Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

My Political JE

FortKnox (169099) writes | about 10 years ago

United States 118

Its that once-in-a-blue-moon time for me to say something political. Its about the election. I mentioned before I'm a centrist (maybe leaning more towards conservativism), and a part of the reform party. I'll look at the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts:Its that once-in-a-blue-moon time for me to say something political. Its about the election. I mentioned before I'm a centrist (maybe leaning more towards conservativism), and a part of the reform party. I'll look at the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts:

If Bush wins: It means the war in Iraq will be dealt with correctly, we will get the job done, and we'll see the job done out right. Of course, this may also see times when its more 'religious right' than anything, which means stuff like the FCC going completely nazi on everything, and a loss of a lot of rights

If Kerry Wins: The good thing? Hilary Clinton will have to wait 8 years to run (I'd REALLY hate to see her run at all). I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs. But it also means that we'll be taxed to death, and the soldiers will return home like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job, and most will try to be getting jobs, so hopefully Kerry's job plan works out really well, cause if it doesn't, we'll have war vets on the unemployment line, which just isn't good in my book.

So.... who am I gonna vote for? Most likely Nader (unless the reform put up a decent candidate). Lets face it, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils, and I'm not going to not vote... I'd rather give my vote to a third party to show the nation (or at least the repubs and demos) that the two candidates up for election both suck.

Now, you may commence tearing up my post into pieces and flaming me.

cancel ×

118 comments

I ain't gonna flame you (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9429629)

I don't want Nader to be president, but I do think that voting for the person who you want, is better than voting "strategically." If more voters backed their favorite candidates, then we would get better candidates.

Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#9429689)

...like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job...

The job was to take Saddam out.

He's out.

Ergo, the soldiers could come home TODAY and the job would be done.

I'd be surprised if Iraq is even an issue come November, much less at the Inaguration in January.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (2, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9429706)

I thought the job was to free Iraq?

If so, its a long process.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (0)

dragoncortez (603226) | about 10 years ago | (#9429761)

The job description seems to change about every six months :) (i.e. disarm Saddam, remove Saddam, establish security)

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#9429780)

and that's because (da da da-da!) we keep accomplishing the jobs we set.

Iraq is more post-WWII Germany than Vietnam.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9430158)

Uh, the only justification for any invasion was WMDs. That was the basis of the US's position in the UN, that was the basis on which the US, UK and other administrations sold the invasion to their people (not that everyone bought it), etc.

But the WMDs never existed, did they? And most of the intelligence that said that they did was proven to be either made up or speculation of the highest degree.

So, legally, there has never been any real justification for this war. Hence the need to expand and elaborate the US reasons to make it seem like that there were a totally different set of objectives and that those objectives are being reached.

Ask yourself this: if the war was fought to topple an oppressive regime, then why pick only Iraq? Why not North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia, where women don't even have the right to drive a car? If it was fought to give democracy to the Iraqi people, well why not give that right to the people of all those other nations too?

Why bomb the hell out of Iraq but give most favored trading status and buddy buddy up to countries like China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? The whole toppling dictatorships/bringing democracy argument is blown out of the water when you ask those questions.

This war has been a sham. There never were WMDs and it's highly likely that the US Administration knew that. There never have been any links between Saddam Hussein's regime and September 11th but the US Administration played up the situation pre-invasion to strengthen public support for its illegal war. How else do you explain the fact that, on the eve of the war, the majority of Americans believed that the hijackers were mostly Iraqis when in fact they were mostly Saudis and none of them were Iraqi?

This whole war has been about two things: personal revenge (Dubya against Saddam) and oil. Terrorism, democracy, etc have just been the smokescreens behind which everything else has been hidden.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#9430294)

Why bomb the hell out of Iraq but give most favored trading status and buddy buddy up to countries like China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? The whole toppling dictatorships/bringing democracy argument is blown out of the water when you ask those questions.

Tell you what, General Patton -- you explain your plan for a war on China, Pakistan or North Korea (or at least indicate an understanding why those countries aren't Iraq) and then we can talk about why it's not being implemented.

Incidentally, if you were planning to overturn the Saudi monarchy in the long run, do you think securing a friendly supply of oil might be a good step one?

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9430653)

Gotta agree with Mr.AC here. N.Korea is mad crazy, and now has nukes. China has the largest army in the world, and invading them is quite nuts (and if war broke out, tawain would be a major battleground, completely annihilating a large IT industrial center, making technology even more expensive), saudi is the only Middle East country that doesn't already hate us, so if we are to invade them, we had better make one of the countries like us (or at least control oil), pakistan is an archenemy of india, which is good, but they have a president that is trying to remove fundamentalist muslims... and he's a muslim himself... sounds like we should just let him work his mojo instead of giving the terrorists more ammo.

But Iraq? We invaded them already, so we aren't hurting many other people... we can start democracy into the middle east, secure oil supplies in case the fundamentalists take over other countries and refuse to export, etc etc etc...

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9431417)

In other words, we fucked with Iraq because we could. We didn't care about whether it was right or wrong, only that we could, so we did it.

I can see why this policy wouldn't be extended to North Korea and China, but can you give me any good reasons why, if the path that we've been taken down by Bush and Co. is so pure and righteous, why don't we extend the "democracy through invasion" plan to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and any other country that is led by a brutal and/or corrupt dictatorship?

Is it possibly because toppling a dictator and giving people democracy isn't the true purpose of this new crusade?

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

http (589131) | about 10 years ago | (#9432699)

omfg listen to yourself. you seem to have just advocated invading a country to secure oil supplies. normally, when folk want things from other folk, they offer up something of value themselves, which the other then has the option of accepting or declining. or did i miss it being 'talk like a pirate day' again? if so, then
Avast,
Venezuela! [google.com] Prepare to be boarded!
...because you've got mass oil reserves. there is a reason pirates are feared - they usually have a fucked up kill/die equation (they will glady kill to take something they would not be willing to die to keep) or a fucked up work/reward equation (they will not work for something they would reward others for working for).
talk about democracy in iraq is hollow while the us military is present there in large numbers; naomi klein wrote a curious article a few months back about a potential new form of gevernment: an appointocracy [nologo.org] .
</RANT>
and as a personal side note, the longer bush is in power the worse americans look (collectively, not individually) for not forcibly removing him from office.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9431172)

Look, nice of you to post, but try to have the courage of your convictions and not hide behind the AC option when you post, OK?

First of all, I don't have a plan for war on China, Pakistan or North Korea, what I have is a realisation that it's hypocritical to use human rights as an excuse to invade one country whilst totally ignoring the fact that some of the countries that you're buddying up to (China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) are just as bad if not worse.

Saddam Hussein and the regime he led in Iraq was the product of decades of US-led intervention by the West in the affairs of that nation. Q: Who gave him WMDs, military aid and intelligence, as well as funds to fight his neighbours? A: The US and others.

It's hard to pretend that that involvement made no difference to the people of Iraq, the Iraq-Iran War and the stability of the region. It's also hard to pretend that the West patting him on the back and turning a blind eye to everything that he did didn't play some small part in leading Hussein to believe that his invasion of Kuwait would go unopposed.

In fact, I bet you didn't know that almost happened: after the invasion of Kuwait, Bush Sr. was happy to let things slide. It was only Margaret Thatcher, then PM of Britain, who insisted that the Kuwaitis invasion should be repulsed. I also bet you don't know that Hussein's claim that Kuwait was a part of Iraq has some historical weight behind it? After all, it was the only the division of the region in the early part of the 20th century (after the fall and break-up of the Turkish empire) by the West that established the borders of Iraq, Kuwait, etc.

(Not that I'm excusing the invasion of Kuwait. It does help to put it and the rest of Hussein's actions into their historical perspective though.)

As for your comments about invading Saudi Arabia, I think you're missing the point. One of the biggest reasons why this invasion of Iraq happened when it did is because the medium- and long-term support of the Saudi royalty to the US was placed in jeopardy by September 11th. For the first time, the possibility of Saudi Arabia's oil not being available cropped up and, in that context, securing Iraq's oil wells became a big priority: after Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves.

So it all boils down to oil. Which, as you may have noticed, I said in my original post.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#9430553)

Uh, the only justification for any invasion was WMDs.

Wrong. The only justification was noncompliance with UN rulings and the 1991 cease-fire. EVERYTHING ELSE was just a line to get public support.

I'm angry at Bush, not for going to war, but for failing to argue the war intelligently. (Everything, from attacking on Bush to supporting anti-Israli terrorists to trying to get WMDs)

Ask yourself this: if the war was fought to topple an oppressive regime, then why pick only Iraq? Why not North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, Pakistan or even Saudi Arabia, where women don't even have the right to drive a car? If it was fought to give democracy to the Iraqi people, well why not give that right to the people of all those other nations too?

Because all of those other nations are negotiating and slowly improving. Better a hundred years of slow but steady progress than a hundred days of bloody war.

Saudi Arabia in particular is reforming itself [csmonitor.com] . We can't demand that they abandon their culture and embrace our wrongheaded "gender is meaningless" position, or even give women suffurage. Especially when they're not even at "treat them as the most valuable property a man can have."

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9431359)

If the 1991 ceasefire was justification enough to start a war then why did the US and the UK attempt to get a new resolution supporting their invasion in late 2002? It's precisely because they knew that the 1991 ceasefire wasn't sufficient justification for an invasion that they attempted to get the support of the UN again.

After all, if you really do have someone's permission to do something, why would you be looking to get their permission again?

As for you position that the other nations that I gave as examples are slowly improving, well, I'm sorry but I disagree with you. A decade or two ago, Pakistan was a democracy. Today it's a military dictatorship again. Zimbabwe is South Africa all over again, but with whites (and blacks who dare oppose Robert Mugabe) being stripped of their belongings, their freedoms and their rights. The very article that you link to mentions right away that Saudi women don't even have the right to check into a hotel without a man being present.

If you're going to bring democracy to the world, why not include those places? Aren't Pakistanis, Zimbabweans and Saudis just as entitled to the freedoms that the US et al are supposedly fighting to grant Iraqis?

Inadvertently, you've hit the nail on the head in your last paragraph. We can't and shouldn't demand that any society should abandon its culture and values in favour of the ones that we live in. Yet that's the very thing that the current US administration is trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#9431978)

If the 1991 ceasefire was justification enough to start a war then why did the US and the UK attempt to get a new resolution supporting their invasion in late 2002?

As part of an effort to get a worldwide coalition to gather against Saddam.

As for you position that the other nations that I gave as examples are slowly improving, well, I'm sorry but I disagree with you.

That's fine. You're wrong.

Yet that's the very thing that the current US administration is trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Again, wrong. We removed a government that wronged us, and worked with the Afghans to build a new one. The same thing that we're doing in Iraq--not because it's why we went over there, but because it's part of cleaning up our mess.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Tomble (579119) | about 10 years ago | (#9434023)

Whilst I agree with a couple of the things you've said, if you claim Zimbabwe is improving, there must be something wrong with you. Do you not get news of what they've been up to there?

Stories of families who voted against Mugabe having their food aid withheld so that they starve to death, teenagers being made to go to "educational camps" where the boys are trained to rape the girls (and commit other such atrocities) as a means to terrorise Mugabe's enemies... These things are improvements? Or are you claiming these things (and many others I couldn't remember off the top of my head) are not true?

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9432213)

After all, if you really do have someone's permission to do something, why would you be looking to get their permission again?

One word answer: "politics". But you knew this. If you wanna disagree with the policy, at least do so honestly.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | about 10 years ago | (#9430670)

What about the Sarin [weeklystandard.com] ?

Or doesn't that count?

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Abm0raz (668337) | about 10 years ago | (#9433038)

The sarin was a single shell left-over from before the first war from the old Iraq-Iran war that wasn't even fully functional. By all accounts available, the people that rigged that shell into an IED didn't even know what it's contents were.

But don't let snippets of stories told out of context by one-sided news agencies sway you from your views.

-Ab

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | about 10 years ago | (#9437083)

First off, it was a WMD that was not previously accounted for.
Secondly, where did any of the U.N. resolutions or the congressional authorizations of '98 or '03 state anything about the quantity or quality of WMD?

All of this ignoring the fact that this isn't even why we went into Iraq in the first place.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Jorj X. McKie (323674) | about 10 years ago | (#9431788)

But the WMDs never existed...

Not exactly true. Iraq had an active nuclear program at one point, and produced some tons of VX after the first Gulf War (albeit using a relatively crude process that meant that it was unsuitable for long-term storage). If you argue that they did not exist at the time of the March 2003 invasion, you might or might not be right. Certainly the Iraqis were doing their best to convince everyone that they did have such weapons. And since one method of disposing of VX is simply pouring it out on a concrete surface (lime in the concrete apparently catalyzes the chemical degradation), it is certainly possible that they destroyed them in short order (Iraqi use of this disposal method was verfied by the presence of VX decay products in a weapons inspection in 1996, IIRC).

Don't have time to excavate the links from my comment history, but the facts are readily available by googling on "Iraq" and "VX", and by reading the reports of the UN weapons inspectors.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9432157)

Already addressed (with you, IIRC) in detail. Your claim is false.

The ONLY justification NEEDED for the RESUMPTION of hostilities was the fact that Saddam DID NOT abide by the CEASE FIRE agreement. Let alone UN resolutions.

Failure to abide by the CEASE FIRE agreement makes it null and void. Whatever other justifications there may or may not be is irrelevant. BTW, if the WMDs never existed...WHY DID SADDAM DECLARE THAT THEY EXISTED TO THE UN? Just wondering.

I don't have the time for the rest of your (incorrect) rant, but it's been dealt with before. You know better. You just don't want to admit it.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9432892)

Well, the weapons inspectors were there to police whether the ceasefire conditions were being met or not. Granted, for a long time Saddam Hussein had his people doing everything they could to thwart the inspection teams but the fact remains that Hans Blix and the other inspectors were clear that they were getting the job done and that their was no need for military action.

However, the Bush administration ignored the experts. They weren't interested in whether or not Iraq was actually in possession of materials that breeched the ceasefire, they just wanted their war.

Before Clinton handed over the reigns to Bush, the two men met at the White House. Clinton told Bush at that meeting that Osama Bin Laden was the most dangerous threat to the US at that time. Bush told Clinton that it wasn't Bin Laden but Hussein. One of those two men had the knowledge and experience of eight years in the Oval Office, of countless CIA, NSA and Pentagon intelligence briefings in his head. The other had raw hatred and an unfinished vendetta on his mind.

The War in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. Hussein didn't fund Al Qaeda. In fact, Hussein and Al Qaeda were enemies because of the blase way that Hussein treated orthodox Muslims and his abuse of Islam in general (one minute he's attacking fundamentalist Iran, the next minute he's clothing himself in religion and claiming to be fighting a holy war).

The war, as you know firsthand, is has killed more Americans than any terrorist attack other than September 11th. Rather than protecting Americans, the war is putting them in danger. And it's created a breeding ground for anti-American and anti-Western hatred that will only act to drive more angry and frustrated Muslims into the welcoming fold of terrorist organisations. Rather than fighting terrorism, this war is actively propagating it.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9433211)

Why, might I ask, Are you bringing up Al Qaeda and the war on terrorism? I made no reference to either. Perhaps you are interested in changing the topic? EMWTK. I'll ignore your (wrong, btw :-P) take on connections with terrorism and results.

Back to the issue at hand: The CEASE FIRE required IRAQ to PROVE that it had DESTROYED all it's WMD - the 10's of tons they CLAIMED to have and any others. Failure to do so was a BREACH of the terms of the CEASE FIRE. Iraq did NOT have to be found to have any WMD (they did, and they have been found, btw. A little open source reseach will show as much, but that's beside the point) to be in breach. Failure of IRAQ to PROVE compliance was a breach. As was hampering the inspection teams (which were no where near as unified in thier opinions as you seem to claim, but that's beside the point - as is the fact that the "experts"...disagreed. There were "experts" on ALL sides of the issue, as you well know.).

When all is said and done, when you trot out "WMD were the only justification.." you make your arguement look silly. There are reasonable...reasons to oppose the war in Iraq. Use some of them. There is the "War is never justified" approach. There is the "insufficient reason" approach. There is the "Iraq isn't worth even one dead US soldier" appproach. There is the "We shouldn't depose another nation's government" approach. Etc, etc, etc. Claiming things which any reasonable person knows to be false invalidates any claims you may have, however.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9433714)

The US didn't go to war because of the any ceasefire breaches. You know that and I know that. George W Bush didn't go on TV to tell the US people that he was taking the nation into war because of a UN ceasefire breach, he told them he was doing it because it was part of the war on terrorism.

In that context, whether or not he was doing it contrary to evidence at hand, including that of Hans Blix, the head of the UN weapons inspectorate in Iraq, is entirely relevant as is the relationship between Iraq under Hussein and Al Qaeda.

If Bush had invaded Iraq on the first day of his adminstration then the argument about ceasefire violations would have probably had greater support. After all, he could hardly have been accused of using it to distract people from the fact that he had failed to deliver what he had promised.

As it is, he chose to invade Iraq just as the quest to find Osama Bin Laden looked like it was going to become fruitless and people started asking questions about the Administrations failure to decapitate Al Qaeda. By invading Iraq he managed to distract the American public from that by focusing attention on another bad guy, albeit one who was of no threat whatsoever to America and its allies. Of course, the fact that it helped him settle an old score and will eventually conclude with a pro- rather than anti-US government in Iraq was just a happy coincidence.

You've made it pretty clear by mocking my words ("when you trot out 'WMD were the only justification..' you make your arguement look silly") that you believe that there were other grounds for invading Iraq other than an immenent threat to the US and its allies. Well, that's the pretext that Bush, Blair, etc used, isn't it?

And if it wasn't WMDs (which is what any ceasefire breaches would relate to as well, by the way) that we went to war over then just what was it?

Clearly you believe in this war and its objectives. You wouldn't be where you are now if you didn't and for having the courage of your convictions and displaying a willingness to put your life on the life for them I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.

But that doesn't mean I'll agree with you as to why your superiors decided that putting you into harm's way was the right thing to do and it doesn't mean that I won't disagree with you personally as to why you and your fellow soldiers are there and what the eventual outcome of your collective personal sacrifices will be.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9434362)

I didn't state that the US went to war because of cease-fire breeches. I stated that that was one of the EXPLICITLY stated reasons (note the plural). Which it was, and which you know. I further stated that that reason was SUFFICIENT in and of itself to justify going to war.

Actually, I don't think that you have any idea why the US went to Iraq. Nor do I think you care.

If you did, you wouldn't still be parroting the "WMDs were the only reason line. You know as well as I do, that there were many, many reasons (valid or otherwise) put forward. You don't care. Simply put, Bush did it, so you don't like it.

Now on to a few of your other claims...
whether or not he was doing it contrary to evidence at hand, including that of Hans Blix...
If you have evidence that Saddam did NOT violate the cease fire in that he presented proof that he destroyed all of the WMDs that he ADMITTED having, I'm listening. Nope, though not.

as is the relationship between Iraq under Hussein and Al Qaeda
Only to the extent that it was used as a justification for the war. And in your own words, "WMDs were the only justification..." Make up your mind. Were they, or weren't they?

If Bush had invaded Iraq on the first day of his adminstration...
He would have been roundly condemned for not trying to reach a diplomatic solution. Exactly as he was after spending over two years trying to reach a diplomatic solution. Except in your scenario, it would have been a valid criticism.

Snip conspiracy/wag the dog theory.

you believe that there were other grounds for invading Iraq other than an immenent threat to the US and its allies. Well, that's the pretext that Bush, Blair, etc used, isn't it?
It's pretty telling that you think quoting your own words is mocking...:-> But, back on point, NO. As you know, or would if you cared to. It was one reason, among many. Among others: supporting terrorism (and not just Al Q, as you implied - think money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, think training camps, think 747 cockpit in the middle of the desert to practice on), stability in the region, think stopping genocide and wholesale murder, think democracy and self-determination for the people in Iraq (Yes, it was stated as a reason before the start of the war, you can even look it up), etc,etc,etc. Whether any or all of these reasons were sufficient is a matter for a different day. Once again, "WMDs were the only reason" makes you look silly. You may consider it mocking, but it's true. BTW: The ONE reason that Bush did not use was that Iraq was an immenent danger to the US. He did NOT say that, no matter how many times you repeat it. What he did say was that we would not wait UNTIL it was. You may think that doctrine (refered to as "premeption", btw) sucks, but at least have the courage to honestly state the positions of those you disagree with.

which is what any ceasefire breaches would relate to as well, by the way
Did you not bother to read? Failure to provide proof of destruction was a breech, whether Saddam still had the weapons or not. Then there was rearming his military with conventional weapons (thanks, france, Germany, Russia!), there was diversion of "oil for food" monies, there was interference with UN inspectors, there was attacks on coalition aircraft in the no fly zones, etc, etc, etc. (all of which were ALSO mentioned by the administration as a reason to go to war...) Sorry, but claiming the "WMD were the only reason" just doesn't cut it.

Clearly you believe in this war and its objectives.
Methinks you presume too much. I definitely agreed with removing Saddam. I have studiously refused to have an opinion on the topic of the "nation building" that we are currently engaged in. No, really, I have. If you read my posts, here and elsewhere, What I object to is people using "I hate Bush" in place of logic. I gave you numerous reasonable cases that you could make against the war. There are many more. When people make those arguements, I generally don't comment. You instead rely on the clever arguement: "Bush is teh suck!". Such issues require deeper thought.

You wouldn't be where you are now if you didn't and for having the courage of your convictions and displaying a willingness to put your life on the life for them I have nothing but the utmost respect for you.
I appriciate the sentiment, really I do. However, I would be here regardless of my personal opinions. It comes with the uniform. Unless I think the order is A)Illegal or B)Immoral (as defined by the UCMJ), then it gets obeyed.

But that doesn't mean I'll agree with you as to why your superiors decided that putting you into harm's way was the right thing to do and it doesn't mean that I won't disagree with you personally as to why you and your fellow soldiers are there and what the eventual outcome of your collective personal sacrifices will be.
And I have at no time ASKED you to agree with me. All I ask is that you elevate it above the level of "Bush is teh Suck!!!"

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

btlzu2 (99039) | about 10 years ago | (#9434584)

Well that was awesome. Um, what pisses me off is me. When people start just bashing Bush (so in vogue) and pulling out reasons that are accepted as "truth", but are complete fallacies propagated by a) media b) political enemies c) unwashed masses d) what-have-you, I react emotionally without rationality. I become more pro-Bush as a result and I do not have the facts at hand to back it up because I'm clouded by emotion. A major problem I need to correct within myself.

This posting was exactly the type of argument I'd like to make because it does boil it down to the facts that get completely fucked over in the media and by the left in particular. I know that the right does the same thing actually when the left is in control, so I'm not condemning one versus the other in that regard. It's more of an over all politics pisses me off comment.

Anyway thanks, to both of you, for this debate. I learned a lot and actually found that my views are stronger.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9435396)

And the funny[1] thing is that you are not alone in your reaction. I personally know more people than I can count on both hands who were vehemently against the war, and who disliked Bush, who have changed thier minds - based on the conduct of it's opponents. That's why so many on the right wanted Dean to get the nomination. The mindless hatred[2] and lashing out turns off middle of the road people. i.e. the people who decide elections.

[1]in the funny-sad way if you dislike Bush, in the funny-funny way if you like Bush.
[2]Yes, I said hate. I can think of no other word to describe the personal visciousness that the left feels towards Bush.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9433895)

Close, but no cigar. UN charter forbids hostilities unless implicitly authorized by the security council.

None of the preceeding resolutions(including the cease fire) IIRC authorize an invasion implicitly. Unlike say, North Korea, whom we are still at war with.

The entire justification resided around diplomatic language. Grave consequences(bad man *wave finger*), etc.

Of course, we're the US of A, so it's not like anyone is going to question our interpretation of those resolutions, but under some possible interpretations(in light of the charter) Bush surely is a war criminal.

Or to put it another way, if say Iraq had done the same thing to Kuwait, we'd be saying much the same thing.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9434485)

Very Good! The above arguement rises above the level of "Bush is Evil! If Bush does it, it's wrong!" This is the stuff that intelligent discussion is made of!

Three issues:
1. Just like North Korea, we had a cease fire agreement. Iraq broke it.
2. I do believe that the cease fire authorized resumption of hostilities if violated.
3. Whether or not the UN resolutions authorized invasion DOES get down to how you interpret diplomatic language. (Hint: I just partially agreed with you on something)

Actually, it appears to me that many people have been questioning our interpretation of those resolutions. Under some possible interpretations, anything is possible.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9435905)

I've honestly never seen the cease fire(or cessation of hostilities or whatever it was) brought up before.

If you're right about that. Then you're right, the invasion was perfectly legal. No ifs, ands, buts or interpretations about it.

I think I'll go check. :-P

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

wardy22 (788548) | about 10 years ago | (#9436267)

I agree. The only other thing I would like to point out is everyone wants to point out the Geneva convention. Does NOT apply to the prisoners at Abu Grabe in Iraq. Article 4 of the Geneva Gonvention states that combatants MUST wear uniforms. Therefore no one in that prison falls under the protection of the Geneva convention. So I wish that the libral media would quit citing it.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9436377)

Hey, you wearing a uniform right now?

Let's arrest and torture you. I mean, we can, legally, right?

Ignorant fuck. The statutes enacted to enforce the geneva convention(and various other treaties which we have signed) ban that type of behavior. Apart from that, it's wrong.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

wardy22 (788548) | about 10 years ago | (#9436691)

No I am not wearing a uniform now. Nor am I in a war zone nor a terrorist. The Geneva convention was signed in 1949 and has no provisions for terrorists. I have no problem with torturing terrorists who are planning to attack out troops. Americans constantly take the higher moral ground. We humiliated those prisoners, they cut off an Americans head... Also, there is no need for name calling, I am simply stating facts.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

wardy22 (788548) | about 10 years ago | (#9436848)

The Geneva Convention The liberal media continues to site the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. My question is did these people EVER read the Geneva Convention? Do they understand that the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949? Also if they are going to quote the antiquated document, shouldn't they also cite the atrocities that the Iraqi militia is committing? Article 4 of the Geneva Convention states - Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. How many parts of this Article has the Iraqi militia NOT followed? Why hasn't the Liberal Media reported on any of this? This same liberal media will have to get over the fact that the Geneva Convention was meant to be applied BOTH ways. Until the militia in Iraq begins following the convention, this liberal media needs to cease quoting it.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

dmorin (25609) | about 10 years ago | (#9430578)

and that's because (da da da-da!) we keep accomplishing the jobs we set.

So where exactly are the WMDs?

I have to fall on the side of people saying "get out." When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that. But now he's saying we're there because they need to be free. I don't care. I don't want my kid dying because Bush decided for himself that Iraq is going to be a democracy whether they like it or not.

If the majority of the people think that a free Iraq is the right thing, then fine -- but why didn't he say "Hey, fellow americans, I wanna send troops over there to free Iraq, ok?" When was the vote for that?

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | about 10 years ago | (#9432786)

I have to fall on the side of people saying "get out." When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that. But now he's saying we're there because they need to be free. I don't care. I don't want my kid dying because Bush decided for himself that Iraq is going to be a democracy whether they like it or not.

So, you supported, without evidence and against the will and wisdom of much of the world, a war on a country that kept saying "look, we don't have them" and now you think we should "get out"?

Uh. Uh. You blindly supported a president who was lying bold face to his people. Lack of critical thinking skills at the time is not justification for making a huge mess out of things and then running away and leaving someone else to clean it up. I didn't want to go there in the first place until Bush showed me evidence - intel images, testimony, SOMETHING. He showed nothing and made little attempt to even make something up, and we went anyway because of people like you. Now we're stuck. We made the mess, we need to clean it the fuck up and get those kids home. However, cleaning it the fuck up has to happen first.

Like it or not, we're stuck and Bush is just going to keep changing his tune until he finds the pitch that makes people want to re-elect him. Backpedaling because of your own inability to think critically about what the president was saying back at the end of '02 is indicative of a person who's only capable of thinking about themself and wants things to be their way at any given point in time - damn any consequences of those blind actions. The American people need to start thinking about things instead of just following whatever mindless trend in politics happens to be the "big thing" at the moment. Maybe being held responsible for this ridiculous, mindless behavior for once will help them do that.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

dmorin (25609) | about 10 years ago | (#9433817)

So, you supported, without evidence and against the will and wisdom of much of the world, a war on a country that kept saying "look, we don't have them" and now you think we should "get out"?

I have to assume, at some level, that the President has just a *smidge* more information available to him than I do. I do not think that every last troop movement should be broadcast to the people so we can all have a big vote on whether to go left or right. He took the position at the time that, in his judgement, Iraq posed a threat to us. I didn't particularly believe it, mind you -- but his job is to protect the country, so if he feels we're threatened, I would be more upset if he did nothing.

Uh. Uh. You blindly supported

This is why it is so hard to hold an intelligent conversation on the topic. I blindly supported? You don't know jack shit about what I did or didn't do beyond a post to fucking slashdot saying "fine I support that." If I blindly supported him, fuckhead, don't you think I'd still be blindly supporting his goal of putting democracy over there?

a president who was lying bold face to his people.

The funny thing is that I started my original post questioning where the WMDs are, blatantly stating that Bush has not gotten the promised job done, and you snipped that part out and call me a blind Bush supporter.

and we went anyway because of people like you.

Explain to me how I had anything to do with it? Sitting on my couch with the wife and saying "If you feel the need to go, then blast the shit out of them with everything you have and make it quick" changed the president's decision how?

Now we're stuck. We made the mess, we need to clean it the fuck up and get those kids home. However, cleaning it the fuck up has to happen first.

I notice that you don't have many answers for how that happens, exactly. Figures. Finish your thought. You've just said that those kids have to remain sitting ducks for a little while longer before they can come home. Please tell them why, and how long.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | about 10 years ago | (#9434297)

When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that.

You said that. You said, explicitly, "I support that". If that's not ACCURATE, fine. But, don't get pissy with me because if that's not accurate it's not my fault - I didn't say it, you did. I made my judgement based on what you said combined with the fact that Bush gave NO accurate justification for invading Iraq. Unless the prez is slipping you secret notes with evidence, then support MUST, by definition, be blind. Whether that faith is justified or not is a different issue. However, the faith itself was still blind.

The funny thing is that I started my original post questioning where the WMDs are, blatantly stating that Bush has not gotten the promised job done, and you snipped that part out and call me a blind Bush supporter.

I'm not commenting on your current position regarding WMDs, I'm commenting on your "turn tail and run" position after, by your own admission, standing by silently while they got sent off in the first place. You said above that you previously supported the invasion. You said in this post, albeit indirectly, that you didn't question where the evidence was and you explicitly stated that, whatever your feelings were, you didn't vocalize them. Now, you suddenly change your tune AND turn tail and run? No, I'm sorry. If you want to do that, fine - but that means "bye bye credibility". You may feel differently now, but that doesn't change the fact that we committed to an invasion of Iraq which necessitates a temporary occupation that we're stuck in for the time being.

You've just said that those kids have to remain sitting ducks for a little while longer before they can come home. Please tell them why, and how long.

See above. We committed to invasion and occupation. Just because nobody in this country bothered to take one goddamn second to say "Hey, wait a minute... almost nobody else believes this, and Bush isn't providing us any evidence to back his position" doesn't mean everyone can suddenly turn tits up and say "Oh, well, I have the critical thinking skills of a pebble apparently, so let's cut and run half way through this thing I supported because I'm turning on my position like I'm a fucking record". Guess what? Responsibility doesn't work that way. We sent them, we trashed the place, now it's our responsibility to get it back on its feet in some capacity before we cut the place loose. We're all obligated to sit back, STFU, and just support the troops until they can get their damned job done and get their asses back home.

In addition, I am not a strategic planner, so asking me to explain how long they have to stay or how they should accomplish the mission is ridiculously illogical. Would you feel it fair of me to ask you to provide the evidence that Iraq has WMDs back when you supported the war? Would it have been fair of me to ask you for a strategic plan to invade Iraq because you supported the invasion? Of course not. Because you're neither a strategic planner nor the person sending the troops. Your job as a citizen is to evaluate those things, make a personal judgement on them to the best of your abilities, and let your elected officials know what you think. You come to the conclusion based on those things, you don't provide them.

Unfortunately, it seems that people in this country find issue evaluation too much of a hassle these days, so they just tow whatever bullshit line their favorite politician or pundit happens to toss out. It's a sad testament to just how apathetic this country is.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9429964)

The job was to protect US security. Removing Saddam was supposedly the means to that end, because "he's a dangerous man."
I'd be surprised if Iraq is even an issue come November
Wow.

Iraq will be the foreign policy issue in November. The current president's handling of the situation (vs his competitors' imagined subjunctive handling of it) is the major data point, regarding whether they are able to effectively use the power of the US military to achieve its purpose. That is one of the most important parts of a president's job.

This isn't like the 1996 or 2000 election where there wasn't any real evidence of either candidate's ability to do that job, so voters had to concern themselves with lesser presidential functions. This is one where there is real data about one of the candidate's performance (though with a zillion different spins on how to interpret that data) in a critical role.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

wardy22 (788548) | about 10 years ago | (#9436378)

That is a good idea! Let's pull all the troops out now!!!! You have to be out of your mind. Pulling out now will do nothing but force Iraq into an Iranian like government. You cannot bail. Our troops have done a fantastic job, but it is not done until Iraq has it's government up and running.

Re:Iraq / Vietnam (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about 10 years ago | (#9437085)

Pulling out now will do nothing but force Iraq into an Iranian like government.

Not even in the slightest.

Pulling out now would cause chaos in Iraq. Chaos might lead to a democracy, or an Islamist theocracy, or a Hussein-like thuggery, or an extended period of anarchy.

And pulling out troops would do one other thing you're ignoring: save the American taxpayer billions of dollars. (And this isn't even counting the cesation of "US out of the holy land" as a justification for terrorism.)

A vote for Nader (1)

asv108 (141455) | about 10 years ago | (#9429805)

Is a vote for Bush, plain and simple.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

John Harrison (223649) | about 10 years ago | (#9429969)

It is not that simple.

Unless you live in a battleground state then a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. Besides, you are assuming that those voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry. Even if you make that assumption, and the voter lives in a battleground state, then a vote for Nader is still only a half a vote for Bush, but I reject that idea.

A vote for Nader can be many things. A small list:
1. A statement that the 2-party system is broken.
2. A vote against disproportionate corporate influence in government.
3. A statement that you would appreciate it if a certain party put up a more populist candidate.
4. An expression of frustration.
5. A vote for Nader.

I would guess that most of the people who are going to vote for Nader don't think that he would make a good president. They are frustrated by a system that won't even let him (and thereby his ideas) into the debates, a system that puts up mediocre candidates, and the sameness of the parties despite their posturing.

Yesterday a kid came to the door and said, "I am from the DNC and want to ask for your help in defeating George W. Bush!"

I replied, "Boy, putting it that way sure sounds more palatable than electing Kerry." He didn't think it was funny.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

Otter (3800) | about 10 years ago | (#9430145)

Yesterday a kid came to the door and said, "I am from the DNC and want to ask for your help in defeating George W. Bush!"

The DNC has blanketed my area with posters recruiting campaign workers to "Defeat Bush". There may be some McCain-Feingold reason why they can't talk about Kerry at this stage, but either way it's an accurate picture of how much enthusiasm there is for Kerry in and of himself. And that's among his constuents!

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

waffle zero (322430) | about 10 years ago | (#9430251)

The DNC has blanketed my area with posters recruiting campaign workers to "Defeat Bush".

As good as that mantra sounds to Democrats, it is hard to sell. The people who decide the election aren't going to be the people you're preaching to the choir about how Bush is the devil. The moderate undecided voter from middle America will and they're not all that turned off by Bush's flag waving.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9430099)

It's hardly plain and simple.

Bush had half of the voters' support in the last election. Suppose he still wins, but with a lower fraction. That weakens his mandate. It makes it easier for congresscritters to stand up to him. Suppose (pulling hypothetical number out of ass) 10% of the voters show themeselves to be comm^H^H^H^H green. Then congresscritters may be willing to accomodate them in order to get 10% more votes in 2006. That means a harder time for Bush in the next 2 years.

Also, worrying about "a vote for Bush" is short-term thinking. Bush-haters may see 4 years of Bush as a disaster, but in the long view, hey, it's just 4 years. If you can weaken the power of the parties, that may have long-term positive effects that outweigh whatever negative consequences come with any particular candidate.

Look beyond the immediate tactical situation. If you settle for a party candidate whose platform does not represent your interests, then you will always have a leader who does not represent your interest. If you refuse to compromise, then maybe some day you'll get what you want.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

asv108 (141455) | about 10 years ago | (#9430305)

I'm not interested in making a statement with my vote. I'm looking to vote for someone who actually has a chance in winning. I wouldn't even consider voting for Nader because he doesn't represent my political views, on the other hand either does Bush or Kerry. So in the end I'm forced to choose the canidate who comes close and actually has a chance of winning. So therefore, I choose Kerry.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9433421)

I'm not interested in making a statement with my vote.
Why not? :-)

How are you ever going to get what you want, unless you ask for it? Unless you write 'em some big checks, those two big parties are never going to take you seriously. So not just this election, but the next, and the next, and the next, they're going to give you candidates that don't represent your political views. Why should they? You'll vote for them anyway.

I see some apparent pragmatism in voting for "someone who actually has a chance in winning", but it dooms you to perpetual unhappiness, forever choosing the lesser evil.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

bofkentucky (555107) | about 10 years ago | (#9430358)

I didn't see many congress-critters lining up to court the Perot voter's post-92. The republican party does need to get back to playing slash and burn with the Federal budget though, unfortunately, we can't pull the government shutdown trick Newt and friends used to create the "Clinton" surplus, the left would acuse the right of threatening homeland security.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

leviramsey (248057) | about 10 years ago | (#9432745)

You're either lying or an idiot.

The GOP won in '94 in large part because they espoused extreme fiscal conservatism (with balanced budgets). We're talking "abolish five cabinet departments to save money" here. That's what the Contract with America was.

Then Clinton was successfully able to take the balanced budget mantle and turn the public against spending cuts in '96. After this, the GOP continued to talk fiscal conservatism (while not going out of their way to do anything) while bringing their Clinton clone (south-Midwestern governor preaching a new take on his party's historical ideology that essentially boiled down to "take any position to get votes" and change as needed) to prominence. Believing that a lower-tax, lower-spending message would not fly, it was effectively decided at some point that the lower-tax, higher-spending message would be used.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

bofkentucky (555107) | about 10 years ago | (#9435651)

Clinton + a rubber stamp (democrat) congress from 94-00 would have never seen a balanced budget. I want my party to get serious about reducing the size of government, while at the same time having strong defense and intel budgets, that means trimming theft^Wentitlement programs.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

waffle zero (322430) | about 10 years ago | (#9430168)

I saw the numbers on an election site [electoral-vote.com] and where I live (NY), Kerry is a pretty much a lock. It is going to be my first time voting in a presidential election so I'm not sure if I should throw a pity vote Nader's way. I did vote for the Green candidate for governor a couple years ago just because Pataki is seriously screwing over funding for state colleges.

Beyond that, I don't know. I guess I'll decide in the voting booth. Who knows, I might vote Libertarian if not for their factious and most vocal off-putting party members. I did have a good laugh watching their convention on C-SPAN.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9430279)

I saw the numbers on an election site and where I live (NY), Kerry is a pretty much a lock.

I think that's the mistake that Nader voters made last time in Florida and elsewhere. By voting Nader when they were so sure that the worst that would happen (from their perspective, at least) is Gore winning the election, they inadvertantly opened the door to Bush, which was the worst thing possible (again, from their perspective).

Anyone who voted for Nader would have been appalled that Bush won the election as he's the antithesis of everything that they believe in. The Bush "victory" was a nightmare scenario for Nader supporters.

In the current US electorate system, the only way to ensure that Bush isn't "re"-elected is to vote for the man most likely to defeat him, which will be Kerry. It's sad, but politics everywhere is all too often a matter of selecting the lesser of many evils. Frankly, I'd take a chicken over Bush because at least a chicken has an ounce of common sense.

By the way, whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism"?

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | about 10 years ago | (#9430719)

By the way, whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism"?

If Bush were even remotely conservative I might answer this for you...

Being religious does not equal being conservative :-p

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9431571)

But Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". I want to know where that "compassion" has been hiding all this time. Just who is he showing compassion for?

The people who've screwed up under his leadership, perhaps? The ones who let September 11th happen, who covered up the investigation, who fabricated evidence that Iraq was contributing to Al Qaeda, that it had WMDs, and that it was attempting to acquire nuclear material, the ones that have violated human rights in Camp X-Ray and/or the ones that have committed war crimes in Iraq?

Because I sure haven't seen him being compassionate in any other way. The man doesn't even have the decency to attend a single military funeral of one of the many young men and women he's sent to die for his cause. The idiot couldn't stop himself from preaching from the bible when he attended the recent D-Day anniversary but he manages to stop short of actually honouring the soldiers that have fallen on his watch.

Funerals (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9431794)

Give him a break on the funeral thing. You don't know what's going on in Bush's head, and whether he has any compassion or not.

If he did show up at one, we would (well, I would) call him a photo-op-seeking poseur. And when there's war involved, there's lots of funerals. Is he going to go to them all? If he goes to a few and skips a few hundred, do we draw inferences about that too? Maybe he should put his job on the back burner, and go to them all, as a fulltime job.

IMHO, when someone goes to someone else's funeral, it's nobody else's business. Most (all?) of these people aren't close personal friends of him, and he can be "compassionate" without actually personally grieving or at least without making a public spectacle of it. (I bet you can, too.)

The worst thing you can say about the funeral thing, is that he's violating Yogi Berra's advice: "If you don't go to people's funerals, they won't come to yours."

Re:Funerals (1)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | about 10 years ago | (#9431931)

He's supposed to be the President of the United States. He's meant to show some leadership. And, just as he represents the US people in other ways, he should be representing them in this way.

Do I expect him to attend the funeral of every fallen soldier? No, but I expect him to attend at least one, especially when you consider he finds the time to enjoy twice as much holiday-time than the average American gets (those that have jobs) as well as dozens of political fund-raisers.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

leviramsey (248057) | about 10 years ago | (#9432664)

But Bush claimed to be a "compassionate conservative". I want to know where that "compassion" has been hiding all this time.

Passing the largest increases in federal education spending in several years (a fucking huge mistake , IMHO), perhaps?

Passing the largest increase to a federal entitlement program in decades (the Medicare drug benefit, which is even more of a fucking huge mistake)?

Combine this with the administration's utter economic idiocy and penchant for making the tax code even more complex (Reagan's single greatest achievement, IMHO, was halving the tax code; yes, I'll put that above ending the Cold War), and I would not be surprised to see as much as a fifth of his support from 2000 either not vote or vote Reform/Libertarian for President.

The apparent fact is that if Kerry is elected, the GOP will almost certainly hold on to at least one house of Congress. This means divided government. If there's any lesson since WWII, it's that the most effective way to peace and prosperity is divided government, simply because the governing parties are too busy squabbling to fuck things up.

Reagan in the 80s, Clinton 1994-2000 (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | about 10 years ago | (#9434079)

The apparent fact is that if Kerry is elected, the GOP will almost certainly hold on to at least one house of Congress. This means divided government. If there's any lesson since WWII, it's that the most effective way to peace and prosperity is divided government, simply because the governing parties are too busy squabbling to fuck things up.

Not necessarily. Think Clinton 1992-1994. He had Democrat majorities in both houses, and got basically nowhere. Ironically Clinton got arguably more done after the Contract with America and the Republican landslide into Congress in 1994 -- go figure.

For that matter, Reagan was able to get a lot going even in spite of not having the House for his entire time in office (and the Senate only briefly IIRC).

Just a minor nitpick.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9433469)

Strong correlation tho man.

Oh, if only Goldwater had beaten LBJ.

Re:A vote for Nader (1)

John Harrison (223649) | about 10 years ago | (#9433604)

You are making the mistake of lumping all Nader voters together. As I said above, there are all sorts of reasons to vote for Nader. I am sure that there are people that vote for Nader that don't even like him and think he would be the worst president of the three choices.

I voted for Nader assuming that Bush would win. Given that I was voting in Utah, where Ross Perot beat Clinton, I was free of the quandries that a Florida voter might face.

I will probably vote for Nader again, this time from Massachusetts. I am pretty sure that Kerry will carry MA, but I honestly don't care. I think that both Kerry and Bush are bad choices. It is more important to me to voice frustration with the current system than it is to be a lemming in choosing the lesser of two evils. If fewer of you were lemmings we could have some real debate in this country. As it is we have carbon-copy moderate parties.

Uhh.. (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | about 10 years ago | (#9430034)

But it also means that we'll be taxed to death...

I disagree. Consider the amount of power the president has in this issue. This would most likely be a legislative issue, and the future president would have to veto legislation designed to lower taxes, and have that veto not be overridden, in order to be considered at all responsible for the taxes being "high," but that would be an extremely simplistic view.

Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. I am not going to vote for Kerry, but I don't think taxes and government spending would be curbed or grown if Kerry were president versus Bush.

"Correctly" (1)

Some Woman (250267) | about 10 years ago | (#9430182)

Wow. You're talking about the administration that wouldn't listen to seasoned advisors regarding the cost of the war, and most importantly: the number of troops required. Pssh...What does a silly ole General know about troop requirements. I think it's going to be a bumbling mess unless they start listening to the people who know.

Re:"Correctly" (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9432272)

The people who "know" claimed that the invasion phase would have 10s of thousands of US casualities. Just food for thought.

Re:"Correctly" (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9433375)

Excuse me sir, I speak Liberal.

SW, what RW is trying to say is that there were also people who *knew* that there were lots of WMDs in Iraq. I say when it comes to intel, trust your covert agencies. ;-)

Re:"Correctly" (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9434383)

A real point was being made. We keep on hearing that "Bush should listen to the experts!!" Which ones? Well the ones who agree with my viewpoint, obviously, the others are all idiots.

Re:"Correctly" (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9436261)

Um I was kinda backing that up, just with a liberal bent and a bit of humor. Sorry if I o-fended.

Anyway, hopefully the right ones are listened to, and you can judge a president by the quality of his advisors and the quality of the advice he follows. I mean, thankfully hindsight is 20/20 because if it wasn't, why, we'd never know when our leaders were wrong. ;-)

Oh and Condoleeza is always an idiot. :-P

Re:"Correctly" (1)

Red Warrior (637634) | about 10 years ago | (#9436565)

Sometimes hard to separate the message from the humor. that's why those smilies are so darn useful :-)

As far as Ms Rice, I must admit, I'm curious how all these Republican idiots, who can't think thier way out of a paper bag, always seem to be outmanuevering the Democrats...

Re:"Correctly" (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9436906)

Oh come on now, Ms. Rice's signal to noise ratio in so far as the public knows rivals that of Slashdot's main page. You know it, I know it, and the american people should know it.

Why, a magic 8 ball could probably do a better job.

I'd bet my hat on it.

Influx of jobs? (1)

Otter (3800) | about 10 years ago | (#9430221)

I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs.

What influx of jobs? Kerry's national defense plan consists solely of pork for his firefighter allies (and police, originally, but I bet the Boston PD has ruined that now) but otherwise I don't know of anything that's even supposed to generate jobs.

He's retracted the whole anti-outsourcing position, you know. (Which I happen to think is good news, but either way that issue ended once the primaries did.

FCC (1)

eglamkowski (631706) | about 10 years ago | (#9430679)

The Federal Censorship Commission's latest actions against "indecency" are spearheaded by a democrat. Michael Copp.

If you google around a bit, you'll find plenty of democrats who favor censorship in the name of fighting "indecency" - it isn't just a problem that originates solely from the republican camp!

Re:FCC (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9430839)

Actually, I think the democrats will still cause FCC frenzy, just not to the point that it is now. I'm surprised no one ran against Bush for the republican primaries. I woulda loved to see McCain go for the ballot. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (will he be too old by 2008 if Kerry wins?).

Re:FCC (1)

waffle zero (322430) | about 10 years ago | (#9431021)

I'm surprised no one ran against Bush for the republican primaries. I woulda loved to see McCain go for the ballot. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat (will he be too old by 2008 if Kerry wins?).

The sitting President is considered to the be the head of his political party and is given their full support. There still have to be primaries to nominate him, but the only competition are a few unknowns. Quite often if you care enough to look at the results, some areas will have high numbers of votes for another party's candidate as a way of registering dissatifaction.

I know my father and a couple of my high school teachers voted for McCain as a write in for the 2000 Presidential Election and I can see his appeal. I make a point to watch the Daily Show (my news show of choice) every time he is a guest. He was really good talking about his book the last time. A Kerry-McCain ticket would be something to drool about, but McCain is smart enough to see that it would kill his political career as soon as he left office. If Kerry managed two terms and he ran afterwards, what party would take him?

Re:FCC (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9431449)

If Kerry managed two terms and he ran afterwards, what party would take him?

He'd be popular enough to not need one.

Re:FCC (1)

waffle zero (322430) | about 10 years ago | (#9431091)

If you google around a bit, you'll find plenty of democrats who favor censorship in the name of fighting "indecency" - it isn't just a problem that originates solely from the republican camp!

Has everyone forgot about Lieberman? I really couldn't stand him. Anyone who throws their support behind censorship of videogames/movies and hefty fines for selling "inappropriate content" to minors isn't the kind of guy I want in office. Who is up for a single issue 'Videogame Party'?

Re:FCC (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 10 years ago | (#9431943)

Censorship is basically a leftist tactic: Using the power of the government to supress someone, "for the greater good." It's just another thing that Democrats and Republicans can agree on: government needs to have the power to be able to do that sort of thing.

Sorry FK (1)

buffer-overflowed (588867) | about 10 years ago | (#9430968)

But why on earth do you believe Bush who has fucked up at every turn so far(terrorism is up this year, not down, Iraq is still in chaos, Afghanistan ain't looking to good either, and there has been dangerous movement in the mindshare of the Arab world away from hating/disliking American policy towards hating Americans.) will somehow do better in Iraq than Kerry will?

Heck their positions don't even differ that much! Well, except Kerry wants more international involvement to cement the badge of legitimacy both that and a leadership change will bring.

Hell, if you want to forment things based on solely on Iraq. Anyone BUT Bush is the right decision. I mean Bush has actually kept scowling Condoleeza "More likely to win the lottery than be right" Rice on the payroll and listens to her. She's his National freakin' security advisor! And if you've ever heard the man speak he's not exactly a fountain of intelligence. The woman, who unlike so many other levels government, was unable to forsee planes flying into buildings and stated that no one could have. Well fuck, she gives me the safety warm and fuzzies!

Great team there! Well here's a news flash, Bushites. Your team sucks. From war planning to domestic policy, to law enforcement, and the presidency determines the team since much to my chagrin we can't vote for cabinet members.

The only exceptions to this rule(if person==bush cabinet member then rightpersonforjob = false AND ethics = false) are Rummy and Powell. Rummy, well, Rummy is needed because he'll upgrade the military to third generational tactics. We should keep the arrogant prick. Powell? Well, maybe the Sec State can do some good if he's not constantly trying to smoothe over the fubared diplomatics of the Commander in Chief.

Arggghhh!!! I got to work, but I'm damned riled up now.

Re:Sorry FK (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 10 years ago | (#9431664)

I also wonder why FK thinks that Kerry will try to bring the troops back. Hey, I haven't been following the US election, so he might have said that he would.

What is more likely is that Kerry will try to even up international relations and try to get UN support. Not sure, but I think that's the card that Kerry will play, and he might even succeed if he takes it on smart.

But then, who am I... I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people. Besides, in my eyes the US troops just followed orders. You just don't say "no" to your commanders, you follow orders if you're in the military. It's plain and simple.

Re:Sorry FK (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | about 10 years ago | (#9433112)

Well, it's not quite that simple. U.S. military personnel are obligated to disobey an illegal order. It's just that, in general, the orders being given are legal so the troops do what they're supposed to do - they carry them out.

I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people.

Yea well... the American people are, largely, lazy, stupid, pompous bastards. I should know, I'm one of them, and I'm surrounded by them. They'd just as soon run around cheering and slapping static cling flags on their vehicles as actually stop to think what the motivation and justification behind the political line of thinking of the moment is. It's more like you're forced to succumb to the self-serving policies of the people in charge and the American people just arbitrarily support those policies without thinking about them or understanding them.

Re:Sorry FK (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 10 years ago | (#9433606)

U.S. military personnel are obligated to disobey an illegal order

Guess what: I knew that. However, how can they judge if an order is illegal when it concerns WMD. They don't really have first-hand information, do they? The government told them they were there. How could they judge if such a statement was true or not. I'm not talking about the torture thing, that is something different. (I just try to be optimist and hope it wasn't an order from really high-up)

the American people are, largely, lazy, stupid, pompous bastards

You said that... I was in the US for a few times and most people were friendly, well, sometimes they were so friendly it just seemed fake to me. (It probably was fake) Just avoid political topics when over at the US ;-)

slapping static cling flags on their vehicles

Hehe, on my rental car in the US there was a US flag. I found it quite ironic ;-) But, hey, it wasn't my car... I wasn't going to peel of that sticker.

I try to understand US politics, but usually it confuses the crap out of me. Well, perhaps I'm just a lazy, stupid, pompous bastard European ;-)

Re:Sorry FK (1)

the_mad_poster (640772) | about 10 years ago | (#9434403)

They were actually sent to force compliance with U.N. resolutions. We were fully within the bounds of the law to go in and kick the shit out of the place. They were not, technically, sent to find big boomies (not to be confused with big boobies which Iraq might also have), so they shouldn't be judging the order on those grounds.

You said that...

Trust me, it's true. I mean, I love my country and all in spirit, but people these days are so vapid it's truly sickening. Nobody sits around and talks about the current state of affairs or the war effort - not even terrorism. Not for a SECOND. They talk about Paris Hilton getting boned by some steroid-pumped, pimply-dicked, Internet waste of space. They talk about the latest no-talent hack to grace the airwaves courtesy of the RIAA's sound-recycling project. They're just.... worthless. I couldn't tell you how many people I talk to who have never heard of PATRIOT or don't know where Riyadh is or don't know what actually was going on at Abu Ghraib... it's pathetic. This country is so media saturated and pop star blinded that they're just totally apathetic. You guys on the outside think it's really bad the way we just kick other countries in the nuts anytime they don't fall into line, but, hell, we do that to each other internally all the same so how could you expect anything different?

We're a nation of lazy, apathetic, largely uninformed imbeciles. It's constantly getting worse, and it's a very, very bad trend to have set.

Attempt at humor (1)

bethanie (675210) | about 10 years ago | (#9433541)

I am personally bored by all of this silly "serious" political garbage. Maybe I'll sign up and run for office, myself. My platform? Pizza any way you like it, without any topping- or crust-related persecution, and complete *unrestricted* freedom to breastfeed children in public. And maybe a requirement to do so for all the hot chicks.

What else? Nothin'. We don't need no more stinkin' laws. Just leave it be -- all conflicts heretoforward will be resolved by naked Jello wrasslin' matches, flavor to be determined by an arbitrary board of people *I* pick. HA!

....Bethanie....

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9433629)

I believe you should extend your law to say all hot women must be nude in public!

Though, you may want them to wear bras some of the time so they don't get too saggy.... I'll have to think it over.... ;-)

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

bethanie (675210) | about 10 years ago | (#9433742)

If women have to wear bras to keep from getting saggy, then I demand men MUST wear some kind of device to prevent the same thing from happening to their balls. I mean, come on, people. NOBODY wants to see those things hanging down THAT far!!

Or, of course, there's always the option of mandatory plastic surgery... but it's gonna have to be equal requirements for men AND women.

So you choose, FK. Complete bralessness or a knife to the balls. Which will it be? :-)

....Bethanie....

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

btlzu2 (99039) | about 10 years ago | (#9434364)

So, you deal with a bra and we get a knife? How's that? What about a ballssiere?

Women are so violent! It upsets my constitution.

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

bethanie (675210) | about 10 years ago | (#9435913)

The ballssiere is an option -- in the final analysis, though, I just whittled it down to the two extremes for FK. Of course, he'll probably prefer to take the centrist road.

And that's not violent women upsetting your constitution. It's the pineapple you're secretly snarfing when you think no one's looking.

Moderation, man. Everything in moderation.

....Bethanie....

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9436846)

I'm no fan of silicon outside a computer, so let'm go free!

Re:Attempt at humor (1)

http (589131) | about 10 years ago | (#9435265)

so this horse walks into a bar. the bartender looks up at him and says, 'hey, why the long face?'
.
.
.
*ba*doomph. *splasssh*
.
.
.
. the horse says, 'becuse my shins hurt.'

the one thing I know for sure (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 10 years ago | (#9433869)

Politics blows moose cock.

Re:the one thing I know for sure (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 10 years ago | (#9434374)

and swallows.

I'M NOT FINISHED!

It then gives a handjob to the Senate, while using it's armpit as a funnel for the House's smegma.

And another thing.

People will bitch about anything. Including me.

You know what I should do? (1)

Some Woman (250267) | about 10 years ago | (#9433920)

I should endanger somebody in the name of something I believe in. Then nobody could oppose me!

But...but... Somebody might die blowing moose cock! You wouldn't piss on the very thing that they are risking their lives for, now would you?

Re:You know what I should do? (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | about 10 years ago | (#9434217)

I hate tuna. If you are a tuna, do not reply.

By sheer astounding coincidence, I am in fact a tuna. So there.

Cheers,

Ethelred

Re:You know what I should do? (1)

btlzu2 (99039) | about 10 years ago | (#9434336)

I am in facta tuna
Is that Latin? Man, how many languages do you keep hiding from us?

Fish heads (1)

Ethelred Unraed (32954) | about 10 years ago | (#9434577)

Is that Latin?

Astonishingly, yes. It translates loosely as "fish heads, fish heads, roly-poly fish heads, eat them up, yum".

And if you spell it backwards, it means "a nut at caf, ni".

Ni!

Cheers,

Ethelred

FK is girlie girl* (1)

DaytonCIM (100144) | about 10 years ago | (#9434007)

Yup. I said it.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

* In response to FK's plea [slashdot.org] to change the subject.

Re:FK is girlie girl* (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9434767)

Don't make me go italian on yer ass ;-P

Re:FK is girlie girl* (1)

DaytonCIM (100144) | about 10 years ago | (#9435872)

BRING IT ON! GIRLY MAN! ;)

Liberals and Libertarians (2, Insightful)

Morosoph (693565) | about 10 years ago | (#9436423)

From Liberals and Libertarians [impel.com] .
On November 3rd: VOTE!!!

It's not who you vote for, it's what you vote for. An election is not a horse race; you don't get a prize if you pick the winning team.

The only "wasted vote" is the one that doesn't accurately reflect your views; a vote for the lesser of two evils just sends the message that you are willing to settle. Don't settle.

The only vote that is well and truly wasted...
...is a vote for a Republican.

-Glen Raphael

So Glen agrees with you: don't settle.

Mathematically, your greatest influence is to a priori vote for any candidate with equal "probability", as long as include 'none' as one of your candidates, even if you really like or hate all of them. Why so? Each candidate has to compete for your vote, but it is the option of 'none' that makes them have to think outside the box. Although you risk not getting your choice by voting for none, you exercise an influence upon all the candidates that is that much greater by virtue of having one more "opponent". Too great a chance of voting for none, and you lose your leverage, as a future candidate will target votes that were cast for other candidates this time around, instead.

The Single Transferable Vote [slashdot.org] "wastes" 1/(n+1) of the vote in an n-seat constituency. Similar reasoning to that which I have used above shows why this is not in fact wasteful.

Re:Liberals and Libertarians (1)

FortKnox (169099) | about 10 years ago | (#9436867)

The only "wasted vote" is the one that doesn't accurately reflect your views; a vote for the lesser of two evils just sends the message that you are willing to settle. Don't settle.

Fscking-A! That's the wording I need right there!

Rational Interpretation of Events (1)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | about 10 years ago | (#9437062)

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2004/06/15/do1501.xml [telegraph.co.uk]

Excerpt:
Well, they may be Little Englanders, but they're getting bigger, and the big parties are getting littler. In Sunday's results, the only two governing parties most Britons have ever known couldn't muster 50 per cent of the vote between them.

In a functioning party system, you're never going to agree with your party on everything. You might, for example, be opposed to wind farms or in favour of toppling Robert Mugabe. But, even if you are, it's unlikely to be the big political priority in your life. So you vote on the economy and Iraq and healthcare, and accept there'll be a few disagreements by the time we get to page 73 of the manifesto. That's why parties like to talk about themselves as "big tents".

But, as Peter Oborne pointed out in last week's Spectator, poll after poll shows that up to half the British electorate wants out of the EU - i.e., their disaffection goes a little deeper than mixed feelings about insufficient subsidiarity in sub-clause XXIV(b) of the new constitution. This isn't a peripheral issue, but the central question facing Britain today - and the views of 50 per cent of the voters are not reflected in the country's big three parties.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...