U.S. Presidential Election 2008

because it is. The USA is richer than Luxembourg too tho the Luxembourgeois have a higher per head GDP. I don't think anyone would seriously claim Luxembourg was as a nation was richer than the USA though


FFS it was not a 'mistake' you prick. I was NOT talking about standard of living or the individual per capita wealth of people living in Europe - IO was instead talking about the opverall wealth and economic clout of Europe if it ever got its act together and iunified as a superpower. Jesus you are obtuse sometimes.

It's not my fault that you are apparently economically illiterate, BTC. GDP is a measure of income (a flow figure) not wealth (which is a stock figure) and when one uses it to differentiate between countries, e.g., which is richer, the GDP per capita figure is used, for obvious reasons. Given that Europe has to use its 4% higher GDP to support around 40% more people, I don't know how anyone with an iota of common sense could characterize the EU as "richer" than the US. Think about this, BTC, if you are going to claim that China is the 4th "wealthiest" country in the world, India the 6th, and Russia the 9th, will you also insist that they adopt Kyoto-style emissions reductions targets?

Cal, the post by wigwam is pretty typical of the rubbish you will see posted by leftist non-Americans in these political threads. Some of it is outright lies- the US never supported the Communist Pol Pot, for example, and others are misrepresentations- the US invasion of Haiti was a humanitarian action to restore democracy and rid that country of a bunch of kleptocrats unmoved by all diplomatic efforts. In the same year that the US restored Aristide to power in Haiti, the Rwanda massacre occurred, and it was one that tragically the rest of the world did not stop; however, if the US had invaded to stop the genocide there, he would have complained "the US invaded Rwanda".

It's also especially pathetic that its often leftist UK citizens posting the rubbish (given their own history).

Support for Pol Pot genocide: The USA backed Pol Pot with arms, training, finance and full diplomatic support for over a decade. This was one of the worst regimes in history, which killed over 1/3 of the population of the country. But the USA supported Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge as they continued to commit atrocities and destroy the country of Cambodia with land mines. The rise of Pol Pot started when the USA was illegally bombing huge areas of Cambodia and Laos, intentionally killing vast numbers of innocent civilians. The USA has never apologized for these crimes.

Wilful disregard of Ruandan genocide: When the US personnel in Ruanda knew that there was about to be a massacre, they quickly got all their people out of there and let the massacre happen, making almost no public comment while 800,000 people were murdered. The USA could have stopped it, but they were worried that US citizens might die as they did in Somalia. This must be what the US government means by moral leadership. US moral leadership means getting out of anything that is of no immediate benefit to the USA. One US citizen means more to the US government than 800,000 Ruandans. The US government pretended that they didn't know there was going to be a genocide, because then they would have been obliged under the Genocide Convention to do something about it. But revelations since then have shown that the government did know about it before and while it was happening.

Invasion of Haiti: Occupation of Haiti in 1994. The USA also invaded and occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934.

Let me get this right- a UK citizen is complaining about a US presence in Haiti from 1915 to 1934? How many places were occupied by the UK at that time?

wigwam, what you posted about Rwanda and Pol Pot is rubbish, but your comments show the US is "damned if it does and damned if it doesn't". I also wonder what "immediate benefit" the US had in Bosnia- which was a European problem that should have been solved by Europeans. How come your own UK didn't stop the genocide in Bosnia or Kosovo?

FYI: 1994 was under the UN banner.

If you say so Conq...it must be so.

I'm so glad you brought this one up because a very good friend of mine from high school went to Rwanda with the Peace Corp. just months after the massacre ended and he tells a very different story of U.N. peace keepers from Belgium dropping their weapons and running like scared school girls. When exactly were you there? I can put you in touch with him if you like so that he can set your dis-information campaign ass straight (or is that arse?) Europe hasn't done anything to stop anything since the Korean war, but the U.S. is damned it we do and damned if we don't, right? Either way were shit in your eyes which is just fine with me.

It's funny that you brought up Rwanda actually (even though you spelled it wrong) because it's one of the examples I use of European impotence. Guess we were both wrong on that one, eh?

You wanna talk about Hiroshima now?

Cal and Conq, I'm not going to have a battle of wits with unarmed men. I'm off to the pub.

Going to drown your sorrows are ya?

SC- that's another thing the anti-American left does on these threads- "declare victory" and/or claim those who disagree with them (and almost always debunk their rubbish) are half-wits.

good reply wigwam. not to mention the environmental destruction resulting from american consumption.

conq you're a hypocrite

The DDR was an oppressive regime and I'm glad stalinism has mostly gone.
But before we get too dewy eyed about "Western" "freedom" and "liberty" let's cast a brief look at this week's news.

The ACLU claim that the US has over a million names on it's "terrorist" list and the news that Europe is possibly going to be supplying more data to the US authorities, inclusig political beliifs, trade union membership and sexuality.

Or the new Bavarian Public Assembly Law, pushed through a rubber stamp parliament on the day before its disolution.
When that parliament may quite possibly reconvene with forces to rival the single party that has had a monopoly on power in the state for 50 years....

Get your coat SlowCal love, you've scored.

Now, now kids, it's nap time

Oh cool, Eurovol is back on. Quick, please answer the following question. If Al Gore had truly won Florida in 2000 then wouldn't it stand to reason that Kerry would have carried the state in 2004? Isn't it funny that when Bush won Florida again in 2004 the conspiracy theorists switched the claims of voter fraud and "disenfranchisement" to Ohio?

Didn't the Democratic party win the 2006 mid term elections resulting in the control of both houses of congress based on promises to end the war in Iraq? When exactly did that happen? And isn't it interesting that since Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination his rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq has already started to change to a more "not so fast there" approach?

Exactly.

Read this article entitled "As vote looms, Obama has changed, changed utterly" by Vincent Browne of the Irish Times.

No, and to think such a thing would open you up to being called the stupidest person on earth. Oh wait, I am too late...

Yup, I is da stoopedest pursun in da werld.

Knew you wouldn't Kool-Aid drinker

Oh, COOL! I just discovered the "Ignore User" feature under Control Panel > Options.

This will make Toytown bearable ... maybe

Well I for one refuse to be dragged down by nihilists.

I think Barack represents a LOT of what he says. Probably not everything, but what politician does?

And what human being doesn't change his mind? We're ALL flip floppers.

This is the first presidential candidate that I've been truly excited about. Excited enough to involve myself with the process, which is a hell of a lot better than arguing for naught on internet forums.

Having a black president would be awesome. Having a young president would be great. Having a president who can keep ahead of the sleaze and show some spine, while doing something to bring back some respect for America and inspire/remind Americans what America is all about, at least in theory. Having a president who is able to speak articulately in an educated manner, instead of playing dumb, would be fabulous. Really I'm not asking for much more than that. And end the fucking war. Get over it and start focusing on helping Americans.

But apparently that makes me a leftist/liberal/elitist/traitor. to the detractors: eat my shorts and i hope you like the smell cos your noses are going to get rubbed in fumundacheese come november

The first execution of a Black American during an Obama Presidency wouldn't happen. Would it?

Amen kros!

And to the hispanics, Vayamos campaneros

The only thing that reeks of is an inferiority complex.

I must admitt...I am not a straight party voter and pride myself to have always voted since I turned 18, this is the first election where I have no clue who I want for President. It's not about the race issue for me, yet the age issue concerns me. For me, I think it will come down to who their VP will be. No matter, this election year will go down in history. I'm proud of our country that we have shown greater support than ever towards minorities...an African American, A female, and an Elderly. So...hopefully for people like me who are still undecided...hopefully we'll educate ourselves and do further research on their backgrounds/beliefs to decide who will best serve our country's needs.

According to CNN and the New York Times, Obama has recently landed in Afghanistan

OH. MY. GOD. Did he kiss the ground when he landed?


Have you done any reading whatsoever into his background when he was in Chicago?

Come on, it's Obama, the ground kissed him

This could potentially get very Chuck Norrisesque...

Unfortunately a lot of people are lapping up all this horseshit without even thinking or checking whether it's true or not. Then again, according to Gallup, McCain and Obama are neck and neck in the polls, which is surprising as one would expect the latter to be leading the former by fifty percentage points...

Excited? Don't you think that's a bit unhealthy?! But seriously... I think enthusiasm is great but he's just another politician. Such excitement over one politician, who hasn't really proved himself yet, does seem almost like a personality cult.


But only if he's a good president, surely.


In theory? He should do those things in practice, surely?


Definitely.

..

He has proved himself and he is not just another politician, but you are blinded by the cult of Hillary who by the way didn't bother to read the NIE and voted to go to war in Iraq and also voted to allow the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas!

Lorelei, to me it's a given that the whole thing is a sham in many ways. I don't take barack literally, but rather what he represents and how the people will mobilize in new ways, and how they will be led to see themselves as americans, etc. Doesn't mean I trust him. But honestly I'm sick of being so skeptical of politicians ever since i can remember, it's nice to allow oneself to say "hey, this guy is ok!" I can see him as a human rather than expect him to be perfect. Rather than lambast him for every ridiculous reason I can think of, like many americans do, and like the media does. I find that whole paradigm cancerous and nonproductive and just another part of the fear-driven, dysfunctional zeitgeist.

Part of barack's message is a non-preachy reminder that, for as much as it is the politician's responsibility to prove him/herself, it's also the responsibility of every citizen to do the same (ie. fathers being real dads for their kids). otherwise, the people deserve whatever chopped liver they get. the reason i like obama is because this message has reached me and i've begun doing things about it with my professional energy that i wouldn't normally be interested in doing. Ultimately people need to come together and change their values from me-centered to helping one another and less strain on the environment, etc. The republicans are not about this.

but it's an era of sensationalism, so what a politician's intent is is less important than how that which he/she is saying can be construed and turned into ratings. and for that i commend obama, not only for his fundraising ability, but his apparent ability to get beyond the hype and make at least some people think about what they value. in the present world where values are no longer universally agreed upon, the ability to master the media makes one a good politician. compare with (computer illiterate! the guy probably couldn't even set up a wordpress!) mccain who quietly sits on the side, more or less waiting for the media to do some dirty work for him. even this strategy which worked for bush is today old fashioned. mccain and his 'straight talk express' are doing NOTHING to change/advance the political discourse, and that's one more reason why i think he's the weaker politician of the two. plus he's older than dirt and could never muster the energy that the office of president should demand.


because of his color? wouldn't surprise me ... but then again i'm surprised there aren't more dead presidents!

Get the fuck out of here. Nostradamus made one speech in 2002, in which, by the way, he simply argued that invading Iraq would be a mistake because it would clip the US's wings in case military action was needed elsewhere (!?!). This has subsequently been spun by his propaganda machine into the same 20/20 hindsight type chickenshit which they use to criticize the war in Iraq.

CNN: New York Times rejects McCain essay

Of course it offered "new information"! Obama is changing positions and scrambling so hard to get to the political center that he comes out with something "new" on a weekly basis!

Obama will be on Meet The Press this Sunday and my feeling tells me that he will hint very strongly at a possible VP for the ticket. This will set the stage for a major announcement within the following week (before the Olympics start).

well according to this the Iraqi government have just come out in favour of Obama's Iraq plan - that's quite an endorsement don't you think? And rather emnbarassing for McCain and his ovenchips.

They did that before (about a week ago) and got a call from the WH. The retraction from Iraq was precious as it still talked about a "timetable". Now they have just snubbed Bush and McSame again!

Is this the same Iraqi government (read Halliburton-sponsored puppet regime) which was dismissed as a bunch of Bush lackeys when they came out and said that the surge was working?

I didn't denounce them for that. Did you eurovol?

I would have said that they were probably better placed to know what was good for Iraq than most of us, wouldn't you?

It's just interesting that the opinion of the Iraqi government matters all of a sudden...

In election year everything matters to the spin doctors, good or bad.

The opinion of the Iraqi government really doesn't matter a lot. The American government is running their show. But let's face it, the Iraqi government wants to continue to benefit from monetary support from the new president in the U.S. The Iraqi government know the polls in the U.S are indicating Obama is ahead and looking very favorable to be the next president. So they would be very foolish right now not to support Obama.

Oh OK. I knew there had to be some explanation!

It almost never fails that BTC reads selectively and makes statements that require further scrutiny. From that very same Guardian article:




"He" is Ali al-Dabbagh, which the article cites as the "main Iraqi government spokesman".

What is the significance of the huge drop in violence? The surge, which McCain supported/supports and Obama opposed (beginning in January 2007) and said would fail, is working. Obama's 16-month timetable has been his position since prior to the surge actually being implemented. If Obama had gotten his way, there would have been no surge, and almost certainly no drop in violence, as he wanted US troops out by March 2008. Furthermore, McCain has said that conditions on the ground would strongly influence the withdrawal of US troops, a position that is absolutely not at odds with al-Dabbagh's statement of the Iraqi government's position.

Also from the Guardian article:


For those who actually bother to look at things with a clear head, it's actually a vindication for McCain, who had been calling for more US troops in Iraq since 2003!