The Al Gore Admin's War on Terror - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-28-2005, 09:52 PM   #91
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


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.
__________________

__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 12:37 AM   #92
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:35 PM
Quote:
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.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 03:37 AM   #93
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 05:35 PM
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.
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:51 AM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:35 AM
A majority of the voters in the 2004 Election voted for Bush.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:11 AM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 01:35 AM
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.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 06:43 AM   #96
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.


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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 07:10 AM   #97
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 04:44 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:02 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem


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 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 05:37 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by najeena
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-30-2005, 02:20 PM   #101
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 06:35 AM
Thank you.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-30-2005, 07:17 PM   #102
War Child
 
xtal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: US
Posts: 834
Local Time: 10:35 PM
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*
__________________
xtal is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 11:22 PM   #103
War Child
 
PopFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 885
Local Time: 01:35 AM
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.
__________________
PopFly is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 11:54 PM   #104
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 02:35 AM
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?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 08-01-2005, 06:53 AM   #105
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com