The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Demosthenes on May 27, 2004, 11:14:47 AM
-
Okay, keeping track of individual poll thread discussions will be confusing, so move the discussion (if any) to this thread, if you would, please.
I tried to make the questions and the options as simple as possible, and as unbiased as possible, though that's pretty hard to do for anyone, much less someone as opinionated as I am. ;)
And like I said in the first poll thread, I already had an idea of which way most of the regulars here leaned on the subject, but sometimes it's nice to see it put into simple numbers.
If a mod could sticky this thread, that'd be greaaaaaaaat.
-
Good questions.
To sum things up in my point of view:
We all agree that bush looks and behaves like a monkey. But we have mixed feelings about the war on terror and mostly the war on Iraq. So lets start with Iraq. I still think it was a good move to rid Iraq of Sadam purely based on his crimes against humanity. Any leader or government guilty of crimes against humanity should be removed from power. And that applies to the Bush administration. The prisoner torture and potential murders are apparently comming from the top down. If that is proven clearly, remove the bastards from power and put them in a cell where they belong. But I beleive in the principle of incocence until guilt is proven so I'll wait for more facts before judging.
Now we all know that Sadam and is crew aren't the only ones (former leader) who treated his people like insects. But bush wanted him removed. No matter what the cost. So they made up facts. At some point, I even think they wanted to beleive there suspicions so much that they lost their objectivity. It's kind of like when you go hunting and you shoot a partrige but when you get up close you realise it was just a damn rock. That was the first mistake of the Bush administration in regards to this whole war on terror crap, and it lead to several more mistakes which we all know about.
Afghanistan: I favour the regime change because of their crimes against humanity. In the case, the US had a stronger case. It was very apparent that Afghanistan was the terrorist capital of the world so what better place to start of the caimpaign? There's a lot of things that can be debated on the approach, but overall I think the work that was done was for the better.
Safety: The previous two actions led to increased treaths. Although the terrorist network was severly hampered both on the economics side and on the management side, it wasn't stopped. And it will not be if the current strategy isn't being recycled. How do we fight the war on terror? I don't know, but I know you can't just bully your way around each contry of the world you suspect is part of the operation. It's not economically feasable. The original strategy was great when first launched in Afghanistan. That was wave one. Now do something else. All this to say the the various operations led to many debates because no one seems to agree on that very point: What is the best approach to the solution. Error number two of the Bush administration is that they ignored these concerns from fellow governments. The UN: You don't like our plan? Up yours then. That is actually something you need to cover in your polls. Something about the UN. But this black or white approach has certainly stunned the world and angered many. So thanks to a lack of diplomacy, and an obvious lack of interest in diplomacy and unity, the Bush administration pissed the world off and now the American public, people like Nick berg, are paying for it. This so called security is going down the drain.
Election time: War on terror is certainly the main focus. But there are other things to consider. Job rates, economy, health and education programs, etc. When Clinton was at the wheel, the economy was booming, unemployement was low, interest rates were low. All he had to do to loose it all was to get Monica to suck his cock. On the other hand, Bush totally fucked up the economy, the unemployment rate has gone up and he told the entire world that if they don't like his way of doing things, they are against him and they can fuck right off. Ironically, there's still a big chance that the monkey will get re-elected and Cat will move to Canada. It makes no sense!
-
Good questions.
Thanks. Good response.
To sum things up in my point of view:
We all agree that bush looks and behaves like a monkey. But we have mixed feelings about the war on terror and mostly the war on Iraq. So lets start with Iraq. I still think it was a good move to rid Iraq of Sadam purely based on his crimes against humanity. Any leader or government guilty of crimes against humanity should be removed from power.
However, that alone is not justification for an invasion in violation of international law, particularly when flying in the face of the UN.
You all know my opinion of the UN.
But if we are going to be a member of it, we should abide by its rules where military dealings with other countries are concerned. If nothing else, when things go badly or turn sour, the blame gets spread around instead of being heaped solely on our plate.
I still feel that yes, Saddam was a heinous, evil tyrant that needed to be removed from power.
However, he was OUR problem collectively, in the form of the UN... not ours alone, particularly since no demonstrable direct threat to us from them was ever clear.
Because that I think is worth an exception to abiding by the UN's process where war is concerned. If you can demonstrate a direct threat, fuck the UN, do what you need to do to protect yourself.
But in this case, the lack of evidence was laughably obvious, the political maneuvering was desperate, contrived, and blatant, and the US and the UK had no cause to invade Iraq against the UN's wishes.
When it comes to those kinds of "regime changes", I do agree that something should be done, if nothing else in the interest of human rights, but it has to be done via the UN, not alone.
And that applies to the Bush administration. The prisoner torture and potential murders are apparently comming from the top down. If that is proven clearly, remove the bastards from power and put them in a cell where they belong. But I beleive in the principle of incocence until guilt is proven so I'll wait for more facts before judging.
I believe in that principle as well (innocence until guilt is proven), but at the same time, I would not be at all shocked and surprised to find out that Rumsfeld and Bush not only knew what was going on while it was happening, but authorized it as well.
And that sorta flies in the face of Bush's nice "we need to remove Saddam for the good of the Iraqi people" morality justification. Because if that's the case, we just replaced one tyrant with another, and this time it's us.
Now we all know that Sadam and is crew aren't the only ones (former leader) who treated his people like insects. But bush wanted him removed. No matter what the cost. So they made up facts. At some point, I even think they wanted to beleive there suspicions so much that they lost their objectivity. It's kind of like when you go hunting and you shoot a partrige but when you get up close you realise it was just a damn rock. That was the first mistake of the Bush administration in regards to this whole war on terror crap, and it lead to several more mistakes which we all know about.
Well-put. I agree completely.
Afghanistan: I favour the regime change because of their crimes against humanity. In the case, the US had a stronger case. It was very apparent that Afghanistan was the terrorist capital of the world so what better place to start of the caimpaign? There's a lot of things that can be debated on the approach, but overall I think the work that was done was for the better.
I don't think anyone really had much of a problem with our actions in Afghanistan, where the rest of the world is concerned. It was pretty clear that:
- Afghanistan was the main operating base of al Qaeda
- The Taliban (who was in charge of Afghanistan at the time) was in al Qaeda's pocket
- The US was going to react to an open act of war on its home soil, and that reaction was going to be swift, decisive, and deadly, and nobody was willing to stand in the way of what was pretty obviously a justified reaction[/list:u]
By hosting, protecting, and supporting al Qaeda, Afghanistan's ruling government (the Taliban) essentially declared war on the United States; I don't think anyone really disputes that. I sure as hell don't.
I not only supported the action in Afghanistan, but I think it should have been more on the scale that Iraq ended up being. I feel that we need to have 100,000+ troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and if necessary, lock that place down as tight as a drum while we had al Qaeda's main component there.
But we didn't. We hit them with a paltry, stretched-too-thin ground occupation force that pretty much allowed most of the meat of the enemy to escape to other countries (Iran, Pakistan, et al) and find a new base of operations.
And just in time, we created one for them by toppling the Hussein regime in Iraq and made a perfect nesting ground for terrorism there.
A recent report I read says that al Qaeda is basically stronger now than it was back in 2001. Its funds are flowing just as freely, its primary planners and leaders are planning and leading just as effectively, and the war on Islam oops I mean the war in Iraq has basically acted as an al Qaeda recruiting poster for them. People are flocking to join up.
And can you blame them?
Hate to say "I told you so", Bush, but I told you so.
And if it weren't for China reining in North Korea, we probably would be dealing with some hot Kim Jong Il action right now too, to take advantage of our current and ongoing military resource disaster.
Safety: The previous two actions led to increased treaths. Although the terrorist network was severly hampered both on the economics side and on the management side, it wasn't stopped. And it will not be if the current strategy isn't being recycled. How do we fight the war on terror? I don't know, but I know you can't just bully your way around each contry of the world you suspect is part of the operation. It's not economically feasable. The original strategy was great when first launched in Afghanistan. That was wave one. Now do something else.
Yup. The initial action in Afghanistan busted up their training network there, which was an important and effective step.
However, estimates place the number of individuals trained there prior to that to be around 20,000. Estimates indicate 2,000 or so of those individuals have been killed or captured since the Afghanistan invasion, which leaves us with around 18,000 terrorists, all well-trained, well-funded, and still largely unaccounted for.
Some of them are even known to be living in places like the United States, Canada, Panama, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and many other locales around the world.
So we've killed their training ops. What the hell do we do with the other 18,000 units al Qaeda has all around the globe, waiting and working to strike at tempting targets?
All this to say the the various operations led to many debates because no one seems to agree on that very point: What is the best approach to the solution. Error number two of the Bush administration is that they ignored these concerns from fellow governments. The UN: You don't like our plan? Up yours then. That is actually something you need to cover in your polls. Something about the UN. But this black or white approach has certainly stunned the world and angered many. So thanks to a lack of diplomacy, and an obvious lack of interest in diplomacy and unity, the Bush administration pissed the world off and now the American public, people like Nick berg, are paying for it. This so called security is going down the drain.
I agree. Whomever takes Bush's place is going to have one dilly of a pickle in repairing our relations with other countries.
Getting Bush out of office will be easily 75% of the problem being solved though. I mean ferfucksake... even Colin Powell is acting like he's embarrassed to be a part of this now.
In the unlikely event that Dubya gets reelected for a second term, I would be absolutely shocked to see Powell continue to serve as Secretary of State. In fact, I'm amazed he hasn't resigned already.
Election time: War on terror is certainly the main focus. But there are other things to consider. Job rates, economy, health and education programs, etc. When Clinton was at the wheel, the economy was booming, unemployement was low, interest rates were low. All he had to do to loose it all was to get Monica to suck his cock. On the other hand, Bush totally fucked up the economy, the unemployment rate has gone up and he told the entire world that if they don't like his way of doing things, they are against him and they can fuck right off. Ironically, there's still a big chance that the monkey will get re-elected and Cat will move to Canada. It makes no sense!
Fully expect Bush to use jingoism, nationalism, 9/11 and economic doublespeak to every political advantage he has in coming months.
-
But what about Abu Gharreeeb....ABOOO GHAHHHHRAAA....AAAAAAARRBOOHHOOOO GEBBBBAAAR...CAMP REDEMPTION?
-
Woah... Demo and I agree on about 90% of the stuff on the first run. That's unusual. Must be the avatar/sig combo.
-
Woah... Demo and I agree on about 90% of the stuff on the first run. That's unusual. Must be the avatar/sig combo.
I'm guessing that's probably it. :lol:
EDIT:
I mean, OMFGLOL!!11
-
Oh, and I love it when the Pentagon is like totally surprised at things coming out of the White House (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734).
And people wonder at my knee-jerk mistrust of government. :roll:
-
I think it's interesting that, so far, we've all been in agreement. I'm waiting for xolik to post.
-
Well, I rather expected us mostly to be on the same page here, even our friends who visit teh Geekery (OMFGLOL!!1) from Canadia and the UK.
I didn't expect it to be quite this one-sided, but then again, that's why polls like these can be innerestin' once in a while.
-
Everything you guys have said is wrong.
:P
I actually haven't read the second or third posts in this thread yet.
-
I've changed my mind,
I forgot that I was running, so I'm writing in myself, not voting for the Libertarian candidate.
-
US Justice Department: "No, seriously guys. It's like, dangerous right now, or something. Really. We're not just saying this because Bush's approval rating is falling like a stone." (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=2&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_threat)
:roll:
And in other news, Bush says: "Hey, I know... let's stretch the men and women of our armed forces to breaking point, bring hundreds of them home in boxes with flags on them, and then let's cut veterans' benefits!!" (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=5&u=/ap/20040527/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget_cuts)
-
Good questions.
To sum things up in my point of view:
We all agree that bush looks and behaves like a monkey.
Well, not everybody. Yes, I've seen that hi-larious photo with the side by side examples, but that can be done to anybody. I'd like to try to show the President some amount of respect, if anything due to the very nature of his position. This goes for every Pres....Clinton and Reagan included. I'll agree with you if\when Bush gets ticked off at a press confrence and starts flinging poo at the reporters.
But we have mixed feelings about the war on terror and mostly the war on Iraq. So lets start with Iraq. I still think it was a good move to rid Iraq of Sadam purely based on his crimes against humanity. Any leader or government guilty of crimes against humanity should be removed from power.
Agreed on this. I wonder if things would have been different if right from the get-go Bush presented his case to the U.N. as "Look, the guy's a real dick and he's been ignoring all the resolutions you hand down to him. He's got to go." Instead of "Mr. Saddam, my name is George W. Bush. You tried to kill my father. Prepare to die!" uh, I mean "WMDs!!! Gas, dirty bombs, missles, rabid cats, you name it, he's got it and he's going to use it on the U.S. RIGHT THIS MINUTE unless we invade!"
And that applies to the Bush administration. The prisoner torture and potential murders are apparently comming from the top down. If that is proven clearly, remove the bastards from power and put them in a cell where they belong. But I beleive in the principle of incocence until guilt is proven so I'll wait for more facts before judging.
Indeed. If Bush gets linked to knowing of these 'methods' and approving of them, then he should be in a world of hurt. However, I honestly think he didn't know what was going on. Rummy on the other hand.....
Now we all know that Sadam and is crew aren't the only ones (former leader) who treated his people like insects. But bush wanted him removed. No matter what the cost. So they made up facts. At some point, I even think they wanted to beleive there suspicions so much that they lost their objectivity. It's kind of like when you go hunting and you shoot a partrige but when you get up close you realise it was just a damn rock. That was the first mistake of the Bush administration in regards to this whole war on terror crap, and it lead to several more mistakes which we all know about.
I'm not entirely convinced about the whole 'let's make shit up and see if it sticks' theory. If it turns out they got all their info from the one exiled Iraqi dude that they just invaded the office of and ran with that, then that opens up a different fault. That would be not bothering to check your sources. If this guy comes to you and says, 'yeah, I worked in mobile chemical weapons labs and my buddies here can back me up on this.' right when you're thinking about a good reason to invade, then you're going to go with it. He totally jumped the gun either way, but I'm fuzzy on the whole made it up part. To me, it's more like a 'this is what I want to hear, so find me somebody even slightly credible to say it and it'll be good enough for me' deal.
Afghanistan: I favour the regime change because of their crimes against humanity. In the case, the US had a stronger case. It was very apparent that Afghanistan was the terrorist capital of the world so what better place to start of the caimpaign? There's a lot of things that can be debated on the approach, but overall I think the work that was done was for the better.
I favour the regime change just because of what they did to those historical stone Buddahs. Bastards! I don't care if you think they're false god idols or whatever you want to call it, they've been around for ages and have extreme historical value. That plus my boyfriend is Buddhist and was really ticked off when he heard the news. Bastards.
Safety: The previous two actions led to increased treaths. Although the terrorist network was severly hampered both on the economics side and on the management side, it wasn't stopped. And it will not be if the current strategy isn't being recycled. How do we fight the war on terror? I don't know, but I know you can't just bully your way around each contry of the world you suspect is part of the operation. It's not economically feasable. The original strategy was great when first launched in Afghanistan. That was wave one. Now do something else. All this to say the the various operations led to many debates because no one seems to agree on that very point: What is the best approach to the solution. Error number two of the Bush administration is that they ignored these concerns from fellow governments. The UN: You don't like our plan? Up yours then. That is actually something you need to cover in your polls. Something about the UN. But this black or white approach has certainly stunned the world and angered many. So thanks to a lack of diplomacy, and an obvious lack of interest in diplomacy and unity, the Bush administration pissed the world off and now the American public, people like Nick berg, are paying for it. This so called security is going down the drain.
Yes, there is a severe lack of diplomacy going on here. I just can't support a 'fsck the world, we'll do what we want. Nevar forget!1!1!!' attitude. Fighting a war against terrorism is a great idea, but not going to wash in reality. How can you fight a faceless enemy? If there was a country called "Terror-land" that we could attack to end this problem, then it could be done. There isn't. So now we're going to run around the world and fight everybody? If that's the case, can we start right here at home first? I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sick of being terrorized by gang members. I sick of being deatlhy afraid of walking down the street after dark. Why don't we take out the trash here at home first before we start running all over the world? Yeah, I see the whole 'if we don't do anything, they'll fly planes into our buildings again' thing coming a mile away. We don't have to abandon going after well known targets. Training camps in Sheepfukistan? Bomb'em. Have a known location of a wanted terrorist? Take'em out. My point is to not forget about your own citizens local problems while you're out playing superhero.
Election time: War on terror is certainly the main focus. But there are other things to consider. Job rates, economy, health and education programs, etc. When Clinton was at the wheel, the economy was booming, unemployement was low, interest rates were low. All he had to do to loose it all was to get Monica to suck his cock. On the other hand, Bush totally fucked up the economy, the unemployment rate has gone up and he told the entire world that if they don't like his way of doing things, they are against him and they can fuck right off. Ironically, there's still a big chance that the monkey will get re-elected and Cat will move to Canada. It makes no sense!
Too many mixed reports about economy going up\down\sideways right now. Same with unemployment. First I hear it's the highest in ten years, then the next week it's suddenly the lowest in twenty years. I can only go by what I've seen and expereinced personally, and so far I'm doing well as are the people I know. I'm not exactly qualified to make a judgement as to if the economy is good\bad\Cyric help us all. As for telling the world to piss off, yeah. He certainly did do that. And it's going to take a long time to rebuild normal relationships with those countries again. Now, about this moving to Canada....why is it that when people, especially famous actors\singers threated to 'Leave the U.S. if Bush gets elected' don't follow through? I think, personally, that's a pretty idiotic thing to say. I'm sure as hell not leaving my birth country in a hissy fit over who got elected. Especially since I know that I can call Bush all kinds of names and not get shot in the head or dragged off into the wild night by the secret police for doing so. I love America, regardless of who currently sits in the White House. The leader may be an ass for four or eight years, but the country as a whole is pretty damn sweet. I don't think I'd want to live anywhere else. Except maybe for Thailand. Hmmmmm....Thai food....**drools**
-
Just got this in the LP newsletter:
(actor Dean) Cameron is also the inventor of the “Bill of
Rights, Security Edition” for
travelers -- the first 10 Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution printed on
sturdy, playing card-sized pieces of metal. The
product is designed to set
off the metal detectors in airports and force
airport security to “take
away your Bill of Rights.”
I need to get me one!
-
Just got this in the LP newsletter:
(actor Dean) Cameron is also the inventor of the “Bill of
Rights, Security Edition” for
travelers -- the first 10 Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution printed on
sturdy, playing card-sized pieces of metal. The
product is designed to set
off the metal detectors in airports and force
airport security to “take
away your Bill of Rights.”
I need to get me one!
What's this supposed to accomplish, other than making everybody behind you pissed off at you for delaying everybody even more just to be 3dgy? Yeah, I know. I'm in a mood today. Sorry.
-
Sorry you're in a pissy mood today. I hope things turn around for you.
-
It's finals time. So I'm in a tizzy right now.
-
Just got this in the LP newsletter:
(actor Dean) Cameron is also the inventor of the “Bill of
Rights, Security Edition” for
travelers -- the first 10 Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution printed on
sturdy, playing card-sized pieces of metal. The
product is designed to set
off the metal detectors in airports and force
airport security to “take
away your Bill of Rights.”
I need to get me one!
Which one of the ten amendments is increased airline security taking away? (I mean maybe the fourth amendment, but airport security searches are not unlawful and they're by no means unreasonable.) If it made any sense at all, it would be clever, but I just don't see a connection.
That and Xolik has a good point.
-
Lol @ "Sheepfukistan"!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Personally, I think it more novel to carry one of those around on one in case one gets arrested via a secret warrant issued by the secret court via the PATRIOT act.
Of course, you probably won't have it on you when they bust down your door in the middle of the night while you're sound asleep, but who knows? Maybe you can wave it in front of them before they tackle and handcuff you!
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
What ever the reason is, don't click here (http://www.geekforum.org/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=1631.19;msg=58083).
-
I'm new and don't know much about you guys or gals, and yes I did just use the word gals but I figured that you peeps would welcome an opinionated geek like me but if not oh well blast me with the best flames you got, I'll reply when I'm done Laughing :lol: :lol:
Flaming is against the new rules. Yet, ironically, the new rules say NOTHING about forbidding idiotic posts!
Go figure.
-
Sorry, I am still new, but if this guy ^ has -29 karma how is he still on here? Also how do you get +karma points? Is it more karma for less idiotic posts?
Thanks for help in advance.
-
In looking at the older posts on this thread all of a sudden \s have been inserted prior to any apostrophe. They weren't there the last time I read this thread. Chris are you being a cheeky monkey?
-
That's funny!
-
Yeah. Waldo's post doesn't have the slashes. Maybe 7ames is posting from the past when \s were inserted before apostrophes. That could explain it.
-
Sorry, I am still new, but if this guy ^ has -29 karma how is he still on here? Also how do you get +karma points? Is it more karma for less idiotic posts?
Thanks for help in advance.
Pft -29, that's nothing.
-
Sorry, I am still new, but if this guy ^ has -29 karma how is he still on here? Also how do you get +karma points? Is it more karma for less idiotic posts?
Thanks for help in advance.
Pft -29, that's nothing.
Heh. +1 for the funny. :-D
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
Oh, the hilarity of it all.
-
The worst part about his is that when I began reading this thread, at the first post, I also began forming an intelligent argument. But after reading the last page and a half, I've completed forgotten what the thread was about in the first place and have reason to suspect that the part of my brain that was interested in the subject has been saturated.
-
Yeah, threads pretty much stray all over the map around here. :lol:
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
Why did you post that in this thread?
-
That's about enough of that.