which one of these would you vote for? Eh? Eh?

come on now, someone has to have an opinion!

I suspect that this thread has already been done. Perhaps you'd better check in the archives?

There was a similar thread, http://www.matazone.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=9137 but that was asking who we expected to win, this one is asking who we would vote for.

As you can see, the other thread's poll is a fairly accurate reflection of the race, this one is going by a landslide to Kerry.

Out of interest, two people have voted for Nader, I'm wondering who these people are and why they have made that choice?

Ah, here's the thread that I recalled. Mind you, it was yonks and yonks ago, so I suppose a new thread on the subject is no great problem.

Seemed like only yesterday we were voting in that old thread. *Wanders down memory lane, tripping on the cobblestones*

I just thought that some people might find this debate hosted in Flodida interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/ques...ime/3954967.stm

Question Time is a very well respected debating programme in the UK, and it might be interesting for people in the US to see the difference in the technique of the chairman of the debate to that seen on American television.

It's a good debate, with some very interesting points made by both sides of the fence, but (this is probably my personal preference) it seems that the Democrats had the strongest support... I just hope that this is representative of the overall nation although it's more likely that it just goes to demonstrate the type of people who attend political debates are predominantly Kerry supporters, which in itself speaks volumes.

i vote nader... bush is a moron and kerry is a loud moron.

I voted Nader. Any why you ask, this is why.
(you have to scroll all the way to the bottom to get to it.
I would want to vote for Nader because he's about as far left as US candidates go.
In reality I would probably vote for Kerry however. In my mind he seems the lesser of the "evils". But in "reality" I'm not American so my choice dont' matter anywho.

I voted for Kerry because Bruce Springsteen did something for him.

And anyone who saw question time last night (28/10/04) probably found it funny. I'm not being offensive, but the Americans seem to applaud after everything. Example:

Person in Crowd: "Under the control of Dubya..."
Crowd: "Woooooooooo!"
Person: "...we went to war with Iraq for no reason."
Crowd: "Woooooooooo!"
Host guy: "Michael Moore."
Michael Moore: "Err... yeah, but some guy I knew lived in Iraq, and err... he rocks!"
Crowd: "Woooooooooo!"

Things must take twice as long in America than in England. I can imagine voting day...

Person: (Puts vote paper into boxey thing) "I voted for Kerry!"
Queue: "Woooooooooo!"
Next person: "I voted for Dubya!"
Part of Queue: "Wooooooooooo!"

And so on.

I'm just not used to that... hence why I found it funny.

And who would care who Osama Bin Laden would vote for?

In 2000 I voted for Nader... I admit it, I fucked up. Not to mention voting in the swing state of Ohio where it was a pretty close race. I voted for him because I wanted him to get the percentage of the votes that he was required in order to get better political funding for this year's campaign. Unfortunately, we missed that mark as well. I didn't find out until later that the Bush campaign was actually financially supporting Nader's campaign because they knew it could only hurt Al Gore. Besides which, Bush or Gore? What kind of options are those? About as good as this year really, but at least I got myself sorted and voted for Kerry. Anything to get this arse out of office.

the one thing most americans forget is, it doestn mater who you vote for... electoral college makes the desision.... you can vote kerry all you want it doesnt mean he will win.

Well, to quote and reflect on what Commie said in the other thread about somebody bad always gaining the position of power...

Hunger for power is evil's true root.
-Judith Moriae

Um, the Electoral College is required by law to vote with the popular vote in their state. There is a very occasional "rogue elector" who does not do this, but there is almost never more than one in any election, not enough to affect the vote. The Electoral College has no real power whatsoever.

Which is why the Electoral College system really needs to be abolished. It's yet another shining example of the failure of democracy in our supposedly free and fair western society.

Funny story, at our school (I know, because i'm on Yearbook and Newspaper) our polls reveal that Bush will win among the senior voters, by far.

i often see people in the hallways, especially as of late:
'Who are you voting for?'
'Bush'
'Yeah!'
and then they congradulate eachother...
though everybody in my debate team (cept for one person) is for Kerry, the overwhelming majority of out school is pro-bush.

Sentiment over the election is different, apparently more overseas countries want Kerry than we do here in the states...at least, that's how it looks from where i am.
...though, i think all three of the canidates are out of their skulls.

The general global opinion is that an onion could do a better job as commander-in-chief of the United States than Bush, so it's fair to say that we don't want him back for another term.

If every person who will be affected by the next US President actually got to vote in this election then it would be a landslide for Kerry. Unfortunately, and almost completely inexplicably to the rest of the world, apparently a lot of people in America are absolutely blinded by neoconservatist drivel, and are too afraid to actually ask whether any of their claims are at all substantiated.

Come on, when you hear that a major public building has been struck by a jumbo jet in the country that you are the president of, do you:

1) excuse yourself from whatever you are doing and make sure that you appear on television to reassure your people?

2) listen to the ending of 'My Pet Goat' for the next seven minutes, then disappear without saying anything to the media, leaving it up to your cabinet to try and calm a scared population?

If you answered '2' then you are not fit for the office.

Of course, the human rights abuses, corporate interests, high-level corruption, ineffective foreign policy, lack of economic control, lack of understanding international politics, and general inability to formulate sentences may also be considered an impediment to suitability. If you have also got into government without the approval of your own country's voters, and have managed to hold on to the position through what is regarded as one of the most corrupt and flawed decisions of a supreme court ever made, then that is just another nail in the coffin lid.

So, can anyone please explain a really _good_ reason why this actually _should_ be a close election (rather than why it will be, which is simply answered by the Bush administration terrifying the public, demonising anyone they don't like, and launching smear campaigns against their opponents).

Despite all of this, I am still very nervous that Bush's lawyers may win the election (because let's face it, the actual votes of the people are unlikely to be the swinger in this election).

The best thing that could happen would be for there to a landslide victory for Kerry, the second would be a landslide for Bush. At least that way it would be more probable that the will of the people would actually happen. Both of these are doubtful, so it looks like it will be up to legal teams to decide the fate of America and the rest of the world.

What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start...

I voted for Nader. I don't want to vote for Bush, though I'm surrounded by Republicans, and I didn't want to vote for Kerry. I don't want to not vote. So, when I get to the polling place, I'm going to have a very fun time.

[quote=Mata,Nov 1 2004, 02:12 AM]
Come on, when you hear that a major public building has been struck by a jumbo jet in the country that you are the president of, do you:

1) excuse yourself from whatever you are doing and make sure that you appear on television to reassure your people?

2) listen to the ending of 'My Pet Goat' for the next seven minutes, then disappear without saying anything to the media, leaving it up to your cabinet to try and calm a scared population?

If you answered '2' then you are not fit for the office.



I hear people saying that argument all the time, and honestly, it is really one of the things that irritates me the most.

The president couldn't do ANYTHING without intelligence doing some research on the matter. seven minuets of reading a book to little children wasn't a -horribly, dastardly action- it was sensible that he finish up there, and let intelligence do it's job, track down just what happened, so the President actually could have something to say at the press conference. It takes a bit to find these things out, you know.

Yes. a secret service man whispers something into his ear, and the president leaves immediatly, as per your instructions.
and terrifies the whole entire school by bolting out of the door.
do you know how scary that must be for little children, to just have the president bolt after hearing a confidential message?
Yes. let's traumatize the children.
because that's what we really need in my country.
More kids on stress medication.

(I try to stand up for the underdog in situations like this, and as an 'Independant'- (aka - i think they all are wacked) i see that the bush-bashers are getting awfully despirate in their attempts to insult him.

ok... how about the fact that he was reading a book that was upside down?

As much as I agree with you on this one there is a good devils advocate side to the argument regarding popular vote and density of population. If we had just the popular vote then unpopulated states like Wyoming or Nebraska (where there are farming industries and other types of work that require a lot of unpopulated land) that have an interest in government subsidies and other stuff they'd like to vote about wouldn't have much say about anything in the scope of the metropolitan areas that have very different needs and interests. With the electoral college it allows people in vast sparsely populated places have an impact on the vote. Some might consider it unfair that some farmer in Wyoming has a greater impact on the vote than one stock broker in NYC but let's face it, there are loads of stock brokers in NYC, and they have similar interests and will vote in similar ways.

kat

I can understand where you are coming from but I really don't agree with you on this one. He's the President of the United States of America, every child in the country understands that he is a very important man and that sometimes he will have more important things to do than listen to a children's story.

It's not that he sat there without knowledge or what was going on. The first plane hit the building at 8:48a.m. Bush went into that classroom at 9:03 a.m. Fine, he thought it was an aviation accident.

The whisper in his ear was that a second plane had struck, not the first plane. If it were the first plane then it would be a tragedy, but not impossible to believe that it was an accident and not requiring immiediate attention. It was the second plane. Important decisions may have been needed urgently. Are there other planes about to strike other buildings? It is known that terrorists knew where he was that day, and by remaining there he was putting the children, himself, and his whole country at risk.

Did the air force have clearance to shoot down non-responsive aircraft? That is an order that can only be given by the president, but he was just sitting there. Potentially there were planes on the way to strike buildings all across the country, including the one he was sitting in, and an airforce waiting for his order to save thousands of lives, including his own and those of the children he was with, but he was still sitting there. There are things that would need to be decided on immediately.

By this point it has got to be pretty clear to even the slowest individual that America is under attack. Where the attack was coming from was not clear, but when it is clear that something as major as that has happened, the priority has to be with the country, not with being impolite to a group of small children.

He eventually left the school at 9:35a.m. Maybe the Pentagon, hit at 9:37a.m., would have been saved if he had acted sooner. We can't know.

Would you be scared if you were in a meeting with your boss and they got called away to something more important? What if the president was meeting you but was called away to something more important? Sure, you'd be disappointed, but you'd understand, he's the president. Would this mean that you have to go into therapy? Would you be suing the American government for trauma? Are American children so insecure that they can't understand that the president of the most powerful country in the world might have more important things to do than listen to a story with them? I certainly hope that they are not, because it would be a very sad reflection of America if they are.

My point is this; As far as George W Bush knew, his country was under immediate attack, and the claim that it was better to not worry some children than to politely excuse himself and carry out the duties for which he was elected just strikes me as silly. He didn't have to tell the children anything, but a few polite words 'I've had a lovely time here today, thanks for your hostitality, but please excuse me' would have been fine. I'm really sorry, but it is those kind of moments that prove the mettle of a leader and he just did not stand up to the task.


I don't see this as a case of desperation, I see this as a case of observing what he did, what his responsibilities were, and seeing that he made the wrong choice. There is no need to 'insult' his actions, he performed them, and he has created the evidence of a lack of suitability to times of stress all by himself. If I were making this up then it would be an insult. What I am doing here is observing the evidence and making what I feel to be the logical conclusions.

If his actions overall proved that this was a single error in judgement then it wouldn't be worth thinking about, errors are made, we're only human, but his understanding of world events has been consistently lax throughout his presidency. Even before Sept 11th 2001 I believed that he was a man with no understanding of the world, since then I have become convinced of it by his actions time and again.


That's not a fact, that's a photo that was manipulated for a joke... In fact I've seen many people do it to photos. He might not be smart, but he does know which way up a book goes.

(I hope you don't mind, Mata, but i thought it'd be relavent to this discussion if i posted the subject matter I brought up in the message i sent you- - -I like this 'Devil's advocate' thing. It's quite fun to argue for both sides of something- I've been forced to take the Bush side of a debate, and the Kerry side, as well in Debate team, so i've done a little bit of reading)

...here are some of the things that i figure would possibly give a more balanced look at things:

As for the argument about pulling the troops out in a timely fashon:
The whole entire problem with Vietnam is that we pulled the troops out, and didn't see all of it through. if we had kept attacking the guerilla forces, we might have not had such a 'defeat' in the eyes of the world, and we'd have military bases sufficient enough in Korea to prevent future incidents like that of what's about to happen with Kim Jong Iil (sp?) In fact, we have bases in Japan, in Germany, and anywhere else we can get a foothold in, just to prevent future flare-ups. if we pull out all of our forces, then we'll allow the threat to multiply, and they'll end up striking out in our land again. As long as the fighting is over there, the terrorists (though i'm getting awfully tired of that word) won't be over here, blowing our biggest cities up. i know it's a tradgedy that there are mistakes, and civilians are getting killed, but if we are over there, cleaning up the problems, then it will eventually stop. if we let the hate multiply by packing up and leaving, and letting them simmer, it's only a matter of time before another tradgedy like that of the trade towers happens again. We weren't addressing the problems for a long while, and all of a sudden, the problem, most literally, 'blew up in our faces'. I know the whole deal about Osama bin laden nothaving shit to do with Saddam Hussein, but honestly, the whole entire region had factions that were set to exploit the weaknesses in the US's security. if there wasn't terrorist forces in Iraq, then why are we being attacked and killed daily while we are over there? if there wasn't terrorist factions set to strike out against the US, then why are there ambushes where the different religious sects are slaughtering our troops? The whole entire region is already embroiled with a war on eachother, and now, they are striking out on other countries- and the factions site religious beliefs as their reasons. Well, we site protecting our citizens as our reasons, as as long as everyone is over there fighting, then they can't send planes over to kill thousands of people again.
I know what you're going to say-
'but now, people are being killed over THERE!'
It is most certainly not anybody's intention on the US troops' side to slaughter workers, families, or to tear apart their daily lives. it was with malicious intent that the terrorists slaughtered the US citizens, and it is merely with the intent to stop these wicked people from doing further harm to the world's security that the US has begun this combat.

As for the argument that we had plans to invade Iraq before sept. 11th even happened:
We have plans to invade Canada, if need be. we have military strategists planning for the worst-case scenario constantly. that's what they get paid to do, so that just in case, if we ever really need to, we are prepared to defend ourselves.


although, i do think certain things about Bush's policies, like the 'Patriot act'- which pretty much destroyes freedom of speech and freedom of expression, is wacked to all hell...as well as his views on abortion and the religious reasons why he wishes to outlaw women's rights (i'm a firm believer in 'separation of church and state', a very important part of the US constitution), but i still think that Kerry needs to improve the stances he takes on the troops, on this war, and that he is very far from 'the right choice'
(Hell, neither is Nader, honestly...though he seems more competent at these mattersw, he's also proposed plans to eliminate gambling in Las Vegas...which will never happen. I'm sorry, but i really don't think that's feasable, and anybody who assumes that they can totally outlaw a multi-million dollar industry for recreation, is fighting a battle he just can't win. Although, i understand that it preys on the poor and down-on-their luck, it is their faults, just like all psychological addictions- gambling isn't a 'forced' action, they can consciously decide to put the money in the machine. They can get the same 'thrill' out of whacking their heads on a large wodden object, i'm sure)

So, there ya' go. a humble debater's perspective on being fair to the other side's opinions. you can go ahead and message me about how silly i am, too. I just hope you took some things into concideration.
-Kelsie J.

mata.... i was joking as well lets not forget

but about this whole "war on terrorism" let me lay somthing down now realise its smaller scale... but still the exact same idea... or hey im a raving moron.

you own a few guns... enough because you belive its your right as an american citizen to be able to protect yourself with them... one day... 4 of the police officers in your town come into your home with out knocking or giving any reason other then... you could possibly be a threat... because you own some guns. so they take all of your guns and instead one of them moves right into your house with you for your protect from the people around you and kills your son, he didnt mean to he heard a noise and reacted the only way he knew how... by killing him. he was only cleaning up the problems... the ones he thought he found... it wasnt his fault he was wrong... he was protecting you....

how would you feel right about now? because as far as i can tell... welcome to iraq.

edit: darn spelling...

That's my general opinion of Bush also, and I have no idea how around half of our country disagrees! My friend and I went trick-or-treatng with some kids that live at her house, and I was astounded at the number of Bush/Cheney signs out on people's yards. It was absolutely sickening. After seeing all of the things he has caused to happen in his current term, I do not know how people can want to have him as our president yet another time. Does anyone know at all what would compel these people to vote for Bush?

Fear plays a major role. They think Kerry will be a wimp and therefore terrorists will attack the States. Unfortunately, this just isn't true; I'd say that more people than ever are pissed off at Bush, so the chance of having a second (almost inevitable, really, at this point) terrorist attack on America skyrockets with Bush in power.

Another major factor is the mobilization of the Christian Right. They tend to hold neoconservative values similar to Bush. I'm just praying that this can be countered by a mobilization of the angry people of the United States, who have every right to vote against Bush with the hypocrisy that he has generated in his administration.

As well, there's a large portion of the population who would probably vote Democrat, except that they see them being wishy-washy on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Personally, I view this as a strength, but for traditional middle-class white America, these topics are scary, and the Republican party has made its opinion on these topics well known.

Another factor is the Republicans who have always voted Republican will always vote Republican. Same goes for the Democrats. Right now, I'd guess that that base is stronger for the Republican party.

And finally, I think there's a lot of pure ignorance. People honestly believe that Bush had international backing in his war on Iraq. They honestly believe that the people in Iraq now are better off than they were pre-war. They honestly believe, beyond overwhelming contradicting evidence, that the Bush economy is stronger now than before.



I know these arguments and I disagree with them. In a free and fair election, a vote is a vote is a vote. If regional problems arise, they should be resolved by regional governments. The American Presidency is supposed to represent all of America's population, and in so, the vote must become equal. If there are two stock brokers in New York and one farmer in Wyoming, then the stock brokers should have twice as much power, regardless of whether or not they have similar interests.

There was a very scary article in the times a few weeks ago (sadly I cannot link it because nytimes has a very stupid "buying articles" policy) about Bush and his faith-based presidency. What was so scary about it was just one quote from one of his senior advisers (kept anonymous) to the reporter, saying "Bush will win, because there is a big fat middle of the country, and they don't read the L.A. Times, or the Washington Post or the New York Times. They hate you."

"You" meaning New York, northeasterners & such. Now most of the time you could just dismiss this as the rantings and ravings of somebody, but I have relations who fit this description. They don't know what they don't want to know, and they are pro-Bush because of his....oh I don't know. gun policy? gay marraige policy? It really frightens me. I haven't been able to sleep for worrying about this election.

Tigersong, Nov. 1


Not completely true. I don't think Americans believe Bush had international backing....they believe that the whole world DESERTED America (except for Tony Blair). From watching Canadian-led interviews with US citizens (in PA for example), it appears that Bush supporters and Iraq war supporters believe that the UN failed miserably and proved itself weak and ineffective in NOT supporting the war on Iraq. They know they were practically alone in there, and they resent it. They now believe that America is the only body that is willing and able, because it stands alone and need not be tied up in pointless sucking-up-to-please-everyone-and-hence-accomplishing-nothing diplomatic UN discussions, to make the major changes to the world that Americans want. That makes them dangerous voters.

(By the way, I whole-heartedly support diplomatic UN discussions. Above, I'm just paraphrasing the impression I got from some Americans.)

The irony is that the US helped set up the UN and put in place the sort of regulations that prevent single powers attacking others that it doesn't like.

Although, on second consideration, perhaps 'irony' is too weak a word there...


The US public has been lied to consistently during this campaign. Bush says one thing, Kerry says another. I've had to go to multiple press sources before I've felt confident that I've got a rounded view. While Kerry has told a fair few whoppers himself, he does seem to have usually been closer to the mark than Bush, who has created entirely fictious tax initiatives to blame Kerry for (the 'Kerry Gas Tax').

I find it astonishing that American leaders are permitted to flat out lie to the public with little retribution:



From Factcheck.org. It's a site that doesn't take sides, it just tries to present an accurate account of when falsehoods have been used in the campaigns by both candidates. This one in particular is a very interesting article, in that it summarises the lies told by both the major candidates (as well as a few of the biggies by 'independant' groups).

How on earth do they get away with this? I don't doubt for a moment that in the UK we get told a few lies when there is an election around, but I've never really encountered anything on this scale.

Oh well. It'll all be over soon, and then once the public have voted we can leave it up to the teams of lawyers to actually decide who gets to be the next president.

I'm just hoping for a landslide!

Hmm....no takers?....
*pout* and i had typed that all up and worked on it and everything...i wanted to hear some opinions on it...especially from Mata. critiques on it helps me point out flaws i need to correct for debate points and topics.

hey look i posted right after you!!

I think it really depends on which Bush-supporter you talk to. I just formed this opinion from some of the news articles written by Republicans that I've read. Like Mata said, I think the American public has been lied to so many times that they don't know what to believe.


Indeed. It's kind of ironic that the original purpose of the UN was to prevent wars and violence, and promote human rights, a goal that for many years the US seemed to adhere too and even promoted when it helped create the UN. It's sad that it feels it can ignore the international laws that it helped put together in order to try and stop exactly what has happened.

I haven't posted before. -waves- I'm an American in California and I just voted. I come from a political family, my sister was working at the Kerry campaign most of the summer and my mom teaches government. I lived on a military post in Korea for the last half of my life and many of the people, as you probably know, in the military are conservative and Republican. There is this tendancy I have noticed especially among foreigners to think that Republicans are idiots who have been lied to. This is true among a number, but that isn't the case with all, some of the smartest people I know are Republican. They came to this decision through research and they go with those that are closest to what they believe.

One example is my friend Marie. Her father is career Army, she is against abortion and gay marriage and believes in a strong military. She votes with those closest to her. However, I am meeting more and more former Republicans. They were once staunch Republicans the move further and further to the Christian Right has scared them away. My father is one of those as are a lot of the people I knew back on the military post.

I just wondered what people's opinions were about Bush's trip to Iraq at Thanksgiving last year? Many foreigners I knew went on about how it was such an obvious PR move. I think it was a PR move, but I also think it is probably one of the greatest I have ever seen in my life. Many people do not understand what it is to be overseas alone, away from family, and in their case knowing they may not go home.

~Lara

Okay, there's loads of stuff to address in this post, so I'm going to try and go through this quickly otherwise I'll only spend all night typing replies on this forum again.


Given that there have been no terrorist cells from the middle east found in the US since Sept 11th 2001 then I think that it's safe to say that the actual threat posed by the region has been grossly over-stated for political reasons. Bush has announced in the past that he intelligence forces have broken active terrorist cells, but these people have all been released because there was no evidence for any conviction and no proof of any wrong-doing. The UK government has been similarly unsuccessful.

If this what happens when a whole region is plotting to bring down a country then I feel very safe indeed.

Most countries in the middle east feel more threatened by the US than they feel malicious towards it. The region has been run on a principle of dictatorship for as long as history is recorded, and now the US is telling them that they must have elections for the good of... Well, for the good of whom? Most of these countries have not been actively pursuing any goals against US interests any more so than any country wishes for power. The US wishes for power, but gets it through cultural domination and corporate dissemination. If middle eastern countries could be equally successful in those fields I'm sure they would be very happy, but the US has dominated through subversion without ever delcaring an invasion.

The leader of Iran showed open support for Bush during his re-election campaign. Let's not forget that Iran is supposed to be part of the 'axis of evil'. You can make of that what you will. It either shows that he actually really doesn't dislike America at all, or that he thinks that Bush is destroying America, its values, and it's international standing, all of which he finds very entertaining!



In order:

There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war. The US troops have not secured the borders, the country has been turned into one giant testing ground for anyone who resents American values, so anyone who fancies a shot at the domineering military might can walk straight through into the country and join in.

The reason religious sects are fighting the US troops is that the US has invaded their country, led by a man who sees anything that is not Christian as innately sinful, and who are forcing a foreign political system onto them that they have never needed since societies there began. They are very, very pissed off about this. US troops (sorry, but US troops are world famous for being heavy handed with civilians, ask anyone in the military from another country) are offending, hurting, and threatening the innocent civilian population. It's not surprising that the people will fight back. You point a gun at someone enough times while they're doing their shopping and eventually they will be adding a gun to their own shopping list.

Actually, the region is not really at war with eachother. With the exception of the long-raging Israel/Palestine issue (which Bush is doing very little to help, in fact he tends to make things worse) generally most of the countries keep to themselves. I'm not saying that the lives of their citizens are perfect by any means, but the image that appears to be common in US media of the middle east as a constant boiling pot about to destroy itself and the world is just very inaccurate indeed. It's just a method of trying to make the US people 1) less sympathetic for the plight of the people (because they had it sooo bad already) and 2) make war with these states seem justified in the name of world peace.

As Chuck D once said: Don't believe the hype.


Actually I'm fairly sure that most of them cite other reasons, such as American oppression/domination of their culture. Certainly religious beliefs do come into this, but when your predominantly Muslim country has been invaded by another whose leader was voted in by fanatical Christians, and who is prepared to sacrifice the rights of his own people for his own religious beliefs, then you can't blame them for being annoyed.

The 'insurgents' would say that they are protecting their people from the Americans.

Terrorism always happens for a reason. The Sept 11th attacks happened for many reasons, one of which was the American attitude that they have the right to say what is and isn't a moral action, when Islamists disagree with these values. The US moral code is imposed on other countries with no sensitivity for the local values, and it was only a matter of time before someone got annoyed enough with their objections being ignored that they went and did something dramatic.

I've said it in other places. Sept 11th was a terrible tragedy and many other things, but the thing that it certainly was not was a surprise. It really was a matter of time, and many outside of the US have been shocked by how little awareness many Americans had of the hatred that American culture was engendering.


As I say above, there was a huge amount more to it than that. The US media would like to paint terrorists as having no more rationale than a kid going nuts with a gun at his school, but this is just not true. Terrorists have points that they wish to make, their intent is to improve the world, and while their manner of doing so is undeniably misguided, it would be a mistake to write it off as being something as simple as maliciousness.


Either that or a desire to control the oil pipelines of Afghanistan and the oil fields of Iraq... Okay, I'm not _quite_ that cynical, but I do believe that oil plays more than a minor role in all this.


Yes, but such a plan about Canada would only be put into action if Canada proved itself to actually be about to attack the US. I suspect that somewhere Britain has a plan to attack the US, and we have weapons of mass destruction, so why not invade us too?

Donald Runsfeld, before going into government, had requested that the US invade Iraq to control the oil distribution from there. It seems more than a coincidence that as soon as he gets an excuse to invade on another pretext that he goes straight in there. Why else would there be no effort to get UN backing? Because that would mean that the US no longer controlled the country (and hence the oil) afterwards.

The irony of all this is very bitter. The only person so far out of the leaders involved with all this mess who has not lied to us is Saddam Hussein. He said he had disarmed, he even presented an immensely thorough document on the state of his current military capabilities. This was disregarded as a fiction by the US and UK govenments, but inspectors in Iraq have now said that they believe that the document is probably the most accurate survey of Iraq's capabilities in existence.

I've spent over an hour typing this and now I'm going to bed at gone three a.m. again!

'Hope that answers your points.