OT: Election 2004

[Atrocities]

I became disillusion when I started reading philosophy back in 2000. It was then that I discovered that nothing matters for in a 100 years non of us, or what we have done, will matter. This is simply the way thing work and have always worked.

Our voices will fade into the dim recesses of history and only the actions of those we elect will be remembered.

So we must insure that those we elect to lead us lead us well.

I like GW and would like to see him re-elected, however I am upset over some of the choices he has made and lack of involvment in important issues like Enron, and the energy crisis scams. Telling us that Manufacturing jobs were on the rise when in fact it was BURGER FLIPPER jobs that was on the rise was to say the least insulting.

But given the choice between Kerry or Bush, I would have to go with Bush. Kerry is just not the right man for the job at this point in the game.

[Combat Wombat]

I think this is a good place to end this thread.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Randallw:
I personally have become disillusioned with the world recently. I used to think it was good versus evil. But lately I come to realise its realy everyone for themselves. We have countries going to war because of information which afterwards turn out to be false, or at least so far. We have the survivors of the holocaust , or Shoah, or endlosung, saying "never again" to their murder and persecution and crushing all opposition or assasinating enemy leaders. I'm not against this stuff, we need to stop those who threaten our dominant culture or the rights of the Jewish people to their homeland. It does show that things aren't black and white though. I just think its loyalty to your culture and the strongest will be the victor.

That's the difference between the way the world works and the way it should work.

[Atrocities]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:
I think this is a good place to end this thread.

[AMF]

Originally posted by Perrin:
I will now ask the question that others who are on the other side have asked? Where are the WMD's?! The world knows that he had them. That is why the UN resolutions existed. He agreed to destroy them. But to this day know one know what has happened to them. If it was me and I was complying with the agreement to destroy something I would open my doors and invite all to see that I was getting rid of them. (Bonfire party at my place) If Saddam had done that he would still be in power today.

This is the easiest one to answer. Thought experiment: you're an evil dictator. You rule your people through fear, and you intimidate your enemies abroad through you military might. The US and the UN treat you gingerly, and continually demands you get rid of your WMDs "or else." Why would you do so? What is the motivation? No one, not anyone, belevies you when you tell the US you don't have them. And it is in your local and geopolitical interest to keep everyone thinking you do have them. So you play a standard game of brinksmanship with the US: telling them you don;t have WMDs while not correcting anyone who thinks you do. That way you keep your populace in check (those kurds don't wanna get gassed again!) and keeping your enemies at bay (Iran, Israel, etc...).
Unfortunately, in this case, the US called your bluff and, oops, you didn;t have them all along. QED.

It's the EXACT same reason the Israelis' let it "slip out" twenty years ago that they had a nuclear stockpile. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it sure as heck helps them if everyone THINKS they do...

Old adage in politics and war goes something like: "a secret weapon is no use if it's secret" - ie: deterring your enemies can;t be done if your hole card is secret....

So, no, Dorothy, there are no WMDs in Iraq, and after the sanctions there never were. But it sure as heck was in Saddam's interest to walk that fine line whereas everyone thought he had them...

[ March 26, 2004, 01:30: Message edited by: alarikf ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Combat Wombat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Not to mention biting off about half of Mexico in 1848-50. Everything south of roughly Colorado, from Texas to California. Let's see, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, most of Utah, and California. A very big chunk of land taken by conquest.

That land wasn't exactly taken at the demand of the US goverment, mexico let US citizens settle in their territory then the settlers decided they didn't lke being part of mexico so they revolted and broke away, Texas was even its own country for awhile before they applied to join the Union.

---

Oh, the US citizens moved to a foreign country and then called for the US to come take it over instead of picking up guns and invading directly. This changes the injustice of taking half of Mexico in what way? Yes, Texas was technically 'independent' from Mexico but had not settled its borders when it decided to join the US. When annexing Texas, the US simply claimed all of the land that was in dispute as part of the US, touching off the war. There is no way around the fact that it was US aggression.

[Lord Chane]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
P.S. I disagree on the concept of a military leader is a better leader. I think that civilians should run the country... To keep an eye on the military.

Not a military leader but a leader who has been in the military. Those who haven't are less likely to understand the horrors of war and therefore a bit more likely, in my opnion, to get involved in one. Civilians do run the country. It's impossible to be in the military and in elected office at the same time.