[ Closed ] The US election (Page 3 of 6)

Alas, I couldn't stand back any longer.   Evidently my resolve is not that strong.  I wanted to respond to your intitial response.  I apologize for not being able to respond to everything, but I am working on a new implementation of punBB over at my main website, Site-Reference (take a look at the development at http://forums.site-reference.com).

So, with no further delay...on to the responses...

Ok, lets stop there for a moment.  Yes, Bush did have a "privelaged" upbringing.  Yet what evidence do we have that he is stupid?  Because he isn't a good speaker?  Einstein was noted for his absent-mindedness yet was regarded to be one of the most intelligent men in history.

Bush graduated from Harvard Business School, not just Harvard.  HBS is recognized as one of the top 5 B-Schools in the world.  Getting into HBS is extremely difficult, not to mention actually graduating.

President of the USA is the most powerful office in the world, but it takes a heck of a lot more than being a genious to run in that office.  Bush is a solid, solid businessman.  He knows how to make decisions, and he knows how to adjust to the consequences of his decisions.  Give me a solid businessman any day over a bookworm to lead this country.

I have no intention of being patronizing here, but you do know that we do not go on the popular vote in our elections.  We use the electoral college.  The reason we do this is to make sure every region of the country, and every lifestyle is equally represented.  If we did not have this, then Ohio, Penn., Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, etc. would all be ignored in the campaigns.  Candidates would focus only on New York, Texas, and California.  Hardly a representive government.

BTW, America is not a democracy, it is a representive republic.  The goal is to represent the people's views.

Finally, no one knows who won the popular vote.  Although the official numbers have Gore winning, those numbers do not include a lot of absentee ballots.  The reason comes down once again to the electoral college.  Take California as an example.  On the day of the election, Gore had a very large margin of victory in this state.  Because his margin of victory was larger than the number of absentee ballots, the absentee ballots were not counted in their final numbers.  Being that most absentee ballots represent the military, and being that the military traditionally votes republican (80% traditionally), California's absentee ballots alone would have tipped the popular vote in Bush's favor.

I highly disagree with this.  Most Americans initially did not want war with Iraq until AFTER the case was made against Saddam.  Americans wanted a war against Afghanastan because they were viewed as the source of 9/11.

Saddam was a threat for over 10 years.  Every single day he was firing at our planes patrolling the no-fly zone.  He was a threat as he was using the oil-for-food program to fund his weapons ambitions.  He was a threat to the US as he was requiring his education system to teach a system of lies to Iraqi children, many of these lies describing how the US is an evil society.  Most importantly, though, he was a threat that had proven diplomacy was not going to be an option.

There are other countries that have WMD's or the technology to produce them, but there are other ways to deal with them (and containment policies, such as the one in Iraq before the war,is not one of those ways).  N. Korea is being dealt with through multi-national talks (an example of how Bush DOES use diplomacy to reach an end goal).  Syria has already agreed to dismantle their weapons due to Bush's influence.  Iran, well, Iran is having enough internal problems to not have to even think of war as an issue just yet.

The argument that there are other countries that are more dangerous misses the point.  The point is simple...Iraq was a threat that had no other options.

Yes, 30 out of 191 countries.  As Bush said, he didn't make the decision to be popular, but to do the right thing.  Other nations do support us in our efforts, many are neutral, and a few have opposed the actions all together.  Every nation has a right to their own position on the war, but the US was not alone in evaluating Iraq as a real threat.  To say so is demeaning to those other countries who have also made sacrifices.

That is exactly what Bush tried to do, make the UN more effective.  The basis of war, contrary to popular belief, is not WMD's, but rather Iraq's continued defiance of UN resolutions.  How many resolutions was it going to take?  A list of resolutions against Iraq can be found here.

The UN is not completely dead, but Saddam nearly made the UN into a meaningless body.  It is a peacekeeping organization, but as such it needs to deal with those who are not in line with keeping the peace.  Saddam was definitely not in line with keeping the peace.

Yes, that was Bush's argument, and I really don't see anything wrong with Bush asking for the responsibility to be shared more evenly.  Another glaring reason to not sign the Kyoto treaty was because it was bad science.  Take Russia for example.  Putin, the Russian legislature, and the Russian Academy of Sciences all stated that the Kyoto protocols were bad science, yet political pressures forced Russia to join (they wanted entrance into the WTO).

Regarding the gas prices in the US and electrical energy, I agree that we use way more than we should.  However, keep in mind that our transit is much different than in Europe.  Europe has a very well organized train system.  The US transit has been build on roads and personal ownership.  The result...we drive a lot more.  There are a lot of reasons we developed this way, and although it may not be the best thing, it is what it is.

Allow me to make something clear as well...I understand why people are upset at the US and Bush.  Bush had to make some very unpopular choices.  But in the grand scheme of things, any president or leader has to look after his people first, then worry about his stance in the free world second.

A lot of people died on 9/11, but more importantly, it showed that America can be attacked successfully.  The world was with us on 9/11, and I can tell you that every American was moved by the outpouring of support by the world on that day.  Many nations have disagree with the way that America has handled itself after 9/11, but remember that unless you are getting the intelligence that Bush is seeing on a daily basis, it is hard to say who is really going to be responsible for the next 9/11.

BTW, I hope you get the chance to come back to the US.  NYC is the greatest city in the world (I've been there countless times and would love to live there).  But there are a lot of great places to see beyond NYC as well. 

Finally (I promise this will be the end of this post), some people have asked whether Iraq is better off now than it was before the war.  To those people, I say yes.  Sure, it is more unstable, but at least there is hope right now.  Understand that these people have lived under a dictator for nearly 30 years, and now they are finally tasting freedom for the first time.  There will be a struggle, and it will be long and hard, but at least these people have the hope of security.  Under Saddam, they never knew when they would end up on his 'naughty or nice' list.

They have both said essentially the same thing.  Kerry, however, will change his views depending on the political climate.

OK- since all are in the quoting mode, I'll waste some time here in the hotel and give it my shot..... here goes....

While Clinton did wonders, or attempted to try, for some causes (that were rejected by the way)... You cannot dismiss the contributions to world peace made by Reagan. It is perhaps his "toughness" that helped bring and end to the cold war and made a hell of a lot of europeans a lot safer. Without him (and Gorbachov), the USSR could still be standing and people would still be climbing the wall in Germany. True "Reaganomics" were not the greatest and ballooned our national debt, but it provided growth and optimism at a time when out country needed it.

This is a lost cause and Clinton did what he could, but the best deal was on the table and it was rejected. Should Bush step in and be accused of "forcing his might" or try (for once) to let someone solve their own problems.

And why the hell should we resolve this issue (can anyone in the world solve its own problems??). One nation wants to live in peace, and another "group" will not even acknowledge their right to exist (now that's a good starting point isn't it). And lets all go back to say late 1940's or so when "THE UN" in its humble beginnings, along with the rest of the world, granted Israel the right to exist and gave it the homeland. Blame you forefathers for that.

OK- here is a quick quiz for you all. Name one country, other than Afghanistan or Iraq, that we have bombed?

Remember- Afghanistan campaign had the "worlds" blessing, and Iraq has been taking pot shots at coalition aircraft patrolling the no fly zone since end of '91 war. Note- a no fly zone endorsed by the UN.

Well I disagree with this one as well. You see it is the US against terrorism any more because so many people cannot see beyond their own little worlds. If one person here thinks the current situation is "Iraqis fighting for the homeland" instead of "every extremist who can get to Iraq and fight the fight", then it is a lost cause to even discusss it.

Sometimes the world just needs to remove someone, or groups, and be done with it. I am amazed how often the phrase "yeah we're better off without him, but...." gets used. If this is the general consensus, then why the problem. Shit or get of the pot is a common expression around here....while you're all shitting, we off the pot and getting things done.

And yet the most criticism comes from european nations. Do you hear leaders from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordon, Kuwait, Iran, UAE, etc. harping as bad as others. They know the story, and understand this is the way some things are handled. the most severe I've heard from them is "Be carefult not to piss of the natives"....

IMHO- another propoganda item- "Amercians wanted a war"...Afghanistan yes, but there was much debate about Iraq. Why on earth would we want 1000+ coffins for the sake of getting rid of one person. You all need to go back into that time frame for proper context. The UN resolutions were clear as to what was coming, not ruling out use of force. And to the best of everyones knowledge, there was a potential threat. One should also note that at the time there were also training camps being operated in northern Iraq.

Americans don't want war, they want resolutions to problems....see "Shit or get off the pot....." above.

OK- lets through some more facts into this. As nfl-forums noted, our transit system is a bit different than most european nations. I mean, come on, half the countries in europe are smaller than some of our states. A mass transit across your country may make sense, but from Washington to Idaho, don't think so. If you can't understand that, then skip the rest of this comment.

Oversized SUV's. Yeah alot of people drive them that don't need them. But a large portion of our work force are blue collar and construction, farm, and other vehicles of that type are the normal. Try getting 6 electricians in a Yugo. And if one also considers the weather, and that a majority of this country gets some nasty weather- four wheel drive is a requirement in a lot of areas.

As for price of gas- as I understand it, not many european countries make their own and I believe your fuel taxes are MUCH higher than ours. Do you think we get a discount because of volume??. In addition, I believe some asian countries are also increasing consumption near the US levels. One could easily say most Arab countries, or Venezuela for example, pay a ridiculously amount for their fuel as well.

I'm quite sure if the power grid over there could handle it, you'd all have your George Foreman grills running.

In addition, one needs to consider the status of a majority of the industrial institutions in the US as they were built long before any thoughts of global warming were talked about. A majority of power plants are fossil fuel fired, as are a lot of other plants. You all say that our economy effects the rest of the world, well if forced immediately to clean all this up- guess what.....not so much foreign aid out there. Personally I'd like the world to clean up a bit, but you can't take 50 years of industrail growth and "wash it" in a short time.

Not listening to the rest of the world is narrow minded?? This should also apply to each and every nation that continues to elect (or in most cases fail to overthrow) its leaders. Tell me- are the leaders of Arab nations elected on the positive views they hold toward the US? Does the population think- no wait- this guy is just rehashing generations of hatred so I will not vote for him in hopes the world is a safer place?

Our effect may be larger than any one other nation, but the sum of the nations in Europe and Middle East need to consider the same things you are asking of us.

Well this American was also concerned, as noted above, about the training camps in operation, and the $26000 being paid to the families of suicide bombers, and just basically tired of this 12 year old pain in the ass. I didn't care if he had WMD's (as I honestly think most americans didn't), I just wanted the bastard off of our "to do lists" and out of our military budget.

I really don't think you do. As noted above, I think the fact you produce none of your own, and have higher fuels taxes would probably explain the cost differences.

-------------------------------------------------
As I noted in the previous post- you all seem to be placing way to much emphasis on the president while completely ignoring the other "more critical" pieces of our government- the legislative branch. Majority there is what gets things done...

In addition,  no one here seems to mention the political parties these guys represent. With Bush (republican) you tend to get tax cuts for the upper class (trickle down economics) and exploding deficits. Whereas with Kerry (democrat) you tend to get tax and spend for the middle/lower class.

So- IMHO if you are solely basing your opinions on who should be our president simply because "Bush went to war" or "is stupid", or because of some other reasons for Kerry, then to me "that is being narrow minded". As well as uninformed as to the true workings of the US government and economy. For all you know, you may be for the "no-war" guy who may thrust our economy into a shambles (and you all noted how important that is)....

To me- the arguments represented here are such a small part of the overall picture. Basically "the war"....more at stake than that folks- for US (and everyone else)...

Just IMHO folks...

I'm gonna chicken out and leave this discussion up to the rest of you. As in any political discussion, when you have different views on how things should work in the world of politics, you just go on and on. I entered (started even) this discussion on a rather harsh note, so I guess I had it coming :)

Couldn't resist:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/12 … _coaching/

Elections are not a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy. In fact, elections can be used by totalitarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Once again another cheap shot at the use of an atomic weapon, might I add on a nation that attacked first (in case your books don't include that). Crack open your little history book my friend and realize that the use of this weapon did no more damage than an invasion would have cuased. Since the A-bomb was used, the invasion was not required. Hundreds of thousands would have did in an invasion. You also need to look at the context of that war- ALL sides used bombing of cities as a means of trying to break the government. One bomb doing the work of 1000 bombers is no different. You need to mention ALL the massive death and destruction of that war, by all sides, only mentioning what you did clearly indicates an attitude.

Vietnam- once again, the Vietnam war had been going for many years prior to the US (the 10000 day war), AND THE UN I believe, entered to try to resolve the conflict. Final result there is a free South Vietnam. And you forget to trash us for Korea to.

Iraq- Oh yeah, and who is killing who know. All I see is the Arab brothers fighting like dogs with each other and trying their best to make any success there not possible. The "war" to remove Saddam was over last spring, this my friend is a fight against extremists fighting the infidels (and each other). You see... please I already spoke my mind on that.

I don't believe I'll ever make a point with you (or anyone else for that matter)...
I guess ruling with such brutality did keep the radicals in check, and have heard various comments that that is the only way to rule Iraq. But I don't really buy it. Perhaps the extremists were held in check, but so were the people. I think the problem there now is that no one wants a free Iraq (except perhaps the average Iraqi). Not one Arab leader has stepped up to say- "Those who don't want a free society, leave the country" or "Stop killing our fellow Arabs". But then again, why should they right... A free Arab society in the middle east is just to much of a threat to them, or they themselves are afraid of being overrun by terrorists.

The chaos could be stopped with force (country is not that big, but people cry fowl when force is used, and then they cry fowl when it isn't. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Look- I believed, as I think many americans did, that when Saddam was gone, the people of that nation would standup and build a new country. I never thought every extremist on the continent would flood in and try to take over the country. I also never believed that a nation of proud people, or its arab neighbors, would stand for it.

Do you have any understanding of WWII??
For one- the next step in the Pacific campaign was to invade mainland Japan. Due to the intensity of the campaigns leading up to this, all leaders knew it would be a bloody fight to the end. This would include massive (some estimates of million+) deaths amongst Japanese, Allied, and unfortunately Japanese civilians. At this point one has to think- millions+ or maybe just 100,000??
So- in the dropping of two bombs, the war in that arena was brought to an end, with overall lo ss of life a tenth on what it could have been.

Another piece of information: War has not always been fought with the precision known today. To hit a single factory, it was common (by all participants) to basically carpet bomb the entire city/area. You see, bombs were simply dropped from a couple dozen thousand feet and they hit where they fell. One target, one bomb was 50 years away.

I don't agree with the way wars are fought, but you have to look at the context of the time period before you go making such remarks. You have to understand that ALL leaders repeatedly bombed population centers for the effectiveness in weakening a government. Germany was close to nuclear weapons and do you think they would have used it?? Hell yea... it is war. Which by comparison- at least 10 times the number of Jews were exterminated by Germany than were killed in the A-bombs- but have you ever spoken up against that?? (probably not) Or the slaughter of thousand by China as they swept through Asia?? (probably not) Or the 100000  people who died during the UK's firebombing of the city of Dresdan?? (probably not)

No- you pick little points out of history, not because of the inhumanity by itself, but simply for the fact it may add fuel to the anti-US fire. Very sad.

OK- another history lesson. When USA entered Vietnam, some 20 years into the war, the South (who wanted some freedom) was dangerously close to being overrun. When the USA left (although not in a decisive victory), a cease fire was in effect (which still is today), and two countries were formed and are no longer at war. I'd say- yes it was better when we left.

And just for your information- very similar series of events and outcomes occurred in Korea. That war was over when we left, and has been peace there for 50+ years.

--------------------------
What really tends to frustrate me on these topics are comments just as you have made. The nuclear bomb, vietnam, yada, yada, yada. If most of the people condemming us would look back in history, and learn a little about what you're ranting about, then you would realize how ridiculous these arguments are.

Anyone, name a military situation in which the USA was involved that did not end in peace, with interested parties in better condiition than before we got involved.

Anyone, name one country that we have fought and died in that we now occupy.

Final thought is as I sit here listening to the news and learning of 9 more US soldiers killed in the last 24-hours, and then review the comments made on here, I am completely overwhelmed by it all. And from this I realize that people will believe what they want and I for one am now done trying to defend anything the US has done. In my heart and mind I can see the good in things we have done, and look forward to a better time when the rest of the world will to.

How to copy and past to my dictionary from TV

I've seen several bits of questionable evidence in the topic (from several people) but I just couldn't let this go:

The cease-fire isn't still in effect. After the US left, it was not able garner enough support to satisfactorily bolster South Vietnam. Two years after we (America) withdrew, the cease-fire was broken and South Vietnam was overrun. There haven't been two Vietnams for almost 30 years. The events and outcomes in Vietnam and Korea can't really be compared.

So far it's a bit of a rehash from the other two.

All I see is that Bush seems a bit more feisty.

But if all the "locals" stood up and helped the Iraqi people (who I don't think are doing the fighting now), then a message would be sent to the extremists. They only exist where permitted to exist. As I noted- no one will stand up and help anyone in that area. Compassionate people??

I think we could, but if we use force, people bitch. And if we don't people bitch. And it is a mess, but as with most people on the subject- all the world can do now is focus on that and really don't give a damn about fixing it. After all it would just be the loss of another argument how nasty we are. Best for all the critice to sit back and watch it fail. I wouldn't want to be a neighbor when it does..

First- Japans ports were blocked, no fuel, no industrial capability. I don't think even if they did get madder it would make any difference.
Second- my guess is they didn't (again the context thing). For all most people knew- it was just another bigger bomb. 

Not the point- point is context to that time period. Guess that was missed.

I didn't accuse you of being a natzi, I simply stated that you selectively pick out one instance of US action and repeat it as some type of validation of your beliefs. Without any reference to the context of that time. The fact others did it was not my point. One could probably go through history and selectively make a lot of countried look bad.

Far as I know- never used any military force there. As I noted above- I believe the world created that situation 50 years ago, maybe the world should try to resolve it.

Not over yet- lets talk in 5 years

I stand corrected, as noted above.

Yeah- covert operation in Bay Of Pigs, not really a war but I guess you got me there