Us presidential election 2004

[turms 0]

About the swastika thing; Whats the reason that they suspect it was done by democrats against republicans? You sure it wasnt KKK burning some crosses?

as for the teacher thing, a snip from a other article:

Quote[/b] ]Parents e-mailed an assistant principal accusing Pillai-Diaz of suppressing free speech because the teacher refused to talk to pupils about why the color photo hung in the room.

"Students said, 'You like George Bush? He's killed people,' " Pillai-Diaz said. "As a rule I don't talk about my politics in the classroom."

According to Pillai-Diaz, Assistant Principal Mark Daniels said he had no problem with the photo, which hung next to posters of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. But Daniels told the teacher she should address questions that arose because of the photo.

"He wasn't giving me the power to direct conversation in my classroom," said Pillai-Diaz, who regarded the picture just as an image of the current president.

Thursday, at back-to-school night, the controversy exploded after a parent asked why the picture was up, Pillai-Diaz said.

"The way she asked was a political assault," the teacher said.

[shinRaiden 0]

Unfortunately, neither of the campaigns have addressed the entire 'alliances' issue in the proper light.

Diplomats have always been gullible for creating pretty pieces of paper that presumably obligate other people into doing things those other people may not care to do when it is not convienent or expedient for them. (Spain vs. Japan in Iraq) That kind of manipulation has been the 'justification' for innumerable armed conflicts since time immemorial. More recently though, it was the convoluted systems of alliances that precipatated WW1, by trying to pass the Balkan hot potato around to other parties with the effective intent of screwing everything up.

Then you have the Versailles cabal that created the idiotic lines in the sand and such that set the stage for WW2 and the Middle Eastern messes. Of course, since the US was attacked by Japan, the 'obvious' thing was to immediately send 'official' aid to Britain. Following WW2, the deck chairs were reshuffled again, but still along the east-west lines, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact. NATO's role was to be a tripwire to 'create' a 'reason' for the US to continue to be involved in Europe, at Europe's direction - opposite of the WP.

With the rearrangement of the deck chairs in Russia, the 'official' role of NATO has become an empty shell, and Europe has confused itself by trying to blend Rome and Byzantium into one big kumbayah family. Rome sez they're inviting Byzantium, but Byzantium says that they can't come because dinner ain't hallah.

On the other hand, those who have gotten a clue over here and question the role of the previous alliances (UN, NATO, old buddy, 'special understanding', etc...) are dismissed as "not a team player", even though they say the team is advertised under false pretenses. Does anybody else remember GW's 'quaint' notion suggesting a forum of 'democratic' nations? I'm sure that caused lots of heartburn over at the State Department.

Now if Bush were to admit that NATO was the diplomatic equivelent of a one-night-stand, that of course would not go over well, because people don't like the bubbles being burst in their virtual worlds. So here comes Kerry, accusing Bush of 'outsourcing' Afganistan, but implying that we need more non-US bodies and money in Iraq. I'm sure this would go over real well...

Quote[/b] ]

"Hi, PM Blair, this is President Kerry. Say, your guys aren't dieing your fair share, how about you leave your guns at the base and go in after Muqtada el'Sadr? That should even things out."

Seriously, you'd have to be astronomically high on Afgani hashish to not offend everyone's mother over the phone if you happened to be Tony Blair on that call. Do I hear the French or Germans volunteering to go be shot at in Iraq? Do I hear Americans volunteering to go be shot at over there either? No, because that is not what the mission is about, and that is why it is so counter to Kerry's presumptions about alliances.

Unfortunately, both candidates have been pandering to this broken record, and neither has offered a serious proposal for a new topical or regional diplomatic snuggle-up for the current era and situation. GW's 'Democracy Coalition' comes close, but nobody here cares about so-called third-rates like Poland and Japan, when they should. Until the political apparatchiks can be honest about the nature and effect of the alliances, and the gullible masses properly educated, this cycle will continue like the broken record it is.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]About the swastika thing; Whats the reason that they suspect it was done by democrats against republicans? You sure it wasnt KKK burning some crosses?

Please explain why the KKK is attacking the homes of conservative, white, upper-middle-class families.

[turms 0]

Please explain why the democrats are attacking the homes of conservative, white, upper-middle-class families.

Only ones having a history burning symbols infront of houses is KKK.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please explain why the democrats are attacking the homes of conservative, white, upper-middle-class families.

I've met bushels of Kerry supporters who believe that anyone who sees any merit in any of Bush's policies is a hard core Nazi.

Quote[/b] ]Only ones having a history burning symbols infront of houses is KKK.

The appearance of some swastikas on lawns does not automatically mean that they must have been made by a large-scale operation. This isn't a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, it's most likely a handful of jackoff Kerry supporters.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]it's most likely a handful of jackoff Kerry supporters.

This is what im interested to know; How do you figure that they are Kerry supporters or even democrats?

[denoir 0]

When it comes to alliances, there's only one possibility and it ain't going to work. It's the EU. China, India et al don't care. Russia might, but they won't send any larger numbers.

And the rest of the world doesn't have the resources or the interest.

As for the EU, you've got the UK already. The two other big ones are France and Germany. And the one large chunk could come from the other EU states. As a whole, the EU could in theory bring somewhere between 50-100,000 troops.

But Kerry or no Kerry, it ain't going to happen. It would be political suicide for any politican to even suggest it. And as the situation in Iraq is worsening by the day, the chances of Europe changing its mind lessens.

And it's not just troops - it's money as well. When the big Iraq fundraiser was last year was looking too collect $55 billion, the EU gave a symbolic sum of 200 millon € - which is basically nothing. Instead the real money has been given to humanitarian organizations that are not influenced by the US.

And Kerry ain't going to change that. Removing Bush might give more European comittment for Afghanistan, but Iraq is a done deal already.

There is however a very strong resentment towards Bush in Europe, and removing him from power is certainly going to improve the transatlantic relations. Something, I might add, that isn't necessarily good for Europe. Bush is good for European unity (a common foe) and he is doing a very good job of ruining the US economy (from a competition point of view good for Europe).

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is what im interested to know; How do you figure that they are Kerry supporters or even democrats?

Because I've seen smaller acts of "Bush-supporters-are-Nazis" vandalism.

One thing I can say with a fair degree of certainty is that this certainly isn't the work of the KKK, as you so ridiculously suggested. They don't attack white, middle-class conservatives, because the KKK is extreme right-wing (With racism and eugenics thrown in).

[turms 0]

Are you saying that everyone who spray graves with swastikas etc are supporters of Kerry, and Democrats?

Ive seen leftist people in Finland call a Right wing dude a nazi, does that mean that the finnish leftists are pro Kerry and they belong to the democrat party?

EDIT: Added 1 y and 1 n.

EDIT2: Why bother, better go to sleep

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are you saying that everyone who spra graves with swastikas etc are supporters of Kerry, and Democrats

Completely pointless comparison. People spray graves to insult the dead. The people who burned swastikas into the lawns were probably more interested in saying "Hey! This home is owned by NAZIS!"

Quote[/b] ]Ive seen leftist people in Finland call a Right wing dud a nazi, does that mean that the finnish leftists are pro Kerry and they belong to the democrat party?

You don't have to belong to the Democrat party to support Kerry. And if Finnish leftists are anything like American leftists, then they'd hope that Kerry beat Bush.

[EiZei 0]

At least it beats losing your job over a bumper sticker.

Yet another irrevelant debate, wonder when the "kerry cheated in teh debates omglol"-thingie gets posted here.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yet another irrevelant debate, wonder when the "kerry cheated in teh debates omglol"-thingie gets posted here.

That story is already gone .

[shinRaiden 0]

And if her story is accurate she has as much grounds for workplace discrimination as does the previous case of the school teacher.

[EiZei 0]

And if her story is accurate she has as much grounds for workplace discrimination as does the previous case of the school teacher.

I thought anti-discrimination laws did not apply on political affiliation in the US?

[Akira 0]

And if her story is accurate she has as much grounds for workplace discrimination as does the previous case of the school teacher.

I thought anti-discrimination laws did not apply on political affiliation in the US?

One can not be fired or discriminated against because of political affiliation.

The teacher was in the right if she wasn't trying to push politics, and the likely hood is that the Nazi bit was by some fanatic Kerry supporter, just like the fanatic Republican with the kids and signs.

I personally do not remember anything like this in previous elections (might have just not cared). If anything it tells you that this country is ripped apart right now...

[Bernadotte 0]

And Kerry ain't going to change that. Removing Bush might give more European comittment for Afghanistan, but Iraq is a done deal already.

I don't entirely agree.  European businesses have around 8 decades of experience in Iraq and will have a much smoother time than US firms exploiting those long-standing connections.  They're quite eager to return.  I believe that as soon as the European business community is able to start bidding for contracts then EU donations will rise dramatically and EU leaders will more readily get involved.

As Kerry said in the debate:

Quote[/b] ]And what we need now is a president who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes in it.  The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep.

But this president hasn't even held the kind of statesman-like summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those states. In fact, he's done the opposite. He pushed them away.  When the Secretary General Kofi Annan offered the United Nations, he said, No, no, we'll go do this alone.

To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, If you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction. That's not a way to invite people.

We shall see.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]This is what im interested to know; How do you figure that they are Kerry supporters or even democrats?

Because I've seen smaller acts of "Bush-supporters-are-Nazis" vandalism.

In Wisconsin 2000, 1 out of 10 Bush opponents supported Nader.

In Wisconsin 2000, 1 out of 2 eligible voters didn't vote at all.

In other words, there are plenty of Bush/Cheney opponents out there who are not necessarily Democrats.

And regarding the teacher who just suddenly decided to post the president's photo I'd only have one question:

Aren't you about 47 months late?  

[denoir 0]

The exclusion from the bidding has been lifted already. And it did not include subcontracts in the first place.

Ban on War Opponents Getting Iraq Contracts Lifted [bloomberg]

And this was only from the money that the US got for the rebuilding. In short, it never included the stuff that would be financed by Iraqi oil.

Money is however not the problem in Iraq. It's security. Only a fraction of the reconstruction budget has been used as there has been very little rebuilding. And until Iraq becomes safer, there won't be much rebuilding done.

There are plenty of European companies on the ground, but they cannot operate in a normal fashion due to the security problems.

[shinRaiden 0]

Quote[/b] ]In Wisconsin 2000, 1 out of 2 eligible voters didn't vote at all.

In other words, there are plenty of Bush/Cheney opponents out there who are not necessarily Democrats.

That's right. As a brand-new GOP precinct chairman, I have an area full of krumudgeonly old farmers who have an axe to grind with the state party, and have been staying away from the polls as a protest action. Problem is, by not exercising their right to vote for what they would term to be the lesser of two evils, what they believe to be the greater evil ends up leading in the polls, and that cascades to all the other gullible masses.

The situation now is that because of the state party's bungling, the candidate for the open congressional seat from the R side is a bungling n00b, and his opponent is a skilled and agressive D radio host. But the end result is that one has a D and the other has an R after his name. That little suffix determines congressional headcount, and that determines who gets to be speaker and who is minority leader. Changes in that balance is what makes or breaks proceedural politicking like filibustering judicial confirmations and congressional investigations and politically packing vital oversight committees like the select committes on intelligence. It's a nasty little mess trying to explain how voting for the 'worse' candidate makes out to be the 'better' result.

So my first order of business is to rebuild the bridges inside the party, and help the locals to see that. It's one thing to check your voter registration, but politics ain't just a every four years thing. If you don't keep up on it all the time you'll get creamed from all the nonsensical hyperbole.

[Bernadotte 0]

The exclusion from the bidding has been lifted already. And it did not include subcontracts in the first place.

Ban on War Opponents Getting Iraq Contracts Lifted [bloomberg]

Twenty-seven days ago.  And I can't see the EU getting excited enough to donate real money that may come back to their electorate through mere subcontracts.  In fact, I can't see them getting too excited about the following either:

Quote[/b] ]``The policy mindset has evolved in that regard,'' Robin Raphel, director of Iraq reconstruction, told a breakfast meeting with reporters. ``If we have future prime contracts to bid, say, more work in the water sector a year from now, the policy is that they will be open. It's a policy that's not yet concrete but agreed upon'' within the executive branch, she said.

Money is however not the problem in Iraq. It's security. Only a fraction of the reconstruction budget has been used as there has been very little rebuilding. And until Iraq becomes safer, there won't be much rebuilding done.

I agree.  And additional non-Iraqi, non-Arab (ie European) forces will not help UNLESS their primary purpose is securing the borders.  But as I've said before, I don't believe America really wants to seal the borders.  In the international war on terror, Iraq continues to serve too well as America's flypaper.

[Bernadotte 0]

As a brand-new GOP precinct chairman...

Cool.  Congratulations man!!  

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]About the swastika thing; Whats the reason that they suspect it was done by democrats against republicans? You sure it wasnt KKK burning some crosses?

Please explain why the KKK is attacking the homes of conservative, white, upper-middle-class families.

good one!

[Apollo 0]

I wouldn't be to sure though that the E.U wouldn't actually be preppared to send troops under UN framework to Iraq if Kerry gets ellected and play it right. (for ex. reviewingthe way contracters have been chosen)

Even more important is getting UN peace troops there of Muslim background ,country's like Egypt ,Pakistan and Indonesia could be a vital addition to peace troops there ,as well as Indian manpower would be nice.

Energy prices are rising dramaticly ,Iraq destabilety is a factor (well China's economical expansion is a larger one) ,if the U.S would be going towards a failure like Vietnam in Iraq for wich the bases might exist (that being determination ,Vietnam for ex. was bound to fail because of North Vietnamese determination (combined with a bad democratic/nationalistic south Vietnamese goverment) ,Iraqi's seem to be quite determined to and don't like their current goverment much),then that result opposed to Vietnam would actually be a hughe disaster for the Western world the E.U included.

It's important ,just like it was in Vietnam ,that in Iraq the democratic goverment can earn the respect and support of the comon Iraqi ,if the goverment there manage's to be accepted by the vast majority then the Democratic goverment of Iraq (for so far it's actually democratic now) will have a chance for survival.

But as long as they are supported and virtually controlled by the US as being it a vassal of them they will always be regarded by common Iraqi's as a puppet of a Christian colonial power ,they will never be accepted as such and the insurgency's will continue and intensify.

If however America can get troops of a multitude of backgrounds there that purely function as a peace keeping force withought anyone actually controlling the New Iraqi goverment then it could add to the prestige of that new goverment.

And as a matter of fact ,i'm hearing many rumours that should Kerry try to get the UN in Iraq he might actually get the support he seeks.

[Supah 0]

With the rearrangement of the deck chairs in Russia, the 'official' role of NATO has become an empty shell, and Europe has confused itself by trying to blend Rome and Byzantium into one big kumbayah family. Rome sez they're inviting Byzantium, but Byzantium says that they can't come because dinner ain't hallah.

On the other hand, those who have gotten a clue over here and question the role of the previous alliances (UN, NATO, old buddy, 'special understanding', etc...) are dismissed as "not a team player", even though they say the team is advertised under false pretenses. Does anybody else remember GW's 'quaint' notion suggesting a forum of 'democratic' nations? I'm sure that caused lots of heartburn over at the State Department.

Now if Bush were to admit that NATO was the diplomatic equivelent of a one-night-stand, that of course would not go over well, because people don't like the bubbles being burst in their virtual worlds. So here comes Kerry, accusing Bush of 'outsourcing' Afganistan, but implying that we need more non-US bodies and money in Iraq. I'm sure this would go over real well...

Quote[/b] ]

"Hi, PM Blair, this is President Kerry. Say, your guys aren't dieing your fair share, how about you leave your guns at the base and go in after Muqtada el'Sadr? That should even things out."

Seriously, you'd have to be astronomically high on Afgani hashish to not offend everyone's mother over the phone if you happened to be Tony Blair on that call. Do I hear the French or Germans volunteering to go be shot at in Iraq? Do I hear Americans volunteering to go be shot at over there either? No, because that is not what the mission is about, and that is why it is so counter to Kerry's presumptions about alliances.

Unfortunately, both candidates have been pandering to this broken record, and neither has offered a serious proposal for a new topical or regional diplomatic snuggle-up for the current era and situation. GW's 'Democracy Coalition' comes close, but nobody here cares about so-called third-rates like Poland and Japan, when they should. Until the political apparatchiks can be honest about the nature and effect of the alliances, and the gullible masses properly educated, this cycle will continue like the broken record it is.

I wouldn't comment too much on the current state of european expansion. Your presidential candidate tried to tell europe who to let in too. He was told in no uncertain terms that he has no say in that and never will. Bush has allianated Europe from America. Yes that has had its impact on NATO. Many European citizens want a stronger Europe, millitarily AND economically, that is fully independant of the USA to prevent us ever being lumped in with your electoral mistakes again.

NATO was doing fine before this president was elected. The reason why france and germany didn't go along with Bush his excuse for war was because they didn't feel the intell was true, that there was no imminent threat. Who turned out to be right in the end? When Kerry says that the USA has little allies in the war on terror he is right. Noone is sending troops in significant numbers because the traditional allies (and the people with the manpower to send large numbers)  have been allianated, insulted and don't feel like fighting bush's war of aggression.

Will these people send troops when kerry is in office? Probably not straight away. A lot of bridges will have to be rebuilt. But Kerry isn't so almost universally hated and dispised in europe as Bush. If Kerry remains honest with europe, doesn't lie to europe like Bush did then the transatlantic alliance might still have a future. The Europeans understand that the mistake in Iraq has been made and that there is no reversing that, we will have to make the best of it or suffer the consequence, but not along side GWB.  Few politician could sell that at home and expect to stay in office.

When the next Electoral cycle comes in europe and bush is still in power more and more allies will drop away. Governments might support Bush his war but trust me the populace doesn't. See what happened in spain, See what is happening in Poland that is talking about pulling out its troops. America will be more and more dependant on allies from the third world with dubious morals and in a war (on terror not for oil) like this if you can't take the moral highground you will in the end become just that what you are fighting.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Noone is sending troops in significant numbers because the traditional allies (and the people with the manpower to send large numbers)  have been allianated

Just for the record. Currently 2250 german soldiers are in Afghanistan, and KSK forces have fought along US special forces there in unknown numbers. We did indeed support the war on terror by contributing troops and giving money and we still do. German troops are stationed in Kabul, Kundus and Faisabad and form PRT´s (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) wich conduct rebuilding and security operations.

The war in Afghanistan however has nothing to do with Iraq.

German KSK forces in Afganistan: