Who are you voting for President??

[JohnM]

Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat,
populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth--
are never basic criteria.
The human race divides into those who want people to be
controlled and those who have no such desire.
The former are idealists acting from the highest motives
for the greatest good for the greatest number.
The latter are surely curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking
in altruism.
But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
--Robert A. Heinlein

[Sal]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I noticed that someone quoted my comment about starting a war with the stated reason of national defense, but chose to not comment on the war in Bosnia, in which we sided with the Moslim fundamentalists and helped exterminate the christians, and that was done to take our minds off a particular stain on a dress, or the definition of the word 'is'.

Karl, it's okay to quote me by name, as I quoted you below.

I was appalled at Clinton then, and I am appalled a Bush now. Tit for Tat just doesn't sit well with me, and there's no way I'll condone this Bush Administrations actions across a wide variety of terrain just because Clinton had problems of his own.

Back to topic, I was curious as to your assertion--and the reason I didn't comment was because I think you're getting your wars mixed up.

Firstly, Clinton's actions regarding Bosnia were in partnership with NATO with it's sponsorship. The Dayton peace accords were signed in Paris in 1995, and the Lewinsky scandal didn't hit until 1997. So, Clinton was a master strategist to plan a war two years before staining his young mistress' dress. *sarcasm*

As an aside, here's an article from the Washington Post and any reader can draw parallels from Clinton Era actions and the actions of the current administration. (both, appalling)

I think you may be referring to Kosovo and the Milosovich troubles, which could be argued to be politically and strategically motivated, though the relationship is tenuous, I do agree that the actions were founded on threat over thought.

***

Anyway, I agree with drolsinatas. IMHO, Segways should be one of the least areas of consideration when voting for our next leader.

-Sal

[nora k]

i imagine that if bush had rallied more for international support against iraq (even with the information the public has now learned was blatantly false) he might have gotten it. patience was not in his best interest, even though there were no signs pointing to imminent threats from there. clinton didn't need to rally other countries for support b/c nato was already involved in the kosovo crisis. i find it hard to believe that milosevic was committing genocide and the kla were charging forward with their once-peaceful insurgency on clinton's timetable. if anything, NATO (and the US as a member) was too late in Kosovo and should have worked harder to rectify the issue when the Dayton Agreement was signed in 12/95 and Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia were in the international limelight.

also, NATO deaths in kosovo: 2 - non combat related
US deaths in Iraq as of September 2007: 3,800
US wounded in Iraq as of September 2007: 8,298 - medical air transport required. 19,469 wounded - no medical air transport required.

if we pursue karl's direction and suppose kosovo was started by clinton and done under false pretenses then i applaud 42 (or really gen. wesley clark) for the damn good job of protecting the multi-national force from harm. not the case in our current situation.

while it would be nice to think our little corner of the galaxy means a lot to presidential candidates we need to realize we're just not that important - yet.

[Desert_Seg]

Although we have slightly hijacked this thread, I'd like to point out a few truisms about the Operation Iraq Freedom and the Coalition of the Willing:

1. UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the UNSC in Nov 2002. This resolution gave Iraq one final opportunity to comply with all of its disarmament obligations that had been previously established in Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284. Yes, that is right, when UNSCR 1441 was passed, Iraq had failed to comply with what it had agreed to do 10 different times.

UNSCR 1441 (which again was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the UNSC) stated that Iraq was breach of the ceasefire terms outlined in UNSCR 687 and that said breaches related not only to WMDs but also to Iraq's continued construction of prohibited types of missiles and to Iraq's purchase of prohibited armaments.

Furthermore, UNSCR 1441 stated that Iraq continued to provide false statements as to their compliance of all the afore mentioned 10 resolutions.

The UNANIMOUS vote on UNSCR 1441 gave it wider support than the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

2. Iraq was also found to be in violation of UNSCR 1373, which relates to Iraq's support of terrorism

3. The Iraqi Parliment voted to ignore UNSCR 1441 but Saddam Hussein vetoed them. Iraq then approved UNSCR 1441 on Nov 13 2002.

4. UN inspectors returned to Iraq in late November, for the first time in 4 years. They immediately located undeclared 122mm chemical rockets, the Al-Samoud 2, and the Al-Fatah Missiles. All three violated previously agreed to resolutions and both missile families also violated U.N. range restrictions.

5. Despite repeated requests, Iraq failed to account for substantial chemical and biological stockpiles which had been confirmed to be in existence during the last time the inspectors were allowed in Iraq (1998). Iraq claimed to have disposed of its stockpiles at a specific site but this was impossible to confirm as it not only wasn't witnessed but chemical testing done at the site did not show that any chemical weapons (anthrax in particular) had been destroyed there.

6. In January 2003 Hans Blix (UN Chief Weapons Inspector) reported that Iraq was not accepting nor meeting the requirements of UNSCR 1441 and that Iraq had "misplaced" more than 1,000 tons of VX agent (an extremely toxic never agent). Blix went on to say that with its excellent administrative capabilities Iraq could not have "misplaced" this agent.

7. Both UNSCR 687 and 1441 provide that any violation of any of the referenced resolutions could be enforced "by all necessary means" and both these resolutions "legitimize" the use of force and war. While some nations on the UNSC (France primarily) disagreed they could not argue with the fact that UNSCR 1441 clearly stated that Iraq would be given no more chances to comply.

8. On 17 March 2003 the US, UK, and Spain announced that there was no more time and that no authorization for war was required from the UNSC due to the "war clauses" in UNSCR 687 and 1441.

9. On 18 March 2003 the invasion of Iraq began with FORTY countries (led by the US, UK, Australia, and Poland) as active participants.

So, you see, if you know the facts, there was ample reason to invade Iraq as diplomacy had failed and they had (again and again and again) violated the 11 resolutions to which they agreed to comply.

While you may not agree with the invasion or the current state of affairs, and you may disagree with the interpretation of the "war clause" in UNSCR 687 and 1441, when 1/5 of the world's countries actively participate, and more than 1/2 support the invasion, there is ample worldwide support for the actions taken.

Just pointing out the facts...plain and simple.

Steven

[KSagal]

Eric,

Being Jewish, and having come from a family that emmigrated from Eastern Euorpe (the Ukrane during the Pogroms) I have an understanding of what the politics of fear are, and the capacity for one group of people to make an other group of people 'illegal' in your sense.

I am lucky to have been able to live a life where your turn of phrase was unclear to me, and to have been able to provide a life for my children that it hopefully be completely foreign to them.

And while we may not agree on all issues, we seem to share a value system that has little room for people to be ranked as more or less worthy based on useless titles like, skin color, or ethnicity, or gender or their chosen lifestyle, and should be that all are given an equal shot at the brass ring, and let those who desire it the most get it. (as opposed to those who are best connected to someone in power)

Steven,

I was mad at you. I am much less so now.

I have a tendency to remember many items in terms of large picture, and emotional imagery. While my memory is fairly good, it is very subjective. This is one of the reasons among others personal challenges, that I am not the best at research, or rattling off specific facts. I hold those who can understand the big picture and still do the research and command the specific facts in high regard.

I appreciate the facts Steven has presented, as they are what they are. People who choose to pick apart pieces of this sentence, and pieces of that, and then quote them do not get it.

I have found that there are enough stories out there to be able to find support for just about anything you want to assert is the truth. I have also found that most of these stories, in the high 90%s, are purposefully slanted toward one ulterior motive or another. Telling a person to be better read, then quoting a poor source of objective information, is silly.

Any person who gets their news from Rush Lembeau (sp?), or Air America, or CNN, or Michael Savage exclusively is a poorly informed person. All of those sources, and many more, have specific agendas.

TO get back to the topic of this thread, I too agree that in the long run, Segway specific criteria is a weak measure of a President. Still, thinking outside of the normal avenues is a plus in my book. Segways, or at least considering their place in society fits this topic, for me...

[citivolus]

Originally Posted by nora k

... also, NATO deaths in kosovo: 2 - non combat related
...

Just to complete the tally, in the 78 days NATO caused the following
Local civilians: 1500 dead. (NATO's number)
Chinese reporters and diplomats: 3 killed, 20 wounded, "accidentally" of course.
Yugoslav military casualties: ~170 killed & 300 wounded.
Not that I think anyone not directly affected really cares.

That said, to get back on "off topic," the current crop of authoritarian candidates doesn't give me much hope. The least distasteful, in my view, from the Red and Blue political party cartel are Gravel and Paul. Unfortunately, I can't vote in both primaries but it would be nice to give the "strangle the puppy" Republicans a swift kick into reality and knock the chip off the shoulder of the "drown the kitty" Democrats. The worst part is, by the time I get to vote, I'll either just be doing the same old voting lesser of evils in the primary, probably Obama (you can read that as 'not Hillary'), and a third party (read cool moose or libertarian as appropriate and possible) in the general election.

[nora k]

Originally Posted by citivolus

Just to complete the tally, in the 78 days NATO caused the following
Local civilians: 1500 dead. (NATO's number)
Chinese reporters and diplomats: 3 killed, 20 wounded, "accidentally" of course.
Yugoslav military casualties: ~170 killed & 300 wounded.
Not that I think anyone not directly affected really cares.

too many humanitarian organizations exist around the world to say that those who aren't affected don't care. however we merkins do spend a lot of time focusing on our lost brothers and sisters and too easily forget that everyone lost is a sibling or parent or child. the chinese embassy incident in belgrade is particularly atrocious. i'm personally glad you didn't post the iraq civilian numbers, which can make a peacemonger sick to their stomach.

maybe we should ask the presidential candidates how many lives they are willing to save instead of sacrifice when they take office and use this as a measuring stick to their integrity and character.

Your posting was quite lengthy; I'm not going to go further into it, though, as with your very first statement, concerning UNSC Resolution 1441, you reveal a propensity to compare apples, oranges and grapes:

Originally Posted by Desert_Seg

Although we have slightly hijacked this thread, I'd like to point out a few truisms about the Operation Iraq Freedom and the Coalition of the Willing:

1. UNSC Resolution 1441 was passed UNANIMOUSLY by the UNSC in Nov 2002. This resolution gave Iraq one final opportunity to comply with all of its disarmament obligations that had been previously established in Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284. Yes, that is right, when UNSCR 1441 was passed, Iraq had failed to comply with what it had agreed to do 10 different times.

That's not quite correct - at least your statement "Iraq had failed to comply..."

Iraq HAD complied, as it was revealed after our invasion... ooops, excuse me, "pre-emptive strike". What Iraq didn't do was to allow UN Inspectors free access. At one point, Iraq did offer inspectors entry, but only if the names of the inspectors were revealed to Iraq first, and that Iraq would have a "strike" against an inspector - akin to a District Attorney or Defense Attorney does when selecting a jury.

Care to guess which country - and there was only one - that had a problem with that, and refused the condition?

Originally Posted by KSagal

... (b)eing Jewish, and having come from a family that emmigrated from Eastern Euorpe (the Ukrane during the Pogroms) I have an understanding of what the politics of fear are, and the capacity for one group of people to make an other group of people 'illegal' in your sense.

It's my turn to apologize, Karl. In all our e-mails and messages, your faith never came up... because, ultimately, it's completely unimportant to me. I appreciate our conversations both because of our similarities, and because of our differences. Your faith, though, does make me immediately aware you are very aware of the strength of fear directed towards people, either individually or as part of a group.

As it stands now, thanks to Karl Rove, GWB, and Christian Conservatives across the country, if anything were to happen to Bill, I'd be dead within six weeks, after first losing our home, our dogs, and everything we own. If they had had their FULL way, in the last couple of years, Bill would have gone bankrupt, and lost everything himself, in a futile effort to keep me alive. All because they think their own marriages and families would, somehow, be "lessened" or "at risk" if they didn't "protect" themselves by denying Bill and myself to share in the same civil contract between us and the government as they, themselves, share with their spouse and the government.

If Bill were to die, right now, I'd have to pay taxes on our home as if I had just purchased it; I would not be entitled to the money we have in the bank without paying inheritance taxes. His pension vanishes, as does his Social Security, and my medical insurance stops at the moment of his death.

Here, in Phoenix, the Maricopa County Sheriff readily admits to simply pulling over Hispanics and arresting them, if they can't, on the spot, provide the documentation that proves they are in the country legally... so Hispanics, literally, have to drive around with their drivers licenses, immigration papers (if needed) and birth certificates.

And there's going to be a couple of generations of people in this country who will be born and raised under the concept of: "with freedom and liberty for all, except Arabic males."

[Desert_Seg]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

... Iraq HAD complied, as it was revealed after our invasion... ooops, excuse me, "pre-emptive strike". What Iraq didn't do was to allow UN Inspectors free access. At one point, Iraq did offer inspectors entry, but only if the names of the inspectors were revealed to Iraq first, and that Iraq would have a "strike" against an inspector - akin to a District Attorney or Defense Attorney does when selecting a jury.

Care to guess which country - and there was only one - that had a problem with that, and refused the condition?

Eric,

Your response is 100% incorrect. Do your research and you will find:

1. Iraq had materially failed to comply with all 10 previous resolutions. In fact, that was clearly stated in UNSCR 1441 and then stated in Hans Blix's report to the UNSC

2. Between 1998 and 2002
- Iraq turned off the monitoring cameras at is weapons production facilities, a clear violation of the UNSC resolutions.
- Iraq had agreed to allow UN Inspectors but refused them access to specific areas, another violation of the UNSC resolutions
- Iraq always had the ability to "kick out" any inspector that they felt was working against the interests of Iraq and outside the UNMOVIC charter. They did so more than once (accusing Scott Ritter of being a spy is one example) and then refused to allow any inspectors back in, another violation of the UNSC resolutions.

See pattern?

Iraq failed to comply with a total of 12 UNSCRs prior to the invasion. A "failure to comply" is breaking the law. After 12 times any District Attorney would put them in jail.

Steven