From: rob@anchor.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.netherlands
Subject: Re: Elections
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:31:11 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering

In article <1992Nov4.210818.12360@nevada.edu> messiah@nevada.edu (mw) writes:
>In article <3NOV199211314586@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> spwim@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov
 (Wim Degroot) writes: 
>>In article <1992Nov3.101512.22370@nevada.edu>, messiah@nevada.edu (mw) writes
>>>In article <2NOV199210144172@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> spwim@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov
   (Wim Degroot) writes: 
>>>>In article <1992Oct30.231719.5094@nynexst.com>, sierhuis@nynexst.com
    writes
>
>OK netters, this Repulican supporter can conceed defeat gracefully. :-)
>However one can not help but notice that while Clinton's margin of victory
>from the polular vote was not exactly overwhelming, his victory from the
>electoral college was an absolute landslide. Another subject for debate?
>
>It is even possible for the popular vote to have a majority favour one
>candidate while the electoral college favours another. The outcome depends
>on getting a majority in key states. Any parallels in Europe? 

Brittain.  They would have four major parties under proportional
representation; as it is, they have two.  District/electoral systems are BAD
news.  There was a good reason for the electoral college system back in the
1700's, but it should be scrapped now.

>Honor and family values are fine but from where do you imply "blind"
>sacrifice? If my neighbor goes to war and I don't, and he comes back home
>wounded (or not at all), can I look him in the eye honestly and tell him
>"I didn't go because of conscientious objections?"

If your neighbor goes and jumps off a cliff, is it your patriotic duty to
follow him?  Some people went to Vietnam because they believed in it.  Well,
it is the inalienable right of the people to be stupid.  Some went because
they were forced to.  Here one might argue for solidarity; however, that same
logic would have put all of Europe in the gas chambers 50 years ago.  I find
that a sufficient flaw that I cannot object to those who do not espouse that
logic.  Your milage may vary.

<*CHOMP*>
>>are three consecutive mistakes in MY judgement:
>>1. Keep on selling weapons to Iraq
>
>Since Iraq and Iran are enemies, and at the time Iran was less in favour 
>with the US than Iraq, it makes sense to me that at that time Bush was 
>supporting US national interests.

I have no objections to `realpolitik;' much as it stinks, we _do_ have to live
in the real world.  I do, however, submit that a policy other than the US
style crisis management is possible and, indeed, desirable.  The US was
supporting Iraq because Iran was the crisis-of-the-day.  Any fool could have,
and indeed many in the administration had, forseen the this would simply make
Iraq into the next crisis.

>>2. Indicate a hands off policy in case of invasion, and
>
>[refers to Iraqi winvasion of Kuwait]. Yeah I've heard that before too,
>but I consider it to be either a mis-quote, exaggeration, or soemthing else
>along those lines. In dispute at the time were some oil fields that lie
>underneath the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border. Originally it may have been Iraq's
>"stated" intentions to capture only those fields because the bulk of
>these oil fields were situated under Iraq but Kuwait was pumping from them
>excessively. Under those circumstances its conceivable that the US ambasador
>to Iraq would indicate "hands-off" on behalf of the US. *BUT* those are not
>the circumstances which took place, and they had to be remedied fast.

Hm.  I think the litmus test here is that if the US did not have some policy
like the one outlined above, then the government was operating in a massively
irrational way for months.  In either case, something was seriously wrong with
the Bush administration.

>If you are saying that the action to liberate Kuwait was primarilly motivated
>by economic concerns about keeping the world oil market competitive, then that
>is *precisely* my point as well. There are a lot of idealists around who seem
>to think that if a nation has economic interests at heart then this discounts
>its motives as invalid. I say that's RUBISH.

I can't speak for others, but I don't have a major problem with that.  Of
course it feels better if you're the knight in shining armor, but most
conflicts take place on morally very muddy fields.  

However, if your motives are economical, be honest and say so.  Spare me the
three months of insultingly transparent rethoric about `that dictator' and
`agression is not going to stand.'  It was YOUR party that started the `fight
for democracy' line, so don't accuse the sensible half of the world of not
facing reality.

[re Iran-Contra]
>Who said anything about "refusing to believe?" 

You did.  I quote:

>>>You are convicting the man of something that has not been proven beyond a
>>>reasoble doubt. 

>Someone in another post even went so far as to say I was "a gullible fool."

I don't think you are a gullible fool, but you sure play one pretty well when
it serves your argument.

>In anycase by "prove" I mean that Bush has not been tried and convicted of
>such acts. Are we not discussing human rights? I think its obvious that
>Bush knew, and if he didn't then that doesn't say much for his ability to
>stay abreast of the issues. Yeah, he probably knew but he can not be charged
>without first being convicted. 

Check your civics textbook.  You're somewhat confused...

>Aside from that, the "Iran-Contra scandal" did have human rights end-goals
>(to free US hostages and to cannel funds to the Contras who are fighting
>against political oppression.) Don't start warming up the torches on your
>flames cause I *KNOW* that in the process arms were sold to Iran (US enemy).
>Welcome to the real world...

Again, the policy itself I don't have a major problem with.  Like with the
Kuweit thing, I don't agree, but I can see where an intelligent and informed
person can take the opposite position.  What I _do_ have a major problem with,
is lying to the people about it.  And don't give me that National Security
crap, 'cause he's still doing the lying.

>>>>      - his continuous use of State Dept. and other foreign officials for
>>>>        political purposes (such as investigating Clintons mother)
<chomp>
>Its not *you guys*. I'm Dutch { :-) } I just support Republican philosophy.

So it _is_ you guys.  I'm Dutch too, but if someone wants to call me a
Democrat, I'll only object to the extend that I don't agree with the
Democratic platform.  That I'm not a voting US citizen doesn't that I suddenly
start supporting platforms I wouldn't want to be associated with.

>Also, no its not right. It never was, and I didn't say that it was. But if
>they all do it then you can not single out Bush for it just because he's
>the one that you don't like. Democracy?

No, but you can single him out for doing it.  Believe me, if Clinton starts
pulling this crap in four years, I'll single him out just as (un)happily.

>I guess that settles it, Bush lost. I hope Clinton learns fast, cause he's 
>got a hell of a lotta catchin up to do.

This is certainly true.

SR
---
Newsgroups: soc.culture.netherlands