PDA

View Full Version : What an election.



Nonreality
2008-11-04, 22:51
Let's all hope the best for the USA shall we, and a lot of good music. :)

autopilot
2008-11-05, 03:52
Never mind

peter
2008-11-05, 04:39
autopilot wrote:
> Yep, it was amazing. Seems like everyone here in the UK was transfixed
> by it. I think just about the entire world collectively had their
> fingers crossed that Obama would get in. Well done USA, you should be
> really proud. Im just amazed the margin was not bigger, many people in
> the US obviously dont realise just how much of a terrible mess the
> retarded republicans have made of the world with their evil empire.
> Heres to the future of the states and the rest of the world, who this
> so profoundly effects too. God bless ya, theres hope after all!
>

Yeah, let's start a nice superficial political discussion. Just what we
all needed... (not)

Regards,
Peter

ModelCitizen
2008-11-05, 04:45
Oh dear.. the USA will start waking up soon.....

heads down....

MC

autopilot
2008-11-05, 04:55
autopilot wrote:
> Yep, it was amazing. Seems like everyone here in the UK was transfixed
> by it. I think just about the entire world collectively had their
> fingers crossed that Obama would get in. Well done USA, you should be
> really proud. Im just amazed the margin was not bigger, many people in
> the US obviously dont realise just how much of a terrible mess the
> retarded republicans have made of the world with their evil empire.
> Heres to the future of the states and the rest of the world, who this
> so profoundly effects too. God bless ya, theres hope after all!
>

Yeah, let's start a nice superficial political discussion. Just what we
all needed... (not)

Regards,
Peter

Really, not at all intended that way sorry. Just meant as a congrats to our American friends on an historic day. Whats the wrong with that? But i Will be sure to send any future posts to you for you approval first in future. Maybe i over stepped the mark, even if it was true. edited.

toby10
2008-11-05, 05:53
Really, not at all intended that way sorry. Just meant as a congrats to our American friends on an historic day. Whats the wrong with that? But i Will be sure to send any future posts to you for you approval first in future. Maybe i over stepped the mark, even if it was true. edited.

As an American business owner I did not vote for Obama. But you are correct, an historic day indeed! I've never bothered with watching any Presidential Inauguration speeches but I wouldn't miss this one.

History in the making and damn proud to say that we Americans have overcome a huge obstacle of color (not resolved by a long shot, but a big leap forward). Obama and I will agree to disagree on many issues, but I respect the man, his views and his accomplishments. I care about the color of my Squeezebox, not the color of the man.

It is truly sad his grandmother missed this incredible day. :(

androidtopp
2008-11-05, 07:16
Yeah, let's start a nice superficial political discussion. Just what we all needed... (not)

Agreed. Can there please be some small corner of the world where this isn't the only thing being discussed? Over and done people. We're all saved/screwed, depending on your viewpoint - let's talk about something else.

amcluesent
2008-11-06, 13:39
>let's talk about something else.<

Maybe Logitech should offer to kit out the Oval Office with some music streamers?

sc53
2008-11-06, 13:46
Thank you Autopilot for your congratulations, "superficial" though, according to another poster, they may be :)
One of my first thoughts Election night when the results were certain was, now maybe the rest of the world won't despise us as vehemently!
And why not a stray comment or two on the Slim board about this amazing, historic election outcome? As I listen to my Paris jazz radio station from my home in Virginia I like to pretend we are all one world...and what one does is felt by many.

MrSinatra
2008-11-06, 13:48
was this election about electing someone just b/c he's black? i get the feeling that was why a lot of people voted for him, call it the "trading places" effect, borne of white guilt or whatever, and b4 everyone yells at me, think about how many people are focusing on that as a great thing, even in this thread.

frankly, i could care less what color someone is running for office, and i certainly don't want to hear congrats on that basis. what i do want is to get someone in there who is qualified, and i don't think that happened.

but i'm not a hater like so many were on day one of W getting in, i'm willing to give the guy a shot and see where this goes. my hope is that he won't be the ultra partisan free market destroyer i'm afraid he is, but we'll see.

i'm more an issues guy. you want real change? vote in the Fairtax.

Mitch Harding
2008-11-06, 14:00
I voted for Obama, but not because he is black. There was no way I could
vote for McCain given his chosen running mate (she seems nice enough, but
she did not seem remotely qualified to be President). My ideals line up
much closer with the Green party than they do with Republicans or Democrats,
and normally they get my vote, but this year I didn't want to take the risk
of McCain/Palin winning due to a split vote. So Obama got my vote. Of
course, being in Texas, I could have voted Green without impacting the
outcome.

But that said, I do think it's a great thing that this country has finally
elected a non-white President. And I think it will also be a great thing if
and when a woman is elected President. Not because a non-white or a woman
is going to necessarily make a better President, but because I think it's a
great statement that the country has made progress after a long, tumultuous,
and all-too-frequently violent history of prejudice. It may be a vain hope,
but I'd like to think that many of the racist folks out there will be forced
to confront the fact that a black man is every bit as capable as a white
man, and maybe it will help change their attitude.

Mitch

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:48 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.3ih1lb1226004601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> was this election about electing someone just b/c he's black? i get the
> feeling that was why a lot of people voted for him, call it the "trading
> places" effect, borne of white guilt or whatever, and b4 everyone yells
> at me, think about how many people are focusing on that as a great
> thing, even in this thread.
>
> frankly, i could care less what color someone is running for office,
> and i certainly don't want to hear congrats on that basis. what i do
> want is to get someone in there who is qualified, and i don't think
> that happened.
>
> but i'm not a hater like so many were on day one of W getting in, i'm
> willing to give the guy a shot and see where this goes. my hope is
> that he won't be the ultra partisan free market destroyer i'm afraid he
> is, but we'll see.
>
> i'm more an issues guy. you want real change? vote in the Fairtax.
>
>
> --
> MrSinatra
>
> www.LION-Radio.org
> Using:
> Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro
> SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678
>
>

MrSinatra
2008-11-06, 14:17
i totally respect your feelings and so on, and i don't mean to imply that the reason everyone, or most people, voted for him is b/c he's black, (although thats surely the case for a lot of people)

i'm just saying its become the number one "positive" of the election if you simply go by the media or even what people are saying, (like in this thread). and its to me, totally besides the point. al sharpton is black too, so why didn't we vote him in when he ran?

i have to say though, your post doesn't make sense to me in this respect: you say you voted for him b/c palin wasn't qualified. what made you think he was? and did it not matter to you their respective spots on the ticket?

the frustrating thing to me about this whole election is that all the things obama claimed he was, is actually all the things mccain is. he really was a moderate guy who crosses party lines, and gets things done, and isn't corrupt. a genuine hero.

but the reality is that style wins over substance, and that people were just ready to turn over a new leaf, and go in a totally different direction, regardless of the merits of the candidates. thats my read on it. the icing on the cake then for a lot of people was the option to also be so PC at the same time. it was just a perfect storm.

the problem however as i see it, is we just bought a house without having been in it. one can only hope the floors, plumbing, electricity, and so on are any good. he's got four years to make his case, he has no obstacles in congress, we all shall find out soon enough the wisdom, or lack thereof, of this choice.

pablolie
2008-11-06, 14:18
was this election about electing someone just b/c he's black? ...
i'm more an issues guy. you want real change? vote in the Fairtax.

i agree that elections should be about pragmatism. this time around, it was clear that the status quo and the ways of the past are broken, and people gamble on change. generational change, with less obsession of fighting losing battles against waves of change coming our way anyhow...

what always amazes me about politics is the utter lack of pragmatism - the level of dogma that continues to dominate politics is a disgrace and a diservice to all countries. imagine putting a support request into SlimDevices, but then refusing any help, suggestions or RMAs because the person trying to provide a solution holds a different party affiliation to mine. imagine deciding on a music encoding format merely based on the the fact it is supported by my poltical party. it is ridiculous, and yet that is the way politics run every day.

and whether obama is black, white or green with pink stripes does not matter an ounce - his reelection will be contingent on his track record in trying to overcome 8 years of self-serving pillaging of the country's resouces by the previous gang in power... it is going to be a very rough ride. the picture isn't rosy. consuer spending waaaaay down... here's wishing Logitech and SlimDevices much success in the current climate!

Mitch Harding
2008-11-06, 14:35
On the racial issue, I was just trying to separate the reasons for voting
for him from the fact that it's a positive of the election. Regardless of
why he was elected, I think it's a great thing that our country has moved
one step closer to racial equality. I would have felt the same way if Al
Sharpton had been elected, even if I had not voted for him. I would have
felt the same way, albeit about gender, if Clinton had won. Or if Ferraro
or Palin had been elected as vice president. Even though I think Palin
would be a poor choice for VP, I would still take that as a positive had
that ticket won. And I agree, surely some people voted for Obama just on
the racial issue -- I was just saying that to me, that didn't need to be the
reason you voted for him for it to be a positive about the election -- you
don't even have to have voted for him for it to be a positive.

As for it being the *most* positive thing about the election, I can see
where that would be more troubling, since at the end of the day he has to
govern, and obviously his governance isn't going to be a function of his
skin color. But given how historic this is, I can see why it's getting all
the press, and I'm okay with that. Once he actually takes office I suspect
that will take a back seat to real issues.

As for my feelings on Palin, I didn't think she was unqualified due to how
long she had been in politics or what offices she had held. I agree that
both she and Obama are relative newcomers to politics (although I do think
his resume is a bit longer, but I can see where this is debatable). My
concerns about her stemmed from her seeming inability to speak intelligent
and articulately about the issues facing our country, the fact that she
didn't own a passport until last year, and her comments on her foreign
policy qualifications. All politicans like to return to their talking
points, but I really got the impression from her speeches that she was using
the talking points as a defense, so she would not betray her lack of
knowledge about the various subjects. The news that has been leaking out
since the election (not knowing Africa was a continent versus a country, for
example) only reinforces my views here.

The other three principals (Obama, Biden, and McCain) all struck me as far
more knowledgable and intelligent than she did. It seemed to me that she
was selected primarily to energize the Republican base of religious
conservatives, and she certainly accomplished that. But I think they could
have chosen someone who had those values but also was more knowledgable on
the issues facing the world today.

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying any of this -- I am just trying to
explain my reasoning. I know we all hold our own opinions and have our own
reasons for supporting our candidates, and I completely respect that. I'm
glad I live in a country where we can have discussions like this.

Mitch

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:17 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.3ih2zb1226006401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> i totally respect your feelings and so on, and i don't mean to imply
> that the reason everyone, or most people, voted for him is b/c he's
> black, (although thats surely the case for a lot of people)
>
> i'm just saying its become the number one "positive" of the election if
> you simply go by the media or even what people are saying, (like in this
> thread). and its to me, totally besides the point. al sharpton is
> black too, so why didn't we vote him in when he ran?
>
> i have to say though, your post doesn't make sense to me in this
> respect: you say you voted for him b/c palin wasn't qualified. what
> made you think he was? and did it not matter to you their respective
> spots on the ticket?
>
> the frustrating thing to me about this whole election is that all the
> things obama claimed he was, is actually all the things mccain is. he
> really was a moderate guy who crosses party lines, and gets things
> done, and isn't corrupt. a genuine hero.
>
> but the reality is that style wins over substance, and that people were
> just ready to turn over a new leaf, and go in a totally different
> direction, regardless of the merits of the candidates. thats my read
> on it. the icing on the cake then for a lot of people was the option
> to also be so PC at the same time. it was just a perfect storm.
>
> the problem however as i see it, is we just bought a house without
> having been in it. one can only hope the floors, plumbing,
> electricity, and so on are any good. he's got four years to make his
> case, he has no obstacles in congress, we all shall find out soon
> enough the wisdom, or lack thereof, of this choice.
>
>
> --
> MrSinatra
>
> www.LION-Radio.org
> Using:
> Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro
> SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678
>
>

MrSinatra
2008-11-06, 14:50
Mitch,

its kool and the gang. we're all in it together regardless. :) i think that was an excellent response, though i still take issue with parts of it to a degree, any further back n forth on it would just be a display of differing yet reasonable opinions, and i think we're both in the margin of error so to speak, and as its all over now, rather moot.

pablolie,

i totally agree with your post, save one caveat. i totally think the press was and is in the tank for obama, and will be four years from now too, and its in large part due to the fact that he's black (not to mention liberal), imo. the problem with that is that if you had the same exact circumstances, with a mccain, they can shred him for it, whereas with an obama, they can cover for him and make excuses. the only way i see the press turn on obama is if things are so bad, they'd be laughed at if they didn't. if it were mccain, it would be a lot quicker, no doubt.

but thats really a nit pik of your post, which again, i agree with.

i'm glad i'm not getting jumped on here. my POV isn't fashionable these days.

Mitch Harding
2008-11-06, 15:12
I completely agree with you that we are all in it together, and I wish
everyone in this country would consider that first, above all else. The
minute we lose respect for each other to the point that we cannot have a
reasonable discussion, we're in trouble.

Oh, and while I don't necessarily agree that the media has a liberal bias
all the time, I was very interested in the studies done recently about the
amount of favorable and unfavorable press each candidate received during
this election. I don't know if it was due to race, or due to backlash
against Republicans after the last 8 years, or due to liberal bias, or due
to something else altogether, but it definitely does seem like Obama had a
much easier time in the press than McCain did. Journalists need to examine
that more closely and understand why it happened, to make sure they are
doing their jobs properly.

That said, I think regardless of the media, and regardless of who was
running for both parties, I think the Republican candidate was going to have
an extreme uphill battle this year. People can argue about how we got where
we are, but between the war and the economy, I think a backlash was
inevitable. When times are tough, people are apt to vote in the other
party, in the hopes it makes a difference.

Mitch

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:50 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.3ih4ln1226008501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> Mitch,
>
> its kool and the gang. we're all in it together regardless. :) i
> think that was an excellent response, though i still take issue with
> parts of it to a degree, any further back n forth on it would just be a
> display of differing yet reasonable opinions, and i think we're both in
> the margin of error so to speak, and as its all over now, rather moot.
>
> pablolie,
>
> i totally agree with your post, save one caveat. i totally think the
> press was and is in the tank for obama, and will be four years from now
> too, and its in large part due to the fact that he's black (not to
> mention liberal), imo. the problem with that is that if you had the
> same exact circumstances, with a mccain, they can shred him for it,
> whereas with an obama, they can cover for him and make excuses. the
> only way i see the press turn on obama is if things are so bad, they'd
> be laughed at if they didn't. if it were mccain, it would be a lot
> quicker, no doubt.
>
> but thats really a nit pik of your post, which again, i agree with.
>
> i'm glad i'm not getting jumped on here. my POV isn't fashionable
> these days.
>
>
> --
> MrSinatra
>
> www.LION-Radio.org
> Using:
> Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro
> SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678
>
>

Goodsounds
2008-11-06, 15:23
I think the country has learned from our last two presidents of the damage caused by electing people who put the best interests of the nation at a lower priority than self and party dogma. I'm hopeful that Obama will do better, it's just a pity that these last two have lowered the bar so much. I think Obama is smart enough to know better, and I think he profoundly understands that he has a most historic opportunity.

Of all the candidates active in the primaries, I think he was clearly the best for the job. Given all the broken parts of the American political system (which are too numerous to mention), at least the presidential election process came to what I consider to be the right result.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 01:04
I am another U.S. business owner, and the election of Obama has given me great concerns .. in addition to the economic slowdown .. about whether I should expand my business or no (as I planned to do) and even whether I can keep my current employees, knowing the impending Obama changes. Pure Socialism, IMO. This is NOT what the U.S. is all about! I FEAR what he will do to our economy .. even to the possible nationalization of businesses.

Once the euphoria over the vapid bumper sticker slogans of "HOPE" and "CHANGE" are over, I'm afraid that he will be Jimmy Carter II, only with a more Socialist bent.

At least, that's MY opinion. It has been a rough couple of days for me and everyone I know. I congratulate him and his historic achievement, but I FEAR for the future of my Country! America is the Land of Free Enterprise and the opportunity to pursue one's dreams and become incredibly successful. It DOESN'T stand for "Spreading the Wealth Around!"

Oh well .. I found this thread while searching for some help with my Squeezebox. I just wanted to convey that not ALL Americans are cheering for Obama! In fact, if it weren't for the majority 18-29 year olds who voted for him, McCain (who wasn't my first choice for Republican candidate but still better than Obama) would be our President elect. For all of the hype about this election, the same amount of people voted in this election as in 2004.

I WILL add this .. although I have voiced my opposition of him in this election, I refuse to be like many of the Democrats were in their NASTY derision of all things George Bush. I will support Obama because he was duly elected. BUT I will also voice my opinion in a respectable manner when he makes decisions contrary to my core beliefs. That is my Right as an American.

danco
2008-11-07, 01:08
I was looking at some of the details about what groups voted for which candidate.

White males gave a majority to McCain.

But more white males voted for Obama than for any of the last five Democratic candidates.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 01:15
I voted for Obama, but not because he is black. There was no way I could
vote for McCain given his chosen running mate (she seems nice enough, but
she did not seem remotely qualified to be President). My ideals line up
much closer with the Green party than they do with Republicans or Democrats,
and normally they get my vote, but this year I didn't want to take the risk
of McCain/Palin winning due to a split vote. So Obama got my vote. Of
course, being in Texas, I could have voted Green without impacting the
outcome.

But that said, I do think it's a great thing that this country has finally
elected a non-white President. And I think it will also be a great thing if
and when a woman is elected President. Not because a non-white or a woman
is going to necessarily make a better President, but because I think it's a
great statement that the country has made progress after a long, tumultuous,
and all-too-frequently violent history of prejudice. It may be a vain hope,
but I'd like to think that many of the racist folks out there will be forced
to confront the fact that a black man is every bit as capable as a white
man, and maybe it will help change their attitude.

Mitch

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:48 PM, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.3ih1lb1226004601 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> was this election about electing someone just b/c he's black? i get the
> feeling that was why a lot of people voted for him, call it the "trading
> places" effect, borne of white guilt or whatever, and b4 everyone yells
> at me, think about how many people are focusing on that as a great
> thing, even in this thread.
>
> frankly, i could care less what color someone is running for office,
> and i certainly don't want to hear congrats on that basis. what i do
> want is to get someone in there who is qualified, and i don't think
> that happened.
>
> but i'm not a hater like so many were on day one of W getting in, i'm
> willing to give the guy a shot and see where this goes. my hope is
> that he won't be the ultra partisan free market destroyer i'm afraid he
> is, but we'll see.
>
> i'm more an issues guy. you want real change? vote in the Fairtax.
>
>
> --
> MrSinatra
>
> www.LION-Radio.org
> Using:
> Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.3b - Win XP Pro
> SP3 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678
>
>



I just don't get the "I voted for Obama because Palin isn't qualified to be VP" thing! It is MUCH tougher to run a State (and even a city .. large OR small), day in/day out, than to be a Senator for 140 days.

Being a Senator means you show up occasionally, make a few speeches a year, and vote maybe one or two times a day, or even per week. You also get very long recesses, so it's a part time job essentially.

Being a Governor or Mayor is an everyday job, dealing with everything from the grandiose to the mundane.

AND .. SHE was running for VP, while he was running for the most important job in the world!

So the "Palin wasn't qualified" is a non-argument if you factor in Obama!

As to the Fair Tax that someone else mentioned .. YES!! If Obama would champion this, I would become his biggest supporter! Unfortunately, Democrats would NEVER support it because they derive their power from taxing "the rich" (aka "the job creators") and buying votes from "the poor."

peter
2008-11-07, 01:15
NFLnut wrote:
> I am another U.S. business owner, and the election of Obama has given me
> great concerns .. in addition to the economic slowdown .. about whether
> I should expand my business or no (as I planned to do) and even whether
> I can keep my current employees, knowing the impending Obama changes.
> Pure Socialism, IMO. This is NOT what the U.S. is all about! I FEAR
> what he will do to our economy .. even to the possible nationalization
> of businesses.
>
> Once the euphoria over the vapid bumper sticker slogans of "HOPE" and
> "CHANGE" are over, I'm afraid that he will be Jimmy Carter II, only
> with a more Socialist bent.
>
> At least, that's MY opinion.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My opinion - no, make
that fact - is that political and religious discussions tend to
deteriorate into flame wars really quickly and for that reason alone
should be banned from forums like this. It's all very good to pretend
everyone's an Obama fan, but don't forget that a huge number of voters
(what was it? well over 40%) voted for Mc Cain.

Regards,
Peter (not even American, but I know forums)

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 01:37
and whether obama is black, white or green with pink stripes does not matter an ounce - his reelection will be contingent on his track record in trying to overcome 8 years of self-serving pillaging of the country's resouces by the previous gang in power...


I will say this about that .. I am a Republican. A Reagan, Conservative Republican. There is a LOT of blame to go around for whom is responsible for the mess we are in. Certainly, a number are Republicans. They held both Houses for 6 of 8 of the Bush years. Many of them are what we Conservatives call RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) .. two very prominent RINOs are Lindsey Graham and Arlen Specter. There are many in both Houses. THEY are th Republicans who chose to spend like drunken sailors. For that reason, I didn't vote for the first time since I was 18 in 2006. Even with the knowledge that the alternative was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid taking over the House and the Senate.

HOWEVER .. let's also be honest and recognize that Democrats are LARGELY responsible for the current mess! Specifically, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Specifically, Barnie Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, a slew of ex-Clinton staffers, and others.

What I found UNBELIEVABLY ignorant was the American populace throwing ALL of the blame on Bush and the Republicans, when Bush and McCain were among the few who signaled the impending doom as far back as 2001! Bush in fact warned SEVENTEEN TIMES about the impending failures at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and yet the Democrats said "Nothing is wrong at [the two agencies]" McCain co-sponsored legislation in 2005 to fix the mess. It was voted down by Democrats. The Republicans couldn't do a lot even in the years of 2000-2006 because they didn't have a large enough majority to overcome Democrat objections.

Republicans should definitely shoulder some of the blame. The Republican Party has lost its Conservative base, and needs to find itself again (smaller government, low taxes, less spending). But throwing ALL of the blame at Bush and the Republican Congress is simplistic at best!

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 01:43
NFLnut wrote:
> I am another U.S. business owner, and the election of Obama has given me
> great concerns .. in addition to the economic slowdown .. about whether
> I should expand my business or no (as I planned to do) and even whether
> I can keep my current employees, knowing the impending Obama changes.
> Pure Socialism, IMO. This is NOT what the U.S. is all about! I FEAR
> what he will do to our economy .. even to the possible nationalization
> of businesses.
>
> Once the euphoria over the vapid bumper sticker slogans of "HOPE" and
> "CHANGE" are over, I'm afraid that he will be Jimmy Carter II, only
> with a more Socialist bent.
>
> At least, that's MY opinion.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My opinion - no, make
that fact - is that political and religious discussions tend to
deteriorate into flame wars really quickly and for that reason alone
should be banned from forums like this. It's all very good to pretend
everyone's an Obama fan, but don't forget that a huge number of voters
(what was it? well over 40%) voted for Mc Cain.

Regards,
Peter (not even American, but I know forums)


Peter ..

I think you misread my post ..

I AM one of the 46% who voted for McCain.

peter
2008-11-07, 01:52
NFLnut wrote:
> peter;357458 Wrote:
>
>> NFLnut wrote:
>>
>>> I am another U.S. business owner, and the election of Obama has given
>>>
>> me
>>
>>> great concerns .. in addition to the economic slowdown .. about
>>>
>> whether
>>
>>> I should expand my business or no (as I planned to do) and even
>>>
>> whether
>>
>>> I can keep my current employees, knowing the impending Obama changes.
>>>
>>> Pure Socialism, IMO. This is NOT what the U.S. is all about! I FEAR
>>> what he will do to our economy .. even to the possible
>>>
>> nationalization
>>
>>> of businesses.
>>>
>>> Once the euphoria over the vapid bumper sticker slogans of "HOPE"
>>>
>> and
>>
>>> "CHANGE" are over, I'm afraid that he will be Jimmy Carter II, only
>>> with a more Socialist bent.
>>>
>>> At least, that's MY opinion.
>>>
>> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My opinion - no, make
>> that fact - is that political and religious discussions tend to
>> deteriorate into flame wars really quickly and for that reason alone
>> should be banned from forums like this. It's all very good to pretend
>> everyone's an Obama fan, but don't forget that a huge number of voters
>>
>> (what was it? well over 40%) voted for Mc Cain.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter (not even American, but I know forums)
>>
>
>
> Peter ..
>
> I think you misread my post ..
>

No, I didn't.
> I AM one of the 46% who voted for McCain.
>

Obviously, and some of the others here voted Obama.
It's all nothing to do with streaming networked audio devices.

Regards,
Peter

Khuli
2008-11-07, 02:12
frankly, i could care less what color someone is running for office

Hopefully you meant *couldn't*....

Khuli
2008-11-07, 02:16
I FEAR what he will do to our economy .. even to the possible nationalization of businesses.
Bush has already nationalized some banks, so it's not exclusively an Obama thing. Even 'Comrade' Obama is not going to go around nationalizing perfectly good businesses....

autopilot
2008-11-07, 02:45
Peter - i don't understand why you can't just ignore the thread. If you have no interest thats cool - dont click on the single small text link and you wont see it. But you do and you seem to be following it too, getting involved are start telling everyone what they can and cant talk about where - and you call me superficial? What gives?

pippin
2008-11-07, 02:46
In fact, if it weren't for the majority 18-29 year olds who voted for him, McCain (who wasn't my first choice for Republican candidate but still better than Obama) would be our President elect.

And what would McCain have been without his age peer group?
Bad tongues say that's people who don't have to care about the future because they have none... :-)

I think this thread should be closed, it's really nothing to do with audio, right?

autopilot
2008-11-07, 02:58
And what would McCain have been without his age peer group?
Bad tongues say that's people who don't have to care about the future because they have none... :-)

I think this thread should be closed, it's really nothing to do with audio, right?

Yeah close the thread - just as long as i get my say in first ;)

But i thought this was a General discussion forum? Where is the rule that says its only about Audio (which is well catered for in the other subforums, including new ones).

pippin
2008-11-07, 03:03
Yeah close the thread - just as long as i get my say in first ;)

But i thought this was a General discussion forum? Where is the rule that says its only about Audio (which is well catered for in the other subforums, including new ones).

OK, so let us Europeans discuss about the US elections :-)
I've got some nice outside views on that issue, too.

pippin
2008-11-07, 03:08
OK, so let us Europeans discuss about the US elections :-)
I've got some nice outside views on that issue, too.

How about this one:
It's my experience (and I can provide ample evidence in favor of that argument), that it's always the conservatives who call for financial prudence and the liberals who have it.

Not a US thing, same here in Germany. 16 years of conservative spending, then 7 years of Socialist spending cuts, now we are back to the spending spree (worst of all: conservatives and socialists teamed up for gov!).

Howard Passman
2008-11-07, 03:09
It was getting a little tight under that rock so I peeked out and looky what happened.

Just kidding, but I tend to agree, politics and religion should only be discussed by mature, reasonable, even tempered people. That pretty much leaves everyone out, but me :-)

Regardless of political affiliation, country of origin, religious lean, taste in music, sexual preferences and which airline you prefer, I wish you a super weekend. TGIF

Howard

P.S. It does say "General Discussion. So whose your favorite General?

egd
2008-11-07, 03:10
So, when does George Bush go on trial? Weapons of mass destruction my ass!

peter
2008-11-07, 03:19
autopilot wrote:
> Peter - i don't understand why you can't just ignore the thread. If you
> have no interest thats cool - dont click on the single small text link
> and you wont see it. But you do and you seem to be following it too,
> getting involved are start telling everyone what they can and cant talk
> about where - and you call me superficial? What gives?
>

I did not call you superficial. I predicted the ensuing discussion will
be superficial and probably end in flames. I prefer it when people stay
at least close to the subject of the forum.

Regards,
Peter

autopilot
2008-11-07, 03:20
OK, so let us Europeans discuss about the US elections :-)
I've got some nice outside views on that issue, too.

And what wrong with that, when US politics have such a massive global impact? We can't vote, yet it has a huge impact on us. If some people dont care what anyone else around the world thinks then thats their choice. Bit of a sweeping statement i know, but its always seemed to me that democrat voters might be less insular and care a bit more about global opinion that republican. This impression, for me personally, was reinforced by the fact that people where prepared to vote in Sarah Palin - who clearly is the most internationally ignorant (less knowledge than that of most school children) politician at this level i can recall - never even been outside of the US. I'm not saying British foreign policy has exactly been a great success either, mostly because we have been so much in the pocket of the US.

So when i congratulated the US for voting in Obama, it was not superficial - i generally do think its great that the US had the guts to try something different. I hope it works out well for you - and the rest of us.

badbob
2008-11-07, 03:26
So, when does George Bush go on trial? Weapons of mass destruction my ass!

He's passed regulations that forbid himself or any of his staff from prosecution. If only the Nazi's did that, they'd have gotten away scot free at the Nuremberg Trials.

autopilot
2008-11-07, 03:42
I predicted the ensuing discussion will
be superficial


Peoples opinions are their opinions, i would not go around telling everyone their opinions are superficial - just as valid an anyone elses, regardless of political leaning. Im not sure i fully understand what makes it so superficial.


and probably end in flames.


Sadly, thats often true mate yes.


I prefer it when people stay
at least close to the subject of the forum.


I thought they had, sorry if i have badly misjudged this. After spending a lot of time on these forums, it nice to chat about other stuff with the people i have seen around too.

Nonreality
2008-11-07, 04:08
Let's all hope the best for the USA shall we, and a lot of good music. :)
I think when I started this thread I just wanted the world to hope for the best for us and in turn the best for them. I sure do. I hope you do too. Really no preconceived notions. No sarcasm. Let's just get things going for the good of all of us.

toby10
2008-11-07, 05:50
How about this one:
It's my experience (and I can provide ample evidence in favor of that argument), that it's always the conservatives who call for financial prudence and the liberals who have it.

Not a US thing, same here in Germany. 16 years of conservative spending, then 7 years of Socialist spending cuts, now we are back to the spending spree (worst of all: conservatives and socialists teamed up for gov!).

Yup. Same here in the US. The spending gets much worse when the two parties start to cooperate more. When it's partisan it's nasty bickering and finger pointing.
When they agree and team up........lookout!! :)

OK, so for those that want Squeeze talk....which RSS streaming service on your SB offered the best election night coverage? :-)

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 10:00
Bush has already nationalized some banks, so it's not exclusively an Obama thing. Even 'Comrade' Obama is not going to go around nationalizing perfectly good businesses....


I'm not going to say much more on this topic on this forum, because like Peter, I agree that the subject has nothing to do with streaming music devices. And to be honest, I am about tapped out on my ability to discuss this election anymore.

All I say is .. YOU are correct too. I was a Bush supporter, on some aspects at least. But he lost my support on a number of issues. I am a Reagan Conservative and Bush initially ran on the platform of "Compassionate Conservatism." I'm afraid that we found out that only on a few issues was he ever "Conservative." And the bailout was a HORRIBLE decision. So I agree with you on that.

As to Obama and the further nationalization of businesses. We'll see. I am not going to be bitter like so many were at the onset (and remained so) about Bush. But I have SERIOUS doubts about Obama, and having heard his plans for the economy, taxes, etc I'll just say that I am very concerned. I can only hope that I am proven wrong.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 10:03
P.S. It does say "General Discussion. So whose your favorite General?


Douglas McArthur.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 10:09
And what wrong with that, when US politics have such a massive global impact? We can't vote, yet it has a huge impact on us. If some people dont care what anyone else around the world thinks then thats their choice. Bit of a sweeping statement i know, but its always seemed to me that democrat voters might be less insular and care a bit more about global opinion that republican. This impression, for me personally, was reinforced by the fact that people where prepared to vote in Sarah Palin - who clearly is the most internationally ignorant (less knowledge than that of most school children) politician at this level i can recall - never even been outside of the US. I'm not saying British foreign policy has exactly been a great success either, mostly because we have been so much in the pocket of the US.

So when i congratulated the US for voting in Obama, it was not superficial - i generally do think its great that the US had the guts to try something different. I hope it works out well for you - and the rest of us.



We just have trouble when the rest of the world had Obama coronated and knighted back in August. It is OUR election after all.

As to Obama: as I said back in another post, "HOPE" and "CHANGE" are bumper sticker slogans. The actual governing of a Country is another matter. Be careful what you wish for.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 10:18
And what would McCain have been without his age peer group?
Bad tongues say that's people who don't have to care about the future because they have none... :-)



Agreed. But I also know that when I was "18-29," I didn't understand a whole lot (especially at the lower end of that scale) about macroeconomics, nor how to balance a spreadsheet, or how to stay up late at night worrying that my small business can meet payroll during tough times, nor worry if my investments for retirement have lost 25% of their value in 3 months (and counting). This is a reason that as we age, we tend often to grow more Conservative.

Pale Blue Ego
2008-11-07, 10:37
The election was a complete non-issue, a distracting dog-and-pony show.

Will anything really change? Obama voted for the unconstitutional banking bailout and for unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping. Will ObamAmerica continue to kidnap and torture in violation of American and International law? Will the surveillance state be dismantled? Will the illegal combat troops be removed from the NORTHCOM theater of operations?

I'm willing to wait and see, but nobody gets a free pass. Obama has done nothing to show that he is anything but a puppet for global corporatism and the military state, same as McCain.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 10:38
Agreed. But I also know that when I was "18-29," I didn't understand a whole lot (especially at the lower end of that scale) about macroeconomics, nor how to balance a spreadsheet, or how to stay up late at night worrying that my small business can meet payroll during tough times, nor worry if my investments for retirement have lost 25% of their value in 3 months (and counting). This is a reason that as we age, we tend often to grow more Conservative.

Don't get too carried away believing the sloganeering, my friend. The last two major "conservative" administrations, Reagan and Bush 2, have been anything but conservative in failing to control spending and balance the federal budget. Today's leading conservative voices are masters of porkbarrel spending and hypocrisy.

I'm also a businessman, with a degree in economics. Am also a recovering Republican, and I will say that I'm quite optimistic about the future. The two major influences of any economy or market are fear and greed. Greed is what caused the current problems, and after some pain, the sun will shine again. Hang tough.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 10:43
Don't get too carried away believing the sloganeering, my friend. The last two major "conservative" administrations, Reagan and Bush 2, have been anything but conservative in failing to control spending and balance the federal budget. Today's leading conservative voices are masters of porkbarrel spending and hypocrisy.

I'm also a businessman, with a degree in economics. Am also a recovering Republican, and I will say that I'm quite optimistic about the future. The two major influences of any economy or market are fear and greed. Greed is what caused the current problems, and after some pain, the sun will shine again. Hang tough.


That's pretty much what I referenced in a previous post in this thread. EXCEPT that there is very LITTLE (none?) Conservatism in the Republican Party, save some of the new faces like Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. Bush was NO Conservative, and neither are most of the Republicans in Congress. That is why we are in the mess we are now. The Democrats have become Socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 10:44
Douglas McArthur.

I think you'd have a different view if you read American Caesar, by Manchester. The guy had a very flawed and bizarre view of himself and the world around him.

I vote for Eisenhower - heck, they even named a street for him in Paris. That's saying something!

Pale Blue Ego
2008-11-07, 10:45
I'm also a businessman, with a degree in economics.

I always ask economists this question...

What is money?

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 10:52
I always ask economists this question...

What is money?

I'm very far removed from the theoretical stuff, but I think the book answer is that money is a medium of exchange, that has value only if people agree that it does and agree to use it. Otherwise, it's nothing at all. Its use evolved to avoid the inconvenience and limitations of physically exchanging actual goods.

Pale Blue Ego
2008-11-07, 11:03
I'm very far removed from the theoretical stuff, but I think the book answer is that money is a medium of exchange, that has value only if people agree that it does and agree to use it. Otherwise, it's nothing at all. Its use evolved to avoid the inconvenience and limitations of physically exchanging actual goods.

That's close enough to the classic definition. Unfortunately, modern economics treats debt as money and money as debt. Our own money (Federal Reserve Notes) is actually an IOU. It's only value comes from legal tender laws requiring us to accept "a promise to pay" as actual payment.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 11:14
..Unfortunately, modern economics treats debt as money and money as debt...

This is a bit of a nonsensical comment. "Economics" exists in books and academia, not really anywhere else. The Fed, governments, etc make decisions based on politics and "hoped for" outcomes that coincide with desired policies. The "levers of control" are notoriously ineffective. Markets affect markets, not policies, theories, or governments.

If you don't like money, don't use it. The legal underpinnings are really irrelevant. Different countries have different legal underpinnings for money, and the ultimate difference is zilch.

Send me what you don't want, I like it fine.

snarlydwarf
2008-11-07, 11:17
The election was a complete non-issue, a distracting dog-and-pony show.


As a cynical old fart, I must agree with you.

After the collapse of the USSR, there were some wonderful election stories about their first real elections: they had some clever rules.

In order to win, you needed to have more than 50% of the votes... and undercounts counted against you.

So many old time party bosses ran, as they always had, unopposed. And lost.

Around these parts, it would probably take years to actually have a winner in an election.. but, maybe if they did that on a local level, then escalated to state and then national races over a 10-20 year period it would weed out the "they suck less than the other guy" candidates.

Too much American politics is dictated by the "I suck less" candidates, and lots of talk (from both parties, I hate all politicians regardless of political affiliation, creed, race, gender, whatever, they all lie) about being the voice of 'the people' when they are in the top 1-2% of incomes, and more interested in how they remodel their 3rd or 4th home than why their constituents are struggling to pay their bills.

The huge irony is that despite all the talk about health care and prescription drug costs for the last 20 years, the single most important force in saving consumers money on drugs has been... Walmart and the effect it had on their competitors to negotiate lower prices with their suppliers, too. (And hopefully to get consumers to smack their doctor for prescribing non-generics when generics are available.. did you know doctors get kickbacks on the prescriptions they write?)

Bah, time to crank up the music.

And, you kids, get off my lawn.

Pale Blue Ego
2008-11-07, 11:39
Markets affect markets, not policies, theories, or governments.

You're saying the free market always prevails over all attempts to control it? I would tend to agree in concept, EXCEPT that the period of time between the manipulation and the market correction can be many decades. Certainly during that time, the policies, theories, and governments DO affect markets.

The 1913 Federal Reserve experiment in fiat money will probably end (disastrously) before its centennial, but that does nothing for the people who have seen their dollar lose 98% of its value through state-sanctioned counterfeiting.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 12:00
.....
The huge irony is that despite all the talk about health care and prescription drug costs for the last 20 years, the single most important force in saving consumers money on drugs has been... Walmart and the effect it had on their competitors to negotiate lower prices with their suppliers, too.

Exactly to my point - markets are most affected by actions in the market, not by governmental actions or policies.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 12:08
You're saying the free market always prevails over all attempts to control it? I would tend to agree in concept, EXCEPT that the period of time between the manipulation and the market correction can be many decades. Certainly during that time, the policies, theories, and governments DO affect markets.

The 1913 Federal Reserve experiment in fiat money will probably end (disastrously) before its centennial, but that does nothing for the people who have seen their dollar lose 98% of its value through state-sanctioned counterfeiting.

My friend, I really don't understand what you are trying to say. These comments sound like survivalist/conspiracy theorist stuff, is that where you're coming from?

The end is not nigh - ok to renew your magazine subscriptions, you'll be around to read them.

snarlydwarf
2008-11-07, 12:53
Exactly to my point - markets are most affected by actions in the market, not by governmental actions or policies.

Oh, I dunno, -bad- government policies typically have an effect.

Pale Blue Ego
2008-11-07, 14:37
These comments sound like survivalist/conspiracy theorist stuff, is that where you're coming from?

No, I'm coming from traditional and sound money policy. There was a time not very long ago when the U.S. was the world's largest creditor, now we are the largest debtor. We have to borrow $3 billion PER DAY to run our government, and we have trillions of unfunded obligations coming due.

Capital used to come from wealth earned and saved, now it is conjured out of thin air. Almost every individual, family, company, and government is in debt, and many are defacto bankrupt. That's because our economic model is based on debt. We have granted one private corporation, the Federal Reserve, the exclusive license to "create" money and to charge the U.S. Government interest on it. All our money is debt. It isn't backed by anything except the concept that the debt will be paid sometime in the future. It's a promise that may or may not come true. So far we have been able stay ahead of the game simply by issuing more debt.

It's like if an individual was allowed to borrow a million bucks a day, at 1% interest. Eventually, the entire million bucks borrowed every day would have to go toward paying the interest. Then the only options are, to default or to start borrowing 2 million bucks a day. You can see that this is merely postponing the ultimate collapse, and in fact is accelerating the RATE of the collapse. This is where the U.S. finds itself today, very close to the end of that destructive cycle. Our National Debt has doubled in the past year. It may have to double again next year to preserve the illusion.

Compare that mess to the concept that was laid out in the Constitution (and which is still in effect, though obviously not observed), that only Congress has the power to issue money, and it must be in the form of gold and silver coin. OK, coins might be a little less convenient to carry around - or maybe not, if you consider that one ounce of gold could buy a month's worth of groceries.

If you think of goods and services not in terms of dollars, but as a certain weight of gold or silver, you'll discover a remarkably stable price history. 100 years ago an ounce of gold would buy a man a very nice custom-made suit of clothes - it still will. 80 years ago, 30 oz of gold would buy a good-quality automobile - it still will. In the 60's you could buy a gallon of gas with 3 dimes - you still can, if those dimes are pre-1964 90% silver.

Conspiracy theory? No, simple facts. Our economic system is unsustainable.

egd
2008-11-07, 15:18
worry if my investments for retirement have lost 25% of their value in 3 months (and counting). This is a reason that as we age, we tend often to grow more Conservative.This scenario is only going to get worse as baby boomers retire and start accessing their 401Ks. This is not a problem created by Bush or Obama (no doubt he'll cop the blame though), it goes back to switching from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions. The next 10-15 years will likely be very ugly for many westernised nations that have left retirement funding almost entirely in the hands of funds managers. In the cold light of day it's almost unthinkable that you'd leave your golden years in the hands of some young punk who doesn't give a shit what happens to the funds he's playing with so long as he's in the game long enough to make his disproportionate bonuses playing with other people's money and get out sitting pretty. In the final analysis, that's exactly what most governments forced employees into.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 15:24
I can only recommend that you continue to read about and talk to a wide range of opinions, and keep your eyes open. The situation is not as complicated or as dire as you paint it. It seems that you have a fair number of things confused and have an incomplete understanding of how the pieces fit together.

Unfortunately, there are the current problems to work through and some pain to endure. Hopefully that will pass but many people will needlessly suffer. Many of those people were victims of overenthusiastic real estate salesmen and loan brokers - most of what happened in the credit markets/banking sector was avoidable.

I wish you and everyone else well, we're all losers over all of this. Thank goodness the normal business cycle has up periods after the down ones. Hang in there.

DeVerm
2008-11-07, 15:39
Conspiracy theory? No, simple facts. Our economic system is unsustainable.

US presidents had better listened to Allen Greenspan:

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

cheers,
Nick.

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 15:42
This scenario is only going to get worse as baby boomers retire and start accessing their 401Ks.

How so?


This is not a problem created by Bush or Obama (no doubt he'll cop the blame though), it goes back to switching from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions.

At least in the US, these changes were made by companies who realized that employee demographics made defined benefit plans unsustainable.


The next 10-15 years will likely be very ugly for many westernised nations that have left retirement funding almost entirely in the hands of funds managers.

What do you have in mind with this comment? If one has funds for retirement, who would manage them other than a funds manager? In the case of private funds, the managers compete for the business and keep it or lose it based on performance - is there a better way to do it?


In the cold light of day it's almost unthinkable that you'd leave your golden years in the hands of some young punk who doesn't give a shit what happens to the funds he's playing with so long as he's in the game long enough to make his disproportionate bonuses playing with other people's money and get out sitting pretty. In the final analysis, that's exactly what most governments forced employees into.

I'm not sure how any government had any influence on this. What do you have in mind?

egd
2008-11-07, 15:42
Conspiracy theory? No, simple facts. Our economic system is unsustainabile.Got to say I agree with you with one exception - the model is sustainable so long as market participants retain faith in the system. The current debacle is what happens when they realise the emperor indeed has no clothes.

egd
2008-11-07, 15:55
I'm not sure how any government had any influence on this. What do you have in mind?before we get into another Linux/Windows type circular exchange let's presume for a second that you're not alone in having successfully completed postgraduate studies in the finance and economics disciplines. Rather than respond to your individual questions I'll answer the last because it also serves to answer many of those preceding...assuming of course you apply your trained mind.

1 question - who introduced mandatory pension schemes and wrote the rules around pension funds and 401K's and equivalents - governments or companies?

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 16:12
1 question - who introduced mandatory pension schemes and wrote the rules around pension funds and 401K's and equivalents - governments or companies?

I think the literal answer to your question is no one, because there are no such rules. Neither pension plans (how defined benefit plans are usually referred to) nor profit sharing plans (defined contribution plans, including 401(k) but there are others) are mandatory in the US.

MrSinatra
2008-11-07, 16:13
How about this one:
It's my experience (and I can provide ample evidence in favor of that argument), that it's always the conservatives who call for financial prudence and the liberals who have it.

that may be the case in germany, i have no idea.

its certainly not the case here historically. libs never met an entitlement they didn't like.

the problem is, the bush republicans joined them. i think their handling of spending and the economy is why they got crushed so badly.

i can only hope they return to their roots, altho after this asskicking i think they shall.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 16:16
I think you'd have a different view if you read American Caesar, by Manchester. The guy had a very flawed and bizarre view of himself and the world around him.

I vote for Eisenhower - heck, they even named a street for him in Paris. That's saying something!


Yeah. I just picked McArthur from the top of my head actually. I didn't want to say Patton, although he was an effective General, he was quite an SOB. Probably what you want in a General really.

As to McArthur .. you just have to like the old line "Old soldiers never die .."

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 16:26
This scenario is only going to get worse as baby boomers retire and start accessing their 401Ks. This is not a problem created by Bush or Obama (no doubt he'll cop the blame though), it goes back to switching from defined benefit to defined contribution pensions. The next 10-15 years will likely be very ugly for many westernised nations that have left retirement funding almost entirely in the hands of funds managers. In the cold light of day it's almost unthinkable that you'd leave your golden years in the hands of some young punk who doesn't give a shit what happens to the funds he's playing with so long as he's in the game long enough to make his disproportionate bonuses playing with other people's money and get out sitting pretty. In the final analysis, that's exactly what most governments forced employees into.



.. and guess who just started talking about the gubmint taking over all 401k's?

Let's see .. they already spent all of the money in Soc Security, now they want to get their grubby little mitts on all of the 401k money too!

It's time for putting your money under the mattress and sitting upon it holding your shotguns! :-)

egd
2008-11-07, 16:29
I think the literal answer to your question is no one, because there are no such rules. Neither pension plans (how defined benefit plans are usually referred to) nor profit sharing plans (defined contribution plans, including 401(k) but there are others) are mandatory in the US.So governments and their taxation bodies had no hand in writing influencing how any of the abovementioned operate? That's definitely not the case in many other countries eg in Australia eployee participation in a superannuation scheme is mandatory and there are very clear legislative and fund specific rules as to what your rights are, when you can access the funds, taxation implications etc. I'd venture a guess that even in the US tax legislation and employment terms would have a bearing on whether or not you make 401k contributions and fund and/or tax rules would also dictate mandatory drawdown at some point, forcing a selling down of a portion or all of your portfolio.

MrSinatra
2008-11-07, 16:29
i can't believe they want to takeover 401ks.

if so, there'll be a revolution.

maybe if conditions continue to decline, that would make bringing on the fairtax easier, as a cure to what ails us.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 16:31
that may be the case in germany, i have no idea.

its certainly not the case here historically. libs never met an entitlement they didn't like.

the problem is, the bush republicans joined them. i think their handling of spending and the economy is why they got crushed so badly.

i can only hope they return to their roots, altho after this asskicking i think they shall.


Couldn't have said it better.

As I said previously .. the Dems have become Socialists, and the Republicans have become Democrats. IF the Repubs can REWIND back about twenty years, perhaps they will find something they like. Maybe a Squeezebox Controller will help them in that task! ;-)

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 16:33
1 question - who introduced mandatory pension schemes and wrote the rules around pension funds and 401K's and equivalents - governments or companies?

So you don't think I'm pulling your string, let me add that there are tax rules (not labor or company law rules) that can apply IF a company wants to deduct set-asides (and avoid individual taxation) before they are paid out. Those are conditions for a tax deduction. The tax deduction rules are pretty logical, and do not prevent a company from suspending a plan and withdrawing future support, at any time. Companies are free to not comply with the tax rules, there are no penalties other than they just get a less favorable result.

If a company doesn't want to prefund and deduct, it is welcome to establish, dis-establish, change, withdraw, etc., future retirement arrangements as a contractural matter (with employees) at will. Many companies have such arrangements, and the legal constraints are very few.

NFLnut
2008-11-07, 16:36
i can't believe they want to takeover 401ks.

if so, there'll be a revolution.

maybe if conditions continue to decline, that would make bringing on the fairtax easier, as a cure to what ails us.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer


I KNOW why Dem politicians don't like the Fair Tax since they derive their power through taxation, but EVERY American should WANT the Fair Tax! For one, it encourages savings (which most Americans are HORRIBLE at), and second, it reduces a HUGE burden from small businesses who spend FAR too much money and time trying to remain in compliance with our RIDICULOUSLY overwrought tax code!

Those who feel that they would like to pay MORE, to help them feel "patriotic" (Bidenomics) can ALWAYS send in a donation to the Federal Reserve. I am almost CERTAIN that they won't send back the uncancelled check!

Goodsounds
2008-11-07, 16:48
I'd venture a guess that even in the US tax legislation and employment terms would have a bearing on whether or not you make 401k contributions

Nope, employer support can be withdrawn at any time. Plans can be started or ended at will. Think of it like a bonus, can be paid or not paid discretionally, and 401(k) participation is NEVER included in employment contracts (which in themselves are rare anyway). But the unfunded kind I mentioned, when used, are sometimes included in employment contracts for upper level employees. But not always.


and fund and/or tax rules would also dictate mandatory drawdown at some point

Yes, this is normal, if tax rules are involved when something goes in, they also are involved when something comes out. But if one of the other kinds of plans I mentioned, tax rule attention is very light.


forcing a selling down of a portion or all of your portfolio.

As I asked before, so what?

86atc250r
2008-11-07, 20:15
Wow, for the most part I'm pretty proud of those participating in this thread, in many other boards I visit the discussion would have went afoul much longer ago.


So, when does George Bush go on trial? Weapons of mass destruction my ass!

I love this argument - If Bush was as corrupt as many of you seem to believe, we *WOULD* have found WMD's, doesn't take a genius to think that one through. Comparing his administration to Nazi Germany is as ignorant as it is insulting for all of us on this side of the pond - regardless of your politics.

So the guy got some bad info (maybe) - intelligence is never 100% accurate and all you can do is follow what you feel in your gut & the information you've been provided. It's unfortunate we didn't find any WMD's to shut everyone up, but the gist of it is that WE ARE doing good things in Iraq, Saddam's regime was truly guilty of many crimes against humanity, and most of the "regular" folk there do appreciate us - at least according to the military personnel I've talked to that have been there. It's unfortunate that almost no one else had the "nuts" to go over there with us and remove this dangerous person from a position of power. I just personally hope we can get Iraq's security shored up before we make a knee jerk reaction and pull out prematurely, further destabilizing the region and giving an opportunity to other extremists groups like the Taliban.

The other thing I have a problem with is people blaming the current state of the economy on those awful republicans. No offense to anyone in particular but this discussion is so complex and long in the making that assigning blame toward one side or the other is a sure sign you've been brainwashed by your media or have limited capacity to process the scope of the situation.

Personally I feel a lot of greed by various groups lead us to this. Firstly, there's only so much $5+/gallon diesel the US economy, as powerful as it is/was can support. I'm well aware many in the world would find this a bargain, but we're a big country with large open spaces and the need to do a LOT of transportation to support our economy and citizens. Our economy is build around being able to "afford" energy at a particular price range, just like many other economies around the world - the whole country practically runs on diesel in one form or fashion. Certainly a large part of the blame for this quagmire falls right in the laps of those responsible - whoever you believe that is.

Hopefully the end result of this is a lot more money poured into developing alternative and "cleaner" energy sources, a lot more quickly - seems like a really bad idea to be giving middle eastern countries so much of our wealth, no matter what your beliefs or where you live.

Another HUGE part of the problem were the lenient lending practices that allowed a huge rush of unqualified people to purchase property they absolutely could not afford in attempt to "flip" it and make a mint in the process.

This phenomenon lead to a huge inflation of real estate prices on both the coasts (and to a lesser extent, the middle of the country) that could absolutely not be sustained for any reasonable period of time.

Combine this with skyrocketing energy costs (which affect the cost of *EVERYTHING* else) and you have the "perfect storm"

Now - the reality is, as long as energy is available, and we have natural resources (and use them wisely), the prices & economy will correct themselves with time. We've already seen it with oil returning to the $60~70 range - it may not stay there but I bet it will be at least a little while before we see it at $150/barrel again.

FWIW - it's going to be an interesting four years for sure. As others in this thread I congratulate Mr Obama on his victory & hope he does a great job for us all as well as heals our relationship with the world (which I believe was unduly tarnished by "the media's" extreme hatred of Bush). Three of my biggest concerns though are his experience - it's one thing to make a good speech, it's quite another to make good decisions. Next, the amount of money he spent to get there - that simply equals a *lot* of favors to a *lot* of people. The other is his current voting record making him one of the most (if not the most) partisan liberals in the Senate.

egd
2008-11-07, 20:19
As I asked before, so what?Demand and supply implications of: 1) retiring workforce, 2) declining population 3) shareholder demographic, 4) cash/income poor retirees, 4) potential for panic selling as share values decline as a result of 1-3...and this was a likely scenario prior to the current crisis.

btw, my points were made in respect of western economies, not solely the US.

pippin
2008-11-07, 20:28
that may be the case in germany, i have no idea.

its certainly not the case here historically. libs never met an entitlement they didn't like.

the problem is, the bush republicans joined them. i think their handling of spending and the economy is why they got crushed so badly.

i can only hope they return to their roots, altho after this asskicking i think they shall.

Well, then let me share my outsider's view:

When I first visited the US, back in 91, what I saw was a run-down country. I'd been in eastern Europe a bit the years before (Poland, Eastern Germany, Hungaria, then Czechoslovakia) and what I saw in the US in terms of public infrastructure was worse in many places. You could see a lot of homeless people in the street and the public perception of security was, well, just bad.

My next visit was in 96 and it was hard to believe for me how much had changed. I had a few more visits and from 98 on the pleasure to work for a US company which brought me regular visits. It will amaze me forever how this country managed to change that dramatically in only 7 years! Compare that to what we've achieved in eastern Germany. The US did have a balanced budget, good mood, good infrastructure, a running economy, in simple words: a strong country.

That was during the Clinton days, a Democrat, wasn't he?

Compare that to what you see today. My last visit to the US was 4 months ago, and I have to say, it was still light years away from the state of '91. Still a powerful, energetic country. But the mood was different from the heydays of the late '90s and if I look at the pricing structure, I felt that if I hadn't had the chance to buy $$ cheaply with my (then much higher valued as today) Euros, I would have found a lot of convenience items and services hard to afford - a clear sign of inflation only compensated by cheap clothing and cheap electronics (both probably imported from China).

So, I can't tell how all this feels from the inside, but from an outsider's perspective the last 8 years have been a huge step back while the 8 years before that had been the most astonishing transformation I have ever seen.

Just my 2cts.

egd
2008-11-07, 20:33
So the guy got some bad info (maybe) - intelligence is never 100% accurate and all you can do is follow what you feel in your gut & the information you've been provided. It's unfortunate we didn't find any WMD's to shut everyone up, but the gist of it is that WE ARE doing good things in Iraq, Saddam's regime was truly guilty of many crimes against humanity, and most of the "regular" folk there do appreciate us - at least according to the military personnel I've talked to that have been there. It's unfortunate that almost no one else had the "nuts" to go over there with us and remove this dangerous person from a position of power. I just personally hope we can get Iraq's security shored up before we make a knee jerk reaction and pull out prematurely, further destabilizing the region and giving an opportunity to other extremists groups like the Taliban.Do you really mean to tell me that there was no economic motive behind Bush's attack on Saddam? C'mon, nobody in power gives a shit about human rights and crimes against humanity unless there's economic gain to be had by intervening or it's happening on their own turf. If this wasn't the case then how have so many cases of clear genocide, mass starvation, dictatorship etc. eg Somalia, Zimbabwe & countless others been allowed to unfold unfettered by US or UN interference (other than the usual "play nice" rhetoric). Thousands die every day across Africa and nobody gives a shit precisely because there's no economic incentive to interfere. You surely can't be serious.

pippin
2008-11-07, 20:38
There was a time not very long ago when the U.S. was the world's largest creditor

Depends on what you call "long".
In this case, it's some 45 years ago.

86atc250r
2008-11-07, 20:45
You can believe what you like - take the pessimist view and believe everything is motived by bad.

Sure, there is plenty of things that go afoul in other countries around the world - but we can't fix 'em all - and some of them present more of a direct threat (real or perceived) to us and our allies.

Sometimes it's just bad to draw attention to yourself at the wrong time - that's what Afghanistan & Iraq did. Was it for financial purposes? Not as far as I can tell - we're certainly no better off financially for doing it & "stealing their oil" as much of the world accused us of for a time, certainly didn't help us when oil was $150/barrel. Shouldn't we have been swimming in the stuff & laughing at as the rest of the world bought oil at a 400% premium or more?

Surely you can't be serious about this being simply an economic issue. Again, much like the economy this subject of the middle east is so complex and has so many intricacies, it would be very difficult to discuss it with any resemblance of intelligence without first hand involvement for many years. It's awfully easy to spout ancillary accusations from afar, especially if they're being fed to you as propaganda.

egd
2008-11-07, 21:10
Surely you can't be serious about this being simply an economic issue.That's not what I said, I said there is no incentive to interfere unless there is an economic outcome attached to the interference. It's only at that point that it becomes a humanitarian cause worth addressing, otherwise it's just something for CNN, Fox and BBC to repeat ad nauseum whilst they wait for the next celebrity newsfeed.

86atc250r
2008-11-07, 21:29
Certainly humanity wasn't the only issue - I wasn't presenting it that way either - I just made mention that we HAVE done a lot of good there & that many residents of Iraq are appreciative of our intervention. Should intervention be avoided if it may be perceived that there is some financial benefit? There better be a bunch as we've certainly spent a "bunch" over there.

Personally, I believe the situation had much more to do with a perceived threat to our country - certainly in Afghanistan's case - we were attacked on our own soil by all means by those being harbored & training there (unless you really believe those fictional videos that somewhere along the line, got picked up by the conspiracy theory folks and presented as reality). Iraq was maybe more of a threat to our allies, the stability of the region - and of course, a number of the citizens that live there. As mentioned before, I'm fairly certain there is MUCH more to this than this lowly, hourly worker bee is aware of - and I'm quite certain none of us will ever have a full "big picture" of the situation.

I'm right there with you on the celebrity issue. :)

Goodsounds
2008-11-08, 00:12
Hi Pippin,

I found your outsider's perspectives interesting - thanks for sharing them.

Much of the 90s coincided with the upstroke of the business cycle. Especially the second half, which also included the dot com bubble. Little or none of this is affected by politics or governmental policies, either on the way up or on the way down.

A fair amount of public infrastructure-type things apparent to a visitor are funded by state and local authorities rather than the federal government. In the US, unlike in much of Europe, the majority of local governmental revenue is raised locally, not as an apportionment of federal funds, and it tends to have pieces that are difficult to change - real property tax, sales tax, etc. In boom times, receipts (and so expenditures) swell. When growth slows (as we've had since the turn of the century), the opposite happens, which is why state and local budgets have been under such pressure in recent years. Most are not able to run deficits, as the federal government can. It's also clear that a lot of federal money has been wasted over the last 6 years.

I agree with you, US infrastructure sucks compared to that in most European countries. On the other hand, our tax burden is rather lower. People are generally unenthusiastic about tax increases, so you get what you pay for.

As far as moods go, a lot of that is dependent upon whom you speak to. Most of my friends and associates are middle class, still employed, and not too radically impacted by recent travails in our economy. There will be more problems, job reductions, etc., so things will probably get worse before they get better, but overall, I do not sense a heavy mood among people I know. Of course, none of them have lost a house or have been significantly bitten by recent problems, other than the downturn in the stock market. People who have suffered big losses, different story.

Goodsounds
2008-11-08, 00:25
Demand and supply implications of: 1) retiring workforce, 2) declining population 3) shareholder demographic, 4) cash/income poor retirees, 4) potential for panic selling as share values decline as a result of 1-3...and this was a likely scenario prior to the current crisis.

Declining populations? Panic selling at retirement? Where is that happening? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.


btw, my points were made in respect of western economies, not solely the US.

I see - your 401(k) and other comments, in which you demonstrated more misunderstanding than understanding, were broad comments?

I was clear that my comments applied to the US. I try not to talk about things I am unfamiliar with.

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 01:54
Well, then let me share my outsider's view:

When I first visited the US, back in 91, what I saw was a run-down country. I'd been in eastern Europe a bit the years before (Poland, Eastern Germany, Hungaria, then Czechoslovakia) and what I saw in the US in terms of public infrastructure was worse in many places. You could see a lot of homeless people in the street and the public perception of security was, well, just bad.

My next visit was in 96 and it was hard to believe for me how much had changed. I had a few more visits and from 98 on the pleasure to work for a US company which brought me regular visits. It will amaze me forever how this country managed to change that dramatically in only 7 years! Compare that to what we've achieved in eastern Germany. The US did have a balanced budget, good mood, good infrastructure, a running economy, in simple words: a strong country.

That was during the Clinton days, a Democrat, wasn't he?

Compare that to what you see today. My last visit to the US was 4 months ago, and I have to say, it was still light years away from the state of '91. Still a powerful, energetic country. But the mood was different from the heydays of the late '90s and if I look at the pricing structure, I felt that if I hadn't had the chance to buy $$ cheaply with my (then much higher valued as today) Euros, I would have found a lot of convenience items and services hard to afford - a clear sign of inflation only compensated by cheap clothing and cheap electronics (both probably imported from China).

So, I can't tell how all this feels from the inside, but from an outsider's perspective the last 8 years have been a huge step back while the 8 years before that had been the most astonishing transformation I have ever seen.

Just my 2cts.

i'm sorry, but your 'impressions' of things really carry no water.

people were homeless in 91 but not 96 or 98? i don't think ANYTHING changed for the homeless, and still hasn't.

anyone here can tell you that the country changed dramatically in the 80s. carter was a disastor and reagan came in and laid down the groundwork for the prosperity of the next 25 years. clinton meanwhile had to work with a republican congress who did constrain him and his spending, (welfare reform, etc...)

the problems of the last 8 years started with 2 things, 9/11 and the republicans loss of identity, meaning they started spending like democrats and became corrupt as well. all these things along with some terrible fiscal sector policies, (the fed, glass stegall repeal, mark to market) all resulted in the economic mess now.

if i were king, i'd bring in the fairtax, i'd balance the budget and start paying off the debt, and i'd increase the valuation of the currency by allowing the free market to set interest rates, (not the fed).

Nonreality
2008-11-08, 02:39
i'm sorry, but your 'impressions' of things really carry no water.

people were homeless in 91 but not 96 or 98? i don't think ANYTHING changed for the homeless, and still hasn't.

anyone here can tell you that the country changed dramatically in the 80s. carter was a disastor and reagan came in and laid down the groundwork for the prosperity of the next 25 years. clinton meanwhile had to work with a republican congress who did constrain him and his spending, (welfare reform, etc...)

the problems of the last 8 years started with 2 things, 9/11 and the republicans loss of identity, meaning they started spending like democrats and became corrupt as well. all these things along with some terrible fiscal sector policies, (the fed, glass stegall repeal, mark to market) all resulted in the economic mess now.

if i were king, i'd bring in the fairtax, i'd balance the budget and start paying off the debt, and i'd increase the valuation of the currency by allowing the free market to set interest rates, (not the fed).
Pippen they carry water with me. When someone always blames the other side it's time to take care. I'm really hoping the blame game stops and we start working things out here. It's possible but only if we let go of ideology and start fixing things the right way. This goes for both and all sides of the equation.

autopilot
2008-11-08, 04:00
I love this argument - If Bush was as corrupt as many of you seem to believe, we *WOULD* have found WMD's, doesn't take a genius to think that one through. Comparing his administration to Nazi Germany is as ignorant as it is insulting for all of us on this side of the pond - regardless of your politics.


So your argument is that as they did not fake the WMD's they are not corrupt at all? Even Bush is not stupid enough to have thought faking nukes would have been a good idea, there is no way they would have got away with it if you know anything about nuclear and chemical weapons production. Apart from the fact that there are other countries involved, the UN weapons inspectors would have demanded samples and they would known straight away the origin. No, when the so called intelligence became obviously flawed (intelligence from government agencies, so they must take some responsibilities) they rolled out a few more increasingly weak lies - it was because of 9/11 (which it had absolutely nothing to do Iraq). Then when people started questioning that nonsense then then moved on and said it was to stop his human rights abuses - which is odd, when you consider that many other countries (most middle east countries in fact) have far worse human rights yet the US (and know one else, im not singling out the US here) could be bothered, in fact often did business with them. And the predicted collateral damage was also moe than and people murdered by Saddam anyway (let alone the actual collateral damage, thats much higher).

So basically we all know that Iraq was an illegal war, which was based on lies and was a cover for Bush and his administrations friends and families to profit from.

Whats insulting, is that many American, British and other nations have lost good men and women simply so a group of the elite could get richer from the oil and the reconstruction/military contracts. Also, is not using the memory of all the poor innocent people who did on 9/11, when their deaths had nothing to do with this, not insulting to their memories?

To be fair, I dont think the Bush etc actually thought that it would have got this bad, and they have done some things to put it right, but they still need to be held account for. My government too, im not attacking America im talking about the Bush and UK administrations.




It's unfortunate that almost no one else had the "nuts" to go over there with us and remove this dangerous person from a position of power.

Even if the war was based on actual true facts, most countries had the good sense to see that it was pointless and would end in a mess. France for example had a large Oil contract, invading Iraq basically voided that contract. France would not go to war if it meant not only loosing men and huge spending, but also losing huge revenues too. All the contracts for Oil extraction and rebuilding where already going to US firm's. I think that before Bush realised what a disaster this would be, they figured that they would stand to make greater gains by going at it mostly alone.

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 04:07
illegal war?

tell me, whats a "legal" war?

saddam broke the terms of the 91 armistice, that made what we did "legal" at least in terms of the armistice.

as to the wmds, which is it? is bush a master-criminal villain who duped the world for his own gain, or is he the idiot who can't speak properly and bumbled it all?

frankly, its all rather moot now. whatever anyone thought, getting rid of saddam is a great thing and establishing a democracy in the arab world, the first one at that, is also a great thing. i'm not a bush fan, i'm upset with many things he did... but i really get upset over this hand wringing about bringing freedom to iraq, when the very same people want us to do just that in darfur, a situation that would be much more bloody, and has almost zero national interest to us at all.

(and i'm not necessary against helping darfur militarily, i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy)

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 04:14
Pippen they carry water with me. When someone always blames the other side it's time to take care. I'm really hoping the blame game stops and we start working things out here. It's possible but only if we let go of ideology and start fixing things the right way. This goes for both and all sides of the equation.

just in case you missed it, i blamed both sides. while i ideologically am more to the right, in practice i recognize both sides as being scoundrals.

as to what pippen said, frankly antedotal evidence is not fact.

pippin
2008-11-08, 04:24
Hi Pippin,

I found your outsider's perspectives interesting - thanks for sharing them.

Much of the 90s coincided with the upstroke of the business cycle. Especially the second half, which also included the dot com bubble. Little or none of this is affected by politics or governmental policies, either on the way up or on the way down.

A fair amount of public infrastructure-type things apparent to a visitor are funded by state and local authorities rather than the federal government. In the US, unlike in much of Europe, the majority of local governmental revenue is raised locally, not as an apportionment of federal funds, and it tends to have pieces that are difficult to change - real property tax, sales tax, etc. In boom times, receipts (and so expenditures) swell. When growth slows (as we've had since the turn of the century), the opposite happens, which is why state and local budgets have been under such pressure in recent years. Most are not able to run deficits, as the federal government can. It's also clear that a lot of federal money has been wasted over the last 6 years.

I agree with you, US infrastructure sucks compared to that in most European countries. On the other hand, our tax burden is rather lower. People are generally unenthusiastic about tax increases, so you get what you pay for.

As far as moods go, a lot of that is dependent upon whom you speak to. Most of my friends and associates are middle class, still employed, and not too radically impacted by recent travails in our economy. There will be more problems, job reductions, etc., so things will probably get worse before they get better, but overall, I do not sense a heavy mood among people I know. Of course, none of them have lost a house or have been significantly bitten by recent problems, other than the downturn in the stock market. People who have suffered big losses, different story.

Goodsounds,

as I said, it was the impression I got. I am very well aware that impressions don't always fit reality in every detail. Here in Berlin, for example, they "solved" the problem of too many homeless people lurking around in public places by simply pushing them out of the city center. They are still there, you just don't see them. US cities may have had similar strategies.

On th other hand:
1. Your economic argument sounds a bit one-sided to me. It's true that the 90s saw a steady economic upturn but so did the 80s and obviously you would readily attribute this to the policies of the Reagan administration instead of the dramatically declining oil price after the energy crisis of the 70s. I do believe that there is such thing as good or bad economic policy and you even though you typically don't see the effect of that for the first 2-3 years you DO see it within eight years.

2. What I see when talking to Americans recently (note: my last visit was BEFORE the LATEST financial crash), is that there is a lot of enthusiasm for politics driven by the impression that something has to change. People seem to be willing to vote (I heard this election had the highest participation rate for over 40 years) and to involve themselves to bring things forward.
This is refreshing something to be jealous of from a German perspective. We've had "consensus" politics that over the time lead to worse and worse compromises for years and years now and people generally are completely fed up with politics and don't want to be bothered with it. The general perception is that it doesn't matter anyway whom you vote for since they will all do the same anyway. During the last election campaign there was a big issue about whether to raise the VAT (which is a federal tax in Germany) or not. The Socialists wanted to raise it by 2% the conservatives said it should stay where it was. When they finally teamed up after the election they found a compromise between those two positions in raising it by 3%... No joke!

My feeling (again, as an outsider) is, that after the Bush years there is actually MORE enthusiasm for politics in the US because people see they have to care and if you look at the result, it looks like a pretty clear vote in favor of a change from how it is now. For the moment, I think that's a pretty big chance!

autopilot
2008-11-08, 04:26
tell me, whats a "legal" war?

Well there is a thing called the geneva convention, but you have a good point regarding international law and it's abstractness. However, there is a difference when you start a war on a country that has not attacked you.



saddam broke the terms of the 91 armistice, that made what we did "legal" at least in terms of the armistice.

Two wrongs dont make a right, that does not even come close to justifying the death of our friends fellow countrymen.



as to the wmds, which is it? is bush a master-criminal villain who duped the world for his own gain, or is he the idiot who can't speak properly and bumbled it all?


Bit of both, but when i say 'Bush' i also mean the people behind him who have the real control. Are you saying that US companies, including ones that the Bush administration with huge stakes, did not stand to make a lot of cash?



frankly, its all rather moot now.


Is it?! We are still at war, no?


whatever anyone thought, getting rid of saddam is a great thing and establishing a democracy in the arab world, the first one at that, is also a great thing.


It would be, but as lovely as it sounds, it wont ever happen. Even if it means that another 1,000,000 people must die before we realise. Thats a fundamental mistake the Bush (and British) administration made, they totally misunderstood the culture and religious fabric of that part of the world (and why the thought of Sarah Palin, who thinks Africa is a country was so scary) OR it's an excuse to exercise more power and influence (i suspect a bit of both). But it will never happen, we dont have the power anyway even if it was possible. We will never bomb away thousands of years of deeply routed religion and culture, democracy is beautiful but totally incompatible with that part of the world. Any idea that we have restored some real and long term democracy to Iraq is a complete illusion. As evil as Saddam was, Iraq was a secular nation and we knew that. Now we have opened the flood gates to even more religious madness. Not only is Democracy futile, but long term it will be worse now.

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 04:43
as I said, it was the impression I got. I am very well aware that impressions don't always fit reality in every detail. Here in Berlin, for example, they "solved" the problem of too many homeless people lurking around in public places by simply pushing them out of the city center. They are still there, you just don't see them. US cities may have had similar strategies.

let me just point to you a book called "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. one of the things he talks about is the bias of news coverage. in the 80's and during bush Sr term, the press OBSESSED with the homeless issue. it was ridiculous really. and then something miraculous happened, clinton solved the homeless issue!

except that, he didn't. the stats bear it out, he did NOTHING for the homeless, zilch, zero. but the press suddenly decided, after 10+ years it wasn't an issue anymore, so you, [meaning anyone] would think the issue was solved. it wasn't. thats an example of bias in our media, and i'd argue, its liberal in origin. again, the facts are documented in the book.

we also btw, try to "zone" homeless out of certain areas. the homeless in america are by in large not economic victims, but drug/alcohol related, and / or mentally ill. the liberals, way back when in their wisdom, fought to have the state release the mentally ill onto the streets if they weren't a danger to anyone. big mistake.


On th other hand:
1. Your economic argument sounds a bit one-sided to me. It's true that the 90s saw a steady economic upturn but so did the 80s and obviously you would readily attribute this to the policies of the Reagan administration instead of the dramatically declining oil price after the energy crisis of the 70s. I do believe that there is such thing as good or bad economic policy and you even though you typically don't see the effect of that for the first 2-3 years you DO see it within eight years.

come on... yes, cheaper oil helped, but cutting tax rates from 70% to 28% for the highest bracket was the real engine of change, as was cuttng capital gains and all the rest of it.


it looks like a pretty clear vote in favor of a change from how it is now. For the moment, I think that's a pretty big chance!

too bad it seems like its going to be a change to socialism. the problem is we don't even know if thats the plan. we heard "change" for 2 years, we never heard change to what, how, when, or why.

Goodsounds
2008-11-08, 08:34
Pippin,

Thanks again for your comments. Perhaps to surprise you, I was an Obama supporter and I am very happy about his victory. I worry a bit that his party's hardliners not have too much of an influence, but I trust his judgement at the helm.

Also, perhaps to surprise you, I read that despite the very apparent surge of interest in things political in this election, ultimate voter turnout was like no more than a percentage point or so higher than the last presidential election. So, more noise, but not more people.

Sie sind ein Berliner? I was in Berlin last year, for the first time since the wall came down (believe it or not). The changes are breathtaking. I realize a lot of money has been spent because of the return of the capital from Bonn, and as part of the reintegration of the East. But a lovely city with many nice people. And if English is not your native language, I must comment that your English is awesome.

Thanks to everyone for an interesting conversation and change of pace.

CatBus
2008-11-08, 14:32
tell me, whats a "legal" war?

That was probably a hypothetical question, but here's a real although greatly simplified answer. "International law" is comprised of treaties signed by various countries around the world. Basically if a country signs a treaty promising not do perform action X, and then they perform action X anyway, then action X is a violation of the treaty, and illegal. I don't like the term "international law" myself because it creates the impression that this law is being imposed on nations from some outside entity like the UN, and that's not really true.

The UN Charter, for example, is actually a treaty (which the US has signed), and part of that treaty is that member states agree not to engage in military aggression without first getting UN approval. So to answer your questions, defensive wars are one sort of legal war. If Iraq attacked the US, the US would be totally within their rights to fight back. So US military action in that hypothetical war would be legal and Iraqi military action would be illegal, because the Iraqis were the aggressors. Now, if Iraq managed to convince the UN Security Council that the US posed a threat to the world community, or presented some sort of looming humanitarian disaster, they could attack the US once they had a UN resolution authorizing the attack, and that would also be legal. There are some other cases involving coming to the aid of an ally that's been attacked, etc, but that's the general gist of it.

So with regard to the most recent war between the US and Iraq, only half of that war was truly illegal. The US attack was not authorized by the UN, and therefore violated a treaty and was illegal. The Iraqis, however, were (and still are) fully within their rights to defend their country against the country that invaded them. This is why Kofi Annan, the current US-backed Secretary General of the UN, considered the invasion to be illegal. Hope that helps.

Now, there are some other angles on this, such as the complete lack of any consistent enforcement mechanism--which leads to justifiable accusations of case-by-case hypocrisy. We've also gotten UN approval in the past (for the Korean War) when it wasn't necessary, creating an impression that UN approval is needed for all wars (it isn't). There are also many conservatives who think the US should withdraw from the UN, and if that were the case then maybe we could attack whoever we wanted legally (I doubt it--there are still lots of treaties out there).

So in simplified terms, the US broke a treaty. News at 11 ;)

Howard Passman
2008-11-08, 17:02
Douglas McArthur.


What! Not Eisenhower... :-)

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 23:29
That was probably a hypothetical question, but here's a real although greatly simplified answer. "International law" is comprised of treaties signed by various countries around the world. Basically if a country signs a treaty promising not do perform action X, and then they perform action X anyway, then action X is a violation of the treaty, and illegal. I don't like the term "international law" myself because it creates the impression that this law is being imposed on nations from some outside entity like the UN, and that's not really true.

The UN Charter, for example, is actually a treaty (which the US has signed), and part of that treaty is that member states agree not to engage in military aggression without first getting UN approval. So to answer your questions, defensive wars are one sort of legal war. If Iraq attacked the US, the US would be totally within their rights to fight back. So US military action in that hypothetical war would be legal and Iraqi military action would be illegal, because the Iraqis were the aggressors. Now, if Iraq managed to convince the UN Security Council that the US posed a threat to the world community, or presented some sort of looming humanitarian disaster, they could attack the US once they had a UN resolution authorizing the attack, and that would also be legal. There are some other cases involving coming to the aid of an ally that's been attacked, etc, but that's the general gist of it.

So with regard to the most recent war between the US and Iraq, only half of that war was truly illegal. The US attack was not authorized by the UN, and therefore violated a treaty and was illegal. The Iraqis, however, were (and still are) fully within their rights to defend their country against the country that invaded them. This is why Kofi Annan, the current US-backed Secretary General of the UN, considered the invasion to be illegal. Hope that helps.

Now, there are some other angles on this, such as the complete lack of any consistent enforcement mechanism--which leads to justifiable accusations of case-by-case hypocrisy. We've also gotten UN approval in the past (for the Korean War) when it wasn't necessary, creating an impression that UN approval is needed for all wars (it isn't). There are also many conservatives who think the US should withdraw from the UN, and if that were the case then maybe we could attack whoever we wanted legally (I doubt it--there are still lots of treaties out there).

So in simplified terms, the US broke a treaty. News at 11 ;)

that just isn't true.

as i said earlier, iraq broke the terms of the 91 armistice, that gave us the right to take military action, and there is no question the gulf war was legal. and we also had resolution 1441 this time.

i'm not sure what part of the UN charter you are citing that refutes what i just said.

the idea that the UN decides what is and isn't illegal is a joke anyway. the UN is made up of dictators and despots, is a surreal place, and other than humanitarian efforts is totally ineffectual, (oil for food scandal, UN peacekeepers raping children epidemic). i have very little regard for it.

the USA is the bulwark of freedom in the world, and gets very little credit for it. we beat fascism, we beat communism, and we will beat terrorism, and we do it while all the "liberal" nations of the world bemoan us, and don't carry their fair share either diplomatically, militarily or finanacially.

frankly, i'm tired of the rest of the world getting a free ride off our backs, and showing such little gratitude.

i refuse to sit here worried about removing a brutal dictator like saddam, while very same people who complain about that, want us to invade darfur.

MrSinatra
2008-11-08, 23:51
Well there is a thing called the geneva convention, but you have a good point regarding international law and it's abstractness. However, there is a difference when you start a war on a country that has not attacked you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

i'm no expert, but which one there supports your point? as far as i can tell, they are about rules of warfare conduct, not how you start one.

in any case...

am i to take it from your comment that you consider invading afghanistan illegal as well?

what about the first gulf war?

in both cases, neither directly attacked the USA. are you calling those illegal as well?


Two wrongs dont make a right, that does not even come close to justifying the death of our friends fellow countrymen.

that does not address my point at all.

you said it was an illegal war. i just proved it wasn't. when saddam broke the terms of the armistice, we had all the legal justification any reasonable entity needs to take further military action. thats the whole point of signing an armistice, you are compelled to comply or face consequences.

you are free to say "it wasn't worth it" but you can't credibly say it was illegal. personally, i'm not saying its what i would have done, but i can see the logic behind it. the armistice compelled saddam to pro-actively demonstrate destroing his WMDs that the UN had inventoried in the years after 91 and he did not do so. it was not on us to prove he had them, it was on him to prove he didn't, by destroying them in from of the UN. in fact, the WMDs are still today unaccounted for. this is the UNs assessment, not the USAs.

given that saddam simply wouldn't do that, and since it was POST 9/11, i can see why it came to a head when it did.


Bit of both, but when i say 'Bush' i also mean the people behind him who have the real control. Are you saying that US companies, including ones that the Bush administration with huge stakes, did not stand to make a lot of cash?

sorry, i consider this whole bit far left loony stuff. the whole idea that bush did this for personal gain is just obnoxious and vapid.

not to mention the inherent contradiction of "a little bit of both."


Is it?! We are still at war, no?

depends what you mean. i would say we are in the final stages of an occupation, (liberation) not war in any traditional sense. we are at war in afghanistan still, and with terrorism still.

i am confident iraq will emerge a stable democracy, and for that i am grateful and proud.


It would be, but as lovely as it sounds, it wont ever happen. Even if it means that another 1,000,000 people must die before we realise.

not only is this typical defeatism of the left, but its wrong. i think in america, even the majorityof obama voters think that iraq will not end a failure. i actually think that helped elect him, if iraq had been more volatile, that probably would have helped mccain.


Thats a fundamental mistake the Bush (and British) administration made, they totally misunderstood the culture and religious fabric of that part of the world (and why the thought of Sarah Palin, who thinks Africa is a country was so scary) OR it's an excuse to exercise more power and influence (i suspect a bit of both).

the palin thing isn't true, fyi. i don't want to get knee deep in it, but 1. it was unnamed sources, and 2. she had previous dealings with africa via charities so there is no way it could be true.

in any case...

i love how the "liberal" left who claims to be about non-discrimination and anti-prejudice, has no problem saying this racist argument, essentially that arabs are incapable of democracy. thats really despicable.


But it will never happen, we dont have the power anyway even if it was possible. We will never bomb away thousands of years of deeply routed religion and culture, democracy is beautiful but totally incompatible with that part of the world. Any idea that we have restored some real and long term democracy to Iraq is a complete illusion. As evil as Saddam was, Iraq was a secular nation and we knew that. Now we have opened the flood gates to even more religious madness. Not only is Democracy futile, but long term it will be worse now.

not only is this a racist pov imo, but it also ignores the facts on the ground.

how many elections do they have to have before you admit you're wrong?

pippin
2008-11-09, 04:58
the USA is the bulwark of freedom in the world, and gets very little credit for it.

Well, when you betray the very ideals you claim to promote and lie about your motivations for a war, what do you expect?

Face it, US foreign policy has been largely opportunistic after WW2. It had no problem to fight democratically elected governments when they leaned to the left and to support even the ugliest dictators when they leaned to the right. In the case of Saddam, George Bush sen. did this even personally.

When the US went to war in Afghanistan, it had the entire world behind it because everybody understood why they fought, they had a plan plus local support.

In Iraq the Motivation was fake (Saddam while being one of those ugly dictators had nothing to do with islamist terrorism), the legal groundwork was made up (WMD) and the person they sought to install as an interim president was dubious at best.

Act as you talk and you get respect, do the opposite and you don't. It's actually that simple.

toby10
2008-11-09, 06:28
that just isn't true.

as i said earlier, iraq broke the terms of the 91 armistice, that gave us the right to take military action, and there is no question the gulf war was legal. and we also had resolution 1441 this time.

i'm not sure what part of the UN charter you are citing that refutes what i just said.

the idea that the UN decides what is and isn't illegal is a joke anyway. the UN is made up of dictators and despots, is a surreal place, and other than humanitarian efforts is totally ineffectual, (oil for food scandal, UN peacekeepers raping children epidemic). i have very little regard for it.

the USA is the bulwark of freedom in the world, and gets very little credit for it. we beat fascism, we beat communism, and we will beat terrorism, and we do it while all the "liberal" nations of the world bemoan us, and don't carry their fair share either diplomatically, militarily or finanacially.

frankly, i'm tired of the rest of the world getting a free ride off our backs, and showing such little gratitude.

i refuse to sit here worried about removing a brutal dictator like saddam, while very same people who complain about that, want us to invade darfur.

Yup. And the reason the UN had 17 resolutions against Iraq is because Iraq violated the first 16. We know he had WMD's cuz we (the US) and France and Germany and Russia (and god knows who else) sold them to Iraq. The question is: what happened to these WMD's. I'm sure there are other political reasons we are there now, just saying.

Absolutely correct about the UN, it's a joke. The corruption, abuses and "do nothing attitude" until it's far too late is sickening. Usually the UN takes no real action to protect those it claims to benefit. The states that the UN is shaking it's finger at KNOWS the UN won't really back it up with anything, so these rogue states just ignore the UN's threats. But when they DO take action, where do they turn? The UN is nothing but a tea party without the US to backup it's decisions, the few times the UN has the balls to ask us to do so.

The world wants to sleep under our blanket and expects us to babysit the entire planet. But then they do nothing but complain how we go about this and point out every mistep. Politically and militarily we've MORE than made our share of mistakes, but on par we've done far more good than bad. Don't like how we go about it? Go fix it yourselves, with your blood and money, show us how it's done. :)

autopilot
2008-11-09, 09:29
Well first off its great to have a conversation with real people, rather than the nonsense the press on both sides of the pond pumps out. 10 pages in and people, although obviously disagreeing have having differing points of view, have put their points across in a non personal and intelligent way.

However, i feel been called "racist" is very unfair. MrSinatra - i do agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you are clearly very patriotic and see things though rose tinted glasses. You have the same one sided naive views that have caused this to become such a disaster and you have obviously completely fallen for the propaganda our governments have bombarded us with.

First off, you say i am racist for saying "Arabs are incapable of democracy", which i did not even say. I said that it's not compatible and the changes required won't be delivered via a badly conceived military campaign. No matter what the Iraqi citizens say when they are wheeled in front of the camera's from the US public, most don't care about democracy, especially if it means some much pain and death. They dont even know what it is, they just want clean water, heath care, food on their tables and their children to stop dying from stray missiles and from the terrorism (which barely existed under Saddam) the political vacuum the invasion caused. All of these things they had before the invasion. And thats not even accounting for the religious element - the type of Islamic tradition is unfortunately very un-democratic - you would have get some of the most deeply religious people to radically change their religious views too.

And all thats before the PR disaster after PR disaster. For example, the troops raced to protect the Oil wells and put much effort into this. However, they made no attempt to protect the hospitals being attacked and robbed. Not just hospitals, but the Baghdad museum was looted and virtually destroyed - with many of the worlds most precious and ancient artefacts were lost forever. Yet the occupying forces did nothing. How does this looks to the average Iraqi? It was clear as day that the Oil was the number 1 priority. You say acknowledging this fact, and countless others, is "obnoxious and vapid". Thats just they way it is, our governments have proved this time after time. Reason 1,001 why they want us out yesterday and dont care about democracy much.

Then Bush goes as says he invaded Iraq because he was told to by God. Apart from the fact this is clearly a desperate attempt to gain support from the regions far right in the US and UK, it effectively told everyone he had religious motivations. That was a bad thing to say even by Bush's standards - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

You say the world is ungrateful for the US's actions. This is simply not true and used as an excuse. Yes, rightly or wrongly, the US has been viewed as arrogant and self serving by some people, but the vast majority of the world has always been very good friends with the US. It's not until the Iraq war (not the previous one where Iraq invaded another country) where even people with great and historic supportive of the US have said this is all wrong this time. Whether this is illegal or not, i strongly believe we have fallen very far from the moral high ground.

I completely agree about the UN, complete waste of time. i also agree that if any nation does not want to listen and comply they should probably leave.

i also agree with the War in Afghanistan, as there is clear links to terrorism and 9/11.

Will it be a failure in the end? Well what exactly where the goals then? Who can say, the objectives have changed so much. Anything is possible when you keep moving the goal posts. but will Iraq become a lasting and stable democracy? not in our wildest dreams.

I felt i had to respond to those very personal and extensively offensive accusations. Lets keep this civil and grown up please.

amcluesent
2008-11-09, 10:47
"I promised you change you can believe in, I did not promise you change you can actually see."

He added: "You believe in Jesus don't you? Right, but have you ever seen Jesus? Exactly. Just making sure we're all on the same page."

Themis
2008-11-09, 10:52
In Greece we hate American foreign policies since WW2. We've always found them unfair, anti-democratic, and against simple peoples' interests everywhere in the world. And more particularly in our (greek) neighborhood.

Nevertheless, we have a big respect for American people, and once more they proved to be awesome ! Americans really deserve a great applause for their mutual solidarity : a great nation, indeed.

autopilot
2008-11-09, 11:03
Nevertheless, we have a big respect for American people, and once more they proved to be awesome ! Americans really deserve a great applause for their mutual solidarity : a great nation, indeed.

absolutly!

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 14:36
Well, when you betray the very ideals you claim to promote and lie about your motivations for a war, what do you expect?

Face it, US foreign policy has been largely opportunistic after WW2.

thats nonsense. we defeated communism, and protected you, wherever you are.


It had no problem to fight democratically elected governments when they leaned to the left and to support even the ugliest dictators when they leaned to the right. In the case of Saddam, George Bush sen. did this even personally.

give me an example of a "Democratic" gov't we opposed simply b/c it leaned left?

as to saddam, he didn't lean left or right, he was a dictator we used during the cold war. sometimes you have to make hard choices.


When the US went to war in Afghanistan, it had the entire world behind it because everybody understood why they fought, they had a plan plus local support.

that isn't true. i bet there are people in this very thread who are against us being there. code pink calls it an "illegal war." there is opposition to it, and part of it comes from the lack of recognition that the gov't there (taliban) and the terrorists there were more than simpatico.


In Iraq the Motivation was fake (Saddam while being one of those ugly dictators had nothing to do with islamist terrorism), the legal groundwork was made up (WMD) and the person they sought to install as an interim president was dubious at best.

again, not true. i keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. armistice, 91.

the WMDs were inventoried by the UN. they are still unaccounted for today.

if 9/11 had not happened, i don't think we would have worried that much about those WMDs. but it did and so bush took us in. i'm not saying i would have done that, but i can understand why he did. not finding them however is hardly surprising, and certainly doesn't make it "illegal."


Act as you talk and you get respect, do the opposite and you don't. It's actually that simple.

maybe we wouldn't have to talk or act so much if the other countries of the world did ANYTHING.

tell me, what is Germany doing in afghanistan? answer, BALKING. nada, nothing, very very little, and ZERO in the combat zones.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 14:40
Yup. And the reason the UN had 17 resolutions against Iraq is because Iraq violated the first 16. We know he had WMD's cuz we (the US) and France and Germany and Russia (and god knows who else) sold them to Iraq. The question is: what happened to these WMD's. I'm sure there are other political reasons we are there now, just saying.

Absolutely correct about the UN, it's a joke. The corruption, abuses and "do nothing attitude" until it's far too late is sickening. Usually the UN takes no real action to protect those it claims to benefit. The states that the UN is shaking it's finger at KNOWS the UN won't really back it up with anything, so these rogue states just ignore the UN's threats. But when they DO take action, where do they turn? The UN is nothing but a tea party without the US to backup it's decisions, the few times the UN has the balls to ask us to do so.

The world wants to sleep under our blanket and expects us to babysit the entire planet. But then they do nothing but complain how we go about this and point out every mistep. Politically and militarily we've MORE than made our share of mistakes, but on par we've done far more good than bad. Don't like how we go about it? Go fix it yourselves, with your blood and money, show us how it's done. :)

i would point out that the USA had to fix the problems in europes backyard in bosnia, and we get little credit for that. where is nato in afghanistan?

also, i just want to correct one thing above, the USA absolutely did NOT sell saddam WMDs. others may have, but we knew he had them b/c the UN found them and inventoried them for ~6years after the 91 gulf war.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 15:09
Well first off its great to have a conversation with real people, rather than the nonsense the press on both sides of the pond pumps out. 10 pages in and people, although obviously disagreeing have having differing points of view, have put their points across in a non personal and intelligent way.

agreed. :)


However, i feel been called "racist" is very unfair.

except i never called YOU racist. i don't believe you are racist.

i called your POV on the subject, and your argument racist, and it is.

when you say essentially that:

"the arabs aren't capable of democracy."

thats a racist POV imo.

it sounds very similar to what the white south africans said about why they had to have apartheid.

i'm sorry if this offends you, but its your words, not mine.


MrSinatra - i do agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you are clearly very patriotic and see things though rose tinted glasses. You have the same one sided naive views that have caused this to become such a disaster and you have obviously completely fallen for the propaganda our governments have bombarded us with.

thats your opinion, not mine. i think you have fallen for what the left says.


First off, you say i am racist for saying "Arabs are incapable of democracy", which i did not even say. I said that it's not compatible and the changes required won't be delivered via a badly conceived military campaign.

i stand by what i said. i quoted you and people can decide if what i said fits or not. i think you are backtracking, and frankly, saying "its not compatible" now isn't really changing what you said or meant.


No matter what the Iraqi citizens say when they are wheeled in front of the camera's from the US public, most don't care about democracy, especially if it means some much pain and death. They dont even know what it is, they just want clean water, heath care, food on their tables and their children to stop dying from stray missiles and from the terrorism (which barely existed under Saddam) the political vacuum the invasion caused. All of these things they had before the invasion. And thats not even accounting for the religious element - the type of Islamic tradition is unfortunately very un-democratic - you would have get some of the most deeply religious people to radically change their religious views too.

"they don't even know what it is."

am i only in seeing the racist overtones here?

sorry, but what you just wrote is INCREDIBLY patronizing and misguided.

al-sistiani, (-sp?) the leading cleric there, supports the move to democracy. all of islam is not opposed to it you know. there are islamic democracies, they do exist.


And all thats before the PR disaster after PR disaster. For example, the troops raced to protect the Oil wells and put much effort into this. However, they made no attempt to protect the hospitals being attacked and robbed. Not just hospitals, but the Baghdad museum was looted and virtually destroyed - with many of the worlds most precious and ancient artefacts were lost forever.

this makes me laugh. so we, as an invading military force, needed to be concerned with playing security guard to hospitals and mueseums and zoos?

first of all, the mueseum story is mostly untrue. yes it was looted, but something like 95% of the stuff was recovered. a lot of it was people trying to protect it who always planned to return it.

secondly, thats not OUR problem. we had objectives that had to be met. we could not put everything under one priority. and maybe we could have done more, if the world would have helped.


Yet the occupying forces did nothing. How does this looks to the average Iraqi? It was clear as day that the Oil was the number 1 priority. You say acknowledging this fact, and countless others, is "obnoxious and vapid". Thats just they way it is, our governments have proved this time after time. Reason 1,001 why they want us out yesterday and dont care about democracy much.

now you are conflating issues.

it is obnoxious and vapid to say that bush et al did this for personal gain. it is not at all erroneous however, to say oil was a huge reason we were there, and a huge objective for protection. the reason being that in 91 saddam LIT HIS OWN WELLS on fire, and this time we didn't want that to happen so that we could get revenue flowing to the iraqis as quickly as possible. we wanted to be sure there was revenue coming in to give them an incentive to rally around a new democratic gov't.


Then Bush goes as says he invaded Iraq because he was told to by God. Apart from the fact this is clearly a desperate attempt to gain support from the regions far right in the US and UK, it effectively told everyone he had religious motivations. That was a bad thing to say even by Bush's standards - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

gimmie a break. and btw, the guardian is as far left a socialist paper as there is.


You say the world is ungrateful for the US's actions. This is simply not true and used as an excuse. Yes, rightly or wrongly, the US has been viewed as arrogant and self serving by some people, but the vast majority of the world has always been very good friends with the US. It's not until the Iraq war (not the previous one where Iraq invaded another country) where even people with great and historic supportive of the US have said this is all wrong this time. Whether this is illegal or not, i strongly believe we have fallen very far from the moral high ground.

i might be more warm to that pov, if those people who have benefitted from our largesse ever did anything for us.

and that includes some latitude. what i mean is, if i owed so much to someone, i would give them a LOT of leeway as to how they conducted themselves. i wouldn't start bitching and moaning the moment they did something i disagree with, and especially something that is being bitched and moaned about on silly technical points, or vapid leftwing personal points. i would recognize that even if i disagreed with them, i owed them a lot, and their ultimate goal, of removing a brutal dictator and instituting democracy, is a noble one.


I completely agree about the UN, complete waste of time. i also agree that if any nation does not want to listen and comply they should probably leave.

i wish we would.


i also agree with the War in Afghanistan, as there is clear links to terrorism and 9/11.

then where is nato? where is the combat forces of ANY other nation?

we don't need cooks. we need combat forces.


Will it be a failure in the end? Well what exactly where the goals then? Who can say, the objectives have changed so much. Anything is possible when you keep moving the goal posts. but will Iraq become a lasting and stable democracy? not in our wildest dreams.

what an optimist! i think its pretty clear at this point, that america, regardless of who is president, is not going to let it fail. i think most people today, do see the tremendous progress, and are cautiously optimistic, at the very least.


I felt i had to respond to those very personal and extensively offensive accusations. Lets keep this civil and grown up please.

again, i do NOT think you are racist. however, i have reread your comments several times, and i have no other words to describe what you said.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 15:10
In Greece we hate American foreign policies since WW2. We've always found them unfair, anti-democratic, and against simple peoples' interests everywhere in the world. And more particularly in our (greek) neighborhood.

Nevertheless, we have a big respect for American people, and once more they proved to be awesome ! Americans really deserve a great applause for their mutual solidarity : a great nation, indeed.

i would like to know what greece has a problem with, especially considering that without us, you'd have been communist for 60 years.

and please, don't cite our involvement with turkey. greece and the turks problems are your own, not ours.

Themis
2008-11-09, 15:20
i would like to know what greece has a problem with, especially considering that without us, you'd have been communist for 60 years
You see, that's exactly the problem with USA foreign policy : it decides in place of other nations what is good and what is bad for them. That's why everybody detests it. ;)
We have our own choices and decisions, we don't need your intervention on it. And no other country does. You must understand this. :)

Things are getting better, though. Interventions diminish over time.
And I'm not at all amazed you don't know what Greece has a problem with. Why should you ? Do you think I know what exactly the USA has a problem with ?

pippin
2008-11-09, 15:31
give me an example of a "Democratic" gov't we opposed simply b/c it leaned left?

Chavez, Allende (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/chile.htm)


as to saddam, he didn't lean left or right, he was a dictator we used during the cold war. sometimes you have to make hard choices.

Maybe. Makes you incredible and unpopular, though. That was my point.


that isn't true. i bet there are people in this very thread who are against us being there.

You'll always find some people who are against anything. That's the nature of a democracy, isn't it? Wasn't it that what you claim to promote.
I am not against it and Germany does have troops there. They sometimes even get killed.


again, not true. i keep saying it and you keep ignoring it. armistice, 91.
the WMDs were inventoried by the UN. they are still unaccounted for today.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html
Show me a single piece of evidence for you claims


maybe we wouldn't have to talk or act so much if the other countries of the world did ANYTHING.

This may be true. But nobody forces the US to do anything.


tell me, what is Germany doing in afghanistan? answer, BALKING. nada, nothing, very very little, and ZERO in the combat zones.
Well, as I said before, we do have troops there and they do die.
There still is some sentiment in this world about Germany going to war, ask our British friends here in the thread about this.
And when we finally signed a peace treaty after WW2 (which actually happened as late as 1990), we guaranteed to only go to arms under NATO command, a proposition required, among others, by the US. Later that was revised to also allow UN command.

That said, I never claimed that the US are only doing bad. I completely acknowledge that its very often the US that has to bail out international organizations when it's getting hot and I am also no friend of the "soft" pressure of imposing economic sanctions on a country because (for example in the case of Iraq) those can kill even more people and only put pressure on the people, not the ones in power.

But claiming that the US is doing this for others is simply ridiculous and also, I was talking about sentiment towards the US in the world. You can't talk that away, it's there. Leave your country and you will see it. You want to fight terrorism? Cool way to do it, believe me the Iraq war was the single most efficient recruiting campaign they ever had...

Themis
2008-11-09, 15:35
give me an example of a "Democratic" gov't we opposed simply b/c it leaned left?
Chile, is one of the many answers.
Oh, but perhaps "Democratic" is a synonym for "approved by the Department of State" to you ?

Nonreality
2008-11-09, 15:47
Update: The word Liberal worked as an insult or a negative 8 yrs ago. It doesn't now. NeoCon I believe is the new replacement.

Ross M
2008-11-09, 15:50
Is there a moderator of this form?

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com]On Behalf Of Themis
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:35 PM
To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
Subject: Re: [slim] What an election.


MrSinatra;358267 Wrote:
>
> give me an example of a "Democratic" gov't we opposed simply b/c it
> leaned left?
Chile, is one of the many answers.
Oh, but perhaps "Democratic" is a synonym for "approved by the
Department of State" to you ?


--
Themis

SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Themis's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14700
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54678

toby10
2008-11-09, 15:54
i would point out that the USA had to fix the problems in europes backyard in bosnia, and we get little credit for that. where is nato in afghanistan?

also, i just want to correct one thing above, the USA absolutely did NOT sell saddam WMDs. others may have, but we knew he had them b/c the UN found them and inventoried them for ~6years after the 91 gulf war.

Sadly, we did worse. We sold Saddam the technology to do so on his own. Then helped him with technical expertise and know how to develop these very chemical and biological weapons.
We even helped him jump start his nuclear program in the same manner.

This was during the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" love affair with Saddam. I guess it all made sense........at the time. :(

autopilot
2008-11-09, 17:07
i also agree with the War in Afghanistan, as there is clear links to terrorism and 9/11.


then where is nato? where is the combat forces of ANY other nation?

we don't need cooks. we need combat forces.

Wow, that's low. There are other nations troops fighting there, including a great deal of British who are in constant combat. There has been a lot of deaths, including a few from my home town. We are a very small nation so we have less troops there than the US, but a lot for us and they are fighting and fighting hard, they are not cook's - that's incredibly insulting to there memories and patronising. Statements like that lead me to wonder what else you don't understand about what really going on in the world, not much credibility gained there i'm sorry.

And no, you are clearly calling me racist. You are saying my POV is racist, so that makes me a racist by it's very definition. What i said does not deserve such a flaming and abuse, there can't be many more insulting things than that. Not only that, but you quote me as saying things i did not say. I am sorry to have to respond in this way, but i tried to avoid personal insults to fellow forum members. Its a shame its happened, i would have been great to prove people wrong about these things becoming flame wars.

Did anyone else reading this genuinely think i was being racist?

I think most people will realise i did not say Most Arabs (Iraqi's, BTW not Arabs - i have not used the term Arab once) are incapable of Democracy, no mater how you try and twist it. I clearly said that it was incompatible with the current religious and cultural climate - which no amount military might wont be able to overcome. i did not say there is anything wrong with them. But their religion has far more influence than our military could ever dream off, and most Clerics and fundamentalists want Sharia law instating (arguably one of the few good things Saddam had going for him was that he created a secular nation - less religion in politics means less internal conflict). That added with many other factors such are pressure from Iran, Syria etc, and a great distrust of the US/UK and the fact that Democracy is not the average Iraq's first priory anyway (and, even given every horrible acts he committed, many things were better under Saddam in term of day to day life - a truth that is horrible to swallow i know) means that i think long term it will fail. What is happening there now is a puppet show and we will have to occupy and have a hand in the government indefinably to keep the fake democracy going (and the Oil flowing). Because as soon as we leave the Sunni Vs Shia civil war will in escalate and the government will crumble in much less than a decade - probably to a shadow Iran/Syrian sponsored government, which will be worse than Saddam for all of us.

I dont even blame the US/UK for all of this post invasion insanity, Iran needs to brought to justice to IMO for the supply weapons to insurgents, thus taking advantage of this mess and trying to make is worse and killing more of our troops.

As for me saying "they don't know what democracy is" - well they have never experienced it, been able to study it as school or seen it on TV. So how do they really know what's it's like to live under a democratic government? thats not racist or patronising, thats just the way it is. Mine and your governments have given them all the patronising they could ever get anyway.

And is this is just about democracy and/or human rights now, why Iraq? Why not north Korea, Saudi Arabia or China? Or maybe one of the many African countries that are much much worse than Iraq was, they would be far easier to invade too, why did we not help them?

Whats wrong with the attitude that we might well fail anyway? Not planning for the worst is why this has gone so wrong. MrSintra, i hope you are right. Time will tell is some long term good can really come from this, neither of us can predict the future, but i'm 99% sure we are losing. I hope a am wrong, and regardless of whats happened to take us down this road, we all must agree what we want to see is the safe return of our troops and a good life for the Iraq's who asked for none of this. I have a huge amount of respect for the US, i consider it to be my second home. I am also very patriotic and proud of my country. But you have to put the flag waving and misplaced sense of pride to the side sometime and look at things objectively, i dont like what our countries have done in our name - i think our government's look very corrupt. We have the right to question out governments - thats what democracy is.

Oh and yes, you are right about the Gardian. But that was just the first google hit - it was widely reported elsewhere.

Anyway, thats all i think i will say, but due to the fact that i have had quotes made up and been called racist and also had other very personal and insults remarks made i have reported this to the Mods. On the rest we will just have to agree to disagree and see how history judges us, i dont want to be involved in a flame war or be abused like this. Good day to you.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 19:06
You see, that's exactly the problem with USA foreign policy : it decides in place of other nations what is good and what is bad for them. That's why everybody detests it. ;)
We have our own choices and decisions, we don't need your intervention on it. And no other country does. You must understand this. :)

Things are getting better, though. Interventions diminish over time.
And I'm not at all amazed you don't know what Greece has a problem with. Why should you ? Do you think I know what exactly the USA has a problem with ?

thats why i asked. still waiting for an answer.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 19:19
Chavez, Allende (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/chile.htm)

wait a minute, you are claiming HUGO CHAVEZ as an example of a democratic gov't??? are you kidding?


Maybe. Makes you incredible and unpopular, though. That was my point.

well, it shoudn't, and being popular isn't the point anyway.


You'll always find some people who are against anything. That's the nature of a democracy, isn't it? Wasn't it that what you claim to promote.
I am not against it and Germany does have troops there. They sometimes even get killed.

of course i promote it, my point is that not all positions are rational.

and gimmie a break about germany, it has ZERO combat troops there, and what little ones it does have there are in the rear with the gear.

if i'm wrong, show me.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html
Show me a single piece of evidence for you claims

be clear:

what exactly do you want? evidence of the armistice? evidence the UN inventoried WMDs after the gulf war?


This may be true. But nobody forces the US to do anything.

does that mean when we do do things, when the rest of the world does nothing, we should be criticized? how about looking at home first?


Well, as I said before, we do have troops there and they do die.
There still is some sentiment in this world about Germany going to war, ask our British friends here in the thread about this.
And when we finally signed a peace treaty after WW2 (which actually happened as late as 1990), we guaranteed to only go to arms under NATO command, a proposition required, among others, by the US. Later that was revised to also allow UN command.

america has asked germany to do more, they won't.


That said, I never claimed that the US are only doing bad. I completely acknowledge that its very often the US that has to bail out international organizations when it's getting hot and I am also no friend of the "soft" pressure of imposing economic sanctions on a country because (for example in the case of Iraq) those can kill even more people and only put pressure on the people, not the ones in power.

so whats your solution? we had WMDs that saddam wouldn't demonstrate he had detroyed, we have iran trying to build a nuke, we had oil for food bribes... whats your solution? negotiations?


But claiming that the US is doing this for others is simply ridiculous and also, I was talking about sentiment towards the US in the world. You can't talk that away, it's there. Leave your country and you will see it. You want to fight terrorism? Cool way to do it, believe me the Iraq war was the single most efficient recruiting campaign they ever had...

of course we have a self interest in SOME of what we do, (we had NONE in bosnia, your backyard), but frankly i could care less what the rest of the world thinks, as the rest of the world rarely has a backbone or can be counted on. where is the EU for georgia? the ukraine?

moreover, this idea that we shouldn't do anything pro-active or else it will ecruit more terrorists, is defeatist. sounds very neville chamberlain to me. you don't cure cancer by appeasing it. you fight it.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 19:20
Chile, is one of the many answers.
Oh, but perhaps "Democratic" is a synonym for "approved by the Department of State" to you ?

so could you explain exactly what we did to chile to fight their "democratic" gov't?

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 19:23
Sadly, we did worse. We sold Saddam the technology to do so on his own. Then helped him with technical expertise and know how to develop these very chemical and biological weapons.
We even helped him jump start his nuclear program in the same manner.

This was during the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" love affair with Saddam. I guess it all made sense........at the time. :(

who is we?

i readily admit the usa did support saddam during the cold war to some degree, but while i know we didn't sell him WMDs, i can't speak to the things you wrote above.

i would like to see evidence from a credible source however.

badbob
2008-11-09, 19:40
moreover, this idea that we shouldn't do anything pro-active or else it will ecruit more terrorists, is defeatist. sounds very neville chamberlain to me. you don't cure cancer by appeasing it. you fight it

Invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism, killing the population and overthrowing there goverement, and occupying there country is not going to make things better. In fact it's highly likely Iraqi's will now target America, when they didn't before.

"War on terror" is the single most stupidist thing I've heard. We know plenty about terrorism, although there hasen't been a single large number of deaths in one go like 9/11 the total number since it began is much higher. I don't think parliament would take too kindly if Thatcher ordered aerial bombardment over NI just to kill a few terrorists (and lots of innocents in the process)

pippin
2008-11-09, 19:45
wait a minute, you are claiming HUGO CHAVEZ as an example of a democratic gov't??? are you kidding?

No, I'm not.
He's an elected president. Several times re-elected. The vote has even been fair. I don't like him either, but he DOES have the support of his people.
He did even get more votes than his opponent, a thing not every US president could claim.

What is your standard for a democracy? That it's being run by the Republican party?

This is EXACTLY the kind of imperialist attitude the US is being hated for in big parts of the world.


and gimmie a break about germany, it has ZERO combat troops there, and what little ones it does have there are in the rear with the gear.

That's a question of perspective. As I said, they are not allowed to go into combat as of the German constitution which allows for German troops to only go into combat under one of two conditions: Sanctioned by UN or when NATO goes to war. Both is not the case here.


what exactly do you want? evidence of the armistice? evidence the UN inventoried WMDs after the gulf war?

evidence of the WMD still existing in 2003. The US claimed to have it, it was a lie.


does that mean when we do do things, when the rest of the world does nothing, we should be criticized?

When it's against what the rest of the world wants: yes.


america has asked germany to do more, they won't.

They can't. Read my last post. It's in the constitution. Without that we would not have gotten the unification. I admit the US were not the hardliners about this, that was France and the UK, but that's still how it is.


so whats your solution? we had WMDs that saddam wouldn't demonstrate he had detroyed, we have iran trying to build a nuke, we had oil for food bribes... whats your solution? negotiations?

Having a plan before going to war would help a good deal, first of all.
Iran is not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to play games with you. And you don't get it.
What did you have to negotiate in Iraq? How about just leaving them alone? They did attack no one (in 2003).

What's your solution: Stay there for another 150 years and get US soldiers killed by all sides? Have fun!
Pull out and get a civil war?
Cool plan you had. Cool democracy you got!


of course we have a self interest in SOME of what we do, (we had NONE in bosnia, your backyard), but frankly i could care less what the rest of the world thinks, as the rest of the world rarely has a backbone or can be counted on. where is the EU for georgia?

Where it belongs: at home. Please don't forget who started THAT war!


the ukraine?

What's up with ukraine? No war there.


moreover, this idea that we shouldn't do anything pro-active or else it will ecruit more terrorists, is defeatist. sounds very neville chamberlain to me. you don't cure cancer by appeasing it. you fight it.
Yep. But you will not cure brain cancer by amputating legs.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 20:17
Wow, that's low. There are other nations troops fighting there, including a great deal of British who are in constant combat. There has been a lot of deaths, including a few from my home town.

the english by far and away have been the best to support us, but they have not done all they could do. however, my commen was NOT directed at ONLY the british.


We are a very small nation so we have less troops there than the US,

what? there's something like 60 million people in your country. you guys USED to rule the world, but now you're tiny?


but a lot for us and they are fighting and fighting hard, they are not cook's - that's incredibly insulting to there memories and patronising. Statements like that lead me to wonder what else you don't understand about what really going on in the world, not much credibility gained there i'm sorry.

i wasn't referring to the english, you have deliberately taken my comments out of context.

i was taking about NATO. yes, both america and england are in nato, but i meant what about the other 20 something countries?


And no, you are clearly calling me racist. You are saying my POV is racist, so that makes me a racist by it's very definition.

you can view it that way if you want, but i clearly said and will repeat, that i do NOT think you are a racist.

i do however think your POV/argument that the arabs are not capable of democracy is a racist one, and i stand by it.


What i said does not deserve such a flaming and abuse, there can't be many more insulting things than that. Not only that, but you quote me as saying things i did not say. I am sorry to have to respond in this way, but i tried to avoid personal insults to fellow forum members. Its a shame its happened, i would have been great to prove people wrong about these things becoming flame wars.

i have no interest is misrepresenting anything you said, i assure you. i encourage everyone to read what you said, and my responses, and judge on their own the meaning. no one should take my word for it, they should decide for themselves.


Did anyone else reading this genuinely think i was being racist?

again to be clear, i was saying that your argument, as you put it across earlier in the thread, struck me as a racist one. i want to be clear when i say YOU did NOT strike me as racist.

btw, its not as if someone has to be a racist, simply b/c they make a racist argument. i think people can make mistakes, and i think thats what you've done, but i don't think a mistake defines your identity.


I think most people will realise i did not say Most Arabs (Iraqi's, BTW not Arabs - i have not used the term Arab once) are incapable of Democracy, no mater how you try and twist it. I clearly said that it was incompatible with the current religious and cultural climate - which no amount military might wont be able to overcome.

iraq is arab.

here is what you said:


Thats a fundamental mistake the Bush (and British) administration made, they totally misunderstood the culture and religious fabric of that part of the world (and why the thought of Sarah Palin, who thinks Africa is a country was so scary) OR it's an excuse to exercise more power and influence (i suspect a bit of both).

and


But it will never happen, we dont have the power anyway even if it was possible. We will never bomb away thousands of years of deeply routed religion and culture, democracy is beautiful but totally incompatible with that part of the world. Any idea that we have restored some real and long term democracy to Iraq is a complete illusion. As evil as Saddam was, Iraq was a secular nation and we knew that. Now we have opened the flood gates to even more religious madness. Not only is Democracy futile, but long term it will be worse now.

now, when you say "the culture and religious fabric" and "it will never happen" and "that part of the world" just what are you talking about?

clearly democracy is in turkey and other islamic countries.

it seems to me your beef is with arabs, and religion, and culture. to say it will "never happen" is incredibly elitest. i call that bias, and it strikes me as racist, or whatever "flavor" of prejudice you want to call it.

i don't agree with you and your summary judgment that it isn't possible in "that part of the world." i don't think its impossible for any people, anywhere.


i did not say there is anything wrong with them. But their religion has far more influence than our military could ever dream off, and most Clerics and fundamentalists want Sharia law instating (arguably one of the few good things Saddam had going for him was that he created a secular nation - less religion in politics means less internal conflict).

the problem is the facts don't agree. most iraqis WANT democracy, and know what it is, (something you claimed they don't, which also has overtones of bias). most do NOT want ONLY sharia law or wahabism.

http://www.gallup.com/press/110524/Islam-Democracy.aspx

at most, they merely want islam, sharia, etc... to be a source of inspiration for SOME legistlation. there is general agreement to NOT have religious leaders ALSO lead governments.

the point s that while their democracy will clearly be different, it will still be democracy, and more importantly, a moderating influence.


That added with many other factors such are pressure from Iran, Syria etc, and a great distrust of the US/UK and the fact that Democracy is not the average Iraq's first priory anyway (and, even given every horrible acts he committed, many things were better under Saddam in term of day to day life - a truth that is horrible to swallow i know) means that i think long term it will fail. What is happening there now is a puppet show and we will have to occupy and have a hand in the government indefinably to keep the fake democracy going (and the Oil flowing). Because as soon as we leave the Sunni Vs Shia civil war will in escalate and the government will crumble in much less than a decade - probably to a shadow Iran/Syrian sponsored government, which will be worse than Saddam for all of us.

amazing crystal ball you have.

i have confidence it will succeed, and i base that off the good things happening there now. you know an election is coming jan 31st, yes?


I dont even blame the US/UK for all of this post invasion insanity, Iran needs to brought to justice to IMO for the supply weapons to insurgents, thus taking advantage of this mess and trying to make is worse and killing more of our troops.

and your solution to the iran problm is what? stern talks? what has the EU done vis a vis iran in the past 5 years? it had the lead, what did it accomplish?


As for me saying "they don't know what democracy is" - well they have never experienced it, been able to study it as school or seen it on TV. So how do they really know what's it's like to live under a democratic government? thats not racist or patronising, thats just the way it is. Mine and your governments have given them all the patronising they could ever get anyway.

i never lived under a parliament, but i know what one is. i never lived under a theocracy, but i know what one is.

when i see millions of iraqis voting at great risk to themselves, i know that they know what it is.


And is this is just about democracy and/or human rights now, why Iraq? Why not north Korea, Saudi Arabia or China? Or maybe one of the many African countries that are much much worse than Iraq was, they would be far easier to invade too, why did we not help them?

america did help korea, and has ever since.

we also tried to help china, and lost that except for taiwan.

we also did bosnia, your backyard. don't we do enough for you?

we can not police the world indefintely, but iraq was a country where we had a convergence of many interests as well as circumstances, and it made sense to bush at the time, and i refuse to armchair quarterback the call.

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 20:17
Whats wrong with the attitude that we might well fail anyway? Not planning for the worst is why this has gone so wrong. MrSintra, i hope you are right.

well thank god for that. :)

nothing wrong with planning for otherwise, but the american POV is to see it thru successfully, and we see no reasn why we can't. things have gotten MUCH better, regardless of if you see it or not.


Time will tell is some long term good can really come from this, neither of us can predict the future, but i'm 99% sure we are losing. I hope a am wrong, and regardless of whats happened to take us down this road, we all must agree what we want to see is the safe return of our troops and a good life for the Iraq's who asked for none of this. I have a huge amount of respect for the US, i consider it to be my second home. I am also very patriotic and proud of my country. But you have to put the flag waving and misplaced sense of pride to the side sometime and look at things objectively, i dont like what our countries have done in our name - i think our government's look very corrupt. We have the right to question out governments - thats what democracy is.

i never advocated not questioning our gov'ts. but i find it hard to question the nobility of the goal. i think the iraqis will be happy to have democracy in the long run.


Oh and yes, you are right about the Gardian. But that was just the first google hit - it was widely reported elsewhere.

and so what? i don't spend my time defending all things bush says... i agree many are stupid. but its really not important... its the kind of thing the people who don't like the policy latch onto, its a distraction.


Anyway, thats all i think i will say, but due to the fact that i have had quotes made up and been called racist and also had other very personal and insults remarks made i have reported this to the Mods. On the rest we will just have to agree to disagree and see how history judges us, i dont want to be involved in a flame war or be abused like this. Good day to you.

i have no personal beef with you, but i never called you a racist, and have gone out of my way to say you're not. i do think the argument made was racist, but thats not an attempt to define you, just the argument.

i am cool with agreeing to disagree, and i hold no grudges. i hope you enjoy your day as well, and i'll even throw in a "cheers" to be transcontinental! :)

MrSinatra
2008-11-09, 20:45
No, I'm not.
He's an elected president. Several times re-elected. The vote has even been fair.

thats just laughable.

do you consider the russian elections "fair" as well?

do you consider it a fair election when there is no free press?


I don't like him either, but he DOES have the support of his people.
He did even get more votes than his opponent, a thing not every US president could claim.

where's the rolling eyes avatar? how about i just say "yawn."


What is your standard for a democracy? That it's being run by the Republican party?

This is EXACTLY the kind of imperialist attitude the US is being hated for in big parts of the world.

yawn.

sorry, in america we know a sham when we see it. chavez is a sham, a complete and total sham.


That's a question of perspective. As I said, they are not allowed to go into combat as of the German constitution which allows for German troops to only go into combat under one of two conditions: Sanctioned by UN or when NATO goes to war. Both is not the case here.

exactly, why hasn't NATO sanctioned it? the USA wants you to, but you hide behind technicalities. what an ally.


evidence of the WMD still existing in 2003. The US claimed to have it, it was a lie.

this is nonsense.

first, there is a difference between a mistake and a lie. i agree that we were wrong about a great deal we thought we knew. that is a mistake. there is no proof that anyone lied.

but the fact remains, that the UN inventoried literally TONS of anthrax, VX, sarin, and mustard gas in the 7 years after the armistice. that stuff, that we, and the UN know he had b/c we inventoried it, is STILL unaccounted for.


When it's against what the rest of the world wants: yes.

please, gimmie a break. the rest of the world has no responsiblity, and carrys no water. we can't even depend on NATO to help us in afghanistan.

if the rest of the world din't want us in korea, should wenot have done that either? should we have just let the south koreans to the communists? to live as their starving brethren to the north live?


They can't. Read my last post. It's in the constitution. Without that we would not have gotten the unification. I admit the US were not the hardliners about this, that was France and the UK, but that's still how it is.

and as i said, NATO should be there, 100%.


Having a plan before going to war would help a good deal, first of all.

thats not a strategy, or a solution, thats a complaint about execution, which i agree, has plenty to be criticized.


Iran is not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to play games with you. And you don't get it.

hahaha, ok, and you know this how?

and if they get a nuke, what will you say then? whats your plan?


What did you have to negotiate in Iraq? How about just leaving them alone? They did attack no one (in 2003).

there was nothing to negotiate. all saddam had to do was comply, and demonstrate he had destroyed the WMDs, it was on him to do so, it was in the armistice. he didn't, he died as a result.


What's your solution: Stay there for another 150 years and get US soldiers killed by all sides? Have fun!
Pull out and get a civil war?
Cool plan you had. Cool democracy you got!

exactly, you have no plan, no strategy. all you have are complaints. i ask you for solutions, you provide none.

we are prepared to do whats necessary, as we always have been, which germany, almost more than any other country, has benefitted from. we could have left you to the russians, or did you forget?


Where it belongs: at home. Please don't forget who started THAT war!

the russians, and you let georgia be totally destroyed by them, and you do virtually nothing, in any way, as a response.


What's up with ukraine? No war there.

not yet, but russia is threatening. tell me, what will germany do then? nato? the eu?


Yep. But you will not cure brain cancer by amputating legs.

its fair to question the strategy. but i would argue that establishing a democracy in th middle east is worth it.

pippin
2008-11-09, 21:28
do you consider the russian elections "fair" as well?

No.


do you consider it a fair election when there is no free press?

Well, Jimmy Carter does. But he's a socialist, I know...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3571350.stm
When he lost one, even the US gov. thought it's fair:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYHgWXg21cI0i-8AseulYJNg69VQ


sorry, in america we know a sham when we see it. chavez is a sham, a complete and total sham.

Of course he is. So is Bush. What's the point? Both are elected shams.


exactly, why hasn't NATO sanctioned it? the USA wants you to, but you hide behind technicalities. what an ally.

Could it be that you have no idea what NATO is about?
Read it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato


exactly, you have no plan, no strategy. all you have are complaints. i ask you for solutions, you provide none.

yawn
Why on earth should I provide you with a solution for a mess you got into against our advice?


the russians, and you let georgia be totally destroyed by them, and you do virtually nothing, in any way, as a response.

This is simply wrong. Georgia started the war, not even they would argue about that. THEY argue that they had a "go" by the US government which the latter denies. I tend to believe the US gov. in this case.


not yet, but russia is threatening. tell me, what will germany do then? nato? the eu?

No, they are not. Ukraine is a deeply torn apart country between the western part, which is Ukrainian and the eastern part, which is mainly Russian (by population). This is too complex a story to be discussed here in between three lines. But the last time I met Russians and Ukrainians, which was about two weeks ago, they came along pretty well with each other.


its fair to question the strategy. but i would argue that establishing a democracy in th middle east is worth it.
I'm not sure it is worth the price. What you eventually WILL get is a civil war, after which you may actually have a Democracy in Kurdistan, which then will be invaded by Turkey, which then the US will do nothing about.
I don't know what will happen to the Sunni areas but the south will most likely come under Iranian control.
Which may not be the worst thing, long term, since the Iranians managed a revolution before (against the US, who supported their Dictator, which in turn largely contributed to all the turmoil between the US and Iran these days) and are liberal by Middle East standards (the people, not the gov.).
Until then, a few 100.000 more people will die.
Is it worth it?

mswlogo
2008-11-09, 23:08
I helped knock on doors for Obama in NH.

We had no signs or name tags and first approached folks asking them about the election. Our job was to find undecided voters. Man were republicans bitter and democrats were so friendly, the contrast was huge. And this was during the time McCain was AHEAD.

I respect folks right to vote for whom ever they wish but man it amazes me how folks justified their votes. If anyone caught Boston Legal the night before it really was fantastic and made the point so clear. Of how crazy the justifications were.

I also thought Ron Howards video clip was awesome and was right on the money. Folks were afraid of change.

Themis
2008-11-09, 23:38
so could you explain exactly what we did to chile to fight their "democratic" gov't?On wikipedia, you have the "soft" version :

The nationalization of U.S. and other foreign-owned companies led to increased tensions with the United States. The Nixon administration brought international financial pressure to bear in order to restrict economic credit to Chile. Simultaneously, the CIA funded opposition media, politicians, and organizations, helping to accelerate a campaign of domestic destabilization.
But I suppose you know all that. And if you don't, well, then, nevermind. :)

egd
2008-11-09, 23:39
Perhaps it's time for everyone to give their Woodstock a listen :)

Themis
2008-11-09, 23:48
Perhaps it's time for everyone to give their Woodstock a listen :)
It reminds me that I have still to get the CD version... "Before the Flood", as well. :)

Nonreality
2008-11-11, 03:36
Mike from slimdevices has clarified that this is the right forum to post an occasional post that isn't about music or the SB in whatever form. It was nice to get a clarification about this because there was a small but vocal group that was very upset about this thread. They basically thought they owned this forum and started 3 or more threads about us cluttering up their email with something they didn't want to read. I really didn't start this thread to upset them and actually didn't really think about them but didn't want a partisan first post either gloating or crying about the election but just an observation that it was one of the more interesting ones in recent times and hoping for the best for the USA and the rest of the world and for more good music. I really thought it was a message that would not upset anyone. But it did anyway. I really find it weird that anyone would be upset about a discussion about this in a general thread. One has even taken his ball home he was that upset. It was just one thread. I just don't get it.

Teus de Jong
2008-11-11, 04:59
Maybe we should let this thread die. I don't say this because I'm against discussing politics here. But it has become a very strange discussion. Where we could have an interesting discussion with arguments taken from inhabitants of different countries, we see one American defending a certain form of American politics (thank God it has not always been this way) and others trying to bring some reason into the thread.

You may conclude I'm with Pippin mostly. MrSinatra may have to explain what he sees as the lack of support in Afghanistan not only to the British and German, but also to the Dutch (and all the other countries who are there). But of course, he will say we don't do enough also... This is what American supremacy boils down to.

Nonreality, I surely think this election can mean a big change for the country and the world. Let's hope the American unilateralism ends with Obama and the old alliances start to work again.

Teus

BJW
2017-07-30, 15:57
interesting to revisit this thread a near decade later.

given what is going on in Venezuela, i think its rather clear who was right about that issue. and it looks like Iraq is managing to hold on to its Democracy. also, it looks like Obama's biggest legacy will be Trump, b/c without Obama, there is no Trump; or in other words had McCain won, there'd be no Trump today. oh well.

BJW
2018-02-14, 13:25
Venezuela, more than a sad story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuelas-economy-is-so-bad-parents-are-leaving-their-children-at-orphanages/2018/02/12/8021d180-0545-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html

How anyone educated couldn't have seen this coming when they supported a vicious dictator like Chafez and his socialist commie pals, idk. Read a history book!

castalla
2018-02-14, 13:53
Venezuela, more than a sad story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com



Could you please edit your post, or better still stick to commenting on social media?