OT: US Pres election

[HoneyBadger]

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.

[Ballbarian]

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!)

[Trumanator]

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?

[Trumanator]

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.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Edi]

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.

[HoneyBadger]

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.

[Sombre]

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.