-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The impact of anti-BUSHism
- Thread starter Djamila
- Start date
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Pro-active would NOT be starting a war with a country that had no proven ties to Al Qaeda.Victor said:
Victor, I'm not really into the idea of "war" as a pro-active means to stop terrorism, so in all honesty I would probably disagree with our govt no matter which country it decided to go after. But having said that, if we had decided to invade a country with proven links to Al Qaeda, I would have disagreed but I would not have thought us shameful and immoral.
At the moment, I hear arguments calling for the racial profiling of Arab and Muslim men in airports "for the sake of security." I see us going after a country with no proven links to Al Qaeda and Americans for the most part go along with that, and I can only think that's because in the minds of Americans "all Muslims/Arabs are the same."
Let us look at the nationalities of the 9/11 hijackers. Were any of them from Iraq? No. Where were they from? 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. Did we invade Saudia Arabia? No. Why not? Do we know from other sources that Saudi Arabia has sponsored terrorist groups against us? Yes. And yet do we hold the Saudi government accountable for that? No. Why not?
What kind of "war on terror" are we fighting exactly if we invade countries with no proven ties to the terrorists and give a pass to countries that we know harbor terrorists?
(And yes, I do know that Iraq is full of terrorists now, after we invaded. Funny that.)
What do I think our govt could do to be more pro-active?
Well for starters we might actually deny visas to the people who really seem suspicious. And believe it or not we can do that by a basis other than race.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray100902.asp
Sorry Victor, none of my ranting is directed at you. I know you were just asking me a question. I just really am disappointed with our country. And that's because I am a patriot. I love this country and once believed that it lived up to the values that it espouses. And what I see is xenophobia and racism and torture and us invading other countries without just cause.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
lilithu said:
We can probably go on about what is a just cause. In this case I agree with you. Not enough proof was gathered to justify it.
Althougth I do think there is a just cause for war and sometimes dread the idea of an anti-war president talking until the sun comes down about clear disagreements. Do I feel safe with such presidents? No....
I oppose both this presidential approach and also the Bush approach.
Booko
Deviled Hen
BUDDY said:
I don't think the world so much has a problem with our being proactive about terrorism, Buddy. I think the problem is some of the stuff we do in the name of being proactive about terrorism that is both destructive and not effective.
Sometimes we do have to break some eggs, but you expect to see an omelette come out of it, and not just trash.
otoh, if you pay no attention to what your friends think, you will soon find you have none.
That is also not the way to run a prosperous nation.
Booko
Deviled Hen
No, within 48 hours they have to charge you with a crime.BUDDY said:
Merely being a suspect isn't enough.
Now I'm not suggesting that we should have a mere 48 hours to investigate why a suspected foreign terrorist should or should not be charged with anything.
But the idea that anyone who is innocent should have to sit there for 3 years before anyone looks at his case to see if he should be charged is purely laughable.
And unAmerican.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Djamila,
Just a couple of quick observations.
2) Just because a President is voted in from one party does not mean the legislature will be dominated by that party (in fact, historically, Americans typically divide power over the Presidency and the legislature between the two parties). In most European countries, however, once one party gets power, they dominate the legislature as well as the executive branch.
3) Presidential candidates tend to be close to the center because they have to appeal to the majority of voters, and the majority of voters are moderate. In Europe, however, yes you do tend to have more parties; but those parties tend to represent a more narrow range of voter interests, as you say yourself:
4) Legislators in European parliaments tend to vote strictly down the party line. This is not true in the U.S.: when you vote for your Congressman/woman, you vote for the candidate, the actual person who will fill that post--you don't elect the person indirectly by voting for a party who then goes and fills the post with whomever they see fit. This means that the good Congressman representing a given district of Ohio answers to the voters of that district, and if the voters of that district disagree with his party strongly on a given issue, by gosh he will go against his own party on that issue!
To sum up: yes, 45% of Americans may vote against the person who is elected President, but their voice is heard in government in other ways, just as the voters in Europe whose party doesn't win are represented in their government in various ways (and in that case, those voters who are in danger of not being represented aren't 45%--they are often the majority!)
Look, these issues are complex. There are things to consider other than the percentage of people who support a given measure. For example, of the people who support it, how strongly do they support it, and how strongly do the rest of the people oppose it? Or: what sorts of things can those who support the measure offer to those who oppose it to get them on board?
Just a couple of quick observations.
1) Yes, but don't forget that the President is only one of many elected offices. Americans also vote for congressmen/women, senators, state legislators, state and local judges, sheriffs, mayors, governors, city councils, and so on and so forth. The fact that your candidate didn't get elected President does not mean your opinion doesn't matter.Djamila said:
2) Just because a President is voted in from one party does not mean the legislature will be dominated by that party (in fact, historically, Americans typically divide power over the Presidency and the legislature between the two parties). In most European countries, however, once one party gets power, they dominate the legislature as well as the executive branch.
3) Presidential candidates tend to be close to the center because they have to appeal to the majority of voters, and the majority of voters are moderate. In Europe, however, yes you do tend to have more parties; but those parties tend to represent a more narrow range of voter interests, as you say yourself:
So, parties in European countries gain power by being favored by less than 50% of the voters. An American who is ignorant of how European governments operate might recoil in horror at this fact and exclaim, "but that means that the majority of voters in European countries aren't represented by their government!" Of course, this isnt' true: there are other aspects to how representatives are appointed in European governments which give the other voters some representation (though perhaps not quite as much power as those voters whose party won the election), as you point out:Djamila said:
4) Legislators in European parliaments tend to vote strictly down the party line. This is not true in the U.S.: when you vote for your Congressman/woman, you vote for the candidate, the actual person who will fill that post--you don't elect the person indirectly by voting for a party who then goes and fills the post with whomever they see fit. This means that the good Congressman representing a given district of Ohio answers to the voters of that district, and if the voters of that district disagree with his party strongly on a given issue, by gosh he will go against his own party on that issue!
To sum up: yes, 45% of Americans may vote against the person who is elected President, but their voice is heard in government in other ways, just as the voters in Europe whose party doesn't win are represented in their government in various ways (and in that case, those voters who are in danger of not being represented aren't 45%--they are often the majority!)
Sure you will. When Italy sent troops to Iraq, fewer than 50% of Italians supported it.Djamila said:
Look, these issues are complex. There are things to consider other than the percentage of people who support a given measure. For example, of the people who support it, how strongly do they support it, and how strongly do the rest of the people oppose it? Or: what sorts of things can those who support the measure offer to those who oppose it to get them on board?
Booko
Deviled Hen
bender118 said:
They were not captured here, but were captured in a foreign country during a conflict.
As such, rules relating to POWs would be more likely to apply.
We, however, have chosen to just not bother with rules at all. We do what we like, and justify it all in the name of "security."
One wonders what the Founding Dads would make of it.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Getting back more on topic....
I think that if we look at history, nations of people tend to have pretty short memories. Russia was our ally in WWII....immediately afterward, they were our greatest enemy, while Japan and Germany and Italy became our allies. How long was it after the Berlin wall fell that Russia went from being our greatest enemy to an ally?
It just doesn't pay to hold a grudge against others for past infractions: this is played out in game theory in the classical prisoner's dilemma (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma ) where the best strategy is generally 'tit for tat'; in other words, I'll cooperate with you, but if you betray me I'll betray you back, but then if you cooperate with me again I'll forget your previous behavior and cooperate with you as well.
I think that as soon as the U.S. reforms itself in a few ways (e.g. abandons the current methods of holding prisoners in GTB without trial), the people of other nations will change their minds in favor of America just as quickly as they changed their minds against America with the invasion of Iraq. After all, "the mob is fickle, brother" ~from the movie Gladiator
I think that if we look at history, nations of people tend to have pretty short memories. Russia was our ally in WWII....immediately afterward, they were our greatest enemy, while Japan and Germany and Italy became our allies. How long was it after the Berlin wall fell that Russia went from being our greatest enemy to an ally?
It just doesn't pay to hold a grudge against others for past infractions: this is played out in game theory in the classical prisoner's dilemma (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma ) where the best strategy is generally 'tit for tat'; in other words, I'll cooperate with you, but if you betray me I'll betray you back, but then if you cooperate with me again I'll forget your previous behavior and cooperate with you as well.
I think that as soon as the U.S. reforms itself in a few ways (e.g. abandons the current methods of holding prisoners in GTB without trial), the people of other nations will change their minds in favor of America just as quickly as they changed their minds against America with the invasion of Iraq. After all, "the mob is fickle, brother" ~from the movie Gladiator
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Victor, I'm not assuming that all the prisoners being held there are innocent. I am sure that a large number of them pose a danger to us and that there is sufficient evidence to prove it. Even for them tho, I would hope that we would bring them to trial as quickly as is reasonably possible, so that it's clear to everyone that we are holding them with just cause. But I was refering specifically to people who had been held in Guantanamo for years and then released because we decided that they weren't a terrorist afterall. This isn't a theoretical scenario. This has happened. (I posted some links earlier.) It should not happen. And it would not happen if our govt were required to make specific charges against each prisoner within a reasonable amount of time, instead of being allowed to hold them indefinately for no specific reason.Victor said:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
They intentionally were not brought to America so that our govt would not have to recognize their rights. And your conscience is ok with that.BUDDY said:
Ya know Bill Clinton got roundly criticized by the Right for trying to get away with legal posturing - "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." This no-man's land status where these people do not have constitutional rights and do not have prisoner of war rights is based on legal posturing that makes Clinton look like an amateur.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Viewed the United States favourably? Is there more specific criteria?Djamila said:
In any case, if it's a response to aggressive wars I don't undertsand it. Every administration has them.
If it's a response to American interests vetoing the interests of others I don't understand it. Every administration pursues them.
I'm not sure what this response is too, and if it is specific to George Bush and/or his government.
If it's truely anti-Bushism then it must go with Bush.Djamila said:
Does it make much difference, Djamila? Your representatives, my representatives, and America's representatives all work for the same people, and it is not us.Djamila said:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
There was no irony: it was all true!lilithu said:Yes, you were being sardonic. Please explain how you were not being sarcastic.