US Elections 2008

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Lazy way to label and dismiss without having to actually prove anything....

Those don't meet the criteria of "talking points" though the descriptions may be guilty of hyperbole.

yes bush looks like a chimpanzee...weak sauce...who gives a fock

[WanderingKnight]

@Reckoner:

What you're pointing out there is called xenophobia, and it applies to almost every society. Or would you say that there aren't Americans that despise illegal immigrants, or Americans who despise Europeans? You of all people should at the very least know that.

Argentine immigrants in Spain aren't treated precisely in a friendly manner, either--however, I don't consider that Spaniards are an Argentina-hating country, or that they're jealous of us, or whatever. The same happens here with Bolivian and Peruvian immigrants, and the same happens elsewhere on the planet.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

@Reckoner:

What you're pointing out there is called xenophobia

In essence it is exactly that. Just pointing out one in the American case. Of course we have that in the U.S. This is the especially the case with Arabs nowadays... Even I sadly can't look at some old guy with a turban in an air port and not feel no trace of fear. It saddens me quite a lot actually.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

You personally? That'd be silly. You as a country, or you as a "side"? Why the hell not? (Other reason to dislike Americans and all English-speakers: the penury of second person pronoun. You have to make do with one for both singular and plural. But I do appreciate your "it", though.)

It's the other side of taking pride in one's country or party or sport team's accomplishment. When things go wrong, other people get to blame you.

See, you can't pin that one on me. One of my greatest pet peeves is the fact that there is not a "proper" second person plural pronoun in English. Reasonable people use substitutes such as "y'all" or "you all".

But even then, the problem is that "you" is inclusive. I know that not every one thinks this way, but I take zero personal pride in anything I do not put my hand to. Sports team, nation, whatever it may be, if I didn't participate, I cannot include myself. I feel the same pride for the things my country does right as I do for any other country. That is, I feel a sense of pride, but I do not feel it reflects on me in the least, and have the same feeling when I hear of it happening elsewhere.

Likewise I see the distinguish between the actions of government, or even the people as a whole, and the individual. I grant that you were speaking of points of prejudice or sensation rather than sheer fact, but I object that these reasons would be legitimate even if the people had no reason to doubt the media. These arguments, like most, ultimately dissolve or become less inflammatory when we do not generalize or make assumptions about individuals.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

First you said that Wright hates America, and now you're going on about Iran. Look, when it comes down to politics, don't say "they hate us" - that's the sort of rubbish you feed to the people in order to make them take a side. Iran is not fond of America: true. And they have a damn good reason to be. I presume you're familiar with how we screwed over their LEGITIMATE DEMOCRATIC government and set up a puppet government? The puppet government was terrible to its people and was eventually overthrown. I'm amazed that you don't see Iranian terrorist groups against the US, but you don't. The Iranian people don't hold anti-American sentiments (as I've heard on the internet, and as I've seen and heard from a number of Iranian professors and graduate students at my university). The Iranian people wish that their figurehead of a president would shut up when he gives his anti-American and anti-Israeli speeches. I think they feel the same way that we Americans do when we hear Bush talking about war with Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Our response: shut up, we don't want to go over there, we don't support you.

Yes I know all this. Like I've said already, I don't find it correct for the U.S. to directly interfere with some country because we don't like its government. I'll correct myself here for juxtaposing the president's sentiments for the people's, because it is the government that affects us.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

And yes, Iran's president Mohammed Ahmedijenad is a figurehead. Their government structure has something that ours does not, and that position is known as the Supreme Leader of Iran. The man in that position is Ali Khamenei. I don't speculate that he holds a favorable view of the US or of Israel, but you don't hear him making remarks about wiping Israel off the map. And while Ahmedijenad can't do a thing to make that happen, Khamenei could. Don't fall for Ahmedijenad's bull-baiting, incendiary tactics.

We can only speculate, but if he truly did have these incentives and expressed them vocally, the U.S. would be taking this a lot more serious than it already is. It's just not diplomatically wise.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

1. It's fine to support Israel, but understand that if you support Israel without being diplomatic, you're taking sides. Do you know why that screws us over? Because Israel has a lot of enemies, and there's been endless warring there. The US, as a third party, has the potential to sort that crap out and try to work toward peace there. Taking sides means that we'll just be forced to defend Israel, and to defend ourselves from the consequences of essentially declaring the Arab world our enemy. That's a stupid move.

2. I addressed this point in my first remarks - it's an unsupported statement. You're buying into it the same way people bought Bush's rubbish that there were WMDs in Iraq.

3. I dislike us meddling with the Middle East, too. And guess what? If you look around the world you can find a heck of a lot of individuals and nations who are angry with the meddling that the US has caused. You think that removing the people who are mad at our meddling by meddling some more is a good idea?

1. We shouldn't just outright state that this country deserves our blank check, you're right. But if they are under extreme threat from anyone, I think we the U.S. should heavily support them if they need it.

2. I don't think they have them yet, but I wouldn't doubt the idea that they desire them. And if we actually get legitimate proof of such a creation in the works, and not some BS CIA tip off like what happened with Iraq, this is when we need to take action.

3. The way I look it at right now is that in Iraq we in a way spilt milk. We now need to clean it up and do our best by stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran only comes into the equation as they harbor terrorists knowingly and want to completely bend Iraq to their favor as a pawn. Diplomatic pressure comes first, as said before war is only a last resort in a long line of things. We shouldn't have to go to war, if both sides are reasonable. I just question if Iran is going to be reasonable, I'm even questioning if our country is going to be reasonable seeing how shitty we deal with foreign politics. Bill Clinton and Bush are just two extremes on this issue on the ways they dealt with it. We need a medium between the two here.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

What I find amusing about your remarks about oil is that you say that, and yet you've made remarks that seem to infer that you're against Iran's development of nuclear reactors.

I don't have a problem with nuclear power, in fact I advocate it, so I'll clarify that for you.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Here's an idea. Instead of relying on oil so heavily, work on other forms of energy. <snip>But no - instead, let's waste trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in an effort to go after more oil, upset more people, and generally try to maintain the status quo. Brilliant.

We need to do both as long as we don't have cheap affordable energy. That's my outlook on it. But at the moment I don't see us trying to look for this energy source as much as we should be at all.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Apologies for the use of sarcasm and such, but this really makes me upset. Can't you see that your views perpetuate the problems that we're currently in? Look beyond them!

I'm sorry, I cannot see that.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

(Other reason to dislike Americans and all English-speakers: the penury of second person pronoun. You have to make do with one for both singular and plural. But I do appreciate your "it", though.)

You just can't appreciate the beauty of ambiguity don't you? English being a hodgepodge of exceptions to the norm that it is, you can say everything you want and then explain later that you really aren't saying what you're saying; that when you said "you suck" you really didn't mean *you* suck but rather that other different you which has nothing to do with you whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Reckoner

In essence it is exactly that. Just pointing out one in the American case. Of course we have that in the U.S. This is the especially the case with Arabs nowadays... Even I sadly can't look at some old guy with a turban in an air port and not feel no trace of fear. It saddens me quite a lot actually.

Why?

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Why?

I wish I was a psychologist and could explain it to you, however I am not . It's just something completely irrational, and other people feel this way too, but what's important is to not just immediately judge these people. I don't consider them to be "Place irrational thought here" inherently, I just feel a small trace of fear due to the stupid news and propaganda out there. A byproduct effect of our government, and I truly hate it.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by bayoab

What is wrong with them having some is Iran did sign the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Iran then got some of its parts for the power plant over the international black market (which is against the NPT). I don't see what would stop them from selling stuff back over said black market (which is also against the NPT). And yes, it is okay based on the text of the treaty.

Exactly. It's fine because they aren't building nukes, even though they may end up with the capability. When they start building bombs, then slap them with the "you signed the treaty" rhetoric. Until then, it's just military chest thumping on the part of the US government.

They may be a potential threat to US and/or World security or interest at some point. But it's a scary notion that the government is trying to squander problems before they start...the nation simply doesn't have that right to make such judgment calls. Thinking like that is what has brought the nation to the point we're at now. We aren't the world police, and we certainly aren't judge, jury, and executioner.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

You just can't appreciate the beauty of ambiguity don't you? English being a hodgepodge of exceptions to the norm that it is, you can say everything you want and then explain later that you really aren't saying what you're saying; that when you said "you suck" you really didn't mean *you* suck but rather that other different you which has nothing to do with you whatsoever.

I love English.

Why?

It might have something to do with the rainbow alerts, the constant media showings of middle eastern conflicts, and 9/11. These kind of things force people to stereotype, much like the "Red Scare" back during the cold war and the fear of communism. Xenophobia at its finest, I guess.

[Sokar]

I feel that many comments on the "right" of U.S. unilateral actions against foreign countries is naive. There is no such thing as a "right", there is only the power to do so. Every action is then a simple cost benefit analysis, where the benefits must outweigh the potential backlash such actions may generate. The potential backlash for any heavy handed U.S. action is that other countries will ally themselves to oppose the U.S., that's why U.S. needs a reason (or excuse, depending on how you look at it) to go to war, instead of just doing so. On Iran, there's no such thing as a right to nuclear power. They have the power to build a nuclear power plant, just as America have the power to blow it sky high. America will not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon not only because of Israel, but also because then Iran will have the power to destroy many neighboring country's oil fields, causing a global oil crisis, which directly affects America. America needs to secure its own supply of oil, and a nuclear Iran will disrupt that security, thus America needs to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

On the topic nuclear power vs nuclear weapons, Iran have plenty of energy to develop without resorting to developing nuclear energy. Why won't Iran build more refineries and power plants that run on oil instead of nuclear energy? Iran currently does not have enough refineries to refine the oil they extract into gasoline and other more useful fuels. In any case, it doesn't matter, because the difficult part in making a nuclear bomb is in gathering the nuclear material. America simply will not let Iran have the capability to develop nuclear weapons. If Iran continues to try to do so, then either an American, Israeli, or an joint strike will occur.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I wish I was a psychologist and could explain it to you, however I am not . It's just something completely irrational, and other people feel this way too, but what's important is to not just immediately judge these people. I don't consider them to be "Place irrational thought here" inherently, I just feel a small trace of fear due to the stupid news and propaganda out there. A byproduct effect of our government, and I truly hate it.

Then why don't you drop the fear? One thing to remember is that tolerance is learned, and there's no shame in trying to learn it. Once learned, it should stick well enough that even a potentially condescending thought like "let's not judge these people [emphasis mine]" or similar trains of thoughts* would find it hard to appear.

There are many practical reasons as to why the fear has no basis, but no matter. I doubt you're unaware of them.

*To quietly congratulate oneself on one's "tolerance and understanding" is a common train of thought.

Originally Posted by Solace

It might have something to do with the rainbow alerts, the constant media showings of middle eastern conflicts, and 9/11. These kind of things force people to stereotype, much like the "Red Scare" back during the cold war and the fear of communism. Xenophobia at its finest, I guess.

Xenophobia itself, though, is a weakness. The racial profiling used in security measures are well known; say, for example, at the notoriously sloppy but heavy-handed airport securities, which seem to pick "suspicious-looking people" by relying on the observer's stereotyped prejudice. Bypassing such xenophobia is as easy as being charming and not being Arab-looking, traits which are common enough that I suspect you'll find plenty of terrorists who have them.

[Anh_Minh]

Well, maybe Iran's scared of what will happen when they run out of oil and want to delay that? If so, can't blame them.

Or maybe they just want to annoy all the nuclear powers telling them they can't have nuclear power. Can't blame them either, there...

[WanderingKnight]

Xenophobia itself, though, is a weakness.

A weakness that people in power (governments, big businesses, political leaders) know very well how to exploit and take advantage of.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Sokar

I feel that many comments on the "right" of U.S. unilateral actions against foreign countries is naive. There is no such thing as a "right", there is only the power to do so.

If you mean that there are no rules at all, if you mean to say robbing a bank is illegal is a silly notion, it's just that the police has more guns than the bank robber then you're right. Albeit only on a very removed philosophical level.

For all practical purposes however international right is real. It's neither very fair nor well enforced but a reality. It's backed by world opinion, especially by the 95 percent of governments in the world that can only lose in a world of international anarchy. Trying to brush it aside will immediately build up an opposition before you can even state your reasons as the Iraq war has demonstrated quite nicely.

Second, it's not even the problem that America acts in its own interest. At least, the US is very good in convincing itself that it isn't. Most of the time the US sees itself on a mission of the good against evil in some Tolkienean fantasy land. Oil wasn't that much of a reason to invade the Iraq, at least not the only one. The Neocons actually considered it their mission to simply reshape the whole Middle East, hallelujah. It's much easier to negotiate with people who know where their interest lie than with missionaries, who aren't susceptible to rational arguments anymore because they aren't capable of distinguishing between disagreeing with them and being evil. This is the mindset that breeds "freedom fries". "Either you're with us or with the terrorists", there you have it from the mouth of GWB himself approaching the peak of his popularity. (Who wasn't an invader from Mars but elected and reelected. People tend to forget this nowadays.)

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

For all practical purposes however international right is real. It's neither very fair nor well enforced but a reality. It's backed by world opinion, especially by the 95 percent of governments in the world that can only lose in a world of international anarchy. Trying to brush it aside will immediately build up an opposition before you can even state your reasons as the Iraq war has demonstrated quite nicely.

For all practical purposes, international law only applies when major powers, aka America, want it to. International anarchy is dangerous to everyone, but especially to the major powers as they have much more to lose. Thus they build and enforce international laws and bodies as to prevent anarchy. When minor countries threaten the international order, the major powers would act to beat them back to their place, as they do not want others to follow. It's different for major powers, as other countries can not punish it as much as minor countries. Sanctions on America would cause collapse of the world economy, while sanctions on Iran are not so costly for the world economy.

The opposition to the Iraq war demonstrates my point, what can countries such as France and Germany DO to oppose America? The best they can do is to voice their opposition, that's it. When the entire opposition from one country unilaterally invading another country is strained diplomatic relations, it's clear that international law doesn't count for much in the case of major powers like America. People need to see the international system for what it is, a system created by major powers for the benefit major powers.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Sokar

On Iran, there's no such thing as a right to nuclear power.

Article III of the NPT: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

Source (PDF)

Iran and US are both parties to the treaty.

On the topic nuclear power vs nuclear weapons, Iran have plenty of energy to develop without resorting to developing nuclear energy. Why won't Iran build more refineries and power plants that run on oil instead of nuclear energy?

Because they can and because it is defiance against the western world.

[Sokar]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Article III of the NPT: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

Source (PDF)

Iran and US are both parties to the treaty.


Because they can and because it is defiance against the western world.

I think you mistook my meaning. The "right" to do something is a completely fabricated concept. Same thing with "morality", which many these rights come from. International treaties are only effective because major powers have the "power" to enforce it. Major powers are not as limited by these treaties and laws because no one else have the power to enforce it. The only thing stopping one major power is the possibility that other major powers will gang up on them. In the case of Iran, nearly all major powers oppose them developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, so there's not much possibility of a backlash there. Iran have refused to stop their enrichment program and accept already enriched but non-weapons grades uranium from other countries, so nuclear power for them is developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, which is not acceptable to the U.S. and many other major powers such as U.K., Germany, even Russia.

[Reckoner]

I've set my own personal record today, 3 neg reps... !

Ok someone called me out as bias in one of those neg reps, can you please tell me why I was being biased. Because I have a fanatical desire to protect Israel?


Anyhow, gay marriage is now legal in California. It's us and Massachusetts vs the rest of the U.S. Although a lot of people are complaining because it is the will of the people getting overturned here. Personally I think it should be legal and I'm happy the court ruled it on a constitutionality. It's kinda funny that the judges are pretty much all republicans too.

Do you guys think this issue is going to go on a national level and affect our election at all?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

I've set my own personal record today, 3 neg reps... !

Ok someone called me out as bias in one of those neg reps, can you please tell me why I was being biased. Because I have a fanatical desire to protect Israel?

Tell me about it. A guy (who doesn't even have the guts to reveal himself) gave me a neg rep just for opposing Obama's policies.

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Sokar

The opposition to the Iraq war demonstrates my point, what can countries such as France and Germany DO to oppose America?

Keeping interest rates high instead of supporting the weak dollar. Blocking NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia. Keeping forces in Afghanistan out of the battle to bind American troops. Enough examples?

You're counting divisions and underestimating soft power. Stalin once asked how many divisions the Pope has. Some decades later a Polish Pope obviously had ernough to loosen the grip of the 'Warsaw' Pact on Poland. Which was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Empire.

Originally Posted by Sokar

People need to see the internation system for what it is, a system created by major powers for the benefit major powers.

I mentioned interest rates already: Who sets the interests rates for the Netherlands? The ECB in which the Netherlands has a vote. Who set them before? The Netherlands? No. Germany did, for all practical purposes. We are an influential power in the ECB and in the whole EU, no doubt about that. But it is the framework of laws that is the EU that let 10 countries of 8 million people carry at least as much weight as one country of 80 million people instead of practically none.

Law, how unfair it might be always tends to benefit the weak. There is a reason that constitutions were forced on monarchs by the people and not vice versa. They gave the kings a lot of power and were sometimes simply ignored. But they set rights one could fight for and insist on and be it in vain. Which is a most important difference to having no rights at all. And often enough people got their way. The consitutional monarchies were an improvement over the absolute monarchies. The global monarchs are in the same position now and that will stay that way for 100, 200 years maybe, I'm not naive. But the trend is clear. The current system is not the end of history. Not even Fukuyama believes that anymore.

[Xellos-_^]

when i post on controversial threads i expect to get neg.

it is when they are make these short little comments or even worst no comments that is what annoy me. if you disagree with me, put it out in the open.

and of course none of those little wimps have the guts to put thier nick next to thier comments or lack of comments. they are all afraid you will neg them back.