion, to get involved in one. Civilians do run the country. It's impossible to be in the military and in elected office at the same time.

Baron Munchausen

March 26th, 2004, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by alarikf:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Perrin:
I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today. This is the easiest one to answer. Thought experiment: you're an evil dictator. You rule your people through fear, and you intimidate your enemies abroad through you military might. The US and the UN treat you gingerly, and continually demands you get rid of your WMDs "or else." Why would you do so? What is the motivation? No one, not anyone, belevies you when you tell the US you don't have them. And it is in your local and geopolitical interest to keep everyone thinking you do have them. So you play a standard game of brinksmanship with the US: telling them you don;t have WMDs while not correcting anyone who thinks you do. That way you keep your populace in check (those kurds don't wanna get gassed again!) and keeping your enemies at bay (Iran, Israel, etc...).
Unfortunately, in this case, the US called your bluff and, oops, you didn;t have them all along. QED.

It's the EXACT same reason the Israelis' let it "slip out" twenty years ago that they had a nuclear stockpile. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it sure as heck helps them if everyone THINKS they do...

Old adage in politics and war goes something like: "a secret weapon is no use if it's secret" - ie: deterring your enemies can;t be done if your hole card is secret....

So, no, Dorothy, there are no WMDs in Iraq, and after the sanctions there never were. But it sure as heck was in Saddam's interest to walk that fine line whereas everyone thought he had them... <hr /></blockquote>Unfortunately, this makes more sense than anything else about the situation with Iraq. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif It was very much in his interest to somehow 'leave the possibility open' that he still had these weapons, for both domestic and foreign reasons. What he didn't count on was that the administration of George II would be as ruthless as he himself was and completely disregard international law to take him out over this bluff.

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 04:05 AM

I really have enjoyed reading all of the Posts in this thread. You guys are very insightful.

Just as a precaution though, would everyone please keep an open mind regarding this dicussion and please keep your Posts civil and profession.

Thanks

AMF

March 26th, 2004, 04:09 AM

I think we have, no? I apologize beforehand (er..."afterhand") if I have insulted anyone or been uncivil.

thanks,

alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
I really have enjoyed reading all of the Posts in this thread. You guys are very insightful.

Just as a precaution though, would everyone please keep an open mind regarding this dicussion and please keep your Posts civil and profession.

Thanks

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

And about Iraq and the whole war on terrorism I will offer this.
Someone said once, something like, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing." In this day of relative good and evil, pacifism is the 'way that seemeth right.'
I agree that good men shouldn't stand by and let evil prevail. But who gets to decide what's evil? When individuals or countries act in such a unilateral fashion and set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner then they've become vigilantes. Vigilantes scare the heck out of most folks because there's no telling when they'll turn on you. If I applied the same concepts in my personal life, I'd be in prison for murder. Yeah, the people who live across the street are evil and I should be able to launch a preemptive attack on them, but the law says that I can't do that and if I do, then I'm likely going to find myself in a bit of trouble. I'm all in favor of taking action, but I'm far from certain that the Bush administration's actions were the ones we needed to take. And no, I don't know for sure what the correct action should have been. But it's plain enough to me that attacking Iraq has created two problems. One, we've played into the terrorists hands and probably helped their recruiting effort immeasureably. Two, American soldiers are going to be dying in Iraq for years to come. There's no way we're going to be out of there anytime soon. I'd urge you to stop for a moment each time you read about the death of another soldier and ask if what the war in Iraq has accomplished was worth that person's life?

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
The Bush administration isn't sitting on its as watching evil spread. They realize its not the most popular posistion but it doesn't matter because it needs to be done whether the rest of the world realizes it yet or not. If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Heres another quote(its probly not exact):T
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it Yes, but there's a huge difference between the present situation and the situation in Europe after WW-I that lead to Hitler's coming to power. The Allies then had the power of law on their side in the form of the Treaty of Versaille (sp?). The treaty placed limits on what Germany could do. When Hitler violated the treaty the Allies had a legitimate right to put a stop to what he was doing. Whatever treaty, accord, or agreement that ended the first Gulf war was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. If the UN had decided to invade Iraq as a result of Saddam's non-compliance, then that would have been fine. But the US did it mostly on its own and with what certainly appears to be trumped up reasons. At the very least it smacks of having a seperate agenda.

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
One difference is the US and the coalition did not go to Iraq to conquer it, plunder or rape it. We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator.
" ... an terrible dictator." Let's not forget recent history. It's not that long ago that the US was enthusiastically supporting that very same "terrible dictator". So long as he was serving our purpose and slaughtering Iranians, we had no problem with him. I think there's another famous quote that spells the situation out pretty well, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And don't think for a moment that Saddam turned evil overnight. We supported him while he was busy oppressing his own people, murdering Kurds in droves, and using those WMDs (poison gas), that we got so concerned about later, on Iranian troops and civilians. It was only after the Iraq/Iran war ended and Saddam turned his attentions elsewhere that we became concerned about him. He'd used up his usefulness much the same as had Noriega and a host of other evil dictators who we supported because it was convenient to do so at the time. Our hands are just as dirty as Saddam's because we not only allowed him to do those things but actively supported him while he did them. Shame on us.

primitive

March 26th, 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Perrin:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by primitive:
I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) believe that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif Yes I do believe that there is a link however I do not draw the line with Al Qaeda. I believe that there is a link between Saddam and Terror world wide.

We already know that Saddam was paying the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore if he supports those terrorist then why would he not support others? There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. These are places that Al Qaeda could train. Why would Saddam who hates the US not support others who were fighting against us? Even if it was only with money and weapons.

Did you know that members of the IRA have trained in camps in the Middle East? I do not see terrorist Groups as individual Groups anymore. I see them all as a plague upon all of Humanity.

And although there has been no direct link found yet between Saddam and Al Qaeda the fact that he refused to comply with the UN resolutions makes me very suspicious.

I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today. <hr /></blockquote>Perrin,

You got to distinguish between local and international terrorism.

- Local terroirsm you can find many places. This ranges from the single nutcases (Unabomber, Oklahoma) to full out civil war (Colombia, Sri Lanka, Tetchenia (sp)). The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is by nature a local conflict. Sure, Saddam supported some of the Palestinian families, but so did/does almost every other Arabic leader in the region. Bad, but it's still a local conflict.

- Al Qaeda on the other hand is international terrorism. This is something new and completely different. Before 9/11 Al Qaeda was (according to public data) a small organisation and while capable of pulling of an exceptional attack, they never had the strenght to pull off wast numbers of attacks. Madrid was 2.5 years after 9/11 and also earlier there has been more than a year between their operations. The very fact they need to train (and brainwash) their grunts extensively to make them ready will always keep the number of attacks down.

The campaign by Bush to spread fear in the US population after 9/11 was quite astonishing to watch from the outside. There are (again from public sources) sill no indications that the Al Qaeda ever had plans for follow up attacs nor that they had the capability to launch lunch them. I'm sad to see the Bush fear propaganda is still working, and that the deliberate mixups with Saddam and local Palestinian terrorism continious.

I am not against taking the war to Al Quada. Safe heavens for this kind of scum should not be available anywhere. Given bases they have the opportunity to grow, forced underground they would/will eventually crumble away to nothing. This is why International law is so important, and unilateral actions only will be counterproductive. The invation in Afganisthan was a good move, and if the promises to the Afgan people had been kept it might actually have been of help in the long run. The invation of Iraq was a stupid move (for the war agains Al Qaeda) for at least 3 reasons.
- It gave Al Qaeda a new theatre of operations, with plenty of new fundings, recruits and training opportunities.
- It emasculated UN, who was the only organisation who would have had the chance to coordinate/enforce police style operations in rouge contries (without going to full on war)
- Using CIA to come of with lame excuses for the war destreoyed all cred they have in the area. Any claim the US makes of the Al Qaeda operating in these same rouge contries can now easily be dismissed.

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Perrin:
Yes I do believe that there is a link however I do not draw the line with Al Qaeda. I believe that there is a link between Saddam and Terror world wide.

We already know that Saddam was paying the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. Therefore if he supports those terrorist then why would he not support others? There were terrorist training camps in Iraq. These are places that Al Qaeda could train. Why would Saddam who hates the US not support others who were fighting against us? Even if it was only with money and weapons.
[/QB]If Saddam and AQ were so close and Saddam was providing so much aid and support, then with Saddam and Iraq out of the picture we should see a definite decline in terrorist activity world wide, shouldn't we? Iraq has been toast for almost a year. Has the world wide terrorist activity declined any?

Renegade 13

March 26th, 2004, 05:15 AM

Wow this has definitely all been very interesting to read. However, I would offer one suggestion: Please take the time to consider your Posts and how they will be recieved before you post them. Mostly, for 2 reasons.

1. It would make it a lot easier for me to keep up on this thread!

2. I've read a few Posts that, to me, seemed to step over the line of courtesy and civilized discussion. Maybe more time to think about your responses would help to calm some of the emotions flying around here.

Atrocities

March 26th, 2004, 05:52 AM

Well Said Renegade 13

We are all enjoying what each other post so lets keep it fun and avoid any nastyness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Thank you all for posting and reading with an open mind and with professionalism.

Great Job all.

AMF

March 26th, 2004, 05:53 AM

Re:

Originally posted by Renegade 13:
2. I've read a few Posts that, to me, seemed to step over the line of courtesy and civilized discussion. Maybe more time to think about your responses would help to calm some of the emotions flying around here. If I have been guilty of this, I apologize. I get to typing and my fingers runneth faster than my brain sometimes. If I have offended anyone, please accept my apologies...

thanks,

Alarik

Renegade 13

March 26th, 2004, 06:31 AM

Well, actually there's only been a couple that seemed a like they might offend someone (not me, but someone!)

And anyways, I'm away from home at school for about 8 hours of the day, and it sure is hard to keep track of the conversation, and to read 3 new pages of Posts! So I have a not-so-vested interest in slowing things down! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyways, enough of me babbling, back to the discussion!!

Renegade 13

March 26th, 2004, 06:40 AM

Here's my opinion (yet again) on the political situation:

America is not evil. Some of the things that have been done by America, or America's leaders seem to me to be rather shortsighted and unilateral. But I don't think anyone has had evil intentions. Except maybe Bush, but I think he's a bloodthirsty ******.

The US and other powerful countries remind me of a young child, breaking a toy he/she does not understand. I don't think anyone truly weighs the reaction to their actions. Lets take for example the invasion of Iraq. Very foolish. It only made most of the world think of the US as a powerful bully, destroying and pillaging what they want. But it has backfired. Many many troops are dying each week in Iraq, and to what end? To keep militants from taking over the government? Here's a question for you then: when will the coalition ever be able to leave?

The answer is......never. At least, not for a long time. And at the same time, the debt is growing larger and larger. But who's going to demand payment from the worlds most powerful nation.

Anyways, enough about that. Ignore me because I probably don't make any sense anyways. And I'm tired. I can't think when I'm tired.

Randallw

March 26th, 2004, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Lord Chane:
Yes, but there's a huge difference between the present situation and the situation in Europe after WW-I that lead to Hitler's coming to power. The Allies then had the power of law on their side in the form of the Treaty of Versaille (sp?). The Treaty of Versailles could be said to have created more problems than it finished. It completely blamed the Germans for the war even though really Austria could be said to have started it. It punished the Germans severely, such as taking away a lot of its territory, it forced them to pay massive reperations and the germans did not have a say in what would happen. Basically the allies got so carried away with their victory they decided to make the Germans pay. I apologise that I can't find my textbook with the actual cartoon, but there exists an editorial cartoon drawn shortly after the Treaty where the writers of the treaty, such as the prime ministers of the UK and France and the president of the US are walking out of the hall and there is a small child labelled the "class of 39" weeping to one side of the door. The Prime minister of the UK says "can I hear crying?". Even in 1919 people knew the treaty was going to cause trouble and this is 10 years before anyone outside of Germany had heard of Hitler. If anything Hitler was allowed to get away with his demands because allied governments knew they had been too harsh and the German people deserved things back.

Renegade 13

March 26th, 2004, 06:53 AM

What was levied against Germany was definitely excessive. It hurt the pride of the German people, and a proud people do not like to be helpless. I mean, they weren't even supposed to have an army!! That was definitly a large part of the cause of WWII but not all by any means. Hitler was a bloodthirsty, racist person, and I think he would have gone on to cause trouble no matter what the situation. The situation in Germany merely provided the ideal stage for Hitler to espouse his crazy ideas to a public ripe for some revenge against their oppressers.

dogscoff

March 26th, 2004, 10:37 AM

However what is done is done. Time to move forward and think about the future.
No! I get really angry when i hear this. The truth about this war needs to come out, and the guilty need to be punished. Bush and Blair are appealing to the short attention-spans of their populations to try to avoid the repercussions of their illegal war- "Oh, the Iraq war, that was so Last year. Let's talk about something else now." How would it be if Nixon had dragged out the Watergate investigations for a year and then said "are you still talking about Watergate? What is done is done. Aren't you bored of that yet? Here, look at this bright shiny thing over here! Look! Look!"

I won't "move forward" until I see B&B in front of some kind of trial or hearing to establish the truth, and if they are found to be guilty of
deceiving their people and causing thousands of deaths under false pretexts and for dubious motivations, they should be kicked out of office at the very least, or even locked up.

[ March 26, 2004, 08:40: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Renegade 13

March 26th, 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Renegade 13. by the def'n of evil in this thread.

USA is evil . The war of ideology / economy cost millions of peoples lives, proped up dictators, overthrown popular movements.

Look at the actions over the Last 50 years.

P.S. Hitler was the lesser of the two evils in the 30's and 40's. He just moved first and the third french-german war was under way under 100 years. Yeah I guess you're right Tesco. The word 'evil' is such an ambiguous term, it means different things to different people. And that's one thing that Bush has done that's really made me mad. He's used the word "evil" to describe anyone who opposes him and his agenda. And yes, some of them undoubtedly are evil. But using the term to blanket those who don't agree with you is just wrong.

Roanon

March 26th, 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
USA is evil.A country or nation cannot be "evil". Whatever this is. Peoples may be, leaders may be, but I don't think you can say USA itself is evil or that every US citizen is evil.

I support you if you say that Bush is a money-greedy warmonger, but this is something totally different. And just my personal opinion, not that I want to start a discussion here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Baron Munchausen

March 26th, 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by dogscoff:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
However what is done is done. Time to move forward and think about the future.
No! I get really angry when i hear this. The truth about this war needs to come out, and the guilty need to be punished. Bush and Blair are appealing to the short attention-spans of their populations to try to avoid the repercussions of their illegal war- "Oh, the Iraq war, that was so Last year. Let's talk about something else now." How would it be if Nixon had dragged out the Watergate investigations for a year and then said "are you still talking about Watergate? What is done is done. Aren't you bored of that yet? Here, look at this bright shiny thing over here! Look! Look!"

I won't "move forward" until I see B&B in front of some kind of trial or hearing to establish the truth, and if they are found to be guilty of
deceiving their people and causing thousands of deaths under false pretexts and for dubious motivations, they should be kicked out of office at the very least, or even locked up. <hr /></blockquote>Amen. I want to see GWB at the least sent to the Hague where he can have Milosovic as a cellmate. And maybe the bulk of his administration should go with him.

Lord Chane

March 26th, 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Roanon:
A country or nation cannot be "evil". Whatever this is. Peoples may be, leaders may be, but I don't think you can say USA itself is evil or that every US citizen is evil.
As defined by the dictionary evil, in this context, means "Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant." So I suppose a nation can be evil if it can be said to be morally bad or wrong. The catch, at least from my perspective, is who decides on the morals we use to decide if a person or nation is morally bad? From the point of view of the US Saddam clearly met the definition of evil. Its equally clear though that some Arab nations and sizeable number of Moslem devotees view the US as the evil entity in this equation. I think the best we can say is that a person or country is evil from a given moral perspective.

tesco samoa

March 26th, 2004, 08:25 PM

Roanan I was commenting on the word evil in this thread...
I was saying

Renegade 13. by the def'n of evil in this thread.

USA is evil . The war of ideology / economy cost millions of peoples lives, proped up dictators, overthrown popular movements.

Roanon

March 26th, 2004, 11:42 PM

Ah, I had misunderstood this one, Tesco.
By Bush's own definition of evil, of course he is. Now I wonder if he will attack himself, go to Guantanamo, and let himself treat in violation of any international laws concerning the treatment of POWs. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Intimidator

March 26th, 2004, 11:53 PM

Amen. I want to see GWB at the least sent to the Hague where he can have Milosovic as a cellmate. And maybe the bulk of his administration should go with him. Sorry BARON, I do NOT agree with you.
And don't understand me wrong, I'm against GWB.

But I life in Holland (The Hague lies in Holland as you probably know). And The U.S. signed a bill 2 years ago (7 june - 2002) to invade every country where American military personal is kept in prisson for war-crimes, And they we're absolutly refering to Holland.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I'm laughing about it but believe me it's no joke, I'm death serious.

Master Belisarius

March 27th, 2004, 12:58 AM

Was reading this, and seems hard to believe to me...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=6&u=/chitribts/20040326/ts_chicagotrib/bushcriticizedforgagsaboutweaponssearch

From here, can't say if it's a manipulated notice, but make fun about this matter, when many people died for this reason (if we admit the President's good faith), doesn't seems right to me.

narf poit chez BOOM

March 27th, 2004, 01:28 AM

please shorten that with URL tags.

Master Belisarius

March 27th, 2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
please shorten that with URL tags. WHY?
Really would you prefer to read my "translated" Version from english to spanish and to english back again? In your case, I would prefer to read article!

narf poit chez BOOM

March 27th, 2004, 01:51 AM

I don't know what you think I'm talking about, but what I'm talking about is <blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> blah (www.blah.com) </pre><hr /></blockquote>which would produce:
blah (http://www.blah.com)

helpfull people here told me about it and now I'm being helpfull. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Wow. there actually is a blah.com. wonder what it means in whatever language that was...

[ March 26, 2004, 23:54: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Master Belisarius

March 27th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
I don't know what you think I'm talking about, but what I'm talking about is <blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> blah (www.blah.com) </pre><hr /></blockquote>which would produce:
blah (http://www.blah.com)

helpfull people here told me about it and now I'm being helpfull. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Wow. there actually is a blah.com. wonder what it means in whatever language that was... Oh well... I undestood you wanted to say the people should use less URL links on his Posts...
Thanks for clarify! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

[ March 26, 2004, 23:59: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

geoschmo

March 27th, 2004, 02:00 AM

Unfortunatly Master B it's true. It was in very poor taste, and it will very likely hurt him politically. There will be those that attempt to defend the comments as being in the tradition of these press dinners. They will mention that previous presidents have made similerly outrageous jokes. They will point to among other things former President Clintons press dinner comments during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

IMHO they will be wrong to attempt to do so because there is a major difference.

Clinton could make fun of his sexual dalliances and everyone could laugh. This was because for those that opposed him it at worst it reaffirmed their own already negative image of him, and at best could have cast him in a better light as someone that could make fun of himself. And those that suppoorted him felt the whole situation was stupid anyway and needed to be ridiculed.

On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule.

tesco samoa

March 27th, 2004, 02:02 AM

Renegade 13. by the def'n of evil in this thread.

USA is evil . The war of ideology / economy cost millions of peoples lives, proped up dictators, overthrown popular movements.

Look at the actions over the Last 50 years.

P.S. Hitler was the lesser of the two evils in the 30's and 40's. He just moved first and the third french-german war was under way under 100 years.

Master Belisarius

March 27th, 2004, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Unfortunatly Master B it's true. It was in very poor taste, and it will very likely hurt him politically. There will be those that attempt to defend the comments as being in the tradition of these press dinners. They will mention that previous presidents have made similerly outrageous jokes. They will point to among other things former President Clintons press dinner comments during the Monica Lewinsky debacle.

IMHO they will be wrong to attempt to do so because there is a major difference.

Clinton could make fun of his sexual dalliances and everyone could laugh. This was because for those that opposed him it at worst it reaffirmed their own already negative image of him, and at best could have cast him in a better light as someone that could make fun of himself. And those that suppoorted him felt the whole situation was stupid anyway and needed to be ridiculed.

On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule. Thanks for your answer Geo. And by the way, I agree with your view.

Lord Chane

March 27th, 2004, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Randallw:
The Treaty of Versailles could be said to have created more problems than it finished. It completely blamed the Germans for the war even though really Austria could be said to have started it. It punished the Germans severely, such as taking away a lot of its territory, it forced them to pay massive reperations and the germans did not have a say in what would happen. Basically the allies got so carried away with their victory they decided to make the Germans pay. I apologise that I can't find my textbook with the actual cartoon, but there exists an editorial cartoon drawn shortly after the Treaty where the writers of the treaty, such as the prime ministers of the UK and France and the president of the US are walking out of the hall and there is a small child labelled the "class of 39" weeping to one side of the door. The Prime minister of the UK says "can I hear crying?". Even in 1919 people knew the treaty was going to cause trouble and this is 10 years before anyone outside of Germany had heard of Hitler. If anything Hitler was allowed to get away with his demands because allied governments knew they had been too harsh and the German people deserved things back. [/QB]You're absolutely correct in your analysis. I wasn't supporting the treaty or saying that it was a good thing. My point was that good or bad the treaty was a legal document and when Hitler decided to break it the allies did have the force of law on their side had they elected to enforce it. Yes, the treaty was a mistake and fortunately we learned from it and we didn't repeat the mistake at the end of WW-II.

tesco samoa

March 27th, 2004, 02:48 AM

Truefully I think Bush and his administration did what they thought was best. Your country will decide if this was the right path on the election.

Atrocities

March 27th, 2004, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Truefully I think Bush and his administration did what they thought was best. Your country will decide if this was the right path on the election. Well said and thank you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Atrocities

March 27th, 2004, 05:19 AM

On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule. Can someone fill me in on the joke?

AMF

March 27th, 2004, 06:23 AM

Go here:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2A262BD7

Originally posted by Atrocities:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule. Can someone fill me in on the joke? <hr /></blockquote>

AMF

March 27th, 2004, 06:26 AM

It is traditional at this dinner (I think it's annual) for president's to poke fun at themselves. Everyone does it, it's what they do at it.

While I may feel it is in poor taste, the fact that it happened doesn't surprise me.

It's hard to joke about things like that - usually, IIRC, the prez pokes fun at his foibles and problems, but I am not sure if war was ever a topic of jokes at this event in the past.

Adn I;ve had too many beers to do the research at the moment...

thanks,

alarik

Originally posted by Atrocities:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> On the other hand Bush making fun of not finding WMD's is a lose-lose. Those that oppose him are not going to be impressed by his akward attempt at self-depreciating humor. They will say the issue is too serious to joke about, and they will be right. On the other hand those that support the President will be unable to honestly defend these comments because they don't consider the situation to be one that is appropriate to ridicule. Can someone fill me in on the joke? <hr /></blockquote>