 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Canadian Star Federation Empire Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Liberals and NDP only equal 154. Takes 155 for a majority. This is going to be interesting. |
|
I read in another news paper that liberals had recieved 137 seats. As it turns out that one got it wrong.
Liberals got in? ... OK ... It means that they have to be more honest because they have to work with the other parties. I can live with that.
          
| |
|
|
|
|
|
One of the problems that the conservatives have is credibility.
Before the election race started party leaders should have put a gag order on the conservative members running for office.
As Paguma suggested;
Anything not on the platform should have been carefully responded to and suggest that it is not part of the platform.
The other thing is, they should have been coached what to say on the sensitive issues such as abortion and gay rights and then say it is not part of the platform.
| |
|
I feel that any party running for office should spend 80% of the time stating what they want to do and how they intend to do it. The other 20% could be spent on problems and issues that have to do with their competition.
Instead they spent all their time telling us how evil the other party is and why we should not vote for them.
Makes me sick!
The US elections are even worse for the attack ads. I do not know how our US friends can stomach the election process.
| |
|
Ok OK the elections are over, I am going to stop bitching and moaning here.
I voted, we got a minority that requires 2 parties plus 1 person to pass anything.
I guess I am relatively happy.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
So who are you going to vote for Gerakken? The crazy Texan, or the guy who has no idea what he wants. 
Or are you going for a third party?
[Message Edited]
  
| |
|
#3511
by Veteran Gerakken - 6/29/2004 3:01:09 PM
| So who are you going to vote for Gerakken? |
|
Since you asked, let me run down the list a bit:
Bush? Heck no. His Majesty has clothed Himself in his wartime armor too much and thinks His policies are above the courts, Congress, or international agreements. I know the Presidency of the United States has a long history of breaking our own Constitution in times of war (Civil War and WWII in particular), but there are no excuses now. We have valuable lessons from the past and should know that when we promise equal protection FOR ALL (or at least all our own citizens) it cannot be revoked en mass merely because a certain demographic group has more high risk individuals in it. (Specifically, Arab Muslim males in this day and age.)
Kerry? He's been playing the game too long. As a member of Congress, I do see the need for him to serve the will of his constituents even if it is sometimes against personal feelings. But in Kerry's case, does he have any real solid core of lines he will not cross even if the polls say so? The President of the United States needs to lead, not react to polls. Briefly back to Bush, I'll give him points for following his vision, even if I think he is going about it the wrong way or has unrealistic expectations. With Kerry, where are those gut issues, or does he flow like the tides along with opinions?
Nader? No, he may have his day in the sun, but he is not ready for prime time yet. I believe that Nader, while being a little too self-centered at times, would be good for the people overall. He just needs a little more time and some access to issues he would be weak on, like foreign policy. We got a dangerous world out there right now, and US credibility with many other nations has been strained. The next president needs a strong plan to fix that credibility gap or needs to be experienced in some manner with diplomacy and, an important thing in my book right now, military matters.
So I am going to truly waste my vote and write in either Colin Powell (a diplomat and an ex-general, how convenient!) or Wes Clark (another military man who I think could restore US reputation a bit and solve our current military deployment problems).
   
| |
|
Just FYI, I would stay away from Clark. During Kosovo, where he was in command during the campaign, he got mad because Russian troops beat us to the main airport, and he actually ordered our troops to attack the Russians. His subordinate refused, and was eventually able to talk sense into him, but not before almost causing WW III.
| |
|
#3513
by Veteran Gerakken - 6/29/2004 3:57:30 PM
| During Kosovo, where he was in command during the campaign, he got mad because Russian troops beat us to the main airport, and he actually ordered our troops to attack the Russians. |
|
True, he was a bit out of line there, but another great American general also had what seemed to be an irrational attitude about the Russians (then under the guise of the Soviet Union) at the end of Word War II. This nut job was named Patton, and had he tried to warn us of the Devil's deal we made with Stalin that would enslave a large part of Europe under a repressive set of Communist regimes. Took us over 40 years from the end of that war to get out of that jam.
Then another nut job said something stupid during the Korean War about giving him enough men and he would solve the Chinese interference. I admit that MacArhtur's course of action would have led diretly to World War III, but at least it would have been with a China without nuclear weapons and a Soviet Union before it had massive nuclear capability. Now we face an imperialistic China armed to the teeth with nukes and very distrustful of outsiders as it annexes territories and has designs on others. (Such as Tibet and Taiwan.) Not to mention the fact they are still propping up that troublesome North Korean regime that would have crumbled under its own weight by now without massive foreign aid. (Aid sometimes willingly given, but lately mostly extorted under threat of weapons of mass destruction). And we still have not extracated ourself from the North Korean jam. Plus, as a bonus, we never even ended that war officially. It is still a war! It seems the four sides involved at the time never got around to signing any peace treaties, even after 50 years.
So the US has had some colorful generals with undiplomatic opinions prone to harsh actions before. They may have been rash, but not necessarily wrong in seeing an obvious threat we did not/could not/would not pay the price to stop. So I won't hold that moment of weakness against Clark.
Back to Kosovo. I wasn't trusting the Russians as far as I could throw them when it came to Kosovo. They had long standing designs on the region and a close relationship with the Serbian regime that was causing all the trouble. If it was a crime for the US to sit back after the first Gulf War and let Saddam gas the Kurds and take mass reprisals against the Shiites, it must be a greater crime for the Russians to give a wink and a nod to the Serbians back in the 90's so they could try and fix their Croat/Albanian problems via ethnic cleansing.
Whew! More strong Gerakken opinion. Must be something in my coffee today.
| |
|
| Whew! More strong Gerakken opinion. Must be something in my coffee today. |
|
Always a good day when Gerakken has a lot to say. 
Now I admit that yes, crazy Generals are good things. But they have always been limited by their region of control and the people above them. Granted, they aren't always the best people to look to for rationality. Especially not since Bush took power. IMHO, military sanity reigned under Clinton. Bush Sr. did what he had to, but drew himself up short from completing it. If we had taken care of Iraq then, when it was a real threat, we wouldn't be giving the county back as a foundation for terror now. As for Regean, I'll just say he did a damn lot of good. We haven't been in such a mess since the Korean and Vietnam crisises, because in reality we lost both of those wars. While we stopped North Korea in that war, we didn't beat them: the real objective. Somebody justify Vietnam as a win.
Back to my point: Crazy generals are only OK if somebody sane above them has power. We don't have any crazy active generals, so we haven't had much of a problem, just a crazy leader. Put a crazy general in charge, and we've got a whole new ballgame.
As for who to vote for, I don't know. No chance am I voting for Bush. About nil chance on Kerry. Nader will just be a problem since he lost the Green party nomination. So I'm looking to the little guys.
| |
|
|
|
Oh, yes. Oops. Sorry about hijacking the place.
You were talking about politics...
[Message Edited]
| |
|
|
|
 Link
More US troops sent off to die. Is this really necessary to continue to send reserves, people who never intended to serve in war, just as a last resort group. They wanted only the skills, not the fight. Yet they are sent off to die, because Bush is spreading himself too thin.
And another debate begins. 
| |
|
| More US troops sent off to die. |
|
I feel bad for the guys being called up. I would not want to be in that country (Iraq) right now. I keep thinking that there has to be a workable solution to the whole problem.
I agree with Gerakken, that if they had done it right during the gulf war Iraq would not be a problem now.
I don't think that the US can pull out with out Iraq being able to take care of itself. I think that it is in the best interest for the world governments and Nato to work with the Iraq government to help them recover.
They have to have real elections in January like the plan calls for otherwise they will be in a real hurt.
| |
|
| I agree with Gerakken, that if they had done it right during the gulf war Iraq would not be a problem now. |
|
I think I said that too. 
| |
|
#3521
by Veteran Gerakken - 6/30/2004 1:14:19 AM
Ah, everyone knows other countries have to bail the US out in Iraq. After all the justifications for war there boil away down to Saddam was a really bad guy who had no friends left in the world and Iraq was a far better place to fight terrorists than on American soil (and it might even change the whole region if Iraqis were shown the light of a Western style representative government, even though it is a totally foreign concept to them), Bush had played his ultimate card: I did it, it matters not why I did it, but if you folks don't help me fix it, then Iraq becomes a cesspool, a wasteland, maybe even another Lebanon during the height of its civil war.
And, as an added bonus, if you do help out but do a poor job in bailing the US out and rebuilding Iraq, we may have another Afghanistan: saddled with a weak central government that has no control outside of two major cities and cannot survive without the foreign troops and massive infusions of cash, and overrun with warlords who hold the real power out in the countryside. Now that is a scary thought.
So talk about dragging the world kicking and screaming into the post-Saddam era. NATO has got no choice. The UN has got no choice. I am not saying Saddam was a nice guy that does not deserve being brought down, heck no. I would want him dead any day of the week. But the world is full of tyrants and heavy handed governments that repress their people. Are we going to ask all the bad guys (in our opinion, of course) to take a number until we get to them? Or are only certain bad guys with resources or strategic locations worth our time? I find it kind of interesting that the USA is caught in that kind of moral dilemna partly due to Saddam. Do we show our power (and some say arrogance) by eventually taking down everyone that does not run a government in a way we approve of, or do we show our selfish side by only going after those who peak our interest and have something important to offer, or do we, in some far future, build a force shield around the good ol' USA and let the rest of the world do what it will. No longer the land of the free, bearer of hope, but Stalag America where no one gets in (unless we want them to) and we build our own prison.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
