The Official US President Election Thread

[Nurvingiel]

Oh I see now. Thanks JD. I guess it would take a while to figure out the electoral college votes, so televising only the official one makes sense.

[Janny]

Miss sun-star will be addressing the response to Master Janny's posts.

Janny will field but this one alone:

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Well, the Euro allies were out for revenge and Wilson was dying so the 13 points were doomed....

13?!

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

Hitler was a great terrorist. He had the backing of the German people due to the postWWI errors of the then allies. He was still a terrorist. he just happened to have the foremost mechanized army in the European states and he employed it. Terrorism on a massive scale. Ask the Poles.

I assume your definition of terrorist is someone who provokes terror (as in fear, not terrorism) for political ends. Is that correct? By that definition, many war leaders have been terrorists, because they have used terror in that way. Can you name a war where they haven't? Churchill did it (Janny quoted the bombing of Dresden earlier) and so do more recent leaders (what do you think shock and awe was about?) If every leader is a terrorist, no one is a terrorist, because the word loses meaning. Perhaps we have to confine our definition to "someone who uses terror outside legitimate means of warfare"?

Anyway, as Janny said, calling Hitler a terrorist does not help us at all. He was a terrorist by some definitions - but what does that tell us about how terrorists should be defeated? All it tells us is that terrorism takes many forms. WW2 was won by removing Hitler from power. A war on terrorism has to be fought in a different way. Iraq and Afghanistan tackled terrorism by removing supporters of terrorism from power. If you believe Hitler and terrorism are the same, why don't you tell George Bush which country he should invade to instantly remove all terrorism? It isn't that simple. We're in a war, and it doesn't do us any good to misrepresent the nature of the fight on our hands.

Also, you have to see the difference between making historical parallels ("Bush speaks out against a threat, Churchill spoke out against a threat, therefore there is a parallel between them") and directly equating events of the past with events of the present ("Hitler and terrorists are the same"). Hitler and terrorism were/are both threats to democracy and peace; I would say both were/are evil. But they do not use the same methods, they are not the same people, and you can't fight them in the same way.

Bush = Churchill
Kerry = Chamberlain
terrorists = Hitler

That's an equation. You need a parallel:

Bush and Churchill both address threats in effective ways
Kerry and Chamberlain both address threats in ineffective ways
Terrorists and Hitler both threaten world peace.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Exactly - and the scary thing about that was that Churchill was fired at first and ridiculed as a warmongering nutcase.

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. What happens to those who make history up as they go along...

Who do you think "fired" Churchill, exactly? What position do you believe he was holding when this happened? In what year did this happen?

Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1924-29. He finished in this position because the government of which he was a member were not re-elected. He was not given political office when the National Government was established in 1933 chiefly because he had been a bad Chancellor. He was still an MP, however, and he spoke out against Hitler - among other MPs, I should add. In 1939 he was appointed to leadership of the Admiralty (having held this position in WW1) and then became Prime Minister. The government of which he was leader was not re-elected in 1945, but he then became PM again in 1951 for four years.

When was he "fired" for his anti-Nazi views?

Thanks for posting the ballot paper, btw - very interesting.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Those who do not know history are bound to repeat it. What happens to those who make history up as they go along...

Who do you think "fired" Churchill, exactly? What position do you believe he was holding when this happened? In what year did this happen?

The thing is - he was fired for his outspoken views against hitler though. He was elected PM after people realized he was right about Hitler. Before that - he was ridiculed as a warmongering nutcase.

[edit: I'm going to get a book on Churchill and double check on this period of time]

[inked]

Sun-star:

Quote:
Bush = Churchill
Kerry = Chamberlain
terrorists = Hitler




That's an equation. You need a parallel


**************




BUSH // CHURCHILL
KERRY // CHAMBERLAIN
TERRORISTS // HITLER

There, now, feel better?

[Cirdan]

Bush as Churchill? ROFLMAO!!!
... Maybe I'm the Pope.

Church was involved in important naval projects such as the Dreadnaughts, was an active and eloquent writer and speaker all his life, and most of all was able to unify his nation in acts of shared sacrifice that made him so popular he could have won re-election post-mortem. He had a brilliant military mind for strategy and worked alliances like no one ever had. Bush has none of these qualities.

The other "parallels" are tenuous even with the most biased eye. Chamberlain negotiated with an actively invading leader an believed he had successed. The is no likeness in Kerry's career.

Hitler as terrorist? Then was Napoleon a terrorist? Alexander the Great? Cornwallis? American settlers? Anyone that actively sees to wage war against a nation (troops and civilians) would be a terrorist. It's to general to be lot of use for anything but simplifying the complex to no useful end.

[The Gaffer]

I'm surprised that there has been no mention of the article in one of the world's most respected medical journals which puts the estimate on the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the invasion at around 100,000.

Summary of The Lancet article on BBC site

Was it not reported in the US?

EDIT: Because I know we all care about dead civilians, here's the abstract:

Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey
The Lancet, 2004; 364(9445). 30 October 2004

Full text online (registration required) at www.thelancet.com.

Background: In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14·6 months before the invasion with the 17·8 months after it.

Methods: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17·8 months after the invasion with the 14·6-month period preceding it.

Findings: The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation: Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Cirdan

Hitler as terrorist? Then was Napoleon a terrorist? Alexander the Great? Cornwallis? American settlers? Anyone that actively sees to wage war against a nation (troops and civilians) would be a terrorist. It's to general to be lot of use for anything but simplifying the complex to no useful end.

Thank-you!
I thought I was going mad.
(I think I used ol' Alie the Great myself as an example)

[Nurvingiel]

Hey guys, the election is tomorrow! Are youexcited? I love elections, I hope you're all stoked.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

The thing is - he was fired for his outspoken views against hitler though. He was elected PM after people realized he was right about Hitler. Before that - he was ridiculed as a warmongering nutcase.

I don't want to keep going on about it... but he wasn't fired in the 1930s. You can say he came under fire, if you like but he never lost any job for speaking out against Hitler (and he was actually appointed PM, not elected, once Chamberlain resigned). You're right about him being ridiculed for his views, of course.

[edit: I'm going to get a book on Churchill and double check on this period of time]

Good idea, it's a period in history I've always found fascinating

Originally Posted by inked

There, now, feel better?

Much

Are any of you going to do something special for the election - election night parties or similar?

[Nurvingiel]

Let's have an election night party right here in this thread! It will start at um..... 9pm EST so... erm, let's just say all day Nov. 2 and 3! Wooo!

[Valandil]

Predictions? Projections??

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I'm done talking about this - there is no sense in going around and around anymore in circles. I have stated my reasons why I am against national election for president, you claim I do not understand it - when I understand it all too well.

fair enough

[inked]

BUSH in a very tight race!

[inked]

By the by, I still aver that Hitler was a terrorist who gained power. Look at the years in Germany prior to his successful accumulation of power. That he merely continued the trend in power and prior to the actualization of WWII is obvious. Think OBL in Germany!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

By the by, I still aver that Hitler was a terrorist who gained power. Look at the years in Germany prior to his successful accumulation of power. That he merely continued the trend in power and prior to the actualization of WWII is obvious. Think OBL in Germany!

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, de Salazar,
history is littered with terrorists who gained power

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

someone said to me bush and kerry are very close at the moment, is this still the case?

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, de Salazar,
history is littered with terrorists who gained power

Yes... but from my history lessons I recall some terrorists... who were... erm... left wingers and who were slightly more... erm... prominent than Seneor de Salazar of Portugal...


Inked, they may well be terrorists in charge of countries, but we can't learn lessons from them to apply because Osama doesn't have himself a country.

If he had, I would suggest letting it take France and then unleashing Britain, the US, the Commonwealth countries and the USSR on it.

[Nurvingiel]

Hey Janny, how much of your signature is you joking around?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hey Janny, how much of your signature is you joking around?

I like his signature. It's actually very true about fatass moore.

Sunstar - yes - it has been reported about the 100,000 dead. IN Britain - has it been reported about the millions killed and tortured in Iraq since 1991 under Saddam Hussein?