Next U.S. President?

[quirk]

Who would you like to see as the next President of the United States and why?

[quirk]

I voted none as in my opinion the problem is with the capitalist/imperialist system rather than any particular personality.

[Harris Brio]

I would like to see Ron Paul become President...

[Finny]

some here know why I support Ron Paul.

But the 2 votes, None (they are all just as bad) is exactly why Ron Paul needs to be President.

[Demagogue]

http://www.voteronpaulforpresident.com/graphics/banner-468x60-style-01h.jpg (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)

Since I can't use it in my signature. =[

[Finny]

Here is a better reason..

Chump (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo)

[Harris Brio]

LMAO... That fat bastard got it good...

[Harris Brio]

Ron Paul is talking to us Americans like we should of been talked too. The others still treat us like kids. Goddamn those pricks I know what they are like holier than thou, never done nothing wrong types who have a closet full of dead bodies and empty lattee bottles. Fuckers can't even stomach vodka for Christsakes...

[Saoirse]

Before the Iraq war I would have chosen John McCain. He is very similar to New Labour MP John Reid as both appeared to speak their mind unlike the other spin obsessed automatons. Then when both of them got a whiff of power (almost around the same time) they both became almost the epitome of that horrible double-speak culture that's ruined politics.

I give Ron Paul credit for speaking his mind regardless of public opinion but I don't know enough about his policies to be in favour of him. I saw him in an interview saying he wants to get rid of government run systems like education...then who is going to run the education system?

I don't believe the U.S. is anywhere near ready to elect an African American or even a woman as president so I guess they'll go for some water-downed Republican.

[Enver]

I agree with Quirk. The election and those taking part in it are irrelevant. Capitalism must be destroyed before you can have a genuinely democratic election anywhere in the world.

[Finny]

Before the Iraq war I would have chosen John McCain. He is very similar to New Labour MP John Reid as both appeared to speak their mind unlike the other spin obsessed automatons. Then when both of them got a whiff of power (almost around the same time) they both became almost the epitome of that horrible double-speak culture that's ruined politics.

I give Ron Paul credit for speaking his mind regardless of public opinion but I don't know enough about his policies to be I favour of him. I saw him in an interview saying he wants to get rid of government run systems like education...then who is going to run the education system?

I don't believe the U.S. is anywhere near ready to elect an African American or even a woman as president so I guess they'll go for some water-downed Republican.

He wants the states to run the Education System as it was prior to the 70s. Americans have become dumber since the Federal Government took over it.

[Takeshi]

My first choice was Fred Thompson, but since his withdrawal I'm supporting John McCain and hoping that he will pick Fred to be his VP. McCain seems to have learned his lesson from the disgraceful amnesty plan for immigration criminals, and I hope to see a tough new immigration law that does not reward people who broke the law. He also seems to have the will to relentlessly prosecute the war against Islamic terrorism, and support Israel.

[Finny]

My first choice was Fred Thompson, but since his withdrawal I'm supporting John McCain and hoping that he will pick Fred to be his VP. McCain seems to have learned his lesson from the disgraceful amnesty plan for immigration criminals, and I hope to see a tough new immigration law that does not reward people who broke the law. He also seems to have the will to relentlessly prosecute the war against Islamic terrorism, and support Israel.

Joe L will be his VP.. so he can get the support of Dems..

McCain moment of the year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk

BTW.. the Economy is gonna drive this election.. not fear of boogeymen.

[Enver]

The stupidity and ignorance of that girl is truly remarkable.

[asterisk8008]

I don't like Clinton.......I think she is the biggest hypocrite
the others are all the same for me.

[Segep]

I don't believe the U.S. is anywhere near ready to elect an African American or even a woman as president so I guess they'll go for some water-downed Republican.

You may be right. We'll see this November. ;)

[Lightweaver]

Ron Paul is my choice. He is the only one who actually reads the Constitution and votes accordingly. That's what this country needs to get back on track.

Enver says that capitalism must be destroyed before a truly democratic election can be held. I can appreciate that sentiment but I don't share it since there is no perfect "ism" to replace it with. CORRUPTION is what must be eliminated.

[Kenny]

I feel that Socialism is really the only way to equality. The elite 1% of US use propaganda to make it seem as if Socialism stripped citizens of their rights. In reality, Capitalism does that. It gives the richest 1% of the population control over our economy and government.

Capitalism doesn't empower all citizens, it empowers the few citizen that exploit it and gain the majority of the wealth. Its sad when 1% of US population owns 80% of the wealth. But yet this 1% manage to get their hands on lower taxes and tax cuts. We should have more equality in wealth and social status. Socialism isn't a perfect system, but Capitalism is the worst of the two evils.

[UShadItcoming]

I feel that Socialism is really the only way to equality. The elite 1% of US use propaganda to make it seem as if Socialism stripped citizens of their rights. In reality, Capitalism does that. It gives the richest 1% of the population control over our economy and government.

Capitalism doesn't empower all citizens, it empowers the few citizen that exploit it and gain the majority of the wealth. Its sad when 1% of US population owns 80% of the wealth. But yet this 1% manage to get their hands on lower taxes and tax cuts. We should have more equality in wealth and social status. Socialism isn't a perfect system, but Capitalism is the worst of the two evils.

I find it strange that you would think you need to revert to socialism. What you need is some sensible socially responsible programs and policies which will benefit the people while maintaining real capitalism. The Us has lost track of what capitalism should be but there are many countries in the world today which make capitalism work while still looking after all their people. Americans need to understand that it's not one extreme or the other. I think it would be worth your time to study Canada's form of capitalism for one example.

[Shadow]

Make No Mistake: McCain's a Neocon

By Robert Parry
June 8, 2008


Since clinching the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain has sought to hide the forest of his neoconservative alignment with George W. Bush amid the trees of details, such as stressing differences over military tactics used in Iraq.


But the larger reality should be clear: McCain is a hard-line neoconservative who buys into Bush’s “preemptive war” theories abroad and his concept of an all-powerful “unitary executive” at home.

From McCain’s pre-Iraq invasion speeches to his campaign’s recent embrace of Bush’s imperial presidency, American voters should realize that if they choose John McCain, they will be locking in at least four more years of war with much of the Islamic world while selling out the Founders’ vision of a democratic Republic where no one is above the law.

Take, for instance, an address that McCain gave to the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Feb. 2, 2002. In the speech – with the ambitious title, “From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order” – the Arizona senator laid out the “full monte” of a neocon agenda.

In those heady days after the U.S. ouster of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, McCain hailed “a new American internationalism” designed “to end safe harbor for terrorists anywhere, to aggressively target rogue regimes that threaten us with weapons of mass destruction, and to consolidate freedom’s gains through institutions that reflect our values.”

To McCain, this meant that the United States had a fundamental right to invade any country on earth that was viewed as an actual or potential threat, a theory of American exceptionalism to international law that was at the heart of Bush’s strategy of “preemptive war.”

“Americans believe we have a mandate to defeat and dismantle the global terrorist network that threatens both Europe and America,” McCain said. “As our President has said, this network includes not just the terrorists but the states that make possible their continued operation.

“Many of these are rogue regimes that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction which threaten Europeans and Americans alike. We in America learned the hard way that we can never again wait for our enemies to choose their moment. The initiative is now ours, and we are seizing it.”

Neocon Forerunner

McCain even presented himself as a forerunner to Bush’s neoconservative policies.

“Several years ago, I and many others argued that the United States, in concert with willing allies, should work to undermine from within and without outlaw regimes that disdain the rules of international conduct and whose internal dysfunction threatened other nations,” McCain said.

“Just this week, the American people heard our President articulate a policy to defeat the ‘axis of evil’ that threatens us with its support for terror and development of weapons of mass destruction,” McCain said in reference to Bush’s warning to Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

“Dictators that harbor terrorists and build these weapons are now on notice that such behavior is, in itself, a casus belli. Nowhere is such an ultimatum more applicable than in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.”

McCain then reprised what turned out to be the bogus case for invading Iraq.

”Almost everyone familiar with Saddam's record of biological weapons development over the past two decades agrees that he surely possesses such weapons. He also possesses vast stocks of chemical weapons and is known to have aggressively pursued, with some success, the development of nuclear weapons,” McCain said.

“Terrorist training camps exist on Iraqi soil, and Iraqi officials are known to have had a number of contacts with al-Qaeda. These were probably not courtesy calls,” McCain added in the smug, sarcastic tone common to that period.

As it turned out, the “vast stocks” of chemical weapons and the prospect of nuclear weapons were non-existent. The “terrorist training camps” on Iraqi soil were hostile to Hussein’s secular regime and were located outside Baghdad’s control in areas protected by the U.S.-British-enforced “no-fly zone.”

Evidence collected after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 revealed that Saddam Hussein rebuffed overtures from al-Qaeda, which he regarded as an enemy in the Arab world. Those contacts were not even “courtesy calls.” [For details, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

Rush to War

However, in February 2002, McCain was a leading voice in the neocon rush for war in Iraq, as an extension of Bush’s “war on terror.”

“The next front is apparent, and we should not shirk from acknowledging it,” McCain said. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad, with the resources of an entire state at his disposal, flush with cash from illicit oil revenues and proud of a decade-long record of defying the international community's demands that he come clean on his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.

”A day of reckoning is approaching. Not simply for Saddam Hussein, but for all members of the Atlantic community, whose governments face the choice of ending the threat we face every day from this rogue regime or carrying on as if such behavior, in the wake of September 11th, were somehow still tolerable.

“The Afghan campaign set a precedent, and provided a model: the success of air power, combined with Special Operations forces working together with indigenous opposition forces, in waging modern war.

”The next phase of the war on terror can build on this model, but we also must learn from its limitations. More American boots on the ground may be required to prevent the escape of terrorists we target in the future, and we should all be mindful that such a commitment might entail higher casualties than we have suffered in Afghanistan,” McCain continued.

”The most compelling defense of war is the moral claim that it allows the victors to define a stronger and more enduring basis for peace. Just as September 11th revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand freedom.”

McCain’s full embrace of this neocon global theory – both in its grandiose substance and its grandiloquent rhetoric – marked the over-the-top hubris that contributed to the suppression of any serious pre-Iraq War debate in the United States and then to the ill-considered rush to invade Iraq.

As the war in Iraq turned sour and anti-Americanism swept the Middle East, McCain began criticizing the Bush administration not for its imperial overreach but for not reaching even farther. McCain began advocating a larger U.S. expeditionary force to pacify Iraq, a policy that gave rise to the “surge.”

Continued here:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/060808.html

[UShadItcoming]

I have a feeling that those who were previously so concerned about a politician flipflopping on the issues are not going to be so concerned anymore if they're McCain supporters.

Disgusting.

But it's going to be interesting because those who chose McCain as their candidate chose him because he was the furthest thing from Bush. Now McCain has to act like a real conservative in order to win the support of those who supported Bush and still do support Bush.

If it wasn't for all the surprises US politics serves up for our amusement from time to time, I would predict that McCain is going to be very badly defeated. If it wasn't for....

[Shadow]

USHAD. I tend to see McCain as bush-lite and a whole lot more "slippery." (if that is possible ;) He "speaketh with forked tongue" and that does not render any trust in him. He is a neo con that is trying to disguise himself in "conservative" clothing. ~~ only a bit more slick then the one sitting on the throne at the moment.

[quirk]

I reset the poll as most of those originally in it have now exited the race.

[bay]

I'll be holding my nose when I vote...

[quirk]

Where you not pro Obama at one stage Bay?

[UShadItcoming]

USHAD. I tend to see McCain as bush-lite and a whole lot more "slippery." (if that is possible ;) He "speaketh with forked tongue" and that does not render any trust in him. He is a neo con that is trying to disguise himself in "conservative" clothing. ~~ only a bit more slick then the one sitting on the throne at the moment.

I don't see him as a neoconservative but my understanding of what that means could be different from yours. Whereas dictionary.com gives on definition of neocon as moderate conservative, I understand it as something totally different. It represents to me an extreme brand of conservatism which is quite representative of today's US. That is absolutely no interest is social policies for the people of any kind and a distribution of the wealth toward the higher quintiles. Or for example, an intent to make the US more like Mexico where all the wealth is in the hands of a few wealthy at the top and the majority are very poor. In any case it's worth a discussion in order to understand it better.

But back to McCain. His record and his support of certain policies over the Bush years indicate that he was not often in agreement with the Bush regime and I think that he was chosen as the Repub candidate for that reason. Bush is tremendously unpopular and McCain was the furthest from him. Now McCain needs to bring the further right conservatives into his camp and ensure that they get out the vote. Therefore he has been swinging in the wind 180 degrees from his prior positions on nearly everything.

If he was elected president, who knows now what he would do? The man is a liar and a phony of course but I don't know if that is going to matter to the American people. If he is elected then it will surely mean the complete deterioration of the US system which could only be explained by a very successful demonizing of Obama. Or in other words, nobody in their right mind could applaud McCain and be a huge supporter of him unless they were supporters of what he was before he needed to do all his flipflops. He can only win if his supporters and the media are able to make Obama out to be something very 'un-american'. That work is obviously in progress now.

I think that Obama can still win but I have to wonder if it makes any difference. I know very well that Obama is not going to end the Iraq war because he can't. The US needs to bring that war to fruition or it loses all it's interests in the ME except perhaps Saudi and right now Saudi is a very shaky situation for several reasons. If Obama represented to me a possibility of less people dying in the fight against the US cause then I would support him wholeheartedly. I just am not convinced it will make any difference in the least and therefore I guess they deserve McCain and more tearing down of their country in the style of Bush. Trouble is, the man's such a bloody liar nobody knows what he stands for now.

[Shadow]

Make No Mistake, McCain Is a Neocon

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 9, 2008.



McCain is a hard-line neocon allied with Bush's 'preemptive war' theories abroad and his concept of an all-powerful 'unitary executive' at home.

Since clinching the Republican presidential nomination, John McCain has sought to hide the forest of his neoconservative alignment with George W. Bush amid the trees of details, such as stressing differences over military tactics used in Iraq.

But the larger reality should be clear: McCain is a hard-line neoconservative who buys into Bush's "preemptive war" theories abroad and his concept of an all-powerful "unitary executive" at home.

From McCain's pre-Iraq invasion speeches to his campaign's recent embrace of Bush's imperial presidency, American voters should realize that if they choose John McCain, they will be locking in at least four more years of war with much of the Islamic world while selling out the Founders' vision of a democratic Republic where no one is above the law.

Take, for instance, an address that McCain gave to the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Feb. 2, 2002. In the speech -- with the ambitious title, "From Crisis to Opportunity: American Internationalism and the New Atlantic Order" -- the Arizona senator laid out the "full monte" of a neocon agenda.

In those heady days after the U.S. ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban regime, McCain hailed "a new American internationalism" designed "to end safe harbor for terrorists anywhere, to aggressively target rogue regimes that threaten us with weapons of mass destruction, and to consolidate freedom's gains through institutions that reflect our values."

To McCain, this meant that the United States had a fundamental right to invade any country on earth that was viewed as an actual or potential threat, a theory of American exceptionalism to international law that was at the heart of Bush's strategy of "preemptive war."

"Americans believe we have a mandate to defeat and dismantle the global terrorist network that threatens both Europe and America," McCain said. "As our President has said, this network includes not just the terrorists but the states that make possible their continued operation.

"Many of these are rogue regimes that possess or are developing weapons of mass destruction which threaten Europeans and Americans alike. We in America learned the hard way that we can never again wait for our enemies to choose their moment. The initiative is now ours, and we are seizing it."


Continued here:

http://www.alternet.org/election08/87402/



Parry is a highly respected writer , who has his finger on the pulse of US politics.


the other 'neo-con" characteristic that McCain presents is his support for unwarranted wire taps.


Neo-Con: the "new conservative"......... interpreted as the more extreme right wing type of conservative. But hardly resembles the traditional "conservative".

[Shadow]

USHAD; "will it make a difference"???



don't really think so, as the path, dye has been cast. To turn things around would take a monolithic movement and a lot of energy /support from the population. Don't think they care enough or have the interest to do what it would take. THe power elite is in full control of the US. The "prez" is but a figure head .....for the most part.

[UShadItcoming]

Shadow- Thank you for your opinion. And once again we have little to disagree on and I'll explain why: If we are to define 'neocon' the way Parry does then there is no doubt McCain is a neocon, at least in those terms. Is a neocon one who pursues the current US foreign policy and an all-powerful unitary executive at home? I can easily accept that as a proper definition of the term 'neocon'. Parry nearly always gets it right in my opinion and I wouldn't even attempt to disagree. However I'm not exactly sure what he means by an 'all-powerful unity executive' at home. If it means a continuation of Bush practices of circumventing the power of the US congress then it makes some sense but I didn't consider that about McCain as a foregone conclusion yet. Come to think of it, it's probably quite true as I don't expect any future president to give up the powers established by Bush's abuse of the American system. Why would even Obama want to unless he was totally sincere in his proclamations of change, meaning change back to how the system was supposed to work. A balance of the three branches of power which Bush has managed to destroy.

As to the current US foreign policy: If that is defining a neocon, and I don't argue that it is, then any candidate elected this time around is going to be a neocon. I have said repeatedly that the US needs to continue it's commitment to foreign oil of the ME and that can't change with Obama quick enough, even though he 'sort of' pretends that it will. Sort of. but not really. He can begin the change of course but the mechanisms for energy alternatives needed to be put in motion long ago in order to even permit Obama to bring about signifant change in his 8 years. On the positive side, he may be able to save Iran if Bush doesn't do Iran before he leaves office.

The US has chosen it's course of pursuing foreign oil instead of other renewable energy sources, at least in the short term to mid term, regardless of their halfassed claims of the need to become independent of it. If they were going to change quickly they wouldn't be lagging behind Europe as much as they currently are. They don't believe in global warming yet for the most part and they don't all believe that we are either experinecing peak oil or are near peak oil. The 600 year old earthers think that god is making it in the ground as fast as we use it and that's not an insignificant faction among them. LOL.

You wrote: Neo-Con: the "new conservative"......... interpreted as the more extreme right wing type of conservative. But hardly resembles the traditional "conservative".

No quarrel here on that at all, for what it's worth. Indeed it's more important that we agree on the definition first before we can use the label. You will note that I said that dictionary.com defines conservative as a 'moderate' conservative too. Go figure?

[Shadow]

They don't believe in global warming yet


Indeed. OT for a moment, but when they finally catch on to the global warming issue , they will make it appear as if it were THEM that originated the idea.:rolleyes:


they are not even aware of how behind they are, while believing that they are still the trail blazers of the past.;)

[Gareth]

McCain. Also, global warming is a contentious issue in science, with many scientific papers arguing for heating from sunspot activity not from CO2, I wouldn't rule it as an absolute yet.

[Drycon]

As for the envoirment, mccain would do a FAR better job then obama would. I belive mccain belives global warming, I would be suprised if he didnt, since at all of his town hall meetings, the evoirment, and climate change was actually his second most spoke of topic.

[UShadItcoming]

As for the envoirment, mccain would do a FAR better job then obama would. I belive mccain belives global warming, I would be suprised if he didnt, since at all of his town hall meetings, the evoirment, and climate change was actually his second most spoke of topic.

You really don't get it do you. McCain might have been for stopping global warming before but he now has to cater to the right of his party. So tell us, when was McCain lying. Now or before?

[UShadItcoming]

McCain. Also, global warming is a contentious issue in science, with many scientific papers arguing for heating from sunspot activity not from CO2, I wouldn't rule it as an absolute yet.

Of course you wouldn't and that's totally in tune with most conservatives. They just don't believe in global warming. Only a very few politicians have the balls to say they don't though. Even Canada's PM Steven Harper doesn't believe in AGW but he pretends he does.

[Drycon]

You really don't get it do you. McCain might have been for stopping global warming before but he now has to cater to the right of his party. So tell us, when was McCain lying. Now or before?

Can you provide a link of him flopping on the envoirment?

[UShadItcoming]

Can you provide a link of him flopping on the envoirment?

No, I can't. Actually I didn't say he did but I suspect he will have to do so privately. It's not good politics to come out and admit that one is against measures to stop global warming and to protect the environment. I don't know a conservative politician who will be outspoken against the global wrming science but there could be some. And I don't know of a real conservative who is truly a believer in global warming.

You would have to admit that McCain has flipflopped on many issues now in order to appease the right of his party. So many that it's going to be his biggest problem in his campaign. However I should just make it clear that I'm not bashing on McCain alone. I also know that Obama has had to become a liar because of some of his alliances. There's little doubt in my mind that he truly believes that Wright is right on the God damn America thing for a start. They both have to do some serious lying in order to be electable. That's too bad in my opinion because the rest of the world knows very well that Obama and Wright both know that the 911 attacks were revenge for US foreign policy. It's just too bad that Americans aren't quite ready to hear that yet.

[Drycon]

Mccains voteing history on the subject says its not lies to me.

I think most americans know that 9/11 was revenge, I have never spoken to an american that has said otherwise in fact, however I live on the left coast, and not the deep south.

I think Wright is a nutcase myelf, he may be spot on about 9/11, but I dont belive for a minute that the USA created aids ect...

[UShadItcoming]

Actually the question interested me so I did a quick search to see if McCain had started to flipflop on global warming yet and sure enought it looks like he has.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/mccains-incoherence-global-warming-reaches-new-heights

Not a big deal but it's a question of whether being for is going to get him more votes than being against. He'll just have to learn how to avoid the tough questions when asked.

[cubfan1937]

I'm voting against McCain because I believe he is a dangerous maniac who loves war and has an ithchy trigger finger. I am also of the opinion thay Obama will be an outstanding President who wioll restore the America that we respected and loved wehichj has been percerted by a gang of criminals.

[quirk]

I'm voting against McCain because I believe he is a dangerous maniac who loves war and has an ithchy trigger finger. I am also of the opinion thay Obama will be an outstanding President who wioll restore the America that we respected and loved wehichj has been percerted by a gang of criminals.

While I agree with what you say about McCain I feel that your hopes for Obama are merely illusions. Obama will work for the interests of US Imperialism and those interests are against the interests of billions of people throughout the world. He will do things slightly different than McCain but the general direction will be the same. Talking about itchy fingers we must remember what Obama has said about Jerusalem which implies continued support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people and also the fact that when he was asked about the use of nuclear weapons against Iran he said he would take no option off the table. Now in my book any one who would even consider or see as a possibility the use of nuclear weapons is a dangerous person.

[Shadow]

Now in my book any one who would even consider or see as a possibility the use of nuclear weapons is a dangerous person



Agree. The talk about using Nukes has become almost too casual. "all options" on the table is such a deceptive statement for what it REALLY means. These are very scary times , particularly with the excessive amount of power that the US has granted itself. It has been abusing its power for some time now...... and talking about using nukes (all options.) is just the next step in massive abuse of power.

Not sure the US can take on the whole world....... and going broke as it is now , will put a damper on thier grandiose schemes and plans.


Can't believe how fundamentally CRUEL & inhumane the US is. :mad::mad:


The victims of their stupid nukes would be PEOPLE..... and it would just be more MASS slaughter . with a US twist. Makes them no better than any other despot leader/ nation that has come down the pike in history. In fact it makes them WORSE, as they should KNOW better.


Mind you, the US is the only nation that HAS an abundant supply of NUKES........and has a history of USING them. So, Just like a serial killer.........each time they perform these dastardly deeds via bombs (wars) (and threats of Nukes) it gets easier to slaughter. They as a nation have become or are becoming immune (desenstized ) to their own atrocities... while "justifying' them to themselves.

[UShadItcoming]

Agree. The talk about using Nukes has become almost too casual. "all options" on the table is such a deceptive statement for what it REALLY means. These are very scary times , particularly with the excessive amount of power that the US has granted itself. It has been abusing its power for some time now...... and talking about using nukes (all options.) is just the next step in massive abuse of power.

Not sure the US can take on the whole world....... and going broke as it is now , will put a damper on thier grandiose schemes and plans.


Can't believe how fundamentally CRUEL & inhumane the US is. :mad::mad:


The victims of their stupid nukes would be PEOPLE..... and it would just be more MASS slaughter . with a US twist. Makes them no better than any other despot leader/ nation that has come down the pike in history. In fact it makes them WORSE, as they should KNOW better.


Mind you, the US is the only nation that HAS an abundant supply of NUKES........and has a history of USING them. So, Just like a serial killer.........each time they perform these dastardly deeds via bombs (wars) (and threats of Nukes) it gets easier to slaughter. They as a nation have become or are becoming immune (desenstized ) to their own atrocities... while "justifying' them to themselves.

Eventually they will use their nukes, I honestly believe, and that is why we were all much safer during the cold war when their was a Soviet deterrant to the US.

Also note that the US has set the stage for the use of nuclear weapons by talking about small tactical nukes which it would use on Iran. Words such as 'surgical' are used with a definite propaganda purpose in mind. It is intended that nobody would object against a 'surgical' operation to eliminate an evil threat. It works for the American people.

Who would ever have the gall to say that it's a rabid, nenegade country planning to rain death and destruction on another of it's victims which doen't bow to US wishes? That would be unpatriotic and more importantly, unamerican!

[Shadow]

Also note that the US has set the stage for the use of nuclear weapons by talking about small tactical nukes which it would use on Iran. Words such as 'surgical' are used with a definite propaganda purpose in mind. It is intended that nobody would object against a 'surgical' operation to eliminate an evil threat. It works for the American people.



exactly!! It is all in the vernacular. The USG is very careful as to how it phrases its intentions . It must consult language experts and psychologists in order to get the "right message" across to the population . The right message, being one that the gullible will buy into. They have never cared what the rest of the world thinks so that is almost secondary.:(

[mynameisstíofán]

I voted on neither of the two. A couple years ago, I was very much in favor of a John Edwards/Barack Obama ticket. However, as I spent more time away from home outside of my strictly Democratic household, I came to the conclusion that one simply isn't much better than the other. Since then, I've come to understand the political process much differently for a variety of reason. Reasons which have left me with the idea that I may not even participate in these elections, however difficult that is to say, still.

[Hildy]

I'm not too jazzed about any of em, to be honest. I wish I could just go back to Ireland and live there and not have to worry about what's happenin here. But, Obama would be better than McCain. Tis a shame I'm not more enthused, about it, but no candidate is going to bring us out of the war, crime, price of petrol, recession, anytime soon.

[ciaranxavier]

I'm not too jazzed about any of em, to be honest. I wish I could just go back to Ireland and live there and not have to worry about what's happenin here. But, Obama would be better than McCain. Tis a shame I'm not more enthused, about it, but no candidate is going to bring us out of the war, crime, price of petrol, recession, anytime soon.

its hard to be enthused about two candidates. not much to choose from.

[UShadItcoming]

I voted on neither of the two. A couple years ago, I was very much in favor of a John Edwards/Barack Obama ticket. However, as I spent more time away from home outside of my strictly Democratic household, I came to the conclusion that one simply isn't much better than the other. Since then, I've come to understand the political process much differently for a variety of reason. Reasons which have left me with the idea that I may not even participate in these elections, however difficult that is to say, still.

You could start a revolution! Or you could come to Canada for a summer holiday to see how we live! We take in good people.

[Hildy]

I honestly think I could get more enthused, if Obama shared a ticket with Hilary Clinton. That would be somethin I could get jazzed about! We need a woman in power, dontcha' think?:p You know what they say, behind every successful man, is a good woman......or some such thing!:)

[ciaranxavier]

You could start a revolution! Or you could come to Canada for a summer holiday to see how we live! We take in good people.

lol with canadas immigration laws we take in the good and bad, were not very picky.

[UShadItcoming]

lol with canadas immigration laws we take in the good and bad, were not very picky.

cx please!

[Shadow]

I honestly think I could get more enthused, if Obama shared a ticket with Hilary Clinton



THAT would be exciting. Would take care of the pigmentation and gender thing in one fell sweep.

When do the candidates announce their running mates ??? (Potential Veeps.) Thanks.

.......and nice to "meet" you Hildy.

[UShadItcoming]

THAT would be exciting. Would take care of the pigmentation and gender thing in one fell sweep.

When do the candidates announce their running mates ??? (Potential Veeps.) Thanks.

.......and nice to "meet" you Hildy.

Consider this Shadow: Obama has so completely outclassed McCain on all counts that it's a bloody miracle they haven't just awarded the presidency to Obama 5 month early. There is only one reason why it's not a sure thing by now and that's because that whole stinking country is full of racists. They deserve McCain for 4 years and that should just about finish off any credibility they have in the world.

[ciaranxavier]

cx please!

UShad, please keep it on topic or be quiet these posts do nothing but clutter the forum and make it look like shit. this has to stop.

[Shadow]

They deserve McCain for 4 years and that should just about finish off any credibility they have in the world.


Ya mean , they still have some ??? ;) What is amazing is the number of documentaries on the telie now that are covering the failing US economy, the loss of power and influence in the world, and how the world powers are reshaping into a new "configuration". In keeping with this, it would follow that traditional, repug men are not the kind of leadership the US is needing. A young, modern, progressive , forward thinking person is called for ....... Someone that is more cooperative and prepared to make the US a more attractive package to do business with. It is time to toss out the old models of operation. They are not working ......and will not work in the rapidly changing world.

[UShadItcoming]

Ya mean , they still have some ??? ;) What is amazing is the number of documentaries on the telie now that are covering the failing US economy, the loss of power and influence in the world, and how the world powers are reshaping into a new "configuration". In keeping with this, it would follow that traditional, repug men are not the kind of leadership the US is needing. A young, modern, progressive , forward thinking person is called for ....... Someone that is more cooperative and prepared to make the US a more attractive package to do business with. It is time to toss out the old models of operation. They are not working ......and will not work in the rapidly changing world.

I htink the number of documentaries is indicative of the world's hate toward the evil American empire being finally satiated. I have only ill wishes for them until they try to once again become good global citizens.

[ciaranxavier]

I htink the number of documentaries is indicative of the world's hate toward the evil American empire being finally satiated. I have only ill wishes for them until they try to once again become good global citizens.

again your failing to see the difference between their administration and the people who live there. why cant you seem to do that?

[Shadow]

again your failing to see the difference between their administration and the people who live there. why cant you seem to do that?



Not to be contentious, but it is the population that allowed this administration into power TWICE!! There has to be some correlation between the two. ;)


(just like here. I don't like Harper at all. But he is in , and much as I don't like it, he represents all of us who did NOT vote for him too. Saying that I did NOT vote for him does not change the facts . But that is how the system works.......and until we use our collective brilliance and come up with a better system......... well, ya know.

[ciaranxavier]

Not to be contentious, but it is the population that allowed this administration into power TWICE!! There has to be some correlation between the two. ;)


(just like here. I don't like Harper at all. But he is in , and much as I don't like it, he represents all of us who did NOT vote for him too. Saying that I did NOT vote for him does not change the facts . But that is how the system works.......and until we use our collective brilliance and come up with a better system......... well, ya know.

so your a harper supporter is basically what your saying even though you didnt vote him in and less then 50% of our country did vote him in???? because he is your leader and if we use the logic UShad it has then everyone in a country ran by a poor administration is responsible when that is not the case in a democratic country.

[Shadow]

so your a harper supporter is basically what your saying even though you didnt vote him in and less then 50% of our country did vote him in???? because he is your leader and if we use the logic UShad it has then everyone in a country ran by a poor administration is responsible when that is not the case in a democratic country.



I think this is getting to the "splitting hairs " dept. Democracy: is a gov't for the people, and BY the people. .........and in such a system, the population IS responsible. It is also responsible to voice its concerns about their system ( as silence about serious issues like WARS is a form of complicity ) It is also responsible to hold said G. to account.

Does this happen in REALITY?? Don't think so. We have all given the G a lot more power than we should have.

I am NOT a Harper supporter. He has some valid ideas but he is bush-lite . But then , that is MY opinion. You are from Alberta. as is he. Alberta has a bit of a different mindset than the other provinces. It is the Texas of Canada. as it just happened to be lucky in the resources dept. And let's not forget that alberta is a lot more "americanized" than the rest of the provinces.

gotta go for now. Catch ya later CX.

[ciaranxavier]

I think this is getting to the "splitting hairs " dept. Democracy: is a gov't for the people, and BY the people. .........and in such a system, the population IS responsible. It is also responsible to voice its concerns about their system ( as silence about serious issues like WARS is a form of complicity ) It is also responsible to hold said G. to account.

Does this happen in REALITY?? Don't think so. We have all given the G a lot more power than we should have.

I am NOT a Harper supporter. He has some valid ideas but he is bush-lite . But then , that is MY opinion. You are from Alberta. as is he. Alberta has a bit of a different mindset than the other provinces. It is the Texas of Canada. as it just happened to be lucky in the resources dept. And let's not forget that alberta is a lot more "americanized" than the rest of the provinces.

gotta go for now. Catch ya later CX.

im no harper supporter either but according to UShadIT's mindset we must all be supporters as he is the leader of our country right now. And what does me being an immigrant in Alberta have to do with anything??? do you think i havent travelled this beautiful country?? things dont change as much as you two would like to think between provinces. unless of course your in Quebec which is dominantly french speaking, i had some troubles getting around montreal but its easy enough to find someone who speaks english. Anyways back to my point. if you agree with UShadIT's logic then you also agree you are responsible for Harper being in power and you support every decision he makes. as thats the opinion he has of americans.

[Shadow]

CX: Nothing is 'absolute". US has his views, you have yours and everyone else have theirs. I agree that on an individual basis , many americans are terrific folk. But so are canadians, Scots, Brits etc.

Seems we are talking about a system of gov't and how much REAL influence a population has on it and who is elected.

I would have felt better , if the US population had at least made some noises when their 'leader' was selected the SECOND TIME. Had they not learned anything about the bush regime during the first four years.


I think it is not fair to compare Canada to the US as the systems are different. The other thing is that both recent elections in the US were questionable in regards to validity . THAT makes a big difference. Again, for a population to passively sit by as a rich , spoilt kid who thinks he is ENTITLED , literally steals their elections. There has been plenty documented about the "validy "," credibility" & integrity of those elections. And yet , narry a complaint that made any difference. So is the world to assume that the US pop has been effectively "silenced"??? There is a fair bit of angst written online. Maybe that is why the USG wants to control the internet now too. The USG is terrified of any opposition. It is terrified of losing control. ergo all the fear tactics.

Harper may not be my choice..........but don't think he "stole" the elections. The fact he is still a minority G........ says that we still have a fair bit of control over what he does. The Ca gov't has not employed the brainwashing techniques of fear mongering .......... and seems a lot more realistic and pragmatic about the "issue" of terrorism.


You really can't compare the two situations at all. Quite frankly , we in Ca. are more fortunate as in many respects our system is better. Not perfect by any means. But since when is anything "perfect"???

[Drycon]

While I understand people want to think that bush stole the first election, it is a fact that he did not steal the second.

Im no fan of bush to say the least, but honestly Kerry scared the hell out of me.

[Shadow]

but honestly Kerry scared the hell out of me.


Why so?? PLease elaborate. (Genuinely interested)

[ciaranxavier]

CX: Nothing is 'absolute". US has his views, you have yours and everyone else have theirs. I agree that on an individual basis , many americans are terrific folk. But so are canadians, Scots, Brits etc.

Seems we are talking about a system of gov't and how much REAL influence a population has on it and who is elected.

I would have felt better , if the US population had at least made some noises when their 'leader' was selected the SECOND TIME. Had they not learned anything about the bush regime during the first four years.


I think it is not fair to compare Canada to the US as the systems are different. The other thing is that both recent elections in the US were questionable in regards to validity . THAT makes a big difference. Again, for a population to passively sit by as a rich , spoilt kid who thinks he is ENTITLED , literally steals their elections. There has been plenty documented about the "validy "," credibility" & integrity of those elections. And yet , narry a complaint that made any difference. So is the world to assume that the US pop has been effectively "silenced"??? There is a fair bit of angst written online. Maybe that is why the USG wants to control the internet now too. The USG is terrified of any opposition. It is terrified of losing control. ergo all the fear tactics.

Harper may not be my choice..........but don't think he "stole" the elections. The fact he is still a minority G........ says that we still have a fair bit of control over what he does. The Ca gov't has not employed the brainwashing techniques of fear mongering .......... and seems a lot more realistic and pragmatic about the "issue" of terrorism.


You really can't compare the two situations at all. Quite frankly , we in Ca. are more fortunate as in many respects our system is better. Not perfect by any means. But since when is anything "perfect"???


You really can't compare the two situations at all. Quite frankly , we in Ca. are more fortunate as in many respects our system is better. Not perfect by any means. But since when is anything "perfect"???

all im trying to get across is obviously you dont like being associated with Harper or his politics and your a canadian, if people believed you supported him JUST because your canadian youd feel unfairly judged would you not? Now the same goes for the american people if we judge them by one guy and his twisted politics we are unfairly judging them, it leaves a lot of room for error.

[Shadow]

you dont like being associated with Harper or his politics and your a canadian, if people believed you supported him JUST because your canadian youd feel unfairly judged would you not?


Nope. My self image (and ego) is not that fragile for one thing. The other is , I would probably agree with the critic.;)

[JackAussie]

I honestly think I could get more enthused, if Obama shared a ticket with Hilary Clinton. That would be something I could get jazzed about! We need a woman in power, dontcha' think?:p You know what they say, behind every successful man, is a good woman......or some such thing!:)

I would agree to that, she will bring along a lot of experience and votes. I thought she would have been the Democrat nominee, not to be, so best she becomes the V/P.

[aaronssongs]

Consider this Shadow: Obama has so completely outclassed McCain on all counts that it's a bloody miracle they haven't just awarded the presidency to Obama 5 month early. There is only one reason why it's not a sure thing by now and that's because that whole stinking country is full of racists. They deserve McCain for 4 years and that should just about finish off any credibility they have in the world.

Hear, hear! Well-said!

[Slap]

There is only one reason why it's not a sure thing by now and that's because that whole stinking country is full of racists.
Supposing that Obama supporters do so for reasons other than his race, while his detractors could only do so because of his race, marks you as the shabbiest sort of racial partisan.

Gore and Kerry lost in 2000 and 2004, without being black. Will Democrats really take comfort in blaming their candidate's race for a loss in 2008, or will they reexamine whether its wise to offer less moderate candidates than their opponents?

[Shadow]

Gore and Kerry lost in 2000 and 2004, without being black


Of course not. They "lost" because the elections themselves were "suspect"......


( it is still questionable as to whether they actually "lost"......but that is a moot point now )

[bay]

Post Turtle



While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old
Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor
struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
McCain and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, McCain is a
post turtle'.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor
asked him what a 'post turtle' was.



The old rancher said, 'When you're driving
down a country road and you come across a fence post

with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.'



The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's
face, so he continued to explain.


'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't

belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there,

and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin
with.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Shadow]

'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't

belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there,

and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin
with



LOL. Superb, bay !!!

[greektzon]

Paris Hilton for U.S president.

[Lightweaver]

Paris Hilton for U.S president.

Here you go: http://bluestarchronicles.com/2008/08/06/paris-hilton-for-president-video/

:D

[Shadow]

Paris Hilton for U.S president.


There ya go.:) Forget having an election...... , just install her in the Oval office , and let the games begin.:dancer:

[bay]

well, here's something amazing

Country star praises Obama
Sen. Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one big, patriotic country star.

Toby Keith, perhaps best known to non-country audiences for his post-Sept. 11 song "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue," says he's a Democrat, and was impressed by the senator from Illinois.

[Shadow]

Watched Obama's speech tonight. Eloquent, just the right tone, challenging McCain without being caustic or overly aggressive so as to foster unnec defensiveness. Touched on all the critical areas , without pontificating un necessarily. Underlined what is critical NOW .


Fantastic to observe someone with such eloquence, and yet depth. someone who is contemporary in thought, yet with respect for important values. He embodies what the US used to stand for..... and maybe can again , only with a more mature and wise essence.


.......... hate to see what the GOP has in mind for "counter attack.... while playing up the "war hero " card to the point of it being over kill.

[JackAussie]

On the Obama speech.
When a link to the speech is available I will have a read or listen.

[Shadow]

Hey Jack.:)

Do you get BBC in Perth?? It has segments on it in a sort of loop feed style. It will give you the essence of it.

I thought he did well. I haven't been watching either of their speeches........ as it seems to go on and on and on........until it is saturation / over kill. :hmmm: So I could watch it with a certain freshness . :)

[JackAussie]

I have just gotten the Speech had a speed read http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/for-the-recor-1.html But have to go out so will give it a slow read later.

[JackAussie]

I have just read the speech and can only say.
To not vote for this guy, Obama, then you will have lost a great opportunity to regain America for the Americans.

To Vote for McCain and get him as President you will deserve all you get, More of the same, Bush for four more years of coasting downhill as the "Have Mores" take even more.

[Shadow]

He (B.O)embodies all the positive elements of what the US has stood for and could stand for again. Quite a captivating speaker, isn't he???


***

wondering what impact McCains choosing a female for his potential VP will have on the US pop. ..as they get closer to election day.


********

Ya know, Jack. It was bad enough to see them passively allow bush to be selected TWICE..........but if they "elect" McCain. , it will confirm a lot about the US mindset..........and their lack of desire for constructive change , a dynamic leadership and a better position in the world. IOW: it would be the last nail in the US coffin. And they can't blame anyone but themselves.

Wonder if they even care about how dirty the Repugs play. They are so underhanded, malicious , that it is scary. Power is everything to them. Doing a good job in the oval office comes in second or third.

( see the item called Repugs dirty tactics..... as it gives a rather effective summary of the repug methods .......)

[JackAussie]

( see the item called Repugs dirty tactics..... as it gives a rather effective summary of the repug methods .......)

As one political pundit said: The darkside of what we see as the Republican party "Are capable of deeds of unfathomable darkness."

As I said in another forum.

(1) If Obama loses it will be because of the racism that still heavily influences the America public.

(2) Fear, as in, the trouble that the Bush Regime is stirring with Russia over Georgia and her aspirations along that of Israel and their encroachments style in Palestine.

(3) Or just plain Assassination

[mynameisstíofán]

It was bad enough to see them passively allow bush to be selected TWICE..........but if they "elect" McCain. , it will confirm a lot about the US mindset..........and their lack of desire for constructive change , a dynamic leadership and a better position in the world.

I feel that this is an unfair judgement.


To tackle your first remark;

...allow bush to be elected TWICE...

Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election, the people made their choice... and an outdated institution known as The Electoral College took it out of their hands. As far as 2004 election, John Kerry was a poor candidate and the smear campaign that was waged against him was unbelievable, not to mention impossible to fight against.

...if they "elect" McCain. , it will confirm a lot about the US mindset ... and their lack of desire for constructive change , a dynamic leadership and a better position in the world.

This is what I feel is an unfair judgement of the American public. I'm not sure where it is you're from, but I'm going to assume you're not a US citizen. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, please correct me. That said, I don't think people abroad really understand what takes place in the campaign process here. It doesn't look so black and white (i.e. Obama = change and positivity; McCain = more of the same and negativity) when you're witnessing it all go down.

We have news sources that aren't interested in truthfulness in their coverage. I'm fortunate in that I have the means and understanding to use the internet to gain the most objective news perspective at my disposal, however this simply isn't feasible for most. The majority of the voting public are middle-aged adults and senior citizens, they aren't familiar with the internet to any great degree and certainly aren't widely familiar with where to look or how to find an objective news source. They have to rely on their local media. Now, if that were me relying on my local media, I would be just as mislead by the poor coverage as they are. My local newspaper is atrocious... it's a purely conservative rag. Our local news stations don't cover anything that gives you any kind of perspective politically, they just cover the day from a superficial outlook (This happened... then this happened, and here's what they had to say about it happening.)

The voting public is not receiving the full story on either candidate. The campaigns lie, they lie over and over again. But the point is, you can lie all you want because people will hear it. That initial ad that hits the TV, people will see it. When the response comes out or someone disproves the claims in the ad, no one sees it, or if they do... they don't believe it. Once a lie hits the air, it's open for consumption and there is no ending it. This is why I think your judgement of American citizens is unfair, we're a nation that was capable of relying on its government and media... but all of this has been thrown for a loop, completely destroyed. It was reasonably true, once upon a time in this nation, that if it came from the mouth of Walter Cronkite, it was the gospel. The majority of the public is of that generation, my parents for instance. It's not so easy to realize and accept the fact that you can no longer have faith in what you once had faith in, that you can no longer ever trust your government or the news source you grew up believing.

I encounter this mentality frequently among people outside the US in my visits to forum communities populated by those in the international community. I understand the frustrations that those have in the international community, as do many other Americans, we really do understand. All I can ask is that you not be so quick to discredit an entire nation of people, it's not very easy to make yourself educated on topical matters in this country these days, it's not very easy at all.

Have faith, but don't condemn the whole, it's difficult when the sum of the information coming your way is no longer the truth. Not everyone is as fortunate to know how to utilize this great resource that has brought us together on a forum such as this and brings people together throughout the world every day for the exchange of ideas.

[Shadow]

THANKS for a superb post.


We shall see what we shall see come November,. Totally agree about the lack of credibility the media has , along with the politicians.......all of them.

the other aspect of all this that is so disappointing......is the repug smear tactics. They will stop at nothing to win....... as if the win was all that mattered. Seems that the whole concept of proper governance, its purpose has been lost to other ,less desirable qualities.


Ok... the dems use dirty tactics too...... but they just don't seem quite as malicious.

It should be no surprise that the rest of the world is watching this election closely. the US has done some insane & destructive things under bush.....and lost a lot of respect and credibility. It is important to realize that the US has its fingers all over the planet and much of this is not viewed favorably at all. The worst thing is the aggressive, provocative ,antagonistic and baiting conduct that the USG does. THAT is what gives the US as a nation a really bad image, reputation etc. Sadly, the "good" that the US has done and is capable of .....is over shadowed by this overly antagonistic stance. A nation can be firm, even emphatic..... without being ugly. Tact and diplomacy take one a lot further in the long run than the kind of war and aggressive tactics the US uses.


Ya see, the US has the capacity to bring out the very finest /best from the rest of the world......and yet it chooses to bring out the worst . There is a reason.....(many) that the US is so disliked now. And THAT will have to be addressed if the US is going to make constructive progress ...

a nation cannot hope to handle as much power as the US claims , and be arrogant to the point of running rough shod over others.


tHe US has some critically important choices to make now. Maybe it is time for politics UN usual. and more constructive.

[Lightweaver]

Ya see, the US has the capacity to bring out the very finest /best from the rest of the world...

I agree. :)

...and yet it chooses to bring out the worst .

Yes, and this is extremely frustrating and demoralizing to those of us in the US who deplore what has been done in our country's name by the puppeteers pulling Bush's strings. The government is not accountable to its people, the vast majority of whom oppose the direction our country has been heading.

Look at the results of the last Congressional elections; issuing a mandate for change, the people voted in a Democratic majority whose Speaker immediately announced that impeachment was off the table. This majority then continued to vote to fund the war and to continue passing legislation to destroy privacy, erode civil rights, and violate the Constitution; in other words, business as usual.

The reason for this is that our system of electing representatives favors the wealthy and shuts out the everyday Joes and Janes.

After all, the average (economically speaking) person cannot even begin to create a campaign war chest to run against the likes of a McCain, Clinton, Bush, or Obama. Our entire electoral system is stacked against the poor and middle class because of the enormous costs to run a campaign. On the local level it isn't so much of a problem, but when you get to the federal level, the cost to run a campaign for Congress or the Presidency is way out of the reach of the vast majority of people in this country. This is why we have a Congress more beholden to the corporations than to their everyday constituents.

And that is why the US invaded Iraq and is rattling its sabres about Iran and Russia. The military-industrial complex is siphoning the wealth away from the people and into the pockets of corporations whose CEOs are laughing all the way to the bank. The system is rigged against the average person, who is offered poor choices to vote for in Presidential elections. The Democrats and Republicans, both flip sides of the same coin despite party rhetoric, have a lock on the system through various campaign laws which are selectively applied to other parties and ignored by their own.


There is a reason.....(many) that the US is so disliked now. And THAT will have to be addressed if the US is going to make constructive progress ...

There are valid reasons why the US is so disliked, but when you have a demoralized, disempowered people, and a government that is being run for the benefit of a select few with no accountability, what can be done to change things? I'd sure like to hear some ideas.

[Shadow]

Wonderful (and wise) post ,LW. You are a breath of fresh and reasoned air and represent the finest of the US population.

Is THAT too mushie??? :)

Understand exactly what you are saying. ....... and when the chips are down......... I can't help but feel an empathy/ sympathy for the plight the US as a nation is in. But then I also can't help but feel "enraged" (yes, that is a tad strong) for the dilemma that has been created. "enraged": because I have come to expect a lot more from the US ,as a nation, and the fact that what the US does affects directly or indirectly the entire planet. ( as does most other nations due to the high level of national interconnectivity now.)


One cannot help but be a tad cynical about the coming election too. Have watched two consecutive "elections' with dismay ......not only with the results , but how they have been "handled."


Of course, each candidate is using whatever they can to build their potential votes. But McCains choice of a female is so obvious a tactic , one has to wonder about other decisions. One hates to think about what goes on "behind the scenes" ......

THe plus is that this "election" is a lot more interesting ........so far. And that is a good thing.:)

[Lightweaver]

Wonderful (and wise) post ,LW. You are a breath of fresh and reasoned air and represent the finest of the US population.

Oh pshaw...:)

Is THAT too mushie???

Compliments are fine and always appreciated. :)

One cannot help but be a tad cynical about the coming election too.

I thought the choice between Kerry and GW was bad, but so is the one between McCain and Obama. One wants to continue the imperialistic policies that are bankrupting this country, and the other wants to create new socialistic policies which will also bankrupt this country. Neither candidate is serious about reducing the national debt; only increasing it.

What kind of a choice is that? :mad:

THe plus is that this "election" is a lot more interesting

Haha, yeah.

[Unka Bart]

Make No Mistake, McCain Is a Neocon

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted June 9, 2008.
[snippity snip]

the other 'neo-con" characteristic that McCain presents is his support for unwarranted wire taps.


Neo-Con: the "new conservative"......... interpreted as the more extreme right wing type of conservative. But hardly resembles the traditional "conservative".

No quibbles with what you've said, as far as it goes, but don't forget that Obama voted for the same unwarranted wire taps.

Yer kindly ol' Unka Bart (who will still likely vote for Obama as the lesser weavel.)

[Gareth]

Shadow the problem with Obama is that he is a great talker, but not much of a walker. McCain is set to get things done, to clean Iraq up once and for all, instead of just hit and run.

[Shadow]

McCain is set to get things done, to clean Iraq up once and for all, instead of just hit and run.



Maybe, Maybe not. McCain is a slippery one . But taking what you say literally, is concerning too. Just HOW does he plan to do this?? Slaughter more , en masse until the Iraqis finally give up and surrender in fatique so the US can claim "victory". What about the Iraqis.....and THEIR country?? Or are we to "assume" that Iraq no longer belongs to the Iraqis and it is just a matter of time before the US claims it ???

Just HOW and on WHAT TERMS can the US truly declare "victory"...... if the Iraqis are still protesting and rebellilng against the occupier (US)??

Or will Iraq continue to lie in limbo ?? belonging to no one and the new region for continuous fighting.??

Of course, then there is that pesky little question of : "where is the US going to get the funds to continue this war "until they "win".......whatever THAT means ?

and then there is the bottom line question: WHO is benefitting from all this and has been all along???

Does anyone REALLY KNOW what the situation is like in Iraq for the Iraqis?? One thing is certain: there is no way anyone can believe the politicians involved as they have LIED blatantly from the very beginning. and have NO credibility.

**

re : next US leader. Would rather give Obama a chance ( as regardless of his experience level.........he cannot do any worse than what exists now. ) McCain pretends to be the grandfather type....... taking a paternal approach as well as the patronizing approach , but does not convey the type of leadership personna that is critically needed at the moment.

Given that there is not much to choose from....... Obama is the lesser of two evils by a long shot. (and the party they represent is not even relavent ). IF he were running on the Repug ticket...... he would still be the less of two evils. Obama brings a desperately needed freshness to the US leadership. McCain brings more of the same ....as he comes from a traditional mould.

Then there is that silly Palin "factor". Pure political games. Nothing more. McCain tried to pull a shrewd one with picking a FEMALE. Too bad he picked the wrong female. She is as dangerous as the neo cons ..... and from watching her conduct........ she will not stand for second place for long. A power struggle will ensue , as sure as she kills Northern animals. She has McCain pegged for the passive aggressive he is. She is aggression. and a controlling individual.

as if US politics are not the biggest game in town .....as it is.


and then there is the "gut" feeling. (which is a factor for a lot of folks who are in tune ) Gut sensors are flashing red warning signals about the McPalin duo.

Who ever "wins" this selection........( and hope like heck it is at least fair, legal and not tampered with )..... will represent the state of the US population. Either way, the new leader will be taking on a humongous job , with a humongous number of very serious issues that were not properly addressed in the past 8 yrs of sociopathic conduct.


(must be Sat morning. Feeling a tad verbal :)


..

[Gareth]

Ah come on, the lesser of two evils. Don't get me started, scores will disagree with you. Particularly on how Obama values life. Millions of the unborn are killed each year, and Obama supports this. As for sorting out Iraq, I mean progressing to establishing stable democracy, stable rule of law, and in a stable Iraqi force to exert control over the general population along with a police force in cases of suicide bombings and in armed conflict. These people need to know the Iraqi government have the power not them!

[Shadow]

Ah come on, the lesser of two evils. Don't get me started, scores will disagree with you.That is just fine. agreement or disagreement is NOT the issue.

Particularly on how Obama values life. Millions of the unborn are killed each year, and Obama supports this.Don't get me started on this. IF abortions are done for medical reasons, or even pro choice because it is the wise thing to do... and if they are done within a certain time frame.... There should be no issue. IF ONLY those that have been born and grew into adulthood would get as much attention and discussion as they are slaughtered in ELECTIVE wars of GREED. Abortion is NOT a black / white issue. Going to slaughter en mass IS. and gov't CHOOSE to do that regularly. Maybe that is the reason that abortions are viewed negatively. It means less fodder for the military .

As for sorting out Iraq, I mean progressing to establishing stable democracy, stable rule of law, and in a stable Iraqi force to exert control over the general population along with a police force in cases of suicide bombings and in armed conflict. These people need to know the Iraqi government have the power not them!

WHICH PEOPLE are you referring to?? Maybe suicide bombings are the only venue left to these "people" to make a statement of resistance to the OCCUPIER.

WHAT is Extremely sad , but very interesting is: in all these horrible years of the invasion/ occupation. I have yet to see someone express concern for the Iraqis, THEIR LOSSES, The fact they have been dislocated... (if they wanted to survive and retain some dignity) the inhumanity that they have suffered. The numerous funerals they have had to deal with. this does not cover all the disfiguring of their bodies (and burns) let alone the psychological trauma they have endured.

All we here is the political aspect with the US promoting its false propaganda and lies. The lies only add insult to the injuries the Iraqis have faced. Maybe every war supporter should go over there and work in some of their morgues. That is the only thing that might make them see the realities of what they have done. Except for & to the invaders, barbarism is not acceptable.



Lets do a what if. What if the US decided to invade Ireland??? Would the Irish population just sit there and allow themselves to be occupied /taken over ?? Or would they put up a resistance in any way they know how. From the Irish folks I know , they are NOT a passive , bunch. They love their country as much as the English love theirs. (or any population loving theirs).


and don't say , it won't happen. The US can be defined as a rogue nation...... and with its economy in shambles, its aspirations to control the planet, and its indifference to life making WAR the first option. ......... just about anything can happen now.

There is NOTHING "noble" about the insanity of Iraq invasion. (no matter the crap the bush regime has spewed and lied for all these years. )

again......... WHO BENEFITS??? and WHY??


Gareth, we don't have to agree on anything. THAT is NOT the point of a discussion. The point is to discuss , evaluate and see things from another view point.

In a bizarre way, one can see why the traditionalists and neo cons would support McPalin. They probably have their good points..........but being WAR MONGERS.(those that see WAR as a pre-emptive option. (such a clever use of terminology. that makes the whole idea palatable to like minded sorts ).....rules them out in my books.


There IS a time for war, but only in two situations. LAST resort after all other options have been completely exhausted. And IF /WHEN a nation is MILITARILY invaded. A terrorist attack does not qualify. ( Spain and England handled their terror attacks so much more effectively and without sensationalizing terrorism , the way the US has. The US has made terrorism a business . )

[faceless]

War has always been business - that's the catch-22 of the whole situation. So many Americans are involved in the arms trade that it would cause a major problem in its economy if they didn't invest in it. The billions it gets from selling weapons systems around the world are one of the only major exports it has these days.

[Shadow]

War has always been business - that's the catch-22 of the whole situation. So many Americans are involved in the arms trade that it would cause a major problem in its economy if they didn't invest in it. The billions it gets from selling weapons systems around the world are one of the only major exports it has these days.



VERY true. and yet so sad. so inhumane . "weapons sales being one of the only US exports these days........does not bode well for any semblance of peace or humanity as a whole. Everything seems to be geared to WAR and WAR related activities. "peace" is just the words to some wishful thinking song. It is nothing but a political fantasy to be played for political purposes only. A nation so entrenched in WEAPONS (and those of Mass destruction ) as the US is, is a complete fool / hypocrit to even use the word.

It is not only sad......it is depressing.

[Gareth]

WHICH PEOPLE are you referring to?? Maybe suicide bombings are the only venue left to these "people" to make a statement of resistance to the OCCUPIER.

Well if you look to the facts, actually most suicide bombings take place between people of one nation, their own people. Look at what happened in Damascus last week 17 Syrian people died in a suicide bomb. It's ridiculous to say that suicide bombings take place to the "occupier" because that's nonsense.

WHAT is Extremely sad , but very interesting is: in all these horrible years of the invasion/ occupation. I have yet to see someone express concern for the Iraqis, THEIR LOSSES, The fact they have been dislocated... (if they wanted to survive and retain some dignity) the inhumanity that they have suffered. The numerous funerals they have had to deal with. this does not cover all the disfiguring of their bodies (and burns) let alone the psychological trauma they have endured.

Right, but do you think running away is going to clean the situation up? I don't think so, and I don't think I agree with Obama in taking all the troops and shoving them in Afghanistan instead.

All we here is the political aspect with the US promoting its false propaganda and lies. The lies only add insult to the injuries the Iraqis have faced. Maybe every war supporter should go over there and work in some of their morgues. That is the only thing that might make them see the realities of what they have done. Except for & to the invaders, barbarism is not acceptable.


Oh my word, the West are such "filthy horrible pigs" aren't they? Why do you still benefit off their public services then if you are so distraught. Don't be fooled, Stephen Harper is just as much a part of this as George Bush. I didn't support the war at the offset, I still don't support the war, I support staying there until the place is cleaned up instead of running away from the real problem. I'm appalled by the loss of life in Iraq, just as I'm appalled at the loss of life that takes place in the Western world each year in relation to abortion. It's a bit silly I find when people insist on having double standards. Abortion is just as much killing as it is on the battlefield. Both are voiceless.


Lets do a what if. What if the US decided to invade Ireland??? Would the Irish population just sit there and allow themselves to be occupied /taken over ?? Or would they put up a resistance in any way they know how. From the Irish folks I know , they are NOT a passive , bunch. They love their country as much as the English love theirs. (or any population loving theirs).

I being one of the Irish population and a pacifist I would submit to the USA as I don't believe in causing more violence. I would use the government and political system to express my views instead of using the gun.


and don't say , it won't happen. The US can be defined as a rogue nation...... and with its economy in shambles, its aspirations to control the planet, and its indifference to life making WAR the first option. ......... just about anything can happen now.

Economic crisis. It won't happen. End of.

There is NOTHING "noble" about the insanity of Iraq invasion. (no matter the crap the bush regime has spewed and lied for all these years. )

I agree that Iraq was a mistake, but this mistake still has to be cleared up instead of childishly running away from it.

again......... WHO BENEFITS??? and WHY??

By the time the war is cleared up, the Iraqi people will benefit from not having a dictator in power.

Gareth, we don't have to agree on anything. THAT is NOT the point of a discussion. The point is to discuss , evaluate and see things from another view point.

Well I generally see that you are rather far left, and I'm a centrist. We're not going to agree on things very much at all.

In a bizarre way, one can see why the traditionalists and neo cons would support McPalin. They probably have their good points..........but being WAR MONGERS.(those that see WAR as a pre-emptive option. (such a clever use of terminology. that makes the whole idea palatable to like minded sorts ).....rules them out in my books.

Interesting, she has a different opinion than you then in her own view on war. You say that she thinks that war is the first option, but she has made clear that war is the very last option that she would ever want to exert on the CBN interview with her in Alaska. McCain knows what it's like to be a troop, he's not going to bring them in en-masse without even thinking about it (like Bush as he had no military experience at all), McCain has a lot of respect for the veterans, infact not like Obama if we look at the way this campaign has been going.

There IS a time for war, but only in two situations. LAST resort after all other options have been completely exhausted. And IF /WHEN a nation is MILITARILY invaded. A terrorist attack does not qualify. ( Spain and England handled their terror attacks so much more effectively and without sensationalizing terrorism , the way the US has. The US has made terrorism a business . )

A terrorist attack doesn't count? Ah come on. It's a declaration of war like any other. However, I will admit, that negotiations are preferrable, but not negotiations like Obama seems to want without preconditions. (watch the debate if you haven't seen it already).

[faceless]

Oh my word, the West are such "filthy horrible pigs" aren't they? Why do you still benefit off their public services then if you are so distraught. Don't be fooled, Stephen Harper is just as much a part of this as George Bush. I didn't support the war at the offset, I still don't support the war, I support staying there until the place is cleaned up instead of running away from the real problem. I'm appalled by the loss of life in Iraq, just as I'm appalled at the loss of life that takes place in the Western world each year in relation to abortion. It's a bit silly I find when people insist on having double standards. Abortion is just as much killing as it is on the battlefield. Both are voiceless.

you know, this attitude of yours that we should all just accept the situation we are in and do nothing about it to be deeply offensive. I was born in Britain and am therefore subject to its rules and regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't hate the system and want to see it changed.

Unfortunately, the majority of people are like you - they think (or have been brainwashed to believe) that the way things are going are the only way they could be - so real change is almost impossible.

I'm currently self-employed, but when I was unemployed I happily took all benefits that were available and will do so again if necessary.

Fuck the system - it doesn't represent me in the slightest.

[Gareth]

you know, this attitude of yours that we should all just accept the situation we are in and do nothing about it to be deeply offensive. I was born in Britain and am therefore subject to its rules and regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't hate the system and want to see it changed.

I'm not actually suggesting this. I am although suggesting that we need to be broad and wide in relation to our criticism, and God forbid be actually fair about accusing nations. The United States is one of many players, I blame it for it's mismanagement of Iraq, just as much as I blame the Iranians for fuelling militant violence in the Middle East. I blame the Israelis for being disproportionate in their actions, but I by no means let the Palestinians off the hook for firing rockets. We need to be realistic as well as idealistic with hopes for the future. I don't deny you that wish at all, I even might empathise slightly with said view. If I didn't look for change, how could I be looking for people in America to overturn Roe vs Wade.

Unfortunately, the majority of people are like you - they think (or have been brainwashed to believe) that the way things are going are the only way they could be - so real change is almost impossible.

See my first piece there. I don't think that change is impossible. I welcome change but I don't welcome a skewed view of the world which is currently being propagated by the leftists in the West, and I certainly don't welcome a skewed view which lets other rogues off the hook.

I'm currently self-employed, but when I was unemployed I happily took all benefits that were available and will do so again if necessary.

Fuck the system - it doesn't represent me in the slightest.

Of course you will, because you are afforded such rights in the West. Be thankful, were you born in a different country you mightn't have been so lucky. People end up taking too much for granted in discussions like these I find.

[faceless]

Do you think that only Western governments provide for the needy?

I don't believe in luck, nor any other emotional wrench that you might attempt to use...

[Gareth]

Do you think that only Western governments provide for the needy?

I don't believe in luck, nor any other emotional wrench that you might attempt to use...

Comparatively yes, yes I do. I know the Irish government is currently the 6th largest aid donor in the world per capita, and I also know the European Union is the biggest aid donor in the world. Although we may have much much more to do we are getting there, and we certainly provide for the poor far far more in Europe than they do in the Middle East or the Far East.

[faceless]

there's more to the world than Western societies and the middle to far east. Central and South America for example.

The amount given is directly relative to the amount that people can exist on without justifiably resorting to crime in order to eat. There are various people who will take advantage of that (mostly those in work who cheat) but the vast majority will be living from day to day, even in the affluent West. 1 in 3 children in the UK lives in poverty conditions - we're doing great.

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/

[Shadow]

I being one of the Irish population and a pacifist I would submit to the USA as I don't believe in causing more violence.


Let's do another WHAT IF....


What if it was another nation that invaded / occupied Ireland?? Like Russia?? China??? ( they have the means, and even the opportunity....... but might be lacking the motive so far ) Maybe if Ireland had massive reserves of OIL....... ........


No surprise that you would capitulate to the US. Don't think it is because of the perpetuation of violence factor either. It could be that you , on some level, WANT to be an american. That is fine. It is your choice.


****

anyhow. no matter how one paints it, the next US leader is going to inherit some serious and MAJOR messes. Meanwhile bush the criminal 'n' thief, goes scot free and has probably made a fortune for himself and his oil buddies. Interesting that he purchased property in S. America. .....:hmmm::hmmm:

[Gareth]

Let's do another WHAT IF....


What if it was another nation that invaded / occupied Ireland?? Like Russia?? China??? ( they have the means, and even the opportunity....... but might be lacking the motive so far ) Maybe if Ireland had massive reserves of OIL....... ........


I would also submit, I don't believe in armed resistance or violence for dealing with political issues. Infact I don't tolerate it either. Use the political system in all cases, even if it is Russia or China. I prefer the United States to both of them obviously, but the circumstances don't change. I have no right to take anothers life.

[faceless]

I would also submit, I don't believe in armed resistance or violence for dealing with political issues. Infact I don't tolerate it either. Use the political system in all cases, even if it is Russia or China. I prefer the United States to both of them obviously, but the circumstances don't change. I have no right to take anothers life.

Incredible - you've sniped at me and others for daring to go against the societal system as we see it, yet you won't do what is expected of you either.

Suppose you were drafted into military and told that you had to kill or be killed. Would you then realise that the system isn't a beautiful castle in the sky, but a poorly cobbled-together mish-mash of ideas designed purely for the benefit of those at the top? Or would you close your eyes and pray?

[quirk]

I would also submit, I don't believe in armed resistance or violence for dealing with political issues. Infact I don't tolerate it either. Use the political system in all cases, even if it is Russia or China. I prefer the United States to both of them obviously, but the circumstances don't change. I have no right to take anothers life.

So accept oppression and if the oppressors put in place a political system which prevents you from changing or stopping that oppression (which may include the murder of your family and friends) then tough luck, deal with it as they are the rulers. Thats basically what you believe but I find it strange as sometimes you seem to be able to justify the violence of the ruling class and that seems contradictory to me.

[quirk]

Maybe the Jews in Nazi Germany should have tried to get elected to parliament and that might have helped their case.

[Gareth]

Incredible - you've sniped at me and others for daring to go against the societal system as we see it, yet you won't do what is expected of you either.

Suppose you were drafted into military and told that you had to kill or be killed. Would you then realise that the system isn't a beautiful castle in the sky, but a poorly cobbled-together mish-mash of ideas designed purely for the benefit of those at the top? Or would you close your eyes and pray?

I've not sniped at you at all. You are welcome to criticism, however I have found that your criticism and Shadow's criticism is based on a skewed vision of the world, whereby you let some countries off the hook and hone in on others. I don't agree that that is the proper way to analyze the United States.

I never said we have a perfect system. I'm personally certain that representative democracy is a flawed system, but it's the best we can possibly attain right now unless you have any solution for this? I question our system like yours, just because I don't want to resort to violence doesn't mean that I should. Why on earth do you think that I should ever have the right to take away life?

The system is far from a beautiful castle in the sky. When did I ever say that the system we have is ideal? Or do you interpret my views as being ideal. It's not that it's ideal, it's that it's the best that we can achieve currently.

Good question though, as I'm studying this in politics at the minute in university.

Anyhow, as for your point on prayer, I do allow time for it in my life, as it not only focuses and motivates me towards a human goal, but I do believe it can have impact. I don't feel that it should go alone though, humanity must act together to ensure that things do get better, but if I was occupied the gun is not right. Use the political system, and use it to your own end, be a part of that larger society instead of something that is opposed to it, and most of all, try and live peaceably with all wherever possible.

I'm personally a believer, that the nation and the State is a social construct, nothing more nothing less. I may have been born in Ireland abut I may as well have been born in Bangladesh.

[faceless]

You've made sneering comments that disregard mine and other people's positions which are tantamount to 'How dare you question the system you have no choice but to live in' An insulting position to take. Why should everyone just accept the status quo which enables the monetarily wealthy to prosper at the expense of the rest?

If you're getting into politics I can only imagine that your support lies with the most applicable fence-sitting party of the moment. "Don't rock the boat, obey the system and be a good Christian" seems to be about the extent of your policy so far. You've taken a position of least threat to yourself and your future, which I see as an insult to intellectual study.

I speak for myself as an individual when I say 'bollocks to that'.

[Gareth]

You've made sneering comments that disregard mine and other people's positions which are tantamount to 'How dare you question the system you have no choice but to live in' An insulting position to take. Why should everyone just accept the status quo which enables the monetarily wealthy to prosper at the expense of the rest?

If you're getting into politics I can only imagine that your support lies with the most applicable fence-sitting party of the moment. "Don't rock the boat, obey the system and be a good Christian" seems to be about the extent of your policy so far. You've taken a position of least threat to yourself and your future, which I see as an insult to intellectual study.

I speak for myself as an individual when I say 'bollocks to that'.

faceless: I just don't understand why people take the freedoms they have for granted compared to the vast majority of the world in matters such as these. I do think that change should be aimed for, but we are in a better situations on many fronts than most of the worlds nations.

As for fence-sitting, I disagree that it means that. Using political parties and using debate and rhetoric to change the country you live in is far far more acceptable, and in my view far more courageous than any man who has brandished a gun to place the view of a select group above all others.

I believe in fighting for change, but I believe in using the right method to do this.

I do not have any right to deny another their rights:
Article 8 of the Declaration of Human Rights tells me that all beings are afforded to life. Why should I take the life of any other that is not my own?

You seem to think that the only way to make major political change is out of the barrel of a gun, I personally think that is a pitiful understanding of the world.

[Shadow]

however I have found that your criticism and Shadow's criticism is based on a skewed vision of the world


"skewed"???? According to whom??? :hmmm:


******

who ever is the next leader of the US will surely have his hands full. The problems being left by the current regime are MASSIVE and MAJOR. Would not be at all surprised to see Bush try to extend his time period under the excuse of a crisis. Multiple crisis situations that he had a big hand in creating of course....or at least mismanaging. At the risk of sounding melodramatic....... one does get the feeling, that things are on the brink.... but not certain of exacly what , just yet.

[faceless]

where have I suggested any kind of need for violence to affect political change? I'd happily see the palaces of the mighty burnt to the ground, and the occupants forced to live on the same money as they people they lord it over now, but I've not suggested the use of violence at all. If you're talking about my exposing of your hypocrisy in doing what the government tells you by drafting you for war, then that's laughable.

I take it from your statement about human rights that you believe the Americans and British leaders in the Iraq and Afghani wars should be put on trial for war crimes? They snapped Saddam's neck - why are theirs any less deserving of the 'law of the land'?

[Gareth]

faceless, you've criticised my view that I wouldn't take up arms if my country was invaded by foreign arms, saying that it doesn't have any substance. I promote change from within, not change that involves the killing of innocent blood.

Also faceless, I never said I would support my country blindly, if that's what you are implying you are severly mistaken. I would submit to occupiers and use the political system to reform the country from within because I don't want to spill blood. How on earth is that hypocrisy? I wouldn't enlist for the same reason, and I would take prison time in that case.

"skewed"???? According to whom??? :hmmm

According to my own view, hence why I expressed it. You reserve many of the worlds most tyrannous regimes the criticism you apply to the USA.

[faceless]

Your hypocrisy is fairly clear to me - if it's not to you then maybe you should read back over your comments. They range from blind obedience, to your admission that now you'd break the law and go to prison. The conclusion of this would seem to be that you see minor flaws in the system, which affect your specific narrow view, whereas I see major chasms which affect the rest of us.

I'll ask again - do you agree that Bush and Blair should be held accountable for their war crimes?

[Gareth]

faceless.

Note this: I don't want to kill people in expressing my political mindset, infact I don't want to kill people at all!

1) If I live in a country, and if it is overtaken, I will if I feel the need to seek change use political means, because I don't want to kill people:
Consistent with the original statement.

2) If I live in a country, and if I am recruited for military service, I would refuse. Why you ask? Most likely because I don't want to take the life of another.
Consistent with original statement.

Where is the hypocrisy?

I'm thankful for living in a country with decent standards, how does that mean I should find a reason to kill people though. Anyhow what do hypothetical scenarios have to do with who would be a better US president. I note that you seem to be trying to steer the discussion to somehow label me as a hypocrite when I clearly amn't.

[faceless]

The hypocrisy is in your insistence that nobody can take the benefits of western society while being in opposition to it, while you yourself will refuse to take part in that society and risk jail if it affects your own particular skewed view. I'm sure nobody else needed that explanation though.

Now, I ask again - in relation to the Declaration of Human Rights which you quoted earlier - do you think Bush and Blair should be held accountable for their war crimes? If not, why not?

[Shadow]

- do you think Bush and Blair should be held accountable for their war crimes?


even tho the question is not to me directly..... I would like to insert a reply.

OF COURSE THEY SHOULD. There is no question about that one. What they did was illegal, unethical and completly immoral./ unjust. ..as is HOW , they did it.


Will it happen?? Not likely. They have too much money and in their world , if war does not rule, MONEY DOES.

It would be a glorious day for mankind to see them tried at International court and brought to justice.

***
Gareth: not sure where you are coming from... as you support the US and yet claim to NOT support KILLING of any kind. The US has slaughtered over a million Iraqis and Afgans by now.........and that seems ok with you and all you are prepared to say is that , the deed is done and eventually the Iraqis will beneft . So which is it??? The USG KILLS, Garet. I too am against killing, be it via hand gun or the military.....as there should be no need for that kind of conduct any more. And being against Killing..... I cannot support what the US has done and glibly say that it is a done thing and "we" must make the best of it , with promises to the Iraqis ( and afgans . Promises that the US probably CANNOT keep or are even not interested in keeping. The US got what it wanted . for the most part...... and it has to do with the resources and positioning itself in the ME via the massive embassy and military bases . The Iraqi folks never mattered in this equation....and still don't. Think of all the Iraqis that have been displaced and face a completely uncertain future. Don't think that they bought into the LIES from the bush regime.....as they are not fools .

the US would have LOVED to see all the Iraqis submit passively to them , call it a huge VICTORY , brag about it for years to come .


the thing is that some form of self defense is essential as is some defense of ones own country. Unless one is prepared to live the life of a nomad and move from country to country to avoid the perpetual wars that seem to occur for gosh knows what reason.


I want to see the US get a leader that KNOWS what LAST RESORT means ,when it comes to WARS. One that denounces the pre emptive rule as there is NO need for it..... as it sets a precident to other nations. Now , the US has to keep its mouth shut , if another nation does a "pre-emptive " invasion somewhere on the planet. (and lies about it )

a very dangerous precident has been set now. And yet , the only nations that allow themselves the "luxury" .... are the US and Israel.


Maybe the best thing that could happen is for the nations that the US owes money to, stop lending and /or threaten to pull in their chips. How long can the US keep warring when it is broke??? The problem is that the nations are so interconnected now...... that should the US sink financially, it will be (and IS) a world disaster.

The next leader *US........is going to have to do some serious , creative & intelligent money management as what is going on now is scary.

[Gareth]

The hypocrisy is in your insistence that nobody can take the benefits of western society while being in opposition to it, while you yourself will refuse to take part in that society and risk jail if it affects your own particular skewed view. I'm sure nobody else needed that explanation though.

I didn't say that "nobody can take the benefits". I said that perhaps you should look at the conditions you do receive here in the Western world, and see just about how atrocious the rest of the world is and apply equivalent criticism to them. It wasn't that you couldn't take any benefits.

Now that we have outlined this, can we return to the original topic please. If you want to discuss the legality of the Iraq war another thread should be opened.

[faceless]

All the bullshit that's gone through this thread and only now you suddenly decide to stick to the topic? You're a coward.

[Gareth]

I'll gladly discuss it on another topic. My original point was on John McCain before I got sidetracked by Shadow, I think it would be appropriate to bring it back to that point if possible. Feel free to start a new thread. Also, please tone down your language, it's not necessary at all.

[faceless]

So it's not acceptable to say bullshit here? For christ's sake, what is acceptable?

[Shadow]

So it's not acceptable to say bullshit here? For christ's sake, what is acceptable?



is that "ruling" about (bullshit) for real??? Nothing like the puritan wanna bes controlling free speech.


Is there a list somewhere indicating the words that are "not a