The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror

[U2DMfan]

That is a terrible argument because if you did not vote at all, then you have no right to gripe about anything. It's like crying over spilled milk. People had a chance in November to oust him, but that was not done. It's funny how a person could be apathetic about voting and have the nerve to complain about things. People in Iraq lined up for hours to vote, fearing for their life, and yet so many choose not to vote here.

I don't think apathetic voters who are informed yet choose not to vote are any kind of problem.

The problem, to me is apathy from those who don't even know the difference. I know people in my state who supported Kerry who didn't even bother. Bush was going to win this state no matter what. Is it so principled to go down and vote for a candidate who isn't going to get 35% of the vote? You could even lie about it and say you voted, it would make no difference. If we all lived in close races like Ohio and Florida or even PA, WI or NM, then maybe I'd buy it. Some states are foregone conclusions.

To me the problem was those who were so apathetic they didn't even CARE about it. In this sytem your vote is only worth your electoral votes. It's not invidual numbers. My state is red for 2008 too, do you think it does much good to worry about casting a single vote for a candidate who has less than zero chance?

I appreciate the sentiment of what you are saying. I am just making the case that not all apathetic voters should be discounted from the political discourse.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You cannot say the majority of Americans approve.

And likewise you cannot say that the majority do not approve.

Mandatory voting however has drawbacks ~ most of the apathetic public who wouldn't vote if they had a choice buffer the system out so much.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Sigh. Point out where I stated contrary, mate. Fair dinkum.

I cannot say this any clearer, so if this still goes over anyone's heads, go play with someone else.
Are we ready? Ok:
People claim that Bush has the majority of America's support and either point to a poll of 1,000 from any old source which does nothing but create a stir over legitimacy and bias as if that is the answer, or they bring up the election as if that too concretes beyond all doubt that Bush is the bee's fucking knees. Do we need a maths lesson on how to declare something a majority? Surely not. Not in here, where only intelligent folk post. You had a specific number of the population show they supported Bush more than Kerry, in the election only. God only knows what the rest of the US thinks, but each side continually spits forth this bullshit as though it is fact. No one can deny this doesn't happen frequently.

 

[Dreadsox]

A majority of the voters in the 2004 Election voted for Bush.

 

[Numb1075]

anitram: "no WMD and lame army".....

He didn't need either when he invaded Kuwait did he? I bet the Kuwaities were happy that we helped them out.

 

[Irvine511]

anitram: "no WMD and lame army".....

He didn't need either when he invaded Kuwait did he? I bet the Kuwaities were happy that we helped them out.

his army in 2003 was vastly weaker than in 1991.

it was absolutely a lame army, and everyone knew that -- i remember Clinton on the tonight show in 2002 being asked about it and he thought that it wouldn't take much longer than a week for the Iraqi army to fold.

 

[randhail]

Sigh. Point out where I stated contrary, mate. Fair dinkum.

I cannot say this any clearer, so if this still goes over anyone's heads, go play with someone else.
Are we ready? Ok:
People claim that Bush has the majority of America's support and either point to a poll of 1,000 from any old source which does nothing but create a stir over legitimacy and bias as if that is the answer, or they bring up the election as if that too concretes beyond all doubt that Bush is the bee's fucking knees. Do we need a maths lesson on how to declare something a majority? Surely not. Not in here, where only intelligent folk post. You had a specific number of the population show they supported Bush more than Kerry, in the election only. God only knows what the rest of the US thinks, but each side continually spits forth this bullshit as though it is fact. No one can deny this doesn't happen frequently.

So if we can't trust 1000 person polls or election results, how can we determine whether the majority of Americans do not support Bush? Should we send out a survey to every single person in the country? Would that satisfy you? A majority of Americans (60%) went out to vote last November, the highest turnout in decades. A majority of the people then voted for Bush. Can we safely say that the remaining 40% would have been for Kerry or against Bush, however you want to view it? I don't think so. I'm a lot more inclined to believe in what the election results say than what you have to offer.

 

[STING2]

his army in 2003 was vastly weaker than in 1991.

it was absolutely a lame army, and everyone knew that -- i remember Clinton on the tonight show in 2002 being asked about it and he thought that it wouldn't take much longer than a week for the Iraqi army to fold.

If it was such a lame army, why did the United States and coalition deploy a force that was 8 times the size of the force that succeeded in pushing the Taliban and Al Quada out of power in Afghanistan?

Nearly half of the old Republican Guard was still left, including the two Republican Guard divisions that overran Kuwait in less than 12 hours back in August of 1990.

Given the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo's, many of the deficiencies that the Iraqi army suffered in 2003 could have been reveresed within the near future.

In addition, much of the current insurgency in Iraq is run by what remains of Saddam's "Special Republican Guard" force.

 

[STING2]

That's um...wrong. 50 million or so voted, yes? The election shows what the slim majority of that 50 million or so thought, not all of the US.

A presidential election is the most accurate way to show how the nation feels about an incumbent President.

62,040,610 people voted for the sitting President George W. Bush

59,028,111 people voted for Senator John Kerry

1,224,611 people voted for other candidates.


George Bush received 3 million more votes than John Kerry. George W. Bush is the FIRST President to receive a majority of the votes in a presidential election since 1988 when George Bush Sr. won.

No opinion poll of a thousand people comes close to being as accurate as a Presidential election in measuring the mood of the people.

As for the people who didn't vote, in a presidential election with an incumbent president, their failure to vote typically is a sign that they are satisfied with the course the country is on and can only indicate support for the incumbent President.

 

[STING2]

Sting, your devotion to the Bush administration is admirable in it's totality, and terrifying as well. Is there anything he's done that you don't approve of? I ask because I've read your posts for years, and have never seen you admit that he's not infallible.

Well, I'll say a few things that I disagree with.

#1 I think the number of Brigades on the ground in Iraq currently is not enough. Given the total number of Army, National Guard and Marine brigades available, I think more should be deployed to Iraq. While this will NOT in of itself end the insurgency, it will make it easier to fight. Once a US infantry Battalion clears a town of insurgence, it would be able to remain there much longer to keep it clear of insurgence if additional units were on the ground to take on the other tasks and missions this particular Battalion would normally have to move on to.

#2 I think that disbanding the entire Iraqi Army at the end of operation Iraqi Freedom in May 2003 was a mistake. While the purpose in doing this was debathification, I think a process that scrutinized and removed many of the officers that supported Saddam would have been better. If much of the regular had been kept intact and deployed to guard against insurgence, the coalition would be much further along to road of establishing and Iraqi military and police force that could handle any threat to the countries security without needing help from foreign forces.

Any Republican Guard units definitely had to be disbanded, but much of the regular army especially the enlisted soldiers, should have been payed and kept in uniform to help police the country.

#3 There should have been more attempts to reach out to the Sunni Community in the days and weeks following the removal of Saddam from power. I'm sure this was done, but I think it should have been the highest priority because the insurgency in Iraq comes almost entirely from the Sunni Population. Getting the majority of the Sunni population on board to support the New Iraq is what will ultimately defeat the insurgency whether that is before or after an Iraqi military is developed to independently handle the countries security problems.

#4 The administration needs to devote more money and other assistence to economic development of the third world. Obviously Billions are going to develop Iraq as it should, but Billions more should be spent else where wisely as this will help to defuse the claims terrorist and anti-American groups use to recruit people as well as create new allies. A more developed and prosperous third world, decreases the security risk that the United States and other countries will face in the future.

#5 When it came to taxes, I agreed with John Kerry's plan more than Bush's. John Kerry's plan cut taxes for the middle class as it should, while it increases taxes on the wealthiest Americans. With John Kerry's tax plan, you get the benefits of the Bush tax plan which spurs economic growth, but you have more money to deal with the deficit from increased taxes on the small number of wealthy Americans.

#6 Its time to redirect more of the money that goes to Research and Development for the Air Force and the Navy to the Army and Marine Corp to help out with the ground intensive missions and insurgencies in Iraq.

 

[najeena]

Thank you.

 

[xtal]

My friend is an avid supporter of Bush.
I personally am a democrat and I support anyone but Bush.

She is not a US Citizen and can't vote. I vote, ha!

*The rest of my huge family are also Democrat and most of my friends are as well*

 

[PopFly]

If Al Gore is president, there's a chance that 9-11 doesn't happen and there is no 'War on Terror' as we know it.

 

[BonosSaint]

There are four basic questions if we decide to carry this war on terror elsewhere.

1. Do we have the resources, the stamina to carry on other
protracted wars and the leaders who have the intelligence to
use those resources wisely and efficiently and to cause a
minimal amount of coalition and civilian bloodshed?

2. Do we trust our leaders not to lie to us, to manipulate us?

3. Will we worsen the situation or better it?

4. Will we have the flexibility to revise our strategy and not just
our rationale, when things do not go as expected?

What's done is done now. Now I am concerned that having perhaps bitten off more than we can chew, whether our eyes are still bigger than our stomachs.

I can't imagine that Gore would have done a worse job than Bush has done. I can't tell if he would have done better.

Instead of shock and awe, I think the President gave us shock and ah, shit! Sometimes I question his connection to reality. Is that disconnect the nature of this man or the nature of the job?

 

[80sU2isBest]

If Al Gore is president, there's a chance that 9-11 doesn't happen and there is no 'War on Terror' as we know it.

Upon what do you base that "chance"? Bush had been in ofice less than a year, and had made no big waves at that time.

 

[Rono]

1,224,611 people voted for other candidates.

Why are this people not represented in the white house i mean, those people have no voice in national politics i guess.

 

[PopFly]

Upon what do you base that "chance"? Bush had been in ofice less than a year, and had made no big waves at that time.

I dunno, chaos theory if anything. A butterfly flaps its wings and all that. Perhaps if Gore is president, some little change somewhere in the chain events is shifted just enough that a CIA agent takes a bit more notice of a flight school in Arizona, or an airline timetable is shifted around to acccomodate President Gore flying into NYC that day, or a hundred little things that would've gone differently.

 

[nbcrusader]

I dunno, chaos theory if anything. A butterfly flaps its wings and all that. Perhaps if Gore is president, some little change somewhere in the chain events is shifted just enough that a CIA agent takes a bit more notice of a flight school in Arizona, or an airline timetable is shifted around to acccomodate President Gore flying into NYC that day, or a hundred little things that would've gone differently.

On that level of analysis, we could have faced multiple 9/11 type attacks if Gore were elected....

 

[U2DMfan]

It was basically inevitable.
That's why I think it's silly to blame Bush or Clinton. It hardly mattered who the President was. AL Qaeda wasn't going to 'cancel' the plot if Gore had won Florida.

Maybe Bush should have paid more attention to the memos and maybe Clinton should have been more proactive, but an attack on this scale was going to happen sooner or later.

It was going to take something like this to get the public support for truly fighting it. It wasn't there in 1998 or August 2001.

It seems to me the difference is what happened after the public was truly united to take it on. Would Gore have pissed it all away?

 

[STING2]

Why are this people not represented in the white house i mean, those people have no voice in national politics i guess.

Just because their candidate did not win a race for political office does not mean they do not have a voice in national politics.

 

[DaveC]

Originally posted by STING2 How many dictators over the past 20 years have invaded and attacked four different countries,

Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.

threatened most of the planets energy supply with sabotage or seizure,

Getting in bed with the Saudis and effectively using them as puppets to control oil supply.

used WMD more times than any other leader in history,

Poison gas - 1917-1918
Atomic bombs - 1945
Repeated nuclear weapons tests - 1945-1992
Ballistic missile defense tests - 1980-Present

murdered 1.7 million people,

Blockade of Cuba - over 75,000 dead (directly and indirectly)
Invasion of Iraq - over 100,000 dead
Two atomic bombs - over 350,000 dead (directly and indirectly)
Killing of own citizens (as punishment) - over 5,000 dead
Plus countless others in smaller-scale wars and police actions.

violated a Ceacefire Agreement,

Bay of Pigs invasion - 1961

been engaged in a multi-Billion dollar smuggling,

Thousands of illegal immigrants granted work visas without background checks every year.

and failed to account for thousands of stocks of WMD as required by UN resolutions?

Chemical weapons - over 20,000 tons
Nuclear weapons - over 10,000 individual warheads

This nation is the United States of America.

Double standard?

 

[STING2]

Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.



Getting in bed with the Saudis and effectively using them as puppets to control oil supply.



Poison gas - 1917-1918
Atomic bombs - 1945
Repeated nuclear weapons tests - 1945-1992
Ballistic missile defense tests - 1980-Present



Blockade of Cuba - over 75,000 dead (directly and indirectly)
Invasion of Iraq - over 100,000 dead
Two atomic bombs - over 350,000 dead (directly and indirectly)
Killing of own citizens (as punishment) - over 5,000 dead
Plus countless others in smaller-scale wars and police actions.



Bay of Pigs invasion - 1961



Thousands of illegal immigrants granted work visas without background checks every year.



Chemical weapons - over 20,000 tons
Nuclear weapons - over 10,000 individual warheads

This nation is the United States of America.

Double standard?

#1 The United States did not launch any unprovoked invasions of Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia.

a. Every US action against Iraq has been approved by the United Nations and been conducted with a coalition of nations.

b. The United States went into Somalia because it was the only country positioned to aid that country with delivery of food to the starving population. Liberals pushed hard for this particular action.

c. The United States responded to the problem in Haiti after months of a constant flow of refugees into Florida.

d. The United States invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban failed to deliver Bin Ladin and other Al Quada members and were found to be working with Al Quada and Bin Ladin. This happened within one month after Al Quada had attacked the WTC killing 3,000 Americans and people from other countries.

e. In the former Yugoslavia, the United States and other NATO countries finally intervened to stop the fighting in Bosnia that had already taken over 250,000 lives. They were successful in stopping the fighting and brought stability to the area so much so, that in September of 1997, U2 brought their POPMART tour to the Capital. During the concert, BONO praised the US troops success in ending the Bosnian war. In Kosovo, the United States and NATO responded to the gross human rights tragedy unfolding there brought on by Serb Ethnic cleansing. The United States and NATO successfully brought a level of stability to Kosovo that the Serbs had failed to, partly because the goals of Milosovic did not really involve safety and stability for the Muslim population.





The United States is not in bed with the Saudi's to control oil supplies. The whole world purchases Saudi oil and Saudi Arabia has often made up for shortages that often occur in Iraq, Russia and Venezuela. Saudi oil has helped keep energy prices around the world low and has helped the planets economy grow.



Saddam has used WMD more times on the battlefield than any other leader in history. Truman from the United States used the Atomic Bomb twice in 1945.


The blockade of Cuba is the fault of Castro and his Communist supporters. 100,000 civilians have not been killed by the invasion of Iraq. Most of the civilians that have died since the end of the initial invasion have died from terrorist acts committed by Saddam loyalist and Al Quada. Its true that thousands of civilians died in the Atomb Bomb blast in 1945 over Japan, but Japan surrendered because of the use of the Bombs. If Japan had not surrendered, the US Air Command would have continued its campaign, and Japan would have been invaded in the Spring of 1946. Millions of Japanese citizens would have been killed in the fighting. The use of the Atomic Bombs prevented this from happening.



The United States has never been required by the United Nations to disarm of its WMD's because it had unlawfully invaded another country as Saddam's Iraq had as well as because it had used such weapons on a massive scale unlawfully.



Double Standard?

No, the two are not even comparable, disregarding the inaccurate information used to attempt a comparison. Saddam is one leader that was in control of Iraq for 25 years. The United States is a country that has had dozens of leaders over the past 225 years. I don't understand the desperate attempt to make Saddam look like a saint by comparing him to the alleged evils of a country that has been around for over 2 century's. This just proves that not only is Saddam one of the most terrible leaders in history, Saddam has done far more harm to the planet than most countries have over several hundred years.