Vote for Bush 2004!

magick

yup thats what we will be hearing when the American election will be held, just on some American boards about the Republicans and Democrats and debates are quiet passionate and down right violent sometimes! Just wondering if you were there how would you vote? Would you vote for Bush and why? Or any of the other Candidates and why?
Personally (even though im not American) id be more in the Democrat camp.

Hobbes

*Tumbleweed*

Seriously, why in gods name would someone vote him in again?

Only reason I can think of is if the person running against them is an even bigger f'up. Not going to happen until Bush learns to breed with himself.

magick

Hobbes :Not going to happen until Bush learns to breed with himself.

Classic


how much of the vote do you think he will get?

sovtek

Bush should be overthrown!
I will vote for Nader unless it seems that it will be wasted and then probably Kucinich or Dean (although some of Deans anti-establishment talk is cynical). Nader and Kucinich having the most intergrity IMHO.
Clark is a war criminal and Lieberman is a smarter version of Bush (soundbite of him blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine comes to mind here).
But my paranoid mind thinks the fix is in already with the Diebold machines.

Camille

Must admit, don't know much about other candidates, but how any thinking person could vote for Bush....Bring back Clinton, I say. (not sure about Hilary though.)

dahamsta

Like Michael Moore, I can't understand why the Democrats haven't driven for his impeachment. All Clinton did was lie that he didn't shag some bird, Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. If it was the other way around, the Republicans would've had the President ripped out of the Whitehouse long ago.

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

I wasn't so sure until they Got Him, but I'm hoping the resistance to Bush grows. Not entirely happy with Dean and the Democrats are almost as bad as the Republicans at this stage, but anything's better than Bush. Well, better than the puppeteers with their hands up his butt anyway.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by magick
yup thats what we will be hearing when the American election will be held, just on some American boards about the Republicans and Democrats and debates are quiet passionate and down right violent sometimes! Just wondering if you were there how would you vote? Would you vote for Bush and why? Or any of the other Candidates and why?
Personally (even though im not American) id be more in the Democrat camp.

I'd vote for Bush because of his human rights activism.

Manach

Another vote for Bush, if only out of supporting the shorter guy who bucked the historical trends by (nearly) beating Gore whos' 6ft+.

kano476

Hrm, Bush is a bit of an idiot but when it comes to foreign policy he's got the balls and a lot of americans love him for it.

sovtek

Originally posted by kano476
Hrm, Bush is a bit of an idiot but when it comes to foreign policy he's got the balls and a lot of americans love him for it.

This one don't!
And then there alot who are indifferent and do not realize how destructive "his" policies are.
To say he has balls would imply that he really makes decisions. To then say that his puppet masters have balls would ignore the fact that their foreign policies actually work to enhance their business prospects and their idealogical fundamentalism. Balls? No!

Hobbes

Originally posted by kano476
Hrm, Bush is a bit of an idiot but when it comes to foreign policy he's got the balls and a lot of americans love him for it.

You mean the balls like saying "Ooh sure China you can have Taiwan if you want, shut up Taiwan" Of course I'm sure this news story that very few picked up on that was released the same time Bush was chatting to the Chinese government had nothing to do with it.

vorbis

I'd probably vote for Bush. his domestic policies have been a bit iffy but I agree in general with his foregin policy. The thawing of relations with countries like Libya I think is a direct result of the Iraqi war.

Sand

Seriously, why in gods name would someone vote him in again?

Youre looking at it from your perspective. As the corinthian will remind you, you dont have a vote :dunno:

I found this .... from an apparently neutral, non-partisan yada yada yada poll site. Granted, as Ive argued before polls dont tell you much that is concrete and the numbers will be much closer when the actual vote takes place but Bush seems fairly comftable against *all* the potential democrat candidates.

Theres also a sets of polls by gallup from december 2003 that tell pretty much the same story

Bush will be able to talk about turning the economy around from the sinking ship he inherited, about his strong leadership in the face of 9/11 ( imagine the pictures of Bush giving his speech to the cheering rescue workers at Ground Zero etc etc ), about the successful invasion of Afghanistan and the rooting out of the Taliban, about liberating Iraq and capturing public enemy #1 Saddam and about hes the only one with the balls to take on the real threat of international terrorism; that the democrats want to give in and surrender etc etc. I know that anyone who dislikes Bush does so because they consider all of the above to be untrue and plain wrong but thats how its going to be presented by the Republican election machine. The Democrats will try to present the exact opposite - but thats why people will vote for Bush and seem to favour him at the current time.

Like Michael Moore, I can't understand why the Democrats haven't driven for his impeachment. All Clinton did was lie that he didn't shag some bird, Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. If it was the other way around, the Republicans would've had the President ripped out of the Whitehouse long ago.

I guess it was easier to prove Clinton lied - rather than just being mistaken. With Bush youd have to prove that he deliberately lied, and wasnt merely misinformed or mistaken. You might consider Bushes evidence and justification to be a load of crap but youd also have to prove that a man youd happily describe as stupid and easily led thought it was a load of crap too and wasnt just manipulated by Cheney or Rumsfeld.

Well just have to wait and see what sort of President will be elected - Dean will still be committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, hopefully even moreso, as bailing out wont help the situation. Things wont go back to "the way they were" no matter who is elected.

The Republicans will hopefully love to see Nader run, he isnt going to take Republican votes anyway.

Hobbes

Originally posted by vorbis
The thawing of relations with countries like Libya I think is a direct result of the Iraqi war.

Actually that was going on long before Bush said they were going into Iraq.

Youre looking at it from your perspective. As the corinthian will remind you, you dont have a vote

*shrug* They asked why would you vote for him. I have yet to see anything that he is worth voting back in for.

He didn't inherit a sinking ship. Or if it was sinking he would be more like the person drilling holes in the hull of the ship (probably to let the water out by his logic).

- Over 3.3 Million jobs gone, a large amount of which are never coming back to the US.
- Lied about Iraq and has even admitted it.
- Biggest deficit in the history of the US (and started with the smallest in US history).
- Enron, Hallibut, et al scandals.
- Cut Education spending.
- Cut Social security
- Cut Veterns pensions and wages of the soliders serving in Iraq.
- Removed a sh!tload of basic human rights.
- Implemented laws which protects him from impeachment.
- Made the world more unstable.
- Alienated most of the world against the US.
- Tax cuts for his rich buddies.

The list goes on, and that isn't even taking into the account the suspect way he won the election to begin with, and I'm not talking about hanging chads. I am talking about documented incidents of people being blocked from voting, the flaky electronic voting machines (that gave Bob Dole -16,000 votes and was only picked up in an audit), or all the people not allowed to vote due to a mistake by a company from Bushes home state that handles the voter register (3 guesses who they paid to win).

Seriously, if even half the crap pulled by that muppet happened in another country everyone in the US would be going 'wtf? Is that guy on crack?'.

shotamoose

It'll be interesting to see how far Bush et al go in trying to focus attention on his foreign adventures (while ignoring the whole "told a pack of lies" aspet) and deflecting it from the economy, which is his weak point. A look at Bush's approval ratings shows that his support has generally hovered at around only 50%, with a massive short-term boost whenever America either gets attacked or stomps some Arab country.

Anyone with a minimum of sense can see that his fiscal policy is completely insane and that the tax cuts overwhelmingly favoured the very rich. The Bushies will simply continue to refuse to acknowledge these as issues. They could claim that the economy is growing, which it is, but they'll have a hard time claiming that the economy is adding jobs, which it isn't. In fact, while the unemployment rate has been holding fairly steady, the number of potentially active people without jobs is much higher, since so many of them are leaving the economy, possibly because so many of them are sick of being long-term unemployed.

We're unlikely to see the Bushies get into those kind of subtleties. I can imagine their campaign consisting entirely of brief, small-word slogans: Let's Roll. Mission Accomplished. God bless the USA. Thank you and goodnight.

Redleslie

Churchill got slung out of office in 1945 even though he'd just defeated Germany, whose military capability was nearly as dangerous and evil as Iraq's or the Taliban's. A gallup poll showed that the capture of Saddam would only cause 3% of those polled to vote Bush. Everyone else said they'd made their minds up and it would make no difference to how they intend to vote - seems to be about 50/50 at the moment.

Former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill describes Bush as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people." http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1023195.htm

"Mr O'Neill, who was sacked by Mr Bush in December 2002, told CBS television the President did not ask him a single question during their first one-on-one meeting, which lasted an hour."

What a leader.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Redleslie
Churchill got slung out of office in 1945 even though he'd just defeated Germany, whose military capability was nearly as dangerous and evil as Iraq's or the Taliban's.

You mean actually or relatively? Because there is no way in hell Current day Iraq or the Taliban had the power Germany had at that time.

Redleslie

Little bit of irony there Hobbes. Idiots were fond of claiming that Saddam was the new Hitler. My point is that Churchill, whatever else can be said about him, led his country from the brink of total defeat to eventual victory. You'd nearly expect that he'd get rewarded with a 2nd term easily, but it didn't happen. So why should Bush's military successes against such puny opposition as Iraq and the Taliban guarantee him the election and convince voters to ignore the appalling state of the economy.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Redleslie
So why should Bush's military successes against such puny opposition as Iraq and the Taliban guarantee him the election and convince voters to ignore the appalling state of the economy.

The US in 2003 is so different from Britain in 1945 that a comparison is completely pointless. Listen, just look at the trend of Bush's approval ratings. After Sept 11 - up they go. War in Afghanistan - up they go. War in Iraq - up they go. Saddam captured - up they go, but as you say, not actually that high. War is good for Bush.

Nobody said his war record would 'guarantee' him victory. But he will play it up as much as he possibly can.

BattleBoar

Out and busy for a long time, but I'm back.

To me, it is quite clear that the evidence is overwhelmingly against Bush. He deliberately misled the public into believing that the US had information detailing WMD in Iraq, at best, on the suspicion that they would be found once troops were in the country, or at worst, with indifference to the knowledge that they would not be found. In either case, the very pretext used to launch the war has so far been proven to be a total sham, one which will cost the US dearly in the future in terms of military readiness (see troops still in Bosnia, Korea, etc..), economic recovery (see skyrocketing debt due to tax cuts combined with overspending coupled with what will end up being 100 billion + dollars in Iraq alone), and international credibilty (see WMD references above).

Bush has irreparably damaged the short term prospects for the US, and as a citizen of the US, I will most certainly vote democratic in the next election, except in the very unlikely event that the nominee is Hillary Clinton, in which case I will vote independent. I will probably volunteer in the campaign of whomever is the nominee as well.

Boar

Typedef

To be honest, it is a nonesense to think that 'political party(x)' will make any significant change to most industrial countries around the world, where it is frequently the middle ground of politics that wins elections 'either way'.

So, assuming that given the same set of circumstances (the New York bombings etc) a democratic President would have invaded Afghanistan and most likely invaded Iraq (but probably with French support), I think the only 'real' difference between Democrats and Republicans, is that Democrats generally seem to be better for the American economy then Republicans, ergo, it's in my economic self-interests to see Democrats in the White House.

In this light I'd vote Democrat, but, I wouldn't be under the ascenine illusion that a Democrat President would do anything more then sound-byte political platitudes to redress things like the Mid-East conflict, global warming and a whole range of issues, by virtue of the fact that the powerfull right-wing lobby groups (like oil companies or pro-Zionist lobby groups) don't suddenly just disappear when a Democrat gets into office.

This is reality, but, a Democratic reality brings less fear of the USA involved in a war, which leads to increased consumer spending and since the Democrats generally spend less on militaria then Republicans, it also means that there is generally more liquidity in the American Federal budget.

Perhaps that sounds cynical, but, as I've said, I don't honestly believe political parites are anything other then a show, put on to keep people entertained, where the real decisions get made by a powerful group of people 'across the political divide' and lobby groups in most, if not all countries.

BattleBoar

I too have my opwn gripes about the party system in the US (not qualified to speak to it in other countries as I don't vote in any other elections). However, my reason for voting democrat is not because I am a democrat, it is because I want to vote for the person who has the best chace of beating Bush in the election. So I am not so much voting for Dean/Clark/Kerry as I am voting against Bush. In previous elections, I have always voted independentas a protest against both parties. But the stakes this time are too high; I must vote for getting Bush out first and foremost, and I will encourage others to do the same.

And while I also believe that a democrat (Gore) would have invaded Afghanistan (which I supported), I do not believe he would have gone against all wishes of the international community to launch a war that does nothing but detract from the "war on terror". This is especially true if the motivation for fighting the war was based on fabricated "evidence".

Typedef

Originally posted by BattleBoar
And while I also believe that a democrat (Gore) would have invaded Afghanistan (which I supported), I do not believe he would have gone against all wishes of the international community to launch a war that does nothing but detract from the "war on terror". This is especially true if the motivation for fighting the war was based on fabricated "evidence".

Perhaps not, but, in the hypothetical post-September-11th scenario, a Gore administration would have to have a much more aggressive foreign policy.

You probably are right that a so-called pre-emptive strike against Iraq would not have happened, but, I do think that it is highly likely that increased military spending and the willingness to get involved in armed conflict (somewhere) would be quite high.

Vader

Originally posted by Camille
Must admit, don't know much about other candidates, but how any thinking person could vote for Bush....Bring back Clinton, I say. (not sure about Hilary though.)

Clinton was a filthy bastard who did worse things than bush! Clinton was as bad as any republican, there was nothing liberal or democrat about him. Fúck Clinton, Fúck Bush. The only thing about Clinton was that he was slick, nobody but a few knew what he was up to and he inspired ppl and had a charming personality. He was just as bad/evil

Vader

Originally posted by BattleBoar
Out and busy for a long time, but I'm back.

To me, it is quite clear that the evidence is overwhelmingly against Bush. He deliberately misled the public into believing that the US had information detailing WMD in Iraq, at best, on the suspicion that they would be found once troops were in the country, or at worst, with indifference to the knowledge that they would not be found. In either case, the very pretext used to launch the war has so far been proven to be a total sham, one which will cost the US dearly in the future in terms of military readiness (see troops still in Bosnia, Korea, etc..), economic recovery (see skyrocketing debt due to tax cuts combined with overspending coupled with what will end up being 100 billion + dollars in Iraq alone), and international credibilty (see WMD references above).

Boar

So what? All the average US citizen knows is what the mainstream media tell them, which is mainly republican.

What they will "know" is that Bush toppled Usama in afganistan, he changed his name to Osama so they couldnt track him thats why we need to keep all those witnesses in GUITMO for interigation. Somebody might mention the Taliban and draw the link that is the Taliban had another e and n they would become the next Bin Laden but thats unlikely. Republicans dont care about the Taliban because they are shouvinistic religous fundamentalists too.

Then Bush, joined by 40 allies ousted SadDam when the UN asked them to because they were afraid/useless. Then they'll be shown pics of SadDam and De Gaul shaking hands and see the misery of the Iraqis now and pics of SadDam the Terribles palaces.

The US ppl will know that they are at war. I expect the number of twarthed terrorist attacks will increas steadily comming up to the elections. Maybe they should be cancelled and Bush given emergency powers?

Gerry

Originally posted by Vader
Clinton was a filthy bastard who did worse things than bush! Clinton was as bad as any republican, there was nothing liberal or democrat about him. Fúck Clinton, Fúck Bush. The only thing about Clinton was that he was slick, nobody but a few knew what he was up to and he inspired ppl and had a charming personality. He was just as bad/evil

Great, informative post. Right so, list all the terrible things that Clinton did. Things which matter ( so you can leave out Monica Lewinsky ).

Vader

Continued support for Suharto as "our kind of guy". Illegally shipping weapons and training officers to Indonesia after congress forbade it. Doing nothing to stop the genocide in East Timor. Sabbatoging the war crimes investigation into East Timor.

Yougoslavia. Thats a whole thread in itself but id simply be copying "A new generation draws the line" by Noam Chomsky so I recomand you simply read it. In short forget everything you think you know about the Balkins 1999. The US created the problem in the Balkins, supported both sides to heat it up, sabatoged peace talks and kept the UN out all to prve the efectivness of NATO. Sounds paranoid doesnt it. You should read the quotes then from German Generals and NATO generals who say just that.

Increased activity in Columbia. Again another piss long thread I could write but Ill just say FARC are the good guys and Clinton kept some very brutal and unpopular ppl in power.

Haiti while he eventually did the right thing it took him 2 years and even then he put conditions on restoring your man Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.

Clinton was there in Somalia the greatest piece of propargand the world has ever seen. IMO the lads at Fox should have got an oscar.

All that shít he did for the WTO and in Latin america too. Yet it was an none of these things that he was caught with his pants down.

Geromino

Originally posted by Hobbes
You mean the balls like saying "Ooh sure China you can have Taiwan if you want, shut up Taiwan" Of course I'm sure this news story that very few picked up on that was released the same time Bush was chatting to the Chinese government had nothing to do with it.

Not quite! China maintains a one China, two systems doctrine with Taiwan, Macau, and Hong Kong having more economic freedoms while mainland China approaches but does not . Macau (a former Portuguese colony) and Hong Kong (a former British colony) are now part of that system. China wants the same with Taiwan. It all has to do with the Chinese psyche. Most Taiwanese want to reunite with China but only after some serious political reforms. You are starting to see some political reforms taking place. For example, you now have entrepreneurs part of the ruling council without any association to the communist party. You are also had President Hu's daughter marrying a entrepreneur named Moe (not much is known about him except he is the third richest Chinese) middle of last year. To put this in perspective, you are having a "princeling" marrying a capitalist. This is a major step in its cultural divergence.

So, what does this have to do with President's Bush's suggestion last year? President Bush is acknowledging that the US still recognizes the One China, Two Systems Doctrine (initially recognized by former President Clinton and followed by every other president). Currently, the two parties have a lot more discussions before any reconciliation would occur. It is also tied with the NK situation. Right now, Taiwan and Japan are going forward in developing anti-missle defense against NK (a loose cannon even by Chinese Standards). And the situation poses a direct threat to China for obtaining its One China, Two System doctrine.

Sparks

Vader, you forgot Rwanda, which was arguably Clinton's most heinous act.

And then there's PDD-25, which actually codified Clinton's post-somalia approach to peacekeeping - ie. not getting involved for fear of losing votes....

A Presidential Decision Directive (PDD 25), signed by President Clinton on May 3, 1994, reflected the newly skeptical attitude. It stated that “peace operations are not and cannot be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. When our interests dictate, the U.S. must be willing and able to fight and win wars, unilaterally whenever necessary.”

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol1/unpeace_body.html

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Continued support for Suharto as "our kind of guy". Illegally shipping weapons and training officers to Indonesia after congress forbade it. Doing nothing to stop the genocide in East Timor. Sabbatoging the war crimes investigation into East Timor.

So Vader, are you going to be responsible for your neighbors actions? That is what you are accusing the United States. The statement of "our kind of guy" was made far earlier before the East Timor crisis. However, the US has had little role in human irights investigations because it was purely an Indonesian investigations without any outside help.

Yougoslavia. Thats a whole thread in itself but id simply be copying "A new generation draws the line" by Noam Chomsky so I recomand you simply read it. In short forget everything you think you know about the Balkins 1999. The US created the problem in the Balkins, supported both sides to heat it up, sabatoged peace talks and kept the UN out all to prve the efectivness of NATO. Sounds paranoid doesnt it. You should read the quotes then from German Generals and NATO generals who say just that.

OH really Vader. Tell me, why did Putin support Milosovich in 1994 when Russia was about to veto UN resolution for the Balkans? How about Greece and Turkey who were about to go to war in 1999 when the ethnic fighting reached Macedonia of Yugoslavia? Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time. By the way, the Balkan situation started detiorating in 1994, not 1999. By 1999, the problem became a political fiasco because of Russia willingness to support Milosovich while providing minimal support of NATO (a minimax policy) and NATO was caught doing peacekeeping operations which was not well suited for in terms of command and control. In any case, former President Clinton was very reluctant to engage in the Balkans until he decided for purely humanitarian reasons as well as most world leaders (can you say Chirac and Shroeder?). Here are a few web links:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/AF23Ag03.html
http://home.uchicago.edu/~pefrase/kosovo/
http://www.cfr.org/pub4279/jessica_fugate/ nato_in_the_balance_united_states_must_nurture_european_allies.php - 28k

This is not to say former President Clinton bungled the Balkan situation, but it is not what Choamsky states by any means.

Increased activity in Columbia. Again another piss long thread I could write but Ill just say FARC are the good guys and Clinton kept some very brutal and unpopular ppl in power.

To say FARC are the good guys is totally preposterous Vader. They are a terrorist organization that deserves the uptmost contempt. Columbia has had a history of drug kingpins and the government of Columbia has been determined to root them out. Those drug lords (Calle, Medallin, etc) are a scourge of the earth and should be shown no mercy!

Haiti while he eventually did the right thing it took him 2 years and even then he put conditions on restoring your man Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.

I take it you would have put Aristide back in power thinking everybody will forget what happened in the last two years. There is a proceedure of diplomatic efforts that must be made before any military action. Furthermore, not to put any conditions would be considered politically reckless by international standards as well as completely ignorant of what happened in Haiti over the past few years. It would have constituted de facto imperialism on the surface with this suggestion Vader.

Clinton was there in Somalia the greatest piece of propargand the world has ever seen. IMO the lads at Fox should have got an oscar.

First, Somalia was devestated by a brutal civil war and famine. Second, humanitarian outcry's began pouring over and the UN, with US support, went into Somalia in 1992 under former President Bush Sr. Thrid, 25 Pakistanis were brutally murdered on June 5, 1993 by Adid. Even the UN Security Council considered him an outlaw. That is when a second US Armed Team came into Somalia and tried to arrest Adid for war crimes. So, where is the propoganda Vader?

Vader

Originally posted by Sparks
Vader, you forgot Rwanda, which was arguably Clinton's most heinous act.

And then there's PDD-25, which actually codified Clinton's post-somalia approach to peacekeeping - ie. not getting involved for fear of losing votes....



http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol1/unpeace_body.html

Those are just the first that sprung to mind, no particular order. I just had to laugh when Gerry thought I was only bitching about Monica. That was probably Clintons best use of his office

Sparks

Originally posted by Vader
Those are just the first that sprung to mind, no particular order. I just had to laugh when Gerry thought I was only bitching about Monica. That was probably Clintons best use of his office

Yes, but Monica was why he was kicked out by the Republicans. Which is why watching Bush get away with what he gets away with is so fustrating. I know it's like comparing two different kinds of cancer, but bush would be brain cancer and clinton prostate cancer.....

Vader

Ok Geromino I'll give you one reply but I said that each of my points could support a thread in themselves and debating with you is very time consuming, a luxary I wont have again for a while.

Originally posted by Geromino
So Vader, are you going to be responsible for your neighbors actions?
That is what you are accusing the United States. The statement of "our kind of guy" was made far earlier before the East Timor crisis. However, the US has had little role in human irights investigations because it was purely an Indonesian investigations without any outside help.

The East Timor situation was ongoing for 30 years actually. America was a little more than neighbourly. It illegally supplyed indonesia with weapons and training. What type of justice can be done by the perpretators trying themselves. That whole paragraph is nonesense.

OH really Vader. Tell me, why did Putin support Milosovich in 1994 when Russia was about to veto UN resolution for the Balkans? How about Greece and Turkey who were about to go to war in 1999 when the ethnic fighting reached Macedonia of Yugoslavia? Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time. By the way, the Balkan situation started detiorating in 1994, not 1999. By 1999, the problem became a political fiasco because of Russia willingness to support Milosovich while providing minimal support of NATO (a minimax policy) and NATO was caught doing peacekeeping operations which was not well suited for in terms of command and control. In any case, former President Clinton was very reluctant to engage in the Balkans until he decided for purely humanitarian reasons as well as most world leaders (can you say Chirac and Shroeder?). Here are a few web links:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/AF23Ag03.html
http://home.uchicago.edu/~pefrase/kosovo/
http://www.cfr.org/pub4279/jessica_fugate/ nato_in_the_balance_united_states_must_nurture_european_allies.php - 28k
This is not to say former President Clinton bungled the Balkan situation, but it is not what Choamsky states by any means.

The Balkins is the most complicated thing in history imo and I do not have the time to debate it here. I stand by what I said above, read that book because thats what I would be quoting in such an arguement. Chomsky does not say that Clinton Bungled the Balkins. That would be very uncharacteristic of him to say. From the evidence (well researched and sourced) it is clear that the situation was escalated by the US and others, that war could have been adverted, that the war was not successful, and that there has been much lying and misinformation since. Clinton is responsible for all this, he was the fúcking president, connect the dots.

To say FARC are the good guys is totally preposterous Vader. They are a terrorist organization that deserves the uptmost contempt. Columbia has had a history of drug kingpins and the government of Columbia has been determined to root them out. Those drug lords (Calle, Medallin, etc) are a scourge of the earth and should be shown no mercy!

The terrorist drug runners you speak of are right wing paramilitaries trained and funded by the CIA and the official government armed forces. FARC are terrorists but then again so is america by its own definition of terrorist. This is not just a case of symantics, there are many detailed books on US terrorism out there. Read one. I like Rogue States by Chomsky(yes I do read a lot of his work). You might as well read it as debate with me.

I take it you would have put Aristide back in power thinking everybody will forget what happened in the last two years. There is a proceedure of diplomatic efforts that must be made before any military action. Furthermore, not to put any conditions would be considered politically reckless by international standards as well as completely ignorant of what happened in Haiti over the past few years. It would have constituted de facto imperialism on the surface with this suggestion Vader.

yes I would have put him back in power straight away. I also wouldnt have ousted him in the first place. Yes I would believe that a man of his character and principle, bearing in mind he is a ####### priest, and trust him to turn the other cheak. Of course there would be some sort of trial but I would think they would be very fair ones. Why not make those the conditions?
Why would it be reckless to allow social reforms that would benifit the masses at the expense of a few rich foreigners?

First, Somalia was devestated by a brutal civil war and famine. Second, humanitarian outcry's began pouring over and the UN, with US support, went into Somalia in 1992 under former President Bush Sr. Thrid, 25 Pakistanis were brutally murdered on June 5, 1993 by Adid. Even the UN Security Council considered him an outlaw. That is when a second US Armed Team came into Somalia and tried to arrest Adid for war crimes. So, where is the propoganda Vader?

Your right it was 1992, like I said I was listing things off the top of my head.
But while you want to know why I listed it as wrong and proparganda:
On December 12, 1992, the U.S. sent 28,000 soldiers into Somalia under the cover of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in what they said was a “humanitarian mission” to bring food to starving people. The invasion came when a several-year drought that had taken tens of thousands of lives was actually abating. At the time, the evening news showed images of thousands of starving Somalis. What people didn’t see was U.S. troops — not delivering food — but instead engaged in daily gun battles and bombing raids in heavily populated neighborhoods. In ten months, more than 10,000 Somalis died as the U.S. engaged in aggressive military action against those who resisted.

Resistance among Somali women, men and even children to the foreign troops became widespread. The Somali people have a long and proud history of resistance. They fought for the freedom of their country from Italian, French and British colonialism — and they resisted the U.S. attempts to recolonize their country.

In the beginning of the military intervention in 1992, Colin Powell, at the time the chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the invasion a “paid political advertisement” for the Pentagon at a time (less than a year after the end of the so-called Cold War) when Congress was under growing pressure to cut the war budget. Powell opposed calls that money be used instead for jobs, education, health care, housing and other social needs, and instead sought to maintain the $300-billion-plus military budget.

In reporting on the U.S./UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), the human rights organization Africa Rights stated that troops “have engaged in abuses of human rights, including killing of civilians, physical abuse, theft... Many UNOSOM soldiers have also displayed unacceptable levels of racism toward Somalis.” These abuses included opening fire with machine guns against unarmed protesters, firing missiles into residential areas and outright murder civilians, including many youth. The report states “UNOSOM has become an army of occupation.”
I have some of the coverage on tape and it really is top notch stuff. You'd nearly believe the americans are the good guys.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time.

If anything Greece supported Serbia (both are orthodox Christian and Greece was reluctant with NATO intervention in Kosovo and in fact not trusted by other NATO members at the time) and Germany supported Croatia.

ll=llannah

argh. I had this huge post typed out, and what does my laptop do but shut down. It was probably too long, anyway. So now you get the shortened version

Ok, going back to the first post of this thread:

I get really frustrated when people pessimistically say that Bush will be re-elected. I know its a definite possibility but pessimism will only worsen the situation. Because the pessimism leads to laziness because people feel like they can't change things. Which is bad, cause then things never get changed.
Anyway, the 2004 U.S. presidential election is one that I am especially dedicated to - not only because I live in New York and thus have to deal with the outcomes of the presidential elections on a daily basis, but also because it's finally the first election I get to vote in. (Altho I'm too young to vote in the primaries, dammit.)
I was talking to a lot of people my age today about voting, because I was registering. A lot of them say they aren't going to bother registering, because they don't care enough. That is in the top five stupidest things anyone has EVER said to me. They complain about bush and his policies (and general stupidity) but don't care enough to fill in a stupid little form that a monkey could fill out that will enable to vote for someone who IS NOT him?! Come on! Its the future we're talking about, not an episode of t.v., for the love of god.
As to the candidates, I like Wesley Clark ALOT. he's got a sound history (amazing history, actually- i'll recap if you guys don't know it) and great foreign policy and knows what the hell he is doing. Furthermore, he is not Bush. (A big plus.) And he also is very non-partisan. Which is good. Because the country cares much too much about fighting against other parties rather than working together to find the best candidate for office.
I like Dean quite a bit, too, I still prefer him to Bush, but I do not think he is as well rounded internationally as Clark is. And clark certainly has military experience. lots of it.
I'm really interested in what you guys know about the candidates - how much is the election talked about in the news and in general over by you? I'd be really interested to hear more on that

Secondly. About Clinton. Dear god, WHY do people get his sex life and achievements as president confused!??!? People have been cheating on their spouses for CENTURIES and it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS- even when its the president. I mean, did we (erm- america) impeach Jefferson? Kennedy? (the list goes on and on, so many were known to not be completely true to their spouses - its none of our business.) He was an amazing president. He didn't have a private life that was that honorable from certain standpoints. The only reason the "scandal" got in the way of political issues was that the media blew it out of proportion, giddily helped by the republicans who wanted him out of office. it's all party politics. Furthermore, he did his best as president in regard to his duties as president (not as a husband- we don't elect people based on who should be truest to their spouses) and people are only human. Mistakes happen. The president is supposed to make decisions (many without much thought time) based on their instincts, their knowledge of history and of the situation and I believe Clinton made many good decisions. So can we please leave his sex life out of discussions when he is talked about? And whoever (I can't remember who it was and i can't be bothered scrolling all the way down- the internet is being dreadfully slow) said that Clinton was just as bad as Bush, I really sincerely hope you were kidding. Please. please. please.

heh. so much for the second draft not being long winded. there are some of my thoughts - like i said, i'd be really interested in hearing about how much you hear about the election by you guys

~ Hannah

Geromino

This will be my only reply to your response Vader. If you want to start a different thread on the history/political situation of each of these topics, I will be there.

Originally posted by Vader
The East Timor situation was ongoing for 30 years actually. America was a little more than neighbourly. It illegally supplyed indonesia with weapons and training. What type of justice can be done by the perpretators trying themselves. That whole paragraph is nonesense.

Do you know anything speciific about Timor Vader? You are partially correct that the situation in East Timor has been occuring for the past 30 years, but what you are not acknowledging is that East Timor used to be part of a Portuguese colony and West Timor use to be a Dutch Colony. There have been three primary players involved in the East Timor crisis. One was Indonesia, which saw East Timor as part of its archipelago. Second, which is Portugual, used to be the administrator of the eastern part of the island until "Carnation Revolution." Finally, you have a political group in East Timor called UDT (which was one of the five or six major political groups on East Timor. However, when the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor came into power and established a Soviet friendly, marxist regime, that is when Indonesia became nervous and tensions began to climb. Not to mention, it was FRETILIN accension into established Indonesian terroritores that alarmed both Washington and the current president of Indonesia. Following appeals from FRETILIN's Timorese opponents, on 7 December 1975 the armed forces of Indonesia , comprising ten battalions, intervened in East Timor. On 8 December 1975 the Portuguese authorities departed from the island of Atauro, exacerbating power struggles among several Timorese political factions. Asserting that on 31 May 1976 the people of East Timor had requested Indonesia "to accept East Timor as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia", Indonesia incorporated Timor as part of its national territory. Responding to an alleged appeal from the people of East Timor, Indonesia passed a law on 15 July 1976 providing for annexation, which the President of Indonesia signed on 17 July 1976. East Timor was thus given the status of the 27th province of Indonesia. Asserting that on 31 May 1976 the people of East Timor had requested Indonesia "to accept East Timor as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia", Indonesia incorporated Timor as part of its national territory. Responding to an alleged appeal from the people of East Timor, Indonesia passed a law on 15 July 1976 providing for annexation, which the President of Indonesia signed on 17 July 1976. East Timor was thus given the status of the 27th province of Indonesia.

Not exactly making East Timor a innocent victim while Indonesia, even with its butality on military operatoins was not a complete monster either, given the facts.

[url]httpy://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/timor.htm[/url]

The Balkins is the most complicated thing in history imo and I do not have the time to debate it here. I stand by what I said above, read that book because thats what I would be quoting in such an arguement. Chomsky does not say that Clinton Bungled the Balkins. That would be very uncharacteristic of him to say. From the evidence (well researched and sourced) it is clear that the situation was escalated by the US and others, that war could have been adverted, that the war was not successful, and that there has been much lying and misinformation since. Clinton is responsible for all this, he was the fúcking president, connect the dots.

I will read my own books by established historians and political analysts when the debate on this subject comes Vader.

The terrorist drug runners you speak of are right wing paramilitaries trained and funded by the CIA and the official government armed forces. FARC are terrorists but then again so is america by its own definition of terrorist. This is not just a case of symantics, there are many detailed books on US terrorism out there. Read one. I like Rogue States by Chomsky(yes I do read a lot of his work). You might as well read it as debate with me.

Who do you think the right wing paramilitary forces were fighting Vader. Can you say the drug cartel. Who do you think the drug cartels were in cahoots with? Can you say FARC! By the way, most of the kidnappings, death squads, and mass murders have been committed by FARC and not the right wing paramilitary forces.

www.cdi.org/terrorism/farc.cfm

yes I would have put him back in power straight away. I also wouldnt have ousted him in the first place. Yes I would believe that a man of his character and principle, bearing in mind he is a ####### priest, and trust him to turn the other cheak. Of course there would be some sort of trial but I would think they would be very fair ones. Why not make those the conditions?
Why would it be reckless to allow social reforms that would benifit the masses at the expense of a few rich foreigners?

When Aristide was placed back into power, the conditions were first to have fair and impartial elections. Those who are elected should have first crack, not to mention a second or third, for political reforms. To dictate such conditions would not only be arrogant, but deemed as imperialistic attitudes toward the populace. Yet this is something you keep accusing the US of doing on a continual basis Vader.

Your right it was 1992, like I said I was listing things off the top of my head.........I have some of the coverage on tape and it really is top notch stuff. You'd nearly believe the americans are the good guys.

First, you are confusing the two missions that involved the United States. The first was a humanitarian mission that involved 28000 personell. However, when the UN took over, most of those forces were replaced by Indian and Pakistani UN peace keepers. When that happened, that is when Adid started to resist the UN humanitarian missions by denying food and medicine to his enemies (he wanted it all for himself). After 25 Pakistani soldiers were murdered by Adid's forces, that is when the second mission by the US came into being. Their sole mission was to apprehend Adid for war crimes tribunal.

As far as Africa Watch, there record of accuracy is dismally low. Most of their information is greatly distorted by the events held on the ground, not to mention, they cannot document accurately a single piece of evidence. The rest of their analysis is basically outright lies. However, there have been reports that AllAfrica.net has links to supporters of Adid and his cohorts. Not exactly a unbiased opinion reporting.