# Bush vs Kerry



## Spr.Earl (9 Oct 2004)

Just watching the debate on replay via BBC.
What thoughts do you have ?

Any Anti U.S. bashing will not be tolerated and your post's will be deleted!!
So be for warned!!!!

Lets see a constructive discussion.


----------



## pappy (9 Oct 2004)

hummmm is this a loaded question or what?

I'd say first that this second debate was better then the first one.  But the VP debate was better, maybe we should switch...  (but Edwards just don't have enough experience to handle being President)

I support Bush no big supprise, even with all his flaws.  No one can plan for every turn and twist a war can take, has he made the best choices? no, he has made mistakes.
Personally I feel Iraq should have been dealt with in 1991.  But he's going after the bad guys and that has to be done.  All the BS about Iraq distracting the US military from Afgainistain I think is media BS, we could have dropped the entire US military in Afgainistain and may not have caught Osama, we still might not find him.  But this war isn't about one individual, that was a big media and political mistake.  Lets see Russia had how many troops there for how years and never got him.

But Kerry, he's the typical career politician, everytime I see him I feel I need a shower.  I've always thought he was two-faced.  I hope his idea for winning the war isn't the same thing he did in Vietnam, namely switch sides and give aid and comfort the the enemy.

All the political BS from both sides about the economy was typical.  The Democrates cooked the books in the 1990's , thier so-called surplus was based on projections 10 to 15 years out.  Wish I could balance my checking account that way.  But spending money like a drunken salior on shore leave like the rebulicans are doing ain't the best either.  But we are in the middle of a war.

And sad to say the economy in the US ain't as bad as some countrys around the world.

I don't think the US president no matter which party controls the economy, that elepant does what it chooses.

But tougher questions this debate, at least both came to play this time.  But debates are of only limited use, most have mad thier minds up by now.

Both sides played fast and loose with the facts.... no different the any other countys politicians.

But Nader should have been invited, hell he may have made some "lesbians are after my daughter" type comment like Ross P. did in 1990, that was funny  ;D


----------



## brin11 (9 Oct 2004)

I watched the last debate with great interest.  I found it to be extremely well managed and wish the Canadian debates could be that civil.  They just seem to try to talk over each other even with a moderator.

I must say I'm hoping that Kerry will win although I think they both did quite well in the debate.  I caught a bit of the first so I can't really compare the two debates at all.  Bush makes me uncomfortable with his beliefs on abortion and stem cell research, for example.  Also, the last election seemed like such a debacle that I always wonder who really won; not that Gore would have been much of a prize either.

Looking forward to the last debate.


----------



## Pencil Tech (9 Oct 2004)

I saw both debates and thought Kerry was far better. Kerry said the rationale for the war in Iraq was WMD and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda - both of which have been proven wrong - and that the real war should be Afghanistan, which I agree with.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2004)

I can't really stand politics at all but i was interested in watching the american debates but didn't get a chance to. When are more planned?

Pappy Why is it no big surprise you support bush?  Is it a soldier thing? On TV it seems like more and more soldiers are starting to support Kerry (through interviews). Also a lot of soldiers who got home and left the service.
I just watched some news footage about rumsfield making a surprise trip to iraq. He told the troops not to expect to go home anytime soon. The spin was 'more and more soldiers are starting to support kerry'


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2004)

The candidates have been speaking publicly and taking and defending positions on a wide range of issues for years.  Anyone who needs more information from a short, staged, artificial performance either hasn't been paying attention or doesn't care.  I would be just as happy if such people never voted.


----------



## winchable (11 Oct 2004)

Who will it be Jack Johnson or John Jackson??

I agree with Brad the debates shouldn't have as much weight as they do if people actually voted on the issues and stances the parties take and have been taking for years instead of how Kerry's botox looks or how much they think Bush looks like a monkey and bumbles through speech.(Not that i noticed him doing it much)

For what it's worth I think Kerry's a good orator, but so was Hitler (not comparing the two at all in any other sense..besides kerry lacks any semblance of passion) however I think it's especially indicitave of how the democratic process is marred by people who only live in a democracy once every 4 years instead of all the time like they should given that who they vote for has a huge impact on how they live for the following 4 years. If people would take the time more often to follow their countries politics we might actually get to see some proper democracy.

Personally I think the vice-presidential debate is the most entertaining. Looking at it from the surface Edwards is a little boy while cheney is constantly looking like he's about to mutter with his deep gravely voice "I could have your sweet southern head on a pike outside of my office if they'd let me out of my cage more than once a year."


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Oct 2004)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> On TV it seems like ... The spin ... 'more and more [is] ... support kerry'


   :-X


----------



## pappy (11 Oct 2004)

The reason I support Bush are many.   I won't go into them all.   Hes far from being perfect, no president has been.   He makes mistakes, name one president that hasn't, the fog of war prevents planing for every single event.   You make the best decisions you can, he took the fight to the enemy of the US.   The fact that the US hasn't been hit with a terrorist attack since 9/11 is proof it's working.   Granted the loss of every single life of US (or Canadian) military personnel is sad, the casualty rates in Iraq are extremely low.   The Marine Corps lost 5 or ten times that many in some island invasions in WW2, lets not even go into the casualty rates of WW1.

The fact that Rumsfield told the troops not to get their hope up and that they won't be coming home soon, well is truthful.   Americans have gotten spoiled to expect instant results.   The war againest Islamic Fundamentalist, which is what it's about,   (Terrorism is a tactic, not "an" enemy) is going to be a very long war.   This crap has been building since the late 1960s early 1970's so no should expect it to be over overnight. Personally I think we should have mobilized the entire US male population of draft age to go into the military after 9/11/01.   But that is / was highly unlikely.

The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.   The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.   The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.   It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.

Since this war on "terrorism" (to use the popular phrase) is going to take us years and years, we had to get rid of Saddam.   It should have been done in 1991, but the UN lacked the balls to finish the job.   A political end to a war, when a military end should have been let to run the course.   Even if the coalition forces shouldn't have done it, the biggest mistake of that war was telling the Iraqis to revolt and when they did we let them hang out to dry and let Saddam kill them by the 10,000's.   The US and Britain where spending billions to contain Saddam, with the no fly zones, etc since the 1991 Gulf war.   Saudi Arabia is not that stable or will be for long, they have major political problems they need to fix, maintaining our forces there was / is risky.   With Saddam still in power if Bush hadn't removed him, he would have been a threat to our rear forces in the area.   The UN sections where making him stronger not weakening him, look at the oil-for-food scandal being investigated.   Funny how the people(i.e France) saying don't invade where the ones getting the most bribesand kick backs from Saddam. I've seen pics of brand new arms and ammo with shipping labels from France that where shipped during the sanction years.   Saddam was just playing a waiting game.   Most of the world thought he had WMDs, he used them in the past, he said he had them, this time it was a buff.   How we see that, when we invaded it appeared he did, hindsight is always 20/20.   Saddam said himself he would have started building them again as soon as the sanctions where over.   The UN was losing it's resolve to contain Saddam, 12 plus years of sanctions was long enough.   It had to be done.

Don't kid yourselves, no matter who gets elected it will just be a matter of time before Syria and Iran are the next targets, whether they strike us first or we them.   As these countries are major threats.   But with Saddam in power we couldn't take on these countries safely with him at our backdoor.   Pouring more US troops into Afghanistan would just make it a more target rich environment for the reminets of the Talibon and Al Qeada.   The Spec Ops groups where designed to train and lead local forces as they are doing with great results.   The Russians poured 100,000 of troops into Afghanistan and spent ten years and lost.   The Afghanis NEED to fight for their OWN country, Free election just held there, yes some flaws, but free elections for the first time,   Thats improvement by anyone political leaning.   A free Iraq will be just a helpful in the middle east.   One can't expect things there to change overnight.   Our own revolution took years.   The war in Afghanistan contrary to the media was not a war againest one man, Ben Laden, you can't just go after one man and call it done when he's gone.   If he's still alive it will only be a matter of time, but one man can't be the focus of the entire war on Terrorism.   We ARE fighting Al Qeada in other countries, you just don't hear about it.   SF units are all over the world working with local governments.

As far as Kerry goes, I'm 45, I've seen what Kerry stands for since he appeared on the political radar in 1970-71.   His Anti-war activities where / are nothing short of treason.   Bush may have been smoking dope and staying home, but at least he didn't commit treason.   BTW, the planes Bush trained to fly where pretty much removed from frontline units in the early 1960's if not the 1950's.   At that time the NG was nothing like it is today.   Besides Kerry's treason lost us the war before all the hoop-la about Bush leaving the Air Guard in 1973/74.

Kerry did win medals in RVN, but even his own diaries confirm at least 2 of 3 Purple Hearts where due to self-inflection.   A small piece of shrapnel that barly broke his skin and didn't require more then iodine and a bandaid did not rate a PH.   Those that served with him including the Unit commanded said they "let" Kerry use the loop hole to leave RVN after only 3 months because they knew he was a glory-seaking reckless puke only out to selfserve his future political career.   Hummm he's the one playing off his RVN service in the campain.   NO other member of that unit or any other Swift Boat unit took that 3-PH and your out loop-hole.   Even the ones wounded in battle.   Kerry refuses to releases his complete records that would document the fact that he was a risk to his own side, his actions put Americans at risk for his own glory seaking.

After he came back he provided aid and comfort to the enemy by his actions in the anti-war movement.   He disgraced all vets not just VN era ones.   Yes some vets support him, thats their right.   But the vast majority know the truth and don't support him.   He never apologized for these actions to this day.

He's a slimly career politician that will say and do anything to get elected.   His own 20-year senate history will prove that over and over.   He and his kind gutted the Us military and Intelligence community for years and years.   The left leaning media "looks" the other way.   Kerry's plan to "win the war againest the terrorist" is simply surrender and appeasement.   His election will only put more people at risk, be they American or Candians, Brits, etc, etc.

Enough ranting.....   most here in the US have made up their minds by now. the outcome of the election is close and who knows who will win, it will be Bush or Kerry, thats all thats certain at this point.   Life will go on.   Who ever gets elected will cause lives to be lost, the numbers and the way they lose their lives will only be a matter for historians to debate in years to come.

As Zapata put it:
"It's better to die on ones feet then to live on ones knees"

In my opinion a win for Kerry means America will be on her knees.
Others I'm sure will have a different opinion, as is their right.


----------



## lfejoel25 (12 Oct 2004)

I'm not an american, so i really don't care one way or the other who runs another country.  that being said, i'll state what i think from my perspective.

1.  beef-the canadian beef industry has excellent safety standards, the standards were proven when a diseased cow was discovered before it went anywhere. (before being sold anywhere), and i think they destroyed all of the cattle in that herd, and maybe even a couple of neighbouring ones.  what does that mean to the bush.  let's use this opportunity to screw the canadian beef industry.

2. lumber-the US invented some claim with the wto, in order to put huge trade tarrifs on canadian lumber, and screw the entire canadian lumber industry.  the wto eventually decided that the claims were unjustified, but the US never did reimburse canadian lumber companies for the tarrifs, and i think some tarrifs are still in place.

3. cross border labour-the US came down hard on border issues after post 9/11.  i can't blame them.  but they came down even harder on cross border workers.  bush talked about foreigners taking american jobs.  which is fine as well.  but i live in a community that is close to the US border and i know that all it did was leave some US community without any qualified workers.  most importantly in the community that i live by was nurses.  the new regulations made the hospitals in the area seriously understaffed.

4. iraq-while i don't disagree with pappy about iraq, i don't credit any of it with bush, except for the problems.  personally i think pappy is bang on when he mentions about "should have been done in 1991".  which leaves me with the question why now?  because he had a good excuse.  and while like i said before, i don't live there, but if i were an american, i wouldn't be too happy about the way he dealt with the UN or other countries.  he basically alienated the US from other countries with the attitude he presented. "either you're with us or against us".  it could have been dealt with so much better, and probably could have saved the administration and the country a lot of the backlash they received over the whole thing, and might have had more international support.  not to mention that he has personal ties to the companies contracted to do most of the work in the whole thing for a ludicrous dollar value.  in canada, that would have been the equivalent of the sponsorship scandal.  and that almost cost the liberals the election.

5. tax breaks to the rich?  how can that be justified when so many people are 

6.  unemployment-people are losing their jobs.  either that or they are being replaced by part-time, or pay cut positions.  the same thing is happening in canada.  when i lost my $60k a year job at nortel, i was offered another position at a fraction of the salary.

7.  the deficit-while i'm not the typre to go screaming and yelling whenever the government has a deficit, the US has hit a record.  and that ain't good.  one of bushes successes was convincing congress to pass a bill allowing the country to go further into debt to support the war.  why is that considered any good?

i'm not saying that kerry would be any better, but i am saying i don't think he could be worse.  and the whole debate in the us right now seems to have nothing to do with policy OR capability.  it's all strictly PR and slander campaings.  what does either of their military records have to do with their qualifications to run the country.  other than that if i were to go to war for my country, i wouldn't mind being sent there by a leader that knows how it feels to get shot at.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2004)

Given a chance I would be voting for President Bush.

The President is straight forward and "common".  Kerry spends so much time trying to stay in the middle he gets trapped by his own words.  He has no plans beyond getting elected.  A plan that he has been working on since at least the time that he asked for duty on the Swiftboats.

Kerry is a politician.  Bush believes.

Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt (12 Oct 2004)

I know all my family are voting for BUSH and they are ass stomping Marines from Texas....so maybe thats a given......


----------



## clasper (12 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The President is straight forward and "common".


While it is important for politicians to have "the common touch" so they can relate to their constituents, I would suggest that for someone holding the office of "the most powerful man in the free world" we aspire for something more than "common".  Call me an elitist, but I think the skills required to be a good president require someone who is extraordinary, rather than ordinary.


			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Bush believes.


And yes, Bush has very strong beliefs.  Belief, in and of itself, is NOT a virtue.  It is what you believe that makes you virtuous, and it is the ability to reason which makes it possible to communicate effectively with those who don't share your belief.

We could discuss Bush's and Kerry's beliefs ad naseaum, and haul up outrageous lies told by both sides to win points, but for me, Bush's big failure is his inability to reason and communicate with others who don't share his belief.  If you're on his side, then everything's great, but if you're on the other side, you get screwed.  That may be an acceptable tactic when dealing with fundamentalist terrorists abroad, but is not an acceptable tactic when dealing internally with elected officials in a democracy.  In 2000, Bush campaigned using the phrase "I'm a uniter, not a divider", which turned out to be a ridiculous fabrication.  In today's fractured electorate, we need someone who can build a concensus.  Kerry's definitely not the right man for the job, but I think he's marginally better than Bush.  It is pretty depressing that Americans, when choosing their president, get to pick between the lesser of two evils.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Oct 2004)

lfejoel25 said:
			
		

> 4. iraq-while i don't disagree with pappy about iraq, i don't credit any of it with bush, except for the problems.  personally i think pappy is bang on when he mentions about "should have been done in 1991".  which leaves me with the question why now?  because he had a good excuse.  and while like i said before, i don't live there, but if i were an american, i wouldn't be too happy about the way he dealt with the UN or other countries.  he basically alienated the US from other countries with the attitude he presented. "either you're with us or against us".  it could have been dealt with so much better, and probably could have saved the administration and the country a lot of the backlash they received over the whole thing, and might have had more international support.  not to mention that he has personal ties to the companies contracted to do most of the work in the whole thing for a ludicrous dollar value.  in canada, that would have been the equivalent of the sponsorship scandal.  and that almost cost the liberals the election.


Actually, the Duelfer Report (Iraq Survey Group) said that France and Russia (and China) were all dealing illegally with Saddam against the sanctions.  Among others, Chirac was specifically targeted and bribed.  To say that Bush "alienated" other countries requires an extreme elasticity of the definition of the word: France, Russia, the UN, etc. accepted bribes to oppose the US and abandon the people of Iraq. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/07/wmd107.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/07/ixnewstop.html


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2004)

> Call me an elitist,



OK Clasper, you're an elitist.  ;D

I come from a culture that values the common.  As in the House of Commons.  As in Common Sense.   

A culture that values the decision of the Jury more than the decision of the Judge.

A culture that values Parliament over the Courts.

A culture where the Presbytery, not the Pope, appoints the Minister.

A culture that values the Common Man and looks askance at any that describe themselves as Intellectuals an Elites.

A culture that admires acceptance of the will of the Majority over the importance of being Right.

I like a "Common" politician.  I like a "Common" leader.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2004)

>If you're on his side, then everything's great, but if you're on the other side, you get screwed.

Sounds just like the way my principles and interests are treated by the Liberals and NDP when they hold federal and provincial power.


----------



## brin11 (12 Oct 2004)

> The President is straight forward and "common".



I don't think either Bush or Kerry appear "common".  They're both rich boys that made tons of money.


----------



## ramy (12 Oct 2004)

If I had a vote it would go to George W Bush.


----------



## pappy (12 Oct 2004)

I'll be brief with some comments, you make good point so I'm not slaming you, just providing a US side of things....



			
				lfejoel25 said:
			
		

> I'm not an american, so i really don't care one way or the other who runs another country.   that being said, i'll state what i think from my perspective.
> 
> "1.   beef-the canadian beef industry ..."
> 
> ...


----------



## clasper (13 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OK Clasper, you're an elitist.  ;D
> 
> I come from a culture that values the common.   As in the House of Commons.   As in Common Sense.
> 
> ...



I agree with some of what you say here, but I have to point out a couple of things.   The House of Commons should be filled with commoners (ie people who are not part of the nobility), not necessarily people who are ordinary.

Looking up the definition for common, and some of them fit what is appropriate for a politician:


> Belonging equally to or shared equally by two or more; joint: common interests.
> Of or relating to the community as a whole; public: for the common good.


And some of them would be pretty scary in a leader:


> Not distinguished by superior or noteworthy characteristics; average: the common spectator.
> Of no special quality; standard: common procedure.
> Of mediocre or inferior quality; second-rate: common cloth



I think what you're trying to say is you don't want politicians to be in an ivory tower, fed with a silver spoon, etc. (absolutely true).   But I still maintain that a president should be someone with a remarkable background and capabilities, and society shouldn't look askance at them for being elite.   (Although we should certainly look askance at them for being an arrogant prick who thinks he's better than everyone else...)


----------



## Bograt (13 Oct 2004)

Four years ago I supported Bush's campaign- partly because I am conservative in nature and partly because I didn't respect Clinton and hence Gore.

The rumours and innuendo surrounding Bush didn't sway me, because I felt that the people surrounding him were top quality. Standing at the ruins of the WTC and telling fire fighters that "the people who did this will be hearing from all of us soon" inspired me. The NATO action in Astan was decisive and it appeared that we were close to getting OBL in Tora Bora. Then something happened. The US turned its attention to Iraq. At the time I thought "Okay, intelligence must know something that we don't" Powell's presentation to the UN was moving.

The Iraqi campaign was quick, and I thought that the liberation would radically change how the arab community views the west. The pulling down the statue of Sadaam has illustrated the headaches the coalition has faced. When the US soldier placed a flag over the head of the statue I cringed- the occupation symbolically began

The justification behind the war in Iraq was
1. Weapons of Mass Destruction
2. Connection to Alqueda (Mohammad Atta's meeting in Prague)
3. Clear and present danger to the US

The first two points have been refuted. However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy.

The third point raises an interesting academic question. Is it okay for soveriegn nations to take unilateral military action without the support of UN in the name of national security?
Is it okay under these hypothetical and real conditions?
China- Taiwan?
Syria- Lebenon?
Iraq- Kuwait?

My 2 cents.


On a lighter note this link is worth a look:

http://www.kontraband.com/show/popup.asp?ID=1632


----------



## rw4th (13 Oct 2004)

> The first two points have been refuted.


This always irks me a little. Does anyone really think that any intel would and should be made public? Or that a warehouse full of boxes marked â Å“Weapons of Mass Destructionâ ? would ever be found?

Here a link to some news that contradict the statement that the WMD and terrorists ties issue has been refuted.
 http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html

and the actual documents are here

 http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041011a.html

A business exists to make a profit. It can have no other purpose or it will not survive. If a company has to pay too much in taxes, then they WILL cut jobs to make their profits. Less paying jobs = less overall taxes being payed to the government. Apart from lottery winners and people who inherit wealth (i.e Paris Hilton types) building wealth requires hard work.

Anyway, I won't go off on rant here, but my point is: _less taxes for businesses (i.e â Å“the richâ ?) = more jobs_ , more jobs=more taxpayers

Bush gets this, Kerry does not.


----------



## winchable (13 Oct 2004)

> However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy



Agreed, and both of them are quite upfront about it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2004)

How unfortunate that it took a war to prove there are no stockpiles of WMD, and to eliminate any likelihood they could be developed in future.  Hindsight and sanctimony are such natural companions.


----------



## NavyGrunt (13 Oct 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> The first two points have been refuted. However, the hypocrisy is what is troubling to me. North Korea and Iran are acquiring WMD and supply weapons and support rouge nations and terrorist entities, and the US response is diplomacy.



My problem is that the world attacks the states for not doing anything about North Korea but then if they didthey would be attacked for doing something. Do you really expect the states to go at it alone in North Korea again on top of Iraq and a an operation still going on in Afghan? Maybe if the rest of the world would step in an help in Iraq we would have more options for dealing with N.K. but right now we don't. And the U.N is still yak yak yak....North Korea isnt just an America problem. So why should they have to cast the first stone?


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2004)

Iraq shouldn't have been attacked because North Korea and Iran weren't.

As well there are lots of other places that present threats.  And they weren't dealt with.

In addition there are many places that abuse people within there borders.  And they weren't dealt with.

The Americans didn't tackle everything all at once therefore they shouldn't have tackled anything at all......................Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Do what you can with what you have available and change things one regime at a time.

Think locally and act globally.

Iraq, if it wasn't at the top of the list for regime change it was certainly near to the top.


----------



## Bograt (14 Oct 2004)

My point is perhaps a scholastic one. The justification of the war is the issue. Initially it was stated that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the west as a result of their stockpiles of WMD, and their clear links to terrorist activities. Both of these points provide a definite mechanism for nation states to take unilateral action to ensure its security. However, the 9-11 commission has stated that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq particpated in the events that tragic September. Also it was suggested that intelligence knew the sites where these stockpiles were located and that western Europe was 45 minutes away from missile attack. We were mistaken. 

Now it appears thats some are suggesting that regime change was/is the justification for the war. This fails the credibility litmus test. Within the realm of international law, regime change is not a trump card states can use to conduct military action. It wouldn't be acceptable if China played this card in Taiwan, or Iran used it against A-stan, or Newfoundland used it against Cape Breton 

I am a conservative a heart. I also believe that leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. We deserve that. 

Writing these two posts have been like dancing in a mind field. I have tried to be very careful on how I presented my opinion. I am not a dove, nor anti-American, nor a liberal, nor a commie, nor a tree hugger.


----------



## Acorn (14 Oct 2004)

Pappy wrote (my emphasis in *bold*:
3. cross border labour-the US came down hard on border issues after post 9/11.  i..."
Well the US boirder has been a miss for years.  9/11 was a big shock to some in the US, some knew it was a matter of time.  Terrorism has been going on for years.  9/11 hurt the US economy, since the US/Canada and the entire world is one big economy what happens here effects others, can't be helpped.  *The fact that some of the 9/11 hijackers came in from Canada*, well both side have to take blame for that crap.  The US had it's head in the sand thinking it would never happen to us, again knee-jerk reactions from the uninformed masses screaming to the politicians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact is that not a single 9/11 attacker entered the US via Canada. They all obtained US visas legally. 

If you're thinking of the individual picked up in WA allegedly on his way to LA for the Y2K celebrations, yes, he did enter via Canada. The story I've heard though, is that he, and his cohorts, were on the CISIS or RCMP watch list, and US authorities were tipped to pick him up as soon as he crossed. He wasn't lifted in Canada because Canadian authorities didn't have enough evidence to convince a judge.

Canada's problem is not that it is easy to get in, it isn't. The problem is that once here, our laws make it difficult to deport those we don't want here. 

Consider this little tidbit:

Prior to 9/11 60-70% of all refugee applicants in Canada entered via the good ol' US of A.

Acorn


----------



## Spr.Earl (17 Oct 2004)

Now Dubya and the GOP as of the last debate are attacking Kerry for using Chaney's daughters sexuality in regards to the Gay conflict.
Is this a diversion from the real faults of the present Admin.?
Kerry has hit home on many flaws so far i.e the deficit,health care etc.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Oct 2004)

If it's a diversion, it is Edwards and Kerry that both created it..... Mary Cheney's sexuality, in the context of the debates, was irrelevant, but the Dems chose to bring it up  ???


----------



## lfejoel25 (18 Oct 2004)

i think it's kind of funny the different ways that democrats and republicans look at the same issues in the US.

not really much of an opinion on bush/kerry, but it's still relavent.

like how pappy and i were discussing a couple of issues, and the way he sees certain issues differently from me really made me think.

so i was watching american news for the past few days, and started to wonder.

do you think that a lot of people vote democrat/republican simply because of that's just what they do rather than voting for a candidate or issues? 

eg  "Here in Texas, you vote republican"


----------



## pappy (18 Oct 2004)

First I agree with the post a few more ahead of this one, regarding Kerry using Cheny's daughter being a distraction.....  Typicaly Kerry move, from the 1960's on he's been doing the same.  I'm one of the old folks here that remembers him from the first time he hit the public scene in the 1970s.  Kerry will say anything to get elected,  he's doing the same with Ken Reaves death,  come on, now Kerry says "elect me and I'll make the cripple walk again..."  pretty much BS to me.  Stem cell research may in fact many many many years in the future be of some use.  It's not likely to in our lifetime, sad to have a Politician spew that crap when no major research is even going on.  Bush was the first President to fund this research, so far no major company has even started to research this on a large scale.  It's all too new yet to honestly say it will even pan out to any cures decades from now.  I remember the cure for Cancer was just around the corner..... hummm still working on that one.  I remember them saying Nuclear energy will make electricity "too cheap to meter"   funny I still get charged on my monthly bills....

Personally I think stem cell research if fine, lets do it, but damn, lets not promise the moon when we haven't even gotten out of the lab yet.

Kerry had no right to use Cheney's daughter to further his own cause, he didn't need to use her at all.  If Cheney want to mention her, well it's his daughter, that's his right.
And it's between him and his daughter, only.  
Kerry crossed to line.  He never even anwsered the question entirely.  If he wasn't pandering to get votes he could have come made his point without slaming Cheneys daughter.

And again, it's all smoke and mirrors, who cares who sleeps with who?  gay rights, abortion, flu shots, etc. not the goverments business.

Personally I don't think anyone should get any special treatment from the US goverment marriage wise, its a personaly decision between a couple be they man/women, woman/woman or man/man, am I leaving anyone out?  No tax breaks for anyone.  It's common sense to allow any couple to have equal legal rights. but none should get beniifits from the goverment.  All treated equal.  And the goverment has no place in the descission.  But equal / legal rights shouldn't come with tax breaks.

as to whether people think before they vote about the important issues. GOD I HOPE SO!!!! Do I think all do, sad to say they don't.
I personally think there should be a "None of the above, choose two (or More) canidates, you all suck" check box.  
It sucks when you have to make a decission on whos the lesser of two evils rather then whos the best man for the job.
But thats reality.
In Oregon in local and state elections, if the majority of ALL registered votes don't vote in any given election the ballot measures don't count.  Thats a simplifaction, like all laws its 1000's of words.  But in a way that makes sense.

Personally I think Presidential elections in the US should only have a 3-month campaining cycle, all with eqaul public funding and free (equal) air (radio/TV) time / newspaper space provided by the news media, they think they are 'part of the goverment" let them provide equal time to all canidates.  And after 3 months if the majority of registered voters don't vote, toss out that election and start over.  With new canidates if needed.
Will that happen?, not likely

Do I think Bush is perfect? no
Do I think Kerry is perfect? no
Would I like to see two NEW more qualified canidates on the ballot? (or more if there where any 3rd party viable parties), HELL YES.

But the Choice in the US is Bush or Kerry, thats our choices, like it or not.  But at least we ALL should vote.  
The fact that so few vote in the US is disgusting, plain and simple.

Funny thing is if we have a tie, (and lets not start that old aurgement Bush lost, all the recounts proved he did win,  Electorial College rules, PERIOD) in the Electorial College (the 2000 election was not a tie in the Electorial college), we could have Bush/Edwards or Kerry/Cheney...... one of those would be interesting.

The people claiming Bush lost the "real" election fail to mention history in that thier "god" John F. Kennedy won the same way in 1960.  JFK won the Electorial College and lost the popular vote.

But why the Electorial College is the better way vs. the popular vote is a whole other ranting thread.

Lets not even get started on the democrates thinking it's ok to allow non-citizens / non-registered voters vote.  They think asking for ID / Proof of citizenship is racest.  Lets get real folks.  Should US citiezens be alowed to vote in Canadian elections? or Mexican elections?

Who ever your for, Americans just get out there and VOTE, too many died to give / protect that right.  And the same goes for Canadians, at least in your own elections. haha

Rant off


----------



## 1feral1 (18 Oct 2004)

I don't really like Kerry, and if I was an American, I would be a Republican, and vote for Bush!

Either way, the US election day is fast approaching. We are hearng here, that its Bush who is slightly leading.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## winchable (19 Oct 2004)

What will it take for a viable third party to ever appear in the US?
Or probably more accurately,
Will it ever be possible for a viable third party to appear in the US?

I don't mean a party there as a means of influencing elections I mean one which would have enough support to actually challenge the two main parties for the presidency?

I've always seen this as a downfall of America Democracy, either as a result of the hold which the two parties have on the country or as a result of voter complacency. If anyone can make an argument otherwise I'd like to hear it, not trying to be confrontational, I mean it more as a scholastic question.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2004)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3752212.stm

This BBC type makes an interesting observation about the American political system and why this election has become so much of a battle.  He suggests that it is possible that the losing party could end up with a really divided base.

Ross Perot and Ralph Nader tried to create 3rd parties by trying to find room between two behemoths.  Maybe it is more likely that a 3 party contest occurs when one of the two breaks apart and the bits reform.  If I'm not mistaken this has already happened in US history.  It happened in Britain with the Liberals and it has happened here in Canada with the Conservatives.

Of course, that is a BBC view.


----------



## rw4th (20 Oct 2004)

I don't know if a society can realistically support more then 2 equal parties. In Canada we basically have 1 party (the Liberals), and several special interest groups (like the Bloc) and in countries where they have 3 or more parties, the governments are inherently unstable.


----------



## dutchie (20 Oct 2004)

Is it just me or are the Republicans becoming more and more 'right', and the Democrats more and more 'left'. There seems to be a ton of room between the two for another candidate/party to get a lot of support. I know there are significant differences between Canadians and Americans, but it seems to me that there would be support for a more 'centre' (or 'center' in the US, I suppose) party.

I don't know if a society can realistically support more then 2 equal parties. In Canada we basically have 1 party (the Liberals), and several special interest groups (like the Bloc)

Are you serious? What about the Tories? Are they a 'special interest group'? They have formed several Governments since Confederation. 

The NDP as well. Although they will never form a Government (thank God), especially with the Greens around.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2004)

A system dominated by two parties tends to remain stable because both parties are constantly fighting for the centre.  If one party splits, it leaves the other party freer to move in a different direction of its own choosing.

The Republicans and Democrats always have a divided base.  Each party has centrist and extremist elements.  This is probably true of almost any major party - none has a monopoly on being a big tent.

When extremist elements in a party (in a two- or three-party system) gain too much influence the centrists swing (temporarily) over to another party.  This doesn't seem to persist through more than about two or three election cycles before the party regains its sanity and starts to ignore the extremists; it's as if the wobble has to become really pronounced before it is noticed and corrective action is taken.  Oddly, it seems to me that when a party is ousted from power it is stricken by the belief that it wasn't extreme enough for the base, whereas I would conclude it wasn't centrist enough for the population.

The secret to a stable democratic government (and country) is that the major parties cater to the interests of the middle class and resist the urge to buy votes.  Once the parties start catering to people who vote to increase their privileges and entitlements at someone else's expense, the game is over and it's time to reshuffle the deck.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Oct 2004)

> The secret to a stable democratic government (and country) is that the major parties cater to the interests of the middle class and resist the urge to buy votes.  Once the parties start catering to people who vote to increase their privileges and entitlements at someone else's expense, the game is over and it's time to reshuffle the deck.



So you're saying that if the NDP ever gets elected to power, then we're f****d?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2004)

No, I think the NDP will get into power federally only if we are already f****d.


----------



## pappy (20 Oct 2004)

From the Wed 06 Oct 2004 issue of the Ellensburg Daily Record
(Ellensburg, Washington)...  written by Mathew Manweller, Central
Washington University political science professor.

" Election determines fate of nation"

"In that this will be my last column before the presidential   election,
there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty
repartee.The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.  This
November we will vote in the only election during our
lifetime   that will truly matter.  Because America is at a
once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the
balance.  Down one  path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of
ambivalence.  Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its
past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we
choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the
next 50 years of history.  If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out
the current occupant of the White House, the message to
the world and ourselves will be two-fold.

First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a
nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and
stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing
democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us.
But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as
voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges,
preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has
characterized other civilizations.  The defeat of President
Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to
make difficult, yet unpopular decisions.  America has
always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of
the costs or appeal.  If we turn
away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the
lesson of Somalia was well learned.  In Somalia we
showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the
battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom.  They
learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America.
Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls
will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow.  Except that
Iraq is Somalia times 10.  The election of John Kerry will
serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly
of American power is the timidity of American voters.
Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is
all you need to break the will of the American people.
Our own self-doubt will take it from there.  Bin Laden will recognize
that he can topple any American administration without
setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest
generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as
America's 'last generation.'  Born in the bleakness of the Great
Depression and hardened in the fire of WW II, they may be
the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor
and sacrifice.  It is difficult to admit, but I know
these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all)
in my generation.  Too many citizens today
mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.'  But America has
always been more of an idea than a place.  When you
sign on, you do more than buy real estate.  You accept a set of values
and responsibilities.  This November, my generation,
which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes
with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they
may deserve.  I believe that 100 years from now historians will look
back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive
election of our century.  Depending on the outcome, they will describe
it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary
nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and
daughters of the greatest generation accepted their
burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller


----------



## Peace_Keeper (23 Oct 2004)

Personally, I think Bush is plain stupid.

not to judge him by he expressions either.


You hear your countries been attacked by terrorisys in a florida classroom, you lick your lips and read a upsidedown book......nice one Bush.

He is not good at public speaking.....I think its speaking over all.......did you ever listen to the first line of his speeches, use a thersauous and change the words and add iraq, terrorism, Saddam, Evil-doers, and America to get the same affect of the actual speech?

And Iraq, yes our lovely oil.....I mean taking saddam out of power (whoops almost slipped up on the truth there.....) Saddam was someone who had no regarde for human life and him no longer in power is great for Iraq....but where are these WMD that was the main issue to invade Iraq.....you can't jsut go give a reason to get into a place and then when you were wrong find another and make it seem like nothing happenend.....and threating America???? give me a break.....


----------



## NavyGrunt (23 Oct 2004)

Hey "Peace Keeper" maybe you could fill in your profile so I know who Im talking to. That last post was an incoherrant mess. I get it- you dont like Bush. However the reasons you used have been rebutted time and again. Oil, the classroom story- we've been over this ground before. Bush was applauded by the school teacher who's classroom he was reading in for how he handled the situation....of course the "forwarded emails" you quite obviously get your information from wouldnt cover this.... :


----------



## NavyGrunt (23 Oct 2004)

Peace_Keeper said:
			
		

> Personally, I think Bush is plain stupid.
> 
> not to judge him by he expressions either.
> 
> ...





			
				Peace_Keeper said:
			
		

> I've been in Air Cadets mainly becuase the Army ones around here suck.
> 
> Its good and when i turn 16 I plan to join the reserves....its a great experience and helps mold youth.





			
				Peace_Keeper said:
			
		

> I was in school....the teachers told us and we went on with otu day....when I got home i watched it all on tv......
> 
> 
> But there is always a looming question of what hit the pentagon.....it was not a 757.....





This is a pretty weak first 3 posts......


----------



## lfejoel25 (23 Oct 2004)

Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.

I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents.
There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.

Among the highest, JFK, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and among the lowest, George Bush Sr and Jr, Nixon and Reagan.

Just something I read.


----------



## NavyGrunt (23 Oct 2004)

Maybe you could post a source for things you "just read". Its kind've a thing "we just do". Another empty profile hmm....


----------



## NavyGrunt (23 Oct 2004)

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm

Oh look 2 minutes of research later........ :




			
				lfejoel25 said:
			
		

> Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.
> 
> I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents.
> There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.
> ...


----------



## pappy (23 Oct 2004)

lfejoel25 said:
			
		

> Although i DON'T want to get into a good post bad post debate, I can't disagree with peace keeper.
> 
> I don't know if you guys ever heard about his or not, but apparently George W. Bush has the lowest I.Q. of all american presidents. Ur
> There's some university in the states that does I.Q. tests on presidential candidates.
> ...



Just another BS Urban Legend:
January 14, 2001 
Bush gets bad rap on intelligence
By Aubrey Immelman
Times columnist

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; 
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, 
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed ...  
â â€ W. B. Yeats, "The Second Coming" 
A week from today, the sun will rise on the second Bush presidency in a generation, in what for some may be a day of trepidation. Does Bush the Younger have what it takes to lead the nation in the new millennium? 

It's a question that transcends concerns about George W. Bush's conservatism or a path to power marred by youthful indiscretions. It's not about ideology or character; it's a question of cognitive capacity. 

The Spanish physician Juan Huarte in 1575 proposed one of the earliest recorded definitions of intelligence: learning ability, imaginativeness and good judgment. Undoubtedly, the mantle of the modern U.S. presidency imposes a steep learning curve and demands vision, wisdom and discretion. 

Equally clear is this: Sheer intellectual brilliance does not cut it in the Oval Office. 

In terms of brute brainpower, the smartest postwar presidents were Richard Nixon, a Duke Law School graduate with a reported IQ of 143; Jimmy Carter, who graduated in the top 10 percent of his Naval Academy class; and Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School. Deeply flawed presidencies all, despite their potential. 

In contrast, take high school graduate Harry Truman â â€ railroad worker, clerk, bookkeeper, farmer, road inspector and small-town postmaster â â€ or Ronald Reagan, sports announcer and B-list actor with mediocre college credentials. 

Despite their intellectual limitations, both achieved substantial political success as president. And, to press home the point, there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, a top-tier president in rankings of historical greatness, whom the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes branded "a second-rate intellect but a first-class temperament." 

Huarte's notion of intelligence comprises a mix of mental acumen and emotional discernment that provides a sound foundation for modern-day presidential success. 

To put it bluntly, the president need not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he does need a full deck of cards. He must be comfortable in his own skin, free of emotional demons, and surround himself with competent people. With apologies to Saturday Night Live's Stuart Smalley, the successful president need not be a towering giant, he just needs to be good enough, smart enough â â€ and, doggone-it, people must like him. 

George W. Bush can be likable and charming. But, as the New York Times pondered in a front-page article on June 19, 2000, "is he smart enough to be president?" 

Unlike John F. Kennedy, who obtained an IQ score of 119, or Al Gore, who achieved scores of 133 and 134 on intelligence tests taken at the beginning of his high school freshman and senior years, no IQ data are available for George W. Bush. But we do know that the young Bush registered a score of 1206 on the SAT, the most widely used test of college aptitude. (The more cerebral Al Gore obtained 1355.) 

Statistically, Bush's test performance places him in the top 16 percent of prospective college students â â€ hardly the mark of a dimwit. Of course, the SAT is not designed as an IQ test. But it is highly correlated with general intelligence, to the tune of .80. In plain language, the SAT is two parts a measure of general intelligence and one part a measure of specific scholastic reasoning skills and abilities. 

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115. 

It's tempting to employ Al Gore's IQ:SAT ratio of 134:1355 as a formula for estimating Bush's probable intelligence quotient â â€ an exercise in fuzzy statistics that predicts a score of 119. If the number sounds familiar, it's precisely the IQ score attributed to Kennedy, whom Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein, in "The Presidential Difference," commended as "a quick study, whose wit was an indication of a subtle mind." 

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate. 

George W. Bush has often been underestimated. Almost certainly, he's received a bad rap on the count of cognitive capacity. Indications are that, in the arena of mental ability, Bush is in the same league as John F. Kennedy, who graduated 65th in his high-school class of 110 and, in the words of one biographer, "stumbled through Latin, French, mathematics, and English but made respectable marks in physics and history." 

The feisty, sometimes-irreverent Bush's mental acuity may lack a little of the sharpness of his tongue, but plainly it is sharp enough. The real test for the president-elect will be whether he possesses the emotional intelligence â â€ the triumph of reason over rigidity and restraint over impulse â â€ to steer the course. 

Aubrey Immelman is a political psychologist and an associate professor of psychology at the College of St. Benedict and St. John's University. You may write to him in care of the St. Cloud Times, P.O. Box 768, St. Cloud, MN 56302.


----------



## lfejoel25 (25 Oct 2004)

i digress, i was wrong, although i did read that in a paper years ago.

i just looked it up on the web and read that some papers fell for the hoax, and so apparently so did i.  funny, i've been telling people that for years.

but that being said, aaron white, i'll fill in my profile if you want, i'm not trying to be one of "those guys" if you know what i mean.  i like a good debate.

frankly, i don't care who wins the elections, and even though i've seen some good arguements on here, i still don't like bush.  he kind of scares me really.  I just find that throughout his term he has been subject to quite a few knee jerk reactions.  in a crisis situation, like 9/11, it can be a good thing, because you simply need to react fast in order to eliminate the threat.  but when it comes to things like the war in iraq,although i'm not against it, i think it was rushed.  the restructuring of the country is the hard part, and although i'm sure they planned for it, i don't think they realized what they were getting themselves into, meaning the serious problems with public services (policing, water electricity).  but realistically, it's one of those things you can't know how serious the problem is until you get there.

even pappy mentioned how the bush white house reacted to public outcry with a few knee jerk reactions on some issues i mentioned earlier in this topic.  my point is that a knee jek reaction isn't necessarily the best direction for a government to take, as they could have consequences.

just my opinion.


----------



## Tanner (26 Oct 2004)

The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.  The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.  The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.  It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.


Pappy,
Where do I start. 

As neighbors and friends we felt a profound sense of loss on 9-11. Canadian Forces were prepared to assist in the War on Terror from the outset. However, our country did not see Iraq as part of the War on Terror. There was no solid intel linking Saddam with Al Qaeda, nor was there firm evidence of WMD. The was no justification for the war and those facts, as we know now, are indisputable. (Whether you believe the blusterings of a tyrant or not)

The same logic is being applied to your justification for fighting Islamic Fundamentalists in Iraq. There is no firm proof linking any Iraqi Fundamentalist cells to any acts of terror stated above. Just as I, a protestant, have no connection to the protestant extremist groups in Ireland. 

I am not accepting or condoning the actions of extremists. There are extremist groups in Iraq, without doubt, but the latest insurgency is more a rebellion against the occupation by the populace. And I suspect it will continue to grow in scope and ferocity. If your view of Islamic Fundamentalism persists I think you will find many more enemies just around the corner.

In reference to your War of Independence, I suspect the Islamic Fundamentalists and Extremists see you playing the role of the British.

Good Luck


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Oct 2004)

Tanner said:
			
		

> In reference to your War of Independence, I suspect the Islamic Fundamentalists and Extremists see you playing the role of the British.
> 
> Good Luck



The British didnt come to North America and liberate the populace from a brutal dictator. I grow very weary of that analogy.


----------



## Tanner (26 Oct 2004)

British soldiers were, in fact, deployed to secure funding for battles elsewhere (Boston Teaparty stuff). Look it up!


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2004)

British soldiers were deployed to keep the Indians out, Americans in and the Republicans (those nasty chappies who had lopped off poor King Charles head) DOWN.  The British parliament then demanded that the Americans pay for this service.  The Americans declined the offer......

Cheers. ;D


----------



## Acorn (26 Oct 2004)

Tanner said:
			
		

> The Islamic fundamentalist we're fighting are the same groups that have been hijacking and blowing up planes for over 30 years, it is not just something new since the Bush administration.   The same people that blew up the Embassies, USS Cole, trained and fought with the militias in Somalia, the same that blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon.   The same funding and training Hamas in Israel, the same that tossed an old man off a tour boat in the Mediterranean, the list is endless.   It can be traced back to the Barbary Coast days in 1805.



No, they are NOT the same. The sooner "we" understand that, the sooner we can begin to deal with the threat.

Acorn


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Oct 2004)

Thanks for the history lesson Tanner. Im aware of the period. Im saying that they are not similar besides what ever loose logic you are going to apply to the situation. While what you are saying is the popular spin it fails to stand up under scrutiny.

If you cant see a humanitarian plus to removing a brutal dictator than I wont be able to change your mind on an internet forum.

I suspect you are a Canadian whos Canadian Pride comes from "not being an American".


Oh and Im not meaning to sound rude, thats the majority of the people I bump into...

Cheers,
Aaron


----------



## pappy (26 Oct 2004)

As to my reasons I consider Iraq a just target in the "war on terrorism" just check out a few of these links, they are current and also go back 10 to 15 years just in a simple internet search.  I consider there being more then enough proof to link almost all the terrorist groups from the 1970-2004.  I can not explain things to anyone better then those links below.  I feel its foolish to think Al Qeada just came about out of mid air in the late 1990's, his is but one group of many.  Take a look at the links below, if you still don't see a link then we'll just have to agree to disagree.  We all get to have our own ideas, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, I don't think anyone has done anything here but speak thier free mind and I find everyone point of view interesting. So read and enjoy.  I myself feel that the gobal war on terrorism is more then one group, more then one leader, more then one country, more then one safe haven.  We can not focus on just one leader/group/country, it's larger then that.


Search:		State sponsored terrorism, Iran, Iraq (All the words)
Found:		26 result(s) on The Web
Date:		10/25/2004 10:07:46 PM

1.	State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... it is not known to have directly sponsored terrorist activity in ... one of the most active state sponsors of ... a variety of international terrorist activities, was ..
	http://www.infoplease.com/spot/terrorism4.html
	95%

2.	(I) Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000 Released by ... terrorism business and off the terrorism list. Iran, Iraq...
	http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm
	94%

3.	1995 Patterns of Global Terrorism - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... S. Department of State Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism Release Date: April 1996 Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism Cuba Iran Iraq Libya North Korea Sudan Syria The United States and ...
	http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_95/tersst.htm
	94%

4.	K - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	Patterns of Global Terrorism -2002. Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. April 30, 2003. Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ... State-Sponsored Terrorism. Despite significant pressure from the US Government, the seven designat
	http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
	94%

5.	Terrorism: Q & A | Iraq
	... Iraq. Has Iraq sponsored terrorism? Yes ... and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups ... State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism. The question ...
	http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html
	80%

6.	Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1998 - Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... West Bank, and Gaza Strip Jordan Lebanon Saudi Arabia Tunisia Yemen Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism Cuba Iran Iraq Libya North Korea Sudan Syria Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D ...
	http://www.usemb.se/terror/rpt1998/sponsor.html
	72%

7.	Propaganda Matrix.com - Exposing the New World Order and Government
	...o Iraq Aftermath | o Police State | o Big Brother | o New World Order | o Bilderberg | o ... in Iran >> Britain 'to send reinforcements' to Iraq...
	http://www.propagandamatrix.com/
	72%

8.	PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1993: STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM...
	... STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM OVERVIEW. CONTENTS. Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea ... states that sponsor international terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan ......
	http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/93/statespon.html
	68%

9.	http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1998Report/sponsor.html

	http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1998Report/sponsor.html
	65%

10.	MSNBC - Terrorists Don't Need States
	... had been backed by a state. The Soviet Union had financed and trained terror groups around the world. Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya had all sponsored terrorism. ..
	http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4615876/
	65%

11.	1990 Global Terrorism: State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... State-Sponsored Terrorism. ... for those governments who support, tolerate, and engage in terrorism. ... Iraq, Libya, North Korea, and Syria as state supporters of ..
	http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_90/sponsored.html
	61%

12.	Cuba State Sponsored Terrorism
	... Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism -2000, Released by the ... ... Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, and Sudan ...
	http://cuban-exile.com/menu1/!terror.html
	59%

13.	State-Sponsored Terrorism
	State-Sponsored Terrorism. For many years, terrorism was perceived as a contest between ... Updates Articles Documents. Iran. Iraq. Lebanon...
	http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/State_t.htm
	55%

14.	PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM, 1994: STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM...
	... STATE-SPONSORED TERRORISM OVERVIEW. CONTENTS. Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea ... states that sponsor international terrorism: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan ......
	http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_94/statespon.html
	54%

15.	1991 Global Terrorism: State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... historical pattern of Libyan Government-sponsored terrorist attacks ... continuing danger posed by state sponsorship ... Iran has also strengthened its relationship with ..
	http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_91/sponsored.html
	52%

16.	State ­Sponsored Terrorism - Iran
	... remained the premier state sponsor of terrorism in 1996. It ... in 1996 in Turkey and northern Iraq. Iran's primary targets are ... and four Lebanese for the Iran ­sponsored killing of Iranian ...
	http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism-Iran.html
	52%

17.	State-Sponsored Terrorism:
	Articles on terrorism, counter-terrorism and security policy. ... State-Sponsored Terrorism: Terrorism as a Preferred Instrument of Syrian Policy ... by the American State Department as states that sponsor terrorism (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, North ...
	http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=400
	52%

18.	1997 Global Terrorism: Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... Introduction. Cuba. Iran. Iraq. Libya. North Korea. Sudan. Syria. Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism ... There has been a marked decline in state-sponsored terrorism in recent years ...
	http://www.hri.org/docs/USSD-Terror/97/sponsored.html
	47%

19.	Conway home page
	... info. on all groups) State Sponsored Terrorism (Iraq, Iran, N.Korea, Syria, etc.) Background Info. on Terrorist Groups (American-Israeli coop.) Hamas Terrorrism information Hamas (Islamic Resistance ...
	http://www.4j.lane.edu/~conway/global/regional.html
	46%

20.	Holt, Rinehart and Winston
	State Sponsored Terrorism: Axis of Evil. In his State of the Union address in January 2002 President Bush took aim at governments that sponsor terrorism. ..
	http://go.hrw.com/hrw.nd/arbiter/pRedirect?project=hrwonline&siteId=1160&pageId=9038
	46%

21.	Patterns of Global Terrorism - 1998 Overview of State-Sponsored
	Patterns of Global Terrorism - 1998 Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. SOURCE: ... Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria are...
	http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Government/US/StateDepartment/CounterterrorismOffice/patterns/1998/OverviewStateSpons.html
	46%

22.	Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism
	Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism 2000. The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. ... Iran, Iraq, Sy
	http://www.iacsp.com/over.html
	41%

23.	Understanding Terrorism - State Sponsors of Terrorism
	... weapons to Hezbollah. State Sponsored Terrorism Summary. 1) The US Government considers Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria & Libya. ..
	http://www.globalterrorism101.com/UTStateSponsorsofTerrorism.html
	39%

24.	Ronald Reagan â â€œ The Pioneer of Global War on State-Sponsored Terrorism
	... oil installations in Iran and expanded the US ... plague of state-sponsored terrorism. That was the ... toward the Jewish state. The 40th President ... Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor. The ...
	http://www.acpr.org.il/cloakrm/opeds/040607.html
	33%

25.	state-sponsor-terror
	... This summarizes state-sponsored terrorism by Middle East and other countries, including: Iran. Iraq. Syria ... Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism. Patterns of Global Terrorism -2000 ...
	http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/state-sponsor-terror.htm
	32%

26.	state sponsored terrorism syria arafat assad counter terrorism israel
	... the War on Terrorism: The Role of Yasser ... serves as one against Iraq. Bashar Assad is ... to Fatah. In addition, Iran has tried to send ... Another Muslim Arab State of 'Palestine'? By ...
	http://www.betar.org.uk/articles/betar1067287215.php
	26%


----------



## pappy (26 Oct 2004)

maybe too much coffee today....

I feel that the war in Iraq was justafied for many reasons, ongoing costs to maintain the no-fly zones is just one of them, the US is not a bottomless pit of money...  
Below are some quotes from named sources as to the cost of the no-fly zones.  This had to end, the US could not continue to spend the money and military assets on the no-fly zones.  Simple military neccesitys dictate the removal of Saddam H.  The US could not contiue the war on terrorism in the gulf region with SH/Iraq being a thorn in our sides.

12 years and still going Saddam had to go, the UN was useless and would never do anything, we had to act.  Again if you disagree, well we'll just have to agree to disagree.  
But aside form some well made agurements, most people base their disagreement with the war in Iraq on thier haterd of Bush.  Bush is not perfect, in my opinion Kerry would be worse.  But agurements such as "Bush can't speak english correctly so I think he's stupid and doesn't know what he's doing" is not much of an agurement.  Not trying to flame anyone, so don't take it that way.  

I dislike Kerry based on his history based on the last 30 plus years of his public history.  Bush has made some mistakes, the war hasn't gone perfect, not many wars go perfect. in fact I doubt anyone can find one in history that has.  If we had given up in WW2 based on the first year of that war, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

"While the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) claims not to maintain records separately identifying expenditure incurred in sustaining the NFZs, it has provided statistics outlining the overall additional expenditure incurred by the MoD as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992-3 onwards:
Year	 £ Million
1992-93	551
1993-94	179
1994-95	58
1995-96	14
1996-97	6
1997-98	16
1998-99	35
1999-2000	28
2000-01(estimate) 	24 
Source: Hansard, House of Commons Debate, 23 January 2003"

"From the American point of view, the lack of definitive action in 1991 left the United States with a nasty hangnail to the otherwise successful Gulf War. 
Trying to police Iraq's armaments industry costs $100 million a year, and enforcement of no-fly zones costs $1 billion per year. Also, Iraq's control of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves enables Hussein to play a continuing active role in the world energy market. It is difficult to say the degree to which President George W. Bush sees the continued reign of Hussein as unfinished business from his father's term of office, thus requiring the attention of his administration."
The Reckoning: Iraq And The Legacy Of Saddam Hussein,By Sandra Mackey


----------



## lfejoel25 (26 Oct 2004)

boy pappy, that must have been some good quality tim horton's coffee


----------



## clasper (26 Oct 2004)

Sorry Pappy, but eliminating the cost of the no fly zones as a justification for the war in Iraq is a complete farce.   The US has already spent ~$80B on the war, and will spend billions more over the next several years maintaining some sort of military presence in the region.   Saving $1B per year is not going to balance the books.

That being said, you are quite correct- there was unfinished business in Iraq, and action was justified.   I would have been happier if the US had spent some time and money to help the UN develop some teeth (perhaps a pipe dream) but it didn't work out that way.   Bush raced head long into war as soon as Congress gave him the stick.   It would have been interesting to see what happened if he waved the stick in front of Saddam's nose first, rather than beating him over the head with it.

As for Kerry being worse, I disagree (sort of).   He's going to build a grand coalition, not through any great plan of international relations, but through his charming personality (and the fact that he's not Bush). :   I personally don't think either one of them truly understands the point of view of anyone outside the US.


----------



## pappy (26 Oct 2004)

Maybe Kerry will get Franch to help    ;D

Or mabye Vietnam, They owe hiim one, he helpped the vietcong and NVA win thier war, maybe they will help him win this one.

I do agree what you said about them both not understanding the rest of the world, the same can be said from the other side, I don't think many understand the people in the US either.

as far as adding teeth to the UN, I doubt that will ever happen.  The UN is too busy lining thier own pockets to give a rats behind to the real needs of the world.
the UN is a lost cause just like the League of Nations.  just look at the Oil-for-food program and funny now the countries that tried so hard to stop the US invading Iraq where the same ones taking Saddams money and kckbacks, and selling them weapons to shoot down Bristish and US pilots flying the NFZs.

The only thing the UN can agree on is looting thier own cafeiteria....
They didn't stop the genocide in Rwanda when they had the chance....  I doubt they will stop it in Sudan either, unless Uncle Sammy shows up with his army.

I have to give the Candaians credit, I can't think of another nation that has supported UN peackeeping missions more then Canada , along with Britian and the US.

but enough bashing the UN, this is a bash Bush and bash Kerry thread.....


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

The British didnt come to North America and liberate the populace from a brutal dictator.

I assume you are stating that the US liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. This of course is not true. In WW2, France was liberated, Germany was not. Liberation is achieved by removing a foreign invader, not by invading and removing a domestic tyrant. 

*Liberated*: France was liberated of Hitler, Kuwait was liberated of Saddam.
*Invaded and Occupied*: Germany was invaded and occupied by the Allies, Iraq was invaded and is occupied by the US/Britain.

If you wish to argue that the US occupation is justified, fine, but to say they liberated Iraq is completely false.

Of course, this topic has been beaten to death in the following thread:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/19567.0.html

Re: the US election, it looks like the yanks have a choice:

re-elect a President who may go down as the most polarizing President in history, who racked up massive debt, started a war that many see NOW as unwinnable, but also is viewed as one of the most decisive Presidents in recent history (since Reagan).

or

elect a Senator who is viewed as a Liberal (a dirty word in the US), a flip-flopper, a sponge for lobbyists, a war hero to some, a coward to others, and one who is perceived to be very indecisive, but also is seen as a possible way out for the US in Iraq, and a savior from Bush's economic policy and foreign policy failures.

Not much of a choice, I say.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2004)

>Liberation is achieved by removing a foreign invader, not by invading and removing a domestic tyrant.

Do you think the Shi'ites and Kurds might have felt they were occupied by a foreign power?

>I assume you are stating that the US liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator.

Liberate being the wrong word, which one would you choose?  Let's not lose sight of what was achieved in the process of enhancing the power of our vocabulary.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Oct 2004)

> Re: the US election, it looks like the yanks have a choice:
> 
> re-elect a President who may go down as the most polarizing President in history, who racked up massive debt, started a war that many see NOW as unwinnable, but also is viewed as one of the most decisive Presidents in recent history (since Reagan).
> 
> ...



Could be worse.  Jack Layton could be running....


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

Liberate being the wrong word, which one would you choose?  

You could call it 'Conquer', but that's not really accurate anymore.
You could call it 'Overthrow', but that insinuates to me that another government has been installed quickly and effectively. The increasing level of violence indicates that the 'Iraqi Government' is a pure farce.

I choose to call it an 'Invasion/Occupation'. There is some historical precedence for this term being used for this exact situation: 

Germany invaded and occupied France, Belgium, Holland and others. The Western Allies eventually LIBERATED these countries from their foreign invader.

The West invaded and occupied Germany (creating West Germany), but eventually handed over power to Germans.

The USSR invaded and occupied Germany (creating East Germany) and held onto power.

Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. The US-led coalition eventually LIBERATED Kuwait.

Do you think the Shi'ites and Kurds might have felt they were occupied by a foreign power?

Whether or not the Kurds or the Shi'ites felt they were occupied is not the issue, and not really my concern. It was also not the issue nor the concern of the US as indicated by US statements (or lack there-of) leading up to the invasion. To claim/insinuate the US invaded Iraq to 'save' the Kurds (laughable) or the Shi'ites (even more ridiculous) is untenable and not indicitive of your obvious intelligence. 

Could be worse.   Jack Layton could be running....

No kidding!


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2004)

You know Caeser (by the way I hope you decided to spell your name incorrectly, that e instead of an a at the end really bugs me sometimes)

You know I moved out here to the left coast about 11 years ago, temporarily.   Circumstances caught up with me and here I remain.  Anywho,  when I arrived I figured that the inward looking, self satisfied view of the lefties I ran into out here was a result of there being no horizons (I'm a prairie type person by nature).  The sight lines round about here are blocked by mountains, trees, buildings, clouds, the relentless overcast and months of rain. These, coupled with with liberal ingestions of mold, moss and rust.  

However having now encountered one or two rational BC types, including some on this site, I am forced to conclude it must be some sort of contaminant in the water round about Granville Street.  You might get PWGSC to check out the water supply to your Armoury.  It could be a National Security issue.

Just concerned about your health mate.  Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Oct 2004)

Caeser said:
			
		

> The British didnt come to North America and liberate the populace from a brutal dictator.
> 
> I assume you are stating that the US liberated the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. This of course is not true. In WW2, France was liberated, Germany was not. Liberation is achieved by removing a foreign invader, not by invading and removing a domestic tyrant.
> 
> ...



Websters defines liberated as "To set free, as from oppression, confinement, OR foreign control". I say the iraqi people were oppressed and the Kurds confined. Be as flowery as you wish with your english- its smoke screen for a weak argument.

Cheers.


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

You know Caeser (by the way I hope you decided to spell your name incorrectly, that e instead of an a at the end really bugs me sometimes)

Yes, done on purpose. 

Anywho,   when I arrived I figured that the inward looking, self satisfied view of the lefties  

Don't paint me with that brush, you know nothing about me. I have always voted Socred/Liberal (prov-obviously) and Tory, prefer less not more government, don't own Birkenstocks, don't smoke dope, don't break the law, am against legalization of marijuana, and despise big-labour. 

What planet are you from where one can never express concerns and opinions that don't directly fall in line with one's usual political views? Must be pretty nice not to have to think, just categorize everything according to what the 'right' is supposed to think. 

I'm a prairie type person by nature

So as long as we are accepting stereotypes as fact, you must be a redneck, Bud/Canadian drinking, meat-and-potatoes eating, bigot cowboy from Calgary/Edmonton who thinks higher education is grade 10? This is obviously not what I expect you to be, but I thought I would characterize you as you characterized me.

You know I moved out here to the left coast about 11 years ago, temporarily.

Why don't you move back? Don't want you to succumb to all the 'mold, moss and rust' on all the 'mountains, trees, buildings and clouds' or catch pneumonia from the 'relentless overcast and months of rain'.


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

I say the iraqi people were oppressed and the Kurds confined.

Point taken - but it's moot. See below:

_Do you think the Shi'ites and Kurds might have felt they were occupied by a foreign power?_
Whether or not the Kurds or the Shi'ites felt they were occupied is not the issue, and not really my concern. It was also not the issue nor the concern of the US as indicated by US statements (or lack there-of) leading up to the invasion. _To claim/insinuate the US invaded Iraq to 'save' the Kurds (laughable) or the Shi'ites (even more ridiculous) is untenable_ and not indicitive of your obvious intelligence.


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

You know Caeser (by the way I hope you decided to spell your name incorrectly, that e instead of an a at the end really bugs me sometimes)

Changed just for you.


----------



## winchable (26 Oct 2004)

> Could be worse.  Jack Layton could be running....



Got Nader?


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

Interesting how folks like Nader and the Canadian Greens actually do more harm to the left's struggle for representation at the table than they do good. I know they have to fight their fight, but you'd think that from their perspective they would be better served to align with the NDP/Democrats.

Suits me just fine, though, split the left all day long if they like (in Canada at least).


----------



## thesaurus (26 Oct 2004)

Kerry earned his medals of valour. My admiration for him. But when he threw all those medals as gestures of protest against the Vietnam war, who is he fooling? The American people. The American Constitution was the source of his medals. The constitution was every soldiers inspiration and basis for defending America. Then he threw away all of it. He was mocking the US Constitution then!

Nobody can match someone's courage and bravery in fighting in the Vietnam war. But please Kerry respect the source of your medals. The Constitution.

Who would refuse to vote for Bush. After passing a law giving military aid to the amount of 34 billion in military hardware, who would in the Philipppines.

And the Senate Commission acquitted Bush on the grounds of "failure of imagination". Watch those Kurds dying one by one because of mustard gas on video shown in BBC.

Oh ! my God. Bring back democracy in Iraq!! Vote BUSH and CHENEY for a peaceful and democratic Iraq~


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2004)

> You know Caeser (by the way I hope you decided to spell your name incorrectly, that e instead of an a at the end really bugs me sometimes)
> 
> Yes, done on purpose.
> 
> ...



Thank-you.   Cheers



> Anywho,   when I arrived I figured that the inward looking, self satisfied view of the lefties
> 
> Don't paint me with that brush, you know nothing about me. I have always voted Socred/Liberal (prov-obviously) and Tory, prefer less not more government, don't own Birkenstocks, don't smoke dope, don't break the law, am against legalization of marijuana, and despise big-labour.



Well done.   So you are not a leftie. 



> What planet are you from where one can never express concerns and opinions that don't directly fall in line with one's usual political views? Must be pretty nice not to have to think, just categorize everything according to what the 'right' is supposed to think.



I guess my problem is that the views you are espousing tend to be those of the majority of Canadians and I don't think they came by them honestly.   I don't think the majority thought there way through the issues at hand.   The media and the politicians have been spoon feeding a particular anti-American line, especially on Iraq for so long, picking news stories to back up their position that the public can't fail to understand the position the way they see it.

Many people forget that at the time of the invasion of Iraq (yes it was an invasion, yes the Iraqi government was overthrown, yes the allies occupied the country, yes the Kurds and Shiites were liberated, yes there are locals who are perturbed at having lost their positions and are concerned about being fed to their own meat grinders at Abu Ghraib, yes there are some foreign muslims who have shown up to protect their supply lines between Afghanistan and Algeria, yes it did discomfit the business arrangements of some nations and individuals and finally yes it did serve America's national interests as well as the interests of many other nations   - a fair day's work on balance I would say.).... at the time of the invasion 50% of Canadians   supported the notion of going into Iraq.   If the Government of the day had said yes the numbers would likely have gone higher.   This was the experience in all the other allied countries.      Unfortunately that 50% wasn't evenly distributed across Canada.   Some pockets showed more support than others.    There is a strong belief in some quarters that the decision made was to prevent a replay of the Conscription battles (the Boer War caused similar fault lines).

Now I can understand us having to stay out because of that domestic situation.   I may not have liked it but I can understand it.   I thoroughly detest the adoption of the line that we must denigrate a necessary and useful action at all cost and may not make reference to the advantages conferred on the region and Iraq.

Ranting I know.   But I am afraid that your reiteration one more time of a commonly held view, a view that in my opinion is approaching dogma rather than debate, was just too much.


> I'm a prairie type person by nature
> 
> So as long as we are accepting stereotypes as fact, you must be a redneck, Bud/Canadian drinking, meat-and-potatoes eating, bigot cowboy from Calgary/Edmonton who thinks higher education is grade 10? This is obviously not what I expect you to be, but I thought I would characterize you as you characterized me.



Lessee.   Redneck? Yep guilty. Worse than you may think.   Folks from the Borders and Lowlands were referred to as Rednecks back in Britain long before Jeff Foxworthy heard about us. Bud/Canadian? No.   But I do like my beer.   Big Rock Traditional by preference.   Meat and Potatoes? Had to cut out the potatoes on this low-carb diet.   Bigot?   Try not to be but discriminating and chauvinistic, yep.   Cowboy.   Unfortunately not.   No Hat,   No Cattle and bucked off a horse three times in a row.   Grade 10 is higher education for some people that I know.   My Father-in-law for one.   Not many opportunities in the Depression.




> You know I moved out here to the left coast about 11 years ago, temporarily.
> 
> Why don't you move back? Don't want you to succumb to all the 'mold, moss and rust' on all the 'mountains, trees, buildings and clouds' or catch pneumonia from the 'relentless overcast and months of rain'.



I've heard that line before.   Call me in a few years and tell me about freedoms when you are responsible for the lives of your children and your decisions affect others.


Now then.   Back to the case at hand.

In these discussions it seems to me that some participants are often parroting views and attitudes expressed by our media and politicians.   I am afraid I don't hold either in very high regard right now.

The media in particular galls me for I have been late in coming to the realisation that they are descended from pamphleteers and propagandists and generally the line has bred true.   I used to accept as fact that the Canadian media was a neutral party,   assiduously retailing the facts so that the populace could make informed decisions.   I overlooked errors and omissions on the grounds of lack of knowledge, oversight and accident.

This current situation with respect to Iraq and Terrorism and President Bush has changed my view.   A change that started when I saw how Manning, Day and Harper were treated,   not to mention all my fellow "red-neck" Albertans.

The media consistently fails to mention all the facts.   Curiously the facts that are omitted tend to be those that bolster what is commonly known as the right-wing or conservative view.   

Case in point.   Equalization report in Canadian Press today - "Conservative economist" states that equalization has perverse incentives "Mainstream economists" can't prove him wrong.

2nd Case.          350 tonnes of explosives gone missing in Iraq according to New York Times.    Kerry slams Bush.
                               NBC reporter embedded with 101 Abn that secured the site informs that Explosives were gone when the got there.
                               NYT's   take on the issue.......Bush and Kerry Campaigns battle over Missing Explosives.

Consequently a lot of people end up with fairly "filtered" views of reality.   

And from where I stand your views on this particular issue squares fairly well with the rest of the populace at large who come by their opinions from a limiited number of sources.

Now if I have misread your understanding of the world, if you have come to your conclusions based on more than listening to CBC/CTV and the local rags, then I apologize.

However it is an unfortunate fact of life that people tend to be known by their associations.   And your association with that particular view doesn't recommend you highly in my view.

Yours, Kirkhill


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Oct 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> I say the iraqi people were oppressed and the Kurds confined.
> 
> Point taken - but it's moot. See below:
> 
> ...



If your saying it wasnt the reason for the war than I concede. Quite frankly I still cant figure that out definitively. All I attempt to do now is put a positive spin on the situation. The invasion is over and done whether we agreed with it or not. Now we are at a crossroad as to what to do now. Bush will bang his head against the wall and rebuild and Kerry will withdraw prematurely- in a halfbaked manner which will set us up for ANOTHER gulf war later.....


----------



## dutchie (27 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill: There was so much in your post that to cut and paste would take a century. All in all, I more or less agree with what you said, especially regarding the not-so-neutral media. Although I would extend the damnation to the majority of the established US media (especially TV) like CNN and Fox 'News'. 

I like to think of myself as fairly right-wing, except on this issue. To say that I am a little surprised that I have come to feel this way would be an understatement. I guess it a combination of:
-my ethical and moral principles on the concept of just war (which I will not get into, see the other thread for my views on this)
-my distaste for the nationalistic (as opposed to patriotic) mood of the US post 9/11.
-the growing feeling that this war may well be a catalyst for a major prolonged conflict that will cause immense suffering and destruction beyond Iraq's borders.
-the growing feeling that the US has opened up something it does not understand and cannot control.
-most of all, I feel my intelligence has been insulted by the US administration trying to convince me that their reasons for invading were in fact not WMD, they were: (insert lame excuse here).

If your saying it wasn't the reason for the war than I concede.  

Good, I don't feel like going through that again.   

The invasion is over and done whether we agreed with it or not. Now we are at a crossroad as to what to do now.

Your spot on there Aaron. I don't pretend to know how to fix it, I just feel they are on the wrong course right now. 

Bush will bang his head against the wall and rebuild and Kerry will withdraw prematurely- in a halfbaked manner which will set us up for ANOTHER gulf war later.....

Bush doesn't seem to be too interested in rebuilding, although admitidly it's pretty tough to rebuild when half the country is in revolt. 

I'm no fan of Kerry either. I find it hard to believe that in a country of 350 million people, Kerry is the best Democrat they could find. There should be a Senate committee to investigate _that_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2004)

Yes, the Allies invaded and occupied Germany.  There are some who would also characterize it as a deliverance from tyranny (the Nazis).  That has a slightly different flavour and moral character than the Nazis overrunning Europe, don't you think?

>Whether or not the Kurds or the Shi'ites felt they were occupied is not the issue, and not really my concern.

Then why do you give a flying f**k about Iraq?  I mean it - really, why do you care?  What is it that makes you and so many others so concerned about the fate of one country?  What is it about Iraq that makes its fate and the fate of its people so much more important than Tibet, or Cambodia, or North Korea, or Chechnya, or Rwanda, or the Balkans, or Darfur?  Why is so much discussion centred on one particular human tragedy among many?  Is this about people, or politics?  Why isn't it just a blip of information - a few weeks of headlines - in the continuing story of humanity that you digested and forgot?  What stops you from moving along to other matters and leaving Iraq to the people who are interested in making the best out of a less than optimally handled opportunity?


----------



## NavyGrunt (27 Oct 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> , or North Korea, or Chechnya, or Rwanda, or the Balkans, or Darfur?




I believe we should be going head long into these countries too.......


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2004)

Well and Forcefully put Brad.  Cheers.


----------



## dutchie (27 Oct 2004)

That has a slightly different flavour and moral character than the Nazis overrunning Europe, don't you think?

Of course it does. I am not saying that all invasions immoral, just that the US invaded Iraq, they didn't liberate it. Whether it's just or not is a whole other matter, which we have discussed before.

What is it that makes you and so many others so concerned about the fate of one country?   What is it about Iraq that makes its fate and the fate of its people so much more important than Tibet, or Cambodia, or North Korea, or Chechnya, or Rwanda, or the Balkans, or Darfur? Is this about people, or politics?

The reasons why I have discussed this issue more than the others listed are:

1)- The US is physically, socially, politically and culturally more similar to Canada (and me) than the other nations/regions stated. As such, I have more understanding and more interest in these matters. I genuinely like the US and Americans, and have a great interest in their well being.

2)- I am uneasy with the idea that one nation can operate with impunity. The US is the only real Superpower left (arguments could be made for China, but that's another discussion). The US post cold war has operated, understandably and without fault, unchecked. They don't have an enemy to balance them off in the form of another nation. Again, arguments could be made that terrorism is the new counter balance, and if true, I prefer the Soviets. 

3)- The US proclaims itself to be the beacon of hope to oppressed people, the pinnacle of democracy, and the champion of human rights. The US actions leading up to, during the invasion, and continuing in the occupation violate a great number of the principles that these ideas are based on, especially democracy. The Russians, North Koreans, etc don't claim to hold these ideals to this standard, if they subscribe to them at all, so their violation of these ideals, while unacceptable does not qualify them as 'Hypocrites'.

4)- the US has held other nations, namely Iraq, to a standard they are not abiding by themselves. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US rightly condemned it as unprovoked aggression. The US invaded Iraq without being attacked by them, without UN approval, and without any other verified basis (ie-WMD). 

Those are the main reasons I have an issue with the war.

What stops you from moving along to other matters and leaving Iraq to the people who are interested in making the best out of a less than optimally handled opportunity?

I am interested in making the best of this situation. In the previous thread that you and I debated on regarding the war in Iraq, I asked what we could do about Iraq now. I stated that the US could not just pull out, and I proposed that the rebuilding contracts be given to Iraqi companies, rather than American ones. I also expressed concern over the lack of hard plans that Kerry had at that time proposed, and that I was unsure how to fix this mess. So I think I have demonstrated that I am not solely interested in just berating the US, that I am interested in ideas on how to fix it. However, I have to say that I have not heard much from you on how to fix the current situation.

_or North Korea, or Chechnya, or Rwanda, or the Balkans, or Darfur? _   


I believe we should be going head long into these countries too.......

Darfur: yes. Rwanda: yes. North Korea: not just yet, but I think were headed there. Balkans:were already there, and I agree we need a stronger presence, Chechnya: US involvement there could start a major prolonged conflict with Russia. I'm not saying we shouldn't go, but those risks should be understood.

To bring this back to the original topic:

What do you think about the 'plans' that Bush and Kerry have for Iraq?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Oct 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> To bring this back to the original topic:
> 
> What do you think about the 'plans' that Bush and Kerry have for Iraq?



While many don't want to admit it, I think that as a society we are in a life-or-death struggle against an Islamic variety of Fascism that is predisposed to attacking civillian targets (i.e., terrorism).

Bush is a known quantity, he seems to believe (and I won't even get into rightly or wrongly right now) very strongly in what he is doing and it would take a very major policy shift for him not to continue to pursue 'terrorisits and the nations that harbour them'.  This type of purposefulness is only the only way to win wars.

Kerry on the other hand is weak (at least is perceived as) and vacillatiing (definitely): his only goal seems to be to get elected President and will do or say anything to achieve that.  He talks about have a plan for Iraq, but no-one seems to be able to articulate it in a way that makes any sense.  Does he replace US troops in Iraq them with troops from countries that have already said they won't contribute troops?  Is all the talk nothing and he would just maintain the status quo?  Does he send more troops to address his contention that there is a need for more?  Does he go back to Afghanistan with more troops to 'focus on the real problem' and get BinLaden?  Does he ask the UN what to do?  Does he withdraw unilaterally and leave Iraq to the 'freedom fighters'.  The problem I have with Kerry is that I have *NO IDEA* what he would do as President (and in the context of war, that scares the s**t out of me)!

I've heard it said that this election amounts to little more than a referendum on Bush: if this is true, it goes a long to way to explain why there has been so little critical attention paid to his policies!

P.S> With regard to the posts on previous pages about the supposed low IQ of Bush, this came out a few days ago but [sarcasm]suprisingly[/sarcasm] didn't make the headlines:



> Secret Weapon for Bush?
> By JOHN TIERNEY
> 
> Published: October 24, 2004
> ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html


----------



## dutchie (28 Oct 2004)

Bush is a known quantity, he seems to believe (and I won't even get into rightly or wrongly right now) very strongly in what he is doing and it would take a very major policy shift for him not to continue to pursue 'terrorisits and the nations that harbour them'.
                                                                             &
Kerry on the other hand is weak.....He talks about have a plan for Iraq, but no-one seems to be able to articulate it in a way that makes any sense. The problem I have with Kerry is that I have *NO IDEA* what he would do as President (and in the context of war, that scares the s**t out of me)!
                                                                    
This is why I am flabergasted that he got the nomination. Like I said earlier, in a nation of 350 million people, there has to be a more decisive, stronger, more capable condidate. The Democrats have missed a huge opportunity (again), as I believe Bush could be defeated based on the whole Iraq/WMD/911 fiasco (I think we should steer clear of discussing this issue specifically) as well as his domestic policy. In fact, even with a weak opponent, Bush might still lose, but I think he will probably pull it off. Kerry is also very left (for a US democrat that is - he'd basically be a Liberal in Canada), and Bush was not wrong when he said that Ted Kennedy is the conservative Senator from Mass.....

Bush has conviction, no doubt. If I were a US citizen, and my only concern was the war (it wouldn't be my only concern), I would NEED to know specifically what the candidate will do regarding the war before I will even consider him. Kerry has a lot of ideas, but not many plans. He wants to build International support for US interests, and fight the war on terror with broader Intl support. Great idea, but how exactly are you going to do that Senator? He wants to rebuild Iraq and withdraw with honour. What the hell does that entail Senator? This guy talks like Jack Layton - all ideas and lofty promises, no plans, no facts, no realistic promises.With Bush, I know what I get. If it wasn't for the war (ie-my last few posts), it would be a no-brainer. As it stands, I don't know who I would vote for. If I vote for Bush, I am re-electing a President who made some decisions that I have serious problems with. If I vote for Kerry, I would be electing a President who hasn't told me anything at all, who belongs to a party that I don't support, and who is considered a Liberal (in the US sense). It's a toss up for me. Thank God I don't have to decide.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 Oct 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> This is why I am flabergasted that he got the nomination. Like I said earlier, in a nation of 350 million people, there has to be a more decisive, stronger, more capable condidate. The Democrats have missed a huge opportunity (again)



On the other hand, at least they didn't pick Howard Dean!!!  And sadly, I think this is the best thing I can say about Kerry ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2004)

Ah, yes, the good old days when the USSR counterbalanced the US.  Much of the world was divided into two armed camps, and all you had to do to get lawyers, guns, and money for your own revolution was appeal to the sugar daddy on the other side of the ideological divide from the swine currently running your country.  I can imagine instead of those nasty demonstrations and allegedly crooked referenda in oil-rich Venezuela they'd have a well-backed right- or left-wing police state engaged in an exciting no-holds barred struggle with insurgents supported by the other side, if not a full-blown civil war.  Who can imagine what sort of conflict Zimbabwe is being denied for lack of anyone's sponsorship?  Pity all the poor would-be dictators who now have to actually think about ruling their subjects, or scrimp to find the weapons, soldiers, and police to oppress them, instead of receiving massive injections of arms and cash to hold them in check.  Many countries were spending much more money on large standing armies rather than wasting it on social spending.  Terrorists didn't have to suffer the indignity of playing hide-and-seek with their lodgings and bank accounts; they could get lavish funding, equipment, and training in the USSR or one of its select clients.  We didn't have to worry we might be living in the one city that might be nuked while the rest of the world went on living; we had the satisfaction of knowing everyone lived under the same nuclear umbrella.

I can understand that it's much easier and entertaining to criticize the US government and people for failing to live up to their high-minded ideals than it is to have ideals of our own or to lift a finger to stop any one of the other ongoing human tragedies.  It is much more important to identify and scold the hypocrites than to actually do anything oneself.

The Iraqi attack on Kuwait was not unprovoked; the Kuwaitis were allegedly slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.  The bastards.

The great irony of unknown and unknowable threats is that the only way to be certain is to force a decision.


----------



## dutchie (29 Oct 2004)

I can imagine instead of those nasty demonstrations and allegedly crooked referenda in oil-rich Venezuela they'd have a well-backed right- or left-wing police state engaged in an exciting no-holds barred struggle with insurgents supported by the other side, if not a full-blown civil war.   Who can imagine what sort of conflict Zimbabwe is being denied for lack of anyone's sponsorship?   Pity all the poor would-be dictators who now have to actually think about ruling their subjects.....

I think you could find examples of civil war/insurgencies either directly or indirectly attributable to the fall of the USSR that probably equal in number to the civil war/insurgencies that were prevented/ended by the fall of the USSR. Off the top of my head, Yugo, Chechnya, Georgia, various African states, etc. I realize, btw, that Yugo had more to do with the death of Tito, but with the USSR in place, perhaps the split wouldn't have happened.

I can understand that it's much easier and entertaining to criticize the US government and people for failing to live up to their high-minded ideals than it is to have ideals of our own or to lift a finger to stop any one of the other ongoing human tragedies.   

I do have ideals (and ideas) of my own. I have identified them in previous threads. However, I am not in a position to have a dramatic impact on these problems we've discussed, so I do what I can: express my opinions in the hopes that others will re-evaluate their position on the issue. I don't intend to change peoples mind, but merely to offer a dissenting voice to stimulate debate, and ideally, free thought on the topic. If that means that someone else re-evaluates their stance and decides that based on their beliefs and principles (moral, ethical, political, etc) they are still in support of the invasion/war, then so be it. We may disagree on our stance, but at least we can have a discussion based on common criteria.

The great irony of unknown and unknowable threats is that the only way to be certain is to force a decision.

Absolutely, but do it in a reasonable and ethical way.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2004)

> I think you could find examples of civil war/insurgencies either directly or indirectly attributable to the fall of the USSR that probably equal in number to the civil war/insurgencies that were prevented/ended by the fall of the USSR. Off the top of my head, Yugo, Chechnya, Georgia, various African states, etc. I realize, btw, that Yugo had more to do with the death of Tito, but with the USSR in place, perhaps the split wouldn't have happened.



With respect Caesar, I am not sure that is a correct observation.  IIRC, Project Ploughshares, IISS out of Sweden I believe and was it SIPRI, anyway agencies that catalog wars and military spending, and in fact generally are not friends of military establishments anywhere, I believe that the last few reports they have issued have been documenting a downward trend in conflicts, both interstate and intrastate.

Perhaps somebody else with better memory/sources can fill us in here.

Cheers.


----------



## dutchie (29 Oct 2004)

I believe that the last few reports they have issued have been documenting a downward trend in conflicts, both interstate and intrastate.

I would be ecstatic to be wrong here. I admit that I don't have the data either. My impression of increasing, not decreasing, conflict is based on the increased activity of the CF post cold war. Obviously the rate of deployment of the CF should not be used as a barometer of world conflict, but that is where I suspect my assumptions come from. 

Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Sieera Leone, Rwanda, Somalia, and so on......


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2004)

Yes, I realize that without the iron boot of the Soviet Union holding them down or threatening them some peoples have found the wherewithal to make a bid for power.   That is always a risk even in the absence of superpowers.

My guess is that if the USSR and US were still at loggerheads when Tito died, NATO would have not dared to intervene.   Given Yugoslavia's relatively independent status, I'm doubtful the USSR would have intervened.   I think they would have been left alone to pursue their civil wars and genocide in unrestrained fury.   Forgive me if I don't see an upside to that.

We should of course not forget that part of the price of our peace and security was paid by some of the countries of eastern Europe and their millions of citizens.   Still, no price too small for our peace of mind, eh?


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2004)

The increased activity of the CF is because we're not camped out in Germany anymore.  We have more freedom of action.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2004)

Here's SIPRI's 2003 report on Armed Conflict

http://editors.sipri.se/pubs/yb04/ch03.html


----------



## dutchie (29 Oct 2004)

We should of course not forget that part of the price of our peace and security was paid by some of the countries of eastern Europe and their millions of citizens.   Still, no price too small for our peace of mind, eh?

If you are referring to WW2, I agree. Not enough credit is given to our 'Allies' for our peace and security.

If you are referring to the struggle of these people under Soviet rule, I would also agree. They paid no small part in ending the Cold War, especially in the satelite states.

The increased activity of the CF is because we're not camped out in Germany anymore.   We have more freedom of action.

Granted, but freedom of action is nothing without a place to deploy to.

Here's SIPRI's 2003 report on Armed Conflict

Thanks Kirkhill, looks like an interesting read. I'll check it out this weekend.

Quick question:

Who will win the election?
By how much?
Why?

My answer:
Bush. 
By a slim margin.
Due primarily to his obvious advantage of incumbency and his strong record of decisive action.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Oct 2004)

Geez, look what I missed.  I ignored this one because I thought it was about Larry and Curly...give me a bit to catch up on the thread....


----------



## Tanner (30 Oct 2004)

decisive ???

I would agree that the man has acted, but he is not decisive.  He has enraged the entire Muslim world and precipitated a clash of cultures. He has polarized Europe and demonstrated an utter disdain for key members of the UN Security Council. He has violated the Geneva conventions and other landmark accords while claiming to act on behalf of freedom (and other self-deprecating reasons).

Bush is engaged in a protracted conflict. The rationale for this war was based on flawed logic and inaccurate intelligence. Bush created an illusion of integrity that was shattered by the duplicity of word versus action.  He has created an extremist front where one, arguably, didn't exist before. Moreover, he has no credibility in which to negotiate a peace and is obstinate enough to try to fight his way out. 

Kerry, though not perfect, offers a chance to bring together the key, European players. He maintains the credibility to enlist UN support and bring a multilateral flavour to this situation. I really don't care about Kerry's domestic policy because, like it or leave it, when the broad international coalition (including Canadians) is formed to bail the US from this mess ('cause we can't leave Iraq the way it is now) we will truly appreciate the lack of decisiveness of this act.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2004)

I find it interesting that continued outrages against Israel do not enrage the Jewish world; that attacks upon Christians do not automatically enrage the Christian world; ditto Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc, and that in none of these religions is one likely to find hordes of young men travelling to a locus of conflict to kill noncombatants merely because co-religionists (or for that matter a secular fascist regime) have been attacked.  We are to believe that we should tread lightly lest we inflame the Muslim world.  Someone will have to explain for me in short, easy to understand sentences how to reconcile "Islam is a religion of peace" with "inflammation of the Muslim world" and "creating an extremist front where none existed before".

Who are the remaining key European and UN players that you think should and could be brought together?  Include in your answer a rationale for tolerating the self-serving corruption of Oil for Food and of the nations/diplomats willing to spare no human suffering to curb US power, if applicable.  Explain why the current coalition is not multilateral, and which nations have a special status which makes any gathering which includes them "multilateral".

I don't care if you are pro, con, or indifferent to the war, but I think it worthwhile to recognize that not just one small group of people is guilty of bad behaviour.


----------



## Tanner (30 Oct 2004)

Attacks against the Christian world have, without exception, produced a response (name one and I will respond accordingly). Though the nature of the response in not in the context you described. Your view demonstrates an ethnocentric bias which is at the heart of this conflict. We cannot judge Eastern or mid Eastern society against the values of Western culture. Iraqii, and by extension, Muslim society does not mirror Christian society. For instance, the notion of martyrdom does not exist in Christian faith. If we judge the Muslim "hordes of young men travelling to a locus of conflict to kill noncombatants merely because co-religionists" as irrational we do not, fundamentally, understand the culture.

With respect to the Key UN Players, the UN Security Council has been plagued by partisan politics since its inception. This is central to the conflict in Iraq. The perceived injustice against Palestinians and the non-wavering US support of Israel (I am non-judgemental) has sensitized the non-Christian, mideastern cultures to unilateralist actions and policies. If you want to solve the inherent problems with the UN or Food for Oil program, "start from the top and work your way down". 

The Bush administration would like you to think the UN is an irrelevant organization. In this climate, arguably, it has become the only relevant organization (despite inherent problems). Moreover, it is the only answer to the War in Iraq. A multi lateralist approach, incorporating a pan-Islamic contingent (as in the first Gulf War), would ease Muslim tensions and produce the desired effect.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2004)

>Though the nature of the response in not in the context you described.

That was my point.

>We cannot judge Eastern or mid Eastern society against the values of Western culture.

Yes, we can.  It's very easy.  The important thing is to stick to easily recognized universal values.  For example, any rights a people enjoy should be enjoyed by all people equally (eg. women and children are not analogous to property).  Religious belief does not excuse infringing the rights of another (eg. killing in the name of religion) unnecessarily.  And so on.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2004)

> For instance, the notion of martyrdom does not exist in Christian faith



I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2004)

:boring:

OK, I've caught up - what exactly are we arguing about here now?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2004)

Hey Infanteer, stop trying to take the fun out of everything, this is serious business.....


----------



## Tanner (30 Oct 2004)

The important thing is to stick to easily recognized universal values.  For example, any rights a people enjoy should be enjoyed by all people equally


Sounds like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A document invented by a Canadian. Canadian culture, though, is stained by our treatment of Native North Americans. The US infringement of civil liberties up to and including Git-mo and the disregard for the Geneva Conventions at Al Graib (? spelling) prison all violate your universal values. Should I go on to Africa? 

We have no right pass judgement on another society. We talk a good game but we really need to be careful on how we are perceived by others. And I don't mean in the PC manner.

I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.

I really don't want to get into a discussion on this topic. I'm in my happy spot now.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2004)

> I am not sure those folks that attend Saint Martyrs Catholic church in Saskatoon would agree with you on that point Tanner.
> 
> I really don't want to get into a discussion on this topic. I'm in my happy spot now.



I think one of the maxims lawyers live by is "don't ask a question you don't know the answer to".  I cheerfully ignore that but.... if you are going to raise an example expect someone somewhere to offer a rebuttal, annoying as it is and doubly so if they turn out to have a point.



> We have no right pass judgement on another society.



Certainly we do.  We have a responsibility to examine ourselves and pass judgement on our own actions, weigh them in the balance and decide whether we have done, are doing or will do the right thing.  That capability and responsibility is one of the things that defines humanity.  It goes under the head of "a life unexamined is not worth living".  I can't remember the source -  I'm sure somebody out there can remind me -  Augustine or Aristotle or somesuch come to mind.

In trying to define for ourselves whether our actions are "right" it is normal to review the actions of others and compare our actions to theirs.  Sameness doesn't mean rightness, nor does difference mean rightness.  Rightness means rightness and each individual comes to their own appreciation (military sense here) of rightness.

Having defined for our own purposes what is right, and having decided whether our own actions are right or wrong then I don't see any logical incongruity in applying the same criteria by which I judge my behaviour to judging the actions of others.  Strangely enough I generally prefer the company of, and prefer to be associated with, people that share my own sense of rightness.  That shared sense acts as a shorthand code that allows me to anticipate their actions in a given situation reducing the amount of effort I have to exert and the amount of worry I experience.  In other words I find my happy spot.

If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.

Cheers Tanner.


----------



## Tanner (30 Oct 2004)

If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.

I agree consistency of righteousness and tolerance are key in dealing with other nations. As to your notion that action is required to ensure your future, I am unsure what you mean. 

In getting back to the subject, the Bush administration has sacrificed that sense of righteousness for political expediency. They invaded a sovereign nation to liberate the populace of a "tyrant". Violations of UN Gen Assembly Resolutions, Geneva Coventions and IAEA agreements were noted as a justification for the action. 

The US violated those same internationally accepted agreements prior to, and during, the Iraqi invasion. Now they face a renewed insurgency partly due to their inconsistency of righteousness and intolerance. Despite the fact very few Muslims would support an act like 9-11.

My job as a peacekeeper will be infinitely more difficult due to the suspicion and mistrust of Western Society. If you want to know what an insurgent looks like, take any of your friends; deprive them of security, housing, nutrition. Develop them a sense of helplessness, treat him or her with disrespect in their own home and- there you have it, presto!!! - an insurgent. If you want to know what they sound like, listen to any of your family discussions. Their base needs are no different from yours or mine.

Show them consistency of righteousness, tolerance and justice and our efforts will be rewarded.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Oct 2004)

> If people don't share my sense of rightness then my worry factor increases.  If their sense of rightness is at cross purposes with mine, or worse threatens the existence of me and mine then I will act to ensure the future of me and mine and to allow me to return to my happy spot.
> 
> I agree consistency of righteousness and tolerance are key in dealing with other nations. As to your notion that action is required to ensure your future, I am unsure what you mean.



If I feel uncomfortable in my current situation then I will act to improve my situation.  I may move away.  I may run away.  I may vote for a change. I may write to encourage others to support a position or to change themselves.  In extremis, if threatened I may choose to act to eliminate the threat.  That is what I mean by acting.  I am not in favour of slaughtering people that disagree with me.  If society found such a thing permissible then I doubt that I, being as disagreeable as I am, would be given the opportunity to enjoy these discussions for long.

And with respect to the difference between rightness and righteousness I prefer rightness.  Righteousness to me has too many overtones of dogma and of people setting themselves above others.  I feel that I can be right, be different, respect others for the difference and not wish to associate myself with them, all at the same time.

Righteousness always reminds me of Burns poem "Holy Wullie's Prayer":  O ye who are sae guid yersel, sae pious and sae holy....

Cheers,


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Oct 2004)

If someone believes a "wrong" is "right" to them, it merely means they have made an incorrect moral judgement.

There is nothing wrong with being judgemental (objective) unless you habitually avoid extending that objectivity to yourself.  It is unlikely any person, any nation, or representatives of any nation will remain wholly consistent with their principles throughout their undertakings.  We credit those who try, criticize those who do not, and distinguish between them.

>They invaded a sovereign nation to liberate the populace of a "tyrant".

You're not sure Saddam Hussein was a tyrant?


----------



## Tanner (31 Oct 2004)

There is nothing wrong with being judgemental (objective) unless you habitually avoid extending that objectivity to yourself.


Not sure what you mean.

Point 1- Saddam was, and is, an ***. No dispute.

I believe this will clarify my position


----------



## pappy (31 Oct 2004)

Can't we all just get along?


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Oct 2004)

> Can't we all just get along?



chuckle, chuckle, chuckle...


----------



## Spr.Earl (1 Nov 2004)

pappy said:
			
		

> Can't we all just get along?


Pappy when I was in the Merch.,I sailed on a ship with 9 yes 9 nationalities and we all got along.
I know it's simplistic but in small groups we humans can get along with each other.
Our big task is getting along in this world and sharing .


----------



## Spr.Earl (2 Nov 2004)

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!


----------



## NavyGrunt (2 Nov 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
> Mark my words!!




 : Thanks for backing that up. You've changed alot of minds with that little gem ......or stripped yourself of any credibility you had....unless its a joke?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
> Mark my words!!



Consider them marked.

The Sun today came out in favour of him.


----------



## dutchie (2 Nov 2004)

Bush is a lier and a wanker and if reelected will destroy the U.S. as we used to know it.
Mark my words!!

At this point, re-electing Bush, even if you totally disagree with the war (as I do), can be justified by the old saying:

In for a nickel, in for a pound. 

just a thought as we stand on the verge of what I think will be the re-election of Bush.

this probably belongs on the other thread. Were'nt we supposed to be discussing the whole Native-White Government issue?


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Nov 2004)

Of course Bush has made mistakes..some of them big. That being said, maybe his decisiveness (my perception, granted) is what I have missed about Canada all of my life. I dearly love Canada, but the smarmy Canadian political machine is absolutely sickening. When a country - any country - honestly feels that they are threatened with attack - they should not feel they need to cow-tow to western Europe, the UN, or anybody else - to justift their "defense" or offense, as it may be. Kerry wants and expects the US to pass a "global test", prior to acting. I don't think that's in the best interest of the country in which I live. I do belive Iraq was connected to terror - I listened to a Marine Colonel on the radio the other day describe a terrorist training camp that his unit discovered in Iraq - complete with barracks, classrooms, dining facility, etc. I believe it was a mistake for the Administration to change the focus to "regime change" when WMD didn't pan out the way they expected. I don't like some of Bush's immigration policies, and the steel tariffs helped the mills, but almost put many downstream industries out of business. I think the way Kerry changes/modifies positions, he could have easily eaten up 3 debates, debating only with himself.

Oh - think Bush is a liar? Perhaps, but Kerry has his own brand of disgrace. Have a look at the Stolen Honor video  www.stolenhonor.com   Sorry if it's been tossed out there before..


----------



## rw4th (2 Nov 2004)

> I listened to a Marine Colonel on the radio the other day describe a terrorist training camp that his unit discovered in Iraq - complete with barracks, classrooms, dining facility, etc.


To see proof of Iraq's link with terror, you just need to listen to the National Geogrpahic special "Inside Special Forces". They find what they call a "Terror House", basically a training facility for making bombs and defeating security at airports. The stuff they find includes the schematic for airport metal detectors. Scarry stuff indeed


----------



## Infanteer (2 Nov 2004)

Well, it's election day and I have the funny feeling that Americans have the same set of choices that we were confronted with this summer...not much.

As usual, _The Economist_ delivers a poignant, tongue-and-cheek look at the Presidential Race that is probably not far from the mark:

_"You would have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair.  If so, you would be wrong.

This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.  But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist.  It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world.  But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush."_

My instinct is towards continuity because I'm not to warm to Kerry's change, but that's just my opinion.  Either way, it should be a close one....


----------



## dutchie (2 Nov 2004)

This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago.  

An excellent analysis in my books.

If I was voting, I would be one of those voters that enters the voting box undecided. The choice has both never meant so much, nor been so unclear.


----------



## winchable (2 Nov 2004)

From what I hear the voter turnout is a bit higher this year.
Carlson Tucker (The guy with the bowtie) predicted that if 60% of the voters turned out than Kerry would win.
The Washington Redskins lost their game on sunday and for the last 70 years (?) when the Washington redskins when their game before the election the incumbent has won.
An increase in the number of young African American Males, a group that is usual low in turn out, bodes well for Kerry.

I would say all signs point to Kerry (Though the football one is a bit of a stretch, but 70 years c'mon) but I figure Bush'll win.
Either way the president will be an American above all else and serve American interests, nothing wrong with that of course, however I doubt whoever wins will make significant changes in the long run.
Someone on CNN said this morning "You could put a potato in the Oval office and it would serve the American interests the same way any man could."

It's the most voters in a long time from what I hear which is always good, but I still don't understand how people cannot vote.
I was talking to a gent from South Africa today and he grew up under apartheid and he cannot for the life of him understand why people don't vote, even in something like a plebiscite or a municipal election.

Well in any case I'm of the opinion that whichever candidate wins we'll be having the same issues in a few years or ones very similar to them.


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Nov 2004)

Meanwhile here in Australia, we are cashing in on the Bush'Kerry gamble. The state ran TAB betting agency of New South Wales, is actually taking bets, paying out $1.36 if Bush wins.

 :

Wes


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Nov 2004)

A report from the eye of the storm, so to speak.... seems there are record turnouts, and long lines. My wife waited over 2 hours to vote, and all of the polling stations I went by had very long line-ups today....


----------



## winchable (3 Nov 2004)

I work at a sports-odds company and we're doing an unofficial odds on the election.
And you better believe there are bookies taking plenty of bets on it.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2004)

Doing the late night political junkie thing. Pres Bush has 249 electoral college votes to 216 for Kerry. I guess all the registered dead, pets and illieagal aliens just arn't doing it for the Dems. (Cats usually vote Republican anyway). Time to call out the lawyers!


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2004)

Looks like Ohio will decide with its 20 votes.

Bush has 254, Kerry has 252, and there are 32 still to be decided.
I'll second that expectation of lawyers (especially because the news is reporting that both campaign teams have groups of lawyers already on stand-by).


----------



## winchable (3 Nov 2004)

I remember reading yesterday that the first lawsuit was filed sometime in the afternoon over the automated voting machines.

Whatever the case it's going to be dragged out a bit, I think it takes up to 10 days for the recount or something like that.
Huge irregularities, people lined up 6 hours past the time the station was due to close.


----------



## NavyGrunt (3 Nov 2004)

What happens if he doesnt get 270 electoral votes?


----------



## Bograt (3 Nov 2004)

If that happpens Aaron, the new elected Senated votes on who becomes President, and the House of Representatives vote on who become vice president.

Why is it that I can remember this bit of trivia, but this morning I forgot the name of the guy working next to me ?


----------



## Guardian (3 Nov 2004)

There won't be a tie. Ohio awards its 20 votes as a block, without splitting them up. One of the candidates will win the state, and that candidate will win the election - Kerry would have 272, or Bush 274. 

Building on Bograt's point, since the House and the Senate appear to both be solidly Republican after the day's voting, a tie - if it were to occur - will mean Bush and Cheney return.

And Bograt, don't feel bad - I forgot my own name....  :crybaby:


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Nov 2004)

> I guess all the registered dead, pets and illieagal aliens just arn't doing it for the Dems. (Cats usually vote Republican anyway). Time to call out the lawyers!



Arizona passed a proposition, against protests from BOTH parties, to provide proof of citizenship when voting, and to deny certain (state) benefits to illegals. People can have no idea just how bad it is, unless they live here, or in another southern border state. It's interesting that all of the politicians were against this proposition, but the majority of citizens are for it.

Now it will be litigated to death, and perhaps, struck down. I can only hope that it sends a message to the politicians, especially Federal, that we're tired of this....

And now, back to the thread.....


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2004)

At least the citizens of Arizona seem to have their heads screwed on tight. If our political culture would evolve a bit in that direction.....


----------



## Gouki (3 Nov 2004)

Well, Kerry conceded to Bush, so unfortunately it's another 4 more years.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2004)

Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States. 

We should worry more about however many more years of a Liberal government.


----------



## winchable (3 Nov 2004)

> We should worry more about however many more years of a Liberal government



Exactly, this presidential election should be a sideshow compared to our own sheep show.
I noticed something else too, why is it that on my campus people were packed into the bar to watch the presidential election and bitch about the candidates, yet when it comes time for our own election, nothing.
The same people of course who will constanly assert our uniqueness from the Americans see our election as secondary to the POTUS election. (I swore I'd start using the term POTUS more often because it's hilarious)

So lets all focus our energy on bitching about our own government folks.
Bush won, Kerry lost. *Band plays* and it's back to work in Canada.


----------



## dutchie (3 Nov 2004)

Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; 

Kind of a broad assumption and generalization, don't you think? 

fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States.  

Calling a 51% or 52% election victory a majority, while correct, is only barely correct. It seems pretty obvious to me that the US populace is deeply divided on what they would like the direction of the country to be. As well, way more people voted this time around, indicating that there is more interest and strong political opinion this time around, which is not uncommon in wartime. 

What I'm driving at is this: Bush, if in fact he does win, would be well served to try and bridge the chasm between Republican and Democrat. He tried to do that last time around, but was not sucessful. Then 9/11 came around.......


----------



## Guardian (3 Nov 2004)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Calling a 51% or 52% election victory a majority, while correct, is only barely correct. It seems pretty obvious to me that the US populace is deeply divided on what they would like the direction of the country to be. As well, way more people voted this time around, indicating that there is more interest and strong political opinion this time around, which is not uncommon in wartime.



Yes, it's a slim majority, but Kerry received 47-48%. Furthermore, Bush is the first president to receive a majority of votes since his dad did it in 1990. Clinton never managed it.... And there (probably) won't be the litigation and controversy surrounding this election due to this majority.

Compared to Clinton's wins, and Bush's own first win, this represents a clear mandate from the American people. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> What I'm driving at is this: Bush, if in fact he does win, would be well served to try and bridge the chasm between Republican and Democrat. He tried to do that last time around, but was not sucessful. Then 9/11 came around.......



Agreed. 

Bush now has an opportunity to reach out. A contested victor could not legitimately extend an olive branch, but now Bush is in that position. Repairing the political divide in the US electorate should be a priority - without that unity, a coherent response to terror and confident leadership on the world stage will be impossible.

Kerry gave him a scare in the run-up to the election. Bush's polling numbers are far below what they were after 9/11. Bush, if he's smart, will recognize that the American people are uncomfortable with the progress in the GWOT and unhappy about the situation in Iraq, but they still (generally) trust him to protect them. That trust will not be extended to his successor as Republican presidential candidate in 2008 unless three things happen:

1. Osama Bin Laden is caught or killed by 2008.
2. No major terror attacks occur on US soil.
3. Iraq shows measurable and clear improvement in terms of security and rebuilding.

Be interesting to see what he says in his speech...


----------



## Guardian (3 Nov 2004)

Incidentally, I wonder what Michael Moore will have to say about this. I'd love to see it - he's going to be so disappointed....  ;D


----------



## dutchie (3 Nov 2004)

He's probably drowning his sorrows in a dozen Big Macs.

Get it in ya, fatty!


----------



## Bograt (3 Nov 2004)

Did you hear that? 

It sounds like Mr. Martin went into the closet and got the muzzle and leash for Caroline Parrish.

"Coalition of the Idiots.... no no no, she was interupted, she was saying the coalition of the idiot savants......"


----------



## rifleman (3 Nov 2004)

Bograt said:
			
		

> It sounds like Mr. Martin went into the closet and got the muzzle and leash for Caroline Parrish.
> 
> "Coalition of the Idiots.... no no no, she was interupted, she was saying the coalition of the idiot savants......"



What! we aren't allowed to have our own opinions anymore?


----------



## dutchie (3 Nov 2004)

Sure we are. YOU can go on network TV and call Bush whatever you like, MPs cannot. MPs are representatives of Canada to foreign governments, they are law makers, and they are supposed to be professional. As an MP, especially one frrom the ruling party, you cannot go on national TV and call Bush (and Blair) an idiot. It is inflamatory, insulting, unprofessional, disrespectful, and not representing the views of the government or the people as a whole.

She should have been fired.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Nov 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I wonder what Michael Moore will have to say about this. I'd love to see it - he's going to be so disappointed....  ;D


Check out the graffiti in the picture ('colourful' language warning): http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006886.html


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2004)

> Calling a 51% or 52% election victory a majority, while correct, is only barely correct.



That is alot better then we can do; we make Prime Ministers with about 30% of the popular mandate.


----------



## dutchie (3 Nov 2004)

That is alot better then we can do; we make Prime Ministers with about 30% of the popular mandate.
Of course, we have more than 2 parties. 

The point that Bush is the first President with more than 50% of the popular vote is noteworthy, though. Not because it is a difficult thing to do, but because it ends quite an amazing streak for a 2-party nation. Clinton in both of his election victories had less than 50% (Perot), and Bush in his first election had less than 50% (Nader). Bush is the first President since Bush Sr. to have at least 50% of the popular vote.


----------



## Gouki (3 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States.



Yeah, because anyone who doesn't support Bush must be a terrorist.   :


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Nov 2004)

Bush has a huge mandate in terms of precedents, won in the face of intense resistance from many corners other that his Democratic opposition.  The turnout, his percentage of the popular vote, and the other Republican gains define the picture.

If there's any reaching out to be done, it'll have to be done by the people who have been reviling Bush and his supporters for the past four years.


----------



## Ty (3 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States.



I'm not sure if that was a deliberate attempt at a troll, but I'll chip in.   Without even pointing out the obvious erroneous generalizations you've made, your own thought (I use the term loosely) implicitly states that 48% of Americans support Al-Qaeda.   I'm sure that New York- a heavily Democratic state- might disagree.   I'm somewhat convinced that various terror factions throughout the world are thrilled at Bush being voted in to the office. The "War President" gives radical nut-jobs a carte blanche for recruiting and mobilizing terrorist cells. Unilateralism, disregard for "collateral damage", as well constant posturing allow propaganda machines to make him out to be the stereotypical villain.   Some examples:

Iraq- no one can convince me that military action in Iraq could have been avoided in the foreseeable future.   Regardless of many leftist portrayals, Iraq was far from a Bathist paradise before the US invasion.   Rampant corruption and violant discremenation throughout the land provided a country ruled with an iron fist and held together by fear.   However, I don't understand how a "liberation" of a country includes a systematic massacre   of a sizeable portion of it's citizenry.   In order to invade Iraq to remove the Bathist regime, a slow, methodical, and casualty intensive war was inevitable.   A "shock and awe" strategy was absolutely the wrong way to liberate a country.   However, the war machine refuses to see large numbers of American soldiers coming home in body bags- which is very understandable.   In effect, what he had done is substitute Iraqi lives instead- at a much higher ratio.   And I'm not referring to military casualties.   The speed and and lack of planning of the operations in Iraq have led to an occupied country that does not have a working infrastructure nor an appreciation, respect, or welcome of US forces.   Very unfortunate considering the US troops that have given their lives to defend their country and honestly believe that they are liberating Iraq.   I won't even begin to discuss the weapons of mass destruction (or should that be distraction?)

Terrorism- After turning a blind eye (and in fact supporting) the Taliban for many years, the US declares them Public Enemy #1 and ousts them from Afghanistan.   This has nothing to do with fighting the war on Terrorists.   You can never fight a military war on terrorists.   They have no single country, no single leader, and no single agenda.   When a man is willing to kill himself for a cause (as in suicide bombers), you cannot scare them with your might.   Having a war on terrorism is the same as having a war on racism- you can't blow it up or pump it full of bullets.   It is a concept.   The only way to destroy a terrorist is to take away their reason for being- namely US foreign policy.   Stop alienating and destroying the economy of other countries (at no or marginal economic costs to you), stop the concept that collateral damage in the thousands is an acceptable measure in war, and stop believing that you are the only player on the world stage and you'll be amazed at how fast the terrorists will diminish in numbers.    This is not an attack on Americans- In fact, I firmly believe that the world is too quick to forget the amount of resources the US has spent on foreign aid, or the fact that, while flawed at best, the US is one of a few number of countries that offers true civil liberties.   

And now the disclaimer- I don't condone terrorism, nor do I support it.   I find it ironic that so-called Islamic fundamentalist use terror in the name of their religions while the latter expressly forbids it.   "Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind"- from the Muslim Holy Book.    However, one must condemn all acts of terrorism- which I define as a the deliberate targetting of civilians by armed forces (military or para-military)   This includes suicide bombers, collective punishment, as well as the gross disregard for collateral damage.   Militaries fight wars, when we forget that we loose all rights to call someone a terrorist.

As an side, I have no problem with a Republican president, in fact I believe that Arny is doing a bang-up job in Califormia.   He's showing that you can be a Republcian and not have to follow all the party lines, something no Democrat that I can recall has done.   We need more people like him on both sides of the fence.

This was not an attack on Bush, merely a statement of my disagreement that terrorists should be shaking in their boots (sandals, to perpetuate the stereotype) that he's been elected.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Nov 2004)

> This was not an attack on Bush, merely a statement of my disagreement that terrorists should be shaking in their boots (sandals, to perpetuate the stereotype) that he's been elected



Well, in OBL's latest video, he specifically called out States (as targets) that supported Bush in the election. I wouldn't exactly call that an endorsement...   :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2004)

I won't go into any long winded political diatribes, I don't have any. Bush waged the most decisive campaign mounted in years. He won a majority for his trouble. My gut tells me he was the best choice of the time, given Kerry and Nader as his opponents. He has my support, and whether our ponce, panty waist lieberal gov't likes it or not, for the good of both countries, they better displace their playground attitude and get on with the business of working together.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2004)

> I'm not sure if that was a deliberate attempt at a troll, but I'll chip in.



You wingnuts are all taking that statement completely out of context.   It was directed to the fact that by Mr Bush being elected ensures that the War on Terror will be persecuted 110% for the next four years.   If you don't believe me, I can introduce you to some American service men and they can tell you what they've been doing for the last 3.



> However, I don't understand how a "liberation" of a country includes a systematic massacre   of a sizeable portion of it's citizenry.



Massacre?     ???

I don't recall pits full of Iraqi's executed by American soldiers being dug up.

 :



> In order to invade Iraq to remove the Bathist regime, a slow, methodical, and casualty intensive war was inevitable.   A "shock and awe" strategy was absolutely the wrong way to liberate a country.



Boy, that sure does seem to be a contradiction.   It was inevitable, but it was the wrong way to go about doing things?   What should they have done, Clausewitz?

PS: "Shock and awe", seemed to work well in eliminating Saddam, just as it worked well in toppling Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.   It's what is done after that is the key.



> However, the war machine refuses to see large numbers of American soldiers coming home in body bags- which is very understandable.



Considering that the American's have lost more soldiers in a few days taking small atolls and islands in the Pacific, I'm not sure where your getting this idea of "large numbers of casualties".   They've been fighting around the globe for 3 years now and they've lost what, around 1,000 troops.   Check your history books.



> You can never fight a military war on terrorists.



Ask the last 5 or so leaders of the Hamas that.   Of course military assets are necessary to fight an enemy using terrorist techniques.   War can be said to be fought on 3 levels; the physical, the mental, and the moral.   Using military force inappropriately with regards to the context of the battle will lead to failure (flattening the Vietnamese countryside to liberate it), but military force can be used on any level to gain an advantage on a terrorist enemy providing that it is utilized according to the disposition of the enemy (ie: a quick and lethal strike by a UAV or a SF team may be better then moving in a battalion of Marines).



> Stop alienating and destroying the economy of other countries (at no or marginal economic costs to you), stop the concept that collateral damage in the thousands is an acceptable measure in war, and stop believing that you are the only player on the world stage and you'll be amazed at how fast the terrorists will diminish in numbers.



Boy, if it was only that easy hey - would it be better if we sang "It's a Small World After All..."   as well?     :

Any more pronouncements from the armchair?



> or the fact that, while flawed at best, the US is one of a few number of countries that offers true civil liberties.



Flawed?   Move to North Korea and tell me about flawed civil liberties....


----------



## Morgs (3 Nov 2004)

As I was sitting in the CFRC Toronto waiting for my interview to start, the TV was switched on for a brief period of time and we learnt that Kerry had officially conceded to Bush. 

I wasn't sure whether to post this in politics, current affairs or the Canadian Army, so sorry if this is the wrong place.

As a prospective candidate for the Canadian Forces I was wondering what this is going to mean for me, us (the Canadian Forces) specifically, and Canadians in general, in the long run? I've tried to find out a lot of information on this subject. I've researched into things from future deployments to the â Å“Star Warsâ ? program, but so far I have been coming up short.

Hope you can help!

Thanks, Morgs


----------



## Ty (3 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You wingnuts are all taking that statement completely out of context.   It was directed to the fact that by Mr Bush being elected ensures that the War on Terror will be persecuted 110% for the next four years.   If you don't believe me, I can introduce you to some American service men and they can tell you what they've been doing for the last 3.



I believe you- his administration is determined to continue the war on terror.   For the most part, I believe their inintentions are genuine.   The context of my post was two-fold: the war on terror is not a conventional war where you can identify an enemy and destroy him; and that the apparent statement that terrorists are now worse off for Bush being elected president is false(IMO) on a general scale.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Massacre?     ???
> 
> I don't recall pits full of Iraqi's executed by American soldiers being dug up.
> 
> :



My mistake- an inappropriate use of that word and I apologize. I was referring to significant and gruesome collateral damage thatt I believe was excessive. In any case, "massacre" was an inappropriate description and I regret using it.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Boy, that sure does seem to be a contradiction.   It was inevitable, but it was the wrong way to go about doing things?   What should they have done, Clausewitz?
> 
> PS: "Shock and awe", seemed to work well in eliminating Saddam, just as it worked well in toppling Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.   It's what is done after that is the key.


I'm afraid you've misunderstood- my point was that the correct strategy would have been very casualty intensive towards the American forces.   The liberation of a country is as much a "hearts and minds" campaign as one of military prowess.   While the heavy use of ordnance no doubt soften enemy forces, it also has a very unfortunate side effect of harming   a good deal of people you're supposed to be helping.   Hence my disagreement with "shock and awe" - that is not to say it hasn't been successful in the past and can be in the future in certain scenarios.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering that the American's have lost more soldiers in a few days taking small atolls and islands in the Pacific, I'm not sure where your getting this idea of "large numbers of casualties".   They've been fighting around the globe for 3 years now and they've lost what, around 1,000 troops.   Check your history books.


That was my point- the current strategy is to minimize losses to American soldiers, which is a major goal of any force, however, to do so, they have employed strategies that imposed significant collateral damage.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ask the last 5 or so leaders of the Hamas that.   Of course military assets are necessary to fight an enemy using terrorist techniques.   War can be said to be fought on 3 levels; the physical, the mental, and the moral.   Using military force inappropriately with regards to the context of the battle will lead to failure (flattening the Vietnamese countryside to liberate it), but military force can be used on any level to gain an advantage on a terrorist enemy providing that it is utilized according to the disposition of the enemy (ie: a quick and lethal strike by a UAV or a SF team may be better then moving in a battalion of Marines).



Again I failed to make my point- I have no doubt that the US can wipe out Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or numerous other terrorist groups.   However, to extend my previous analogy, it is the same as wiping out the KKK to exterminate racism.   You can destroy an organization with military will, but not a concept.   



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Boy, if it was only that easy hey - would it be better if we sang "It's a Small World After All..."   as well?     :
> 
> Any more pronouncements from the armchair?


No one said it was easy, it is actually much harder to commit to nation building and a genuine "war on terror" in which the root causes of terrorism are addresesed rathaddressedbark on a pure milltary campaimilitaryfor "pronouncements from the armchair", I've actually experienced first-hand both civil and international war (as well as living through them, I've lost family and friends), so I do have some experience in the matter.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Flawed?   Move to North Korea and tell me about flawed civil liberties....



I was defending the US in that statement.   I don't bleive that America- nor any other country- has an ideal democrracy.   The point I was trying to make was that it is a far cry better than most of the world- I believe we're on the same page with this one.


----------



## Ty (3 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I won't go into any long winded political diatribes, I don't have any. Bush waged the most decisive campaign mounted in years. He won a majority for his trouble. My gut tells me he was the best choice of the time, given Kerry and Nader as his opponents. He has my support, and whether our ponce, panty waist lieberal gov't likes it or not, for the good of both countries, they better displace their playground attitude and get on with the business of working together.



If it's one thing I admire about the man, it's his decisiveness- a trait I'm afraid has gone by the wayside in our leaders attempting to make everyone happy all the time.  As for your comment regrading Canadian and US relations- Amen!  The US is our largest military and economic partner, regardless of politics, we have to work together in trade and defence.  Not to say we can't disagree about world issues, just that we have to be adult about it.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Nov 2004)

TA said:
			
		

> My mistake- an inappropriate use of that word and I apologize. I was referring to significant and gruesome collateral damage thatt I believe was excessive. In any case, "massacre" was an inappropriate description and I regret using it.



Signifigant gruesome collateral damage?

The US are trying to fight a war in a politically correct world avoiding as much damage as they can. If this war was prosecuted IAW wars of the past, Baghad would look like Berlin in 1945.

I consider the US are fighting this war with their hands tied.

I reckon you have some other agenda here, and are no doubt disappointed Sen. Kerry did not win the election.

TA, instead of applying for DEO entry, have you ever considered a career in politics? I am sure you would do well there.

Excuse me for firing off a mag or two here, but its comments like this whuch really urk me to no end :

Semi-disgusted,

Wes


----------



## Ty (4 Nov 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Signifigant gruesome collateral damage?
> The US are trying to fight a war in a politically correct world avoiding as much damage as they can. If this war was prosecuted IAW wars of the past, Baghad would look like Berlin in 1945.
> I consider the US are fighting this war with their hands tied.



Agreed- both internal and international eyes are on the US.  However, one can not deny the damage being done to the population at large.  If I am mistaken here, please correct me.  If it is impossible to achieve an occupation of a country without the use of "Shock and Awe" than I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it.



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> I reckon you have some other agenda here, and are no doubt disappointed Sen. Kerry did not wain the election.
> TA, instead of applying for DEO entry, have you ever considered a career in politics? I am sure you would do well there.


Like I said, I am not against Bush nor pro-Kerry only the decisions they make.  I don't believe that Kerry would have had the fortitude to do anything in Iraq or to respond to the terrorist threat at any level, at the same time, I believe that Bush is not reacting properly and have posed my theoretical and possibly idealistic and impossible solutions.  If the latter is true, than, like I said, I'm wrong.

I have applied to the CF in order to serve my country and contribute to the nation that I believed gave me a second chance.  I am fiercely proud to be Canadian and will defend our nation if called to do so.  If you disagree with my opinions, that's your prerogative and a right that I'm willing to die to protect, but please don't mock my sincerity or dedication or desire to serve in what I believe is the finest armed force in the world.


----------



## pappy (4 Nov 2004)

I'd think since the election is over and Bush won this thread is a moot point.   ;D  Go Bush


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

> I'd think since the election is over and Bush won this thread is a moot point.     Go Bush



Herehere, I think this thread is already longer than the one discussing our own election.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Herehere, I think this thread is already longer than the one discussing our own election.



What was more important?


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Nov 2004)

TA said:
			
		

> Agreed- both internal and international eyes are on the US.   However, one can not deny the damage being done to the population at large.   If I am mistaken here, please correct me.   If it is impossible to achieve an occupation of a country without the use of "Shock and Awe" than I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it.



TA, Shock and awe is a media generated term, and the media in this war are only reporting what THEY want you to hear, and what they deem will get coverage for ratings. If they removed the media for one month, they could accomplish more in that time than in 6 months!

The element of shock and suprise is a more realistic term. To pound the EN into submission buy hitting him hard, fast and furious. 

Sadly, civvy casualties are a a part of the insanity of any war, which can never be avoided and we know that some have been killed by collateral damage, etc. However a gutless EN using children and others civilans as human shields is yet another kettle of fish. Using religious buildings as firebases in areas filled with civilians is a cowards way to fight.

Roadside bombs, deleiberate suicide bombers attacking kids, schools, police, and Iraqi and allied military posts and the general populus being held at ransom, extorted, threatened, intimidated and murdered by cowards with AKs and RPGs are causing more casualites then realised. The US are not at fault for these, as again the rule of the insanity of war prevails. 

What do you suggest?

Remember this too, there is more good things happening there then the media lets on.

As for what you refering as being mocked, consider it constructive critisim, so pull your head in, and if you can't take a bit of that, you won't last long in your intended career   :.

As for the dying and defending, etc, listen I've been in two systems for too long, (for the record, check out both army.ca and msn profiles before you go lecturing me) so give it a break. Your not talking to some 19yr old. If ya wanna publically have a go a me, fine I don't give a stuff.

If ya wanna bark at me more, PM me.

Wes


----------



## pbi (5 Nov 2004)

Initially, not very much IMHO. Any US President has to take care of domestic issues first (even if he achieves this by pursuing what appear to be foreign policy issues...) It was a US President (Truman....?) who said "_Foreign policy is just domestic politics with its hat on_...". Bush will of course be grateful for any additional military and security assistance we might offer, but then we've already stated in the most recent Throne Speech that we intend to do that, so it would have  been the same situation if Kerry had been elected: we'll do what we can fiscally and politically afford to do. Bush has never, IMHO, demonstrated much awareness of Canada, which is not untypical of many US folk who live south of the border states. I wouldn't expect that to change much. Our future as a force is really where it usually is (and should be...) in the hands of our Govt and people. Cheers.


----------



## dutchie (5 Nov 2004)

Just to back up what Wes said (I never thought this would happen)....

You can debate the validity of the war TA, but you are dead wrong on how war should be fought. You must, in any war, bring the maximum amount of violence and destruction upon the enemy, using any and all means necessary and available to you until either the complete destruction or surrender of the enemy is achieved. To do anything less is not war. You either fight the war, or you do not.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2004)

To say the war was fought "incorrectly" or "Stupidly" is a pretty rash statement. Where in history do you find a relatively small expeditionary force invading a country half way around the world, facing an armed force almost 10 times larger and defeating an entire nation in three weeks? "Shock and Awe" may be a media term, but it certainly seems to have worked.

The post invasion chaos is hardly surprising, and the coallition needs to be given credit for putting a lid on a lot of this, especially since the war plan was based on almost seven weeks of fighting. Many of the special troops needed for the occupation were literally "on the boat" when they were needed.

The figures for Iraqi casualties seem to be the gruesome and unattributed figures being spread around by the "Get George Bush" crowd, and I have _never_ seen any figures from reputable sources even close to the ones cited at the beginning of the thread. Most of the casualties Iraqis are suffering *now* are from the Jihadis, who are trying to drive out the coallition, and using force to gain control of local neighborhoods and deter cooperation with either the coallition or the democratic movement in Iraq. The US is responding intelligently given difficult circumstances. If any other nation's troops were being shot at from a hospital or Mosque, they would probably flatten the place. American troops are not, and finding alternative means to grind the enemy down (there is a related thread in Army.ca about a Marine Scout /Sniper platoon taking battle to the Jihadis in a difficult urban battle).

Finally since this thread is *Bush vs Kerry*, how did John Kerry propose to deal with the problem of Ba'athist Iraq's regional and nuclear ambitions, or their demonstrated support of terrorism? I bet you can go back over a years worth of political literature, and realise there never was an answer, only some poll driven flavor of the week. At least President Bush had clearly outlined strategic goals, and is sticking to them.


----------



## Ty (5 Nov 2004)

Well, I said it and now I'm going to have to suck it up.  I was wrong!  I hate being wrong, I hate being told I'm wrong, but I hate being ignorant and chugging along without listening to what people who know what they're talking about have to say.  And what they've said is" TA, you F&*(**&, you're so wrong."  Just to wrap up my diatribe, my viewpoints were not meant to criticize American troops, just the strategies being employed in the war.  What I've learned is that a decision was made for action in Iraq (I was always for action in Iraq) and that the direct, inevitable result of that was the military using the best strategy to accomplish its goals.  While I abhor the civilian deaths, I also see that this is a result of this strategy.  I hate it, but it's war- and war is not to be loved, tolerated, or excused- but accepted as an unfortunate part of the world we live in.  Facts that I'm going to have to come to grips with if I am to succeed in my new (tentative )profession.

So, without further wasting bandwidth with my soapbox theatre, I thank all those who've made that clear to me.  As always, IM and e-mails wising to discuss further are always welcome.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2004)

Good post, TA.
I would just like to point something out to those who decry the "collateral damage" thing.
Remember some of the people posting here{myself not included thank God] have been to places and seen exactly what 
"real collateral damage" is. My brother-in-law still wont talk to me about his Rwanda/Uganda experience. After all these years he still just wants to forget.
Just so some of the "newers" know where some of these soldiers have been.  Thanks


----------



## Spr.Earl (5 Nov 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> : Thanks for backing that up. You've changed alot of minds with that little gem ......or stripped yourself of any credibility you had....unless its a joke?


Unfortunately I posted in anger and do apologise as I had just been out with some friends and we had a very heated discussion over a few wobbly pop's.
Yes I should have been more thoughtfull but I still stand by what I said.

I have done my research from all angles from the Conspiracy Nutters to U.S. web sites pro and con.,the best site I found was this one but be carefull reading it as you can get side tracked very easily.

After his statement of " Using his Political Capital" I wish the people of the U.S. the best of Luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Business_and_political_career

P.S. Here another site some here don't agree with it but it's from the ground side of what going on with ground forces in Iraq.

http://www.sftt.org/index.html

Heres David H. Hackworth's C.V.

Military Awards



ENTITLEMENTS OF COL. DAVID H. HACKWORTH
(U.S. ARMY, RETIRED)

AWARDS & DECORATIONS
COLONEL DAVID H. HACKWORTH
(U.S. ARMY, RETIRED)




Individual Decorations & Service Medals:

Distinguished Service Cross (with one Oak Leaf Cluster) 
Silver Star (with nine Oak Leaf Clusters) 
Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters) 
Distinguished Flying Cross 
Bronze Star Medal (with "V" Device & seven Oak Leaf Clusters)(Seven of the awards for heroism) 
Purple Heart (with seven Oak Leaf Clusters) 
Air Medal (with "V" Device & Numeral 34)(One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement) 
Army Commendation Medal (w/ "V" Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters) 
Good Conduct Medal 
World War II Victory Medal 
Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps) 
National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service Star) 
Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns) 
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 
Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service Stars = 10 campaigns) 
Armed Forces Reserve Medal 
Unit Awards:

Presidential Unit Citation 
Valorous Unit Award (with one Oak Leaf Cluster) 
Meritorious Unit Commendation 
Badges & Tabs:

Combat Infantryman Badge (w/ one Star; representing 2 awards) 
Master Parachutist Badge 
Army General Staff Identification Badge 
Foreign Awards:

United Nations Service Medal (Korea) 
Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with Device (1960) 
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Gold Stars) 
Vietnam Cross of Gallantry (with two Silver Stars) 
Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (1st Class) 
Vietnam Staff Service Medal (1st Class) 
Vietnam Army Distinguished Service Order, 2d Class 
Vietnam Parachutist Badge (Master Level) 
Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation 
Republic of Vietnam Presidential Unit Citation 
Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation (with three Palm oak leaf clusters) 
Republic of Vietnam Civil Actions Honor Medal, First Class Unit Citation (with one Palm oak leaf cluster) 
World War II Merchant Marine Awards:

Pacific War Zone Bar 
Victory Medal

Note: As per a Department of the Army audit conducted by COL Pam Mitchell, Chief Personnel ServiceSupport Division on May 6 1999.


----------



## pappy (6 Nov 2004)

Hackworth's a great TRUE American hero, too bad he wasn't running for Pres in 2004.  While I don't agree with him on everything, it's hard to find any faults in what he says.
About the only problem with Hackworth is he wasn't a Marine  lol  

I think if we look at history, at any war we can find faults in the way it's run. 
And in many wars the same mistakes are made again.

Personally I don't understand why so many people OUTSIDE the US are so concerned with Who is our President.
I think personalitys are getting too much attention, we (the world) are focusing too much no the personalitys of our leaders 
rather then working togather to solve the problems we can solve.  Sadly not all problems have solutions.  But the western nations have too much 
common history and dependence on each other to be fighting among ourselves over one leaders personality.  The streotypical conculsions people make
based on these personalitys are the real problem. 
As well as the agendas each nation has over the next, as we all fail to work togarther and overcome the problems facing all of us our enemies get stronger.
Islamic extremists have been a problem for the west for many many years, it's not just Bin Laden and the current cicumstances in Iraq.
We are failing to look at the big picture that affects us all.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Nov 2004)

pappy said:
			
		

> I think if we look at history, at any war we can find faults in the way it's run.
> And in many wars the same mistakes are made again.
> 
> Personally I don't understand why so many people OUTSIDE the US are so concerned with Who is our President.



Amen. I just want it done and over with, ASAP and with whatever/whoever it takes.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2004)

OK, this I had to post, check out the line about the election being devastating..etc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-suic1107,0,2157220,print.story?coll=ny-nynews-headlines
Man commits suicide at Ground Zero
   

November 6, 2004, 7:11 PM EST

Distraught over the re-election of President George W. Bush, a Georgia man traveled to New York City, went to Ground Zero and killed himself with a shotgun blast, police said yesterday.

The suicide victim, Andrew Veal, 25, was discovered just before 8 a.m. yesterday when a worker for the Millennium Hotel looking at Ground Zero from an upper floor saw a man lying atop the concrete structure through which the 1 and 9 subway lines run.

The worker, thinking the man was sleeping, alerted colleagues and the Port Authority police were notified.

But when they got to Veal's body, they realized he had killed himself with a shot to the head from a .12-gauge shotgun.

No suicide note was found, but according to a Port Authority police source, family members said Veal, a registered Democrat, was despondent over Bush's defeat of Sen. John Kerry. A second source said Veal, who lived in Athens, Ga., and worked for the University of Georgia, was also adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq.

More than three years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, Ground Zero remains a top tourist attraction, the site rife with symbolism.

Visitors there yesterday reacted in different ways to news of Veal's suicide. Bobbie Jensen, 54, a Republican from Phoenix, said that while she understood how Bush's victory disturbed those who dislike him, Ground Zero is not the place to act on those emotions.

"You can be upset about the war, about Bush, but this is a sacred place," she said. "You got to accept what happened and not kill yourself." But Frank Franca, an East Village artist and registered Democrat, suggested the suicide was symbolic.

"I'm very moved by it," he said. "Obviously, this person was devastated. I can see why he would come here."

Franca's friend, Jeffim Kuznetsov, a 25-year-old student from Russia who lives in Atlanta, said the suicide is evidence of how deeply many Americans were affected by Kerry's defeat.

"It's a national tragedy," he said. "This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy."

Another visitor to Ground Zero, Arushi Raval, 34, a businesswoman who lives in Chelsea, said Veal might have been active in campaigning for Kerry, only to taste defeat.

"Maybe he felt ineffective," she said of the victim. "You feel ineffective if you tried and it all failed.

"I know so many New Yorkers who are depressed over this." 
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2004)

What a wasted life. If he really wanted to do something, he could have sucked it up, and gone to work bringing the Democrats to an realistic appraisal of the world around them and developing policy alternatives that matched the real world.

I can't believe this was the party of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John F Kennedy


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (7 Nov 2004)

Social Darwinism in action ...


----------



## winchable (7 Nov 2004)

Eduard Chibas was a Cuban radio announcer who shot himself on the air when Batista siezed power in a coup in 1952.
He did it because the people were complacent and when Batista took power most of them just said "ah well"
He said "Wake Up" or something like that, then shot himself.

It's not often you see North American politics get heated like this.
In general this election is quite interesting because it seems like the American people have stumbled out of a political nap and gotten worked up about democracy and freedom again.
Now if only more people here would stand up and really give the complacent system here a shaking.

Lets not speak ill of the dead anyway gents, regardless of his reasons.


----------



## pappy (7 Nov 2004)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

I suggest everyone take a little look at this link and get some perspective on the 2004 Vote.   Sort of gives you an idea that MAYBE most of the US wanted Bush.

If some Moron wants to kill himself over a Presidential Vote, well he'd do the same over Britney Spears newest divorce, misplaceing hi tin-foil hat etc.

The Gene Pool needs a cleaning from time to time.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2004)

Quote from Che,
_Eduard Chibas was a Cuban radio announcer who shot himself on the air when Batista siezed power in a coup in 1952.
He did it because the people were complacent and when Batista took power most of them just said "ah well"
He said "Wake Up" or something like that, then shot himself._

I don't get the point here, in my opinion based on this info, Eduard Chibas took the cowards way out. So instead of sticking around to try and force change , he became an anecdote.


----------



## winchable (7 Nov 2004)

Well that could be argued, a martyr is a valuable thing if you're trying to wake people up or get the hearts and minds of a people switched on.
And I wasn't talking about his effect on the cuban election as such, it was a scam anyhow.
I was pointing it out to say that you rarely find people here who will get that worked up about politics that they will give their life this day in age over something like that. Perhaps not actually gving their life but in the same spirit they recognise that you either live free or die.(God I love those license plates)
Wasn't quite comparing him directly to this guy either. This guy seemed more upset that his guy didn't win in a fair election not that the system was so corrupt that elections couldn't be held.

Anyhow, Chibas did have a profound effect in the longrun I would say, he had a very close friend named Fidel who was moved to action by a plethora of things one of which was the death of Chibas. (another day another thread for that argument if you'd like)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2004)

See I thought you WERE trying to make a comparison and it just didn't fit, in my opinion.


----------



## winchable (7 Nov 2004)

Nono, I would say this gent in question was running away from this Issue whereas Chibas was trying to get other people to realise there was an issue.


----------



## rw4th (8 Nov 2004)

Re: guy who committed suicide. 

Definitely Darwin at work, but what's scary to me is this: If he though killing himself was an effective way to protest, then how much of a leap would it have been for him to strap explosives to his chest and walk into a federal building.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2004)

We already saw what happened when 19 people who "thought that way" boarded various flights on the morning of Sept 11, 2001.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Nov 2004)

Quote,
_Re: guy who committed suicide.

Definitely Darwin at work, but what's scary to me is this: If he though killing himself was an effective way to protest, then how much of a leap would it have been for him to strap explosives to his chest and walk into a federal building._

*shivers*................I would have never thought about it that way but you are correct.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Nov 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _Re: guy who committed suicide.
> 
> Definitely Darwin at work, but what's scary to me is this: If he though killing himself was an effective way to protest, then how much of a leap would it have been for him to strap explosives to his chest and walk into a federal building._
> ...



Timothy McVeigh ...


Just went back to the article: "This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy."

Poor b*****d lost his life due to a misunderstanding ... maybe he could've just bought a dictionary to see what "democracy" actually means.

Or maybe he could have just taken a pciture of himself: http://72.3.131.10/gallery/1/


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2004)

> "This election is devastating to all who believe in democracy."



It is scary when you take a close look at what happened. Bush supporters were subjected to various forms of abuse (property damage like cars with Bush bumper stickers being keyed, signs destroyed/defaced), Republican offices were vandelized and even shot at, Republican voters reported being intimidated at the polls. The media rolled out a huge campaign to defeat Bush, even resorting to "scoops" of forged documents and attempting to ambush the administration in the closing hours of the campaign with the bogus "missing explosives" story (contradicted by an embedded NBC correspondent who was with the first units on the scene). Senator Kerry wasn't asked any provocative questions about his anti war activities in the 1970s, his Senate record in the 1980s and 90s, his military record (including some indications he may have been released form the Navy with a less than honourable discharge), his contradictory economic pronouncements...

While President Bush had many weaknesses that could have been addressed (spending, immigration policy, Prescription Drug plan, etc.), the Democrats chose to use the tools of a much older political philosophy. The individual and group attempts to intimidate and discourage Republican voters is a small step away from "Brownshirt" tactics, and the Media resorted to versions of the "Big Lie". (Given the Democrat's obsession with implementing a Socialist agenda in American politics, it is well to remember the "other" party I have alluded to was known as the_* National Socialist German Worker's Party*_...)

Democracy requires "free markets and free minds" to use an old expression. If one party or group is attempting to shut down the free flow of information, or prevent the free expression of opinion, then there is a great deal to be worried about. The idea of Howard Dean as "Hitler lite" or Kerry as a bumbling Chaplinesque "Great Dictator" may be strange, disturbing or funny; but it won't be too much longer before someone notices the willing tools out there and begins to organize them for real.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

The media doesn't seem to have given up in the face of the election.  They seem to have adopted the fall-back position that they are now the only effective opposition along with the only source of the absolutes in truth.

I used to watch CNN but I can't bring myself to do it any more.  Any time I click on there is another Democrat being interviewed or another anchor criticising the government.  Credibility???

On the plus side it does seem that others are taking notice.  It is starting to be suggested that the worst thing that could happen to a Democrat in 2008, when they are running against Rudy Giuliani, is that they get endorsed by the New York Times, CNN, CBS and Hollywood.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2004)

The only thing democracy really requires is that the losers of each election accept the result.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2004)

Moving along, I notice that Bush has dumped John Ashcroft as the AG.  That is probably the first step into mending fences, that guy was one of the people I never liked in Bush's circle.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2004)

Here is another view on what a Bush "War Cabinet" might look like:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200411090750.asp


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2004)

Wolfowitz as NSC?   

Isn't that the guy with the nickname "The Prince of Darkness"?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2004)

The Archangel Gabrial being currently tasked...


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Nov 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What a wasted life. If he really wanted to do something, he could have sucked it up, and gone to work bringing the Democrats to an realistic appraisal of the world around them and developing policy alternatives that matched the real world.
> 
> I can't believe this was the party of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John F Kennedy


I also thought the same as a kid watching the news when the buddist monk in Vietnam set himself on fire in protest of the War back in the 60's.
Is this a precursor of what is to be come from our past?
I hope not.


----------



## canadianblue (11 Nov 2004)

I'm sorry to say it, but alot of the people that I have heard talking about the election and how Bush is so "evil" all seem pretty stupid. Like I overheard this one guy say "Farenheit 911 was number 1 in the box office, yet they still voted him in even though he did all that". Whenever I hear a person refer to a Michael Pinko Commie Moore film to say how much they hate Bush, I always ask them if they are going to get an unbiased opinion from a left wing nut about a right wing president. I've also noticed that when Clinton was president I heard people talking about how terrible he was, then Bush was elected and then once again people were talking about how terrible he is. I think that it does'nt matter in the end who is president, some people will still find some way to rip into our brothers down to the south. Maybe we up here should wake up and look at our own politicians before ripping into those south of the border. Last time I remember that idiot of a PM Chretien was elected to three straight majorities, and Paul Martin won a minority.

End of rant :threat:


----------



## pappy (12 Nov 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> I also thought the same as a kid watching the news when the buddist monk in Vietnam set himself on fire in protest of the War back in the 60's.
> Is this a precursor of what is to be come from our past?
> I hope not.



some slacker killing himself over an election for someone who will be out off office in another 4 years is hardly equal to the Buddist monk setting himself on fire to protest the destruction of his entire way of life.  The US in 2004 is hardly in the crap state of affairs that South Vietnam was in the early 1960's.  South Vietnam was in the middle of a rather nasty civil war as well as the SVN catholics at war with the Buddhists.

The Buddhist monk was making a political statement.
The shotgun eater was just cleaning the gene pool.
I'm sure this guy would have eaten his shotgun for any number of reasons.

If Bush was as bad as the newsmedia would have you believe the democrates could have put up a dead man and won.

The fact that Bush won, and the Republicans won in both the house and senate goes to show the democrates have a losing agenda and the majority of US votes where tired of their liberal BS.

The US has survived any number of problems and sub-standard politicians since it's birth, it will surely survive Bush, just as it would have survived Kerry if he had had a single original thought and could make a decision and stuck with it for more then a few hours.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2004)

Cheers Pappy.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Nov 2004)

A little tidbit from _The Economist_.   They stated that one of George W Bush's biggest strengths is that his character brings out the worst in his political opponents.   When you got clowns like Michael Moore leading the charge, Dubya looks so much more appealing to the average, middle-class meat and potatoes voter.

Interesting enough, _The Economist_ also stated that this was a quality possessed by Senator Hillary Clinton as well.   She gets the conservative crowd so riled up (she's even better at it then her husband) that it may make the average American feel that not voting for her means Pat Buchanan instead.   Although she may not be up to rebuilding the Democratic Party, the "E" has her pegged as a likely successor (along with Barak Obama - all the rage these days in politics).

Pretty interesting if you ask me.   Perhaps the opposite can be said about Mr Harper's Conservative Party - everything it did brought out the best in Paul Martin and the Liberals.   Despite scandal after scandal, we were only to happy to give him another (albeit slim) mandate.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2004)

Big difference: Hillary will have to rebuild a shattered Democratic Party, while Harper was running the race with a "brand new" party, still fitting the PC parts to the Reform/Alliance machine. Let's see what happens in the next 18 months in Canada, and the next four years in the US.

Interestingly enough, American parties also change and die. The Federalist Party disintigrated over the War of 1812; and the "Radical Republican" party was born just prior to the US Civil War. Perhaps Hillary may find herself applying to join a new party instead (Prediction. the Dems split along the Democratic/Socialist divide and field two "left wing parties", a mirror image of the Reform/PC split here in Canada).


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2004)

>Moving along, I notice that Bush has dumped John Ashcroft as the AG.  That is probably the first step into mending fences, that guy was one of the people I never liked in Bush's circle.

Why?

I can't see the Democrats splintering.  They know it would mean permanent political exile.  They will do what the two parties always do after a period of pointless flirtation with their extreme fringes: ignore the extremists.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2004)

The extreme fringe has a lot of the money (Hollywood, George Soros and co, the MSM) and clout, so it would be hard to "ignore them". I also think they control much of the Democratic party machinery. So moderate Dems will have to make some very hard choices:

1. Fight a vicious battle to regain control of the party
2. Go over to the Republican party
3. Make a fresh start


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Nov 2004)

Well, even before I read the article that I have attached, I had a theory about Kerry's campaign. It seemed to head south when Clinton's campaign team swooped in and took over. I suspected that Hillary actually wanted Kerry to lose, while making it look like she was backing him. A loss sets her up to run in 2008. A Kerry win would not have. Imagine a future where Hillary is President of the US, and Bill is Secretary Genral of the UN (which he has made mention of).. shudder.  



> Kerry Strategists: Clintonistas Torpedoed Our Campaign
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


----------



## clasper (14 Nov 2004)

So is Clinton a political mastermind who is willing to screw his own party for personal advancement, or is he a bumbling oaf who was just following his 1992 strategy for defeating Bush?  Given his record, I'd think he's more susceptible to a simple lapse in judgement than a Machiavellian desire to become first lady.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Nov 2004)

Clasper,
Though I was never a Bill Clinton fan, I can't see him wanting his party to lose......now would Hillary stab all of them for personal advancement?..... damn skippy she would!!!


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Nov 2004)

Clasper (and bruce)  I think Hillary's hunger for power knows no bounds....  jmo


----------



## clasper (15 Nov 2004)

I read an opinion piece last week (I wish I could remember where...) that suggested one of Bush's keys to political success was that he engenders such hatred in his opposition that they end up looking like frothing-at-the-mouth-idiots, rather than reasoned people in disagreement.  Bill Clinton had this quality to a certain degree, but Hillary has them both trumped in this regard.  (That being said, I think the Republicans would love to face her in 2008- it would be an easy victory.)

Yes, she's a very ambitious woman, but what has she done to show that she's treacherous or disloyal to her party?


----------



## Infanteer (15 Nov 2004)

Clasper, see my earlier post.  _The Economist_ mentioned that in an article on Hillary Clinton.


----------



## clasper (15 Nov 2004)

d'oh! :blotto:


----------



## Rushrules (16 Nov 2004)

The way things are going, at least we won't get 4 more years out of Cheney. :crybaby:


----------



## Spr.Earl (16 Nov 2004)

Of late what has surprised me is nearly 50% of Dubya's cabinet has resigned. 
Why?


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Nov 2004)

Because cabinet members often only serve one term. Powell even said before hand that he only intended to serve one term...


----------



## winchable (16 Nov 2004)

Is that mandatory? or just tradition?

What does everyone think of Rice as the SOS


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Nov 2004)

Che - from the reading I've been doing, it's neither. It's simply a lot more common than the press is making it out to be...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2004)

clasper said:
			
		

> Yes, she's a very ambitious woman, but what has she done to show that she's treacherous or disloyal to her party?



Stayed with Billy boy to prove her human qualities of devoted, forgiving wife. The outward appearance being if she can weather such a scandal with dignity, as first lady, she can handle anything. She stayed with him because her party would have ostracized her had she left him, and embarrassed them. Bill and Hil made a business deal with each other, and the devil, years ago. If people can't recognise a marriage of convenience and power when it slaps them in the face, they deserve her as president.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2004)

The Left would like to attribute evil motives for the Cabinet resignations, but these people have put in four years of the most hight pressure job on the planet during wartime, not to mention being needlessly slandered and vilified on a daily basis.

Some want to rest, some want to write their memoirs and most want to make a lot more money in the private sector ("To sum up your leadership qualifications for our company Mr Powell, before you ran a large and fractious bureaucracy, you were in charge of well over one million employees deployed across the globe?")

Some fresh blood will shake up the place, and President Bush needs to push the establishment hard in order to do tax and social security reform as well as set up the conditions for winning WW IV in just four years.


----------



## clasper (17 Nov 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Stayed with Billy boy to prove her human qualities of devoted, forgiving wife. The outward appearance being if she can weather such a scandal with dignity, as first lady, she can handle anything. She stayed with him because her party would have ostracized her had she left him, and embarrassed them. Bill and Hil made a business deal with each other, and the devil, years ago. If people can't recognise a marriage of convenience and power when it slaps them in the face, they deserve her as president.



She shows her penchant for disloyalty by being loyal to her husband?  I'm not sure that makes sense.

So why should their marriage be any different from the millions of other sham marriages that have survived (multiple) incidents of infidelity?  Or maybe she did the Christian thing and forgave him...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Nov 2004)

The Missed Opportunities of a Kerry Presidency?
By Nic Boisvert
Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century www.ccs21.org

It has been more than two weeks since the American elections ended decisively.  Thankfully, the world as we know it did not end with them, either from an Al-Qaeda attack that didn't happen or from the re-election of George W. Bush which did.  History will judge how well global peace ultimately is served by his renewed mandate, and we will never know if John Kerry could have done better, let alone anything different.  The Canadian electorate, however, had made no secret of their preferred choice, so Canadians concerned about our defence establishment can be excused for speculating as to the missed opportunities of a Kerry Presidency.  The possibilities are decidedly mixed.
The international issue of most importance to our American allies is Iraq.  When then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien snubbed President Bush's request for Canada to become more actively involved in the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Bush quietly turned the other cheek and received instead the juvenile and intemperate remarks of Chretien loyalists. (These comments stupidly continue.) If in return Bush did little to persuade Senators and Congressmen to re-open the border to Canadian beef and softwood lumber, neither did he take any active retaliation.  Generally, his response could be styled as benign neglect.  It is unlikely that John Kerry would have been so generous, pledged as he was both to encourage the allies to carry a greater portion of the burden in Iraq and to take protectionist measures to combat the out-sourcing of American jobs.  Our border might have seen its billion-dollars-a-day in trade slow to a trickle. 
Since that disastrous situation was just what so many of us had been predicting, what conceivable advantage was there in it?  Simply put, a Kerry Presidency would have been more likely to push us harder to get our act together to fix up our military.  The gentle nudges we have been receiving from Bush and Ambassador Paul Cellucci would have become in very short order a Kerry kick in the backside.  We still would be in no position to contribute effectively, but Kerry's expectation that we shoulder our responsibilities in Iraq at least symbolically could have been just the incentive needed to expedite the revitalization of the Canadian Forces.  Could any prime minister, let alone Paul Martin, refuse the president massively endorsed by the Canadian public?
Turning to our shared continental responsibilities, the issue of ballistic missile defence (BMD) seems finally to have entered Canadian consciousness.  Prodded mostly by a Kerry-friendly media, opinion in the wake of Bush's re-election seems to have hardened against it, especially in a wildly anti-American Quebec, leading even the formerly supportive Conservative Party to concoct yet another variation of their Belgian waffle on the issue.  Ironically, this consternation comes in tandem with reports that the Bush administration is quite content with the recent renegotiation of NORAD to serve only as the missile shield's early warning mechanism.  Certainly BMD requires no Canadian component, and President Bush is unlikely to push Prime Minister Martin for a specific treaty when he comes to visit at the end of the month.
Once again, the re-election of George Bush seems not to be a major impediment to good relations, so what opportunity have we missed with John Kerry's loss?  Nothing less than the hugely important expansion of NORAD to include naval and army elements in addition to the traditional aerospace dimension.  The Canadian government faces a year-end deadline to renew the mandate of the Binational Planning Group (BPG) that is working to develop plans to coordinate responses to a range of cross-border security concerns.  They are making great progress to fashion a command structure that will ensure Canadian sovereignty is not sacrificed to closer integration with American forces, but this critical continental security project is in danger of being sacrificed in the interests of political expediency.  Although there is no formal linkage to missile defence, in the usual simple-minded Canadian approach to these issues the BPG is becoming conflated with BMD, and no one in Ottawa seems capable of mustering the political courage to set the record straight.  Those fears are less likely to have arisen under a Kerry Presidency; at the very least they would have been easier to set aside.
But not all would have been sweetness and light with regime change in the United States.  The proof is the selection of our Chief of Defence Staff General Ray Henault to become the next Chairman of the Military Committee of NATO.  NATO insiders feared for Henault's chances against his Danish competitor, the thinking being that France would lobby the European members to vote against â Å“another North American commanderâ ? (that is, a Canadian Chairman alongside the established American Supreme Allied Commander).  Kerry certainly would have seen greater advantage in appeasing the French on this matter than appealing to his feckless northern neighbour. The fear was that President Bush was coming to accept this view as well, with the pay-off being more meaningful NATO support in Iraq.  Henault's selection suggests that President Bush must believe that Canada's commitment to re-invigorate its international standing is genuine, and the US evidently saw some merit in Canada facilitating the management of the global issues confronting NATO. 
 Congratulations, General Henault, on turning the tide.  Your appointment is the first indication that the next four years need not be a missed opportunity, but rather a chance for a new Canadian beginning.

November 18, 2004

(Nic Boisvert is a former public servant with an interest in defence.  He writes on behalf of the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century.  Free use may be made of this piece so long as reference is made to CCS21 and its Web site â â€œ www.ccs21.org.)


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Simply put, a Kerry Presidency would have been more likely to push us harder to get our act together to fix up our military. The gentle nudges we have been receiving from Bush and Ambassador Paul Cellucci would have become in very short order a Kerry kick in the backside. We still would be in no position to contribute effectively, but Kerry's expectation that we shoulder our responsibilities in Iraq at least symbolically could have been just the incentive needed to expedite the revitalization of the Canadian Forces. Could any prime minister, let alone Paul Martin, refuse the president massively endorsed by the Canadian public?



Kerry and the liberal left were bound and determined to pull out of Iraq (I believe he said within six months to one year from the start of his administration), and seemed to be publicly uncomfortable with the use of American power for any reason whatsoever. How would this equal a "kick in the backside"? Kerry seemed to only be interested in what "old Europe" (i.e. France and Germany) was going to be able to contribute; since their firm answer was "nothing", the United States would be floundering for a period of at least two years. This would be a sort of American isolationism, since the allies Kerry wanted are mendacious, while the coallition of the willing would have been totally p/o'd by Kerry's constant snubs and unilateral withdrawl from Iraq.



> Turning to our shared continental responsibilities, the issue of ballistic missile defence (BMD) seems finally to have entered Canadian consciousness. Prodded mostly by a Kerry-friendly media, opinion in the wake of Bush's re-election seems to have hardened against it, especially in a wildly anti-American Quebec, leading even the formerly supportive Conservative Party to concoct yet another variation of their Belgian waffle on the issue. Ironically, this consternation comes in tandem with reports that the Bush administration is quite content with the recent renegotiation of NORAD to serve only as the missile shield's early warning mechanism. Certainly BMD requires no Canadian component, and President Bush is unlikely to push Prime Minister Martin for a specific treaty when he comes to visit at the end of the month.
> 
> Once again, the re-election of George Bush seems not to be a major impediment to good relations, so what opportunity have we missed with John Kerry's loss? Nothing less than the hugely important expansion of NORAD to include naval and army elements in addition to the traditional aerospace dimension.


 
Once again, I fail to see how this would follow. A Kerry administration would abandon BMD, or at least regulate it to low level studies. Northern Command was already in the works, with or without Canadian participation. Kerry's isolationism and protectionism don't seem like grounding for NORAD expansion and integration.

A Kerry administration would be troubling for Canada. In economic terms, our standard of living would fall as high taxes and an unfriendly regulatory climate in the United States stifled their economy. As our GDP declined, the 1.1% allocated to defense would also fall in relative and real terms. The unilateralism and isolationism of the United States under Kerry would leave the entire structure of the western alliance adrift, wether you define it as NATO, the Anglosphere, the G8 or whatever, preventing us from formulating any response to the increasingly emboldened Jihadis, rogue states like Iran and North Korea, or agressive nations like China. 

Even if a bold and aggressive leader like John Howard or Tony Blair was to try to sieze the intiative in the Anglosphere, the economic uncertainty and the political drift in the United States would be an anchor that prevented effective movement on a wide range of issues. We can all be quite thankful that Kerry was defeated, and the Democrats pummeled so hard they are unable to challenge the results of the electorate, giving President Bush the room he needs to tackle a wide range of domestic and international issues. Canada, as always, can allow itself to be pulled along by the United States, letting people like Carolyn Parrish make rude remarks while they benifit from the generosity of the host.


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Nov 2004)

It was the OBL tape that cost Kerry the election...   :




> Exclusive: Kerry Says UBL Tape Cost Him Election
> Friday, November 19, 2004
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Art Johnson (20 Nov 2004)

"ALL HAIL THE CHIEF",  Kerry would have been a disaster for the US. His wife's big mouth would have made our MP Parish look like a 
Saint. I think that the Clintons and others in the Democratic Party had more to do with Kerry's defeat than anyone.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Nov 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Because cabinet members often only serve one term. Powell even said before hand that he only intended to serve one term...


Ah but last Feb. Powell did state on the telly he would stay as long as Dubya asked him to stay.
Hmmm?
Now most of the Senior Officers in the C.I.A. have resigned.??

Now those who voted for Dubya are now starting to fight amongst each other to further their own individual religious and moral beliefs for political power.

Have we not learned from past History not to bring up God or religious belief in Polotics?!!
Wheather it be Official or Unofficial!


----------

