Election Results [Archive] - I Boat North West

Randygh

11-07-2006, 08:43 PM

The dems took control of the US House of Reps from the reps. Nancy Pelosi is going to be the new speaker. The feces are going to hit the fan between the new leadership and Pres. Bush. Pelosi is so far to the left she is out in the Pacific ocean and Bush is in the Atlantic. There's no way they will work together on budgets and bills. The US senate is going to be so close, both sides of the isle will have to work together in order to get anything done. There are enough moderates on both sides of the senate isle that neither party will dominate or dictate policy. Even with Vice Pres. Cheney casting a tie vote, the bills will need to be negiotiated while in committee.

Unfortunately the Iraq war, as brought to us by the liberal media and dems, will give the dems a big foot-in-the-door for the '08 presidency.

Roel Jansen

11-08-2006, 12:27 PM

Sorry for some, but personally this elections restored my faith in the the American voters. Although I think president Bush did it better more mature in his second term than his first. I think and hope that the next move will be the election of a more international orientated president. And that the war in Iraq will soon be to an end. Afghanistan is an other case.
Don't mind if he is republican or Democrat there will not be much difference. At the moment I don't know who to choose in the coming elections, 22 november over here. I think I will vote for a guy who is the leader of a party based on very tradional christian related principles. Normally not my favorite piece of cake. But one thing you can say about him is he has integrety and that's very rare with politicians now a days. And after all, always all of the dogs will bite you. . But I prefer to be bitten by a left dog. :D So maybe the socialist party again. Political programs of the 7 or 8 major parties don't differ very much. Oh I forgot, we also have a party for the animals. 2 seats in the polls already. Almost every well known personality from show business, world famous in The Netherlands, will vote for this party. All of you have a nice time and count your your blessings and go out and celebrate.! :lol:

bradvo

11-08-2006, 06:41 PM

Can't seem to find my party hat :(

coolchange

11-09-2006, 12:23 PM

Unfortunately the Iraq war, as brought to us by the liberal media and dems,...

I'm confused about the above...are you saying the war is the result of the Dems and "liberal media"? What did Rove, Bush, Cheney, Wolfo*, Rumsfield and Fox have to do with this mess?

Want some liberal media check out: LINK TV, Democracy Now, FSTV ..hard to find but really interesting We get ours on Satelite

Randygh

11-09-2006, 05:17 PM

No, the war is not due to the dems and liberal media. The reporting of the war is greatly influenced by the media and dems.

Last Christmas one of my daughter's high school classmates visited with us. He's a marine who had just got home after 6 months in Iraq. I spoke to him for quite awhile. He personal observations and comments were much different than the dismal picture presented to us by CNN, MSNBC and other media. He was stationed in Baghdad and was on many patrols. He said the Iraqi people were glad to have the solders and marines there to help keep them safe. He also said the people were friendly to him and he enjoyed the children.

Now that Rumsfeld is no longer Sec of Def., and the dems have control of both chambers of Congress, I have a feeling Pres. Bush will have an abrupt change of plans in Iraq.

Roel Jansen

11-10-2006, 12:12 AM

Randy,

I think Ii go on thin ice but it be so. The only one to blame are those leaders who delibratly lie about the real reasons they do things. The Bush administration was warned by their allies not to invade Iraq, without the permission of the UN, as it was done for Dessert storm. THe French and the Germans were cruisiffied because they, for that reason didn't join. Especially the French, they aren't cowards but they have the experience, no body else has, about that region of the world. And as a living proof you and I and the rest of the world have seen what has happend in France, especially in the banlieu's of Paris. We day by day can see what's happening in Gaza and Israel. Millitairy violence and repression doesn't solve anything there too. That Saddam Hussein was removed from power and brought to court I think is a blessing from the point of view we have. But thanks to the media we daily can see that a lot of people there don't. But we actually don't understandthat. But obviously we won't or can't see that in Iraq and the middle east and a lot of other countries, it's a different and far more complex story. For a lot of reasons we must become aware that we can't simply transplant our way of democracy in those countries. And as the war changed over the years, also a lot of Americans started or were already thinking that it can't be accomplished the way it's done now.
About the left media, during our last Vail vacation I had the "pleasure" to see Fox TV for the first and I hope last time in my live. Suddenly I started to think about Mein Kampf, the book Adolf Hitler wrote. The same method was used. Ffirst saying you have nothing against homo sexuals and slowly turn over and tell that they must be removed from all important posts in society. So I prefer CNN much more. I think what always will happen and has happened, there are always much more as we call them "floating voters", people who even when they go voting don't know till the last minute, who to vote for. Those people make the changes, and made it also in your elections this time. Mostly they aren't the least critical people. This group of voters is what the politicians are really very afraid of. Overhere 42% of the voters belong to them. The bigger the group is the better for democracy. And Randy reading what you have written under your signature I thought you also are! :D

Salmon Troller

11-10-2006, 09:47 AM

Roel -
I believe that I will join you on the thin ice, but I am headed a different direction. Yes the arab/muslim countries do have a different society, unfortunately one that is both disfunctional and incompatible with the society that both your country and ours enjoy. One could argue that we (you & I) should simply stay home and avoid the confrontation. Not easy in this age of world travel and open borders. From the USA to France, Germany, Denmark and others, this violent incompatibility is spreading. Did France avoid Iraq because of the lessons they learned or because of the economic incentives they gained from trade with Iraq, or due to fear of the internal threat from their existing arab population that continues to riot?

If you wish to believe the "big lie" theory, enjoy it, many of our own people do. From my view, one never has perfect information and being right would have held unimaginable consequences. In this case the information was proven incorrect, so as a result we pulled the plug on an agitator who committed genocide - not much of a downside. Kind of a shame that it took something this extreme to get the world community to act. Your point concerning Mein Kampf hits close to home, in the late 1930's and 40's all societies closed their eyes to an internal problem in Germany, you would think we learned not to permit genocide.
Best regards,
Jim

Go Aweigh2452

11-10-2006, 12:15 PM

Roel, funny how you see a TV show (FOX) a couple of times and make a generalized statement that it is likened to Hitler regime but yet, you spend days, weeks checking out a new boat before you make a decision as to its value...

Also strange how you had to come to the US to see it... What?, your society not allow the broadcast of rival cable stations? Hmmm, makes me wonder what your media is likened to (Hitler???? Nah...)... at least we can view any media out there...

FYI, Fox is a media outlet like CNN or what we common folk here in the US sometimes refer to as the Communist News Network. Fox is certainly more balanced in its news than all the other media we have here in the US. Of course I can understand you liking CNN since it does display many of the same ideologies that Europe professes. I'm really surprised that Fox is not broadcast over there... What reason does your media outlets have for not allowing it?

Fox has had a tremendous growth surpassing all other media and has remained the top cable media outlet for almost the past 5 years. That certainly would not happen if it was as biased as CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC...

Why is it all your TV stations that show the news are solely owned by The Netherlands Public Broadcasting Service? Any bias there??? Or are they "Fair and Balanced"? I'm only talking about HMG Text, NOS Nieuws, and NOS Teletekst... But wait... isn't RTL 4 and RTL 5 and in fact almost all your TV media controlled by The Netherlands Public Broadcast Service??? Hmmmm... makes one wonder who is being led...

Of course you do have an open I mean "socialist" society... You are right, I am not enlightened as most of Europe and maybe I am a bit of a homophob and would not enjoy media like your (De Gay Krant) http://www.gaykrant.nl/ Must be a biggie over there? (Pun intended)...

PS: we don't owe UN anything and do not need their "permission" to go anywhere...

On another issue...

Funny, with our elections over here and the outcome... I didn't see any rioting in the streets... no assasinations of candidates... only some peacful demonstrations... Sorry but I dislike the NL liberal values... and the outcome...

I am afraid that the Paris riots will spread to NL in the coming elections... You guys are stuck between allowing immigrants into your country or having your youth be the minimum wage earners... Without immigration to enhance future economic growth, your youth will be relegated to a drone work force providing for an increasingly geriatric and marginalized Dutch welfare state.

It is probably obvious you hit a nerve Roel... Nothing personal, just not in the mood today to listen to someone tell me on Veterans day weekend that I need permission... from the UN of all places....

Randygh

11-10-2006, 12:23 PM

Since when does the US need UN approval to take military action? Hell, without the US financial support, the UN would end up like the League of Nations. Not having UN approval reminds me of what General Schwartzkoff said, "going to war without France is like going to war without your accordian." Let's see how effective the UN presence in Lebanon will be in preventing another Hezbollah-Israeli conflict. Where is the UN in preventing Iran from developing a suit-case nuke? Yes, the UN has condemmed Iran for going forward with its nuclear development, but it is meaninless. Iran will develop a nuclear weapon that likely will be used against a western nation.

As Jim pointed out, borders are porous and muslim terrorists hate societies that do not embrace Islam. What is the UN going to do when terrorists pop a nuke in Tel Aviv, London, Washington DC, Amsterdam, Paris, or Munich? Unfortunately, I think it is inevitable that terrorists will detonate a weapon of mass destruction.

kirkster5

11-10-2006, 02:05 PM

Seriously, not to step on any toes here but if anything thinks Fox news does not have a Conservative Bias then one is in denial. I agree that most U.S. Media outlets have a liberal bias but to say that Fox is not the Ying to that Yang in the news "Reporting" game is just crazy. People tend to credit the position they hold as "fair and balanced" reporting when in fact the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Somewhere between the report of 68% of Iraqi's who want us out and the reports of all is well in Iraq is the truth. We are media "consumers" and we need to be smarter then the talking heads who want to force thier opinions on the public. The Media looks at us as sheep who need to be led so until we insist on accountability and ethical led reporting as opposed to ratings led we will continue to get fed the same crap filtered through the lens of whichever "bias" is trying to get us to watch.

So hurray for Fox and ditto for CNN. Oposing view points is what makes america great.

P.S. Now that this election cycle is over the only time I want to hear "I approve this message" is when someone says to me LETS GO BOATING!!!

Randygh

11-10-2006, 02:26 PM

Kirk--I too am glad the elections are over. During the last few days before the election, I was getting tired of having all the campaign advertisements interrupted by the news broadcasts. :D

Roel Jansen

11-10-2006, 05:03 PM

JIm, Doug Randy.

First of all the US is one of the founders of the UN. an organisation which has in its rules that no member state is allowed to attack a member nation. period. I can help that but it simply is a fact. France was warning for the conseqences it would have if the war wasn't approved by the UN. Of course they have interests in Iraq and Iran so have a lot of countries our included. Is only the US allowed to protect its interests? Don't think so. Fact is the US supported Saddam H. during his war against Iran. The US supported the Mudjahiddin and Osama bin Laden during tjhe Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They supported Pinochet in Chile against the choosen president Allende. Do I have to continue? Vietnam perhaps? No guys this all is about protect your interests. Any thing against it? I don't think so but don't start crying when it turns against you. About the Dutch Press and TV. Doug, sorry but you are wrong, but I don't blame you as you have some knowledge but almost nobody understand our system.. We have a very diverted system . By othesr praised by others dammed. We don't have state owned TV or Radio. We have the public sector existing of 6 or so different and independable broadcast Unions. Their rights and duties are regulated in a National broadcast law.
We have a right wing, a socialist a protestant and one of Roman catholic orgine. Next to that we have commercial broadcasting. among which are the RTL's you mentioned. But the whole responsability for that broadcasting law lays in the hands of parlement. About Fox I didn't say it's a Nazi broadcasting station. I stated what method imho they used. A method I for the first time encountered by reading Mein Kampf as a young guy a book written by Adolf Hitler. Germany is our neighbour country and as our country was captured by this nation for 5 years andI always because of all the horrible things and the holocast, I wanted to know why a Nation almost in total let it happen and could be collectively found responsible. One of the things struck me was the way H. wrote about the jews, first rather positive but without I really noticed it had changed a 100 % at the end. That made a very deep impression on me. Probably this was done centuries before by others but for me this was the first time I realised it. As a markerting guy I still am always interested about this kind influencing, promoting, advertising or what ever you call it, that makes people do things they basicly never would do.
The show I saw was about homo sexuals. It took some time before I realised that the topic too has changed 100% from the start of it. Asking my self how this had happened a bell rang I regognised the method It was done in the same way, say you dodn't have anything against them and than slowly start breaking them down piece by piece, briljant from their point of view. For the rest I agree totally with what Kirkster says about it. I also don't mind if people have a different view on political topics, I have problems with people who don't respect my right of freedom of speech, religion, political believe and right of organisation as is written in our constitution. Yes, as I have been active in politics, I can asure you they never speak the true truth they have one of their own! :(

P.S. Maybe, we overhere think and speak too much in terms using things that happened in WWII. Don't forget that our country was occupied for 5 years by a brutal regime that didn't care a dime for a human life. This made very very deep wounds that still aren't heeled for many older folks. Never the US was occupied by a foreign power and I am about very sure that never will be happening.so again count your blessings! ;)

1northernstar

11-10-2006, 10:14 PM

Very rarely do I get pulled into the political rhetoric that goes on in this board, but I'm not able to hold back this time.

I hate to say this, but if you haven't spent any time overseas in the last couple of years, its likely you don't know the whole story of violence that's going on, you only get what's given to you, that which is coming from our US media. And if anyone thinks they are giving you good, accurate info as to what's precisely going on over there, I suggest some reading of international newspapers, etc would be a wise investment of your time.

So why does the media sugar-coat the war? If they don't, they're excluded from Whitehouse press conferences, press releases, access to political news information that other news agencies will get. If you don't believe this is happening, do a little digging and you'll find this is the case.

We're always going to hear people over here say things like " I know someone, who knows someone, who blah, blah, blah, and the Iraqi people love us and want us and everything is going fine". You'll hear the opposite as well, that they want us to leave them alone. Quite frankly, both are probably right. Iraq is a big country and views/philosophies/support/non-support varies from location to location within Iraq. Just like it does in the US.

My point? The best way to establish your "opinion" (we're not over there, so that's all it is) is to pull as much info from as many resources as possible. In the last two years, I've spent extensive time in Singapore, Japan, England, Germany, France, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates. In my opinion, a good cross-section to establish "my" opinion. My findings? That the news coverage of the war in all those countries is highly consistent with each other, yet it varies quite significantly from the story being told by the US media.

So the arab/muslim countries have a different society than ours. So what!! Why can't we just acknowledge that and move on, rather than trying to change them to be like us. Our society is just as foreign to them as theirs is to us. But there are more diplomatic ways to approach the 'education process' than just going in guns-a-blazing. They have 2000 years of history, we have 200 years. They have shown they can change, but it takes time. It doesn't happen overnight, you can't turn the Titanic on a dime.

So why does the US need UN approval for military action? Because we're a member of the UN and that's the commitment we made when we joined. Was there any UN hesitation for us going into Afghanistan after 9/11? No. Was there a year later with Iraq? Certainly. And the US was given the opportunity to make their case, and they couldn't and the UN decision was to hold back. But we went in anyway... And after all the Commisions investigating the war, what did we really find out? That there was no justification for going into Iraq - the UN was right. Hard pill to swallow...and we should have listened. Instead we have thousands of soldiers that have died for the 'cause"...

There, said my opinion, back to boating...

Roel Jansen

11-10-2006, 11:20 PM

1Norternstar,

You said in one post what I wanted to point out but I need a couple of them. ;)
Last year US friends told us they watch a lot of foreign countries news programs as they didn't trust they got all the news from the US ones.

Doug, I don't know why there is no FOX overhere. Maybe they don't think we are important enough for them to broadcast here.(What I can imagine very well). Maybe they don't want to pay or want to be payed. CNN a couple of years ago was not broadcasted in Amsterdam because there was just that argument between CNN and UPC, our cable provider. Those cable providers have a big influence what we get at the cable and als vary from town tot town as we have a couple of them and they make deals with the City councils and not the Government. Also for eight years we don't have a socialist government. We have a Protestant/Roman catholic party with the help from a right wing and a small inbetween party. The last stepped out of it when the cabinet falled due to the Ayan Hirschi Ali problems about her real name. ;)

Go Aweigh2452

11-11-2006, 05:58 AM

The best way to establish your "opinion" (we're not over there, so that's all it is) is to pull as much info from as many resources as possible.

I am probably more "plugged in" to sources over there then most on this board. Of course I speak of the many soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen I personally know and taught before they went over there... They stay in contact with me. In fact I got a call just last evening from a former student who is a new dad as of 3 weeks ago and wanted to call his old instructor to tell him he is a daddy... He speaks of manning a 50 cal on top of a tank, of getting power and water into towns that had none, etc while in Iraq. He spent three tours of duty there. Another, 82nd Airborne, was kicking in doors and using his "sixth sense" as he tells it. Despite losing 3 close friends, he is proud of the 82nd and would go back for his third tour but as of 1 Oct is out of the Army and starting his college this spring at St Martins... (he came home last spring for 4 day R&R and stopped off at my classroom before going home to tell me he was getting out of the Army to start his college career) I also have a former student in Korea. He's been there the past two years and writes and sends pictures of what is happening from his prospective. I also have one currently in Laos that was in Thailand when the coup occured last month. I have a good idea, a very good idea, of what is happening...

Those who have known war, up close, do not forget it. They have forged a fellowship while facing the fire. They have had more occasion than the rest of us to ask themselves what is worth fighting for, to wonder what are the real values that must be defended. In the history of the United States, the most remarkable thing about veterans in general is that they come home as motivated in peace as they were in war. I'll listen to them over any news media foreign or domestic (self proclaimed unbaised, fair and balanced or otherwise)... or just about anyone else on this or any other board unless they themselves have "been there and done that"...

What are your plans today????? Finding good deals on store sales?

Have a nice day and enjoy your freedom... it was hard earned by the blood and sacrifice of not only todays soldiers. These are the men and women who, when they were called, answered with enthusiasm, and, like their brothers and sisters at Lexington and Concord, did not ask if it was going to be easy. They came; they sacrificed; they gave of themselves in the belief that were defending liberty; a liberty, which, if they did not live to see it, would stand as a shining beacon for the children who come after them. This is what the terrorist who attack our freedom do not, and will never understand and apparently some on this board do not either.

As our veterans gave us so unselfishly this wonderful gift of freedom, let us show our appreciation to each of them for this gift. In our thoughts, in our hearts, and in our prayers, let us remember them and honor their sacrifice.

If you happen to see one while shopping today...Thank him/her for their sacrifices.

Now I am getting ready to head out to Retsil Veteran's home to help them celebrate Veterans day by listening to them and helping to wheel them down to the days event with my cadets in tow while another group of cadets head to the Kitsap Pavillion to help them celebrate Veterans day...

SomeSailor

11-11-2006, 07:32 AM

Excellent post Doug; and Thanks.

I also appreciate your perspective on these and other political issues. You are the most "connected" (if that's the right word for it?) person I know when it comes to these issues and I know your involvement with ROTC keeps you abreast of what these kids are doing for us around the world.

It's definitely appreciated. I'd also like to thank our vets on this board and the many parents of vets I know are on here. Take the time to say thanks if you see a veteran today. It does mean something.

Roel Jansen

11-11-2006, 10:18 PM

Doug,

I thought we were talking about politics and not about the military because imho that's a total different story. You probably seems to have forgotten, where in the world a lot of your allies are active by means of troops and ships but almost always under the Flags of UN or Nato. At this moment our troops are fighting together with the US soldiers deep into
Afghanistan to chase the Taliban Just a couple of days ago we sent extra troops and neither all those men and women will not be home for Xmas. We also have ships in the middle east in the Israeli Hezbolla conflict . we have troops in Asia and Africa.. And you never, never heard me say we shouldn't!
To be honest I must say I am not very amused by your qoute:

his is what the terrorist who attack our freedom do not, and will never understand and apparently some on this board do not either.

I feel that as a deep insult to all those soldiers from all the other countries, out some where fighting for your freeedom too.

Sorry, Doug I respect what you are doing in live and you thinking different from me and others, but I can't see what this all has to do with your lost elections. ;)

1northernstar

11-11-2006, 10:39 PM

Doug,
Like Roel says, no one is questioning the bravery, honor, or valor of the men/women (US or otherwise) serving in the war. It's the basis of the war that is being questioned.

A key thing some people tend to overlook - you can support the troops, and still oppose the war.

The soldiers over there are just doing what they're being commanded to do, and for that everyone has the utmost respect for. But for the commander in chief who put them there, and the message these most recent elections delivered, that's what this thread is about.

If 9/11 is the reason we're in that area of the world, lets go for the root cause - Osama in Afghanistan - rather than pursuing a situation who's time wasn't right.

Go Aweigh2452

11-11-2006, 11:18 PM

Opposing the war and supporting the troops.

Consider the reasoning:

I oppose the war, but I support the troops.

I oppose the victory of America over Iraq, but I support the troops in their effort to achieve victory over Iraq.

I oppose the efforts of President George W. Bush to remove Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq, but I support the troops who are carrying out the orders of President George W. Bush.

I oppose the use of arms and equipment to defeat Iraq, but I support the troops who are using those arms and equipment to defeat Iraq.

I oppose putting out fires, but I support firefighters.

I oppose arresting criminals, but I support police officers.

I oppose flying around in airplanes, but I support pilots.

I oppose what you do and how you do it, but I support you.

I oppose what the troops are doing and how they are doing it, but I support the troops who are doing it.

I oppose the war, but I support the troops.

What does that mean? If the troops you support win the war you oppose, will you be happy or sad?

I can understand if we were conscripted and had no choice to join the military like VN days... no problem... but today we are a volunteer force... so I have difficulty understanding opposing the war but supporting our troops.

Maybe Jon Cary was rite... Im jus ignorant... (yes that is tongue in cheek)

OK, I'm done... thanks for reading. Closed for biz...

I have a lunch date with a former cadet that is out of the military now (actually on leave wating for his enlistment to run out...) I'll ask him his thoughts on this...

Salmon Troller

11-12-2006, 07:37 AM

Roel -
This thread DID move away from the election results. To help get it back in line, I offer this - You suggested that Doug or others "lost" the election - not true. Neither Doug, nor I were up for election and personally could not lose. The American people held an election and appointed people to serve in a variety of positions. Yes the balance shifted from a few points in favor of one party to a few points in the other direction, but this is not the end of the world. The American Legislative Branch is designed to be a functional gridlock, with two parties balancing themselves. As a conservative voter I tend toward one party, and I will voice my opinion on issues as I see fit and as allowed in my rights, but at the end of the day when all the debates are done, this becomes the American position. Did we "lose" an election, no, it worked exactly as it should. Will some new faces at the head of the table shake things up, you bet, and likely in some unpredictable ways. That will be good and bad depending upon where it goes. The election is over, now we can only watch.
Regards,
Jim

SomeSailor

11-12-2006, 08:40 AM

Very well put Jim;

I consider myself a "conservative" in many respects when it comes to government dealings and particularily those concerning our military, but I also believe we can see the general concern of the nation is shifting (as is my own). Not a bad thing, or a good thing, just a shift in American politics. We should all feel fortunate that we live in a country where a system like this can be allowed to work openly.

We DO need an exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will take strong leadership and sound judgement, but that has nothing to do with a person's political alignment. We'll be fine in the end, let's be mindful of what brought us to that part of the world. It was the events of 9/11... not the oil or politics.

Roel Jansen

11-12-2006, 10:18 PM

Jim,

I accept! :) . What I mean by lost elections is that every voter is up to elections in a way. If I vote , I not only vote for a party or a person but more for some very general principles a want to have in society. And if others are prepared for their ample reasons to get rid of some of them and I by word and by writing, when ever it was possible, I tried to made clear what kind of catostrofy we would run into if it would happen, but the majority of voters decides different, I feel it as a personal loss and the grapes are very sour for me at that specific moment.
But I too, realize this is Democracy, and as I am a democrat by heart and kidny as the saying is over here, I always respect the outcome of the elections. So basicly I think we don't differ very much in principle. But my big grief is Politicians always speek about people but never whit them!
Their twisting and lying for their own benefits , which in my active days, I encountered time by time, made me a very critical citizen! But I also learned that relativation with a smile and not taken your self to seriously is the name of the game. ;)

beyond kelp

11-16-2006, 09:10 AM

Did anyone notice how the dems who voted for the Iraq war made it look like the republicans were the only ones that wanted to go in the first place. THE INTELLIGENCE SUCKED! What if it was right and we did nothing? I swear, until a nuke is detonated on U.S. soil, nobody will admit that it is HOW OUR SOCIETY IS IS THE REASON THE PEOPLE WHO SPREAD TERROR WANT US DEAD, and thats not going to go away. Look at the targets-capitalist icons. It is capitalism and the percieved lack of morality in this country that keep us from seeing eye to eye. Roel, we believe we are defending our way of life, good or bad. How we go about it is never going to be popular with outsiders. I like the idea of the world embracing instead of conflicting, but that will be hard to accomplish with the difference of opinion that exists. Watch the video on the thread "Why Vote Republican" here and see the other side. There is another side...IMHO

Roel Jansen

11-16-2006, 09:39 PM

There also is an other side. some months ago I got a rather thin book from a writer named Amos Oz. Never heard of him until I heard a review of this book on the radio. I support an organisation that helps people all over the world with projects like building a hospital, drilling wells for clean water etc. I got this book from them. So after the review I start reading iit. The title was How to cure a fanatic. here is the link to the first chapter.

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8128.html

Later on I heard he was nominated for the Nobel price for literature.

This small book has more wisdom in it then a lot of people will like. It's about how to solve the problem when two parties have a conflict and both are right.
In this case the Israeli and the Palastinians. At 9/11 I was the first who wrote about it at BOC. And I wrote that it wasn't an attack on the US but on the whole civilised world. I felt and still feel it that way. But why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked? They with hughe summs supported the Taliban! Why Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction?
Don't forget the international investigators on behalve of a UN resolution where looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq too. And had not found anything yet at that time. I don't think it's the way we live but the way we act is far more important to make friends or enemies. We supported the war in Iraq and also as other countries had troops there. I wasn't against and still am not our government sendings troops, but I very well know that the cure turned out to be much more worse than the disease. If we say A we also have to say B and I think we have to drink the whole mug ad fundem (till the bottom) now.
Buy the book it's very good reading !

beyond kelp

11-16-2006, 11:02 PM

My point was only to assert the Democrats tried to make the war an issue (Apparently sucessfully) and distance themselves from the fact that most of them believing the same intelligence voted to support the war in Iraq. If they bail out now, they accomplish nothing and lost a lot of lives doing so. How will we reconcile that? Lets finish what we started and give these people the right of self-determination that will hopefully change the middle east. IMHO

Roel Jansen

11-18-2006, 12:23 AM

Beyond kelp,

Just this hypothetical question, if president Bush could go for a third term in office would he be elected this time? Why deny the democrats to have the right to change their opinion as probably, looking at the outcome of this election, a lot of Republican voters must have done? Is it the dramatic, probably unforseen, chancing of the war or is it the way the change is brought to the public ?
I think but just my two cents, that there are as many Republican soldiers in the war as Democrats. Maybe the total number of casualties rising day by day and there seems not to be any light at the end of the tunnel, is the main reasonfor the chancing?

SomeSailor

11-18-2006, 07:10 AM

My personal belief is there is a certain amount of natural "cycling" if you will... between the parties. I'm not a conservative in most senses, but see things represented by both sides that I agree with.

If it were my choice; I probably would not have supported a 3rd term for the Bush administration. Not because he's don anything hugely wrong, but because they haven't clearly defined our purpose and diection.

The effort in Iraq has stalled lost momentum over a year ago. Without a clear plan, a dedicated exit strategy and the committment of an administration to follow-through (regardless of the political ramifications), we won't stand a chance at getting out of this cleanly.

Go Aweigh2452

11-18-2006, 07:26 AM

Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard and reserve subscribers to Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times.

Since "Cary's" gaff, that number has risen, especially after the dems tried to once again suppress the overseas military ballots this past election. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1731131/posts

That's the problem with the news over in Europe, you get the headlines, not the underlying stories. A great majority of the military STILL endorse President Bush. They believe in what they are fighting for.

To make a subjective vice objective question as to a what if third term... is preposterous...

It is obivous that even the dems have/had no plan. They are currently split as to the war in Iraq... some want out now, most want out when the time is right. That time will be when Iraq has a stable government that can hold its own.

It took over 3 years to remove all the German werewolfs from taking pot shots at the "Occupiers" after WWII all the while the werewolfs were killing elected town leaders, killing "colaborators" men, raping women and children or don't you recall that bit of history?

What did the Werwolf do? They sniped. They mined roads. They poured sand into the gas tanks of jeeps. (Sugar was in short supply, no doubt.) They were especially feared for the "decapitation wires" they strung across roads. They poisoned food stocks and liquor. (The Russians had the biggest problem with this.) They committed arson, though perhaps less than they are credited with: every unexplained fire or explosion associated with a military installation tended to be blamed on the Werwolf. These activities slackened off within a few months of the capitulation on May 7, though incidents were reported as late as 1947.
...
Goebbels especially grasped the possibility that guerrilla war could be a political process as well as a military strategy. It was largely through his influence that the Werwolf assumed something of the aspect of a terrorist organization. Where it could, it tried to prevent individuals and communities from surrendering, and it assassinated civil officials who cooperated with the Allies. Few Germans welcomed these activities, but something else that Goebbels grasped was that terror might serve where popularity was absent. By his estimate, only 10% to 15% of the German population were potential supporters for a truly revolutionary movement. His goal was to use the Werwolf to activate that potential. With the help of the radical elite, the occupiers could be provoked into savage reprisals that would win over the mass of the people to Neo-Nazism, a term that came into use in April 1945.
They damaged Germany's economic infrastructure, already battered by Allied bombing and ground fighting, and tried to prevent anything of value from falling into enemy hands. Attempts to blow up factories, power plants or waterworks occasionally provoked melees between Werewolves and desperate German workers trying to save the physical basis of their employment, particularly in the Ruhr and Upper Silesia.
Several sprees of vandalism through stocks of art and antiques, stored by the Berlin Museum in a flak tower at Friedrichshain, caused millions of dollars worth of damage and cultural losses of inestimable value.

SomeSailor

11-18-2006, 08:02 AM

It is obivous that even the dems have/had no plan.

It's the EVEN part in that statement that worries me also Doug. I suport what we went in for. Military intelligence is never 100% accurate, but I think we've lacked the political courage to make an exit strategy plan know and mocve forward with it.

I'm not talking about a committed "cut and run" date, but a clear plan for what our plan was, is and under what conditions we'll fall ack.

If our goal was to depose SH, then we've accomplished that.
If our goal was to expose and eliminate WMD production or stockpiling, we've accomplished that.
If our goal was to establish a new government and constitution, we've accomplished that.
If our goal was to establish a military presence and stepping-off point in the region, we've done that.

But what is the next step? Who is gonna make the political power-play that says... we're gonna execute the following plan: (insert exit strategy here) and be willing to deal with that decision. We need leadership at this point. Strong, unwaivering and calculating leadership... not political posturing for the upcoming Presidential election status.

Don't confuse patriotism or support of those in the fight, with a concern for where our political system is taking our military. We've all got a dog in this fight.

beyond kelp

11-18-2006, 02:48 PM

Post war planning and execution are a problem. The U.S. has to tread lightly on the "occupier" level. A larger presence may have been wiser, but whether or not it was considered, there is always the matter of world opinion to think about. What were the constraints? Hard for me from my seat without any of the information the policy makers had when making a decision. Maybe the go it alone thing was a bad idea. I know that after 10 years of S.H. thumbing his nose at the U.N., something should have been done. Otherwise, as many of you have had to raise children, the point just somehow doesnt get across. Like a security cop Stop, or i'll yell Stop again! Verses a shot across the bow...Who wants the job of President- no matter what you do, somebody is going to second guess you into the ground. What I like about Bush is at least he has the balls to have a position. The only nut Kerry has is his wife. Every time I hear the term "Democrat" I think, sure, Ill have the Waffles. Maple syrup, please. To change your mind is one thing, but when your voting record is public knowledge, to act like you never bought into something when you did, is childish or dishonest, one or the other. When I look at voters themselves, for the most part, I identify with the republican voters the most. They look like respectable, thoughtful, intelligent, people that have a better sense of morality than some. When I see dems, I see not the backbone of this country, but the demise of it. Im sure I will be taken to task for that statement, but is with exceptions which im sure folks will point out. But I chose to have the balls to tell you where I stand- For the fallen members of the Military that fought and fight for what we have today and for the elected officials that take the lumps for sending them out there. Have you read the version of D-day that paints everything as a fiasco- enviromental disaster, etc.? You can make anything seem like a debacle if you try, but through the eyes of history - like Tim showed with his post above, the jury will be out on this event for some time. So to try and get a Verdict now would be foolish and fruitless. Formost in my mind is just because it is a bitch over there, so are many things that turn out to be just what the doctor ordered- with the test of time. Only nobody -Demos, pundits, bloggers, will be at the podium, saying "Wow I really bungled that one". They won't be "tail between their legs" either- they will be bestowing their nay saying, beligerent, monday-morning-quarterbacking on some other poor fool who ran for office and tried to accomplish something. IMHO P.S. Salmon Troller, you were right on :)

beyond kelp

11-18-2006, 02:58 PM

Anybody notice the celebration when S.H. was deposed? Or when the verdict was handed down? Or when millions risked their lives to vote? Where are the ideals of the dems now? We just freed a country- we don't take over countries. At least I think we don"t. By the time I get some huge liberal answer with a bunch of twisted facts and tortured logic , i'll probably believe different.....

Roel Jansen

11-19-2006, 12:08 AM

Doug,

You mean this kind of stuff?

http://tinyurl.com/yjhobw

Doug, the German people finally saw that whenever they went in to war the final outcome was they lost almost everything they had . So the Wherwulf's didn't got any support at all from the German people sick and tired of any War. So it died rather quickly. I was in Berlin just before the wall was built and it was 15 years after the end of WWII. I can tell you what we saw was a city still with most parts of it totally destroyed. That wasn't in the Russian sector only, on the contrary. You could see the bullet holes in destroyed houses and some destroyed cinema's had still the bill board of the movie that was played that night when it was bombed. The famous Kurfurstendamm K-damm with the Gedachtniss Kirche now a monument to remind what has happened and a must to visit, still was in the state of art as it was bombed and half destroyed. I really think you can't compare by any means, the situation in Germany after WWII, with the situation in Iraq. Germany was destroyed by the allies but din't kill each other on a daily base.
Doug, there is no trouble with the news we get in Europe. We just get it as it is very detailed every day, not from one station but we can chose stations from a lot of countries and yes stations from left to right. I think Mike is right. The Bush adminstration calculated after the Military convinced them, they were able of a quick end of a War against Iraq, with very less victims. The military did a superb Job, the whole world could see it. But if you want to compare what happened after the militairy part of the war was over with the situation in Germany and the rest of Europe, after WWII, it's a mistake. The Allied governments probably thought that when Saddam was captured, the people would be grateful, and in the beginning were, a new government to be installed, the rebuilt of the Nation would start and the majority of the troops could be pulled out. They miscalculated what the French has warned them for. They disarmend the Iraq Militairy, underestimated the rivalty between the two streams of Islamism, and the political vulnerable situation in the region. Iraq under Saddam was long thought to be a political stability in the Region. By removing him, the stabillity was gone.Thast5's maybe one of the mo9st important reasons the allies didn't remove him from power after dessert storm. But as Iraq also has big oil reserves a lot of countries try to get political and economic influence in Iraq. They abuse the Nationalism of the Kurds in the North and the tensed situation between the two Islamatic groups of the population by putting them up to each other. But most important in the midle of this is the ugly American they all blame him to be the cause of all evil. I think history will always to be repeated. Like in Vietnam , like in Iran the strongest groups will take over. If we look at recent history we see a lot of times that dictatory regimes have fallen.
Portugal, Spain, Chile, Greece , Argentina and a lot more by them selves and a lot of political pressure and economic measures of the outside world, they got rid of those regimes. It may take long but any Government that doesn't have the support of the people will be replaced. Surpression or not. And I think this is the best way to go. But a lot of people refuse to learn from the lessons history has told us.