What exactly is going on in the U.S. of A.?

So. The president of the united states of america, George W. Bush, seems hell-bent on invading Iraq, presumably to continue the "war on terror" and stop the axis of evil, from, well, existing. This confuses me to no end. For one, there was NO connection made between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Secondly, we refer to Iraq as an enemy, when we ally ourselves with Saudi Arabia, which is probably the most hideous country on earth right now (also, over half the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis). And third, Iraq has stronger allies and stronger military forces than the Taliban did. I don't understand.

The president strikes me as thoroughly hypocritical, as well - he appeared at a GOP fundraiser in mid-May, where the RNC was selling portraits of him ($150 each!) on air force one during the 9/11 attacks. A week before he and the vice president accused reporters of asking "irresponsible" questions and "playing politics", when it was made known that Bush was informed in August that there may be a terrorist attack. So, selling $150 pictures of yourself to profit your party is "returning honor to the white house", and asking questions about why you didn't act on the knowledge you had in August is "playing politics." Someone tell me what i missed.

Bush also refused to sign a UN declaration on children's rights, unless "pledges on sexual health services are scrapped." Because, yeah, I'm sure he was a virgin when he married his wife.

And of course, the Homeland security act....

John Ashcroft is salivating with excitement now that he can spy on websites, libraries, churches and political organizations without needing any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, provided that the goal is "detecting or preventing terrorism." The fourth amendment? Bah! But here's what really gets me angry, for anyone who isn't convinced yet that he's the scariest ****ing man in America:
Ashcroft

I dont have time to mention the Venezuelan coup (http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...706802,00.html), the budget being in deficit for the rest of Bush's term (says the White house budget director), Bush giving the military $1 billion a day, the weekly Enron revelations (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAL6GJ1X0D.html), right now.

What is everyone's opinion on this state of affairs?

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Rough quote:

"A man telling lies has hidden the truth...but a man telling half-truths has forgotten where he put it in the first place."

Here's what you missed: the reports that claim that basically every modern President is warned about these things time after time. Allegedly these kinds of warnings are practically CONSTANT. No one makes a big deal out of the inaction until something actually happens, though. How many threats and warnings do you think they get each day, Steve?

And selling pictures is just fine. What exactly is the problem there?

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." -- [b] Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'll take a page out of Machiavelli's book and say to you that desperate times call for desperate measures. For one, I don't view this as some terrible invasion of privacy...but even if we were to assume it was a bit over the line, for the sake of this argument, if it stops even one terrorist plot, is it or is it not worth it?

So? We ran a deficit under Reagan, but he claimed that a mere reduction in spending would give us a boom...Clinton held back on spending, and we got our boom. Things are never, as you like to say it, Steve, black and white like that.

A brief comment on economics...

What Bush is doing-- cutting taxes while increasing government spending --is indeed the recipe for a budget deficit. The question becomes, then, how much a deficit bothers you: because Bush is clearly doing this for a reason. Given an economy in which consumer purchases and (business) investments are down, if aggregate expenditure is to remain the same, someone else must pick up the "slack" in terms of spending. Excluding foreign markets, the only other party capable of doing this is the government. If government expenditures (i.e. military purchases) rise, aggregate expenditure and aggregate demand in the economy can remain the same, even if consumer spending and investment are lower.

The purpose of the tax cut, ostensibly, is to increase consumer spending: so what the Bush economic policy seems to be is really a two-pronged attack on the recession. Which is unsurprising, considering most administrations probably don't feel that economic recessions are good for their overall popularity.

During the Clinton years, we saw a slight increase in taxes and (I believe) a slight increase in government spending, which apparently led to the budget surpluses that everyone was jubilantly predicting a few months ago. Clinton was quick to claim responsibility for the surpluses and the decreasing deficit, but it's a little difficult to wholly attribute the economic boom of the mid to late 90's to his economic policy exclusively.

So, at the very least, I'm glad that Bush isn't trying the same trickle-down / supply-side economic tactis that Reagan took. At the same time I think it's important to understand the role that government spending and taxation have in fiscal policy, and that sometimes (as much as I hate to admit it) either increased government spending or increased taxes might create more social welfare in the short run.

Overall: is the country in objectively "worse shape" now than it was, say, before Bush was elected, or, say, before 9.11? That's a hard thing to argue. Am I concerned about the economic health of our country? Absolutely. The state of civil liberties? Definitely. The qualifications of our elected officials? Naturally, but I have been ever since I figured out what a "president" was.

Yes, America has her share of problems right now. She always has. When I look at our flag, I'm not struck with overwhelming pangs of pride and patriotism: I'm simultaneously aware of the unique privileges and problems I take part in by being an American citizen. There are a lot of wonderful things about this country; there are a lot of horrible things about this country. As a citizen, I see it as my duty to enhance and uphold the wonderful things, while doing my best to contribute to the dissolution of the horrible things. I may have been born into this this country "by chance", but since my birth the unique structure of this country, and the people who live here, have given me many wonderful opportunities and experiences, and it is for that reason that I feel compelled to stay and do my best to make things better.

__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988

When I grow up I want to be a phonebook.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

A few choice quotes about politics:

Politics and dirty tricks
I got no time for stones and sticks
Politics and dirty tricks
I got no time
I'm chasin' chicks

- Violent Femmes

Politics are boring
Yeah, politics are f*cking boring

- Screeching Weasel

Okay. Had to get that off my chest. Carry on. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

__________________
You were a demon and a lawyer? Wow. Insert joke here."

To tell you the truth, and I know this might come off as a shocker, but I don't really care about what's going on. I haven't watched the news in a few days and I'm out of the loop on what's going on.

Do we need to end terrorism? yes. Can that be done? no. No matter what you would like to think, this war will not wipe terrorism out, it can't. This is like getting rid of weeds, you pull one, and somewhere else in the yard another one sprouts.

So no matter how brutal Bush wants to get with these countries, he can't expect to get rid of terrorism with one little war.

I didn't really want to read through what you guys posted, kinda skimmed Steve's post, but that's it.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

To understand politics you have to look at the root word.

Poly (poli) - Meaning many

Tics - Blood sucking leeches

That should clear a few things up.

Well as a Brit I should apologise now for our role in f***cking up country relations between half the world... few off the top of my head:

Sorry Palestine/Israel

Sorry India/Pakistan

Sorry Bosnia

Sorry Falklands

Apologies to any people from those countries, if any of your folk have suffered it's because of our commonwealth.

Now I would just like to say it's America's turn because you're causing lots of grief. Now stop being naughty and just concentrating on your economy and power and think of all the poor Iraqi families you're going to destroy who will one day want to exact vengeance.

Terrorists don't just appear ffs. Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA. Get it? Don't f*** with other countries and nothing will happen to you. Oh hold on, I don't think the Bush Administration cares enough about future generations at this point in time.

__________________
Another high quality post by Fez Wizardo

Give me a break. We get involved and people tell us to mind our own damn business. We stay away and we're accused of being xenophobic and/or heartless. It's ridiculous to imply that we should just concern ourselves with ourselves...we're here to promote our own interests, yes, but to right wrongs as well, don't you think?

Heck, you yourself are doing this:

Which is it? Do we concentrate on ourselves, or others?

One more thing (I apologize for the double-post). This is 100% false:

That is never ever ever ever ever ever ever the case, my friend. Machiavelli would shake his head in disgust. Those in power will not enjoy sustained and unthreatened peace and prosperity. If you're on top, people are gonna try to tear out your throat. Count on it. There's no way around it...it's human nature. It happens time and again...and it'll continue to happen. Hopefully one day most people will notice and acknowledge the trend and let go of the idea that everything can be sunshine and lollipops if only we'd keep to ourselves.

America has a "special relationship" with Israel. This pretty much makes America hated by the Middle East for what's going on in Palestine (which we started, sorry!) Presumably the support is in America's economic interests as Israel is it's only real ally in that region.

Israeli oppression on palestinians and it's aggression towards neighbouring countries with American support is pretty much a good enough reason for someone to want to destroy America to stop what's going on there. Not that it's in anyway possible by a poxy country like Iraq, but it's good enough reasoning for them.

That's an example of one issue.

IMO everyone has their time, there's always going to be a top dog and a sufferer. In this instance this is what's happening, and terrorism is to be expected from America's foreign policies.

I'm sure Switzerland will have something to say about that.

That's why rich people are always robbed.

If you never messed with anyone else, there would be nobody in jail, there would be no crime, it would be a utopia that is never going to happen.

If you're expecting a uptopian world, you obviously have your head in the clouds and need to be brought down into reality.

Sometimes you've got to do what's right no matter what. Even if some sh*t comes your way. We've taken a side. Are you saying we should remain neutral?

Switzerland isn't the most powerful country in the world. It's a simple fact of life that people are ambitious. As long as a person or country is in the top seat, you'll find no lack of challengers, regardless of that company's policies. To imply that America can avoid conflicts like this if we keep to ourselves is nothing short of, well, ridiculous.

I never said I expect a Utopian world and I don't think anyone else did either.

I'm saying "terrorists" are expected in your neck of the woods considering America's r

What's right? Don't selectively pick up on points. Pick up on my general jist. America doesn't do what's "right" America does whatever to make sure it remains as the "superpower" Hence mentioning the Palestine/Israel situation which is actually a America and Israel/ Middle East situation.

Countries don't just emerge on top either. They take various routes. Have you heard of BAP? the British American Project which is basically like a political steering committee to make sure wherever America goes, and wherever it's success is garunteed, Britain will be right behind it backing it up so Britain can stay on top with America (because we're currently a load of crud). Surprisingly enough Tony Blair has been a member since 1983 when he first became an MP, and it's members extend to all walks of life including various news presenters and journalists such as Jeremy Paxman. These poeple try to convince the British public that whatever America is doing is the right thing and we should be right behind them all the way. Such as when Tony Blair pledged his full allegience to all wars against terrorism (completely ignoring what's going on with the IRA of course, oh did I apologise to the Irish? If not, sorry boys!)

Thankfully we're not so stupid and we know who sold Iraq their weapons, hence 1 in every 2 people think Blair is a lying twat in a recently conducted poll. Oh and hello to Rumsfield whose also made a nice speech here recently to rally up the trailing support of a war against Iraq.

Nope. What you did say, however, was that "nothing will happen" to us if we don't "f*ck" with other countries...which is, well, false.

I'm gonna assume that last word was supposed to be "record," or something of the sort. Yeah, I'm not terribly surprised that we have people who want to kill us...but plenty of them want to kill us simply because they don't like our way of life. There are other reasons, I readily admit...but their acts of terrorism are still unjustifiable...so what's your point?

Just because we can count on people being unreasonable, it doesn't justify their unreasonable actions.

I think we do both. Sometimes we look after our interests, and sometimes we put ourselves aside. Which would you rather have it be? If you want me to address all you say, why don't you extend me the same courtesy and tell me just how you can complain about America focusing on itself, and then complain when it's focus is elsewhere? Just what exactly would YOU have us do?

America is on top for one simple reason: we broke new political ground. We formed a very unique government with, I don't mind saying, a fair amount of fortune/luck involved. Our system is not perfect, but I think it's come closer than most, and I think that, along with the continual appearance of great men and women just when we need them most, is what's made America what it is.

No one said we were perfect. Yeah, we trained people who are now our enemies...we were too concerned with what we were doing at the time, and accepted any and all help we could get. However, as Gandalf would surely point out, "even the wisest cannot see all ends."

See, I'm not claiming that America is perfect. I'm claiming that we're screwed no matter what. If we keep to ourselves, people WILL give us sh*t for it. If we're out policing the world, we'll get the same. If we're doing ANY of the billions of things we could potentially be doing, someone will complain.

Let me get directly to my point. Do you think America should attack Iraq?

Whoa whoa whoa, hold up: you complain about me not answering all you're saying, so I ask you a few things straight out, and you ignore them? I don't think so. Don't think for a second I'm going to answer every little thing you ask while you repeatedly ignore what I say to you. It's called a conversation...not an interrogation, bud. Quid pro quo.

My entire original post was about Americas interference in other countries being the resultant cause of attacks on America.

The debate has broadened into points you've mentioned that I agree with, i'm not debating them, but my whole original question was lost...

Which is this, forgetting that "sometimes America does what's right" and on other occassions puts itself first, current affairs, war on terrorism. What's your stand.

You're asking what my thoughts are on war with terrorism? Well, they're simply this: take 'em out. If we're able (and I think we probably are), go for it. If we know someone's coming out to get us, we've got to go get them first. Obviously we can never fully win such a war, but I do think an example needs to be made.

think of all the poor Iraqi families you're going to destroy who will one day want to exact vengeance.

That's what I was originally commenting on... You do this now, you cause suffering there, expect someone to want to cause suffering to the American population some time in the future.

We managed to digress into a debate on the perfection of the American political system, this is of no interest to me and I don't wish to take up this discussion.

Iraq has not attacked America or threatened to attack America. Therefore Iraq has not caused terror and are not terrorists.

I think the rest of the world views us as mixed...but there's little doubt in my mind that the rest of the world thinks of us in a far more negative way than we think of ourselves. This is somewhat understandable...when you're powerful, you open yourself up to more criticism. It might not be "fair," but it's certainly unavoidable.