TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Anti War
Pages (2): « 1 [2]
^^^^^^ YAWN!
dude, enough with your Anti-American BS.... I am all for free-thinking but this is ridiculous. All day long you crack on our president and blame the USA for everything that happens to it. There are some things i don't like, and you know what i do? I keep my nose out of it.
I voted for Bush, support him, and know that he is made out to be a lot worse than he really is. You seem to fail to grasp that there are reasons that decisions are made the way they are... there are issues and policies that you and myself probably couldn't grasp. It's not a simple black-and-white issue, the job of running the USA. Every decision that is made, every law or bill that is passed has to be accepted by the Congress as well... Ever heard of the system of Checks & Balances? 
It's not like George Bush is single-handedly deciding and doing everything... fact is that most decisions are actually made by cabinet memebers and Congress... George just has to put his "OK" on it for it to go through. So when you verbally attack my president, you are attacking my government. If you attack my government you are attacking my country. I'm not down with that. 
Its one thing to spread your opinions and belief, its another to post your anti-American BS all over this place. If you don't like us, then fine, stay off our soil.
(Apologies to everyone else, you can only take so much bashing of your own country...) 
-ABT-
there is no way in the universe that George W Bush will ever get kicked out of office over the Enron scandal. The man cheated to get into office(Yes he did, this is a fact, Florida which is a state run by his brother had many thousands of people kicked off the electoral roll before the presidential election) This is an absolute fact. Dont flame me for saying this, it was widely reported in the non-US media.
My point, if he can get away with cheating to get into office (Kennedy also cheated to get into the Whitehouse, so the Republicans werent the first) then he can get away with a minor scandal like Enron. Besides what George W may or may not do is no worse than previous presidents who did far, far, far, worse and never lost office. Eg Ronald Reagans Iran_Contra scandal and Richard Nixons illegal bombing of Cambodia. If it took an enormous concerted effort to get rid of Nixon for Watergate, then I think George wont be going to the dole office anytime soon. Besides im sure plenty of Democrats got campaign finance from Enron as well.
Yes in reality the American president has less actual power than a prime minister in a Westminster style democracy, but has a great deal of moral authority being the Commander in Chief. To say that the Congress and Senate act as a check and balance to Executive power in america is true in theory, but not in reality. Both major political parties have in essence a very similar idealogy, because they both get their campaign finance from the same corporations and by the same methods. This is fundamental flaw of american democracy, campaign finance affects all other parts of the body politic, inevitably to its detriment. George W is merely a product of his environment.
My point is this, non-americans have an absolute right to criticise american politicians or the american government because in reality every decision that it makes affects the rest of the world.
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman knew this and used their power to help the world outside of its borders. American politics has a long history of isolationism, of actively sabotaging the United Nations etc, of turning their back on the rest of the world. This doesnt help the rest of the world and in the long run doesnt help america.
jesus you're going to make me go into DETAIL??? ok, here comes the long post....
First off, I don't buy anything from that "article" that Raving Lunatic posted. It is not a reputable source, and for all we know it could just be more of that anti-war, anti-US propaganda that is all over the place on the internet. Unless its from the BBC online or CNN.com i am not going to believe it.
Now, the whole Enron issue. It is very unfortunate, yes. But it IS just another greed story. Has nothing to do with George. You think Bush kept tabs on their finances? no. George was simply accepting their donations. Could I blame *you* b/c you borrowed 10 bucks from your friend, who didn't have ANY money the following weekend? Come on, be realistic here. Don't take away his rights and privileges b/c he is the president. He is still a human being. Campaigns cost money, and you don't think Al Gore took money from some people?? The fact that Enron filed for Chapter 11 is unfortunate, but has nothing to do with George W.
I see you made a reference to George's old company, Harken Oil.... my friend did you not read about that ten years ago? Bush sold out of that b/c he was getting out of the company. Usually when the majority share-holder sells everything, the stock goes down. Simple economics, my friend. Large supply, small demand, yadda yadda yadda. This again has nothing to do with whats at hand. How can you hold something that happened 10 years ago against someone for something totally un-related? And what did you expect him to do with that stock? hold on to it until he dies? Its a traders' market, son.
Then Raving Lunatic mentions a couple of people that used to own stock in Enron NOW on the presidential cabinet/board.... gee, what a big fookin coincidence... Let me let you in on a little secret: Enron was one of the top 3 largest energy corporations in our country... half of people who own stock at all..... owned stock in Enron. Not to mention everyone he appointed is well qualified for their position... especially Thomas E. White (secretary of the Army).... he's a 2-star general. What do you think Rumsfield was doing before he became defense secretary? Pointing out that these guys owned the same stock before they got to where they were proves nothing. I used to have a small stock portfolio. I had the exact same stocks that my friends had - we all shared tips. So?
blah blah blah Watergate... blah blah blah.. rumsfied had meetings with Enron executives... blah blah blah..... what is this proving? How do you know that George W. had any knowledge of this? How is it George W's responsibility for this company's financial future? This company was on the downturn 6 years ago (not 4).... wayyyy before George's campaign began. George's campaign certainly didn't help Enron's finances but that is hardly George's fault, and its already kicking a dead horse.
...the "oil story" with Bush working with Taliban is unfounded. I have never heard of that or have seen that posted on any REAL news site (this does NOT include chain emails!)....
The FBI John O'Neill story is very touching, but again unfounded.... if that was true we would have heard about it on the news.. and he would have been the cover story of TIME.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Raving Lunatic On November 7th, 2000, a clear majority of Americans came to the conclusion that George W. Bush was unfit to govern this nation. For a variety of dark and controversial reasons, that conclusion was thrown over. |
2) since when would NON-usa sources know more than USA sources on the subject of the USA presidential election? hmmm, would it have anything to do with the fact that there are so many USA-haters in those non-usa countries writing these news stories?? hmmmm..... PROPAGANDA people, open your eyes!
Oh boy, have you ever opened up a can of worms here pal.
look, I don't have time to do this here, nor the desire.
I am already engaged in a very good debate at another site, http://www.whatthefuck.com I really don't have time for another..
just a few things i'd like to make clear though..
you quoted ME in your response, and I did not write that article. I merely pasted it in. and I indicated that clearly at the top.
you say 2nd place is not unfit? I say neither is 1st, both the candidates who had any chance of winning were securely in the back pockets of the big corporations anyway, it doesn't really matter who wins, they are both corrupt. as far as I know, only man fit to run that country is Ralph Nader. and he'd probably be corrupt eventually too..
you say bush has no real power? it's the congress and other members of government? well guess what, they are all linked to big oil too.
you say i do this everyday in every post? well, your flat out wrong.
I particpate all over this board in many discussions.
and the bombs continue to fall..
war is good.
without war there would be no army. and the army gives school drop outs the chance to have a job 
with regards to sites about the election and the goings on in Florida try;
Tompaine.com and mediachannel.org, both i believe are american sites. Probably also the BBC's webpage if it has an archive section information on the election as well, i havent looked so can't say for sure. The issue was covered on BBC World but due to the September bombing it ceased being an important enough issue to get coverage.
I think that to say that the BBC, a non-US media would cover US politics less than objectively is a mistake. I get the BBC, CNN and FOX News, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt the BBC is a better product than its american counterparts. CNN used to be okay before it got taken over by Time Warner, now its little better than Fox.
That something doesnt get reported in the media does not mean it didnt happen.
I would like to point out that many american states have laws which preclude people with felony convictions from voting at all. They are disenfranchised. So much for the land of the free. This is a fact. If you are a resident of Washington DC you cant vote for the president although you can vote for Congress, due to the Electoral college system. My point most people with felony convictions and the majority of the population of D.C. are African-American, who traditionally in large part for the Democratic party.
My point from my previous post is this; it doesnt matter who sits in the Whitehouse, who controls the Congress, who dominates the bench of the Supreme Court, until you deal with campaign reform, the system is fundamentally flawed. This is a problem in many other democracies(especially in Europe) as well but no where near as severe as in the United States.
Campaign finance reform was on the agenda but it seems to have been put in the too hard basket.
Okay..
the US (and canada) already help out developing countries a lot..
that's true, and it's good.
But they could do more. We could do more. I could do more. YOU could do more.
and the bombs are not helping!
So suppose we do send aid. allow me to ask a few questions here, that need to be answered.
You say there has to be strings attached? like for example, let us run a pipeline through afghanistan?
well, at first that seems to be, a false pretense for helping them in the first place, the oil will bring immense profit to america, more than what would be sent in aid. Is this really an altruistic act? it wouldn't seem so.
But then, i can see both sides, of course there should be strings attached, I mean, in a soup kitchen, they have requirements that you come in at least clothed, and not blasted out of your mind on heroin(another key export of afghanistan that the US would like to stop)
so then, the question becomes, what strings? an oil pipeline from turkmenistan to the afghan coast? a stable govt? stopping production of opium? disarmament of militant fundamentalist? the taliban ousted, and women rights protected?
and then the question is, are any of these things obtainable? somehow i doubt it.
If, a pipeline were to be built, they would never be able to defend that entire pipeline from being destroyed. one fundamentalist islamic father who had his son blown up could take a shotgun and shoot a hole in that thing. Take a look at the ecological and financial disaster in Alaska a few months ago for a good example of high pressure oil pipes being shot at by psychos..
so, they could bullet proof the pipe I guess.. but, at what cost? and the same question as before, if you have to make it bulletproof, should it be there in the first place? and of course, even making it bullet proof would not stop someone with a rocket launcher or grenade.
a stable govt? is that even possible in the region? who knows, we shall see how Hamid Karzai handles this. I hope for the best, but with all that bad blood between the tribes.. i don't think it will be easy.
stopping production of opium? this is the only livelihood of some afghan people.. take that away from them, and what do they have left? drug abuse is apparently not a problem in the country, only drug production.. now, to let them keep producing.. that's a dillema in itself, I don't have the answer to.
disarm the militant fundamentalists? a good idea, but can you ever find them all? probably not.
The taliban ousted and womens rights restored? well, that's effectively already been done. but, the laws on paper are different than real life. I bet the woman being beaten by her husband in afghanistan finds small comfort in the fact that the taliban is no longer in power.
so then, after you answer all these questions about strings and what they are tied to, the next question becomes, how do we deliver this aid?
it seems to me, that if we set up secure buildings, staffed with UN workers, and guarded by UN soldiers, instead of dropping packages from helicopters, the aid would have a better chance of getting to the right people.
in the past, UN workers have been attacked by the taliban, their food stolen. i don't think the taliban has enough strength left to mount any sort of attack now.
so in conclusion. it's a tricky situation, with a lot of variables, and a lot of unpredictability.
BUT
the way forward is not bombs, it's bread, strings attached or not.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.