War on Iraq: Bush is gettin pwned

[|MP|Buccaneer]

So don't criticize me for using the well accepted generalizations of the US political system.

I'll criticize anyone for using stupid, over-generalizations.  You, as a so called "liberal" should be against them.  Stereotypes and over-generalizations hold back as much progress as anything.  

No kidding, the more you write, the more you sound conservative.  You back the popular "ilberal" causes like socailism, but your reasoning smacks of "conservative" labeling.

So, be liberal, don't use stereotypes, leave those for Rush.

The only reason they are going for "partners" is to make it look like a "united nations" action - only without the official U.N. sanction

I disagree, and have said why many times.  So why do you think that?

Some Pollak, Chez or Hungarian ex-commies will make absolutely no different on a battlefield that will be a bombed out city landscape.

You are assuming, like many, that Iraq will be bombed back to the stoneage.  It's only an assumption.  Could be right or wrong.

I am a little better informed than most of ya on afghan issues and besides kabul and khandahar all other cities are as unsecure as before. western funds are not comming in as promised. and many gouverneurs who have been elected in the west have no sympathies among the people who live in their provences. Medical Care is still devastated, Shools not rebuilt, all in all its almost as bad as it was under the taliban (without hyperreligious bullshit. but still not even water or electrical light in 85% of all areas!)

Ok, so it's only a little better there.  Can I ask why it's the USA's responsibility to make it much better?  Afghanistan was a completely different issue then Iraq.  That was an old school (if one sided) war.  Agree that the government was supporting terrorists or not, or that the USA over-reacted or not, It is a different discussion.  None of those things means that the USA "owes" Afghan's anything, does it?  

I think that yes, many countries (not just the USA, but European nations and Russia as well) should help out the Afghans.  Help build schools, build infrastructure.  Help the people in the ways they themselves think they need it.  As long as they, in turn, agree to not harbor terrorists (not much of a price tag).  I think it would be a great thing.  But I don't think anybody "owes" them.  

[|MP|Buccaneer]

thats why i hope we can disarm the almost disarmed irak without bloodshed under the iraqi civilians (also those who will be dragged into the iraqi army, as cannonfodder and to save some republican guard asses)

I completely agree with you.  I hope it doesn't come to war.  But I don't have a lot of hope that Iraq will do enough to stop it either.  

i still say - send in a sniper *bang*, saddam dead. make it look as if some "internal clan struggle" was behind this. whats the problem? never watched james bond or something?

i say IF we say its okay to violate U.N. right then lets violate it this way.
at last it only killes one asshole instead of a lotta poor people.

a) James Bond is a joke.
b) Our government has admitted that they don't know how to find Saddam.  They believe that he hasn't actually been seen in public for years.  He's well known to use body doubles, since so many people are out to get him (this goes back to well before the first Gulf War).  And, for anyone that believes it's as easy as the movies, you should read more non-fiction.  I can reccomend two very good books on what we can and cant do ("The Puzzle Palace" is a great one).  But, case in point, we can't find Bin Ladin either.  It just isn't that simple.
c) Everyone and their cousin would know where that bullit came from, it may as well have "Made in the USA" stamped on it, with a picture of the jackass, I mean the President.
d) It's more then a UN rule that we can't assinate a head of state.  And while the government has broken the law, two wrongs don't make a right.  
e) why doesn't anyone else do it?  He's hated by more then just the USA.  Every country out there has snipers that could do the job, if it were as easy as you make it sound.  

iraq is a laught, the only state wich could be hit is israel. i guess this is one of the reason the u.s. wants to smash iraq as fast as possible. protecting one violent regime from another one. funny. or is it the oil? or is america really more scared from saddam than from a osama b. (whos still not found.) what a efficient war against terror.

Bander, I'm for enforcing the UN resolutions and it has nothing to do with Oil or Isreal.  I could care less about either one.  

Just because you can accuse us of being that stupid, doesn't make it so, especially when you are given other reasons that you haven't (or can't) refute.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

European arrogance isn't what is playing world police.

No, European arrogance is saying we should ignore it, like they did, and we've all seen where that leads before.  

I've seen just as much ignorance and arrogance from the Europeans as I have from the Americans.  So I'm saying that the writer needs to get off his high horse too, because he was being arrogant as well.

And that's what I said.

He is not saying that the French are supreme, he is saying that it's weird how you Americans suddenly jump on them when they've always been the same.

So tell me what this means then:
"The French supremity and unpredictability has always irritated the French allies. "

That isn't saying that the French are supreme?  I asked if that was a mistake, but if it wasn't, he sure as hell said France is supreme right there.  

As for suddenly jumping, I'd say Americans make fun of the French more then they do of the Canadians (and we only joke about Canadians because they are like little brothers).  The "sudden" part I think is that it's made the media.  Because so many of us are outraged by them selling out on Turkey like they did.  But, if you look at my comments, I've said that France has always been the stick in the mud of NATO.  

Their only problem with helping Turkey was that it would be like a sign to the world that the war had already started.

I call BULLSHIT for one reason.  This wasn't asking for troops, weapons or anything but planning for defense.  Planning for defense is somthing that should be a part of peace, all the time.  It wasnt even to ok US troops going there, it was just to plan for defense incase of an attack BY IRAQ, not by the US.  

So, planning for defense is not a sign that war has started.  That's just an excuse that France and Germany are using to try and apply political pressure on the USA.  And I cry bullshit because it was Turkey that requested it, not the USA, and they should have listened.  Otherwise, what the hell good is it for NATO to exist?

He's pointing out that you both have been grateful for a lot but that it's history. Both countries have their history to be grateful to the other about. But now when many Americans are playing on the ?France is ungrateful? line, the French get angry because they shouldn't have to agree with you just because of that.

I don't think the French should have to agree with us because of WW2.  I know some stupid Americans do, but not all.  I doubt even the majority do (as long as you phrase the question right).  But I think that France should also be more tolerante of Americans as well.  Last time I was in Paris, it's not like I was made to feel at home, like when I was in other countries. (a small example, just to show the point.  First time I was in England, I tipped the bartenders.  They explained with a smile that I shouldn't, it wasn't propper.  That I could buy them a pint if I wanted.  That was their way.  In France, I asked for some Ice in a beverage, which I've come to learn, isn't the norm in most countries I've been to.  But I still like it.  Let's just say it was no smile, but insults that I couldn't follow, but my companion could.  "stupid americans" was muttered often when I was in Paris.  But I never heard it in England or any Spanish speaking countries I've visited).

So, from personal experience, the French could be nicer as far as I've seen.

And on the bigger picture, they should have supported Turkey's request.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Well that's what I mean, perhaps it doesn't fit on you, because you're slightly more enlightened than the average Joe who would scream ?COMMIE? without a second thought.

I ask it again, where does that come from?  How many Americans have you met that scream "commie" without a second thought?  Other then Spaz here in the forums, how many have given that attitude?  That Europe should change?  

I've seen a bunch of comments about how America should change, but not about how Europe should.  

You are using a stereotype, and one I don't think is near correct.  The real war against communisim ended in the 60's.  Everything after that was lip service.  Communisim was just a handy buzzword for a long time after is all.  But, with just about anything done to "fight communism" after that time, you can find many more pressing reasons as to why it went on.  Kinda like how Bush is using the word Terrorism to do some things that aren't really related to it, because he can.  (I've often said right thing for the wrong reasons, and he does wrong things too).  

Anyway, My point is, I don't see Americans saying Europe should change it's political systems at all.  I see us not like the French for some reasons, Germans for others, but it has nothing to do with their forms of government.  So, who's screaming Commie?

He's not really saying that the European way is better, he's not saying that America should adopt our way, he's just saying that atleast we don't try to push our way onto others.

I don't know how you don't get that he's not saying the European way is better, when he is mocking our vacation process amongst other things.  He sure comes off saying that the European way is better the way I read it.  

Like I said, he's welcome to that opinion, and I'm glad he lives there so he can be happy.  But I'm not mocking his way of life, he shouldn't be mocking mine.  I like it this way.

And who is America pushing to adopt it's ways?  America influences many many nations, true.  For lots of reasons.  But who are we pushing?  When was the last time?  If it's "free elections" cases, that's the European way too.  You guys believe in "free elections" as much as we do.  

Well just look at any of Bush's speeches, they all end with ?god bless us all?.
I just get disgusted when I hear him saying stuff like that and thinking that God MUST be with them and no one else. I feel like puking just thinking about it.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why people find this offensive.  God Bless us All means only Americans?  And wait, even if he said "God Bless America", does that mean God is on our side?  NO.  I still say "Gob Bless You" when someone sneezes.  Does that mean anything?  Does that mean I'm taking his blessing away from someone else?  

If you believe in God and his blessings, then I was taught that his blessings are bountiful.  Without end.  That calling down his blessing isn't the same thing as saying "God is on our side."  Funny, but that's what some of the misguided terrorists say (misguided because that's not what Islam says according to the Iman's).  Wording is important.

If you don't believe, then it's gibberish that means nothing at all.

What's to get offended about?

A Frenchman is not convinced that everyone should be like him, that's rediculous.

Just as rediculous as saying an American is.  

This guy does not have a very big mouth, he's quite moderate on everything actually.

Well, if you translated that correctly, and I'm not doubting that you have, I can see that in as bad a light as anything Bush has said.  I'm reading it, I've just re-read it.  He comes off making implacations that the European system is better, and that Americans are pushing their ways onto others (as if France hasn't done enough of that in the past too).  The tone of that article mocked our ways, and came from the 'naturally superior' Frenchman.  GAG

So, I see it differently then you do, does that make me wrong and you right?  Are you right about things Americans say and me wrong?  Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?  That maybe, due to language differences, Bush isn't saying thigs as bad as you think, and neither is this guy as bad as I think?  Or, Maybe your culture judges my culture just as harshly, and we both don't see it from our sides?  

Whichever the case, I'm just giving you my point of view on the article as it stands now, and I haven't heard anything different yet.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Zaitsev, if you posted like that all the time, you'd catch very little shit.

[kami]

Ah, should be ?sovereignty?, not supremity. Sorry about that mistranslation, I'll comment on the rest another time.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Its not an issue on political slant or the grades of a Republican's or Dem's point of view. It's the fact that they are a social/political group. As such, they are united in goals. They are a unit.

I don't agree with this.  It's too high level for how complex it is.  You can't label all Republicans as being conservative nor all Democrats as being liberal.  That's the combination of party and ideology, which is not always the same thing.

Also, it discounts that often, the individuals do not function as a unit.  Not every Republican votes to support the Republican side of things, and same with the Democrats.  Otherwise, the only bills ever passed would be from the side with the most seats.  That is just not the case.  

Add to all this, that it seperates the groups into the two extremes, disallowing for the middle ground, where many do exist.

and there are more conservative, republican appointed judged on the supreme court. I think there is no better example of proof in regards to the Supreme Court's right-leaning than their interference in the recounts in Florida and their subsequent handing over of the office of the president to Governor Bush.

Republican appointed and Democrat confirmed, correct?  Just like the others were Democrat apointed and Republican confirmed.  

And I couldn't disagree with you more about the Supreme Court's actions in the election case.  They aren't there to change the laws, just make sure that they are applied correctly.  I think they did a find job of that.  And I really didn't want Bush to win.

How do you think they acted wrong in this case?  

Additionaly, its is an absolute truth that on the average Republicans are more right leaning (i.e. "Conservative") and Dems are more left leaning (i.e. "Liberal"). Both parties trumpet this. Being a Republican is thus by default the essence of not being liberal -and if you are not liberal, what direction are your politics oriented?

Now, all the rest of your post is really wrapped up right here.  If they aren't Liberal, what are they?  Cna't you be a Moderate?  That is a valid political classification from all my poli-sci classes.  So, if they aren't liberal, they could be either conservative or moderate, right?  and if they aren't conservative, they could be liberal or moderate, correct?

What I've been saying is that you can't take the THREE classifications of Liberal, Moderate, and Conservative and devide them up into TWO political parties and just toss out Moderates.  How does that not make sense to anyone?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Here is the point Bucc...while not all Democrats are liberal, the Democratic party is.  While not all Republicans are conservative, the Republican party is.

You can make those claims just like you could say Greenpeace, PETA, etc are liberal groups while Focus on the Family, NRA, etc. are conservative groups.

[tasty]

Oh, the supreme court. They put the country's "stability" over democracy. That's what they did wrong. Talk about conflicts of interest. Clarence Thomas' wife was a high-level consultant to the Bush campaign. Scalia's sons were part of the Florida litigation team fighting for the Bush campaign to have the recount stopped. As far as I'm concerned these two justices should have abstained from the vote, making it 4-3 in favor of recounts and the democratic process. On a seperate note, does anyone else find it bothersome that the Supreme Court has conservative reactionary judges (Scalia, Thomas) but no judges with significant liberal biases (by significant I mean as obvious and strongly held as the biases of Scalia and Thomas)?

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Oh, the supreme court. They put the country's "stability" over democracy. That's what they did wrong. Talk about conflicts of interest. Clarence Thomas' wife was a high-level consultant to the Bush campaign. Scalia's sons were part of the Florida litigation team fighting for the Bush campaign to have the recount stopped. As far as I'm concerned these two justices should have abstained from the vote, making it 4-3 in favor of recounts and the democratic process. On a seperate note, does anyone else find it bothersome that the Supreme Court has conservative reactionary judges (Scalia, Thomas) but no judges with significant liberal biases (by significant I mean as obvious and strongly held as the biases of Scalia and Thomas)?

How did they put the countries stablity over democracy exactly?  What exactly was the piece of law that they ruled on?  They don't make the law, they rule on it.

So let me quote from you the supreme court's findings:

"A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State.  The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by the statute (statute number omitted).  The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26.  We granted certiorari and vactated the Florida Supreme Court's decision, findin considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based."

Now, to the facts.  Bush won the first count by a very small margin.  By state law, a second machine count had to be conducted.  It was, and came back with Bush winning again, but by a slightly smaller margin.  So, according to state law, they called for a manual recount in counties that protested.  The date that these had to be done by was also set by law.  The Secretary of State, who could have extened the deadline, didn't (for obvious reasons).  The Florida Supreme Court stepped in and extended the date.  The US Supreme Court was then contacted, and vacated that extension, because they could find no legal basis for the Florida court to do it.  

In other words.  They did their job.  Just like they were supposed to.  They aren't supposed to change the law, but uphold the existing laws (and checking for conflicts within).  There just wasn't any legal reason to extend the deadline.  

I'll also point out that in every count, Bush won Florida.  

So, while I hate the outcome.  I see no reason to blame anyone but the system.  I think the Supreme Court did what it was supposed to do.  The only person that can be pointed to at all was the Secretary of State for Florida, who's actions came close to criminal more then once.  (she did try to block things that she couldn't)

[tasty]

I'll also point out that in every count, Bush won Florida.  

Here is a quote from Scalia on why a recount was unacceptable: "a recount might cast a cloud upon what the Bush campaign claims to be the legitimacy of his election". As if Bush's mere claim to the election matters, or were enough to settle the issue.

Also, many consider the conclusions reached by the recounts to be unfair. The recount included only 60,000 of 175,010 uncounted votes in Florida. It excluded overvotes - including teh nearly 8,000 butterfly ballot votes Gore lost to Buchanan in Palm Beach County and 7,000 similarly mistaken ballots in Duval County on the ground that a ballot containing two choices could not be given to any candidate. There was also the muddled controversy over the rejection of black voters on polling day. Statistics from the Florida election show that one in every seven African-American votes statewide were set aside as invalid. This is ten percent higher than the white vote, even when statistically controlling for differences in education, income, and voting experience. If the two races were equal in this regard, 60,000 more black votes would have been counted, and I think we all know which candidate would have gotten the better deal out of that (93 % of recorded votes by blacks in Florida went to Al Gore). Black and poor precincts tended to have more antiquated voting machines that malfunctioned more often than the ones in wealthier communities, a fundamental disparity in the fairness of our electoral system. In both 1999 and 2000, Jeb Bush pursued an aggressive purging of the state's voter rolls to remove the names of voters who had died, were double-listed, or were convicted felons. Although this is a legal (and justified) operation, it has been reported that blacks were targeted in Florida by the Bush administration and that many who had the legal right to vote were removed from the list.

This is why I believe Florida was unfair. You already touched on the actions of the secretary of state in Florida, so I don't need to go there. I got my facts from the books Jews for Buchanan and The Eagle's Shadow, just so you know that I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Tasty, I'm not refuting that what happened in Florida (calling it an election is a stretch).  

But, what I am saying is that the Supreme Court of the USA did everything right.  They did their job, and didn't overstep their authority (which had to be tempting, given the FUBAR state of things).

The Florida Supreme Court fell into that trap.  

So, why were only a rough third of the votes being recounted?  Point that finger right at the Secretary of State for Florida.  More counties called for them, but she turned them down.  She followed the letter of the law (which is why the courts couldn't step in), but she abused her power.  She had the ability to allow more recounts and more time.  But she didn't.  And, by Florida law, she didn't have to.  

As for that Scalia quote, you can go to the Supreme Court's web site and pull down the PDF's of all their findings and decisions, with their full comments.  It's where I got mine.  (with no editorial spin from any books).  Try those out.  

While I believe that Florida was fucked, I don't think you can call the Supreme Court conservative based on that at all.  Even thought I hated it, they made the right call.