 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Bush or Kerry |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Who do you want to win the up coming Election?| George W Bush |
26.7%, 28 votes | John Kerry |
53.3%, 56 votes | Other |
20.0%, 21 votes | Multi-voting is disabled.
| |
| User | Post | ||
Kaiser Wilhelm Red Goomba Level: 11  Posts: 7/37 EXP: 4653 For next: 1332 Since: 09-01-04 From: Sheffield/Liverpool, UK Since last post: 423 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| You still support the same system though, no? The army is the only place where murder's deemed forgettable, and at worst acceptable. As pointed out by one of your own leaders, "we don't do body counts." You invaded their country illegally, no matter how 'right' it may have been. Even legally speaking, they're not terrorists when they're fighting you. As for their tactics, remember the car-bomb planted outside a church that was timed to go off when people were leaving? We did that a few years earlier (joint CIA/MI5 to my knowledge, reporting was scant) outside a mosque, missing the target. Targetting civilians is morally reprehensible, whether we do it, or they do it to us. Edit: Thinko. Accounts = Counts surely. My humblest apologies. (edited by Kaiser Wilhelm on 09-01-04 07:01 PM) |
|||
witeasprinwow Lakitu Level: 37 Posts: 362/555 EXP: 319587 For next: 18666 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 55 days Last activity: 55 days |
| ||
Originally posted by drjayphd This is exactly what I was trying to say, but seeing as I still reign supreme as king of illterature, I failed miserably. |
|||
Raistlin the Red Robed Paragoomba Level: 15  Posts: 33/76 EXP: 14064 For next: 2320 Since: 08-08-04 From: Fort Hood, Texas Since last post: 362 days Last activity: 318 days |
| ||
| What you seem to forget is, we tried to cooperate with Saddam; years of trying. If someone keeps looking suspicious and saying nothing bad is going on when they aren't willing to prove it... well, that's going to draw attention and you're going to want to know what exactly is going on. | |||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1214/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Raistlin the Red Robed You gave him weapons so that he could attack Iran. You instated him so that he could kill his own people. That is not co-operation, that is puppetering and war-mongering. (edited by Ziffski on 09-01-04 07:08 PM) |
|||
Heian-794 Red Super Koopa Level: 44 Posts: 419/896 EXP: 611014 For next: 271 Since: 06-01-04 From: Kyoto, Japan Since last post: 21 days Last activity: 10 days |
| ||
| Libertarianism all the way. I'm a US citizen who will be sending in an absentee ballot. Hope it gets counted. | |||
|
Lunar Depths Paragoomba Level: 14  Posts: 7/67 EXP: 11330 For next: 1741 Since: 09-01-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 105 days Last activity: 105 days |
| ||
| drjayphd, just curious, but exactly how closely did you read my posts? Obviously not very, because you've somehow construed my words into something I absolutely did not say. I stated a couple of times that I would be fine with him changing his mind if it was for a good reason, what I ~don't~ like is someone who changes simply to change. ~That's~ what I said. As for the protestors, I was extremely specific in my point, and I only talked about the people who were at the gate. I'm not too sure what your point is with the PETA comment...but I assure you, you misunderstood that as well. And your conspiracy theory is interesting, even if unfounded. There seem to be a lot of those theories circulating around. And on the issue of putting Saddam in power, yeah mistakes happen. America has made a lot of mistakes, and ones that have caused a lot of problems. No one in here denies that. The thing I don't understand, though, is that why everyone blames a single president. The current situation in Iraq belongs to not one, but many presidents, whether by neglect or poor decisions. I also think it's a little unfair to gang up on the military man simply because you believe in "peace love and harmony". That's easy to say when you have the rights he and people like him provide for you. Enjoy it, my friends, and then think twice before harping on his choice of service. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1215/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Never said it belonged to the younger Bush. It belongs to the administrations that started toying around in the Middle East after WW2, and then those that decided to play with Iran. Then those that wanted to get rid of the Ayatollahs, thus creating Saddam Hussein's power base and putting him in Iraq. It is Colonialism for the 20th century. |
|||
|
Kaiser Wilhelm Red Goomba Level: 11 Posts: 9/37 EXP: 4653 For next: 1332 Since: 09-01-04 From: Sheffield/Liverpool, UK Since last post: 423 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Lunar Depths Put it like that, and you may be right. It's a bit simplistic though. Consider, if the public were to stage a popular revolt, or some similar event, who'd be the ones fighting them? They're not even the ones in charge of preserving our rights! That's the judiciary and the government, not the army. The army, historically, protect the interests of the rich, Because that's who they're being paid by. Currently, that's the government, may not always be (see Dyncorps). The richest already have a disproportionate hold on government. And thus we see the army acting in the interests of the rich - fighting communism, securing oil etc. We've seen it in Chile, a popular (post-revolution) government stabbed in the back by their army (after American intervention, but that's irrelevant). The point, and there is one, is that army's don't really care, even if lower ranking members did, the hierarchy ensures that doesn't matter. If a nation needed to defend itself or it's rights a militia would suffice. As it stands, when the army protect America, they're really protecting American interests. Tactical positions, trade routes, oil pipelines and the like. Not your rights, the profit of those luckier than you. |
|||
|
Raistlin the Red Robed Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 34/76 EXP: 14064 For next: 2320 Since: 08-08-04 From: Fort Hood, Texas Since last post: 362 days Last activity: 318 days |
| ||
| If a nation needed to defend itself or it's rights a militia would suffice You've got to be kidding me. Do you realize how much of a JOKE militia is? How do you expect to have a nation worthy of defending itself if you can barely afford to provide equipment for your civilians wanting to play soldier? Oh and in regards to the government being run by the richest... yeah, Bill Gates is my commanding Officer and his first Sergeant is Donald Trump. (edited by Raistlin the Red Robed on 09-01-04 10:20 PM) |
|||
|
Kaiser Wilhelm Red Goomba Level: 11 Posts: 10/37 EXP: 4653 For next: 1332 Since: 09-01-04 From: Sheffield/Liverpool, UK Since last post: 423 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
What? Who even said it worked like that? Well done ignoring the rest of it too  How about securing Iraq so all those companies can move in, which they're doing rather well, and it's mostly american operations at that? There's a prime example of securing profit for the rich.Why wouldn't you be able to afford kit for them? Some kind of explanation other than dogma may be handy here. |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 112/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by Raistlin the Red Robed Some nations do manage. Costa Rica manages with nothing but a National Guard type organisation consisting of just over 8000 people, in the middle of such turbulent and militarised countries as Guatemala and Panama. If you didn't have a formal military, or had a much smaller and weaker one, the National Guard units would probably end up the main repository of American military strength and be much better amred/trained etc. |
|||
|
Lunar Depths Paragoomba Level: 14 Posts: 8/67 EXP: 11330 For next: 1741 Since: 09-01-04 From: New Jersey Since last post: 105 days Last activity: 105 days |
| ||
| That's an interesting idea, Arwon, but then again, you have to look at the status of those countries. The higher up a country is on the world scale, the more in need they are of a formal army. Smaller countries, like Costa Rica, can rely on their allies to back them up if something were to happen. I doubt any of the surrounding countries would attack if they knew an ally would be right there to defend them. Especially one more powerful. Or perhaps even the UN would make a move if they decide to do something....but we wont go there again. The idea of a smaller, better trained military is a slightly good idea, and I will agree with you to a certain extent. I find our military to be just a little strung out. Our bases are all over the world and I imagine our men and women are getting a little tired of it. Bringing them a bit closer to home might help some with that issue, but I don't think we can survive as a nation without a larger army. Afterall, with the amount of enemies we have, how can we just let go like that? I wonder how long we would last without some sort of challenge if we dropped our military, and then how effective would a militia truly be? As for the war being economic, of course it's economic. Everything is economic if you look at it close enough. There are what, three pillars on which everything is based on: economy, politics, and the populace. If you were to take any event in the history of the world, I guarantee each one of those aspects would be present. The issue at hand, I think, is not whether it's a part of it, but rather how large a part it plays. Another thing I want to mention briefly...the men and women who sign up for the military don't sign up to be chess pieces for a hierarchy. They sign up because they believe in the cause the military presents. But alright, I'll go with you on this path of them being pawns for those more profitable than we. Yes, the military does protect our interests. That's another thing the military is supposed to do. By protecting those, they protect our way of life. We could not possibly live the way we life if they did not secure our trade routes, oil lines, etc etc. Part of protecting our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is protecting our right to be prosperous. We no longer live in a time when the world powers try to take over another country, at least not for the moment anyway, so our goals must change. As our direct rights are not being violated, they protect what needs protecting: our countries resources. And beyond that, even if it goes badly or is misinterpreted, America tries to aid in the protection of those smaller than us. Even if you don't agree with the way it happens, or who it happens to....there are a few times when America's heart is in the right place. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 113/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Costa Rica is probably very politically neutral and inward looking. They don't really have any "allies" in the way you mean as far as I am aware. I suppose that Guatemala and most other countries in the region are too wrapped up in their own issues (or wars with each other) to particuarly bother with a peaceful stable relatively (say, Brazil-level) prosperous country in their midst, especially when it's a pretty peaceful (as far as nation vs nation conflicts go) part of the world. Plus their neighbours are not that powerful, and the USA has never bothered to invade or intervene there, unlike most other Central and South American countries. Now, just to clarify, I'm not making any sort of moral argument here about the need for a large military or lack of need for one, or anything like that. Just arguing that "militia" are not inherently a "joke" and pointing out that if America didn't have such a large formal federal army it would have accrued strength through whatever it did have - be that a state-based militia or a semi-professional conscription-based force or whatever... I'm not even suggesting what I am speaking of as a viable alternative set-up in the present day, just another way things might have developed over the last 200 years or so in moderately different circumstances. (I imagine the Civil War was important to the primacy of the federal armed forces over any state-based forces, for example). (edited by Arwon on 09-02-04 08:55 AM) (edited by Arwon on 09-02-04 08:57 AM) |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 1223/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Um, Canada is one of the major economic powers of the world. Our total military has less than 100'000 people in it. | |||
|
Raistlin the Red Robed Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 37/76 EXP: 14064 For next: 2320 Since: 08-08-04 From: Fort Hood, Texas Since last post: 362 days Last activity: 318 days |
| ||
| Ziffski- When you say our military what country are you talking about, Canada? | |||
Joachim Mole Level: 30  Posts: 193/358 EXP: 165561 For next: 308 Since: 03-15-04 From: Neo Kobe Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| It's funny how TV brainwashed most of you to vote Kerry. IMO, I don't care who wins, both of them will further plunge the US into the shit hole. | |||
|
Raistlin the Red Robed Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 45/76 EXP: 14064 For next: 2320 Since: 08-08-04 From: Fort Hood, Texas Since last post: 362 days Last activity: 318 days |
| ||
| So tell me, how exactly is America in a shithole? I know some good reasons, I just want to see if you know exactly what is going on. | |||
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82  Posts: 855/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Well, my MAIN beef with the whole antiterror thing is the fact that there's a threat of law enforcement being able to tap into Instant Messages. I'd call that a loss of civil liberties. I'm also not a fan of the No Child Left Behind plan, because it's driving the overall intellectual level of the country down, by spending money on people who either cannot learn or simply do not care enough to learn or want to learn. Some people are not meant to go to school, some people are meant to become successful through their actions and not education. Unfortunately, because America has an inferiority complex with several other countries when it comes to education (who DOESN'T like knowing they're smarter than someone else?), we're subjected to policies that force people who could easily function in the outside world to instead stay in school and get diplomas for their failing or just barely passing grades. Did you know that my school has comformed with NCLB by introducing a program called "Ramp Up"? Yes, what happens is if you slack off and waste time in class and get a failing grade for the quarter, you're allowed to make it up! How? Simple, stay after school for one hour a day, one day a week for six weeks and don't even worry about grades, you'll totally pass so long as you show up. After all, considering we have 85 minute blocks every other day that people are entirely capable of passing, there's no reason why you can't be given the exact same credit for 1/15 the work! You know what's worse? There's an Algebra 1B class at my school. For Seniors (to give you an idea of where that stands, you're supposed to graduate with at least Algebra 2). You know how I know that? I'm gonna be grading their tests in my spare time as part of an agreement with the class's teacher, who also teaches my Calculus 2 class. The meaning of my diploma just went into the trash. So yeah, a few parts of the REAL Patriot Act (the one that your politicians had their secretaries skim through and brief them on a few points they thought were kinda important), as well as No Child Left Behind are what I have against Bush. Will Kerry do any better? How should I know? Chances are, he won't. But if we keep Bush in office, things aren't gonna change from what they are now. (edited by Grey on 09-04-04 09:59 AM) |
|||
|
Raistlin the Red Robed Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 47/76 EXP: 14064 For next: 2320 Since: 08-08-04 From: Fort Hood, Texas Since last post: 362 days Last activity: 318 days |
| ||
| Grey- those are all good arguements. The No child left behind act will give children who don't need the money and are already getting good grades the money they need, thus leaving the (I say this because I know no better way) lesser learning children to fall behind in the shuffle. Now, this also works as a double edged sword. It says if you want money, you gotta earn it. It might cause them to bone up and start paying more attention to education. The ramp up program does seem very unfair. I don't know why a school would let that happen. However, don't let that drop your diploma's value. Because in the end, when you have the better job, and they are still sitting at home drinking beer and watching TV, you'll have the last laugh, right? And in regards to your "But if we keep Bush in office, things aren't gonna change from what they are now." comment, I'm going to have to say that I don't have a problem with the way the country is now. |
|||
|
Grey the Stampede Don't mess with powers you don't understand. And yes. That means donuts. Level: 82 Posts: 858/3770 EXP: 5192909 For next: 16318 Since: 06-17-04 From: Kingston, RI, USA, Earth Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| Of course, when I said things won't change, that too was a double edged sword. People who like Bush's policies will be well-appeased, but those who dislike them will want a change, which won't come about. I guess it's open to interpretation. I suppose I shouldn't let my diploma's value sink, but NCLB just made me incredibly angry. My mother works as a guidance clerk and she constantly has to hear from teachers about how they dislike the institutions of NCLB and programs like Ramp Up. NCLB has done wonders around the country for school systems that actually need it, but I don't think it should be forcibly implemented, I think that state governments should be able to decide whether or not they want it. My school system seems hindered by it, but there are plenty of schools out there that could still leave it implemented and benefit from it. I consider that one of the Bush Administration's mistakes. I also have an issue with his wish to bring prayer back into schools and state. Religion will always be a paramount issue in politics, primarily because of so much circumvention of the need for separation of church and state. I am not a Christian, or a Jew, or anything. I'm not even an aetheist. I doubt I'm agnostic either. But what I have no doubts about is the fact that I do not want to have to pray in schools, and I do not want the government of a country that is based entirely on freedom of speech and belief to have to be subjected to the belief system of the president. Continuing with my string of issues that don't involve our dubious economy (considering how vastly uninformed I am about that subject), I had a serious problem with his push for a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage. An Amendment. That's not something easily circumvented, and it's not like it's a rule meant to be broken. That is out and out making it illegal for gay people to get married, to exercise a symbolic representation of their love for each other. By making an amendment against it, we're exercising bigotry towards normal people which, by all reasonable logic, should be impossible. In the very least allow civil unions. If Bush makes even ONE of these changes to his administration, he will be well on his way to having one more person support him. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Bush or Kerry |
| | |
