Ralph Nader Is Insane [Archive]

The Hulk

February 26th, 2008, 12:54

I think Nader brought up some interesting points when he was on CNN yesterday. I haven't seen evidence he is insane though. I don''t recall his exact words during the interview, but he said something to the effect that both Clinton and Obama were talking to people in Ohio, trying to sound anti-NAFTA and talking about how NAFTA has caused so much outsourcing and cost so many American citizens their jobs, but they were vague in what they would do about NAFTA, neither came out and said they would repeal it. Nader seemed to be saying that he wanted specifics from them, instead of them trying to score cheap political points with the issue.
He has little to no chance of winning, but maybe he can put pressure on Clinton and Obama to keep them honest and specific about what they will do on certain issues. I don't think thats a bad thing, any more than if someone like Nader were to do something similar on the republican side of the aisle.

On a side note, I agree with PJ that McCain does have anger management issues and that is cause for concern. I mean this guy could have his finger on the proverbial big red button in the future in DC that could launch thousands of nukes. Do we really want a guy who can't control his temper to have the power to bring about the end of the world? Imagine if he and Putin spoke on the phone or in person and McCain lost his temper and told Putin to go F himself, like the way he lost his temper with senator John Cornyn awhile back.

Eliaures

February 26th, 2008, 13:53

I see no reason to think Republicans will cheat and Democrats won't. Claims about what happened in Florida in 2000 are dime-a-dozen, IMO.

I'm with PJ, that doesn't mean their baseless. It's not just in Florida, see Ohio as well.

And yes, Republicans don't have a complete monopoly on voter cheating, my own state has a past with that with LBJ in his local runs for Congress.

It's been Republicans that have been most prominent lately though. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations. A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, was discovered shredding Democratic registrations. In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment,

dteowner

February 26th, 2008, 16:18

In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment,Naturally, the voting machines that failed were 100% democrat votes, right? There's no way to know and no reason to assume the distribution on those machines was any different from the overall distribution in the affected states. Unless, of course, that would poke a hole in the conspiracy theory... :rolleyes:

blatantninja

February 26th, 2008, 16:33

They are all equally worthless.

Prime Junta

February 26th, 2008, 17:06

Naturally, the voting machines that failed were 100% democrat votes, right? There's no way to know and no reason to assume the distribution on those machines was any different from the overall distribution in the affected states. Unless, of course, that would poke a hole in the conspiracy theory... :rolleyes:

Actually, dte, there are statistical methods that can show to a fairly high degree of reliability what the discarded votes would have been. It's also possible to study what would cause results that slant one way rather than the other. I haven't studied this question in depth, but I have seen some attempts at this kind of analysis, and I have formed the impression that the flaws in the electoral process in Florida *may have* systematically favored Republicans.

More worryingly, a very similar story emerged in Ohio in 2004.

As I said, I'd have to do a lot more reading to actually decide that yes, indeed, the presidential elections in 2000 (and possibly 2004) were probably stolen -- but from the relatively small amount of reading I've done, I can't decide that this probably wasn't the case either.

There is a stink of intentional skulduggery rather than honest error about the whole process, from the "butterfly ballots" to the "hanging chads" to the fight about whether and what to recount, to the actions of Katherine Harris, to the quickly revamped "felon list" that mistakenly disqualified a large number of (probably Democratic-voting) blacks. Could it all have been innocent? Perhaps. Was the overall effect party-neutral? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Was the effect big enough to swing Florida? I can't honestly answer "no way."

See here for a brief summary of the Florida controversy: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000_Florid a_results#Controversial_issues_in_Florida ].

magerette

February 26th, 2008, 17:25

In my youth in Chicago, it was a pretty common phenomenon to see Daley's(the original Richard J Daley of 1967 Dem Convention fame) precinct captains rolling the drunks out of the corner bars and charitably ensuring they had a few bucks to continue drinking after they were assisted to vote for The Party, as well as the mysterious 'graveyard ' vote, predating Night of the Living Dead, where registered democrats continued to exercise their voting privileges from beyond the grave.

Whether it's corruption or incompetence, vote tallies are extremely vulnerable, and if votes can be manipulated in a surreptitious manner, I'm sure they have been and will be. The stakes are too high for some people not to try to rig things. I wonder if electronic/computerized voting helps or hinders this tendency.

blatantninja

February 26th, 2008, 17:44

Actually, dte, there are statistical methods that can show to a fairly high degree of reliability what the discarded votes would have been.

I'm a student of statistics myself, but given how wrong the voter sentiment polls were in several primaries up to the day of voting (New Hampshire Hillary-Obama comes to mind), I'd say that people are fickle enough that statistics aren't very reliable in determining what votes would have been.

Prime Junta

February 26th, 2008, 17:53

Whether it's corruption or incompetence, vote tallies are extremely vulnerable, and if votes can be manipulated in a surreptitious manner, I'm sure they have been and will be. The stakes are too high for some people not to try to rig things. I wonder if electronic/computerized voting helps or hinders this tendency.

It would certainly be possible to set up electronic voting in a way that would hinder electoral fraud. The trouble is that that's not how it's done in the US.

In the US case, you're missing one critical component -- and it's unlikely you'll adopt it any time soon. Namely, a reliable way to electronically authenticate voters. An electronic national ID, in other words.

Estonia has one, and their e-voting system works quite well and is pretty transparent.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_in_Estonia ]

These guys have come a very long way since 1991. :salute:

Prime Junta

February 26th, 2008, 17:55

I'm a student of statistics myself, but given how wrong the voter sentiment polls were in several primaries up to the day of voting (New Hampshire Hillary-Obama comes to mind), I'd say that people are fickle enough that statistics aren't very reliable in determining what votes would have been.

I don't see the connection. Primaries involve low participation -- 10% is considered pretty high. As such, there's a lot of volatility. In the actual elections, there's a pretty solid statistical basis to look at -- different racial groups have fairly strong preferences for different parties. So, for example, something that discourages Floridian blacks from voting would skew the result in favor of Republicans; something that discourages Floridian middle-aged white men from voting would skew the result in favor of Democrats.

chamr

February 26th, 2008, 21:03

INader seemed to be saying that he wanted specifics from them, instead of them trying to score cheap political points with the issue.
He has little to no chance of winning, but maybe he can put pressure on Clinton and Obama to keep them honest and specific about what they will do on certain issues. I don't think thats a bad thing, any more than if someone like Nader were to do something similar on the republican side of the aisle.

Exactly. I can't see how anyone can call him insane. He is the most straight-talking, to the point "politician" out there. I love that he makes no bones about nailing Democratic candidates to the wall for their BS'ing. I'm glad he's a part of the national debate.

As to whether he should run, that's a tough one. On the one hand, I agree with him that it's pretty pathetic for the Democrats to try to blame him if they lose. They should sink or swim on their own merits, not look to blame someone else. Plus, I've always believed that I should vote who I think would be best for the job. Not who's most likely to win. Having said that, at this point, I'm so desperate to get the Republicans and, more specifically the Neo-Cons, out of power that I'm willing to bend my principles a bit.

On the voter fraud issue, there was actually a Congressional-ordered report on the Ohio problems in 2004 that was pretty damning of Republican tampering. The trick was the Republican-controlled Congress at the time made sure that there was a stipulation that no recommendations of the report would be binding and then they buried it after it was published. It's called the Conyers Report. You can google it. Here's a key quote from the Executive Summary:

"First, in the run up to election day, the following actions by Mr. Blackwell, the Republican Party and election officials disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of Ohio citizens, predominantly minority and Democratic voters: "

Eliaures

February 27th, 2008, 01:15

There are always ways of explaining away whatever shines a light on impropriety. Scream "Commie!" when someone disagrees with your views of the country or economy. Scream "Unpatriotic" when you want to impugn someones character. Scream "conspiracy theory" and you get an easy link to the Kennedy assassination, Roswell, and the Pentagon video of 9-11 canards, thereby diffusing the argument without much effort.

Squeek

February 27th, 2008, 01:32

As far as I can tell, nobody's screamed any of that. I agree that there's always different ways of looking at things, though. Some people seem to do that as a hobby.

Nader is a smart guy with shockingly poor judgement. I really do think he's nuts.

zahratustra

February 27th, 2008, 03:19

dteowner

February 27th, 2008, 05:40

There are always ways of explaining away whatever shines a light on impropriety.I notice you forgot one. Scream "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!"

chamr

February 27th, 2008, 07:25

I notice you forgot one. Scream "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!"

Yeah, except that's true. There is one. :p

Prime Junta

February 27th, 2008, 11:11

Yeah, except that's true. There is one. :p

Not really... but there is (or, rather, was?) something very much like it. It's not a conspiracy per se; it's about preconceptions and attitudes. You can even see it with dte here -- he has a reflexive tendency to pooh-pooh claims about wrongdoing by Republicans or the Republican party in general (such as here when discussing possible electoral fraud). Almost all Republicans share the same attitude.

When the Republicans are in power, the aggregate effect of these attitudes is that nobody bothers to do anything much about allegations of Republican wrongdoing, while any allegations about Democrat misdeeds are gone over with a toothcomb -- and the perception of horrible crimes remains even if nothing concrete actually ever comes up. (For example, the impression left by the Swift Boat smear had remained with Magerette, even though just about all of their allegations had been thoroughly debunked.)

This further reinforces the perception that Republicans are being maliciously picked on ("nothing bad ever shows up since it's never investigated") while Democrats are doing all kinds of nastiness ("if they weren't, why all the investigations?") and a prevailing discourse emerges that makes "left-wing crazy-talk" the default assumption about any such allegations. It's a self-reinforcing cycle, with no actual conspiracies needed.

I have a feeling that something like this is almost bound to emerge if a single group dominates the discourse as long as the Republicans have in the US.

Eliaures

February 27th, 2008, 18:00

Whew PJ, thanks. I wanted to make a similar statement, but I don't have quite the eloquence you have.

My biggest frustration is, is that it's not my purpose to pick on Republicans. I'm as frustrated or more so with Democratic waffling and spinelessness, and I get just as outraged when I find that they are playing politics rather than promoting the public good. It must be admitted though, its Republicans who are showing the most brazen and obvious malfeasance. They went apeshit over Bill Clinton's lying, yet have remained positively docile over W's. Bill Clinton deserved what he got. Doesn't Bush and Cheney deserve the same?

Oh, and Ralph Nader may not be crazy, but he's more egomaniac than philanthropist. Where has he been the last four years? Has he been trying to promote his issues in between the last election?

vanedor

February 27th, 2008, 20:36

Yep, well said, PJ.

Squeek

February 27th, 2008, 20:50

...it's about preconceptions and attitudes. You can even see it with dte here -- he has a reflexive tendency to pooh-pooh claims....Others always serve as the best examples, don't they? Certainly not ourselves!

Isn't it just plain common sense to expect the burdon of proof to be on those making claims? Shouldn't that proof be convincing? Claims are easy to make, after all. Any fool can make a claim and explain and defend it.

Internet logic can be a little funny that way. Standards for ideas are different, somehow. More than anything else, it reminds me of prison logic.

chamr

February 27th, 2008, 21:09

Not really... but there is (or, rather, was?) something very much like it.

Um, PJ? That was a joke... :rolleyes:

But now that we're on the subject, while not really a "vast right wing conspiracy", it's a pretty well accepted fact that a very conservative wing of the Republican party known as Neo-Conservatives have been waging a rather well orchestrated campaign to push the country pretty far right since the 70's or 80's through organizations such as the Federalist Society, the Christian Coalition, the American Enterprise Institute, and so on. You can get more details at the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

While developing a wide-spread ideology and then trying to turn that into an agenda to change a nation isn't new, as is usually the case, the conservatives are far more organized and effective at it than the liberals. And the neo-cons have been have been almost shockingly good at it over the last 20 years or so. They've made tremendous gains. Here's just a few examples:
1) They've expanded the power of the Executive branch over the other two quite a bit to the point where Bush is making liberal use of "signing statements" on bills that effectively say he can ignore the law if he wants to, and executive orders that are at such volume as to be arguably keeping pace with the Legislature in making laws.
2) They've dramatically changed the face of the judiciary from the Supreme Court all the way down to the lowest federal courts as well as some state court systems through Executive and other appointments to the bench into one that interprets the law and the Constitution in a very, very conservative way.
3) They've greatly reduced governmental transparency and accountability. The amount of times they've refused to turn over documents or information to the Legislature, independent investigators or even the Justice Department itself is staggering. And they're mostly getting away with it.
4) They've set us back many decades in having a bit of high ground in the human rights arena through our covert prison camps, our refusal to give these so-called "enemy combatants" any form of due process, and increasing the leeway with which the government can spy on it's own citizens with impunity to a level that probably exceeds the levels achieved in the pre-Viet Nam era.
5) They've essentially neutered the EPA and done everything short of repealing the Clean Air & Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Steven Johnson's refusal to grant California the right to restrict emissions beyond the federal guidelines over the stringent objections of every single person in his Department is the latest example. And the bastard still has his job. They've also put off any significant action on global warming in part through systematic editing and censoring of the government's top scientists. In fact, the clever weasels even managed to turn the issue into a windfall for their corporate farming buddies by creating new subsidies for corn to support an increase of ethanol usage that most experts on the topic say is a waste of time and money and may actually contribute to global warming rather than reduce it! And don't even get me started on the idiocy that is "clean coal technology". Jeez...
6) Through re-making the country's legal system, they've struck blow after blow to the labor unions with several key, pro-management rulings.
7) The pre-emptive strike foriegn policy doctrine they put into action with the invasion of Iraq is a HUGELY aggressive change for the country that should not be underestimated. That we would invade them under such flimsy, and ultimately concocted, premises with the hubris of not just influencing change in another country but out-and-out hand crafting their government ourselves is probably very troubling to the rest of the world and should be to us citizens. We've basically said "we can invade anyone we want and there's nothing you can do to stop us". eek.

and so on...

The bright side (if you're not a new-conservative, that is) is that they just may have pushed the envelop too far. On the dark, dark day that was November 3rd, 2004, I told myself and anyone that would listen, "this next 4 years will give them just enough rope to hang themselves". While it's way too early to call that prediction, I'm cautiously optimistic...

aries100

February 27th, 2008, 21:29

I'll just comment on the voter fraud issue for now.

Although living in Denmark I always follow the US presidential elections with great vigour. I remember seeing a section? of the tv-news in either 2000 or 2004 where I saw and heard that in what is known as african-american communities polling station were closed at 8PM even if there were people waiting to vote. Also, in another news section, I saw and heard that in the suburbs (where mainly the republicans live) there were pen, paper and pencils, while this wasn't the case in the african-american communities.

I think the whole problem stems from the fact that each states, or sometimes each county within each state, can decide for themselves how to measure if and when a vote is registered. In Denmark, we have a law that regulates how an election is to take place and when a cast vote is valid or not.

Let's not forget that Al Gore actually got the majority of the vote in 2000, while Geroge Bush got the majority of the electorate's votes - by winning Florida.
Of course, one cannot say that every vote cast and not counted in the 2000 and 2004 election would have gone the way of the democrats...

txa1265

February 27th, 2008, 21:36

Let's not forget that Al Gore actually got the majority of the vote in 2000
Regardless of how I feel, what does that matter? It is completely irrelevant to the process.

Prime Junta

February 27th, 2008, 21:47

Others always serve as the best examples, don't they? Certainly not ourselves!

True, but, yet again, that don't mean it ain't so. And I really do wish you'd drop that passive-aggressive attitude of yours -- you're much more fun to talk to without it.

Isn't it just plain common sense to expect the burdon of proof to be on those making claims? Shouldn't that proof be convincing? Claims are easy to make, after all. Any fool can make a claim and explain and defend it.

Of course it is -- and that wasn't my point. My point was the presumption and the "flavor" of the discourse. Compare:

(a) "That's a serious allegation. Do you have evidence for it?"
(b) "Ch'yeah, that's the Great Right-Wing Conspiracy in action again, right?"

Asking to see evidence is one thing; pooh-poohing the allegations as flaky conspiracy theories is another altogether.

The thing is, *there is evidence* -- and it's quite well documented, too. Republican lawmakers and people close to them have even landed in prison for it. Yet what do you think has made the bigger mark in public consciousness -- Jack Abramoff and his connection to Bush, Cheney, & co, or the Swift Boaters? Tom DeLay or Whitewater? Alberto Gonzalez and the Mysteriously Disappearing Attorneys, or Monica Lewinsky? Somehow the former just kinda fade out of sight, while the latter -- which, may I remind you, ended up with no evidence of any illegalities whatsoever -- remain as indelible stains on the character of the people involved.

Like it or not, there is a double standard about how this stuff gets portrayed, investigated, and remembered -- and while it isn't a conspiracy, the end result is much the same.

(Incidentally, that's what bothers me about the Obama/Clinton face-off too -- it's pretty damn obvious that the media treats the two rather differently. As I've said, I'm not a huge Clinton fan, and I'd rather see Obama get the nomination -- but the way the media treat Clinton just isn't fair.)

Squeek

February 27th, 2008, 22:48

And I really do wish you'd drop that passive-aggressive attitude of yours...My point was the presumption and the "flavor" of the discourse....Asking to see evidence is one thing; pooh-poohing the allegations as flaky conspiracy theories is another altogether.Fortunately for me, there's no rule here that says you have to enjoy my attitude. For what it's worth, yours can sometimes be a little hard to take too.

As to your point, it was clear but unconvincing (IMO, anyway). You tend to express yourself well, PJ, and I admire that. But some of us will never buy into some of your skewed points of view, no matter how hard you sell them.

dteowner

February 27th, 2008, 23:14

Prime Junta

February 27th, 2008, 23:45

Fortunately for me, there's no rule here that says you have to enjoy my attitude. For what it's worth, yours can sometimes be a little hard to take too.

As you wish.

/me bows out

Prime Junta

February 27th, 2008, 23:50

I'm not sure how my "conspiracy" comment is any more flimsy or blindly dismissive than the similar comments that I responded to, PJ. So why did you not question Eliaures? Perhaps because you're sympathetic to that slant of thought, which is the exact same thing you're calling me out for?

Perhaps -- that sort of thing is entirely human, after all.

But then again perhaps not. If you'll review my posting history, I think you'll find quite common instances of my calling out people whose point of view I generally sympathize with, if I feel they're talking through their hats. IIRC it's even occurred with Eliaures. In this case, though, I thought he was pretty much right.

(See me vs. JemyM for some particularly vitriolic examples -- and he's much closer to me politically and, on the whole, philosophically than most people here.)

magerette

February 28th, 2008, 18:30

Another very educating discourse. Thanks in particular to chamr, for the clear exposition of what's going on with the neo-cons( a term I've only defined contextually til now.)

One brief personal comment--afa the Swift Boat situation--I was predisposed to believe the allegations because my husband accepted them without question and added a few of his own based upon his Viet Nam military experience and the contemporaneous anecdotal evidence he found convincing regarding John Kerry's character and actions. From what Prime Junta convinced me to explore on the subject, I really couldn't see that either side of the controversy had proved anything, for or against the allegations. Once again, that doesn't mean they were baseless, (or that they were true.) I suppose it does illustrate how 'facts' come to lodge in our brains, though.

* snip*
Like it or not, there is a double standard about how this stuff gets portrayed, investigated, and remembered -- and while it isn't a conspiracy, the end result is much the same.

(Incidentally, that's what bothers me about the Obama/Clinton face-off too -- it's pretty damn obvious that the media treats the two rather differently. As I've said, I'm not a huge Clinton fan, and I'd rather see Obama get the nomination -- but the way the media treat Clinton just isn't fair.)

I'm actually beginning to agree with you. The media has once again picked the candidate. IMO The recent debate showed clearly that Russert in particular held her in contempt and dislike, and was only too ready to focus the critical glare of the hard answers on her while happy to cut her off and propose straw men for Obama to tilt against. I thought she handled it well, despite her unfortunate tendency to purse her lips and look like she was about to send Obama to the detention hall for lunch period. It's hard for me to let go of my personal dislike for the woman, but it's one thing to dislike her, and another to allow the dislike to color the facts. However, I still don't think a return to Clintonism is the best answer in this election.

chamr

February 28th, 2008, 22:55

I still don't think a return to Clintonism is the best answer in this election.

Yeah, this is the key for me.

I like Obama, but I do think the "all talk, no experience" argument has merit. It does make me nervous to think of someone with so little executive experience (just a lawyer and a legislator) running the country. I've seen plenty of lawyers and doctors take on executive jobs many times thinking that their superior intellect and obnoxious sense of entitlement automatically make them a good executive. Often, it works to opposite effect.

But on the other hand, I can't help thinking you're right. I never was a Clinton fan, and he was just way too old school, egomaniacal, back-room-deal-maker in the end. And it's hard to believe that the Mrs. would be that much different.

And on top of that, I think the general election is totally up for grabs, no matter what the talking heads might like you to believe. It presents a strong dilemma. I almost (almost mind you) wish someone like Biden or Edwards or even Gore were the Democratic candidate when considering solely the chances of kicking the Neo-Cons out of the White House. Hmmm.....

Squeek

February 29th, 2008, 00:01

Don't forget that the Republicans are the minority party and aren't able to elect candidates to national office by themselves. Conservatives, old or new, just don't have the numbers. The fact is, Bush got elected (and re-elected) by convincing people other than conservatives to vote for him.

That's John McCain's strength as well. Historically, he's always had plenty of crossover appeal. A recent national poll showed him ahead of both Obama and Clinton, and I don't find that surprising at all.

Clinton is better matched to defeat McCain (IMO) but not without a tough fight, especially now that Nader will be leaching away Democratic votes.

zahratustra

February 29th, 2008, 01:42

Yeah, this is the key for me.

I like Obama, but I do think the "all talk, no experience" argument has merit. It does make me nervous to think of someone with so little executive experience (just a lawyer and a legislator) running the country.

While not disagreeing with the main thrust of your post chamr can you tell me how much more of executive experience Bill Clinton had when he become president?

chamr

February 29th, 2008, 02:01

While not disagreeing with the main thrust of your post chamr can you tell me how much more of executive experience Bill Clinton had when he become president?

Sure. He was Governor of Arkansas. That's like CEO of the state. There's a reason Governes tend to do better than Congressmen or Senators in Presidential elections..

Korplem

February 29th, 2008, 07:36

I try to stay out of the politics forum because, mainly, I can see when the waters are too deep for me (also because I have a hard time remembering what I've read is classified, heh) but I feel compelled to throw in a few cents here.

Prime Junta, I know you get a lot of flak around here, although it has lessened, so I thought I'd let you know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I sincerely hope that you are involved, at least a little, in your own government. It would seem almost a disservice to civilization for you to not be involved.

As for the conspiracy mentality, I'd have to agree that Republicans do tend to get off the hook more easily. I was going to write arguments and examples but I decided I'm too lazy. :smug:

SacrificiaLamb

February 29th, 2008, 18:51

Prime Junta

February 29th, 2008, 21:19

Prime Junta, I know you get a lot of flak around here, although it has lessened, so I thought I'd let you know that I have a great deal of respect for you. I sincerely hope that you are involved, at least a little, in your own government. It would seem almost a disservice to civilization for you to not be involved.

I vote. Generally speaking. Somehow the people I vote for never seem to get elected, though. Does that count?

I did make an attempt at engaging in politics once, but I didn't have the stomach for it. Politics attracts people who are ambitious and who like power. I'm not and I don't, so that didn't work out.

But thanks, that was very flattering. :)

Prime Junta

February 29th, 2008, 21:23

I still don't understand why. Only because he dares to be an alternative, possibly preventing the lesser of two evils from winning?

There is that -- politics *is* about choosing the lesser evil. Someone who blocks that is not, generally speaking, a constructive force.

My main beef with Nader is that he could have made a genuine, patient, slow effort at building a viable third party -- you know, organizing at the grassroots level, attracting new political talent, making itself felt at the municipal and eventually the state level, that sort of thing. He has the name recognition, the resources, the program, and the organizational savvy. Yet somehow the Green Party always remains the functional equivalent of Nader barking from the sidelines every four years.

I don't know his motives, naturally, but it sure *looks* like ego-tripping to me -- and his high-minded speeches about it sound more like rationalization than ratiocination.

Prime Junta

February 29th, 2008, 21:23

vanedor

February 29th, 2008, 21:48

I wonder how many more iterations it will take for people to realize that the 'democratic' lever-pulling system is a farce. Politicians (president, congress, senate) are nothing more than actors on a stage. The real power lies with the global elites, Rothschilds, etc., who control money supply through the central banks. The banks and the CIA (and other intelligence agencies) make the wheels turn. The president is a sock puppet.

Long life to the communist party!

Seriously, I'm tired to hear that same kind of old conspiracy theory that put both the Nazi, the communists, and many other dictatorship in power. It serves as excuse for a handful of dictator to remain in power and prevent democracy from rising. Only difference now is that the jews are missing. Wait, Rothschild, that's a jewish family!

The rich of this world, the «global elite» are too many, too different of opinion, of interest to hold the true power. They try to influence and they are sometimes succesful, sometimes not. Sometimes they even get in jail no matter how many billions they have.

txa1265

February 29th, 2008, 21:55

My main beef with Nader is that he could have made a genuine, patient, slow effort at building a viable third party

I agree - it was one thing when it was Ross Perot and the man *was* the party ... but Nader was supposed to be a leader of a movement. The need really hasn't abated, but he has done nothing to help it along.

SacrificiaLamb

February 29th, 2008, 22:18

Nope, that's not how it works either. It's a comforting fantasy, though.

Enjoy your delusion.

SacrificiaLamb

February 29th, 2008, 22:21

Long life to the communist party!

Seriously, I'm tired to hear that same kind of old conspiracy theory that put both the Nazi, the communists, and many other dictatorship in power. It serves as excuse for a handful of dictator to remain in power and prevent democracy from rising. Only difference now is that the jews are missing. Wait, Rothschild, that's a jewish family!

The rich of this world, the «global elite» are too many, too different of opinion, of interest to hold the true power. They try to influence and they are sometimes succesful, sometimes not. Sometimes they even get in jail no matter how many billions they have.

Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Rothschilds and company first.

Another Great Depression, larger actually, and another World War are in the making. By the end of this year, it will be obvious to everyone. Giving up on the political system is the best thing that could happen, but obviously most prefer to remain inside the box, which works to the benefit of the powers.

vanedor

February 29th, 2008, 22:41

By pure curiosity, I'm wondering what alternative do you propose?

February 29th, 2008, 23:07

Prime Junta

February 29th, 2008, 23:35

Maybe you should learn a little bit about the Rothschilds and company first.

Another Great Depression, larger actually, and another World War are in the making. By the end of this year, it will be obvious to everyone. Giving up on the political system is the best thing that could happen, but obviously most prefer to remain inside the box, which works to the benefit of the powers.

Yah, might as well nip out behind the back and shoot ourselves now, would save trouble later.

Anyway, I'll give you the depression -- or, at least, a very severe and protracted recession -- but not the world war, at least not in the traditional (i.e., WW1-WW2 sense of the word).

And no, it really doesn't work like that. There is no shadowy cabal pulling the strings behind the scenes, and you're not being very amusing, original, or even interesting with your really stale cryptic hints. You're only showing your own ignorance (and insecurity) about how the world really works by taking refuge in those comforting fantasies of yours.

dteowner

February 29th, 2008, 23:58

I've always found the 'lesser of two evils' arguement odd, does anyone seriously content that 8 years of president Gore would have been the same as 8 of president Bush? And if you do do you really believe the establishment unified in opposition to change what difference could an independant president without party support in congress or senate hope to make?While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Prime Junta

March 1st, 2008, 00:00

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

@dte, the Iraq invasion has nothing to do with terrorism. Surely you realize that?

Second, it's by no means a given that the military adventures of America post 9/11 have reduced the risk of terrorism -- in fact, the contrary may very well be true. Counter-terrorism work is difficult and takes brains and patience. The Bush administration has done just about everything wrong about it -- I can't see how Gore could possibly have done worse.

Edit: OK, that was a slight exaggeration -- the first part of the Afghanistan campaign was handled rather well, and succeeded in busting up Al Qaeda 1.0 (although not capturing or killing OBL & co.) Apart from that, though, it's been a pretty dismal job.

chamr

March 1st, 2008, 01:51

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

Do you really believe Gore would not have gone into Afghanistan? Why do you think that? He was part of the administration that tried to take Osama out with the cruise missile. He certainly was no fan of the man before 9/11, and I haven't seen one iota of credible evidence that would lead me to believe that Gore would not have gone after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in much the same way Bush did.

Second point: do you really think the Iraq invasion has made us safer? Really? Every single indication, including analysis by the CIA and the military themselves, should lead any reasonable person to believe that we made ourselves more vulnerable to terrorism by invading and, more importantly, completely bungling the post-invasion occupation. I think any reasonable person would agree that, hindsight being 20/20, had Gore been president and not invaded Iraq, we'd be much, much better off than we are today. To draw any other conclusion is, well, mind-boggling, to put it mildly...

Eliaures

March 1st, 2008, 01:57

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

I'm sorry, I really don't buy this. My speculation is that we would have had a more balanced and proper response to 9-11 had Gore been President. I would bet we'd have gone in to Afghanistan and more than likely would have addressed the real problem of Al Qaida by dealing with Pakistan.

I think we've just been lucky that we haven't been struck again. What has the shrub really done to protect us from terrorists? Our ports are still vulnerable, nuclear power plants are un-secure, our borders are still porous (especially Canada where some actual terrorists crossed into the US), airport security is a placebo, intelligence is collecting so much data they can't parse it all, and we've stirred up the hornet's nest with our "diplomacy" towards the Middle East. Good lord, I don't see how anyone could think Gore could have handled it worse.

chamr

March 1st, 2008, 03:27

I think we've just been lucky that we haven't been struck again. What has the shrub really done to protect us from terrorists? Our ports are still vulnerable, nuclear power plants are un-secure, our borders are still porous (especially Canada where some actual terrorists crossed into the US), airport security is a placebo, intelligence is collecting so much data they can't parse it all, and we've stirred up the hornet's nest with our "diplomacy" towards the Middle East. Good lord, I don't see how anyone could think Gore could have handled it worse.
Or even as bad.

The problem with the whole "making us safer" bent we're on is that we're going about it the wrong way. We simply can not make ourselves safer from any serious terrorist threat, which Al Qaeda obviously is, buy hiring tons of people to check ID's that can easily be faked, buying hugely expensive X-ray machines that will probably never catch a bomb in my lifetime, and building hugely expensive towers in the middle of the desert with hugely expensive cameras mounted on them that can easily be avoided like all static defenses throughout the history of man. It's all foolishness. And plays right into their hands by wasting tons of money on ineffective methods thus dragging us down further economically while accomplishing nothing. They must laugh there asses off when they read about the latest boondoggle the Bush administration touts as "making Americans safer".

There are only two things that will make a real difference: good intelligence operations and a foreign policy that ultimately contributes to the regular people around the terrorists deciding they're better off not supporting and maybe even turning them in or fighting them themselves than they are supporting them, whether actively or passively.

March 1st, 2008, 05:31

While we would have had a different 8 years, I don't know that it would have been much better or worse. It's projections at best, but instead of the Iraq war maybe we end up with a more significant terror problem resulting from Gore's expected lack of response.

I wasn't intenting to make a claim as to better or worse, as you quite rightly point out its all speculation at this point. However reguardless of which way you lean politically I think we can all agree that the choices made in the elections (and especially Bush/Gore given everything that happened after) made a real difference, contary to the cynical posturing of the Nader camp.

Squeek

March 1st, 2008, 18:02

I still don't understand why [Nader's insane]. Nader's an extreme pragmatic who's sometimes comfortable ignoring facts that shouldn't be ignored. His causes for the greater good are sometimes done at the expense of others whose suffering doesn't seem matter enough to him. It's out of whack.

I don't know about you, bkrueger, but I'd have trouble sleeping at night if I had ignored warnings and was responsible for having put George W. Bush into office. Nader shrugs it off. He's nuts.

Prime Junta

March 1st, 2008, 19:50

There are only two things that will make a real difference: good intelligence operations and a foreign policy that ultimately contributes to the regular people around the terrorists deciding they're better off not supporting and maybe even turning them in or fighting them themselves than they are supporting them, whether actively or passively.

Unfortunately, some application of lethal force is also necessary. The difficult bit is to know how much and when. Too much and in the wrong place will simply create cycles of violence that make the problem worse. For example, the early part of the Afghanistan operation was undeniably effective, whereas the Israeli operations in Gaza are obviously going nowhere.

chamr

March 1st, 2008, 21:30

Squeek

March 1st, 2008, 22:49

So effectively you want to patronize those people, who would decide for the third possibility. In other words you want to prevent people from voting as they chose. Do you believe this is democratic? That you have the right to decide instead of them?I'm suggesting Nader has terrible judgment, bkrueger, but I'm not suggesting he be denied his right to run for President. No one else is suggesting that either.

Our political system isn't as simple as you may think. It's a paradox, but there are more than two political parties in our two-party system. Their relevance is a matter of opinion, of course, but lesser parties have risen to prominence (the Republican Party did) and third-party candidates do manage to sometimes get elected as congressmen, senators and governors. Even if they don't manage to get elected, they can certainly make a difference, and that's exactly why Nader's running.

So the question is whether or not his running is a good idea. I think it was a terrible idea last time and a crazy idea this time.

dteowner

March 1st, 2008, 22:49

3. I am convinced that eight years of Gore would have been better than eight years of Bush, because of the criminal war aginst Irak.
But Bush and the people behind him are responsible here. And everybody, who voted for his second term are accomplices of a war crime, because they could know at this point in time that this war was illegal. But those people who didn't vote for him are not responsible, even if they didn't vote for the democats, see issue 1. above..With all due respect, go get bent. Your flights of fantasy have been shot down enough that I'm amazed you keep putting them in the air. It's becoming tiresome.

dteowner

March 1st, 2008, 22:57

Unfortunately, some application of lethal force is also necessary. The difficult bit is to know how much and when. Too much and in the wrong place will simply create cycles of violence that make the problem worse. For example, the early part of the Afghanistan operation was undeniably effective, whereas the Israeli operations in Gaza are obviously going nowhere.And this is exactly what I was aiming at. Dubya ended up going too far. My speculation, based on the campaign rhetoric and the political powerbase he would have had to appease, is that Gore would have fallen woefully short. I didn't even attempt to bring economic policy into the "alternative history" discussion since there are far too many variables running around to offer up anything beyond a SWAG (simple, wild-ass guess). That said, my SWAG is that Gore would have gotten us to our current economic woes far sooner, if only because Iraq increased government spending and reduced the available workforce (making it easier to keep hitting that 5% unemployment number that everyone likes to see).

March 1st, 2008, 23:13

Though I understand these points, I still believe that these kind of considerations are are dangerous with regard to long term development of democracy.

Some worthwhile points in there, certainly Bush is responsible for his actions and no one sane is accusing Nader of going to Iraq and shooting babies but elections don't happen in a vacuum and Nader has to take some responsability for Bush's election (so does Gore for that matter).

What I find odd about the whole issue is that we've seen third candidates don't win, they don't even come close to winning, at best they tip the balance between the two establishment candidates to the one that they agree with least. Nader has run four(?) times now, he's got ability, issues that matter and a national presence yet he hasn't built an electable party. Riding into town every four years and saying vote for me because someone else will be elected is farcical. (Incidently Britan also has first past the post elections and manages to support three parties without issue).

Finally politics arn't static, even if no one does the real work of building a new party to contend the choice isn't
But if the complete system relies on exactly this mechanism that people choose one of two possibilities one or two times, then the other one one or two times, then the first again etc.,
There's nothing to prevent voters selecting the left or right leaning candidate over and over to pull the political climate in that direction. That they don't is a good indication that the current parties largely meet the expectations of the people who actually vote (abysmal expectations and low voter turn out in America not withstanding).

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 01:20

I was assuming the occasional use of force in the "operations" part of intelligence operations. I'm assuming that action is taken on the intelligence, thus the "operations" part, and sometimes that action will be the selective and, hopefully, necessary and wise use of lethal force.

Sometimes that kind of lethal force isn't enough. Al Qaeda 1.0 was based on a very comprehensive infrastructure of training camps, fortresses, supply lines, and so on, in Afghanistan. You can't bust that with an intelligence/covert op, or even by parachuting in commandos here and there. An invasion is pretty much the only way to do that.

The American mistake was to stay in and get embroiled in local politics. There's a time to be nice, and there's a time not to be nice. Afghanistan was one of the times not to be nice. You should've gone in, bust up the network, and gotten out, never mind the Taliban, instead of staying in trying to prop up a state where it isn't feasible. And yes, I know, you would've gotten a lot of flack from people on my side of the political spectrum for it. (Not me, though.)

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 01:22

And this is exactly what I was aiming at. Dubya ended up going too far. My speculation, based on the campaign rhetoric and the political powerbase he would have had to appease, is that Gore would have fallen woefully short. I didn't even attempt to bring economic policy into the "alternative history" discussion since there are far too many variables running around to offer up anything beyond a SWAG (simple, wild-ass guess). That said, my SWAG is that Gore would have gotten us to our current economic woes far sooner, if only because Iraq increased government spending and reduced the available workforce (making it easier to keep hitting that 5% unemployment number that everyone likes to see).

And, as you rightly note, this is pure speculation. My pure speculation would have been rather different on both counts. But I don't know how useful it would be to pursue that particular line of conversation -- we can speculate 'til the cows come home, and I doubt we'll be any the wiser for it.

Edit: oh, blast. Can't resist. Must speculate.

I believe that Gore would have done three major things differently than Bush:

(1) Not cut taxes.
(2) Applied a Keynesian stimulus to the 2000 recession.
(3) Not gone to Iraq.

Point (1) would have kept the federal budget balanced or even running a surplus, even counting the extra spending under (2), which would have gotten the US economy out of the recession faster. Point (1) might also have slowed down the inflation of the housing bubble. Points (1) and (3) together would've meant that both the dollar and the treasury would have been in a much better position to deal with the recession that's hitting now. The recession might also have hit around 2005 rather than now, but it would have been less deep.

Hell, in a perfect world Gore's stimulus might've even included patching up some levees in New Orleans. Imagine that...

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 02:17

Obviously you feal guilty with respect to that vote for Bush. Please take responsibility for your actions and let me take responsibility for mine.It's more a case of not liking be called a war criminal. Your whole "illegal war" foundation is shaky at best, and to be running around branding people under such flimsy pretense is, shall we say, poor form.

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 02:38

I believe that Gore would have done three major things differently than Bush:

(1) Not cut taxes.
(2) Applied a Keynesian stimulus to the 2000 recession.
(3) Not gone to Iraq.Well hell, if you insist on breaking out the tea leaves...

Agree on 1 and 3, not that that takes any great leap of faith. I'll even give you #2, but the real issue on the 2000 recession (which, from a manufacturing standpoint, actually got started in early 1999) was outside influence. That dip in the economy was shallow enough by itself for many different approaches to work. It wasn't until 9-11 put the whole country in a tailspin that the dip turned into a full-on problem. Without the tax cuts, would consumer spending and corporate durables purchases have rebounded? Hard to say. Would other, more "left-leaning" approaches have been as successful in generating that bounce? Again, hard to say. Also keep in mind that the budget balance/surplus was based on assumed continued growth that did not occur, and could well have spawned increased spending traditional during Democratic control.

Then comes the big outside influences. Would Gore have gone to Afghanistan? More likely than Iraq, but I wouldn't call it a sure shot. Had our response to 9-11 been less immediate and less violent (likely, given the Democratic powerbase), would the terrorists have been emboldened into additional attacks? Had we not gone stomping into Iraq (which, admittedly, has ended up having many negative effects that outstrip the few strongly positive ones), the terrorists wouldn't have had a focal point. Instead of spending their efforts stirring the pot in Iraq, would Al-Qaida have had more time and material to focus on US soil? As before, hard to say, but those possibilities (and even public fear of it, even if it never happened) certainly would have a serious negative effect on the economy.

Squeek

March 2nd, 2008, 02:42

That's an awfully offensive accusation to make, bkrueger. War criminal? Who wouldn't be offended?

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 02:45

Did you check, what international lawyers say about this? At least in Germany there is a ruling of a high court clearly stating that the Irak war is against international law.

Edit: At this moment I only find a link of the German text of the ruling (http://www.bverwg.de/media/archive/3059.pdf).
It was about the case of a soldier, who refused to follow orders, which he believed to support this war. The court ruled, that he had the right to do this, because the war was illegal.The initial incursion was sanctioned by the frickin United Nations in response to Saddam's refusal to follow UN resolutions. So, although I couldn't give two hoots about a German court's ruling on US policy (any more than I'd expect them to blink an eye if our Supreme Court passed a ruling that warm beer was corrupting the youth of the world and should immediately be banned), I'm more than happy that they supported the resolutions. Don't get much more legal than that.

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 03:05

Then I guess you'd better break out the nooses, since you're going to have to hang the vast majority of the United Nations. Not quite the result you've got in mind, is it?

edit- well hell, do I need to break out the 2 resolutions that sanctioned UN enforcement of the UN resolutions? They're widely available, but if you insist on being obtuse, I'll take the time to link them for you.

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 03:25

The breach was not complying with required inspections, which as we all know DID happen. To miss basic facts like that doesn't show well for you.

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 10:42

Did you check, what international lawyers say about this? At least in Germany there is a ruling of a high court clearly stating that the Irak war is against international law.

That doesn't make American voters war criminals, though. Supporters of the Nazi party weren't considered war criminals either, unless they, y'know, actually did war crimes. Giving political support to a war criminal isn't a crime in itself. If it were, we'd have to lock up just about everybody.

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 10:51

The breach was not complying with required inspections, which as we all know DID happen. To miss basic facts like that doesn't show well for you.

A breach of a Security Council resolution in itself is not a legal casus belli. Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force in case of a breach either -- both John Negroponte and Jeremy Greenstock said so explicitly, stating that in case of a breach, the matter must return to the SC.

So it's not possible to argue that the invasion was unambiguously legal.

The thing is that it's not unambiguously illegal either. Why? Because according to the way international law is set up, the body ruling on the legality of wars is... the United Nations Security Council. Since both the UK and the USA have veto power in it, it's not very likely that they'll rule it illegal, however strong the justification.

However, it is pretty clear that the invasion was in violation of the UN charter (the basis of international law). IOW, if the Security Council was a neutral body of judges, it's quite likely that it would, indeed, be found illegal.

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 11:00

Agree on 1 and 3, not that that takes any great leap of faith. I'll even give you #2, but the real issue on the 2000 recession (which, from a manufacturing standpoint, actually got started in early 1999) was outside influence. That dip in the economy was shallow enough by itself for many different approaches to work. It wasn't until 9-11 put the whole country in a tailspin that the dip turned into a full-on problem. Without the tax cuts, would consumer spending and corporate durables purchases have rebounded? Hard to say. Would other, more "left-leaning" approaches have been as successful in generating that bounce? Again, hard to say.

Not that hard, really. On the one side, you've got the entire spectrum of mainstream economists, from Milton Friedman on the right to Joseph Stiglitz on the left. They say that expansionary monetary policy and fiscal stimulus through government spending and a temporary tax rebate is the best solution. On the other side, you've got about five wacky supply-siders in a jerk-circle around Arthur Laffer.

Fact 1: tax cuts are lousy stimulus. They affect the long-term growth rate, rather than helping you get out of a short-term recession.

Fact 2: the recovery from the recession was not driven by business investment -- in fact, the cause of the recession was massive over-investment in information infrastructure, through the dot-com bubble. The recovery was driven by the housing bubble, which was driven by the Fed's policy of very, very cheap money, and the government's policy of financial deregulation, which gave us all of these wonderful things like Credit Default Obligations and Mortgage Backed Securities... and removed oversight from banks, which gave anyone with a pulse the option to get a mortgage.

Also keep in mind that the budget balance/surplus was based on assumed continued growth that did not occur, and could well have spawned increased spending traditional during Democratic control.

The surplus was created during Democratic control. Gore was the VP in the administration that created it. Why do you think he would be any more likely to have been less fiscally responsible than Bill Clinton?

Then comes the big outside influences. Would Gore have gone to Afghanistan? More likely than Iraq, but I wouldn't call it a sure shot.

That's true. Then again, it wasn't a sure shot with the Bush government either -- they wanted to go to Iraq straight away; public pressure forced them to go to Afghanistan first.

Had our response to 9-11 been less immediate and less violent (likely, given the Democratic powerbase), would the terrorists have been emboldened into additional attacks? Had we not gone stomping into Iraq (which, admittedly, has ended up having many negative effects that outstrip the few strongly positive ones), the terrorists wouldn't have had a focal point. Instead of spending their efforts stirring the pot in Iraq, would Al-Qaida have had more time and material to focus on US soil? As before, hard to say, but those possibilities (and even public fear of it, even if it never happened) certainly would have a serious negative effect on the economy.

You're failing to ask one more speculative question, though: with Gore in the White House, would the 9/11 plot have been stopped before it happened? We can't know, but it's at least possible that their attitude to the alarm bells that went off beforehand would have been different -- after all, they already had experience of one Al Qaeda attack, and were therefore on the lookout for that sort of thing.

March 2nd, 2008, 12:14

The thing is that it's not unambiguously illegal either. Why? Because according to the way international law is set up, the body ruling on the legality of wars is... the United Nations Security Council. Since both the UK and the USA have veto power in it, it's not very likely that they'll rule it illegal, however strong the justification.

Iraq could in theory bring a case to the ICJ, although the present government there is unlikely to. The US would certainly deny jurisdiction but its possible some of the other coallition countries haven't exempted themselves. It remains debatable whether there was a crime under international law though (assuming by 'war crimes' this discussion is actually about crimes against humanity which is the level you'd need to invoke international law).

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 12:45

Then again, without some kind of agreement about what the law is, that kind of call becomes purely a matter of opinion. "Crime against humanity" becomes merely a rhetorical device without content. That would also be a shame IMO.

March 2nd, 2008, 13:41

You're understating international law a bit, certainly powerful countries have more influence on it than weaker states but there are customs, norms and substantional treaty law in place. You appear making a moral rather than a legal judgment which I imagine where the confusion arrises, 'crime' has a legal meaning quite seperat to what you consider bad.

...and while we're at it the international legal system doesn't require a written constitution any more than the British legal system does.

March 2nd, 2008, 15:31

If so, why is there no international trial against Bush? The discussion showed that there may be different possibilitioes of outcome, but in a functioning legal system the case would at least be strong enough to start a trial. But nobody has the power to even start it against the whish of the US.

Partly because none of the states involved want to persue it, partly because there's no clear violation of international law dispite the accusations a lot of people like to throw about. Simply put the case for the illegality of invading Iraq is untested and whether or not it is strong enought to justify a trial is irrelevant if parties with standing in the international system are unwilling to persue it.

dteowner

March 2nd, 2008, 17:01

Partly because none of the states involved want to persue it, partly because there's no clear violation of international law dispite the accusations a lot of people like to throw about. Simply put the case for the illegality of invading Iraq is untested and whether or not it is strong enought to justify a trial is irrelevant if parties with standing in the international system are unwilling to persue it.Thank you, V7. You saved me a lot of foaming at the mouth with your calm and clear post.

Squeek

March 2nd, 2008, 20:42

Edit: Moreover, this thread was not about punishability of the actions, which is part of the legal aspect, but about their ethical meaning.That's the point you've been determined to pursue, bkrueger (and that's fine), but it wasn't the point at all at the start of this thread. My reference to Nader being responsible was made in the context of discussing his candidacy. It was just a use of word economy to simply say he was responsible for George W. Bush winning the first election.

If you're concerned about war and war crimes, there are plenty of wars being fought around the world and plenty of war crimes being committed. I have to wonder why you're not focusing on ones with obvious criminals and obvious crimes. We never wanted any of this. You will recall that we were attacked without warning.

No one's more concerned about justice than Americans, bkreuger. The facts surrounding terrorist attacks would be easier to evaluate if they could all be determined firsthand. But we can only try to figure out whose facts to consider and which facts to believe. Our President asked us to trust him and his facts. Most of us did, and that was a mistake. But it wasn't a crime.

Progress brings its own set of problems, unfortunately. As the world's oldest democracy, we're getting an advanced education in that right now. We’re down at the moment and doing a little struggling, but Americans aren't war criminals or anything even remotely like war criminals.

zahratustra

March 2nd, 2008, 20:52

We never wanted any of this. You will recall that we were attacked without warning.

You were? Did Sadam invaded USA when I wasn't looking?

Squeek

March 2nd, 2008, 20:57

Like I said, our President asked us to believe him and his facts. We did, and that was a mistake. That's become clear to most of us over here now.

Keep in mind, zahratustra, that people make all kinds of crazy claims about America and American affairs. It's become easy to turn a deaf ear. But this time those claims were generally right.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that Hussein violated the terms of surrender for the first Gulf War, shot at US jets and plotted to assasinate a former US President. After his capture, he admitted to his jailers that he was posturing as if he had WMD in order to intimidate Iran. All of that made Bush's claims easier to believe.

zahratustra

March 2nd, 2008, 21:18

Squeek

March 2nd, 2008, 21:39

Didn't Reagan once said: "Trust but verify"? That's a very wise piece of advice where governments are concerned don't you think?

Besides, while there migh have been reasons to give Bush aministration benefit of the doubt early in the first turn, why was he rewarded with second term when facts become widely known?I'm certainly not going to defend George W. Bush, but if you think this is easy, you're kidding yourself.

Do you know all the facts, zahratustra? Really? I admire that, because the rest of us have been trying to figure them out as quickly as we can. Maybe you're just better at dealing with the truth, but we like to think we're not a bunch of idiots over here.

You try having a bunch of nut-cases rally for a holy war against you, crashing passenger jets into your cities and encouraging others to murder your women and children. Then come onto forums like this one where intelligent people sometimes actually suggest that the way you've reacted is the real crime.

Zahratustra, we're all doing the best we can. It ain't easy at the moment. Give it time, and you'll see.

zahratustra

March 2nd, 2008, 21:57

You try having a bunch of nut-cases rally for a holy war against you, crashing passenger jets into your cities and encouraging others to murder your women and children. Then come onto forums like this one where intelligent people sometimes actually suggest that the way you've reacted is the real crime.

I live in England Squeek so you aren't the only one who has "a bunch of nut-cases rally for a holy war against you" but never mind that: IMO "your" reaction wasn't a crime. I am not angry because one bloodthirsty dictator lost his throne. I am angry because of criminal negligence and stupidity which followed. And the fact that people responsible for that negligence and stupidity (fully revealed by than) were rewarded by the second term in office.

BTW I am as pissed off with my government as I am with yours!

Prime Junta

March 2nd, 2008, 22:10

No one's more concerned about justice than Americans, bkreuger.

The trouble is that Americans tend to confuse "justice" with "vengeance," which explains a lot about America's actions in the world -- and why it still practices the death penalty.

zahratustra

March 2nd, 2008, 22:15

Yes, that's exactly my view too.

magerette

March 2nd, 2008, 22:50

The concept of 'rewarding' Bush by re-electing him is what I'm not getting. Is it common for countries to dump their leadership in the middle of military conflicts?

Most unfortunately, when Bush ran for the second time, not everyone was on this page about the WMD lies, the actual state of affairs in Iraq and with Al-Quaida, etc--as bkreuger says, perhaps the duties of the free press lapsed, but I didn't even begin to understand the situation --(and probably still don't)--til George Tenet laid out his version of the dynamic of the Bush/Cheney agenda in his book At The Center of The Storm. That was long after the election, and while those of you outside our country may have had a clearer view, and access to all the facts which I'm sure were available to be had if searched for in earnest, we were definitely in the middle of what in videogames is so aptly called the 'fog of war.'

AFA confusing vengeance with justice, I think it's more of a confusion of deterrent with defense. But perhaps that's self-serving.

The end result is that I've completely changed my approach to informing myself, and that an initial distrust of mainstream media is now a full blown paranoia. I'm determined not to slip into the fallacy of assuming what I see on television has much to do with the reality of events. In this it seems, I'm not alone (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080301/tc_nm/internet_news_dc_2):

Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey.
While most people think journalism is important to the quality of life, 64 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities, a We Media/Zogby Interactive online poll showed.

"That's a really encouraging reflection of people who care A) about journalism and B) understand that it makes a difference to their lives," said Andrew Nachison, of iFOCOS, a Virginia-based think tank which organized a forum in Miami where the findings were presented.

Nearly half of the 1,979 people who responded to the survey said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, up from 40 percent just a year ago. Less than one third use television to get their news, while 11 percent turn to radio and 10 percent to newspapers.

March 2nd, 2008, 23:21

Obviously, an international law system, which claims to be just, would need a similar mechanism. It would not only need independent courts but also law enforcement agencies independent from individual states.

So again: If a fair international justice system existed, an unbiased investigation by experts not representing a specific country would be started, probably leading to a trial at an independent court. If a justice system depends on interested parties to act, injustice is very probable to occur. E. g. that war criminals from small or defeated countries are prosecuted while war criminals from powerful countries are not prosecuted.

The international legal system exists as a mechnism to regulate relations between sovereign states, it makes no claims to justice in the sense you mean. While you're quite right that the current government was put in place during the US occupation that government is the one rcognised by the international system. If other states felt this injust they could support a Bathist government in exile and, with sufficient recognition such a government might have been able to support a legal case. In short no one cares sufficently despite the rhetoric.

Second, the ICCC has mechanisms for independant investigation covering war crimes. While the US has done its best to insulate its citizens from apearing its not inconcievable that it might happen at some point. None of the war crimes covered by the ICCC charter would fit the situation in Iraq currently. I'm still not clear what specific charge you think the US guilty of.

Finally, you're throwing round the words 'war crimes' liberally. War crimes are crimes committed in armed conflicts where the normal system of justice is not applicable and generally consist of breaches of the Geneva Conventions (shooting POWs, targeting civilians, using certain weapons and so on).
These war crimes are expected to be delt with at the state level by the states with jurisdiction and its only when a subset of those crimes (by being part of a systematic and wide spread attack on a civilian population) become crimes against humanity that the intenational system can be involved.

March 2nd, 2008, 23:24

The concept of 'rewarding' Bush by re-electing him is what I'm not getting. Is it common for countries to dump their leadership in the middle of military conflicts?

When they screw up, cf Chamberlain and Churchill 1940.

zahratustra

March 2nd, 2008, 23:26

The concept of 'rewarding' Bush by re-electing him is what I'm not getting. Is it common for countries to dump their leadership in the middle of military conflicts?
If by "conflict" you mean invasion of Iraq then it was long over by the time of GB's re-election. If you mean so called "war of terrorism" than he should be re-elected since it will last for foreseeable future :) But, as V7 pointed out already, dumping of a leader during or right after military conflict (while not a common occurrence) did have happened.

You are spot about US news media though. Take Jessica Lynch story as just one example: in European media this story was debunked only months after it begun to circulate. Despite some attempts by media, American public wasn't aware about Pentagon's deception until years later!

March 2nd, 2008, 23:36

While its up for discussion its worth keeping in mind that no one at the time knew whether Sadam had WMD or not. Even the inspectors were looking for more time and investigations before they drew final conclusions (although I recall they were fairly certain he was clear on the nuclear side). The division in the UN arose because no one could agree how to deal with the situation, the US wanted to be more agressive while Europe wanted more inspections and Russia wanted the scantions lifted. Certainly the adminstration is guilty of seeing what it wanted to and exagerating the case but no one was certain they Sadam didn't have WMD, hindsight is wonderful.

For the record I thought the invasion stupid at the time and I'm sorry that view has been justified since, if not always in ways I anticipated.

Oh, and I'm usually pretty disapointed by the US media. I'd recomend the BBC and the Economist, both have thier bisis but they still make a nod toward journalistic integrity.

chamr

March 3rd, 2008, 03:50

Sometimes that kind of lethal force isn't enough. Al Qaeda 1.0 was based on a very comprehensive infrastructure of training camps, fortresses, supply lines, and so on, in Afghanistan. You can't bust that with an intelligence/covert op, or even by parachuting in commandos here and there. An invasion is pretty much the only way to do that.

The American mistake was to stay in and get embroiled in local politics. There's a time to be nice, and there's a time not to be nice. Afghanistan was one of the times not to be nice. You should've gone in, bust up the network, and gotten out, never mind the Taliban, instead of staying in trying to prop up a state where it isn't feasible. And yes, I know, you would've gotten a lot of flack from people on my side of the political spectrum for it. (Not me, though.)

While I can understand that you thought I meant restricting our actions to covert ops, commando stuff, I didn't. I don't mean to infer any arbitrary limit, beyond common sense and good judgement. I'm perfectly happy with the decision to invade Afghanistan, though the end game bungle that let Osama out of the vice pretty much ruined the whole thing. I certianly hope whoever made that decision doesn't have a job anymore...

March 4th, 2008, 01:05

Agression isn't particuallarly well founded as a crime in international law. Certainly there's the Nuremburg trials you referenced and the Tokyo Class A trials but as you already mentioned they were post war ad hoc tribunals - you even said Germany didn't recognise Nuremburg. Since then I can't think of any succesful prosecutions subsequently. More importantly the UN General Assembaly has been trying to agree a definition for agresssion for the last 60 years and it was quite obvioulsy left out of the charter for the ICCC. Meanwhile on the customary side there's plenty of state practice of unscantioned warfare to point to.

Thats before you even get to the potential American defences:
Was Sadam violating the origional terms of the ceasfire for Gulf War I? (Had sufficient time passed for the origional SC resolution to expire? Could it? Did the coolition need a new authorisation?)
Was Iraq's soverengty already compromised? (by scantions, no fly zones, inspections)
Can pre-emption be stretched to cover Iraq? (likely not)
Does the lack of a UN condemnation and/or subsequent international reconition of the situation legitmise the intervention?
... and so on.

Personally I don't think the argument for the legal standing is particularly strong, but its not clearly illegal either. In short you'd need a trial or a UN declaration to determine the status under international law, and as I pointed out before none of the parties involved are interested in that.

Finally, while I have a lot of respect for Kofi Annan calling the war illegal is his opinion and carries no more legal weight than Bush calling the war legitimate.

dteowner

March 4th, 2008, 17:29

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 19:00

I don't think you could call Kofi a disinterested party. While the US did not break any resolutions, I think it's fair to say we stretched "the letter" far beyond Europe's "intent". Annan can't be happy about having his authority co-opted.

I'm with you this far, but...

Similarly, his organization gets paid to sit around and talk about problems. When the US chose to act on Iraq's violations, that put a real kink in sitting around and talking ad nauseum which did a fairly good job of piddling in Kofi's cornflakes.

...you lost me here. While the UN most certainly is a big ol' talk club, it does do some genuinely valuable work too, and I've no reason to believe that Kofi Annan didn't have a genuine wish to solve as many of the world's problems as he could. Which doesn't mean he's a saint, of course.

dteowner

March 4th, 2008, 19:21

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 19:27

Kofi Annan was UN Secretary General and therefore in a role for the whole world, which Bush has for one country.Your perspective is all wrong, bkrueger. Kofi Annan was never elected the leader of the whole world. He had a nice job but not the one you seem to think.

Hussein was a world-class villain, and that's why Iraq was the subject of so much concern at the UN and elsewhere. It would have been nice if Iraq could have straightened out its own problems both internal and external.

The US doesn't need your oddball notions of justice, bkrueger. Neither does anyone else, whether they understand that or not. Frankly, your reasoning is a perfect example of why so many Americans find the UN easy to ignore.

chamr

March 4th, 2008, 20:35

Eventually, you've got to stop talking and start doing. That's something Kofi and the boys don't really understand and very rarely do. It's not uncommon for talkers to resent the do-ers. Of course, I'll admit that my anti-UN bias colors my interpretation of their activities, or lack thereof. I think Kofi genuinely believes that all the world's problems could be solved if we all sat down at Starbucks and pondered deep thoughts together over vente lattes, so I'll give him credit for good intentions.

That is just a flat out silly trivialization of the UN. While it is certainly a flawed organization and it does have it's limits, the UN does plenty. Just because they don't go around kicking people's assess with overwhelming military might does not mean they aren't doing anything. :rolleyes:

The US doesn't need your oddball notions of justice, bkrueger. Neither does anyone else, whether they understand that or not. Frankly, your reasoning is a perfect example of why so many Americans find the UN easy to ignore.

Hardly. Joe NASCAR and Jane Wal-Mart aren't real in to reasoning. They've simply bought into the conservative, jingoistic, over-simplified sales job of "UN bad. UN very, very bad. U-S-A! U-S-A!" Forgive me if I don't put a whole lot of stock in what a majority of Americans think of a complex organization such as the UN, let alone the concept of international justice between sovereign nations. :rolleyes: again.

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 20:43

Hardly. Joe NASCAR and Jane Wal-Mart aren't real in to reasoning. They've simply bought into the conservative, jingoistic, over-simplified sales job of "UN bad. UN very, very bad. U-S-A! U-S-A!" Forgive me if I don't put a whole lot of stock in what a majority of Americans think....It must be nice to be so superior.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 20:53

Eventually, you've got to stop talking and start doing. That's something Kofi and the boys don't really understand and very rarely do.

That's not really true. The UN does do a great deal as well; most of it just doesn't get that much publicity. Check out what the UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, and ITU have been up to lately, for example.

The UN doesn't have the power to autonomously do anything about security threats, though -- that's what the Security Council is for... and, incidentally, the UN General Secretary has nothing to do with that particular organ.

It's not uncommon for talkers to resent the do-ers. Of course, I'll admit that my anti-UN bias colors my interpretation of their activities, or lack thereof. I think Kofi genuinely believes that all the world's problems could be solved if we all sat down at Starbucks and pondered deep thoughts together over vente lattes, so I'll give him credit for good intentions.

The UN is a lot of things; among others, a colossal bureaucracy without nearly enough oversight, and a very inefficient way for sorting out questions of war and peace. But it's a lot more than that, too... and I don't think you're giving Kofi Annan a fair shake by characterizing him that way.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 20:58

Hussein was a world-class villain, and that's why Iraq was the subject of so much concern at the UN and elsewhere. It would have been nice if Iraq could have straightened out its own problems both internal and external.

As villains go, Saddam Hussein wasn't world-class. We haven't had a real world-class villain since Pol Pot. Saddam was a common or garden dictator, and not even among the worst of the bunch -- Africa has any number of nastier ones, from Robert Mugabe to Omar Bongo. The only reason he mattered in the bigger scheme of things was that he was sitting on a lot of oil and refused to play ball with the great powers.

The US doesn't need your oddball notions of justice, bkrueger. Neither does anyone else, whether they understand that or not. Frankly, your reasoning is a perfect example of why so many Americans find the UN easy to ignore.

You're cute when you work up that head of patriotic foam, Squeek. :hug:

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 21:01

Whatever, guys. I don't think it takes any arrogance or patriotism to see how absurd bkrueger's assertion is about millions of Americans being war criminals. And it really is a perfect example of the kind of argument that's sometimes made at the UN.

Maybe you can convince chamr he's a war criminal. He seems receptive.

vanedor

March 4th, 2008, 21:22

As villains go, Saddam Hussein wasn't world-class. We haven't had a real world-class villain since Pol Pot. Saddam was a common or garden dictator, and not even among the worst of the bunch -- Africa has any number of nastier ones, from Robert Mugabe to Omar Bongo. The only reason he mattered in the bigger scheme of things was that he was sitting on a lot of oil and refused to play ball with the great powers.

Agreed with your qualification of Saddam as not a real world class villain. But your forgot one reason why he got a lot of attention(and probably the most important one) it's the fact he decided to invade a friendly (oil producing) country in 90.

Still, with the big spanking he got back then that made him basically innofensive, it would have been much better to leave him alone or if he was deemed to be such a threat, assassinate him as Saddam himself thought the americans could do quite easily.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 21:24

That (edit: Emmanuel Todd's After the Empire) was an interesting book. I'm not sure the US is headed for the kind of systemic collapse he describes, but some of the trends he identifies (e.g. the uptrend in child mortality) are pretty shocking and clearly symptomatic of something very serious.

zahratustra

March 4th, 2008, 21:27

dteowner

March 4th, 2008, 21:35

That's not really true. The UN does do a great deal as well; most of it just doesn't get that much publicity. Check out what the UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, and ITU have been up to lately, for example.While I'll grant you that the UN does a good job with relief work, I didn't think their mission was to be a less efficient version of the Red Cross. Certainly, in the context of our current (off-topic) topic, the UN's desire to take action in international disputes is in the neighborhood of "nil". Although, I do note that there wasn't nearly as much tongue wagging and foot dragging before grabbing the guns among the Euros when the problem was in their own back yard (Bosnia). Perhaps chamr would like to explain that little inconsistency to us chest-thumpers.

dteowner

March 4th, 2008, 21:42

So I will end my participation in this, looking forward to the time, when the US is weak enough to try and live like an equal among equals.I think we've finally gotten to the core of the issue for you. Your rants are motivated by a distaste for America far more than any desire to improve the world. You've been accused of it several times, but it's always nice to get confirmation from the source. You're entitled to that stance, but you might try being honest with yourself about your assumptions.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 21:42

While I'll grant you that the UN does a good job with relief work, I didn't think their mission was to be a less efficient version of the Red Cross.

None of those agencies do (primarily) relief work.

Certainly, in the context of our current (off-topic) topic, the UN's desire to take action in international disputes is in the neighborhood of "nil".

Not quite: the UN's authority to take action etc. is in the neighborhood of "nil." The UN peacekeepers who fly their flag operate under very strictly limited mandates, and the UN as an organization does not have the authority to reassign them. Again, the organ making those decisions is the Security Council, where the General Secretary has no authority.

Although, I do note that there wasn't nearly as much tongue wagging and foot dragging before grabbing the guns among the Euros when the problem was in their own back yard (Bosnia). Perhaps chamr would like to explain that little inconsistency to us chest-thumpers.

Your attempt to change the subject has been noted.

blatantninja

March 4th, 2008, 22:12

So I will end my participation in this, looking forward to the time, when the US is weak enough to try and live like an equal among equals.

Firs off, why should we be an equal among equals? We have by far the world's largest economy, which while not the sole driver of the world economy, has the most influence on it. When the UN decides to do a military intervention somewhere, if it is of any significant size, who gets the call to provide the most troops, equipment, etc.? The US. We give more in foreign aid (not all going to good places to be sure) than the rest of the world.

The simple fact is that in terms of nations, we AREN'T equals. Should we just do whatever we want without considering the rest of the world? Of course not, but until anyone else contributes to the international community what we are, we simply aren't equals.

It's funny. America is FAR from perfect, yet out of all the world's super-powers that have ever existed, for all the wrongs we have done, we have treated the rest of the world a million times better than any of our predecessors.

Be careful what you wish for.

zahratustra

March 4th, 2008, 22:42

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 22:46

So I wonder how Nader's going to do today, anyway. I don't imagine he's actually on a ballot anywhere, so his name will have to be written in (and that's allowable everywhere). Of course, that doesn't matter in a caucus since those are basically just party meetings.

dteowner

March 4th, 2008, 22:49

blatantninja

March 4th, 2008, 22:50

Let me be first to welcome Paul Wolfowitz to our little forum! And BTW Paul, what gave you the idea that: "We give more in foreign aid (not all going to good places to be sure) than the rest of the world."?

Just the facts. Just the facts.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

Now, to clarify, I meant more than any other single nation, not more than the rest of the world combined.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 22:53

Firs off, why should we be an equal among equals? We have by far the world's largest economy, which while not the sole driver of the world economy,

No, you don't. The EU economy is bigger.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) ]

has the most influence on it.

That's true, because the USA is the "deficit of last resort" -- due to the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The question is, though, why should the dollar be the world's reserve currency -- and how long is it going to stay that way?

When the UN decides to do a military intervention somewhere, if it is of any significant size, who gets the call to provide the most troops, equipment, etc.? The US.

@NN, the UN doesn't "decide" to do military interventions anywhere. The great powers -- the permanent members of the UN Security Council -- do. The UN grants legitimacy to military operations; it has no independent authority to initiate them.

We give more in foreign aid (not all going to good places to be sure) than the rest of the world.

Also not true. The US gave $23.5 billion in foreign aid in 2006, while the EU gave $59.5 billion.

Edit: Source is [ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/20/39768315.pdf ].

The simple fact is that in terms of nations, we AREN'T equals. Should we just do whatever we want without considering the rest of the world? Of course not, but until anyone else contributes to the international community what we are, we simply aren't equals.

Indeed...

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 22:55

What country is that, PJ? The EU, I mean. ;)

zahratustra

March 4th, 2008, 22:57

" ...The United States is the world's largest contributor of ODA in absolute terms ($15.7 billion, 2003), but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003). The UN target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP; currently only five countries (with Norway in the lead with 0.92%) achieve this...."

Squeek

March 4th, 2008, 22:59

I hate arguing about charity. It's just so wrong. Most of the giving is done privately, anyway (over here, at least). So it can't really be measured accurately.

blatantninja

March 4th, 2008, 23:03

No, you don't. The EU economy is bigger.

The last time I checked, the EU is not a country. (Though it may become one) Plus look at it per capital, the US is nearly double the EU (which probably bodes well for the EU in the future!)

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) ]
That's true, because the USA is the "deficit of last resort" -- due to the status of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The question is, though, why should the dollar be the world's reserve currency -- and how long is it going to stay that way?

Very simple, it should stay that way so long as the government backing the currency is the most stable and has the least risk. That may change. I could see the EU, in time, displacing that so long as the internal barriers continue to drop. Getting the UK on board would help a lot as well.

@NN, the UN doesn't "decide" to do military interventions anywhere. The great powers -- the permanent members of the UN Security Council -- do. The UN grants legitimacy to military operations; it has no independent authority to initiate them.

Regardless, it takes an international body to approve action and the US is the one that does the bulk of the work and puts the most lives on the line in major operations. Sure, we are a part of the decision, but it doesn't change that we bear the most load.

Also not true. The US gave $23.5 billion in foreign aid in 2006, while the EU gave $59.5 billion.

Again, the EU is not a country.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 23:04

Pointing out inconsistencies serves to weaken the overall argument, and is particularly fun when the other side thinks they're on some kind of moral crusade. You should know--you've poked me with it a few times.
edit- had to do some work between start and finish. this is a response to PJ's "change the topic" comment.

Heh.

Yep, bkrueger would do well to calm down a bit. (Hey, it worked for me.)

But but but... there are quite a few differences between Bosnia and Iraq; so many, in fact, that it smells more like a red herring than a genuine attempt at argument. Specifically, there was an ongoing hot war with ethnic cleansing in progress in Bosnia, and the coalition that wanted to go in was much broader and deeper. From a cynical great power POV, the Bosnia intervention was (a weakened) Russia against everybody else, while the Iraq invasion was the US and the UK against everybody else.

And I most certainly agree that it was shameful that Europe couldn't sort out that problem without having to invite the US to ride to the rescue. Which is one reason I've long been calling for the US to withdraw its military from Europe. (Hell, I'd like the US to withdraw from the NATO, so we could make that the European security organization.)

zahratustra

March 4th, 2008, 23:08

Again, the EU is not a country.

"Sophistry ...soph·ist·ry [sof-uh-stree] –noun, plural -ries.
1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism..."

chamr

March 4th, 2008, 23:12

@dte: I'm simply pointing out what you continue to prove yourself over and over: you think the only thing that means "doing something" is military action. By casting the UN as "do-nothings" because they don't go around solving international conflicts more quickly and decisively with military force is silly. As PJ pointed out, the UN does a lot outside such a narrow view of "doing something".

Maybe you can convince chamr he's a war criminal. He seems receptive.
:lol: Good one.

It must be nice to be so superior.

Call it what you want, but I'm not going to sit around and defend our notoriously ignorant population so that I don't hurt poor little Jane and Joe's feelings. As has been my persistent theme through many of these forum-debates, as someone who loves my country, I find it unacceptable to play the victim and support being disinterested in the world around us. Ya know what? If you're going to be the biggest kid on the block, you'd better be ready to take some knocks. It's all in how you react that matters. You can go your and dte's route of "poor us. everyone hates us. you're all just jerks! boo hoo..." Or you can be constructive and try to learn something from it. Of course all our critics are not 100% correct, and of course you've got to do a little work (god forbid) to separate the vitriol from the constructive criticism. But if you're at all interested in being the best country and people you can be, you'll make the effort without being defensive, reactionary and, ultimately, counter-productive.

I have high standards for us. Sorry, but I do. I find what I call "willful ignorance" repugnant. That's when folks that have the intellectual tools to know better simply choose not to by willfully ignoring the available info out there and swallowing what the mass media, their political party and/or their churches tell them is true because it's easier than challenging your world-view or political prejudices from time to time. That's just lazy.

I understand that some (namely Jane Wal-mart and Joe NASCAR) probably don’t have the skills to be reasonably expected to step outside their air-conditioned, 500 satellite channel, SUV, Megashopolis, McMansion bubble and take a critical look at themselves and their country. But that only makes it all the more imperative that those of us that can, do.

Prime Junta

March 4th, 2008, 23:16

The last time I checked, the EU is not a country. (Though it may become one) Plus look at it per capital, the US is nearly double the EU (which probably bodes well for the EU in the future!)

Economically, the EU functions like one, though. Your per capita arithmetic doesn't add up, btw -- the EU population is about 500 million, while the US population is around 300 million; yet the EU gave over twice as much as the US.

Very simple, it should stay that way so long as the government backing the currency is the most stable and has the least risk. That may change. I could see the EU, in time, displacing that so long as the internal barriers continue to drop. Getting the UK on board would help a lot as well.

I'd prefer another solution -- that we invent a new "imaginary" currency, call it a "Glollar," that consists of a basket of major currencies, and call that the reserve currency. Every currency that's counted in the basket is freely convertible to glollars and back. That would be fair, and it would greatly reduce instability. Sort of a mutual-fund approach to the problem, as txa put it.

Regardless, it takes an international body to approve action and the US is the one that does the bulk of the work and puts the most lives on the line in major operations. Sure, we are a part of the decision, but it doesn't change that we bear the most load.

But that's quite different from the way you originally portrayed it -- that the UN takes decisions and the US provides the blood and treasure.