Bush for President ... for a 2nd term? [Archive]

komninos

09-20-2003, 18:33

Just for the sake of statement I vote NO to any family member of Bush family for the next 50 years.

BUT … and there is always a BUT

Bush represents the new type of imperialists that evolved after the fall of the Soviets.
The problem with him is that the interests that he or his men represent in the administration control every move he makes. The war in Iraq has to do exactly with that. And here are the reasons:
a. The petrol companies needed the oilfields of Iraq to drag the oil price down while increasing their profit possibilities.
b. American hegemonists needed to place a leash over the Arabic world that has grown very cold towards the US.
c. Finely and most importantly control the oil way and in conjunction with Afghanistan control central Asia.

If any one believed that all this was to drive Sadam out they need a head check. US brought him to power and Dick Chany saved his hide when UN voted against him for the use of Chemical weapons in the 80

I live a long way from the US so I can't comment on this but the 9-11 was for him and his administration a gift from god (sorry if I offend any one with this no offence meant). It was used as an excuse to eliminate many civil writes in the US, start the his hegemonic wars on Afghanistan and Iraq that has still not paid and take the interest of the American people way from matters that really interested them. Like a sinking economy that took a heavy blow from wars he made and the destruction of the environment (Not voted for Kito, opened the Alaskan arctic to oil companies, ... )

Apart from all these he is fine. His strategy is totally in accordance to MTW. The problem is that we don't live in the middle ages any more
He has made the big construction companies rich, especially a company that he used to work for
He has cleared the entire stock of weapons in the US. Now this stock has to be replaced with new ones that cost more and more research is needed.

For me the best thing he did for American Hegemony is that used Blair to put a leash on the EU. He nearly broke up the EU and did not do it because in his hegemonic plans he needs it. The new stats that entered the EU needed the money and he bought their vote (Poland in Iraq???? and if Poland is OK Bulgaria????).

Finally who gives the right to the president of any nation to say to an other nation they need a new leader at least in a democratic environment

As a European and a unionist (if there is something like that) my grange is not with Bush ... The people that voted him will face the consequences of their vote. My grange is with Blair, Athnar, and Berlusokni. They deserted their side. That is unforgivable

Despot

09-20-2003, 20:08

Bush isn't fit to govern himself, let alone a nation.....any nation....

mandt

09-20-2003, 20:29

Quokka

09-20-2003, 21:52

Definitely not BUSH. I didn't vote for him the first time and won't this time.

I will close with what I consider George W's highpoint. (http://www.clanuak.com/whatever/)

amagi

09-21-2003, 00:52

Is this here because Bush is a known computer gamer and announced the end of the Iraq War after piloting a Viking jet during the flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln?

If Dean is the Democratic candidate Bush will win as easily as his father did and all Republicans win against northern liberal Democrats. Edwards is from North Carolina, though he is a senator rather than a governor. Was Clark fired by Clinton? I have a poor record predicting American elections: I thought Gore would be forced to choose a female vice-presidential candidate in 2000.

komninos

09-21-2003, 02:45

I like political conversations ... as long as they stay within civilised barriers....
I think we learned something here today ...
if you bring a baseball bat in fight you can be a winner ... if you bring it in a conversation ... you have already lost your case.

mandt well said ...

Quote[/b] ]It also would have meant sharing more of the costs.
You have missed some thing here ... worst thing you can do in foreign policy is to go out and claim that you can do it by your self, fail, and retune begging the rest of the world to help with the costs

Bevan of Hertfordshire, patriotism is not a bad thing but not a good thing either. It depends on the user. When you over do it then it will become very bad ... it brings you close to the fascists and that in a democratic environment is not bad but dangerous. See Democracy as a system can’t defend it self against any thing … that people have to do it for it … lets not forget Hitler was elected chancellor …

Quote[/b] ]Although don't think i'm anti-american, i have several friends that are americans and they are all jolly nice people

The media organisations in the US (and many other parts of the world now days ;( ) are controlled by the people (companies) that are behind the policies. So the image they have of the world is very different from that of the rest of the world.
It is not the people of US that are bad ... it is the policies there government follows. The problem for its people is that they get to feel the anti-Americanism as a consequence of these policies.

Quote[/b] ]If Dean is the Democratic candidate Bush will win as easily as his father did and all Republicans win against northern liberal Democrats
I have heard of Howard Dean. He looks like a good candidate ... he has proven to have the nerve to say no but I fear that at the end of the day he will have to follow the same path only on a much more civilised way.

bighairyman

09-21-2003, 04:05

well, i think BUSH was a pretty good president, protecting us from BInLAden free the ppl of afgnstan(sp) and gave democry to iraq, although they don't a ppericate it. but BUSH is a really horrible at economics. i think that's why so many people hate him

mandt

09-21-2003, 04:38

mandt well said ...
Quote
It also would have meant sharing more of the costs.

You have missed some thing here ... worst thing you can do in foreign policy is to go out and claim that you can do it by your self, fail, and retune begging the rest of the world to help with the costs
[QUOTE]

Thanks komninos-

And boy are you ever right there. It was foolish to go it alone, and would be just as foolish for America to try to put it all back together alone. But for the time being I would hope that you would all stand back an let us dig ourselves out of this mess. At least wait until after the next election. Forgiving and forgetting now will only insure that this guy gets reelected. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

rasoforos

09-21-2003, 07:17

Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Sep. 20 2003,11:58)]Jesus Christ on a Frappping Pogo Stick You Europeans blather endless about about America; land of the red neck idiot and then spew nonsense like this endlessly.

Just consider for a moment that GW Bush is the President of the United States and is elected by the people of the United States not the Prime Minster of some jerk water European dog patch appointed by what ever party happens to be in power in Parliament to resounding apathy to the disenfranchised public. This means GW Bush has to deal with the wants and desires of the people of the United States if he want to get re-elected. One you can comprehend this most basic of points everything he does makes sense with that logic.

The fact that GW Bush has to deal with is 3,000 Americans got killed 9/11 and being Americans, for better or worse, it is not our nature to roll over and die like a Frenchmen so we are all howling for blood. If anything Bush has been remarkably restrained from what the American public has been urging. I am no admirer of GW Bush by a long shot but he could have nuked every Arab capital in the world Sep. 12 and every American would have cheered him so I'll give him credit were credit is due.

No covert war would ever be acceptable to the American public as the only solution to this; our blood is on the ground and we want to see the other side bleed too. Heck even Ralph Nadier would have had to attack Afghanistian. So one can clearly the logic that drove the Iraq war from that; It is something clear and tangible being done again the enemy. That is why it is supported by these hordes of isolationist red necks and if it a bit simplistic to you-oh-so sophisticated Europeans, so what? It is not your' bottom that are on the line.

Just to show you what my gripe against GW Bush is I am furious he went into Iraq and not Pakistan. Yes Pakistan has nukes but so frapping what? I say kill all those raghead Pashtoons (sp?) for protecting Ben Ladin to show everyone you do not screw with us.

Oh course if you want to go on about how who'se causing this mess just remember all those 9/11 got their start in Germany in reaction to bigotry and racisms they experienced there and not the United States and even under Ashcroft the United States still doesn't fell the need to run extra-Constitutional courts to try Arabs like France.
i wasnt going to post until i saw this post...its obvious that if people shape political views like this then it is no wonder that politicians start wars for votes....

Quote[/b] ] Just consider for a moment that GW Bush is the President of the United States and is elected by the people of the United States not the Prime Minster of some jerk water European dog patch appointed by what ever party happens to be in power in Parliament to resounding apathy to the disenfranchised public. This means GW Bush has to deal with the wants and desires of the people of the United States if he want to get re-elected. One you can comprehend this most basic of points everything he does makes sense with that logic

Apart from the total ignorance about the fact that G.B jr was NOT elected by the majority thus not elected democratically ( i wonder where were you during the elections...) there is also total ignorance about how parliamental democracy works...does this need any kind of comments? It probably needs a trip back to the elementary school....
However i find his idea for the world amusing , it must be all very confusing inside his head...i wonder how he really thinks we elect our prime ministers in europe...or shall i say Yurop...
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Finally comments like ' of the United States not the Prime Minster of some jerk water European dog patch ' show that this person is not biased and discusses on subjected and clearly stated views only http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Quote[/b] ] The fact that GW Bush has to deal with is 3,000 Americans got killed 9/11 and being Americans, for better or worse, it is not our nature to roll over and die like a Frenchmen so we are all howling for blood. If anything Bush has been remarkably restrained from what the American public has been urging. I am no admirer of GW Bush by a long shot but he could have nuked every Arab capital in the world Sep. 12 and every American would have cheered him so I'll give him credit were credit is due.

Well...he obviously does not know the fact that there were not only American citizens at the WTC...why? .... and of course the 'If anything Bush has been remarkably restrained from what the American public has been urging. I am no admirer of GW Bush by a long shot but he could have nuked every Arab capital in the world Sep. 12 and every American would have cheered him so I'll give him credit were credit is due.' phrase is hillarious... we nuke everyone ...noone touches us cause we are the best ... and the righteous.... TOO MUCH VIDEOGAMES FOR YOU MY FRIEND....not to mention that the enthusiastic urge to kill a billion of innocent people because they are different reminds me strongly of Bin Laden...were you 2 going at the same school or something? If you share the exact same ideas about justice then what is your difference than those fundamentalists...you are one of them.

Quote[/b] ] No covert war would ever be acceptable to the American public as the only solution to this; our blood is on the ground and we want to see the other side bleed too. Heck even Ralph Nadier would have had to attack Afghanistian. So one can clearly the logic that drove the Iraq war from that; It is something clear and tangible being done again the enemy. That is why it is supported by these hordes of isolationist red necks and if it a bit simplistic to you-oh-so sophisticated Europeans, so what? It is not your' bottom that are on the line. [quote]

Our blood is on the ground so they should bleed too...but wait...we dont know who they are so lets kill some Iraqi women and children instead... Classical view of a loud minority in the states that led to the massacre in Iraq because 1)those people wanted to see people dead 2)their lack of education and lack of information led them to believe facts like 1)Shaddam is to blame for the WTC 2)Shaddam and Bin Laden are the same person , etc...
If you ask me , people so mislead shouldnt be allowed to vote...

[quote] Just to show you what my gripe against GW Bush is I am furious he went into Iraq and not Pakistan. Yes Pakistan has nukes but so frapping what? I say kill all those raghead Pashtoons (sp?) for protecting Ben Ladin to show everyone you do not screw with us.

You say kill all those 'raghead pashtoons' ??? I guess you are a member of many anti-racism organisations as well
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ....
...ben Ladin , bin ledon , bon lidan , barbara bush , shaddam hussein...his name sounds a bit like that but i cannot remember it properly...so ...lets nuke some Arabs
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

...burger culture to the max , offensive racist and xenophobic (oops too big a word for you Bob?) ....it makes you wonder how much worse this planet would be if those people were not 1% but 99%...

My personal post opinion now : I am not an american and i wouldnt vote for Bush because i think he failed in every aspect ( environmental , economical , NATO public image , human rights etc etc) . However i think that no matter the party in power the situation might not change... ,as long as the political climate correlates positivelly the polularity of the president with a war on the news , there will always be wars for people to see on TV...
...A change in the political climate ( like in vietnam) is needed if the states hope to see better days and remove the image of a world dictator. When one posseses great power , to be able to use it wiselly or not use it at all , is a geat virtue.

katar

09-21-2003, 08:51

Quote[/b] ]rasoforos

cool post man

logical and well thought out, and i couldn`t agree more. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

rory_20_uk

09-21-2003, 12:48

Yes, I agree a sad example of far too much imbreeding, coupled with a failing education system, and possibly some sexual dysfunction (I am sure that Freud would draw some parallels between plunging nukes into others and the phallus).
Do creatues such as that have the right to breed (assuming they are capable of such a complex act)?
Although there are very rarely right and wrong answers to most political situations in the world, I am afraid that yours doesn't deserve mention.
Well, enjoy you vote until some sort of check on the IQ of the voter is instigated...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

Wellington

09-21-2003, 13:02

Quote[/b] (rory_20_uk @ Sep. 21 2003,06:48)]I am sure that Freud would draw some parallels between plunging nukes into others and the phallus.
Not just Freud.

Peter Sellers drew exactly the same parallel in Dr Strangelove http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

magnatz

09-21-2003, 14:05

What about having a look at the other candidates first, then deciding ?

Fortebraccio

09-21-2003, 14:19

If I were american and belonged to an oil/construction/weapon industry lobby (or to the current Administration Staff, they are pretty much the same thing)
I'd vote for Bush anytime...as any politician in the known world, he is on the payroll.

Old Bald Guy

09-21-2003, 14:42

All this is well and good, except Americans in general know what you outside the States think of us, and for the most part you are right. Sadly. However, most Americans and fewer world citizens understand what has been happening in the US since the end of the war in VietNam.

I grew up in the Sixties and was very strongly anti-war, wore peace signs and listened to the Beatles. Most people become more conservative as they grow older--as you have more to lose--but I've somehow grown more liberal How did that happen??? Not because I'm contrary, tho I am, but because the ground has shifted to the right below my feet.

I was always pretty much a moderate, more liberal socially and conservative fiscally. Now, I'm called a Liberal, as if it were a dirty word. America has become more conservative over the past thirty years--much, much more. In 1964, Barry Goldwater was considered a right-wing nutjob and lost the election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. (LBJ was the very poster child for most people in this country, but they've forgotten, as he is now demonized as what we DON'T want, but more on that later.)

A generation later, before his death at a very old age, Goldwater apologized for what he'd wrought. He sounded more like me than those who idolized him. The pendulum has swung way far to the right and is due a correction. The swing to the right has given us George Bush, Jr.

Our President is a Conservative Christian and that has become a scary thing to many of us in the US and very much so as around the world. He's fanatical in his beliefs that God is on his side. He also has the view that everyone in the world wants to be like us, or SHOULD want to be like us. The United States is the most successful political and economic system since the Roman empire. There is no argument against this statement. Every country, every single one, has changed its form of government since the US Constitution was ratified. Our system is the oldest in the world today. Who knew, huh?

This success has been the cause of a lot of problems, both for us and against us. We are proud, and should be. People in the world envy us, and should. Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. The world doesn't understand us, and we don't understand them. We think everyone wants to be like us and don't understand why they wouldn't, and the rest of the world wants our success, but in their OWN country. The rest of the world also fears we'll roll over them as has everyone else has, even and esp Rome. They forget we've always given back every single country we've ever defeated in war. We didn't keep Japan or Germany. We didn't keep Cuba or the Phillipines. Actually, we spent our money defeating them, then REBUILDING them What's up with that??? We aren't going to keep Iraq, either. The world sees us as imperialists, which is one hundred percent wrong. It's not our nature. Good thing, too, because it's not too smart.

So the world doesn't understand us, and we don't understand ourselves, either. There is only a core of 25 percent of the voters in this country who believe as W believes. That's it, 25%. The other 75% are far less conservative to downright liberal blathering idiots, who number in the miniscule, btw, regardless of how the conservatives want to paint us. You know, if you don't believe as we believe, you are a Liberal with the big, bad captial L.

So, 70% would vote against W, if there was someone running against him they believe would be better, discounting the 5 percent who are so far left they wouldn't vote for anyone who isn't a Utopian. This vast majority of voters are what was once called the Silent Majority, by those who are now in control of the country. Funny, the Silent Majority was once more conservative than those in government; now they are more liberal. The line has shifted a long way. The pendulum has really swung too far, as it may have swung too far after Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson's time passed into history. A correction came then and will come again.

W is going to win, again, unless Wesley Clark really is as good as I think he is. W will win because the Republicans are controlled by the hard-right conservatives and they have the MONEY. He will win because Americans, like every human, are more easily swayed by fear and hate, because people everywhere prefer the devil they know versus the devil they don't. Incumbents in every office are damn near impossible to defeat. It's people and it's the system.

My prediction, which obviously I do NOT want to come true: W will win re-election. The country will go to Hell, and big time. People will wonder if we will EVER recover. We'll have a time which is very, very hard. Try as they might to blame everyone but themselves, the Republicans will be seen for what they are, the party of the selfish, the rich, the mean, and the wrong. They will be known for a generation or more as the party that almost destroyed the country. They will be out of power and hated, blamed for everything wrong that has happened. The correction will come, the pendulum will swing back toward the center, and the best times for the country and the world will lie ahead. It will be bad, for a time, but the best is yet to come.

The world is better off with the US in it, as the US could be. We are the light in the world, even if you in the world think it's a flashing red light. If the US falls, the world could easily experience a time much like the time after the fall of Rome. They called it the Dark Ages, I think.

Sorry to go on so long, but I'm an old, bald guy who has seen a lot in 48 years and can't help but blabber on about the old days. But, it's up to you young guys in the world, who aren't so old and tired you still want to talk about politics, to make a difference. Do it from a positive attitude. That's really what's missing in the world, today.

Best wishes.

OBG

Bevan of Hertfordshire

09-21-2003, 15:10

To be honest i don't envy the yanks one bit.

There will only be a dark ages in america. An political collapse is what you need as a wake up call.

Americans do NOT own the world therefore do NOT dictate our views, beliefs and strategies.

My Grandma, once told me that the USA is like a teenager, it is. It whinges when it doesn't get its own way and tells everyone else what to do regardless of its own problem. Europe and Asia have been around for Centuries and more. Maybe you should remember the rest of the world is older and wiser so why don't you try to listen to us rather than being hot headed and impetuos.

Well thanks anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

mandt

09-21-2003, 15:13

Lemme kiss that bald head http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

I too am a Democrat (Jeez, this is beginning to sound like an AA meeting http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif )

Though I am not so liberal. On most things I am, I suppose. But that doesn't mean I couldn't get behind a Republican/Conservative candidate who I thought was a good man or woman.

Four years ago, I supported John McCain. He's Republican, and he's conservative. But he's bright, forthright, outspoken, and at least seemingly honest. I felt Gore was simply too liberal.

My point is that Bush is bad news -- not because he is Republican, or because he is Conservative. Rather because his personal agenda is not the best agenda for this country. He has already demonstrated a desire to pursue this agenda at the expense of the American people (not to mention the expense of a lot of other people too).

To do this, he has embraced deception and misrepresentation. Not that other presidents haven't also done so, but he is entirely unsubtle about this, whether because he and his advisors are unclever, or arrogant, who can say.

If the Dems are to win the next presidential election, they will have to produce a candidate that is acceptible to Republican moderates -- those who are willing to jump ship, for a good man.

We're just going to have to wait a few months to see if the Dems have a prayer of doing this.

mandt

09-21-2003, 15:32

Quote[/b] (Bevan of Hertfordshire @ Sep. 21 2003,09:10)]To be honest i don't envy the yanks one bit.

There will only be a dark ages in america. An political collapse is what you need as a wake up call.

Americans do NOT own the world therefore do NOT dictate our views, beliefs and strategies.

My Grandma, once told me that the USA is like a teenager, it is. It whinges when it doesn't get its own way and tells everyone else what to do regardless of its own problem. Europe and Asia have been around for Centuries and more. Maybe you should remember the rest of the world is older and wiser so why don't you try to listen to us rather than being hot headed and impetuos.

Well thanks anyway. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Careful there amigo-

Your comments sound suspiciously arrogant. To paraphrase, You are big, foolish and immature. We are older and wiser, therefore you should listen to us. i.e. We are better than you.

I'm sorry. Older you may be, but wiser, you are not. (Didn't Yoda say that?) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

My point is that if you look at the world since 1776, our friends in Europe have done more than their share of whacky, foolish, and destructive things. I might argue that they were more so than anything America did during the same period.

Now, embracers of your Grandma's philosophy might find the philosophy of my Grandfather appropriate, Do as I say, not as I do.

No offence intended here. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Lazul

09-21-2003, 16:20

Oh My God

did someone say that the rest of the world whants to be like the US? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

With all my heart, as an Radical Socialist, i hate the system that rules the world: Kapitalism, and as US is the main kapitalist country i dont not like the country.
I have nothing against the american ppl but i Really have something againts the american regim and the way the act against the world.

mandt

09-21-2003, 19:37

Quote[/b] ]Oh My God

did someone say that the rest of the world whants to be like the US?

Oh My God

Who said that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

hellenes

09-21-2003, 19:47

Kapitalism = Socialism/Communism both are the sides of the same coin (close relation of Mardoheus Marx(called himself Carl) with rochild family) the illusion of the cold war has collapsed 12 years now the fact that the usa and ussr were never enemies was more obvius more than ever after the collapse of ussr.They both have one father the GLOBALISM target of wich is the extermination of ant cultural identity or tradition through the multiculturalism wich will lead to a shapeless mass of population withou identity or unity (so everyone will spy on each other and the rulers will control easily) DIVIDE AND RULE.
But the most comic thing is that from one side the controlled media and culture praise the democracy as way of government and from the other are pushing the population to egoistic way of life and emphasise on the person and not on the community (DIVIDE AND RULE) and thus are educating the citizen to think only of himself many times in the cost of the prosperity of the community.
The main fear of any ruler is the unity AND homogeneity of the society. The more divided and multicultural/multiracial is the society the easier is to controll it in case of uprising by the siple intererence of racistic elements wich will lead to the division of the uprising and to the easier is its suppression.
So IMHO the only way that the people can avoid being manipulated is if they understand the preservation of mutual cultural and/or racial identity and throuh respect and understanding resist to the ongoing prosedure of imperialostic globalisation of any kind communistic or kapitalistic.

BDC

09-21-2003, 19:49

Didn't someone (important?) say that whilst Americans treated the Vietnamese terribly in Vietnam, their children treat the Iraqis much much worse? Or something.

Relating in to the 'America becoming more conservative' issue?

|OCS|Virus

09-21-2003, 19:55

hey I think america ranks up w\ the best of em' we just got a crumy president. I wish gore would run agian personaly. Now there was a man fit to be president my whole family voted for him. But what is wrong w\ america? were doing pretty good for a country that is only ~200 years old thank you very much although the rest of the world is a BIG overstatement every country wants to do what they do normaly of course they dont want to be exactly like us. But there are a few countries im sure wouldnt mind to much if the democracy part was cut out so they could have there own government. heck we give so much aid to a lot of countries already if they dont like us one bit then why dont they say go away you jerks we dont like you? but I think a lot of countries would like to have a good chunk of what america is. heck we have some of the richest gold, silver, and copper mines in the world. we have good farm lands in great abundance. we have a lot of high tech items and programs. What is so bad about america outside of government?

Kraxis

09-21-2003, 20:25

It is funny to think I was a very Ameri-friendly person until... hmmm... when was it. A few months after GWB came to power. I even liked Reagan a lot, Bush Senior too...

Now I'm not so happy anymore. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

I'm rightwing here in Denmark, but I guess I would be called a Socialist in the US for simply living in a country as Denmark (with the social benefits and all that).

Well, hellenes, do not label Socialism and Communism as basically the same. It is not
While both centers around the idea of equality, Socialism is based on the population while Communism is based on a small elite. In Communism the population doesn't know what is good for itself, while in Socialism the rulers would bend for the population's will.

To say it short: Communism is totalitarian while Socialism is democratic.

And that brings out a point which this little story brings out nicely Newspeak today (http://www.rense.com/general34/orwell.htm), just scroll down to when it mentiones Communism and read on until you feel some sense has hit you. In fact read it all (but the last third or so seems to go too far).

Wellington

09-21-2003, 22:37

Quote[/b] (|OCS|Virus @ Sep. 21 2003,13:55)]heck we give so much aid to a lot of countries already if they dont like us one bit then why dont they say go away you jerks we dont like you?
I think you would be very unpleasently surprised if you were aware of just how little foriegn aid the USA provides for developing countries, relative to other western democracies.

6 or 8 months ago in the Tavern someone (Martyr?, Rasaforus? Red Peasent? ...) provided a link to a site that itemised just how much foreign aid had been provided over the last 20 years or so by such western democracies.

On average, if I remember correctly, the USA provided approximately 15% of the average amount other European countries provided - as a financial total of their GNP.

Relatively speaking, considering the economic wealth ansd the GNP of the USA, the USA total really amounted to around 3-4% (in proportionate real terms) of the total many European countries contributed.

Now that's not to knock the USA, but such sweeping statements such as yours belie the true scenario.

(can anyone assist with web-sites that collate such figures - I can't find the one in question)

Welly

Lazul

09-22-2003, 00:12

just wanted to say that im getting tired of ppl calling me a communist just cus im a socialst and dont like kapitalsim much...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

mandt

09-22-2003, 02:24

Quote[/b] (BDC @ Sep. 21 2003,13:49)]Didn't someone (important?) say that whilst Americans treated the Vietnamese terribly in Vietnam, their children treat the Iraqis much much worse? Or something.

Relating in to the 'America becoming more conservative' issue?
Is this just an anti-American cheap-shot sound-bite, or do you have some relevant data to support what you 've said here.

hellenes

09-22-2003, 02:32

Whos american? What is an American? To know what is being anti-American you have to find first who is American? Who represents America the gov? the people? if the gov then the people are avoiding the responcibility for their votes...if the people then the gov doesnt make any decisions...
...unanswered eternal questions...

PS i would be grateful if someone would provided me with some answeres... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

mandt

09-22-2003, 02:40

Quote[/b] ]Relatively speaking, considering the economic wealth ansd the GNP of the USA, the USA total really amounted to around 3-4% (in proportionate real terms) of the total many European countries contributed.

Now that's not to knock the USA, but such sweeping statements such as yours belie the true scenario.

(can anyone assist with web-sites that collate such figures - I can't find the one in question)

I can't link to the website, offhand, but 3-4% sounds about right. Still, this is an astronomical amount of money, especially when you consider that California alone has something like the fifth biggest economy in the world. And you are right, statements like Virus', and for that matter statistics like this do not tell the whole story.

Just knowing the GNP tells us next to nothing about how much it costs to run a country. America, as a nation makes and spends gobs of money, but average Americans are nowhere near the richest people per capita. In fact, I think we are pretty far down the list, with a number of Western European and prosperous Asian countries ahead of us.

Our large size, and cultural diversity, as well as an unrestrained capitalist economy has resulted in an enormous disparity between the richest and the poorest in this country.

People tend to look at America, and see Bill Gates or Exxon. But most Americans are happy just to pay their bills. And that's fine. (Well, the Bill Gates/Exxon thing isn't fine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif )

But the only real way to judge a nation's contribution would be to compare what percentage of an individual's surplus income is being contributed. Then I'd bet you'd find that American working stiffs do pretty well.

Sigurd

09-22-2003, 05:29

Someone asked for some links:

I don’t want to pour gasoline on the coals, but I find the whole issue with US and its economy a little...
You could possibly tear these sources to shreds, but they are still thought provoking.

UN: Official Development Assistance (ODA) (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=p#oda)
The Vulnerable Giant (http://www.letstalksense.com/articles/partridge120203.htm)
US's foreign debt (http://www.jubileeplus.org/media/usa190402.htm)

Aurelian

09-22-2003, 05:58

Hello Everyone,

First, as an American, I'd like to apologize to everyone else in the world for the whole Bush thing. Please remember that the majority of Americans did not actually vote for our current president. He was essentially appointed by his brother (the Governor of Florida), Katherine Harris (his Florida campaign manager and Florida's Secretary of State), and the Supreme Court (when they stopped the Florida recount). Just imagine how wonderful that felt as a non-Republican member of the voting public.

However, it must be admitted that a hell of a lot of people did vote for him in 2000. His poll numbers are still ridiculously high for an administration that is currently mired in high unemployment and guerilla warfare in a foreign land. We have plenty of die-hard conservatives in this country who actually enjoy the things he does, the way he speaks, the liberties he takes with the Constitution, etc.

Why is that?

Well, one reason is certainly ignorance. A recent poll showed that 70% of Americans couldn't name any of the candidates in the Democratic primaries. A huge number of Americans are willfully ignorant of political matters. They don't read newspapers or watch the evening news (for what that's worth). Therefore they only have the fuzziest notion of how they are actually being governed. The political opinions of many American's boil down to: America good. President good. Evil-doers bad. One of the greatest divides in America is between those who stay informed and those who don't. This administration has been very good at saying one thing, doing another, and betting that most of the public won't be able to figure it out.

Secondly, there is plenty of hard core propaganda that passes for infotainment in this country. Many Americans who think they are getting an accurate picture of the world are actually being propagandized by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly (Fox News), Ann Coulter, or others. This brand of right-wing infotainment is blatantly partisan, heavily supported by the corporate sector, and has no counterpart on the left.

Thirdly, we have a huge sector of the American public that craves simple answers, certainties, and the reinforcement of their basic belief systems. Unlike Europe, we have countless millions of conservative Christians who feel that their belief systems are threatened by the separation of church and state, evolution, women's rights, abortion, the homosexual agenda, etc. This constituency is the real power base of the Bush administration and the Republican party in general. They are well organized and they vote.

Fourth, Bush is the darling of the corporations that actually do most of the governing in our society. Money has been pouring into Bush's campaign coffers from corporate donors who have been thrilled by the massive tax cuts, deregulation, the rollback of environmental laws, tort reform, the gutting of employment protections, and the lucrative military contracts. As long as corporations control the media and finance political campaigns we can expect that the president will have plenty of defenders on the airwaves and plenty of money in his bank account.

However, it isn't all bad. There are plenty of Americans who do understand the threat that the Bush administration represents and are trying to organize and challenge the Bushies in the next election. Will we be successful? Who knows. At least the Bushites are making it possible through sheer incompetence.

Tony

09-22-2003, 08:48

My own thoughts on this are a little complex...

I am an Australian and have had the opportunity to live and work in Europe and the USA recently (I was in Europe for 2 years and the USA for 3 years). I found the individual Americans I met to be, in general, wonderful people. I made many friends and keep in touch with a number of them. I enjoyed my time in the USA and feel fortunate to have had the time there.

Having said that, I was also very glad to leave. There is a strong streak of conservatism in the USA, most apparent when you get outside the big cities like New York, Chicago, San Fran and LA. It is hard to pin down, but this conservatism is probably linked to a much more widespread religious feeling in the USA. In Australia and Europe it is unusual to find a colleague who regularly goes to church or who would describe themselves as religous. In the USA it was very common. This is reflected in the national character and national agenda (good and bad).

The elected politicians get into office by winning elections - it is the people that vote for them - dubya didn't get into office by accident (but you could argue that the Supreme Court had a lot to do with it). People voted for him. Remember that dubya has enjoyed huge domestic popularity until very recently - the situation in Iraq and lack of a real economic recovery are starting to impact the polls.

Anyway, my point is that there is a much deeper level of conservatism in the USA. You see this in many ways, some examples:

1) Abortion - this is still a big political football in the USA. In Oz and most of Europe this was sorted out in the 60s and 70s and is no longer an issue except to a fanatical fringe. In the USA that fanatical element is not a fringe, but a powerful force in right wing politics. Dubya cannot ignore these people.

2) Death penalty - there is a strong undercurrent of religious zeal in the pro death penalty view. Almost puritan old testament in principle sometimes.

When you judge the actions of the USA please remember that their view of the world and value system is often quite different to your own.

My humble 2 cents on the topic.

Wellington

09-22-2003, 10:08

Quote[/b] (Tony @ Sep. 22 2003,02:48)]1) Abortion - this is still a big political football in the USA. In Oz and most of Europe this was sorted out in the 60s and 70s and is no longer an issue except to a fanatical fringe. In the USA that fanatical element is not a fringe, but a powerful force in right wing politics. Dubya cannot ignore these people.
I though Abortion was now legal in the USA, or does iot depend on the actual State?

Just curious.

komninos

09-22-2003, 10:29

Men ... lots have been said since I last posted here ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Aurelian ... I live half way across the Earth ... but our views on what is happening to the US are so close ... I must be reading a lot of the politics coloms http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ... I am a Greek after all politics is like Oxygen to me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
In the 60's and 70's you had most probably the best news reporting system ... I think now you must have one of the most controlled one ... No US administration can afford the 60's and 70's news system where the blunders were splattered on TV day in day out. Most of Europe now has something of that system. I sure do hope that liberal wins or this world will be one s... place to live in. (dream on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ) Clinton was as liberal as it gets to be the President and to the Europeans looked like a Republican.

To the rest of the Europeans ... for long the US was our secret punching bag now it is not a secret any more ... but hold your horses ... please. Apart from a handful the rest of our American friends here have been quite nice and they have a difficulty understanding why everyone takes a swing at them so take it slow. And for some hot heads lets not forget that the French did there best so you Americans could get free.

Old Bold Guy, ... Yes and No ...
Yes the US constitution is the oldest ... and Yes the US has helped a lot in the past and Yes European countries have not only misbehaved but have become the example of what not to do. BUT ...
Things are not THAT nice ... US has managed to build a system of imperialism that can't be seen. US based companies have become the ruling class in the US and in the world. They also dictate US foreign policy ... this is even worse.
Europeans would hate to become like the US ... sorry but we have become as much US as we can possibly be and I will commit Sepuku if we try to become even more. I like the European system ... it is not the best but it works and at least it dose not deprive its people some basic human writes like the health system Also Americans were foreigners in a foreign land ... that was the bonding they needed to become a nation In Europe a plane culture is seen as the worst thing to do and it is. A one language one culture system can't exist in Europe we need a lot of time to develop a new identity with out loosing our existing one. We are Greek, British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese ... etc but first Europeans this will take some time to settle in.
US has also done some really bad things in the past ... has supported or staged certain dictatorships ... and it still does some of that work. To name a few Chilly, Argentina, Iraq, ... Greece http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif ... should I go on?
US also have a habit of interfering in other nations (according to its interests) like Panama, San Salvador, Nicaragua, and not interfering when there is no profit to be made ... Cyprus. By the way for Nicaragua or San Salvador there was a rulling of the UN condemning the US but was stopped (vetoed) by the US in the security council.
So it is not good to portrait the US as the force of Good but not also as a force of Evil. It is a super power ... and should behave like one ... yes ... but that does not mean that it should ignore the rest of us ...

I also hate your prediction ... The reason is that GWB junior ... is depleting the US economy at a point that it was ready to recover ... The Euro is strong but not strong enough to hold the world economy in case the USD take a tumble. Also Germany needs the US in order to bring its economy on the profit side once more ... a re-election of GWB will make things really, really, really bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

Lazul

09-22-2003, 10:59

well Komninos, I think I can remain silent now... you said it all... well spoken. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

katar

09-22-2003, 11:21

Quote[/b] ]well Komninos, I think I can remain silent now... you said it all... well spoken.

very true. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

lanky316

09-22-2003, 12:28

Quote[/b] (Mega Dux Bob @ Sep. 20 2003,11:58)]
Quote[/b] (Isopostolos @ Sep. 20 2003,06:12)]Bush is a militaristic, nationalist and unilateran idiot who is a danger to the world. His war against terrorism is totally in the wrong time frame. Instead of starting a covert and unseen war which would be a lot cheaper and safer for the sake of international security, he makes war against an enemy who cannot be seen with a regular war army which is tottaly disaproriate. Ofcourse he knows this, so he just uses the excuse that a certain country is harboring terrorists and attacks that certain country which has been bugging the US for some time. In doing so, many people have lost their lives, many proporties have been lost and the US is generally despised by the other western countries who feel that their intrests and opinions were ignored.

So no, I wouldn't vote for him, even if i could.
Jesus Christ on a Frappping Pogo Stick You Europeans blather endless about about America; land of the red neck idiot and then spew nonsense like this endlessly.

Just consider for a moment that GW Bush is the President of the United States and is elected by the people of the United States not the Prime Minster of some jerk water European dog patch appointed by what ever party happens to be in power in Parliament to resounding apathy to the disenfranchised public. This means GW Bush has to deal with the wants and desires of the people of the United States if he want to get re-elected. One you can comprehend this most basic of points everything he does makes sense with that logic.

The fact that GW Bush has to deal with is 3,000 Americans got killed 9/11 and being Americans, for better or worse, it is not our nature to roll over and die like a Frenchmen so we are all howling for blood. If anything Bush has been remarkably restrained from what the American public has been urging. I am no admirer of GW Bush by a long shot but he could have nuked every Arab capital in the world Sep. 12 and every American would have cheered him so I'll give him credit were credit is due.

No covert war would ever be acceptable to the American public as the only solution to this; our blood is on the ground and we want to see the other side bleed too. Heck even Ralph Nadier would have had to attack Afghanistian. So one can clearly the logic that drove the Iraq war from that; It is something clear and tangible being done again the enemy. That is why it is supported by these hordes of isolationist red necks and if it a bit simplistic to you-oh-so sophisticated Europeans, so what? It is not your' bottom that are on the line.

Just to show you what my gripe against GW Bush is I am furious he went into Iraq and not Pakistan. Yes Pakistan has nukes but so frapping what? I say kill all those raghead Pashtoons (sp?) for protecting Ben Ladin to show everyone you do not screw with us.

Oh course if you want to go on about how who'se causing this mess just remember all those 9/11 got their start in Germany in reaction to bigotry and racisms they experienced there and not the United States and even under Ashcroft the United States still doesn't fell the need to run extra-Constitutional courts to try Arabs like France.
I find this whole post hugely offensive. It is the sort of thing that gives Americans a bad impression to the rest of the world.

You have made wild allegations here with no prior knowledge and like most people lots of it have been covered I feel it a shame that this point wasn't addressed more properly.

Quote[/b] ]Americans, for better or worse, it is not our nature to roll over and die like a Frenchmen so we are all howling for blood.

I would love to know where this stereotype came from, rude, smelly thats all fine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif but cowards they are not. I'm pretty sure this all started after how they were beaten in the second world war?

Lets look at the facts shall we? We're talking about a country that shares it's border with, at the time perhaps one of the strongest military forces the world has seen. If the US or almost any other nation were in that position I can safely say that exactly the same thing would've happened. Yes De Gaulle ran away and never saw it through but the people had no chance.

Even though they were out of the war and basically under the control of the Germans they had La Resistance. Now I'm not expecting US schools to cover this (as I'm not sure many do here in the UK) but these people, who were mainly civilians, organised skilled raids abd made sure that the Germans were kept on there toes so as to avoid an attack on Britain. Which would've meant you guys would not have saved us from speaking German as is a common arguement by many Americans I see on forums like this.

La Resistance are the real heroes of WW2 risking their lives knowing full well if anyone knew who they were the gestapo would've had them killed. Hardly rolling over and dieing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

That said during WW2 and historically the french have never been known to just give up and have perhaps one of the proudest military heritages up there with the likes of Rome and Greece.

I'm glad to see that a great deal of posters on this board can have a sensible debate of this nature without too many people not looking down at the middle.

As for the actual question I said No, I will not vote for GWB. From where I sit he is up there with Ethelred the Unready in the leadership stakes, first of all he was unable to stop 11/9 happening, but that in itself is nothing to hate him for it was just poor communication with the FBI and various other sources.

It is what happened afterwards that has caused problems, now,not only has he managed to get the US in there worst financial state since daddy was in charge (from what I read somewhere, can't remember source unfortunately http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif ) but he has got too headstrong and is probably putting other nations such as the UK in danger of another huge attack like this.

Now our learnéd friend here said they HAD to go into Afghanistan and although I disagree with the nature it was done I suppose it may be the thing he is right with. It was heard that OBL was there so you go in and get him. Ideally I'd use the SAS (or American equivelent) and go in the subtle way, we were led to believe they knew roughly wherte he was so you go in that way subtley and with out the We will bomb Afghanistan approach the leaders used.

As for that yeah, ok, it was the sort of thing you could understand then with Iraq he has made his fortunes change the US from having the mosty sympathy of any nation in the world to perhaps the most hated. He went against the UN, the last nation of which to do this had WW2 declared on them, obviously that was the League of Nations or whatever it was called (no encyclopedia so I can't remember exactly what it was).

The Iraq war was a mess from the moment the US officials said the Iraqis had WMD. Yeah the UN thought ok maybe they have so sent in inspectors who were called out because GWB was cracking under pressure and just went in.

His decisions that have really mattered have all caused trouble and he's not even an average leader he's been on the global scale very poor. Of course as a Brit I'm not aware of the candidates really so in reality will not vote but still no vote for George.

Old Bald Guy

09-22-2003, 12:36

I figured that would be misread. I said the rest of the world would like our success in their OWN country. You have to admit the US has been a pretty successful experiment, since most of the successful countries in the world are some form of our democracy. People want freedom, freedom of speech, religion and election. They want a successful economy. They want what Americans enjoy, but on their own terms. This is right, and what most Americans want for the rest of the world. We just have a way of voicing this which is often misunderstood.

Socialism? HAHAHAHAHA, now there is a system which has shown just how BAD humans can be It didn't work here, either. Socialism is what the Republicans hold over our Democratic heads. Thanks a lot.

komninos

09-22-2003, 14:00

Boy I love this ...

We the modding community lot are strange but very creative minds ... a bit BSDM ... but other wise very nice people that by games just to alter them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif Welly not only you have some of the best tools but I like your threads ...

What this has to do with this thread ... nothing ... just to spray some MTW relevant stuff ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Now on with the show ...
Old Bald Guy, ... you gave me the perfect oportunity totake a swing at you ... thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Now some political and Amerincan hystory so feel free to correct me in some details ...
First Socialisom is NOT Communisom and Communisom as it was idealised was not the monstrocity we show in the former Socialist countries ...
1. Communisome was inspired as a more fair distribution of welth ... in an ideal environment bit like the Politia city of Plato. But humans are not ideal beings so though it distributs the welth it does not take any interest on giving people something more for extra production (forgot the exact word)
2. What they had in communist countries was was bacame of comunisom when it was filtered through the first years of the Soviet Union, WW2 and the cold war. A blatant dictatorship known as Stalinisom.
3. Socialisom is the middile way ... in US this are the Communists or characterised as shuch It was the answer to the question who can I be a kapitalist but not overdoing it so my people can prosper and have there basic human writes guarantied. These are Food, Health, Shelter and Education.
I am a socialist ... and I wish we had the Sweedish system ... Check people like Olaf Palme to see what they were and see what the Socialisom was and is.
As far as its roots ... well I would check Kensey, Rusvelt and the new deal policy that took the US out of the 1929 crisies ... that was the American version ... now my friend ... was the famed New deal just a flop?

As far as why US is so successful ... appart from its system two world wars happend far from its land so in 1918 and 1945 its infrastructure was intact Is that a good reason ... one thing I liked about the USSR was that in 1945 was nothing but rubles ... in 1950 was one-to-one with the US

Aurelian

09-22-2003, 14:34

Hello again,

Just a few responses:

Komninos... I agree with you about our obviously having very close points of view. I read a couple of your columns and thought exactly the same thing.

Mainstream news in the U.S. is pretty poor these days. The corporate newsrooms have all had their budgets slashed, so they don't do much investigative reporting. Instead, they rely heavily on official government sources for stories. The current administration has also shut down dissent by threatening to cut off access to news organizations that it doesn't like. Our nation's longest serving reporter on the presidential beat (Helen Thomas), who has covered seven presidents and has traditionally asked the first question at press briefings for years, was banished to the back of the room as punishment for asking tough questions. Even our senior network news anchor (Dan Rather) told BBC interviewers that he felt pressured to toe the line or face necklacing by the American people for a lack of patriotism.

Clinton was a funny phenomenon. He was very conservative by European standards. He pushed NAFTA through, cut welfare benefits, balanced the budget, and declared that the era of big government is over. Yet the Republicans portrayed him as a pot smoking, draft dodging, decadent sixties hippy. They were trying to undermine his presidency from day one.

Wellington: About abortion. Abortions are legal throughout the U.S. This came about not through legislation, but through a Supreme Court decision (Roe vs. Wade). However, they are getting increasingly hard to get in this country. Christian pro-life protestors stand outside abortion clinics in this country screaming at women who go inside for procedures. Doctors are threatened, have their clinics bombed, and are often murdered. As a result, fewer places are willing to practice abortions, and in some locations they are impossible to get. The pro-lifer's great dream is to get another conservative or two on the Supreme Court and overthrow Roe vs. Wade. If that happens, abortion rights will probably be different from state to state.

Lanky: A lot of people in the U.S. have fun laughing at supposed French cowardice. It's pretty shameful. Most Americans think that our Revolutionary War consisted of clever Americans hiding behind fences shooting silly Englishmen who didn't know enough to break formation and look for cover. They don't understand that most Revolutionary War battles ended with British redcoats bayonetting fleeing colonials. The U.S. army got its act together; but with a lot of French arms, money, ships and troops. Americans seemed to understand this debt in WWI (Lafayette, we are here), but today all the emphasis is on U.S. help in WWII and afterwards.

Finally, Old Bald Guy, I agree with most of the things you said in your post. But, I think the Europeans have a different concept in mind when they are talking about Socialism. They are thinking of public ownership, social safety nets, etc. In the U.S., when we hear socialism we are conditioned to think of Stalinist dictatorships. I don't think anyone wants to live in North Korea, but Sweden during the seventies wouldn't be so bad. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Nowake

09-22-2003, 14:46

does it matter? They are americans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif not that I'm against them or anything.

mandt

09-22-2003, 16:17

Aurelian-

Nice post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Do you listen to NPR (National Public Radio)? Uninformed conservatives will ridicule you if you do, but even informed conservatives admit that NPR is one of the best and most reliable news sources in the country, despite it's slight lean to the left.

If you don't already, you might want to check it out. Early evening it even provides the BBC. And on Sundays, Car Talk, IMHO one of the best radio talk shows ever. How great is that? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Devastatin Dave

09-22-2003, 16:54

Wow, isn't this nice. And people wonder why some Americans don't like people from other countries. All you have to do is read some posts on the Org...

God Bless America
God Bless George Bush

And thank God I'm American

Aurelian

09-22-2003, 17:09

Hi Mandt,

Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

I do listen to NPR. We've got a terrible music station selection in DC, but we're very well served for news and talk. We've got NPR, CSPAN Radio, a Pacifica station, and O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Liddy. We're lucky.

NPR is quite good. Have you seen Bill Moyer's NOW program on PBS? That's probably the best public affairs show on TV. A lot of NPR's commentators are on the program. Unfortunately, the show is usually on Friday evenings, and it doesn't get a lot of press.

For those non-U.S. residents, NPR is National Public Radio and PBS is the Public Broadcasting Service. They were both started in the late 1960's. They are more or less non-commercial and rely on government subsidies and seasonal pledge breaks where they beg their listeners to send them money. Mandt is right about conservative attitudes towards the public broadcasting networks. They are a great source of information, and they do carry a lot of conservative programming (like William F. Buckley). However, some conservatives don't believe in the concept of publicly-funded media, particularly since you occasionally see left-oriented documentaries on gay issues or disturbing historical subjects. So, NPR and PBS do now accept some corporate sponsorship of their programs (since some of their funding has been cut).

We also get all of our British programming on NPR and PBS.

Oh, and Mandt... I listen to Car Talk too. Who would think a question and answer show about cars would be so funny?

Wellington

09-22-2003, 17:46

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Sep. 22 2003,10:54)]And thank God I'm American
I'm sure that's a sentiment that many of us feel http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

BDC

09-22-2003, 18:02

Aljazeera gives good news (although most of it is identical to the stuff from the BBC http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ). Bit biased in a few areas obviously. If you read it and the BBC reports you get a pretty good picture of what's actually going on.

Fortebraccio

09-22-2003, 18:27

I wonder why some people perceive criticisms directed to their government as insults to themselves and their nation.
Similarly, I laugh at people judging a whole country by the deeds of its executive power. Given these premises, it is perfectly useless to start a political debate...unless we want to waste time on a mutual display of stupidity.

Wellington

09-22-2003, 18:58

Quote[/b] (Fortebraccio @ Sep. 22 2003,12:27)]Given these premises, it is perfectly useless to start a political debate...unless we want to waste time on a mutual display of stupidity.
Considering Italian politics ...

.. I can certainly see your point http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Fortebraccio

09-22-2003, 22:09

Italian Politics? What are you talking about? I never heard of anything remotely approaching the concept of politics here in Italy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Old Bald Guy

09-23-2003, 00:28

Who wouldn't want to be in Sweden in the 70's? Uh, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and all the other Swedish tennis players who moved residence to Monte Carlo to prevent losing 98% of their income to confiscatory taxes? While our system is badly broken with 95% of the wealth controlled by only 2% of the population--worse even than during feudal European times, capitalism is still far better than socialism, when the government allows it.

Remember, tho, Sweden is a homogeneous society while the US is very much a blended society. The kind of policies that can work in societies without significant minority populations like Sweden and Japan will not work at all in our melting pot. We cannot agree to that degree.

That said, socialism is great...on paper. It doesn't work so well when humans are put into the mix because there will always be those with ambition to achieve more than some who just want to get by, if that. I believe in a safety net, but not to the point of attempting to repeal the laws of Darwin. We are animals, after all, despite 10,000 years of socialization which has taught us to hide what is coded inside us. (Ok, some of us attempt to hide it.) Socialism here was a failure when it came to welfare, which allowed three generations of poor people to remain in hopelessness. I've been homeless, and trust me, once you get into the cycle of poverty, it's a bitch to get out of it. It doesn't take much to lose your home.

It's a myth that the New Deal pulled the US out of the Great Depression. The New Deal saved millions from starvation and deprivation that boggles the mind, but it didn't pull us out. More credit goes to World War II for that, sad to say. We were the only industrial country left intact in the whole world, and it did us pretty well. Last year, the US imported 1 TRILLION dollars of goods. We aren't doing so hot, now. My offices have gone from 750 people last year to a little over 400. The rest of the jobs are now in Manila, Canada and India. We're in pretty tough times now, and it won't be socialism that pulls us out, but good old fashion hard work, which many simply do not want to do.

Socialism takes out the element of risk, and that's arguably the most important part of the success of the human race. Why risk failure if you won't benefit from overcoming it? It simply does NOT work, and never will. Whatever you choose to call it, socialism or communism--and btw, sportsfans, the very first was the Mayflower Compact which the Pilgrims formed before landing on Plymouth Rock--was the dismal failure of the 20th Century. It did work for the Pilgrims, for awhile when they were a small and very dependent on each other for survival, but blew up rather quickly when the colony grew larger. And a national scale, forget about it. I believe in a progressive tax rate, because those who earn the most benefit the most from society and should give back to the society from which so much has been taken, and we owe each and every person a chance to succeed and that only comes from education, but not to the point where there is no point in taking a risk. When the reward is far less than the risk, no one takes the risk.

Finally, I doubt I'd be showing stupidity by discussing politics, as I minored in Political Science--somewhat after the Pilgrims--and most people who know me think I'm a pretty smart guy. Furthermore, the reluctance to discuss politics is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Our Founding Fathers were so certainly not recalcitrant when it came to discussing politics. I'm upholding the family tradition. If we don't talk about it, we cannot change it.

OBG

Tony

09-23-2003, 01:33

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Sep. 22 2003,04:08)]
Quote[/b] (Tony @ Sep. 22 2003,02:48)]1) Abortion - this is still a big political football in the USA. In Oz and most of Europe this was sorted out in the 60s and 70s and is no longer an issue except to a fanatical fringe. In the USA that fanatical element is not a fringe, but a powerful force in right wing politics. Dubya cannot ignore these people.
I though Abortion was now legal in the USA, or does iot depend on the actual State?

Just curious.
It is legal, but there are powerful forces in the political right that want to repeal Roe vs Wade (sp?) and turn back the clock on abortion, and if they can get enough conservatives on the Supreme Court bench they will succeed.

One of the first acts of dubya was to block federal health grants to the states that were used (often indirectly) to assist in abortion. This was the MINIMUM he had to do to appease the anti-abortion lobby that helped get him elected.

The christian right in the USA is a strong and powerful clique, able to deliver both votes and campaign funds. They have a strong voice in Congress and the Whitehouse.

These are scary people, full of enough self righteous intolerance to make any ayatolla proud. What makes the USA unique is that these folks are a powerful political force in US politics - I don't know of any other western style democracy that has this.

Scipio

09-23-2003, 03:19

Bush sucks never should a man like him govern not that it matters to me as a Canadian

A little town in texas is missing it's local idiot http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Doug-Thompson

09-23-2003, 03:47

Man. A guy buys a different game, goes away for a month and when he comes back the forum has wandered far afield.

Sigurd

09-23-2003, 07:15

Quote[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Sep. 23 2003,09:28)]Who wouldn't want to be in Sweden in the 70's? Uh, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and all the other Swedish tennis players who moved residence to Monte Carlo to prevent losing 98% of their income to confiscatory taxes?
Yeah, you tell them m8. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Who would want to live in Sweden anyway???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

komninos

09-23-2003, 08:01

I hate to say this .... but OBG you are write about some stuff ... in Sweden and many European countries there has been just too much of it ... too much protection brings people to sloth. On the other hand no protection is equally bad ... till the 90's you could hardly find any homeless in Greece; though Greece is a strange place by European standards since the family values are very strong here. Nearly 85% of the people own a house ... any way ...
I think the best is somewhere in the middle. I never disregard a political systrem ... you have to see things on a specific place and time frame.
Communisom was what would bring the Russian people out of the dark ages ... try taking a trip to Saint Pitersburg and visit the Ermitag (the Chars Summer Palace) the word is Solid Gold while the people lived in condition unimaginable. Revolutionary movements tend to be radical any way. The problem is that usaly after the mess of a revolution a now type of goverment appears but in USSR ... the conditions only radicalised the goverment and it all went to hell.
In France the radical revolution went a full circle with the crouning of Napoleon as Emperor ... the wars that followed ... and the reintroduction of the French king but many elements of the Revolution remaind nothign was the same.
In Athens king Drakon was the harsest king a revolution came things were bad but at the end Solon built the foundation of the Athenean Democrasy.
In US you had a republic from the start ... but for some time now it has changed form ... corporate people run the show and big corporations are in control of the goverment and sorry to say this is a sign of decadance.
... how bad can the things get before this guy and the people around him live power? We will see ...

===========================================================
As far as broadcasting ... I 've given up ... now are looking more and more like reality shows or soap operas. It try to read some good news papers here in Greece and some foreign ones like Le Monde Diplomatic.
===========================================================
Now the who would wont to live in Sweden question ... not me ... way to cold for my taste though some times in the summer with +40 I do miss a there -30. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Gregoshi

09-23-2003, 08:50

Thanks to most of you for bringing this topic back from the brink of closing. Let's continue to resist brinkmanship. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

BTW, I do believe we were talking about whether or not to elect Bush Jr. to a second term.

Old Bald Guy

09-23-2003, 10:28

Sorry, Greg, but in order to understand where we are, we have dig pretty deep. All this back story leads to the original question. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and W didn't just pop up as an aberration. He's only the most extreme in the shift to the right the US has tilted to over the past 40 years, post WW II. Hopefully, I've explained a bit of this to the members, both here and abroad.

The US is no longer the country set up by the Constitution. As someone pointed out, the corporations hold enormous power. The Radical Religious Right holds incredible sway over secular things. The government is more by the lobbyists than by the people. And, worst of all, those in power use xenophobia to control the minds of those who would not vote for a single one if they knew better. My parents in Texas are staunch Bush supporters and could not possibly believe he doesn't have their interests at heart, despite all evidence he does not.

At this point, all we can hang our hopes on is General Wesley Clark, a political neophyte who has no idea what he's in for. He's a brilliant guy with all the right credentials to be President, but he may find combat in Viet Nam to be a day at the beach compared to a run for the office. At least we'll get the answer to a very important question: can a good man still become President? Political scientists are watching this one very, very closely. Our future is right now.

Why would this topic have been close to being closed? Isn't what we've been discussing as important as anything on the planet right now? Discussing politics is rarely civil, but somehow gold nuggets of truth do shine through. Thanks for having patience and not closing it.

OBG

Old Bald Guy

09-23-2003, 10:47

Kominos, a couple of things you brought up:

Sure, the Soviet Union was on an equal footing with the US soon after WW II, militarily. Certainly not as far as the population was concerned. The Russian people still lived in abject poverty almost as much as they did during the time of the Tsars. A guy from Romania worked for me in the 80s, shortly after he immigrated to the US. I talked with him for hours about his life behind the Iron Curtain. He said the one thing that blew his mind when he got here was all the food in the grocery stores and no one standing in line to buy it A country can appear strong if it spends every dime it has on the military, but the support beneath it cannot sustain it. Capitalism defeated the Soviet system by simply forcing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves before we bankrupted our own selves. But it was a damn close race to a staggering finish.

Sorry you hate to agree with me. I'd bet we aren't that far apart, politically. By your standards in Europe, I'm pretty conservative. By our standards in the US, I'm a radical Liberal. That should tell you a LOT about both our systems. (I consider myself firmly in the middle.)

Doug, I got my higher education in your town. Go HOGS

OBG

Wellington

09-23-2003, 12:22

Quote[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Sep. 23 2003,04:28)]Why would this topic have been close to being closed? Isn't what we've been discussing as important as anything on the planet right now? Discussing politics is rarely civil, but somehow gold nuggets of truth do shine through. Thanks for having patience and not closing it.
Hey Greg,

I find this weird as well.

If people are discussing something, and providing it's not abusive or trolling blah, blah, blah then why feel the urge to consider closer such a thread if you think it's off topic.

Personally speaking I dont give two s**t's if a thread goes off topic - providing other people wish to continue the discussion.

What's the prob?

Another example of your mental exhaustion? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Welly

komninos

09-23-2003, 12:25

OBG your are write, ... it is just a matter of viewpoint in Europe we just have a broader view since we start from far-right to far-left (extreme Communists BTW you should hear these guys ... best show on Earth ... ) in US you have from far-right till ~right wing socialist. So ones centre is ones left ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif does that make sense ...

So now we know where we stand ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Bush for Europe ... is the thing we are trying hard not to be ... utterly religious, totally conservative, with a twisted sense of how the world is and how it should be formed ... with the last part being the most dangerous of all
Europeans might just accept some of the things he is saying but Muslims will never accept them for one singe reason … his sense of the world does not include them

Fortebraccio

09-23-2003, 13:26

The government is more by the lobbyists than by the people. And, worst of all, those in power use xenophobia to control the minds of those who would not vote for a single one if they knew better. My parents in Texas are staunch Bush supporters and could not possibly believe he doesn't have their interests at heart, despite all evidence he does not.

You turned your attention to what is, in my opinion, the real issue. Exploitation. What does make it possible in a supposedly democratic system? I suppose the answer has something to do with the way electoral campaigns are funded, the way candidates are selected, and the fact that those who have the financial power to support their own candidate usually employ the same power to affect media coverage. It's simply a matter of protecting their investment. So the real question we should ask ourselves
is not who the candidate is...it is Who is behind him?

Gregoshi

09-23-2003, 13:58

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

Hmmm, my post made more sense last night. I spent 6 hours http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif reading and posting to catchup from a weekend I was pretty much offline - almost 3 full pages of new topics/replies to read. You guys are killing me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif Anyway, I was trying to be brief in my replies to get through all the topics. Guess I was a bit too brief. My thoughts are much clearer now with two hours of sleep under my belt. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

There were two differ points I was making in three sentences.

1) The brink of closing comments were in reference to a early post which was of a very uncivilized nature. This topic could have degenerated into a flame fest, but didn't. I was making an unnecessarily obscure compliment to the participants for rising above the level of that one post.

2) The Bush/second term comment was simply a reminder about the original topic. There would be no reason to close the topic on that basis. Sorry about the confusion.

Wellington

09-24-2003, 00:33

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Sep. 23 2003,07:58)]My thoughts are much clearer now with two hours of sleep under my belt. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Don't me that Greg - it does'nt wash.

We already have one individual looking for sympathy in the Entrance Hall. Ok, that I can live with.

What I can't stomach is a moderator telling us all he's only had two hours sleep

Well, what can I say? Who's fault is that?

Either find yourself a less demanding prostitute or get yourself married.

Sympathy isn't exactly in vogue at present within The Org.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

squippy

09-24-2003, 09:32

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Sep. 22 2003,10:54)]

Quote[/b] ] Wow, isn't this nice. And people wonder why some Americans don't like people from other countries. All you have to do is read some posts on the Org...

Yeah. Americans are worried by harsh language from non-Americans, non-Americans are worried about being bombed.

My condolences for your nationality.

HopAlongBunny

09-24-2003, 11:00

Not an American but I think the reasons to not vote for George are pretty plain.

He flat out lies. The reasons for the adventure in Iraq held up for about 5mins each; when exposed as false the ground was quickly shifted. To this day, no credible reason for the war in Iraq has been given.

He's spending the USA into debt; all over again. Actually, the US hasn't been out of debt for so long, its better to say that Bush is enlarging the legacy left to future generations.

If someone is going to run my credit card, and lie to me about what they did that for...I would have them arrested NOT vote for them as my rep to the world http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Aurelian

09-25-2003, 06:08

Hey OBG,

I wanted to reply to your post on socialism/capitalism, but I stepped out for a couple of days. Hope you're still checking this subject...

But before I do, just wanted to let everyone know that Bush's approval ratings are dropping. He's down to 49% now, and his disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating at the moment (MSNBC poll). His father was much higher at the same point in his presidency. So, there's hope. Enuff said.

OBG... as regards socialism:

Socialism is in the eye of the beholder. Every serious advance in social governance in the last 150 years or so has been labelled socialist in its early stages. Fire departments? Socialist. Forty hour work weeks? Socialist. An end to child labor? Socialist. The weekend? Socialist. Social Security and Medicare? Extremely socialist. Progressive tax rates? Inherently socialist.

Yet all of these things are now accepted as necessary in a civilized society (except of course by the current crew in the White House).

As for the Swedish tax rate...

I'm not gonna get too deep with the economic stuff, but the top tax rate in the US was 91% from FDR to Kennedy. Kennedy dropped it to 77%. Reagan dropped it to 25%. Now the moneyed interests hated FDR, but the early post-war decades saw historically high periods of growth, the creation of a broad middle class, and huge investments in infrastructure. One of the reasons for this was that an international financial system was created that restricted capital mobility and fixed the value of the world's currencies. Not a perfect system, but it kept capital at home where it could be taxed and regulated. The system was abandoned in the early 1970's, and capital was once again free to roam the world. The result has been chronic instability, much lower growth rates, and much greater income inequality.

That's reflected in the job situation at your business. You mentioned that your workplace went from 750 to 400 jobs recently, as those jobs were moved to Manila, Canada, and India. You said, quote: We're in pretty tough times now, and it won't be socialism that pulls us out, but good old fashion hard work, which many simply do not want to do. Unfortunately, the problem in your workplace and the global economy in general isn't unwillingness to do hard work. In fact, workers in the US (with jobs) are working more hours than those in any other industrialized country.

The problem right now is a structural problem with capitalism. The behemoth MNCs that dominate the global economy these days operate on one criterion: the quarterly performance of their stock. CEOs are supposed to have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize stock prices regardless of any other considerations (and this is what they are personally rewarded for). In a globalized financial market, they have been able to jettison loyalty to their country and their workers. They maximize their short term profitability by eliminating jobs in industrialized countries where workers are paid enough to live a decent life - and hire workers in Third World countries. These workers are cheap, and they have few workplace protections.

That is one of the reasons we are having a jobless recovery at the moment. Laying off workers and using slave labor in less enlightened parts of the world looks good on the quarterly balance sheet, but it does nothing to stimulate demand in the economy. And... it creates all sorts of social welfare problems.

So, our problem at the moment is not debilitating socialism, but rather that we have swung too far in the other direction and allowed our societies to be completely restructured in such a way that we are moving closer to feudalism than the capitalism that Adam Smith envisaged. We need a little more socialism, which I would define as restructuring the economic sector to meet public needs, in order to redress the balance.

Later. Me tired. Goodnight.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Darkchampion

09-25-2003, 07:14

My girlfriend and I voted green party last time cause both candidates were so dull and uninspired (was trying to help get the green party the popular percentage they needed to get federal $ for the next election, but they missed it by a few % http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif .)

This next time I expect I will be voting green again unless I see a better candidate put forward that is capable of actually leading this country instead of either a) screwing foreign policy up like no other (Bush) or b) being a slimy weasel who changes opinions when the polls shift (all of the Democratic candidates, although I haven't heard Gen. Clark yet so he might be better).

I just wish there was a party that was socially liberal (pro choice, gay rights etc) pro-environment like the democrats but fiscally conservative like the republicans. Well most republicans, Bush appears to have forgotten that as a republican he is supposed to aim to CUT spending along with taxes and not throw our economy into the toilet with massive spending increases enacted simultaneously with tax cuts (he must think he has a magical money tree or something).

But I don't think it is meant to be. The average American believes everything he sees on television and is no longer interested in coming to their own conclusions. Until people actually sit up, pay attention and really demand a better leader, we won't get one. I just wish Colin Powell hadn't damaged his reputation by being in the Bush cabinet (despite the fact Bush ignores his advice most of the time... He'd rather listen to Cheney and Rumsfeld) otherwise I'm pretty sure he could have been the first Black president.

Oh and on the war issue with Iraq, I really don't think it was a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of that nation. What was bad was the way Bush did it was by ignoring everyone else and acting like America can do whatever the %^@#$ it wants and anyone who disagrees better watch out (as if the world didn't hate us enough already http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ). And now that the deed is done he is too damn stubborn to get anyone to help with the reconstruction. I mean come on, who is going to send help if you say this.

We will accept any help/money from any nation. But any help will be directly under U.S. control and we will still make all the rules.

Makes him sounds like a greedy schoolchild unwilling to share his candy.

I also hate what he is doing with our civil liberties. As if by reducing our freedoms you could actually stop terrorists. Really there is NO WAY to effectively stop a small group of people from moving in and commiting a terrorist act. All we can do is attack the terrorist infrastructure (through CIA/FBI and their international counterparts, not conventional wars http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif ) and fix our foreign policy so we don't give everyone a reason to hate us so much. Fix the Israel/Palestinian issue for starters. I'm just astounded that people don't care if they have big brother looking over their shoulder or if they lose some freedoms in the name of national security.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.

Wow I rambled a bit on that one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

komninos

09-25-2003, 08:57

Aurelian, Good points but I hope you write them from a public Internet caffe and you change that every time Big Brother is watching you know (Here I go again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ) I would not like it if people like you take a trip to Cuba courtesy of the NSA http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Darkchampion, the Greens are a strange lot ... though thy have a target and a very just one I think they have no idea how to get there They also have more than a handful of enemies ... starting from the food industry till weapons industry. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Some point's though ... Sadam was scum nothing to it ... but US ... actualy either Cheney or Rumsfeld was the to support him during the Reagan administration in the early 80's. The problem come from the fact that the reasons were non existent No nation has the write to kill or force out of the office the leader of an other nation

The reasons were that since 1991 no US oil company would have a Iraqi oil. The French on the other side had a deal for a huge oil field in south Iraq and waited for the sanction to be lifted. The war ensured several things for the US ... not Britain or Spain ...
1. Total control of the oilfields of Iraq. They are in equal capacity with those of Saudi Arabia. So no 50-50 deals it all goes to the companies.
2. Due to (1) the controlled Iraqi government becomes the US voice in Petroleum Organisation (Sorry don't know there English names) and the Arabic World Forum.
3. The problematic Saudi Arabia base moves to the controlled Iraq, Free space, Freedom of movement.
4. Other bases move to Iraq ... i.e. Inchirlick (Turkey).
5. Due to 3,4 total military supremacy over the Central Asia Region, and control of the Arab world
6. Due to control of Iraq and Afghanistan they control the oil roots from Central Asia to West (Mediterranean Sea, Europe) and East (China, Far East).
7. Bottling up Syria between Israel and controlled Iraq. Practically no hope for Hamas the only military capable Palestinian organisation.
8. Due to 7 no hope for the Palestinians but to get what they are offered by Israel. Termination of Palestinian hopes for a free state.

And the list goes on ... The invasion would happen it was on the board but Klynton could not get a reason and passed the hot potato to the next administration that did all the wrong things.

To stop terrorism you educate people and you help them raise there living standards. You don't step on their tows

Old Bald Guy

09-25-2003, 11:59

Terrific posts, gentlemen. A tip of the hat to you all.

Aurelian, I cannot disagree with anything you write. We are in an economic crisis, worse than we're being told, I'm afraid. When the computer jobs go overseas, there is not a whole lot we can do to earn a decent living in the country. We lost the manufacturing jobs, then the information jobs. I guess we'll all be working at McDonalds, soon.

Champ, we did have such a party as you describe. It was called the Democratic party when Clinton was President. We had a budget SURPLUS. The government was the smallest it had been in forty years. The stock market topped 10,000. My retired parents had a good life. Hard to remember, huh? I'm hoping Gen. Clark is the man. Hoping a lot.

Kominos, you are correct on the surface. But the real reason we went to war in Iraq was good old-fashioned revenge. Saddam Hussein put a hit out on Bush, Sr. He tried to assassinate the man who humiliated him before the entire world. Jr. took the first opportunity he could to get the man who tried to kill his dad. Pretty simple, huh? but not the reason we've all be led to believe.

Unfortunately, Dubya--as we call him in Texas--actually is a prop sitting on the lap of Cheney who has his hand in his back. If you watch Dick Cheney really closely, you can see his lips moving when Dubya speaks. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfewitz used Dubya's desire for revenge as an excuse to pursue their own agendas, and it worked. They all got what they wanted and look what it got the rest of us.

Hopefully, the world doesn't think all Americans are represented by the current Administration. The President and Congress were voted in by people who are being badly misled. They think these guys believe as they believe, but are actually on a completely different agenda. Fortunately, Dubya is a good if simple man. Imagine how bad it could be if he were an evil man. We're lucky, this time. If he were a Hitler or Stalin, I'd have to shut up. Big time

Ten years, and I sail away, not looking to come back. I hope we last that long.

OBG

Aurelian

09-25-2003, 18:37

Komninos, OBG, Darkchampion... Dittoes
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(That's what Rush Limbaugh's callers say when they want to express total agreement with everything coming out of his pie-hole)

You guys nailed the 'reasons for the Iraq War'.

I'll add another one: Karl Rove and the 2002 mid-term elections. In the summer of 2002, it looked like the administration was going to be going into the mid-term elections with a recession, no Osama, and the Enron/Worldcom scandals. The newspapers were beginning to carry heavy coverage of all the corporate accounting scandals, and Congress had begun to talk of investigative hearings. The Bushies were, of course, hugely vulnerable on this issue because Enron's Ken Lay had been one of Bush's biggest financial patrons. Bush himself was even implicated in similar financial shenanigans. If the press was obsessed with corporate misdeeds until the November elections, the Republicans would not have won control of the Senate, and might even have lost the House. So, the decision was made to try to keep public attention focused on national security issues. Since nobody could find Osama, the green light was given to go ahead with the Iraq operation that was so dear to the neocons.

The administration had to portray an Iraq invasion as something vital that was going to happen IMMMEDIATELY in order to knock all of the corporate scandals off the front pages. Of course, the public rationale behind the invasion changed constantly because they were just trying out different approaches to see which one would resonate best with the American people. Paul Wolfowitz admitted that 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was chosen as the advertising campaign because it was the rationale that everyone could agree on for bureaucratic reasons (whatever the hell that means).

Rove was successful. The papers forgot about the accounting scandals. The Republicans actually picked up seats and won control of the Senate, thereby gaining control over all branches of government (although Dem. Senator Paul Wellstone had to die in a plane crash to make that happen).

Now we find out that the Iraqi's didn't have any WMDs after all. We all should have realized this because the administration wouldn't have the stones to attack a country that actually HAD WMDs.

B'bye

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

komninos

09-25-2003, 19:33

Hi Aurelian,

... How on earth do you remember all these details man ... what are you? Rebeling Newspaper man or something not only you know the details but also you remember them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Exelent ... but just to be on the safe side and as an IT man start looking around you http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif are there any strange men??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

... I see just one problem ... we see no oposition here ... what is the problem people ... can't you find one good thing to say why to vote for GWB junior ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Devastatin Dave

09-25-2003, 19:55

I betcha he still wins. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Wellington

09-25-2003, 21:43

Quote[/b] (komninos @ Sep. 25 2003,13:33)]Hi Aurelian,

... How on earth do you remember all these details man ... what are you? Rebeling Newspaper man or something not only you know the details but also you remember them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I was wondering exactly the same

Really astute observations Aurelian. As Europeans we don't get too much insight into internal US politics - but I'm sure your observations are not too wide of the mark.

I remember it being reported over here that Bush was also involved in some sticky business transactions (did he fail to provide the IRS with requested business transactions for some inordinate length of time?) but not being American we Europenas miss a lot of the domestic US nitty-gritty and the insight that only US residents can offer.

One thing is for certain. A war is always a good bet to distract domestic Political opinion from issues that a Government (be it US or other) would like to 'go away'.

One thing that we have noticed here in Europe is that the American involvement in Afghanistan, a country that was indeed nurturing terrorists related to 9/11, appears to have gone very quiet - and the promised investment is low key news now. On the other hand, Iraq, with no WMD and no evidence of being a terrorist threat to the USA (directly or indirectly) is now considered to be the number 1 priority for infrastructure rebuilding.

The rather quick allocation of contracts, with no attempt at tendering, whilst the country is still is turmoil seems to me to be in startk contrast to what similar US companies could achieve in Afghanistan. Still, we have to question who will eventually pay the bill.

The US Administration is currently attempting to protect/preserve Iraqs oil wealth, on the pretext that is for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and is anxious to see US companies participating in such reconstruction and redevelopement, whilst Afghanistan is still awaiting the promised capital investment.

Now ok, perhaps we arn't comparing like with like. After all ...

... Afghanistan does'nt possess the second largest known oil deposits in the world

wanabescot

09-26-2003, 08:55

Pardon the intrusion by a novice to these forum discussions. This is a great topic, and being an American educated overseas and a veteran with friends and family directly affected by the decisions of Bush II, I started to write the History of American Politics and Foreign Policy According to Me in response. However, I'll spare you that - but this is still a lengthy reply. I have to start by replying to some ad hoc comments before I provide my answer.

*** Stereotypes exist on both sides of the Atlantic, and it serves nobody to bring them up during an intellectual discourse, as I'm sure the author of the question wanted these posts to be. If an individual has an opinion or a theory you don't care for - dispute the opinion or the theory rather than just stating you are being stereotypical by saying that. OTOH - I can't believe I heard raghead in this forum. Of course, when I was in Europe racism was never a problem...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

*** I am so tired of American flag waving; during the height of the debate over the war if one disagreed with how things were being done, the implication was that you were somehow unpatriotic - shades of national socialism rather than patriotism. Americans should remember a favorite saying: I may disagree with you, but I'll defend unto death your right to disagree.

*** Americans consistently beat the French and other Europeans up with the notion that we saved them twice in this century; if it weren't for the French, we wouldn't BE a country.

*** As for economic interests in Iraq - the Europeans, specifically the French had more of an interest in the country than we did - consequently, the question must be asked whether or not Saddam would have ever been removed if the French had their way. As well, it doesn't matter what side you were on before the war, if people are so interested in the welfare of the Iraqis, then come on down and help out - financially or militarily - rather that fussing over the semantics of the new UN resolution. I will say this as well, we (America) are in this for the duration - I don't think any candidate will get elected on a platform of bringing our boys home.

No, Bush does not deserve a second term. Our economy, not really reported on by the Euro media, is in the tank and cannot seem to get out via the normal business cycle. It's in what some call a jobless recovery, not recession, but not growing enough to produce jobs. This is due to a number of factors, some not of Bush's doing, but others quite so. We've lost over 2m jobs since he's been Pres. and due to his tax policies (that were based upon overly optimistic ecomonic projections), we now have a historically high budget deficit that has resulted in an increase in interest rates. Which any budget weenie can tell you means less capital to invest in order to create more jobs. Viscious circle. His compassionate conservatism brought some pretty decent educational reforms (some promoted by Clinton, but re-phrased in order to pacify the right wing of the Rep. party), but introduced frightful policies eventually aimed at dismantling an already fragile and tattered social safety net. The budget problems mean no resolution of our health care problems, as well as social security (pension).

The War: His initial response to 9/11 was appropriate and in general (unless you were a Quaker) supported by everyone. Taking out the Taliban and seriously crippling al Qaida was a worthwhile and honerable effort. As well, the notion of a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan was great. Then came the 3 Evils State of the Union speech. Not only did he set back an ongoing detante between Iran and us, but it put us in direct confrontation w/ North Korea - which cannot be handled by force, and on the road to the Second Iraqi War.

The invasion of Iraq was assumed by the White House at this point, and his handling of relations within the UN and especially among our NATO allies was pompous and again, inexperienced. His father had to be wincing every morning he opened the news paper. The post-war planning did not exist, and faulty intelligence from the Brits and the CIA have put into question the whole purpose of the War.

(For those who don't care for Bush II, here's a little historical assurance: There have only been three other instances where the Electoral College differed from the result of the popular vote, and in all three cases, the presidents were single-term. His poll numbers have returned to pre-war status, and even though most Americans think he is doing an adequate job prosecuting the war, it will be/has always been the economy stupid.)

We need a person who will mend the fences within the Alliance, attack terrorism on all fronts (most importantly the hearts and minds battle which has been totally lost), and someone who is less ideological when it comes to the economy.

*** General Wesley Clark - a very strong candidate, however Americans don't know him; just like the idea of a General being in charge right now. I was a supporter of the Draft General Clark committee - they haven't sent me my pin- cost me 100 bucks (could've bought 2 or 3 expansion packs of MTW)

Wellington

09-26-2003, 09:25

Quote[/b] (wanabescot @ Sep. 26 2003,02:55)]We need a person who will mend the fences within the Alliance, attack terrorism on all fronts (most importantly the hearts and minds battle which has been totally lost), and someone who is less ideological when it comes to the economy.
I would tend to agree.

I would add that perhaps the USA needs a President, considering these current times, who is a little less enamoured by his own religious convictions.

The world has enough Islamic nut-cases. Having a Christian President who controls the most powerful and potentially destructive Military in the Wordd, and whom (IMHO) has views that are not far removed from similar religious ideologism is ... er ...

... worrysome

Old Bald Guy

09-26-2003, 13:04

I watched the Democrat debates last night, and the post-game discussions, and was struck by how divided the US is at this time in its history. I grew up during the Viet Nam war, lived through the terrible time of Watergate, and saw the yellow ribbons on the trees when the embassy personnel were held captive in Tehran. Even during these bad times, we weren't as divided as we are today.

Going back again to Barry Goldwater, this country started its movement to the right. His supporters have long memories. They were angry at the way they were treated and started pushing. They got their man in Ronald Reagan, and the divide grew along with the budget deficits. Clinton polarized the country and the discourse got bad. Republicans really hated Clinton and were not persuaded to hold back harsh words. For the worst, I submit Newt Gingrich to the jury.

Now, it's really, really bad. Last night, Howard Dean called W the enemy. Ann Coulter, columnist and pit bull in lipstick, calls Democrats traitors. Republicans have called Demcrats names for years, but now the Democrats are striking back. I wish I could remind people that free speech doesn't mean intemperate speech. We can disagree strongly without being strongly disagreeable.

Sadly, it's symptomatic of the polarization we are now faced with, and I have absolutely NO predictions on how that's going to end. At least, end well. It will end, at some point, but most likely it will only end after some sort of calamity. I simply can't see how moderate Republicans can take back their party when their lunatic fringe has so much control. The really conservative Christians, the anti-abortionists, the gun lobby, and the rich corporate guys who pour the money into the elections have more power within their party than the peaceniks, environmentalists, and truly liberal left-wingers have in the Democratic party. The Democrats have been pulled toward being more conservative, losing their left, while the Republicans only need to syphon a few votes from the moderate side to win elections. A much easier task.

Here's a stat that came out of the debate, the tax cut delivered more benefits to the top 1% of tax payers, 272,000, that to 125 million of the lowest tax payers. Does that freak you out, Dave? Are you still happy with your President? Does he represent you?

How any of that 125M would even THINK of voting for the guy or any Congressman who voted for this, is totally beyond my comprehension

I'll let that one soak in.

OBG

Devastatin Dave

09-26-2003, 14:30

OBG, just look to California to see what happens when you keep taxing the rich. Eventually the rich leave along with the corperations and business. Then you have to get that money somewhere for wealth redistribution, so the cycle continues. I support Bush because, as a member of the Air Force, he has raised my pay, replinished the ranks so we aren't undermanned to the point of working 72 hours a week like we were under Slick Willy. He has also brought back honor and pride to many of us that are serving. Bush has his problems and has made some mistakes. But he actually leads instead of taking a poll and doing that until the winds change like the former administration. I feel that the current administration has done a better job security wise too. I remember, during the precious administration, our inteligence capabilities were in the tank and totally chaotic. Clinton also had a bad tendency to trust guys like Kim Jung Ill and never truelly face opostion unless he knew it would be easy and could get a good photo-op. The simple fact is I don't believe in many of the democrates platforms, and Bush is the only choice in that aspect. I don't believe in gay marraige, wealth redistrobution (socialism), open borders, UN influence on national policy, and abortion on demand. If the democrates had not gone so left then I might consider a change because Bush hasn't been the greatest, but with the current 10 running against him right now, he gets my vote.
Wes Clark was a terrible commander and killed alot of civilians in his time and almost started a war with Russia. It would be a cold day in hell before he got my vote. The guy never used his chain of command and always used his buddy Bill to get what he wanted. He was finally fired by Clinton after he had made too many mistakes that Bill couldn't cover for him anymore. Even General Shelton, forner Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that Wessly had integraty issues.
Look, you should vote for what you believe in. The discourse in this country has gotten so ugly. I'm voting for Bush because he represents more of my values and beliefs than the other ten running. I'm sure many of you would prefer another Clinton or a person like Dean. I don't.

komninos

09-26-2003, 23:32

daveinkorea, nice planes you got there just a personal opinion though I just love that Su-27 and its family as it goes -30, -34, -35, -37.

Any way ... I don't know much about domestic US policy ... but unfortunately I am heavily affected by it even though I live half the globe away. As I said If the US economy goes to hell then the world will follow ... and remember WWII ... how far do you think a new crush will bring us from that ... the only difference is that now we can blow this planet to bits and pieces.

As a military man ... my opinion you should know better ... can remember how said this but the last thing an army man would like is war.

I will take you back a bit in time ... do you remember what was the first thing a week Roman emperor did ... raze the Praetorian Guard wages ... does it ring any bells. But what will happen if the rest of the US economy goes ... you will not get fired ... sure but you will not be paid either.

You said security increased ... for this I would strongly recommend you to go to a IT Security oriented tutorial.
1. You can't have a 100% secure system on the net
2. At best you can have a 60 - 70%
3. If you get any system above that 90% then no one will be using it cause it is going to be too dam time consuming, every body will bend the rules and you will fall on point 2
4. All estimations maid about security are on theoretical bases.

A suicidal man can do wonders my friend and there is nothing you can do about it. He will watch the system till he finds a hole then he is going to exploit it. The problem with suicide bombers is that you can't threaten to kill them
Beefing up security with these guys will do you nothing but give you some warnings and get you some time that’s it The problem is here why to they do it? and what can we do to stop it what ever is driving them?
Bombing innocent people and humiliating them is definitely not the answer you are looking for. This will piss them off, they will be ready to accept the teachings of creasy men and they will do it. If you dout what I say point a place in Israel that it is safe. I have friend there ... there is none.
Since the 50's the US is misbehaving like a dominator of the free world and after the 90s this has move to the whole world with no real opposition. I fear a man that relies too much on punishment of others. I would fear even more if he were in control of the most powerful force in the world.
Clinton used this force with tact. I didn’t like what he did with it back then. And it was in my neighbourhood. Now Bush started a war for all the wrong reasons … and my friend … he humiliated the US in the UN if you haven’t noticed.
Wanabescot, well come to the forums http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
*** I am so tired of American flag waving … to tell the truth … I have been tire with it a long time ago … no offence … I have been tired for long watching the flag waving for no reason at all … you can’t watch a movie with out it Starting with Armageddon … 10min of that was way too much. Watching the CNN and you get it on the back or foreground every 10min … we have an expression for that is Greece … even the Priest gets board with too much praying. Just as a personal favour can you reach any director in Holliwood … and remind them that there is a world out side US … and by the way tell them not to screw up Greek History just so it can fit the “play” or something. Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Wellington

09-28-2003, 11:32

Quote[/b] (komninos @ Sep. 26 2003,17:32)]Just as a personal favour can you reach any director in Holliwood … and remind them that there is a world out side US … and by the way tell them not to screw up Greek History just so it can fit the “play” or something. Thanks http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
What's so special about Greek History http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Hollywood screws up ALL History, Greek or otherwise.

Then again, ever heard the song ...

Thats en-ter-taaaiiiin-meeennnttt http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

komninos

09-29-2003, 09:37

Quote[/b] ]What's so special about Greek History
Well apart from that is the single thing that we Greeks can truly be proud of ... I like it very much. They also seem to be very fond of it too ... and after some thing I have seen ... (I stumbled on a TV show that Hercules was dancing Salsa in Athens dance capital of the world dressed up as a toreador&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif I freaked out a bit http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif They usually screw up every history ... part from there own (and not always not even their own) they just seem to really screw up the Greek ancient history ... can't say why ... but it looks that way. Especially when it comes to myths and legends of Prehistory ... just a nightmare http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Lazul

09-29-2003, 15:52

yeah im with komninos... hollywood seams to do the same thing with Scandinavian history.
Vikings allways have hornes, fur boots and talk like retards etc etc... i while ago i was watching robin hood series... and omg... mongols invaded england...? now what the f**k? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pissed.gif

hate it...

Devastatin Dave

09-29-2003, 16:18

I hate Hollywood http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

Wellington

10-01-2003, 01:12

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Sep. 29 2003,10:18)]I hate Hollywood http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Just noticed your new adage dave -

[i]sometimes its better to say nothing[i/]

Maybe ...

... but it would make the world a lot less colourful

Personally, I like colour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Devastatin Dave

10-01-2003, 15:26

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Sep. 30 2003,19:12)]
Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Sep. 29 2003,10:18)]I hate Hollywood http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Just noticed your new adage dave -

[i]sometimes its better to say nothing[i/]

Maybe ...

... but it would make the world a lot less colourful

Personally, I like colour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I have too many crayons when I spout out my colorful commentaries http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
So sometimes it is better left unsaid. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Right Gregoshi, old buddy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Jabberdau

10-01-2003, 15:41

Man this took long too read, but very nice and good non-flame post from almost everyone. A few things offtopic from the Bush question I would like to comment on:

I would definately not want my country to turn into what USA is today. I would allow dead penalty but only if the inmate wanted to be executed instead of spending the rest of his/her day in prison. Also I think the juridical system has several failures.Fx if a person have been sentenced to death, and he have used all hes appeal rights, and evidence THEN show up showing clearly that he isnt guilty, he cannot be released from jail. In fact the state of Texas have already executed several inmates who was cleary proved to be innocent but they couldnt be released because of the appeal rights thing.

I would never allow that kind of guncontrol, and I wouldn´t cut down on welfare in order to insure the taxrate got lower. And I think theres a big difference between USA welfare and EURO welfare so you cannot just compare them head to head. In my country (Denmark) welfare is pension, free education and healthcare. Money transactions to those, who is out of a job and dosn´t have an income, money and time to those who have just had a child to insure that the child wont get mistreated, and lot of other deals like this.

Someone said, that other countries in europe got their freedom consitution from the americans in 1776. Now that I believe is a popular myth. The euros saw that it was possible to overthrow the current regime, but they wrote their own constitutions. This by the way leads to my next fact:
The americans only have to parties to wote on In Denmark we have like 7-8 major parties that we can vote on, so theres something that suits everyone. Also we vote directly on our candidates. Not on a electional college which I personally think is to take the peoples voice away.

If I knew one of my neibourgs had stolen my TV set the stereotype american would slay the entire neuboughood and say ahh that feelt good revenge and then he would get arrested by the cops A euro would proberly visit all neibourgs one by one, and then lure them into saying weather or not they did it, then call the police.
Just my mini version of the we-do-it-by-ourself policy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I got realy disapponted by reading this from OBG:

Quote[/b] ]Socialism? HAHAHAHAHA, now there is a system which has shown just how BAD humans can be It didn't work here, either. Socialism is what the Republicans hold over our Democratic heads. Thanks a lot.

I live in a socialistic country, very similar to Sweden, Norway, and the majority of european contries. Saying that my country is failed is not exatcly what I think compared to the USA. We have free education and healthcare for anyone, meaning money is not importent for if you have a chance to move op on the social ladder. We have hardly no crime because of our welfare system that dosnt force people into commiting crime in order to survive. You can walk safely in the city even at nighttime without danger of being robbed, mugged or even killed. There is no organised crime here, only bikergangs who seems to be a threath like Hells Angels with their drugs and guns. So no I dont belive we failed. USSR did but that was communism, not socialism.

daveinkorea wrote
Quote[/b] ]I don't believe in gay marraige, wealth redistrobution (socialism),

wealth redistribution is not socialism Its communism. In socialistic redistribution the government take a cut from EVERYONE and gives back to EVERYONE in form of public services and welfare. The communist way the government takes a cut from the rich only and gives to the not so wealthy in order for everyone to get the same payment. On the other hand communist SELECTS who gets which education. In socialism, people chooce for them selfes. Theres a difference. Dont mix em up please.

The hole problem with USA is that many things are either extreme this or extreme that. Fx you have two parties to vote on. The one party opposite of the other. Theres a huge difference between rich and poor, etc etc. USA could benefit from some more in between solutions.

Related to the topic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif :

I would not vote on Bush because he clearly are a puppet for those behind him. When he speaks in public he often sounds like a redneck and he have serious troubles answering question regarding his mistakes, and poblic matters. Also he is completely bought by the oil industry. Almost all his advicors and government partners are former oilindustry CEO´s who have and are running the government like a oilcompany benefitting the oilindustry of the USA, not giving a damn about environment organisations and the like. While this might be normal in Texas it shouldnt be apllyied to the whole country The government should get improvemnets for everyone. Not only for the oilcompanies BUT Bush got a lot of money from that industry and this seems to be they way he pays them back. I also really hope that those very same companies wont get part in the Iraq oil. That oil belongs to the Iraqian people, not an american company.
In my eyes, america would have gotten euros support if they had waited to be approved by UN before going in war. But unfortunately, Bush decided that the rest of the world aint important and now the troubles with maintaining order is going out of hand. This could also have been prevented in some degree. What americans did when the regime was gone was to secure the oilwells They did not stop the huge raids and plundering going on. And the reason why many people are rebelling now, is that before the invasion they had acces to water, food and other basic sanitations. USA didnt deliver anything too re-establish the infrastructure. In stead they concentrated on securing the oil first.

Okay, wow long post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif I dont hope I have said anything offensive to anyone. In that case I appologize http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif . Just my 2 cents http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/flirt.gif

Parmenio

10-01-2003, 16:20

The thing about wealth redistribution is that it always happens regardless of the economic model. As Adam Smith observed, all wealth is a product of labour. Now you can arrange the rules of a society so that the wealth generated by work is directed towards any one particular group. Under today's dominant model the money is distributed more to a small elite group of investors, than to it's primary creators. This is just as much 'wealth redistribution' as the form relevant to socialism, or to the progressive post-war era that enjoyed so much economic growth.

Gregoshi

10-01-2003, 18:00

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Welcome to the Org Jabberdau. I admire your willingness to dive right into the thick of things on your first post. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

I'll only make one comment about your post - beware of stereotypes.

komninos

10-01-2003, 18:46

Hi Jabberdau,

nicely said but ... reread Gregoshis post though ... this things can get tricky http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif You don't wont to end up in flame war ... this is a delicate thread that till now; end with surprising few exceptions; we have kept it clean from.

Teutonic Knight ... watch it There are many Euros ... at these forums http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif and many of us are pretty good at communicating some ... might be not. I think if you read the thread you will find more than a handful of Americans against your President and what they say make a lot of sense Your last fraze also just insulted most of us. IF you read what we said ... you might just find WHY it is relevant to us too.

BTW ... Jacqe Chirac had his ups and downs ... but didn't start two oil wars within two years. He also signed the Kyoto treaty and for the Europeans he and Shredder saved the honour of Europe my friend.

Parmenio

10-01-2003, 19:11

Removed, since the original post that this post reacted to has been deleted.

Teutonic Knight

10-01-2003, 21:13

Quote[/b] (Parmenio @ Oct. 01 2003,13:11)]

Quote[/b] ]you guys can bash my president all you want, but by God, he's fixing the mess Clinton made and he's doing a good job of it.

Yeah a decade of peace and prosperity, man that must have sucked.

Quote[/b] ]Moreover, I don't think it's any of you euros frickin business who my president is or what he does. The war on terr0r unfortunately doesn't involve you, so just get your noses out of internal American affairs.

There was both military, intelligence and political support for the War on from Europe after 911, and even now European Troops from the UK are deployed - questionably - in Iraq. And the internal affairs of the US often have consequences for the entire globe.

Besides, Bush bating is fun, though admittedly it is an acquired taste.

Quote[/b] ]I don't think Jacqe Chirac is fit to be president of France, but you don't see me shouting that he's an idiotic madman bent on world D0mination do you?

Well the French didn't have a huge ammount of choice in voting crooked Chirac in again, given that his opponent did resemble in some ways an idiotic madman bent on world D0mination or at least a loony right wing xenophobe.

Quote[/b] ]Europeans don't have a say-so whatsoever in what happens in America so I find this poll irrelevant and will not waste any more of my time on it

Actually one European managed to pressure the US Admin to take the UN route initially, which is one thing I do give Blair credit for. And no nation today exists in a vacuum, even North Korea talks to the rest of the world from time to time.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah a decade of peace and prosperity, man that must have sucked.

yeah it did, because Clinton ignored so many warnings of terr0rist attack it's not even funny.

on many occasions we were attacked by terr0rists and once even on our own soil and Clinton promised that those guilty would be hunted down and punished for their crimes......never lived up to it and try to appease that slimeba;ll of a Soviet terr0rist; Yasser Arafat/

Quote[/b] ]There was both military, intelligence and political support for the War on from Europe after 911, and even now European Troops from the UK are deployed - questionably - in Iraq. And the internal affairs of the US often have consequences for the entire globe.

uh, no we didn't force Europe to help us, any gripe you have about British troops being over there you should take to Tony Blair, not George Bush.

Quote[/b] ]Well the French didn't have a huge ammount of choice in voting crooked Chirac in again, given that his opponent did resemble in some ways an idiotic madman bent on world D0mination or at least a loony right wing xenophobe.

Maybe you misunderstood me, that's what I think Jacque Chirac is

Quote[/b] ]Actually one European managed to pressure the US Admin to take the UN route initially, which is one thing I do give Blair credit for. And no nation today exists in a vacuum, even North Korea talks to the rest of the world from time to time.

I was refering to what power you have in the political and electoral arena, and unless you can vote, or you are bribing our officials, you don't have any say-so in American internal affairs...

Wellington

10-01-2003, 21:38

Quote[/b] ] Blah, blah, blah ....

Europeans don't have a say-so whatsoever in what happens in America so I find this poll irrelevant and will not waste any more of my time on it

Quote[/b] ]Frankly I don't give a sh*t if I offend you people because you guys offend me without remorse on an almost daily basis

... blah, blah, blah ...

God bless America God bless president Bush wooooo

Now is it just me or do I detect a basic inconsistancy between your last 2 posts?

Are you going, staying, or coming back? Make your mind up please. You arn't by any chance a friend of Knight Yellows are you?

Then again, as your a self-confessed Dubya advocate I suppose you have a right to be inconsistent ...

... and not know exactly what you are doing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Jacque Schtrapp

10-01-2003, 21:51

And now for something completely different.

http://movieweb.com/movie/austinpowers3/co7.jpg

Ser Clegane

10-01-2003, 21:57

WTF???? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

What is that thing supposed to be??

Is that some genetic experiment that went awfully wrong?

... On second sight ... the left arm (from my point of view) seems to indicate that this guy is wearing a weird costume (at least I hope so...)

Kraxis

10-01-2003, 22:40

What??? You have watched the movies with Austin Powers??? This guy is actually Mike Meyers in.... drumroll please... *drumroll playing*... A costume http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

Knight_Yellow

10-02-2003, 02:12

yeah hes fat bastard.

a scottsman no less.

go figure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Teutonic Knight

10-02-2003, 03:13

Quote[/b] (Knight_Yellow @ Oct. 01 2003,20:12)]yeah hes fat .

a scottsman no less.

go figure http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
No connection between the two I'm guessing? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

komninos

10-02-2003, 09:16

Nice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif some people just can’t have an intelligent conversation.
Gregoshi I think it is time to lock it up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Just pitiful.

Thanks to all the people that had an intelligent debate here, Aurelian, daveinkorea, Wellington, Old Bald Guy hope we find some other nice topic for a political debate.

Cheers

Shono

10-02-2003, 10:28

Been watching this topic but have hesitated in posting having seen these topics discussed before.

Patriotism is a very admirable attribute and I do admire the American patriotism. I do feel being English that we as a country should be more patriotic.

However conversation is just a form of expression used to portray ones own feelings, perceptions and viewpoints. No single person or group of people have all the answers, can know everything and every influence on peoples belief system.

Thus it is sad that people get so worked up about a conversation that incorporates the one attribute that makes humankind so exclusive, we are all different.

Last night a report on the radio covered the dropping of Eastenders from the BBC America channel. They interviewed an American gentleman, who is an avid watcher for 11 years, he stated that he enjoyed the programme because it gave a view of how the British live.

Is it the American gentlemans fault for believing a soap opera that is written to win a ratings war, or our fault for not promoting our culture/way of life so that he can understand it and appreciate it.

Therefore is it not the reverse that America should promote its culture/way of life so that we can understand and appreciate it.

To promote with openness and consideration to those listening means more will listen. To promote with the sword at the throat will turn people away.

Here endith the lesson today. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Devastatin Dave

10-02-2003, 14:12

I support President Bush, not because he's in my chain of command, but because I believe and trust in what he is doing. I have the rare operatunity to see the positives in this that the press will not show. I regret that he is such a polarizing character in this world because I don't believe he is as evil as everyone makes him out to be. On that same line, I'm sure, even though I don't like the guy, Clinton is as evil either. I'm sure if I met him, he would be an alright guy. My first supervisor I ever had in the Air Force worked Whitehouse Com for the Clinton administration for 2 years. He met Clinton several times and said he was nice. His wife wasn't exactly a lady and she didn't want you to look at her or open doors for her, but Bill was nice to the staff. Of course you wouldn't want to leave your wife or teenage daughter around him alone though. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Anyway, I myself, even though I consider my political views towards the right (limited gun control, don't believe in killing the unborn, fair taxation not wealth redistrobution, traditional marraige, equal rights not special rights, welfare for those who truelly need it, etc) I believe the masses are misrepresented by both the right and the left. I wish that there was more choices but I have to go with the candidate that best represents my values, and that is George Bush. If that makes me evil in the eyes of my euro friends here on this board thats fine. I have to raise my child in this country and support my wife. I want my child to live a life following God's will and not in a society invisioned by a candidate that wants to remove God from our lives, loosen morals, penalize those who succeed, and allow terrorist to attack us in our cities. That's the choices I have and it will be an easy vote for my wife and I next year. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Drucius

10-02-2003, 15:39

I'm sure none of 'us euros' think you're evil, Dave. A pain in the bum, maybe, but evil, no.

And of course, the American people have every right to vote for whoever they want to vote for. Perhaps we just find it difficult to understand why they would vote for an alcoholic, draft-dodging moron.

Devastatin Dave

10-02-2003, 15:53

Quote[/b] (Drucius @ Oct. 02 2003,09:39)]I'm sure none of 'us euros' think you're evil, Dave. A pain in the bum, maybe, but evil, no.

And of course, the American people have every right to vote for whoever they want to vote for. Perhaps we just find it difficult to understand why they would vote for an alcoholic, draft-dodging moron.
Same reason they voted for a raping pot head who said he would get the terrosit that attacked the twin towers the first time. The same reason we voted a former actor. The same reason we voted in a former head of the CIA. Same reason we continuelly vote in a CURRENT alcoholic like Kennedy. The same reason Europeans find a need to piss and moan about a country's leader that actually does what he says he's going to do, unlike the majority of their country's leaders. And the reason.... God only knows... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Here's a good article on the competition against Bush...God I love Anne
This says it all. (http://www.anncoulter.org/)

Gregoshi

10-02-2003, 16:31

One more rude, obnoxious, offending or insulting post and I will close this topic. I leave it open because until the past 24 hours, there has been some good discussions this topic.

My apologies to all involved that I did intervene sooner.

Devastatin Dave

10-02-2003, 17:47

4000 posts for Greg. I wonder what percentage of those were warnings http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
But seriously, I hope what I said did not come across as uncivil, if it did I apologize. This is a good thread, but like all threads about politics, there sometimes is no middle ground in the debate. I shall respect your opinions as long as you can do the same for me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
By the way... BUSH IS GOING TO WIN ANYWAY http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Ijontychi Watanabe

10-02-2003, 18:16

Cita[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Sep. 25 2003,11:59)]Champ, we did have such a party as you describe. It was called the Democratic party when Clinton was President. We had a budget SURPLUS. The government was the smallest it had been in forty years. The stock market topped 10,000. My retired parents had a good life. Hard to remember, huh? I'm hoping Gen. Clark is the man. Hoping a lot.
Very well said.
Just imagine Al Gore had won the 2000 election.
How had he handled the 9/11 crisis?
How would have been the afgan campaign?
Would there have been an Irak war without consent of the UN?
Would the US stand now almost alone in the world?
Would he have allowed the massive sympathy toward the US that rose throughout the world after 9/11 to vanish in the air and be replaced by hate, as it happens now?

A second term for Bush Jr will be a catastrophy for the US and for the rest of the world. He has clerly shown he gives just a s#### for international legality, peace, freedom and all the other values the US should represent, and used to.

Rob The Bastard

10-02-2003, 18:58

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif Dave's back... when did that happen???

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

And Gregoshi is taking a walk on the wild side http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Life is sweet

Devastatin Dave

10-02-2003, 19:56

I'm back and you're still a bastard http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Rob The Bastard

10-02-2003, 21:19

Some things never change... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Sorry Dave... I crossed over into the Entrance Hall without noticing... I wasn't trying to stir you up. ( Honest )

Teutonic Knight

10-03-2003, 02:43

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 02 2003,10:31)]One more rude, obnoxious, offending or insulting post and I will close this topic. I leave it open because until the past 24 hours, there has been some good discussions this topic.

My apologies to all involved that I did intervene sooner.
I will now take this opportunity to publicly apologize for any offending statements I may have made. I have deleted the posts that I now see were very offensive from your (plural) point of view. Please understand that while I have cooled off, I was venting a just frustration, even if I did it in the wrong way. Once again I appreciate your patience with this young Turk whose heart is aflame. In particular I would like to apologize to Kominos, as I seem to have ruined your debate, I'm sorry I even entered this discussion because I wasn't able to argue civilly and calmly. Please accept my apology, and I will humbly bow out.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sincerely, Teutonic Knight

Wellington

10-03-2003, 04:15

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 02 2003,20:43)]Sincerely, Teutonic Knight
Bloody Germans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Teutonic Knight

10-03-2003, 16:01

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Oct. 02 2003,22:15)]
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 02 2003,20:43)]Sincerely, Teutonic Knight
Bloody Germans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
My German heritage does show every now and then...

komninos

10-03-2003, 17:29

Hi TK,

Apologises accepted. I was totally pissed when a thread with 4 pages of lengthy posts with interesting and undoubtedly excellent posts and views ended up in what was ready to become a Euro-American flame war with things like that.
to write one of these posts it took me (at least) several minutes just to come up with what to say, how to phrase it so it is not offensive or aggressive to anyone.
The people that wrote here were at the upper level of the age in these forums ... some post here for the first time. This means something ... what they read was at least worth reading and replaying at Starting a flame war it is a plain insult.
Having said that ... TK a word to the wise - when you enter a conversation holding a sword, you have lost all credibility and your case no matter what you do. Trust me on this one, I see it every day
==========================================================
Now can anyone tell me what is happening in the US with that CIA scandal?

Teutonic Knight

10-03-2003, 17:38

Quote[/b] (komninos @ Oct. 03 2003,11:29)]Hi TK,

Apologises accepted. I was totally pssed when a thread with 4 pages of lengthy posts with interesting and undoubtedly excellent posts and views ended up in what was ready to become a Euro-American flame war with things like that.
to write one of these posts it took me (at least) several minutes just to come up with what to say, how to phrase it so it is not offensive or aggressive to anyone.
The people that wrote here were at the upper level of the age in these forums ... some post here for the first time. This means something ... what they read was at least worth reading and replaying at Starting a flame war it is a plain insult.
Having said that ... TK a word to the wise - when you enter a conversation holding a sword, you have lost all credibility and your case no matter what you do. Trust me on this one, I see it every day
==========================================================
Now can anyone tell me what is happening in the US with that CIA scandal?
duly noted, once again I apologize, now let's get this debate going in the right direction http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Aurelian

10-03-2003, 21:26

Now can anyone tell me what is happening in the US with that CIA scandal?

SURE...

Somebody in the White House broke the law. According to the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act it is a federal crime to reveal the identity of undercover agents. The penalty is up to $50,000 in fines and 10 years in prison.

The outed agent is Valerie Palme/Wilson, a CIA specialist in tracking weapons of mass destruction. Since she has been exposed, her CIA career has been effectively ended, and the usefulness of her network of contacts has been compromised.

The culprits in this dastardly, illegal, and unpatriotic act were: conservative pundit Robert Novak, and at least two senior administration officials.

Why would they do such a thing? Apparently because they were trying to make an example out of former ambassador Joseph Wilson... by going after his family.

Wilson, who worked in the last three administrations, publicly undermined confidence in the administration's story that Saddam Hussein tried to buy enriched uranium in Niger. The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger in February of 2002 to see if there was any truth to the story. His report, and the conclusion of the CIA, was that the relevant documents were a hoax. The administration chose to ignore the CIA and used the story as a justification for war against Iraq. The faulty intelligence even made it into the president's 'State of the Union' speech - two weeks after CIA chief George Tenet had asked that any references to enriched uranium from Niger be removed from a previous presidential speech (Amazingly, Condi Rice claimed last weekend that she and her team had simply forgotten that the intelligence was bogus during the intervening two weeks&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. Even Colin Powell refused to add the Niger claims to the list of now-discredited intelligence he presented to the U.N.

On July 6th, 2003 Wilson finally decided to set the record straight. He wrote a New York Times op-ed detailing his investigation and publicly embarrasing the administration.

On July 22nd, Robert Novak outed Wilson's wife in his column, citing information from two senior administration officials. It now appears that those officials had also shopped the story around to at least six other journalists. White House political guru Karl Rove was reported as having said that Wilson's wife was fair game.

What makes this story particularly dangerous for the White House is that the CIA has asked for a full investigation of this dangerous un-American outrage. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif The CIA has gone through all the proper channels, filing criminal reports and asking the Justice Department and FBI to investigate. Calls have been made for a Special Prosecutor.

The most likely candidate for investigation is the president's chief political advisor Karl Rove. Rove has a longstanding reputation for dirty tricks and character assassination. He also maintains hands-on control of a surprisingly large network of Republican political operatives. Furthermore, Rove was fired from Bush the first's presidential campaign in 1992 for similar behavior. He planted a negative story about Bush's campaign fundraising chief Robert Mosbacher Jr. in another... ROBERT NOVAK COLUMN His skullduggery was discovered by his bosses and he was fired. This, of course, did not prevent him from becoming a leading light in the Republican party.

So, what do we have here? Republican political hacks have undermined the actual war on terror by breaking the law so they can discredit opponents who are telling the truth about their propaganda. In other words, business as usual in the Bush White House.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Suppiluliumas

10-03-2003, 22:23

...or maybe Novak just read Wilson's bio. This sensitive information is all in there as well. I guess Wilson wasn't as concerned about his wife's career when there wasn't some political hay to be made. This really is a bit of a stretch.

Aurelian

10-03-2003, 23:21

Supiluliumas, what bio are you referring to? The only one that I could find online was his bio at the Middle East Institute. The only reference to his wife in it is:

He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.

Nowhere in it does it say anything about her work life.

Novak was very explicit about the source for his story, although he is running in circles trying to protect his career at the moment.

If you have some additional information, I think you should bring it to the proper authorities immediately. I mean EVERYBODY knows that the CIA is full of left-wingers that are out to get this country. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But seriously, the CIA are willing to engage the White House in a bureaucratic war over this. They are taking the matter very seriously.

Could you elaborate on how this is a bit of a stretch?

Lord Rom

10-04-2003, 03:34

What do we really know except what the people on tv or the newspapers tell us to believe? If everyday those people tell us Bush is stupid and what he did is crazy don't we all just agree? Frankly the media is political and I dont believe half of what I hear. I also know that even though they try to sound unbiased they are anything but that. The owners just arent going to let someone speak out on their media that doesnt follow the party line. After 9-11 I agreed that it was way past time to get serious about those who want to kill us. Countries that allow terrorists to exist are either powerless to stop them or secretly admire them. I have great respect for peoples of all nations but when you are attacked you must defend your countrymen.

Suppiluliumas

10-04-2003, 06:33

Novak published her name (as I pointed out, it had already been published). This is a bit of a stretch as far as scandals go. Was it that hard to understand?

Tim

10-05-2003, 02:53

Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ Sep. 25 2003,12:37)]I'll add another one: Karl Rove and the 2002 mid-term elections. In the summer of 2002, it looked like the administration was going to be going into the mid-term elections with a recession, no Osama, and the Enron/Worldcom scandals. The newspapers were beginning to carry heavy coverage of all the corporate accounting scandals, and Congress had begun to talk of investigative hearings. The Bushies were, of course, hugely vulnerable on this issue because Enron's Ken Lay had been one of Bush's biggest financial patrons. Bush himself was even implicated in similar financial shenanigans. If the press was obsessed with corporate misdeeds until the November elections, the Republicans would not have won control of the Senate, and might even have lost the House. So, the decision was made to try to keep public attention focused on national security issues. Since nobody could find Osama, the green light was given to go ahead with the Iraq operation that was so dear to the neocons.

The administration had to portray an Iraq invasion as something vital that was going to happen IMMMEDIATELY in order to knock all of the corporate scandals off the front pages. Of course, the public rationale behind the invasion changed constantly because they were just trying out different approaches to see which one would resonate best with the American people. Paul Wolfowitz admitted that 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' was chosen as the advertising campaign because it was the rationale that everyone could agree on for bureaucratic reasons (whatever the hell that means).

Rove was successful. The papers forgot about the accounting scandals. The Republicans actually picked up seats and won control of the Senate, thereby gaining control over all branches of government (although Dem. Senator Paul Wellstone had to die in a plane crash to make that happen).

Now we find out that the Iraqi's didn't have any WMDs after all. We all should have realized this because the administration wouldn't have the stones to attack a country that actually HAD WMDs.

B'bye

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
You are a child. The reasons the corporate scandals didn't go any where because Bush had nothing to do with them. The Democrats had also received large sums of money from Enron. Also, Worldcom/Mci were bigger scandals than Enron. And lastly, all of this started when Clinton was President.

And your remark about the death of Wellstone is really sad. You did know, didn't you, that the Democrats 'stole' control of the Senate from the Republicans when that moron from Vermont(?) Jim Jeffords changed sides and gave the Democrats the Majority. And a Republican was elected to place Wellstone because he *won* the election and Walter Mondale lost. Democracy in action. You ought to learn about it. Read a book.

Please, if your to ignorant to post on big-boy stuff, keep your comments in the gaming section.

Gregoshi

10-06-2003, 00:23

Ahem. Please keep your comments to the issues - not the person. Insulting another is a big no-no and a sure way to start a flame war. If you can't discuss the issue in a civil manner, then don't post in these topics.

We now return you to your to your regular programming.

Aurelian

10-06-2003, 07:11

Quote[/b] ]You are a child… You ought to learn about it. Read a book… Please, if your (you’re) to (too) ignorant to post on big-boy stuff, keep your comments in the gaming section. - Tim

Geez. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Folks, it’s the ‘politics of personal destruction’ that Clinton used to complain about I’m sure that Tim’s crankiness is simply due to his having had a bad week. There are new stories about Rush Limbaugh’s drug use, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s breast groping, and “top administration officials” being investigated for treasonously revealing the identity of undercover CIA agents. It can all become a little overwhelming at times when your idols let you down (sniff). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif Right, Tim?

I suggest you spend some time in the Boobah Zone. It's a wonderful magical place that will restore your inner tranquility.
The Boobah Zone (http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html)

Now, in regards to your comments about my post:

First, go read the following stories. Though you may not have heard about it at the time, the idea that the White House was generating an Iraq scare as an election strategy was widely discussed before and after the 2002 mid-term elections.

Marketing Iraq: Why now?
CNN’s Bill Schneider
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/

Bush's Strategy: Win Now, Pay Later?
Washington Watch by Howard Gleckman
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2002/nf2002101_2940.htm

Me-Too Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
By Robert S. McElvaine
http://hnn.us/articles/1100.html

In order for the Republican election strategy to succeed it was necessary to link Iraq with the wider war on terror, convince the American public that there was a dire threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and beat the drums for an immediate invasion. As you may have noticed, there have been NO indications that Saddam was in any way connected to 9/11. There have also been NO indications that the Iraqi's were in possession of WMDs - despite all the concrete statements that the administration made to that effect. The actual reasons for the invasion were being discussed in Komninos' original post. I merely added the political dimension to the list.

Quote[/b] ]The reasons the corporate scandals didn't go any where because Bush had nothing to do with them. The Democrats had also received large sums of money from Enron. Also, Worldcom/Mci were bigger scandals than Enron. And lastly, all of this started when Clinton was President. - Tim

If you are saying that Bush had nothing to do with the Enron scandal because he didn't personally cook the books, you are missing the point. The Bush administration was hugely vulnerable on the corporate scandals. Enron (like most major corporations) typically gave money to selected politicians in both political parties, but 70% of their contributions went to Republicans. Furthermore, Enron CEO Ken Lay was a close personal friend of the Bush's, a major fundraiser for the Republican party, and ONLY contributed to Republican presidential candidates in 1996 and 2000. He was a member of the Bush Pioneers ($100,000 contributors), and gave heavily for both the inauguration and Bush-Cheney Recount Fund. For more on Enron political contributions, check out the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics at: Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/enron/enron_pres.asp)

In return, he had a long history of access to the Texas governor's mansion and the White House - where he had a strong voice in the formulation of energy policy. This was a point of vulnerability for the Bush administration. If you recall, there was a scandal over Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings. The Bush administration was accused of determining its energy policy in secret meetings with corporate lobbyists (including Ken Lay). The task force sparked a major investigation by the GAO, stonewalling by the White House, and a major court battle. For details see numerous articles including the following:
FindLaw's Legal Commentary (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030829.html)

There was also the possibility that the corporate scandals could resurrect interest in President Bush's own questionable financial dealings while at Harken Oil. Bush Squirms in Sleaze Scandal (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/economy/story/0,1598,755136,00.html)

You may remember that there was considerable public outrage at the behavior of many of America's leading corporations - and their fleecing of their own employees and investors. The Senate Democrats were holding public hearings and grilling CEOs. There was a real political danger for the Republican party that the Democrats could use the bad economy and public outrage over the corporate scandals to tip the election in their favor. The Republicans needed to shift the public's attention back onto the 'war on terror' in order to defuse the Democrat's political strategy. I think you'd agree that despite the DLC's attempts to snuggle up with corporate donors, the Republican's are still identified as the party of big business, deregulation, and lax oversight. The administration didn't want the election campaign to be focused on the favors that the party does for its corporate contributors.

Quote[/b] ]And your remark about the death of Wellstone is really sad. You did know, didn't you, that the Democrats 'stole' control of the Senate from the Republicans when that moron from Vermont(?) Jim Jeffords changed sides and gave the Democrats the Majority. And a Republican was elected to place Wellstone because he *won* the election and Walter Mondale lost. Democracy in action. - Tim

As for my remark about Senator Wellstone... I was indicating just how close the election was. If Wellstone had been killed one day later, his name would have remained on the ballot and a replacement candidate would not have been required. A similar situation occurred in 2000 when John Ashcroft lost to Mel Carnahan's dead body. Carnahan died in a plane crash one day after the cut off date, beat John Ashcroft, and had his term served by his wife. If Senator Wellstone and his wife had not been killed in a similar plane crash, it is possible that he would have been elected, and that the Democrats would have maintained control of the Senate. An elderly Walter Mondale was not a compelling choice for the voters of Minnesota.

As for Jim Jeffords switching sides in the Senate... He did it because he was a Republican moderate. During the campaign, Governor Bush promised bi-partisanship. Bush said that he would be a uniter, not a divider. When in office, he didn't live up to that ideal. Jeffords found himself in a radicalized Republican party that actually tried to punish him for his moderate views. His switch at least allowed some degree of bi-partisanship in the government. See story at: http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/060401.htm

Well, I'm sure that this post has completely changed your political viewpoint and you'll never listen to Rush, O'Reilly or Coulter again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

No hard feelings. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

squippy

10-06-2003, 09:19

Quote[/b] (Lord Rom @ Oct. 03 2003,21:34)]Countries that allow terrorists to exist are either powerless to stop them or secretly admire them. I have great respect for peoples of all nations but when you are attacked you must defend your countrymen.
The problems is that America and its puppet Israel are the primary perpetrators of Terrorism - withness the bombing in Syria. As long as America would rather have war than peace, it will be hated and attacked, and rightly so.

Edit: and lets not forget that the US is perfectly happy to support that mass-murdering war criminal, Ariel Sharon. So if you back war criminals, expect to get what you deserve.

Old Bald Guy

10-06-2003, 11:50

???????????????????????

Where you gettin' your news from? Al Jazeera?

Wait, is that dynamite strapped to your chest? Run, everybody, run He's gotta get to heaven and have all dem virgins

Sheesh.

komninos

10-06-2003, 14:25

Hi all,

I have read some of the things people wrote here but work has been way too much these days ... so I will be brief on this one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Tim,
Aurelian has been one of the most informed people in this thread. His (now 25) posts have been mainly in this thread and no one can deny that he is a tough opponent with excellent sources and dam good reasoning that thankfully I was lucky he was close to my thoughts and did not have to face. As you can see in his last post ... So comments like you are a child ... well don't fit for him ... sorry http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif

Also giving a CV with the name of your spouse does not mean that you publish there name i.e. if I say my wife’s name is Helena that does not give any info. about here whereabouts other that she is my wife. It is different to go out and say she is a CIA operative dealing with WMD in Iraq

Question : Do you think this can bring the administration down?
This looks very similar to the Dr. Kelly’s case in Britain.

================================================
Now terrorism has many roots.
One thing I totally dislike in the War on Terror is that it does not define what is terrorism.
So what is terrorism and what is liberation movement?
Liberation movement is in general any armed struggle against the establishment government that uses oppressive methods on a specific part and/or the entirety of its population.
On the other hand
Terrorism is in general an armed struggle that a specific group of people uses to accomplish its own agenda with no regard on human life or the consequences of there actions to the general population
Problem ... how do you interpret these two definitions (that do not exist in any legal document] is in the eye of the beholder. Any armed group can ether be a terrorist group or a liberation movement depending the stand point of the observer.

As the US and any other country interpret it ... terrorism is anything that uses force against friendly governments while Liberation movement anything that fights against unfriendly governments.
In the middle east things are even more problematic than just an interpretation. Anyone willing to open a new thread on this?

OBG as far as Ariel Sharon goes ... he is wonted as a War Criminal. The only reason the charges were not used against him was that under pressure from the US the Belgian government passed a low that present heads of state are can not be prosecuted.

Lord Rom

10-06-2003, 15:36

The difference between terrorism and liberation defense... In my opinion terrorism is an attack on women and children. But not to be confused with an attack on a military opponent who likes to hide behind women and children. In my country only the lowest of the low hide behind women and children.

Custor

10-06-2003, 16:29

Shouldn't that be just children as women are in the armed forces?

The Wizard

10-06-2003, 19:45

Though, as a European and not an American, I do not have the full view on Bush's actions (i.e. domestic), I believe that if I could vote, and vote in the US, I would still vote against. This because I think Bush is a fool that should not have been elected in the first place, because he is not a good choice for a president. But that's just my view.

Also, I believe Wesley Clark not to be the 'solution' to 'our problem' with the USA.

Devastatin Dave

10-06-2003, 20:11

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 06 2003,13:45)]Also, I believe Wesley Clark not to be the 'solution' to 'our problem' with the USA.
Very profound statement. Clark would not be a good leader.

But all is moot since Bush will win anyway, mark my words http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The Wizard

10-06-2003, 20:23

yes, well, with a lack of better candidates... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Teutonic Knight

10-06-2003, 21:51

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 06 2003,14:23)]yes, well, with a lack of better candidates... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I could almost agree with that...

I would vote republican for lack of a better party, I think they're both evil http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

The Wizard

10-06-2003, 22:30

Yes, before Bush's first term, Al Gore wasn't exactly a very good alternative, now was he... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Old Bald Guy

10-06-2003, 23:03

Gore? Still isn't a good candidate. The problem is good people don't run for public office, anymore. Who would want to? Can you imagine the kind of attacks that would come the way of, oh, Thomas Jefferson (mysogenist, had a black mistress), U.S. Grant (a drunk), Theodore Roosevelt (an imperialist), FDR (Liberal), Truman (another drinker), and, let us not forget Abraham Lincoln, who failed in business, lost every election he ever ran before becoming President, had a loony for a wife, and was flat-out butt-ugly in this day of great hair wins elections.

Look at what's been happening in California. Swarzenegger is not my guy, not by a long shot. But the attacks on his character are ridiculous. I'm ashamed of the garbage that's heaped on candidates these days, in the name of partisan politics and ratings. Who but Calpurnia could be elected? The stuff about Arnold is so petty. You should see the skeletons rattling around in MY closet.

The fact you want to be President automatically disqualifies you from the job. Harry S. Truman

Wellington

10-07-2003, 00:48

Quote[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Oct. 06 2003,17:03)]Theodore Roosevelt (an imperialist)
Now hang on there.

I don't know how History and hindsight has portrayed Theodore Roosevelt in the States, but for my money (as a European) he was one of the GREAT American Presidents of all time.

Why? Because he helped Europe out in WWII - yes Because he introduced lend-lease to Great Britain when they were struggling alone against Nazi Germany/Europe - yes Because he understood the responsibiliy that the USA, as a free democratic Nation, held in 1940 when the whole of the rest of the free democratic world was being trodden under the heel of the Fascist jackboot - yes.

Roosevelt had it tough.

He was the President of a Nation with many sub-groups that had different affiliations to what was occuring in Europe at that time.

He was the President of a Nation that would have liked to have remained removed from events in far off lands.

He was the President of a Nation that was only just recovering from the social and economic distasters that the USA had experienced in the early 1930's.

But ... he was a President of immense vision.

TR did'nt drag the American Nation into WW II with bullshit, lies and innuendo. He was the President of a nation that, at that time, was stll recovering and did NOT see perceive such conflicts in far off lands to be relevant to the USA. TR did not have the backing of the US peoples to involve them in distant wars, but he did have the foresight and conviction to use his influence to prepare the American for a war that he knew was necessary to be fought.

TR did'nt ride roughshed over the American peoples. He could'nt. His opinions would have been rejected. Rather, he persuaded them with simple similars and by doing so both assisted the British Nation and also prepared the USA for a war that he knew, sooner or later, would involve his Nation.

TR did'nt survive to view the results of his Diplomacy, both inside and outside the USA, but his legacy certainly stands him in good stead as, IMHO, one of the Great American Presidents of all time.

Whether or not he was an imperialist - I don't known. Whether or not his vision and foresight contributed significantly to the Western Democratic world we see today (with all it's faults) - I have little doubt.

Welly

Gregoshi

10-07-2003, 03:52

Welly, you are talking about Franklin Roosevelt. Theodore was president at the turn of the 20th century (1901-1909) and famous for the expression speak softly but carry a big stick.

Wellington

10-07-2003, 09:19

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 06 2003,21:52)]Welly, you are talking about Franklin Roosevelt. Theodore was president at the turn of the 20th century (1901-1909) and famous for the expression speak softly but carry a big stick.
Whoops - RTFM Welly http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

LestaT

10-07-2003, 12:27

Honestly, it wont matter at all if Bush is reelected or not. Every american president is sworn to uphold and protect the integrety of the state of Israel. That is the main and only reason there's so much distability in the middle east. After the first gulf war, many people are glad that Bush sr lost the election to Clinton and they believe he will bring a balance the middle east but alas, the first 'foreign policy' action he took was to send fighters and bombers to Iraq.

Case close.

p/s: i'm not against jewish or even denying the existence of the state of Israel, but can't you guys Arabs n Jews live in peace ? Is it that difficult ?

LestaT

10-07-2003, 12:30

probably Jack Ryan shold be the president... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif ehek ehek ehek

The Wizard

10-07-2003, 15:34

Teddy is the single best president for bringing us.. the teddy bear http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

But didn't FDR have some kind of disease that he succumbed to in the end..? I forget my American history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Devastatin Dave

10-07-2003, 16:04

Quote[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Oct. 06 2003,17:03)]Gore? Still isn't a good candidate. The problem is good people don't run for public office, anymore. Who would want to? Can you imagine the kind of attacks that would come the way of, oh, Thomas Jefferson (mysogenist, had a black mistress), U.S. Grant (a drunk), Theodore Roosevelt (an imperialist), FDR (Liberal), Truman (another drinker), and, let us not forget Abraham Lincoln, who failed in business, lost every election he ever ran before becoming President, had a loony for a wife, and was flat-out butt-ugly in this day of great hair wins elections.

Look at what's been happening in California. Swarzenegger is not my guy, not by a long shot. But the attacks on his character are ridiculous. I'm ashamed of the garbage that's heaped on candidates these days, in the name of partisan politics and ratings. Who but Calpurnia could be elected? The stuff about Arnold is so petty. You should see the skeletons rattling around in MY closet.

The fact you want to be President automatically disqualifies you from the job. Harry S. Truman
I believe this is the greatest post I have ever read and sums up why this whole arguement is null. OBG, you're the man We have had our disagreaments, but we're singing in tune on this opinion. Great post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Jeebus_Frist

10-07-2003, 16:42

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 07 2003,09:34)]But didn't FDR have some kind of disease that he succumbed to in the end..? I forget my American history http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
FDR ended up in a wheel chair because of the disease Polio. He died of a cerebral (brain) hemorrage.

Gregoshi

10-07-2003, 18:36

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Oct. 07 2003,10:04)]
Quote[/b] (Old Bald Guy @ Oct. 06 2003,17:03)]Gore? Still isn't a good candidate. The problem is good people don't run for public office, anymore...
I believe this is the greatest post I have ever read and sums up why this whole arguement is null. OBG, you're the man We have had our disagreaments, but we're singing in tune on this opinion. Great post http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'll add my agreement with these statements.

I'll also toss out a topic that contributes to the candidates we get - the state primary system. Everytime I think about it I get very annoyed. I live and therefore vote in Pennsylvania. In many of the past presidential elections, the candidate(s) I liked had long since dropped out of the race thanks to poor showings in earlier primaries. A big Thanks (sarcasm) to the first states with primaries (or caucuses) like New Hampshire and Oklahoma. These two states are usually responsible for eliminating half the field running for president so the rest of the country has little choice but to rubber stamp the remaining candidate. The other early states eliminate the rest, so by the time I hit the voting booth I've got one choice - two if I'm lucky. Yeah, my vote counts. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Anyway, I hope I didn't hijack the topic, but this topic seems to tie-in with where it was going.

Devastatin Dave

10-07-2003, 19:36

Another problem, along with the primaries, is the two pary system. I wish we had elections like those in South Korea and many European countries (I can hear the collective gasp from many of you to hear me say this http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ). I want more choice.

HopAlongBunny

10-08-2003, 08:52

Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ Oct. 06 2003,01:11)]The Boobah Zone (http://www.boohbah.com/zone.html)
Great link http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Just finished writing a mid-term and it erased my stress in no time

The Wizard

10-08-2003, 17:12

How about, since he's the Governator of Cali now, we have Ah-nuld for president? :P

komninos

10-08-2003, 19:21

There are actually two problems with the US political system.
1. Just to parties to vote (here in Greece we have some thing like 20 which is equally stupid)
2. Voting is not obligatory ... practically the President is elected by a minority.

Old Bald Guy

10-09-2003, 00:08

Thanks, Dave. There is always room for agreement. Something our politicians have forgotten.

Greg, the primary system replaced the old back-room-filled-with-smoke-let's-make-a-deal system. Sometimes I long for those days because the professionals didn't allow the radicals to get hold of the system. There was corruption, but there's corruption today, too. Corruption is always present and can't be stamped out. (See Civ 3 for the extreme example.) uh, oh, now watch the thread go on a tangent

The only good thing Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primaries have is they are small states and politics is retail there. The voters get to meet the candidates on the only personal level any of us will ever get. The two states actually do serve a purpose. The rest, well, let's just say by the end of March, it's over.

The biggest problem as I see it is this pushes the election process way, way out in time. The Democratic candidates have been running for a year now, a year away from the election. By the time we vote, we're pretty much sick of the whole damn thing. The fiasco in California did prove one thing. You can hold an election in 7 weeks and get the same results. I'd like to see the primaries start June 1 of the election year. Four months, or ten if you figure they'll start running at the first of the year. It's not like we're really going to learn anything about the candidates. They never say anything that's not carefully crafted for effect. We just elect the guy with the best hair.

We should also vote over a weekend, not just a Tuesday, when most people are at work. Start Friday evening at six and close the polls Sat evening at six. It would increase the turnout greatly. (Not that politicians would actually LIKE the idea of a bigger turnout.)

Unfortunately, it ain't gonna happen. We're at the mercy of those with the money and those who are single-issue voters--anti-abortion, gun control, anti-gun control, save the whales, etc. The lobbyists make the laws because they have the money. The bureaucrats run the country because the politicians are always running for office. And the people across the country, who feel they are just voting for empty suits, think you should never discuss politics.

We could do it differently. We do have the most powerful weapon in the whole world; we have the VOTE. But, instead, we get exactly what we deserve.

FDR would NEVER get elected now. A guy in a wheelchair as President??? You gotta be kiddin' me.

OBG

biguth dickuth

10-09-2003, 01:08

Another problem with all modern western democracies is the fact that politicians are professional. Therefore, they are extremely devoted to their cause, which is to get elected or reelected. For that they need to spend enormous amounds of money in fancy campains and advertising. This money is not really collected through donations (donations cover only a small proportion of the total money spend) but through funding by companies and corporations. Of course they usually name these funds donations too, but that is not true. A payback is expected. This payback is often in the form of certain modifications and decisions, regarding the country's policy in economical and other matters. Those decisions are expected to be made by the candidates or governments once they get elected, and are also expected to bring the funders a short- or long-term profit.

So politicians don't really serve the people who voted for them. And remember:it's supposed to be democracy, which means that the people rule. So the government is supposed to be a representative of the people. No government, however, acts this way. They never do things the way most people would like them to. They are more like an elected aristocracy who, hidden inside their democratic cloak, they take decisions without ever giving a dime about what people really want. And when the majority of people are strongly against something and start to react, they use the mass media. (remember: most newspapers, tv channels and other media belong to or are patronised by large media corporations and these corporations (being companies in a competitive market etc) seek one thing, and that is not truth. They seek profit....) They use the mass media to launch a full-scale propaganda and gradually change the people's minds. This happened before the war in Iraq in order to persuade people that Saddam was really a danger to the world and a collaborator of Al-Qaida. Of course, the more the time passes, the more it seems that all this was a well organised plan in order to get the people's consensus by using fake data.

And even more, the renowned freedom of speech in our western democracies is, after all, not so true if you consider the fact that people who oppose the status quo get minimum publicity or no publicity at all, like in the case of Noam Chomsky in america. How many people in america are aware of him and of other liberal people? Only a few, i'm afraid. This is because the media do not give any public time to people with very good and rational ideas, whose ideas however happen to confront the strong industrial and economical lobbies who control the governments and are afraid that people one day may realise that these guys get rich and strong by stepping on their backs.

Another aspect that shows that our democracies are fake, is the amount of control in our countries. Especially after the 9/11, in most western countries there are cameras and cops everywhere, there is zero tolerance to any antisocial behaviour, and with the recent antiterrorist laws the authorities will have access to personal data of citizens and in the near future new passports containing biometrical values, such as the eye(retinal) paterns (more specific than the fingerprint) and other personal information, will be introduced, especially for travellers to america. Of course they say that this is for our own safety against terrorists, but sacrifising personal freedoms in the process of a safety hysteria is a dangerous choice. It is more than certain that, in the future, governments will use this advantage and will be able to call every opossing group, such as anarchists, anti-globalisation demonstrators, and other liberal people, terrorists...

Anyway, the reason why i am writing all this is that, although i think that this christian fondamentalist Bush is one of the worst possible options, even another president would not make the system better. In the us and everywhere else, the global economical system and the leading industrial and financial elit are responsible for the continued depletion of natural resources and destruction of nature, the increasing poverty of people in the third world and of course for the increasing gap between the rich and the poor (the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting more and poorer...). If we want this situation to change, we need a radical change of political and economical systems, as western type democracies are neither true democracies, nor do they guaranty freedom. Just imagine all those people who shed their blood, thinking that they do it for freedom...

And guys....don't believe whatever you see in rambo-type holywood movies... nucing the arabic world is not a good idea... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

(hope this post doesn't start a flame war... hehehe)

hellenes

10-09-2003, 03:55

A nice thread that ive found(here on the orgs forum) :
http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin....;t=2158 (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=2158)
rosacrux gives a good description of modern system of government and i agree with biguth http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

biguth dickuth

10-09-2003, 04:45

I read Rosacrux's thread. It was well said and i agree.

I think that it would possible for us to go back to immediate democracy and become polites rather than the plebes we are.

Just think of all the prospects that technology gives us. Standing all together in a modern agora would be ideal as there is immediate contact between polites, but as we are too many for that, we could use computers, for instance...

You can call this a utopia but i consider it possible and a goal that is worth pursuing...

NewJeffCT

10-09-2003, 14:48

Quote[/b] (Wizzy @ Oct. 08 2003,11:12)]How about, since he's the Governator of Cali now, we have Ah-nuld for president? :P
No, back when the Constitution was written in the late 1700s, the authors feared a secret British spy being able to worm his way to the Presidency... so, there has always been the requirement that a President actually have been born in the United States of America as a US Citizen. So, you cannot have been born as a citizen of another country, as Arnold was in Austria.

Shono

10-09-2003, 14:51

So Arnie is an English Spy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Dont bring us into it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Wellington

10-09-2003, 16:34

Quote[/b] (Shono @ Oct. 09 2003,08:51)]So Arnie is an English Spy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Dont bring us into it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
No - dont be silly.

Englishmen don't possess such chins http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I suspect Arnie is a deep planted Austrian 'agent-provocatour' that has resided in the USA for long enough to attain legitamacy with the US voting populace.

His right wing tendancies, both in his movies and his newly adopted political stance, tend to lend credence to such an argument. His statement yesterday, in that he intends to make no more movies for the forseeable future, also adds fuel to the fire This guys movies have infiltrated the average American brain for so many years that such big-screen sci-ops are no longer necessary.

The events of 9/11 and the election of Dubya make such American anti-the-world propaganda irrelevant in terms of the now-prevalent US right wing indoctrination of the American public. Why do it on celaloid when you control the largest military machine in the world and can therefore do it for real

Hey, it makes better TV does'nt it

What Dubya and co don't realise, however, is that our Arnie was recruited by the German Abwehr at the ripe old age of 6.

This is worrysome as it tends to confirm that the Germans are once again intent on European domination, and have been planning it (via Arnies intergration into US Poilitics) for 30 years or more.

This makes a lot of sense, as it tends to explain German politics for the last 3 decades; those rather ineffectual and somewhat domicile policies (both domestic and foreign) that can only now be viewed in light of Arnies succession to leadership of the most powerful US state.

So is Arnie the saviour of California? No I rather suspect he is the equivalent of the 1940's U-boats http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

So, for all you Americans who voted for him, once you see the German Republic starts marching the jackboots over Europe once again, and you hear arnies Govermnetal protestations that decry American involvement, I hope you are all afflicted with an uncontrallable urge to vomit into the nearest latrine; troubled in the knowledge that YOU (yes, YOU INDEED) are responsible for WW III.

Jeez ... can't we just have another Arnie movie ...

... please http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Welly

NewJeffCT

10-09-2003, 17:10

Good one Wellington. As that astute political analyst Charles Barkley said early this year, you know it's a strange world when... the best rapper is white, the best golfer is black, the tallest basketball player is Chinese and the Germans don't want to go to war or something like that. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

NewJeffCT

10-09-2003, 19:36

Dave in Korea - what did you think of the Bush administration's proposal to cut the medical benefits of veterans by over $14 billion from earlier this year?

Or, that wounded soldiers in Iraq were forced to pay for their hospital food until Congress changed the law, or that soldiers in Iraq are struggling to get enough water to drink?

And, about following a president that, as far as I know, is still AWOL from the National Guard after his wealthy & connected father pulled strings to get him in the National Guard in the first place.?

Krazy Munkey

10-10-2003, 02:58

No one in America even votes Thats why the politics are so screwed up

We are also not the brightest nation. 65% of the students can't find Iraq on a map http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif That is dumb, because they used to show a map of it on the news every day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

Gregoshi

10-10-2003, 05:18

Now Munkey, let's be fair. All those maps of Iraq show a close-up of the country and not where it is in the world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Wellington

10-10-2003, 05:29

Quote[/b] (Krazy Munkey @ Oct. 09 2003,20:58)]We are also not the brightest nation. 65% of the students can't find Iraq on a map http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif That is dumb, because they used to show a map of it on the news every day http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
And for those Americans that have found Iraq, 100% of them can find neither WMD's nor Saddam ...

... regardless of the fact that his picture's plastered on every second wall in Iraq

Talking of dumb and students, I often wondered why Dubya felt the need to include Saddam as Ace of Spades in his pack of 'bad guy' playing cards I mean Jeez, anyone who does'nt know what Saddam looks after the events of the last 12 months is in serious need of education

Gregoshi

10-10-2003, 05:36

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Oct. 09 2003,23:29)]...I mean Jeez, anyone who does'nt know what Saddam looks after the events of the last 12 months is in serious need of education
Now Welly, let's be fair. Have you seen pictures of Saddam's cabinet meetings? Half his staff looked like him. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif There was some serious brown-nosing going on in that regime.

Wellington

10-10-2003, 06:05

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 09 2003,23:36)]
Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Oct. 09 2003,23:29)]...I mean Jeez, anyone who does'nt know what Saddam looks after the events of the last 12 months is in serious need of education
Now Welly, let's be fair. Have you seen pictures of Saddam's cabinet meetings? Half his staff looked like him. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif There was some serious brown-nosing going on in that regime.
Hey, your right Greg. Now I come to think of it, the cabinet all looked like Saddam. In fact, half the Iraqi Military also looked like him

Jeez, do you think he's been cloning himself for the last 10 years? Makes sense Maybe that's the real reason for the invasion ... I mean who wants thousands of Saddams running around the planet

Maybe Dubya did'nt issue a pack of 52 Ace of Spades in order not to give the game away. Hhhmm, maybe he's smarter than I thought. Maybe I should pay him more attention http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

Oh my God I just heard Bush's speech tonight. He definately stated that Iraq will no longer be a breeding ground for terror, tyranny and aggression.

It's beginning to make sense. Maybe the WMD the US can't find really stands for Whereabouts of Multiple Dictators

That's it. I'm convinced. I now officially support this war. Let's get Saddam ... er ...

... all of them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

Gregoshi

10-10-2003, 19:31

Let the Clone Wars begin... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

LestaT

10-11-2003, 13:03

There's so many Saddam doubles in Iraq but where is the real one ? Might just be in hollywood... Americans (or shall I say American Foreign Policy ) created Saddam as a counter balance to Khomeni's Iran. Now Iran is becoming more moderate then Saddam no longer have any use. He gets his pay and enjoy sunshine in the bahamas.

Next on the list. Syria maybe. Israel must stand to fulfill the prophecy. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Old Bald Guy

10-11-2003, 13:14

Even Saddam's daughters look like him. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

(I'm just bumping the thread.)

Despite commonly held beliefs, we have more than two parties in the US, the others are just issue-oriented rather than inclusive. I suspect this is the case in most places where they have actual free elections. We've never had two parties farther apart than we have now, so the choices have never been more clear-cut.

We've had parties other than the two we have now back through our history. The Democratic Republicans, which go back to Jefferson and became the Democratic party. The Whigs of John Adams were extremely powerful and died out before the 1860 election of Lincoln, who was elected by the Republican party. And let's not forget the Bull Moose Party, a momentary fantasy of the great Teddy Roosevelt. There have been others, but they got as much traction as the Green Party, which is the top single-issue party, the Libertarians--who don't stand for anything at all and might as well be called the Contrarian Party or the Oxymorons--and the Independent Party, who made one helluva run with Ross Perot as their Daddy Warbucks. (I'm betting that reference is lost on 99% here.)

The two party system works quite nicely. People have a choice without being confused by too many choices. The republic system also works quite well, if you consider how the democracy of the California recall worked so badly. And, as much as I'd like to not admit it, I even think the elitist system of the Electoral College is better than direct voting, given the fact that most voters can't see through the fog of campaign ads and the evidence right in front of their faces.

For proof of all that is wrong with this country right now, I give you the world class hypocrite of the moment, Rush Limbaugh, who would be convicted and sent away if we were to take him at his past words. A despicable human being if ever there was one.

Unfortunately, guys, we may be witnesses to the end of the American empire. We've built a bridge too far, and it's going to fall because we cannot support it. The next twelve months could be the most important year of our history.

OBG

LordKarolinger

10-11-2003, 13:58

we are all nice and pleasent on this forum aren't we http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

mystic brew

10-11-2003, 14:00

I always thought that voting should be compulsory. However, there should be a 'none of the above' box to tick.

what were the stats on the last US election? 50% or so voted, Bush 'won' with less than half of that. So the 'none of the above' party would win by a mile

Wellington

10-11-2003, 14:53

Quote[/b] (mystic brew @ Oct. 11 2003,08:00)]I always thought that voting should be compulsory. However, there should be a 'none of the above' box to tick.

what were the stats on the last US election? 50% or so voted, Bush 'won' with less than half of that. So the 'none of the above' party would win by a mile
I would tend to agree. Lets make it compulsary. Let's also go further and allow the voters an anti-vote as well.

For example, the voting forms to select either of 2 candidates, A and B, should allow 4 options - 2 pro and 2 anti for the candidates. Voters are allowed to tick only 1 of these 4 options.

Any candidate that polls more anti votes than pro votes is automatically eliminated. If all candidates poll more pro-votes than anti-votes they are all eliminated and cannot stand again. A new election with different candidates is then necessary.

The winner of such an election is the one that attracts the highest proportional pecentage of votes (pro-votes divided by anti-votes).

That would throw the cat amongst the pigeons - or rather the populace against the tossers than run for office. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Orda Khan

10-11-2003, 20:41

How can anyone vote that dime bar into office in the first place?

....Orda

Anti-christ

10-12-2003, 12:39

This so-called war on terrorism and so-called fight for democracy, why the hell doesnt he do anything about Burma or Indonesia? or why not Zimbabwe or Liberia? oh, heres a thought, what has afghanistan and iraq have that none of these countries have? can it be oild perhaps?

hes doing it for himself, not for the world, anyone who thinks that is kidding himself

Snowhobbit

10-12-2003, 15:03

Citera[/b] (Orda Khan @ Okt. 11 2003,22:41)]How can anyone vote that dime bar into office in the first place?

....Orda
He wasen't voted into office, gore won by half a million votes

Gregoshi

10-12-2003, 20:05

Quote[/b] (Snowhobbit @ Oct. 12 2003,09:03)]He wasen't voted into office, gore won by half a million votes
Too bad some of those didn't live in Florida.

Unfortunately the way the election turned out was a lose-lose situation. Had the court decision gone Gore's way, the Republicans and Bush supporters would be whining the same We was robbed whine.

Cebei

10-12-2003, 20:09

Are there any real challenger for presidency this time?

Kraxis

10-14-2003, 01:43

Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Oct. 12 2003,14:05)][Had the court decision gone Gore's way, the Republicans and Bush supporters would be whining the same We was robbed whine.
Hardly any basis for that as the courts didn't say Bush wins here
They said No manual counting

So if they had accepted the manual counting then it would have taken some time to find out if Bush or Gore won.

But then we could also talk about the 5,000 black voters (black is such a bad term, lets just call them Democratic) who had suddenly no bills (or what it is they are called) to put their 'X' on.

Ahhh... there are plenty of issues in that election.

Parmenio

10-14-2003, 05:24

Quote[/b] ]
Ahhh... there are plenty of issues in that election.

It gets better...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm

Kiss manual recounts goodbye.

Anti-christ

10-14-2003, 09:44

they are the best damn votecounter ever they only missed by 500 000 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

NewJeffCT

10-14-2003, 13:58

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Oct. 12 2003,14:09)]Are there any real challenger for presidency this time?
Unfortunately, none of the Democratic candidates out there are very inspiring - with the possible exceptions of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, had a way of connecting with people when speaking on television and would have easily won in 2000 if allowed to run again. None of the Democrats out there right now seem to have the ability to connect to the average person... and, with most of the mainstream media dominated by Republicans, it is hard for them to get their message out.

Devastatin Dave

10-14-2003, 15:03

Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ Oct. 14 2003,07:58)]and, with most of the mainstream media dominated by Republicans, it is hard for them to get their message out.
You're kidding right? Maybe Fox news might have a right leaning bias, but are you telling me that NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are run by Republicans? That's probably the strangest thing I've ever read on these boards. Let me guess, Dan Rather only goes to Democrate fund raisers to get the inside scoop for the Republican party. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Oh well, I hope the weather is nice in your world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

Teutonic Knight

10-14-2003, 15:56

Quote[/b] (Anti-christ @ Oct. 12 2003,06:39)]This so-called war on ism and so-called fight for democracy, why the hell doesnt he do anything about Burma or Indonesia? or why not Zimbabwe or Liberia? oh, heres a thought, what has afghanistan and iraq have that none of these countries have? can it be oild perhaps?

hes doing it for himself, not for the world, anyone who thinks that is kidding himself
woah, one country at a time, we'll take care of this problem. Since no one seems to want to help us militarily (besides the U.K. and even they're stretched very thin) it's going to take awhile.

Teutonic Knight

10-14-2003, 15:58

Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ Oct. 14 2003,07:58)]with most of the mainstream media ted by Republicans
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gifROFLhttp://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

you oughta watch american news some time buddy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Anti-christ

10-14-2003, 16:55

Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Oct. 14 2003,17:56)]
Quote[/b] (Anti-christ @ Oct. 12 2003,06:39)]This so-called war on ism and so-called fight for democracy, why the hell doesnt he do anything about Burma or Indonesia? or why not Zimbabwe or Liberia? oh, heres a thought, what has afghanistan and iraq have that none of these countries have? can it be oild perhaps?

hes doing it for himself, not for the world, anyone who thinks that is kidding himself
woah, one country at a time, we'll take care of this problem. Since no one seems to want to help us militarily (besides the U.K. and even they're stretched very thin) it's going to take awhile.
burma is one of the worlds most war-scorched contries in the world. their dictatorship is not ten our fifty years old, it is at least a hundred years old it might very well be longer, thats all i so far had the stomach to read about an entire peoples sufferings.

and why the sudden interest in the world? the us has had a long attitude of im happy, screw the rest of the world-attidtude, when have they before bothered to tear down dictatorships? but when there is american blood on the ground, then they are the mighty smighters who carry peace to the righteous and punishment for the wicked. im am sick and tired of the US acting as the rulers of the world. they do not have the right to barge in in a country, however cruel or evil the leader, without the acceptance of organisations that were formed to prevent and stop wars, such as the UN.

not only do they exclude the UN from their little party, they also exclude the NATO, their sworn defence AND offence allies. without right on their side and a president who doesnt think that US is the only country that matters, this so-called grand nation will fall into the same state that europe was during the dark ages

(OK, a bit melodramatic but it sounds good doesnt it?)

Devastatin Dave

10-14-2003, 18:05

Quote[/b] (Anti-christ @ Oct. 14 2003,10:55)]and why the sudden interest in the world? the us has had a long attitude of im happy, screw the rest of the world-attidtude, when have they before bothered to tear down dictatorships? but when there is american blood on the ground, then they are the mighty smighters who carry peace to the righteous and punishment for the wicked. im am sick and tired of the US acting as the rulers of the world. they do not have the right to barge in in a country, however cruel or evil the leader, without the acceptance of organisations that were formed to prevent and stop wars, such as the UN.
Now thats rich. The US criticized for doing something against dictators, then we're criticized for not acting and having a screw the rest of the world attitude. Maybe you euros and UN apologist should stop criticizing and having endless and meaningless debates and DO something about oppressors and other threats. The US can only do so much. Thank God the Europeans had more balls back in the 40's or everyone of you would be goose-stepping, gassing Jews, and speaking German now. If the majority of Europeans on these threads represent the majority of Europeans in Europe, then you Europeans has got to be filled with the largest population of pretentious windbags in the world. Talk, talk talk, no action. But then again, there hasn't been a dictator or repressive regime that the European continent hasn't fawned over.

Kraxis

10-14-2003, 23:28

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Oct. 14 2003,12:05)]But then again, there hasn't been a dictator or repressive regime that the European continent hasn't fawned over.
Ahhh... but at least we haven't directly put dictators in control of other nations in recent history.

Anti-christ

10-15-2003, 07:18

i salute thee, Kraxis

so you think that europe should be acting worldpolice too? well, since the last election in the states wasnt democratically correct, perhaps we should bring George Bush down, after all, he didnt get voted in by the majority

Parmenio

10-15-2003, 11:49

Quote[/b] ]
Ahhh... but at least we haven't directly put dictators in control of other nations in recent history.

Perhaps not, but we certainly sold a hell of a lot of arms to some of them.

Devastatin Dave

10-15-2003, 14:05

Quote[/b] (Kraxis @ Oct. 14 2003,17:28)]
Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Oct. 14 2003,12:05)]But then again, there hasn't been a dictator or repressive regime that the European continent hasn't fawned over.
Ahhh... but at least we haven't directly put dictators in control of other nations in recent history.
You should study African History. You guys did a great job with the infrastructure there. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Most of the worlds problems are due to Europes colonization policies.

Wellington

10-15-2003, 14:46

Quote[/b] (Anti-christ @ Oct. 15 2003,01:18)]i salute thee, Kraxis

so you think that europe should be acting worldpolice too? well, since the last election in the states wasnt democratically correct, perhaps we should bring George Bush down, after all, he didnt get voted in by the majority
I suspect Dubya will bring himself down ... eventually.

It just remains to be seen how much more damage this right-wing-christian-on-a-mission-from-God-moron will cause to both US foreign relations and the American people, before him and his ilk are finally removed from power.

Devastatin Dave

10-15-2003, 17:16

Quote[/b] (Wellington @ Oct. 15 2003,08:46)]before him and his ilk are finally removed from power.
Wishfull thinking on our part. He'll be elected once again and thank God. I prefer a man that does what he says, does what he can to keep his nation safe and doesn't allow other countries to govern my country's policies. If it was up to Dean, Clark, or any of the other dems, we would have Kofi Annan telling us what to do and France handling our security. No thanks. I'm already preparing to throw a party when he is elected for a second term. Wanna come? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Aurelian

10-15-2003, 18:36

I prefer a man that does what he says...
Uh, let's see... He said he wouldn't get involved in nation building. He said he was going to have a more humble foreign policy. He said he was a uniter, not a divider. He said he was going to be bi-partisan. Also see: Environment, Free Trade, Education, lies about Iraq, etc.

does what he can to keep his nation safe...
Too easy, but see today's latest:
Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks, Report Says
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=....l_Qaida (http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Osama_bin_Laden_and_al_Qaida)

and doesn't allow other countries to govern my country's policies...
Except for Saudi Arabia.

If it was up to Dean, Clark, or any of the other dems, we would have Kofi Annan telling us what to do and France handling our security. No thanks.
You're right, as soon as Dean or Clark become president it's 'black helicopters' time. French UN troops under the command of Kofi Annan will spread out across the US and pry guns from the dead hands of NRA members. How have you discovered our evil Democratic plans Curses, foiled again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Wellington

10-15-2003, 23:36

Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ Oct. 15 2003,12:36)]You're right, as soon as Dean or Clark become president it's 'black helicopters' time. French UN troops under the command of Kofi Annan will spread out across the US and pry guns from the dead hands of NRA members. How have you discovered our evil Democratic plans Curses, foiled again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I used to think the Germans were xenophobic.

Jeez, seems they are small fry compared to some US Republicans http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Devastatin Dave

10-16-2003, 14:21

I'm not afraid of things I dont know, I am afraid of things I do know. I know that if any of those so called cadidates on the democrat ticket get elected, the United States will suffer more than any country has in the past 50 years. We will loose our borders, our language, our property, our earned money, and quite possibly our lives. No thanks.

Empress_Zoe

10-16-2003, 17:18

An interesting statement Dave...

How will the US suffer more than any country has in the last 50 years?

Lose your borders?how?

Your language? how?

your property? how?

Your earned money? how?

Lose your lives? how? another Iraq war?

I really don't understand your post at all, it makes no sense, and your suggestions of what would happen if a Democrat got in to power in the US sounds absurd, but i will happily listen to you if you elaborate, like other gentlemen here have, on your reasons for the above. Please don't duck the questions this time.

It has been an involving topic so far, and much still needs to be discussed. I can't wait for An Australian Politics thread, in which i can denounce my own pathetic, Fibbing, manipulating Government.

Im glad you have a John Howard lookalike smiley here.... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Aurelian

10-16-2003, 18:32

I know that if any of those so called cadidates on the democrat ticket get elected, the United States will suffer more than any country has in the past 50 years.

Uh, yeah... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/shock.gif

Dude, I know that was probably just some quickly-typed hyperbole but come on... Cambodia, East Timor, Rwanda, Vietnam, former Soviet Union (just for starters).

We will loose our borders, our language, our property, our earned money, and quite possibly our lives. No thanks.

Yes, that is right. It's going to be just like that movie Red Dawn. If Howard Dean becomes president he will call for an immediate UN invasion of the United States from bases in Latin America, Siberia, and Europe. French and Nicaraguan paratroopers will force your kids to speak Esperanto. Dean will declare the US a communist people's republic and seize all property. Anyone who resists will be placed in work camps baking croissants to feed the UN army

...What, the Republicans have figured out this plan too Curses, foiled again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

But I kid. I'm a kidder. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I assume that your 'borders and language' comment referred to Democrats turning a blind eye to immigration issues. But Dude, Bush is the one that has been pushing for amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants. The only thing that put his idea on the backburner temporarily was 9/11.

President Bush believes in a widespread amnesty for the undocumented and, even after September 11th, has continued to press for it in ongoing discussions with Mexican President Vicente Fox... The President who is, if nothing else, a shrewd and insightful politician, knows that the growing Hispanic vote is the key to his re-election in 2004. Mindful that his candidate lost the 2000 popular vote by over 500,000 votes, political svengali Karl Rove has rightly identified Spanish-speaking Americans as the lever which George Bush could use to achieve an electoral stranglehold on key battleground states, such as Texas, Florida, California and New Jersey, the next time around. http://www.ilw.com/lawyers....an.shtm (http://www.ilw.com/lawyers/colum_article/articles/2002,0529-Endelman.shtm)

If you care about the immigration issue, I'd vote for one of the cranky Democrats. Dean and Clark probably wouldn't do anything too radical.

I'll assume the 'property and money' comments refer to concerns about Democrats on taxation. If you are a fiscal conservative vote Dean. Bush's tax cuts are skewed way up the income ladder from the likes of you and me. More importantly, the tax cuts aren't free. The government has to borrow that money (at interest) by issuing bonds. That just means that the feds have to come up with more money down the road to pay the interest on the bonds. If the government borrows lots of money to cover its deficit, it means that interest rates go up, the economy suffers, and you have to pay a lot more everytime you make a big purchase or use a credit card.

The big money guys that make political donations love these tax cuts because instead of having to pay taxes, the government effectively borrows money from them. They take their tax cut and buy bonds. The government then pays them interest for being kind enough to lend the money.

By the way, the Saudis and Chinese use a lot of the money they make off of our brilliant energy and trade policies to buy US bonds. So, a lot of your tax money ends up being used to pay interest to the Wahhabi Muslims and semi-Communist Chinese. Vote for a fiscal conservative like Dean who will balance the budget. The Republicans stopped being fiscally conservative a long time ago. Now, they're the party of borrow and spend.

As for your 'lives' comment: the Democratic candidates have taken the position that Bush hasn't lived up to his talk about homeland security. They want better security at ports, airports, the borders... and they want the Homeland Security Department to be made more effective. The Democrats are much more likely to do Homeland Security right.

NewJeffCT

10-21-2003, 18:46

Quote[/b] (daveinkorea @ Oct. 14 2003,09:03)]
Quote[/b] (NewJeffCT @ Oct. 14 2003,07:58)]and, with most of the mainstream media dominated by Republicans, it is hard for them to get their message out.
You're kidding right? Maybe Fox news might have a right leaning bias, but are you telling me that NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN are run by Republicans? That's probably the strangest thing I've ever read on these boards. Let me guess, Dan Rather only goes to Democrate fund raisers to get the inside scoop for the Republican party. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Oh well, I hope the weather is nice in your world. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Today, the weather is quite nice...

But, the fact is that CNN is run by a Republican, NBC/MSNBC is owned by one of the world's biggest defense contractors and CBS was recently rated as having the most pro Iraq war coverage of them all. 80% of the nation's newspapers endorsed Bush for president in 2000.

And, 'right leaning bias' at Fox News? They advertised Arnold for Governor t-shirts on their website... that's a little more than leaning. The difference is that Fox offers far fewer alternative (anything left of the far right) views than CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC.

And, that doesn't take into account talk radio, which most reports indicate is 90-95% conservative.

Parmenio

10-21-2003, 19:33

It's question of perspective. There exists sections of the US public who are so right-wing that even moderate Republicans are labelled as socialist appeasers by them.

http://toogoodreports.com

...gives an insight into their mindset.

Loose Cannon

10-22-2003, 03:35

Bush is a stupid fool. I dont like him, and he has not only sealed the fate for America, he has also for the earth...

gaelic cowboy

10-22-2003, 22:35

They way i see it Bush will win were all doomed the chinese will be raining nuke down from space.

gaelic cowboy

10-22-2003, 22:37

They way i see it Bush will win were all doomed the chinese will be raining nuke down from space.

NewJeffCT

10-24-2003, 19:50

Quote[/b] (Parmenio @ Oct. 21 2003,13:33)]It's question of perspective. There exists sections of the US public who are so right-wing that even moderate Republicans are labelled as socialist appeasers by them.

http://toogoodreports.com

...gives an insight into their mindset.
True - that is scary. Clinton was seen as moderate to conservative by most outside of the US, but is a flaming, gay loving, draft dodging, pot smoking, hippy liberal by some Republicans here. Meanwhile, he supported free trade much more than Bush (see the steel tariff disaster), Clinton reduced the size of government while Bush has increased it and Clinton balanced the budget, while Bush has run up massive deficits with tax cuts for the top 1% of the country (meanwhile, the bottom 90-95% have been paying about the same in taxes for the past 30 years...)

Alexios I Comnenos

11-23-2003, 00:53

Bush= Emperor Nero
Berlusconi= Totally Idiot, a puppet (Mafious) that think now Italy is important thanks to him...

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

Teutonic Knight

11-23-2003, 03:45

Quote[/b] (Alexios I Comnenos @ Nov. 22 2003,17:53)]Bush= Emperor Nero
Berlusconi= Totally Idiot, a puppet (Mafious) that think now Italy is important thanks to him...
Bush= hero and leader of the free world
Berlusconi=right-wing hawk mafioso, I think I like this guy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

**just playing a little devil's advocate**

The_678

11-24-2003, 01:03

Sure I would. Regardless of what people say he's has done good during the whole terrorst thing

king steven

11-24-2003, 01:19

NO not another term

heaven ta betc

didn't the first term seal his fate.

just like blair has NO change of my vote Neither does bush.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ the above is just an option. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif

komninos

11-25-2003, 12:28

Sorry to say this but I have a bad feeling that ...
J.W.Bush is going to have a second term
and
Tony Blair will go for the seat of Romano Pronty in the EU

God forbid we are doomed. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

NewJeffCT

11-25-2003, 22:37

I'm afraid of that as well. With all the G.W. Bush scandals from his past - cocaine use, 3 arrests - including Driving Under the Influence, alcohol abuse, family problems, deserting the National Guard, etc. - he was still seen as a fine, upstanding, honest family guy even though he has consistently lied about his record and his policies... while Al Gore was portrayed as a sneaky liar for a completely out of context quote about the Internet, when he did in fact propose legislation that led to the creation of the Internet.

And, if anybody speaks ill of Bush, they either get outed a la Valerie Plame, or the journalist who was accused of being gay and Canadian...or...

theadept

11-28-2003, 21:56

bush is an idiot FULLSTOP

Taillefer

11-29-2003, 15:30

I cant accept any of the media image manipulations of Bush. The BBC has pursued an
anti-war agenda ruthlessly and contrary to its charter as a public broadcaster.

Sir Christopher Meyer, previous ambassador in Washington, wrote recently in the Times
that we have been foisted (my interpretation) with a cartoon characterisation of Bush.
Deputy PM Prescott is similarly spoofed here for a few mispronunciations. (But funnily
enough achieved a huge boost in popularity when he biffed an egg throwing protester
Git your boxing gloves on George &#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

The Mafia is the media. You think seriously that YOU (Plural) will decide how to vote ? You will be Chomskied
like lemmings by whatever perceived threat the big business guys decide its in their interest
to project like shadows on a wall.

Bush has earned respect here, not least for humour and bravery. Remember what an idiot
people thought Churchill was before the last war - Gallipoli How wrong can you get

I dont know how I would vote if I lived in the USA, but I might be tempted to believe a man
can change, and I would try and assess who (and which team) could best lead the country in these dangerous times.

Taillefer.

FoundationII

12-01-2003, 18:32

Bush himself manipulates the American press (like CNN)
The BBC has a more neutral view on the war in Iraq, while it's a governmental company and the UK was in favor of the war then the CNN (which is a free capitalistic company)
Have you ever noticed that the CNN only gives the good things of America and hides the bad things?

Rivelin

12-01-2003, 19:01

Hear Hear... No vote for me. If the Iraq situation had not been so grossly mishandled the UN could have been kept onboard and there would have been more of a plan for post war. Bush was too weak to allow the natural job losses in the steel insdustry and slapped the tariffs on steel imports - all of a sudden everyone else is getting cheap steel except the US. Thats not a free economy, but it does seem to be a shot in the foot Nor was he strong enough to sign up to Kyoto, too much fear of job losses. I wonder how much that decision will cost the US when more 'freak' weather occurs.

dwarven_eagle

12-02-2003, 07:50

Three words

UN IS CRAP

Rivelin

12-02-2003, 12:28

In certain circumstances yes, but in others it is very successful - eg nation building

dwarven_eagle

12-02-2003, 15:30

Quote[/b] (Rivelin @ Dec. 02 2003,05:28)]In certain circumstances yes, but in others it is very successful - eg nation building
If UN is so good at nation building
why aren't they helping the US rebuild the DEprived nation of Iraq
why aren't they helping the US rebuild the Deprived nation of Aphganistan
Yes, they didn't want to be a part of it. But isn't the UN all about making the world a better place for everybody http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Rivelin

12-02-2003, 17:17

Like I said - because Bush ( or maybe it would be better to say Bushes cronies - Rummy et al ) mismanged the buildup to war and had a confrontation with the UN. I was pro war and found alot of the rhetoric coming out of their camp extremely counter productive.

However I think the UN would get involved if the US backed down a little.

It does no good to anyone (except maybe the radicals) for the US and the UN to be at odds.

I was glad that Iraq was liberated but it would have been far less controversial and easier for the Iraqis and muslim world in general to stomach if the UN had authorised the action and participated in the security operation and nation building afterwards.

Rhyno

01-02-2004, 07:10

Quote[/b] (bighairyman @ Sep. 20 2003,22:05)]well, i think BUSH was a pretty good president, protecting us from BInLAden free the ppl of afgnstan(sp) and gave democry to iraq, although they don't a ppericate it. but BUSH is a really horrible at economics. i think that's why so many people hate him
Bush protecting the US against Bin Laden? Liberated the people of Afghanistan? Gave democracy to Iraq? Wow, just in what planet are you living pal?

He did not defend the US against Bin Landen, he only liberated his hatred against Afghanistan and got into Iraq to democratize his furstration about 9/11

Ja'chyra

01-02-2004, 18:23

As a non-American I say vote for Bush, it gives the rest of us something to laugh at.

Do you honestly believe the guy is bright enough to be in charge of a shopping trolley never mind a country?

BDC

01-03-2004, 00:13

Bush hasn't liberated Arghanistan, he just kicked out the Taliban (woohoo), and whilst Kabul is fairly safe, the rest of the country is controlled by warlords just as ruthless as the Taliban were, who were all legitimised by the US. Not really a great help.

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-03-2004, 00:28

Quote[/b] ]Bush represents the new type of imperialists that evolved after the fall of the Soviets.
The problem with him is that the interests that he or his men represent in the administration control every move he makes. The war in Iraq has to do exactly with that. And here are the reasons:
a. The petrol companies needed the oilfields of Iraq to drag the oil price down while increasing their profit possibilities.
b. American hegemonists needed to place a leash over the Arabic world that has grown very cold towards the US.
c. Finely and most importantly control the oil way and in conjunction with Afghanistan control central Asia.

If any one believed that all this was to drive Sadam out they need a head check. US brought him to power and Dick Chany saved his hide when UN voted against him for the use of Chemical weapons in the 80

I live a long way from the US so I can't comment on this but the 9-11 was for him and his administration a gift from god (sorry if I offend any one with this no offence meant). It was used as an excuse to eliminate many civil writes in the US, start the his hegemonic wars on Afghanistan and Iraq that has still not paid and take the interest of the American people way from matters that really interested them. Like a sinking economy that took a heavy blow from wars he made and the destruction of the environment (Not voted for Kito, opened the Alaskan arctic to oil companies, ... )

Apart from all these he is fine. His strategy is totally in accordance to MTW. The problem is that we don't live in the middle ages any more
He has made the big construction companies rich, especially a company that he used to work for
He has cleared the entire stock of weapons in the US. Now this stock has to be replaced with new ones that cost more and more research is needed.

For me the best thing he did for American Hegemony is that used Blair to put a leash on the EU. He nearly broke up the EU and did not do it because in his hegemonic plans he needs it. The new stats that entered the EU needed the money and he bought their vote (Poland in Iraq???? and if Poland is OK Bulgaria????).

Finally who gives the right to the president of any nation to say to an other nation they need a new leader at least in a democratic environment

As a European and a unionist (if there is something like that) my grange is not with Bush ... The people that voted him will face the consequences of their vote. My grange is with Blair, Athnar, and Berlusokni. They deserted their side. That is unforgivable

VERY TRUE WORDS...

Bush is just a big-corp puppet fascist sh*thead.

The American government and it's election system is a nest of corruption.

The men on the shadow, who control Bush, are the closest thing to the most EXTREME FASCISTS you'll ever find...

avarin

01-03-2004, 00:44

Bush gets my vote. Ah, 4 more years of Condi Rice, what a beautiful thing it will be.

Pick a winner
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif
Avarin

Lord Azriel

01-03-2004, 17:15

Well the everyday American from experience is normally a good person who wants to do the right thing, not warmongers at all.

I really don't know what has happened to there government or intelligence services at best they seem grossly incompetent, America needs great inspirational leaders at this time, they need to befriend the world not alienate themselves.

The current government to be honest is borrowing far too much and only achieving a negative impact in the world’s eyes. This is not good for business of any kind

At the end of the day we put saddam there in the first place so his removal merely wipes the slate clean. The only way terrorism is going to be beat is in the hearts and minds of the whole world, I ask you do you think the actions of the bush administration are achieving this?

I'm not anti-American, there ideal of a free society and liberty are the best this worlds has but the actions of the current government goes against these fundamental principles.

I hope the Americans vote for someone in the same league as Kennedy was, someday soon as there current government is really not doing America a great service at all
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Chimpyang

01-03-2004, 18:31

In addition to this topic the US has many import taxes that vastly favor the US economy for example, Scottish wiskey would have such a high tax on it that Americans would ratehr buy summat American produced so as to save money. However, because fo the US's massive stranglehold on the world economy with many other currencies linked almost directly to the dollar, the other countries dare not lift their import taxes as to counter the moves made by the american goverment. I know this has been going on for a long time now, and it's perfectly ok to look after your country's interests but Bush and his administration have taken it slighly too far. I applauded the EU when in decided nuff was nuff and stared to raise taxes on American goods, this almost forced America to rethink the import taxes on EU goods. My point is that America has a monopoly almost on the worlds economy and it's trying to protect it from all others. Anyone who seems a threat to this is basically threatened until they back down. It's good to see some counties fighting back, especially at the G8 summit (i think). In MY opinion the wars in Afganistan and Iraq were more based upon Ameirca protecting it's oil (economic) intrests in the vital oil producing middle east area. (ALMOST all the rebuilding contacts were given to AMERICAN companies) which keeps consumers happy back in the US which then in keeps him in power (not to mention strengthening their hold in a far off place {in relation to America})

Sterkarm

01-03-2004, 19:17

I don't know if anybody else has said this yet, as I could not bear to read through any but the first page of posts. It sickens me. I really hope that the majority of Europeans and American Liberals are not as idiotic to say Bush failed in all aspects (environmental, economical, NATO public image, human rights, etc.) You say Bush failed in human rights? Do you realize the amount of mass graves that were uncovered in Iraq? The fact that we had testimony in 1994 from a nuclear scientist who worked on Saddam's nuclear bomb. The same person also dared to venture to make remarks about American culture calling it burger culture to the max, and calling the US a world dictator. Don't get angry just because we are possibly the greatest power the world has ever seen.
Also, concerning the public image, Bush is the kind of guy that doesn't care what other people think, he is gonna do what he feels is right. That is the kind of person I believe would be a great president because he doesn't do things for votes. Also, how dare you say that the election of American presidents is not a democratic process. It is how the founding fathers of America decided to have the country's leader elected and bear in mind, that was the first real democracy of Anno Domini (AD) time. You say that Gore would've won be majority, but he would be the ultimate pacifist and isolationist. He would let our country be assaulted until he was absolutely sure it would not hurt his image to counter-attack.
All the Bush haters calling him stupid are themselves either idiotic fools swept up in the ridicule of Bush's intellect that they see on TV, especially Conan O'Brien, which, while it is possibly my favorite TV show, I do not care at all for the remarks which insult Bush's intelligence, because they are completely unfounded. You insult him for how he stumbles with words sometimes. Is it that you would rather insult one's flaws that do not affect his character at all than his character itself? To become a candidate for the president of the US, you must be one of the most intelligent people in the political world, and have the cunning to outflank your competitors if you wish to win.
Also, you people tend to make sick/crude jokes about Bush's family and America itself. You who do so are the lowest class I can think of, elitists. Probably most of you are Europeans and feel that Europe is better than the fools who broke away from it. You can blame Germany for the US being so extremely powerful. It was WWII that launched us into the status of superpower. Tony Blair is the best example of the kind of European that I hope is the true majority. Also, do not call me racist or anti-Europe, I have many relatives that live/did live in the UK.
My main complaint about all the Bush haters is that most of your bashing is just going along with popular liberal opinion. Also, look at the democratic candidates. The leading one (Howard Dean) said if Bin Laden was captured, he would remain open on the question of his guilt. He would also increase taxes far more than any other candidate, including Bush. Even if you hate Bush and think him an idiot, he is the best choice. I vehemently support the War in Iraq, as it brought down one of the world's most evil people and destroyed all his means of extracting vengeance upon others. Therefore, I am an American and I would vote for Bush even if the democratic candidates weren't so unspeakably horrible compared to him.

Lord Azriel

01-03-2004, 20:37

For sure ridding the world of saddam is the best thing that has happened in years, and no one sensible would call bush an idiot.

You say Bush is the kind of guy that doesn't care what other people think, he is gonna do what he feels is right, gee that sounds democratic doesn't it. In the UK we got exactly the same behaviour from are leaders, non consultation with its citizens. Afterall we are attacking a nation without any real provacation (if you check your history he was a former ally, we put him in power, we even left him in power knowing full well what depravity he is capable of&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif No bush is very clever.

It sickens me how we can raise countless billions for an invasion when most of the world lives in outright poverty. I mean imagine a world when in Africa a famine broke out or even an AIDS epidemic and a coalition force led by the UK and US went in and carried out a true act of humanity.

If these ideas are too European or liberal I apologise as I don't know what that means. What does matter is we have been hodwinked, and that there are far worse things going on around the world then a upstart middle east dictator which we put there in the firsr place.

Chimpyang

01-03-2004, 22:11

Although I support what Lord Azriel says, if you look around at debts owed to the US and the European countries (not the EU). You can see that Lots and lots of thrid world countries hold significant debt to us. However, the developed countries are so used to these debt repayments as another source of income that it's almost a miracle if one country cancels otherses(not sure how to put it) debts to it. Also, another reason for the poverty of the trid world countries apart from the main problems are that since the third world counries are spending most of their annual income to repay the developed that if/when a bad harvest occurs, there is not enough money left to feed everyone.

Math Mathonwy

01-03-2004, 23:52

Bush 4 04 w00t http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif

cegman

01-04-2004, 01:32

I put am not an american becaue I cannot vote yet and therefore won't be voting for him but I would not vote for him anyway

Sterkarm

01-04-2004, 05:41

Lord Azriel, what I meant by that is that he doesn't care if the other nations (France, for example) want him to leave Iraq alone for their own gain, not the American people. Also, sometimes a leader must do what may not be approved by the masses in order to bring about ends that are beneficial to the world. In other words, the means justifies the end.
Nearly all popular media portrays Bush as an idiot, especially, as I said, Conan O'Brien. While he is just doing this to provide entertainment, he is making the true idiots believe that Bush is stupid simply because he sometimes stumbles on words when speaking and is from Texas. So sensible people do call Bush an idiot, perhaps, I hope, not truely believing it themselves.

Sterkarm

01-04-2004, 05:47

Also, Lord Azriel, I forgot to mention, most of that $80 billion is going to the rebuilding of Iraq and the economy of the people who live there in poverty. Therefore, it is helping people who live in outright poverty.

Ja'chyra

01-04-2004, 14:44

Greatest power the world has ever seen? Only because weapons are more powerful now than ever. Take it back to Medeival times and you would only have been a minor player.

And we don't all hate bush to go along with liberal views, remember the general interview? Maybe his autocue stuck.

Personally I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate, I don't think he should be allowed out of the house by himself.

Sterkarm

01-04-2004, 17:11

That is my point, you are calling him an idiot by saying, I don't think he should be allowed out of the house by himself. And it doesn't matter why we are the greatest power. Why would we be a minor power in the medieval era? We also command the (2nd or 3rd, can't remember) largest army in the world, and they are by far the most highly trained. Besides that, we have the ability to churn out mass-produced equipment and vehicles. Look at WWII. The Axis had the advantage in the beginning due to their huge militaries, but we had the advantage in the long run due to our industrial power.

Ja'chyra

01-04-2004, 17:52

Going by the poll results there aren't that many who would vote for Bush.

You may be able to mass produce, but so can may other countries. Having the most highly trained troops is debatable to the point of being blatantly untrue. There was a programme on the training for the French Foreign Legion which showed their training assault course with the slowest time going to the US Marines.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this I think.

Sterkarm

01-04-2004, 20:38

It is not simply mass-production, it is the ability to almost ungodly churn out mass amounts of tanks, airplanes, helicopters and virtually everything else that has allowed us to come out as the victor in every war we've fought but Vietnam (and possibly Korea), which we could have won if we would have crossed the neutral zone, but we were on defense all the time, we never went on the offensive, even when they were at their weakest. And please, don't compare the US military forces to those of France... remember WWII? Is the Maginot Line coming back to you now?

Lord Azriel

01-05-2004, 05:34

Look I have nothing against Bush but I feel his agressive who cares approach, which is admirable in many ways is playing right into the hands of these terrorist groups who are currently far better at 'winning hearts and minds' then we are. They can persuade young men and women to die in sucicide attacks -- can't get much more in to hearts and minds then that. Bushes various speeches don't take much work to paint America as the evil empire which is a shame.

No amount of American power will solve this, I lost a grandfather in the middle east soon after the suez crisis. When Arab opinion is of the view you are an evil empire you best prepare for the worst. This war will only be won when a majority of Arab and Muslim opinion see America as a caring and just state something no military can ever do -- a worldly wise, charismatic leader is needed and Bush as it were is the wrong tool for the job.

altti

01-05-2004, 18:41

Firstly I'd like to point out to all of those, who are basically shouting: You ungrateful european bastards, remember the WWII , that it was soviet union that defeated the nazis, NOT united states. To further your shock I'd like to remind you that US exists only because of the assistance of France, the very same nation you seem to be so fond to pick on. It's quite futile to be begging for graditude when you self show complete lack of it.

Quote[/b] ]Don't get angry just because we are possibly the greatest power the world has ever seen.
That's not true. You are the greatest (military) power today. You are still far away from relative overpower of Germany in the beginning of WWII (just to name one). You have better military than the whole europe combined because europeans don't have a need for a powerful army. It's just a matter of where one's concerns are. With united states foreign debt (bit short of 3 trillion dollars, if my memory serves me correctly) any country could build a considerable army.

Quote[/b] ]You say Bush failed in human rights? Do you realize the amount of mass graves that were uncovered in Iraq? The fact that we had testimony in 1994 from a nuclear scientist who worked on Saddam's nuclear bomb.
Human rights. For that part I have to say two words: Guantanamo bay.
Nuclear weapons. Now that is bad. For what I've been told there is one nation that has used nuclear weapons against another nation (it's civilians to be exact). Could you please tell me that nation because I've always been bad at history? Using nuclear weapons against civilians is far worse terrorist act than, let's say for example, flying airplanes to a few buildings.

Quote[/b] ]And please, don't compare the US military forces to those of France... remember WWII? Is the Maginot Line coming back to you now?
This kind of comments get me into a mixed state of anger and amusement http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . In the same situation americans would have failed just as miserably. Do you seriously think that french army hasn't evolved even a bit from those days? Just like yours haven't? Oh, wait...it has. But then again you are americans, right? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

And back on topic: I'm not a US resident and therefore cannot vote but if I was I'd not vote for Bush. He has the interest of US in his mind and isn't as bad person as he is maid out to be but surely there are better candidates running for office? I for one wouldn't be shocked if Bush got re-elected. The registered voters of US are in the best place to evaluate his credentials.

PS. I love Bush for one thing: There are so many good jokes about him in Late night with Conan O'Brian, which is aired out here in Finland.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Jacque Schtrapp

01-05-2004, 21:10

This was too precious an opportunity to pass up http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]it was soviet union that defeated the nazis, NOT united states.

I see. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to where the Sovs got the fuel for their tanks, ammo for their guns, and food for their bellies? You do remember SPAM don't you? They certainly do. Or we could take another train of speculation and consider what Europe would look like today if the US hadn't led an invasion of the mainland from Britain. Everyone east of the UK would be saying Spasiba with their daily ration of potatoe soup and black bread. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

Quote[/b] ]To further your shock I'd like to remind you that US exists only because of the assistance of France, the very same nation you seem to be so fond to pick on.

I missed the http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif part, could you be more specific? You europeans have a curious predilection to suppose that the US was dependent upon France for our independence. Need I remind you that the Colonials had won a handful of major victories over the Brits (the self-same victories that encouraged the self-serving French to enter on the already winning side in the war) and reinforcements from England were a two month sail away (if they would ever have been dispatched in the first place with trouble brewing in Europe). In the end the Brits were to involved in playing empire to have pressed the issue for much longer anyway. So sad.

He said
Quote[/b] ]Don't get angry just because we are possibly the greatest power the world has ever seen.

You said
Quote[/b] ] You are the greatest (military) power today. You are still far away from relative overpower of Germany in the beginning of WWII (just to name one).

I say: Huh? If empires are measured in terms of land area then the US is a relatively minor empire. If we are talking in terms of power and influence then we are playing a whole different ball game. Sure we have the most technologically advanced military and are capable of deploying massive forces around the world in a very short amount of time. But what about our culture? Have you had a Big Mac or a Coke lately? Maybe not, but you know right where you can go to get one. You've already admitted that you watch our television shows and you probably enjoy some of our movies as well. I'll bet your PC is running on one of our processors right now. Where do all of these things come from though? They are byproducts of the most all-encompassing economy over seen in the history of mankind. We are talking about an economy so intricately interwoven into the financial dynamics of every other nation on this planet that if the US were to collapse financially we would drag the rest of you down with us. What about politics? You can name my president, yet I haven't a clue whether you have a President or a PM. Perhaps you have both. Maybe that means I am ignorant and you are smarter than me and maybe it means that my President's decisions can affect your life (which could be why you know his name) and your president couldn't possible be of less consequence to me. You know our name brands, politicians, and actors; you know our states, cities, and history. Yet the average American supposedly can't point to Finland on a map, because we don't have to know one single thing about your country. In fact, how come you can understand what I am typing? You know how to read and write english. Why? It certainly isn't because of the Brits, Irish, Aussies, or Canadians (sorry, Scots most definitely do not speak english ). No, you learned english because Americans know english and in order to function in today's world you have to interact with us in order to take advantage of the global opportunities we offer. Now you tell me what power is.

Quote[/b] ]With united states foreign debt (bit short of 3 trillion dollars, if my memory serves me correctly) any country could build a considerable army.

Sorry, try 400 billion give or take 50 billion. So what? We take in and spend 9 trillion a year in tax money. We could pay all of our foreign debts and still have enough money for a concorde flight to and dinner at Helsinki's finest for every single person in the US, both legal and illegal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Quote[/b] ]Human rights. For that part I have to say two words: Guantanamo bay.

I won't argue this one. I disagree with much of the Guantanomo policy and I can obviously see how 600 terrorists being incarcerated are so much more of a tragedy than the story of a man who is personally responsible for the deaths of two million people by launching nerve gas attacks against unsuspecting towns and torturing to death tens of thousands of others in inventive fashion like shoving them feet first through an industrial shredder. Do you find it ironic that no one defended Hitler's death camps sixty years ago, but now the French and German bourgeois are rallying to the defense of author of these newer mass graves? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

Quote[/b] ]Nuclear weapons. Now that is bad. For what I've been told there is one nation that has used nuclear weapons against another nation

This is one of my favorite allusions. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif Japan was warned. Japan ignored the warning believing reports of atomic capabilities to be false. Japan was bombed. Twice. The problem is? Do you have any idea how many lives were saved by those two bombs? Look at Germany. Look at the devastation wrought at places like Dresden. Now imagine having to invade mountainous islands to subjugate a people well known for their ferocity and willingness to throw their lives away for a lost cause. Take the deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and multiply them times ten, that ought to put you close to the number of casualties I believe the Japanese would have suffered in an invasion, in addition to the allies, who would have probably lost a quarter of those numbers. Sometimes there is no right or wrong choice, only the lesser of two evils instead.

Quote[/b] ]And back on topic: I'm not a US resident and therefore cannot vote but if I was I'd not vote for Bush. He has the interest of US in his mind and isn't as bad person as he is maid out to be but surely there are better candidates running for office? I for one wouldn't be shocked if Bush got re-elected. The registered voters of US are in the best place to evaluate his credentials.

You couldn't possibly be more correct. He does have the best interests of the US in mind as he is the President of the United States. I seriously doubt that even Jacques Chirac wakes up and orders the wine/cheese export treaty with Italy to be re-written on more favorable terms for the Italians because he is concerned that they will have to pay a half a euro more per kilo of cheese or liter of wine at the till. He will be looking out for the best interests of the French manufacturers and their employees instead. There aren't really any decent candidates from the other major party. Actually that is an understatement. They suck. Big time. I'd be fine with Bush if he would stop creating so many new spending projects, but government must do what government does best: soaking money up like a sponge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

Aymar de Bois Mauri

01-05-2004, 23:20

Quote[/b] ]Nuclear weapons. Now that is bad. For what I've been told there is one nation that has used nuclear weapons against another nation (it's civilians to be exact). Could you please tell me that nation because I've always been bad at history? Using nuclear weapons against civilians is far worse terrorist act than, let's say for example, flying airplanes to a few buildings.
Sorry, Jacque Schtrapp, but he is right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

It is always unjustifiable... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

Papewaio

01-06-2004, 04:02

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ Jan. 06 2004,07:20)]
Quote[/b] ]Nuclear weapons. Now that is bad. For what I've been told there is one nation that has used nuclear weapons against another nation (it's civilians to be exact). Could you please tell me that nation because I've always been bad at history? Using nuclear weapons against civilians is far worse terrorist act than, let's say for example, flying airplanes to a few buildings.
Sorry, Jacque Schtrapp, but he is right. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif

It is always unjustifiable... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Bulldust. Read some history.

Say that to the prisoners of war held by the Japanese Imperial Army.

Say that to the survivors of Okinawa. Check out how many people (civilian Japanese as well) who died to take that small Japanese island and project it forward to an invasion of Japan.

The first bomb could have been avoided if Japan had unconditionaly surrended. They choose not to. Some say because they did not believe that the US had a super weapon on top of conventional weapon superiority.

The second bomb could also have been avoided if Japan had unconditionaly surrended. They again out of pride choose not to. This after proof of what type of power the Allies had.

The choice for the Allies was either a million dead in an invasion of Japan or to bomb Japan to its knees. As displayed in the Battle of Britain and Germany, conventional bombing did little to break morale if anything it united a people. The atomic bombs where so large that they broke through the hubris of the Japanese commanders and it got them to surrender.

So we have the deaths from two atomic bombs which where less then a conventional bombing campaign and far less then a full scale invasion. Yet you propose that it would have been better for more people to die by your methods.

If you can get your feet out of your mouth and feel like tasting them again try justifying Nan Jing.