Jump to content

The US elections.


Sphere

Recommended Posts

Not wanting to spark off a political flamewar or anything, but I was wondering how the various people and personalities of Eononline felt about the result of yesterday's elections in the US. Just curious as someone who believes that the political climate of the world's sole hyperpower is something that affects us all.

Speaking as someone who considers themself to be a liberal I'll admit that I find it disapointing that Bush got back in. But it was great to see the images of so many Americans lining up to place their vote. I know that (like here in the UK) voter apathy has been a big problem in the past.

Let's hear your opinions people. But let's keep it friendly. We're all gamers in here. ::biggrin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Considering I'm a lone Democrat in the middle of a sadly Republican state, I'm disappointed as well, but it was great to be standing in the rain on tuesday and be surrounded by fellow college students, many of whom were first time voters. The last report I heard was six million new voters. Six million. While thats not huge, it is a large number. For the first time in forty years (a nice old man said), the lines in my precinct were wonderfully long. Everyone was very proud, whether our canidate won or not. I rather proud of all the people who worked so hard to get voters registered and at the polls. Just wish we could have been more successful. ::rolleyes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll probably be one of the few, but I am glad Bush remained in office. Everyone has their own reasons for each candidate, of course. I think I'm on the same page with you guys, though, it was really nice to see a much improved voter turnout and a close race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I can't see how anyone could vote for a guy who's introduced measures which infringe upon the civil liberties of his own citizens under the banner of 'security', invades other countries to steal their resources under similar pretexts, lies to his own people & the world at large, is prejudice against various minority groups, & ignores international law & human rights just to get what he wants.

Of course - the question is: was that paragraph about Bush or Hitler? ::sly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I plan to take a tour of the US sometime soon. I'm curious to see how you get that many people into one country who could vote for someone who cut himself on a pretzel.

The only up side is that he has promised space ventures.

But then has he kept any promises so far? ::wacko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So has Richard Branson. ::wink

I vote definitely vote for Richard Branson over George Bush! ::biggrin

Come on, I've seen footage of the man wearing suspenders and a bra on a Virgin Flight anniversary party! ::thumbsup

On the down side, I'm going to need about 43 career changes (all to avoid fraud charges) to go on a Virgin Galactic flight.

Bush could actually send people to Mars...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not enough, or too much, moisture in the air. Makes people all irrational. ::wink Most of those people would be o.k. if they got a humidifier or good AC. ::thumbsup ::tongue

New York and D.C., the two areas hit hardest by 9/11 voted overwhelmingly for Kerry, as did other coastal areas that present likely terrorist targets. Fortunately, the rest of the country saved them from themselves. ::sarcasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have to say that I'm disappointed that Bush won again, but of course, precedent tells us that it was pretty much a given. My greater hopes for the election were that the rise of Kerry, this great war hero, in opposition to Bush's current policies and handling of both 9/11 and the Iraq "issue", would scare the Republicans, and W. himself, into a greater sense of pragmatism regarding the use and abuse of this country. Probably still a pie in the sky, but I consider myself an optimist, at least as far as human nature goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are both carrer Politicians. Bush's record speaks for it's self. And for all of Kerry's talk of humanitarnism (sic), Bill Gates has spent a magnatude of order more of his personal money to help the disenfranchised than Kerry/Hienze even thought about. They both follow the old adage "Don't do as I do, Do as I say!" Leadership should come frome example. How much tax did either one pay last year? Not nearly the percentage that I (or the rest of America) did. They are both Hypocrites, and nether deserve the job.

End of RANT ::tongue

ps, Phoenix, Because they control the House of Represenitives, the Senate, and the Presidency, thay are claiming that this election is a mandate by the people to continue and expand their policies. ::wacko

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am more dissapointed that Bush was put in office then Kerry losing. To be brief I dont like Bush at all (for reasons stated above, among others). Quite frankly, I wish that there was someone other then Kerry as the democrat ticket.

Im just waiting for the mandetory, state sponsored prayers to God now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as a citizen & resident of a "red" state, I wasn't feeling too optimistic about the whole voting process, but I went ahead and voted for Kerry anyway. (Going with the lesser of two evils, and all that.) Given the mess that Dubya has left Texas in after his time as state governor, it's downright horrifying to think what kind of state the U.S. will be in after another four years of this.

And to think that Harper's magazine has already put out an article to help out U.S. citizens that are planning to leave the country as a result of this election! Shades of the FSA, indeed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps, Phoenix, Because they control the House of Represenitives, the Senate, and the Presidency, thay are claiming that this election is a mandate by the people to continue and expand their policies.

I'm sure that they are, but they already had the power to do more or less whatever they want. And after, all, we have to admit that the election was fair, and to some extent is just that - a vote of approval by the people of the country. Right or wrong, people like us are the minority now, even though it often doesn't seem like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked as a Judge of Elections for the first time this election, and I really enjoyed it - I was the youngest judge in our precinct by far (I think three of the other four were retired), and we all got along famously, regardless of our party affiliation. I was proud to serve my country and learned a great deal, and am looking forward to serving the rest of my two year term, and will probably continue to do it for years to come, wherever I end up living in the US.

I was sad to see Bush re-elected, but I was never a huge fan of Kerry - I attended a 'meet-up' for Howard Dean, and was planning on working for his campaign before the disasterous Iowa caucus. I blame the Democrats for being scared of him, and manipulating the news to make him seem 'unelectable' ::angry The man wasn't perfect, but at least he stood for something...*sigh!* ::sad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me, I can't see how anyone could vote for a guy who's introduced measures which infringe upon the civil liberties of his own citizens under the banner of 'security', invades other countries to steal their resources under similar pretexts, lies to his own people & the world at large, is prejudice against various minority groups, & ignores international law & human rights just to get what he wants.

Of course - the question is: was that paragraph about Bush or Hitler?

Honestly, Prof...that paragraph could be used to describe any number of politicians or figures of government around the world. Why limit it to Bush and Hitler?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I initially didn't want to post because my views echo those of Prof's.

In his first months as President he cut funding from international charities that offered "family planning", including birth control and abortion, to poor communities. He offered instead the funding to religious charities. From that day on I decided that I hated this president...and this was way before 9/11. But that's just me...I don't think the needy particularly need to be submitted to a mission if they want help...

The Bush administration has taken secrecy to whole new levels. Public scrutiny and accountability is what keeps scandals from happening. I wish, as echoed in an editorial of the New York Times the day before the election, that Kerry had pointed this out a bit more. Fact is that yes, Kerry was a weak candidate...but really, nothing can be worse than Bush...

Documents previously exempted from secrecy by the Freedom of Information Act are now being routinely withheld from public scrutiny. I'm not talking FBI files on terrorist related activities here! When public organisations asked for information and records regarding the Bush administrations' energy policies the administration stonewalled them for months. Court proceedings were required to get the records! Under the Clinton administration the Administration would've had to identify some actual harm expected from the release of the records to prevent their emission. Ashcroft issued a memo reversing this. Waste of money...and for what?

The Administration has supported numerous statutory and regulatory that has "radically reduced the public right to know". (from the report) The Administration will even fail to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, stalling and delaying until those delays effectively amount to an outright refusal.

Bush by presidential decree (executive order 13292) eliminated the presumption of disclosure instated by the Clinton Administration. Clinton's order stated "If there is a doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified." Bush deleted this provision (and others) allowing officials to classify information even when there's significant doubt about the need to classify the information.

blablabla...read the report.

These have real consequences for you, citizen. The total cost of the classification system to the government and private industry has gone up to 6.5 Billion dollars in 2003. Up 1.8 Billion dollars from 2001!! Declassification has gone down as classification has gone up. This doesn't count all the other red tape added to get any info out of the Administration.

The Patriot Act:

Its been repeated over and over...your civil liberties are at risk. Actually they aren't at risk, they're pretty much disappearing. Since 9/11 the Bush Administration has asserted the right to detain indefinitely and secretly anyone the executive branch labels an "Enemy combatant".

okay...

Secretly!!

This means secret detentions, trials and deportations. This means that now someone can arrest an arab, secretly, no questions asked, and deport him without the public knowing about it. This means that right now there are still prisoners that the CIA and military detain "without accounting for them, knowing their identities or even the reason for their detention."

On the "trials" for enemy combatants. The National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers has stated that it would be "unethical for a criminal defense lawyer to represent a person accused before these military commisions because the conditions imposed upon the defense counsel before these commisions make it impossible for counsel to provide adequate or ethical representation." Yup, sure sounds like fair trials to me...

Then there's the war...you know you've been lied to about it, right?

Then there's shady background with the Carlyle group.

Then there's the fact that Bush is an idiot with a tendency to oversimplify everything...not everything is black and white.

But really, what irks me is what's happening to American civil liberties and their trying to convince the Canadian government which, thank god for cooler heads, hasn't succumbed to pressure as of yet. I'm glad Kerry conceded the victory since he's right, internal strife can only harm the country...but I can't believe half the country fell for the protection from terrorists crap.

By the way, Bush is a poll watcher as well. Is there a politician who isn't?

Edit: an article that came out right after the report: "The president's message is not gotten out through press conferences," said Warshaw, a political science professor at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania. "It's gotten out through very carefully controlled media events."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike both of them

1. Bush: A man who starts a war. Enough said.

2. Kerry: For being for the Iraq war. He says otherwise but look at his actions.

Could the US, for once, pleas get a peace loving president?

One who actualy thinks that not bombing someone is a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Kerry: For being for the Iraq war. He says otherwise but look at his actions.

His actions were made when told by the Bush administration that Hussein was an immediate threat and was making weapons of mass destruction. I remind you the day Powell gave his demonstration before the UN assembly just before the war. He seemed pretty sure of himself with all that "proof" he showed. There are several reasons to think that Kerry's a dolt, but to think that this is the one that stuck annoys the shlt out of me.

As for peace loving presidents...the problem is that the US is kinda seen as the world's police force. If they don't intervene somewhere they're blamed and if they do they're blamed. Bosnia was warranted in my opinion. Milosevic was actively purging the population and people were hunted down based on their last names, etc.

Sadam wasn't a nice man, he did kill many people. I'm not sorry he fell from power, but the US acted for the heck of it (well, for oil too, and government contracts given to the administration's friends.), without a mandate from the UN. They accused France of being sissies when they promised to cooperate (vote for war with the Security Council) if Iraq was given another 30 days to comply to the UNs demands, as Hussein had promised to do when looking down the barrel. But...the US had mobilized this nice army already so they'd be damned if it'd all go to waste! I'm still quite proud of the fact that Canada, though quite dependant on the US in many ways, (80% of Canadian exports go to the US) refused to send troops to aid the US in their war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They accused France of being sissies when they promised to cooperate (vote for war with the Security Council) if Iraq was given another 30 days to comply to the UNs demands, as Hussein had promised to do when looking down the barrel. But...the US had mobilized this nice army already so they'd be damned if it'd all go to waste!

How many "one more" chances should he have been given? The way I remember it was that the French went along with the threat of force (the first UN vote). Hussein was given one more chance to prove what happened to his WMDs. He didn't supply the required evidence, so at that point what the French should have done was to authorize force.

They didn't, and after the US realized it would not win a second vote, it didn't have the vote but invaded anyway. Something to keep in mind is that the French didn't want the inspection process to begin with, nor did they believe that Hussein was WMD-free. They just figured he wasn't a threat to them. France made it clear they were NEVER going to agree to have their client state invaded, they had too much money involved.

Fact is that yes, Kerry was a weak candidate...but really, nothing can be worse than Bush...

Except maybe a weak candidate. I don't like a number of Bush's actions and I don't like how he has gone about some of the other actions. I had really hoped the Democrats would put forward someone who deserved my vote for being something other than not being Bush. It didn't happen.

[Kerry's] actions were made when told by the Bush administration that Hussein was an immediate threat and was making weapons of mass destruction.

Which even the French and the UN believed. At the time Hussein was stonewalling the inspectors and the only reason "why" that made any sense to people was, "he's hiding his WMDs". The last time Hussein stonewalled the inspectors he was hiding his WMDs. It wasn't until after his son-in-laws defected that we found out how far along his nuclear program was.

Bush and company (and the rest of the world) were wrong. But given what everyone believed, what would have been the more responsible course of action; 1) To invade, 2) or to remove the sanctions?

The picture that has since emerged is that, in addition to bribing the French & Russians with the proceeds from his oil for food program, Hussein was obsessed with WMDs. All of his generals and scientists and the like assumed that as soon as the sanctions ended, the WMDs programs would be restarted full steam.

...the US acted for the heck of it (well, for oil too, and government contracts given to the administration's friends.), without a mandate from the UN...

Iraq won't be producing a significant among of oil for years. Bush took HUGE political risks to fight this war. If you are going to blame him then blame him for the right reasons.

The case for War:

1) (It was believed) Hussein was seeking nukes & other WMDs.

2) Hussein's rocketry program actually was breaking the rules (any why was Hussein building delivery rockets anyway)?

3) Hussein showed no sign of reforming. He was still oppressing his people, and I doubt that trying to assassinate the former president Bush won any friends either.

4) Removing the sanctions would have shown the US and UN to be paper tigers before a determined rule breaker.

(And here I suspect we enter into the real reasons)

5) 9-11 showed how easy it was for the US to be attacked.

6) If Iraq could be turned into a functional country, it would put a great deal of pressure on the other Arab countries to also become functional. Long term this could be the winning move in the battle against Terrorism.

7) Further, holding the war for the benefit of Arabs would buy some political capital that might be used to help resolve the Israel / Palestinian problem.

The case against Bush:

1) The war and the plan for war was brilliant and went well. The plan for what happens the day after was minimal to non-existent.

2) There weren't enough troops to provide security and they didn't have the orders to do so.

3) Ending the existance of the Iraqi army was a huge mistake. What do you think a bunch of unemployed heavily armed fighers would do?

(Moving away from the war...)

4) The camp in cuba could be done better. If we don't have laws to deal with terrorists then pass those laws.

5) Stem Cells.

6) Conflict with our allies was always going to happen (the Senate was never going to pass that global warming treaty), but I think Bush & company did so in ways that aggravated the situation.

7) And yes, civil rights and the Supreme court.

The case for Bush:

1) Kerry hasn't shown a lot of what I'll call "leadership" quality. He seemed very selfish and to stand only for what would get him elected. That was true when he was lying before congress about the Vietnam war crimes he had personally seen and it was true when he was doing polls to find out what he should think/say about Bin Laudin's latest video.

2) Tort (lawsuit) reform.

3) Social Security (Kerry said he'd do Nothing).

4) Health Care reform (Kerry would throw more money at the problem, some of Bush's plans seem workable).

5) After a change in parties it takes the government about a year to get up to speed again. Doing that during a war doesn't seem like a good idea.

I decided that it was easier to imagine that George would learn from experience than Kerry would get a sense of direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I hate to say it, I mean I wish I could trust Bush, but I'm scared to see him in control of the most powerful country in the world, and in control of the second largest military in the world. I have to agree with Prof, poetic license or not, when comparing Bush to Hitler... I think the power is and will go to his head. I just can't wait for the national elections back over in blighty, so I can try and get rid of tony blair for someone who won't buckle and put on a dog lead. I mean, Bush has little respect for the other countries he's stepping on.

I won't go into the environmental stuff, because I'd do a post as long as some of the Prof's, and I'm too tired for that. ::tongue

Tony Blair has been ignoring the public more and more over the Iraq war, and I believe that it is Bush's influence, Blair's over-eagerness to keep America as an ally. An ally, sure, all's fair, but not to such an extent our leaders idolise and try to mimic.

In my humble opinion (said with all the humbility of Mr Whitler (you'd have to read Terry Pratchetts 'The Truth' to understand that)), although Bush appears to do well, he is a clumsy, remote controlled puppet (before the radio under the jacket fiasco, I really thought someone had their hand up his backside), who's strings are connected to all countries which buckle weakly beneath the pressure of america.

I'm sure he's a nice guy, and I'm sure he's patriotic and wants the best for his country, but since he's a prejudiced misinformed moron (in the literal sense of the term, I'm sure), I believe he's a mistake.

It's at times like the American elections I feel like an ant who's just found a magnifying glass shop in the middle of the school holidays. I also feel like a mushroom- kept in the dark and fed sh- erm rubbish. ::lookaround

Ah well, people change. I just hope he'll buy some sense (I dunno, he could get it from ebay), and try not to rush into to things in his new term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except maybe a weak candidate. I don't like a number of Bush's actions and I don't like how he has gone about some of the other actions. I had really hoped the Democrats would put forward someone who deserved my vote for being something other than not being Bush. It didn't happen.

CNN killed Dean. I don't know what the heck was up with reairing the Iowa caucus scream over 300 times in a day. I'm not sure why Edwards lost to Kerry, probably didn't brown-nose enough lobbies. But I maintain that even though Kerry was a weak candidate, nothing could be worse than Bush.

France made it clear they were NEVER going to agree to have their client state invaded, they had too much money involved.

They didn't. They made a public statement that they would agree to a war after thirty days, which was asked for by Hans Blix as well as Hussein. Give me a break with the Liberty Fries propaganda bullshlt. I'm almost expecting a comment about the US jumping to save France in WW2 (which all americans seem to forget that it took Pearl Harbor to get them in the conflict in the first place).

We've already been through why the Iraq war is wrong and illegal Alex, both through PMs and here. There is one thing though:

6) If Iraq could be turned into a functional country, it would put a great deal of pressure on the other Arab countries to also become functional. Long term this could be the winning move in the battle against Terrorism.

7) Further, holding the war for the benefit of Arabs would buy some political capital that might be used to help resolve the Israel / Palestinian problem.

::nervous

I can't believe you said that! If Iraq could be turned into a functional country?! Holding the war for the benefit of Arabs?!?! ::blink

I decided that it was easier to imagine that George would learn from experience than Kerry would get a sense of direction.

I hereby agree to disagree...wholeheartedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, folks, It's time to get on with Life (and Gaming ::thumbsup ).

We can't change what has happened, we can only change what we do to help make things better. It's time to move on...we don't want any of the EONites to be come obsessed and have

->THIS<- to happen to them....

I would really like for for some interaction with my IC posts, instead ::tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't. They made a public statement that they would agree to a war after thirty days, which was asked for by Hans Blix as well as Hussein.
OK, let's assume that 30 days pass and we have yet another round of inspectors go in. The inspectors continue, and they find either nothing or nothing conclusive. They can't find any WMDs, and they can't prove that Hussein got rid of them.

What then? Can you really see the French saying, "OK, now you can invade?", or will they continue to call for the sanctions to be removed?

Since the US *knows* Hussein is building (or has plans to rebuild) WMD can you see them backing off?

In order to get even minimal cooperation from Hussein, you literally have to park an army on his doorstep. How many times do we have to do that before it gets old, and who pays for it?

We've already been through why the Iraq war is wrong and illegal Alex...
It's off topic but I'll ask a different question. Right now Sudan is committing genocide on it's people. Would invading them be illegal?
I can't believe you said that! If Iraq could be turned into a functional country?! Holding the war for the benefit of Arabs?!?! ::blink
Yeah, I know it's ironic, but the line of reasoning made sense at the time.

Remember the phrase, "Drain the swamp these guys come from"? Do you think the typical Arab likes being ruled by someone like Hussein?

Iraq wasn't a failed state to the same degree that Afghanistan was, but I wouldn't have called it a functional country and certainly not a functional democracy. Turning it into a democracy is an attractive idea. If that seems absurd I'll point out that we did it with both Germany and Japan. Who knows, it might still be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevermind the war - that was a toilet that flushed long ago.

Why support someone who was willing to actively deny a bunch of harmless people (or at least as harmless as any other people) some modicum of happiness on the basis of a principle that they are basically not allowed to support?

Why support someone who is actively supports hiding things from the population?

Why vote for someone owned by big business (and microsoft) and anti the little guy?

On the other hand - in all of America - surely they could find someone who could beat him?

btw:

A friend of mine's sister recently graduated from Yale. Apparently a year or two prior to her graduation Bush was their graduation speaker and he said something to the effect of: "To all you C students out there... You too can be president!"

The following year the speaker started the same way: "To all you C students out there... You too can be president! If your daddy was president!" ::tongue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His actions were made when told by the Bush administration that Hussein was an immediate threat and was making weapons of mass destruction. I remind you the day Powell gave his demonstration before the UN assembly just before the war. He seemed pretty sure of himself with all that "proof" he showed. There are several reasons to think that Kerry's a dolt, but to think that this is the one that stuck annoys the shlt out of me.

The last thing I heard is that he said that he would leave troops in iraq, but that might just be my faulty memory. And he also said, i think, that he does not regret being one of 29 Democratic Senators to support the resolution (to attack iraq).

You remind me of the day Powell gave his demonstration to the UN? The way I remember it was that the UN disagreed with Powell. Now let me get this straight, Kerry reasoned that the UN, with its multitude or resources, among them the US information/espionage network, was wrong in assuming that Saddam did not develope weapons of mass destruction?

IMHO a person who have been to war should know better than to work for another one.

As for peace loving presidents...the problem is that the US is kinda seen as the world's police force. If they don't intervene somewhere they're blamed and if they do they're blamed. Bosnia was warranted in my opinion. Milosevic was actively purging the population and people were hunted down based on their last names, etc.

The US have taken that position by themselfs and to the most part, from what I have understood, the rest of the world disagrees.

Now, let us examine the conflicts that the US. Military have parttaken in recent years:

Nicaragua (Might be a bit old): The "World police" bombs harbors and civilian installations. This is judged by the International court of justice to be illegal and the us is judged to pay restitution. This have not been done to this day.

Operation Desert Storm: Much of the crituque steams from the fact that Bush Senior left a multitude of people to get slaughtered in Iraq, when he had "saved" Kuwait from the oil grabing Iraq/Saddam.

Operation Infinit Justice (or whatever heck its name is): You say it best bellow. It should also be mentioned that the US refuses to let its soldiers be put up at charges of warcrimes in international courts.

The Nato bombings (that you refer to): NATO performed this, therefor the US cannot be blamed for anything.

I have not touched the Afghanistan war, simply becous I know to little.

Sadam wasn't a nice man, he did kill many people. I'm not sorry he fell from power, but the US acted for the heck of it (well, for oil too, and government contracts given to the administration's friends.), without a mandate from the UN. They accused France of being sissies when they promised to cooperate (vote for war with the Security Council) if Iraq was given another 30 days to comply to the UNs demands, as Hussein had promised to do when looking down the barrel. But...the US had mobilized this nice army already so they'd be damned if it'd all go to waste! I'm still quite proud of the fact that Canada, though quite dependant on the US in many ways, (80% of Canadian exports go to the US) refused to send troops to aid the US in their war.

I agree to the above.

BTW, if I offend anyone, pleas dont be upset, it was not my intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, let us examine the conflicts...
So your compaints are:

Nicaragua: Too much force.

Operation Desert Storm: Not enough force.

The Nato bombings (that you refer to): Unclear. Did you feel this was justified?

And (just off hand) you missed, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Columbia, Hatti, and probably others.

Operation Infinit Justice:  "...US refuses to let its soldiers be put up at charges of warcrimes in international courts."
I have mixed feelings about this. The idea of international courts sounds like a good idea for the obvious reasons... but I'm willing to present the other side of that argument ::devil

The international comunity has done some wacky things in the past. Examples: Anyone remember "Zionism is Racism"? How about the International Conference on Racism... where Jews basically weren't allowed. Or how about the Oil for Food Program?

My pollitical soap "The West Wing" did a thing on this one. One of the Army types said "War is a crime".

If you assume that the US is going to act as the World's policeman then the US's troops would/could be exposed to unreasonable amounts of risk to things like "War Crime" lawsuits that basically come down to other countries not liking what the US is doing.

The US have taken that position by themselfs and to the most part, from what I have understood, the rest of the world disagrees.
Not really. Bosnia was on Europe's doorstep. But nothing happened until the US decided that they should get involved.

Before the Iraq war, the other countries didn't feel the need to have an army to counter balance the US, nor did they especially feel threatened by it. People joke about invading France, but (even now) how many Frenchmen are actually worried about this? Or for that matter, who else is going to step up and play "cop"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's assume that 30 days pass and we have yet another round of inspectors go in. The inspectors continue, and they find either nothing or nothing conclusive. They can't find any WMDs, and they can't prove that Hussein got rid of them.

What then? Can you really see the French saying, "OK, now you can invade?", or will they continue to call for the sanctions to be removed?

Of course not, if the UN inspectors say that they didn't find anything even though Iraq officials cooperated with them, why would they? Why would anyone? Unless they're from the Bush administration that is...

Since the US *knows* Hussein is building (or has plans to rebuild) WMD can you see them backing off?

In order to get even minimal cooperation from Hussein, you literally have to park an army on his doorstep. How many times do we have to do that before it gets old, and who pays for it?

They didn't know. That's the whole point. You've been lied to by the Administration. I can't see them backing off because imminent threat from Iraq was not the reason for going to war. Iraq supporting Al Qaeda or other terrorists(still no evidence supporting this btw) was not the reason for going to war.

It's off topic but I'll ask a different question. Right now Sudan is committing genocide on it's people. Would invading them be illegal?

There've been ongoing massacres in Congo for years now, what's your point? It would be illegal without a UN mandate, yes. Rules for intervening on a nations sovereignty are still under development(my law prof was part of the UN comity studying this) One thing's for sure, a nation can't unilaterally take action without advising the UN or getting their approval unless said nation (the one who wants to take action) is under immediate threat.

Yeah, I know it's ironic, but the line of reasoning made sense at the time.

Remember the phrase, "Drain the swamp these guys come from"? Do you think the typical Arab likes being ruled by someone like Hussein?

Iraq wasn't a failed state to the same degree that Afghanistan was, but I wouldn't have called it a functional country and certainly not a functional democracy. Turning it into a democracy is an attractive idea. If that seems absurd I'll point out that we did it with both Germany and Japan. Who knows, it might still be possible

It's nothing to do with democracy. Civil rights were abused in Iraq, those this wasn't the reason for going to war either. Should the US invade Jordan because its a monarchy? Btw, read this.

Personnally I find the links to be made between now and then are scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't know. That's the whole point....
But they thought they did. Hussein was deliberately trying to give the impression to the world that he still had WMDs and was just good at hiding them. Lots of people, including all of the various intelligence services believed him. In order to know for SURE you'd have to wait for him to use them. Waiting for a repeat of 9-11 on a grander scale didn't seem like a good idea.

Hussein had 10+ years of chances that he blew, while at the same time killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. I'll shed no tears for him.

One thing's for sure, a nation can't unilaterally take action without advising the UN or getting their approval unless said nation (the one who wants to take action) is under immediate threat.
That's a principle that has worked for centuries. But it used to be the first sign of attack was troops massing on the boarder. In this case the first sign of attack might be a nuke going off in New York. Hussein worked very hard to give the impression that he was up to that kind of thing, I don't think it's George's fault for believing him. I do think it is France's fault for both believing Hussein but not wanting to do anything anyway.

The way I remember it was: The vote to give Hussein one last chance under threat of force was 15-0. The US assumed (correctly) that Hussein would once again blow off the inspectors and assembled an army next door. Then the US went back to the UN to get a vote authorizing force... but when it became clear that they weren't going to get it they invaded anyway.

The US really did try to work through the UN. France really did prevent them from doing that, IMHO for their own selfish reasons (Hussein owed them money and was giving them sweetheart deals).

There are lots of things that are Bush's fault. The War in Iraq isn't one of them (although miss-handling the aftermath is). I think if Gore had won we *still* would have had the war. If you are the President then part of the job description involves protecting the country. Waiting for a nuke to go off in New York to "prove" something you believe but can't prove isn't doing your job.

And yes, there were other reasons for the war besides the WMD. But without the WMD I don't think the other reasons would have been enough, and without the other reasons I think the WMD would have been enough. Of course, if Iraq hadn't had oil then France probably wouldn't have tried to stop it. ::wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hussein was deliberately trying to give the impression to the world that he still had WMDs and was just good at hiding them.

Ah - the ol' claiming to not have any Weapons Of Mass Destruction when, in fact, you don't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction ploy... The cunning devil... ::sly

Waiting for a nuke to go off in New York to "prove" something you believe but can't prove isn't doing your job.

It always confuses me that America is so against WMDs when they own the vast majority of them, & have used more than anyone else in the past. Surely (since there's no more Cold War & using the things is very bad & oh-so-anti-American) step one would be to get rid of America's own huge stockpiles of NBC weapons? It's not like the country would be left defenseless or anything - after all, the US spends more on its military each year than the next twenty highest spending countries combined. Good job the President can't think of any better use for all those resources, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your compaints are:

Nicaragua: Too much force.

Operation Desert Storm: Not enough force.

The Nato bombings (that you refer to): Unclear. Did you feel this was justified?

And (just off hand) you missed, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Columbia, Hatti, and probably others.

I do not complain, I state fact.

Nicaragua: yes that is correct, too much force.

Operation Desert Storm: Incorrect. My point is the choice (from the us gov.) to leave the iraq population to there fate (the US cut a deal with Saddam that time, and the population who had risen against Saddam was left to there fate, or in other words execution.)

The Nato bombings: my opinion about the nato bombings is beyond my point, becous it was not the USAs sole desicion to bomb in bosnia and therefor irrelevant.

My point here is not to bring up every thing the us have done, but to discus there role as the "world police".

As you might notice, if you had a police in your neighberhood that used an excessive amount of force, ignored court orders to pay fines and left people to mobsters after s/he (the police) had publicly used them against said mobsters then that police would be disliked and his/hers claim of being a "good guy" might be taken with a barrel of salt.

I have mixed feelings about this. The idea of international courts sounds like a good idea for the obvious reasons... but I'm willing to present the other side of that argument

If you assume that the US is going to act as the World's policeman then the US's troops would/could be exposed to unreasonable amounts of risk to things like "War Crime" lawsuits that basically come down to other countries not liking what the US is doing.

Who will police the police? (and I do not assume that the US is going to act as the worlds policeman, in fact I passivly oppose it. It is my sincere belife that that part is to be played by the UN or another neutral party).

You might want to check out the number of convictions of American soldiers conducting crimes of war. Its a telling number.

Before the Iraq war, the other countries didn't feel the need to have an army to counter balance the US, nor did they especially feel threatened by it. People joke about invading France, but (even now) how many Frenchmen are actually worried about this? Or for that matter, who else is going to step up and play "cop"?

Here is a crazy ide, why dont we do it together?

Just wanting to remind everyone to keep civil. Im not talking about anyone in particular, but sometimes political discussion can get heated.

Again, I mean no offense and Im sorry if I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah - the ol' claiming to not have any Weapons Of Mass Destruction when, in fact, you don't have any Weapons of Mass Destruction ploy... The cunning devil... ::sly
Actually... Yeah, that’s exactly what he did. He told the truth but made sure to do so in a manner such that no one would believe him.

All of his Generals and such believed he had them. Some of them had stocks of environmental suits and the like (never can tell when those might come in handy). He actually was (counter to the restrictions working on delivery missiles (never can tell when you will need those either). All of his scientists believed that he would resume a big push for them the minute the sanctions ended. And finally, he played games with the inspectors for years and let his people starve.

It always confuses me that America is so against WMDs when they own the vast majority of them...
The problem is less with how many are out there than who owns them and (more specifically) the intersection of WMDs and Terrorism.

France has nukes. They also have control of their nukes and don’t traffic with terrorists (or make their own terrorism). So we don’t worry about France. Ditto most of the countries that have them.

North Korea is more of a problem because there is just one not-to-stable guy at the top calling the shots. However, he doesn’t have a history of attacking his neighbors and trafficking with terrorists (meaning the bulk of the problem NK posses is confined to NK).

Iraq had one guy at the top who was obsessed with WMDs, and had a long history of using them, and of attacking his neighbors, and of financing other mis-adventures. Iraq was also under special UN control because of the various agreements that were in place because of their previous mis-behavior. If we can’t stop *them* from getting WMDs, then *any* sufficiently determined country could do the same. That would be a really bad thing. Worse, it was pretty easy to imagine Hussein giving and/or selling WMDs to some of his terrorist palls, or pulling off a 9-11 himself.

Was Iraq involved with 9-11? No, they weren’t. But if you view 9-11 as a “proof of concept” then it becomes harder to think Hussein wouldn’t try that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...