tain.totalcodex.net

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:56 pm**

A lot of people I know are very unhappy about Bush becoming President. And generally they want to kill you if you support Bush. What do you think?

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:08 pm**

I don't know where you live, so that's kinda hard to answer. Certainly if you're in the USA you should be safe, as the election showed more than half the population supporting Bush. There'd be very few places in the world where you'd be killed if you said you supported him. And places like that you'd be more likely killed for simply being an American, regardless of your politics.

There's no doubt that Bush is not popular outside the US. He is seen, rightly or wrongly, as arrogant, stubborn, impetuous, bigoted ... and none too smart.

His bulldozing into Iraq is really what's caused that, and now he has another 4 years to hopefully fix the mess he's gotten the US into, and to embrace other countries and viewpoints instead of dismissing & denigrating them if they don't agree with his own.

Anyway, that's just foreign affairs. What he does inside the US is of equal concern. Passing laws that curtail individual rights, privatising social security, letting the health care situation worsen, creating bigger and bigger trade deficits ... or mb not. Perhaps he'll stop playing wedge politics and instead try to unify the country.

Time will tell. America is doubtless a beautiful place filled with warm spirited, friendly people. I'm just glad I don't live there

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:17 pm**

Rofl. Point taken iron, and if I might agree Bush does have a clean slate to start off from and clearly other nations hate America i.e. the French MB!@#$$%%^&. But besides nations, I would say overall, the people like us, but the governments OF the people don't as much. The only reason that they hate us is because they listen to their government. I have spoken. :::Gong:::

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:25 pm**

Its not a question of hating or liking. You can dislike someone but respect them & support them in what they try to achieve. Conversely you can like a person but be seriously concerned by what they do.

In this case its the latter. Bush isn't the kind of person who provokes hatred, but many people are really worried about what he will do in the next four years.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:07 am**

I think you'll find in a lot of cases both the people and the governments hate the americans. Where I live (Canberra, Australia) there is a huge amount of anti american sentiment. I don't know to what extent this holds true in the rest of Australia though. We had our local elections recently and had an american running in it (don't ask me why) most people I talked to didnt vote for him for the sole reason that he was American.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:00 am**

Yes, but perhaps that's cos us Aussies have such a strong cut-down-the-tall-poppy ethos

An unrelated observation:- In Australia, the conservatives (called the Liberal Party for some reason) have aimed their campaign at voter's minds based on saying they're the better economic managers than the other party, combined with sneering at the other side's ability and experience. The socialist Labor party doesn't compete well on that playing field, and is better when it tries to go for the heartstrings as defender of the average worker (which it rarely does as much as it should). The conservatives have easily won the last four elections here.

By contrast, the Democrats try to convince people intellectually using facts, logic and *gasp* policies, whereas the conservative Republicans aim purely for the heart with simple morals & values based policies. And for some reason that's sufficient for the Republicans to dominate. Mb because "Kerry's in favour of abortion and gay marriage, but we want to ban it" is such a powerful allegation that sticks in the head & makes for a great sound bite.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:30 am**

it's the democratic party's fault for not having anyone better than kerry. I could probably find 2 better candidates by choosing names out of a hat.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:18 am**

I am very glad Bush won re-election, and I am also glad it was a fairly quick and decisive victory. A repeat of the 2000 election end-game could have been very dangerous for the U.S. -- no clear winner would have resulted in the everyone pouring time and resources into re-counts and litigation for an indefinite period of time, instead of leading the country.

There is a lot of work to be done in the next four years, and even though the Republicans have a majority in both House and Senate, that work cannot be done without help from the Democrats. The country needs to pull together, and a good way to start that is for people to stop focusing on hot-button moral issues like abortion and gay marriage and instead focus on the economy and national security. Real social reform takes time -- usually several generations. I'm in favor of social freedoms, including gay rights, but it's clear the country as a whole is not ready to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex. Eleven states just voted to amend their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Maybe eleven other states would be ready to vote the opposite, but even if they were, the country would be no closer to resolving this issue. We would be much better off spending our time addressing issues that have a goal everyone can agree upon (better schools, more jobs, better security) because if we can agree on the goal, the methods for reaching that goal can be worked out through debate and compromise. That just isn't the case with many social and moral issues.

It is clear that the U.S. needs to improve its relations with some of its allies, but President Bush will not allow the U.S. to be the United Nation's bitch. The U.S. is not in a position where it can easily back down -- if we do, we lose credibility. Our strategic competitors like China would be more than happy to take every advantage they could in such a situation. And there's no telling what our enemies like North Korea and Iran might do. I think President Bush honestly does want to work with the UN, but the UN needs to understand the unique position the U.S. is in and work a little harder on its part to make the relationship easier.

Edited By mauglir on 1099581794

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:56 pm**

Well yes, the US is in a unique position, from which it can't back down, but that's only the case because Bush decided to ignore the UN over Iraq. Its not a choice of going it alone or being the UN's bitch - that's the kind of extreme positioning that Bush and Cheney have used to both divide the country and harm the US's international standing. There's such a thing as respecting other countrys' viewpoints, being willing to recognize that you're not always right and being willing to compromise to ensure good long-term relationships. The middle road in other words.

I agree 100% with you re social reform, however I do point out that it was largely through campaigning on these moral issues from a religious & reactionary standpoint that the Republicans got so many evangelicals to vote for them. Bush won largly through pressing the hot buttons, and now having done so he wants to stop focusing on them and pull people together? Funny way to go about it if you ask me

But yes it was good the election result was clear. I was glad Kerry conceded & both he and Bush made gracious speeches, which hopefully will set a new trend for this term. Don't forget the election was still very close, the weakest endorsement of a serving president in a long long time. If the Reps decide that their domination of both houses gives them a strong "mandate" to do whatever they want ... heaven help us. Sorry to sound negative btw

Edit: China is quite happy with the status quo in their relationship with the USA, simply because they already have you over a barrel. Their currency tied to the US dollar means they can flood the US with cheap imports. There goes the deficit in other words, and unless the US wants to risk antagonizing China I don't see there's much can be done about it.

Edited By iron on 1099608141

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:50 pm**

well, I wouldn't call china or Irak or Russia in it's days an enemy as they always dump info in your brain...
Certainly some people don't share same thoughts and sometimes are really dangerous, but on the other side usa since 2nd world war has discovered that having the public opinion silenced by the union against a common enemy and the huge economic impact that this union generates in usa, and the fact that this crusade against "evil" let's usa do what they want politically and military, etc insists on washing your brains over and over again...
When it wasn't the japs it was russia, when it wasn't russia it was the communism and the reds, when russia was discovered a dead carcass they invented terrorism and when terrorism is obsolete they'll invent something else...
It's sad that dictators always lobotomize citizens and create ignorance, in order to govern and take advantage of what fear brings...
I'm not saying anything against bush or kerry or USA, It's not a matter of flags, it's a reality that the tyrant of our times(because there's always one or the other)

muuuuaahahahahahahahahaha

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:42 pm**

I agree with mauglir 100% about the United Nations. We do do most of their work. i.e. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War...

Posted: **Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:42 am**

The reason why the U.S. does "most of their work" is because we have the largest military in the world. 50% of all military spending in the world is done on the U.S. military. Which means to me that if it was the U.S. vs. the REST OF THE WORLD, it would be even odds. We also have the most mobile military in the world. We can deploy 20,000 men anywhere in the globe with AIRCRAFT. We have 14 Aircraft carriers/groups with over 5000 men a piece.

Now, about your claim that we actually "do most of the work".

The United States only does work for the United Nations when it meets our foreign policy interests.

Korean War.
The United States got the Korean War declared a UN police action after the North Koreans kicked both the South Korean's and our asses. Had the Soviet Union not been boycotting the UN security council at the time, it surely would not have been so. But strategically this makes absolute sense. When in war you want as many allies as possible. Not so much because you need the foot soldiers, but because you don't want other nations feeding and supplying the enemy. Think of how much better off Tyr would be had the Leixians been made allies before the War with Balor. But think about it. This was a UN police action of some UN members (US and its allies) against other UN members. Kind of like a UN civil war.

Vietnam.
Vietnam was not a UN conflict. That was purely the United States against Communist China and the Soviet Union.

Gulf War.
Getting the UN involved here was again a strategic tactic, that suited our interests. Had the UN not joined us in this one we still would have liberated Kuwait. Actually had the UN not joined us, we probably would have invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein then.

But back to the US military situation. The US has military bases in dozens of other countries. Think about that. Military bases.
Here my list (off the top of my head):
Japan-one permanently deployed Aircraft Carrier Group
South Korea-35,000 US Army Infantry along the DMZ
Cuba, Guantanamo Bay--Cuba is our enemy and we have a base in their country
Spain, Rota--Air and Naval Bases
Italy
Turkey
England
Iceland
Germany
Saudi Arabia

Look at that list of nations. I tell you what. As much as I love the English and Spanish if they had a military base in Virginia or Florida I wouldn't just be marching in the streets protesting.

The United States took the vast opportunity offered by the fall of Communism to first elect our own buffoon and then our own dictator.

Posted: **Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:27 am**

"The United States took the vast opportunity offered by the fall of Communism to first elect our own buffoon and then our own dictator."

What do you mean?

Posted: **Sun Nov 07, 2004 4:52 am**

After the Soviet system collapsed we had an opportunity, like when we rebuilt Europe after the Marshall plan, to change the world that we had helped wreck by fighting the spread of Communism for 50 years. We had the opportunity to go to the countries which helped us all along and say thanks. To go to the countries where we did horrible, reprehensible things, like assassinating their freely-elected leader, and say "We're sorry. This is why we did it and now that we've won we'd like to help rebuild your country or aid you in any other way we can." To go to the countries where we paid and backed someone who did horrible and reprehensible things to his own people and say "Hi, we'd like to take you to your new home in Connecticut where you and your family will be guarded for the rest of your lives. Oh, and we'll need the $4 billion we gave your people that you took too."

Instead, we elected a buffoon, Pres. Wm. J. Clinton, who took the victory and did NOTHING with it. All he did was have Vice Pres. Al Gore hand deliver a big check to Boris Yeltsin who promptly embezzled it, after the new free and elected Duma begged that he give it to the 1000 of them instead.
And then he massively downsized the military.
We had been fighting a Cold War for global domination for 50 years and after defeating the enemy he simply took his men and left the field. It'd be like winning WW2 and not having a Marshall plan. So, countries all over world that either the West or the Soviets had dominated were left with a power vacuum. In Afghanistan, it was filled by the Taliban. In West Africa, by gangs of kids with machettes (same for Somalia). In Zaire, by a "have-not" tribe. I literally have no idea what's going on politically in Central America. In the 1980's I could name all the Leaders there, and so could the news media. It seemed that Foreign Policy was foreign to the Clinton Administration.

Then we elected a dictator.
He first came to power by having his brother hand it to him. If that happened anywhere else in the world we'd send Jimmy Carter.
He refuses to follow the rule of law.
He backs out of treaties his own country created (and signed).
He denies citizens their right of Habeas Corpus.
He has a propaganda machine whose success is unequalled since Goebbels.
He is returning the U.S. to the way it was before the Great Depression.
He rolled back the Clean Water Act.
He rolled back the Clean Air Act.
He's going to eliminate a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.
He's trying to eliminate Affirmative Action.
He has eliminated Overtime pay.
At the time the Income Tax was first created only the top 2% of the population paid. I mean does Bill Gates really need to earn $1 million dollars a day?

I understand the cause for going to war in Iraq. We could get the terrorists in Afghanistan, as we did, but that just gets those terrorists. Or scatters them. More terrorists can just crop up elsewhere. So you need to change the conditions which make people choose terrorism over computer gaming. That's pretty much the oppressive regimes of the Muslim countries in the Middle East (thank you England and France). And the perception that the US only backs Israel (thanks again England).
I agree that needed to go to war with Iraq. Since we need to bring Iraq Oil online before we can continue regime change in the Mideast. I just think the Gen. Tommy Franks, Secty. Rumsfeld, et al were wrong, and General Shinseki was correct. Patton couldn't have won WW2 with just his Third Army. If they know that you're just going to go driving through they just get out of your way.

Posted: **Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:23 am**

Industry wrote:I understand the cause for going to war in Iraq. We could get the terrorists in Afghanistan, as we did, but that just gets those terrorists. Or scatters them. More terrorists can just crop up elsewhere. So you need to change the conditions which make people choose terrorism over computer gaming.

Please read this.

tain.totalcodex.net

Should I stay or should I go? - Afraid of n/ four years of Bush term?