SVXers Poll: Who ya voting for if anyone?

[oab_au]

Originally posted by lee


Harvey, my friend, you are trying to interject logic into a US election - something that just will not happen for years to come - If ever . For better or worse, we are becoming increasingly politically polarized here (circa Mr Gingrich's term as Speaker of the House). The sad part is that my talks with John Q. Citizen reflect that maybe 5% (and I'm being generous) have a clue as to how their Government works - perhaps someday we will waken from this stupor - until then, the arrogant & ignorant get what they deserve, too bad the rest of the world suffers with us (or is that US ).

Yes I didn't mean to get involved in your election. I was just relating how the Australian election went. There is a lot in common, as I see it, between the two. Ours was dominated by the push that Howard was the only one to protect us from the threat of terrorism. The fact that he was the one, that put us in that position, by joining the coalition, escaped the masses.

Howard reminds me of the small kid at school, who crawls to the school bully, so he is safe. He has earned the nick name of 'Bonsai' (just a little bush) for his efforts.

Won't be long before cricket and Rugby are replaced by base ball and gridiron, and we have those parades down the street with brass bands and big hats.

Harvey ducks for cover and runs back to the Technical Forum.

[lee]

Originally posted by JeffN
`

Actually, circa 1960s with the drug induced civil/political protest-enlightenment. It ain't easy being the USA. And even Down Undah, they have left and right-coserv/Lib.

Never trust a conservative under 30 and a liberal over 40.

A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

Well if one really longs for the good ole days...."enlightenment" vice "Love it or leave it" had nothing on the really great politics at the dawn of the country...the public/printed debates over the morals of Mr Jefferson, the ego of John Adams, etc make even the worst Clinton bashing look pretty lame

[Landshark]

Originally posted by oab_au
Won't be long before cricket and Rugby are replaced by base ball and gridiron, and we have those parades down the street with brass bands and big hats.

i'll trade you baseball for rugby (keep the cricket), and i'll even through in the brass band parade.

[oab_au]

Originally posted by Landshark


i'll trade you baseball for rugby (keep the cricket), and i'll even through in the brass band parade.

Sorry Alan, no deal. My head is not big enought for the hats.

I like being an Australain.

Harvey.

[UberRoo]

Originally posted by Shadow248
That's not hard to do. I'm sure if Bush starting killing all his critics, people would probably start to respect him just a bit more (out of fear for their lives).

Historically, many rulers have used this method. Very, very few have been able to pull it off. ...at least for any length of time. Saddam is actually quite unique to have ruled a fairly large and wealthy country for so long. The biggest threats are not from the outside, but rather from inside the empire. For this reason, the US invasion of such a country is also historically unique, or at least rare. Those who succeeded in belaying those threats became infamous. Saddam fits the "rule by fear" criteria especially well, largely because he was not only blatant about his policies, but also because he's unapologetic and belligerent under scrutiny.

Big govenment is never a good thing in the long run...
Big government is inevitable. The only alternative is no government. They either grow or fail. The trick is to control the rate of growth. ...and it's truly in the long run when things get ugly.

Originally posted by PA_SVX
The reason the Police get sued is becuase the dirtbag doesn't have any money. ...... For a serial killer, like in Shadow' analogy, you can't make a case for terminating the pursuit. ...... Lawyers.

You are very correct about the lawyers. The county I live in has a policy that all chases will be terminated if the fleeing vehicle travels into oncoming traffic. (You criminals, that's a tip. ) I would not doubt that some official may be authorized to grant exceptions when necessary, but I tend to think this is not the case.

I think some officers would overlook the rules in this case. We would probably not blame them, especially if nothing bad came of it. Can't make a case? You're probably right, but the policy is written. I'm sure there are cases where the only way to side-step the rules is to break them. In Saddam's case, a few casualties are morally justifiable [to most people.] Whether it's anyone's business to invade a country that really hasn't done anything [to them] is another matter altogether, but that's a separate debate unto itself. Now other counties are going after the US for damages, just like lawyers. Is the US liable in the ethical sense? It doesn't matter. The rules were clear just the same as they are for the police during a chase. Right or wrong, fair or not, liability is still an issue.

[Shadow248]

Originally posted by UberRoo
Now other counties are going after the US for damages, just like lawyers. Is the US liable in the ethical sense? It doesn't matter. The rules were clear just the same as they are for the police during a chase. Right or wrong, fair or not, liability is still an issue.

That just reminded me. Has anyone else heard about the class action suit being filed by many of the 9/11 victim's families against Al-Queda? Now that's America for you! First we'll beat the crap out of you, then we'll take all your money.

[JeffN]

Originally posted by oab_au


I think you got me wrong. I am not attaching blame, I am just saying, that in this time of technology, science, satellites and missiles there surly is a better way to remove one man from office, than a full scale invasion and the deaths of thousands.

He could have been removed by a missile, on his way to the golf club A full scale invasion is more suited to the take over a country.

Harvey.

Then why couldn;t Clinton do it? Surely accracy or marksmanship hasn't improved that much in 4 years. And if we did, then we have 2nd banana fill in the void.

[JeffN]

In Saddam's case, a few casualties are morally justifiable [to most people.] Whether it's anyone's business to invade a country that really hasn't done anything [to them] is another matter altogether, but that's a separate debate unto itself.

This war is an extension of the UN justified world alliance Gulf War-that Saddam never surrendered and kept targeting own planes and his people as well as playing hide the bombs with the uN inspectors justifies invasion last year or next year or the next....

And

"Now other counties are going after the US for damages, just like lawyers. Is the US liable in the ethical sense? It doesn't matter. The rules were clear just the same as they are for the police during a chase. Right or wrong, fair or not, liability is still an issue. [/B][/QUOTE]

See the UN invasion charter of 1990-this is the one that relates to this war, as well as the congressional authorization. Waht's magic number of years to wait? 12, 13? 15? Isn't 11 enough to play chess?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Shadow248
That's not hard to do. I'm sure if Bush starting killing all his critics, people would probably start to respect him just a bit more (out of fear for their lives).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Historically, many rulers have used this method. Very, very few have been able to pull it off. ...at least for any length of time. Saddam is actually quite unique to have ruled a fairly large and wealthy country for so long. The biggest threats are not from the outside, but rather from inside the empire."

Ahh, do the names, N Korea(50yrs), Cuba(50yrs), China(50 yrs), Soviet Union(80 yrs), Tibet(40yrs), Cambodia(30yrs) and some others ring a bell? And most of those had outside help in their coups.

"For this reason, the US invasion of such a country is also historically unique, or at least rare. "

See above....

[87f383]

Im getting in here late... but I'm voting for Kerry because there is to much resemblence between.





AND...




Spooky....


PS. The pics are just for satire and fun... everyone looks like hitler with that litlle mustache.

[svxistentialist]

Hey, he looks more like Mel Brooks, but I am not so sure Mel will be pleased with my mentioning the resemblance.

Joe

[Royal Tiger]

Hitler? You people have gone off the deep end. It's the same people who cried over the clinton as a sexual predator. Can't have it both ways. That you'd make that analogy shows how narrow minded and biased you are. I met Kerry, shook his hand and all. Not everything he says is wrong, and I don't like him, but I don't compare him to Stalin. If this is the type of people who are on the Kerry bandwagon, I'm glad I'm not one of them.

[87f383]

Originally posted by PA_SVX
Hitler? You people have gone off the deep end. It's the same people who cried over the clinton as a sexual predator. Can't have it both ways. That you'd make that analogy shows how narrow minded and biased you are. I met Kerry, shook his hand and all. Not everything he says is wrong, and I don't like him, but I don't compare him to Stalin. If this is the type of people who are on the Kerry bandwagon, I'm glad I'm not one of them.

Naw I'm voting for Kerry on other criteria. I did the bush/hitler thing as a joke... just satire.

In reality, they both suck cause they are politicians.

I only did bush because I found that pic... and it seemed perfect for the hitler treatment. His face is perfect in that pic and his overall facial traits seemed a lil closer to hitler than kerry's. So all and all, its just those things that made me do it. No political motive... just humor. I crack up everytime I see what I made.

Just a joke...nothing more implied.


DER TOTALES KRIEG!!!

Originally posted by 87f383
Im getting in here late... but I'm voting for Kerry because there is to much resemblence between.





AND...




Spooky....


PS. The pics are just for satire and fun... everyone looks like hitler with that litlle mustache.

I'm sorry I tried not to laugh, but then I laughed hard and long...a real knee slapper.

Originally posted by 87f383



Naw I'm voting for Kerry on other criteria. I did the bush/hitler thing as a joke... just satire.

In reality, they both suck cause they are politicians.

[UberRoo]

Originally posted by JeffN

Ahh, do the names, N Korea(50yrs), Cuba(50yrs), China(50 yrs), Soviet Union(80 yrs), Tibet(40yrs), Cambodia(30yrs) and some others ring a bell? And most of those had outside help in their coups.

"For this reason, the US invasion of such a country is also historically unique, or at least rare. "

See above....

Ahh, not entirely so. You are very right in that those countries are similar, but they have (or had) considerably more thoughtful forms of government. Saddam pretty much ruled by direct force and intimidation. The more common technique is oppression, which differs in that oppression simply removes power from the people, often by simply not acknowledging them. Oppression is a characteristic of a country trying to maintain control. Saddam had control. He had moved beyond oppression, and onto conquest. Iraq's 'government,' if you could call it that, was pretty entrenched and Saddam was quite comfortable with that. There was very little dynamic in the inner chambers of Iraq's castles because it was not necessary.

Perhaps the best illustration I can conceive is that one might get a sense that Saddam liked toying with his subjects as though they were a superfluous byproduct of governing, whereas the contrasted countries tend to view their citizens as a necessary evil; an important component of the state.

Few otherwise stable dictatorships are overthrown, let alone conquered. When such a government becomes unstable, then they are often overthrown. These countries are also usually considered valuable only to it's residents, thus it is usually people who live within the country who wish to take control of it. Outside rulers are rarely interested and are not often capable of succeeding with adequate influence to govern effectively anyway.

I am not intimately familiar with all the countries you mention, but many have existed under several rulers and nearly all have undergone significant changes of government. Although Saddam's history in Iraq is relatively short, considering the nature and stability of his rule, he's done a remarkably good job of hanging onto his position. I suspect his careless and defiant attitude towards the end was because he realized that he'd already beaten the odds and that he'd likely be overthrown very soon anyway.

I believe that Saddam has proven to be an exceptional ruler simply by maintaining tight control for so long. Even with this abrupt end, he'll definitely be in the history books. Any of our recent presidents will probably not be much more than a footnote. I'm sure that must vex Bush to no end.

I think the reason Iraq was invaded was an emotional reason. I just want their oil, but everyone else seems to have other reasons. I call it a "freedom tax."