Amusing political advertisement (NSFW!)

[qt]

The invasion of Iraq could hardly have been a covert action.

If it were so covert that even the Iraqis didn't notice, then it probably wouldn't have changed much.  But he was referring to what is sometimes known as "extraordinary rendition", and also sometimes known as "kidnapping".  This practice has persisted under administrations of both political parties for quite a long time now.

Anyway, Gore seems to have gotten a lot more conscientious after leaving office. I guess losing power does that to you.

Conscience is free in that case.  While in power, it is expensive.

Yes, I was very surprised and impressed that someone in his position and with his presumed politics could write such a well-reasoned and enlightened argument against W's war in Iraq. Maybe I underestimate those people with the stars sometimes.

It was among the documents which I brought with me to the US embassy when I gave up my citizenship, in case the "interview" became an interrogation by a member of the America über alles crowd.  Apparently that used to happen with some frequency, but now they are so overwhelmed by the stampede of people trying to escape, that they don't have time to hassle people exercising one of the rights in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (to which the US is a signatory).

It's a matter of degree. As I understand it, it's legal to fight a war of choice if you first get UN Security Council approval, as Bush Sr did for the first Iraq war. But it's illegal to fight anything but a purely defensive war (e.g., repelling an attack) without Security Council approval, yet Bush Jr. invaded Iraq on his own schedule even after he'd been turned down by the Security Council. And he almost certainly falsified evidence to get the US Congress and public to reluctantly go along. Despite the many brush fires we've gotten ourselves into it's hard to find a better example of a purely aggressive, criminal war action by a US president than that one.

You may get another such example soon, we'll see.  But, it does seem unlikely that the second US-Iraqi war would have happened if Bush W had lost the election.  And it is also possible that some of the things that have happened, such as drone wars or secret prisons in Europe, also would not have happened.  But assassinations, bombings, CIA-sponsored coups, outsourcing of torture - these didn't start with W.  Maybe Gore wouldn't have done any of these things, but I don't see that he has much incentive to give an honest answer if we were to ask him the question.

Regarding the 9/11 attacks, whether a different administration would have prevented them is conveniently untestable.  The previous administration did not stop the first world trade centre bombing, the oklahoma city bombing, the riyadh bombing, the dhahran bombing, the african embassy bombings, or the cole bombing.  Maybe they stopped some we don't know about.  Maybe a different administration would have stopped the 9/11 attacks; I don't see any way to remove that from the realm of wild speculation.  If they had, would that be an end of it?  There would surely have been other attacks, some of which would have been successful.  Maybe it wouldn't have been as successful as the 9/11 attacks.  The underlying reasons for the attacks are still there - I suspect even the people who believe the US is attacked because "they hate freedom!", not because the US commits more terrorism than al-Qaeda can dream of, would agree with that.

[Peter B]

No parties whatsoever.

Easy to say it, but how would you enforce it? The more power on offer, the more likely that people will form groups to take that power for themselves.

As a Canadian, I see far too many benchsitters who just vote with the party line.

I don't know how strong party discipline is in Canada, but Australia probably takes the cake: politicians representing the Australian Labor Party must vote in line with party directions or be expelled from the party. Other parties probably won't expel you but you can expect a tongue-lashing from the Party Whip and the Party's Leader (and likely no future opportunity of getting a ministry). Politicians crossing the floor to vote with the opposing party is such a rare event that it gets reported in the news. This is even if the politician's actions are purely symbolic and not going to affect the result of the vote in question.

I sadly see no way of bringing this to past in an existing country, too many vested interests.

I agree. But I also don't see how you could prevent it from happening in a new Parliament/Congress/Duma/whatever.

Someone somewhere did a study which demonstrated (I think using statistical maths) that Parliaments with single-member electorates would lead to the rise of a two-party system, while Parliaments with multi-member electorates or pure proportional representation would lead to permanent multi-party coalitions. Apart from very small/weak political units, political parties are inevitable. Hence, to tie it back to my original post, my interest in voting for an interesting political party like the Australian Sex Party.

[ka9q]

Conscience is free in that case.  While in power, it is expensive.

Yeah. What really drove that home for me lately was the appearance of what at first seemed like the inexplicable re-drawing of lines regarding Snowden's revelations about the NSA. It wasn't Democrats vs Republicans, or Liberals vs Conservatives; you had the very odd sight of liberal Democrats joining forces with Tea-party Republicans to oppose what the NSA is doing.

And then it hit me: what determined a politician's position regarding the NSA wasn't their point on the political spectrum but their status in the current power structure. Senior members of congress, especially committee heads like Dianne Feinstein or Peter King, strongly defended the NSA; those with little or no power, regardless of party, were much more critical.

That rule even applied to Obama himself, who as a senator was one of the strongest critics of illegal wiretapping. And even Al Gore -- who had supported the Clipper Chip during his term as VP -- was heard not long ago to speak out against the NSA in very strong terms.

It's all about whose ox gets gored, so to speak.

[ka9q]

You may get another such example soon, we'll see.  But, it does seem unlikely that the second US-Iraqi war would have happened if Bush W had lost the election.

Yes, but that alone would have been a damn big difference.

And it is also possible that some of the things that have happened, such as drone wars or secret prisons in Europe, also would not have happened.  But assassinations, bombings, CIA-sponsored coups, outsourcing of torture - these didn't start with W.

Also true, but they arguably didn't become standard, everyday practice until W.

Regarding the 9/11 attacks, whether a different administration would have prevented them is conveniently untestable.  The previous administration did not stop the first world trade centre bombing, the oklahoma city bombing, the riyadh bombing, the dhahran bombing, the african embassy bombings, or the cole bombing.

This is all very true. But as Clinton said in an interview during W's term, "at least I tried" to go after bin Laden.

The underlying reasons for the attacks are still there - I suspect even the people who believe the US is attacked because "they hate freedom!", not because the US commits more terrorism than al-Qaeda can dream of, would agree with that.

I agree this is the fundamental problem. But no one wants to even listen to the other side; they seem to think that "understand the enemy" necessarily means "agree with". Or maybe deep down they know the other side just might have some valid grievances even if their methods are reprehensible.

W pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia in 2003. Some people actually opposed this pullout because this had been one of al Qaeda's demands and we shouldn't "reward" them. Never mind that there was absolutely no reason to remain there after the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

But it certainly illustrates how counterproductive violence really is in changing the policies of a powerful country. Since that's the usual definition of terrorism, I think al Qaeda's real purpose is not to change our policies but to cause us to destroy ourselves with our own overreaction.

Basically they're bees trying to get us to die from anaphylactic shock -- and so far they're doing a good job.

[qt]

W pulled US troops out of Saudi Arabia in 2003. Some people actually opposed this pullout because this had been one of al Qaeda's demands and we shouldn't "reward" them. Never mind that there was absolutely no reason to remain there after the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

One of my personal favourites was the "patriotic rally" - some argued that if the stock market fell, al-Qaeda would win, so all Americans should rush out and buy stocks.  I'm not sure how purchasing stocks for more than they're worth constitutes a defeat for al-Qaeda.

But it certainly illustrates how counterproductive violence really is in changing the policies of a powerful country. Since that's the usual definition of terrorism, I think al Qaeda's real purpose is not to change our policies but to cause us to destroy ourselves with our own overreaction.

Basically they're bees trying to get us to die from anaphylactic shock -- and so far they're doing a good job.

You'll get no argument from me on that.  One of al-Qaeda's leaders stated that that is exactly their objective, quite explicitly, a few days ago.

But, I am not part of the "us" any more - the punishment the US delivers to its citizens who commit the crime of living outside the US was too much for me, so I quit.  I'm just a dirty foreigner now.

[Echnaton]

But, I am not part of the "us" any more - the punishment the US delivers to its citizens who commit the crime of living outside the US was too much for me, so I quit.  I'm just a dirty foreigner now.

The overreaching of US law to criminalize actions committed outside of the border is quite bizarre.  It is mostly about revenue, but also extends to a other acts things that are legal and unobjectionable in countries where people reside.  It has a get-even feel for people that don't follow "the rules" and see themselves as more than a source of revenue for the government.  I value my US citizenship and am sad that others find it to be oppressing rather than liberating to be American.

[qt]

I value my US citizenship

I appreciate the sentiment, Echnaton, I was there for decades.  But I've had it beaten out of me.  Since Possession of Unregistered Money is now a felony, and you can forfeit your life's savings with two years of violation (even if no taxes are due), it's gotten bad.  Because of the US, I have trouble even opening a simple bank account in my country of residence, and have had zero success in my country of citizenship.  Well, I could have done it, if I lied to the bank - is lying to a foreign bank a crime under US law?  I suspect it is.  The banks in both places are perfectly willing to open accounts for citizens of any country in the world, except one.  Would anyone like to guess which country that is?

This also applies to business accounts, which means any job which requires me to write cheques on behalf of the business is essentially off limits.  Isn't it great when your country bullies employers into discriminating against you?  The foreign tax problem will solve itself if Americans offshore are unable to hold jobs or investments - they won't have any income to tax.

I just couldn't take it anymore.  If I wanted to have the same rights my neighbours take for granted, I either had to become an habitual liar (which might have had serious consequences if I ever got caught), or I had to stop being American.  I chose the latter.

There's a senator from Texas who was born in Canada, and recently said he would give up his Canadian citizenship.  I'm inclined to write him and ask if this means he's a traitor, and should be prohibited from ever setting foot in Canada again, the way Shumer would have it in the US.

[Echnaton]

Your story, QT, is what I have been hearing about for a while.  It is infuriating that the US strong arms other countries into assuming that every American is a criminal unless proven not to be.  But it seems to be the way Obama way.

I had missed the flap over Ted Cruz and dual citizenship.   I am sure the Canadians here don't feel a great deal of loss over the affair.  But it would have been interesting to have a Canadian as President. 

[ka9q]

I'm disappointed that no one picked up on my cryptic remark about Henry VIII, centrifuges and the course of history.

[qt]

I'm disappointed that no one picked up on my cryptic remark about Henry VIII, centrifuges and the course of history.

I noticed it, but I am afraid it is too cryptic for me

[gillianren]

If Henry VIII had a centrifuge, I'm pretty sure he would have been able to separate X sperm from Y sperm and impregnate a wife using only the latter.

[qt]

If Henry VIII had a centrifuge, I'm pretty sure he would have been able to separate X sperm from Y sperm and impregnate a wife using only the latter.

I see!

He did have a son, with his third wife, but not a very durable one.

[gillianren]

If he'd had a centrifuge, he might have had a son who lived more than a few weeks with Katherine of Aragon (she had more children than Mary, but they were all either stillborn or died at longest seven weeks after birth).  That would have changed the face of Europe completely--the face of the world, if you factor in the expansionism shown in the New World under Elizabeth.

I went to a discussion on alternate history at Norwescon a couple of years ago, and someone was arguing that it wasn't possible for a single person to change the course of history.  I believe her opinion was changed when I asked what she thought would have happened if Elizabeth--or her older half-sister--had been a boy instead.  Or if Eleanor of Aquitaine had had sons with Louis VII of France and therefore not gotten her annulment and been able to marry Henry II of England.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

"Individuals can't change the course of history" is a backlash to Great Man thinking some historians used to suffer from.

As usual with that sort of thing reality is far more complicated.

[gillianren]

Yes.  No one in the room at the time subscribed to a pure Great Man theory of history.  We agreed that someone would have, say, sparked the Reformation if Martin Luther had never been born.  (We were supposed to be focusing on medieval history, largely to avoid Yet Another Alternate World War II History Discussion, I think.)  It would not have been quite the same, but it would have happened eventually.  But if England had a strong king in 1215, would we still have had a Magna Carta?  If either Elizabeth I or Mary Stuart been a boy, would their parents have arranged a marriage between them?  (There was talk of arranging a marriage between Mary and Edward, but it didn't happen, and she went to France--where she married their sickly prince who died young!)  We agreed that, mostly, these are the children of kings who shape history that way.  But what if a different guard had been on duty at the Watergate Hotel, one who hadn't already noticed that a door was being held from closing all the way with tape?