PDA

View Full Version : October Surprise: New Osama Video



bluedust
29 Oct 04,, 23:45
Osama is back with another video shown on his favourite channel Al-Jazeera, once again lecturing USA about its foreign policy and election 2004.

So who do you think is this october suprise from Osama going to help? Bush or Kerry?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 00:38
Well I Guess my theory that OBL id dead isn't true, Damn! He stated the safty of Americans is not in the hands of either Kerry OR Bush so it would seem he really dosn't care who wins. He also went on to say Americans can determine their own safty by not attacking any muslim nation, which even CNN reporters stated was not a guarantee given the fact that the U.S. was not engaged in any war before 9/11.

It all depends on weither or not people think either Bush or Kerry can find OBL and stop his little public relations escapade.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 03:25
I don't think OBL is really a factor any longer. Even if he were out of the picture, another would certainly rise in his place particularly now that so many other terrorist organizations are united under the same umbrella.

His comment about American foreign policy being the issue is true. It has always been our foreign policy that terrorists object to. I really don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with hating our freedom as Bush likes to suggest.

lulldapull
30 Oct 04,, 03:29
I feel like busting Bush in the face each time I see this Osama's hideous face on TV! :mad: :mad:

God-damn this guy really knows how to hide! its just unbelievable how he manages to air one of his grotesque speeches every now and then, and we have to experience the displeasure of seeing his face!! :mad: :mad:

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 03:30
He comment about American foreign policy being the issue is true. It has always been our foreign policy that terrorists object to. I really don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with hating our freedom as Bush likes to suggest.

You probably disagree, but in Bush's view, American foreign policy should be about spreading freedom abroad and protecting it at home. Thus if you believed in that, you would see the terrorists as hating freedom.

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 03:32
God-damn this guy really knows how to hide! its just unbelievable how he manages to air one of his grotesque speeches every now and then, and we have to experience the displeasure of seeing his face!! :mad: :mad:

I feel like busting Bush in the face each time I see this Osama's hideous face on TV! :mad: :mad:

As I noted before, you are a very objective person. Was 9/11 Bush's fault as well?

lulldapull
30 Oct 04,, 03:49
As I noted before, you are a very objective person. Was 9/11 Bush's fault as well?

Well, I supported bush in Afghanistan! I stil support our troops over there! ( Got my former country cleaned up to in this proces, and we have been doing our part in helping out U.S. troops!) But this iraq thing is outta control! We should have left last year after installing this fat baastard Allawi!

Now we have to leave in chaos. Its inevitable.

Bush should be fired more for his incompetence rather than poor decisions. These guys didn't plan right and as many an analyst has pointed out on TV that perhaps its time for someone to get in the White house who can get the job done!

Dubbya ain't doin it! he's been there for 4 years, and today we saw that Goddamn killer on TV again! Thats a slap in all our faces man. Some one who murdered 3000 innocent ppl is out free threatening us, while this bible bigot is involved in suppressing a guerilla war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11! :mad:

now don't get me wrong I wouldn't be *****ing had we done things right in Iraq! but this level of incompetence on this administrations part is unforgivable :) Let Kerry come, at least he'll let us make a face saving exit and get them Germans and Frenchies and the surrounding camel jockeys involved in moving some mud.

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 04:29
Well, I supported bush in Afghanistan! I stil support our troops over there!

Which is interesting, but you ignored my question.


But this iraq thing is outta control!

Well, the people on the ground disagree, but what do then know.


We should have left last year after installing this fat baastard Allawi!

Retreating in the face of terror results in more terrorism, and Allawi is a courageous individual who is trying to fix a state run down by years of Saddam's oppression, not a "baastrard."


Now we have to leave in chaos. Its inevitable.

Not really.


Bush should be fired more for his incompetence rather than poor decisions. These guys didn't plan right and as many an analyst has pointed out on TV

So you let the box do the thinking for you.


that perhaps its time for someone to get in the White house who can get the job done!

And this person is? John Kerry? ha


Dubbya ain't doin it! he's been there for 4 years, and today we saw that Goddamn killer on TV again! Thats a slap in all our faces man.

I'm not your "man."


Some one who murdered 3000 innocent ppl is out free threatening us,

And someone who killed over a million innocent people is in a cell.


while this bible bigot

As I said, very objective.


is involved in suppressing a guerilla war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11! :mad:

The war is called the "War on terrorism." This is noticeably different then the "War on OBL."


now don't get me wrong I wouldn't be *****ing had we done things right in Iraq!

Which would be leaving the country a year ago so it could break down in to civil war resulting in millions of deaths. Good plan.


but this level of incompetence on this administrations part is unforgivable

I certainly would prefer Bush's judgment to yours.


Let Kerry come, at least he'll let us make a face saving exit

By face saving, do you mean sending more troops there because that's what Kerry says he wants?


and get them Germans and Frenchies and the surrounding camel jockeys involved in moving some mud.

Why would the French and Germans send troops to die for "a mistake?"

Ray
30 Oct 04,, 05:51
The war in Afghanistan was pointing the world's nose in the right direction. It should have been pursued to its logical conclusion (to use the worn out cliché). It mysteriously petered off in intensity and is now struggling along.

Afghanistan is still ‘bad lands’. Some of my boys are there building roads. It is not still safe or hunky dory and I reckon they are the guys who are on the ground! But they are scouting along.

I would disagree with Lull. It is too late to pull out of Iraq, be it Kerry or Bush at the helm of affairs. The whole situation has now spun out of control. It is like a high speed fighter jet in a tailspin. Even bailing out would cause some spinal fracture but the aircraft anyway will be a total loss.

If Iraq was under control then there would be no requirement of flattening Fallujah daily for the mysterious terrorists. Nor would a beheaded torso be found daily (today, it is a Japanese) or a whole lot of folks awaiting beheading and displayed in pathetic state on the Al ********ara. Therefore, I wonder what the folks on ground are finding in control. It is a Snafu. Situation normal all fouled up.

To bring under control, Iraq requires a whole lot of troop and equipment. It just can't be done by the US alone. Yet, I find it rather difficult to visualise the international community climbing on to the bandwagon. Nor do I think that it is feasible with the number of troops on ground currently.

In so far as Allawi being courageous is a matter of opinion. Courage within the confines of Fortress Iraq is not that difficult. However, if it was Allawi, then who else? Chalabi? Bin Sistani, bin Mostada or bin Zarqawi?

It would be wrong to outrightly attribute that Iraq was a mess because of Saddam. It was because of the air siege and sanctions! Iraq was fine (by Middle East standards) till it was turned heels over head.

Osama is the big fish. Saddam being in the cell is immaterial.

The War on Terrorism in not War on OBL. True. But then where was terrorism in Iraq before the US came? If we even consider Saddam a terrorist, for one terrorist we have spawned a million! Odd logic.

If the US quits Iraq will break into civil war. Of course it is not a good plan. But then who brought Iraq to this situation and that too unilaterally?

Can Iraq be brought in ship shape with the troops already there? Iraqi troops are useless.

Therefore, all the arguments now put forward, is shutting the stable doors after the horses have fled!

limulus
30 Oct 04,, 08:06
Osama is back with another video shown on his favourite channel Al-Jazeera, once again lecturing USA about its foreign policy and election 2004.

So who do you think is this october suprise from Osama going to help? Bush or Kerry?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966741.stm

Honestly, I think this is going to help Bush big time. When it boils down to fight on terrorism, Americans think that Bush is more effective than Kerry, and this video brought the threat back into our living rooms. Unfortunately, I'm sure this is exactly what OBL intended. He is a major nutjob and a criminal, but he ainīt stupid. Another 4 years of Bush can only help him. GWB has not achieved catching him in his first term, and Iīm sure he doesnīt expect to be caught during a second Bush term. In fact, that guy looked pretty healthy and happy on the tape yesterday. Clearly alive and well, in fact, even relaxed and comfortable. So why would he want to change things? He knows that Kerry could get much more international support in Iraq or, as a matter of fact, anywhere in the world. Freeing up a lot more resources to hunt him down. Maybe Kerry would even make him his focus in the fight against Terrorism (which would be smart to do). He for sure does not want that, so going ahead and doing some campaigning for Bush is exactly what he needed to do. Smart... but letīs hope Americans wonīt fall for this.
We'll see on tuesday.

limulus
30 Oct 04,, 08:14
In fact, my honest and sincere believe is that a

Vote for Bush is a Vote for Osama Bin Laden.

bluedust
30 Oct 04,, 09:04
Well I Guess my theory that OBL id dead isn't true, Damn! He stated the safty of Americans is not in the hands of either Kerry OR Bush so it would seem he really dosn't care who wins. He also went on to say Americans can determine their own safty by not attacking any muslim nation, which even CNN reporters stated was not a guarantee given the fact that the U.S. was not engaged in any war before 9/11.

It all depends on weither or not people think either Bush or Kerry can find OBL and stop his little public relations escapade.


I am surprised that you had such a theory to begin with.
This was like Osama's 5-6th tape in last 3 years. All previous tapes were analysed by experts and authenticated. May be you ought to pay more attention to news!
This october surprise from Osama is definitely going to help Bush. Osama tape was reminder of why war on terror is being fought, and when it comes to war on terror Bush enjoys lead over Kerry.
Did anyone notice how well informed Osama appeared? That could only mean one thing, he is living in a area where he has access to media, most likely a Pakistani city!

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 09:11
I would disagree with Lull. It is too late to pull out of Iraq, be it Kerry or Bush at the helm of affairs. The whole situation has now spun out of control. It is like a high speed fighter jet in a tailspin. Even bailing out would cause some spinal fracture but the aircraft anyway will be a total loss.

If Iraq was under control then there would be no requirement of flattening Fallujah daily for the mysterious terrorists. Nor would a beheaded torso be found daily (today, it is a Japanese) or a whole lot of folks awaiting beheading and displayed in pathetic state on the Al ********ara. Therefore, I wonder what the folks on ground are finding in control. It is a Snafu. Situation normal all fouled up.

Would you concede that there is middle ground between complete control and complete anarchy?


To bring under control, Iraq requires a whole lot of troop and equipment. It just can't be done by the US alone. Yet, I find it rather difficult to visualise the international community climbing on to the bandwagon. Nor do I think that it is feasible with the number of troops on ground currently.

I believe the solution is to train Iraqis.


In so far as Allawi being courageous is a matter of opinion. Courage within the confines of Fortress Iraq is not that difficult.

It really isn’t just my opinion. The guy has survived numerous assassination attempts. Plus the fact that if he fails, he’s a dead man. Like it or not, you have to have balls to be the PM of Iraq.


It would be wrong to outrightly attribute that Iraq was a mess because of Saddam. It was because of the air siege and sanctions! Iraq was fine (by Middle East standards) till it was turned heels over head.

Saddam brought the sanctions on Iraq by invading Kuwait and then steadfastly refusing to cooperate. As to the "air siege" that was in place to prevent Saddam from killing millions of his own people.


Osama is the big fish.

I tend to doubt this. When we catch him, someone else replace him. AQ is a cult of ideology not of personality.


Saddam being in the cell is immaterial.

Here's an interesting question: If you had to send one person to hell who would it be, OBL or Saddam?


The War on Terrorism in not War on OBL. True. But then where was terrorism in Iraq before the US came? If we even consider Saddam a terrorist, for one terrorist we have spawned a million! Odd logic.

Remember that many of those we are fighting in Iraq would be predisposed to becoming terrorists anyway. Personal, I'd rather be fighting them in Iraq rather then outside cockpit doors. Also, I would like to see your prove that the war "spawned a million" terrorists.


If the US quits Iraq will break into civil war. Of course it is not a good plan. But then who brought Iraq to this situation and that too unilaterally?

Even if you dismiss all the other Collation partners, Britain has committed enough troops to be considered a full partner. Thus, at least bilaterally.


Can Iraq be brought in ship shape with the troops already there? Iraqi troops are useless.

They are better trained then those they are fighting, thus not useless.

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 09:14
Vote for Bush is a Vote for Osama Bin Laden.

Funny, I believe the exact opposite. Go figure.

limulus
30 Oct 04,, 09:22
Funny, I believe the exact opposite. Go figure.

Thatīs interesting. Would you please tell me why you think so. More specifically, what do you think Bush would do, what Kerry wouldnīt do to find Bin Laden and vice versa.

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 13:19
I am surprised that you had such a theory to begin with.
This was like Osama's 5-6th tape in last 3 years. All previous tapes were analysed by experts and authenticated. May be you ought to pay more attention to news!
This october surprise from Osama is definitely going to help Bush. Osama tape was reminder of why war on terror is being fought, and when it comes to war on terror Bush enjoys lead over Kerry.
Did anyone notice how well informed Osama appeared? That could only mean one thing, he is living in a area where he has access to media, most likely a Pakistani city!

Yes but IIRC the tapes stopped after tora bora and came in the form of audio tapes which are a little easier to fake. OBL is most likely in northern Pakistan somewhere, maybe Syria?

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 13:24
Thatīs interesting. Would you please tell me why you think so. More specifically, what do you think Bush would do, what Kerry wouldnīt do to find Bin Laden and vice versa.

I can't beleave you would even say something that crazy, You might as well say OBL and Bush are the same.

Bush won't wait for a corrupt UN to take another 12 years to do nothing where as Kerry says he won't let Europe determine the safety of the U.S. which is exactly what Bush did when he defied the UN but that in Kerry's eyes was a no-no.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 16:19
I can't beleave you would even say something that crazy, You might as well say OBL and Bush are the same.

Bush won't wait for a corrupt UN to take another 12 years to do nothing where as Kerry says he won't let Europe determine the safety of the U.S. which is exactly what Bush did when he defied the UN but that in Kerry's eyes was a no-no.


I don't understand why the UN is corrupt. Are you saying that the UN isn't a force for good? Would we be saying this about the UN if they had supported us on our war in Iraq?

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 16:40
I don't understand why the UN is corrupt.

i dont either, but they are.

the UN whistleblower Linda Shenwick case, testifing about financial corruption in the UN, such as the loss of $3.9 million in cash left on a table in Somalia, among many others.

corruption over expense accounts and living allowances are rife.

oil - for food.

do you need more?

BTW type or copy this into google

Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures, a True Story from Hell on Earth

tarek
30 Oct 04,, 17:08
Interesting critique Osama makes of Bush, of taking 7 seven minutes to consider the meaning of events. Osama and Mike Moorer and Kerry and by extension the domocracts are persuaded by this.

So, American voters will have to consider, some say Osama won't make a difference, lets hope they are wrong.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 17:11
i dont either, but they are.

the UN whistleblower Linda Shenwick case, testifing about financial corruption in the UN, such as the loss of $3.9 million in cash left on a table in Somalia, among many others.

corruption over expense accounts and living allowances are rife.

oil - for food.

do you need more?

BTW type or copy this into google

Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures, a True Story from Hell on Earth


Point taken. I am curious. If a dilegent effort were made to find American corruption while on peacekeeping missions what would we find? How about American Ambassadors in 3rd world countries? Most ambassadors are in place because these posts quite often are given to campain contributers and personal friends. These people generally aren't placed because of their dedication to humanitarianism. How about Government operatives using whatever means available to get intellegence including kickbacks, bribery, brutality. Agents of the CIA, etc. I guess what I am saying is that humans will always be humans. This involves weeknesses as well as strengths. I don't dissagree that some members of the UN may be corrupt. What I am saying is that corruption is rampant in the world. You don't have to look far to find it. You find it in every state capital. You find it in Washington DC.

Look at our own scandals with POW in Afghanistan and Iraq. How can our government expect us to believe that these low ranking soldiers violated these prisoners with their own initiative? I've been in the military. Anyone who has will tell you that there is no way they would have done that unless told to. They would not knowlingly violate the geneva convention on their own. There is great discipline in the armed forces. Not a single high ranking officer is held responsible. Do we really believe that our government doesn't violate the law when trying to extract information from prisoners? I think we all know better than that.

Basically, I think if you look for corruption you will find it almost anywhere. Some cases more extreme than others.

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 17:20
Basically, I think if you look for corruption you will find it almost anywhere. Some cases more extreme than others.

ah, the old corruption is rife evrywhere arguement.

american politicians are corrupt, but at least they are OUR corupt polititians. unlike UN officials, american officials eventualy have to face election by the people they are trying to fleece.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 17:35
ah, the old corruption is rife evrywhere arguement.

american politicians are corrupt, but at least they are OUR corupt polititians. unlike UN officials, american officials eventualy have to face election by the people they are trying to fleece.


Yes, that old argument. ...and don't you mean the people they successfully fleece? Hi kettle, your black!

bluedust
30 Oct 04,, 17:50
Yes but IIRC the tapes stopped after tora bora and came in the form of audio tapes which are a little easier to fake. OBL is most likely in northern Pakistan somewhere, maybe Syria?

Actually he did send one video tape after 9/11, I think it was late 2002. The audio were throughly analysed by experts and declared to be authentic.
Syria is about 2000 miles west of Pakistan, why would he be in Syria? From all accounts he is in Pakistan. Judging from how well informed he appears to be from his tape, he must be in one of the Pakistani city, probably being protected by Pakistani secret service ISI!

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 17:51
Yes, that old argument. ...and don't you mean the people they successfully fleece? Hi kettle, your black!

huh?

i dont know what you trying to get at here, but you said you didnt understand why the UN was corrupt, i showed you how it was, then you try to justify thier corruption by saying eveyone is corrupt, the differenc is i never said anything about the US NOT being corrupt.

in other words, i never said the kettle wasnt black, you were the one trying to say the pot wasnt.

but regardless, i would rather have a black kettle i can vote out of office, than a black pot that i cant.

bluedust
30 Oct 04,, 17:57
I don't understand why the UN is corrupt. Are you saying that the UN isn't a force for good? Would we be saying this about the UN if they had supported us on our war in Iraq?


There has been allegation of corruption in UN sponsered Oil for food program, I am sure you were aware of that. In fact some of the US oil companies also took part in the "oil for food" deal. They are also being investigated.
On the US side we have Halliburton scandal brewing on. One of the Pentagon whistle blower came out in open with allegation and FBI is now investigating the deal.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 18:09
huh?

i dont know what you trying to get at here, but you said you didnt understand why the UN was corrupt, i showed you how it was, then you try to justify thier corruption by saying eveyone is corrupt, the differenc is i never said anything about the US NOT being corrupt.

in other words, i never said the kettle wasnt black, you were the one trying to say the pot wasnt.

but regardless, i would rather have a black kettle i can vote out of office, than a black pot that i cant.


I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I acknowledged your post first with "point taken." I can see how the UN has it's share of corruption when I followed the link that you provided. My point is that we shouldn't hold others to ethical standards that we ourselves fall short on. I'm not arguing against our democracy. I would rather have the oportunity to vote as well. However, our legislation is for sale. Our policies are for sale. Large personal and corporate campain donations aren't without stipulations. If particular legislator receives a large campain donation and doesn't act in the interest of the donor, then that particular legislator won't see that money again come re-election time.

I can't tell you what the solution is. Campain reform would be a good start. Every year, politicians take aim at each others legislative record. Thay state that this politician promised to do this, yet did this instead. This politician vowed to lower taxes, but instead raised them. We vote for these people based on what they promise to do for us. When they don't even attempt to do these things they are not "representing" us. Is this not taxation without representation?

I don't know how to solve the problem, or even if the problem is fixable. I'm just saying that it does exist.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 04,, 18:33
Look at our own scandals with POW in Afghanistan and Iraq. How can our government expect us to believe that these low ranking soldiers violated these prisoners with their own initiative? I've been in the military. Anyone who has will tell you that there is no way they would have done that unless told to. They would not knowlingly violate the geneva convention on their own. There is great discipline in the armed forces. Not a single high ranking officer is held responsible. Do we really believe that our government doesn't violate the law when trying to extract information from prisoners? I think we all know better than that.

First of all, these were not regular soldiers. They were reservists and SpecOps and a few were not even militay, ie CIA, who have their own rules and regulations.

2nd, all soldiers are capable of attrocities. It's up to the leadership to make sure that doesn't happen. The case is not unique to the US. Members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured and killed a Somali youth in what can only be called a night of unspeakable shame upon the Canadian Forces.

3rd, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski was relieved of command. Her career effectively destroyed.

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 18:37
My point is that we shouldn't hold others to ethical standards that we ourselves fall short on.

i disagree, i think we SHOULD hold the UN to a higher standard, just as i hold my Mayor to a higher standard than I, if not i would run for office myself. if they dont carry a higher standard then they are simply self rightous, and even worst, self apointed law makers. if the are not any better then my own law makers why would i prefer them over my own? especialy since i get to vote over my own.


I'm not arguing against our democracy. I would rather have the oportunity to vote as well. However, our legislation is for sale. Our policies are for sale. Large personal and corporate campain donations aren't without stipulations. If particular legislator receives a large campain donation and doesn't act in the interest of the donor, then that particular legislator won't see that money again come re-election time.

i wasnt argueing this point, but i agree, campain finance reform would be a good start, i also prefer run off elections, or multiple selections, to help disperse the two party system. my idea would be to vote for three people out of all the participants, (or 4 or 5) in order of how they would be prefered. assigning 3 points to the 1 possistion 2 to the second and 1 to the third, all others get 0.


I don't know how to solve the problem, or even if the problem is fixable. I'm just saying that it does exist.

i agree, and i have made a sugestion, your thoughts?

Leader
30 Oct 04,, 20:11
Thatīs interesting. Would you please tell me why you think so. More specifically, what do you think Bush would do, what Kerry wouldnīt do to find Bin Laden and vice versa.

You have changed the question. To get an answer of "A vote for Bush is a vote for OBL" The question must have been something like "Which candidate shares OBL's goals?"

Julie
30 Oct 04,, 20:36
Interesting critique Osama makes of Bush, of taking 7 seven minutes to consider the meaning of events. Osama and Mike Moorer and Kerry and by extension the domocracts are persuaded by this.

So, American voters will have to consider, some say Osama won't make a difference, lets hope they are wrong.

Ironic, Osama depicts in his video that the US threatens the freedom of Muslims, thereby threatening the freedom of the US. Could this be true? Osama is by no means of the imagination stupid. He is well abreast at the goings on here in the U.S., just as the US stays informed as to the goings on in the Middle East. It is very clear to me that if the US is going to favor certain ethnic and/or religious ones abroad, causing the oppression of the others for whatever reason, the US had better be prepared to suffer the consequences.

I feel this latest tape of Osama will help Bush, in that US citizens feel Bush is a stronger fighter of terrorism, since they have no evidence of Kerry doing otherwise. Consequently, I also feel if Bush is re-elected, another attack on the US will surely happen, since Osama particularly described the actions of Bush, Sr., as well as his sons.

Fonnicker
30 Oct 04,, 21:30
i disagree, i think we SHOULD hold the UN to a higher standard, just as i hold my Mayor to a higher standard than I, if not i would run for office myself. if they dont carry a higher standard then they are simply self rightous, and even worst, self apointed law makers. if the are not any better then my own law makers why would i prefer them over my own? especialy since i get to vote over my own.



i wasnt argueing this point, but i agree, campain finance reform would be a good start, i also prefer run off elections, or multiple selections, to help disperse the two party system. my idea would be to vote for three people out of all the participants, (or 4 or 5) in order of how they would be prefered. assigning 3 points to the 1 possistion 2 to the second and 1 to the third, all others get 0.



i agree, and i have made a sugestion, your thoughts?


I'm with you on the two-party system. I don't think it serves our interests at all. I for one don't like the two choices that I have. I hate it, but the fact remains that if you vote for nader you throw away your vote.

I'm unfamiliar with the process of run-off elections, could you elaborate a little more for me?


Also, and I will most likely be dissagreed with, I don't think the electoral college is as effective as we like to think. If it comes around that the popular vote is overruled by the electorate again this time, I think people will finally demand change. Even if the roles are reversed and Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry the electoral.

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 22:03
I'm with you on the two-party system. I don't think it serves our interests at all. I for one don't like the two choices that I have. I hate it, but the fact remains that if you vote for nader you throw away your vote.

I'm unfamiliar with the process of run-off elections, could you elaborate a little more for me?

let me be clear i prefer the point system as it would not hamper time constraints as much as run-offs would, and would be much less expensive, plus you wouldnt have to cast your vote more than once, but run offs would go something like this, every year one party has a run-off elecetion to field thier parties candidateso it would go something like they do, everyone would be able to throw in thier hat for the president, there would be constrainst of course, possibly needing a certain amount of signatures or whatever, that would have to be hashed out then everyone would vote for those candidates to run for president, the top 51% plus any tieing candates with the top 51% would run again, a couple of months later, then the top 51% + would run again, till you have 2 candidates.

again much more time consuming and expensive compared to the point system


Also, and I will most likely be dissagreed with, I don't think the electoral college is as effective as we like to think. If it comes around that the popular vote is overruled by the electorate again this time, I think people will finally demand change. Even if the roles are reversed and Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry the electoral.

i have to disagree, getting rid of the electoral vote would be a catastrophy, if you think the 2 party system doesnt represent you, wait till you see a two party system with no electoral college, disaster. this would only benifit people who live in states like california or cities like New York.

Julie
30 Oct 04,, 22:59
First of all, these were not regular soldiers. They were reservists and SpecOps and a few were not even militay, ie CIA, who have their own rules and regulations.

2nd, all soldiers are capable of attrocities. It's up to the leadership to make sure that doesn't happen. The case is not unique to the US. Members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment tortured and killed a Somali youth in what can only be called a night of unspeakable shame upon the Canadian Forces.

3rd, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski was relieved of command. Her career effectively destroyed.

But, if a soldier doesn't do what he is told and tells about the atrocities going on by his fellow soldiers, then he is nothing more than another "Kerry sellout" is he not?

Donnie
30 Oct 04,, 23:08
But, if a soldier doesn't do what he is told and tells about the atrocities going on by his fellow soldiers, then he is nothing more than another "Kerry sellout" is he not?

except didnt kerry say he participated in the atrocities?

Julie
30 Oct 04,, 23:22
except didnt kerry say he participated in the atrocities?

Yes. But was he told to do it? Maybe that was the point in him testifying to bring it to the "legal table." Maybe he wanted some claritification, in that he wanted to know if the Geneva Convention meant anything, and if it did, who was he supposed to obey, the law, or his commanding officer. I dunno, what do you think?

I'm just saying, these soldiers are put in between a rock and a hardplace at times, and it is very unfair.

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 23:38
I don't understand why the UN is corrupt. Are you saying that the UN isn't a force for good? Would we be saying this about the UN if they had supported us on our war in Iraq?

I don't disagree the UN is a force for good, but its full of corrupt officials and can no longer fufill its duty's with credibility. How can your seriously force saddam to disarm when your accepting kickbacks from him? Its like telling your kids not to steal and giving them candy while your giving them the pep talk.

Officer of Engineers
30 Oct 04,, 23:42
But, if a soldier doesn't do what he is told and tells about the atrocities going on by his fellow soldiers, then he is nothing more than another "Kerry sellout" is he not?

You lost me. Each soldier is issued with the Rules of Engagement which is the LAW as far as lethal force is concerned. Everything that falls within it is legal. Everything else is not. If there is a grey area, then personal survival and the survival of your unit takes precedent. Otherwise, back off and ask for directions.

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 23:45
Point taken. I am curious. If a dilegent effort were made to find American corruption while on peacekeeping missions what would we find? How about American Ambassadors in 3rd world countries?

Why this facination about U.S. wrong doings?! There almost certainly are corrupt U.S. officials in the UN, corruption is not nation specific.

smilingassassin
30 Oct 04,, 23:54
I'm with you on the two-party system. I don't think it serves our interests at all. I for one don't like the two choices that I have. I hate it, but the fact remains that if you vote for nader you throw away your vote. Also, and I will most likely be dissagreed with, I don't think the electoral college is as effective as we like to think. If it comes around that the popular vote is overruled by the electorate again this time, I think people will finally demand change. Even if the roles are reversed and Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry the electoral.

I strongly disagree, If you vote for Nader you effect the other candidates votes as well, vote for Nader in a Republican state and you hurt Bush, same goes for Kerry in Democratic states. In addition you build up that party's stature. Next election, if the numbers have improved, the party you voted for will gain popularity.
If you want that electorial vote evaporated get a third strong party in the race.
Ever notice how the last 2 political races have been neck and neck? The country is so polarized that either candidate can win on a technicality, add a strong third party and things aren't so neck and neck.

More choices are a good thing!

Fonnicker
31 Oct 04,, 02:11
I strongly disagree, If you vote for Nader you effect the other candidates votes as well, vote for Nader in a Republican state and you hurt Bush, same goes for Kerry in Democratic states. In addition you build up that party's stature. Next election, if the numbers have improved, the party you voted for will gain popularity.
If you want that electorial vote evaporated get a third strong party in the race.
Ever notice how the last 2 political races have been neck and neck? The country is so polarized that either candidate can win on a technicality, add a strong third party and things aren't so neck and neck.

More choices are a good thing!


I agree with the more choices comment. How though? The money involved is huge. Kerry and Bush can afford to throw 200,000 dollars at a new ad campain in Hawaii 2 days before election. The cost of campaining is too high, hence the need for campain reform. Also, the alternative parties that we do have can't effectively get their voices out. Look at the presidential debates. Why wasn't Nader involved? I ask because I don't know. Is there some legality behind it? Did he chose not to participate?

Confed999
31 Oct 04,, 02:17
The cost of campaining is too high, hence the need for campain reform.
What would the cost reform be though? Can't force people to run campaign ads or print signs for free. I haven't been able to come up with anything, not socialist or worse, to do it.

Confed999
31 Oct 04,, 02:20
Why wasn't Nader involved?
I'm sure it's based on popularity. He isn't popular, so he wasn't involved. If his support numbers were even close to 10%, I'm sure they would have had him on to get the extra viewers.

Fonnicker
31 Oct 04,, 02:25
Why this facination about U.S. wrong doings?! There almost certainly are corrupt U.S. officials in the UN, corruption is not nation specific.


That is precisely the point I am trying to make. We are trying to hold the world accountable to a moral standard that not even our government lives up to. It is hypocritical.

I brought up the prison scandals to illustrate the point. We violated the geneva convention and pinned it on the enlisted men and women. Example: If our soldiers were forcing the prisoners to watch sodomy videos, where did they get them? Did the soldiers bring them with them from the states? Did they order them from catalogues? Or does it make more sense to assume that the intellegence officers provided them?

My point is if we want to stand on the moral high ground and lead the world then we need to set a better example. Right now, we have little credibility left in world opinion.

Confed999
31 Oct 04,, 02:30
My point is if we want to stand on the moral high ground and lead the world then we need to set a better example.
Our example is not better than Saddam's? People are being prosecuted for the crimes, that's the high ground. There are bad people everywhere.

Fonnicker
31 Oct 04,, 02:35
I'm sure it's based on popularity. He isn't popular, so he wasn't involved. If his support numbers were even close to 10%, I'm sure they would have had him on to get the extra viewers.


So Nader wouldn't get the ratings where they needed to be? Can't really boost your popularity when the country doesn't get to hear your viewpoint. It's a lose/lose situation.

I wish I had the answer to campain reform, but I don't. Our politics will never be an honest representation of the will of the people until something is done to remove special interest money from the system. Next thing you know we'll be seeing advertisements saying,

"This President has been brought to you by Merck Pharmaceuticals. Side effects may include and are not limitted to: complete dissatisfaction and a feeling of helplessness. See your voters pamphlete. Legislate only as directed."

Confed999
31 Oct 04,, 02:41
So Nader wouldn't get the ratings where they needed to be? Can't really boost your popularity when the country doesn't get to hear your viewpoint. It's a lose/lose situation.
It really doesn't matter with Nader anyway, he's too far left for most Americans to stomach.

Our politics will never be an honest representation of the will of the people
Did you see the last South Park? Giant douche vs. turd sandwich?

until something is done to remove special interest money from the system.
What most people fail to grasp, is that everything is a "special intrest", except for what is detailed in the Constitutions and Bill of Rights.

Fonnicker
31 Oct 04,, 02:44
Did you see the last South Park? Giant douche vs. turd sandwich?


Yes! I laughed my butt off. Which do you think represented Bush and Kerry. It was too hard for me to decide. It fits them both so perfectly.

Confed999
31 Oct 04,, 03:49
Yes! I laughed my butt off. Which do you think represented Bush and Kerry. It was too hard for me to decide. It fits them both so perfectly.
It's all elections. Knowing those guys it could have been about anything. I laughed until my sides hurt. "Vote or die, Mother ******!" :)

smilingassassin
31 Oct 04,, 10:41
That is precisely the point I am trying to make. We are trying to hold the world accountable to a moral standard that not even our government lives up to. It is hypocritical.

I don't see how thats true, the U.S. in general has very high standards.


I brought up the prison scandals to illustrate the point. We violated the geneva convention and pinned it on the enlisted men and women. Example: If our soldiers were forcing the prisoners to watch sodomy videos, where did they get them? Did the soldiers bring them with them from the states? Did they order them from catalogues? Or does it make more sense to assume that the intellegence officers provided them?

The court proceedings are still on-going so I don't see anyone getting away with crimes yet, in Iraq under Saddam you would get promoted for these types of acts.
No hypocracy there, the level of U.S. standards is plain to see.


My point is if we want to stand on the moral high ground and lead the world then we need to set a better example. Right now, we have little credibility left in world opinion.

I strongly disagree, any perceived lost credibility is due to miss representation of the facts, ie those in charge get off scott free while the grunts take the lionshare of the blame.

As Officer of Engineers pointed out, even my own country, Canada has had such a shamefull act commited in its name, and those responcible were delt with harshly.

Fonnicker
31 Oct 04,, 14:51
I don't see how thats true, the U.S. in general has very high standards.

We just got done discussing the corruption in the UN. Officials taking kick-backs, etc. You don't think American officials take kick-backs?


The court proceedings are still on-going so I don't see anyone getting away with crimes yet, in Iraq under Saddam you would get promoted for these types of acts.
No hypocracy there, the level of U.S. standards is plain to see.

Tell me about the officers in these scandals that are on trial right now.


I strongly disagree, any perceived lost credibility is due to miss representation of the facts, ie those in charge get off scott free while the grunts take the lionshare of the blame.

The loss of credibility is in the US Government. And president bush did not accurately represent the facts to the world. He sat on his pedestal and flatly told the world that Iraq had WMD. He spoke specifically about exactly what types there were, where they were, how much of them the had. He had Powell shake a little vile filled with them at the UN while showing locations on a map. When it turns out that there was nothing there, and that he was misslead by bad US intellegence, he changes the focus of the war to legitimate his actions. Top it off, we start torturing prisoners and violating their rights under the geneva convention. We hold them and even americans prisoners and deny them due process. As commander in chief, everything that happens in this war is his responsibility. Just like everything that happens to those prisoners is the responsibility of the senior officers. You really don't think that America has lost some credibility in the world's eyes?