[ Closed ] The US election (Page 2 of 6)

The UN failed itself.  How many failed resolutions were they going to pass before they realized that Saddam didn't care about UN resolutions?  The US, Britian, Poland, Spain, and 30 other countries enforced the resolutions that the UN had agreed upon.

It was also widely accepted by all nations that Saddam had WMDs and was trying to get more.  Did he have them?  We will never know, but we do know that he had some capacity to make them and was trying to make more of them.

I agree that the fall of the UN is sad, but its not the fault of Bush or the US.  If the UN had actually acted on its threats, then it would still be a viable body.

Frank,

I appreciate your response. I didn't want to cause disrest, just offer a differing viewpoint.  Not all nations believed that he had WMD's, just most.

It is true that the US has nuclear weapons, everyone knows this.  But Saddam was known to be an agressive leader, not shying away from invading a country such as Kuwait.  It was also commonly believed that he was interested in invading Israel.  He also used weapons on his own people.

The Kyoto protocol had some glaring problems with it.  That is why Bush was against it, no other reason.

In the end, Saddam constantly ignored the world body by kicking out inspectors, robbing his own people in the oil for food programs, and other ways.  The fact that he 'agreed' to disarm doesn't mean anything since he 'agreed' to do many other things that he didn't do.

I too will end my discussion.  My point has been made.  Thanks for listening.

Last Wednesday (10/6/2004), the Armed Services committee had their hearing on the final findings of US's own official weapon inspection reports.

rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project … 4_armed.rm

The whole thing's pretty long. But I think the basis for most peoples' ire with the entire situation is summed up nicely by Senator Carl Levin's take on the situation (fast-forward 9 minutes into the hearing). Please note that Levin's comments were made within the context of the US weapon inspector's newly-released final report.

The CIA has also posted the key findings of committee's report online here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd … ndings.pdf

This will probably be my last post in this topic too.
(I groaned when I saw this in the topic list but couldn't help myself.)

Maybe america went to war for the wrong reasons but told its people the right reasons... i mean they went to war for oil and said they were liberating a nation and taking down a threat, however is iraq really better off at the moment and has terrorism fallen?

Ok, calling him stupid might be pushing it, but he sure is way below average for a president. I am convinced he would be no more than a used car salesman hadn't he been brought up the way he was (silver spoon and all).

And yes, he did graduate from Harvard (barely), but that's hardly a benchmark for intelligence :) President of the USA is the most powerful political office in the world. I might be a dissident here, but I believe we must expect more from someone who "claims the throne" so to speak.

The fact that he beat Gore is also up for debate. I've read over and over again that Gore got more votes. I'm sure you're all thinking oh no, not THAT again, but it is hugely important. If the fact that Gore got more votes and still didn't become president is true, it essentially means America isn't a democracy.

If he hadn't gone to war, I'm sure he wouldn't even have been considered the for the upcoming election. America demanded a war and he responded. I don't buy into the propaganda that he "duped America into going to war". The fact that most Americans wanted a war hardly makes the situation better though.

And you do that by invading Iraq? Since when has Saddam been a direct threat to the US? There are lots of other hostile dictatorships that we KNOW have WMD's or at least the technology and raw material to manufacture them.

30 out of 191 countries I might add.

The UN hasn't fallen. Americans have just started ignoring it's recommendations.

It's not up to the UN to "act on threats". The UN is a peace-keeping organisation, not the opposite. Sure, it might be the most bureaucratic organisation in the world, but it's all we've got. Let's make it more effective instead of side-stepping it.

And none of the other superpowers noticed these problems? Bush's main argument was that the protocol would be a hard blow on the American economy (mainly due to increased electricity prices). Of course it would! The protocol forces people everywhere to make compromises. Personally, I think the Kyoto protocol is a threat to the American lifestyle more than anything. Americans get grumpy when they can't fill up their oversized SUV's with extremely cheap gasoline (less than a third of what we pay in Europe) and leave the George Foreman grill on 24/7. Ok, I'm not sure about that last one :), but you do consume a rediculous amount of electrical energy "per capita".

Please don't. I value your input here.

I want to make something very clear here. In might come on as some kind of America hater at times, but believe we me when I say I'm not. I've only been to the US once (in NYC in 2002), but I had a great time and found Americans to be a very nice bunch of people. It just baffles me how such nice people can conduct such foul foreign policy.

I agree, but the election will determine who will be in office for the next four years, so the why is just as important in that respect. Why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq is an important political question. Who is more suited for the job of withdrawing disgruntled US troops from Iraq? The person who put them there in the first place or someone with a fresh perspective on things?

I'm still supporting Kerry. The oppositions main argument has been that Kerry might be weak or indecisive. Whether he is weak or not, I don't know, but I think a little bit of indecision and humility is healthy in a president. We want someone who will go to war as an absolute last resort and I don't believe Bush did that. Americas foreign policy is the very reason they claim to be in a "war on terrorism". Remember:

I don't paticularily want a president who starts talking about his combat experience in Vietnam when last resort is mentioned

" Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." "

Quote from John Kerry ^^

And Kerry is the one who likes to talk about that the most

I think most people have two different takes on this...

#1. Lots of people vote for the tough-guy image (that Bush has and Kerry is trying desperately to gain). Usually the tough-guy image goes to the candidate with the military record but Kerry has to compete with Bush's folksy Texan and 9/11 response tough-guy image.

#2. Since the US president acts as the commander-in-chief of America's armed forces, I think that people believe a president with hands-on experience in war is likely to be a better judge of when and how to apply such force, and what applying that force really means to the world and the soldiers fighting.

Number 2 plays to the anti-Bush people because they can clearly divide the Bush administration itself into two groups along these lines...
    The no-combat-experience and quick-to-war camp:
     Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, Rumsfeld, et.al.

    The combat experienced and slow-to-war camp:
     Powell and Armitage

I'm not sure I'd defend these rationals to the death. This is simply the way I've have understood the "conventional wisdom" regarding military service and US presidents myself: as a mix of #1 and #2.

Well, at least I said "probably".

replace expert staff with financial backers and you have the answer

I agree that combat experience does play a role in the decision making process when considering "going to war".  Who better to ponder the thought of sending young men and women into combat than someone who has seen it close up for what it really is. One would never know how Kennedy would of handled the cuban missile crisis had he not been a veteran, but I think it does play into the decision. Bush Sr. made the decision to not go into Bagdad in '91 as he saw no "exit strategy", perhaps his veteran role also played a part in his decisions... who knows ..While the advice to do something may come from advisors, I believe it is a personal one when the decision is finally made (at least for the good presidents anyway).

I think Americans, me at least, show a certain respect for those who have fought in combat. I would stand behind Powell before I would Rumsfeld. Perhaps it is a generational thing, I think most people here barely remember the first Gulf War, let alone Vietnam, Korea, or WWII.

------------
It is very interesting to hear why non-US citizens think one should / shouldn't be our president, in fact fairly humorous at times, and VERY frustrating at others. You all speak as if you are more knowledgeable about our wants / desires from a president than we do. When we try to explain what Americans really feel, you all want nothing of it. I would not even attempt to try to tell you if Blair should stay or go, as I have no idea what you hold more vaulable in your own minds. Please try to consider the same.

Funny how we never see topics like- "Russia dealing with Chechin rebels?", or "Australia re-elects prime minister who supported Iraq war", or how "Arab "gangs" massacre thousands in Africa and governent does nothing to stop the genocide", or anything of that nature. Seems the US is just good reading.

I'm also surprised how much of these decisions from non-americans comes from Iraq war (no one even mentions Afghanistan- first free elections recently by the way). When the Iraq mess is over with, and it will be, we as a country have more important issues to resolve. We need to also consider these issues and not just whether the president will go to war or not. I want to hear economic plans, healthcare reform, national debt reduction, international realations, etc. be discussed and those also weigh heavily on our decisions.

Also- perhaps some are not aware that there is a legislative branch to our government that has more impact on our daily lives than the president. All say "Bush" took us to war, but do not forget the house and senate gave him the go ahead. NO president I know of have gone against that body on such a serious issue. An opposing party with majority rule in the house and senate can all but make a president "powerless". The president has ideas and proposals (unless he invoke things by executive order), but it is the remainder of our government that makes it happen, or not happen.

In other words- there is a big picture here, and if one makes decisions based on a single event (Iraq), or one flaw in a candidate (yeah Bush comes off pretty stupid at times), then you are not looking at this big picture. You're merely jumping the bandwagon.

Just IMHO

Election info here. Updated daily!