The Electoral Vote

[Salvation122]

None of those approach anything resembling accuracy.

[3278]

I don't believe there is ever stability. What stability there is may sometimes come from balanced power, and sometimes from unbalanced power. It is impossible to generalize in this case, I believe.

[Elldren]

32: I fully agree. The question isn't "Which of these is right?" The question is "Which of these is right enough for us to try and determine the probability of war?"

Sal: They are all accurate in a number of cases. None of them are accurate in all cases. What they present are paradigms, not equations. The chaos inherent in a social system like this prevents anything close to an accurate equation from being developed, and even if one were to develop something like that the variables are nearly impossible to determine.

edit: Just realized I used the wrong word here... possibility out, proabability in

[JongWK]

Ah yes, this thread has completely and utterly derailed.

[3278]

Just means you made a good thread.

[Elldren]

*pulls the rebar and I-beams off the track*

Derailed? You don't say...

[JongWK]

Website update: Kerry 223, Bush 311.

[JongWK]

for anyone who ever wondered who he was, the webmaster has just come out of the close. You know, I was hoping for a former Clinton officer...

I do agree with what he wrote after introducing himself, anyway.

[Coasini]

First off: I voted for Green Party.

Now, I went and read most of this thread. It occurs to me that some people /still/ support going to war with Iraq because of WMDs that have never been found. The question I would like to pose to these people is this:

We know without any doubt that North Korea has WMDs and the ability to target U.S. cities with them, yet we ignore them completely. Why did we go to war on a 'hunch' while we have cold, hard fact to act on with a different nation?

You can't justify it, no matter how hard you try.

[Salvation122]

I can, and I have, and I'm too tired to repeat the same argument yet again,

[Coasini]

Well, it must be in a different thread, then. Because in this one, you say nothing about why we went to war with a country that /might/ be a threat to its people and neighbors, instead of a country which we /know/ is a threat to its people and neighbors.

[Salvation122]

[quote="I"Tthe notion that we should do nothing because we cannot do everything is utterly farsical. We do what we can, where we can, when we can, and pray that it is enough.[/quote]

You can find well-argued justifications for war in Iraq in Bethy's old thread, and my specific reasons defending the actions of the administration in the "Can Bush be impeached for lying?" thread.

[Daki]

We know without any doubt that North Korea has WMDs and the ability to target U.S. cities with them

Do they? Last I heard regarding their delivery systems was they were still testing short range rockets that could not reach US soil (the whole hoopla over them launching a test rocket into the Sea of Japan).

[3278]

And North Korea hates us slightly less and has a slightly lower history of invading its neighbors. Plus, 12 years haven't passed since we asked them politely to get rid of their WMDs.

Look, I don't support the war in Iraq, for weapons of mass destruction or any other reason, but the notion that the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because we haven't gone to war with North Korea is absurd; the two cases simply aren't comparable in any way save that each country is mean and has bad weapons. On that justification, we'd need to invade half the third world.

As sad as it is that some people justify the war on Iraq for those reasons, it's just as sad that some people think that's the only reason for it.

[Elldren]

Look, I don't support the war in Iraq, for weapons of mass destruction or any other reason, but the notion that the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because we haven't gone to war with North Korea is absurd; the two cases simply aren't comparable in any way save that each country is mean and has bad weapons. On that justification, we'd need to invade half the third world.

Hell, we'd have to invade France by that logic.

[Coasini]

Daki: I thought that's what their claim was.

3278: But it was never proven that Iraq had WMDs. Nor were they brandishing theirs and boasting about them. I'm not saying the cases are comparable, but I find it silly that we would attack Iraq on a hunch of WMDs, and bomb a country to the stone ages, because we /think/ they /might/ have WMDs. I have no doubt Iraq was fought for other reasons, but those are the flagship reasons that the current federal gov't is claiming.

Salvation122: I'll go and read that, then.


Personally, I don't wholy blame Bush. Primarily I blame Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. Bush is just a figurehead; uneducated and manipulated by the more powerful and influential people in the White House. (In my opinion)

[3278]

I find it silly that we would attack Iraq on a hunch of WMDs, and bomb a country to the stone ages, because we /think/ they /might/ have WMDs.

Any time you reduce a complex situation into a sound bite that agrees with you, the opposition will seem silly. If this were a simple situation like, "North Korea has them, Iraq might have had them," then yes, this would be silly. But it's not.

And by oversimplifying the case, you oversimplify your opposition; this is the case for saying this is a one-man war, or, as you've stated, a two-man war, with an "uneducated*" "figurehead" at the helm, when in reality, the situation is vastly more complex. If you oversimplify your enemy in this way, you won't even know who your real opposition is. The Bush Doctrine was written a decade ago by people you've never heard of, some of whom may still have their positions even if their sponsor leaves the White House. They're the guys to be scared of, and most of us don't even know who they are.

*

[Salvation122]

The Bush Doctrine was written a decade ago by people you've never heard of, some of whom may still have their positions even if their sponsor leaves the White House. They're the guys to be scared of, and most of us don't even know who they are.

I dunno. I'm quite aware of who Reagan was.

[mrmooky]

We know without any doubt that North Korea has WMDs and the ability to target U.S. cities with them

Do they? Last I heard regarding their delivery systems was they were still testing short range rockets that could not reach US soil (the whole hoopla over them launching a test rocket into the Sea of Japan).

There's no reason to think North Korea could bomb the US. However, if they nuked Japan, it wouldn't do the US economy any great benefit.

[Johnny the Bull]

with an "uneducated*" "figurehead" at the helm,*

Yeah, Bush has an MBA. Can't really call him uneducated. He /may/ be missing tools for the job like a functioning cerebrum, but he certainly isn't uneducated.

[3278]

The Bush Doctrine was written a decade ago by people you've never heard of, some of whom may still have their positions even if their sponsor leaves the White House. They're the guys to be scared of, and most of us don't even know who they are.

I dunno. I'm quite aware of who Reagan was.

It's possible I don't get the joke, but Reagan didn't write the Bush Doctrine. Or really anything like it.

[Salvation122]

Really? I find the two to be remarkably similar.