<p>"Cities (usually less ignorance) essentially did not vote for Bush."</p>
<p>...Dear......Lord............</p>
<p>"Meanwhile, a soccer mom in Nebraska votes for "a safer America" with Bush because she is afraid of Osama bin Laden/Saddam Hussein/Hitler savaging her small town."</p>
<p>While most of the rural population hate the cities themselves, in theory, they have strong nationalistic feelings. They were emotionally hurt in 9/11, and re-electing Bush was one of their reactions.</p>
<p>lol, hmm, isnt it interesting that the same jingoistic south that helped propel bush to the presidency is the same south that seceded</p>
<p>in my opinion, the south has risen like a phoenix and we all have to watch out for them</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cities (usually less ignorance) essentially did not vote for Bush
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You lefties need to make up your mind! When I debate affirmative action on these boards cities are self-evident cesspools of drugs, guns, ignorance, and poverty...</p>
<p>As to the war:
Yes, it does seem bad now, but sometimes Americans can't handle the truth. </p>
<p>For arguments sake lets say that Bush saw growing antipathy toward the US friendly tyrannies of the middle east (Saudi, UAE, ect etc). He might say to himself, "hey, if these regimes crumble and their replacements cut our oil supplies the entire world economy would be thrown into a death spiral. The US would be crippled within decades."</p>
<p>Sometimes things have to be done even if Lockean ethics wouldn't condone them. People forget that sedition was a jailable offense during what people remember as America's "good war." They forget that the "great emancipator" suspended habeas corpus and trampled over the letter and intent of the constitution in over a dozen ways.</p>
<p>You can hardly argue that Sadam didn't deserve to be overthrown (rape rooms, electric torture chambers, exploiting oil-for-food ect). If Bush absolutely had to take a foothold in some oil resources in the area he was a good target.</p>
<p>As everyone thus far has mentioned, people are stupid. If Bush tried to present an argument like that (it was necesary for the long term survival of the US and world economy) people would shout him down as a greedy, murderous oil tycoon. No blood for oil! You can see how it might, theoretically, be easier for him to just float feel good messages instead (they have WMD, they're after our "freedoms," Saddam abused his people).</p>
<p>Niether looking out for the future and his fellow citizens nor oversimplifying complex policy and strategic issues make him a bad president. We remember Lincoln and Roosevelt as two of the best--they engaged in the exact same types of things.</p>
<p>^^^Heavily influenced by ideas in "Imperial Hubris" if anyone else has read it</p>
<p>I don't know about what anyone else says about cities. Obviously they have their good points and bad points, although it's true that city dwellers are better informed than those living in rural areas. Don't label or group me, either, as a "lefty". It will compel me to label you a right-wing stooge.</p>
<p>I am sometimes too angry to even speak when it comes to the Iraq War. There was such deception... over 1000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis are dead because of the Bush administration's lies (or "false intelligence"). The argument that Iraq had WMDs has been proven false again and again, and Iraq was never a threat. If a bunch of teenagers (such as myself) saw through the evidence in the early days before the war, then the Bush administration should have seen through it as well. Obviously, Bush wanted to go to war regardless of the facts (and former members of his cabinet have said things to this effect). If we didn't go for WMDs, why did we go? The conservative argument is that we went to "spread democracy." First of all, democracy can't be forced upon a people. It is antithetical to the idea of democracy. (Just look at Iraq right now.) Second of all, that ceases to be a legitimate argument because MANY countries DO NOT have democracies (including countries that the US has backed again and again, such as Saudi Arabia). If WMDs were not the issue, we might as well have invaded any of the countries with horrible dictatorships. </p>
<p>Ugh. </p>
<p>Anyway, I think that conservatives should be given the right to speak. If an extremely conservative speaker came to Brown (and if I were a student there, which I hope to be), I would protest the VIEWS of the speaker, but I wouldn't protest the speaker's RIGHT TO SPEAK. There is a big difference between the two. Instead of destroying newspapers or what have you, I would write editorials against them that criticized their views but not their right to publish them.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think Bush is trying to pad his or his friends' pockets? Don't you think there would have been easier ways to this end? He's doing what he feels is best for the country and he had and has a lot more information than we do. I know this is a rather pragmatic solution, but, unfortunately for "enlightened" 17-year-old college freshman and 50 year old retired hippies alike, all the pertinent information regarding the situation can't be made public. Therefore, I place at least a little higher degree of trust in our C&C as opposed to armchair foreign policy experts.</p>
<p>Its just presidential rhetoric. It's been used since...umm...forever.</p>
<p>Wilson did the same thing prior to WWI. Germany had unspeakable weapons; Germany was after our freedom; We need to "make the world safe for democracy." See any similarities?</p>
<p>Was Germany really planning on crossing the Atlantic and fighting on eastern beaches? Of course not! Wilson had other strong (however latent and hidden) causes for going to war which I won't go into here. I assume Bush has the same (I gave one possibility in my post above).</p>
<p>McKinley did it prior to the Spanish/American war.</p>
<p>Lincoln did it prior to the civil war.</p>
<p>You are very naive.</p>
<p>I agree with Tore about city dwellers.</p>
<p>Cities dwellers are, in general, less ignorant than people in the country. First of all, any city dweller has access to a ton of free newspapers; try to find a row of newspaper dispensers in the middle of farm country. Second of all, think about the mere volume of people that city dwellers encounter every day. Even if you live in the ghetto, you are going to be dealing with a much larger variety and amount of people than if you were living on a farm. Therefore, you are going to hear more news, and more viewpoints. Third, think about where all the political rallies, conferences, etc. take place, and where all the activists (regardless of political affiliation) disseminate pamphlets and information. And there are a ton of other arguments that I can't even think of right now...</p>
<p>I was also wondering, whatever happened with the "election" in Iraq? It was supposed to take place a couple of weeks ago, right?</p>
<p>Yes, it happened and was called a success because more people voted than expected.</p>
<p>Which candidate won, and what is his proposed platform?</p>
<p>I don't know. I didn't follow it. Sorry.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are very naive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't get your argument. Do you think I'm wrong?</p>
<p>Do you disagree with me when I say that you don't have as much information as the president? Why should people listen to you as opposed to say, someone who actually knows the entire situation? What makes you so sure you know what you're talking about? </p>
<p>Do you think Bush really is just stupid? Do you think he's just having fun with his finger on the trigger? That's naive.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which candidate won, and what is his proposed platform?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They were electing a representative body, so a lot of people won. </p>
<p>They all ran on the "vote for me or you're going to hell" platform.</p>
<p>...really</p>
<p>gee, it is amazin tht ppl did not follow the iraq elections...after all it might just be one of the historic events in the world 20 years from now...
about the elections in iraq-
- a record ppl voted
- iraqi police fought against the insurgents like never before. An iraqi police hugged a sucide bomber and carried him away from the crowd shouting "I will not let this ppl blow away our freedom" before the bomb exploded.
- the election is following a 'parliamentary' system where local communities elect their representative, who in turn elect their leader. most govt.s in the world follow this system
- ppl defied the threats and dangers and came out in masses to vote. ofcouse, al-jazeera didnt carry those scenes on the tv.</p>
<p>more iraqis are grateful tht saddam is gone thn the minority saddam followers...ofcourse, i am sorry for the lives that were lost...but no1 claimed tht changes come at a cheap price.
i do sincerely hope tht US (with cooperation from EU and other allies) also deal with iran similarly...any regime tht denies the basic human rights should be thrown away...</p>
<p>"Why should people listen to you as opposed to say, someone who actually knows the entire situation?"</p>
<p>Yes, let's just put our faith in someone like Bush. I'm sure that will work out.</p>
<p>I never said anyone should listen to me.</p>
<p>"i do sincerely hope tht US (with cooperation from EU and other allies) also deal with iran similarly...any regime tht denies the basic human rights should be thrown away..."</p>
<p>But is it the responsibility of the US to tell other countries how to set up their governments? Don't you think we just mind our own business? And if that's what the US was doing, why hasn't it attacked all the other countries with regimes that deny basic human rights? What makes Iraq so especially heinous; there are a ton of other leaders besides Saddam who treat their "subjects" like crap.</p>
<p>soccart, i believe tht the US and the european allies should deal w/ so called 'rogue regimes' like iran, korea etc. because</p>
<ul>
<li>most of these regimes dont like US and western europeans</li>
<li>Americans and Europeans have most to lose (like 9/11 etc.)</li>
<li>They have the resources</li>
<li>It comes alongwith the title of 'sole superpower'</li>
</ul>
<p>it is not the responsibility of the US to tell the other countries on how to set up their govts. but i do believe tht it is US's and Europe's responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers of other countries. Trust me, korea and iran arent developin nukes to fight against each other; they are developin these weapons to fight (or atleast use it as political weapons) against the western world...
and trust me the balance of this world exists coz the West has $s and WMDs and East (Middleeast) has oil, but no WMDs. Could you imagine a world where the East has oil AND wmds? wht is stopping them from stopping them oil supply for 6 months and then declaring a war against the west under the pretext of religion???
far fetched thoughts, but something to ponder about...</p>
<p>oh yeah and btw as you might know korea just announced tht they have nukes and it has been widely known tht they have ballistic missiles tht can reach the west coast...deja vu...cuban missile crises...</p>