OBAMA WINS (at last)

[ColinEssex]

Anybody would think that the whole experience has embittered you

No. I've always been like this - happy, cheerful and a fun person.

Col

 

[Rabbie]

Reading this spat several points come to mind.

1. It does not help debate on these forums if people are personally abusive to each other. Firm opinions robustly expressed are welcome but lets not shoot the messenger just because we disagree with the message. if they are wrong it should not be difficult to refute their point with logical argument.

2.In elections in modern democracies you have to vote for a candidate who closes to your views particularly on what you consider to be important. You will be very lucky if you can find one who exactly matches your views across the board.

Not many options to choose in America is there, pro life or pro war........

This may explain why so many people don't bother voting

 

[Rich]

2.In elections in modern democracies you have to vote for a candidate who closes to your views particularly on what you consider to be important. You will be very lucky if you can find one who exactly matches your views across the board.

This may explain why so many people don't bother voting

Yes maybe one day politicians will listen to the electorate instead of following their own agendas

 

[Brianwarnock]

I see Rabbie sums it up perfectly again, but whilst I basically agree with Paul's points I do believe that being anti warmongering should be the most important issue and wonder if it isn't for americans simply because it is so remote, one only has to remember their reaction following the twin towers, refusal to travel for example, to contemplate their views if the war was closer to home.

Brian

 

[oumahexi]

I see Rabbie sums it up perfectly again, but whilst I basically agree with Paul's points I do believe that being anti warmongering should be the most important issue and wonder if it isn't for americans simply because it is so remote, one only has to remember their reaction following the twin towers, refusal to travel for example, to contemplate their views if the war was closer to home.

Brian

I get your point, but it does strike me that the US is only remote if you don't live in the America's, which are significantly larger than the British Isles. They may be far away from us, and far away from the Middle East, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are remote.

 

[Alc]

I get your point, but it does strike me that the US is only remote if you don't live in the America's, which are significantly larger than the British Isles. They may be far away from us, and far away from the Middle East, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are remote.

Remote = located far away.
Rabbi's point - I believe - was that the US is remote from the location of the war in Iraq.

Obviously, the US isn't remote from someone living in the US, but that wasn't his point.

 

[oumahexi]

Remote = located far away.
Rabbi's point - I believe - was that the US is remote from the location of the war in Iraq.

Obviously, the US isn't remote from someone living in the US, but that wasn't his point.

My apologies. What can I say. Just dyed my hair blonde... And I haven't had my nap today, they've been making me work

Sorry Brian

 

[Alc]

My apologies. What can I say. Just dyed my hair blonde... And I haven't had my nap today, they've been making me work

Sorry Brian

And I don't know where I got 'Rabbi' from, since Brian wrote it

 

[oumahexi]

And I don't know where I got 'Rabbi' from, since Brian wrote it

Blonde hair dye on sale down your end of the country too?

 

[Alc]

Blonde hair dye on sale down your end of the country too?

No need for it, I'm a natural.
Hang on, that may explain a lot....

 

[dan-cat]

I see Rabbie sums it up perfectly again, but whilst I basically agree with Paul's points I do believe that being anti warmongering should be the most important issue and wonder if it isn't for americans simply because it is so remote, one only has to remember their reaction following the twin towers, refusal to travel for example, to contemplate their views if the war was closer to home.

Brian

I don't see this as being american only. Tony Blair was re-elected after the Iraq war started. [I know Rich, not by the majority] Obviously anti warmongering was not high on the agenda for alot of British people either.

Please remember that the Democrats won a majority in the Senate back in 2006, so the thought that 'americans' in general are happy with the current administration just isnt true. It's simply a picture that is getting painted by some on these boards.

 

[Wayne Cramer]

Maybe the problem was my choice of words. Bush and McCain are war mongers (definition: one who urges or attempts to cause a war).

What would be the appropriate term for one who supports one who urges or attempts to cause a war?

The VERY longest carrer for a soldier is about forty years (18-58). So, if we had a period of peace lasting forty years, then we would have top generals and admirals and all ranks under them with absolutely no battlefield experience. I've long held to the notion that countries (and the leasdership of them regardless of democrat or republican, liberal or conservative) cannot allow this to happen, so a war is stirred up every so often to ensure that there is always leadership with experience.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I'm really only going by the posters on this forum, many Americans seem to be pro Iraq war, I have not seen a pro war from any British poster, and as I said IT SHOULD be the most important consideration, but in all electorates self interest always comes first, which in the UK is greatly influenced by our bloated benefits system. Who said Universal suffarage was a good idea?

Brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

... so a war is stirred up every so often to ensure that there is always leadership with experience.

And of course you have to test your new weapons.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

I'm really only going by the posters on this forum, many Americans seem to be pro Iraq war, I have not seen a pro war from any British poster, and as I said IT SHOULD be the most important consideration, but in all electorates self interest always comes first, which in the UK is greatly influenced by our bloated benefits system. Who said Universal suffarage was a good idea?

Brian

Just a suggestion. Perhaps the ones who are remaining silent on the issue are a little, lets say, uncomfortable with the idea that they allowed themselves to be misled? I haven't read a single anti-war poster yet who hasn't claimed full knowledge of events from the very beginning.

 

[oumahexi]

I'm really only going by the posters on this forum, many Americans seem to be pro Iraq war, I have not seen a pro war from any British poster, and as I said IT SHOULD be the most important consideration, but in all electorates self interest always comes first, which in the UK is greatly influenced by our bloated benefits system. Who said Universal suffarage was a good idea?

Brian

Are the Taliban any different to the IRA or (dare I say it, ack, what the heck), the ANC in the 1970s and 80s or the PLO?

As I recall, the British army weren't reluctant to go into Ireland when we came under attack, and so on.

I don't agree with war. I would love to see the world live in peace, but is it ever going to happen? Not in my life time. So, I guess we have to take sides then? I have to side against the people who promised not to stop until every last living Christian was wiped off the face of the earth. Yet, I wouldn't profess to be a Christian...

 

[zelld]

i'd just like to keep an open mind to these things. i don't want any more disputes, even in forums - like my man gandhi, i choose to walk the path of passive resistance. sure, mccain has some pluses - that much is sure, and obama has some negatives, that much is certain, but a country has to know when to stop digging and get out of the grave it has been digging itself into these past 3 decades with, for the lack of the better term, "less-inspiring" presidents.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Are the Taliban any different to the IRA or (dare I say it, ack, what the heck), the ANC in the 1970s and 80s or the PLO?

As I recall, the British army weren't reluctant to go into Ireland when we came under attack, and so on.

QUOTE]

The IRA PLO and ANC were arguably freedom fighters/terrorist depending on one's point of view, the Taliban appeared to want to suppress freedoms in their own land, according to our definition of freedom, I don't know about any global aspirations except perhaps the usual islamic fundamentalist one.

BTW the British army went into Nothern Ireland at the start of the troubles to protect Roman Catholics and were initially welcomed, then it went pear shaped.
Oh I should add that N I is part of the UK and the, still, majority want it to stay that way, I say still because the demographics are such that the RCs will be in the majority at some time in the middle of this century.

Brian

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

The IRA PLO and ANC were arguably freedom fighters/terrorist depending on one's point of view, the Taliban appeared to want to suppress freedoms in their own land, according to our definition of freedom, I don't know about any global aspirations except perhaps the usual islamic fundamentalist one.

The only difference between the IRA and the taleban is that one failed to get into power. Link

 

[Rabbie]

I don't see this as being american only. Tony Blair was re-elected after the Iraq war started. [I know Rich, not by the majority] Obviously anti warmongering was not high on the agenda for alot of British people either.

To put that result in context the main opposition party(the conservatives) voted in favour of the war when it started so there was not a lot of choice given the tendency of a lot of british voters to support 'their' party - right or wrong. The Liberal Democrats who had always opposed the war did gain some support but in general the war was not as unpopular in 2005 as it is now.