OT: US Pres election

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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.

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.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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.

Originally Posted by quantum_mechani

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.

[lch]

Originally Posted by lch

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.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by lch

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?

[Agema]

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.

[Trumanator]

Originally Posted by Agema

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.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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:

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!

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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.

"Treaties" is sloppy wording on my account, apologies - I would refer more to breaches of international conventions, unilateral actions, refusal to sign up to international courts and so on. Had the nuclear bunker-buster funding been pushed through, that would I believe have breached non-proliferation treaties.

I wouldn't call abstinence a backward social practice per se. It was in the name preventing HIV/AIDS because it caused successful tactics that were being used to reduce infection rates to be ditched. Abstinence failed to work as was widely expected by research and expert opinion - stopping people having sex is a bit like stopping people drinking alcohol, and we know how prohibition worked out. Therefore it meant many were condemned to HIV in the name of blind ideology.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Agema

I wouldn't call abstinence a backward social practice per se. It was in the name preventing HIV/AIDS because it caused successful tactics that were being used to reduce infection rates to be ditched. Abstinence failed to work as was widely expected by research and expert opinion - stopping people having sex is a bit like stopping people drinking alcohol, and we know how prohibition worked out. Therefore it meant many were condemned to HIV in the name of blind ideology.

Actually, to clarify a bit - teaching abstinence is a bit like treating heroin addicts by telling them "not to do it".

I find it awfully funny when people argue that you "can" "potentially" get pregnant while using contraceptives. Well, this is entirely true. You can also be killed in a car accident while wearing a seatbelt. We wear seatbelts AND condoms not because they are 100% guarantees of anything - but because we're not going to stop driving and copulating.


Tell your own children not to have sex - see how well that works out for you. But when you interfere with other people taking saner and more effective approaches to the problem, then YOU are causing more unwanted pregnancies with your enacting of policy. If you want to see less abortions, then DO something about it - by allowing people to make meaningful steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

This is a prime example of why our founding fathers wanted all religious doctrine kept out of government. Religious freedom relies on no one particular faith imposing their own doctrine on the non-or-differently-believing citizens of the nation. If religious extremists keep voting along doctrine lines, and trying to force their belief systems on others, sooner or later the collective masses of those who disagree are going to start sanctioning that particularly overbearing religion. Then what? Will you all resort to terrorism when everyone else makes perfectly clear that they are tired of hearing about it.....? Hmmmm.