h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I like to take the view that "wishy-washy" just means willing to change opinion when presented with new evidence. By contrast, look at the bush administration:

situation - economy is booming
response - cut taxes

situation - economic boom has collapsed; recession
response - cut taxes

situation - terrorist attacks; country at war
response - cut taxes

Ignoring all economic theory & data, it seems that in a WILDLY changing world of the past four years, one of these situations would have called for a different response than the other. It seems that everytime something comes up, Bush's answer is to cut taxes.

Kerry maybe perceived as wishy-washy; whether he is or isn't aside, Bush definitely IS dogmatic - that's just dangerous. He's going to pursue his agenda of cutting taxes, waging war, imposing morals, and use events to justify them.

dave

Lentilla- the Kerry wishy-washyness is not about Vietnam. There are many Vietnam vets who before during or after opposed that and other wars. My own Sargent Major is a Vietnam vet who was highly opposed to Iraq, as was I and yet we both went and fought it because we are members of the US armed forces and have said legal and moral obligations. No I think that as far as politics goes what should matter is his record in the senate not the navy. It really should be a non-issue just as Bush's joining the guard and not finnishing his contract, Clinton's draft dodging, McCain's POW status and all the rest. I would never pull out my medals while wrapping up in the flag if running. I also think that Bush's cocaine use Clinton's Marijuana and sexual history and all other aspects of a politician that have nothing to do with government should not be a part of politics. Of course politics in reality has little to do with government. The biggest crime is we can't seperate the two.

Abbi- did not know that Kerry was a skull. (see aboove) Yes, Kerry is the most republican democrat we have seen in a while. The patriot act should have been fought against tooth and nail from the get go. It made me literaly sick when it reared its ugly head. By far it was worse than the ALien and Sedition acts. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Is what this country was founded on not things like the Patriot act.
Kerry may choose to wish to make snipes at issues that he has issue with through funding. Point is this. The Iraq war was coming tensions were super thick pre Bush and Bush was gunning for Saddam from day one. Voting to authorize Bush to use military action in Iraq would have only gone one way. Voting to cut funding for protective equipment for troops that had their asses on the line already is downright criminal. Without IBA I would not be typing this and my daughter would have a 1/4 million dollar trust fund.
Bush makes some outrages decisions but at the very least he broadcasts them. Anyone who is in the least bit surprised at anything Bush has done is either a fool or a liar. Kerry is much more underhanded, there is an essence of cloak and dagger to him. Better to have to fight the enemy that you can see.

Interesting point. Lenin tried and failed to separate government administration and political legislation in the early days of the Bolshevik revolution. There are a lot of countries where power is supposedly split between many bodies, but does anyone know of any who succeeded on those specific lines?

I'm sure that most people who voted for Bush did so partly because he believes in cutting taxes. If Bush thought that raising taxes would help the country, but didn't do it then IMO he would be in dereliction of duty as a statesman.

I don't think Bush can be blamed for the economic downturn in the USA though. I'm not an economist of any sort, but I think its something that's been in the works for a while, personally I was expecting a more spectacular collapse. Perhaps that is yet to come, perhaps the USA will return to consistent growth, or perhaps something else will happen. Myself I now think it will teeter for a while more.

I've never directly linked an administration to the current economic situation be it recovery, recession etc. However creating the largest budget deficit in history I can pin on the Bush administration. The Bush (elder and younger) administrations see NO PROBLEM with running a huge deficit! Why? Because they only care about NOW and NOT the future. Deficit? Who cares, our grand kids can pay it off! Social Security and Medicare? Hey, there's still enough for our generation because our kids are paying for us! Environment? Screw it! Get used to global warming! (He actually recomended we get used to global warming folks! )

the bush clan sold the national forests to the japanese the have systematically robbed several savings and loans without firing a a shot and imposed the scourge of cocaine on countless souls

The enviromental story is very real!

Bush actually said that he wouldn't sign Kyoto document because he thought the decisions made were not for the best interest of the americans. I am surprised of that, i believe he did not seen the part were it said that Kyoto document were not just for the americans interest but for everyone interests.

Another very interesting fact was when a brasilian minister visited U.S.. A student asked him if he saw the amazon forest as property of the brasilians or as the property of the humanity.
He said, very briefly: «As a humanist i see amazon and all the others forests as property of humankind, as i see all the children of humanity as equal and with need of equal care, as i see all the earth natural resources as property of everyone. But as long as the goverment from different countries let me think that petrol or other resources are to be manipulated by private interests, and as long the U.S. goverment continues to remember me that we fight for the interests of our own countrie and not for the commom sense interests of cooperation and mutual progress of every human being, i continue to say that i am brasilian and, as the amazon belongs to brasilian territory, i say i keep amazon forest as brasilian property.»

Is something to think of....

Ah well, we can change that easily enough. I thought I heard a report about some weapons of mass destruction in Brazil...

>>the bill was seperate founding specificaly for protective equipment<<

Tamberlaine, you're quite simply wrong here, and it looks like this 'fact' is simply what Dubya's campaign ad wants you to believe. There was no vote specifically on the issue of protective equipment, the vote was a yes or no to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction Act 2004, $87bn of expenditure of which $300m was for body armor. Kerry did actually co-sponsor an amended version of the bill which linked the expenditure to a temporary reversal of Bush's tax cut for people earning $400,000, but that was rejected. Not one single Republican senator supported it, so a more accurate piece of spin would be that Republicans would rather throw money at millionaires than protect American troops.

Incidentally, the reason the money was needed was because many troops had been supplied second-rate body armor for their Iraqi tour. If Bush had really been concerned about troops' safety, shouldn't he have looked for the money to pay for the body armor BEFORE the war started instead of six months after?

Mycroft, seems I stand corrected. As noted I have been under i rock lately and have not had full access to just how the politicians are screwing everyone. Sad how there really is no single place to pin blame anywhere.
Problem: There where many troops in Iraq that had neither the training nor the equipment to conduct combat missions

Reason: Bush administration severely underestimated the costs (monetary as well as manpower) of the post-war phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rummy actualy believed that the Iraqi people would all simply dance in the streets and love us.

Problem: There are many units in Iraq such as engineers and air defense artillery that are conducting combat patrols. These patrols are best conducted by the people that know how to do them and are equiped for the mission, the infantry. I am no longer active duty As a national guard infantryman I have participated in Operation Enduring Freedom (2001-2002) Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2004) amd am slated to be recalled again for Afghanistan (2005-2006) one weekend a month my ass!!

Reason: Clinton took the army from 12 manuever divisions to 10 there is no longer the proper number of troops to conduct the "war on terror" which is a problem.

Really either way we are up the creek

I believe the reason Clinton reduced the number of divisions is because of a decline in active membership in the armed forces. Each division was gradually getting smaller, so this was a way of increasing the number of troops in each division.

There's an active argument between those who are career military, and those who are outside of the military itself, but have a good idea of how it works. With the current state of technology, we shouldn't need the same number of troops that we had in WWII or Vietnam. Precision bombing attacks and remote spy planes were supposed to do the sturm und drang work that used to be done by a military unit of crack troops. Bush Jr. is of the old military mindset, and part of the reason for the beating of the war drums is to increase enrollment in the military. I've noticed the increase in the number of Navy, Marine and Army recruitment ads.

Yeah, you can't really look at what Kerry has vetoed and get a good idea of what he stands for. The Republican pork-barrelling has been out of hand these last four years. Why? Because of that majority in the House and Senate.

As a rule of thumb in American politics, be extremely sceptical of any statement along the lines of Senator x voted for/against spending on y and y is a bad/good thing therefore Senator x cannot be trusted. It's exceptionally rare that you're getting the whole story. When it comes to appropriations bills literally hundreds of extra - often completely unrelated - spending requirements can get tacked on in various amendments. Sometimes the original sponsors of a bill can end up voting against it because it's picked up so much baggage along the way that they'd have to approve a ton of cash on stuff they hate to get the things they wanted in the first place.

thats the american way, to be vague in everything

Haven't been on this thread for a bit but this seemed the right place to post this link: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/25/world/yassin_un040325

Clinton's rounds of base closings and deactivation of entire divisions was not due to low enlistment rates. I am not sure about the other branches but the US Army was offering rather large bonuses to many mid level NCOs to leave the service in order to bring numbers down. It was a standard downsizing/restructuring move similiar to big business. Down for the same reasons. Move money from people to material.

A smaller army seemed like a good idea at the time. The Russian bear was dead, intense ground conflict seemed a thing of the past and the US could do its dirty work with guided munitions and smart bombs with far less risk to troops.

Bush also has like thinking. Keep in mind the Bush administration has HUGE ties to the defense industry. For a 1/4 million dollars you could either train an SF operator for many or you could buy one tomahawk for one strike. Much better for the contractors. The point of "shock and awe" was that our really cool far out planes and bombs would shock the Iraqi people into standing around with their Jaws dropped in awe as the 3rd ID simply rolled into Baghdad.

This is why there were NO reserve divisions on the ground in the mid east. The Iraqi people were not supposed to fight. There was no one to conduct a passage of forward lines with the 3rd ID. They should have stopped to rest and refit instead of pressing on whilst tired low on ammo, fuel, repair parts. Make no mistake ever death they suffered in that final push was due to that.

Then off course comes the post-war phase. All this emphasis we put on flashy technology. Is there anyone here that would disagree with me saying that bombs and missiles are exactly NOT the way to hunt a terrorist down? No, the only real way to be able to deal with an asymetrical battlefield is with Special Operations and highly trained light infantry.

An- read your link. OK we have officialy lost it. I mean seriously folks, if you don't want to come out and condem Israel abstaining would have been an option. But to VETO it ????!!!!! Again goes to prove my point of the UN having no teeth. Unfortunately it also goes to invite more attacks. Is that not galacticly obvious???? Well, I have job security. May never get through college but plenty of job security.

mi sincere thanks to all members of the armed forces by thy the way...though you may be mislead i admire your courage and fortitude

<>
Oh dear...
But he's still gotta be better than Bush!

If that's your main criterion, I've got a Magic Talking 8-Ball I can spare for the next four years.

Well thank YOU CH although I hope by "mislead" you are referring to the political masters of the military misusing us into foley, as opposed to the members themseleves being confused in their own minds.

Totally rhetorical question. What do each of you think would have happened if the US had responded to 911 by becoming partially as isolationist as their current policy on homeland security is now, plus remove military bases from Saudi Arabia, which was one of the biggest bin Laden complaints?

Just asking, don't shoot the messenger/questioner.

"Bush makes some outrages decisions but at the very least he broadcasts them."

"Kerry is much more underhanded, there is an essence of cloak and dagger to him. Better to have to fight the enemy that you can see."
Tamberlaine

A lot of truth there *sigh* in any case,
I will not vote for Bush.