Political discussion thread

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Hirgwath wrote: stonebeard wrote: McCain had his spine ripped from his body by Bush and the religious right. He deserves no ones vote. How so? He's the only mainstream Republican candidate who *has* the spine to denounce torture (of course, he's the only one who's experienced it, besides poor Rudy, who has been sleep deprived, I hear). He denounced the Swift Boat ads against Kerry. He's not a xenophobe on the immigration issue, and he's candid on global warming. He's got several more feet of spine than the other Republicans, and he's certainly got a few inches between The Queen of Special Interests and himself. And that is why I hope he wins the Republican nomination.   He's of the same Republican breed as Bush and Guiliani, namely not conservative. He favors a bloated exuctive branch, big government, curbing liberties for national defense, and his undying commitment to this war is staggering. He attempted to force through an awful amnesty bill and unfortuantely suceeded in passing the ridiculous McCain-Feingold reform act.   He's a terrible candidate for the GOP.

I think he wants to reduce the size of government in some ways (he's very anti-pork spending), but expand it in others (he's supported the PATRIOT Act and wiretapping). But, nobody is perfect, and I can't think of anyone besides Fred Thompson and Ron Paul that really could qualify as an old school conservative. Yeah, it's a bit of shame. But McCain is the only guy who has been at all candid on torture among the viable Republicans. That alone makes me hope he will win. I guess I have a particular concern over that issue, though, so I understand where you're coming from. If one of the torture candidates make it in, it's like electing Pol Pot, a Gestapo official, or a Japanese prison camp officer to public office. It's utterly ridiculous. America will have abandoned its ideals of yore.

At least Obama hasn't made an "I didn't inhale" comment. Honesty is refreshing.

And if Obama really is the candidate of America's youth, this is a good way to show it.

Hirgwath wrote: Clinton had a truly liberal foreign policy, intervening in foreign countries several times over human rights issues.

I really can't let this one slide. The Clinton administration had disaterous foreign policy. It sold arms to Colombia and Turkey, too of the worst human rights abusers in the world at that point. It authorised the bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, resulting in immense suffering for Sudanese civilians. It oversaw strict sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians, a policy that, according to Denis Halliday, amounted to genocide. It sought the bombing of Serbia, triggering a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, despite the fact that in the period preceding the coalition bombardment 2,000 people had been killled, 75% of those by the CIA funded KLA. The time that intervention was really needed, the US and UK stalled efforts to send more peacekeepers to Rwanda.

Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.   And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East.

How was it immoral?
NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.

Hirgwath wrote: I don't know if the bit about Colombia and Turkey being "the worst" is true. Turkey is probably "the best" among all Muslim countries. Turkey is the only secular democracy in the Islamic Middle East, and it has friendly relations with Israel. Additionally, it's quite close to Russia. It's essentially a great strategic place to send weapons...

The first bit isn't true. During the 90s Turkey was easily worse than even Iraq or Saudi Arabia. During the period, not only was it a leading torturer, but also engaged in a ethnic cleansing campaign against the Kurds in the south.

Hirgwath wrote: as for Colombia, aren't the FARC guerillas a big front in the "War on Drugs"?

No. The FARC tax all production on land they control, be it coca or wheat. It just happens that many Colombian peasants turn to coca production because there is a stable market for it and the alternatives aren't really sufficient for them to make a decent living. Plan Colombia does little to address this, making one wonder whether the Clinton and Bush administrations are criminally imcompetent or whether the stated aim isn't the real aim.

In Colombia it is the right wing paramilitaries that are most heavily and criminally involved in drug running, and they were, maybe still are, backed by the Colombian government.

Hirgwath wrote: I am in favor of the legalization of all drugs, but I can see the point in that action insofar as there was no avoiding the war on Colombian terrorists.

Plan Colombia is disasterous. If you really want cocaine production in Colombia to stop the answer is to make legal alternatives desirable to peasants. It hasn't done that. As for terrorism, while the FARC has committed many unspeakable attrocities, the Colombian and thus US backed right wing paramilitaries account for far more of the attrocities that went on and are going on in that country.

Hirgwath wrote: Denis Halliday was wrong to describe the sanctions on Iraq as genocidal.

Probably, but they were still criminal and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Hirgwath wrote: It's also something where you have to ask, "Was it worth it?" I have no idea, but it was not genocide, due to lack of any genocidal intent. The intent was to limit the aggression and abuses of a tyrant. Maybe it didn't work out that way, but maybe it was worth it in the long run.

It most certainly was not worth it. Describing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in such terms is rather unpleasant.

Hirgwath wrote: People often talk about the bombing of the pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan...I don't know if they were really involved in terrorist activities or not, but it seems like an important question.

Whether or not al-Shifa was producing chemical weapons or not (it wasn't) is an irrelevant question, really., when discussing the morality of the action. The question that should have been pondered much more was what effect destroying the leading producer of medicine in the country would have on innocent civilians.

Hirgwath wrote: I'm not sure how the bombings "triggered" the ethnic cleansing. I thought it was the response.

Not at all. Like I said, before then both sides had committed atrocities but most were committed by the KLA. The campaign of ethnic cleansing didn't properly start until after the bombing started.

Hirgwath wrote: The goal was to bring the Albanian refugees back, and stop the human rights violations of the government. Please explain your position further.

That was the stated aim and it's nonsensical, considering the vast majority of Kosovon refugees fled after the bombing started. The real aim was to topple the last bastion of resistance to Western neo-liberal policies in Eastern Europe and to maintain the credibility of NATO. The conflict could have been settled much more peacefully through diplomacy, but hawkish NATO members like Britain and the US scuppered talks by insisting upon conditions known to be unacceptable to the Serbs.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: IVNORD wrote: If the Reps are serious, they will never put anyone as remotly conservative as you know who   You're looking at it the wrong the wrong way. The reason for the Republicans losses during the midterm elections was not because of Bush's conservativism, but rather because of his liberalism and pursuit of a Wilsonian foreign policy. The democratic victories were a message to a party to return to its roots or be voted out. This is why we saw nearly every Republican being defeated, yet conservative stances passing overwhelmingly on ballot initiatives. If the republicans are serious they won't nominate anyone as remotely liberal as Guiliani or Huckabee. Not the McCain, Romney, or Thompson are exactly Barry Goldwaters themselves, but they're certainly imaginable alternatives with Ron Paul being the obvious best choice, if remote, at this point. _popupControl(); That was a wrong moment to finish a message in a hurry as I had to take my dog outside, hence the bad wording...   Bush a Wilsonian? If you allude to his Iraq-Afghanistan-democracy rethorics, it's just silly phraseology since a. neither country doesn't need it;    b.  we can't create and support a strong dictatorship in either country at the moment. It certainly is Wilsonian. Wilson's crusade was based on blind and sacrosanct belief in democracy. He thought that spreading it to the entire world would result in world peace. Bush's crusade is based on the same irrational belief in democracy, and he's committing American blood to forcing it on a people who have never known it. If a real democratic election were to take place in Iraq without the US's intervention it would surely be an opressive country ruled by the religious majority while the others are trampled upon.   Since I do believe that a determination is made in the respective parties headquarters, Guiliani's nomination would have a number of tactical advantages. He may carry New York and most of the North East which could compensate for the potential loss of independent votes for the Reps, and they seem to realize that. But with election Guiliani they lose their core. You may pick up some swings and moderates, but it's a folly to forsake your core voters to do so.

_popupControl();

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Hirgwath wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.   And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East. How was it immoral? NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.   The undeclared, unannounced, and unapproved by congress bombing of Serbia to destroy an indigenous people who were fighting for their freedom is moral? Regardless, what does it have to do with US political concerns? The only thing our intervention did was to make us uglier in the eyes of the world and to aggirvate relations with Russia. That is not letting Russia and China influence your foreign policy, it is simply not making uneccessary interventions especially at the cost of damaging relations with a country housing the world's second largest nuclear arseonal. That's just good foreign affairs and not in anyway having our policy dictated by the country.

_popupControl(); THe Serbs weren't fighting for their freedom but to preserve the federation. With all negative side effects concerning Russia, it was probably a necessity. Clinton did that very reluctantly though as he was afraid it would be construed as his attempt to distract attention from the impeacment proceedings

IVNORD wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Hirgwath wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Not to interject but besides being completely immoral, the bombing of Serbia was a disasterous for US - Russian relations. Russia has seen itself as the protector of Serbia and the unwanted US intervention there infuriated the country. It was one of the more profound policy blunders that pushed two historic enemies, Russia and China, into the arms of each other at a time when Russia was ready to make peace following its defeat in the Cold War.   And a nuclear armed Russia is much more of a threat than any terrorist group in the Middle East. How was it immoral? NATO knew what it was getting into when it didn't ask the UN Security Council for the thumbs up. I wouldn't ask Russia and China to dictate my foreign policy, thank you.   The undeclared, unannounced, and unapproved by congress bombing of Serbia to destroy an indigenous people who were fighting for their freedom is moral? Regardless, what does it have to do with US political concerns? The only thing our intervention did was to make us uglier in the eyes of the world and to aggirvate relations with Russia. That is not letting Russia and China influence your foreign policy, it is simply not making uneccessary interventions especially at the cost of damaging relations with a country housing the world's second largest nuclear arseonal. That's just good foreign affairs and not in anyway having our policy dictated by the country. _popupControl(); THe Serbs weren't fighting for their freedom but to preserve the federation. With all negative side effects concerning Russia, it was probably a necessity. Clinton did that very reluctantly though as he was afraid it would be construed as his attempt to distract attention from the impeacment proceedings

Crap politics...we've got the Tories and upper class twit David Cameron.....who couldn't spot black spot on a white wall. Unfortunately Labour seem intent on political suicide, the biggest anti-working class party (in the world, bar none) will probably win the next election....somebody shoot me..pleeeeeaaase