The Official US President Election Thread

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Interesting: ....

Hmm, that economy/terror correlation is very interesting! I wouldn't have guessed that, tho I would have guessed that approval ratings in general would go up for Bush when there are terror alerts issued.

I wonder if the terror/economy thing is a true correlation, or an accidental correlation (like one of those "when it's football season, the weather gets colder, therefore if we change football season to the summer, the summer will get colder".) It sure seems like a direct correlation, but I wonder why? Maybe because our eyes just get opened as to how rich we really are...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Nurvingiel,

I should say those were the correct reasons to vote FOR President Bush's re-election.

Not that I wish to deny the few remaining political cartoonists paying work...and Kerry certainly presents a longer face to work with !

LOL inked! I love political cartoons. (You should see ones of Brian Mulrooney, former Canadian Prime Minister! )

I don't know a lot about Bush's environmental policies. However, he has been widely criticized. Do you feel these criticisms are unfair?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Me? I love sidetracks! Have you seen my new, improved title?

But of course! I remember when you changed that, not too long ago IIRC.

That is interesting about economy and terrorism IRex. One thing people want from a President is to reassure them, maybe that's what a terrorist warning does - tells people "hey, we know about it, and we're doing something". (Whether these measures work or not is another discussion. )

[Insidious Rex]

Well I think its simple human psychology the republicans are taking advantage of. Bush says HEY WE ARE UNDER ATTACK! and we automatically circle the wagons and blunt our concern and criticism for him even on other levels. because an attack on bush, even in an unrelated area, feels more wrong when it seems like its US against THEM. basic simple human psychology that has been true since we were small tribes on the open savannah. and the Bush team is intent on riding this phenomenon to victory if they can.

[Rían]

Well, I also think it happens to be true that we ARE in danger ... and EITHER side, WHICHEVER happened to be in office, would give it a ride! Don't you?

[Nurvingiel]

I don't think the danger is so bad that there should be war, but that's perhaps another thread.

I sincerely hope that if Kerry wins (crosses fingers) he will be less inclined to attack another country.

[inked]

Nurvingiel,
+++++++++++++
How many Canadians were killed in the 9/11 attack?
How many Brits?
+++++++++++++
Have there been any attacks on Canada from terrorists? Rationale?
+++++++++++++

Beyond that, do you have any concept of what constitutes an indication for armed conflict? any sense of rules? any service time? any relatives with service time?

I'd say that Mr. Kerry has very changeable definitions in all the categories about war/rules of conflict/service since his position changes have resembled nothing so much as the terminal gyrations of a fish out of water, but that is a matter of public record.

[Nurvingiel]

Well obviously few if any (probably none) Canadians were killed. I believe roughly 3000 Americans were killed, and it was extremely tragic, scary, and horrible. I remember watching the attack on the news, it was truly awful.

However, I don't believe this is an issue of numbers, even though more than 3000 Afghanis and Iraqis have been killed. The reason it's not a numbers game is because it's far more complicated than that. I don't understand all the factors, but how many people really do? Americans who actually were in New York during 9/11 understand the situation far better than I, but there are still implications that are larger than us.

Foreign policy, for example. This complex series ideas projects your country to the world, and affects how the world views you. It also affects your economy, the economy of your trading partners, and many other things directly and indirectly. I believe the nature of a countries foreign policy affects the terrorism danger, but I do not think for a moment it was the USA's fault they were attacked. It was the fault if a small group of insane and hateful terrorists. Forgeign policy though, can lessen the danger by reducing support for terrorists in other countries.

War is wrong, but sometimes you have to fight to defend yourself. It is very hard to determine the boundaries of "defence" "right" and "wrong" in war.

I just hope that the temporary and fragile peace that (sort of) exists in Afghanistan and Iraq is strengthened. Otherwise both countries will again get stuck with Taliban or Hussein type governments, and the civilians and soldiers killed in the recent conflict will have died for nothing.

I think Kerry should be given a chance to prove his mettle. I'm not convinced Bush has been brilliant, and we really need someone to be brilliant in this case. Establishing the framework for peace in two countries might prove too much.

If he wins, then I wish him well, because an improvement to peace in the Middle-east is more important than politics.

[Janny]

Well yes. I think everyone would wih him well regardless of political POV. I think it's possible Canadians died in 911 too. I think roughly 200 British people were killed.

As regards to Kerry. I think there may be some good from his presidency, if not actually as a result of his charachter. It is not entirely impossible that the fatc he is not George Bush will cause some attacks to desist. This is hopeful though.

[Nurvingiel]

Twenty-four Canadians were killed. Source here.

Sixty-seven British people were killed. Source here.

Total number of people killed: 2819. Source here. People from other countries were probablly killed too, and most people were American.


However, this is still not a numbers game. My first post still stands.

[Janny]

Oh, certainly not a numbers game. I didn't want to turn it into one.
I am surprised though, I did think there were more British people killed. It can only be a blessing that fewer than believed were killed though.

[inked]

Nurv,

I totally agree this is not a numbers game. My point was that it is not the number of individuals per country killed in a teroorist act BUT that they were killed.

This gets to the heart of the arguments regarding just and unjust wars and they have been raging in some quarters of Christian thinking since Constantine legalized Christianity ~316 AD.

The moral implications of war and its justifications or lack of justifications are quite important and difficult as you note.

Leadership is a quality evaluated separately from the justification of a war. That necessary reality is judged on its own.

I think the issues are separate and should be addressed separately. It seems however the fad to confuse them and attribute valuations so as to disparage good leadership in what one may regard as a just or unjust cause. Unless you're Kerry. Then you can have voted for the war and castigate the leadership for being leadership. You can have accepted the Intelligence estimate and made decisions on it and then castigate those decisions.
In the options of lead, follow, or get out of the way, Kerry should do the last, all IMHO, of course.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

I totally agree this is not a numbers game. My point was that it is not the number of individuals per country killed in a teroorist act BUT that they were killed.

I think we all agree on that one. Okay.

However, an act of terrorism is not an act of war from a specific country. I'm not sure how I would personally deal with it, but attacking the country(ies) from which the terrorists originate doesn't seem like the best answer, because terrorists do not speak for any country. Nor would they want to - they like to hide behind anonymity.

Originally Posted by inked

This gets to the heart of the arguments regarding just and unjust wars and they have been raging in some quarters of Christian thinking since Constantine legalized Christianity ~316 AD.

The moral implications of war and its justifications or lack of justifications are quite important and difficult as you note.

As I was starting to outline with how complex this issue is, it's very hard to decide what war is just and what one is unjust. I'm inclined to say they're all unjust, but one has to defend oneself if attacked. With terrorism, however, exactly who are you defending yourself from?

Originally Posted by inked

Leadership is a quality evaluated separately from the justification of a war. That necessary reality is judged on its own.

I think the issues are separate and should be addressed separately. It seems however the fad to confuse them and attribute valuations so as to disparage good leadership in what one may regard as a just or unjust cause. Unless you're Kerry. Then you can have voted for the war and castigate the leadership for being leadership. You can have accepted the Intelligence estimate and made decisions on it and then castigate those decisions.
In the options of lead, follow, or get out of the way, Kerry should do the last, all IMHO, of course.

I don't think the two issues are separate. In a general sense, if a leader is involved in a war, his conduct in the war will affect his leadership. There would be other qualities that a judgement of leadership would be based upon, but if the leader is involved in a war then it would be a factor as well.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and EITHER side, WHICHEVER happened to be in office, would give it a ride! Don't you?

if yer asking me do i think either candidate (and party) would use what ever advantage they can to claw their way to victory then definitely I agree. We have long past the stage where saying and doing pretty much anything is not off limits as long as they think it could help help them get elected. by any means necessary. theres too much money on the line by too many rich and powerful people to pull any punches now or to not stoop to the most basest of psychological trickery. of couse the sad thing is that we have ALL these distortions and dirty tricks and lowest common dinominator propaganda being blasted our way (especially if you happen to live in a swing state) 24 hours a day and really we are dealing with at best a coke vs pepsi distinction here. kerry is NOT a revolutionary by any means. hes just another politician. hes not as frightening as a second bush presidency by any means but dont fool yourself into thinking he represents anything fundamentally different from george bush on a large scale. its all puppets on the same stage. hm... did you have a question in there before i wandered off on my tangent?

[Janny]

Originally Posted by inked

Have there been any attacks on Canada from terrorists? Rationale?

I'm interested in where that question is going, but I don't really fancy answering it. Erm... could you cut to the answer and rhetorical point?

[sun-star]

I don't want to drag the thread away from its interesting discussion, just to add something to Janny's earlier post.

Originally Posted by Janny

As an aside, I mentioned recently (ie. 100 and something pages back ) that an English paper had suggested letter writing to people in swing states to persuade them not to vote for George Bush. I have now done research.

Did you see the replies the Guardian got from the US? Some of them are fantastic! Very creative insults you guys have

replies

[Janny]

*crying with laughter...*
Fantastic!
My personal favourites are:
Each email someone gets from some arrogant Brit telling us why to NOT vote for George Bush is going to backfire, you stupid, yellow-toothed pansies

and the one I have PG-13 censored (originally in caps, btw):
KEEP YOUR F****N' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, S***HEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR A**ES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH S**T!

One asks as an aside: 'When do you propose to add Michael Moore to your staff of lunatics?'

British stereotypes are alive and well.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Janny

I'm interested in where that question is going, but I don't really fancy answering it. Erm... could you cut to the answer and rhetorical point?

==================
I totally agree this is not a numbers game. My point was that it is not the number of individuals per country killed in a teroorist act BUT that they were killed.

This gets to the heart of the arguments regarding just and unjust wars and they have been raging in some quarters of Christian thinking since Constantine legalized Christianity ~316 AD.

The moral implications of war and its justifications or lack of justifications are quite important and difficult as you note.
==================
Repeat for Janny. If it's not clear, ask away and I'll try to answer.

[Nurvingiel]

Well, I understood your original post inked, though I did go find the numbers for interests sake.

I'm confused now, whose post are we responding to?

Erm, anyway, I think the most important part of my response was that since terrorists are not commiting an act of war on behalf of a nation, attacking a nation is probably not going to solve the problem, or something like that.

Incidentally, doesn't the USA have the most terrorist cells? I'm not saying you should attack yourself ( ), but shouldn't the money and attention on the 'war on terror' be focused inwards? Probably, this is already happening. But if you did severely hamper cells within the USA, attacks from outside the country would probably have less success (harder to plan, carry out etc.).

My relevancy to this thread with this post is that I hope either person who wins has such a plan.

[Janny]

Inked, you asked if there had been any attacks on Canada, and I presume the point you're making is either that Canada isn't the focal point for international terrorism, or it hasn't been so active in the war. I just wanted to see where you were going with it... And actually, what struck me was that actually there hadn't been attacks on UK soil either.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, I understood your original post inked, though I did go find the numbers for interests sake.

I'm confused now, whose post are we responding to?

Erm, anyway, I think the most important part of my response was that since terrorists are not commiting an act of war on behalf of a nation, attacking a nation is probably not going to solve the problem, or something like that.

Incidentally, doesn't the USA have the most terrorist cells? I'm not saying you should attack yourself ( ), but shouldn't the money and attention on the 'war on terror' be focused inwards? Probably, this is already happening. But if you did severely hamper cells within the USA, attacks from outside the country would probably have less success (harder to plan, carry out etc.).

My relevancy to this thread with this post is that I hope either person who wins has such a plan.

Its hard for a President to carry out something as big as this war on terror in just four years. In fact, its crazy. I don't think John Kerry is capable enough to take over something of this complicated. He has shown himself to be a master orater, but nothing much else.
And I think its too late to pull out of Iraq (if that was one of Kerry's plans...but I havent heard anything about him saying so...), if we do so, the battle is going to come over here.