|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 14, 2004 11:29:06 GMT -5
The US is about to have it's most important erection in the last 20 years.
The choices are poles apart and it's important to Canada too.
Instead of a mainstream conservative Democrat vs a mainstream liberal Republican, this time we have real choices.
The problem is it has polarized the country. Like the issue of Separatism in Canada, this has divided the country and made enemies of long time friends. Neither side feels that they can live with the other's candidate in power. Both sides are playing dirty.
I personally find myself siding with Kerry on some issues;
Stem cell research;
Womans right to choose;
No constitutional ban on Gay marriages;
No religeon in government programs;
and with Bush on
tax brakes to spur the economy;
free trade;
low mimimum wage to keep jobs viable;
small government with more private entrepreneurship;
no litmus test for judges;
tough proactive stance on terrorism.
To me the most important issue is security for myself and my children.
It's costly to fight terrorists both in lives and money, but the alternative is to allow suicidal maniacs to blow up schools, trains, planes and buildings. The people who behead truck drivers have no qualms about setting off nuclear bombs in our cities. We must stop them where they live and not try to spend the next 20 years inspecting luggage on planes and arriving at the airport 4 hours early for a flight. If it is necessary to kill 1,000,000 terrorists it has to be done and innocent people will die on the way.
In the last century, the US and Canada lost thousands of lives in their quest for freedom and the Iraqi's will lose some innocent lives too.
Nobody wants to go to war, lose lives and spend huge sums of money, but the UN route was tried and they are a dismal failure. Resolutions and sanctions don't stop dictators and terrorists.
George Bush acted and I support him. I try not to become polarized and hate the people opposed to Bush and Chainey. There is more than enough hate to go around right now.
This election will be close and half of us WILL have to live and get along with whoever wins.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 14, 2004 11:37:33 GMT -5
An erection that's poles apart. Quelle surprise! The ass and the elephant at play. Almost as much fun as a referendum...
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 14, 2004 12:05:46 GMT -5
An erection that's poles apart. Quelle surprise! The ass and the elephant at play. Almost as much fun as a referendum... There was this night once, back when I was wilder and crazier (I know, I know - hard to believe I was once wilder and crazier than I am now), where I was spending a good deal of energy (and money) trying to amuse and entertain this pretty young nursing student in a local NDG water-hole. Maz's, if you're ever looking for a classy and elegant place to entertain a pretty young nursing student. Anyways, after a good deal of polite, yet stilted conversation, awkward pauses covered up by slow, drawn out swills of Molson's finest, the conversation turned to the fate of a friend of the pretty young nursing student I was trying to entertain and amuse. Turns out she was from Iran, where hard-line mullahs are locked in a power-struggle with the largely power-less yet nonetheless extremely popular moderates, personified by the Prime Minister and the mayor of Tehran (who, incidentally, has spent time in prison, for advocating a more moderate approach, and closer relations with the West). Eager to display my astute and profound knowledge of current worldly events, and thus amuse and entertain the pretty young nursing student, I turned to her and said "Iran, eh? They have a pretty big election coming up over there." Or at least that's what I meant to say. Turns out the awkward pauses were a little more prevalent than they should have been, resulting in perhaps a little too many drawn out swills of Molson's finest. Alas, I did not say "election." Substitute the "L" for an "R" and you will see why the pretty young nursing student played no part in my ensuing life (or, for that matter, that evening). Might want to re-check your post, HFLA.  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 14, 2004 12:15:20 GMT -5
There was this night once, back when I was wilder and crazier (I know, I know - hard to believe I was once wilder and crazier than I am now), where I was spending a good deal of energy (and money) trying to amuse and entertain this pretty young nursing student in a local NDG water-hole. Maz's, if you're ever looking for a classy and elegant place to entertain a pretty young nursing student. Anyways, after a good deal of polite, yet stilted conversation, awkward pauses covered up by slow, drawn out swills of Molson's finest, the conversation turned to the fate of a friend of the pretty young nursing student I was trying to entertain and amuse. Turns out she was from Iran, where hard-line mullahs are locked in a power-struggle with the largely power-less yet nonetheless extremely popular moderates, personified by the Prime Minister and the mayor of Tehran (who, incidentally, has spent time in prison, for advocating a more moderate approach, and closer relations with the West). Eager to display my astute and profound knowledge of current worldly events, and thus amuse and entertain the pretty young nursing student, I turned to her and said "Iran, eh? They have a pretty big election coming up over there." Or at least that's what I meant to say. Turns out the awkward pauses were a little more prevalent than they should have been, resulting in perhaps a little too many drawn out swills of Molson's finest. Alas, I did not say "election." Substitute the "L" for an "R" and you will see why the pretty young nursing student played no part in my ensuing life (or, for that matter, that evening). Might want to re-check your post, Mr. Bozo. Hindsight is never 20/20. It may have cost you a night of excitement or it may have saved you buying her a few more beers. My favorite NDG watering hole was a country and western bar at the corner of Cavendish and Sherbrooke. If you couldn't find a young lady there, you certainly could get into a fight with someone who did. Prior to that St. Phillips church had some dances where you could slip out into the bushes to get your bottle of wine between records. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 14, 2004 13:41:48 GMT -5
Maz- corner Marcil and Sherbrooke W. Still there?
The C & W bar, near Décarie, just down the street, across from Chalet BBQ. Still there?
Ah, good times, good times...
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 25, 2004 12:40:22 GMT -5
Well, it seems Bush can count on the uniformed vote. Amazing, stunning, and quite frightening. The most important election in recent memory, in the most important nation in the world, and people don't know what they are voting for. Ah, the dangers of living in a democracy... Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al QaedaAgree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War, Favoring Bush Reelection[/b] Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.More...[/color] |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 25, 2004 13:56:57 GMT -5
Well, it seems Bush can count on the uniformed vote. Amazing, stunning, and quite frightening. The most important election in recent memory, in the most important nation in the world, and people don't know what they are voting for. Ah, the dangers of living in a democracy... One of the dangers inherent in a democracy is allowing the majority to be as foolish as they want to be. After all, slavery flourished and thrived under democracy. Don't believe the hype. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 25, 2004 18:06:40 GMT -5
All of which confirms what I've been thinking for a long time.... how can anyone educated or informed be pro-Bush ? Well, they aren't educated or informed, that's how !
|
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 25, 2004 20:22:44 GMT -5
One of the dangers inherent in a democracy is allowing the majority to be as foolish as they want to be. After all, slavery flourished and thrived under democracy. Don't believe the hype. To be accurate, they floruished under a limited democracy - not quite the same thing as a full democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2004 1:54:42 GMT -5
Well, it seems Bush can count on the uniformed vote. Amazing, stunning, and quite frightening. The most important election in recent memory, in the most important nation in the world, and people don't know what they are voting for. Ah, the dangers of living in a democracy... Bush Supporters Still Believe Iraq Had WMD or Major Program,
Supported al QaedaAgree with Kerry Supporters Bush Administration Still Saying This is the Case Agree US Should Not Have Gone to War if No WMD or Support for al Qaeda Bush Supporters Misperceive World Public as Not Opposed to Iraq War, Favoring Bush Reelection [/b] Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.More...[/color] [/quote] Some people read horiscopes. I don't. Some people believe in prayer to solve problems. I don't. Some people support Bush. I do too. I certainly don't blindly agre with every position he takes, but overall I think he is best for the country. If Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Giulani, McCain, Pataki all support Bush and QED are uninformed; then I am proud to be uninformed too. Most people will support Bush for the right reasons, some for the wrong reasons. Same for Kerry. There has been a lot of rhetoric with bright minds on both sides in disagreement. Trudeau and Levesque disagreed on most issues, but both were very intelligent men who drew different conclusions. Pearson/Diefenbaker. It would be very wrong for me to condemn Kerry to be a fool because I disagree with him. Underestimating your opponent is a sure path to defeat. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 26, 2004 8:25:49 GMT -5
Some people read horiscopes. I don't. Some people believe in prayer to solve problems. I don't. Some people support Bush. I do too. I certainly don't blindly agre with every position he takes, but overall I think he is best for the country. If Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffett, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Giulani, McCain, Pataki all support Bush and QED are uninformed; then I am proud to be uninformed too. Most people will support Bush for the right reasons, some for the wrong reasons. Same for Kerry. There has been a lot of rhetoric with bright minds on both sides in disagreement. Trudeau and Levesque disagreed on most issues, but both were very intelligent men who drew different conclusions. Pearson/Diefenbaker. It would be very wrong for me to condemn Kerry to be a fool because I disagree with him. Underestimating your opponent is a sure path to defeat. There is nothing wrong with supporting Bush, if you know why you are supporting Bush. Everyone is entitled to their informed opinion. Some people have very legitimate reasons for supporting Bush, and those people, and their reasons, may indeed be valid. Greenspan and Buffett are Big Business people, and Republicans are always good for big business. Schwarneggar and McCain are Republicans (though moderates) and its in their best personal/political interests not to bite the hands that feed them. All are rich, and stand to benefit from G.W.'s tax cuts. Good on them. What scares me though, is the majority of Bush supporters who not only support Bush for the wrong reasons, but who clearly state they WOULDN'T support Bush if the beliefs they held to be true were proven not to be the case: Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. 58% percent believe that the US should not have gone to war if Iraq did not have WMD. They did not, which would lead you to believe these people would turn on Bush. But they don't, and they continue to believe that Iraq had those WMD. Its the wrong reason. In fact, according to that study, Bush supporters seem to have no real clue as to what platform their man is running under: Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues. In other words, "these are good positions that Bush holds, and I hold them too - I am going to vote for Bush, because he holds the same positions as I do. I support Kyoto, and so does Bush." Unfortunately, its just not true... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2004 11:15:27 GMT -5
There is a reason we follow the Aristotilian model of representative democracy. We lead our daily lives and elect representatives to handle the business of government on our behalf.
George Bush, more than most presidents (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan) relies on expert advice in a number of areas. No one person can be knowledgeable in all disciplines. Instead of becoming a rocket scientist, he relies on rocket scientists to provide advice on space exploration.
Presidents like Bush and Reagan are leaders. They establish broad moral guidelines and apply the advice of their experts to achieve their strategic goals. Presidents like Carter and Clinton are more involved with tactical decisions.
The United States (and Canada) are full of people who have difficulty reading and writing at the high school or college level. Their votes count the same way that George Will's vote counts. One man one vote. Star Trek explored the possibility of living in a world where computers made decisions for us. Even if we end up with better decisions, I'm not sure that we want to live in a pleasant world where we abdicate the power to direct our lives.
It's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.
While I may disagree with President Bush on Stem Cell Research, Separation of Church and State, Womans Right to Choose; I agree with him on the most important (to me) issues of Proactively Defending against Terrorism and Economic Policy.
Even if Saddam had no WMD or direct links to Al-Quaida, eliminating him as a tyrant, dictator and threat in the middle east was the RIGHT thing to do. We did the right thing. My concern today is that we are being too careful and losing too many soldiers flushing out the terrorists and gangs. We need to step back and wipe out the thugs who blow up their countrys infrastructure, their own people, anybody who gets in the way of their fanatical ideology. To make an omlette you have to crack a few eggs.
The US lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the CIvil War. The Allies lost millions of lives in the World Wars. The Iraqi's must now lose some innocent lives as the price to achieve a lasting peace and freedom. We need to be resolute and committed. George "W" Bush is the man to do it.
I think it's unfair and inaccurate to broadly portray people who don't vote the way you do as uninformed. I agree that the electorate of the US (and Canada) has a lot of citizens who are less knowledgeable about specific issues, but that's our system and we're sticking to it. One man one vote.
Occasionally I play Trivial Persuit and I am amazed at the broad knowledge that I have and others don't in the areas of Geography, History and Science. Then a question about a Broadway Play comes up and I don't have a clue while my wife ahd her sister know who wrote it, sang it and the year it opened. We live in a diverse world with many different cultures. I have nothing against coexisance with the Swiss, Quakers or the Icelandic who are very different from me. They don't pose a threat to me and can do whatever and live however they want. After 9/11 we can't be like Ostriches with our heads in the sand ignoring threats to our very survival.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2004 11:19:47 GMT -5
Post Script:
It is wrong to assume that George Bush is an idiot because of his speech impediment.
He became the president of a number of companies. Won his parties nomination for governor of Texas. Became Governor of Texas. Eventually became President.
People who think of him as a dummy are underestimating the man they oppose.
I'm sure Toe Blake never thought Punch Imlach was a dummy.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 26, 2004 12:00:28 GMT -5
There is a reason we follow the Aristotilian model of representative democracy. We lead our daily lives and elect representatives to handle the business of government on our behalf. George Bush, more than most presidents (with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan) relies on expert advice in a number of areas. No one person can be knowledgeable in all disciplines. Instead of becoming a rocket scientist, he relies on rocket scientists to provide advice on space exploration. Presidents like Bush and Reagan are leaders. They establish broad moral guidelines and apply the advice of their experts to achieve their strategic goals. Presidents like Carter and Clinton are more involved with tactical decisions. The United States (and Canada) are full of people who have difficulty reading and writing at the high school or college level. Their votes count the same way that George Will's vote counts. One man one vote. Star Trek explored the possibility of living in a world where computers made decisions for us. Even if we end up with better decisions, I'm not sure that we want to live in a pleasant world where we abdicate the power to direct our lives. It's better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. While I may disagree with President Bush on Stem Cell Research, Separation of Church and State, Womans Right to Choose; I agree with him on the most important (to me) issues of Proactively Defending against Terrorism and Economic Policy. Even if Saddam had no WMD or direct links to Al-Quaida, eliminating him as a tyrant, dictator and threat in the middle east was the RIGHT thing to do. We did the right thing. My concern today is that we are being too careful and losing too many soldiers flushing out the terrorists and gangs. We need to step back and wipe out the thugs who blow up their countrys infrastructure, their own people, anybody who gets in the way of their fanatical ideology. To make an omlette you have to crack a few eggs. The US lost hundreds of thousands of lives in the CIvil War. The Allies lost millions of lives in the World Wars. The Iraqi's must now lose some innocent lives as the price to achieve a lasting peace and freedom. We need to be resolute and committed. George "W" Bush is the man to do it. I think it's unfair and inaccurate to broadly portray people who don't vote the way you do as uninformed. I agree that the electorate of the US (and Canada) has a lot of citizens who are less knowledgeable about specific issues, but that's our system and we're sticking to it. One man one vote. Occasionally I play Trivial Persuit and I am amazed at the broad knowledge that I have and others don't in the areas of Geography, History and Science. Then a question about a Broadway Play comes up and I don't have a clue while my wife ahd her sister know who wrote it, sang it and the year it opened. We live in a diverse world with many different cultures. I have nothing against coexisance with the Swiss, Quakers or the Icelandic who are very different from me. They don't pose a threat to me and can do whatever and live however they want. After 9/11 we can't be like Ostriches with our heads in the sand ignoring threats to our very survival. That's all fine and well, but what would you say to the person who says "I'm going to vote for John Kerry, because he will ban abortion?" People are voting for Bush because they believe in things that are just not true. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 26, 2004 13:38:10 GMT -5
Even if Saddam had no WMD or direct links to Al-Quaida, eliminating him as a tyrant, dictator and threat in the middle east was the RIGHT thing to do. We did the right thing. Thus legitimizing attacking any one of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.... Thus legitimizing Russia attacking any of the former Soviet republics in their fight against terrorism. Thus legitimizing China using military influence all over Southeastern Asia whenever it sees fit. Thus the Pandora's Box is opened - use whatever means necessary, as long as the result is desirable. I wonder whether the United States, if it's foreign policy becomes more and more isolated and extremist, will one day be looked upon by the rest of the civilized world as a threat, instead of a proper actor on the world scene. I wonder how many innocent lives are disposable to achieve lasting peace and freedom worldwide.... one million? ten million? one hundred million? We should write that on their gravestones... "This life was sacrificed so that it could enjoy peace and freedom". How horrifyingly Orwellian. To be resolute and committed in the face of danger is to be commended. To be resolute and committed even when wrong is to be condemned. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 26, 2004 13:59:44 GMT -5
I wonder whether the United States, if it's foreign policy becomes more and more isolated and extremist, will one day be looked upon by the rest of the civilized world as a threat, instead of a proper actor on the world scene. I think that perspective was silently endorsed by the multitude of nations that chose not to join Bush in his "crusade" against Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 26, 2004 16:54:42 GMT -5
I think that perspective was silently endorsed by the multitude of nations that chose not to join Bush in his "crusade" against Iraq. Still, many are trying to keep the door open for the US should it choose to rejoin the rank of civilized nations; the French tried to make it clear that they still see the US as a friend, but even friends have disagreements. IMO the whole idea is that the US is going to have to make itself a pariah on its own, not through other people pushing them away. |
|
|
|
Post by Montrealer on Oct 26, 2004 17:49:51 GMT -5
Still, many are trying to keep the door open for the US should it choose to rejoin the rank of civilized nations; the French tried to make it clear that they still see the US as a friend, but even friends have disagreements. IMO the whole idea is that the US is going to have to make itself a pariah on its own, not through other people pushing them away. Precisely - it's no pariah yet; not even close - but the fact is that the international standing of the United States has been greatly tarnished by it's actions over the past two years. The biggest problem is if Bush wins - he practically gloats that he doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks. Fine to say that at home - but that doesn't play well anywhere else - how can it, when the US is quick to tell other countries how to behave? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 26, 2004 19:05:27 GMT -5
Thus legitimizing attacking any one of North Korea, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, etc.... Thus legitimizing Russia attacking any of the former Soviet republics in their fight against terrorism. Thus legitimizing China using military influence all over Southeastern Asia whenever it sees fit. Thus the Pandora's Box is opened - use whatever means necessary, as long as the result is desirable. To be resolute and committed in the face of danger is to be commended. To be resolute and committed even when wrong is to be condemned. It is legitimate to protect oneself from danger by whatever means necessary. If the US perceives France to be a threat to our national security, it is legitimate to protect ourselves by whatever means necessary! When the US entered WW II, it didn't seek the permission of Germany or Italy or Japan. Maslow's hierarchy of needs places security as paramount above nourishment and self actualization. Making the world safe for our children is more important than forging friendships with Ambasadors in tuxedos eating caviar and sipping champagne. If North Korea is a threat to the US and Japan we must eliminate the threat to ensure our continued existance. If Chechnia is a threat to the Soviet Union, they must act to defend themselves. The result of my continued existance is highly desirable to me and the failure of my commander in chief to ensure this would be negligence of duty. President Kennedy took bold and decisive action against the installation of missles in Cuba. I don't care if the UN thought he had a right to do it or not. I don't want missles pointed at us less than 100 miles away. I wouldn't want Canada to have missles pointed at us either. It's not a complicated Pandora's Box. It's simple self preservation. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 26, 2004 20:30:04 GMT -5
Maslow's hierarchy of needs places security as paramount above nourishment and self actualization. Umm, no it doesn't. Security, or more accurately, safety, is actually right near the bottom, as the second least "important" of Maslow's needs. 1. Self-Actualization 2. Esteem 3. Love 4. Safety 5. Physiological (needs) But I digress. So how exactly is/was Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States? To his own people, most certainly, but to the Western world? How? * No WMD * No program to develope WMD (only a vague idea to restart it once the sanctions were lifted) * No links to Al Quaeda * No involvement in 9/11 * No air force * No navy * No control over one-third of his own country (the northern, Kurdish area) * A poorly trained, disloyal, peasant army, half the size of the army that got pasted in Gulf War I. * No allies in the Arab, or indeed, entire world (he had already invaded Iran and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States so hated/feared him they allowed infidel, American troops onto their soil, and Hafez Assad of Syria hated Hussein, and even joined the coalition against Iraq) So given all that, how was Saddam Hussein a threat to the western world?? |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 26, 2004 22:35:30 GMT -5
People are voting for Bush because they believe in things that are just not true. That's probably the most worrisome part of this all.... if Americans were just short-sighted idiots who didn't care about anything, that would be one thing, but here they seem to be somehow manipulated by the military-(petro?)-industrial complex into supporting things which are simply not true. Back in High School in one class about philosophy and religion and all, the professor quoted a thinker who had to rank the biggest threats to human civilisation, and the top one was "the increasing ability to brainwash people".... I wonder if that's not slowly coming true. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 26, 2004 22:36:44 GMT -5
So given all that, how was Saddam Hussein a threat to the western world?? Hush hush now, "facts" aren't really relevant in this discussion (or in any discussion with HFLA for that matter) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 27, 2004 3:25:16 GMT -5
That's probably the most worrisome part of this all.... if Americans were just short-sighted idiots who didn't care about anything, that would be one thing, but here they seem to be somehow manipulated by the military-(petro?)-industrial complex into supporting things which are simply not true. Back in High School in one class about philosophy and religion and all, the professor quoted a thinker who had to rank the biggest threats to human civilisation, and the top one was "the increasing ability to brainwash people".... I wonder if that's not slowly coming true. Nationalism is a powerful drug. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 27, 2004 4:10:58 GMT -5
Umm, no it doesn't. Security, or more accurately, safety, is actually right near the bottom, as the second least "important" of Maslow's needs. 1. Self-Actualization 2. Esteem 3. Love 4. Safety 5. Physiological (needs) But I digress. So how exactly is/was Saddam Hussein a threat to the United States? To his own people, most certainly, but to the Western world? How? * No WMD * No program to develope WMD (only a vague idea to restart it once the sanctions were lifted) * No links to Al Quaeda * No involvement in 9/11 * No air force * No navy * No control over one-third of his own country (the northern, Kurdish area) * A poorly trained, disloyal, peasant army, half the size of the army that got pasted in Gulf War I. * No allies in the Arab, or indeed, entire world (he had already invaded Iran and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States so hated/feared him they allowed infidel, American troops onto their soil, and Hafez Assad of Syria hated Hussein, and even joined the coalition against Iraq) So given all that, how was Saddam Hussein a threat to the western world?? I think you have the hierarchy of needs in reverse order. Until the base needs are met the higher level needs do not come into play as motivators. I too digress. It is obvious that Iraq is full of enemies of the United States. Iraq/Saddam provided a safe haven for them to operate. I find it difficult for me to believe that they suddenly materialized in a country where the deposed leader was hated. Iraq is full of criminals that invaded Kuwait, pillaged and raped and retreated setting oil wells on fire. It wasn't just Saddam who is an Iraqi criminal. The country is full of gangs that follow their local generals. Sunni tribes killing Saperlipopettees and both of them slaughtering kurds. The bands of radicals that are blowing up their own bridges, electric power network, innocent people, robbed their hospitals and destroy anything that doesn't conform to their ideology are a threat to world peace. It is better to face them in Iraq than to fight them in the subways of New York and streets of Los Angeles. If people truly believe that this war was started to avenge George Bush senior, or increase the value of Haliburton stock, or because "W" is a simpleton; there is no possible dialoge that can find a common ground. I think that this issue has polarized HabsRUS posters more than Habs/Leafs and no one has changed their opinions after these lengthy and heated attempts. I will try to avoid continuing what appears to be a devisive repetition of position rather than a search for common ground. Go Hab's and drop the damn puck soon! |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Oct 27, 2004 7:30:27 GMT -5
I think you have the hierarchy of needs in reverse order. Until the base needs are met the higher level needs do not come into play as motivators. I too digress. It is obvious that Iraq is full of enemies of the United States. Iraq/Saddam provided a safe haven for them to operate. I find it difficult for me to believe that they suddenly materialized in a country where the deposed leader was hated. Iraq is full of criminals that invaded Kuwait, pillaged and raped and retreated setting oil wells on fire. It wasn't just Saddam who is an Iraqi criminal. The country is full of gangs that follow their local generals. Sunni tribes killing Saperlipopettees and both of them slaughtering kurds. The bands of radicals that are blowing up their own bridges, electric power network, innocent people, robbed their hospitals and destroy anything that doesn't conform to their ideology are a threat to world peace. It is better to face them in Iraq than to fight them in the subways of New York and streets of Los Angeles. If people truly believe that this war was started to avenge George Bush senior, or increase the value of Haliburton stock, or because "W" is a simpleton; there is no possible dialoge that can find a common ground. I think that this issue has polarized HabsRUS posters more than Habs/Leafs and no one has changed their opinions after these lengthy and heated attempts. I will try to avoid continuing what appears to be a devisive repetition of position rather than a search for common ground. Go Hab's and drop the damn puck soon! Unfortunately, like Dubya, you have yet to offer any rational explanation as to why Iraq, why now. How was Saddam Hussein going to attack Los Angeles, or New York?? He wasn't. What does Shias killing Sunnis have to do with the US? Terrible, for sure, but no different from Hutus killing Tutsis, or Sudanese Muslims killing Sudanese Christians, or Rwandans killing Congolese. You say that it is difficult for you to believe that terrorists suddenly materialized in Iraq after the invasion, and that they had been there all along, but the 9/11 commission, the CIA commission, and every other commission disagrees with you. There was no significant link to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and a cursory understanding of the two men would make such a conclusion only logical. Bin Laden is pre-occupied with spreading militant Islamic ideals, and overthrowing what he deems to be "secular" governments "occupying" holy Muslim lands, including Iraq, and, of all places, the fundamentalist Saudi regime. Hussein was more concerned with personal power, palaces, expanding his countries borders, and building his own personal empire. Notice that Hussein invaded not one, but TWO fundamentalist countries. He is noted for killing any threat to his rule, including radical Islamic clerics (such as al Sadr). The truth is, Iraq offered no threat whatsoever to the US, and nothing but hardship if/when they decided to muscle in. "Incalculable human and political costs'' would have been the result, if the US had pushed all the way to Baghdad and sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the U.S.-led coalition ousted the Iraqi army from Kuwait during the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect rule Iraq,'' Bush wrote. "The coalition would have instantly collapsed. ... Going in and thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish.
"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome.''
- George Bush Senior"Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power.
"Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there.''
-James Baker, US Secretary of StateWhile its true that opinions on this matter are extremely polarized, and unlikely to change, the fact is this is a very important election for not only the US, but the world. One would hope that the American people, burdened with such an awesome responsibility, would take the time to study the facts. You, like Dubya, have yet to supply any facts as to why this invasion has made the US a safer place. I said right from the beginning that I thought this war would make the US a target (more so than it already is), and that the seeds of the terrorism we will see in 5-10 years are being planted now. In 1991, the US established military bases in Saudi Arabia, following Gulf War I, and kept them there. 10 years later, 15 Saudis flew hijacked planes into American building. Not one single Iraqi was on those planes. Now though, Iraqis are growing up with very good reasons for hating the US, namely they and their families are those eggs that are being broken to make that omelet you keep speaking of. Take your typical 10 year old boy in Iraq now; his father was killed during the invasion, because Saddam Hussein forced him into the military, and the US decided to "shock and awe" him. His uncle was killed when an errant missile hit his house in Fallujah. His brother was shot dead when US forces attempted to shoot fleeing insurgents. His mother was frisked by foreign men, right in front of him, at a military checkpoint. His cousin, trying to do the "right" thing, is on a bus with other Iraqi military recruits, and shot in the back of the head, the US not having given him any weapons to defend himself. His house, damaged during the war, still only has electricity half the time. As he grows, there will be no jobs for him. That ten year old boy is going to grow up to be a very desparate, angry 18 year old man. The kind of man who sits on a New York City bus with 20 lbs of explosives around his waist... |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Oct 27, 2004 8:02:29 GMT -5
No one will ever accuse HabsRus for "unbalanced" views.....   (don't worry, I wore a biohazard suit before I went hunting for those photos) |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Oct 27, 2004 8:49:36 GMT -5
Nationalism can cause problems with elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Oct 27, 2004 11:26:06 GMT -5
No one will ever accuse HabsRus for "unbalanced" views..... (don't worry, I wore a biohazard suit before I went hunting for those photos) Don't forget the signs outside Catholic Churches on Sundays, "Once again, God is speaking through a Bush!" |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Oct 27, 2004 19:48:24 GMT -5
Back in High School in one class about philosophy and religion and all, the professor quoted a thinker who had to rank the biggest threats to human civilisation, and the top one was "the increasing ability to brainwash people".... I wonder if that's not slowly coming true. The thing is, it's not only brainwashing in this case. When has George W. Bush ever said anything to imply he favoured US participation in Kyoto? It seems to me he's been crystal clear from the start that he was against it, that it would be too big of a burden for the US economy to bear. So where do people get the idea that he supports it? I get the feeling the people polled have only (at best) the vaguest idea of what Kyoto and other things are, that it "sounds good" to them so they just assume Bush supports it. This really makes me think that you should have to pass some test of basic, inarguable facts when you register to vote. What use is the vote of someone who is so ill-informed that they don't even know what they are voting for? Of course I don't expect everyone to know all the intricate details of stem-cell research or to have read every section of NAFTA, but you should have a basic understanding of the key issues and what each candidate says they will do (and has done). If not, then why are you voting? I don't vote in the elections to my local school board because I don't bother to learn about the candidates and issues. Of course I could make a decision based on the few scraps of information that jump out of the paper at me, but I might as well be rolling dice. Maybe the ever decreasing voter turnout is actually a good thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Oct 27, 2004 19:52:36 GMT -5
I don't vote in the elections to my local school board because I don't bother to learn about the candidates and issues. Of course I could make a decision based on the few scraps of information that jump out of the paper at me, but I might as well be rolling dice. Maybe the ever decreasing voter turnout is actually a good thing. Very low turnout means that small extremist groups can get their way though.... look at the Kansas school board that banned talk of evolution, that was a small group of convinced people who voted while the majority "who didn't want to get involved for lack of knowledge" sat at home. There's no easy solution, other than everyone learning and voting about everything, and we just don't have the time for that. |
|
