# How much does it take...?



## fryke (Oct 18, 2006)

I know that the document I'm linking to is a bit on the harsh side - http://go.theregister.com/feed/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/18/military_commissions_a_go/ - but the question remains... How _far_ can the current US administration take the country before anyone _really_ stands up? Sometimes I truly fear that the USA _will_ become (or _has_ become) the Fourth Reich with their people standing by, smiling at comedians who're trying to put the finger on things. Everyone's laughing at how stupid Mr. Bush often looks, but that seems to be nothing more than good tactic: As long as no-one really takes him seriously, he's got fool's freedom.

What _can_ the American people do? Will you simply "wait it out", since it's only two more years? I think the past years have shown that two years can be more than enough to make a *lot* of mistakes. Can't he be impeached for some or other reason?


----------



## Qion (Oct 18, 2006)

I'm embarrased at my country. We are no longer united, and we will not stand united until something disasterous happens... maybe flying a plane or two into the Sears Tower. Hay Dios mio, what do we do when our society is on the verge of immorality and our president is a couple feet from jumping into the pool of martial law? It's scary. I feel like our roots are decaying and our very grasp on that which creates democracy is failing under our infinite sects taking religion and morals out of our schooling systems and our idiot president taking charge under quasi-legal conditions.

We need reform.


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 18, 2006)

The entire society needs reform, from the government to the corporations to the healthcare to the food we eat. Everything is a mess, and almost all of it is driven by greed. But everything has always been driven by greed, so why should it suddenly change now?

EDIT: Can you tell I'm a little cynical now? haha


----------



## Qion (Oct 18, 2006)

dlloyd said:


> The entire society needs reform, from the government to the corporations to the healthcare to the food we eat. Everything is a mess, and almost all of it is driven by greed. But everything has always been driven by greed, so why should it suddenly change now?
> 
> EDIT: Can you tell I'm a little cynical now? haha



Heh, maybe your cynicism is absafreakinglutely justified. We're in a downwards spiral with each generation getting stupider, fatter, and less believing in morality and altruism.


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 18, 2006)

Qion said:


> Heh, maybe your cynicism is absafreakinglutely justified. We're in a downwards spiral with each generation getting stupider, fatter, and less believing in morality and altruism.



Pretty much.
I'm leaving the country at the end of next year, and I don't intend to come back. That's always assuming that there's even something to come back TO; at the rate things are going right now there very well may not be.
Of course, if 'we' declare war on Iran before the end of the month, as I almost half expect 'we' might, I'll be leaving ASAP; probably in the spring as soon as the school year finishes. Because if 'we' do start a new war, there _will_ be a draft. And I'm not sticking around for that.


----------



## bbloke (Oct 19, 2006)

Two good quotes, in my view:
​


> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety


Benjamin Franklin, 1759​



> [FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1]Why, of course, the _people_ don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the _leaders_ of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship...[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial][SIZE=-1]Hermann Goering, from a Nuremberg jail in 1946[/SIZE][/FONT]​ 
​


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2006)

Yes, but if you compare Bush to the Nazis, that _can't_ really be patriotic, right?


----------



## bbloke (Oct 19, 2006)

fryke said:


> Yes, but if you compare Bush to the Nazis, that _can't_ really be patriotic, right?


lol

I wasn't directly comparing Bush to the Nazis, in that overall sense, I was pointing out that "an expert in these matters" (i.e. manipulating the public) seemed to almost be describing more recent handlings of events.  Erm, yes, I can see that as a fine line, though!


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 19, 2006)

It's a little early to give up entirely; we may see a starkly different Congress after the midterm elections, and no one yet knows how the Supreme Court will treat this legislation.

Still, I imagine those of us who lobbied our representatives to vote against this bill are as scared and as frustrated as I am.  And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage is that this bill has opened some eyes in middle America: some of those folks we think of as myopic, corn-fed, Fox-news-watching Kansas residents did *not* approve this legislation.  And they're alarmed.

The great unknown is how long it will take to shift these middle-class middle Americans away from a stance that runs counter to their own economic interests.  As long as they get scared and fooled into voting Republican on the moral scapegoat issues such as abortion and gay marriage, they will continue to elect representatives who push the country in the direction we've seen over the last six years.


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 19, 2006)

Twenty minutes later, I happened across this Washington Post article, illustrating the exact switch -- in Kansas, no less -- that I was talking about.


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2006)

... "And what you non-Americans may not see in your own coverage..." ... While I can't speak for _all_ of us non-Americans: We _do_ get some American TV over here, and not all of our own TV stations are radically biased in every which way.  The choice of where you get your news and analysis always depends on the individual, of course.

Although I'm happy that this sounds like a good omen for the midterms, it also strikes me as odd, a little. A bit like: "Oh, we're going to lose votes, let's jump to the Democrats, win the elections over there and then go on working like the good old GOPpers we really are."  ...

Let's assume that change is coming in the midterms. Would this mean a _great_ difference in how Bush et al. work the world? Or would it simply hinder any and all actions and leave the US in a state where the field is wide open again for the presidential elections in 2008?


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 19, 2006)

Re: coverage, my point is not that external coverage of US politics is biased (for surely, internal coverage is often more biased), but that these stories of the slow shifts in middle America may not make great waves outside our domestic news sources.  For now, at least.

The broader view of these shifts in, e.g., Kansas, from Republican to Democrat, is actually that they are shifts _back_ to the Democrats, who until the sixties were the traditional party of the rural working class.  The massive success of the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" in the sixties and seventies essentially proved that moral and cultural scare tactics can move middle America away from their own economic self-interest, which is why the Rs have stuck to their methods for forty years now.

The two-party system does a bad job of capturing the broad middle swath of voters.  That these candidates, and their constituents, may switch parties every few decades doesn't show a radical change in their own politics so much as a failure of one party or another to represent them in some important way.


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 19, 2006)

The two-party system is deeply flawed in any case. So often everything degenerates into 'us vs. them', to the point that beating 'them' usually appears to be a greater priority than the common good. Both parties spend so much time trying to smear the opposite 'side' that the really important things never get done.
I am extremely jaded as to politicians in general. The Democrats used to be appealing for their views, but lately we're been told 'vote for us because we're better, because we're not "them"' instead of something truly useful like 'vote for us because we have this plan to end world hunger in three years, and the other plan to use the United Nations to eradicate terrorism through peaceful means.'
Most politicians are so corrupted by the system that there's really very little difference between the two parties now. Anyone with real convictions, _which actually make sense,_ is trampled on by being 'too weak.' For example, Denver, CO, has an absolutely wonderful mayor at the moment. I have met him personally, and he is one of the few politicians whom I honestly like. He does what he does because he knows it's the right thing. Of course, this is his first political position (be was a businessman before, and not in a way that would allow him to be 'pre-corrupted' by _that_ system) and he decided against running for governor this year, even though I'm quite certain he would have won had he done so.
In general, I think anyone who actually _wants_ the kind of power our senators have ought to be kept away from it at all possible costs. This system was begun out of greed (removal of high British taxes,) and has continued through greed, and while I think it's certainly not the best system possible, I think it definitely has _far_ more potential than we're currently tapping. One of the first things that has to go is the entire idea of 'career politicians.' The original system called for Joe Smith to come out of his little farm in Ohio and spend four years as president, and then go right back to Ohio. I know you'll say that's not feasible, but think about why. Here's a hint: because the system has been carefully modified to the point that it's no longer feasible.

I think the very first communists had a good idea. Before that one also was taken over by politicians.


----------



## eric2006 (Oct 19, 2006)

It's funny when you look back in history; the Founding Fathers were very cautious to avoid the creation of political parties, not one mention of them inn the Constitution. They succeded, too, for Washington, and partly John Adam's term. Of course, factions began to develop over many issues, and even without a party system, divides would occur. The divides just happened to be over the power of the national government, and the first parties, the Federalists and the Anti-Fedralists - later called the Republicans (not to be confused with the modern Republican party), formed. John Adams, a Federalist, took office after Washington. During Adam's term the Federalists experienced increased popularity as a result of the Quasi War with France, and they took a majority in Congress. The Federalists proceeded to pass the Alien and Sedition act, which limited immigration, and made it possible to arrest dissenters of the government (sound familiar?). In what was to be the ugliest campaign in American history, the Federalists lost office mainly because of these acts.
They always say history repeats itself..


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 19, 2006)

...but how much? Back then I bet a larger percentage of people felt more strongly about more things. Not to mention that they hadn't been subjected to a hundred years of 'dumbing down,' as we have now. The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply _don't care._ And that is incredibly dangerous in a democracy.


----------



## lbj (Oct 19, 2006)

dlloyd said:


> The problem today is the vast majority of people are relatively uneducated and simply _don't care._




This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic.  I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs.  What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.

Nothing's really changed.  The players may be different but the game is the same.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 19, 2006)

I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!

While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage &#8211; and now even in SPACE, FFS!

And Tony Blair's meek acquiesence and collusion in these excesses are equally sickening.

Maybe I'll go back to Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe is looking increasing mild and pragmatic compared with Bush. At least he only bullies and terrorises his OWN people!


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 19, 2006)

lbj said:


> This is not new at all. The vast majority of people have always been relatively uneducated and seemingly apathetic.  I say seemingly only because they are generally more concerned over keeping a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothing on their backs.  What comes across as apathy is actually concern over more personal matters.
> 
> Nothing's really changed.  The players may be different but the game is the same.


I suppose I wasn't terribly clear. I know the 'masses' have always been rather apathetic, but I meant our education system in general nowadays is very poor. For example, look at this: http://people.moreheadstate.edu/fs/w.willis/eighthgrade.html
Most college graduates now couldn't pass that test, let alone middle-schoolers.



CaptainQuark said:


> I'm just too enraged by the Bush Adminsitration's excesses to be able to write anything that a) would resemble a lucid, cohesive argument and b) wouldn't have the CIA and Special Branch beating down my door, arresting me (or worse) on trumped up charges of incitement to something unpatriotic and un-American!
> 
> While in no way condoning North Korea's recent nuclear tests or Iran's apparent race to develop nuclear weapons, I can't help but feel that these nations are almost justified in doing so in the face of ever-increasing US aggression on the world stage  and now even in SPACE, FFS!
> 
> ...


I don't think it's quite that bad, yet. If the CIA bothered to track down everyone who says something unpatriotic regarding the US, I, and almost everyone I know, would have been in jail for the last four years already! Give it a few more years though...

One of the most basic problems I have with the current administration is their apparently deep-rooted belief that everyone else is inferior, the US is the best, and anyone who disagrees must be evil. It shows in their dealings with the UN ('We know best, if you're not with us then we'll do it without you',) in their stance on Iran ('well, of _course_ they're doing it for evil purposes, what other possible reason could they have to need nuclear technology?') and even the way they view the Middle East as a whole. And that's not even mentioning Israel and how we're always willing to beat up everyone else for them. Go to some Arabian news site some time and read the comments there. The muslims in the middle east *hate* us. A lot. And there's no possible way the US can win this 'war' against them, because we haven't learned from history. Empires (and make no mistake, the US *is* turning into one) _always_ fall. The only surprising thing here is that it has taken this long to begin. That is because until the last 50 years, we were fairly well-liked, and actually seen as a good ally to have. Now we're a liability; any government which dares to support us is quickly removed.

As to Tony Blair, I see that he has only one advantage over Bush: he actually is able to speak in public without appearing to be a complete moron. I hope he's replaced by some viciously anti-US progressive candidate who can completely sever relations with the US, just after I get into the country. After all, what's the use in leaving the 'big evil' just to run into its little brother!


----------



## Esquilinho (Oct 19, 2006)

I just have to say that the first article sounds terribly familiar... ah, I know! It's just like Portugal before the revoltuion of 1974! 

For those who don't know, until then, Portugal was under a fascist dictatorship and there was a political police that acted just like described in the article.

BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!


----------



## fryke (Oct 19, 2006)

Well: The "constitution" should very _well_ be still viable after a couple hundred years in a modern democratic state. Sure, some things change, but that's what a constitution is all about: *NOT* to be changed by whichever short wind is blowing...


----------



## lbj (Oct 19, 2006)

Esquilinho said:


> BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!



I'm having a hard time deciding if you are being satirical or not.  

The Constitution is NOT the current problem with this country . . .


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 19, 2006)

I think the Constitution is basically timeless. Sure, there have been amendments, but in general those seem to be more in the form of clarification  and augmentation than outright change.


----------



## eric2006 (Oct 19, 2006)

Esquilinho said:


> BTW, just a tiny OFF-TOPIC: how can a country be governed by a Constitution that is over 200 years old??? I mean, people change, the society changes, the world changes, it makes no sense to keep the same constitution after all this time!



The constitution is a very dynamic document. It allows for change, yet sets the foundation for a balanced government (in theory). Plus, I think most of us would agree that we would not want the current administration re-writing the constitution.


----------



## Rhisiart (Oct 19, 2006)

Coming at this issue from a slightly different angle, isn't this all about proportionality?

Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin killed an awful lot of people, up to one billion collectively depending on your historical sources.

Saddam only managed 3,000,000 and Bush & Blair have managed a meagre 650,000 in Iraq to date, albeit with the generous help of some Arab desperados.

Yet, it all boils down to an ambition of some sort. Hitler wanted a technically advanced New World Order (populated exclusively by Causcasians). 

Stalin wanted something similar, but with a stronger Slavic flavour. 

Bush wants massive pay outs for WASPs at all costs, and Blair wants to be seen as a Churchillian giant (no hope buddy).

So what is the choice? Two really serious total feckin' psychos (Hitler & Stalin) or two hopelessly deluded dimbats (Bush & Blair)?

Fryke; any alternatives?


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 19, 2006)

The Bush Administration is more like the middle Roman Empire period, right before the era of debauchery and destruction. Get ready for the colusseum where they will have fights to the death...George W. would do well to read Sun Tzu "The Art of War". From a military/strategic perspective, we're doing EVERYTHING wrong: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4884/

Go here to fight the Bush Administration in the most direct, legal way possible:
http://www.democrats.org/

Use your vote and don't mess around with those hanging chads.


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 19, 2006)

This sums it up for me: "The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success." -- Sun Tzu


----------



## fryke (Oct 20, 2006)

Rhisiart: I wouldn't want to directly compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. What I'm worried about is that the Bush administration takes the USA into a similar direction Hitler did Germany. I'm not talking about WWII, I'm talking about the beginning of his "career", rather. Making fun of democracy. Taking away personal freedom. You know. bbloke's quote of Goering is just too close: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I think more people should read "The Wave", "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" again. And again.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 20, 2006)

fryke said:


> Rhisiart: I wouldn't want to directly compare Bush to Hitler or Stalin. &#8230;



Neither would I. Those two were intelligent (if evil/misdirected) whereas Bush and Blair are like two kids who have managed to pinch the keys for their dads' tanks!


----------



## bbloke (Oct 20, 2006)

fryke said:


> Making fun of democracy. Taking away personal freedom. You know. bbloke's quote of Goering is just too close: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
> 
> I think more people should read "The Wave", "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" again. And again.


I agree with you, fryke.  There are some unnerving parallels at times, when looking at the Bush administration's tactics.  Increased emergency powers, disappearances, detention without trial, restriction of freedoms, trying to instill fear in the public, convincing citizens of a dangerous enemy and that they need to go to war for a long period, etc.  Goering's quote seems disturbingly relevant to the current situation, and he has first hand experience of manipulating a population.

By the way, last night on British TV there was the movie "Death of a President."  It was worryingly convincing, in terms of being a fake documentary about the assasination of George Bush.  It is well worth seeing, as it was very well made and highlighted all sorts of issues and potential scenarios.  (In case this could be in any way grossly misinterpreted, I should make it *very* clear here I am only referring to the _documentary_ itself being well done, and I am in _absolutely no way whatsoever_ advocating anyone even consider such actions themselves!)  Is it true this movie is banned in the USA?  YouTube has a few clips and trailers.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 20, 2006)

i've not seen any mention of the intitial articles subject matter on any of the major news sites.  has this happened?


----------



## spb (Oct 20, 2006)

Part of the present problem in US politics is that the opposition party stinks.  

What I took from the last presidential debates was that Kerry's campaign slogan was, "I'm not Bush."  The few points that stuck out as not being anti-Bush were not so hot -- such as his protectionist economic stance and one-on-one talks with North Korea.  

Gore, Kerry, and (God forbid) Hillary Clinton are not the best candidates to run in the general election, but they are presently what comes from the Democratic party.  

Compare these three to Bill Clinton.  President Clinton was a centrist who worked to build consensus when possible.  He would compromise when necessary to bring his policies toward what the voters (whom he represented) supported. He was (is) a great politician.  

Actually, both Bush and Clinton are excellent politicians.  They are also OK presidents (not the best but also not the worst).  The brainless mobs that go around chanting slogans and carrying placards announcing, "I hate Clinton" or "I hate Bush" should perhaps shut-up and look around.  They would realize that what makes these two successful is that they play to the center -- Bush placates the far right just as Clinton did the fringe left, but these folks were not the primary audience.  

Anyway, that's just my two cents worth as a card carrying member of the American moderate majority.  I don't expect any one to listen to this, but that's OK -- I and the rest of my cohorts will be at the polls in November electing the candidate that is best (or least bad if you prefer).

SB


P.S.  Yes, I'm sick of hearing people talk about being embarassed by the president etc. etc. etc.  I listened to this nonsense during the Clinton years and again now.  Anyone with a "Not my president" or "Don't blame me I voted for XYZ" bumper sticker needs to grow up and realize what it means to live within a civil society.  We have this process called an election... and the person to win... they are YOUR elected official.  If you don't like it, then you should perhaps remove yourself from the process -- if not for your sake, then for the rest of us (pretty please).


----------



## Satcomer (Oct 20, 2006)

***deleted***


----------



## fryke (Oct 21, 2006)

spb: You're calling both Clinton and Bush "good politicians" and "ok presidents" based on how they get their votes both on each's own side plus the center. I think you mix up "successful" and "good" here. Bush may (or may not...) have gathered enough votes in both elections to his presidencies, but _that_ surely doesn't qualify him as an "ok" president. If you carefully look at what he's "achieved" so far, I'd say the outlook's pretty bleak, no? I mean: What positive did this president bring to the USA? One thing he truly, truly managed was to cripple the USA's image all over the world. That's what I, outside of the USA, can clearly see. (And there are two main characters who are actually doing a good job in restoring some faith in the American greatness. Those are Bill Clinton and Al Gore.)
But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA. Before it's too late.


----------



## simbalala (Oct 21, 2006)

fryke said:


> But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA. Before it's too late.


There's only one phrase which applies.

&#8220;Miserable Failure&#8221; Google it.

And I was not very political until 'lil georgie came along and started smashing things up.


----------



## bbloke (Oct 23, 2006)

Hi spb,

I hope you wouldn't feel people here would not listen to what you say, I'm sure that is not the case.  

I think there are several relevant points here.  As fryke says, I think the idea of what makes someone a "good" President is very subjective.  The reality is that George W. Bush really has done and awful lot of damage when it comes to foreign relations.  A related issue is that many are disturbed by a "my leader right or wrong" or "my country right or wrong" approach, regardless of which leader or country it involves. From my experiences, people in western Europe tend to be very suspicious of authority and will frequently criticize their own leaders.  So, this sort of talk won't be seen as an attack on the people or nation in question, only the leader (perhaps, in the US, hearing anti-Bush sentiments can be seen more like an attack on the whole country?).  I'm sure that some of Europe's past has a lot to do with this attitude of not trusting authority!

Whether it is a fair representation or a skewed version of events, a lot of non-Americans see evidence of many Americans (in conversation, online, in the news, or whatever) going along with the Bush administration and not questioning it very much.   They hear people talk of "being at war," giving up freedoms to combat terror, advocating torture under certain circumstances, "getting behind the President" (in a "stop complaining" kind of way), "fighting evil," and so on.  These sorts of things can really cause alarm bells to go off, and that is why many will take issue and say something.

One example is that someone I know moved over to the UK, away from the US.  Their son was in high school and questioned US military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They were not against the US itself in any way, just questioning some of the current foreign policy.  The son then had a very hard time at school, both from teachers and students, and was treated virtually like a traitor.  When people hear those in the US talk of America representing freedom, then this sort of story doesn't sit well; surely the population questions their leaders and tolerates freedom of speech, or they do not accept freedom of speech and cannot make bold statements that the rest of the world should follow their example.

Don't worry, I'm genuinely not making any claims myself about one nation being better than another.  After all, when I talk about Europe learning from experience, for example, it is because European nations have had some dark histories themselves!


----------



## reed (Oct 29, 2006)

Again... I once said: Who said FIRST..." You are with us or against us?" 100% Fascist thinking of course.
  But GWB is in good hands with the Creationists and the "fear factor" put into the heads of DEEP America. And so forth. Tony the phoney kissed his ass all the way.
   By the way, have you noticed that everybody (in Europe) who has shaken hands with GWB have been kicked out of office. Almost. Sarkozy (future candidate for president in France) thinks he made a good public gesture when he did that a couple of months ago at the White House. Poor sot. 
    No need to panic, yet. I just hope there will be a bit of a stopper in the mid-elections very soon. In any case we are screwed with Iraq due to "ugly" thinking and stupid planning buy Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and the rest of the gangsters. Everybody knows that now, in terms of Iraq,etc.. The handwriting was on the walls years ago. Don't listen to the "I told you so folks" like me for you who doubt still....just check the facts (not CNN, etc.) and the real situation as things stand at the present moment. 
   You should see their under-the belt- political campaign at present. 
  I'm tired of always saying the same thing since the election of GWB in Florida. 
  I'm going on....sorry.


----------



## spb (Nov 1, 2006)

fryke said:


> spb: You're calling both Clinton and Bush "good politicians" and "ok presidents" based on how they get their votes both on each's own side plus the center. I think you mix up "successful" and "good" here.



I think you're confusing what it means to be a politician and what it means to be a president.  Politicians build popular support to gain power.  Two term presidents are generally "good" politicians.  Considering that Bush won re-election while having a relatively low approval rating suggests that he is either an excellent politician or Kerry is a terrible politician -- which brings me back to my original point that the Democratic party (presently) is awful.  It seem to be unable to gain centrist support.  

Consider the Senate race in Connecticut.  Lamont beat Lieberman in the Democratic primaries by several percent.  Lieberman left the Democratic party to be come an Independent and is running in the general election.  Presently in the polls Lieberman leads Lamont by 15% !!  If you look at Lieberman's voting record he is generally left of center (about where Clinton was).  The problem is that the Democratic party is selecting candidates that aren't electable in the general election.  

Kerry's campaign platform was, "I am not G.W. Bush."  It was apparent in his speeches and in the debates.  This is awful!  You can't (or shouldn't) win an election based on this.  The Democratic party needs to figure out how to win elections and following people such as Clinton and Lieberman would be a good place to start.  



fryke said:


> Bush may (or may not...) have gathered enough votes in both elections to his presidencies, but _that_ surely doesn't qualify him as an "ok" president.



Good Heavens!!!  I think I saw this on a bumper sticker somewhere.  :7)  And no, it doesn't.  It makes him a good politician.



fryke said:


> If you carefully look at what he's "achieved" so far, I'd say the outlook's pretty bleak, no? I mean: What positive did this president bring to the USA? One thing he truly, truly managed was to cripple the USA's image all over the world. That's what I, outside of the USA, can clearly see.



This has been a tough time to be president.  I have a hard time imagining how it would have been different with Gore.  Possibly the wouldn't have been a 9/11 attack because Gore could garner exterior support better than Bush.  

From what I saw in Europe in 2002 I can't say that the US image was too hot to begin with.  There were still people in Denmark protesting the US involvement in Vietnam and a museum display opposing the US escalation of the cold war with the USSR.  

The Afghanistan war was unavoidable and I believe that any war would be opposed by Europe, unless there were a payoff.  The most vocal opposition of the Iraq war were making the most money in the Oil-For-Food scandal -- except Germany, but Schroder keep power for 2 years based on opposition to the US.  By the way Schroder lost to a conservative party.... Sarkozy is running for President of France....  which way _does_ the wind blow in Europe these days?   :7)



fryke said:


> (And there are two main characters who are actually doing a good job in restoring some faith in the American greatness. Those are Bill Clinton and Al Gore.)



These are both great politicians.  

During Clinton's second term, former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry said that Bill Clinton was a good liar.  When asked to elaborate he said, that all politicians lie, but that Clinton does it well.  At the time, I said to my wife, that I didn't understand why the conservative fringe hated Clinton for lying, since for every one lie he told to the US population he told three to Europe and two to Asia, and was generally good for the US.  

Of course they didn't hate him for lying, that was the excuse -- anything he did they would hate, just as the liberal fringe hates everything about Bush.  The political extremes are two side of the same coin.



fryke said:


> But from what I hear, it's not as if George W. Bush's done a very good job _inside_ the USA, either. And - and this is what this thread is about - some of the changes he's doing right now should ring some definite bells and turn some heads _inside_ the USA.



I didn't write he was "very good" I wrote "OK".  We've had worse and had better.  He hasn't screwed with things too much -- there are always small changes.  

The Supreme Court appointments were not bad -- he was criticized by the religious right for picking judges that are politically moderate.  They are more-or-less "originalists" but the philosophy of constitutional interpretation has been debated in the US for 200 years.  

The economy always swings back and forth, but he's not really affected this (any more than Clinton did).  

In general its all OK here.  



fryke said:


> Before it's too late.



Very ominous.  And I though that Bush was the demagog.  :7)


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 1, 2006)

Here's the definitive George Bush!


----------



## reed (Nov 1, 2006)

There is no "definitive" Bush. But a split-infinitve Bush? Yes.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 1, 2006)

Just DON'T get me started on the split infinitive&#8230;

"To boldly go" my ass!


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 1, 2006)

The Scottish National Party (SNP) and The Party of Wales (Plaid) joined forces this week to demand an inquiry into why Tony Blair took Britain to war. A vote took place in the House of Commons in London yesterday. The Scottish/Welsh nationalists lost the vote. 

Welsh nationalist, Adam Price, said that Britain's involvement in Iraq was akin to the disastous Suez crisis and Neville Chamberlin's naive Munich agreement with Hitler. Despite losing the vote, many British voters are not happy over Iraq.

Likewise in the US, Dubya's on the back foot. The Iraq campaign had no cohesive plan for Day Two. It is all very well Bush & Blair wanting to introduce democracy ino the Middle East, but if you are going to do this, you have to have a plan. I don't think they did.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 1, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> It is all very well Bush & Blair wanting to introduce democracy ino the Middle East, but if you are going to do this, you have to have a plan. I don't think they did.


I think things had not been thought through properly, and there was a bit of a bull-in-a-china-shop approach.  (I also think the original motivation/plan had no founding in WMD, terrorism, or liberation.)

In relation to Lt Major Burns' question, I found some more information that may be of interest.  From The Library of Congress or GovTrack.us, I found the following:



			
				S. 3930: Military Commissions Act of 2006 (which is now law) said:
			
		

> *Section 3 -*
> ...Prohibits a combatant subject to trial by commission from invoking the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights. Allows commissions to impose upon any person found guilty any punishment not forbidden under the UCMJ, including the death penalty.
> 
> ...
> ...



Make of all that what you will!



You may also like to read an article regarding martial law.



> Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


----------



## bbloke (Nov 2, 2006)

spb: I'm afraid I felt your reply was a bit unfair in places, I hope I have misunderstood.



			
				spb said:
			
		

> From what I saw in Europe in 2002 I can't say that the US image was too hot to begin with. There were still people in Denmark protesting the US involvement in Vietnam and a museum display opposing the US escalation of the cold war with the USSR.


I seem to remember a fair number of people in the US protesting against the war in Vietnam too!  There is nothing wrong with expressing that opposition, it is simply freedom of speech.  But a couple of displays in Denmark doesn't mean that all Europeans saw the US as being in the gutter.  George W. Bush was/is *really* good at pushing things in that direction!  There are things that Europeans will dislike about US foreign policy and there will be things Europeans dislike about European foreign policy too.  One should not confuse opposition to a particular policy/incident as being tantamount to opposition to a whole nation and its people.



			
				spb said:
			
		

> The Afghanistan war was unavoidable


Really?  The war in Afghanistan is quite a different issue from, say, Iraq, but I'm still a bit surprised you would say it was unavoidable, as that is quite a strong statement.




			
				spb said:
			
		

> and I believe that any war would be opposed by Europe, unless there were a payoff.


I have to say that view amazes me, and it sounds a bit like you are trying to take the moral highground...  Would the US only go to war too if there was a payoff, or are you only levelling this at Europeans?  The US has a long history of going to war or supporting oppressive regimes, for self-serving reasons, and often its actions severely harm the local populations.

You can see the list of the "coalition of the willing:"

Afghanistan, *Albania*, Australia, Azerbaijan, *Bulgaria*, Colombia, *the Czech Republic*, *Denmark*, El Salvador, Eritrea, *Estonia*, Ethiopia, Georgia, *Hungary*, *Italy*, Japan, South Korea, *Latvia*, *Lithuania*, *Macedonia*, *the Netherlands*, Nicaragua, the Philippines, *Poland*, *Romania*, *Slovakia*, *Spain*, *Turkey*, *United Kingdom* and Uzbekistan.

I think that includes a fair number of European countries...

Europe has been torn apart by two major wars (both of which, incidentally, the US was slow to get involved in   ), within living memory of some, and so it is natural that Europeans are most cautious about going to war these days.  Being hesitant about going to war is no bad thing.  That is not to say Europeans never support wars, they are just less rash and gung-ho than the US currently is.  If you were really saying that Europeans are greedy and oppose war out of self-protection, but will go to war for profit, but the US is moral and altruistic and goes to war for noble reasons (!), then I think I will need to reply to that later!   




			
				spb said:
			
		

> The most vocal opposition of the Iraq war were making the most money in the Oil-For-Food scandal


Hmmm, looking at the facts...

From Wikipedia:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.
> 
> *The programme was introduced by the US Clinton Administration in 1995*, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued in 2003 after the United States invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
> 
> ...


Are you really singling out a European nation (I'm presuming you have mainly been alluding to France [and Russia], if you see Germany as being different) and making a sweeping generalization about all of Europe based on that, and then telling me the US was innocent with regards to this issue?

 Another article (originally from a British newspaper):


> ...
> 
> Through various control mechanisms, the United States and Great Britain were able to turn on and off the flow of oil as they saw best. In this way, the Americans were able to authorise a $1bn exemption concerning the export of Iraqi oil for Jordan, as well as legitimise the billion-dollar illegal oil smuggling trade over the Turkish border, which benefited NATO ally Turkey as well as fellow regime-change plotters in Kurdistan. At the same time as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was negotiating with Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov concerning a Russian-brokered deal to end a stand-off between Iraq and the UN weapons inspectors in October-November 1997, the United States turned a blind eye to the establishment of a Russian oil company set up on Cyprus.
> 
> ...


It did also seem odd to me at the time that American conservatives were making such a big deal about this issue and trying to take the moral highground, at a time when the US was under scrutiny.  The best defense is a good offense?

Also, if you are referring "Europe" and then only implicating France (Russia is not really considered "European," or is only partly considered to be European), you can see that France is only one part of Europe, so I don't think you should make sweeping generalizations about so many nations.  My view is no nation can claim a moral highground overall.  European nations have their hands dirty in some matters, yes, as does the US.  My concern is when people complain about other nations (eg. being "cowardly" or "selfish") and advocate their own as leading the way in moral terms.  




			
				spb said:
			
		

> In general its all OK here.


So you don't mind "disappearances" in the US, detention without trial, torture, increased Presidential powers, erosion of civil rights, increased powers of surveillance, making it easier for the President to impose martial law without the approval of local authorities, a culture of fear, the administration contradicting itself about important facts (eg. dangers and priorities), and a war being started in the name of a phoney cause?   

And, in the interest of fairness, I'm presuming you also think it is absolutely OK for, say, insurgents or other nations to detain US troops without trial, for years on end, without access to their families or the Red Cross, for their rights under the Geneva Convention to be denied, and for the captured Americans to be "forcefully interrogated" or sent to other nations where the "interrogation" methods are a bit harsher.  After all, it would not be OK to think it is acceptable for the US to do these things to others, but not acceptable for others to do it to US citizens.


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 4, 2006)

I have just bought Bob Woodward's book; State of Denial. It's a hard-hitting critique of Dubya and his Iraq campaign. I have only read a little so far and it's pretty depressing reading. 

I think Bush will go down in history as a complete arseh*le, as will his poodle, Blair.


----------



## reed (Nov 6, 2006)

Not that things will change if the Democrats take back the Congress and the Senate, but it will send a message all the same. Montana and Tennessee seem to be important Republican States that could change hands. Wait and see. 
  One thing is sure, the BS from GWB via the CIA with help from the FBI,SEC, USAID,VOA but most importantly aided and pushed by DC, DR, KR, CR, HK, WOLFY, ETC. and from the UK TB, all about WMD and now certain PDP at GB have caused BIG P in DC, the USA, the EC and the AW, in fact the ME in general. The UN is another story. Luckily, there is always WHO and MTV. Then again. The facts will not be found on CNN, BBC, TF1, nor the NYT, the NYP and so on.
  TGIF. Rangoon. OUT.


----------



## dlloyd (Nov 6, 2006)

Holy crap...could anyone _else_ read that? Too many acronyms....


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 7, 2006)

Irony is so beautiful.


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 7, 2006)

dlloyd said:


> Holy crap...could anyone _else_ read that? Too many acronyms....


Irony is so beautiful. Rock on Reed.


----------



## dlloyd (Nov 7, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Irony is so beautiful. Rock on Reed.



What did I miss...? Apparently something important there.


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 7, 2006)

Oh my gad, I am repeating myself!


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 7, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Irony is so beautiful.





rhisiart said:


> Irony is so beautiful. Rock on Reed.


Oh my gad, I am repeating myself!



rhisiart said:


> Oh my gad, I am repeating myself!


Oh feck, I've done it again.



dlloyd said:


> What did I miss...? Apparently something important there.


Reed old boy, you forgot NSAIDs.

TGIF. Mandalay. OUT.

Your faithful servant - Kitchener of Khartoum


----------



## reed (Nov 8, 2006)

REED is OTL (out to lunch). But that is how "normal" folks talk in DC (Washington, DC). And that is just a starter. 
  GWB (George W. Bush) has yet to learn the alphabet, but he's moving along.
Not PDQ but very slooooowly. 10-4 tango charlie. over and out.


----------



## reed (Nov 8, 2006)

OH! Did anybody see the Press Conference of GWB today (Nov. 8th)? Post Midterm election and Rumsfeld "cutting and running." Either he is on the booze again or he has gone bonkers. Amazing. Please check it out.


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 14, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin killed an awful lot of people, up to one billion collectively depending on your historical sources.



Did those "historical sources" happen to mention the entire population of Europe, Russia and North America combined was less than a billion at the time?

Thankfully no-one survived or the survivors would have had to dig up the dead to kill them a second and possibly a third time.

Perhaps America is using the same sources to show their "success' in Iraq. They certainly did in Vietnam where anyone killed became a "Charlie" and as the numbers passed up the line of command everyone multiplied them by a bit more till the ridiculous became the absurd.

In everyone's eye's except the American's.


----------



## reed (Nov 15, 2006)

rhisiart

VC (Viet Cong) count you mean?  CBS had a listing every evening with Walter Cronkite, anchorman: US # of killed, South Vietnamese: # of killed, North Vietnamese: # of killed. Viet cong and any dead chicken # of killed. One thing   that made everybody think was that the body count was too high...for US soldiers mostly but on all counts in fact. False as they were.The atrocities on both sides came at the same time. Something was very wrong. The rest of the story we all know.
  That's how I learned to hate war and no longer wanted to be a soldier like so many in my family had been since the American Revolution.

Need I say anything about GWB & those like him? 

Cheers.


----------



## Rhisiart (Nov 15, 2006)

rubaiyat said:


> Did those "historical sources" happen to mention the entire population of Europe, Russia and North America combined was less than a billion at the time?
> 
> Thankfully no one survived or the survivors would have had to dig up the dead to kill them a second and possibly a third time.
> 
> ...


Yes one billion is about right (actually probably an underestimate). Hitler killed 50,000,000. Stalin killed three times as many. 

Please bear mind that one billion in the US is equivalent to 100,000,000 in Europe. 

BTW,  &#8220;In everyone's eye's except the American's&#8221; is a pseudonym for anyone with an IQ below 50 tends to vote Republican, in contrast to the 60% of Americans who vote for the Democrats.



reed said:


> rhisiart
> 
> VC (Viet Cong) count you mean?  CBS had a listing every evening with Walter Cronkite, anchorman: US # of killed, South Vietnamese: # of killed, North Vietnamese: # of killed. Viet cong and any dead chicken # of killed. One thing   that made everybody think was that the body count was too high...for US soldiers mostly but on all counts in fact. False as they were.The atrocities on both sides came at the same time. Something was very wrong. The rest of the story we all know.
> That's how I learned to hate war and no longer wanted to be a soldier like so many in my family had been since the American Revolution.
> ...


Reed, I think you are indulging in too much of the dolca vita (I say with utter envy).

P.S. Do you think on reflection that Betty Blue was load of twaddle?


----------



## bbloke (Nov 16, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Yes one billion is about right (actually probably an underestimate). Hitler killed 50,000,000. Stalin killed three times as many.
> 
> Please bear mind that one billion in the US is equivalent to 100,000,000 in Europe.


This might be where a misunderstanding has arisen.  Isn't one billion traditionally accepted as 1,000,000,000 (i.e. 10^9, or one thousand million), although the older, British definition was 1,000,000,000,000 (i.e. 10^12, or one million million)?


----------



## fryke (Nov 16, 2006)

not only british, btw.  In German, we have "Million" (1'000'000), then "Milliarde" (1'000'000'000) and then "Billion" (1'000'000'000'000). So if a mixup like that has been made, you very clearly have a scale problem on your hand very quickly.


----------



## reed (Nov 16, 2006)

Who is Betty Blue? I'm sure it's twaddle. In fact I'm sure it is. But.....

  One thing is for sure...you folks have yet to add Mao to the Stalin/Hilter murder statistics. And, for bonus points (today) one must add Pol Pot, Rwanda, Darfur and drunk drivers. 
  Rangoon (what's cooking there?), out.


----------

