Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dear God let election day be over!

I understand that, but my point is that Americans have a responsibility to themselves to pick the leaders that are best for America. If taking into account what other countries think is part of that equation for some Americans, then that's fine. Other countries should do the same, and they do. I never said that our process and results weren't important to other countries, I said Americans shouldn't be held to a different standard when choosing their leaders just because we are the "only" superpower left.


That's a huge leap. You actually sound like America, behind Bush, is likely to invade France, and not because another occupying force is already there. I know those aren't your exact words, but it doesn't take long to connect those dots.

The reason France was villified is because we have bailed them out numerous times in recent history, most notably WWII and Vietnam. That's right, it was our involvement with France that got us involved in Vienam in the first place.

"1950 - The U.S., recognizing Boa Dai's regime as legitimate, begins to subsidize the French in Vietnam; the Chinese Communists, having won their civil war in 1949, begin to supply weapons to the Viet Minh.

August 3, 1950
A U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) of 35 men arrives in Saigon. By the end of the year, the U.S. is bearing half of the cost of France's war effort in Vietnam."

Quotes from here . It looks like some type of .edu source.

France was villified, and rightly so, because they refused to help us when we've been there for them in the past. France's motivations for slapping our hand away when we asked for help is a debate best left for another thread.

As for being the World's only super power... I think The United States has a pretty good record, with regards to civil rights and expansionism, when compared to other historical super powers at the height of their power.

The only ones making out are the Leland McCauleys and R.J. Brandes of the world. Job creation can't keep up with new entrants to the workforce, and unemployment only looks low(er) because all the people who have given up looking for work in despair have been dropped from the ranks of those counted. So thanks for the shining future! Waid's run on the new book will be more relevant than ever, although the authority figures will seem pretty harmless in comparison. Bush/Cheney is more like the 5 Year Gap/TMK.

Much props for working in a coherent Legion reference.

Well, we're in Afghanistan right now; we were in the first Irak war with you...

And we thank you for that FK... but the popular sentiment in the US is that France should have been with us on this trip to Iraq as well.

May I ask why France isn't in Iraq with us this time? I know what has been reported here, but I'd like to hear another, more local take on it.

You have some facts in their, let's see... Yes G. Gordon was a criminal. He went up the river for breaking into DNC headquarters. Yes that was disgraceful. That's about where your facts end. He is an extreme friend to this country's military, with numerous children serving/having served proudly in just about every branch. He himself was an artillery officer that was stationed at the same base where I went through basic training.

You're throwing around the words "traitor to this country" rather loosely. You got some proof for that, something like campaign contributions from foreign powers or the selling of missile technology to other countries? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy? You got anything to back that up?

As for the media discussion, I thought that was over. I thought I had already given examples of liberal bias in the mass media, but you want some more.

-to review: the way they treated Reagan and Bush Sr. on the homeless issue vs. how it just disappeared when Clinton took office. The homeless didn't disappear, just the story.

-the villification of black conservatives... Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell.

-how they accused conservatives of wanting to starve children and make sure the elderly are sick.

-the free pass for Clinton on his sexaul deeds vs. Packwood's sexual harrassment scandal

-here's some links documenting instances of CNN's liberal bias

That Liberal Media

Free Republic.Com

CNN bias

CNN bias

here\'s one for Fox\'s Conservative Bias

Column from Boston Globe

chiming in from 2001

There are tons of other links that you can find to support the other side just as well. Either that there is a conservative bias or that there is no bias. Ultimately its going to come down to how you want to see it, and I doubt that anything I show as "proof" is going to change your mind on this. My whole point is that it's good for the country that both sides be heard.

edit for grammar

I don't understand why so many Americans go on about France as if they're some great betrayers or something.

America asked France to help them invade Iraq. France said no because America's reasons for invading - WMD and what-not - were incredibly flimsy. Now that all of America's justifications for the invasion have been exposed as woefully innacurate at best and completely fabricated at worst, and the invasion itself declared illegal by an international court, France should be being applauded for following its conscience and not letting itself be drawn into the personal vendettas of the White House hawks. They saw that the war was wrong and called it. And yet some Americans still bitch about them! What do they want? The rest of the world to say "How high?" whenever the U.S. says "Jump!"?

And don't give me Vietnam and World War 2! America entered World War 2 after a little thing called Pearl Harbour remember. And it was in their best interest anyway - a Nazi-controlled Europe wasn't going to be helping the U.S. any. Same thing with Vietnam. "Reds under the Bed" America wasn't going to feel comfortable with communism spreading itself toward *both* shores of the homeland, especially not in an area as strategically important (and resources rich) as South East Asia.

And one last thing - didn't France help America out in that little ol' war called the War of Independence? If you're going to go to the history books for help why not go back all the way?

Yellow and i talked before i saw his last post, but i am gonna do what i said and basically say i disagree with some of what he said and let it go at that.

That's reaching across the aisle.

As to the "opposed to violence", let me ask you this, how do you propose to stop the terrorists when we know that life does not matter to them, except for their own? When they are willing to cut throats, to blow up children? One of the biggest arguements i continously hear is the Isreali conflict. The world has tried to set up a state, Bush is being bashed for not supporting it, yet he is one that supported Sharon doing a pull out, etc... and yet it was Arafat that continously nixed it, used Hamas to murder people to disrupt the talks, and smiled in people's face as he ordered those murders.

Reality has to come into play at some point. "well, what about sanctions and inspections?" Great, which one of you gets to condemn the people of Iraq to another twenty years under Hussein, another 10,000 murders on average a year? Which one of you is going to go into Iraq and choose the children the sticks in his rape, torture, and prison chambers? Because that is the reality of Sanctions. Oil for food gets subverted to food for Saddams army, while the people struggle to make it through the day.

Hoping for a great outcome doesn't get it done. YOU get to feel good about yourself. "I'm always opposed to violence." but you aren't the one that is feeling it safe here in the US.

It sounds great, but ultimately, its empty because you put nothing on the line.

EVEN their own by the looks of things. Threatening them doesn't stop them, it makes them martyrs to their cause when they blow themselves up, or you blow them up as they stand defiant.

And one question for you - the Iraqi elections. Just suppose for a moment Islamic fundamentalists wanted to stand. Would you stop them? And if you didn't, what would you do if they won.

Well, from my point of view, after the horror that was 9/11, we were really happy to help in the war against the Talibans.

Everything was great, everybody was joining in the War on Terror, the Talibans were defeated, there was many talks about the hard work that was the reconstruction of Aghanistan... suddenly, out of nowhere, we see Bush on TV claiming that Irak must be invaded because of the WMD.

After that, I perceived things going like this:

Bush & Co:"Let's invade Irak!"

Chirac & Co:"Come on. We must fight terrorists in the right places. As far as we know, Saddam has nothing to do with terrorists, and we're not even sure he still has WMDs. Let's see before attacking if he has them."

Bush & Co:"He has them! he is dangerous! He is evil!"

C & C:"OK. We know he is a monster, but we still have to find Oussama, rebuilt Afghanistan, and pressure the countries where terrorists could hide. If you're that afraid of him, the ONU can always pressure him. That should be enough."

B & C:"We're telling you we must invade. And by the way, we don't care about ONU."

Chorus:"WMD! Traitors! WMD!"

C & C:"Yes, but..."

B & C:"If you're not with us, you're against us!"

Chorus:"Cheese-eating surrender Monkey! Freedom Fries!"

C & C:"What? Listen, you..."

B & C :"We don't need you anyway, your the old Europe. And by the way, you'll pay it, one way or another."

Epilogue:

Bush: "Dear Americans, Oussama is no longer my priority; we must invade his best friend's country, Irak."

France: :rolleyes:

The End

In no way France wanted to hurt the interest of the US, but it was clear to us that Bush wanted to go in Irak for the wrongs (and falses) reasons.

Thanks, Blacula!

Rickshaw,

I'm not sure that violence really help either; look at Israel, or Russia: the more violent they are in their answers to terrorisms, the more determined are the terrorists .

Why do so many conservatives (and hell, maybe even liberals too?) still confuse the War in Iraq with the War on Terror? Because Fox News told you so?

Despite what that idiot Dick Cheney would have you believe the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are 2 completely different things. There are no connections between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda! Even George Bush has admitted as such! NONE of the September 11th attackers were Iraqi! NONE of the Yemen ship bombers were Iraqi!

If America *really* wanted to do something about the terrorists they'd go for Saudi Arabia where (along with Palestine and Libya) traditionally most of the world's terrorists have come from. That's not going to happen of course and we all know why. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia have huge business interests between each other. A war between them and who knows what will happen to that precious black gold?

So with terrorism and WMD out of the way what was that reason for invading Iraq again? Oh that's right - because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who tormented his people. Oh how humanitarian of the Republican administration! If that's all the justification you need to invade I can't wait to see where you go next. Zimbabwe? North Korea? Kazhakistan? Iran? China? Liberia? Sudan?

There comes a time when people need to stop and think 'What the hell are our leaders telling us? What the hell are our money and our lives being spent on?' instead of just following them blindly because you've always been a conservative (or a liberal). If more people had done that properly before Tuesday, Goerge Bush would not be in power again today.

No prob Frog Kid.

Frog Kid and Blacula, your points are well taken (and I of course, agree with them). Remember also that almost one-half of American voters are just as appalled by the result of this election and the blindness of those who re-elected Bush. Despite the predictable yet meaningless call for unity by Bush after his victory, and his promises to earn trust, I doubt that he will do anything to promote unity or earn the trust of those who opposed his re-election. This country will remain divided on Bush's policies, and I fear that the division will widen as he runs roughshod over personal liberties and the sovereignty of additional foreign nations.

I also fear that a "war on terrorism" which ignores the causes of terrorist activity, will exacerbate the problem and make it increasingly difficult for Americans and citizens of other nations to travel safely in the world.

The mood in San Francisco is very dark indeed.

It's pretty dark here in the North East too almost all over. Except where I work in Greenwich, where almost everyone is a millionaire. They seem to understand and take great delight in the fact that they are going to be making even more millions in the next four years.

I feel guilty knowing that I'm in the same industries...

Minesurfer,

You have stated above your response to the Iraq War, foreign policy, the economy and such. However you have ignored everything to do with Bush's stand on domestic policy-the volition of civil liberties, the stand on same sex marriages and such. Why have you ignored this?

You have stated that their is no great schism happening in America today and that it started long before Bush came into power and can be traced back as far as Nixon. I am not saying it has not started before but what I want to make clear is I think Bush and his polices have formed the catalyst that has divided everyone. Just look at all the elections and how close they are. Just in my home state many candidates have yet to declare victory because the votes are so close. Loser Lad also mentioned above about an election in his state that was to close to call. Can't you see that the people have drawn the line in the sand and you are on one side or another? You have even stated that. If that is not a division then what is?.

As I have stated earlier, all I see is America that is closing ranks. That is becoming less tolerant and more secular to benefit the part but not the whole.

Also, it's worht noting that if the UK government had paid attention to anything the British public has sadi about the proposed Iraq war we wouldn't have been part of it and, presumably, we'd have got the same treatment France has.

The biggest public demonstration in Britain afte the poll tax riots from 15 years ago was about Iraq - most people in the UK were opposed to the invasion. Our soldiers are only getting blown up there now because the Prime Minister is infatuated with the idea of himself as a "world leader".

And you can be guaranteed that if Bush continues in his second term the way he has in his first then there will many more terrorists in the world, not less.

You can say what you want, but the facts are that America got involved in Vietnam directly because of its relationship with France... "Reds under the bed" or whatever you want to throw out. Communism was spreading to alot of places, but we decided to help our friends the French with their situation. Its well documented that Russia was trying to encircle Greece, Germany, and Turkey with communist states during the late 40's. Funny, I don't remember the United States having military actions against communists in those nations at that time. Saying America was afraid of Reds and would have ended up in Vietnam anyway, isn't a position that can be supported with facts.

Whatever the reasons we went to War in in WW 2, and Pearl Harbor is as good as any, the fact is we did go. Not only that, but we helped win the European theater first before going to the far east. I bet Churchill was dancing in his bunker when he heard we had entered the War. Where did American troops land on D-Day? How many American soldiers are buried on French soil?

A Nazi controlled Europe isn't in the best interests of America? I'd say a Nazi controlled Europe isn't in the best interests of the people of Europe. If Pearl Harbor was the reason for entering WW II, why didn't we just go paste the nation that did it?

When you say Nazi Europe isn't in the best interests of the US you also open the door for me to say, Saddam Hussein in power isn't in the best interests of the US either. Whether he presents a clear and present danger with WMD or not, he is anti-American. He was in charge of an Army and well funded. He was a known supporter of terrorists (whether he was tied to Al Qaeda or not), him being in power is not in the best interests of the American people (as well as the Iraqi people too). You sure you want to leave that door opened?

You want to bring in the War for Independence, fine. I'll bring WW I into play then. So far that's three big ones where America helped out France and some other European nations that were in big trouble.

We got one big one back from France and that was more in retaliation against the British for taking alot of their lands in the French-Indian War. So while France did help and it was appreciated, and we probably couldn't have gained independence without them, they also saw an opportunity to get some lost lands back if Britain was defeated. Their involvement in the American Revolution had some self serving interests as well.

I'm a little rusty on these details, but part of the ill feelings towards France for the recent refusal to help with Iraq, wasn't just the refusal to help, but (and this is where I can't remember the details crisply) they were working in the UN against the United States for wanting to go into Iraq. It's fine if they don't want to go along for the ride, but don't stick your foot out and trip us as we're going through the door. That's where alot of resentment built up.

Wasn't that we did in Hiroshma?

So for that reason Europe is obliged to go along with whatever military action the US wants to take for the rest of time?

The US is really keen on reminding the UK that "without us you'd all be speaking German." But that sort of stuffs up your moral high ground doesn't it? If you want to claim that the US joined the War (3 years after everyone else did) for altruistic reasons then doesn't it defeat your argument when you get outraged that European countries blindly do whatever you tell us 60 years later?

Like I said before, most people in the UK wish our government had the guts to follow France's example and not get involved.

Part of the reason I've not said much about this is that Quislet, Esq. and I debated the same sex marriage thing a while back. It's at this thread . Quis is a very intelligent debater and I respect that. I am a happily married man to a wonderful woman. Do I think that Gay Marriage Ban amendments to State and Federal Constitutions violate the 14th amendment? There certainly is a compelling argument for it. It's a bit of a misnomer to think that America is a free society. It's actually a society that is governed by majority (not taking into account the electoral college). If the majority rules against gay marriage (which was what happened in the 11 states that had same sex marriage referendums this past tuesday), then there ain't much that can be done about it, except in the courts. My standard opinion on the issue is... If you are fighting for it, then I wish you well. It's not really an issue that affects me on personal level so I don't really have much of an opinion about it.

Not true... I said there is a great schism in this country, but that Bush was not the instigator. I said it's been going on for a long time and that it is the nature of a two party system. I also said that Bush has not been able to bring the country together, and that I don't really see anybody on the political scene that can. Although Prime suggested McCain since then, and I must admit that it is an intriguing idea.

You're right. But if there is a division in this country, you really can't blame it on one side. Just like I can't blame it on the other side either. It always takes both sides to want to come together. Like I said before, that is not in the best interests of the minority party. The minority party always wants to be the majority party and they have a much more difficult time becoming so if the majority party looks like they have healed the country and brought everyone together for the common good. I'd be very surprised if Dems ever found a Repub to get behind and vice versa. It would be nice if that wasn't the way, but I don't know if we'll see that again in my lifetime. I think that open debates like the one we are having now between cordial people who genuinely listen to the other side can do more to heal the schism in this country than any politician can.

It just so happens that the other side won this time and that hurts. I know what it's like as I recall the 1996 election. You're thinking something like, "Oh my god. How could all those idiots have voted that man another term." All I can say is that in four more years we are going to go through this whole thing again. It comes around alot quicker than it seems.


I'd have to think about this some more before commenting. My initial response is that you have to be careful about generalizing and lumping America into one increasingly intolerant nation. If you do, and you're in America (Texas I see), then you've just claimed that you are becoming intolerant, which I'm sure is not the case. You see what I mean? Generalizing like that is usually pretty hard to defend.

We did that at Nagasaki too, but after the European theater was decided. Blacula was saying that Nazi Europe wasn't in America's best interests. And he's right, but he also said that America was drawn into WW2 by Japan. I just pointed out that we helped defeat the Nazi's before we really focused on the far east theater. We could have just gone up against Japan and left Europe to figure things out on its own. That was my point.

I never said Europe was morally obligated to follow the US's military lead... I never said the speaking German thing. I purposely stayed away from that. I said we helped win the European theater. That implies that we weren't the only ones there. Being a former military man myself, I would never downplay the sacrifices that soldiers make.

What I did say is that we've been there to help in the past. When France wasn't there to help this time and then politicked behind our backs at the UN against our cause, there was some resentment felt by alot of Americans. If Europe doesn't want to go to war, that's really fine by me.

Let me clarify me position and how I came to see it that way. Earlier you stated that the line was drawn in the sand. That people were fed up with having to accept something that the are morally opposed too. 11 states (or is it 8) states passed measures not only banning same sex marriages but eliminating any rights these people hold with each other from any legal standpoint. Many Republican ran on a platform of family values built upon their own church values. And they won.

How am I as a gay and Asian supposed to feel about that? Not only am I morally objectionable but I am also a "foreigner" -even though I was born and have spent my entire life in Texas. These people hate who I am and where I come from are the ones I have lay my fate too. I consider myself and foremost a Texan and an American. I feel lucky that my parents had the forethought to leave and give me the great life I have here. I grew up in Texas and learned that everyone is welcome in the US and that we respect everyone's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So how can I help but to feel that the majority of Americans are becoming less tolerant and more secular. The leaders that have been elected are trying to curtail my freedom to live by legislating my morals and values and marginalizing my rights as an American. Not as a gay American or an Asian American, but as an American. These are the people that the majority chose to elect to office and this is what they are asking for. So now I have to live through it and hope that nothing really bad happens to curtail my rights to live freely. I know that you stated that you don't care and it doesn’t bother you, but there are people out there that would love nothing better but to outlaw/ban or whatever with homosexuality. So can you see where my statement is coming from?

Maybe I should change my statement too this-- I feel that a majority of Americans, based upon this last election and it results, have shown themselves to be less tolerant and more secular then I believed them to be.

Let me add this too. This is not about being in power or not the majority. This is not about being a sore loser. This is not about FOX news or CNN. This is me seeing with my eyes, people who don't feel I deserve the same rights and previlegs that they have. The same people who think that I shouldn't have any rights at all becasue of my sexual orientaion or my personal beliefs. Debates about war, the economy, media bias, and foregin policy have been prevelant in all the major elections. But I feel that in this election people really voted for a way of life. And that way of life dosen't include me. I don't like the way I put it, but I hope you get the geist of waht I am trying to say.