* It's hard work. Whatever it is... you can bet, it's hard work.
* I met with a war widow, we talked about her husband, and then we laughed.
* Iraq will bring peace to Israel
Kerry said
* I was in Vietnam
Got bored when they wouldn't move on from all the Iraq stuff, maybe I'll watch the rest tomorrow. Tivo owns.
The thing that Kerry said that pissed me off the most was when asked about going into Iraq and whether it was right or wrong and why they both appeared to be in agreement at the time, he said something to the effect of 'It was a mistake. I voted to send us there, but he actually sent us there. So which of us is worse?"
Yeah, that's the way to get votes. Paint yourself as the lesser of two evils, nice.
It's like saying going to war in Iraq will get you tons of chicks and as much beer as you can drink. There is no causal connection between either of those things, nor is either likely to happen in your lifetime.
Cthulu for President: Why choose the lesser Evil?
LET THE TYRANNY CONTINUE!
I think the idea is that Iraq is part of a whole war on terrorism. Ideally, setting up a democracy in Iraq will stabalize the region and put more pressure on leaders that are using terrorist-style negotions (ie, blowing up school buses) to resolve conflicts more peacefully. This includes the Israel-Palestinian conflict. However, there is no real evidence that A) it'll work and B) that's what Bush was intending to correlate - he may just have zoned out like he did several other times last night.
QuoteQuote: from Caohmin on 11:08 am on Oct. 1, 2004
It really IS the lesser of two evils to me. It's not that I want Kerry running the country, it's that I don't want Bush to run it. And it has nothing to do with Iraq.
/agree
France: No! We won't be a part of any invasion or occupation of Iraq!
Kerry: But I'm President now.
France: Oh. Well, okay then. Where do we send the tanks?
I mean, come on. I really think most of these issues are deeper than they're beeing portrayed.
I just don't think that having a leader who makes decisions based on the results of the poll du jour is really in the long-term best interests of the country, specifically speaking in terms of the general economy and foreign policy. I think that the U.S. has generally done pretty well over the past 20 years, and if you go back and look at the voting records for large/important/landmark/polarizing issues, you'll find that Sen. Kerry has voted on the losing/minority side a significant majority of the time. To me, he's like everyone (including myself at times) who screams "Fkn Mythic!!11!" on the various online DAoC forums, yet has no reasonable solutions that aren't so narrowly focused as to make them unrealistic. Like I said, I do the same thing at times but unlike him, I'm not married to an ugly heiress. hehe. Nor am I running for President. When faced with a choice between two "evils", my experience tells me to choose the "evil" that I know. At least that way I know what I'm getting into, instead of realizing a year down the road that I've been handcuffed to the plumbing in the bathroom of a highway rest stop with my pants around my ankles because "rescinding tax breaks for the rich" left out the part where 86% of the country is "rich" by definition.*
strictly my opinion of the moment. For the record, I have no party affiliation nor do I authorize $2 on my 1040 to be used to pay back election debts. :P Now, back to your regularly scheduled pharm fest.
You're a heartless bastard ross! It's your fault we have crime, homelessness, racism, and are disliked around the world so much.
Once Kerry gets elected, everything will be fixed and people like you will be handcuffed to the plumbing in the bathroom of highway rest stops with your pants around your ankles.
And then I'll look forward to being on a waiting list for 3-6 weeks before my colon can be fixed. :)
Basically America had no reason to go into Iraq in the first place, they had zip to do with 9/11 or terrorism but there is sure a parcel of terrorists there now, and thats something even the US government acknowledges though Bush no doubt doesnt.
You should all join ABBA (Anybody But Bush Again)
As they say here, why is Mrs Bush getting none?? Cos Bush is too busy screwing the rest of the world.
Im being polite as I can about your president i might add since I consider him to be one of the biggest disasters and most evil or stupid (take your pick) people to ever hold power anywhere.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 4:36 am on Oct. 4, 2004)
Wait..can I see the logs on that?
Israel has been receiving loads of US aid (and from other countries, I might add) for over 50 years, which includes many ideologically different administrations. As far as considering Iraq a major enemy, pretty much any Arab nation is considered a major enemy by Israel (a designated that is reciprocated to varying degrees) but I'd suggest that Syria and Iran would be more likely targets if the point of attacking another country was simply to go along with what Israel wants.
Regarding the statement that Iraq had "zip to do with 9/11 or terrorism", I'll first respond by saying that unless you're secretly working in the intelligence community, you and I both "know" the same thing, which is what the various media choose to show us. Given that, it may be defensible to say that Iraq wasn't directly involved with the 9/11 attacks, but to say they had no involvement with terrorism is a little naive. Do you think it's likely that all of these "insurgents" have recently emigrated to Iraq from their happy terrorist homes elsewhere, or is it more likely that the majority of them were already there? If they were already there, what do you think is the chance that they were happily banking, baking bread, and otherwise going on w/ a normal existence until some evil unprovoked attack caused them to uncrate the RPG's and plastic explosives from the box in the basement and use them against the aggressors? Come on now...
As far as ABBA goes, that is EXACTLY what I was referring to when I made my comment earlier about "like everyone (including myself at times) who screams "Fkn Mythic!!11!" on the various online DAoC forums, yet has no reasonable solutions that aren't so narrowly focused as to make them unrealistic". It's one thing to disagree. It's another to offer a different solution. Since everyone's favorite Evil Guy (Hitler) has been brought up, I'll point out that in history pre-Adolf, with Adolf, and post-Adolf, one thing that's been proven time and time again is that appeasing people like him does not work. People like Adolf's distant cousin Osama have been around for a while, and nobody really bothered them much. What happens? Planes crash into buildings. Trains explode. Ships are attacked. People are kidnapped. Since evidently attacking them is evil, stupid, and/or part of one of the biggest disasters ever, can anyone offer a different solution? I'm aware that Al-Qaeda and Iraq are different situations in many respects, but in some they're extremely similar and directly related. Should we (we being "the free world", whether in the U.S. or otherwise) be expected to sit back and never do anything until and unless someone actually blows up something that belongs to us? I'll put it a different way: You see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you, and they're standing nearby. You watch the person give you dirty looks, take out a pistol, load it up with bullets, cock the hammer, and aim it at your face. At what point does it become appropriate to react? Should you wait until you've actually been shot to do something, especially since you remember that his cousin beat you with a stick two weeks ago? As far as I'm concerned, you have three choices. They are:
1. Take it, right in the face.
2. Immediately produce some sort of full-body bulletproof armor for yourself and your family, and live in it for the rest of your life.
3. Remove his ability to shoot you. (This can be interpreted many different ways, ranging from sneaking into his gun at night and stealing his gunpowder, to dropping a guided missile on him in the street)
I know I'm being somewhat sarcastic (hehe, which should surprise nobody here), but I really would like to hear better suggestions.
(EDIT: it's unfair to get into a debate like this when the rest of us have to look at those lovely b00bs dancing on your avatar!!1! damn j00!)
(Edited by Rosslyn at 10:57 am on Oct. 4, 2004)
(Edited by Sodom at 11:38 am on Oct. 4, 2004)
Not a bad argument, but I think it's flawed. Specifically relating to Kerry, I think the flaw is that HE VOTED FOR IT. It's hard to argue with that, in my opinion.
As far as involving the international community, this is the same body (assuming the UN counts as the voice of the international community) that was meeting varying degrees of uncooperation from Saddam's crew for years, yet the mantra that was repeated by nations opposed to the Bush administration's policies was effectively "just give them more time". That was probably the one thing I truly agreed with 100%, being that when you're dealing with an entity like Saddam's Iraq, the threat of adverse consequences is the only way they're going to cooperate. If the consequences are just indefinite periods of inspection (for years), why would they ever get with the program?
I don't want to be mistaken as a blind apologist for the Bush administration (which I'm definitely not), but at the same time I am honestly afraid of what could happen if Kerry wins the election. While I don't feel that the president actually has much direct impact on things like "the economy" (i.e. there's no "let's make things better/worse economically" dial in the Oval Orifice), that person does have enough influence to impact the lives of all US citizens quickly, and obviously that influence extends to other areas of the world to a certain extent. While Bush has certainly not been perfect, he's at least been consistent. The prospect of changing our domestic and foreign policies based on the weekly Harris poll results really disturbs me, that's all, especially when the person making those decisions appears at times to be a less-than-truthful opportunist who supported the very things he decries on a daily basis now during the campaign.
p.s. since the UK isn't the 51st state, I'm going to assume that their participation (as well as that of the smattering of other less-militarily-influential nations) did in fact constitute the involvement of the international community. Given the makeup and rules by which the UN Security Council is governed, it's EXTREMELY likely that any sort of controversial issue will result in a veto (or the threat of veto, which typically results in an issue not being brought to a vote), with the end result being that nothing of great import seems to ever come to a resolution. Even in the world of constant compromise that is diplomacy, it's difficult to compromise on a yes-or-no question. Is there ever an appropriate time to invade another country? (I'd submit that "after the whole Al Queda issue is resolved" might just possibly be a little too vague and difficult to measure) I doubt you'll ever experience an international body that will agree on this. Hell, they disagreed on what to do about Hitler for crying out loud. Assuming you are able to settle on an appropriate time, what's the right way to invade someone? Let's see, we don't want indiscriminate bombing because that kills the people who live next door to the weapons cache. We don't want massive occupation because, well, it's expensive and some soldiers die. We don't want to go and kill the baddies and then withdraw just to have to rinse and repeat the next week (i.e. Vietnam). Since it appears to be a foregone conclusion that "we did the right thing", I'm at a loss as to what exactly we should be doing differently that isn't a tactical decision that the president doesn't control.
Also, not really related, my work day is extremely boring today, so I appreciate this opportunity to make the day go by a little faster. :P
(Edited by Rosslyn at 12:31 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
QuoteQuote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
Not a bad argument, but I think it's flawed. Specifically relating to Kerry, I think the flaw is that HE VOTED FOR IT. It's hard to argue with that, in my opinion.
He voted to give the President money to move forward with his plans. I get the impression that he became dissatisfied with those plans once he began to see their impact: In that case, he registered his dissatisfaction the only way he could - he voted against giving the President more money to continue his plans. What Bush supporters call "flip-flopping," I see as a man willing to admit that he made a mistake.
QuoteQuote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
As far as involving the international community, this is the same body (assuming the UN counts as the voice of the international community) that was meeting varying degrees of uncooperation from Saddam's crew for years, yet the mantra that was repeated by nations opposed to the Bush administration's policies was effectively "just give them more time".
The problem with U.N. sanctions against Iraq was that they were directly impacting the people of Iraq, not people in power. The best-case scenario was that the Iraqis would rise up and depose Saddam themselves: I guess the Iraqi people didn't make the connection that the reason their children were dying due to lack of medicine was because Saddam's policies were forcing the U.N. to withold them.
QuoteQuote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
The prospect of changing our domestic and foreign policies based on the weekly Harris poll results really disturbs me, that's all, especially when the person making those decisions appears at times to be a less-than-truthful opportunist who supported the very things he decries on a daily basis now during the campaign.
And I'm equally scared of another 4 years of a President who will not admit when he's made a mistake, who will continue to pour money and lives into a quagmire just so he doesn't appear "wishy-washy."
QuoteQuote: from Rosslyn on 12:29 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
Assuming you are able to settle on an appropriate time, what's the right way to invade someone? Let's see, we don't want indiscriminate bombing because that kills the people who live next door to the weapons cache. We don't want massive occupation because, well, it's expensive and some soldiers die. We don't want to go and kill the baddies and then withdraw just to have to rinse and repeat the next week (i.e. Vietnam). Since it appears to be a foregone conclusion that "we did the right thing", I'm at a loss as to what exactly we should be doing differently that isn't a tactical decision that the president doesn't control.
The problem is that we continue to fight wars as if we're liberating nations from the Nazi's in WW2. It would have been a sight difference if all the rest of Europe had been filled with covert Nazi fanatics when we stomped Berlin: We'd never have been able to withdraw if fanatics continued to stream into Germany's borders once Hitler was deposed.
So, border control is ket. Once they're locked down, you arm the Iraqis to care of their own terrorist problems.
Furthermore, the threat Iraq posed was not an immanent one (if they were such a threat, why didn't they do better in the war) - so the assertion that the war was preemptive does not hold water. The war was a preventative one. Preemptive wars have legitimacy in relation to the threat. Preventative wars are not generally regarded as legitimate.
Here's more about the distinction between the two:
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/07/preemption_vers.html
Also, you may find this interview with A.S. Jr. illuminating:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/04/09/29.php
http://wamu.org/audio/dr/04/09/r2040929.ram
I grew up in a country where you don't hit first, because that's what the Germans and Japanese did. Over the years however, I've found that I don't live in that country anymore. I'm not sure where I do live. This place just doesn't feel like America. All I see these days is fear and greed, intellectual penury, and moral hypocrisy.
In the spirit of having a friendly debate, I'll ask what makes a war a lawful war. Is it because some countries want it? If the UN Security Council had been around in the late 1930's and it was to debate the legality of WW2, that war wouldn't be approved because of the countries that sit on that council. I think one's perspective of the legality of a war is generally based on which side one is on. In this case, I think the political campaign is being used to attempt to portray a war as "illegal" in some respects. Interstingly enough, even the argument of "he voted to give the president money to move forward with his plans" (and I'll delve more deeply into how much of a cop-out this statement is on Kerry's part) would be a case of aiding and abetting an "illegal" action.
Going back to Kerry's stance on how he supposedly only voted to "give the President money to move forward with his plans", this isn't the whole truth. First, he (and the other several hundred members of Congress) authorized the use of force. Then, he authorized spending money on the military efforts. Then, he votes against it the next time (a vote where he was significantly in the minority, I might add). Saying that this was his only way of registering his dissatisfaction is a slap in the face to the whole political process. He could have done what he's been doing lately, which is getting his face on TV in any way possible and railing against the war effort. However, he didn't do that because the polls (not to mention the majority of his peers) were still supportive of the efforts. In fact, that was one of the relatively few votes he has managed to cast during his campaign. If voting is the only way a Senator can take action, then we're evidently not talking about a man of action. On top of all of this, the appropriation vote in question was not to fund some major new offensive, or increased production of bombs, but rather to maintain the forces currently occupying Iraq. Do you have any idea how many fuel filters the military goes through in that environment (I do, I worked for a company that supplied them during Desert Storm)? Do you suppose the thousands of soldiers need to continue to be fed, or maybe that they're wearing out standard equipment, or maybe their day-to-day living infrastructure needs to be continually improved and repaired? That, my friends, is what was being appropriated. By extension, that is what John Kerry and a few of his cohorts voted against to make a political statement, regardless of what effect their actions could have on the well-being of our soldiers.
"The problem is that we continue to fight wars as if we're liberating nations from the Nazi's in WW2. It would have been a sight difference if all the rest of Europe had been filled with covert Nazi fanatics when we stomped Berlin: We'd never have been able to withdraw if fanatics continued to stream into Germany's borders once Hitler was deposed.
So, border control is ket. Once they're locked down, you arm the Iraqis to care of their own terrorist problems. "
Isn't this exactly what's happening now (training Iraqis)? Aren't there supposedly (I'm not there to count them) 100,000 of them so far, with more to come? You've hit on a key tactical (not political) point: border control. Since all of the surrounding countries contend that they are being diligent with patrolling their borders, of course nobody is sneaking across to undermine the US-led efforts there (snicker). I probably don't need to mention that these are many of the same countries that opposed the whole thing in the UN. Again, it's a matter of perspective. Regarless of your perspective though, I'll ask again: what's this new plan Kerry mentions? Should we withdraw, obviously creating a power vacuum? It's pretty clear to just about everyone involved that a withdrawal at this point would be bad for everyone, especially the Iraqi people. So what exactly should be done differently, especially IF YOU'RE GOING TO NOT SPEND ANY MORE MONEY ON IT, as a certain Senator would obviously prefer. I don't think "pouring more money and lives into a quagmire" is simply an ego-stroking attempt to not be wrong. On the contrary, with all of the screaming from the left on this issue it would be pretty easy to back out and remove what appears to be Kerry's only platform at this point. But, unlike his opponent, I have to give credit to Bush at least for being capable of looking past potential short-term political gain to do what he and the gargantuan support staff called the federal government believe to be the right thing to do.
I'm still waiting to hear exactly what Kerry plans to do differently, other than to do the same thing "but people will like it more because I'm not Bush". Again, I'm not a Bush fanatic, but I still haven't heard what Kerry would do differently, at least not enough to sway my vote. "I'm not as bad as that guy" just doesn't do it for me.
Nicely put Sidd, as to your points Ross, Isreal has always considered Iraq a threat because of there program to develope nuclear weapons. Hence the quite famour Isreali strike to destroy the Iraqui nuclear reactor. Syria certainly has been considered a threat by Isreal but one which they could easily reach with both land and air power, not so Iraq.
To say Iraq posed a threat to America is pretty much ludicrous, we are talking about a nation which (a) did nothing to the US, and (b) while Sadam may have been cold blooded and ruthless, he wasnt stupid enough to launch an attack on the US with his nation which isnt much bigger than Australia or New York city. I mean to say who will you pre emptively strike next?? Lichenstein? hell yeah their scary. The US spends over half the worlds total military budget and we saw the result of that in Iraq, yup they were a big threat. The US has over half the worlds nukes and has a record of using them as well as attacking most countries around it, and well everywhere. The reasons for attacking Iraq have varied as the Bush administration has felt the public would respond to them best. None of them were really valid reasons to attack and if holding nuclear weapons or WMD (in the case of Iraq, Weapons of Mass dissapearance) is a crime then the biggest cultprit is the US.
Ive seen quite a number of interviews with intelligence officials including the Head of Covert operations for the CIA stating that they (Iraq) werent a threat and that that advice was given to the US administration. I see officials in the intelligence community (US) saying one thing and Bush, Condaleesa Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc spouting a contradictory line, which I might add also contradicts there own statements of not so long before 9/11. I doubt you get the same news as we do and from what ive seen of your medias actions they have been incrediably accomadating to the Bush administration or simple propaganda mouthpeices waving the flag and making jingoistic and bellicose statements in the case of Fox news (without doubt the worse news service in any major nation)
As regards the coalition of the willing, its a bit of a joke when 70% of the population of Britain and Australia and a large percentage of the Spanish and Italian populations were against the war. So a description of the coalition of the co erced, bullied and bribed (Australia was with a FTA) is far more apt.
Btw the Internation court has already stated that Bush could be charged with similar charges as German leaders were after WW II for waging a war of agression. Add in 35 violations of the Geneva convention and kidnapping of people from neutral countries, indefinate detention without charge or trial, (if you doubt that read your USAPATRIOT act 1 and II ) and its Bush who should be locked away.
As for Kerry supporting the war, he did so based on information given to him by the administration, false information true, but Bush and company are still spewing forth lots of that.
I have to say I found the criticism leveled at Kerry over his Vietnam experience laughable when it was brougth about by two people who between them avoided going 5 times (Cheney) and bought their way into the National Guard Air wing and then didnt turn up (Bush)
Sorry for rambling but it is 4:30 am.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 2:33 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
Just a comment on this.
My younger brother ships out today for Kuwait and he will be in Iraq. He purchased all his body armour himself via online. There is also 2 boxes of MRE's waiting to be shipped to him once he is at his final destination. I was rather shocked (maybe Im naive) to hear that his unit's gear wasnt up to specc and because of that he felt the need to equip himself.
I may not agree with the war or the reasons we are there but I do believe that the soldiers who are there need to be taken care of.
Thats all Im goin to say on this subject. Its a rather sore subject at my house and Bolldar and I go round and round on this.
(Edited by Telerie at 2:34 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
(Edited by Telerie at 2:37 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
Maybe I can give you enough free crap salvage loot later to persuade you to change it to "At least my title isn't The Meggenizer"
"I doubt you get the same news as we do and from what ive seen of your medias actions they have been incrediably accomadating to the Bush administration or simple propaganda mouthpeices waving the flag"
This is untrue. American media has an extreme liberal bias.
"and making jingoistic and bellicose statements in the case of Fox news (without doubt the worse news service in any major nation)"
Foxnews is one of the only news channels that could be called conservative.
First, I'd like to address a pet peeve of mine:
"As regards the coalition of the willing, its a bit of a joke when 70% of the population of Britain and Australia and a large percentage of the Spanish and Italian populations were against the war."
Here's my question. Did they (meaning the people who decided that "most people" were against it" call your house and ask you how you felt? I didn't think so. I'm also pretty sure that you probably didn't go to Italy and Spain and ask the majority of the people there how they felt. One of the interesting byproducts of a free society, specifically those with "freedom of the press" as we've come to know it here, is how the vocal minority has been able to paint their views as originating with "most" of the people out there. In reality, it's usually "most of the people who open their mouths on TV", or "most of the people who responded to our poll, which maybe isn't as scientific as we'd like you to believe". Okay, I'll get off that subject now, but blatant generalizations usually elicit a similar response from me. :)
Another gem:
"As for Kerry supporting the war, he did so based on information given to him by the administration, false information true, but Bush and company are still spewing forth lots of that."
The false part of this statement is the part that implies that the "Bush administration" distills the intelligence data prior to passing it along to the members of Congress who get to see it. In reality, the intelligence data is presented by members of the intelligence community, which is considered to be more apolitical than your typical federal agency. I'm not naive enough to say that politics can't and don't enter into anything, but the point is that the two "sides" both received the same information, and independently came to their own conclusions. Was the information flawed? It sure seems that way now. What I don't understand, then, is how Kerry is considered by some to be an innocent victim of misinformation who is now on a crusade to right the wrongs (somehow, even by doing the same things we're doing now) inflicted on the poor, long-suffering Iraqi populace by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Bush is considered by those same people to be an evil disaster who should have known the information was bad and should have reacted differently, even though Congress authorized him to use force. To me, it needs to be one way or the other. Was the information bad, but from a credible source (i.e. the CIA)? Okay then, both "sides" got burnt BY COMING TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS and they need to move forward. On the other hand, was the credibility of the information suspect enough that a different conclusion should have been reached? That's up for debate as well, but the fact remains that both "sides" CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.
This particular part of the overall debate baffles me. It's like giving two kids the same word in a spelling bee, they both spell it correctly (or incorrectly, in this case), and then the Spelling Bee Panel People declare one of the kids the winner. WTF?
btw, regarding the "kidnapping of people from neutral countries"... do they have Iraqi or Afghan stamps in their passports? How did they get there to be "kidnapped"? Do you suppose the military just rounded up "neutral looking" people from some tourist area in Kabul, or is it possible they were acting aggressively (to put it lightly).
"The US spends over half the worlds total military budget and we saw the result of that in Iraq, yup they were a big threat."
I'm guessing your reaction was the same when Clinton rained Tomahawks down on the empty Al-Qaeda camp, right? I mean, after all, what could a bunch of backwoods extremists POSSIBLY do to the big, bad, U.S.A., right? You may want to ask someone in NYC that question, or better yet I'll hook you up w/ my cousin who had to be helped out of the Pentagon after the offices just down the hall from him exploded. I mean, there's no way that anyone could strike at the heart of the world's most fearsome military, right?
the problem here is Iraq was at the the "you see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you" part. none of the other stuff happened. apparently it was assumed that the correct time to attack preemptively was "seeing someone you know harbors intense ill will towards you".
personally, if i was walking down the street and saw some kid that didnt like me, i wouldnt walk over to him and beat him to death with a bat because i assumed he would eventually go get a gun and come after me.
i do believe that attacking preemptively is, in some circumstances, the right thing to do. however, in this particular instance, it was not justified.
"This is untrue. American media has an extreme liberal bias."
extreme liberal bias isnt quite true imo. theres a lot of bullshirt going on from both sides, its almost painfull if you really pay attention. i usually dont even watch the (network) news anymore because i feel like im just being pumped full of propaganda no matter which channel im watching. no matter where your watching, it isnt objective.
"Foxnews is one of the only news channels that could be called conservative."
heh yea...and tydd "could be called" a pain in the ass. it is what it is, and fox is conservative all the way.
btw, i agree that fox is about the worst network out there, not because im liberal, but their bias is just so blatent a lot of the time. i mean come on, put a little effort in and dont let me know when your brainwashing me.
/rude @ rupert murdock
(Edited by Lifesbane at 4:42 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
'the problem here is Iraq was at the the "you see someone that you know harbors intense ill will towards you" part. none of the other stuff happened."
I can appreciate your point, LB. Obviously my little analogy trivializes the whole issue a bit, but I'd disagree that Iraq didn't do anything other than not like us. There are many nations in that category. Sometimes it's not an overt action that is threatening, but rather it can be words or the lack of an action. For instance, publicly paying money to the families of suicide bombers. In some circles, this is considered to be sponsoring terrorism. Another issue would have been the years of less than full cooperation with arms inspectors. I agree that none of these types of things by itself would likely warrant a military invasion, but I think Saddam's biggest mistake was to make his ego top priority. When someone basically tells you "if you don't follow the rules NOW, we're going to invade you", you should probably take them seriously... especially if they've done it before.
hehe, yeah, Fox news sucks. Not even worth watching, IMO. To me that's one of the worst things about this year's campaign season: I feel like I've lost even the illusion that I might be getting objective news. I think the problems start when people report someone's statements as being fact, and then base other stories and commentary on those statements. If somehow it turns out that the original statement was less than completely accurate, the house of cards can come tumbling down. But, since that would look bad for the news agency, it's better to just support the original source until and unless it becomes painfully obvious that they're wrong.
On the bright side, we have all of this fun activity on the guild forums now. And I'll even keep healing you poor, misinformed people :) if I ever drag my sorry ass out to RvR again, hehe.
You can heal? I did not know that.
jk bro :)
Let's hear the stuff about Cheney, Halliburton and the Saudis next please.
Americas media has been anything but liberal or done a good job in this instance, the American idea of a liberal would be a conservative in most other countries. The job of the journalists is to find out the truth expose the lies etc and with there pussy footing around this is something that they have clearly not done in the US. BBC coverage and other international news media coverage has been far more impartial in there coverage of these events. There was a wealth of evidence available that Iraq wasn't a threat, and it came from a range of sources far more crediable than Bush and his cronies.
Ill admit that surveys are not always accurate, but in these cases they were both consistent over multiple instances and i believe reflected the views of the majority of people I met in my own country. They at least who for the most part didnt support the war and still dont. They have continued to reflect exactly the same biases on the same questions since the war began. In the case of the Spanish it was supposedly a major platform for the opposition to take power when they were voted in so I think they were fairly accurate in reflecting public opinion there also. In Blairs first election post his decision to go to war he was decisively defeated. Even though it was only a byelection it gave a good indication of public feeling. Polls are not always accurate of course but they are not so inaccurate as to reflect 70% opinion one way and for true feelings to run in the opposite direction. They are also the only tool we have to indicate public feeling outside of a referendum or election (I would suggest even an election blurs the issues since it is seldom a single issue which decides it though it may well be a significant factor) The UN in most of these countries and certainly in Australia enjoys a much better reputation than the USA does and the vast majority of people were willing to go only with UN.
Ross you make the point of Iraq resisting the inspection teams, while it is true that they did this, the final rejection of inspection attempts in Gulf War 1 was actualy engineered to provide an excuse for attack. Basically, certain protocols had been agreed with regard to conducting inspections which meant that the inspection teams to certain sensitive areas were limited to specific numbers. While these had been adhered to the Iraqies had generally been co operative but under orders from Richard Butler (an Australian) who is widely believed to have been co operating with the US on this matter (unproveable I know but a number of the inspectors believed this to be the case) the whole inspection team arrived at one of these sensitive sites which caused the Iraqies to promptly close it to inspection. The inspectors on the ground knew this would happen as did Richard Butler, it was at this point that Butler pulled the inspection teams. All this is documented in several books by the inspectors including one by a republican ex marine inspector. In Gulf War II, Hans Blix has stated that the US leaned on him, conducted a smear campaign and did everything possible to discredit the inspeciton process and refused to listen to the wealth of evidence that there was little or no threat posed by WMD's. Blix who is very impartial and comes accross as extremely honest has stated this in interviews which ive seen. And he was right of course.
There is some evidence that Iraq did pay monies to the families of suicide bombers, specifically those targetting Isreal. There is no evidence that it was ever targetted at the USA and Iraq's opposition to the state of Isreal has been long and constant. The Isreali/Palestinian problems are an even bigger and more difficult to resolve problem then the Iraqi one and one with a lot of fault on both sides. Percieved and real support of Isreal by the US even when they are in the wrong has long been a slap in the face to most Arab nations.
"I'm guessing your reaction was the same when Clinton rained Tomahawks down on the empty Al-Qaeda camp, right? I mean, after all, what could a bunch of backwoods extremists POSSIBLY do to the big, bad, U.S.A., right? You may want to ask someone in NYC that question, or better yet I'll hook you up w/ my cousin who had to be helped out of the Pentagon after the offices just down the hall from him exploded. I mean, there's no way that anyone could strike at the heart of the world's most fearsome military, right?"
No, Im no admirer of Clinton actually, while he was undoubtably more charming and intelligent than Bush his record on many different matters was bad though his abilities to deal with foreign relations shines by comparision with Bush. Most of Clintons reforms were enacted to come into being at the end of his term or when Bush was in power.
If the US knew positively that there were terrorists that were harbouring ill intentions to the US then I would support strikes against them only in circumstances where the goverment of the country they lived in refused to arrest them themselves or was seen to be actively supporting them. None of that was true in Iraq. The only real terrorists in Iraq were Kurds fighting for a free Kurdistan, now there is a real bucket of worms since neither Iraq, Iran, Turkey or Russia want it to exist. My brother in law is btw from New York and I had friends there, what I did notice is that no one pretty much in America asked why they attacked you there (other than a few students of the middle east who already had a good idea why) and a breif study of US actions in the middle east gives you a lot of the reasons.
But none of that gave the US any reason to attack Iraq, terrorism is constantly brought up by apologists for Bushs actions but the truth is and this has been stated by the US administration for quite some time that there is no evidence that Iraq had anything what so ever to do with anything that happened in NY. Most of those people were Saudis so why not attack them? Killing in excess of 35,000 innocent Iraqis is actually helping foster terrorism not suppress it, im sure that figure is much higher by now. Back when US casualties were about 650 dead over 13,000 wounded US troops had passed through the major German evacuation hospital and many with very serious injuries, I find it strange that this figure is seldom mentioned in the US media as they too are victims of Bush's misguided policies.
Just quickly on the Kerry, Bush information thing, Intelligence officials at least at the levels below the director have never agreed with what Bush is saying, Bush tends to take a rumour and blow it out of all proportion to make a point. Information was widely available on all these matters but unfortunately one thing Bush is good at is pounding disjointed ideas such as Al Queada, WMDs and 9/11 to the point that people begin to associate them.
Ive got a question, a little while back I watched a news telecast with a Palestinian reporter who was probably about 50 yards from a burning and abandoned Bradley IFV. A large crowd of unarmed civilians (prob somewhere around 100 people) was standing around the burning vehicle and I think prob some of them were trying to loot gear off it thought the majority were just watching. As the reporter turned to face the crowd behind him there was an explosion which killed the reporter and wounded the Reuters cameraman splattering blood over his lens. A large proportion of the crowd had to have been killed and wounded and it was a pretty horrific bit of viewing. An American apache helicopter had fired into the crowd to stop them looting, later claiming that they were shot at which is pure BS since none of these people were armed and plainly none were shooting. What im interested in is was that ever reported??? It ran here as headline news but when i asked Emme if she had seen it she heard nothing on the news there. This has nothing to do with this discussion btw im just interested if it was shown there as Emmes news was undestandably pre occupied with hurricanes.
Well my American bride to be is calling me off my soap box so I had better go.
BTW I dont hate Americans as someone in guild speak said a moment ago, lol im marrying one and my brother in law is one and Jewish to boot and I have a lot of dear friends there. But I sure as hell dont agree with what your country is doing.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 12:38 am on Oct. 5, 2004)
i personally dont think anything ignorant has been said here. this has been a friendly discussion, coming from people with many differant oppinions, and i think its been a constructive forum of idea exchange. Boldar's thoughts arent any less legitimate then anyone else's, especially considering he has a very differant prospective then most of us (not being from the US).
being extremely liberal (i used agrue anarchistic and anarcho-syndicalistic views against a couple of my more conservative teachers in school whenever political descussions came up for example...we're talking liberal here ;)) i get frustrated at people's more conservative ideas a lot. dont have to agree with them, dont even have to respec their ideas, but being willing to voice your oppinion is something worth respecting.
dont mean to lecture, just saying what i think. this is an open forum for us vengies, lets keep it a positive descussion, if we want arguments there are certainly other places we could go.
$.02
(Edited by Lifesbane at 9:50 pm on Oct. 4, 2004)
QuoteQuote: from Rosslyn on 3:08 pm on Oct. 4, 2004
Maybe I can give you enough free crap salvage loot later to persuade you to change it to "At least my title isn't The Meggenizer"
fuckin' a ---
I agree with Ross on a lot of the issues here, and i'm trying to be as much of the middle man as possible- i think everyone in this election is a middle man because its not about republican/democrat anymore but more of which president do you think would do a worse job.
Everyone at my EXTREMLY liberal school thinks i'm crazy that i'm still undecided who to vote for this election, but i honestly think this is a tough election for me not to mention this is my first election ever- btw, a vote for nader isn't a vote for bush, not in massachusetts at least so don't even bother me about that-
lemme just say that one thing i learned from the debates is not only is john kerry gonna increase our taxes, but he's gonna spend them on an unneccesary war with north korea too
I got to admit it boggles my imagination that anyone who knew anything about Bush would vote for him but ive read a lot about what he has and hasnt done and the plethora of lies and half truths he has uttered. I know im gonna do my best to kick my ass of a prime minister out of office for supporting him though.
When Bush talks about tax cuts, it's not for people like you and I. It's an aggregate amount that goes directly to the people making $200k or more, which (the theory goes) will then be "reinvested in America" and "trickle down" to us regular folk.
To me Iraq isn't even the biggest issue in this election. I'm more interested in voting out Bush due to:
* religiously motivated opposition to stem cell research. Other countries will fund this but it's retarded that we aren't doing it too.
* Poor foreign policy. ffs when did the republicans become the "we suck at foreign policy" team? If Nixon were running this year, I'd vote for him.
* Poor domestic economic policies. I don't agree the president has no control over the economy. NAFTA, Cuban embargo, oil prices for example.
* Only president to lose jobs during his administration since... Johnson was it? It was pretty frickin long ago.
* Big one - supreme court - you do not want a Scalia court -- really you don't, unless you are truly right of pretty much everything. You want a liberal court, a fiscally conservative Senate and a diplomatic executive. FFS this isn't rocket science. Take a look at the liberal justices that will have to hang on another 4 years if Bush is elected -- that's bad news right there.
* DMCA
* Patriot Act. Ludicrous abuse of prevailing fear to push Orwellian reforms.
Of course domestic issues dont matter as much to me but I know Bush certainly has got one of the biggest deficits on record. And I know more and more Americans who seem to be out of work these days or finding it hard to get work. With regard to the environment Bush is a bit of a disaster also thought strangely I understand his ranch if a model of environmentally friendly design.
I would pretty much agree with most of what you said there Axe in particular the supreme court which has handed down some pretty dreadful decisions none more so than Florida :P
I agree with you Sodom, you get what you pay for and a lot of the US problems are to do with a passion for low taxes. We all like that of course but you get what you pay for.
I kind of feel sorry for you guys since it seems to me that your government is pretty much bought by major companies, you can pretty much identify which senator represents which company, so the people dont seem to be getting much representation at all :( Your pharmateuticals are a good example i think, something they are trying to do to us in Australia though we are resisting it.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 6:49 am on Oct. 5, 2004)
Kerry said he was gonna "repeal" the '01 tax cuts (that's the same thing as a tax increase), Bush said he was gonna have more tax cuts. I'm pretty sure that was brought up in the debate last Thurs. If not, it'll be mentioned in the next debate.
"When Bush talks about tax cuts, it's not for people like you and I. It's an aggregate amount that goes directly to the people making $200k or more, which (the theory goes) will then be "reinvested in America" and "trickle down" to us regular folk. "
Why should the rich have to pay so much in taxes? Unless they're one of those rare heiresses that just sits on their family's fortune, they earned the money and deserve to have a tax break as much as the rest of us. I think I saw a statistic once that said the people who make over 200k a year are responsible for like 80% of all taxes collected anyway.
"religiously motivated opposition to stem cell research. Other countries will fund this but it's retarded that we aren't doing it too. "
I agree with you here. But it's still legal for private companies to research, it's just not government funded.
"Poor domestic economic policies. I don't agree the president has no control over the economy. NAFTA, Cuban embargo, oil prices for example."
I'm pretty sure that the cuban embargo is going to be there until castro dies. It doesn't matter what president is in office. As far as oil prices go, we don't have much say in those either - which was why Bush wanted to drill in Alaska but was shot down by environmental groups crying about the caribu.
" Only president to lose jobs during his administration since... Johnson was it? It was pretty frickin long ago. "
As someone in IT, you have to realize that the massive job losses weren't Bush's fault directly. Alot of the employment numbers of the late 90's were inflated with unqualified dot-com web monkeys.
US unemployment is also one of the lowest in the world at around 5-6%. Honestly, I'm not sure if it's possible to go much below that just due to the natural cycles in the job market.
"Big one - supreme court - you do not want a Scalia court -- really you don't, unless you are truly right of pretty much everything. You want a liberal court, a fiscally conservative Senate and a diplomatic executive. FFS this isn't rocket science. Take a look at the liberal justices that will have to hang on another 4 years if Bush is elected -- that's bad news right there. "
Just based on some of the rulings coming in the past few years, it seems to me that liberal courts tend to be the most activist. Even if the unthinkable happens and the court gets loaded with conservatives, I doubt they'll overturn Roe vs. Wade - I think that's mostly just used a scare tactic to get women to vote democrat.
" in particular the supreme court which has handed down some pretty dreadful decisions none more so than Florida"
The supreme court didn't technically rule on the case, they just remanded it back to the lower court beyond the December deadline for the recounts to be certified. Show me one article that says (in any type of independent recount) that Gore won Florida.
And Sod - no one is stopping you from cutting a big check the IRS whenever you want. You don't have to wait for Kerry to raise your taxes. :)
The rich shouldn't have to pay more just because they're rich, but I have an accountant friend who made over $250k last year and paid not a single penny in taxes. He said it was a fluke and had to do with some investments and real estate deals, still made me sick.
The 2001 "tax cuts" made almost no difference in my personal tax burden, but it had a devastating effect on the budget and domestic economy. That money isn't free. It was expected that by cutting taxes that money would get spent on cars and washing machines and beers. Well, somehow people ended up spending it on mortgages and debt and savings, so that currency injection just cost the government an assload of money for no net effect.
I am curious about your 80% figure; I was under the impression that the bulk of our taxes come from the middle class. I'm genuinely curious about this.
Tech makes up less than 1% of the country's employment numbers. This is why our industry can be completely devastated with offshoring but it doesn't show up as more than a tiny blip on the national employment reports. You're right that the offshoring isn't "stoppable" at this point, all the entry level jobs will disappear from tech, then insurance, banking, financial sector, and when those are all gone then some other service industry. Once those are gone there will be no new employees to do stuff in America so we will need to offshore everything, including the experienced jobs (because at that point, there will be plenty of experienced Indians to work at 10% of our salaries). At some point it will be a big deal and we'll have to find something else to do. I don't know what it is.
Also keep in mind that unemployment figures in the US typically represent only the "recently but not currently employed." It does not count someone who is out of work for more than 12 months (depending on the state) who isn't eligible for unemployment, doesn't count new graduates who can't find entry level jobs, doesn't count the chronically unemployable or those who do not wish to work. Sometimes when we see unemployment figures in the news for other countries it includes some or all of these numbers. The data we're getting isn't directly comparable.
"Well, somehow people ended up spending it on mortgages and debt and savings, so that currency injection just cost the government an assload of money for no net effect." This I completely disagree with, especially as a person who has worked for a very large mortgage bank for the past few years. The money did in fact go into the economy, just maybe not in the spots where some expected it to go. People didn't save that money, if they did then they're fools because of the prevailing interest rates (not to mention stock market prospects) at the time. Including inflation, your money was pretty much better invested in something durable at that time (which includes home improvements). My company had by far (and I mean by WAY far) the best two years of its existence in 2002 and 2003. Our "sales" if you want to describe our business in those terms were billions and billions of dollars higher in each of those years than they had ever been. Much of this was simple refinancing, which (aside from potentially allowing people to cash in some home equity) generally resulted in people paying less interest on their home loans. This of course has a double-edged effect: They have more disposable income, and they actually pay MORE taxes than they would have because they have less of a mortgage interest deduction at the end of the year. Anyway, I digress...
One extremely fortunate or extremely unethical accountant aside, I think tax cuts help everyone.
"It seems to me that Republicans are the fiscally irresponsible ones who give huge tax breaks to the wealthy and corp. America at the expense of the middle and working class."
This, to me, is another example of injecting liberal-tinged spin onto what is supposed to be a statement of fact. First of all, saying tax cuts come at the expense of the middle and working class implies that their (our) taxes are raised in order to allow rich people to pay less. That's BS. The democrats have been fond of saying how much more the taxe cuts help "the rich", but of course if I'm paying 50k a year in taxes and you're paying 2k a year, a 10% across-the-board rollback can statistically be shown to benefit me much more than it does you (I'll save 5k, you'll save 200), but in fact I'm still paying 45k annually, while you're paying 1800. You can make these types of statistics say whatever you like.
Regarding job loss, GWB came into office in early 2001. Does anyone recall what was ALREADY happening then? I think that's about the time of the dot-com crash, mass layoffs beginning, etc. etc. I know I was laid off in June of 2001, and there were many layoffs before I "got it". At this point I think it's appropriate to quote Bolldar:
"Most of Clintons reforms were enacted to come into being at the end of his term or when Bush was in power."
Moving along...
I in fact saw the video clip of the Al-Arabiyeh (I believe that's the service the unfortunate reporter was working for at the time) reporter's demise. I don't recall where I saw it, and it very well could have been that it was not on a major US news network. If not, I think it would be reasonable to assume that some outlets may have considered it to be too disturbing for general release, but I'm sure that I read about it in national and local news (we have in a Detroit suburb what is supposedly the largest Arabic population outside of the middle east, so these already well-publicized events get even more airtime here). I don't recall seeing an Apache helicopter in the film, but I do recall not really being able to identify what each and every person in that crowd may or may not have been holding/doing, especially the approximately 1/3 + of them that were obscured by the burning vehicle. I would like to think that most of our military personnel wouldn't be predisposed to shooting up an innocent crowd of people celebrating around a burning US vehicle, but it could have happened. It also could have happened that one or more of the people in the crowd (or someone in/on a nearby building) WAS in fact shooting at this helicopter. After all, someone shot at the Bradley, right? On top of all of this, while I certainly don't advocate purposely killing civilians, the Darwin Awards come to mind when I hear about crowds of people putting themselves in these types of situations. What if there was unexploded ordinance on board the Bradley? That could have exploded due to the flames (another possible source of perceived enemy fire on the helicopter) and killed many of them, not to mention IT'S A F****NG WAR ZONE, maybe you should keep the kids inside today. I'm waiting for the Kerry campaign to release a commercial stating that W pulled the trigger himself via some super-high-tech satellite link.
I agree with the points about going a little overboard as far as letting religious beliefs enter into politics, but at the same time (regardless of whether it's a national or local politician) I think people need to be aware that we're electing a person and their complete set of beliefs and values, and there is a danger there when we let one plank in a campaign platform decide who gets our votes. I, for instance, might choose to vote for the Pro-Life candidate, then be shocked later when I find that this candidate doesn't share my views on the environment. Everyone's different, it really isn't The Democratic Viewpoint vs. The Republican Viewpoint. If that were the case, they'd never bother to vote in Congress, they'd just count up which party currently holds the majority and whatever they say goes.
It's for similar reasons that I agree w/ the Supreme Court commentary. Not that I want a liberal court (you may have guessed by now that I lean towards the conservative on many issues), but I want a court that's as evenly balanced as possible so that we can at least have the illusion of true justice from the highest court in our country. That's another part of the federal government that is supposed to be apolitical, but I think we all understand how it actually works.
Totally changing the subject, who here (out of those that care and/or have been paying attention to the topic) thinks that Jamal Lewis is getting special treatment because of his status as a professional athlete? I'm pretty sure that most people who plead guilty to a felony don't get to say "hey, I'll go to jail, just let me finish out the season because my team's pretty good and they'll totally suck without me". Damn, Martha Stewart can't even pick the state she gets to "visit".
No kidding. He's facing a minimum 10 year sentence if he gets convicted but since he plea bargined, he only has to serve like 3-4 months some time next spring after the season is over. He claims he's innocent but the deal is so good that it's worth taking instead of trying to fight it out in court and possibly losing.
This is the major thing for me; not just stem cell research, though. Bush's fundamentalist leanings have him appointing like-minded people to his staff. Their views are why Bush won't fund stem cell research.It's more than just that though:
"Since 2001 dozens of far-right Christian fundamentalists have been quietly installed in key positions within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Drug Administration and on commissions and advisory committees where they have made serious progress."
"When the hot issue of stem-cell research came up, President Bush dismissed two members of his Council on Bioethics who had each strongly supported the use of embryonic stem cells in research. They were replaced by three new members who, as the pro-life Family Research Council reported, "fall more in line with the President's pro-life views."
http://www.alternet.org/story/18259
I'm concerned about policy coming from such extreme right wing fundamentalists. They are anti-science and fundamentalists in general seek to undermine science education in public schools. That's my biggest concern and why I think Kerry is the lesser of two evils.
"I am curious about your 80% figure; I was under the impression that the bulk of our taxes come from the middle class."
I can vouch for this figure as I've seen it in different news articles.
(Edited by Caohmin at 6:16 pm on Oct. 5, 2004)
Lemme just address one thing about axe's last post:
"Also keep in mind that unemployment figures in the US typically represent only the "recently but not currently employed." It does not count someone who is out of work for more than 12 months (depending on the state) who isn't eligible for unemployment, doesn't count new graduates who can't find entry level jobs, doesn't count the chronically unemployable or those who do not wish to work."
These are called "discouraged workers" and there are some statistics out there on them. I was actually suprised at how low their population actually is - it's less than 1%.
1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours.
1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators.
1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam.
1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein.
2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist:
I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000
2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said:
Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001
Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. --July 29, 2001
2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq.
2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy!
2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less!
2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there.
Of course, the current Democratic nominee was a Senator then, and although I've seen video clips of the "supressed" reporter's death in Iraq, I don't believe I've seen or heard anything about Kerry speaking out against any of these items you've mentioned until, oh, about the last 6-9 months. Coincidence?
Even the DNC website has better ones:
http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/
That is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it's got a lot of raw data about employment. I just have no idea how to interpret it.
500 kwh Electricity - APU000072621
Utility Gas, 40 Therms - APU000072601
Utility GAs, 100 Therms - APU000072611
Fuel Oil, Per Gallon - APU000072511
Gasoline, All Types - APU00007471A
Gasoline, Unleaded Regular - APU000074714
Bread, White - APU0000702111
Ground Beef, All Types, Per Pound - APU0000703111
Whole Chicken, Per Pound - apu0000706111
Eggs, Large, Per Dozen - APU0000708111
Milk, All Types, Per Gallon - APU0000709111
Red Delicious Apples - APU0000711111
Navel Oranges - APU0000711311
Bananas - APU0000711211
Tomatoes - APU0000712311
Orange Juice, Frozen - APU0000713111
Coffee, Ground Roast, All Sizes - APU0000717311
Iceberg Lettuce - APU0000712211
don't ask me what those numbers on the right mean though
(edit: tuns? Runs!)
(Edited by Sodom at 6:35 am on Oct. 7, 2004)
It just seems like a stretch to resort to criticizing someone's Dad.
night folks
EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
the influence of alcohol. I pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and had
my driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving
record has been "lost" and is not available.
Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused
to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid
combat duty in Vietnam.
College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was
a cheerleader.
PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal
that took land using taxpayer money.
With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my
tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden
city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of
billions in borrowed money.
I set the record for the most executions by any governor in
American history.
With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my
father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President
after losing by over 500,000 votes.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with
a criminal record.
I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of
*over one billion dollars per week*.
I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S.
Treasury.
I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S.
history.
I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in
any 12-month period.
I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.
I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history
of the U.S. stock market.
In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their
jobs and that trend continues every month.
I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire,"
Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by a U.S.
President.
I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving
the most corporate campaign donations.
One of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest
corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History, Enron.
My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my
election decision.
I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and
refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry
was revealed.
I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be
awarded government contracts.
I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than
any President in U.S. history.
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest
bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.
I've broken more international treaties than any President in
U.S. history.
I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United
Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war"
detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva
Convention.
I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations
election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
President since the advent of television.
I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year
period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided
over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade
Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most
hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in
world history.
I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering the record for protests against any person in the
history of mankind.
I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign
nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the
majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut
health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.
In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
security.
I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster,"
a WMD.
I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden
to justice.
During the Iraq War and Occupation thousands of American troops
were injured and killed. I did not have the time to attend any of
the funerals for our fallen soldiers but I did have the time to
attend more than 43 fundraising events of the Republican party.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my
father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and
my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
public view.
All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.
Got this sent to me, I agree with the vast majority of it but there are a few things i find a little doubtful ie
America has breached the Geneva convention many more times than just once, at least 35 different counts last time i heard.
America has waged a number of wars of agression though i guess they were just out and out agression not pre emptive strikes as such.
I dont think the US was removed from the UN human rights council though they have certainly breached human rights.
Im not sure George presided over the biggest stock market crash either, I would have thought that would have been the great depression though I could be wrong since I dont follow the stock markets.
home land secure?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/schools_threat_041007-1.html
Aside from being rife with inaccuracies, half-truths, and the constant inclusion of highly-disputable opinion into a piece represented as if it were a collection of factual events and statistics, this piece (and I use the term on more than one level) at least provides some comedic relief when it's not just plain offensive.
Once again, it's fun to see someone resort to events outside of Bush's control (let alone several outside of his tenure) that were very arguably brought on by other administrations as the basis of this sort of attack. This can go on ad nauseum. "Bush is the devil!" "98.47363 % of people polled around the world burn him in effigy daily!" "Something bad happened to someone my friend knows while he was President/Governor/in school/alive at all, so it's his fault!"
First, whenever citing "statistics", it would be good form to have a believable source to reference. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen most of these "world records" in the Guinness book, let alone anywhere else. As of right now, all I have to go on is that "someone" sent this to you.
Secondly, there are many stretches of the truth here (call it opinion if you like) that render many of the statements either false or at the very least highly misleading and debatable. Things like the implication of special treatment with regard to the Texas Rangers (it is the overwhelming majority of sports teams that are given public land for stadiums. Most of these are also given massive public funding for the actual construction as well. GWB is definitely not a special case in this instance). Things like "executions by any governor" when in fact a governor neither executes a person nor sentences them to death. Oddly enough, a governor also isn't the person who passes the laws authorizing capital punishment. Things like bankruptcies, foreclosures, and stock market swings that were well on their way to becoming reality before he took office. Things like implying that the Governor of Florida somehow has the ability to decide the presidential election, or that the Supreme Court is comprised of justices appointed by the first President Bush. (news flash here: There have been several US presidential elections in which the winning candidate actually had a lower total of popular votes than his opponent. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), that's EXACTLY how the system is built. It's not a popular vote across the country, but instead it's a popular vote in each state for that state's electoral votes. I don't mean to lecture on this simple topic, but evidently there is some level of confusion here. If I'm victorious by 1 vote in a state w/ 6 electoral votes, and you win by 7,000,000 votes in a state w/ 5 electoral votes, I'm actually winning the "election", while you're winning the "popular vote". Also, the last time I looked this up, neither Ken Lay, Dick Cheney, nor anyone with the surname Bush had a hand in enacting this process. It's actually been around for a little while.
Besides, it's probably a good thing. This way Al Gore has more time to work on inventing things like the internet. :P
But it was actually a pretty factual piece that demonstrates budget priorities, nice link.
this is one thing that find increadibly stupid, and it makes it hard for me to believe i live in a damocracy. how exactly are the people of this country being represented when the guy with the least votes gets in? how is ross' example fair representation? is there any real use for the electoral college, some vital purpose it surves? - if someone can tell me i'd love to know, no one has given me a good answer yet (maybe it was a good idea when we were riding horses, communication was slow and real-time information was imposible, but come on, shoot the crippled horse and lets get moving). In my oppinion, 1 person should equal 1 vote, i shouldnt vote on votes for the president, what i said when i went to the ballots speaks just fine for me.
The Electoral Process
The electoral process is long and complex and has changed significantly over the years. According to the original rules, each state legislature chose its electors. The electors would then meet at a prescribed time and vote for two people. The person with the most votes became the president and the runner-up became the vice-president. The vice-presidency was created to ensure that the second most qualified person to be the president was in line for the presidency. This system continued until the 1800 election.
By 1800, American politics were controlled by political parties. "The electors became captives of their parties and voted for party candidates." In the 1800 election the electors' vote resulted in a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Under the rules at the time, in the event of a tie, the House of Representatives voted to break the tie. Thomas Jefferson became the President and Aaron Burr became the Vice-President. The competition between Jefferson and Burr made the executive government very disjointed. This impasse resulted in the first alteration of the electoral process. The electors after 1800 voted separately for the president and the vice- president. In addition, presidents and vice-presidents from the same party ran together in the election.
Between 1840 and 1900 the electoral system was oriented toward the general population. The electoral system was changed again so that people, as opposed to state legislators, chose the electors. Today, each state has its own elector selection laws, but the systems generally fall into two categories: the caucus or popular election system. In a caucus, individuals in a community or district meet at a designated place and vote for electors that represent the candidates they want to be president and vice-president. The caucus votes are then compiled state-wide. In other states, a general election is used to vote for electors for that state. In some states only the electors' or the candidates' names appears on the ballot. Finally, all the electors in each state get together and vote for president and the vice-president.
The Convention System
The advent of the party convention further changed the electoral process. In the first few American elections, parties met and held caucuses to decide their presidential and vice-presidential candidates. In 1831, a small party met at a saloon in Baltimore to decide their party's presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The next year the Democratic Party held a similar convention in the same saloon. Today, a convention is held by large political parties to choose one candidate out of the many running as the official party candidate for the presidency and one for the vice-presidency. The chosen candidate then runs against the candidates of the other parties in the general election.
American politics has always been dominated by two major parties, although the parties themselves have changed over the years. In fact, American election laws and regulations favor the two-party system and makes it tremendously difficult for a third party candidate to run.
Primary Elections
Early in the twentieth century there was a growing sentiment among the American public that political party elites controlled the elections and the candidates. The primary election system was created to compete with the political convention system. The primary elections are regulated by state laws and political party regulations at the state level. The Democratic and the Republican parties have different state level rules regarding delegates, representation at the convention, and the time-frame for primary elections or caucuses. For example, since the mid-1970s, the Democratic party has required that 50% of its delegates be women.
Each state has a delegation that goes to the national party convention. Delegates are chosen in caucuses or primaries, depending on the jurisdiction. The delegates, in turn, vote for the candidates they want to represent the party in the general elections. In some cases, the percentage of votes a candidate receives in a state's primary or caucus represents the number of delegates that support him/her on the state's delegation to the convention. In many states, the candidate with the most votes in the state primary wins all the delegates. This means, of course, that the state's entire delegation supports one candidate. To ensure loyalty, the delegates are usually slated by the candidates themselves. The individual chosen to run from each party selects a running mate, the vice president, during the convention.
General Elections
After each political party selects a presidential candidate, the candidates then run against each other in the general election. The population votes for the electors that represent the candidates and not the candidates themselves--in spite of the fact that the electors' names often don't appear on the ballots. The electors then vote for the candidates approximately one month after the ballots are cast by the general population. The candidates receive all the electoral votes of the states where they have the majority. For example, if candidate Smith receives 51% and candidate Brown receives 49% of the popular vote in a state, and the state has 12 electoral votes (the total number of senators and representatives), then candidate Smith wins all 12 of the electoral votes of that state. This policy is highly controversial because the electoral college is disproportionately represented by smaller states, which may result in election of the candidate who has received fewer votes.
I have a couple of comments on this (I know, you're shocked). First, we absolutely do not live in a "democracy". I believe the accepted term for our government is "federal republic". A true democracy would almost inevitably result in millions of people doing nothing every day but voting on even the smallest issues. A republic is based on a representative government, where the general population directly elects designated representatives who handle the day-to-day voting and law-passing and all of that stuff so the rest of us can actually do productive things. The electoral college (for the record, I think this is kind of dumb too, but it's the way it is currently) is pretty much an extension of the republic concept, even if the original intent (as Tydd so eloquently and plagiaristically (?) stated) was essentially to save Americans from themselves.
As to the part of LB's question "how exactly are the people of this country being represented when the guy with the least votes gets in?", I think the answer lies in the fact that it's the united STATES, as opposed to the united PEOPLE. Many parts of the government, such as the divided congress (House and Senate) are meant to strike some sort of balance between the thoughts of each state having some sort of sovereign equality with the other states, and also with the assertion that the state with the most people should be a little more equal than the rest. California's popular vote pretty much makes Rhode Island's and North Dakota's votes meaningless. Think of it this way: you and three friends start a company. You each own stock, but the guy who had the brilliant idea in the first place has 51% of the stock. In this case, should the three of you never be able to outvote the one guy with the most stock? Obviously, in any sort of "vote", the guy with 51% is going to win regardless of what you want. What the electoral college process says (this might be a little simplified, lol) is that the 51% guy gets two votes on the "board" of your company, and you each get one, or something like that. This way, if three of you agree and he doesn't, you can still band together and enact your ideas.
There are numerous analogies to explain this. Sports analogies work well also. The Patriots might go 15-1 over the regular season, but maybe the Colts go 14-2 and score more points. Does this mean the Colts should be the higher seed? After all, scoring more points is how you win games, right? Well, the league says it's primarily concerned with winning games, and scoring points is WAY down on the tiebreaker scale. This is nearly the same thing as the electoral college: getting popular votes is the way to win electoral votes, but the Constitution says that winning the electoral votes is how we'll judge which candidate gets to be the next President.
"this is one thing that find increadibly stupid, and it makes it hard for me to believe i live in a damocracy."
Technically the US is a representative republic, not a democracy. Hence why you elect senators and representatives to vote for you.
"how exactly are the people of this country being represented when the guy with the least votes gets in?"
The modern arguement, whether you agree with it or not, is that if the electoral college wasn't in place, major population centers would dominate all elections and the needs of rural & midwest americans would never be addressed. A good example of this is Illinois - 90% of the state (landmass wise) is conservative/republican but because Chicago is so big and always goes liberal/democrat, it completely dominates the way the state votes. New York is another example of this.
I agree this probably isn't the fairest system, but keep in mind that several other modern countries (Australia & Canada for example) don't even get to elect their heads of state
(Edited by Zutroy at 2:53 pm on Oct. 8, 2004)
Is it an example about how the Iraq war is actually an investment in anti-terrorism? The mother-jones article was just stating the facts about how much homeland defense costs relative to the costs of the war in Iraq. The point of course is that if we want to fight terror, there are probably more efficient ways of doing so than the invasion of mid-sized countries.
There's an awful lot of blood and wasted lives to be accounted for in the reckoning of cost.
Yes. The efficiency part of it is all a matter of opinion since we have no idea if the alternative would have resulted in the same outcome.
"There's an awful lot of blood and wasted lives to be accounted for in the reckoning of cost. "
Wasted lives?
As to Zuts comment I would not trade our democracy for yours ever, our head of state is titular ie the Queen and she is purely a figuehead and a much more trustworty and respectably one than yours :P Real power is not put in one person, your president is a politican, hell i think you people are crazy to trust any politician (politiicans are one step lower than lawyers and bankers) with that much power especially given some of the putz's you elect to the position. Our system of elections is representative (proportianl representation is a good system and country areas are fairly respresented), fairer and less open to abuse than yours. We also all vote unlike America and till you do that I dont really see you as a democracy at all. When it comes down to it the US spends to much time electing people who should be going for the job on their qualifications ie sherrifs DAs teachers etc and too little ensuring a fair and equitable vote for your government.
As to Florida, I think any honest look at that election would agree that a great deal of corruption was involved. The disenfranchisement of a large segment of voters with the active co operation of Texas being a prime example. Replublicans might like to try and gloss over that and im neither a republican or a democrat but corrupt it certainly was.
As to the Texas team who i got to admit ive never heard or nor really could care less about?? that its common doesnt make it right :P
As to the origianl post, I think it is a pretty good summation of Bush :) probably a little flattering to him if anything. And other than the areas i mentioned it is factually accurate despite any assertions to the contrary and mostly on the public record as such. I think for starters if you dont think that most Europeans and most people anywhere outside of the US oppose the unprovoked attack on Iraq then your burying your head in the sand. Most of the countries who got dragged into the ridiculous coalition of the willing had populations which were anything other than willing. George Bush is without doubt the most hated US president ever outside of the US, something he has earned and which isnt automatic since some US presidents were respected outside the US even if they did tell the people of Berlin they were a sausage :). In fact in some areas it understates the truth.
To say he was "of Berlin", he should have said, "Ich bin Berliner."
What did I want to add to this...oh yeah - fuel for the cynics...
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
I was actually refering to your Governer-General. I'm assuming he gets "selected" from the majority party, no?
"We also all vote unlike America and till you do that I dont really see you as a democracy at all"
Yeah, that's because you can get imprisoned or fined if you don't. Do the words "compulsory voting" ring a bell? In america, at least you have the right to NOT vote.
"Our system of elections is representative (proportianl representation is a good system and country areas are fairly respresented), fairer and less open to abuse than yours."
We also have proportional representation, it's called the house of representatives. Their website is located here: http://www.house.gov/ - feel free to read up on them.
"Real power is not put in one person"
Legislative -> excutive -> judicial -> legislative. Both the house and senate had to approve the use of force against Iraq, and guess which senator voted for it?
"When it comes down to it the US spends to much time electing people who should be going for the job on their qualifications ie sherrifs DAs teachers etc and too little ensuring a fair and equitable vote for your government."
I see, so in your opinion, we should trust the politicians to appoint these people for us? Then please explain this comment to me:
" hell i think you people are crazy to trust any politician (politiicans are one step lower than lawyers and bankers) with that much power "
edit - mmmmm donuts
(Edited by Zutroy at 7:39 pm on Oct. 8, 2004)
You get a small fine if you dont vote but I think thats far better than an unrepresentative system where only a tiny percentage of the population votes. For citizens to vote is not a big ask in a democracy.
The Governer General is the Queens representative not the head of state. He does perform the same functions as the Queen would though. Having said that he exercises no real power and isnt involved in any decision making processes. He is normally selected by the party in power on non political lines, usually a respected citizen, in the past they have been Generals, Admirals, Bishops etc. I only know of one who was a politician. Since they dont have any real power its not a big issue.
Actually the president can committ your country to war without the senates approval, he must seek their approval within 3 months. If im wrong on that let me know (im sure you will) but im fairly certain thats how it works. Mind you its a bit late to go back once you attack someone. I would say that and his veto options mean he has considerable power.
As to the house of representatives, I got to admit I never hear anything about them in the news and it would seem to be the senate which is the decision making body. My reference to proportional representation really was about the Presidential race though I think its a good way for any election to be run.
The house of representatives is the law making body in Australia with the Senate acting as the reviewing and amending body. I couldnt get a great deal of info on exactly what powers your house of representatives does, care to educate me?
No i dont think those people should be appointed by politicians, they should apply for and have to have appropriate qualifications just like any regular job. Elected officials are by definition political and often not qualified from what ive seen. Here there are standard rules for a government job, you have to have 3 people, one expert in the area, one from the same organisation but from a different area of it and one totally indepentant person. A set of minimum qualifications have to be met then those candidates are interviewed. All are asked the same questions to insure impartiality. That seems to work fine and you dont have a million and one pointless elections.
For all you sausage lovers and check the last bit :P
Sausage History
The word sausage originally comes from the Latin word salsus, which means salted or preserved. In the days of old people did not have refrigeration to preserve their meat and so making sausage was a way of overcoming this problem.
Dry sausage was born as a result of the discovery of new spices, which helped to enhance, flavor and preserve the meat. Different countries and different cities within those countries started producing their own distinctive types of sausage, both fresh and dry. These different types of sausage were mostly influenced by the availability of ingredients as well as the climate.
Some parts of the world with periods of cold climate, such as northern Europe were able to keep their fresh sausage without refrigeration, during the cold months. They also developed a process of smoking the sausage to help preserve the meat during the warmer months. The hotter climates in the south of Europe developed dry sausage, which did not need refrigeration at all.
Basically people living in particular areas developed their own types of sausage and that sausage became associated with the area. For example Bologna originated in the town of Bologna in Northern Italy, Lyons sausage from Lyons in France and Berliner sausage from Berlin in Germany.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 1:14 pm on Oct. 9, 2004)
All spending related bills must originate in the house of representatives. They then go to the senate for review then, if they pass both houses, they have to reconcile the two version into one that gets sent to the president. The president can then veto it if he chooses - however, if it gets over 2/3's approval in both the house and senate, it cannot be veto'd.
One of the fundamental problems with the australian government is that there's no major distinction between the legislative and executive branches. The party that controls congress will also control the excutive branch - meaning that any legislation that gets introduced by the majorty party will almost always be passed. In the US, the president's veto power serves as sort of a "last resort" - this is especially important if the president is of a different party than the majority party in congress.
Another concern is, on paper, the powers of the Governer-General are pretty scary. In practice, he probably functions as more of a rubber stamp than a head of state but there's still the huge potential for corruption. Moreso, he gets to decide when elections are held on the advice of the PM (who's party already controls the country). The australian constitution only guarantees "frequent" elections, which is easily open to abuse - unlike the US constitution which states exactly the period of time these elections will be held (2 years for house members, 6 years for senators, 4 years for the president).
Whether or not the normal punishment is just "a small fine", the law says you can be imprisioned for not voting. In my opinion, that's extremely un-democratic. If you don't like the candidates running and your vote is "no vote" then that's your right to do so in the US. You know, I'm not aware if Australia even has an equivalent to the bill of rights that guarantees certain personal freedoms like freedom of speech - please inform me if it does.
I believe you're correct about the president committing to war for 3 months without congressional approval (although it may be only 1 month, I'll have to look it up). If the congress doesn't approve, the funding for the war dries up and there's really no way to continue it. I'm not sure if the original intention was to make it easier for the president to quell uprisings in colonial times (convening congress back then took alot longer than it does now) or if it was a checks-and-balances thing.
Finally, I'm not exactly sure what point it serves to interview "3 people, one expert in the area, one from the same organisation but from a different area of it and one totally indepentant person." Who determines which one of those 3 gets the job?
All our elections are done with preferential voting, this means if you had Bush Kerry and Nader and Bush got 40% of the vote, Kerry 35% and Nader 20% then since Nader didnt get enough primary votes to win outright his votes would be redistributed where people had so chose a second preference between Kerry and Bush. So if someone voted Nader 1 and Kerry second that vote would go to Kerry, Same deal if they voted Nader 1 Bush 2 it would go to Bush. Its a good system because you can vote for who you want to and still be part of the decision between the final two candidates. The lack of this type of vote is one of the biggest weaknesses in the US system IMO. I suspect Nader would get a much bigger vote than people think if you had such a system of voting and you wouldnt be locked into basically two choices of dubious value like you are.
I would imagine that getting a 2/3 majority in both your houses of government would be nigh on impossible on any truly contentious issue and ive heard of a lot of vetoes in the past.
I dont agree with your contention that the party which is in power controlling the executive branch is a bad thing, not that we have anything called that though i take your point. Im no admirer of the American system of separating the executive and elected branchs of government. Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all. You cant get much more undemocratic than that. Having the president have the power of veto makes no sense either since it once again takes power away from the people who were elected. In fact, given that all states send the same number of senators, and the only really proportianal representation comes from the house of reps (the weakest house in the US the strongest in Australia) the people dont get much say at all do they.
With regard to elections they are mandated but only in terms of the maximum term the government can run. 3 years for the reps and a half election of the senate every 6 years. Governments can and frequently do call them early though there is a growing trend to run almost the full term because people dont like them calling early elections when they think they have a better chance. There is no way to abuse the calling of elections other than to have them more frequently so not sure what your getting at there.
The governor general only acts on the advice of the PM and actually has no scary powers at all. He can disband parliment but only if the parliment is unworkable (ie no party has a clear majority and supply has been blocked) which results in a general election. Thats his biggest power and its only been exercised once when the CIA sponsorered a plot to discredit the then Whitlam Government and the opposition blocked supply as a result. Something immortialised in the book and movie "the Falcon and the Snowman" about the two CIA agents whose consciouses got the better of them causing them to expose it. Believe me that episode earned the US no favour here. Even in that instance the GG acted on the advice of the caretaker PM. The GG was acting on behalf of the US however since he happened to be an ex MI5 agent who had been the Washington officer of that organisatin. Within the bounds of that however he still acted within the rules of law, but with the CIA campaign to discredit the Whitlam government the general election was lost to the government of the day. Just another example of the constant meddling in other countries affairs which the USA partakes in.
I totally dissagree with you on the question of compulsory voting, (a) there is absolutely nothing undemocratic about requiring your citizens to vote, in fact nothing could be more democratic and i cant see how you could possibly argue it isnt. Certinaly having a tiny % of your population vote, which is the case in America is not democratic and cant ever be said to be when the majority of your population doesnt exercise an opinion. (b) IMO everyone should consider a responsibility and a right to vote, its not an onerous thing and is certainly a very small thing to require for the privelage of being a citizen. (c) Pretty much no one here minds that they have to vote, generally voting here can be done in 5 minutes, we dont use electronic machines because of the inherant security risks and voting booths are widespread and easily accessable. Results are known the same night or next day for the election too. Ie it seems to be a lot more efficently run than the US equivalent where recently in New Orleans half the voting booths didnt have voting machines till just an hour or so before the closing of votes.
No we dont have a bill of rights, it was put to the Australian people about 10 years ago in a referendum along with some modifications to the constitution and defeated. Referendums require 75% of all people to agree to be passed. While i would like to see one myself i would hate it to encompass some of the provisions of the US bill or rights such as the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy. In practise even though we dont have one we enjoy greater freedoms and a better rule of law than the US especially since the advent of your Patriot Acts 1 and 2.
With regard to the interview process, the committee as a whole decides on who the best candidate is from those who have met the essential criteria. The essential criteria makes sure the person is qualified for the job and the independancy of the candidates means that a group of people from within the particular section cant pre select someone that may have been temping in the job and whom they have become friendly with. It ensures impartiality in the selection process.
We have here an independant commision against corruption which in the event of any person company or government member acting in a corrupt fashion can investigate and charge them. Bush would be a gonna if you had he same i think.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 12:52 am on Oct. 10, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 12:58 am on Oct. 10, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 8:09 am on Oct. 10, 2004)
So there's nothing un-democratic about throwing people in jail for demonstrating their displeasure with the candidates running for office? I believe you're being completely unreasonable in your outlook on this; it's an archiac law from the WW1 era that needs to go.
"Results are known the same night or next day for the election too. Ie it seems to be a lot more efficently run than the US equivalent where recently in New Orleans half the voting booths didnt have voting machines till just an hour or so before the closing of votes."
You're forgetting that the US has almost 15 times the population of Australia. The odds that some problems are going to occur is much greater. Even still, our election returns are known the same night or the next day. The only reason why they weren't in the past was because the numbers were so close that there was a required recount.
"I dont agree with your contention that the party which is in power controlling the executive branch is a bad thing, not that we have anything called that though i take your point."
Having a different party in control of the executive branch helps control govt spending. Unless you like to pay high taxes, I don't see why that would be a good thing.
"Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all."
The senate has to approve all of the president's cabinet members by a simple majority. At the time, the democrats were in control of the senate so Bush's picks didn't get a free ride into office. As far as the 'incompetent' part, well that's just you blinding hating Bush again.
"All Australians vote for all senators though only half are elected at any time."
So everyone gets to vote for which senator represents X state? How is that fair? The idea behind representative government is that you elect people who represent YOU, not some other state.
"Having the president have the power of veto makes no sense either since it once again takes power away from the people who were elected."
the president is elected.
"We have here an independant commision against corruption which in the event of any person company or government member acting in a corrupt fashion can investigate and charge them."
We do too, what's your point? Just because you naively believe everything bad said about Bush doesn't mean it's true.
"While i would like to see one myself i would hate it to encompass some of the provisions of the US bill or rights such as the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy. In practise even though we dont have one we enjoy greater freedoms and a better rule of law than the US especially since the advent of your Patriot Acts 1 and 2. "
I'm not going to get into the gun debate issue with you, but there's alot of other articles in the Bill of Rights I'm sure you agree with and wish Australia had. I find it distressing that the Australian people would turn down such an opportunity to secure their own rights. And please detail for me some of the "greater freedoms" you're allowed to enjoy.
"With regard to the interview process, the committee as a whole decides on who the best candidate is from those who have met the essential criteria."
I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this point because I still don't completely understand your system on this. I don't get where these "independent" commission members come from or how the candidates are even chosen.
(Edited by Zutroy at 10:34 am on Oct. 10, 2004)
So you're saying there's nothing wrong with compulsory voting because you think there's nothing wrong with compulsory voting.
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/petitio.asp
"(b) IMO everyone should consider a responsibility and a right to vote, its not an onerous thing and is certainly a very small thing to require for the privelage of being a citizen.
(c) Pretty much no one here minds that they have to vote, generally voting here can be done in 5 minutes, we dont use electronic machines because of the inherant security risks and voting booths are widespread and easily accessable."
None of your 'reasons' address Ross' point, they completely sidestep it: If neither candidate is suitable, you don't have to vote for either; your vote is 'no vote.' Further, how can a society be 'more democratic' if you can be fined/jailed for choosing not to vote, a valid expression of an opinion. You have essentially one less freedom than we do, in this instance.
There is power in each of the three branches of our government, the legislative (Congress, composed of the Senate and House of Representatives), the executive (President and Vice President) and the Judicial (Supreme Court). It isn't true to say one branch has more or less power than the other although over time, the balance shifts -- line item veto, for example, took power away from the Legislative branch and transfered it to the Executive. The War Powers Act (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_188500_warpowersact.htm) took power from the Executive and gave it to the Legislative branch. (This is the "inform congress within 48 hours of committing troops" thing you guys were talking about)
> the right to bear arms which I think is both archaic and pure idiocy
If you make the mistake, like many Americans do, of assuming that the second amendment is about hunting and clinging to a bygone age of masculinity then you fail to frame a clear understanding of the importance of this part of the bill of rights. The second amendment puts the power of revolution into the hands of a populace so that they cannot be tyrranized by their government. When you realize that this is the entire point of the amendment, it should make a lot more sense to you.
> the power of veto makes no sense either
This has to do with the balance of power built into the three branches of government and is a critical component to establishing that balance. I actually think it is quite elegant.
hey! that was my point
(Edited by Zutroy at 4:47 pm on Oct. 10, 2004)
Bolldar, as we've discussed you know that I really enoy having these discussions and despite our (sometimes huge) differences of opinion I particularly like debating you because you're not easily swayed (hehe, there I go being polite again). In this case, however, I'm about to play the "you may not be qualifed on this topic" card. I think some of your suppositions and maybe some of your information may just be plain incorrect. I'm not referring to "opinion" pieces like Bush this or Bush that, but on a more basic level I'm referring to a lack of understanding of how our government is structured and how it functions within that structure. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing since you're not a U.S. citizen, and I'm certainly not as familiar with the inner workings of other countries as I am with my own, but it is a fact. A couple of your most recent statements seem to highlight these gaps, and some of the more recent statements by others do a good job of pointing a few of them out.
"I dont agree with your contention that the party which is in power controlling the executive branch is a bad thing, not that we have anything called that though i take your point. Im no admirer of the American system of separating the executive and elected branchs of government. Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all. You cant get much more undemocratic than that. Having the president have the power of veto makes no sense either since it once again takes power away from the people who were elected. In fact, given that all states send the same number of senators, and the only really proportianal representation comes from the house of reps (the weakest house in the US the strongest in Australia) the people dont get much say at all do they."
To me this quote not only illustrates that point, it also appears to be self-contradicting. Early on you mention that you don't think it's a bad thing that the party in power controls the executive branch (which I assume refers to members of your Parliament choosing the Prime Minister and/or the Governor General), yet you then conclude that statement by railing against the U.S. government for having a presidential veto (because of your mistaken assertion that the President isn't elected) and for having the Senate being more powerful than the House of Representatives (another fallacy, as neither one can effectively do anything without the approval and agreement of the other).
If I wanted to play devil's advocate and argue your side of this debate for a moment, I think the best I could do with regard to the whole "representative governement" issue would be to cast them in nearly the same light, and I think even then the U.S. would end up being slightly more representative. You could effectively argue that the system "people=>electoral college=>president" is the same as "people=>parliament=>prime minister" from the standpoint of directly electing executive leaders. In neither case does the general populace directly select their leaders, but the U.S. population at least votes on it. Does Australia, for instance, have an election where the general citizenry chooses a prime minister? Do the even have a referendum where they recommend a nominee for Senate/House approval?
I'm sure I've addressed this point before, but it seems it's necessary to do it again. You have consistently criticized the part of the U.S. system whereby the Senate is composed of two members elected from each State. Your criticism, if I'm reading it correctly, seems to indicate that you feel this isn't truly representative since some states with low populations will then have the same representation in this house as those with high populations. If this is the case, I completely agree with your assessment of the level of representation, and I totally disagree with your conclusion that it's less representative this way. Our House of Representatives is the half of the Legislative branch that is broken down by a population formula (congressional districts with approximately equal amounts of citizens in each one), and the people in each corresponding district vote for their own voice in Congress. However, since our government is actually a Union of sovereign States (hence the name of our country), it is extremely important that on some level each State also has equal representation in the government. This is why the Senate has its makeup the way it is, to ensure that California or Texas don't just have their way with the country because they have more people. If this were not the case, there would have been many states that would have opted to NOT join the union, and there would probably have been more instances of secession than we've had. Essentially the Senate displays the co-op nature of our governmental structure (and let's not forget, each Senator is directly elected by his/her constituents, so they do reflect a proportional representation in that the people of each State are represented equally by their Senators). To label that structure as non-representative is at worst a deliberate twisting of the facts to support a weak point, and at best a simple case of naivete or being uninformed on this particular point.
I think at this point I'll try to withhold comment on these types of issues until and unless everyone involved is speaking about facts. If we're going to discuss how we'd LIKE things to work or how we IMAGINE them to work elsewhere, we won't really get anywhere.
(a) While Im sure Im not as familiar with the workings of the US system of government as some here, I have a fairly good grasp of how it works and I would say a lot better concept of it and your history than a lot of your citizens do. Im still learning new things but have always been a student of the Revolution, war of 1812 and civil war not to mention many of the other misadventures which the US has embarked on. At no point have I for instance said that the US president is not elected. I dont think much of the way he is elected but Ive always known he was, I may have said that Bush got in without being validly elected at some point and I still believe that to be the case.
(b)
QuoteTo me this quote not only illustrates that point, it also appears to be self-contradicting. Early on you mention that you don't think it's a bad thing that the party in power controls the executive branch (which I assume refers to members of your Parliament choosing the Prime Minister and/or the Governor General), yet you then conclude that statement by railing against the U.S. government for having a presidential veto (because of your mistaken assertion that the President isn't elected) and for having the Senate being more powerful than the House of Representatives (another fallacy, as neither one can effectively do anything without the approval and agreement of the other).
As I mentioned I have never believed the president to not be elected. Much of what I have said has been about the inadequacies of the presidential election process and the dubious outcome of that race in Florida. I even illustrated the point of preferential voting with the 3 candidates so im not sure how you came to that conclusion. As regards the importance of the senate, my statement was referring to the fact that the media portrays the senate as the most important decision making body in the US, my query was why is this when the house of representatives which draws up legislation could not be less important in the decision making process yet rarely ever rates a mention in the media. I still think the presidential veto is a stupid idea, if it can pass the two houses of your government why should one man or woman (go Hillary) be able to veto it?? You tell me that the house of representatives and senate are representative of the people, (I still dont agree with you on the senate but understand your point about the states, though I would have thought the US would have grown out of that states rights rubbish by now and suspect amonst the people it largely has) then why should one person whom you all have stated isnt necessarily representative of the people be able to stop them??(refere here to what several of you have said about presidents who didnt not have a majority of the population vote for them) Power of the people for the people, or is it just some of the people.
In Australian elections the prime minister is the leader of the party which gains power, so yes you vote for his party or not knowing that if they get into power he will be the PM.
(c) In Australia we dont vote for the leader but we know when we cast a vote for a party which leader will be PM if that party succeeds. So in essence if I had voted Liberal in the last election which I didnt I knew i would be voting for John Howard to be Prime Minister. I voted for labour in essence, though by dint of preferences, so hence knew i was voting for Mark Latham to be PM. An American who votes for a person to vote (electoral college) for him doesnt even really know what if that vote will be cast as he or she was told it would be. I know it happens only rarely but electoral college members have reversed their votes in the past. I dont see voting for someone else to vote your president in is particulary democratic nor reliable when their is nothing to mandate them to make the choice they had originally made.
No referendums take place to choose anyone, a referendum is a ballot of the whole country to decide a matter of national importance. Zutroy your right I would have liked to see a Bill of rights and was dissapointed to see it defeated. A lot of Australians saw no need for it since we suffer no abuses from the government and have a good consistent rule of law with trail by jury and all the other trappings which go with a bill of rights. Also referendums rarely pass if they arent supported by both sides and in this case the Government of the day lead by John Howard opposed it and also the second question of becoming a republic (that has been defeated twice now)
(d) I know you are a union of states, so is Australia, but we are a country first, states are largely irrelvent except for choosing sides in cricket and football to the average Australian. This fact is evident from the fact that an American when asked where they come from will tell you his state (which for your average foreigner either smacks of a certain degree of arrogance as they are expected to know where that is or of a belief that they are a Virginian for instance before being an American) While a person from just about anywhere else will tell you their country. At the time of the civil war that kind of ideal certainly held sway. And I undestand that soverignity fo the states was an issue then, but how many Americans truly believe they are a member of their state before their country now?? Im sure some do but it seems a rather outdated and useless concept.
QuoteTo label that structure as non-representative is at worst a deliberate twisting of the facts to support a weak point, and at best a simple case of naivete or being uninformed on this particular point.No twisting of the facts at all, that a state like California sends two senators and one like Arizone 2 is in no way representative of their people. Thats not twisting facts that is the simple truth. While I understand that your senate may give the states fair represenation it certainally doesnt give the people fair and equal representation. Quite the opposite in fact, we have population discrepencies between states here too but since we are a country all states are looked after equally by the Federal government and we enjoy a far more representative form of government as a result.
My point that the executive team was not voted into office is referring to the fact that the people get no say in it and im aware of the much lamented fact that the democratics barely raised a whisper when that lot were voted in.
With regard to Axes comment,
(a) I dont think informing congress takes away from the power since once committed your committed whether it was right or wrong. You cant attack someone then say oh sorry it was a mistake.
(b) Im well aware of what the second amendment is about and still think it an archaic and stupid concept. Hehe i could not begin to tell you how stupid I think that is, right up there with MAD but you guys have live there with all the murders etc so im just glad we dont have it here though I do wish your stupid NRA would stay over there and keep out of my country. Plenty of countries regularly revolt without the right to bear arms.
(c) on the veto well its your country, your system. If your happy with it good :)
On Zutroys points:
(a) No one ever gets thrown in jail.
(b) If they dont want to exercise their right to select a candidate they simply draw a sqiggle and hand in a donkey vote. Its a good law :)
(c) Ill concede your point on numbers, though not entirely since we occupy the same area, our whole population votes, I was surprised that just over 50% of your does I had believed it to be less so a cheer for all the voters. Also we never have had problems like those that happened in New Orleans or had a court decide an election for us. Also pro rata our resouces for running it are less.
(d) No I dont naively believe anything, their is a wealth of reliable incontestable evidence of Bush's wrong doing. I really think your are blinded by your biases here. And to be truthful even if you only believed a quarter of the information about him it would be enough to make you not want to vote for him. I see a lot of Americans who seem to think the office of president is sancrosact, the truth is he is just a politician and in this case a not very bright or honest one. (yes opinion I know :) )
I didnt know you had an independant commision against corruption since I never hear of them doing anything much despite a wealth of cases they could take on. I would like to see the one here do more too though probably like yours political pressure can be brought to bear if they act up too much.
(e) For us having a senate which generally is not the same as the house of reps does the same thing. In that respect I would think the balance between your reps and senates would be similar. While I dont like paying high taxes I dont mind paying reasonable taxes for social services.
(f) Actually though they were voted on they did pretty much get a free ride through, which was the fault of the democrats no one else. As for them being incompetent, well your right its my opinion but there is once again a lot of evidence that their decision making has been extremely poor. That is almost always the case with radicals. I see little distinction between Osama thumping a Koran on one side and blowing up Americans and Bush thumping a bible on the other and blowing up innocent Iraquies. Throw in some radical Jews blowing up Palestinians and vice a versa and we would be better off without the lot of them and install some moderates.
(g) No one represents states in Australia except the state premiers. Senators are elected Australia wide and are the most representative of the different views held by people around the country. Everyones vote is equal there. The house of representative is made up of people from set electorates of approximately equal numbers. Its your system of senate which represents states and not people equitably. This is a fundamental difference between our countries. States rights and states fighting with each other just isnt part of our agenda like it is with you. The idea of killing the phenomal number of people your country did over states rights is alien to us here. Like I said before I would have thought America would have grown out of that by now and become first and foremost a country. I suspect for many Americans it has but i could be wrong lol since im surprised to hear those concepts still being brought up.
(h) ah i see where you got the idea I thought the president wasnt elected despite all the preceding evidence that I knew he was. The people I was referring to where the house of reps and the senate and I never contended the president wasnt elected.
(i) We have nothing like your USAPATRIOT ACT 1 and 2, these effectively give your government some scary and draconian powers. Believe me when i say that your civil rights have been battered badly by this legislation. I wont detail it though i have read it before. This has become a book already or i would :P but its on the web somewhere.
(j) You got me with regard to the bill or rights, I would like to have one and did vote for it. For the most part I think your bill of rights is a fine document. Not always followed but a great concept.
(j) Ok ill give you an example. Im a college teacher, to go for a promotion I would have to submit a written application showing how I met the minimum qualifications (degrees, industrial experience, teaching experience etc) and demonstrated a understanding of various overnment policies like EEO (Equal Employment Opportuntiy) OH&S, anti discrimination laws etc. Referees would have to be provided and questioned on how i met those criteria.
If I was deemed to meet all those criteria then I would be invited to a interview with a panel. That panel would be made up of one person from a senior position in my school ie the Head of Studies, one senior person from another college and an unrelated teaching discipline and one independant person from the industry my school services ie the aircraft industry. They would ask a set of standard questions to all candidates and then score them on all facets of the process offering the job to the first person on the list. Any on the list who did not get the position but whom were deemed to be eligable would be able to act in the position to gain further experience when the permanent holder was on holidays etc. Its long winded but the results are better than electing somebody who has no qualifications and whom people just happen to like. I know that probably doesnt happen that much but I also know it does happen in the south at least :)
This is like a book so if i missed anything my apologies.
Oh i missed the point on compulsory voting. Despite your assertions that being compelled to vote is undemocratic this is simply not true by any measure. Being compelled to vote means that all people will exercise their opinion on who will rule. Democracy is rule by the majority (as defined in the dictionary) and if the majority dont vote you dont really have it.
Certainly making voting compulsory takes away a freedom to not attend the ballot but it has nothing to do with making it any less democratic. However removal of a freedom is not removal of democracy.
I think i now beat Sodom for the longest ever post, not that I will be repeating it lol
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 6:55 am on Oct. 11, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 7:15 am on Oct. 11, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 7:17 am on Oct. 11, 2004)
" didnt know you had an independant commision against corruption since I never hear of them doing anything much despite a wealth of cases they could take on."
There was just a case last week where they found a leading republican in the house of representatives guilty of misconduct of some sort. I don't remember the exact details of it.
" I see little distinction between Osama thumping a Koran on one side and blowing up Americans and Bush thumping a bible on the other and blowing up innocent Iraquies."
I really have no response to this, I figured I'd just quote it in case someone missed it in your long post.
"The people I was referring to where the house of reps and the senate and I never contended the president wasnt elected. "
Your last post stated that the presidential veto takes power away from people that were elected and that would lead one to assume you don't believe the president himself is elected. I guess it was just worded poorly, but I think I get the point you were trying to make.
"Im still learning new things but have always been a student of the Revolution, war of 1812 and civil war not to mention many of the other misadventures which the US has embarked on"
The revolution is why the US doesn't have a Governer General. If you understand american history well enough to be a "student" of these conflicts, then I'm suprised you aren't more aware of the importance that statehood has in the governing of this country. I hate to bring up numbers again, but the entire population of australia is only the size of texas. To try to govern the whole thing as one giant country without state goverments would be extremely difficult and inefficient.
Look at it this way, when Australia becomes the 51st state in a few years, you'll get 32 electoral votes.
Finally, let me copy and paste this from my previous thread because you obviously didn't read it:
In regards to Florida, the supreme court didn't technically rule on the case, they just remanded it back to the lower court beyond the December deadline for the recounts to be certified. Show me one article that says (in any type of independent recount) that Gore won Florida.
http://transterrestrial.com/scripts/globaltest/
Be sure to pick french on the first question.
And this has got to be Bush!
Disarm megalomaniacal dictator with WMD (will need to submit authenticated proof--CIA or MI6 documents will not be acceptable) (100 points)
I mean Saddam had none and we all know Bush has more than anyone else :)
Zutroy we have state governments, just not the plethora of them you have And I understand how they were historically important, just dont see the relevance today from a states rights point of view and think the emphasis on it is kind of stupid. In terms of administering them, it could possibly be argued that it offers some advantages but that had nothing to do with what i was talking about and really they could be adminstered with far fewer than you have. . Yeah I know Texas is small, and as regards Gore winning Florida there are plenty of publications that say that and ill check my references with regard to the Supreme court because if memory servers me correctly they prevented a re count. I think the only source you would trust would have to come from the republican party :)
With regard to Australia becoming a state of America, Hell will freeze over first :)
Okay, here's where this came from (10/10, 12:51am timestamp):
"Im no admirer of the American system of separating the executive and elected branchs of government. Your system means that you can get a team like the one you presently have which for the most part pretty damn incompetent and for which no one voted at all. You cant get much more undemocratic than that."
Maybe I misinterpreted what you wrote, but I considered "for which no one voted at all" to be a fairly iron-clad statement.
There were a couple more statements made that I think reflect a true difference in viewpoint, and I'll try to explain why I think that having Senators based on individual states is a good thing (not to mention the governmental efficiency that is possible by having relatively strong state governments to administer some things, that's a separate discussion).
"we have population discrepencies between states here too but since we are a country all states are looked after equally by the Federal government"
"Senators are elected Australia wide and are the most representative of the different views held by people around the country. Everyones vote is equal there. The house of representative is made up of people from set electorates of approximately equal numbers. Its your system of senate which represents states and not people equitably. This is a fundamental difference between our countries. States rights and states fighting with each other just isnt part of our agenda like it is with you."
Okay, if you take the populations of two of the Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria), you end up with two states which contain more than half of the country's entire population. In fact, Sydney (which is in NSW) by itself has nearly as many people as the third most populous state (and may have exceeded it by now, I'm sure I'm not using real-time data for this).
The point I'm trying to make with this is that the population of these two states has the ability to easily out-vote all of the other states combined, and can in effect elect a Senate comprised of people they prefer. You may not think it's the case, but human nature (and the NIMBY principle*) say that most of the Federal projects that nobody wants probably end up in the Northern Territory, while almost none of them end up in NSW. In my opinion, because the residents of a state like Tasmania have such a diluted voice in both the House and the Senate, they have almost no hope of a favorable resolution when it comes to legislation that has a strong bearing on their particular area. In the U.S., this can be anything from avoiding toxic waste disposal sites to getting more federal installations (and thus more jobs and federal tax $ being spent there), and the various Senators are accountable to their constituency. Who fights for the Tasmanians? Senators elected mostly by the residents of Sydney and Melbourne? You may think so, but I think that puts too much faith in the charity of those people when it's the well-being of another state and its residents on the line.
Also, with regard to the thing about Americans using states to identify themselves, this is in my experience somewhat true when you meet other Americans (especially when you're in the U.S. at the time), although it usually is expressed in terms of a city (i.e. I usually tell people I live near Detroit, as opposed to saying I'm from Michigan). In other countries, however, I respond to similar questions by simply stating that I'm from the U.S. If, as has often been the case, the person asks which part of the country I'm from, I'll provide more detail. I really don't think this is different from many countries, at least those with which I have experience. India, for example, seems to be very similar, if not more divided among state lines than we are. Granted, Indians who live overseas tend to interact as "Indians" and present themselves that way, but beneath that surface they highly identify with their home regions, and often speak entirely different languages than Indians from other parts of that country. In fact, many of the Indians I've met and worked with joke that, while they're friends and compatriots here, they would probably have to dislike each other when they go home because of historical differences between their home regions. Germans, while not to the level of Indians, can be this way as well, and in the UK... well, don't let a typical Scot think that you've called him "English", hehe. Heck, even in Canada (I'm practically Canadian here, I grew up being able to see Canada across the lake) there's a pronounced difference between the French-Canadians that dominate Quebec and "everyone else". I think if you look more closely that the majority of the countries out there have distinct regions within them and the people in those regions identify primarily with those regions, especially when dealing with people from other parts of their country. Another analogy would be Arab history, where they've historically been constantly at each other's throats, but as soon as an external threat is discovered they become a united Arab Nation. Anyone with brothers or sisters probably knows this feeling, hehe. You know, on a daily basis you probably gave and received the worst beatings to/from your sibling and probably screamed some pretty bad stuff at them, but the first kid down the street that hits your brother had better watch out, because that kid now has to deal w/ both of you.
(edit) One last comment about the state governments for Bolldar: One important thing to remember is that the state governments predate the state's existence as a "state" in the union. Whether they were territorial governments, colonial governments, or in some cases even sovereign nations, there was a pre-existing government before they came under the Federal government. It just doesn't make sense that these would be disbanded (I know you haven't suggested this), and it makes complete sense that these incoming entities would want some sort of guarantee that they'd be able to exercise some level of independence and have their voice heard in the halls of government.
(Edited by Rosslyn at 1:01 pm on Oct. 11, 2004)
QuoteQuote: from Zutroy on 6:48 am on Oct. 11, 2004
" I see little distinction between Osama thumping a Koran on one side and blowing up Americans and Bush thumping a bible on the other and blowing up innocent Iraquies."I really have no response to this, I figured I'd just quote it in case someone missed it in your long post.
I saw this as well. The difference between innocents dying in a war and victims of terrorist violence is tremendous, imo. Sometimes it takes the death of thousands, all at once, before you realize it.
Please post one, I'm eager to read it if you can find a factual recount (not an editorial article or some "expert's" projections) that put Gore ahead. There was an automatic recount (as provided by Florida law) and Bush still came out ahead. Afterwards, Gore wanted to hand recount the ballets in 2 (or was it 3?) heavily democratic counties using no uniform standard. This meant things like pin-pricks or stray marks could be counted as votes for Gore if the person recounting wanted them to be. Bush filed a lawsuit against this and the hand-recounts were put on hold. There were a series of rulings that split both ways and each one got appealed to a higher court. Finally, the supreme court was next in line to decide the case, but remanded it (ie, sent it back) to the lower court. However, the deadline the supreme court set was after the deadline to certify the vote tally, essentially deciding against Gore without actually issuing a direct ruling.
Irregardless, several independent press groups conducted their own recounts after the fact and never were able to come up with a vote tally in Gore's favor - even using the standards that Gore wanted.
I'm not naive enough to believe that had it happened in reverse, Bush wouldn't have done the exact same thing as Gore. I'm only defending Bush in this instance because I'm sick of hearing this arguement by people who didn't even follow the election in 2000 and are just parroting what they hear from others.
(Edited by Zutroy at 8:37 pm on Oct. 11, 2004)
QuoteQuote: from Caohmin on 8:28 pm on Oct. 11, 2004I saw this as well. The difference between innocents dying in a war and victims of terrorist violence is tremendous, imo. Sometimes it takes the death of thousands, all at once, before you realize it.
i am actually of the same oppinion as bolldar on this. 9/11 effected me as much as most, i saw all the news video, i talked to my sister who watched it happen from her dorm on staten island. i saw a very close friend of mine cry because her father flew out of logan that morning, and later find out her father was on one of the planes that went into the trade center.
i dont see any differance between what happened to us, and to what happened to innocent iraqies. sure, what happened to us was sudon and unexpected, it was a shock to us all...but im sure as hell not gunna be the one to say to some iraqie's family that what we went through was worse, that our innocent victims were somehow more innocent then theirs. i'd like to know where someone draws that line, because i cant.
Some examples:
US marines shot at everyone they met in their drive on Bagdad including families and passers bye. This is not some vague rumour I have seen several interviews with serving marines who bore witness to this.
Add to that the use of AOE bombs with sub munition bomblets dropped in towns.
And the targetting of buildings containing large numbers of innocent people because the US suspected one potential target might be there.
The helicopter incident with the Bradley was another good example with a US apache helicopter (and i dont care if you didnt see the helicopter in the videio since the US army admitted they fired it) firing into an unarmed crowd of civilians.
Throw in kidnapping, torture of prisoners, and a host of other violations of the Geneva convention including travesties of justice such as Qantonimo Bay and the US is far from being able to claim moral superiority in a war against a country which never did anything to them.
As to the argument that a 2,500 people dieing on one day has more impact than 35,000 plus over a longer period I think thats pretty ridiculous. By this argument the holocaust would not have been the significant event that it was. Dead is dead and if you try to tell me that a family in America who lost a member in 9/11 is more impacted than an Iraqui who had his whole family wiped out as has often been the case by America bombs then I think your seriously twisting the facts.
I dont think any of these people deserved to die, but the fact is that the US had targetted Osama Bin Ladin well before 9/11 and if you go back far enough had even helped him in the days when they were creating the Taliban. As a American middle east expert stated it wasnt so much a surpise that they struck back but that they took so long to do it. American foreign policy and meddling in other countries affairs is largely responsble for what happened. And im not saying anyone had a right to blow up the twin towers but by the same token I dont believe America had a right to do the things they did in the middle east dating back to the end of the second world war.
As to Florida, you should look at this :) http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html
With regard to showing you a recount that is obviously difficult since one didnt in fact happen. However:
QuoteThe most significant of these requirements are:Taken from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.
and
QuoteSomething rotten in the state of Florida
Pregnant chads, vanishing voters... the election fiasco of 2000 made the Sunshine State a laughing stock. More importantly, it put George Bush in the White House. You'd think they'd want to get it right this time. But no, as Andrew Gumbel discovers, the democratic process is more flawed than ever
29 September 2004
Of the many weird and unsettling developments in Florida since the presidential election meltdown four years ago, none is so startling as the fact that Theresa LePore, the calamitously incompetent elections supervisor of Palm Beach County, still has her job. It was LePore who chose the notorious "butterfly ballot" - a format so confusing that it led thousands of Democrats, many of them elderly, retired Jewish people, to punch the wrong hole, giving their vote not to Al Gore, as they had intended, but to the right-wing, explicitly anti-Jewish fringe candidate Pat Buchanan.
and from CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.
NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.
As well as attempting to discern voter intent in ballots that might have been re-examined had the recount gone forward, the study also looked at the possible effect of poor ballot design, voter error and malfunctioning machines. That secondary analysis suggests that more Florida voters may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Democrat Al Gore but failed to cast a valid vote.
In releasing the report, the consortium said it is in no way trying to rewrite history or challenge the official result -- that Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Rather it is simply trying to bring some additional clarity to one of the most confusing chapters in U.S. politics.
Florida Supreme Court recount ruling
On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast. (Think this clearly shows the supreme court actually decided the election by preventing the re count which the Florida Supreme Court had ordered, this despite an earlier ruling in the stay motion brought by Bush that the FLorida Supreme court had juridisction in this case and that the Supreme court of America should not interfere, read this in the Supreme court ruling)
Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.
Gore's four-county strategy
Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.
The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios.
Use of Palm Beach County standard
Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore.
Inclusion of overvotes
In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes.
A county worker displays an optical scan ballot through a viewing window.
The butterfly and caterpillar ballots
One of the most controversial aspects of the Florida election was the so-called butterfly ballot used in heavily Democratic Palm Beach County. Many voters came out of the polls saying they were confused by the ballot design.
According to the study, 5,277 voters made a clean punch for Gore and a clean punch for Reform Party nominee Pat Buchanan, candidates whose political philosophies are poles apart. An additional 1,650 voters made clean punches for Bush and Buchanan. If many of the Buchanan votes were in error brought on by a badly designed ballot, a CNN analysis found that Gore could have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.
Eighteen other counties used another confusing ballot design known as the "caterpillar" or "broken" ballot, where six or seven presidential candidates are listed in one column and the names of the remaining minor party candidates appeared at the top of a second one. According to the study, more than 15,000 people who voted for either Gore or Bush also selected one candidate in the second column, apparently thinking the second column represented a new race.
Had many of these voters not marked a minor candidate in the second column, Gore would have netted thousands of additional votes as compared with Bush.
However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law.
(my note here but according to your Supreme court any vote cast which clearly indicates whom the voter intended to vote for is valid, the double marks here include where a voter wrote the name they wanted as well as indicating via the normal means due to the confusing ballot papers used)
Limits of the study
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago study was commissioned by eight media companies -- The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, the St. Petersburg Times, The Palm Beach Post, The Washington Post and the Tribune Co., which includes the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel and Baltimore Sun, as well as other papers.
A county worker displays a punch-card ballot to a NORC coder.
NORC used experienced staff researchers to supervise and train a larger pool of investigators, who then fanned out across Florida and personally examined 175,010 ballots provided by local election officials. The investigators recorded exactly what they saw on each ballot but made no attempt to determine whether the vote should have been counted.
From there, the media consortium took over, analyzing the raw data produced by NORC and drawing conclusions for various hypothetical scenarios.
As with any large-scale study, the NORC data is subject to some important limitations.
ported serious problems with record keeping at many local election offices. NORC relied on these offices to produce the rejected ballots, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators.
Although trained to produce accurate, impartial reports, the NORC investigators are human and prone to human judgment and error. In particular, NORC discovered that male investigators were more likely to record marks on ballots than women. NORC also found a slight but statistically significant relationship between candidate marks and the investigators' party affiliation.
Most importantly, there is no guarantee that the judgments of the NORC investigators would have matched those of local election boards had the recount been permitted to proceed under any scenario.
This was also interesting:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm#allow
There is actually a lot of of sites which indicate the fact that the Florida election was badly run and full of inconsistencies and it appears as though it will be just as badly run this year and the courts are preparing to test the limits of the Supreme court decision which may mean that the ballot system has to be uniform accross the state. Which would probably be a good thing.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 11:47 am on Oct. 13, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 11:50 am on Oct. 13, 2004)
Are these the unarmed civilians who were "looting" (as you described it, which to a helicopter could certainly appear to be "attacking", not to mention that there was the probability of US soldiers and/or US bodies in that vehicle still) the Bradley? Just to be perfectly clear, your definition of "innocent civilians" includes those who decide to join a mob and strip a burning armed military vehicle that has just been attacked while an armed airship from the same military is flying overhead? It sounds to me that the people whose actions should be questioned are the ones that put themselves into that situation. Neither the US army nor George Bush herded those people into the area immediately surrounding the burning vehicle. Nor did they set the vehicle on fire to attract "innocent civilians" just so they could kill them. The fact that this is continually brought up here as an example of US aggression "in the middle east dating back to the end of the second world war" (even though the US was largely a footnote in the middle east in that period of history, you can thank your friends the British and the French for setting middle-eastern policy in the 1930's and 1940's) makes me think that you're probably one of those people who would prosecute a homeowner for beating someone who breaks into his house. Is beating someone generally bad? Of course. Did the robber put himself in that situation? You bet.
One thing to keep in mind as you assemble more "facts" for this ongoing diatribe about the 2000 election, specifically as it relates to Florida, is that the election officials in the "heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties" are/were... you guessed it... Democrats! Here in the US, local governments operate and supervise elections. Elections that include state and federal candidates certainly are subject to more regulation than strictly local elections, but all the same they're still run by local governments. These governments are also responsible for choosing and procuring their own election equipment. If you, the Democrats, or anyone else wants to complain about what did or didn't happen in those four counties on November of 2000, you should focus your ire on the Democrat elected officials who were responsible for the election (not to mention voter education). If you're going to send the Register-to-Vote-Mobile through the traditionally Democratic-leaning poor parts of town, you should probably show those folks how to fill out your arcane ballots while you're at it.
"a host of other violations of the Geneva convention"
A point of discussion here (and another can of worms to open, hehe) is that the Geneva Convention only applies to prisoners of war. If you want to recite various points of the Convention, go back and read the parts that specify the types of weapons and ammuntion that you're allowed to use (this is where the term "full metal jacket" comes from, as you don't want the person you're shooting to die of lead poisoning), the fact that you must be wearing a military uniform (or else you can be given a non-POW status, such as "spy" or the now-famous "enemy combatant" ) etc. etc. etc. You don't see Iraqi army regulars imprisoned in Cuba. Saddam isn't in Cuba. Who's in Cuba then? Maybe it's the people who dressed up like women, children, or others "including families and passers bye" and then shot at the soldiers when they thought they posed no threat. Of course, we don't hear that part in these "interviews with serving marines" that are cited. These are the same people who think it's a neat strategy to fire from inside of a mosque, expecting that the resulting outcry over the US denegration of the Muslim religion and culture will keep these same Marines from firing back or going in and rooting them out. This same concept holds true for neighborhoods. If you're going to let "insurgents" hide in your house, store weapons/ammunition in your house, and fire on troops from your house, you may not want to actually STAY in your house much longer. As has been stated, places like mosques, schools, and private homes tend to lose their protected status when the enemy is using them as bases for attack. This seems reasonable to me.
(Edited by Rosslyn at 4:07 pm on Oct. 13, 2004)
(Edited by Rosslyn at 4:07 pm on Oct. 13, 2004)
"The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore. "
Yeah, so Bush would have won anyway - that was the point I was making.
The Katherine Harris video shows she was dishonest and disenfranchised voters legitamate voters, its mainly about the fact that most of the people she disenfranchised were not felons at all but innocent. I had a feeling you would miss that though lol.
The helicopter incident, actually there were no wounded, dead or alive Americans in the vehicle according to the US army. The vehicle was on fire and the crowd by my observation appeared to be mainly just watching it burn. Standing in close proximity to a burning vehicle may not be sensible but its not a crime either. I never said the vehicle was being looted just that that was the excuse the US army used for firing on it. Further I didnt bring this up as an example of US agression in the middle east. I brought it up as a deliberate attack on unarmed civilians which it most certainly was.
My statements with regard to US involvement in the middle east are true though they have not necessarily been of a overt military nature. CIA plots to install puppets or destabilise regimes and to support insurgents against governments abound. As do US moves to use economic muscle to stifle nationalisation of of the Oil industry in Iran for instance.
The people who set the rules for the election were Republicans and still are and since it is a republican controlled state there isnt a lot the democrats can do about it.
Enemy combatants is a BS term made up by the US government but more on that later no time at present. And many of those in Qantonimo bay did nothing more than upset someone who decided to collect a hefty fine for stating they belonged to Al Qeada.
A) I never claimed to be a Republican. As I stated in my previous post, I'm just tired of hearing all the ranting about Bush stealing the election when Gore wouldn't have won the recounts anyway.
B) It's DYED in the wool.
and,
C) What I find a big stretch is that you can somehow conclude that the majority of the "missing" votes were for Gore. Moreso, it seems you completely ignored most of the article and only highlighted a couple of "what if?" projections that would never have been considered valid votes under any lawful circumstance. Counting Buchanan votes for Gore or double votes for Gore might get you a enough to put Gore ahead, but so would stuffing the ballot box with 500 fake votes.
"since it is a republican controlled state there isnt a lot the democrats can do about it"
Ross addressed this already: "local governments operate and supervise elections."
"Enemy combatants is a BS term made up by the US government but more on that later no time at present."
Please continue, I'd love to hear your reasoning behind this.
"The people who set the rules for the election were Republicans and still are and since it is a republican controlled state there isnt a lot the democrats can do about it."
Republicans get to set election rules? This is news to me. As I mentioned before, the rules have been in place for a long time (as in before the concerned parties were born), and even though the GOVERNOR is a republican, the ELECTION OFFICIALS in the targetted counties are not.
Here is what I believe to be the most telling portion of Bolldar's quote:
"If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.
Gore's four-county strategy
Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.
The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios."
First and foremost, there's that word "standard", meaning that there is an accepted set of guidelines to follow in these cases, and they were followed. The quote goes on to in fact say that the media consortium's hired investigators confirmed that the application of this standard would have resulted in the affirmation of Bush's victory in the Florida election. The next part isn't very important in the long run, but it does confirm that if Al Gore had gotten everything on his wish list, being the recount of only the staunchly democratic counties, he STILL would not have won the election. The later portions of the quote all fall in line with the last phrase that I included here: "The news media consortium then tested a number of other hypothetical scenarios." Just as "standard" was a key word in the earlier part, "hypothetical" is the key word here. To paraphrase, it means "we'll try to conjure up some fantastical democratic-utopian situation whereby we can selectively apply non-standard judgment guidelines where we believe it would most benefit Al Gore". I suppose Gore would have won by a landslide if they had only found a way to count the votes of those who really intended to vote for him, but either forgot to show up or suffered some unavoidable misfortune that prevented them from actually voting, such as being dead or under the age of eighteen.
Here's reality: Gore didn't win the Florida election. Was it close? One of the closest elections in history. He still lost though, and he lost even though Democrats were running the contested local elections. He should be embarassed to lose when he was practically the incumbent and had many things (not least of which was a still-vibrant economy) going in his favor.
On the other hand, not one bit of this pertains to the situation today, since Gore is pretty much a political non-factor now and HE FRIGGING LOST SO GET OVER IT. :-)
Here's a debate pointer: When questioned about the authenticity/veracity of statements you make, it doesn't really advance your position to defend them by saying things like "My statements with regard to (insert controversial topic here) are true". Why not just say "Because I said so!"? In me opinion, these are the situations that call for citing real (i.e. not last year's blog from some left-wing conspiracy theorist) sources that at least give the appearance of containing mostly factual information, and not hiding behind things like "CIA plots" (which of course we normal humans shouldn't be able to verify or disprove), implying that the existence of some sort of shady underworld of espionage (news flash # 7564: the other countries all do this too) means that the US is inherently evil and always wrong.
"As do US moves to use economic muscle to stifle nationalisation of of the Oil industry in Iran for instance"
Seriously? Are you suggesting that any government's setting of its own economic policy to further its own economic and/or geopolitical goals is wrong? I'm sure this isn't the case, since EVERY NATION ON EARTH DOES THIS, so maybe you're just suggesting that it's wrong for the US to do it. In this particular case, I also assume by "nationalisation" you mean "theft of capital infrastructure owned by global companies and arbitrary voiding and/or changing existing contracts for oil production and refining" by the Islamic Revolution government. Suppose Australia had 25 huge superfrieghters in a port in some other country, and that country had a change in government. Further suppose that this new government decided to "nationalize" all of its port facilities, including those vessels currently in port. Hey, cool, we have a new fleet! Do you suppose that Australia might, at this point, alter its economic policy with regard to this new government? I do. Australia probably wouldn't choose to invade the other country to reclaim assets belonging to its businesses (the US didn't either, remember), but they surely would feel a need to express their displeasure in some way other than not sending the new ruler a holiday greeting card.
It just amazes me how some things can be viewed in such a one-sided manner, especially when you realize that if the US had always employed a foreign policy like the one Bolldar seems to think is proper, we'd have to be able to understand Japanese to listen to him rant. ;)
Btw you asked for an example of where a study shows Gore could have won, there are literally hundreds of examples out there which say he should have. The study I cited gives numerous examples of where Gore could have won had the voting system been better (and by better I mean clearer in its use (simple easy to use forms) and a more uniform standard utilised for recognising what constitutes a valid vote). If you think that system was in any fashion a good example of how to run an election well im at a loss for words. One of the major problems with the system there is that there is no standard and different counties used different systems. But it was the republican use of the culling system which had the most impact on disenfranchising legitimate voters and no democrat controlled that or decided to put it in the hands of a private company.
As to the US actions in the past in the middle east, the example I used was the US embargo of oil exports after Iran first requested that they get a 50% cut of profits from British Oil, they had been receiving 5%. Britian refused this and when Iran moved to nationalise their oil industry as a result. Britian embargoed Iranian oil followed closely by the US.
As to your point of my saying im right, the same applies to many of your statements and it would seem you discount any source which doesnt agree with the US position. Certainly the US is not the only country to employ both economic and military muscle to achieve their purpose over weaker countries. That doesnt make it right or something that you can be proud of especially given the self righteous ideals that the US likes to trot out. The last statement about Japanese makes no sense with relation to this.
CIA actions are often not that secret, there actions in Afghanistan are well known as there help in creating the Taliban. They were also involved in fomenting rebellions in Northern Iraq amongst the Kurds. In Iran they were involved in the installation of the Shah. In Iraq they were instrumental in the rise to power of the Baathist party but not Sadam Hussein himself. US diplomacy encourage Iraq to attack Iran after the overthrow of the Shah when US friendly forces no longer controlled the Shatt Al Arab waterway.
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
As to your comments Zutroy:
(a) Sometimes you dont really need to state something for it to be obvious
(b) In the areas in question which you admit are heavily democrat that would not seem to be an unreasonable assumption at all.
(c) There isnt actually a standard state wide on what constitutes an acceptable vote. Rather different counties used both different ballot systems and different standards in deciding what constituted a valid vote (with reference to whether a hole was cleanly punched for instance)
I would be fascinated to see your reactions if another country were to treat the US like the US treats other countries. Your assumption that the US has the right to do what they like where they like is one of the reasons that people around the world dont view the US in a kind light.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 9:04 am on Oct. 14, 2004)
"Btw you asked for an example of where a study shows Gore could have won, there are literally hundreds of examples out there which say he should have."
I asked for an independent recount showing that Gore would have won using his recount standards. Not a bunch of "what if?" illegal vote tallies. It makes just as much sense to say 500 people forgot to vote but wanted to vote for Gore so he should have won.
Actually, I believe that while the counties use different voting systems (i.e. machines, ballots, etc.) that they choose and purchase on their own, there IS in fact a statewide standard for reviewing contested votes. When you think about it, your argument here actually dilutes your own case, because if it had been in fact a county-by-county standard for reviewing votes, Gore's own staunch supporters would have been the ones chiefly to blame for creating and instituting these standards.
The important thing to remember about standards is that they're the same for everyone, and they are set before anyone can possibly know when or if they'll need to be used (meaning that if it happened to be Bush voters in that election who weren't able to make sense out of the ballot, those same standards would have supported Gore in that case.
You're right in that the event is over. I know I didn't bring it up for discussion, but I'm happy to quit talking about it (I can hear the cheers from here, hehe).
"Iran first requested that they get a 50% cut of profits from British Oil, they had been receiving 5%. Britian refused this and when Iran moved to nationalise their oil industry as a result."
This is EXACTLY what I described. The first part about the profit sharing was extortionist arbitrary voiding/changing of existing contracts. You fail to mention the part about how BP (I believe that was the company) poured billions of dollars into the oil producing/refining infrastructure in Iran at zero cost to Iran, and in return paid them royalties (I thought it was actually a % of gross revenue, but I don't have any data at hand on this). When Britain refused this blackmail (knowing fully well that this would just be the first of many "adjustments" the Iranians would want), Iran stole their assets! If you want to say "nationalise", I should be able to say "enemy combatant" all I want, IMHO.
As far as my statement about speaking Japanese, it was an attempt (mainly in jest, but with some truth to it) to remind people that many of those who complain about US "meddling" are from countries who in the past have begged the US to involve itself in matters that didn't immediately concern it. Specifically, I'm referring to the fact that Australia would have quickly become and Imperial Japanese outpost in the early 1940's if it hadn't been for US military involvment. This is similar to the fact that our friends in Paris would probably be looking at a big statue of Adolf Hitler in front of the Arc de Triomphe, or maybe even a big statue of Josef Stalin. Damn the US for meddling in what was clearly a European problem!
Ross, actually the standards vary from county to county and that was one of the issues he Supreme court brought up, that a uniform standard might need to be imposed. You seem to ignore the culling system which wasnt in place before this election and was introduced.
With regard to the oil question, well have to agree to disagree since I dont consider the arrangements which were in place originally as anything other than exploitative. Im sure if a foreign country was exploiting US oil and giving a tiny royalty America would act too.
With regard to the Japaneses question, you got attacked so you didnt actually intervene to save anyone. American oil embargos together with percieved demands for Manchuria to be abandoned by the Japanese are what actually started the Japanese on the path to war in any case. If you know Japanese deployments of WWII you would know that the Japanese were badly stretched by the time they got near to Australia and had no hope of successfully invading. In fact the first Japanese defeat was on the Kokoda trail as the Japanese thrust towards Port Moresby. The necessity for the Japanese to keep troops in China/Manchuria meant that they really didnt have a lot of men to deploy elsewhere. There next major deployment was in Burma facing the British. Facing the US/Australia was the bulk of their navy and a small proportion of their troops. As to France facing a statue of Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin, perhaps Stalin as that is where Germany was already loosing the war and where the vast bulk of the Heer was committed. Not to belittle US efforts in WWII, but US influence on the outcome is debateable as Germany would have almost certainly lost in the long run anyway, the major US influence being production in that case. What is not debateable though is that US committment hastened the end of the war.
None of that of course lessens the gratitude felt by people who did receive American assistance during WWII, that is vastly different however to being manipulated, interfered with or exploited for American gain as is so often the case since then.
Im sure the French would point out to you that you almost certainly would still be a British colony if not for France.
Bullshit. Terrorists target innocents; that is a fact. It's an extreme stretch to say that coalition forces are purposely going after innocent Iraqis in the same manner.
Innocent people die in wars; every war since the dawn of man has had innocent casualties. I'm sure I could find instances where the Aussie military had killed innocents. To say that is the same as terrorist violence against innocent people is more of your anti-Bush propaganda that your liberal Aussie media feeds you. Your list pales in comparison to the injuries and deaths caused by terrorists.
"Im sure the French would point out to you that you almost certainly would still be a British colony if not for France."
Another red herring. And France would still be German lapdogs if not for the U.S. So what's your point? That allies help each other in times of war?
With regard to the terrorist question, its a difficult one and though I suspect you like a lot of Americans like to see it in black and white the truth is more complex. Some points to consider are:
(a) The distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is one which is mainly derived from which side of the fence you sit on. Most of the attacks which the terrorists as you call them in Iraq have launched have been against either US military or Iraqi police or army who are seen as puppets of the US. You would have a hard time calling these people innocents since they are in a country which they invaded or supporting those same people. Btw if you think thats its not ok then you are basically saying the american militias who fired on the British during your war of independance were terrorists. I doubt you perceive them that way though.
(b) Iraq was invaded and the people there consider themselves in the main to be fighting for Iraqi freedom, much like the fathers of your country did when they attacked ie terrorised British troops on the road from Concord, if you think that wasnt a nasty incident then you should read the history of it.
(c) Terrorism generally happens when one side has no alternative to it to try and achieve their political aims. Ive seen US troops saying why dont they come out and fight fair, what they are really asking is for the terrorists/freedom fighters to come out and let the US win. Many countries started with what was ostensibly terrorism. An example is Isreal where a number of early Jewish leaders of Isreal were ex terrorists. Early American attempts to overthrow the British could have been looked on in the same light and if you read your histories of the War of Independance terrorist activities took place to a limited extent on both sides. Other examples of state sponsored terror were the British bombing of Germany, numerous German activities and American bombing of Japan but not Germany.
Terrorism might be odious but the people who employ it seldom have alternatives to it and statements by Bush that he will win the war against it are just pure BS since it is impossible to stop it altogether.
(d) There are examples even today of deliberate attacks on innocent civilians by US forces. It is not a deliberate policy at Government level im sure but it still happens at least at the lower echelons.
(e) With regard to the Australian military killing innocent civilians, it might be a hard task as im unaware of any documented examples. However im sure at some point it has might have happened though in general British and Australian forces have a pretty good record in this regard. Thats not to say we havent operated in all the same areas either. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, The Sinai desert, Cyprus, Afghanastan and Iraq as well as Timor. All bar Iraq and Vietnam under UN auspices.
Lastly a question? What alternative do these people have? George Bush has said he will never negotiate with any of these people. He was already trying to kill the ones responsible for 9/11 before that event and the ones in Iraq generally had nothing to do with it, for that matter neither did Iraq. So just what alternatives do they have given that the US also takes no notice of the UN?
I think terrorism is a bad thing, however im not naive enough to believe that these people embark on a course of terrorism because they have a lot of alternatives which are likely to get them anywhere.
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 6:59 pm on Oct. 14, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 7:01 pm on Oct. 14, 2004)
Gee, except for the victims of 9/11 and those kidnapped/beheaded. And embassy bombings in Africa. And the plane over Locherbie, Scotland, etc. Terrorists are not isolated to Iraq.
These insurgents you are talking are now even attacking innocent Iraqis. I read an article yesterday that they are sending death threats to any Iraqi working in any way with the new government.
I don't see the U.S. military or any of the other coalition nation's military attacking their own people and sending them death threats. I guess that's a differing point between terrorists and coalition forces?
"You would have a hard time calling these people innocents since they are in a country which they invaded or supporting those same people."
Please show where I stated the U.S./coalition forces are 'innocents.' Nice attempt at distorting my words. You put up a strawman and then soundly defeat it. Bravo.
"Terrorism generally happens when one side has no alternative to it to try and achieve their political aims."
In your opinion. Terrorists target innocents not because that's the only alternative they have, but because of the press it generates. The media eats it up and it brings attention to their 'cause.'
Not sure what the current troop level of Aussies are in Iraq, but since they were part of the coalition and as you contend, that coalition forces have killed innocents, then by your definition, the Aussie military are just like the terrorists.
"I think terrorism is a bad thing, however im not naive enough to believe that these people embark on a course of terrorism because they have a lot of alternatives which are likely to get them anywhere."
Yet another strawman. No one has stated that. I suppose the rest of us are naive?
In an attempt to bring this discussion back to the original topic (i.e. Bush vs. Kerry), I'll pose the obvious question raised by the preceding quote: Does this mean that Kerry's statements to the effect of "I'll do a better job of winning the war against terror" are also BS?
"The distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is one which is mainly derived from which side of the fence you sit on."
Okay, we have some common ground here. I totally agree with this statement. I would, however, direct everyone's attention to the word "mainly", because even now many Iraqis that previously supported their "mujahedeen" are growing tired of the attacks against other Iraqis. There is a line between fighting against joint US/Iraqi military formations and blowing up the police academy. Assassinating the regional governor on his way to work is different than setting off a car bomb at a US military checkpoint. While I agree that there are multiple perspectives from which to view the interim Iraqi government (i.e. fledgling democracy or US puppet), all of these various "insurgent" groups have been given the opportunity for total amnesty and and invitation to join the political process. Many of them are doing this. I think now we're starting to see who actually is interested in a common peace (not to mention accellerating the withdrawal of coalition forces from the streets of Iraq) as opposed to those who are interested in creating more mayhem and just killing people to further their own twisted goals.
"There are examples even today of deliberate attacks on innocent civilians by US forces. It is not a deliberate policy at Government level im sure but it still happens at least at the lower echelons." This has been discussed at length. I agree that there isn't some master strategy of genocide in Iraq on the part of US troops, and I also agree that "collateral damage" has occurred. It's never pleasant, and as has been stated it happens in every war. I think the Iraqis can probably put the majority of the blame for this on the terrorists (or use your own label) who dress as civilians to carry out their attacks. Obviously, as the troops become wary of this tactic the liklihood of uninvolved civilians being attacked and killed goes up substantially. As a US citizen, I look at this as a necessary evil given the current situation. Do I think that US lives are inherently worth more than Iraqi lives? No, and honestly the US people over there have volunteered for their current positions so in some way they knew what they were getting into. I would, however, say that if someone's going to die, I'd rather it not be one of us. For the record, my first choice is for things to just settle down and have the transition of authority occur swiftly. However, if the Iraqi populace lets their insurgent militia hide among the people, they need to be aware that this only raises the chance that the people will pay the ultimate price.
Ok 9/11, Locherbie and the embassy bombings have zip to do with Iraq, even the US administration no longer claims that. The beheadings ghastly as they are are of people who have come to Iraq to aid and abett the US military or the Interim government. Thus they do constitue a legitimate target thought im of two minds whether they gain more from this or loose. It is bound to frighten those potential people who would work in these positions and thus drive up the cost of that support but at the same time it generates a very negative image of the perpetrators. The fact that the US army chooses to use a civilian corportation, Haliburton for instance to supply their troops instantly makes those civilians a legitate target for opposition forces. And im not suggesting that I support beheading them..
"These insurgents you are talking are now even attacking innocent Iraqis. I read an article yesterday that they are sending death threats to any Iraqi working in any way with the new government."
Nothing unusual about that, its almost universal to execute those considered to be collaboraters or traiters. Almost every country under the sun has laws or has at some stage done something similar.
"I don't see the U.S. military or any of the other coalition nation's military attacking their own people and sending them death threats. I guess that's a differing point between terrorists and coalition forces?"
Well none of their people are there so it would be a big ask for them to actually do it huh. But they certainly have in the US as recently as the Vietnam war, Kent State ring a bell? or on several occasions during the Civil war where troops attacked protesting civilian crowds. Britain has a fairly long history of attacking its own civilians in Northern Ireland. Australian troops never have though in the early days British troops did to striking miners at the Eureka stockade. All history I know but I think you might see a reaction if a bunch of Americans joined Al Sadirs forces to help the insurgents which is effectively what those Iraqies who support the US or what they consider the puppet government are doing.
"Please show where I stated the U.S./coalition forces are 'innocents.' Nice attempt at distorting my words. You put up a strawman and then soundly defeat it. Bravo."
Please show where I said you did.
"In your opinion. Terrorists target innocents not because that's the only alternative they have, but because of the press it generates. The media eats it up and it brings attention to their 'cause.'"
Its true one of the reasons its done is for media attention, normally because no one will pay attention to what they are saying or even take notice otherwise. Ie they feel they have no alternative.
"Not sure what the current troop level of Aussies are in Iraq, but since they were part of the coalition and as you contend, that coalition forces have killed innocents, then by your definition, the Aussie military are just like the terrorists."
Well I certainly dont think we should be there, but I found this difficult to answer since I couldnt find anywhere that I said killing innocents necessarily made you a terrorist. I did point out that the US and Britian had used specifically terror tactics in their bombing campaigns of WW II where they deliberately targetted civilian cities with carpet bombing. That US marines had shot everyone they met on the drive to Bagdad, that AOE bomblets had been dropped on Iraqi towns. I would also say that bombing, overt threats of military action etc all constitute a method of terrorising the recipient. Probably the only Australians to actually utilise bombing which might possibly have caused those kind of indiscrimate casualties were our F18s and they operated on a much more stringent ROE than the US did. I did have the % of missions refused somewhere but cant find it now. Btw we have security detachments guarding the air traffic control in Bagdad airport and transporting embassy and other staff with 25 ASLAV-25 APC and detachments defusing mines and training Iraqies. Other than that at present we have a couple of frigates, support ships and 2 C130J hercs and a couple of PC3 Orion aircraft. Of course the Australian committment was much greater with 1/1 SASR and a squadron of F18s, more ships and support aircraft earlier in the war.
Quote"I think terrorism is a bad thing, however im not naive enough to believe that these people embark on a course of terrorism because they have a lot of alternatives which are likely to get them anywhere."Yet another strawman. No one has stated that. I suppose the rest of us are naive?
Well actually there have been several statements that terrorists do this with the sole purpose of causing chaos. That is naive, (the percentage of those people who are terrorist solely to cause chaos is tiny) as is the belief that dropping a bomb on someone is less terrorising than have some guy blow himself up to get you or any other of a hundred different methods to kill you.
Zutroy from the Britannica/Webster dictionary : Terrorism ~ systematic use of terror escpecially as a means of gaining some political end - terrorist adj
Guerilla ~ one who engages in irregular warfare warfare especially as a member of an independant unit carrying out harrassment and sabotage.
No im not confusing the terms at all. Freedom fighters are often seen as terrorists by the other side.
My only comment since I in the main agree with what you said Ross is:
(a) No, because Kerry's comment that he will aim to make terrorism a nuisance but doesn't believe it can be eliminated is a far more realistic ambition than Bush's comments that he will win the war on terrorism and eliminate the problem. His actions so far have only exacerbated the terrorist problem and while it might make fine rhetoric only a fool would believe that it is possible to eliminate it other than by addressing the issues which make these people do the things they do.
(b) I dont actually think an amnesty has been offered to those the US considers terrorists. Be that as it may the fact is that a lot of Iraqi's don't trust the US and this fact will inhibit their support for a US led election. Neither do I think most Iraqies are tired of attacks on US troops, rather they are tired of being injured in killed in those attacks themselves. Ive always felt that the abandon with which they caused collateral casualties to their own people was a major mistake on their part. If they had restricted there attacks solely to the US or those Iraqies serving the government i doubt you would see any erosion of support for the resistance. I think however you are correct in saying that their support has been eroded by this and certainly it seems a rift is developing between native resistance fighters and those from other lands.
(c) One comment about the people you say are dressing as civilians to carry out there attacks. This is actually misleading as most of them are civilians and dressed the same way they always do.
(d) Assuming that an election does take place and im sure you will laugh at this given my misgivings about your system of government then I think the US model is probably a good one. Why?? because your system assumes mistrust and dissension between the component states. In Iraq we have that in Spades and one of the few ways that the conflicting desires of the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnies could be reconciled would be for a partially representative system ie your house of reps and a non representative system like your senate which gave the three factions an equal say in the governing of the country. Any president would almost certainly be a Shiite though which would not necessarily sit well with the others. Add to this that the Sunnies whom the US has just thrown out of power are actually the most moderate Muslims and the US may not much like a democratically elected Iraqi government.
And on the original topic, Bush's record on the environment, medicare, pharmaceuticals, foreign aid (I love that US aid to South American countries for their anti aids campaigns is contingent on them not using the money for condoms, one of the most effective preventative measures they can take) and spending is pretty terrible.
Not sure the US will ever do anything to overcome this nor are they by any stretch the only culprit, just the biggest but failure to sign the Kyoto protocal and a host of other international treaties while at the same time being the biggest energy users in the world is heading down a path to disaster. Global warming is a very real problem which Bush would seem to be ignoring. The latest CO2 figures show a rise of 1% along with effects such as melting of the permafrost in Alaska, breaking up of both the Antartic and Artic ice shelfs, rising water levels, increased levels of drought world wide. loss of both snow cover and glacier cover resulting in increased heat absorption due to the exposure of rock dirt etc which doesnt reflect heat like the snow did. Changes in Salinity levels and resulting potential changes in ocean currents. The killing off of a large % of the worlds coral reefs. (these are actually beginning to develope in other areas but it is illustrative of the problem of increased ocean tempertatures) US oil production is I believe about half what it was, and eventually the US will have to come to terms with the fact that fossil fuels will run out. At the moment though the US does little to discourage people using excessive amounts of fuel. I heard a lot of Americans complain about high fuel prices while I was there and this was in Lousiana where they are the cheapest im told. Reality is they are living in a fantasy because your prices are not expensive by world standards where most countries inflate the price to discourage wasteful usage of fuel and to supplement government coffers. California I think is one of the few states to actually do much about this but then LA has to be one of the dirtiest cities ive ever seen.
I still find Bushes total lack of care for the environment of the US or for that matter the world as kind of odd given his own properties being models of enviroment friendly design.
[/size]
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 3:21 am on Oct. 16, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 3:22 am on Oct. 16, 2004)
(Edited by Bolldar Bloodaxe at 3:26 am on Oct. 16, 2004)