Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: what if he wins?

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    36

    Default tech central station?

    oliver that piece is pretty disastrous, at least for its papering over of the wilson ww1 years, which make the patriot act look saturnalian.

    if bush wins again i think he'll limp his way through one impossible problem after another, all self-created, the largest being the huge drain on america's economy it is to contain iraq. well, that and fellate billionaires.

    it's funny, in the period before the war the arguments of both the right and the left seemed in general agreement that the Iraq Thing was possible, that OF COURSE it could be done, and question was should or shouldn't. and now, look!

    frankly if i were bush i'd throw the election. let kerry stitch up the bulletholes and make the choices in the coming years that might sink any president, then in another 20 years the gop mints a new liberator dime with reagan on one side and bush fils on the other...

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    389

    Default

    I really hate the "they're basically the same" argument because i think its quite clear that for all their faults neither gore nor Kerry would have resulted in the disaster that is Iraq right now.

    Check out this letter, written by a Wall Street Journal correspondant. I believe she was fired after the letter leaked.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,684

    Default

    ah, religion and politics... two things you never used to be allowed to discuss in pubs for good reason. still, this isn't a bar, so i'm gonna have to wade in and say that viewing kerry as "bush-lite" is crushingly simplistic and pretty dangerous thinking. from a british perspective, it's pretty easy to see big similarities between bush and kerry/republican and democrat at the moment, but does anyone really think, in the current hawkish environment, that kerry actually has the freedom to say exactly what he wants? course not. while few of us would disagree about the increasing convergence of centre-left/right politics in both the uk and us over the past decade, now especially kerry has to play to the mood of the country, get in, bed down and *then* get on with the job. i'm not saying anything new when i state that post 9/11 america is still riven with fear and paranoia and "the war on terror" has only served to intensify this. if he stood up and took a hardline anti-war stance or really pushed the liberal agenda it would alienate a good many voters who have been affected by this; thus virtually guaranteeing another term for bush. it just wouldn't be a sensible thing to do if he wants to gain power

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Sheffield
    Posts
    2,212

    Default Doom

    I think this election is bought and paid for.

    I think by 2008 we will be

    a) used to the fact that dirty bombs aren't that dirty
    b) resigned to a new hundred years war of the west against Islam
    c) resigned to the fact that whatever contribution renewables could have made to the petro-economy, their window has largely closed
    d) we will think back on the liberties and freedoms we used to enjoy with bitter nostalgia
    e) the new imperium will have bombed Syria and Iran, and house of Saud will be only precariously supported by US air power...

    Personally, by 2008 I will be glorying in the fact that I'll have my life back once the kids have grown up a bit and, at 41, I'll still just about young enough to get a bit more clubbing magic in...

  5. #20
    be.jazz Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain easychord
    ^^^^^^^yes.

    please expound.
    Afghanistan: still a mess, despite the continuing presence of US and NATO troops. Yet rarely making the news, like how the 91 Gulf War never actually stopped, as air raids continued virtually every day between the medium-sized flare-up of Operation Desert Fox and then until the current full-on war.

    It's interesting to me that, for all the "World's Policeman" anti-US rhetoric popular in the 90s, Afghanistan and Iraq show that the US is actually far from capable of invading and reshaping countries ravaged by decades of war and sanctions, despite their defense budget being bigger than that of all other countries combined.

    Has Kerry indicated a significantly different approach to Iraq?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    The Iraq issue isn't all that important since Kerry does not have anything new to bring there aside from "we will get other countries involved so they can take casualties with us". UN has a pretty crappy record at peace keeping.

    Bush has me worried about the growing surveilance state, the secrecy of his government and so on. Kerry is promising to fix the Act.

    Another big issue that completely got ignored was corporate subsidies. I would guess both candidates would do nothing to curb these.

    The thing is there are several third party options that are getting NO exposure yet again. I guess I am naive to expect anything to change there.

    So anyway, at worst I see this if Bush wins: continuing division of America into two opposed camps (leading to Civil War down the line??), growing budget and trade deficit leading to economic collapse thanks to Japan and China refusing to support us financially anymore, more Bill of Rights violations perpetrated and written into law. I am not sure what will happen at best, it's much more muddy.

  7. #22

    Default

    civil war?!?

    who and or which two opposed camps will fight? What a deliciously wild prediction: specify, please, please, please.

    k-punk thinks the US is doomed too: "I give it five years," he said, between mouthfulls of Chinese food.
    Last edited by craner; 15-10-2004 at 03:01 PM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    yep civil war, i'd agree there.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    36

    Default

    the only thing that would precipitate armed conflict between (white) americans would be cataclysmic changes in the economy, ie when the bottom finally drops out of energy production. in which case the rest of the world will be up in smoke as well. so kpunks 5 yrs is a little pessimistic (haha optimistic?) but in 30? sure, it's on the table, anything is.

    our elderly years will certainly be lived in a time when all of the earth's petro reserves will be past their productive peak. hope you have some canned goods stashed.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    5,899

    Default

    [QUOTE=oliver craner]civil war?!?

    who and or which two opposed camps will fight? What a deliciously wild prediction: specify, please, please, please.

    personally if it came, i don't think it would neccesarily be between two rival factions, i think it would be between lots of different ideologies and groups, over a large number of issues.
    Last edited by mms; 15-10-2004 at 04:19 PM.

  11. #26
    be.jazz Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mms
    oops i mean't if it came..
    nothing intended.
    You might want to use the edit button!

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    639

    Default

    I don't see Civil War happenning during the Bush term, things must get way more f'ed up for that to happen.

    I am hoping that the American people will not tolerate a serious degradation to their rights and freedoms. Typically such crises were resolved by peaceful means. That was just a worst case scenario.

    Economically things look both bleak and bright, depending which angle you look from. There is some progress being made with oil alternatives for example and Bush did promise a few billion toward reasearch in that area. Then there's the whole budget/trade deficit thing as well as the impending crash of Social Security and it's hard to say how that will play out. Bush is unlikely to fix either. For example he blamed 9/11 for the budget deficit when in fact he raised spending (not just on defense) much more than Clinton did.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    389

    Default

    The iraq war is important in the sense that it is a representative example of Bush's "leadership."

  14. #29

    Default

    yeah, id like to add in my own defence that i didnt say the two candidates were indentical...not my argument...i said there was little to choose from in terms of foreign policy...and Kerry really isnt proposing much in that area except getting other countries more directly involved so the US doesnt appear as unilateral/to blame for the impending mess...Kerry has been tossing around the same hawkish rhetoric as Bush about keeping the US safe from terrorism, etc.

    without saying that the two candidates are the same, i wont expect much except business as usual either way

    im not here to suggest that people shldnt vote for Kerry...i just dont see much changing as long as voting is the avenue of change is all

    just wanted to add that i know Kerry has suggested that the US will pull out sooner if he is elected...however, the Bush admin also made similar noises earlier on in this "adventure"...ill believe it when it happens...in the meantime things will proceed as they are now...disastrously...if the tide starts to turn and things quiet down, i can see Kerry keeping the troops committed to the area until foreign investors feel safe enough to get in there and make a killing...Bush may be paving the way for a lil peace and quiet as we speak

    sorry to go on and on, but i think this rant by Alexander Cockburn is pretty pertinent:

    http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR26301.shtml
    Last edited by satanmcnugget; 16-10-2004 at 04:04 AM.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blissblogger
    (did i spell that right)

    when you say "he" you mean Bush?

    i would agree with you then re. the Weltgeist

    if not, then elaborate!
    When I said the Weltgeist is against Bush I was just preparing to give a little lecture at a Negri-conference and my head was full of Empire-related stuff - so my thought was that if Negri/Hardt are right then todays capitalism has objectively left imperialism behind. So a government that behaves imperialisticly is simply not operating on the level of the capitalist development.
    That was my idea.
    And in a way it's true. If neocon had taken the time and read Empire, they wouldn't be in the mess they (and the rest of the world = us) are in. Imperial capitalism is multilateral.
    Last edited by Tobias; 24-10-2004 at 08:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •