# For all of the forum experts on American Politics...



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

See what this lifelong Democrat has to say, about the current race...



> George Bush vs. the Naive Nine
> Why this lifelong Democrat will vote Republican next November.
> 
> BY ZELL MILLER {Democrat of  GA}
> ...


----------



## jimbunting (22 Jan 2004)

One man‘s opinion, and he only gets to vote once as well!

The American public is deeply divided on the Bush agenda, and I haven‘t seen such anger, so openly expressed by Americans, since the Viet Nam war debates.

The polarisation of opinion down there is awesome in it‘s depth and ferocity. I spent 10 days, in December in Alabama, on vaction and listened to the local radio talk shows, and read the local newspapers editorials, and it was hot, hot, hot, all the time. Raging arguments about everything to do with Bush and his policies, and the comments were from some of what you would have assumed would be deep-died in the wool Republicans, who swore they wouldn‘y vote for him again, because of the death toll of US troops in Iraq.

There are still those Democrats that claim he is an ILLEGAL President, because of voter fraud in Florida, and that is still a hot topic, after these many months. Bush gets lots of critisim over his poor record on internal security matters ,such as the flood of illegals from Mexico, and the botched Patriot Act, which has some horrible civil rights abuses built into it. Detention with out charges, no right to a lawyer, secret trails by military tribunals, all in the name of "the war on terror".

Bush has been very clear on what he intends to do. The problem is that much of what he wants to do is against the wishes of many Americans, of either party. I‘d hate to see him re-elacted because of either apathy, or a poor candidate put forward by the Democrats.

Oh, and finally, when was the last time you heard a Canadian Prime Minister call for Gods‘ protection on Canada? Never happen, I bet. The religious beliefs of a P.M should have exactly zero effect on government policy, in my opinion. 

BUT, in the USA, the leader goes to huge lengths to push his particular form of Christianity on the nation, ending every speech with the phrase " God Bless America".

 Makes me wonder how those Americans who are NOT Christians feel about that bit of blessing? If I were a Muslim American, I‘d be very uncomfortable with Bush as my leader, bearing in mind his inability to distinquish between different countries and different religious groups.

The real brains in the Bush administration are not in GW‘s head. They are with **** Chenny, Wolfowitz, and Condoleeza Rice, and the back room boys that forward the calls from the money backers.

Jim Bunting. Toronto.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

First of all, that was my only reason for posting - it‘s an alternative opinion.

Secondly - 10 days does not an expert make.

I‘ve been here 15 years, and I can‘t simplify it as easily as you can. I like to hear "God Bless America". Of course, I can‘t read the President‘s mind as easily as you can, but I am sure he means "your God", whatever deity you find comfort in. I also think the Muslim call to prayer sounds neat. So do some Jewish incantations. Native American ceremonies are stirring. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. That should not in any way, condone intolerance or meanness, of any different faiths. Believe it or not, I bet there‘s some things Yanks would think wrong with Canadian Government policies, too.

There‘s a lot of things Atlantic Canadians don‘t like about Toronto.


----------



## winchable (22 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by muskrat89:
> [qb] There‘s a lot of things Atlantic Canadians don‘t like about Toronto [/qb]


Noooooooooooooo...what would give you that idea?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Che:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Shhhhhhhhhhh don‘t tell them that.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Jan 2004)

Ok we always hear how supposedly Bush is an illegal president but realistically would not the Supreme Court and the FBI have stepped in by now if that was actually the case?


----------



## Enzo (22 Jan 2004)

Ok, the man compared Dubya with Churchill. I‘m not quite ready to accept anything like that. Churchill was a man who rose to the defense of his nation under time of dire crisis and imminent invasion. I‘d hardly say that‘s the same situation in the US right now.

As for Dubya‘s religious views, they are well documented. Sorry Muskrat, but I seriously doubt he feels that his God is comparable to all others Gods. When he‘s blessing his troops before they go off to war, that‘s almost reeks of a crusade. And I concur with Jim, keep your religion in your house and your politics on the porch.

Glad he‘s nice to his dog though.

As for the election, hahahaha. Impropriety was blatant, but for most, it‘s history. Not relevant under the current feeling of the nation.

All else is a game. Hey Musk, how many know the name of the current PM where you‘re at?


----------



## onecat (22 Jan 2004)

"I like to hear "God Bless America". Of course, I can‘t read the President‘s mind as easily as you can, but I am sure he means "your God", whatever deity you find comfort in."

I sure he mean his GOD the christian god.  And this just my opinion, but I don‘t think Bush holds other religions as equal to his.  He‘s of the old school, where this is only on God, and of course he‘s male.

Not that I‘m religious but I thank god everyday that Canadians don‘t want their leaders to so open about their religious beliefs. And in Canada we‘re actually a multi-cultural nation of many beliefs which our leaders treat as equal.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

Know the name of the PM???  LOL there might be 3 or 4 of us, all told. Maybe you made my point. Most Americans don‘t even know Canada has provinces, let alone parade as experts on her politics.

I‘ve said it before... my point is this. Some of you make good points. For people presenting rational, thought out opinions... great. I grew up in a border town. I‘ve spouted most of the anti-American generalities - yes, we had them way back then. I‘ve also heard most of the American‘s grossly misguided conceptions about Canada. After living in both countries, guess what?? Neither side is right.

JB made some valid points, and presented his opinion effectively. Here‘s the thing... unless you LIVE in the United States, who cares what you think, when someone says "God Bless America?" There are lots of things that I think are wrong with Canadian politics - know what? I don‘t live there anymore, so frankly, it‘s not my problem. If/when I move back, I can gripe about Canadian politics.

I relate it to some of the people who get on this site. Some have NEVER served, or been in only days or months. Doesn‘t it rile you up, when those people talk like they are experts? Doesn‘t it make you POd, when they make outlandish statements, with no factual basis, or real experience? To me, its the same thing. If I said infanteers were dull witted, lazy, and lacked initiative BUT had never personally been in an Infantry unit, is my opinion valid? What if I said "I heard on the news, or read in the paper that infanteers were dull-witted, lazy, etc?" Make it any better? NOW - If I spent 5, 10, or 15 years in an Infantry Unit and made that statement, then it should have some credibility...


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Jan 2004)

The "Bush shouldn‘t do that" comments made me think. Maybe this is why we get touchy. Of all the countries in the world to find fault with, it‘s the US? Thats the worse thing we can discuss? YES, the US is loaded with faults. So is my brother. So are my parents. So are my best friends. In my eyes, for many of you.... your scorn is not proportional to their sins. Speaking rhetorically, of course.

Too much religion in the US. Maybe. Why is no one harping and whining about the countries that don‘t allow any religion to be practiced? Every US President I have heard speak has used "God Bless America" This isn‘t something Bush started.... sheesh


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2004)

Muskrat- Sorry bud, but you‘ll just have to get used to being in the second best country in the world. Just remember this is "faceless" politics on a forum board. These people would‘nt have the parts to make these comments in the "
real" world. Also they don‘t understand the reason you can hear the Bush/USA haters on the air and in the print is because you don‘t die for opposing opinions in the "Evil North America" They have been raised with one-sided information. Hey kids make a list of places where you can spout off like you do here and don‘t have to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night. It‘s not very long.


----------



## onecat (22 Jan 2004)

Hey its all politics.  And there is a big difference between being anti-bush and anti-USA. Even if I was American, I would not be a Bush supporter.  I don‘t think religion should be mixed with politics or the work place.  He makes his staff have a prayer meeting every morning.  If he wasn‘t the president someone would of taken to court over it.

Are there things Canadian can learn from the US, for sure.  They elect their Leader directly... we should do that.  Do you really think we would of been stuck Jean for 3 elections?  I think not. They actually believe defence and are proud of their of Military. Its debatable if a majority of Canadians do. They make great propaganda, movies that they try to pass as history.  But over look the propaganda their enjoyable. But it does get tiring to hear from people on this board that if you dislike Bush or some policy you anti-American.  The two are not linked.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Jan 2004)

Radiohead, Just curious, where did you hear he MAKES them have a prayer every morning?


----------



## jimbunting (24 Jan 2004)

MUSKRAT:

I‘m going to invoke the "age " argument. I‘m 57 and I‘ve been a keen observer of US politics since high school, so at least 40 years experience here. I‘m so old I remember when the US dollar was worth LESS than the CanBuck was.

So lets agree that I‘ve had a little more than 10 days "in country", O.K.? I have been a regular reader of, and contributor to, several conservative American magazines and that alone gives me a edge on most here.

GW is a moron, but with one big advantage, he IS the elected POUS. Untill the American public gets the chance to vote in November, he will be the guy with the power. Lets look at what he is doing with it, shall we?

Abuse of civil rights. Trials without the right to council, no right to see the accusations, no right to appeal, no right to visitation. Can you say Guantanamo, Cuba?

Deportation to a third country, of a Canadian citizen. Torture by compliant third nations, to do what would be both illegal, and immoral, in the USA.

Repression of the rights of AMERICAN citizens to civil marriage, and other rights that are taken for granted by MOST Americans, based on their sexual orientation.

Denying Americans the choice to purchase prescription drugs wherever they choose, under the guise of "safety concerns". The USDA has stated that Drugs imported from Canada maybe contaminated, or of dubious quality". What utter nonsence. This is a blatant case of the Bush Administration trying to, thru it‘s own USDA, curry favoure with it‘s biggest monetary contibutors, the US drug companies. I‘m glad to see that even some states, like Washington, Illinois, and Mass, and Vermont, are bucking this bullying, and buying from Canada.

Why are we here in Canada, so critical of US policies" 

Well, in my opinion, it is a matter of self-protection. If we here do not speak up, we risk the chance of simply being "rolled out as flat as a pancake, by the US steamroller economy". Living next to the elephant means we get crushed first, if we don‘t keep on screaming about the injustices they commit, to us, and to others.

In one of your posts you admitted that, to most Americans, Canada is a insignificant, and not very often thought of place. That is exactly why we have to keep on dragging their attention back to things that ARE important between us. Being ignored, or even worse, patted on the head and then dismissed by them, is not the answer. We, as Canadians have to individually "keep the fire stoked" to increase the attention that US/Canada relations get in the US press, and public opinion forums.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jan 2004)

Jim - I‘m going to invoke the "I live in it, and you don‘t" argument      I‘ve been in the US for going on 13 years now. Some in Maine, some in Arizona. I respect your right to an opinion, but truthfully even if I were still living in Canada, your views are certainly left of where mine are.

I guess we‘ll agree to disagree, and see what November brings.


----------



## onecat (24 Jan 2004)

"You lost me long ago by your rants...go to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, China, and similar countries and straighten their countries out first. Then we can have a real discussion."

If the post was about North Korea or China, that‘s what everyone would be discussing.  But org post call of opinions on the GW, started by muskrat89. so get over.

No one is telling you ( the US) what to do... its opinions so again get over it.


"Insulting remarks above, hardly professional or diplomatic! I though all CDNs were nice? I have never used terms such as you did in your above quote to describe a previous CDN Prime Minister or the reigning one Paul Martin. "

NO one would care.  You have no trouble call Clinton a Worm, Liar and what ever else you feel is right in your opinion.  I think your just upset and pissy because its a republican and you agree with ideals.  Get over it.  And bring Pierre, he‘s old news.

If you don‘t like hearing Canadian opinions on the US change the website.  I‘m sure many there republican websites that would be happy you.  Truth is your not open to any ideas or discussions unless they have your ideas.  Otherwise your quick to jump into and shoot them down.  You would think at 41 you would of learned how to debate.  Just get over it and move on.  Oh and keep you American nose out of Canadian debates, you don‘t live here so have no say, and no idea what doing on.  I think those were your words in an email you send me long ago.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jan 2004)

> ....you don‘t live here so have no say, and no idea what doing on.


Couldn‘t have said it better myself


----------



## Infanteer (24 Jan 2004)

Personally, I getting sick of comparing peepee‘s with our brothers to the South.

Why are we always so critical of our closest friend?  I did not call American an "Imperialist-Pig-Dog" when Clinton was putting troops into Kosovo or Haiti, and I do not call America an "Imperialist-Pig-Dog" when the current POTUS sends troops to Afghanistan or Iraq.

You guys are pinning some of the characteristics of the United States as a Western State(many that we share) on the personal qualities of George W Bush.  Why?  

Was it any better/worse of a place under Bill Clinton?  You better go a little deeper then personal failings to convince me that the US has taken a turn for the worse in the last 4 years.  Being a practicing Christian to me doesn‘t really bring the man‘s integrity into question, not nearly as much as lying under oath...but I think neither really impacts how American Foreign Policy is carried out.

Until then, maybe we should just talk about how Kim Jong Il beat Tiger Woods at golf.


----------



## kaspacanada (25 Jan 2004)

Way to go Mr. Bunting!  

It looks to me like Mr. Zen Miller is looking for a good appointment from Bush after the next election. *cough cough* brown-noser *cough cough*

This reminds me of that speech by the US General to the US troops in Iraq about all the ‘good‘ they are doing.

The part that got me the most was this:

Baker, pay particular attention to this since you seem to think certain strands of socialist behaviour in Canada are negative traits.

"This is also a president who understands that tax cuts are not just something that all taxpayers deserve, but also the best way to curb government spending. It is the best kind of tax reform. If the money never reaches the table, Congress can‘t gobble it up."

Uhm, we have good and affordable healthcare so people don‘t go BANKRUPT because they fell down some stairs or whatever the case may be.  Yes we pay for it in taxes, but that is how you build a COMMUNITY where people recognize that they should care about one another and should help those as they would like to be helped should they need the assistance.

  Do I need to remind people that there are roughly 40 million people in the US w/out healthcare coverage because they make just enough to get booted off welfare, lose medicaide, but not enough to pay for private health care insurance.  The myth that there is a job out there for everyone willing and able is null and void but still this is not realized.  The Bush administration has done very little to help those in need and this is the system that they (and we) are supporting the imposition of upon them.

The governments policies (regardless of Democrat or Republican) are still big on ‘intellectual property rights‘ which are preventing needed drugs to be manufactured elsewhere for less money so that developing world countries can afford them.  YES OUR DRUGS ARE SUBSIDIZED BECAUSE WE DON‘T BELEIVE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD SUFFER BECAUSE DRUG COMPANIES WANT TO MAKE A BIGGER PROFIT! You say that as if it were a bad thing??? Those companies make billions of dollars a year, and in Africa people are dying because the US won‘t allow others to sell their generic versions of needed drugs even if they are (or may be) safe.  They do this to protect profits.  How ‘just‘ is that?  How free is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in their cases??? 

America, and the entire west (and yes this includes us) makes policy decisions for the economic, strategic and social interests of their own nations.  The trick is to try to pass it off as benefitting the world - that‘s what diplomacy is and people in the west are still too blind, uneducated, ignorant and/or indoctrinated to see it.  

These intellectual property rights also apply to other things say for example, environmental protection technologies created in the US but unaffordable to most of the Developing World (DW)because well, they gotta make a profit.  So then aren‘t we indirectly contributing to the further degredation of the environment?  Or better yet, would we be willing to make less money, or even lose money for its protection???

Meanwhile, DW countries have to choose between development, human rights, and other such prospects as starvation.  So then, as they and if they develop, they as we did as we developed polluting the crap out of the earth, exploiting their populations with no social safety net put up because well, if they taxed companies to pay for it, they would just move to the next desperate country that is willing to acquies because they are THAT DESPERATE for foreign direct investment of ANY kind.

  Do you think that it‘s a black and white picture of right and wrong for those countries?  Pick up a copy of Steiner and Alston "International Human Rights in Context", read up on the universality of human rights and the conflicting societal objectives of the DW and the hard choices that we put them into.

The fight in Iraq wasn‘t just over freedom and Tyranny.  They went in to find WMD, and they didn‘t find them.  Then they emphasized the "freedom" issue to try to smokescreen the real fact that they broke the standards of international law - and people are falling for it.  I am inclined to agree that the people of Iraq will likely be better off without Saddam in power, and that in the long run, they will be able to choose their fate.

  On the other hand it makes me angry that America, and many other nations, have supported dictators of all shapes, sizes and intensities for many years as their interests suit them.  (and I am not saying that we haven‘t and don‘t do this as well - even at the present time we do what serves our interests)  It is completely niave to believe that this was done in Iraq for freedom.  It is done because it suits the governments interests at the present time.
The government wanted to ensure that they didn‘t have WMD, they felt Saddam a threat to their interests be it oil or otherwise.  They may have looked at the benefit of a boost for the economy through arms manufacturing, a record number of bombers from Lockheed Martin, reconstruction contracts, to bring the Iraqi people back into the world market so they can buy stuff from us, or whatever interests may be there that we are not aware of at the present time.

  It was a choice that Bush made on the information he was privy to, and for what he felt was in America‘s best interest.  I can respect that decision and give him credit for sticking through it despite the constant uphill struggle he is facing at home, in Iraq, and around the world now.  Tough decisions are never easy to make.  America has a very unenviable position as the worlds sole superpower (albeit for the moment) and they are often d*mned if they do, and d*mned if they don‘t.  So why shouldn‘t they look after their own interests first?  They saw risk and opportunity and have the ability to follow through to exploit it.  They are the ‘big guy‘ on the block, and there is very little anyone can do about it at least in conventional terms.  Historically, justice is often what the most powerful actor says it is.  Groups marginalized by the status quo, for a plethora of different reasons and objectives be it religious or economic, will continue to strike by any means that they have available - including terrorism more often as nations like the US are able to monopolize and dominate by conventional military means.

Whether or not the Democrats would be in Iraq right now I am unsure of.  It is likely that they would have some of the same top strategic thinkers in the country as advisors, as the Bush administration does.  These people all generally come from the same stock of college and university backgrounds.  I don‘t think that it matters anyhow, because what IS, simply IS.  It has been done for better or for worse and they need to do the best they can with what they have.  But please save the propaganda lines for someone else because I don‘t buy into it at all.

BAKER, in particular:

 "Can you say Terrorists? Too bad so sad! Maybe we should treat them like they did on all sides in WWII? Quick speedy trial and then firing squad."

The prisoners in Cuba?  Well, would it surprise you to know that a significant number of them have been released, sent back to Afghanistan with no ID or money and dumped off despite say, being from countries like Canada.  (can‘t remember the number but it was around 100 when I did a law presentation on it)  They were found to be innocent, but given NO apology for being held in Cuba for over 2 years simply for having been visiting relatives in Afghanistan.  Now there are very valid strategic reasons for keeping these people there while they determine if they are or were terrorists that I can see and accept.  But at least come out and say it like a true realist.  But it seems as if you oh so easily assumed that simply because the US had them in Cuba that they were definitely without a doubt TERRORISTS.  This is an example of why we have laws of due process in Canada, the US, and most other nations of the world.

  I personally don‘t care what America does to itself except for the inescapable fact that we are attached to the place and we are so heavily economically dependent on it.  I don‘t buy the complex interedependence thesis and think that free trade was the worst decision Canada ever made, but that‘s the way the world is and it doesn‘t seem like it‘s gonna change anytime soon so I just accept it.  International relations is simply a struggle for power, dominance, prosperity that is defined by the large players with ALL players acting in regards to what is best for their own policy objectives and interests.  To appear to be serving the greater good, while in reality serving your own interests is the art of skillful diplomacy.  I am thankful that we are on the top and not at the bottom like so many others.  If it‘s America that keeps us in this position, then I back what is in our nation‘s best interest.  As much as I would love to believe that it does, morality doesn‘t figure too much into the international picture - except when it suits us to appear ‘good‘.


----------



## kaspacanada (25 Jan 2004)

wholy crap that was longer than I thought it was...sorry all.


----------



## kaspacanada (25 Jan 2004)

not trying to insult you.  It just appeared as if you overlooked those points...Sir.      
Oh the formality doesn‘t seem to end on the parade square and in the office


----------



## muskrat89 (25 Jan 2004)

Healthcare - pretty funny. Have you experienced healthcare in the US, or just repeating hearsay? I‘m sure there are horror stories, but here is MY EXPERIENCE - hospitals cannot turn away, by law, injured people. They get treated. As a matter of fact, many hospitals are in danger of closing here in Arizona, because of the influx of illegal immigrants that use our hospitals, but do not pay. Federally, they are mandated to provide service, but federally, they can‘t/won‘t seal the borders.

I have also, in my Canadian circle of friends and family, experienced the finer nuances of socialized healthcare in Canada. Emergency rooms full of people with colds and kids with stuffy noses - too lazy, or too busy to make a Doctor‘s Appointment. Canadian patients being advised to seek treatment for their serious illnesses in the US, because the waiting lists are too long at the regional treatment centres. Ironically, the hospital in my home town in NB is on the chopping block, as we speak, in favour, I believe, of a "regional" one.

I will say this one more time. If you haven‘t lived in the US for any reasonable length of time, your opinion doesn‘t hold water with me. Live here for awhile, think it sucks - great, I‘ll buy it. That goes for any country, not just the US. Opinions are like... well, you know.. everyone has one.


----------



## kaspacanada (25 Jan 2004)

I am not saying Canada‘s system doesn‘t have problems...it‘s blatantly obvious that cuts to social provision in favour of business have done damage to that as well as our military. In fact, I had lived in teh US for 6 months a few years ago and did have the experience of going to a US hospital.  I also (like many others) have American relatives.  When I was there, it was nice to have insurance, and I was lucky to have been able to afford it.  I will admit, when you go to a pay hospital in the US, you get phenomenal service and treatment.  It was better than the service that I got at home when I had broken my wrist.  My point was that it is affordable to everyone here, and you won‘t go bankrupt because you can‘t get a decent job with benefits or can‘t afford private health insurance.  I am not so naive to think Canada is perfect, we have our own problems too.  The US has their own problems.  I NEVER said we were better.  (as much as I may like to gloat like so many others that we are better...but it all really depends on your own personal preferences)


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2004)

Sooo...what the **** is your point then?

I tried to read through your posts, but it was like some boring lecture in a Political Science class.  What are you trying to tell us?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jan 2004)

I did manage to read some of what you said, and felt particularly inclined to respond to this



> I don‘t buy the complex interedependence thesis and think that free trade was the worst decision Canada ever made, but that‘s the way the world is and it doesn‘t seem like it‘s gonna change anytime soon so I just accept it.


Wow, maybe you better take a look at basic economic theory, going all the way back to Adam Smith.  Care to explain why you think the paradigm of the classical liberal economy which has been a foundation of the success of the West is crap, because I am sure your theory is worthy of a Nobel Prize in economics.



> International relations is simply a struggle for power, dominance, prosperity that is defined by the large players with ALL players acting in regards to what is best for their own policy objectives and interests. To appear to be serving the greater good, while in reality serving your own interests is the art of skillful diplomacy. I am thankful that we are on the top and not at the bottom like so many others. If it‘s America that keeps us in this position, then I back what is in our nation‘s best interest. As much as I would love to believe that it does, morality doesn‘t figure too much into the international picture - except when it suits us to appear ‘good‘.


And thanks for International Relations Theory 101.  I don‘t understand where your trying to go with this statement.

I am not ashamed to admit that I am an unabashed realist, and many of my posts reflect this point of view.  However, to say that state actions from top to bottom are devoid of any moral ideals is a tad too cynical and is an indicator of political tunnel vision.  Rather than give some drawn-out plea, I‘ll put this bit forward.

----
_To the extent that human rights justify the humanitarian use of military force, the new empire can claim that it serves the cause of moral universalism.  Yet its service to the cause is equivocal.  If America were consistant about defending human rights everywhere, it would have to dispatch Marines to every failed or failing state where populations are threatened with massacre or genocide.  Doing so would be both vain and unwise.  Empires that are successful learn to ration their services to moral principle to the few strategic zones where the defence of principle is simultaneously the defence of a vital interest, and where the risks do not outweigh the benefits.  This is why modern imperial ethics can only be hypocritical....
Yet hypocricy and cynicism are not identical.  The fact that empires cannot practise what they preach does not mean that they do not *believe* what they preach.  The problem is not the sincerity or otherwise of their beliefs, but the impossibility of always putting them into practice....
As an empire run by Western liberal democracies, chiefly America, its moral grace notes are all liberal and democratic.  Its purpose is to extend free elections, rule of law, democratic self-government to peoples who have only known fratricide.

Michael Ignatieff (a Canadian)
Empire Lite_
-----

Even power politics are directed through a moral lens, or why else would Americans trying to establish peace, order, and good government (or is it life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...or both?) in places it sends its military forces to?  Although sometimes misguided, there exists within the very foundations of the West a desire to bring the freedoms upon which our strength is founded on to those who were not blessed to be born into them.

If states are only concerned with security, and Western security is grounded within that principle, is there anything wrong with it?


----------



## kaspacanada (26 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer
> [qb]Even power politics are directed through a moral lens, or why else would Americans trying to establish peace, order, and good government (or is it life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...or both?) in places it sends its military forces to? Although sometimes misguided, there exists within the very foundations of the West a desire to bring the freedoms upon which our strength is founded on to those who were not blessed to be born into them.
> 
> If states are only concerned with security, and Western security is grounded within that principle, is there anything wrong with it?
> [/qb]


Not lucky enough to be born into our system?  People have been in other parts of the world for thousands of years and have been happy with their systems, at least enough to not revolt over it.  You seem to be implying that all things are linear and that all people‘s of the world will embrace our way of thinking and of living because in some way it is superior?  What is right for us may not be right for others, and it should NEVER be our job to choose for them.

I find the following which I posted earlier consistent with your quote from Ignatieff and as well as your question of why shouldn‘t they serve their own interests.  I am not saying that moral concerns don‘t add support for our actions particularly amongst our own populations, but that they are secondary to our own financial and strategic concerns - as they should be.  Believing that the US went after Iraq for freedom is about as ridiculous as believing that they did it ONLY for the oil, or better yet, the magic bullet theory.



> Originally posted by kaspacanada:
> [QB]
> 
> The fight in Iraq wasn‘t just over freedom and Tyranny.  They went in to find WMD, and they didn‘t find them.  Then they emphasized the "freedom" issue to try to smokescreen the real fact that they broke the standards of international law - and people are falling for it.  I am inclined to agree that the people of Iraq will likely be better off without Saddam in power, and that in the long run, they will be able to choose their fate.
> ...


For lack of a better alternative, the economic theories of scholars such as Adam Smith will have to suffice until someone more brilliant and convincing comes up with an acceptable solution to the problems that liberal-economic theory does have.  Nothing is perfect.  But why don‘t you try it then?  Or do you think, as does Francis Fukuyama, that we have reached the ‘end of history‘?

  Even your prized Adam Smith warns about the dangers of unregulated capitalism particularly at the international level.  So did Marx, and so do many others.  But when did I say that the theory was crap?  Just because I don‘t like what free trade and trends of globalization are doing at the moment, doesn‘t mean that trends can‘t change as and if political will changes or that I don‘t see potential in it.  It certainly doesn‘t mean that I think the theories are crap.  

  I do not profess to have the answers to the problems that it does have, though as you might have more faith in me than I do.     Comon infanteer, in your infinite wisdom please tell us all where the ‘invisible hand‘ for the people of Africa is right now?  Would it be fair to imply that it is someplace doing something that it probably shouldn‘t be doing.

  You have well illustrated my point that realistic strategic imperatives will supress or moderate genuine concerns for ‘humanity‘.  Our own ‘moral‘ boastings serve only to reinforce our own notions of the universality of our own system and do little to help the rest of the world unless it suits us.  Thanks for the quote from Ignatieff, as he wrote it so eloquently, and in a truly diplomatic style that is much more appealing than my own blunt statements about the world.  As he put it, it is not that we don‘t want to help and that we don‘t want to try to better their lives, just that we simply can‘t or that it is not prudent to do so.

  So why do we do it?  Why does the US do it?  Because there is something in it for those involved in both the conflict, and in the reconstruction.  (and can make us feel better about ourselves and helps us ignore where and under what conditions most of our own stuff is made under, and makes us ‘look‘ good to our allies and other nations)  Conflict either in civil war or interstate war, can be seen as the redistribution of either/both political and economic power in their respective jurisdictions.  Peace is imposed by those content with the status quo when it suits them just as war is one of the tools that can help maintain the status quo.  Convince first your own people, and then the world, of its legitimacy and it will be maintained.  You are correct that there is a desire to help, but I would argue that they are secondary considerations, and serve primarily as a ‘legitimacy‘ function at both the international and national levels.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jan 2004)

> Not lucky enough to be born into our system? People have been in other parts of the world for thousands of years and have been happy with their systems, at least enough to not revolt over it. You seem to be implying that all things are linear and that all people‘s of the world will embrace our way of thinking and of living because in some way it is superior? What is right for us may not be right for others, and it should NEVER be our job to choose for them.


Like I said before, open the world‘s borders up and watch what happens.  There is a reason people flock TO the West.



> I am not saying that moral concerns don‘t add support for our actions particularly amongst our own populations, but that they are secondary to our own financial and strategic concerns - as they should be. Believing that the US went after Iraq for freedom is about as ridiculous as believing that they did it ONLY for the oil, or better yet, the magic bullet theory.


I think that we are in argreement here.  Howerver, I will add that humanitarian and environmental issues are becoming issues of national security, so interventionism by the West can be seen as both morally and geopolitically right.



> Even your prized Adam Smith warns about the dangers of unregulated capitalism particularly at the international level. So did Marx, and so do many others. But when did I say that the theory was crap? Just because I don‘t like what free trade and trends of globalization are doing at the moment, doesn‘t mean that trends can‘t change as and if political will changes or that I don‘t see potential in it. It certainly doesn‘t mean that I think the theories are crap.


When you see it is the worst decision Canada ever made, it is pretty close to labelling Classical economics as crap.  What do you propose, Economic independence through a series of 5-year plans?  Been tried before.




> Comon infanteer, in your infinite wisdom please tell us all where the ‘invisible hand‘ for the people of Africa is right now? Would it be fair to imply that it is someplace doing something that it probably shouldn‘t be doing.


The answer is that the invisible hand cannot affect societies where social systems do not allow civil society to take root.  Macroeconomic effects are so thrown out of whack by exogenous factors in places where rule of law, property rights, and open economies are replaced with despotism, political/tribal factionalism, and general lawlessness.



> So why do we do it? Why does the US do it? Because there is something in it for those involved in both the conflict, and in the reconstruction.


Is there any oil in Kosovo?  How about Haiti, Somalia, the Phillipines, or Cuba?  Your so adamant in trying to prove your point in big fancy sentences that you see the world from a realist persepective that your painting politics in black and white, which can put you into a corner.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jan 2004)

OK, I‘m not an economist, much above guns&butter. Some of you conspiracy guys explain why the "war for oil" crowd in the US just appropriated over a billion dollars to help combat AIDS in Africa. What is their REAL motive here??

By the way - I‘m not being sarcastic or facetious. I am truly curious as to your theories.

By the way, this was touted by GW, but not very popular with most US Conservatives


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jan 2004)

Actually, there is a good editorial in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs dealing with the issue.

The conservative and religious end of the US political spectrum has gotten involved with the AIDS/HIV dilemma due to prodding by popular figures on the immorality of ignoring the pandemic, which has encouraged the current administration to commit to the program designated in the State of the Union Address (there is that **** morality thing again, eh?).

The only concern is that a conservative approach to AIDS/HIV prevention can lean heavily on an abstinence approach, while ignoring protection.  Some activists fear it could result in the three biggest risk groups in the developing world, sex-trade workers, homosexuals, and IV drug-users, being ignored.

Good issue to bring up, Muskrat.  Here is a clear example of morality leading the way in foreign policy decision making.  It is akin to US intervention in Columbia, where the prime issue is cocaine production; both these have morality and national security so tightly wound togeather that it is hard to sort out where one begins and the other one ends.

Callsign Golf, you are on, fire for effect, over.


----------



## kaspacanada (27 Jan 2004)

I can live with your arguments.  lol...5 year plans...lets try and try again like they do with the army...NOT.  Kosovo etc... I would suggest are a mix between wanting a good image, and ALSO our concerns for humanity (or wanting that ‘good state‘ image depending on your view.  The only example I can think of right now that still confuses me is that when Vietnam was going down, there was very little coming out about what Pol Pot was doing at the same time in Cambodia.  I remember watching a video on media relations where Vietnam got so much more coverage in newspapers than Cambodia, and some concerned journalists had to work really really hard to break the stories they knew about.  Why the differences in reporting some conflicts for intervention and not others?  Now it is unfair to say that the government conspired with the media, but the government did know about what was going on.  Any thoughts on that?


----------



## koalorka (3 Feb 2004)

Wesley Clark for President 2004!


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

I guess it takes a coward to vote for a coward, eh.

----

ELECTION 2004
Gen. Shelton: Clark ‘won‘t get my vote‘
Former chair of Joint Chiefs says Wes has ‘integrity and character‘ issues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 24, 2003
2:28 p.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com 


Retired Gen. H. Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark has some "integrity and character issues" and won‘t be getting his vote. 

Shelton, who was Joint Chiefs chairman on 9-11, made the comments at a celebrity forum at Foothill College in Los Altos Hills, Calif., earlier this month, the Los Altos Town Crier reported. 

After a presentation reviewing the historic events of his 38-year military career, Shelton took questions from the audience. 

One question came from **** Henning, moderator of the event: "What do you think of Gen. Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate?" 

According to the report, Shelton took a drink of water before answering. 

Said Henning, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!" 

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton, according to the Los Altos paper. "I‘ve known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I‘m not going to say whether I‘m a Republican or a Democrat. I‘ll just say Wes won‘t get my vote." 


Gen. Wesley Clark 

Clark was supreme allied commander of NATO forces during the Clinton-era bombing campaign against Serbia. Shelton relieved him of duty in 2000, several months earlier than Clark expected. 

Another retired four-star general told the Washington Post recently: "There are an awful lot of people who believe Wes will tell anybody what they want to hear and tell somebody the exact opposite five minutes later. The people who have worked closely with him are the least complimentary, because he can be very abrasive, very domineering. And part of what you saw when he was relieved of command was all of the broken glass and broken china within the European alliance and the [U.S.] European Command." 

Shelton recently battled a severe injury after falling off a ladder outside his home just months after his retirement. According to the paper, Shelton landed with his head caught in a chain-link fence and was partially paralyzed from the neck down. 

The general told the crowd his doctor told him he would never walk or use his hands again. He said he checked the doctor‘s name tag for "God," but didn‘t see it. 

After three months of recovery, the general was able to walk out of the hospital on his own and now, said the report, is nearly 100 percent recovered. 

Shelton says the injury taught him "the importance of faith, family and friends when the chips are down."
-------


----------



## koalorka (4 Feb 2004)

Yeah so what?
General Shelton himself has issues. Most notably, he suffers from the infamous "dumba@@ syndrome".


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

Well, I‘ve proved Clark‘s less then stellar command ability a couple times on this board.  You‘ve just managed to spew off about Shelton.

Maybe you suffer from the same syndrome, Fubar.


----------



## koalorka (4 Feb 2004)

You didn‘t say why Clark was relieved of Command early. You can‘t take the opinion of just a single high ranking military official and base you‘r entire argument on it, Shelton might have had personal issues with Clark. 

I support Wes Clark because I believe he is the only democratic candidate with the potential to defeat Bush in the primaries. Kerry is simply too weak, he is just a figure molded by his campaign staff, Dean is nuts and Edwards is a pu@@y.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2004)

Yeah, FUBAR - your opinion is much more respected...


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2004)

http://army.ca/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/10/263/2? 

Maybe read this thread again...care to offer a better arguement as to how Clark would be a great leader?


----------



## koalorka (5 Feb 2004)

And what do you think of him S_Baker?


----------



## koalorka (11 Feb 2004)

Well, Clark is officialy out of the race. Go ahead Sgt.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> Go ahead Sgt.


I sure would want you on my recce team, troop.

Read his Avatar, he‘s a Major.


----------



## koalorka (11 Feb 2004)

Oops, didn‘t quite see that. I apologize.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Feb 2004)

Do we need a comment anymore?  Your discretion speaks for itself, sir...


----------

