4 more years..well maybe

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Sand


Who exactly is in the White House doesnt matter. So long as the world needs oil, the West will have an interest in the Middle East. So Mahatma Ghandi could be elected President and hed still have to get involved in the Middle East. *You* could be elected President and youd still have to ensure that the oil flowed from the Middle East or preside over a 2nd Great Depression and the fastest lynching in US presidential history.

I won't address most of your comments since I feel they have already been addressed. I would like to reinforce what Bonkey commented about the importance of who is in office in the US. Imagine (this is hard I know since it will never happen in any government) that the green party candidate got elected as the US president then I think your argument for the need for oil is greatly lessened. No need for oil = no need to kick the crap out of the Middle East. If I became president I'm sure I would be able to do feck all (since I would be cut off at every turn). Saying that, if possible, I would see to it that the dependancey on oil would be reduced to a minimum using alternative energy forms. The only reason that other energy generation methods are not used on a large scale is because war and large monies cannot be created from them. Superpowers need wars in order to control their populations by fear.

Boeing are researching an anti-gravity device (invented by Yevgeny Podkletnov) on their planes. If used it would reduce the weight of the plane by 6%, big savings for Boeing. This device defies much of science but yet it works experimentally. Plenty of other inventions exist, that use similar methods, to generate electricty from a seemingly unknown source. Without wanting to go into this in too much depth I will just say that these inventions have been kept down by the powers that be. Why? Simple, the powers that be would lose their power. Imagine a world without the need for oil.
So, to get to the point, yes it really does matter who is the president of the US.

Nick

flogen

to throw my weight behind Bonkey, and meatproduct, of course the man in power makes a difference.

I am realistic, and I know that if Kerry wins, things arent going to turn rosey all of a sudden, but I hope that he will deal with the threat head on, and not as an excuse to get oil, and take out people he doesnt like. I also hope that he does something to ween the US of its oil dependency, if they dont need the oil, they can be truely neutral in the ME (SA being a prime example, terrorist HQ, but the US wont go near it for fear of souring big money deals).

Also, I wonder how H. Clinton would do, she'd have an instant hunk of support for being female, not to mention a female who is heavily involved in politics. Obviously it depends on her policies, but I can imagine many voting for her just so they could see a female president (I know, that would be reckless, but if Jeb or someone else was running on the otherside, I'd vote her in!!)

flogen

Sand

More correctly, you can say that there hasn't been another attack, not that one has been prevented.

Same thing for all intents and purposes, in an enviroment where victory is ensuring nothing happens.

Thats the real problem with fighting terrorists. There are few armies to rout, few cities to conquer and lots of critics. WW2 must have been a walk in the park by comparison.

True, but there is a point of view which would hold that Bush's choices are only exacerbating the situation, which is often coupled with a belief (of questionable grounding, I'll admit) that Kerry will - at the very least - not be as bad.

I dont know how hes going to beat a 100% record in keeping the US terrorist attack free for 3 years tbh - whats Kerry going to do? Close down the security departments Bush created? Cancel the legislation - leave himself open to calls of going soft on terror? This is a political opportunist, not a true believer in anything beyond what suit Kerry at that moment in time. As for Iraq - I know that you dont agree that it would be smart to cut and run from Iraq, and we have to allow that Kerry isnt going to rock the boat or announce anything wildy revolutionary, so youll agree that Kerry isnt going to either. So no change there either.

If he does cut and run then Iraq will collapse into a failed state and actually double the problem. Again, people can hate Bush all they like but nothings going to change no matter who wins the election.

Yes, it does. It matters how they manage the problem, whether they make it better (overall) or worse, whether they have brought us one step closer to someday finding a solution, or one step further away.

But the problem, and the solution does not change. The forces acting upon the decision making process do not change. Bush didnt invent bible thumping militant patriotism - hes just the figurehead for it and a host of other causes. The influence those lobby groups have wont vanish with Bush, theyll just work on Kerry, the man seemingly without a principle beyond oppurtunism.

At the end of the day Presidential candidates are practically independant from their party, they are elected by registered memebers rather than selected by party chiefs. They fund their campaigns through private donations, and no doubt, like all politicians dont want to offend their major backers when it comes to collecting for re-election. The top 3 donors to Gore in 2000 were the top 3 for Bush. The same backers, the same interests, just slightly different figureheads.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is the difference between Coke and Pepsi. Even if Nader, by some miracle got elected hed still face the same entrenched forces and would make feck all headway against them.

However, if we look at the real problem (which is exactly what you're pointing out), then surely it is disingenious to also talk about a McFix. Should we not look rather at the long term....and thats when differences in Presidents and policies do become important once more.

Let me put it to you like this.

Meatproduct finds hes A) actually a born American citizen, Mysteriously wildly popular with US voters, C) Elected President of the US this November in a whirlwind campaign that stuns the established political order.

As President he immediately starts trying to get legislation passed that will remove barriers to alternative fuels or even subsidise it. But he cant get his bills passed. Why not? Because the Senate and the House of Representitives are in the backpocket of the entrenched lobby groups. What - President Meatproduct wants to waste taxdollars on some unproven, uneconomical and fanciful technology which will decimate the US economy and cost millions of people their jobs!!!!! Down with that sort of thing.

Regardless of the truth, no politician wants to put their name to a policy like that - especially when it comes to re-election time and their funders start wondering what theyve done lately for them.

Who is President doesnt matter. The US is *immense*. No one person/group, not even the President can effect change in it. When alternative fuels come online ( and Im wholly in support of alternative energy over and beyond oil ) itll be because vast blocs of the political order are persuaded they should be a priority, not just President Meatproduct. When that comes about, even if the President was Bush the 3rd hed have to go with the political flow.

Sure, lets try and work to that point, but its not going to hinge on the next election. Kerry gets in power, subsidies alternative power research. Bush remains in power, US discontent with their kids dying for oil leads to widespread calls for finding an alternative energy source. Different paths, same end result.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Same thing for all intents and purposes, in an enviroment where victory is ensuring nothing happens.

You seem to be missing what I was driving at. Bush hasn't ensured anything, or if he has, he has done so by making sure it is US soldiers on foreign soil, coupled with the inhabitrants of that foreign soil who are targetted instead of the US at home - which anyone can see is a short-term formula at best, even if we ignore the distaastefulness of it.

Thats the real problem with fighting terrorists.

Yes, indeed it is. The problem is figuring out how to fight them with the longterm view in mind - something many do not feel Bush has done.

I dont know how hes going to beat a 100% record in keeping the US terrorist attack free for 3 years tbh - whats Kerry going to do?

You know...if you took everyone with lung cancer out and shot them for three years in a row, your deaths from lung cancer would be 0 in that time-period. And while trotting out the figure on its own may be impressive, its hardly a reasonable measure of success though, is it?

Measuring only the short-term impact of Bush's strategy - which by his own admission is supposedly a long-term one - is equally as flawed.

This is a political opportunist, not a true believer in anything beyond what suit Kerry at that moment in time.

I keep hearing this about Kerry, mostly on the back of the GOP's constant whining about how he varies between voting for and against overall issues. Personally, I can't understand how anyone could be taken as credible if they didn't judge each bill on its own merits, rather than the basic ideology behind it.

Maybe Kerry is a political opportunist, but he seems equally capable of being someone who wants to see things done right and won't support a half-assed implementation on an issue he generally supports when the chance remains to hold out for a better deal.

As for Iraq - I know that you dont agree that it would be smart to cut and run from Iraq,

Agreed. Nor do I expect Kerry (should he win) to hand over whatever control the US still has to the UN.

and we have to allow that Kerry isnt going to rock the boat or announce anything wildy revolutionary, so youll agree that Kerry isnt going to either. So no change there either.

No, I won't agree there is no change.

I spent most of the last post trying to show why it is the finer differences in approach which will be where Kerry has a chance to do a better job than Bush, particularly when one looks to the longer-term impacts, so I fail to see what this point is addressing except the issues I already have admitted will not show a difference between the two men.

But the problem, and the solution does not change.

Ah! So there is a solution to all of this. There is an actual approach which is gauranteed to bring about a peaceful and democratic Iraq, a rejuvenated Afghanistan, an end to terrorism in general and so on and so forth???

You don't really believe that, do you? If not, then suggesting that there is a solution and that it won't change is somewhat suspect in its credibility.

The forces acting upon the decision making process do not change.

Really? Then why did Clinton not invade Iraq? Why did Bush snr. pull back at the border? If the forces don't change, and the people don't make a difference, when why was it this particular President who started two wars and is making noises about a third?

Why? Because the forces do change - one of those being the President himself.

theyll just work on Kerry, the man seemingly without a principle beyond oppurtunism.

Its nice to see that for someone who has decried those who do nothing but malign Bush for their lack of objectivity that you are able to continuously refer to Kerry in such a balanced and reasonable manner.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

So Bush also has no pricinples beyond opportunism either, then?

Let me put it to you like this.

And again you show that a President will be unable to supply the McFix. I thought I had already pointed out that simply looking for the McFix is the wrong approach in the first place?

Who is President doesnt matter.

So thats why they cumulatively spend half-a-billion or more on the election. Its because it doesn't matter!!! Now its all clear!!!

Sure, lets try and work to that point, but its not going to hinge on the next election. Kerry gets in power, subsidies alternative power research. Bush remains in power, US discontent with their kids dying for oil leads to widespread calls for finding an alternative energy source. Different paths, same end result.

Same end result? Kerry would bring the prevalance of alternate fuels several years closer by that model, while Bush would accelerate the headlong rush into running out of resources we become more and more dependant on.

Sure, at the end of 4 years, there mightn't be much to decide between them - but I don't know how often I can point out that its not about the McFix. Maybe thats what the voters will vote for in the end, and if thats the case then there are short-term differences which they can see (e.g. the difference in world opinion - rightly or wrongly - of the US at the end of Clinton's term and at the end of Bush's term).

jc

alleepally

I think a very interesting insight was made in Ciaran Carty's article in the Sunday Tribune. It was about reaction in the US to Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. When Carty was going home he was asked by an immigration officer where he was from

"Ireland"

"Ireland?", he said, "My wife says that if Bush is re-elected she's going to claim asylum in Ireland."

The worm is turning.

Badbonez

Originally posted by sovtek
Oh and what you said is why I'm going to vote for Nader.

Many people believe that it was Nader's votes that lost the election for Gore. Personally, I think it was Gore's campaign which sucked.

But Nader won't get nearly the same popularity this time. A majority of those that voted for Nader last time will be voting for Kerry this time. ("Anybody but Bush" is the mantra of everyone I know).

And no, if elected, Kerry won't be changing a great many of our foreign policies all at once. Bush made mistakes that can't be fixed immediately. However, one thing I hope he does it make it more of a UN process (a true coalition) and even up the outside contracts that Bush handed to his cronnies.

Badbonez

Originally posted by shinzon
Done forget according to john titor that there wil be an american civil war in the year 2005 which will spread globally by 2006

Shin

]
Ahhh...excuse me? The time traveling douche bag? Surely you are being sarcastic.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Badbonez
]
Ahhh...excuse me? The time traveling douche bag? Surely you are being sarcastic.

He has quite a following, although I believe the civil war is supposed to start this year (but I am not a JT beliver).

BUMP!

We've had the north and the south - who will it be this time? The East and the West??

Sand

You seem to be missing what I was driving at. Bush hasn't ensured anything, or if he has, he has done so by making sure it is US soldiers on foreign soil, coupled with the inhabitrants of that foreign soil who are targetted instead of the US at home - which anyone can see is a short-term formula at best, even if we ignore the distaastefulness of it.

I dont think he brought terrorism to Iraq, or at least to say so is to remove context from his actions. He removed Saddam and co who werent too far removed from state terrorism against their own people, and a consequence has been a surge in militant fundamentalist/nationalist nutters in a region of Iraq. Better to fight them out in the streets than have them forming the government, to my mind at least.

And while trotting out the figure on its own may be impressive, its hardly a reasonable measure of success though, is it?

As I said, in a war like this its the only measure of success we have. All we know is that their are terrorists with a will and ability to launch massive terrorist attacks on the US and Europe, and in the past 3 years since 9/11 Bush and the US have had a perfect record at stopping them. Sure, maybe the terrorists just havent tried, but we can only judge him on results.

Really? Then why did Clinton not invade Iraq? Why did Bush snr. pull back at the border? If the forces don't change, and the people don't make a difference, when why was it this particular President who started two wars and is making noises about a third?

Cmon bonkey, you know the answer to that. Bush Snr and Clinton both attacked and bombed Iraq. They didnt go all the way because it wasnt politically smart at the time. The Neo con agenda dates back to the 60s. They were just not listened to because everyone thought that you could ignore the problems in the middle east and other oppressive states.

Youre asking me what changed public mood in the US so that militant intervention to liberate Iraq was possible when it wasnt before? Cmon, you know what the effect of 9/11 was on the american political psyche.

Its nice to see that for someone who has decried those who do nothing but malign Bush for their lack of objectivity that you are able to continuously refer to Kerry in such a balanced and reasonable manner.

Ive yet to see anyone define Kerry as being anything other than the "not bush " candidate. When he comes out with a principle then fair enough, Ill define him by his principles. And this isnt just me speaking, Edwards has been parachuted in to save Kerry because the guy cant actually say what he stands for beyond vague and meaningless soundbites. Say what you like about bush, hes a bad president, but at least he makes it clear hes a fervent christian conservitive with a firm belief in reaganomics. Nader is the same, he makes it clear what he stands for. You can disagree with it, but at least he makes his view clear. Kerry doesnt. Maybe thats a flaw, maybe its not but my impression of him is that hes an opportunist. A voter cant predict how hell approach any situation given his record so how can they have confidence that hell represent them?

Hell, ask Dahmasta, who in the Kerry-Edwars thread commented that hes heard nothing really positive about Kerry. We cant both be hopelessly biased in favour of Bush.

Ah! So there is a solution to all of this. There is an actual approach which is gauranteed to bring about a peaceful and democratic Iraq, a rejuvenated Afghanistan, an end to terrorism in general and so on and so forth???

Yup. I believe there are common sense guidelines that must be followed to quash the terrorist threat in the short term and remove its causes in the long term. I cant go into them here without going hopelessly off topic tho - before you know it well be arguing over why its important for the US not to withdraw within the next 5 years, and to over rule the democratic government if needed and not about the difference Bush and Kerry would make.

So thats why they cumulatively spend half-a-billion or more on the election. Its because it doesn't matter!!! Now its all clear!!!

Vanity, arrogance, dellusions of grandeur - human beings spend money stupidly to begin with, and a lot of that money is twice what it should be thanks to one company backing both candidates. How much did they spend on Euro 2004? Does it *really* matter who won it? Does it really matter to Nike which team won so long as they have a commercial contract with them?

And again you show that a President will be unable to supply the McFix. I thought I had already pointed out that simply looking for the McFix is the wrong approach in the first place?

Youre the one claiming who the President is especially important, the McFix as you put it. Did racism abate in the US because LBJ sent state troopers to desegregate that university? Or was that simply a reflection of a shift in public opinion that was informed by decades of political and social upheaval and history? The public mood would define a move as popular or unpopular, not the politician, not the president. And all Presidents want to get re-elected.

Sure, at the end of 4 years, there mightn't be much to decide between them - but I don't know how often I can point out that its not about the McFix.

What are we arguing about then? I claim it doesnt matter who the President is, you say that there wouldnt be much to decide between them at the end of 4 years. Heh, this thread is practically a demonstration of my point.