I knew, or felt our president, wouldn't be persuaded by the anti-war movement. However, to have him say publicly that the movement has no influence in his thinking, scares me. To the best of my knowledge, President Bush is the first president to do this publicly. On top of this, he says the people are allowed to speak freely. It's as if his administration is saying there is an alternative where this doesn't happen. I don't feel safe in my country anymore and it has nothing to do with terrorists. It has to do with our government and their actions. They are so determined in their movements and beliefs that they are willing to destroy the foundation that other men and women have built over the past half-century and to bring misery and suffering to countless more in the future. For the first time in my life, I feel I don't have a leader. I feel I have a dictator who permits people to have rights and to die at his behest. As he sits in his 'palace', tolerating barely the words of dissedents, he is planning to kill the dreams and lives of many. How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
It started on September 11, 2001. Or maybe earlier, on November 7, 2000, and the weeks following it.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
At least we have it easy: we know that in the end our leader's own party will oust him - that is, a party-internal method rather than an external, constitutional method. You have impeachment, I'm not even sure if there is a process by which a Prime Minister can be removed. I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:At least we have it easy: we know that in the end our leader's own party will oust him - that is, a party-internal method rather than an external, constitutional method. You have impeachment, I'm not even sure if there is a process by which a Prime Minister can be removed. I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
If Blair keeps this up you may just find out how the proceedure works.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh, Blair can be extremely persuasive... if you know what I mean.
"How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?"
WARNING : OVERSIMPLIFICATION AHEAD!
The towelheads had no small part in it.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
It's a lot easier over here. We don't even have an official government yet. Except that the resigned cabinet has conveniently forgotten that. Grreat.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Grokky: I'm doing what research as time allows.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I suppose the Queen could say you're not in charge of my government anymore, they are instead" but I'm not even sure about that. . .
Yep, she could. Actually she could appoint anyone she wants from the Commons to be PM. It's just tradition that it's the leader of the largest party. Of course, bearing in mind that the most obvious alternatives are Iain Duncan Smith (No personality, no policies) and Charles Kennedy(Wacky policies, habit of appearing on topical news quizes and chat shows) there isn't really much of a choice. It is my own position that 99% of politicians are power hungry megalomaniacs who are only interested in personal power and wealth. That may be unduly harsh but it would explain a lot. I say give the Crown more powers to balence the PM and cabinet. Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: I knew, or felt our president, wouldn't be persuaded by the anti-war movement. However, to have him say publicly that the movement has no influence in his thinking, scares me.
It's political Table Tennis. SH says something about all of the peace movments slowing things down, and he now thinks he has more time. Bush is letting him know that he doesn't have more time.
quote: I don't feel safe in my country anymore and it has nothing to do with terrorists. It has to do with our government and their actions. They are so determined in their movements and beliefs that they are willing to destroy the foundation that other men and women have built over the past half-century and to bring misery and suffering to countless more in the future.
I'm not to happy with the "Homeland" office, or the way it was created. I have a copy of the bill that was passed, but I haven't read it yet. It's long and time is short.
quote: For the first time in my life, I feel I don't have a leader. I feel I have a dictator who permits people to have rights and to die at his behest. As he sits in his 'palace', tolerating barely the words of dissedents, he is planning to kill the dreams and lives of many. How did we go from a country which build dreams to one which destroys dreams?
I don't know how old you are, but it sounds like you didn't live through the Nixion administration.
I don't know the whole story, but I understand a case could be made against FDR as well. We studied the era in school, but not so much what was happeing in the USA,and more about our entering the war.
I suppose a case could be made against Abe Lincoln also.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
I am saying that we don't have a leader. FDR and Lincoln were leaders. They took steps which preserved our union and ensured a future for America. This president is different. His actions are destructive.
This administration is planning a war which they expect will turn into a 21st century liberation of Paris. I call this a very dangerous fantasy. Others before us have tried to control the Middle East and have failed. And, going by the example we set in Afghanistan, our government will be spreading unstability in the region. There is no Marshall Plan nor is there a MacArthur in the plans of our leaders.
As for Nixon, I asked my mother about his presidency. She said that his presidency was not the worst she had seen in her life. She felt Nixon was a corrupted leader whose presidency was destroyed by his flaws as a man.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Nixon: grand at foreign policy, not so great at domestic.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In contrast to Bush, Lincoln and Roosevelt both entered the country into wars only after the country was attacked. And Nixon pulled us out of a war that was none of our business.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
That statement is arguably not true in the case of Roosevelt, though, and possibly even with Lincoln.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Lincoln I might could understand. He could have just capitulated. But Roosevelt? What could he have done, short of a pre-emptive surrender?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, what are you talking about? Tim said that Roosevelt entered into the war only after Pearl Harbor, and I took issue with that statement, since for all practical purposes the U.S. was at war when the Navy began escorting convoys to Great Britain. And, of course, the U.S. had clearly taken sides long before that.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Very true. However, that side was not the side of France by a long shot. If anything, the US was solidly allied with one enemy of France (the UK, which after the Phony War withdrew first the RAF and then the Expeditionary Army, then bombarded the French Navy and its North African ports, invaded French Mideastern colonies and mandates, and generally did its damnedest to turn Petain into a Hitler ally) while gearing up for a war against another.
The history of the past century is quite a bit more complex than just "A against B between years X and Y". Trying to evoke analogies, symmetries and other such simplifications is likely to be met with a barrage of exceptions and counterexamples.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, where is France mentioned in this thread?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Does anyone think that this is about OIL amongst other things. A lot of these terrorists are funded through the OIL industry. Why doesn't the US Government and Oil companies who have bought the technology start releasing this new tech? I mean it'd totally remove the power-base of these terrorist groups and their associated sympathetic countries.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote: Why doesn't the US Government and Oil companies who have bought the technology start releasing this new tech?
Because the power base of the US government is also oil.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
But if they already own the new techs - then they can do away with the oil and exploit the new techs.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Does anyone think that this is about OIL amongst other things.
Probably the originator of this thread.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
When I said "war", I was referring to actual full-fledged shooting wars. One could argue that we've been continuously at war w/ Iraq since '91, what w/ the no-fly zones, and such. In WW2, we may have been siding w/ the UK, and we may have helped escort their ships and such, but we weren't actively seeking German targets to strike at. And, regardless, even if we chose sides before being attacked ourselves, someone had been attacked. The war started because Germany invaded Poland. No-one invaded Germany because they thought Hitler might attack someone, which is basically what we're doing here.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Charles Kennedy rules, frankly.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
In the 1940's, a nation sent a declaration of war. This simple courtesy was badly handled by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Due to inexperience with a typewriter and a shortage of qualified typewriters, the Japanese declaration of war was delivered, contrary to instructions from Tokyo, after the strike on Pearl Harbor. We can assume the American people were infuriated by an attack which was not preceded by a declaration of war.
I am confused as to the procedures followed by nations nowadays. I question if our leaders have a similiar confusion and are choosing a path which is the most clear to them.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Charles Kennedy rules, frankly.
Where's frankly?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topher:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Does anyone think that this is about OIL amongst other things.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)