USA - General discussion (Part 1)

[spyretto]

Kerry's only chance is if all the undecided voters are swayed his way...so fat chance for you boys and girls.
even Putin endorses Bush and you better prepare to drink another sorrow cup, you unbelievers.

After Putin's statement, I endorse Bush as well. Go go go, the president!
The world will be a safer place with GW for a second term. If Kerry is elected we'll have another 9/11 and you know it ( am I flip-flopping? )

( oh, Marylin Manson also endorses Bush - and the whole Church of Satan for that matter ).

[Kate]

Originally Posted by spyretto

Putin endorses Bush

I read that article, and Putin didn't endore Bush at all. He even said that Russia always was and always will dissaprove the war in Iraq. Putin just said that terrorists will get out of control if Bish doesn't get re-elected (aren't they already?), but we don't yet know how Kerry will deal with the terrorists.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

After less then a week of being in the lead by 1%, Kerry is now behind again, with Bush's approval at 52% and his at 44% according to the CNN poll. This is beyond ridiculous!! Seems like Americans didn't watch those debates at all!

Or that they choose differently than you. Which is one of the beautiful things about democracy.

Originally Posted by freddie

And as far as I remember, despite this being a musical forum you discussed The Chechnian War, fire-arms, social problems... all of these variety of topics yourself as well.

Because those things concern me. And IIRC I didn't start those threads.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by luxxi

Which is one of the beautiful things about democracy.

A Bush supporter, are we? Have you killed any innocent children in Iraq for oil lately? Joking. Ignore me.

[spyretto]

MOSCOW, Oct. 18 - President Vladimir V. Putin said Monday that international terrorists in Iraq hoped their attacks would unseat President Bush in the election next month, and that such an outcome might embolden their efforts and lead to more terrorist acts.

Mr. Putin spoke at a news conference at a regional meeting in Dushanbe, the capital of Tajikistan. A transcript was provided here by the Kremlin. He was asked how the war in Iraq would influence the election, and which candidate - President Bush or Senator John Kerry - would be better for him personally.

Mr. Putin's answers were oblique. He quickly pointed out that Russia opposed the war in Iraq and that "today our views with President Bush differ significantly on this question."

But then he presented an opinion he had not publicly expressed before, saying, "The attacks of international terrorism in Iraq are directed today not only and not so much against the international coalition forces as against President Bush personally," and that terrorists have "the goal of preventing Bush's election.''

He later said, darkly, "We must understand that in this case this will give international terrorism an added impulse in their activities, will give them additional strength and may lead to their growing activity in the various regions of the world."

Iraq has been plagued since last year by attacks from insurgents of various nationalities, faiths, ethnicities and insurgent groups. They are generally not thought to be alike in their thinking or ambitions, although American officials have said they have detected signs of collaboration among some of them.

Mr. Putin, who lumped the attacks under one label, offered no support for his claim to know their goals.

Although he said that "we, without a doubt will respect any choice of the American people," the sum of his comments was regarded here as a signal that he preferred Mr. Bush.

"This is the hidden message, but not very well hidden," said Masha Lipman, a political analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

She described Mr. Putin's remarks as "odd," but said they might naturally reflect his satisfaction with his personal relationship with Mr. Bush, which both men have characterized as comfortable.

Yeah, he didn't endorse Bush, just said that terrorists will be "safer" under Kerry, when security has been the number one issue to decide these elections.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

A Bush supporter, are we?

What a great knee-jerk reaction.

Personally I don't give a rat's anus about who wins. Iraq? One wants to keep troops there for a long time, other one wants to increase their numbers. Palestine? One gives Sharon unconditional support, other one is for giving Sharon unconditional support. Oh yes, such fundamental differences.

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Have you killed any innocent children in Iraq for oil lately? Joking. Ignore me.

Yes, just before lunch. the little fcuker wouldn't want to give up his can of gasoline so I shot him. That will teach those stupid IRaqis a lesson.

[freddie]

Luxxi how does the Chechnian War concern you MORE then the US elections?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by freddie

Luxxi how does the Chechnian War concern you MORE then the US elections?

1. Closer
2. More empathy
3. There is a small possibility I can influence events there
4. That war is part of my diploma thesis

[freddie]

Originally Posted by luxxi

1. Closer
2. More empathy
3. There is a small possibility I can influence events there
4. That war is part of my diploma thesis

Lol... I see your point but still...

1. Closer... still VERY far and VERY unsignificant to Slovenia AND the EU. In that respect USA id ECONOMICALY and SOCIALY much closer to us then Chechnya.

2. More emphaty? I feel equaly emphatic to all the people too all people, though. As do many.

3. Really? Now you got me wondering

4. Fair enough. Still... some people like discuss general topics that influence world events even if it's NOT their diploma thesis.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by freddie

Lol... I see your point but still...

That's why I put it in the middle of room. so everybody can see it.

Originally Posted by freddie

1. Closer... still VERY far and VERY unsignificant to Slovenia AND the EU. In that respect USA id ECONOMICALY and SOCIALY much closer to us then Chechnya.

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by freddie

2. More emphaty? I feel equaly emphatic to all the people too all people, though. As do many.

But did several thousand die due to US elections?

Originally Posted by freddie

3. Really? Now you got me wondering

You can put pressure on country to stop slaughtering people. You can't put pressure on country to elect somebody (or at least you shouldn't)

Originally Posted by freddie

4. Fair enough. Still... some people like discuss general topics that influence world events even if it's NOT their diploma thesis.

But increasingly this is about US.

[Kate]

luxxi, if you don't want to discuss US elections, and would rather discuss Chechnya, create a thread about it and I'm sure you'll find people who are interested and will join you. Don't ruin this thread for others, please.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by luxxi

But did several thousand die due to US elections?

Millions might, indirectly.

Originally Posted by luxxi

You can put pressure on country to stop slaughtering people. You can't put pressure on country to elect somebody (or at least you shouldn't)

YOU will put the pressure on them?

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by freddie

Millions might, indirectly.

How?

Originally Posted by freddie

YOU will put the pressure on them?

Not me. Well, I might burn another Russian flag but that's another story. No, what I said was one can put pressure on countries to stop slaughtering people. One can't and shouldn't put pressure on country how to vote.

[Kate]

Originally Posted by luxxi

How?

If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.

Plus, we are not putting pressure on anyone. We're just discussing. Please, change the tone you write your messages in, cuz you're ruining the atmosphere.

[luxxi]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.

Dead from terrorist attacks in this century don't go over 5.000 mark.

Dead from US wars in this century don't go over 100.000 (and probably not over 50.000 either).

Barring use of nukes I doubt any war US launches in next 4 years will top 100.000 dead. And that is well short of millions

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Plus, we are not putting pressure on anyone. We're just discussing.

Did I say you are putting pressure on people? If so where?

Originally Posted by katbeidar

Please, change the tone you write your messages in, cuz you're ruining the atmosphere.

What tone? I merely pointed out that it's amusing how non-americans debate Us elections. then you people were all over me like I made Yulia pregnant.

[forre]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

If Bush gets elected, American will continue to invade other countries for it's own benefit. The terrorism wasn't so out of control before the whole Iraq thing.

At least Bush has made his mistakes and learned something. Kerry may go on over again. There's no guarantee that Kerry's line will be cleaner. Me - I don't trust Kerry a piece. Just a feeling. At this point I think Bush will be a better choice for the rest of the world.

To all:
Normally hot issues cause hot debates but there's no need to insult neither each other nor the involved countries. Try to conduct the discussion on a more impersonal leve, please.

[Kate]

luxxi, so basically a million people should die before you oppose Bush? Because the people and children who got killed as of today don't have families, people that love them, that care about them and so on, is that what you're saying? Terrorism needs to be fought, but US had no right to invade Iraq. Iraqi war was for oil, Bush mentioned invading it even before he became president.

Like Kerry said during the second debate, "The world is more dangerous today because the president didn't make the right judgments. [...] The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. [...] [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror."

Well said, Senator Kerry. God bless him, and may this smart man win the US elections.

P.S. I agree that the world in better off without Saddam Hussein. But this is not the kind of thinking that leads to peace. The world will be better off without many people, should we start a war on every country whose leader we will be better off without? I don't think so, because in the process innocent people loose their lives. Kerry is right, deplomacy is how things should be settled. We call ourselves civilised as human beings, and we should act accordingly and not rush to war when out left buttock tells us to.

forre, obviously, you didn't watch the Presidential debates. I recommend you do that.

[forre]

Originally Posted by katbeidar

forre, obviously, you didn't watch the Presidential debates. I recommend you do that.

Oh well, actually I do but I don't buy all so-called populistic crap that both candidates come with. To turn the question about Iraq's war over to the matter that for those money Usama could be cought is merely populistic and nothing more. Terrorism is not about one person only, it's a whole system. Then, most of the TV-watchers catch some bright phrases and go with them. So we'll see how it will turn. I cared last elections as I thought Al Gore was a better choice, this time I do not care a lot as it's a game of choosing between two devils.

P.S. Kate, keep your recommendations on what I shoudl watch and shouldn't for yourself, please.

[Kate]

forre, I didn't get the point of your post. Can you rephrase or something?

I didn't mean to offend you by recommending you to watch the debates... you just seem to be a bit out of touch with the facts, that's all.

[forre]

Sure,

The goal of the sanctions was not to remove Saddam Hussein, it was to remove the weapons of mass destruction. [...] [Saddam Hussein] didn't have weapons of mass destruction. That was the objective. And if we'd used smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq. And right now, Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war against terror."

Here, he speaks about the war that wasn't necessary in that scale that took place. That is not important. The important thing for the TV-watchers is that the country could have saved 200 billion bucks to catch Usama. It's how the phrase is interpreted in the mind. So we have WAR - > 200billions -> Usama. Those are the key words. Bush could come with the counter phrase as "to spend 200 billion bucks on a project of catching one person is irresponsible. It's like throwing money for probably nothing". Etc. So at this point we see that Kerry's argument is empty in itself but it may work on the voters as it seems have worked on some of you. It's was a good strategy to gather some points from Kerry's side.

I know you didn't mean to offend me, it's just an example to show that it's easy to get over to a personal level without making a point.