|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We didnt attack anyone BECAUSE they have a weapons program did we? I mean, even so that would be a twist of words. There would be more reasons than that
It still doesn´t make any coherent sense to me, sorry. The last sentence sounds a bit like 'I do not have any clue about what´s going on, but I trust that there´s some reason behind it.' Maybe I did understand it after all.
____________
|
|
drlucifer
Adventuring Hero
The Surgeon of Death
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:50 AM |
|
|
Why Bush Should Not Be Re-elected:
1. Everything Bush has done so far, he did KNOWING he was going to have to run for reelection.
2. If he didn't have to worry about that anymore, he would do stuff about 100 times worse.
____________
Doctors are not necessarily your friends.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
We didnt attack anyone BECAUSE they have a weapons program did we? I mean, even so that would be a twist of words. There would be more reasons than that
It still doesn´t make any coherent sense to me, sorry. The last sentence sounds a bit like 'I do not have any clue about what´s going on, but I trust that there´s some reason behind it.' Maybe I did understand it after all.
Ok lews, id
If you say we attacked someone cuz of a weapons plan it would be a twist of words to distort the situation. We didnt attack anyone just because they have a weapon plan. Got it? You tell me when we attacked someone "because" they had a weapon plan and I'll show you dam well what I mean. There are more reasons behind the nature of an attack and we have not done so merely because the possesion of weapons or a plan to make them. One other reason alone, is they were highly potentialy hostile. So when you say "they attacked someone cuz they had a weapons plan" your twisting the situation with words.
You get it now?
fn id
Quit spamming dont reply to me this isnt our thread or our place to bump heads.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 01:59 AM |
|
|
 But you responded to me in the first place.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 02:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And can you edit your last post with all the things we intervened that we shouldn't have? If you can think of 5 or 10 real quick then I thought wrong as i stated possible with the notorious phraze "i think". I'd rather all of this be in the 20th century.
I dont suport nixon (that era of presidency) and vietnam, nor do I know all the reasons and causes of that war. Technicly i could be wrong but in anycase I agree that Nixon was wrong in his methods of intervention. I dont know if vietnam was about liberation sorry.
You should know about something before you think about it.
OK, 5 quickies:
Vietnam
Nicaragua
Cuba
Panama
Kosovo
Israel
(oh, it's 6. damn!)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 02:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
http://www.heroescommunity.com/images/icons/icon25.gif But you responded to me in the first place.
you are gonna say "He's touching me!!! " and stuff like that now?
your a little kid bye now. Reply allll you want I turned you off (in my part of the world) until another time
Svarog, i said "I think" in the first place. And I take it you know for sure we shouldn't have intervened there?
The places you mention israel.. I know theres been a war there. And cuba, castro is like, forcing people to be his people.. the others I only see as land names. I dont see reasons and you must know them. what are they?
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 02:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Reply allll you want I turned you off (in my part of the world) until another time
I´m sorry about that. I think I´ll miss the well-thought and phlegmatic character of your responses.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 02:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
the others I only see as land names. I dont see reasons and you must know them. what are they?
Where you see only land names, I see dead people and there's no one but the US to blame for that. Each is a story of its own. I cant tell all now you know, but you should at least try to be reasonable about the things that are now being discussed and that will probably be just land names for future American generations too, if the current generation doesnt take responsibility and thought about who they vote for.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 02:45 AM |
|
|
my sensibility is limited due to the fact that I dont know why we intervened, what we intervened, the methods of intervention (well, i sort of assume its war), and finaly the effects.
I can say I take your word for it but not as verification although I wouldn't be surprised if our intentions werent all bad. oops isnt enough, but its nearly all anyone can say besides apolgies.
Countries leaders make mistakes, and no one can take them back but i still dont see how any of this proves or disproves who the best canadite is. Unless your certain Bush has taken wrong actions similar to those in the past, and the wrong actions could have been alternatly replaced with others that is not the other side of a sword.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 04:03 AM |
|
|
Celfious, why do you keep putting quotations on "war" like you dont even think it is a war. Lets see. Troops being sent to foriegn country, troops being killed, troops killing. SOunds like a war to me.
The fact is, we have no business in Iraq, we never did. Saddam didnt bother us when Clinton was in office..George Bush gets elected..all of a sudden saddam hatred spreads like wildfire...hmm...I know about the gulf war. He was left in office, let him kill his own people. If they have something to say or object to it, they will all rally and overthrow him.
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 12, 2004 04:36 AM |
|
|
Its not an all out war. if I'm at war with 1 person on the block, or mabey 2, but i have troops in every house, Its not a total war. (In some point of views) but thats small thought and irelevant. If its a war our stock of resource would be more utilized. I see battles, and troops, and stuff basicly guarding a boundray or something..
Quote:
The fact is, we have no business in Iraq, we never did.
If any country is led by someone easily classified as a murderer, someone who forces his power and takes his power from the people, ect.. It really shouldnt matter if they just wanna mind their own buisness or not, because theres usualy alot of unliberated people involved. If a community says they dont want liberation then they have liberation in the fact that they have what they want- for the most part.. But the people of Iraq -general example- have fallen statues sadam hence they werent happy with his rule. His force. Hence they wanted liberation which I dont see a problem with trying to give. I think its safe to say suporters of sadam we're loyal dogs with no questions and a gun. I would think atleast 85% of civilian families wanted freedom from the opression of that guy and his followers.
Quote:
Saddam didnt bother us when Clinton was in office..George Bush gets elected..all of a sudden saddam hatred spreads like wildfire...
joke: I guess he's not a republican either 
Quote:
If they have something to say or object to it, they will all rally and overthrow him.
Sarcasim: Kind of like we here in america is doing?..
Perhaps they grew up with soldires threatning them to not stand like free men.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
|
posted May 14, 2004 05:20 AM |
|
|
____________
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2004 05:50 AM |
|
|
is that what i think it is?
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 14, 2004 06:01 AM |
|
|
if your thinking a BS photo your correct.
It would be humorous to alot more people if there werent so many cynical know it alls out who brim true hatred and disgust in a way that they despretly feel within their hearts the opposite of what others do which automaticly makes 33% of those who decide wrong.
although everyone who decided claims they are right.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2004 07:38 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 14 May 2004
|
RESPONSE TO BORT'S ORIGINAL PREMISE/ARGUMENT
Quote "George W. Bush made his case for invading Iraq on three main points - Saddam Hussein was claimed to have weapons of mass destruction (wmd), Saddam Hussein was linked to Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is just generally not a nice guy"
Umm actually you missed a few. One point you missed was Saddam did not comply with the terms of surrender, thus the original war was never over. Second, a desire to bring democracy to the Middle East. Third, the humanitarian reasons being he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents and continued to do so....oh I take that back...I guess that comes under "generally not a nice guy"
Quote "This leaves three possibilities for his use of wmd as a justification for war - he lied, he exaggerated or he was fooled."
If he lied, exaggerated or was fooled then the same should be said of Clinton, John Kerry, and pretty much the whole world intelligence community (including France's intelligence). Since they all stated he had WMD...it is an either/or thing buddy...you can't just pick one person out.
Additionally everyone new he originally had X amount of WMD which he could not or would not provide proof he had destroyed¡Kthus the UN and the world was continually demanding inspections to find the X amount of WMD.
Furthermore, since we had to play diplomatic patty cake...that gave Saddam plenty of time to hide or move WMD. The fact that we found Saddam in some hole indicates the degree of hide and seek we are talking about. Furthermore as Kay's report clearly stated that while no WMD have been found at this time there was clearly a clandestine network of resources that could quickly initiate WMDs. But in the end if there is no WMD then the list of liars or fools is quite extensive indeed.
Quote "I'd also like to point out that claims that UN weapons inspectors and sanctions had failed to do their job is a little bit thin when, apparently, they did prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring wmd."
Well you are again assuming he did not hide them or move them. Secondly there were NO inspections for about 4 years...ABSOLUTELY NONE. In fact if it wasn't for Bush there would of never been a return of inspectors in the forseeable future.
Quote "The second point the administration sort of threw out there and then didn't really push as much as the first point. It's generally believed that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were not allies as Al Qaeda was opposed to Hussein's secular Baathism"
Bud you above all should know history just shows this is completely untrue. First example...who did Hitler hate more then anyone...answer the Jews...who did he think was a MAJOR representative of Jewish thought...answer Karl Marx...Hitler hated communists, yet history shows he made a temporary alliance with them.
Another historical lesson...many have taken joy in pointing out that the US originally supported Saddam...this is true...why one asks, because we had a common enemy...Iran...thus again history proving that two countries/groups that don't like each other may at times unite to fight a common enemy...remember the classic saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...I could go on and on...Afghanistan, etc.
Quote "He might have supported other, smaller terrorist organizations, but the 9/11 connection was just never there"
Hmmm I don't remember Bush ever saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11 (unless you read Black Helicopter Spin magazine...JK). Furthermore if you consider Hammas a "small terrorist organization"...well I think you better rethink that. Furthermore there is documented proof that Saddam's administration met with Al Qaeda top leader, there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, and he gave sanctuary to at least one infamous terrorist who killed hundreds of people.
Quote "Every soldier who is in Iraq dodging car bombs is a soldier that isn't available to search for Bin Laden on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."
One, we have captured/killed 2/3 of Al Qaeda membership that is completely amazing in itself. Second...and this is the beautiful point..the terrorists are coming into Iraq so our trained solders can put them in their graves instead of the terrorists coming to the USA to kill more civilians. IN the great words of Bush "bring it on"
Ook ook
Quote "I'm just saying that the US doesn't even have the ability to bluff since all it's cards are in the Middle East now."
That is the exact point that too many left of center just don't get...if you bluff and then fold then everyone knows you are a bluffer and will never take you serious. So on one hand you guys wanted Bush to bluff, but then on the other hand you wanted him to not invade...thus leaving USA credibility in the sewer.
Bush's follow through on his "bluff"has led to great results as seen in Iran being open to inspections nad Lybia surrendering its WMD. Those are the results of the USA being a people of there word.
Quote "Tension between the various ethnic groups and religious sects remain. Medical care is sparse and inadequate as is power. Things may well improve and a real democracy may well be in place eventually, but claiming that it all is worth it because the Iraqi people are so much better off is a bit premature"
Ah...we will never know if they are totally better off...in fact it is impossible to ever know...all one is called to do in life is give people the OPPORTUNITY and that is something the Coalition has most certainly done. We didn't know if the Jews would be better of in WWII...we took an educated swing and it paid off.
Ultimately people are responsible for themselves...but with an iron grip, barbaric dictator in Iraq there was never even an option of Iraqi's making it better for themselves¡Kthere was no choice, no freedom...now they have those blessed things that we so easily take for granted. What they do with those gifts is on them.
Quote "In addition, if your goal is to alleviate human misery, the >$100 billion spent and to be spent on this war seems a bit low yield in terms of human misery avoided per $. You want to alleviate human misery? Vaccinate 3rd world children, distribute condoms in Africa to prevent AIDS, build water treatment plants and hospitals, give scholarships to train doctors from the 3rd world."
Umm this is being done and done and done and done...look into it you might be surprised at all the humanitarian work being done by the USA and charity. Or do something yourself and adopt a child through World Vision.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted May 16, 2004 11:25 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 16 May 2004
|
Quote:
And now, I’d ask about a totally different thing. Khaelo, could you please explain to me in short terms what is the President election process in the US like? I’ve always thought that voters from all states are sort of lumped together in one voting body and the winner is declared by the shear majority number of ballots. But this discussion doesn’t seem to confirm that.
And I think this is the best way, because after all you are voting for a President on a federal level, not local government. So I can see no reason for any state division as Celf mumbles about.
Oops, sorry I missed this! No, the president is not elected by lumping the entire country's ballots together and seeing who has the most votes. That would just be too simple.  The president is elected by an Electoral College. The way it works, as I recall from my high school government class, is that people in each state vote. The results are given to that state's Electoral College representatives, and they all (theoretically) vote for the winner in their state. That is what is meant when a state "goes to" a certain candidate. On election night, the TV stations like to turn states either red or blue to show which candidate took them. I think the number of representatives is the combined total of the state's Congresspeople and Senators. Minnesota, for example, has 2 senators and 8 congresspeople (based on population), so whichever candidate wins Minnesota gets 10 votes in the Electoral College. California has 55 votes, Wyoming has 3, and so on. This, of course, explains why candidates do all sorts of stuff to woo California voters and may not even bother to visit Wyoming. It is the candidate who wins the Electoral College's vote that gets the presidency.
(For anyone who's curious, here's the list of congresspeople <members of the House of Representatives> by state. All states have 2 senators.)
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted May 17, 2004 03:28 AM |
|
|
This is totally stupid!
One candidate may get the support of 25 states, each with 100% votes, while the other gets 26 states, each with a tie of 51% of the votes; and the second still wins (let's give all states an average amount of votes in the College). This means that overall the losing canidate may even have 75% of the votes and still lose the elections! This is of course impossible in practice, but it's still not fair the way the system works now.
Do you know the reasons why things are like this?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted May 17, 2004 05:21 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 17 May 2004
|
If one candidate gets 25 states and the other gets 26 states, something has gone seriously wrong with the state-counting. We've only got fifty last I checked. Beyond the required 3, states' representation is proportional to their population, so it's not completely disconnected. But you're right, the system can and does allow candidates to be elected contrary to the popular vote.
[Edit: Celfious is right; I'd forgotten about Washington DC. They do get some votes, whether or not they count as a state.]
I'm not sure of the historical details, but I'm guessing the electoral college is a relic of the constitution-building when states were jostling with the federal government and with each other for power. They still do, to an extent, but people aren't nearly as conscious of the US as a "federation of states" as they were then. The electoral college system is probably one of the compromises between big states and little ones...while California does have considerably more heft than Wyoming, the flat two senators plus at least one congressperson tilts the proportions slightly for the less populated areas. (If someone knows the exact details of this, please pipe up!)
[Edit continued: It should probably be noted here that "big" and "little" refer to population, not geography. Alaska beats New Jersey in terms of sheer size, but the latter has more people in the House of Representatives, more's the pity. ]
<rant>
Another aspect of this system, which I alluded to earlier, is that any 'first past the post' electoral system places third parties at a disadvantage. The US's electoral college adds another first-past-the-post aspect to the presidential race, making things particularly difficult for third candidates. For those of us in the US who dislike the major parties, that's really annoying. For this coming election, for example, I cannot vote for the candidate who best represents my interests because there is no such candidate. Since there is a candidate who flat-out opposes my interests, I have to take the "anyone but Bush!" strategy. That means if the Democrats nominate a dead cat, that's who I'm voting for.  I do think Kerry's better than a dead cat, but I don't particularly like him. The current campaign has been a mess of mud-slinging, which doesn't make me think well of anyone involved.
I've talked about emigrating to various other countries (usually Canada  ), but my family always points out that politics are ugly no matter where you go. Bah. 
</rant>
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 17, 2004 05:41 AM |
|
|
mabey he means district of columbia, they have 3 elevtoral votes which makes it a total of 538 votes in the presidentail election which is actualy held about a month after we vote.
I cant say this is the worst election procedure possible. I can say the reason it is like this is because of the great compromise between Big and little states. Big states are divided into alot of districts (on different levels). The division I refer to are represented by members of the house of representatives. Big states have alot more of these than small states.
On the other hand, each state has 2 senetors. So thats the way of the system. And yes we can change it among many other things.
{edit] if you think this system is bad, do a search on the committee system. Basicly, all the reps are given tasks which is the oversight and governing aspects of the US and some foriegn relations.
When We Cast our vote for democrat or republican in this 2 party system we're delegating a slate (in 48 states) of representatives who may very well, be bad stupid people who are gonna be in charge of misc things dispersed throughout the congress. Road construction, polution, other stuff.. Pencils and secretaries, um.. big major things of USA.
So remember that when your voting for president bush or larry, your actualy voting for your community reps who will live in washington about 6 months, pushing pencils and making oversight and adaptions to the way USA is. Through bills, committies, and everything else, thats our frigging congressional honor members placed on the ballots next to your anti bush or pro bush vote
systimaticly formulated through your synapses as democrats vote D, and republicans generaly vote Republican. The people on the ballot next to Bush's name, or Kerrys name, are the ones getting your vote.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 17, 2004 04:03 PM |
|
|
Dear Khaelo:
I am going to write in Colin Powell. I know that, like my dad says, this is a little like sticking your tie in the garbage disposal while you're still wearing it (i.e. throwing your vote away) but I have decided as a matter of conscience that I cannot support the dead cat either.
It becomes more and more critical for us to stop allowing ourselves the self-fulfilling prophecy of the two-party system. Previous to WWII the two-party platforms in the United States shifted five times to accommmodate the changing wishes of the populace and social developments. The emergence of the media has entrenched this system and there has not been a party platform shift for at least fifty years.
While I know this is a throw-away vote, it is only so because everybody believes it to be. I sat at a table last night with my family -- me, my moderate husband, my fanatically conservative father, my libertarian borderline Ruby Ridge-type brother, and the women of the family who are all mysteriously floating around somewhere in the land of "I'm intelligent enough to keep my political views to myself around this crowd."
Well the remarkable thing is that everybody at the table would have voted for Powell in a heartbeat. Even the other women chimed in with a "hear-hear!" at the suggestion. I made the suggestion that perhaps others should consider doing the same thing as I am doing, and talking to their friends about it.
My father actually paused for a second as though he was considering it.
Anyhow, this system will keep us trapped within it as long as we believe we are trapped. Never has it become more critical to break free from it. So I for one will be acting on my conscience this time.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
