OT: US Pres election
 

Hopefully I won't regret starting this discussion.
I was wondering if any dominions players have opinions about the election that I am watching in my country.
Please try not to trash each other please.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I am of the opinion that voting for McCain or Obama is a wasted vote as they both serve the same interest.

Voting for anyone else is the only sane choice.

Otherwise, McCain is going to win, which just goes to show how pathetic the electorate has become, or continues to be, depending on just when you think the electorate moved from misguided to pathetic.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Eh?? 1: Who else could you vote for. 2: What interest are they serving?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I tried to sanitize this for the boards but you really need the last word to get the full nuance of the philosophy, which I think sums up U.S. politics beautifully:

"Same crap, different asswhole."

Anyway, I am voting for Obama

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

1) Me.

2) Corporate interests.

:rolleyes:

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well, I guess I have more faith in the differences between parties. At any rate, my vote's with McCain. Not that it will help since I live in the socialist republic of Washington state....Well, its not that bad but my vote still won't matter.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

That C'tis priest king has my vote...What country are you from again?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I find it hard to believe that anyone who is well informed about national+world affairs could possibly vote for McCain. I'm not pushing Obama, but the McCain+Palin ticket just seems like an expensive prostitute with large hands and an adam's apple.

:shock:

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Trumanator, lets both agree to not vote since we'd cancel each other out anyway and we can save ourselves a trip to the polls.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Oh I'm an American. And you may soon find my presidential candidate rhetoric to by incredibly ironic. Don't touch that dial. ;)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

And here comes Morrison...

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well, as far as I'm concerned Obama just doesn't have the qualifications. The whole "world opinion" argument really doesn't hold water with me, since we're not electing a world leader. I think that you elect whoever's best for YOUR country. Sorry, but there's quite a few countries that I don't respect their government that much.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I do think the differences are pretty stark this cycle. Granted both candidates are more pro-corporate and more pro-American imperialism than I like, but there are still vast gulfs even there.

McCain plans to continue and extend Bush's policies. Sure he talks about being a maverick and shaking things up, but anything specific is right down the same path: win the war, bomb Iran, deregulate the economy, tax breaks for the rich. It's worked so well for the last 8 years, why not continue. And even his Republican colleagues think he's got a nasty temper. So add that to the mix.

Obama's far from perfect, but he's smart as hell and actually appears to take the problems we're facing seriously. And his solutions aren't meaningless pandering like a "gas tax holiday" or massive corporate giveaways. Less experience, but what is experience for if it doesn't give you good judgment.



Regardless, for those in the US who haven't yet: Register to vote. The deadline is coming up in most states.
And then ignore the media, the pundits and the campaign ads. Go and find out what they candidates say they'll do and how it matches what they've done. You have an internet. Use it.
Then go vote.
Don't forget about the local elections either.

[This has been an unpaid political announcement. We now return you to your brewing flame war.]

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

It's old hat to say this, but with Palin on the ticket that argument holds a lot less water. I am personally terrified of the idea of of Mcain winning and a heart attack later having Palin in command.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Exactly.

Palin might start driving the witches out of Washington then :(

Jazzepi

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well the problem being that the US has in fact tried to take on the mantle of "world leader". I'm not so much talking about their collective opinions per se (somehow humanity puts more focus on opinion than truth, probably because it's easier to find!), but the fact that the nation is not a self-contained entity, and in fact cannot sustain itself in our current style without very deep relations with many other nations.

So what we are faced with today, is that everyone (especially our leaders, who should not be so) tends to be a bit shortsighted, because the scale of world relations has grown so rapidly over the last few decades, that it is hard to fathom.


It's for this reason that I don't run around screaming about how cool Obama is. Also because of the incestual nature of our political system - but mainly because his concept of change is to do the same things, in different ways. The only actual hope that he gives me, is that he inspires such hopefulness in so many others, that maybe people really will recognize a better way if it is offered to them, and we can finally grow up. Not just as individuals, or as a nation - but as a global entity, because that is what humanity is now, and we can never go back to our childhood.

<3

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I was going to leave it with just my one post. It's much too easy to get sucked in to political debates, but ...

QM, as far as I'm concerned you could end that post with "the idea of Mcain winning."

I'm no more scared of the so-out-of-her-depth-she-can't-be-allowed-to-talk-to-media Palin as president than of a President who's demonstrated as much bad judgment and bad temper as McCain.
Palin was a last minute unvetted pick that did a brilliant job of shoring up his lagging support among the social conservative base and stealing the political spotlight after the Democratic convention. But was there anything beyond the immediate political consideration? Any thought to whether she could actually do the job? That's McCain's judgment right there.
And the idea that she could draw Clinton supporters just because she was a woman? How insulting is that?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well, I think US foreign policy is already preordained in the bigger sense; Slowly withdraw from Iraq, reinforce/help the situation in Afghanistan, confront Russia and Iran in non-violent ways (any talk of war with either is just hooplah)strengthen economic ties with China, improve America's tarnished image etc.

So my vote is going to Obama purely for domestic reasons, I don't like republican policies which give big business a free pass and enrich the already super-wealthy. Also I'm a social liberal, which pretty much means I won't ever vote Republican :)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

John McCain is 72. I wouldn't trust him to drive a car, never mind run the world's superpower.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Well no matter how insulting it seems to you, the polls are definitely showing a swing in women votes. TBH you don't pick a VP for anything but political reasons. In that sense, Palin completely changed the race from going through the motions to an actual race. I'm not sure how much Obama was thinking when he picked Biden, the most concrete point about him is that after half a dozen presidential runs he has never gotten more than a sliver of the primary vote. I am fully with you on the educate yourself part though, this season has brought the media out of the closet and into the open as the biased crapshoot it is.
As far as McCain's judgement goes...at least he doesn't count raging pastors, unrepentant terrorists, and socialist radicals among his friends.

PS- I really hope we can avoid personal attacks in this thread, I don't want to get it banned. Not that anyone has yet, but I want to make sure it doesn't happen.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

That's why our presidential process is a complete farce to begin with.

This 2 party system is a great competition between "bad" and "worse", that helps keep people distracted from any issue deeper than those that are directly confronted by the 2 candidates themselves.

Meanwhile, it's well proven that about 70% of what any presidential candidate promises, they will never even attempt to follow through on. And the 30% that they do, is all the stuff you were just willing to overlook, because the stuff you wanted to happen, was in the other 70%.

Screw voodoo economics, we have fully graduated to voodoo politics.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Obama for me, baby! Obama!

The Bush Administration has driven the Federal Govt. and the USA into a fetid cesspool of sludge that trickled down from their neocon policies (e.g., trashed the Federal budget, ruined the USA's relations with its allies, snoozed at the helm of regulatory agencies (or simply gutted them), gave tax and other breaks to their business cronies, grabbed unconstitutional powers in the name of fighting terrorism, lied to the people to start a war over oil, etc.), and it's hard to believe that McCain would not bring more of the same. But, alas, I am not one of those middle-ground "independent" voters. (Actually, I think it would be good to tweak the electoral system to break up the duopoly of the 2 major parties.)

I remember when folks mused that there was little difference between Bush and Gore. Some voted for Nader, which helped Bush win. I dare say that the USA would have been in much different (better) circumstances if we were coming to end of an 8-year Gore Administration. There is such a thing as good government (e.g. FDR Admin.), and I think history will eventually show that the Bush Administration has been one of the worst.

Thus ends my rant. Whew! :)

Pasha

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I think McCains choice to research up the conjuration tree and summoning Palin put him back in the game. His lack of paths is hurting him though and he will regret his choice of going thaughtmaturgy instead of construction. Obama is putting his sacreds to good use and is skillfully using his lead in Enchantment to race to the end game. If he is able to pull off an Arcane Nexus the gem income will be too much for McCain, even with a fully equipped Palin running around...

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

:D:D:D

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Remember that Palin's Awe simply doesn't do much against the sort of troops that Obama is producing. And she doesn't mesh much with the mostly undead strategy that McCain has inherited. But, he should have Tartarians soon, so Obama's neglect of his priests (even if they are heretics) could hurt him badly.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

^very nice :laugh:

I find it intriguing how people can revile Bush as an idiot and yet at the same time believe that he had the guile to bamboozle 3/4 of the fairly even Congress. As for deregulation leading to the current financial crisis, thats actually backwards. So much pressure and regulations were brought to bear on lenders to provide loans to people who were not going to be able to pay them that the mortage meltdown was almost guarenteed. As for an 8 year Gore admin... I wouldn't be surprised if we had gone through half a dozen attacks. Unless 9/11 was a conspiracy too...

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Not to mention Obama's high position lamashta

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

:soap: Well, I won't say whom I will vote for. I feel it is a private matter and no business of others. I will say that the liberal people that I'm associated with feel its okay to hate people that differ from what they consider PC... Yes I live on the left coast and its full of haters. I agree that you should do as much research as possible and make a vote for your children and their children. Don't be filled with anger or fear. Use your brains, not your feelings. In closing I say vote all the bums out, they are all corrupt. all corrupt thru and thru. How else did they get the money and the machine to get elected. Sorry about my rant but the abject theft of money, property, and liberty is quite visible from my perspective. I live in a land that is going the way of the Weimar Republic. I fear that our people have been told its okay to hate and fear people that don't view the world the way they do. Be rational and hold on to the truth. :rant:

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Vote 3rd party, any party it doesn't matter.

Continuing to vote for more of the same is just retarded. And don't kid yourselves into thinking that Obama is going to change anything. He's beholden to the PACs to the DNC, to the lobbyists the same as any other democrat or republican.

The issues don't matter, they are just a smoke screen to hide the truth. The truth that the democrats and republicans only care about promoting and prolonging their power. Campaign promises mean nothing, rhetoric means nothing, the only thing that matters is the continued existence of 2 party rule.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Ha, Dominions has been the only way that I've been able to understand the US's position on global warming. I think it is like casting Burden of Time when you have young mages and a good gem income; it hurts you, but it hurts you relatively less than it does other nations who are relying on older mages and high gold-provinces.

Oh, and I'm voting for Nader again. You fools go ahead and throw your votes away on Obama.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Sounds like you're a dedicated member of the Republican Party. I didn't accuse Bush as being an idiot. I actually think he and his administration are smart people who knew exactly what they wanted.

With all due respect, it sounds like you misapprehend the whole dynamic of mortgage backed securities. In the late 1990's and through 2006 (maybe even 2007), there was a dramatic shift in lending practices once the whole mortgage-backed securities concept was developed. The entities that were initiating the mortgage loans did not intend to keep the loans. They were to be sold to Wall Street, and then sold to more investors. So, the initial lenders had little worry about whether the borrower could afford the loan or was trustworthy. (Compare this to the more traditional arrangement of a bank lending money to a home buyer and retaining a mortgage for the life of the loan.)

As these loans became more and more profitable (because there was *a lot* of money to be made), there was increased pressure from the free market to find more borrowers. After the sources of responsible, reliable borrowers were tapped out, the mortgage industry needed to lower their standards for qualifying borrowers for loans (e.g., shifting from documentary proof of income to no such requirement). Again, there was no concern for the loan originator, because they planned to sell the loan to Wall Street. They just wanted to collect their initial financing fees, which were substantial.

To keep the customers coming, the industry devised inventive types of loans to get less loan-worthy borrowers into higher priced homes (e.g., adjustable rate mortgages and interest-only mortgages) that eventually trapped borrowers who bought homes that they probably should never have purchased. For example, the adjustable rate mortgage would have a 2-year teaser rate that was more affordable, and when the rate eventually adjusted after 2 years, the monthly payments would jump up substantially. (I think it is a two way problem. The home borrower was not paying attention to what he/she could afford, and the loan originator was pushing to lend as much as possible (to get higher fees) while disregarding the likely ability of the borrower to repay.)

In the end, we're now facing a crisis of millions of defaulted loans that are the basis of huge Wall Street investments. The problem was exacerbated by the runaway housing market and the difficulty in fully understanding and keeping tabs on the investments, because numerous parties would have fractional shares in the bundled up mortgage backed securities. Again, the pressure was from the free market. It was *not* from any regulators forcing Wall Street investment banks into buying mortgage loans.

Thus ends my second rant.

Pasha

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

considering that the arctic ice cap GAINED mass over the last year I think that the US position on GW might end up the most prudent.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I think the problem is exactly as you've stated, and exists at an institutional level in America. We have a system focused on shareholders, not stakeholders; so there is an incentive ONLY to make profit, regardless of the results. That is the reason we have crisis after crisis after crisis.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

what? we don't really know what's going on? so let's just keep plugging away? maybe we can think of some sham stuff to keep people distracted long enough for us to rape the earth a little more? who cares about the future, we're rich and getting richer, so our grandkids don't have to worry about the place getting trashed. family values... for our family, not yours.

I think even those who held out the 'ice caps' growing stuff realized it was a complete fallacy to the actual situation; a simple distraction. ice caps growing because the warmer seas create increased moisture and increased snowfall on the icecaps.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Northwest Passage open up this year? Like, the Northwest Passage through the arctic that we've never been able to pass before without using giant ice breakers?

Ah, here we go. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...aarctic131.xml

Again, please do correct me if I'm wrong about this, I've only spent a couple of minutes looking at this particular issue.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Hmm, ok, a few minutes more yields this:
http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees...ticle12851.htm

which is more ambivalent in its findings.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

We can't predict the weather a week in advance accurately. Yet we're expected to believe the "projections" that are months or years in the future. I'm all for alternative energy and such, but more because of foreign oil dependence than the global warming hysteria. Besides, if you look at history, warming trends show up all the time, and have often lead to great prosperity. It really doesn't help that those who are always telling people how to treat their land DON'T ACTUALLY LIVE ON IT!! Some Berkely professor (no offense intended) thinks he's a better steward of the land than the farmer who actually lives on it.

Aside: Sorry Pasha for making assumptions about you.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Who am I going to vote for? Simple: Cobra Commander. The problem with America isn't that the leaders we elect are too evil, it's that they're not any good at being evil. The man could stamp out terrorism forever via a network of satellite-mounted mind-control lasers, protect American foreign interests with robot snakes that shoot knockout gas from their mouths, and he's got vast amounts of experience commanding actual armed forces, as well as several brief tenures as overlord of various island nations and sections of the US.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I don't know where you got this from, but it's outright false. The Arctic sea ice has been consistently losing overall mass, even if there has been some localized increase in isolated places. The Greenland glaciers are receding at an alarming pace.


As far as the US elections go, a vote for McCain can most charitably be characterized as utter irresponsibility. His campaign promises aside, a closer look at his actual platform has made it clear that he intends to continue the same policies Bush and Cheney used for the past 8 years to drive the US to the ground. He has run a campaign of outright lies and character assassination while avoiding giving any kind of factual positions on issues. He is old and in poor health and stands to leave Palin as president if he croaks. Palin's record as the mayor of Wasilla and later as governor of Alaska is a record of division, mismanagement and cronyism cast from exactly the same mold as the Bush administration. She just happens to be a hockey-mom and to possess the "just like us" factor, which is going to sway more gullible voters.

The problem with the "just like us" factor is that ideally the leaders of a country shouldn't be like Joe/Jane Sixpack, but more intelligent, more educated and more aware of the world around them.

The recent financial crisis is just one more mark against the neocon and Invisible Hand of the Free Market risk socialists who have been at the helm for the last 8 years. The Republicans pushed complete deregulation of the financial industry through in 1999 and now that all of the profits of the last few years have been privatized while they built up the current mess, they seek to socialize all of the losses on the taxpayers. They even had the audacity to put it in the draft that the Treasury Secretary (aka Paulson, a former investment banker) would have sole authoirty to act as he saw fit (mostly in the interests of his Wall Street buddies) and that anything he did would not be subject to ANY judicial review.

There is also one factor to the "world leader" and international relations aspect of this election: The US touts itself as the leader of the free world and assumes that it is regarded as such. The current administration's idea of international relations has been "We expect unquestioning obedience and you will do as we say or else!", which has not gone over very well with the rest of the world. Electing McCain would be seen as a deliberate decision to continue Bush policies.

Up until now the rest of the world has made a pretty marked distinction between regarding the current US administration as a bunch of corrupt, venal screwups but not extending that same assessment to the American people. Americans are considered good guys oerall, but with a bad government. Elect McCain and the international opinion will start shifting in the direction that all of the negative perceptions of the current American government will be largely transferred on the American people as a whole. That would mean that Americans would be assumed to be navel-gazing, warmongering, belligerent morons by default and only once an individual American had proved himself to be otherwise would they be extended the benefit of the doubt. That's how bad perception of the US currently is, even among the populations of many allied nations. The governments of those allied nations will never say this out loud, of course, but private citizens do not need to hold their tongues the same way.

These are just some of the reasons I would like to see Obama win the elections. He has shown competence and he would go a long way toward mending the strained and torn relations between the US and the rest of the world. He also has a substantive platform on the issues that is not geared toward benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor and the middle class (which is pretty much an endangered subspecies of the population due to Bush's policies).

This is one view from abroad, though I daresay that I am fairly well informed on what goes on in American politics.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

The media goes for the throat whenever they they find weakness in either Party. The media frenzy over Palin is simply because you can put her in an interview and embarrass her with almost no effort (for example, when tossed the softball question "what do you think of the Bush Doctrine" and she didn't even know what it was... that was comedy gold, even after she is on record stating "I don't know what a Vice President does" just a month before her nomination).

The fact that the Republican Party tries to demonize the press as the "biased liberal media" every time the press catches them doing something embarrassing ... well, it is very sad that this kind of rhetoric works on the American people.

Feel free to Google "mccain pastor", "mccain terrorists", and "mccain socialist". There are some choice links to articles on the first pages of each of those searches.

---------------

In case you didn't notice, I prefer Obama. He believes in the rule of law and is not trying to take away my civil rights (like Palin's confessed desire to reverse Row v. Wade).

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I'm voting for Obama, for the simple reason that he's the most intelligent candidate. That's all I care about-that the President's brain be of the highest caliber possible. Everything else really doesn't matter.

As far as Bush being an idiot-he was and is. Don't kid yourself that he isn't-he can't string a sentence together, on a consistent basis, even if it's being fed to him-but he is an idiot surrounded by corrupt people, and corrupt himself, and the son of an intelligent, powerful, and knowledgeable father-also corrupt. I personally would prefer the term "malicious idiot", but "idiot" suffices, and is more easily proved.

Just because he's an idiot, though, doesn't mean he can't do harm, or allow harm to occur when it's done at the hands of his supporters.

And Gore would have been a better choice. Don't kid yourself there, either. Bush didn't do a damn thing to protect us from terrorists. He didn't even know how to respond to a terrorist attack, and Hurricane Katrina was proof enough for anyone how ineffective the Bush administration has been at responding to threats to this country. And that was just bad weather.

Bush's response to terrorism was to ensure the safety of his Saudi Arabian friends (and the country of Saudi Arabia, because that's where all his Saudi Arabian friends keep their stuff), to concentrate his efforts on grabbing and holding on to as much oil and money as possible, panic everyone as much as possible, and erode our constitutional laws.

To put it more plainly: he made bad choices for this country, and good choices for himself.

If we accept that Gore was a mediochre, vanilla, average choice, we can then suppose (purely for purposes of speculation) that he would have made mediochre, vanilla, average choices based on what was obvious, straightforward, and needful in the short-term.

I put to you the argument that *none* of what Bush did was intuitive, or obvious, or what a reasonable person would have done in his place. He made choices that fit the agenda of himself and his party-*not* choices, even bad ones, that fit the needs-either short term or long term-of the United States. He acted, from internal motivation. He did not react.

So saying that Gore would have, or should have, been *worse* than Bush, when he's otherwise untested, is illogical. It has no basis in fact, and no reasonability to the argument.

Saying that Gore would have in some way, in the role of President, spurred additional terrorist attacks, is again a fallacious argument, with no basis in fact. Bush's family is an oil family, with close friends in the middle east. His father is the ex-director of the CIA. If you *entirely* discount, erase, and don't draw a single conclusion from George W Bush's Presidency, you're still left with atleast those three *major* motivational ties to the Middle East.

Terrorists didn't attack when Gore was vice President, they attacked when Bush was President.
That gives Gore 4 years of experience serving as second-in-command in an administration that operated under as close as possible, the same political environment as Bush was dealing with. 4 years of learning what to do, what not to do-and what does *not* result in terrorist action against this country.

Gore-as we know-has an interest (however self-aggrandizing you may decide that interest to be) in global warming. And a key to helping stop global warming, scientists seem to agree, is to reduce our dependency on oil (whether it be foreign, domestic, or somehow otherwise). The less oil we need, the less reason we need to involve ourselves, atleast directly as an economical force, in the Middle East. The less directly we involve ourselves in the Middle East, the less motivation for Middle East terrorists to target us, when they can more easily and cheaply target closer and less powerful enemies.

Gore-as we know-served as the Vice-President under Clinton. One of the things Clinton was best known for, was being a supporter of the Black community (and a Jazz musician, for that matter). Hurricane Katrina was a disaster that most affected the poorest citizens of New Orleans-who were mostly Black. This gives atleast some amount of indication that if Gore had been President, he would have had more interest-and more motivation-to aid the citizens of New Orleans (aside from any and all other considerations, one of the centers of Jazz music.).

So there exist publically known, personal motivations for Gore to have functioned-if not better, atleast with stronger conviction-during both the terrorist crisis, and during Hurricane Katrina. Maybe not the strongest ones, but ones that relate to those events.

Ofcourse, the final proof is that Bush *did* act badly when put into a position of power-whereas Gore, as Vice President, did not, in any noticeable way. They otherwise both served as governors, and both had powerful Presidential role-models-Bush, in the form of his father, and Gore, in the form of Clinton.

And my personal feeling is that Bush coming into office was a motivation for 9/11. That it occurred for the same reason that we removed Noriega from office when the Panama Canal was about to change hands-just as we foresaw a harmful administration, and an enemy of the U.S. coming into a position of greatest power in a country important to us, so too did the terrorists foresee a harmful administration, and an enemy of their interests, coming into the position of greatest power, in the U.S.

As annoying as Gore might be (and his wife, even more so), I seriously doubt that he'd have confounded and enraged a bunch of Middle Eastern fanatics to the same degree as the son of the most powerful oil/political/intelligence dynasties in the entire United States (who-did I mention? are close friends with the Saudi Arabian royal family.), especially considering that he and his family have been leading the war effort *in* the Middle East, since atleast 1990.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Not speaking as a Moderator, but rather as a Dominions forum junky:

Thanks for bringing the political debate to our friendly game forum. Let's just say that my views on the subject would not be popular, but I have no problem with others stating theirs. I just wish that this discussion would have been started in the Intel Forum Bar & Grill.

I get my fill of politics from many other sources and would have likely participated had it been located elsewhere. Now, that said, I will move on and not look back. No hard feelings. You know I love you good folks! (Even you evil undead folks!) :)

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I did not say that Gore would provoke more attacks, I meant that he probably would have been content for it to be a "domestic" issue. Personally I would much rather have the terrorists get slaughtered in Iraq than have the probably more even casualty ratio that we would have here. As for Bush being an idiot, refer to my above post. Him doing what he and his party believed was best would probably have something to do with them being the majority party= more Americans support them than the other guys.

The argument that the most intelligent man makes the best president would make sense...except that Richard Nixon was a very smart man. So was James Buchanan, so was Jimmy Carter, and they didn't exactly lead to great success abroad did they?

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This is so fun.


I will concede that my info about the ice caps was in passing, I probably shouldn't have stated it as fact. However, the reason the US is the presumed world leader has a lot more to do with the realities of economics and world peacekeeping than arrogance. The US is still the worlds largest economy I think, and provides the vast majority of forces to any kind of peacekeeping operation that the UN orchestrates. I don't know what you think but as far as my limited knowledge of other governments goes I think that you could describe the current French, Italian, and German governments as somewhat "pro-american" to use the media phrase. Not to mention that I have yet to see a useful idea come from the international community as far as terrorism goes. The main idea seems to be capitulate and hope they leave us alone.

The "Bush Doctrine" question was crap. Charlie Gibson himself got it wrong. The very inventor of the phrase has explained how there have been FOUR different versions, and that the current iteration is the "spread democracy" philosophy.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

This attitude is so baffling to me. I mean, the vanishingly small percentage of people willing to cross continents to commit acts of terrorism (not to mention with the means to do so), compared to those willing to - as they perceive it - fight to liberate their occupied country is just extreme. I'd also note that at the Iraq war passed 9/11 in American casualties some time ago. That's completely apart from the even very conservatively hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead... it's hard to believe most of those were militants.

And even if you assume those fighting in Iraq have the will or the means to commit such acts in the US, the amount of security you could buy with the cost of the iraq war is mind-boggling.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

Uh, the majority of the militants in Iraq were actually foreigners, and after the Sunni Awakening it became even more drastically so. As to the civilian casualties, nearly all of them were killed by militants, not US troops. Another point is that while here in the US the people dying would be innocents, the soldiers in Iraq volunteered to be part of the military. 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. If we can convince the Pakistani's to help us take care of them in the tribal regions, they really will be finished.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

So you are saying that most (or at least a significant percentage) of the people fighting in Iraq would be actively attempting to stream into the US to commit acts of terrorism? I find that extremely hard to believe- that many people don't become terrorists out of nowhere, if US wasn't under siege by them before 9/11 they weren't all going to suddenly come to the US afterwards.

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.

And this is really getting on a tangent here but it's my rant and so be it ;) : It really bothers me in general people's horror at suffering in their own country as opposed to the rest of the world. The epitome of this to me is charities... the idea of giving to charity to help some kids softball team instead of starving people is almost unimaginable, yet it's a choice people make on a daily basis.

Bottom line, even assuming not invading Iraq would have caused more terrorist attacks (which I have a hard time believing), I don't think I could say that the Iraqi dead are worth any less than those theoretical American victims.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I moved this to the Intel Forum Bar & Grill because it really does belong here. There is a redirect at the Dom3 forum that will expire in one month.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

It's not intentional, Quantum Mechani, it's instinctual. Human brains are just not designed in such a way for us to automatically care very much about more than the people in our immediate surroundings. We're not hardwired to properly process pain and tragedy on a global scale. Any additional compassion we may feel towards people in other countries is supplimental and beyond the normal human scope of interest.

It's a bit like reading a book in a foreign language-it's obvious that a book ought to be read in the language of it's author, but it's not automatic that we do so, if it's not a language that we read. Even if we find a copy in our language, something probably gets lost in the translation.

You can probably name somewhere around 150 people (or less) who's funeral you would attend. I doubt you could name 15,000. And there's upwards of 7,000,000,000 people on the planet. It's a little hard not to generalize, when it comes to the sheer scale of humanity as a whole.

Re: OT: US Pres election
 

I don't vote, never have and never will. It is an exercise in futility when all the parties are essentially the same, you don't believe in the system and beyond that don't even care who is in power, because they are unable to change anything anyway.

I just completely ignore them. It's quite common in the UK. When they say nearly 40% of people aren't voting, they mean 40% of people who actually registered to vote. Most apathetic people like myself don't bother to register.