Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Christine,

    A lot of 'the rest of the world' do not appreciate what Bush has done. It is not that they don't like the US. No one likes to be out of the loop. Its Iraq today, it could be France tomorrow. The only thing is that they have nukes as does North Korea! ;) And North Korea is most irresponsible! Being Asiatic they would rather nuke than cow down and instead fire them and take a few along! There is difference in the cultural mosaic. That is what is happening in Iraq. They are not sad that Saddam is gone. They are concerned if the price to pay is US vassalage! Honour and saving face is a big deal East of Suez.

    The Americans can't understand the difference between 'liking for the US' and 'actions by the US Administration'. If any action of the US is not supported without reservations, it is taken as being 'anti US'. This is very untrue. The dilemma of Christine's friend that if one doesn't support the US action, that person is not a patriotic American. That's nonsense. It is as if those in the US are in USSR. Support the govt or you are a traitor. No individual thoughts at all! Same is what is being applied to us.

    Saddam is a scoundrel and of that there is no doubt. However, what was and is the BIGGEST threat? Islamic fundamentalism. It was and is personified by Osama. None complained when Clinton cruise missiled the chap or when US unilaterally took off for Afghanistan and started clearing it from the scum Taliban that tortured in the name of 'born again Islamists'. Everyone (including Islamic states) agreed a vermin was being cleared and while all (most) would have liked to clear that vermin, they did not have the wherewithal to do so. If the US did it for them, good enough. We ALL said 'God really Bless America' - beyond the rhetorical ritual! Weak that we are, at least there is a Protector against a scurge that had the genetic makeup of multipying like galloping cancer cells and hold the world at ransom.

    But before that scoundrel could be eliminated, the US went for Iraq. That made no sense. Oh yes, he was a person who had seen his parents wedding i.e. born out of wedlock. Yet, he was the most secular of the Islamic countries. That confused most non Americans. He at least ensured a country with no internal strife. You can now notice the ugly head that is rising in Iraq which neither the US nor the interim govt can handle and what is more dangerous is that Iran is now more bold and cocking the snoot!

    What was more confusing was how come Saudi Arabia, the foundation of the blasted wahabis encouraged by the Royals were 'good guys'? The root of the evil that the US embarked on with Crusadic zeal was being spared and deliberately being ignored!

    Threfore, the question taht perplexed rational minds was - where is the US headed? Against Islamic fundamentalists or meandering rudderless pursuing person agendas? That is a question that is most perplexing.

    (Who is taking the brunt? The US soldiers. The remainder are gleefully shouting 'go man go', including the rest of the world. This is most painful at least for a retired soldier like me. As a soldier I can say for the political agendas of our leaders, we die and the worse thing is that we don't know whats up. Soldiers die because we have our duty).

    If is very nice of you to feel that while you ride an SUV, a large majority of the world is deprived. We don't grudge you that. You have earned it. We also desire it, but we must earn it. We also want to own SUVs, but we know, we have to work hard if we really want that. And much that one may feel we are 'bums', we have our dreams, aspirations and we will work towards achieving it. Maybe one day we will succeed.

    Now, regarding who is a better candidate. It make no difference what we (non US) think. Yet, at least we know Bush. We don't know Kerry. Both are honourable men. We like to see international leaders who 'mean business'. Kerry somehow is turning out to be a damp squib. Barrack Obama was more appealing. Not because of his colour but because of his rhetoric. Very appealing. -'There is no white US, or black US, there is only the United States of America!' Very forceful and very true.

    Oh yes, he is black. It will be a long time for them to even think of being the US President! it makes no difference how larger than like the US channels make him out to be. He has to resurrect from his grave if he wants that post.

    Yet, thank you Christine. Though we are not material to the US election, we thank you for indicating that US is also 'caring' about others.

    It is a different matter that Bush will win.

    Remember Bush has an agenda (right or wrong). We are yet to know what Kerry is desiring. Personally I prefer a decisive person than one who speaks mere English!

    Sorry if some are offended by my post. You win some and you lose some. ;)
    Last edited by Ray; 17 Aug 04,, 09:29.


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #62
      Then, the bottom-line is merely that it is a matter of convenience. Then, what's all this about giving "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq? Then
      1. What is the exact meaning of 'Free World'? Dies it mean Dictatorships are acceptable because they toe the line but suppress their citizens? There is no end to that as far as the US is concerned.
      2. What is this Freedom and Democracy we are taking about?

      Are you suggesting that when Iraq gassed, it was OK. Rumsfeld himself visited. Are you suggesting that suddenly the people found their conscience?? What is the psychology that took them that long? Were they plumb dumb? Are you suggesting that?
      I'm talking about my principles, not Donald Rumsfeld's.

      Vassal means:

      1. a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenant.
      2. a subordinate, subject, servant, slave.

      A vassal state means instead of ‘person’ substitute ‘state’. The dictionary meaning does not suggest a vassal to either free or pursuing democracy. Rather odd to be that as is being suggested that a vassal is free and also in bondage!

      >> following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime

      It does. A nation must follow her national interest. The suggestion that it’s being free to be a vassal (follower) and then decides to break the bondage is to be free!
      What is it that you think I mean by following the US? I meant it in terms of constitutional limitations on the powers of governments and the use of elections to choose leaders. That is ALWAYS in the country's national interests if you consider the people to be the country. If you consider a tin-pot dictator or an aristocratic ruling class to be the country, then I suppose its not in the national interest. And lets say you stretch "following the US" into following them in foreign policy, that's still usually in their own interests because it puts them under the US umbrella in case another country tries to do something to them. But of course they are free to back out at any time. If you think a country agreeing with the US is a vassal, then you show your bias very clearly. If your definition of free includes "disagreeing with the US whenever possible" then you show your bias.

      Under no circumstance will I condone if India invade any country just because the Indian govt decides a country is being oppressed. Let the people of that country decide. If the world community decides a country is being oppressed and want our help, we will do it only then.
      What does it mean to "let the people of that country decide"? If they are living in an oppressive dicatorship how exactly are they supposed to come to a consensus and formally ask for your help? Usually dicators don't allow their people to vote at all, let alone mark on the ballot box: Liberation. As for the UN, they have never in their history decided to act to stop oppression. And if thats your international community, then either you the think the entire world is all free and happy, or you are content to let them wallow in their oppression.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
        I'm talking about my principles, not Donald Rumsfeld's.



        What is it that you think I mean by following the US? I meant it in terms of constitutional limitations on the powers of governments and the use of elections to choose leaders. That is ALWAYS in the country's national interests if you consider the people to be the country. If you consider a tin-pot dictator or an aristocratic ruling class to be the country, then I suppose its not in the national interest. And lets say you stretch "following the US" into following them in foreign policy, that's still usually in their own interests because it puts them under the US umbrella in case another country tries to do something to them. But of course they are free to back out at any time. If you think a country agreeing with the US is a vassal, then you show your bias very clearly. If your definition of free includes "disagreeing with the US whenever possible" then you show your bias.
        I know a perfect quote for how Europeans act.

        "The only thing worst then a conformist, is a fashionable non-comformist"

        Comment


        • #64
          Who declares 'oppressive'? What is oppressive is a matter of opinion of the people. You are no one to decide because you don't live there. I find the Freedom or whatever Act made by Bush as oppressive. But then, who cares? If the Congress feels it is a necessity, then so be it. If I don't like it, then I should not go to the US. And if I do, I better obey it. Simple as that. When in Rome, do as the Roman do.

          Now I find to pay homage to God very oppressive if I have to do callesthenics five times a day and check the compass where is the West/ East (depending where you are). Does it mean I start attacking them to change them to my way of lolling in the bed?

          I don't like many things in the US, but does it mean I impose myself on them. No chance. They must live their lives they want to do and I live my way.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #65
            ZPB,

            You have not replied as to what is this Freedom and Democracy.

            Justify you contention that those who deprive their people of democracy are OK.

            What makes you feel the US policy is the best in the world/


            "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

            I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

            HAKUNA MATATA

            Comment


            • #66
              Who declares 'oppressive'? What is oppressive is a matter of opinion of the people.
              I repeat. How do we know what the opinion of the people is if they are not allowed to decide through elections? A dicator saying "my people like this" does not make it so. And even if a majority liked it, what if the dictator decides to kill or imprison those who don't? Are you saying that by some arbitrary standard that you set for them these people are not oppressed?

              I find the Freedom or whatever Act made by Bush as oppressive. But then, who cares? If the Congress feels it is a necessity, then so be it. If I don't like it, then I should not go to the US. And if I do, I better obey it. Simple as that. When in Rome, do as the Roman do.
              Patriot Act. I don't know much about it. For all I know it could be oppressive. The US doing something bad does not make it good. That is the whole point of objective reality. You don't have to like it. You have every right to complain about it. But the Patriot Act is not so oppressive that anybody I know has seen any differences in the way the country is run. Since you didn't know the name of it, I'm assuming you can't explain what makes it oppressive.

              Now I find to pay homage to God very oppressive if I have to do callesthenics five times a day and check the compass where is the West/ East (depending where you are). Does it mean I start attacking them to change them to my way of lolling in the bed?
              Is anybody making you do that? If they are, that is oppressive. If they choose to do it, but not make anybody else do it, that is not oppressive. But that is a relationship amongst INDIVIDUALS. Nation states do not have the same rights as individuals. If a nation state is oppressing its own people, that nation state loses the right to claim "self-determination" in the face of international pressure to free their people.

              I don't like many things in the US, but does it mean I impose myself on them. No chance. They must live their lives they want to do and I live my way.
              If you lived in the US, would find that you would not have to live by whatever steriotype it is you think Americans live by. They would not oppress you into acting or living like them. That is one indicator of freedom.

              ZPB,

              You have not replied as to what is this Freedom and Democracy.
              Sorry, I thought you were making a point rather than asking a question.

              I believe I adequately explained freedom through examples of what it is and isn't, if you want a better explanation, tell me, but I don't feel like writing a whole essay on it at the moment.

              As for democracy, I am only using the modern definition, as literal democracy is not desirable.

              A democracy chooses its leaders through elections held every few years, in which the government is representative of the majority. It has a constitution (or Basic Laws as some countries have in its place) which guarentee the rights of the individual which the majority is not allowed to violate, thus protecting both individual rights and the rights of minorities (as minorities are made up of individuals). In a democracy everyone is subject to the rule of law meaning that neither the government nor influential citizens are allowed to violate the law. Another common element of a democracy is a judicial system open to the public in which sentencing is carried out by randomly selected juries.

              The reason I thought you were asking this question was to imply that "as long as the people want it, its a democracy" which again raises questions as to how you know the people like it, and even if they did, what about the minority that doesn't but has no recourse to make change? In a democracy there is recourse for people who want to change the system.
              Last edited by ZFBoxcar; 17 Aug 04,, 20:39.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                I repeat. How do we know what the opinion of the people is if they are not allowed to decide through elections? A dicator saying "my people like this" does not make it so. And even if a majority liked it, what if the dictator decides to kill or imprison those who don't? Are you saying that by some arbitrary standard that you set for them these people are not oppressed?
                Majority vote is just as tyranicle, arbitrary, and immoral as a decree from a dictator.

                A democracy chooses its leaders through elections held every few years, in which the government is representative of the majority.
                I would disagree, a ligitiment Government defends our rights wether it's the will of the majority or not.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Majority vote is just as tyranicle, arbitrary, and immoral as a decree from a dictator.
                  I qualified that in the next sentence, which you included in your quote.

                  I would disagree, a ligitiment Government defends our rights wether it's the will of the majority or not.
                  I said the government is representative of the majority view, the individual is defended by the constitution. If a government is elected, it cannot help but reflect the views of those who elected it. The constitution is there to ensure that the government representing the majority does not impinge on the rights of the individual. Its all in my post, so you aren't really disagreeing with me. Well, maybe slightly, because I see a difference in responsibilities between government and constitution which should serve as checks and balances to eachother, whereas you seem to think government should merely be the interpretation and implementation of the constitution with anything else being taboo.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I qualified that in the next sentence, which you included in your quote.
                    My bad!

                    I said the government is representative of the majority view, the individual is defended by the constitution. If a government is elected, it cannot help but reflect the views of those who elected it. The constitution is there to ensure that the government representing the majority does not impinge on the rights of the individual. Its all in my post, so you aren't really disagreeing with me. Well, maybe slightly, because I see a difference in responsibilities between government and constitution which should serve as checks and balances to eachother, whereas you seem to think government should merely be the interpretation and implementation of the constitution with anything else being taboo.
                    Of course there should be checks and balances but that doesn't negate the responsibility of the Government.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Christine
                      we must remember that Iraqis NEVER asked for our help.
                      Except the Iraqi Kurds, the imprisoned adults and children, a large segment of the southern Iraqis, and the 4 million refugees. I guess they don't count to your "friend" though...
                      Originally posted by Christine
                      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                      I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Ray with regards to your question or thought about why the US went to Iraq and not Iran or Saudi Arabia. Thats a massive topic that would lead to some great debating imo.

                        Personally i feel the iraqi war was a just one even w/o WMD. There is to be discussed though whether it hurts or helps the war against islamic fundamentalism which needs to be kept on the front burner so to speak. I feel that the Bush Admin. recognized a need to entrench itself in teh middle east and taking out Saddam was the best option. I would of been just as happy going to Iran first but getting the american populace on board would have been nearly impossible. So back to the point i think the Bush administration had to move on somebody over there or risk having no hand to play with in the future.
                        We have opened an entire can of worms as Ray stated with regards to Iraq being in a sense "open" to the world and its pressures due to saddam being ousted. But the fight has to be somewhere, sad as that sounds. We just can't let 9/11 happen to us again. We work to hard for our freedoms, values, way of life just to sit idly by and wait for someone to take it from us.

                        And there's no question that this will enflame more islamic militants and even some of our allies. Truly there is no golden high road that can be taken here.

                        I believe the Western and Free world just doesnt have the capacity to understand the level of hatred the terrorists have for us. It's only a few years since 9/11 and its almost as if we purposely block out reality in a pursuit for a sense of normalcy that lends itself to our values.
                        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                        --Benjamin Franklin

                        There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.--John Adams

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          To the Brigadier,

                          Sir,

                          If I may. The Terms of Surrender of the Kuwait War were written by the US and approved by the UN. It is within the US's right to read those terms as they wish. The UN has absolutely no say in the matter, no matter what the UNSC wants to say.

                          Those terms were violated by Saddam, even by Blix's own assertion. The UN just did not give approval to the US's actions. Also, it lacked the right to disapprove the US's actions. This is not the first time this has happened - to either the US, my country, nor yours. And everybody else in the Permenant 5.

                          Those violations, each by themselves, were small but added up, they point to a direction to which I would have declared war.

                          ZFBoxcar,

                          Every country on this planet is a democrazy. People vote either by ballot or by bullet.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Every country on this planet is a democrazy. People vote either by ballot or by bullet.
                            yeah but in a country where you vote by the bullet, not everybody gets to vote! In those countries, we should give everyone a gun and an equal amount of ammunition! Its only fair.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                              yeah but in a country where you vote by the bullet, not everybody gets to vote! In those countries, we should give everyone a gun and an equal amount of ammunition! Its only fair.
                              The point I was trying to make was that in every country, the leaders try extremely hard not to force a vote by bullet. You can be oppressive but not oppresive enough that your people have nothing to lose and everything to gain by trying to kill you.

                              Thus, the decisions non-democratic leaders make are at least tolerable to the people he rules. He can never make those decisions intolerable.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                9/11 and addressing holistically international terrorism solicits no second opinion.

                                The logical route would be addressing the fountainhead i.e. Saudi Arabia and the terror factories in Pakistan (legacy of the late Zia, the President of Pakistan), Afghanistan and Iran (the fountainhead of Shia terrorists).

                                And Saddam and Iraq in this terror loop? Through a highly partisan prism, at best, one could struggle to establish a remote chance equation with terrorists.

                                Therefore, Iraq should have rated the last priority in the addressing of the international terrorism question.

                                The scenario before the Second Gulf War:
                                1. Iraq weary with the air warfare and kept on a tight lease.
                                2. Afghanistan groaning under the ‘born again’ Islamist Taliban.
                                3. Saudi Arabia freewheeling with terrorism and financing them.
                                4. Terror factories in Pakistan churning out more.
                                5. Iran blurred on the intelligence radar; producing nuclear fuel.

                                The latest scenario against International Terrorism and AQ:
                                1. Afghanistan was correctly addressed. Presently, the effort is wobbling as there is a disconnect in matching the combat punch with the potentiality of the threat.
                                2. Iraq turning a chasm gobbling up the combat punch available to fight international terrorism. Over 1000 military deaths. Weakening of the Coalition. A messy situation at best in governance and in the war effort.
                                3. Saudi Arabia has till today gone scot free.
                                4. Pakistan is addressing their terror factories and AQ operatives in isolation.
                                5. Iran merrily flexes its muscle and gleefully produces nuclear fuel and missiles!

                                Therefore, Iraq is weakest case in the fight against fundamentalists, terrorists and AQ compared to others.

                                Let’s look at the genesis of the US decision to go to war.

                                The fundamental reason was 9/11. It was a clarion call by the US to ‘fight international terrorism’. Therefore, the bottom line was INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM.

                                How come even before ‘international terrorism’ was addressed holistically, the tack changed to ‘regime change’. What has international terrorism to do with ‘regime change’? The war was supposed to be against international terrorism and smoking Bin Laden out. This flip flop has confused even the most ardent US supporters apart from some US citizens. The confusion has been confounded since the brouhaha about WMD etc has proved to be erroneous and fallacious. It is even worse with Cheney’s assertion that ‘it will be found’ even when the US team itself has indicated that there are none. Cheney is the most pathetic optimist and his vehement assertions are not beyond suspicion that he has his interest in Iraq. Sceptics feel that Cheney and his ‘neocons’ have conned for their self interest a simple soul like Bush into Iraq.

                                By going into Iraq, the reckonable military might have been dissipated. Afghanistan has blurred from the continuum. OBL runs wild and the latest terrorist ‘haul’ in Pakistan indicates that OBL was planning bigger strikes in the US.

                                In short, by pouring in the military might in Iraq, which was and is ‘toothless’, we have stirred the hornet’s nest and started spawning more terrorists instead of eliminating them. We do not have enough troops to address the Taliban elements in Afghanistan or that evil man OBL.

                                With OBL free, who is the figurehead and almost the Pope of International terrorism, he continues his jihad against the US and non Islamic countries. And because the OBL is free, US is open to more mayhem as has been established by that computer man’s data (the bloke who was caught in Pakistan). Some have been arrested. How many are still free to add to more mayhem in the US?

                                So is the US safe because instead of addressing international terrorism and OBL or UBL, the US addressed a regime change in a ‘toothless’ Iraq?

                                Oh yes, we have a scapegoat. Blame the CIA.

                                What is the scenario in the US? Fear psychosis with the alert level changing daily adopting all the colours of the rainbow. In short, the only colour providentially not available in the rainbow is Black!

                                Who am I to be bothered about many American can justifiably question me? That is true. However, when the elephant tumbles, the earth shakes – old jungle saying!


                                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                                HAKUNA MATATA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X