Vote for Bush 2004!

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Continued support for Suharto as "our kind of guy". Illegally shipping weapons and training officers to Indonesia after congress forbade it. Doing nothing to stop the genocide in East Timor. Sabbatoging the war crimes investigation into East Timor.

So Vader, are you going to be responsible for your neighbors actions? That is what you are accusing the United States. The statement of "our kind of guy" was made far earlier before the East Timor crisis. However, the US has had little role in human irights investigations because it was purely an Indonesian investigations without any outside help.

Yougoslavia. Thats a whole thread in itself but id simply be copying "A new generation draws the line" by Noam Chomsky so I recomand you simply read it. In short forget everything you think you know about the Balkins 1999. The US created the problem in the Balkins, supported both sides to heat it up, sabatoged peace talks and kept the UN out all to prve the efectivness of NATO. Sounds paranoid doesnt it. You should read the quotes then from German Generals and NATO generals who say just that.

OH really Vader. Tell me, why did Putin support Milosovich in 1994 when Russia was about to veto UN resolution for the Balkans? How about Greece and Turkey who were about to go to war in 1999 when the ethnic fighting reached Macedonia of Yugoslavia? Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time. By the way, the Balkan situation started detiorating in 1994, not 1999. By 1999, the problem became a political fiasco because of Russia willingness to support Milosovich while providing minimal support of NATO (a minimax policy) and NATO was caught doing peacekeeping operations which was not well suited for in terms of command and control. In any case, former President Clinton was very reluctant to engage in the Balkans until he decided for purely humanitarian reasons as well as most world leaders (can you say Chirac and Shroeder?). Here are a few web links:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/AF23Ag03.html
http://home.uchicago.edu/~pefrase/kosovo/
http://www.cfr.org/pub4279/jessica_fugate/ nato_in_the_balance_united_states_must_nurture_european_allies.php - 28k

This is not to say former President Clinton bungled the Balkan situation, but it is not what Choamsky states by any means.

Increased activity in Columbia. Again another piss long thread I could write but Ill just say FARC are the good guys and Clinton kept some very brutal and unpopular ppl in power.

To say FARC are the good guys is totally preposterous Vader. They are a terrorist organization that deserves the uptmost contempt. Columbia has had a history of drug kingpins and the government of Columbia has been determined to root them out. Those drug lords (Calle, Medallin, etc) are a scourge of the earth and should be shown no mercy!

Haiti while he eventually did the right thing it took him 2 years and even then he put conditions on restoring your man Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power.

I take it you would have put Aristide back in power thinking everybody will forget what happened in the last two years. There is a proceedure of diplomatic efforts that must be made before any military action. Furthermore, not to put any conditions would be considered politically reckless by international standards as well as completely ignorant of what happened in Haiti over the past few years. It would have constituted de facto imperialism on the surface with this suggestion Vader.

Clinton was there in Somalia the greatest piece of propargand the world has ever seen. IMO the lads at Fox should have got an oscar.

First, Somalia was devestated by a brutal civil war and famine. Second, humanitarian outcry's began pouring over and the UN, with US support, went into Somalia in 1992 under former President Bush Sr. Thrid, 25 Pakistanis were brutally murdered on June 5, 1993 by Adid. Even the UN Security Council considered him an outlaw. That is when a second US Armed Team came into Somalia and tried to arrest Adid for war crimes. So, where is the propoganda Vader?

Vader

Originally posted by Sparks
Vader, you forgot Rwanda, which was arguably Clinton's most heinous act.

And then there's PDD-25, which actually codified Clinton's post-somalia approach to peacekeeping - ie. not getting involved for fear of losing votes....



http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol1/unpeace_body.html

Those are just the first that sprung to mind, no particular order. I just had to laugh when Gerry thought I was only bitching about Monica. That was probably Clintons best use of his office

Sparks

Originally posted by Vader
Those are just the first that sprung to mind, no particular order. I just had to laugh when Gerry thought I was only bitching about Monica. That was probably Clintons best use of his office

Yes, but Monica was why he was kicked out by the Republicans. Which is why watching Bush get away with what he gets away with is so fustrating. I know it's like comparing two different kinds of cancer, but bush would be brain cancer and clinton prostate cancer.....

Vader

Ok Geromino I'll give you one reply but I said that each of my points could support a thread in themselves and debating with you is very time consuming, a luxary I wont have again for a while.

Originally posted by Geromino
So Vader, are you going to be responsible for your neighbors actions?
That is what you are accusing the United States. The statement of "our kind of guy" was made far earlier before the East Timor crisis. However, the US has had little role in human irights investigations because it was purely an Indonesian investigations without any outside help.

The East Timor situation was ongoing for 30 years actually. America was a little more than neighbourly. It illegally supplyed indonesia with weapons and training. What type of justice can be done by the perpretators trying themselves. That whole paragraph is nonesense.

OH really Vader. Tell me, why did Putin support Milosovich in 1994 when Russia was about to veto UN resolution for the Balkans? How about Greece and Turkey who were about to go to war in 1999 when the ethnic fighting reached Macedonia of Yugoslavia? Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time. By the way, the Balkan situation started detiorating in 1994, not 1999. By 1999, the problem became a political fiasco because of Russia willingness to support Milosovich while providing minimal support of NATO (a minimax policy) and NATO was caught doing peacekeeping operations which was not well suited for in terms of command and control. In any case, former President Clinton was very reluctant to engage in the Balkans until he decided for purely humanitarian reasons as well as most world leaders (can you say Chirac and Shroeder?). Here are a few web links:
http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/AF23Ag03.html
http://home.uchicago.edu/~pefrase/kosovo/
http://www.cfr.org/pub4279/jessica_fugate/ nato_in_the_balance_united_states_must_nurture_european_allies.php - 28k
This is not to say former President Clinton bungled the Balkan situation, but it is not what Choamsky states by any means.

The Balkins is the most complicated thing in history imo and I do not have the time to debate it here. I stand by what I said above, read that book because thats what I would be quoting in such an arguement. Chomsky does not say that Clinton Bungled the Balkins. That would be very uncharacteristic of him to say. From the evidence (well researched and sourced) it is clear that the situation was escalated by the US and others, that war could have been adverted, that the war was not successful, and that there has been much lying and misinformation since. Clinton is responsible for all this, he was the fúcking president, connect the dots.

To say FARC are the good guys is totally preposterous Vader. They are a terrorist organization that deserves the uptmost contempt. Columbia has had a history of drug kingpins and the government of Columbia has been determined to root them out. Those drug lords (Calle, Medallin, etc) are a scourge of the earth and should be shown no mercy!

The terrorist drug runners you speak of are right wing paramilitaries trained and funded by the CIA and the official government armed forces. FARC are terrorists but then again so is america by its own definition of terrorist. This is not just a case of symantics, there are many detailed books on US terrorism out there. Read one. I like Rogue States by Chomsky(yes I do read a lot of his work). You might as well read it as debate with me.

I take it you would have put Aristide back in power thinking everybody will forget what happened in the last two years. There is a proceedure of diplomatic efforts that must be made before any military action. Furthermore, not to put any conditions would be considered politically reckless by international standards as well as completely ignorant of what happened in Haiti over the past few years. It would have constituted de facto imperialism on the surface with this suggestion Vader.

yes I would have put him back in power straight away. I also wouldnt have ousted him in the first place. Yes I would believe that a man of his character and principle, bearing in mind he is a ####### priest, and trust him to turn the other cheak. Of course there would be some sort of trial but I would think they would be very fair ones. Why not make those the conditions?
Why would it be reckless to allow social reforms that would benifit the masses at the expense of a few rich foreigners?

First, Somalia was devestated by a brutal civil war and famine. Second, humanitarian outcry's began pouring over and the UN, with US support, went into Somalia in 1992 under former President Bush Sr. Thrid, 25 Pakistanis were brutally murdered on June 5, 1993 by Adid. Even the UN Security Council considered him an outlaw. That is when a second US Armed Team came into Somalia and tried to arrest Adid for war crimes. So, where is the propoganda Vader?

Your right it was 1992, like I said I was listing things off the top of my head.
But while you want to know why I listed it as wrong and proparganda:
On December 12, 1992, the U.S. sent 28,000 soldiers into Somalia under the cover of the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in what they said was a “humanitarian mission” to bring food to starving people. The invasion came when a several-year drought that had taken tens of thousands of lives was actually abating. At the time, the evening news showed images of thousands of starving Somalis. What people didn’t see was U.S. troops — not delivering food — but instead engaged in daily gun battles and bombing raids in heavily populated neighborhoods. In ten months, more than 10,000 Somalis died as the U.S. engaged in aggressive military action against those who resisted.

Resistance among Somali women, men and even children to the foreign troops became widespread. The Somali people have a long and proud history of resistance. They fought for the freedom of their country from Italian, French and British colonialism — and they resisted the U.S. attempts to recolonize their country.

In the beginning of the military intervention in 1992, Colin Powell, at the time the chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the invasion a “paid political advertisement” for the Pentagon at a time (less than a year after the end of the so-called Cold War) when Congress was under growing pressure to cut the war budget. Powell opposed calls that money be used instead for jobs, education, health care, housing and other social needs, and instead sought to maintain the $300-billion-plus military budget.

In reporting on the U.S./UN Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM), the human rights organization Africa Rights stated that troops “have engaged in abuses of human rights, including killing of civilians, physical abuse, theft... Many UNOSOM soldiers have also displayed unacceptable levels of racism toward Somalis.” These abuses included opening fire with machine guns against unarmed protesters, firing missiles into residential areas and outright murder civilians, including many youth. The report states “UNOSOM has become an army of occupation.”
I have some of the coverage on tape and it really is top notch stuff. You'd nearly believe the americans are the good guys.

Victor

Originally posted by Geromino
Who do you think were supporting the Bosnians (Turks) and Croatians (Greeks) during that time.

If anything Greece supported Serbia (both are orthodox Christian and Greece was reluctant with NATO intervention in Kosovo and in fact not trusted by other NATO members at the time) and Germany supported Croatia.

ll=llannah

argh. I had this huge post typed out, and what does my laptop do but shut down. It was probably too long, anyway. So now you get the shortened version

Ok, going back to the first post of this thread:

I get really frustrated when people pessimistically say that Bush will be re-elected. I know its a definite possibility but pessimism will only worsen the situation. Because the pessimism leads to laziness because people feel like they can't change things. Which is bad, cause then things never get changed.
Anyway, the 2004 U.S. presidential election is one that I am especially dedicated to - not only because I live in New York and thus have to deal with the outcomes of the presidential elections on a daily basis, but also because it's finally the first election I get to vote in. (Altho I'm too young to vote in the primaries, dammit.)
I was talking to a lot of people my age today about voting, because I was registering. A lot of them say they aren't going to bother registering, because they don't care enough. That is in the top five stupidest things anyone has EVER said to me. They complain about bush and his policies (and general stupidity) but don't care enough to fill in a stupid little form that a monkey could fill out that will enable to vote for someone who IS NOT him?! Come on! Its the future we're talking about, not an episode of t.v., for the love of god.
As to the candidates, I like Wesley Clark ALOT. he's got a sound history (amazing history, actually- i'll recap if you guys don't know it) and great foreign policy and knows what the hell he is doing. Furthermore, he is not Bush. (A big plus.) And he also is very non-partisan. Which is good. Because the country cares much too much about fighting against other parties rather than working together to find the best candidate for office.
I like Dean quite a bit, too, I still prefer him to Bush, but I do not think he is as well rounded internationally as Clark is. And clark certainly has military experience. lots of it.
I'm really interested in what you guys know about the candidates - how much is the election talked about in the news and in general over by you? I'd be really interested to hear more on that

Secondly. About Clinton. Dear god, WHY do people get his sex life and achievements as president confused!??!? People have been cheating on their spouses for CENTURIES and it is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS- even when its the president. I mean, did we (erm- america) impeach Jefferson? Kennedy? (the list goes on and on, so many were known to not be completely true to their spouses - its none of our business.) He was an amazing president. He didn't have a private life that was that honorable from certain standpoints. The only reason the "scandal" got in the way of political issues was that the media blew it out of proportion, giddily helped by the republicans who wanted him out of office. it's all party politics. Furthermore, he did his best as president in regard to his duties as president (not as a husband- we don't elect people based on who should be truest to their spouses) and people are only human. Mistakes happen. The president is supposed to make decisions (many without much thought time) based on their instincts, their knowledge of history and of the situation and I believe Clinton made many good decisions. So can we please leave his sex life out of discussions when he is talked about? And whoever (I can't remember who it was and i can't be bothered scrolling all the way down- the internet is being dreadfully slow) said that Clinton was just as bad as Bush, I really sincerely hope you were kidding. Please. please. please.

heh. so much for the second draft not being long winded. there are some of my thoughts - like i said, i'd be really interested in hearing about how much you hear about the election by you guys

~ Hannah

Geromino

This will be my only reply to your response Vader. If you want to start a different thread on the history/political situation of each of these topics, I will be there.

Originally posted by Vader
The East Timor situation was ongoing for 30 years actually. America was a little more than neighbourly. It illegally supplyed indonesia with weapons and training. What type of justice can be done by the perpretators trying themselves. That whole paragraph is nonesense.

Do you know anything speciific about Timor Vader? You are partially correct that the situation in East Timor has been occuring for the past 30 years, but what you are not acknowledging is that East Timor used to be part of a Portuguese colony and West Timor use to be a Dutch Colony. There have been three primary players involved in the East Timor crisis. One was Indonesia, which saw East Timor as part of its archipelago. Second, which is Portugual, used to be the administrator of the eastern part of the island until "Carnation Revolution." Finally, you have a political group in East Timor called UDT (which was one of the five or six major political groups on East Timor. However, when the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor came into power and established a Soviet friendly, marxist regime, that is when Indonesia became nervous and tensions began to climb. Not to mention, it was FRETILIN accension into established Indonesian terroritores that alarmed both Washington and the current president of Indonesia. Following appeals from FRETILIN's Timorese opponents, on 7 December 1975 the armed forces of Indonesia , comprising ten battalions, intervened in East Timor. On 8 December 1975 the Portuguese authorities departed from the island of Atauro, exacerbating power struggles among several Timorese political factions. Asserting that on 31 May 1976 the people of East Timor had requested Indonesia "to accept East Timor as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia", Indonesia incorporated Timor as part of its national territory. Responding to an alleged appeal from the people of East Timor, Indonesia passed a law on 15 July 1976 providing for annexation, which the President of Indonesia signed on 17 July 1976. East Timor was thus given the status of the 27th province of Indonesia. Asserting that on 31 May 1976 the people of East Timor had requested Indonesia "to accept East Timor as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia", Indonesia incorporated Timor as part of its national territory. Responding to an alleged appeal from the people of East Timor, Indonesia passed a law on 15 July 1976 providing for annexation, which the President of Indonesia signed on 17 July 1976. East Timor was thus given the status of the 27th province of Indonesia.

Not exactly making East Timor a innocent victim while Indonesia, even with its butality on military operatoins was not a complete monster either, given the facts.

[url]httpy://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/timor.htm[/url]

The Balkins is the most complicated thing in history imo and I do not have the time to debate it here. I stand by what I said above, read that book because thats what I would be quoting in such an arguement. Chomsky does not say that Clinton Bungled the Balkins. That would be very uncharacteristic of him to say. From the evidence (well researched and sourced) it is clear that the situation was escalated by the US and others, that war could have been adverted, that the war was not successful, and that there has been much lying and misinformation since. Clinton is responsible for all this, he was the fúcking president, connect the dots.

I will read my own books by established historians and political analysts when the debate on this subject comes Vader.

The terrorist drug runners you speak of are right wing paramilitaries trained and funded by the CIA and the official government armed forces. FARC are terrorists but then again so is america by its own definition of terrorist. This is not just a case of symantics, there are many detailed books on US terrorism out there. Read one. I like Rogue States by Chomsky(yes I do read a lot of his work). You might as well read it as debate with me.

Who do you think the right wing paramilitary forces were fighting Vader. Can you say the drug cartel. Who do you think the drug cartels were in cahoots with? Can you say FARC! By the way, most of the kidnappings, death squads, and mass murders have been committed by FARC and not the right wing paramilitary forces.

www.cdi.org/terrorism/farc.cfm

yes I would have put him back in power straight away. I also wouldnt have ousted him in the first place. Yes I would believe that a man of his character and principle, bearing in mind he is a ####### priest, and trust him to turn the other cheak. Of course there would be some sort of trial but I would think they would be very fair ones. Why not make those the conditions?
Why would it be reckless to allow social reforms that would benifit the masses at the expense of a few rich foreigners?

When Aristide was placed back into power, the conditions were first to have fair and impartial elections. Those who are elected should have first crack, not to mention a second or third, for political reforms. To dictate such conditions would not only be arrogant, but deemed as imperialistic attitudes toward the populace. Yet this is something you keep accusing the US of doing on a continual basis Vader.

Your right it was 1992, like I said I was listing things off the top of my head.........I have some of the coverage on tape and it really is top notch stuff. You'd nearly believe the americans are the good guys.

First, you are confusing the two missions that involved the United States. The first was a humanitarian mission that involved 28000 personell. However, when the UN took over, most of those forces were replaced by Indian and Pakistani UN peace keepers. When that happened, that is when Adid started to resist the UN humanitarian missions by denying food and medicine to his enemies (he wanted it all for himself). After 25 Pakistani soldiers were murdered by Adid's forces, that is when the second mission by the US came into being. Their sole mission was to apprehend Adid for war crimes tribunal.

As far as Africa Watch, there record of accuracy is dismally low. Most of their information is greatly distorted by the events held on the ground, not to mention, they cannot document accurately a single piece of evidence. The rest of their analysis is basically outright lies. However, there have been reports that AllAfrica.net has links to supporters of Adid and his cohorts. Not exactly a unbiased opinion reporting.