Bush vs Kerry, worldwide perspective...

[cO.gabe]

Sorry Gabe, I only have my degree in Geography and Environmental Science, what would I know about global warming...I conceed to your brilliant knowledge *rollseyes*

First of all, what does Geography have to do with it? Second, what I said is a plain fact, not some ingenious realization I've pulled from the depths of my mind.

And, btw, I'm not saying global warming is a fictional concept.

[bronto]

maniac is an example of an impressionable mind molded into a fucking tool, believing everything the government controlled media would have him believe. ghostsniper just needs something real to grasp. i'm sure if he could see his country being destroyed, he might believe it (depending on weather his puppet strings are loose enough to allow him to sway just a little bit). it is too late for the US to end this hatred against them, they already armed israel and helped them gain a sense of superiority. but it is still possible to make wrongs right. if israel is destined to defend what they believe in until the end of time, then so be it. this is not our war...or is it? no one knows anymore, the jews definately have a lot of influence in US government, and god knows they have their own agenda.
i was thinking how lovely it would be if we could just shoot all the power hungry hateful scum bags onto the moon. let them battle for their territory up there. that way, those who know better could enjoy life and the earth we were given the way it was meant to be enjoyed. truth is, we are steadily destroying ourselves, and those who govern allow this to happen. we are relying on our technology to save us, when it is quite obvious science has failed us. we spend far too much time trying to understand things that are insignificant from a wider perspective. all of man's problems today were created by man. no one can deny this. we are disgusting race. those responsible should be ashamed. some of you people just make me fucking sick.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Im not saying thatGlobal warming does not exist.. I'm saying the main cause for it is not what the Governmeant is telling everyone it is. The CO2 is a small part of it. But the gov uses it as the main cause to try to hide what they are realy doing thats is alot worse.

[cO.gabe]

Im not saying thatGlobal warming does not exist.. I'm saying the main cause for it is not what the Governmeant is telling everyone it is. The CO2 is a small part of it. But the gov uses it as the main cause to try to hide what they are realy doing thats is alot worse.

correct.  I also believe we should be worrying more about things like destroying forests and our ozone layer.  Things like that could be potentially much more harmful to humans and other animals than 'high' CO2 levels.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Im not saying thatGlobal warming does not exist.. I'm saying the main cause for it is not what the Governmeant is telling everyone it is. The CO2 is a small part of it. But the gov uses it as the main cause to try to hide what they are realy doing thats is alot worse.

correct.  I also believe we should be worrying more about things like destroying forests and our ozone layer.  Things like that could be potentially much more harmful to humans and other animals than 'high' CO2 levels.

Gabe.. the ozone is what we are talking about.....

["Sixhits"]

Ah, but there is where we differ in opinion.  You see, I believe that his foreign policy is RIGHT.  I believe that in the end his policy makes this country more safe.  I also don't believe all the environmentalists who think we are destroying our environment.  Whoa, what do you think of that?!  That's right, I believe that it is all a bunch of crap....global warming, pollution destroying the ozone layer....I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF IT!  How about that?

And saying our policy makes people around the world hate us....I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they would hate us no matter WHAT our policy is!  Come on, the main reason the Muslim world hates us is because we support Israel!  Sorry, but I don't see why the world isn't on OUR side instead of the side of the TERRORISTS.

But hey, someday....every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess....

And on that great and glorious day, I feel in my heart that we will be the ones who did what was right in the eyes of the only one that matters....

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Something you might notice in wingnut speech when they talk about Bush policies.

"I believe, I believe, I believe."

When they talk about anyone they disagree with.

"I don't believe, I don't believe, I don't believe."

It's faith based rather than fact based.  

Here's a quote everyone should let sink it:  "It isn't what you believe, it's what you can prove."



And then there is Republican silence.  Because they can't prove anything.  They can't prove that Bush is a moral leader, they just believe he is.  They can't prove he served his country honorably, they believe he did.  They can't prove he's winning the war on terror, they believe he is. They can't prove we're freer, they believe we are. They can't prove anything that's positive for Bush. They just believe.

For example, I could refute the things Ghost says with facts. I could point out that it is our policy that makes some people hate us by demonstraiting that after World War II much of the world loved Amerca -- I could draw out the distinction between our conflict with Germany and Japan and the war in Iraq; how morally they are worlds apart precisely because the world disagrees with our take.  America does not have a monopoly on morality.  I could correct Ghost by stating that even now, after four years of brutal and insenstive foreign policy, most people still like America.  They dislike Bush and blame him for the negative things he's done, and long for a return to power of the Democrats.  I could point out how remarkable this is, since more people around the world weren't well informed about American internal politics -- they've had a crash course since Bush came to power.  I could parse the details of comments like, "Sorry, but I don't see why the world isn't on OUR side instead of the side of the TERRORISTS" and how they reflect a general ignorance of world points of view (precisely the sort of ignorance that has developed the ineffective policies of Bush) -- the world, in sum is not a coherent unit and arguing that the whole world is agaisnt us is exactly the sort of willful ignorance that has driven this country into the muck.  Further, the "world" is not for thre terrorists; the "world", like the general human populace, is moral.  It views our actions specifically in Iraq and in Guantanio Bay as immortal acts; first, the invasion of Iraq against the better judgement of the UN (which is a forum that represents world governments), and two, the brutal treatment of interned combatants in Cuba. As we have learned the American government has willfully ignored the Geneva Convention -- one of the foundations of civilization and concepts of human decency.  For example, the Nazi's ignored the Geneva Convention and for the same reasons the United States has ignored them.

But none of this matters because the fundamentalists in our own country believe otherwise.  

I woudl argue these fundamentalists are as dangerous as the muslim fanatics.  But then I'd be yelled at with whatever ridiculous curses they could come up with.  Maybe I'm not patriotic enough, or something. (warnning, metaphorical association) Maybe my wounds in Veitnam aren't sevier enough.

Worse, these fundamentalists have managed to control the debate in the United States for the past decade or so. Currently they refuse to listen when informed people question them -- this is because their positions are ground in a faith in the President, rather than in a factual basis. It's much harder to stand having your faith in something questioned than it is when you ground your opinions in fact, precisely because faith is unquestionable. If you allow yourself to question your faith then you have none. Hence, Republicans are fanatically devoted to Bush -- he is the icon of their faith that everything he's done is wonderful, that the country is on the upspring, that the war in being won, that every blood sacrifice in Iraq is meaningful, and that the 3000 Americans murdered three years ago have been avenged.

Of course, they can barely stand it when someone, such as John Kerry, has the gaul to challenge Bush in anyway, shape, or form.  Challenges of fact and opinion are in direct conflct with their faith.  And if they loose their faith -- if they cease to rationalize their points of view and start anylizing them critically -- then they will be gutting a very powerful, very emotionally attached part of themselves.

All I have to say is that after Nov 2 the use of anti-depressants is going to increase by about... oh thirty per-cent of the population.

Just don't blow yer brains out, wingnuts, after the rest of the country wakes up from the dream.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

It's faith based rather than fact based.  Cause if you want it bad enough and just have faith then that will make it so.

Ah, but there you have it.  Jesus said that if you have the faith that is in a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains.

In fact, I'll quote the passage from the Bible since I have nearly all of the Bible memorized:

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

-Matthew 17:20

[BFG]

Exactly what i was thinking Sixhits.... This is all "I belive, i belive, i belive" not i think, or anything more than opinions without a shred of fact or reason.
IF there is somthing in the world you don't like then you simply "don't belive it" and seem to refuse its existance. I expect we could lay every single piece of solid evidence on everything we have spoken about here and you still wouldn't belive it, becasue you don't want to. becasue you see it as a threat to your life, and what you 'believe in'.

Its the same kind of mentality as Islamic fundamentalists - they have somthing very clear that they belive in, and no matter what people say, no matter how the evidence builds up disproving their beliefs, they will refuse to accept it, becasue they do not want to accept somthing so different.

Ghostsniper the muslim world does not hate you. Do you know anything about the muslim religon? There is a difference from muslims and islamic fundamentalists.... just as there is a difference from the vicar just down the road from me, and crazy american Christian fundamentalists.

That's right, I believe that it is all a bunch of crap....global warming, pollution destroying the ozone layer....I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF IT!? How about that?

Well then i believe you are simply ignorant. ignorant or in denial. To honestly belive that the rest of the world is wrong and u are right, yet be completely and utterably unable to show any shred of evidence that backs up your believes... you still refuse to even consider them is just crazy.  And then you wonder why the rest of the world dosn't like you much? well we don't like the fact that there are stupid ignorant americans polluting our planet and refusing any responsibility becasue they don't want to belive that what they are doing is causing so much harm.

["Sixhits"]

It's faith based rather than fact based.  Cause if you want it bad enough and just have faith then that will make it so.

Ah, but there you have it.  Jesus said that if you have the faith that is in a grain of mustard seed, you can move mountains.

In fact, I'll quote the passage from the Bible since I have nearly all of the Bible memorized:

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

-Matthew 17:20

What really sucks is that nuance is lost on you.  There is a difference between religious Faith and faith in something irreligious.

I suggest you run your personal life based on your Faith.  Bush should stop running the country based on his faith.

I'm pretty sure having faith you'll find a billion dollars in the bank won't make it happen.  Sometimes the real world intervenes. But having Faith that God is there for you in times of need is a beautiful thing.  I can think of few things that comforted the victims of 9/11 more. Oh, maybe if Bush had bothered to increase funding for our first responders like he promised?

[Mr. Lothario]

     Sixhits, I want to have sex with you. You sexy, rational man, you.

[BFG]

Can i have seconds?

ps... hows the book loth? finnished?

[MacMan]

Oh my my my,you are quite a diverse group, my dear *DAMN forum whores. Being in the background usually amuses me greatly.
However, this thread, i cannot ignore. Such strong beliefs, right-wing-nuts and left-wing-tree-huggers, where to start?

First, something none of you have adressed (in full) yet. The Bush administration's determination to ignore all conventions with any promise of a better future. Is that an overstatement? Perhaps, but consider:
 ? The ICC (War crimes court in the Hague, currently with Milosevic on trial), is being hampered by the current USA gov't. How? They have not ratified the treaty, forming the basis of this court, thus denying the power of the court includes the USA military. Why? Is the USA the very summum of humanity? Is there NO POSSIBILITY of an American officer EVER committing war crimes? Apparently not.
I've just mentioned "How?" the Bush admin is working against the ICC? Also, they are actually trading favors, for votes against it. Rulers of piss-poor countries, in need of any aid they can get their hands on, can get extra "aid", by voting against the ICC! Old news, I know.
Did any of you know of the HR 4775 bill, with the "ASPA" addition? It states (in diplo-speak), that american servicemen being tried by the ICC may be retrieved BY FORCE from prison? So, in being the greatest military power on earth, the USA is also above the laws of natural justice, and humanity?

Which brings me to point 2:
 ? Once, comparing the USA's foreign policy to Hitler's Germany, was unthinkable. Now, the comparison, imo, is inescapable.
Does the USA hold prisoners in an isolated facility, without the right to seek civilian legal counsel? Look up the geneva convention. I suggest Articles 3 (1.c) and 4 as a good place to start.
Did anyone read Orwell's 1984? An ancient book, with the perfect example of how nations should not be run.
Well, we have the government that thinks itself infallable (including obscure puppet-head-of-state, whom people believe in religiously(look at GS).
Work on the ministry of love is coming along nicely (NSA, biometric passports, >50 items of personal information required to enter the country, and god knows what's going on inside guantanamo bay).
Last, but not least, the apparently constant urge of the USA to "liberate" small countries, with bad leadership. This, to me, seems like modern imperialism (do i hear "Oceania"?). Why not let the dictatorial problems solve themselves? The man WILL die eventually, giving "progressive elements" in his country a shot at reforms.
Bah, never mind this point, any normal person stopped reading a while back, and anyone still with me doesn't understand what i'm trying to say.

#3: (i could keep on going, but it's late.. no.. early)
 ? Religious faith is a self-delusion caused by lack of certainty about one's own actions and/or decisions in life. To be able to measure those actions against a set reference of religion is something the weak-minded will grasp at, like a man in the desert will grasp his water bag. Never mind the bag being empty, or, in this case, full of lies. As long as the illusion of water/"the right thing" is available, someone like GS or Bin-Laden will jump at the chance of reaching/doing what they believe is good. There's the tricky part of religion, if you take action based on your faith, and you believe your faith to be good/right/the only truth, the actions you take on behalf of that religion will be based on good intentions. Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved, with just that.
Now about not being able to penetrate the shield of beliefs radicals have.
What, do we, as human beings, know for absolute certainty?
 - conception-birth-life-death (eat that anti-abortion dudes)
 - politicians lie for a living (wonder why so many actors make good politicians?)
 - we know nothing else for certain (even that is not certain)
right now, an unknown big piece of rock from space could wipe out my countrymen and me.
the indians (dunno which) might be right about this being the dream world, and our dreams being real.
If only a tiny bit of the uncertainty of life could make its way past the brain-washing done by religion, and media, I believe it would make a huge difference in man's attitude towards each other, the planet, and animals.

Then again...

By writing this down, and making you read it, I might have wasted both our valuable times. But there is a slim possibility, that in some future event, either of us will think back to this "editorial", and use it to come to one decision or another. Being that nothing is certain, and even that is uncertain, might i have given us bad advice? I know, no-one will read this attentively enough to grasp the details, puns, and oddities, and controversies, let alone use it as any part of his/her dicision-making in the future. But then again...


http://www.amicc.org/docs/UStimeline.pdf <= will download a pdf timeline for USA policy towards the ICC


_{thank you for taking the time to read all this. i cannot judge the coherency right now, being as it is 4:15 a.m. local time. so i would be MOST GRATEFUL to anyone willing to point out faulty arguements, bad facts, or any contradictions i have created for myself.}

[*DAMN Bondo]

Good post MacMan...so I shall proceed to nitpick you on an insignificant point. I assume I was under your "left-wing tree-hugger" category. I would like to think having my eyes open enough to notice that global warming is happening and is not based on some conspiracy theory does not classify me into the far left on the environment. I'm rather moderate on environmental/energy policy...and most political issues really.  But like I said, that is neither here nor there, good post.

If people think the war in Iraq is the only departure from the world that the Bush Administration took, they are not reading. The Bush Administration has backed out of so many international treaties. World Court, Kyoto, etc. Too many Americans feel we are above everyone else. I mean, the Bush Administration is actually yelling at other countries not to develop WMD while they are asking for approval to develop new nuclear weaponry themselves...nuclear weaponry they actively intend to use. They think, "hey, if we make it small enough, no one will mind that it is a WMD." Well unfortunately when we do something like that, it justifies others, including terrorists, to do the same. The US may think it plays by different rules because it is most powerful, but they'll find others will play by our rules and it won't be to our benefit.

The odd thing about feeling morally superior is that everyone does. Terrorists do what they do because they think it is right just as we do. Now, there probably are objective standards at some point, but it is very dangerous to get where the US has in thinking it couldn't possibly do something that isn't actually moral. (Just like we didn't commit any atrocities in Vietnam...according to the people who hate Kerry for his testimony to the Senate...all those women and children were VC damnit.)

[MacMan]

thank you bondo, but, in retrospect, it is slightly incoherent.

the "left-wing-tree-hugger" denotation is partially my way of equalizing the terms on which i speak of 2 parties. Calling conservatives "right wing nuts", and liberals just "liberals" felt unfair to me. The other part is me making fun of myself, as I am rather socialist-ecological-monarchist-anarchistic myself.

["Sixhits"]

There are many, many things worth discussing this election.

I think the trouble is there are too many.  

The range of failure for this administration is epic. How can we even begin to discuss it when it is so vast, so blatantly there?  Sometimes the hardest things to discuss are the ones we all recognize.  Truely, Bush is protected not by the success of his polices but by the scope of their failures.

What Kerry needs to do, and what we've seen slowly developing, is focus on a few obvious issues.  Healthcare, Iraq, and the treasonous fearmongering of the Republicans.

It would be nice to take Bush to task for all the evil he's perpertrated in teh past four years.  But, there is so much!  Focusing on obvious failures of significant scope is the key to success.  After we've kicked him out then we can start fixing America.

[BFG]

Mac man that was a inpressive post and a great read..

One thing i wanted to highlight especially after reading the paper today

Did any of you know of the HR 4775 bill, with the "ASPA" addition? It states (in diplo-speak), that american servicemen being tried by the ICC may be retrieved BY FORCE from prison? So, in being the greatest military power on earth, the USA is also above the laws of natural justice, and humanity?

... Todays, no maybe yesterdays paper had a short article commenting that the fist soldier from the Abu Gharib trials has been sentenced. seven months for commiting torture
- a little unbalenced punishment don't u think?

All this and then i read the following article (sorry its a bit long!)

Washington, Sept. 14. (Guardian News Service): Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantanamo Bay reached the highest levels of the George Bush's administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, chose to do nothing about it, according to a new investigation published exclusively in the Guardian on Monday.

The investigation, by the veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, quotes one former marine at the camp recalling sessions in which guards would violate detainees "as much as we could" by inflicting pain on them.

The Bush administration repeatedly assured critics that inmates were granted recreation periods, but one Pentagon adviser told Hersh how, for some prisoners, they consisted of being left in straitjackets in intense sunlight with hoods over their heads.

Hersh provides details of how the US president approved the establishment of a secret unit that was given advance approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high-value" suspects - considered by many to be in defiance of international law - an officially "unacknowledged" programme that was eventually transferred wholesale from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Hersh, who broke the story of the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam war, makes his revelations in a new book, Chain of Command, which leaves senior figures in the Bush administration far more seriously implicated in the torture scandal than had been previously apparent.

A CIA analyst visited Guantanamo in summer 2002 and returned "convinced that we were committing war crimes" and that "more than half the people there didn't belong there. He found people lying in their own faeces," a CIA source told Hersh.

The analyst submitted a report to General John Gordon, an aide to Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser.

Gen Gordon was troubled, and, one former administration official told Hersh "that if the actions at Guantanamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the president".

Ms Rice saw the document by autumn of the same year, and called a high-level meeting at which she asked Mr Rumsfeld, to deal with the problem.

But after he vowed to act, "the Pentagon went into a full-court stall", a former White House official is quoted as saying.

The investigation further suggests that CIA and FBI staff had already witnessed incidents at Guantanamo just as extreme as those that would subsequently be alleged by freed inmates.

A senior intelligence official told Hersh: "I was told [by FBI agents] that the military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them, pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got hypothermia."

Hersh reports that a secret document signed by Mr Bush in February 2002 stated: "I determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world."

Hersh's book reports that an army officer communicated concerns over abuses at Abu Ghraib both to General John Abizaid, the US central command (CENTCOM) chief at the time, and his deputy, General Lance Smith.

In an interview with the Guardian, Hersh provided evidence that the administration sought to evade the issue: he said codenames of some programmes were changed within hours of his original story appearing, presumably to maintain their secrecy.

In a statement, the Pentagon. the US military headquarters, said Hersh's investigation "apparently contains many of the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources ... Thus far ... investigations have determined that no responsible official of the Department of Defence approved any programme that could conceivably have authorised or condoned the abuses seen at Abu Ghraib. If any of Mr Hersh's anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so."

Mr Rumsfeld told reporters on Friday he had approved the use of harsh interrogation measures, but that they had only been meant for Guantanamo.

He said the measures ought to be contrasted with those of terrorists.

"Does it rank up there with chopping someone's head off on television?" he asked. "It doesn't."

COPYRIGHT: GUARDIAN NEWSPAPERS LIMITED 2004

[MacMan]

That was one bunch of sick puppies, at abu ghraib. And 7 months of prison (in the USA, with cable tv, airco, good food, and a gym), seems, to me, completely out of proportion to what the guards did.
Perhaps learning from the enemy might be useful here. Steal a car in countris under islamic law, and you lose a hand (or two), etc. What might these guards lose under islamic law?

Was this treatment ordered/suggested by superior officers? If so, i would agree with this mild punishment, but would like to see the CO(mmanding officer) incarcerated in a place like.. uh.. guantanamo bay? Would any military court in the USA sentence someone to go there? Of course not! [pun]You can't treat CIVILIZED people like animals, the cable-tv brainwashing might wear off.[/pun]
Am I wrong to claim, that we should not judge a people on how they treat their friends, but on how they treat their enemies?

And sixhits, you're so damn right. I'd like to compare the mistakes this admin. made with the horizon. It's too big (or in case of curvature, too slight) to clearly see. But once you step back, and look at the big picture in RETROSPECT (everything is clearer in retrospect), it's obvious the horizon, and it's curvature (the mistakes) are in fact, unlimited.
So what do you do? Pick landmarks of course. Monuments. Monumental stupidity.

my 2 eurocents.