James

[quote name='Sabre'] Oh, and Democrat administrations seem to make more progress with New Zealand interests, and it can't hurt our free trade goals.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Barack Obama is opposed to free trade, just so you know. The site I linked to before has clear bullet point lists of what the candidates stand for on each issue. I've read a bit of it, but I still have to finish. I figure I should tick a box on one side for each issue and then add them up to see who I support. That way it's got nothing to do with personality/image/etc and everything to do with the issues. And as a general aside, maybe it's true that the problem with democracy is that the country is actually run by the "ignorant masses". I'm therefore glad that someone who has an extremely narrow definition of "family values" is in no position to legislate.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This is more what I was looking for: [url]http://obama-mccain.info/index-obama-mccain.php[/url] I'll have a read up on that later and tell you what I think. Haha.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh, I'm not really looking for polls as such. I'm looking for a list of subjects and a comparison of each candidate's view on that subject. I'm sure these exist but I'm not sure which is the best one to go with (since any comparison written by either side is going to be inherently weighted to that side).[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms][url]http://www.foxnews.com/[/url] :D[/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]>_>;; [i]Thanks[/i], Lunox. I might as well just go and bury my head in the sand now. :animeknow[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If I were American, I'd [i]so[/i] vote for Mario. Just think, you'd then have no need for a military - just send Mario out to catch bin Laden personally! I can just imagine him swinging Obama by the beard... Ahem, anyway. I personally think it's very hard to tell who will win. The polls suggest Obama will win, but I also think a [i]lot[/i] of people could go to the polls simply to stop a black man getting into the White House. While I think racism is mostly gone, I also think in some areas it's still alive and well. I wouldn't be surprised to see it dominate the thoughts of some voters. Also polls don't account for undecideds who make up their mind on voting day. Some people go into that booth intending to vote for one candidate and then they think "Nah, maybe that's too much of a risk". All of those factors play in. As for who I'd vote for? I really don't know. I have not looked at a comprehensive comparison of their policies. I've been annoyed at the media-generated Obamessiah phenomenon, but I do think that underneath it all, Obama is a genuinely good candidate. I also think that despite the painfully ignorant swipes at McCain's age, he is also a strong candidate. Does anyone know of a really clear and unbiased link that compares the candidates' positions on each major issue? Remember, I want something unbaised - no partisanship. Just a clear listing of how each compares. Then maybe I'll tell you who I'd vote for.[/font]

[quote]PS: Cheers, James, on the rigorous debate.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Thank you. You too. :catgirl:[/font] [quote]That is another strength the Middle East has over the West: they educate their children in their beliefs early and thoroughly. With our appreciation for diversity and finding one's own way, we cannot hope to match that strength of unity.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I would suggest that rather than there being unity, there's actually great division within the Middle East. Much of the turbulence within the region is often broadly attributed to involvement by the West, but I think that this fails to recognize the massive internal oppositions within the many socities in the Middle East. In fact, I would almost say that the Middle East is far more varied than the West - there are many different individual cultures, traditions and ethnicities across the Middle East. I think people in the Western world tend to think of the Middle East as this one regional block, when in reality, it's a massive geographical space with many different countries and backgrounds. Anyway, I do think that in Western countries we try to each our children the core values of our society at a young age - i.e. respect for others, assisting people in need, avoiding violence, etc etc... One of the big problems is, of course, the medrasas that exist in various parts of the Middle East. Some of these religious schools are not simply teaching core religious values, but instead are teaching hatred of the West. There is an attempt to blame the woes of poorer societies on the West, rather than to examine the internal disputes and failings that cause poverty and inequality in the Middle East. Unfortunately if you learn extremism and hate at a young age, I think it can be hard to change your view. This is one of the principle sources of terrorism, too. I guess the lesson for us in the West is that what we're doing is largely correct - while we must teach our children the core values of respect, dignity and so on, we must really ensure that we continue to teach our children to be tolerant of others - especially those who are different from themselves. This ability to empathize with people of different backgrounds is something that terrorists generally don't seem to posess. This is why very few can ever be negotiated with, because there are no circumstances under which they could accept any kind of agreement or compromise with the West. It's amazing how much influence we have on our children in their early years. We should do what we can to promote critical thinking and tolerance, as well as an adherence to the core values of our society.[/font]

[quote]Fair enough, but let's not act like US had widespread support for their decision to invade.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I didn't. I just said a number of countries supported their efforts, as did the people of Iraq.[/font] [quote]The US had no reason or obligation to take the invasion of Iraq [almost entirely] upon its own back, and that's probably the biggest qualm I have with the entire debacle. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Whether or not it had an obligation is one thing - no I don't think it had an obligation. But it certainly had [i]numerous[/i] reasons to commit to the war. And those have been stated in this thread - although there's so much more detail to be had, I'm sure. As for it being a debacle, well...war is never easy. Ever. But again, I don't think that the end result is a debacle (even though aspects of the process certainly were).[/font] [quote]Sure, but with the exception of the UK and KDP/PUK, there were negligible troop contributions. So yes, it was a "multilateral" invasion, but in name only. By and large, the burden was shouldered primarily by the US, in terms of troops, money, and responsibility. It was wrong of our administration to act in such a manner. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Negligible troop contributions? Ouch. I'm sure the families of UK or Australian troops who have passed away wouldn't think of their contributions as negligible. But seriously, you've got to understand what went into that war in the first place. Did you know that Australian SAS forces were among the first on the ground? They went behind enemy lines, assigned targets and conducted a number of major operations before the invasion began in full. These contributions are not negligible. And it was wrong for the U.S. to primarily bear the troop/financial burden? Why "wrong"? The U.S. was the country that led the coalition - so by its own actions it has taken that responsibility upon itself. You can't lead a coalition and say "Oh but, by the way, we're sending in the least amount of troops. Sorry, allies!"[/font] [quote]Not even a tenth of the total violent deaths are insurgents. The vast majority of those deaths are civilians killed in the crossfire that would have never materialized had there been no invasion. Furthermore, the numbers I gave are probably pitifully low at this point, as those were taken from a survey in mid-2007.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't believe that. I'd need to see accurate sources on those figures. But even so, that still doesn't mean the invasion was wrong. Let's also remember that during the invasion, the Iraqi military openly attacked its own citizens (there is quite a well-known occasion where an Iraqi rocket exploded in a Baghdad marketplace, just as the invasion commenced). You will also find that Hussein deliberately used civilian structures as military outposts (there are examples of mosques and hospitals being used for this purpose). So I would say that these figures are pretty muddy in terms of their break down. But at the same time, I absolutely believe and accept that large numbers of civilians have died as a result of fighting between Iraqi and Allied forces. This is highly unfortunate and no loss of life is ever a positive thing. But as I said earlier, war is [i]never[/i] easy or simple. Most Iraqis seem to accept that the struggle for independence is a long and tough road, requiring much sacrifice. All you have to do is look at the massive lines of Iraqis lining up to join their local police forces, even when Iraqi police were being regularly blown to smithereens by foreign insurgents.[/font] [quote]Easy to say, when your government isn't the one wasting your tax money. It's great that they're now free, but at what cost? Sure, 50 million people are no longer under a dictator, but their lives, and the region, have newer and perhaps more intense instability ahead.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Again... "wasting" tax money. Is it really a waste to free 50 million people? I would tend to think carefully about that. As for newer and perhaps more intense instability...that's something you're making up as you're going along. There's no need to do that. All current indications are that Iraq is settling down dramatically. Another round of elections are planned and the Iraqi government is currently implementing significant reforms to stimulate the economy.[/font] [quote]According to Bush, the reasons for the invasion were: "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, exactly. How is this any different from what I've stated? He mentions [i]disarmament[/i] (which includes [b]the removal of a country's capacity for further production[/b]) and he also mentioned support for terrorism and freeing the Iraqi people. So no actual WMD stockpiles were found, but how does that suggest that the war was wrongly sold? Your own quotes answers your complaint![/font] [quote]Call that a "non-issue," but when the entire reason for war is laid out in terms like that, I have a tough time dismissing it as a "non-issue." Do note there is absolutely no mention of Saddam's violation of international law. So yes, legally there was grounds for the invasion. However it's like being indicted for theft when you were instead a murderer -- you're still going to jail, but the justification is vastly different.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I said that the [i]discovery[/i] of WMD stock piles was largely a non-issue, because it deals with the symptom of the problem (not to mention one small aspect of Resolution 1441). No mention of Saddam's violation of international law? Are we reading the same statement? lol Saddam's failure on weapons disarmament [i]is a direct violation of international law[/i]. How much more explicit can Bush be? Your analogy is totally ridiculous. Your attempt to pick at Bush's statement because it does not expressly mention the relevant resolution is absurd. As I have repeatedly said, "disarmament" is [i]not[/i] just about destroying stockpiles. The resolutions clearly state this. UNMOVIC clearly states it. So there's nothing about Bush's comments that imply the sole justification for war is an attempt to destroy WMD stockpiles. I don't know how you even get that from what Bush said, in all honesty.[/font] [quote]It wasn't really until it set in that, surprise, the war wasn't going to be a few months long.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Surprise to whom? The actual "deposition" of the Iraqi regime took something in the order of three weeks. What has lasted for months is the occupation of Iraq. I don't know anyone who thought that it would be a matter of just diving in and leaving within days. In any case, I don't see what that has to do with someone agreeing that the invasion was the right course of action.[/font] [quote]I find it disappointed that not only the media, but by and large even the government failed to use that as a justification for war. At the very least, it would've been more salient[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well you just quoted Bush talking about disarmament, terrorism and liberation. As I said, disarmament includes far more than just destroying existing stockpiles. This may not be evident to everybody, but then you have to question exactly how specific Bush must be in his explanation. After all, there were very detailed sessions about this within the U.N. and within the Congress. The bigger question is whether people bothered to look for this more detailed info. Most didn't.[/font] [quote]No, the Congress made a decision based on their constituents desires and wishes -- they simply represented the voices of Americans. It was the common citizen who was heavily in support of the invasion. You are correct when you say most people are horribly uninformed, because to them, there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry, that's just totally incorrect. Decisions about going to war with another country aren't made through public polling or anything of the sort. This is like some idiot jumping up and down and saying "OMG ATTACK RUSSIA" and their Congressman actually trying to pass such a resolution. It doesn't work that way. You're completely ignoring the intelligence and national security committees and their vital role within the Congress. You're also completely ignoring the thousands of pages of evidence and intelligence that Congressmen and women had to pour over (especially those in relevant committees).[/font] [quote]And yes, it was sold as such by the administration -- that there was some global network of terror through which Saddam and bin Laden collaborated in a dark basement somewhere to blow people up. 9/11 was a selling point for the war, and that was a really sad thing, to justify the invasion based on something totally unrelated.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yet another issue. I'll give you my point of view on this, although again, this has [i]nothing[/i] to do with your original question to me. It's true that the impact of 9/11 largely led to America's action against Iraq. But nobody suggested that Saddam Hussein was involved with those attacks. It was always clear that this was an al-Qaeda operation. However, there was a legitimate fear that the Iraqi government may partner with terrorist groups by way of passing weapons material or know-how to them. There was significant evidence that al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear weapons, in fact. And moreover, it is known that some members of the group had been harbored within Baghdad. Now, for me personally, I think the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda - while reasonable - is still tenuous. But the war was never sold principally on this idea; this was simply a major concern that took on a new meaning post-9/11. You yourself just finished telling me that the primary selling point for the war was related to WMD destruction. And I clarified that by saying it was about disarmament. I think that the 9/11 link was mentioned, but it wasn't a major platform to justify the invasion. There were certainly intelligence reports that commented on links between Hussein and a number of terrorist groups within the Middle East and so, there was a very legitimate concern about where this could go. As I said earlier, Iraq had already shown that it was prepared to attack its neighbours and its own people. The only reason it couldn't attack America was because it lacked the physical ability to do so. The fear was that terrorist groups may provide one vehicle for Iraq to achieve this. I don't see that as an illegitimate question.[/font] [quote](And I mean for god's sake, people were calling them "Freedom Fries!" here in opposition to the French over the entire thing)[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's just people being dumb. I don't think that has anything to do with what we're discussing though.[/font] [quote]Sure, but they also claimed they "knew" there were WMDs. That's why when Hans Blix adamantly denied that, we gave him the finger and invaded anyway, claiming that he was wrong. Turns out Blix had the right information, and the US/President/Congress had the wrong information. So their deliberations were full of sound and fury, and based on ridiculous pigheadedness.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Hans Blix didn't deny that there were weapons initially. His point was that Iraq had failed to verify what had happened to known stockpiles. It's worth pointing out to you that Hanx Blix [i]also[/i] declared that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 1441, which promised military action in such an event. So you just can't have it both ways.[/font] [quote]Excusing the fact I was in 8th grade when we were invading... I read the major news outlets, and there was much talk of WMDs, and almost no mention of 1991 and the previous UN Resolutions. Seriously James, 2003 was a big failure in substantive media coverage for places like NYT, LAT, and WashPost.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah you were in eight grade during that time, yet you're trying to tell me all about your knowledge of media coverage at the time as well. As I said before, you can't have it both ways. If you think there was almost no talk of the prior resolutions, then you simply weren't watching/listening/reading. There was plenty of coverage about this issue.[/font] [quote]Not in those words, but he (and those in support of the invasion) said it would be a relatively quick thing. If you had told anyone back then that we'd be there in 2008, they would've laughed at you[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't have laughed, because I know my history. I know that occupations are not quick things. I think Bush did say that the actual "war" would be over relatively quickly and it was. The conquest of Iraq took a very short time. But, obviously, occupation is another story. Although once again...I'm not really sure what that even has to do with anything. I mean, you asked me why I supported the invasion and I told you. I also said there were numerous things I disagreed with. Perhaps you should just accept that I agreed with the invasion and still do, based on the reasons I mentioned. We may not agree, but we don't have to.[/font] [quote]I know -- and we still have military presence in both countries. The thing is, it wasn't originally intended to be an occupation, or if it was, it was meant to be abbreviated. I'm also bitter at the administration's disingenuousness when it came to the duration of our occupation. They definitely said it would be a quick thing.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I really think you should just get over your bitterness, in all honesty. It's just pointless right now. As I've mentioned exhaustively, we can make the best plans in the world - but the reality is that quite often unexpected things will happen. Nobody can plan for everything. Expecting such is highly unrealistic.[/font] [quote]I never said useless, I said unfair, disingenuous, poorly planned, shortsighted, and incompetent. Perhaps something good will come of it now that we're already there, but if given a chance I would have voted against the decision to invade. I just feel it did little to benefit anyone, and did a great deal of damage to all parties involved.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not really sure what else to say, except, read everything I've said so far.[/font] [quote]The US has generally operated based on its own rational self-interest, and to fight against Hitler in its early stages made little sense from this philosophy's perspective. That's how all countries generally operate. Also, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to make. By your logic, we should always act immediately because there could be something terrible going on unbeknownst to us. Fast action is not always best action.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Every country has always operated in self-interest. And quite often, self-interest intertwines with the interests of others. Iraq definitely fits within that category. My comparison was reasonable. Are you aware that there were quite a lot of commentators who were against going to war with Hitler in the early stages? This was despite his massive incursions within Europe. There are issues in the world that simply get worse if allowed to fester. The situation with Iraq went on for far too long - it shouldn't have taken 16 resolutions to finally bring about action. I agree with you that fast action is not always best action. And I do not advocate the idea that fast is "always" best. But certainly, fast is [i]sometimes[/i] best. And there are quite a few instances in history where many people have suffered as a result of inaction - far more than those who suffered as a result of action, at least (I only need to talk about Rwanda, the Balkans and Indonesia to illustrate this point). Before you reply to all of this though, I should just reinforce one point. Earlier you asked me a simple question. You asked me if I supported the invasion and why. And you asked me if I still do. And I think I've answered those questions pretty clearly. I'm happy to debate about the war for a while, but really, I don't want to start covering all of the million related aspects to this. I am best to leave that to someone else who has more energy for it. That's especially true when some of my core points aren't even being acknowledged, or when they are simply glossed over despite their vital relevance.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, America is still in those locations...but not as an occupation force. Within ten years those countries were turned back to their own people as such. But the lasting impact of WWII created a need to distribute American power around the world in such a way. And there are strategic reasons why the nations involved are happy with this distribution. And about the Holocaust fairytail, I just want to mention that I did not mean Holocaust deniers. Those people are a whole different breed. I just meant that I can't think of many people who say "We went to WWII to stop the Holocaust". As Retri pointed out, it's a well-known fact that the extent of the crisis was not known until the Americans and Russians were literally visiting the camps across Europe.[/font]

[quote]Isn't it a matter of acting in a multilateral fashion, with the blessing of the international community? The US did neither in 2003.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of the number of decisions that are taken internationally that are "unilateral"? Not everything has to go through committee. In addition to that, it's worth pointing out that the U.S.'s action was not unilateral. They were supported by a number of other countries - and not just those who directly participated. There were also a number of Middle Eastern countries that openly supported the action, because they recognized that it helped to ensure their own safety long-term.[/font] [quote]Absolutely. But 5,000 killed under Saddam is a drop in the bucket when compared to 500,000 killed in the invasion (conservative estimate -- many others range up to 1 million). The invasion caused vastly more loss of life than under Saddam.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's an utterly false statement. The 5,000 I quoted was the result of [i]one[/i] incident. There are estimates that suggest Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for over one million deaths (some suggestions say even up to 1.50 million, if you include this invasions of Kuwait and Iran). Furthermore, the numbers you quoted are misleading because you don't mention the fact that [i]many[/i] of those deaths are a direct result of the insurgency movement within Iraq (which itself was a result largely of foreign fighters who are [i]enemies[/i] of the Iraqi people). As I said earlier, it's very easy to gloss over the detail. But doing so just doesn't do justice to the reality.[/font] [quote]I'm aware of the legal/compliance reasons, but the infraction of those did not call for the US jumping into such a massive hole, and largely alone. The amount of money spent on this war is ridiculous, to say the least. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well obviously the U.S. government and many others (including myself) disagree with you. It's as simple as that. The amount of money spent is one thing (because I think some of that is a result of inefficiencies and so on). But, fundamentally, the question is whether or not it was the right thing to do - despite the inefficiencies and poor decision making involved, I am pleased with the fact that 50 million people are now free. So I think the net result is positive.[/font] [quote]How does 9/11 change the fundamental chain of events that would occur had we invaded Baghdad? 9/11 was the impetus, but it wouldn't have changed anything on the ground in Iraq.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]We aren't talking about what happened on the ground in Iraq. We've been talking about what led to the decision and whether it was right or wrong. I am pointing out to you that 9/11 caused a massive change in strategic thinking and that much of this relates to the lead up to the war. Even though I think the action was correct and has important long-term benefits, I certainly also think that many mistakes were made and it's taken years for the appropriate strategies to be put in place. The first few years were pretty poorly handled - but again, that isn't really what we've been discussing.[/font] [quote]Perhaps in Australia, but even papers such as the New York Times were beating the war drum. It was sickeningly irresponsible journalism coming form the Op-Ed pages, and that coverage profoundly shifted public opinion in support of invasion. Go search the archives for yourself -- Washington Post, LA Times, or NY Times, they all thought an invasion was justified.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, I think that's because it [i]was[/i] justified. The big thing that changed was the lack of discovery of WMDs. But that is almost a non-issue and has been misrepresented in the ways I mentioned before. Having said that, I still don't believe that the media sold the war in general terms. There was a very quick turnaround on that. Many media outlets became visciously opposed to the war very early on. I do read and watch quite a bit of American media, so I'm familiar with how they operate. I also think it's worth pointing out that many media outlets were initially working on the same intelligence basis as the Bush Administration. The existence of large stockpiles was ultimately incorrect, but I think it was unfortunate that the media emphasized this aspect while ignoring the many other violations of U.N. Resolutions.[/font] [quote]Most of our Congress voted for invasion, as well. It was a bloodthirsty climate we were in, and because we failed to turn up bin Laden, the Americans wanted another scapegoat. Iraq became American's vent for the rage of 9/11. People saw it as punishing the "same people" (i.e. Arabs) for the attacks.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think that's a horribly irresponsible thing to say. It really is. How on Earth can you make that judgment? You're implying that the entire U.S. Congress made a war declaration based on revenge and racism alone. Do you know what is involved with these kinds of actions? There's a ton of work that goes on in committees that specialize in intelligence and foreign affairs. To reduce the action to these simple terms totally misunderstands the entire process. Just because you have an impression that most people just wanted to "get the Arabs" or whatever doesn't make it so. I remember there being a great deal of discussion, debate and analysis in the lead up - especially as part of Congressional proceedings.[/font] [quote]It's not too difficult to write in a multi-page article (online or print). Iraq had stopped the production of WMDs years ago, and we found no WMD stockpiles. We found stockpiles of other weaponry, but those weren't what we originally invaded for.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yes it's easy to read a multi-page article. But who reads the longer articles explaining the details I've mentioned? Apparently you don't and I'm sure most people don't bother to read anything at all. The reality is that most people only get their news information from these soundbytes. And under such circumstances, I am not surprised that large numbers of people are misinformed. As far as WMDs...refer to what I said earlier. I will say again that one of the most important aspects of Resolution 1441 had to do with the dismantlement of Iraq's capacity to develop these weapons in future. This is critically important and should not be ignored. The chief of UNMOVIC - who was against the invasion as I said earlier - also stated emphatically that Iraq had not satisfied UNMOVIC in regard to capacity issues. Also bear in mind what I mentioned earlier about the illegal ballistic missile program. When Iraq was first attacked (principally by the U.S., UK and Australia), it actually fired several of these extended-range missiles at Kuwait (I guess the theory being that if they were going down, they'd hurt as many people as they could on the way). So the issue is a whole lot bigger than finding chemical stockpiles, for example.[/font] [quote]James, that's what the war was sold as! Bush told everyone it would be a swift incision into the country, we'd find the weapons, destroy them, depose Saddam, and be on our merry way. There was no realistic timeline, and once we got into Bagdad, we soon realized we weren't leaving anytime soon.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as that. I don't think Bush ever said that America would be on its merry way once Saddam was deposed, lol. I acknowledge that the initial stages of the occupation were more difficult than the Administration had expected and that there were several key mistakes made. I'm not disputing that and I think it's fair to criticize poor handling of those issues. [i]However[/i], there are a couple of points to make. First of all - again - despite the difficulties involved I still agree with the decision to depose Saddam and free Iraq. That's the fundamental question I was asked. But secondly, there's no historical perspective here. Do you know that the U.S. was in Germany and Japan for around a decade after WWII? Occupations are never easy [i]or[/i] short. Also I think that the foreign-based insurgency genuinely threw a spanner into the works, so to speak. It radically changed the situation and caused much larger issues - this was not the fault of either the Allies or the Iraqis. Still, I think there's a slight generational thing going on here. You're basically telling me that just because the situation didn't work out exactly as it was sold, the whole effort is useless. If Governments ran with that attitude towards everything, nothing would [i]ever[/i] be achieved. Unfortunately unforseen circumstances do arise and they have to be dealt with as flexibly as possible. Sometimes even the most perfect timeline just won't be met for reasons outside one's own control.[/font] [quote]We had no idea of the scope of the Holocaust until we were actually liberating concentration camps. We knew of civil repression, but really didn't understand how terrible the Nazi machine was.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think you might be missing my overall point here. My point was that the late actions of the Allied forces allowed the Holocaust to progress as it did. I'm not saying the Allies knew about the extent of it at the time. However, what we did know was that Hitler had violated the Treaty of Versailles in numerous respects. We also knew that, despite his assurances, he had already begun to invade several countries. Hitler was coddled for quite a long time before the war began. And while that was a war which had to be fought, it's also true that the Western world learned a major lesson from it - act too late and the consequences can be horrendously worse than taking the right actions at the right times.[/font] [quote]Furthermore, we certainly didn't invade to "stop the Holocaust." That's a fairy tale fed by the winners of the war -- we invaded only after Japan attacked us, and to help our allies against an aggressive opponent.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well I didn't say we invaded to stop the Holocaust, lol. My point was that the extent of the Holocaust was something that could have been avoided had stronger steps been taken sooner rather than later. I don't think anybody now peddles the Holocaust fairy tale by the way - I think most people are pretty clear about why the United States got involved in the first place. I don't think that changes the reality that it was an involvement that had to happen sooner or later.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, I just thought Kathy's post ended in a very unnerving way. I really got that physical creepy feeling from it almost. Anyway I hope to have my next post and the landmark up by the end of this week sometime. So there's a bit of time for any further posts before that. I thought there were a couple of people still to post...so yeah. We're drawing very close now. I just hope I can explain things properly in my next few posts! Haha.[/font]

[quote]Alright, valid points, but by your logic the UN should have invaded. Iraq broke international law and was openly belligerent to UN forces. I fail to see why the US decided to [in large part] unilaterally invade.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well it's never the "U.N." that invades - it's just a question of whether the forces are invading on behalf of the U.N. or not. Initially it was agreed that if Resolution 1441 was violated, this would result in military action (in fact, France specifically agreed to this when meeting with the United States). Resolution 1441 was the [i]final[/i] opportunity for Iraq to make the appropriate declarations about its weapons programs. When Iraq did violate 1441 with a material breach, both France and Russia (permanent members of the Security Council) stated that a new resolution specifically requiring force would be needed. This was blatantly opposed to their earlier assurances that 1441 would be the final resolution - besides, that was 1441's entire purpose in the first place. So an additional resolution was unnecessary. Due to their veto powers in the Council, it would have been impossible to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force. That is why various countries went to war with Iraq outside the U.N. framework. The intention to veto was purely political and was not based on the outline of past resolutions. France, for instance, was discovered to have been selling some weapons to Iraq right up until the 2003 invasion. It makes sense that they would want to veto any military strike under these circumstances.[/font] [quote]If the US invaded every time there was a dictator killing a few thousand of his own citizens, we'd be all over the place. It's simply an unrealistic precedent to set, and therefore a poor criterion for invasion.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I suppose it depends how important the "killing of a few thousand citzens" is to you. It's very important to me and obviously very important to the millions of people living in Iraq. Moreover, that was not the sole purpose for the invasion. As stated above, there were legal compliance reasons, reasons related to humanitarian causes within the country [i]and[/i] there were genuine concerns about Iraq's potential to threaten its neighbors in future. You must also understand the context of the invasion. It took place after the September 11 attacks, where authorities all over the world were forced to re-think the nature of global security. Everybody already knew that Iraq was capable of acting on its own to attack other countries (as it had done numerous times in the past). And everybody knew it would do this without due cause. The very legitimate fear is that Iraq may attempt to act through proxy groups (whether known terrorist groups or groups of its own creation). Those who are responsible for [i]your[/i] safety were not willing to take risks on that question. [/font] [quote]I'm also a bit more skeptical of our leader's nobility/selflessness in invading Iraq. You've probably seen this video of Cheney rattling off reasons why we shouldn't have invading Baghdad in the first war. I'm surprised to see a 180 degree change of heart.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You're honestly surprised? Where were you when 9/11 happened? I don't think you recognize the incredible importance of that event and how it changed strategic thinking all over the world. It's important to mention that where some countries may not have supported progressing directly to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, many of those same countries saw the need for that post-9/11. It isn't that our policies in the past were right. It's that they were horribly short-sighted. The U.N. in particular failed to recognize the terrible danger of allowing the Iraqi dictatorship to remain in power, despite a major war aimed at pushing it back from one of its neighbors.[/font] [quote]Additionally, I think we lose sight of our original intentions in invading. The invasion was sold by media and the administration as a foray specifically to uncover allegedly known weapons facilities (WMDs). It was only once we failed to uncover any that the administration changed pace and called it a war of liberation and democratization... and this seems to be the image most people have now of the conflict.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, that's not quite accurate. First of all, I don't think the war was ever really "sold" by the media. Many within the media were against the prospect of a war from day one. But in addition, the WMD issue centered around [i]both[/i] the potential to uncover existing stockpiles [i]and[/i] the removal of Iraq's [b]capacity[/b] for further production. This can be hard for the media to communicate in a thirty second soundbyte! As I mentioned earlier, Resolution 1441's main emphasis was related to ensuring that Iraq did not possess any development capability. If we'd gone to Iraq and taken out any WMDs that we found and then left, I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy. But they'd have been highly short-sighted as well. UNMOVIC knew that Iraq could easily destroy small stockpiles quickly and re-constitute development programs in a short period of time. So what if all of their WMDs had been destroyed? What matters is that they retained the capacity and systems to produce more. The issue is a whole lot more complex than the media portrayed. And that is why so many people today fundamentally misunderstand the lead-up to the war. As for liberation...I agree with you that the promotion of this really came later. I'm sure the United States saw this as a secondary cause and a side-benefit. But that doesn't change the fact that some [i]50 million[/i] people who were essentially prisoners in their own country are now free.[/font] [quote]I suppose I don't think the US invasion of Iraq was worth the civilian life (approx. hundreds of thousands), nor the monetary cost of war, nor the international damage to our reputation.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]You know, this is why I don't think anybody is truly "pro-war". How do you put a price on human life? And how do you judge an action's worthiness in that context? As I said earlier, I absolutely abhor war. It's a terrible thing and horrific things can happen during wartime. But if I get asked "was it worth it?", my bottom line is very simple. 50 million people were freed. That's a mighty big number. And these are people who truly wanted to be free and needed help to achieve it. Unfortunately losses always occur in war and they are [i]never[/i] "acceptable". But my god, you'd really be jumping up and down if you lived through World War II, where millions died and where the all-too-late military actions of the Allies gave Hitler time to begin the Holocaust in earnest. In that case we may have been late and the casualties may have been high, but thank god we actually took action. Sometimes those tough decisions are necessary for long-term aims. And I think that the results of these actions won't really be clear until another decade has passed. It may then be that future generations in Iraq view America in the same way that the French did after the close of WWII.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Great posts, guys. Kathy, your post is so dodgy! Haha. There's just something not right about that Samantha. ~_^ Very suspenseful stuff.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Retri, I still don't think that any of those people actually like the idea of war. There are people who are "pro-war" and who's son or daughter has died - those people aren't happy about that. They understand the need for military engagement at times, but I don't think that they actually "like" the act of war. That's really what I was getting at. As for my support of the invasion...there is just so much ground to cover. I will try to summarise. First of all, I supported the invasion on a legal basis. The first Gulf War in the early 90's was a U.N.-sanctioned action, as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The U.N. force that attacked Iraq pushed its forced all the way from Kuwait up to the surrounds of Baghdad. It is my view that at this point, Saddam Hussein should have been deposed. Unfortunately he wasn't, largely because there was no U.N. mandate to do so. But the war did not stop because the allies had "won". It stopped because of a ceasefire agreement signed by Iraq and the U.N. forces. That was when the north and south no-fly zones were set up. So the original war did not actually ever end - it was simply suspended. The ceasefire treaty that was signed pointed out that if Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire, the U.N. forces would have the authority to re-enter the country. Well, Iraq [i]did[/i] violate the ceasefire on numerous occasions. While never successful in bringing one down, the Iraqi military routinely fired upon U.N. aircraft that patrolled the north and south no-fly zones. So it blatantly broke the terms of its own agreement. On this basis the U.N. allied forces were rightfully able to re-enter the country. Furthermore, U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 (of April 1991) required that Iraq destroy - under international supervision - "all chemical and biological weapons and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto". The resolution also required the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of ballistic missiles with a range of 150kms or more. At this point let's not forget that in addition to attacking Kuwait, Iraq also attempted to invade Iran previously. So it had already attacked two neighbouring countries without basis to do so. Over the following decade, Iraq did everything it could to confuse or subvert U.N. attempts to verify the destruction of Iraq's known stockpiles. And in 1998, Iraq summarily dismissed UNSCOM from the country, saying that it would no longer assist the United Nations - even with passive monitoring. Then Resolution 1441 was passed, which said "Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including Resolution 687, in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations Inspectors and the IAEA and to complete actions required under Resolution 687". That resolution gave Iraq one final chance to comply. The issue was never that Iraq still posessed WMDs as such - it was that Iraq had failed to declare what had happened to thousands of known stockpiles that had since "gone missing". Resolution 1441 set up a body called UNMOVIC (United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission), which was designed to bring to an end the disarmament process. This process said that if Iraq were to provide any false statements or omissions or failures to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution, this would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations. This resolution also repeated the call for "serious consequences" should material breach be found. A major cat-and-mouse game then proceeded between Iraq and UNMOVIC. UNMOVIC's head, Dr. Hans Blix (who opposed the invasion), reported that Iraq was unable to account for 6,500 chemical bombs and about 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents including VX nerve gas. He also found strong indications that Iraq had produced more anthrax than it had previously declared and that some of this stockpile had been retained. Iraq had also failed to declare 650 kilograms of bacterial growth, which would be enough to produce 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax. In addition to this, UNMOVIC confirmed that Iraq had violated the terms of the resolution related to its ballistic missile program. Specifically, it had reverse-engineered existing rockets so that they could travel well beyond the 150km limited range (Iraq did this by inserting additional engines into the same capsule, thereby hiding the true nature of the rockets' range). So legally speaking, Iraq was well in violation of all applicable U.N. Resolutions. In the end, no weapons of mass destruction were found. [i]However[/i], there are two points to make about this. First and foremost, the political leaders who ordered the invasion in the first place were doing so based on the intelligence that was provided. And secondly, regardless of intelligence failures about what weapons might still exist in Iraq, the fundamental point is that Iraq [i]failed to declare[/i] how/when/where it destroyed or removed the undeclared stockpiles that were known to exist. So it wasn't about finding a cache of weapons - it was about Iraq's inability to account for dangerously large quantities of material. The second reason I supported the invasion was on humanitarian grounds. I don't need to go into the horrific detail about what Hussein's regime did to both the Iraqi people and those who lived outside the country. But I will point out one fact: apart from the knowledge everybody had that Iraq had attacked other countries with no real basis (Kuwait and Iran), it's also true that Iraq visciously attacked its own people. The most significant act was in 1988, when Iraq used chemical weapons against the Kurdish population in the country's north. Some 5,000 people were killed and some 10,000 were injured as a result of that attack. And - going back to UNMOVIC for a moment - while they did not locate large quantities of chemical weapons, that aspect only accounts for part of Iraq's obligations. Another equally important part is that Iraq had to verifiably dismantle its [i]capability[/i] to manufacture these weapons in future. UNMOVIC found no evidence that this had been done. The third reason I supported the invasion is because the Iraqi people themselves desired freedom. In fact, after the first Gulf War, there were no less than two uprisings against the Iraqi regime. Both of these uprisings were brutally put down by the authorities. America does take some blame in that, because there were indications that if the Iraqis rose up against Hussein, America would lend support to their efforts. But they did not and there are many Iraqis who died as a result. Also their end goal of freedom was not achieved. Let's also remember that nobody imposed democracy on Iraq. The country had been a democracy previously. It was Saddam Hussein's abuse of this system that allowed him to remain in power (much like Hitler in Germany - remember that Hitler was elected to the Reichstag and he actually successfully changed the constitution to consolidate power and to establish an autocracy). Saddam Hussein's actions were similar. There is one infamous scene where, just after being elected, Saddam Hussein is sitting in a fully-attended Parliament. He sits there with his cabinet and begins reading names off a list. As each name is read, the relevant Member of Parliament gets up from their seat and exists the building. They are being shot as they go outside. This horrific perversion of Iraq's democracy is what allowed Hussein to remain in power despite the objections of Iraqi citizens. So there you go. That's just a summary of why I supported the invasion. I believe it was the right thing to do, both for international security and for the Iraqi citizenry at large. You then asked me....do I still support the invasion? Yes I do. Iraq is starting to settle down and there's a slow but steady improvement in the nation's core institutions. As hard as the task has been, I think it is worthwhile - and will ultimately be remembered as such. I also think that if you are prepared to essentially put your own citizens in harm's way (i.e. your troops) in order to help people who can not help themselves...that's an honorable thing, despite the mistakes that were also made. However, that's not to say that I agree with all aspects of the strategic planning. Many mistakes were made by the United States and most of these mistakes related to improper planning and confused management. Luckily for everyone, most of these mistakes are now ironing out. I often hear people say "but it's their business, if they want to free themselves they don't need to drag others in!" But I view that as dismissive and, frankly, cruel. We live in a globalized world and our ability to help people who can't help themselves is a big measure of the kind of people we really are. I could go in a [i]lot[/i] more detail (I made a point of writing an essay about Resolution 1441 in University), but I'll leave it there for now. Hopefully you can see that, at least for me, it's not about pro or anti-war. It's about recognizing the complexities involved and being as realistic as possible.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I read somewhere that the amount of spam is now so high that it is responsible for some significant percentage of internet slowdown globally. Ugh. I think my bigger pet peeve is viruses. I mean...who actually sits down and deliberately makes these things? I can't imagine setting out to create something that will disrupt businesses and damage people's computers. It's just totally malicious and the creator really gets nothing financial out of it - they just get some kind of weird satisfaction perhaps. Always good to hear about spammers/virus creators being caught.[/font] :catgirl:

[font=franklin gothic medium]I've only just joined in on this thread, but I did have a couple of points to make. As far as religion goes, I do think it's unreasonable to suggest that Islam is a violent religion in general. There are some tenents of Islam that attempt to justify violent actions against others, but then again, this is often down to interpretation. For example, groups like the KKK in America often refer to the Bible as a way of justifying their racist attitude. And there are many groups that refer to the Bible to justify biggotry against gay people. The point is that if you have already decided that you want to follow a course of action (violence, biggotry, racism, a political agenda, etc), then you will tend to look for those Biblical or religious terms that suit your point of view - not the other way around. I doubt that a peaceful person reads the Qaran and suddenly decides to become a jihadist, lol. It obviously doesn't work that way. Instead, people are indoctrinated with extremist points of view at a young age. Religious texts are used as a basis to justify these points of view, but this is just a way of legitimizing violent and unacceptable behavior. So the same argument can be made about any religion - historically, religion is often used as a basis for violence. It's just that right now we tend to hear about Islamist violence because it's particularly relevant at this point in history. As far as war goes... all I can say is that there has [i]always[/i] been a strong anti-war movement. Especially among student bodies. The problem is that war is not only sometimes necessary, but unavoidable. In the case of Iraq, I think the only real question was "when" rather than "if". I've posted about the situation in Iraq in another thread I think, in some detail...but the thing that bugs me the most about this war is that it's often misunderstood or oversimplified. The background of Iraq is often unknown as is the U.N. framework that led to the war in the first place. I remember seeing a lot of anti-war projects when I was at University and most of them carried the theme "No War for Oil". When I actually wrote an essay about this an investigated it, I realized how horribly simplistic and wrong that statement actually is. But it's like a brand - it's fashionable. And it's easy to swallow without the need to actually do any work. In one of our media analysis classes I remember most students saying they never watched TV news or read opinion pieces. So the most politically active students were regularly those who were most ignorant about the realities and complexities of the situation. I find it ironic that people can classify themselves as "anti-war", as if those who support military action are "pro-war". I gurantee, very few people are actually "pro-war". I personally supported the military action against Iraq, but I'm certainly not in favor of war as a general idea. I absolutely abhor violence and the thought of sending troops into battle (were I a political leader) turns my stomach. I doubt any political leader makes these decisions without serious personal conflicts occurring. But in the end, the bottom line really has to be weighed up. So even the pro/anti-war dichotomy bothers me at times. It's yet another way of oversimplifying subject that isn't so simple.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm getting into a few things lately, especially stuff I wouldn't normally listen to. I went to put the YouTubes in but I can't get the tag to work properly. Hm... [img]http://www.allcdcovers.com/image_system/images/2/e/2e23aa017b00105dccdd05f7e9eb5efb.jpg[/img] [b]MGMT[/b] Great stuff... slightly retro feel. Very 80's in places. My favourite songs so far are [b]Electric Feel[/b] and [b]Time to Pretend[/b]. [img]http://www.allcdcovers.com/image_system/images/2/6/26d6ed66a564588080ec66eae89a518a.jpg[/img] [b]Ladyhawke[/b] Up and coming NZ artist. [b]Magic[/b] is my current favourite. Very nice track. [img]http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/57/m_19ceac883dee462cae1fcaf00d46cb50.jpg[/img] [b]Empire of the Sun[/b] Nick Littlemore of PNAU and Luke Steele of The Sleepy Jackson. Top song would be [b]Walking on a Dream[/b]. Great Aussie band and they debuted in the ARIA top 40 recently I think, so kudos to them. The actual album is all over the place in terms of quality though. It has real flashes of brilliance, but also plenty of filler. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Oh great stuff, Aaryanna. Your post captured the situation perfectly. I will be attempting to do a post tomorrow and that will include the next Landmark. Also some other writers were planning to introduce something related to the secret deck at the bottom of the ship - you guys might want to introduce that once the next Landmark arrives. This will reveal the majority of the conspiracy. But for those who haven't read it, [i]The Shirota Strain[/i] on the first page actually explains a lot. The codes in there are tied to the alien code name...and the revelations that Arthur talked about when they discovered the laboratory. This is all tied to what's under the ship. :catgirl: [/font]

[quote]Nothing is inherently wrong with making insurance companies able to sell policies across state lines. You have to provide specific reasons on why the system will fail, because if you point fingers at de-regulation causing the credit crisis, you can point fingers at de-regulation helping out many other markets.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Deregulation was one major factor for the current crisis, but so was consumer and corporate error. (This relating to the economic crisis, not healthcare): In terms of regulation, there are several problems. First and foremost, companies have a lack of capital reserves while simultaneously taking massive financial risks. This is not effectively regulated. Also, current accounting rules do not accurately value assets - many of the corporate collapses we've seen in America relate to speculation (especially on assets) rather than the production of genuine value. And there is no real prudential coverage or oversight in the present American system, which is a large problem. This is why Australia has held up so well to this crisis - it has a strong regulatory environment that both allows market freedom/flexibility while also ensuring strong accounting rules, appropriate valuations and a focus on strong capitalization. Another problem - systemic in corporate institutions in America - is that executives are often given bonuses related to risky speculation and short-term gains, rather than the development of longterm growth and stability. This system has run rampant and has encouraged a massive shift in attitude toward hollow gambling rather than sound economics. And previous regulations (like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act) were largely useless. Michael Barr (US Treasury official) recently commented that 50% of sub-prime loans came from institutions not covered by the legislation. And a further 25 - 30% were only partially covered. So the problem there was not the existence of regulation, but the absence of [i]comprehensive[/i] legislation. To get back to the topic more directly, I think it should also be said that neither Obama nor McCain have responded well to this current problem. [i]Both[/i] men have shown their inexperience and desire to push a populist rather than pragmatic line. McCain's $300Bn dollar plan to buy up mortgages is asenine. Not only is it completely fiscally irresponsible, but it [i]encourages[/i] reckless borrowing by consumers. The message is essentially that if you stupidly borrow 110% of your home value (and therefore have no equity at all), and you default, the Government will dive in and bail you out. This is totally irresponsible, goes against many of his earlier comments and also ignores one of this problem's chief causes. It also creates a precedent whereby Government will become responsible for defaulting mortages in an ongoing sense - there did not seem to be a "one off" sense about this concept. This is highly dangerous and it comes across as utterly desperate. And Obama - apart from the fact that he also supports mortgage relief - has linked this current crisis to the unrestrained free market system. Yet he ignores the fact that during the Clinton era, the problem of sub-prime loans really started when President Clinton directly encouraged the likes of Fanny and Freddy to increase housing loans to people who would not normally qualify for them. This populist stance has now backfired in an enormous way and it set a precedent that encouraged this kind of risky behavior in the first place (especially where countless numbers of people are now defaulting, which is causing these collapses). It's one thing to guarantee bank deposits (where you won't lose your positive bank balance if the bank goes under), but it's another thing to guarantee that bad debts will be covered as an ongoing rule. As for healthcare, I just think that the US needs to get out of this mindset that it's either 100% free market or 100% "socialism". What a joke. Whether or not an institution or system is public or private isn't relevant to its performance - what matters is the design of the system and its effectiveness to deliver outcomes for its consumers. I'm so sick of hearing the same objection to public healthcare that involves it being "socialist". That argument betrays both an ignorance about existing public systems (including in other countries) as well as a stubbornness to simply [i]not improve[/i] or reform for the sake of politics or ideology. While that kind of debate prevails, Americans will continue to go without the healthcare that they rightfully deserve.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Welcome to OB, everyone. So great to see you here! I remember your name from theO, TimeChaser. Welcome. :catgirl: As always feel free to send a PM if you need any help etc...[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sucks to hear that Esther. I was hoping to watch this debate (I'll have to see a repeat due to time differences), so I'm not sure if I'll watch it now. Hm...[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Do you think the debates should be held earlier in the campaign? It seems that the final ticket is confirmed so late in the process that people either stop caring or are already too set in their ways. If only they have the final tickets set in stone earlier. I suppose that's tough with the primary system the way it is now.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Our former PM left office in his early 70's and was still going strong healthwise. Although admittedly he was very healthy and walked every day (although he did have a hearing problem, which he'd had for years). The VP role is essentially powerless, other than as part of its responsibility in the Senate (where really it only becomes active when there is a need to cast a deciding vote - which is very rare). I'd say the VP role is more about canvassing support for the President's agenda as well as ceremonial duties. Also no President is an island - they are an executive. So they make decisions based on the advice of their departments and department heads (moreso than from the VP I'd say). In any case, only one person has really answered my question. lol[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm glad I'm not involved in this process, because I'd be in the same boat as you Esther (although if I were American I wouldn't identify myself as a Republican or Democrat). I actually think, for me personally, this is one of the toughest choices I've seen in years for the Presidential elections. I really see a lot of value in both candidates and there are elements from each campaign that I agree with. Although Australia had its federal elections last year and admittedly the candidate I voted for did not win...but still, you can't win 'em all. I think that similarly to America, change was very much in the air in Australia. This also leads me to a question for everyone here: How important are the debates to you? I imagine that by the time they roll around, most people have already chosen their candidate. Do the debates sway anyone? Or do they just confirm your original choice?[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]If we can make it so that users can edit their own thread titles, that might be doable. We just don't want to allow deletion. We'll check this out.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] As a female I'm sort of miffed that Palin might be our first vice president. In a sweeping generalizing statement that I expect no one to get angry at, I love how everyone called Clinton a ***** but now are all defensive about Palin and her family values and private issues. [/font][/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah I totally agree with this. I can think of several people who aggressively attacked Clinton's character but who are only ever defensive of Palin. Ugh. I always tend to jump in and defend the people who I think are being really unfairly attacked (and let's face it, it happens in [i]every[/i] election to one side or the other). I think there's one way Palin could easily help McCain to win the election anyway. You know those videos of her shooting at the gun range? I think they should do an ad where she's riding on a camel out in the desert, going after bin Laden. Kind of like Zohan... only with more guns. She could have a catchy slogan and everything. Maybe that'd be a good caption contest... (In all fairness to Palin, again, a lot of her responses in the debate were clearly off the cuff - I think that's where she fared better. The more she spoke like that the better off she was). Katakidoushi: I think you're seriously underestimating the challenge and complexity involved in governing a State (no matter how small it is). Saying it's the third smallest State or whatever is largely semantics. The implication that Palin was "duped" into the candidacy is just ridiculous. And it totally ignores her career history as well. It's almost on the level of a weird conspiracy theory. Seriously, if you don't like her, that's cool. But it's better to argue with the policy platform than these peripheral issues. And the experience thing still doesn't make sense. You can say that Obama makes up for lack of executive experience due to "other attributes" (which itself is really such a value judgment, isn't it?) And then someone else can say Palin makes up for "other shortcomings" with her executive experience. It's a merry-go-round. But yes, I agree that policy and positions should be debated. I just disagree that it's fair to suggest that Palin is a joke or somehow unqualified as compared to everyone else (at least based on experience). Ironically I haven't seen any real policy discussion in this thread (other than some talk about healthcare at the start).[/font]