What I learned from the debates

[Rosslyn]

While I appreciate Zut's use of my quote, I'd like to take it a step further.  Bolldar said:

"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.  

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Frankly Im amazed you two continue to make excuses for the debacle which was the Florida election. Why should it be of concern when Bush won and the event is over?? Because nothing has changed and it is set to happen again. The issue really isnt about whether Gore or Bush won because as you point out that is history now, but that the problems which arose in that election and the disenfranchisement of large numbers of voters via either the cull or shoddy election practises still exist and should be of concern to anyone no matter what their political beliefs. Ive just gone through an election here where the party I supported lost, one significant difference though is that I dont for one second believe the election was anything but fair and honest. That is quite obviously not the case in Florida no matter which side you support in the election.

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)

[Zutroy]

I'm done arguing this with you Bolldar. You continue to ignore even the most basic of facts regarding what constitutes a legitimate vote and will believe any baseless rhetoric as long as it fits into your narrow world-view.

"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.

[Rosslyn]

"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."

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!

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Zut my feelings on your arguments and your lack of objectivity exactly mirror how you feel about mine and then some.  

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.

[Caohmin]

"Actually thats not true. While ill grant you that in general the US tries to avoid civilian casualties they dont do that good a job of it some of the time, nor do they always try and do it because there are a hell of a lot of innocent civilians including women and children dead and wounded."

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?

[Rosslyn]

Nah, they've lost the rest of their colonies already, they'd probably have lost us by now too.  :-)

[Caohmin]

dude, i logged right when you got on last night. long time no see!

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Red Herring?? It is extremely unlikely you have won the war of Independance without French help. So much so that you can pretty much say it was definate.  Ross is correct Im sure in that at some point  you would have won independance after that but possibly not by force of arms. It has been speculated that that might have changed the face of America today.

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)

[Zutroy]

Bolldar, I think you're confusing the word "terrorist" with "guerrilla". A terrorist isn't a freedom fighter, their sole purpose is to cause as much chaos as possible, no matter who gets killed. How does blowing up a car bomb on the middle of a busy highway further your cause at all?

[Caohmin]

" 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."

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?

[Rosslyn]

"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."

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.  

[Bolldar Bloodaxe]

Cao

'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."

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.

"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)