.com.unity Forums - OT: US Pres election

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Intel Forum Bar & Grill (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=70)

- - OT: US Pres election (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40622)

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by lch (Post 640095)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumanator (Post 640060)

Iraq has almost finished Al Quaeda. Afghanistan might have hurt them, but the losses they took in Iraq to no discernable result killed most of their support and destroyed a large portion of their leadership.

Oh please. Do you really believe that? The Iraq war was an invasion of the country by the USA army. I don't expect the people there will forget that. What would you do if your country would have been invaded by a vastly superior military force and thrown into chaos for years to come? Would you attempt to understand the ulterior motives of the attacker? Doesn't seem so given the 9/11 reaction.

Since I can't edit my own post anymore:

Al Quaeda isn't that much of a threat, anyway. It won't be able to triumph over the Juggernaut that is the USA. It didn't even manage to make it backpedal or slow down a little, like they might have hoped by attacking its supposed "financial heart". It merely gave it a pretense to fight a war with support of its citizens, help the president in charge keep his place, pass some unpopular laws and manage to put drastic public surveillance into use.

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by lch (Post 640095)

Quote:

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani (Post 640061)

And aside from that, I find it a little chilling how easily nationalism clouds the way casualty figures are read. I mean, regardless of if the war is an ultimately a 'success', hundreds of thousands of died. It is difficult to imagine that _not_ having the Iraq war would have had even vaguely comparable numbers in total human deaths. I realize the inevitable comeback here is 'But saddam killed people', but it is exceedingly doubtful he would have wracked up even close to the death count by being in power the last few years.

I am stumped by that everytime, too. The CNN calculated that the 9/11 attack killed 2,973 non-terrorists. That's a tragedy, for sure, but as a number it really isn't that much. Compare that to the death toll of war - among citizens, not soldiers, again. Or to the death toll from natural catastrophes. How are those three thousand lives any more valuable than other human lives? The 9/11 attack came as a shock, of course, but the reaction it caused was largely hysterical. It's not like Al Quaeda or anybody else would be able to start a real war or even fight on US American grounds then or at any time in the future. Judging by what they can do, almost everybody is safe from terrorists.

Why, you make it sound as if we're more likely to win the lottery, get struck by lightning, die in a train wreck, or give birth to triplets - than to die in a terrorist attack! I mean, ummm, wait.....

O.o

Not to downplay what US led/hired forces have directly caused by way of loss of innocent life in Iraq, it makes me wonder how many people our presence has indirectly caused, by increased strife and sectarian violence in the nation. It has to be far more than died in 9/11. People who also were just trying to live their lives, killed by terrorists because of our military actions. Yet those numbers are not only almost invisible in the media, but when people even see them, or are made aware of the reality - they want to wave it away, and dismiss it.

I think it's important to note that most of those people did not support, nor take pride in the single noteworthy terrorist attack on human soil, much as most Americans did not support, nor take pride in our wanton invasion of a largely innocent nation. Even if we all somehow manage to agree that Saddam himself was SO vile, so despicable that he simply had to be forcibly removed - it's highly unlikely that the current state of affairs, in Iraq, or globally as relates to world view of America would have actually been any worse than they are now, had we simply evacuated from the country to let THEM pick up the pieces from the damage that Saddam caused. Right now many of them are probably wishing we had just left Saddam in power, because they would have largely been safer and more comfortable than they have been these last several years.

They often go without running water or electricity - and they conduct their daily lives with the everpresent threat of somthing just randomly exploding - how is that freedom?

Re: OT: US Pres election

I was faintly interested by a comment earlier by Trumanator stating that the Americans were there to elect a leader for themselves and the rest of world didn't matter. This is true. It's an American election for Americans. However, Americans should consider world opinion, because the USA's ability to express its power depends on the rest of the world.

George W. Bush has managed to alienate not just traditional enemies of the USA, but even its friends. Confidence in the USA in Europe is probably lower now than ever before. It's not just belligerence over Iraq, Iran, Georgia and so on. It's the contempt for international organisations and treaties; denial of climate change; advocating backward social practices (abstinence to stop AIDS, anti-abortion, Creationism etc.). McCain-Palin looks like much of the same to the world.

US power, in relative terms, is declining. It's not just economic and military might, but political power due the loss of international prestige and credibility as above. For instance, whilst the British supported the USA over Iraq years ago, I do not think it's people would do so now if a similar position arose. I know lots of Republicans have contempt for the rest of the world, even fairly friendly nations. But the USA's allies grease the wheels of its power by supporting them militarily, diplomatically, and in many other ways. It's possible they would not cooperate more and more in future if there is continued GWB-style leadership. That will leave the USA increasingly diminished by isolation.

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by capnq (Post 640092)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumanator (Post 639972)

Eh?? 1: Who else could you vote for.

You could vote for whichever of the fourteen "third-party" candidates have managed to get on the ballot in your state.
I'm actually hoping that we Republicans suffer such an embarrassing defeat at all levels of government that it will shake most of the deadwood out of the party leadership. That will give the Democrats four to eight years to demonstrate that they're equally incompetent at running the country, hopefully leading to a similar purge on their side of the aisle.

Well, don't bet on it, I for one am fully expecting a Mcain victory. However, I suggest you go out and vote democratic if you would really rather Obama wins. ;)

Re: OT: US Pres election

Yeah, I really don't get the couple of comments saying some variation on:
I don't vote or vote third party but I hope X wins.
Someone early one said voting for either was a waste, but McCain winning would prove how pathetic American voters are. Huh? How does that make sense?
If you want someone to win, vote for them.

And if you really do despise them both, look at your more local elections. You've got more influence there, since there are fewer other voters and those will often have at least as much influence on your life.

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agema (Post 640128)

George W. Bush has managed to alienate not just traditional enemies of the USA, but even its friends. Confidence in the USA in Europe is probably lower now than ever before. It's not just belligerence over Iraq, Iran, Georgia and so on. It's the contempt for international organisations and treaties; denial of climate change; advocating backward social practices (abstinence to stop AIDS, anti-abortion, Creationism etc.). McCain-Palin looks like much of the same to the world.

I'm not entirely certain which treaties you're talking about, but go ahead and fill me in. I continue to stand by my opinion that the climate change issue is mostly hysteria. Calling abstinence and anti-abortionism backward social practices is just wrong though. The simple truth is that abstinence is the only 100% sure way NOT to get AIDS. Yes, condoms and such can help, but they don't always work and aren't always available. You guys are talking a lot about the cost of the Iraq war, but over 3,000 people die every day in the US because of abortions. Don't give the whole "when life begins" argument either, its simple biology, the real question is when do human beings get basic human rights.

PS- that bullsh-- about Wasilla police charging rape victims has been thoroughly debunked. There is absolutely no record of the police doing that. It is possible that the private hospital's did so, but that is the hospital's fault, not the mayor's.

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by thejeff (Post 640145)

Well if you were referring to me I didn't say that I hoped McCain will win, I said I think he is going to win.

I want someone to win, but I don't want that person to be either McCain or Obama, so I won't be voting for either one. The pathetic electorate will vote for them though, and one of them will win. Even though there is essentially no difference between the two of them in as far as having actual meaningful changes occur in washington.

And I agree, vote local first, which I do, but the topic of this thread is US Pres election afterall...

Re: OT: US Pres election

You did say McCain winning would "show how pathetic the electorate has become", which implied to me that Obama winning would not.

Re: OT: US Pres election

We are going deep towards flame-war territory here, but I'll risk another post.
True: abstinence is the only 100% sure way NOT to get AIDS.
Surprisingly, telling people not to have sex has remarkably little effect on their sex lives. Abstinence works. Abstinence only sex education doesn't. This is seen in the US with teen pregnancy rates rising again after 8 years of gutting actual sex education and pushing abstinence. Teaching it doesn't work.
I'm not touching the abortion issue at all.

Oddly the climate change hysteria seems to be strongest among climate scientists and weakest among oil company executives. Though even they are starting to come around. The biggest problem is that the effects seem to be happening even faster than the hysterical claims predicted. The unprecedented melting of both Arctic and Antarctic ice caps is just the most blatant evidence.

As for your PS- I've seen no such debunking. If you're going to call BS, I want a link. And to something at least as reputable as the major papers that have carried the story.

Re: OT: US Pres election

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumanator (Post 640150)

I'm not entirely certain which treaties you're talking about, but go ahead and fill me in. I continue to stand by my opinion that the climate change issue is mostly hysteria.

Y'all know that McCain is a global warming true-believer, right? His proposals to "fight" global warming aren't as radical as Obama's proposals, but he does want to do something about it. Voting against McCain because you're a global-warmist doesn't make sense ... he agrees with global warming.

George will made a great point about global warming back in 2007:

Quote:

The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets:
1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

For the record, I agree with Point #1. So I suppose you could say that I believe in global warming. However, I'm very far from convinced on the other five points, and you need to agree to all six points in order to agree with the current hysteria.

For an alternative to the hysteria, check out We Get It!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trumanator (Post 640150)

Calling abstinence and anti-abortionism backward social practices is just wrong though. The simple truth is that abstinence is the only 100% sure way NOT to get AIDS. Yes, condoms and such can help, but they don't always work and aren't always available. You guys are talking a lot about the cost of the Iraq war, but over 3,000 people die every day in the US because of abortions. Don't give the whole "when life begins" argument either, its simple biology, the real question is when do human beings get basic human rights.

Thank you for saying that. If condoning the deaths of thousands of innocent children every day is "forward-thinking," then I'll be happy to move backward.

On the original topic: I'm voting for McCain. No pro-choice politician will ever get my vote, especially not someone whose position is as extreme as Barack Obama. The other factors -- experience, strong defense, conservatism -- are important to me, but they're side issues. I simply won't vote for abortion.