Where's the advocacy for anything other than an informed citizenship in the post you're responding to? I see nothing in there about what to do with leaders who fail, just stuff talking about how we should become more informed and vote more wisely so we don't elect total idiots into important positions. People should also be critical and scrutinize the actions that government takes so as to prevent it from cheating them... Actually, during his campaign Gore really distanced himself from Clinton... But yes, Gore would definitely have stayed out of Iraq...and probably not squandered all the post-9/11 sentiment that the world had for us by starting a "take over the world campaign" and he DEFINITELY would not have said "You're either with us or with them {the terrorists}". Of course, he might not have sent a strong enough message either that "this problem (the problem of terrorism) needs to be dealt with"....but meh, we shall never know I suppose.
this method of bush's to handle terrorism keeps reminding me of the "the war on drugs". As we all know that was a very inexpensive and successful way of dealing with a problem. If "the war on terrorism" is as good a response we should have those terrorist taken care of by 2502 and only cost the bankrupting of the country! Hey, like they always say, "the key to a good president is having good advisors". Thank god for bush and his crack team!
I am for Free Media, except in time of war. Well, let me rephrase that, the press shoulnt have access to the Conflict itself. WWII is a perfect example. While we cringe at the thought of losing a 1,000 soilders, the Russians lost 400,000 troops in the taking of Berlin alone. Ignorace can be very usefull.
the problem is even if we could prevent "our side" from having jounalists in the conflict (and frankly thats impossible with technology as it is today) the "other side" will have them, giving them the only voice. Thats just as dangerous as anything our journalists can expose. We'd be unable to refute anything they said, all the power in the media would be theirs. I agree problems can arise from real time reporting of a coflict but I don't really see anyway around it besides destroying every satellite in orbit.
Free media during war is necessary to force the administration to continually justify the measures being taken. If the administration cannot garner enough support for the war then the war shouldn't happen...If support is lost during the war, then the soldiers should be pulled out as soon as its feasible to do so... If the administration has little to no burden of justification for its actions, and the citizens do not support the actions being taken or the lives being taken then the war should not continue. Its called democracy.
But that is exactly the way to lose your ass. Democracy IMO, is stupid. Mob rule will get you lynched. Thankfully, we live in a representative republic. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to understand that, let alone the reasons it's a better system than the alternative once some minimal population barrier has been reached. You don't go to the doctor to get your lawn mowed right? That is why a representative republic is better. It's because it takes subjectivity and expertise into account. Hence, a real leader does not sway to public opinion. He was elected to do a job. It is his mandate to do it the best way he sees fit. If he does it in an unsatisfactory manner, the electorate will replace him when the time comes.
though I agree for the most part, one draw back to this system is in politics you do end up with a landscaper doing brain surgery sometimes. As, it could be argued, is the case in the US right now.
I never said it was a GOOD policy, I just said it was necessary to have a just war in a democracy. I forget sometimes that the US isn't a true democracy... I can't afford a doctor to fix my body, much less one to mow my lawn Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But yes, I see the point here and I can agree with it. I don't *like* this idea but I can see where its coming from and I can agree that it has some desirable consequences.
While I support the administration (especially given the forthcoming alternative, which IMO (and I find this surprising) is far far worse), I do believe you are correct. I will vote for Bush simply because Kerry seems to represent an extremely dangerous alternative (yes, far more dangerous that the current adminsistration) for this country. I would definately reconsider were there a viable alternative. I shouldn't have introduces that thought here, my apologies. I don't want to erase it now though, since it's already been said. That's a debate for another thread I'd think and blah if I really want to get into all that.
yeah, I really don't envy you your options at the moment. Then again our choices here in canada a terrible too, bad or worse basically. I'm forced to support the status quo simply because the opposition is so pathetic. Fortunately(?) we have very little real power to wield internationally so the majority of the damage our gov't can do is internal. EDIT: True, I suppose I'll shut up as this is something for another thread.
I do not envy the president of the US right now. That is a thankless goddamned job. Wow. You know buffy's it's actually relieving to hear that we share similar problems. I don't like the problems but I do like being able to relate to someone. *kowtow* OH and uhm.. *hypnotic trance* booby (man that shit is distracting, lol, i can't even read your posts half the time cuz that's such a sweet tit! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
His buddies in the military and oil industries etc. are reaping huge profits now. Not only does that help his campaign (record funding) but also after he leaves office he can expect to get the largest speaking fees ever as payback for his good deeds. Clinton got between $50K and $100K per hour. I expect Bush will triple or quadruple that intake and have a full speaking calendar. His buddies won’t be able to double-cross him because brother Jeb is next in line for the throne.
I'm a pretty cynical bastard but do you really believe the line that this is a big scam bush is pulling to make a few extra dollars? I think he's possibly one of the most dangerous people on the face of the earth right now but even saying that, I seriously think he believes he's right. In other words I think his motives, at least, are good. Obviously, if decades of war come from this with as little success (against terrorism) as has been achieved so far, motives won't mean shit but I just don't buy the "this is all solely for money and oil" stuff.
I think with people like Bush, money and what’s right are virtually synonymous. They are wrapped up together as one in his mind. The right thing to do is that which is profitable. I saw another example of that today in the paper, where a bunch of high-tech titans got together to pony up even more money for Bush’s overflowing campaign chest. The titans said that Bush would do more to help their industry than Kerry would. Not a peep about how Bush might affect anything else. That’s how these people think. And Bush has been amongst such thinkers since his first breath.
It's obvious Bush has money, well get more money and there will be those who will vote and support him regardless of how the war in Iraq goes. Unfortunely, it was same for Clinton to. Unfortunately as the death toll climbs higher and higher each day in Iraq, so will Bush's support. I think Kerry if elected will get us out of Iraq. If Bush get's re-elected, the U.S. will always have troops there untill we relect a new president that remembers Vietnam. Atta Boy
War is Hell... deal with it... if you fight wars with rules you will lose... Holy wars make Hell look like a nice day in the park... I wish people would stop miss using it... holy war = total and sistimatic destruction of a group of people... If we where having a holy war we would be nukeing/clusterboming towns/laying landmines on playgrounds/napaming hospitals... you get the idea... As for tarrorism they know you cant do anything back besides get the guys that did the act so they dont care if they get killed but what we need to do is make them think of there familys and countrys.... what we need is our own tarrorist group that for every time they attack us we attack them 3 fold.. they bomb a mall we bomb 3 of there markets... they bomb a school we bome 3 of theres... if that not a deturent up the factor to 10... sooner then later they will stop... if not move it up to holy war... cant make more tarrorists if there no one to make into them... the one thing tarrorists dont seem to understand with the US. is that we are PC untell you piss us off then the shit hits the fan ask japan... If it comes to the time when we get attacked and do nothing about it because of people say no we cant fight back the cost is to high, I think its time to do some house cleaning and ship all the tree hugging Hippy PC people to the middle east and let the tarrorist do what they do best...
git them tarrorist! Fight! In my armchair of rage "we" order ya'll soldiers to die in Iraq when the tarrorist are coming from Saudi Arabia! Kill 'em all.
Oh dear.... At least Osama can spell... I was under the impression that 'tarrorists' (sic) wanted you to bomb markets and shit 'cos that makes more terrorists. BTW Those people you plan to bomb are the same ones who make the shirt on your back and the fresh trainers on your feet and all for less than a dollar a day. Killing off the worlds population will play havok with the US economy you know. Sheesh Americans! Dee Cee
