Plame Blame Game

[Paul]

Some related content:
http://news.google.com/news?q=rove%20plame&hl=en&hs=jDo&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wn

[biggman15]

Goddamn Lefties! :silly: I don't pay attention to politics.... Mostly because I can't stand the stupidity of Bush.... But that Statement Really caught My Eye... ;)

[jkrzok]

Karl Rove will be the only one to fall as a scapegoat. No others will go as it's nearly impossible to have any sort of meaningful investigation when both houses of Congress are controlled by the President's party.

And by 'fall' I mean he'll resign and end up taking a lobbying position along with perhaps a few seats on some corprate boards, to the tune of a couple million bucks a year.

Way to take one for the team.

Damn lefties are so Sinister.

[Heigar]

Don't really follow politics(maybe I should seeing that it's my country that is always being scrutinezed)so I'll just keep moving along.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Along with Bush, i quite like to see Rumsfeld go. Powell already went so i cant say anything there. Oh and yeah im a leftie ha ha ha. I believe i made a thread about that once who in the forums is also a leftie :bulb:

[Toe]

Powell already went so i cant say anything there.
Eh, Powell was the only halfway-decent guy they had. Kind of a bummer to see him go, while Asscruft stayed on.

[acushla]

Along with Bush, i quite like to see Rumsfeld go. Powell already went so i cant say anything there. Oh and yeah im a leftie ha ha ha. I believe i made a thread about that once who in the forums is also a leftie :bulb:

Allow me to clarify.

I see a huge difference between left wing views held by individuals whose intentions are policy changes which would lead toward a better society than that of a leftist press whose sole objective is to sell newspapers for profit.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Allow me to clarify.

I see a huge difference between left wing views held by individuals whose intentions are policy changes which would lead toward a better society than that of a leftist press whose sole objective is to sell newspapers for profit.

Aaah left wing, not left handed, lol now it makes sense ha ha ha :silly:

[acushla]

Aaah left wing, not left handed, lol now it makes sense ha ha ha :silly:

Whoops. Wrong thread.

Applies anyway. ;)

[madjo]

I don't know what this is about, but I'd like Bush to go... *hmm why did my internet connection just drop? oh wait I'm in the States! I meant that Bush should stay!*

[Shadowraven]

I would like to see all three get it, but Rove is the only one likely to have anything happen to him. I agree that even then it would be no more than a slap on the wrist. With this oh-so-corrupt government in place, nothing will happen to any of the law breakers involved here.

If the government was even halfway interested in what was right Dubya would already be undergoing impeachment proceedings. He's already far exceeded the criteria to BE impeached. But I know that nothing will happen to him or his little band of criminals. One criminal is hardly likely to convict another one.

We've already seen that with the Republicans majority leader a few months ago. Not a damn thing happened to him yet, and nothing will. The only way any kind of justice is even likely with this crew is if the next admninstration decides that it is interested in justice and has them truly investigated and tried for their crimes. Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. Especially since Dubya is likely to not only be able to appoint one Supreme Court justice, but two. Welcome to the Middle Ages kids.

[jawpr]

I would like to see all three get it, but Rove is the only one likely to have anything happen to him. I agree that even then it would be no more than a slap on the wrist. With this oh-so-corrupt government in place, nothing will happen to any of the law breakers involved here.

If the government was even halfway interested in what was right Dubya would already be undergoing impeachment proceedings. He's already far exceeded the criteria to BE impeached. But I know that nothing will happen to him or his little band of criminals. One criminal is hardly likely to convict another one.

We've already seen that with the Republicans majority leader a few months ago. Not a damn thing happened to him yet, and nothing will. The only way any kind of justice is even likely with this crew is if the next admninstration decides that it is interested in justice and has them truly investigated and tried for their crimes. Yeah, right. That's gonna happen. Especially since Dubya is likely to not only be able to appoint one Supreme Court justice, but two. Welcome to the Middle Ages kids.



Bin Laden could not have said it better. Such hate and dissatisfaction with everything and everybody connected to what America was founded on could only be appreciated by Bin Laden and his followers. You would probably be very happy there. Which, by the way, seems to make the so called rules of this forum a laugh. If the remarks by you and some others in this forum is not a personal attack upon all Americans and Christians, then I have no idea what a personal attack is. It seems that the rules only apply if one doen't believe in or opposes the hate and contemp that seems to prevail here.

[acushla]

Bin Laden could not have said it better. Such hate and dissatisfaction with everything and everybody connected to what America was founded on could only be appreciated by Bin Laden and his followers.

Cannot wait to read the response to this.

Too bad I will be out of town all day...will be back later tonight though.

[Willow of Oz]

Bin Laden could not have said it better. Such hate and dissatisfaction with everything and everybody connected to what America was founded on could only be appreciated by Bin Laden and his followers. You would probably be very happy there. Which, by the way, seems to make the so called rules of this forum a laugh. If the remarks by you and some others in this forum is not a personal attack upon all Americans and Christians, then I have no idea what a personal attack is. It seems that the rules only apply if one doen't believe in or opposes the hate and contemp that seems to prevail here.

I've had to read this three times now, because I swear its the sort of wry remark that Acushla is known to drop without a hint as to its actual humour. But I'm guessing, given the author, that you're serious. Hmmmm. I fail to see any such connection as you've made and I'm really looking.

[Inthewoods]

Well, that about tears it. This is sad...and pathetic. Looks like I'll be finding another less hostile forum. If some of you can't figure out why, I'm not a bit surprised.

See ya.....

[Paul]

Hi Jawpr, you've always been a good member and I know your Christian beliefs run strong. But I think what would really help this discussion, well, I know it would really help me, is to explain a little bit about how you (and maybe the whole 'right' if you can go that far) view Bush and the current administration. Please do not take offense to my questions or phrasing. I'm truly only trying to understand.

Do you not see any corruption stemming from them?
Is there anything at all that this adminitration has done that could really be considered Christian?
If Clinton was making the same decisions as Bush, would you be as supportive of him as you are of Bush?

The way I see it, everyone here does not hate America. Not at all. What I see, at least, is a administration that is corrupt to the bone. That lies, wars for profit, seeks only power, and is ruining all that is good about America. Now, with that, anyone who cares about America would distain these people who are in power. The way the 'right' follows this government so fully seems almost treasonous to founders of America.

Please, help me understand, as someone who supports Bush, where you think he is taking this country and how it is good in any way.

[krazyd]

...If the remarks by you and some others in this forum is not a personal attack upon all Americans and Christians, then I have no idea what a personal attack is...

It seems that you do:
personal
adj.
1. Of or relating to a particular person.
http://www.answers.com/personal

[jkrzok]

Bin Laden could not have said it better. Such hate and dissatisfaction with everything and everybody connected to what America was founded on could only be appreciated by Bin Laden and his followers. You would probably be very happy there. Which, by the way, seems to make the so called rules of this forum a laugh. If the remarks by you and some others in this forum is not a personal attack upon all Americans and Christians, then I have no idea what a personal attack is. It seems that the rules only apply if one doesn't believe in or opposes the hate and contempt that seems to prevail here.

A couple of points. Where was the attack on Christians? Unless you equate American with Christian I just didn't see it. If you do equate American with Christian then we do have issues.

It seems that Jawpr somehow equates what Bush's administration is doing to the US with what "America" actually stands for. I don't see how these HUGE budget deficits, an illegitimate war of aggression, numerous attacks on our freedom (even going after bird watchers!) and a nudge and a wink at war profiteering and corruption is particularly what I mean when I say I'm proud to be an American.

Yes I despise the Bush administration. I believe that its economic policies are aimed at benefiting the wealthy ruling class at the expense of the working class. I see an administration that will bend the facts concerning Iraq in an attempt to justify an unjust war. I see an administration that will trot out the greatest political disaster of my generation (9/11) whenever it will suit their political needs. I see an administration that is willing to commit an act of treason (revealing a CIA operative's identity) for political gain and revenge. I see an administration that will reward a corporation once headed by the Vice President with a new contract that will pay that company MORE for doing the same exact job. This comes at a time when that company is being investigated for mismanagement and over billing. I see an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of global warming because to do otherwise might hurt the companies that support them.

Yes I hate what the administration is doing to my country. Even more I hate what certain right-wingers are doing to my country. Because now it seems that disagreeing with this administration doesn't just make you an opponent of the administration, it makes you a terrorist that hates everything America and Christianity stands for. It seems that some on the right are no longer willing to see that those that dispute their policies can in fact be honorable men, men that love their country as much as those on the right wing.

I love this country but I do so while asserting that this love of country does not require me to march in lock step with an administration that is doing wrong to my country. They do nothing for the poor; where is their compassion? They attack my freedom, where is their love of liberty? They wage unjust war, where is their love of peace?

In fact I assert that it is Un-American to sit idly by while this corrupt administration destroys so much of what I hold dear about my country.

[Matt]

<rant>
what i want to know is (this being somewhat on and off topic) is why critical thinking is denoted as 'partisan hackery' as of late. Is it not our duty, living in a free society, to get to the bottom of the wrongs in the world by asking tough questions to those who make the decisions that effect us all?

Why is it that the left 'liberals' are partisans for bringing up obvious corruption in the white house?

why is it bad to look at a goverment with critical eyes... no matter who is in power?
</rant>

[madjo]

Bin Laden could not have said it better. Such hate and dissatisfaction with everything and everybody connected to what America was founded on could only be appreciated by Bin Laden and his followers. You would probably be very happy there. Which, by the way, seems to make the so called rules of this forum a laugh. If the remarks by you and some others in this forum is not a personal attack upon all Americans and Christians, then I have no idea what a personal attack is. It seems that the rules only apply if one doen't believe in or opposes the hate and contemp that seems to prevail here.
Everyone has their own beliefs and that is fine, it really is...
but the world is not black and white.. I do not hate America in itself, I just oppose the current President's actions and view of the world.
For instance, I really couldn't see any terroristic threat coming from Iraq. But still George W. Bush decided to invade that country under the flag of "war on terror".
A lot of the foreign policy the current American administration (and the ones in the past) does not make any sense to me. Meddling with internal affairs of other countries is not a very good idea, and will only increase the distrust a lot of people have against the government of the USA.

This does NOT mean that I'm a follower of Bin Laden!
I very much oppose to what he did/is doing/has done.
But don't forget that it is by America doing that Bin Laden could do such things he has done in the past. (He was trained by the CIA...)

[jawpr]

Hi Jawpr, you've always been a good member and I know your Christian beliefs run strong. But I think what would really help this discussion, well, I know it would really help me, is to explain a little bit about how you (and maybe the whole 'right' if you can go that far) view Bush and the current administration. Please do not take offense to my questions or phrasing. I'm truly only trying to understand.

Do you not see any corruption stemming from them?
Is there anything at all that this adminitration has done that could really be considered Christian?
If Clinton was making the same decisions as Bush, would you be as supportive of him as you are of Bush?

The way I see it, everyone here does not hate America. Not at all. What I see, at least, is a administration that is corrupt to the bone. That lies, wars for profit, seeks only power, and is ruining all that is good about America. Now, with that, anyone who cares about America would distain these people who are in power. The way the 'right' follows this government so fully seems almost treasonous to founders of America.

Please, help me understand, as someone who supports Bush, where you think he is taking this country and how it is good in any way.


Hi Paul -- I'm sorry you feel the way you do about my country and it's leadership. I just want to say in answer to all your questions, that I think for me to try to go down the line and respond to each one, would be the worst thing in the world that I could do. From reading your post, it seems very obvious that your mind is made up and anything that I might say would only cause more hatred and disgust and I do not want to be guilty of that. If you truly want to find out what makes me feel the way I do, forget what you believe for a little while, put yourself in my position and just pretend that you are an American, a Christian, one who loves both God and your Country and one who believes in what America was founded on, then go back to the forum to the discussion about Politics and religion and other related discussions, read slowly and thoughfully the different posts contained therein and then tell me how you could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than the one that I reached. I think it would be impossible to reach any other conclusion.
I think it is well known by most everybody that this same kind of hatred and disgust for all Americans and Christians is the driving force behind Bin Laden and his followers.
I realize what I stand for and who I am is in conflick with a lot of the post in this forum so therefore I usually don't get involved in any of them. It is not my intention to cause any problem for anybody. Because of that, I apoligize for entering this one.
Personally, I think the forum would be a much better place if we left Politics, Religion, and personal attacks out.

[Paul]

If you truly want to find out what makes me feel the way I do, forget what you believe for a little while, put yourself in my position and just pretend that you are an American, a Christian, one who loves both God and your Country and one who believes in what America was founded on, then go back to the forum to the discussion about Politics and religion and other related discussions, read slowly and thoughfully the different posts contained therein and then tell me how you could possibly arrive at any other conclusion than the one that I reached.
And so I did.

You obviously have been very outgoing about your beliefs here, and in fact, much of what you have said moved me. I see now that the answers to my questions are:

Do you not see any corruption stemming from them?
No, you do not.
Is there anything at all that this adminitration has done that could really be considered Christian?
Yes, everything they have done. Because if they're actions were against your beliefs you would oppose them vehemently.
If Clinton was making the same decisions as Bush, would you be as supportive of him as you are of Bush?
You would not support Clinton because you do not see him as a true Christian.

Honestly, I'm in some way relieved. Because I'd rather go to bed knowing there wasn't evil in the White House. If _someone_ thinks they're not evil, than that's a start. And you seem quite level headed.

Personally, I think the forum would be a much better place if we left Politics, Religion, and personal attacks out.
"Two topics you never discuss in public...politics and religion" they say. It is true they will always result in argument. But let's continue the self flagellation, shall we?

I do get up in arms about Christians equating "not believing in Jesus" == "athiest", but I can forgive them for that. No need to want to kill each other over that detail (like Jews, Muslims, Christians have been doing forever). I too believe in God. Which God? That is a silly question because there is only one. How you choose to understand God (through whatever means - Messiah, book, master teacher, exercise, or even science) is what we all must personally decide and is a life-long task.

[madjo]

I think it is well known by most everybody that this same kind of hatred and disgust for all Americans and Christians is the driving force behind Bin Laden and his followers. I didn't know christians were hated...
I'm a Christian (baptised) though I do not go to church anymore, by choice... BTW, just so you know... Americans aren't the only ones who can be christians.. I personally object that you equate being american with being a christian, because they are separate... very much so even.
There are a lot of other Americans who belief in something else, and Christianity can be found all over the globe (I'm from The Netherlands for instance).

And again the world is NOT black and white. It is not "you are either with me or against me", there are a lot of grey areas.

Sorry about this 'outburst'... but black-whiteness is something that goes against my nature...

[jawpr]

[QUOTE=madjo] Americans aren't the only ones who can be christians.. I personally object that you equate being american with being a christian, because they are separate... very much so even.


I have never made or implied to my knowledge any such statement. I agree with you wholeheartly. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Where in the world did you come up with that idea? I repeat - They are totally separate and if you find anywhere that I said differently, I will apoligize instantly.

[biggman15]

And again the world is NOT black and white. It is not "you are either with me or against me", there are a lot of grey areas.

Sorry about this 'outburst'... but black-whiteness is something that goes against my nature...
This statement reminds me of The Sith from Starwars....

Sorry Very off Topic :)

[madjo]

[QUOTE=madjo] Americans aren't the only ones who can be christians.. I personally object that you equate being american with being a christian, because they are separate... very much so even.


I have never made or implied to my knowledge any such statement. I agree with you wholeheartly. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Where in the world did you come up with that idea? I repeat - They are totally separate and if you find anywhere that I said differently, I will apoligize instantly.

I have misunderstood you, so it is me who apologizes :)

[Willow of Oz]

"Two topics you never discuss in public...politics and religion" they say. It is true they will always result in argument. But let's continue the self flagellation, shall we?

Yes it's an old quote I've heard many times before, but it's only now, through this forum, that I'm beginning to see the commonality between these two otherwise disparate subjects.
And having and hearing different viewpoints is quite stimulating: you sometimes don't realise how the people you tend to hang out with in real life all pretty much just have the same opinions about certain subjects, so you really just end up agreeing with each other rather than actually engaging in a discussion.

Cheers guys,
http://quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/beer.gif

[acushla]

This statement reminds me of The Sith from Starwars....

Sorry Very off Topic :)

I love how you are able to do this...it is your greatest gift.

I seem to remember another 'heated' run in a thread and you kept popping up wanting to know where 'the little dog' was.

Levity in crisis is wonderful for everyone.

[acushla]

Yes I despise the Bush administration. I believe that its economic policies are aimed at benefiting the wealthy ruling class at the expense of the working class. I see an administration that will bend the facts concerning Iraq in an attempt to justify an unjust war. I see an administration that will trot out the greatest political disaster of my generation (9/11) whenever it will suit their political needs. I see an administration that is willing to commit an act of treason (revealing a CIA operatives identity) for political gain and revenge. I see an administration that will reward a corporation once headed by the Vice President with a new contract that will pay that company MORE for doing the same exact job. This comes at a time when that company is being investigated for mismanagement and over billing. I see an administration burying its head in the sand on the issue of global warming because to do otherwise might hurt the companies that support them.

Off the top let me clearly state that this post, more than anything else I have read, caused me pause and a flicker of uncertainty as to my own thinking about Bush and the administrations policies.

As such it would probably be prudent to not respond until giving more consideration to what I have just read...but what the hell...when have I EVER been prudent?

As a Canadian interested in International Politics I do not concern my self with the domestic side of American Politics...so only have the vaguest notion of huge deficits, and not being a Financial scholar, I only have the sketchiest understanding of what that means. In my ignorance I have often, in half joking fashion, brushed aside such accusations with an assertion that once things start to come together in Iraq the deficits will be easily corrected through a change in how we are able to distribute oil and the number of goods we will be able to sell in newly created markets. Somebody might want to tell me if there is any merit to this thinking...leaving aside ALL moral considerations. Just the facts, ma'am...just the facts.

Perhaps I should expose one or two premises from which I develop my political thought in relation to our current discussion. Firstly and most importantly...I EXPECT the government to be a cauldron of lies and deceit and overall corruption. I expect it because I feel it is the nature of the beast. As with anything else there are degrees of...and this administration has been revealed to us as being the most corrupt of all. However, I think there are extenuating circumstances for this. One is they are the most corrupt administrations of all time, two is that world events, situations and the rules by which those situations need to be approached have changed dramatically in the past decade. Into this mix let us not forget the press and the Internet and the sheer volume of information and examination available from all sides.

Situations change and responses need to change with them. Allow me to illustrate what I mean by this. In the Americian Revolution fought between the Americans and the British, the nature of the way armies engaged each other changed.

Normally two armies would line up across form each other (as we have seen in movies such as 'Troy' and 'Gladiator') and march forward on each other.

In war, around the time of 1775, each country [in Europe] would have its army dressed in bright uniforms, very much akin to two NFL teams doing battle against each other.

Well, in the American Revolution, here come the British dressed in their regal red jackets, marching in disciplined columns...just like the 'rules' of war called for.

The Americans, on the other hand, did not really have an army, let alone uniforms. Essentially what they had was a number of men who came from all over in whatever clothes they wore, touting their rifles. No training, no discipline...but the one most important quality any army could want: A willingness, an eagerness to be there to defend the most important thing in their lives...their country and way of life. (And a nation of people who were solidly behind them. Had to add this for obvious reasons.)

Seeing the rows upon rows of British marching in step with each other, advancing toward them, the Americans realized that by spreading out and taking cover behind trees they could simply pick the British of one by one...sort of like shooting ducks at the county fair.

I do not need to tell you the outcome of that war.

What I might need to point out is how the ability to adapt to new situations was instrumental in the Americans victory. Was it by the 'rules'? No! Did it work? Yes! Which is more important in this context?

America is a world leader. America wants to remain a world leader. In order to remain a world leader you cannot play by rules. I really believe it is as simple as that. You do whatever it is you feel you need to do because the stakes are too high to do anything else.

Like it or not...Paul, jwpar, jkzok, matt, willow of oz, madjo, and whoever else...the bottom line is that Democrats, and especially Kerry, have to assume part of the responsibility of the current state of affairs. Serioulsy, as somebody living in Canada, did you really think that Kerry was going to appeal to a majority of Americians and oust Bush from power? Many people unsatisfied of Bush must have been crest fallen to see what the alternative was going to be. Perhaps you count yourselves among those. Bottom line? Bush won. What did that mean? It meant that a majority of Americains, by nature of their vote, supports Bush and the war in Iraq. You may not, but the majority of Americans by casting the one vote that means anything, do. Why would you expect him to change his policies and methods of operation when the majority of Americans approve. I've repeated 'majority of Americans approve' a number of times because I think it takes a number of times to say it before it is truly understood. It touches a nerve. I know.

So America voted and America said 'yes' to Bush. I will tell you this, and you tell me if I'm wrong. You may dislike the man as much as you like for whatever reasons you have...but the man has ALWAYS been honest in as much as you always know what he stands for.

I personally buy the notion that he is a patriot doing what he thinks is best for his country. I personally believe there is an ocean of facts and workings 'behind the scenes' that we will never know about. I believe that it is these facts that the Bush administration works with and implements policy's and actions with. I believe there are 20 year plans, and because I believe these things I trust in the US government as if it was my own...because on one level, it is my own, and whatever faults one might find in the consequences and the fallout of what is a noble cause...so be it. The alternative is too horrifying to even consider.

Madjo...I believe there are grays in life...but at either end of that spectrum there is a black and their is a white. So some things are black and white. 'You are either with us or against us' is one of those things.

I'd write more I need to use the washroom. (wry) :globe: :)

PS Paul...Matt...perhaps you could address this: It came to my attention that there are people in this forum who have warned me to be careful what I say in defense of the US because it is not a view held by yourselves...and by continuing to voice my opinion I will be banned from this forum.

I personally know this to be absurd...that a forum such as this is here not so we can be self congratulatory....but there can be a free exchange of ideas and opinions and facts.

I know that having adversaries and people with opposing views can broaden my own perspective and change or reinforce how I feel.

For the sake of those who feel they cannot express their views for fear of being banned...please...tell them it ain't so.

[Paul]

Off the top let me clearly state that this post, more than anything else I have read, caused me pause and a flicker of uncertainty as to my own thinking about Bush and the administrations policies. Really, that made you pause? It seems that's all Bush's detractors have been saying for over 5 years. Was it the phrasing, or was it the timing of it that you allowed it to sink in?

Like it or not...Paul, jwpar, jkzok, matt, willow of oz, madjo, and whoever else...the bottom line is that Democrats, and especially Kerry, have to assume part of the responsibility of the current state of affairs.Perhaps, but that doesn't excuse any corruption of an administration - no matter which administration. Everyone on the right knows deep down inside that if the Dems were pulling the same stunts as this admin, they would have been impeached 5 years ago. So that said, how can one claim this admin is not corrupt? Because they are on 'your team' perhaps? Whatever the reason, it's weak.

So America voted and America said 'yes' to Bush. I will tell you this, and you tell me if I'm wrong. You may dislike the man as much as you like for whatever reasons you have...but the man has ALWAYS been honest in as much as you always know what he stands for. True. America has the government they deserve, not the government they want.

PS Paul...Matt...perhaps you could address this: It came to my attention that there are people in this forum who have warned me to be careful what I say in defense of the US because it is not a view held by yourselves...and by continuing to voice my opinion I will be banned from this forum.No one should feel compelled to quell their beliefs on this forum. I always try to let discussion proceed organically and without my interference.
Perhaps this idea came about because one time I banned one user for spewing what I considered some very vile hatred towards, basically, the whole world outside the US. Hate is distructive to itself and everything around, discussion helps things grow. I won't tolerate hate. This was the only user I ever banned for anything.

[Qaz]

As a Canadian interested in International Politics I do not concern my self with the domestic side of American Politics...so only have the vaguest notion of huge deficits, and not being a Financial scholar, I only have the sketchiest understanding of what that means. In my ignorance I have often, in half joking fashion, brushed aside such accusations with an assertion that once things start to come together in Iraq the deficits will be easily corrected through a change in how we are able to distribute oil and the number of goods we will be able to sell in newly created markets. Somebody might want to tell me if there is any merit to this thinking...leaving aside ALL moral considerations. Just the facts, ma'am...just the facts.

I don't really see why moral considerations should be left aside. That if you want to avoid the reputation of immoral bastard, ofcourse. And if you actually don't mind that reputation, I guess that's fine then.

The Americans, on the other hand, did not really have an army, let alone uniforms. Essentially what they had was a number of men who came from all over in whatever clothes they wore, touting their rifles. No training, no discipline...but the one most important quality any army could want: A willingness, an eagerness to be there to defend the most important thing in their lives...their country and way of life. (And a nation of people who were solidly behind them. Had to add this for obvious reasons.)

---

What I might need to point out is how the ability to adapt to new situations was instrumental in the Americans victory. Was it by the 'rules'? No! Did it work? Yes! Which is more important in this context?

This sounds a bit like terrorism nowadays, don't you think. There's really no armies. No uniforms. There is training and discipline of a sort though. (And I'd like to argue that there were in the 1775 too. It's just not the same kind we are used to.) And there's definetly willingness and eagerness to defend your way of life. Even to the point fo sacrificing yourself.

America is a world leader. America wants to remain a world leader. In order to remain a world leader you cannot play by rules. I really believe it is as simple as that. You do whatever it is you feel you need to do because the stakes are too high to do anything else.

Assuming that's true: Nothing is making me like that. On the contrary really.

So some things are black and white. 'You are either with us or against us' is one of those things.

Yeah, that definetly is black and white. But should it be?

PS Paul...Matt...perhaps you could address this: It came to my attention that there are people in this forum who have warned me to be careful what I say in defense of the US because it is not a view held by yourselves...and by continuing to voice my opinion I will be banned from this forum.

I can remember only one ban for certain from the time i've been here, and it definetly was deserved, and had nothing to do with voicing an opinion.

[acushla]

...they are on 'your team' perhaps?

True. America has the government they deserve, not the government they want.

Democrats and Republicans may have different mascots within the boundaries of their own country...but when it comes to a threat outside the boundaries they are American first and political affiliation second.

No...America has the government they want...there is almost an elitist ring to your sentence.

I try at honesty in these forums. Having said that, the reason I paused was essentially two fold. One was the fact that jakzok, whom I have a great amount of respect for, was the author, and secondly, the machine gun like fire of one point after the other being presented one sentence after the other had a power all it’s own.

Yet it was only a pause, and I will tell you why. In my experience there is a world of difference between the world of words, ideas, theories and perception of events and the real world which is made up of simply events. In this context, if one only views the surface of the events, or if one only wishes to apply the world of ideas and words to explain ‘real’ events, then someone adapt at using words can make any case they want for the events and make it sound convincing. This works both ways, of course.

Yet ultimately the world is about events and not about the words that describe them…and in this context many of those events are driven by powerful men with self-interests to serve. Jkzok himself acknowledges this latter point.

In limited time and space I suppose a logical question would be…since these events are being created by those whose names will forever be found the the History books of America…the fact that they are first and foremost Americans and can only operate as Americans…is what they choose for themselves good for America and therefore, by default, good for us? Remember, no event can function on its own without a series of other events around it which give rise and response to other events. In other words, no event acts in isolation. No event is without consequences and intentionally or not, some of those consequences are going to be good.

If the event makers on ‘our’ side fail…it means someone else has succeeded. I know that you are tempted to return to your first response to me and use the quote about ‘if we want to see change then…’…and it is a nice sentiment…and as an idea it is about as true as they come…and surprising Christian in essence…but in context of the real events that are taking place all over the world today, it is naive. It assumes a world where all people wish for the same thing, and the truth is they don’t. When you have people who are plotting our destruction it is folly to suggest we all just change into ‘good’ people and let the chips fall where they will. That is not good enough for me and I doubt it is good enough for you.

As for Kerry and the Democrats, of course that does not excuse the corruption in the administration. We are in the realm of words again. NOTHING has to excuse the corruption in the White House…there is corruption in the White House. There always has been and there always will be corruption in the White House. I said as much before. The reason there is corruption in the White House is because there is corruption in the White House. It is the nature of the beast. Perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is this: Is corruption always necessary a bad thing? When can corruption be good? Lying is corruption…are there times to lie? Hidden agendas can be corruption…is it always to our disadvantage? (Let me interject a note here. Even with corruption there are lines that can and should be drawn and Rove’s action is one of them. I see him as a traitor and as a traitor should be executed. Who knows what unseen consequences his utterly stupid and selfish (somebody help with better words to express the boiling rage I feel within myself at this moment) UNPATRIOTIC act has caused…what projects she was involved with which are now totally compromised by this moron.. I am serious…execute the bastard. Anybody foolish enough to think of doing something similar would think twice.)

The reality of the events is that we are where we are and I consider it an even greater mistake to simply withdraw. It will not happen. It cannot happen. Too much has transpired to allow a withdrawal…not to mention the soldiers on our side who have died whose lives would be dishonoured by such withdraw. America should not be about withdrawing becuase the way becomes difficult.

In spite of all the corruption, in spite of all the self-serving interests…good can and must eventually come out of this. Again, to quote Bush…’…there is only one outcome to this.’

We may not like the means or the methods, we not like the men who carry them out…but if the results contribute to preserving a position of power that protects a lot of things we take for granted then it is our duty to at least support the goals…if not the method of attaining them.

The people who will achieve those goals know only too well the methods they need to employ to make those events happen.

Just so you know, throughout History more ‘millionaires’ are made during wartime than at any other time. Cheney is yet one more name you can add to that long list.

Nothing new there.

[acushla]

The Americans, on the other hand, did not really have an army, let alone uniforms. Essentially what they had was a number of men who came from all over in whatever clothes they wore, touting their rifles. No training, no discipline...but the one most important quality any army could want: A willingness, an eagerness to be there to defend the most important thing in their lives...their country and way of life. (And a nation of people who were solidly behind them. Had to add this for obvious reasons.)

What I might need to point out is how the ability to adapt to new situations was instrumental in the Americans victory. Was it by the 'rules'? No! Did it work? Yes! Which is more important in this context?

This sounds a bit like terrorism nowadays, don't you think. There's really no armies. No uniforms. There is training and discipline of a sort though. (And I'd like to argue that there were in the 1775 too. It's just not the same kind we are used to.) And there's definitely willingness and eagerness to defend your way of life. Even to the point of sacrificing yourself.

Qaz…with all due respect Sir, not only did you not answer my first question, you took the opportunity to use my ‘morals aside’ out of context. Shame on you! :disappoin

This sounds a bit like terrorism nowadays, don't you think. There's really no armies. No uniforms. There is training and discipline of a sort though. (And I'd like to argue that there were in the 1775 too. It's just not the same kind we are used to.) And there's definitely willingness and eagerness to defend your way of life. Even to the point of sacrificing yourself.

I cannot believe you wrote this. Illustrates the point that people sometimes only see what they want to see and then use that to reinforce their own position. How convenient to your own point to ignore the most important sentence in the quote you choose. :disappoin

Don't think for a moment that it is only people who strap bombs around themselves are the only sacrificers. Any soldier who fights for his country and is killed in battle has sacrificed his/her life as well.

I will say it again for those who might have missed it: The Americans, on the other hand, did not really have an army, let alone uniforms. Essentially what they had was a number of men who came from all over in whatever clothes they wore, touting their rifles. No training, no discipline...but the one most important quality any army could want: A willingness, an eagerness to be there to defend the most important thing in their lives...their country and way of life. (And a nation of people who were solidly behind them. Had to add this for obvious reasons.)

Terrorists…no…defenders of their country…yes.

The terrorists in and about Iraq are NOT defenders of their country. Who is? How about the 8 million who voted. That’s the country.

As to your response to:

America is a world leader. America wants to remain a world leader. In order to remain a world leader you cannot play by rules. I really believe it is as simple as that. You do whatever it is you feel you need to do because the stakes are too high to do anything else.

Assuming that's true: Nothing is making me like that. On the contrary really.

Easy to sit where you sit and say nothing is making you like that.

I bet you would sing a much different tune when where you sit is taken away from you. Perhaps not today, perhaps not next week…perhaps not for 20 years. If you have children you might be grateful that people had the foresight not to wait until it was too late…but choose to take steps now to prevent that from ever happening.

Nothing is making you like that? You don’t know how lucky you are.

You should be grateful. :depressed

Next.

Edit: I've just realized that in writing this post I did so with the idea that you, Qaz, were Americian. It is only now that I discover you are in fact living in Finland. I will not change anything...but I will read it again to see what, if anything, changes.

[acushla]

Anybody else missing Roj's voice in all of this?

I know I am.

[Qaz]

Qaz…with all due respect Sir, not only did you not answer my first question, you took the opportunity to use my ‘morals aside’ out of context. Shame on you! :disappoin

This question? "Somebody might want to tell if there is any merit to this thinking". If with merit you mean financial gain for America, then yes, I think there is at least some merit in that thinking. Is there enough, I really don't know. But you're not seriously saying that morals should be forgotten, right?

I cannot believe you wrote this. Illustrates the point that people sometimes only see what they want to see and then use that to reinforce their own position. How convenient to your own point to ignore the most important sentence in the quote you choose. :disappoin

I will say it again for those who might have missed it: The Americans, on the other hand, did not really have an army, let alone uniforms. Essentially what they had was a number of men who came from all over in whatever clothes they wore, touting their rifles. No training, no discipline...but the one most important quality any army could want: A willingness, an eagerness to be there to defend the most important thing in their lives...their country and way of life. (And a nation of people who were solidly behind them. Had to add this for obvious reasons.)

Terrorists…no…defenders of their country…yes.

The terrorists in and about Iraq are NOT defenders of their country. Who is? How about the 8 million who voted. That’s the country.

I guess that didn't come out quite as I meant. If you noticed, I didn't include the country part in my previous post. And I didn't include it on purpose. I really just found that quite interesting (regarding that there has been quite a lot of talk about terrorism lately). But this really should have gone to another thread. Btw, what do you think my point was as I really didn't claim anything?

Don't think for a moment that it is only people who strap bombs around themselves are the only sacrificers. Any soldier who fights for his country and is killed in battled has sacrificed hisher life as well.

Don't worry, I won't. Finland has had its own wars.

I bet you would sing a much different tune when where you sit is taken away from you. Perhaps not today, perhaps not next week…perhaps not for 20 years. If you have children you might be grateful that people had the foresight not to wait until it was too late…but choose to take steps now to prevent that from ever happening.

Erm, why exactly would I like to see America as the world leader in twenty years? I'm not living there. I really am grateful for being able to live where I'm living and I hope I'm able to live here in the future as well. That's one reason I'm not too fond of that "you're with us or you're against us" policy.

Edit: noticed Acushla's edit. I do believe it changes at least something.

[acushla]

Erm, why exactly would I like to see America as the world leader in twenty years? I'm not living there. I really am grateful for being able to live where I'm living and I hope I'm able to live here in the future as well. That's one reason I'm not too fond of that "you're with us or you're against us" policy.

The ‘thinking’ was referring to the validity of the idea that future oil revenues and new marketplaces would be more than enough to eliminate what might appear to some as an insurmountable national deficit? Period.

The ‘leaving aside all moral consideration’ was simply to avoid making muddy waters muddier.

If the answer to the question is ‘yes…it would take care of, or go a long way to taking care of’, then I imagine it is of not a huge concern to the administration. Obviously there has to be some sort of time frame involved and that might make the slow pace of progress due to insurgents worrisome.

If the answer is 'no' then I don’t know what to say. I am not an economist, I can’t even spell it…so I have nothing to offer. I am curious though if anybody knows enough to be able to comment if there are two schools of thought on this. In other words…we know there are those, Paul being one, who are deeply troubled by the deficit. Are there other’s in the economic field who have no concerns about this at all?

To answer your question as to what I thought your point was regarding terrorists…I thought you were comparing the actions of the Americian army in 1775 to the terrorists in and around Iraq. I took offence partly because I was very careful to eliminate that distinction myself…but also because I read this as an endorsement of the terrorists, making them legitimate as people who represent the will of the people in the region. They aren’t and they don’t. Period. I apologize for my mis-understanding.

To somebody who lives in Finland, the only valid way I can answer your question as to why you would want to see America as a world leader in 20 years is to to tell you it would be for exactly the same reason that you wouldn't’t want to see Iran, or Iraq, or North Korea or China or….as a world leader in 20 years.

Trust me…somebody IS going to be a world leader in 20 years. If you’re choices were limited to the above…who would you choose?

And NO...Finland, as great a country as it undoubtly is, will NOT be a world leader in 20 years. So don't say Finland. :)

[Qaz]

To somebody who lives in Finland, the only valid way I can answer your question as to why you would want to see America as a world leader in 20 years is to to tell you it would be for exactly the same reason that you wouldn't’t want to see Iran, or Iraq, or North Korea or China or….as a world leader in 20 years.

Trust me…somebody IS going to be a world leader in 20 years. If you’re choices were limited to the above…who would you choose?
To be honest, I really don't know. I don't deny that from those America is still the best choice today. But in twenty years, who knows.

[acushla]

To be honest, I really don't know. I don't deny that from those America is still the best choice today. But in twenty years, who knows.

Thank you.

[Shadowraven]

Been gone a couple of days, so I've not been able to comment here. But I'm sure that you all knew it would be inevitable that I would eventually, given the topic. That said there have been some "ahem" interesting statements made here, and some incorrect ones. I'll explain.

Americans voted Dubya one and he's what the majority want and deserve.
Excuse me here guys, but he was elected by an extremely thin majority, and there are still questions as to the legitimacy of that. I live in Ohio and can tell you that news of hanky-panky in that election is still being discussed. If it was perfectly legal remember this: He was elected by a slim majority against what many people considered a less than perfect alternative. There are a LOT of people here, nearly half or more (some didn't vote, the idiots!) of the people in this country who DO NOT like Dubya

The revolutionaries in 1775 were terrorists and the country was solidly behind them.
Wrong again. They often used guerrilla tactics against the British that they learned from the Indians, but that was mostly irregular units who did that. Many major battles still were fought in the European fashion of standing in lines and shooting at each other across a field. The irregulars, however, would snipe at the British from the margins and wear them down. Tactics we would consider as terrorist were not really used on any widespread basis.

As for the country being solidly behind them, it was not. Many of the citizens continued to be loyalists, and it was a hard sell even to the Continental Congress. Other citizens preferred not to be involved, because they didn't see the point of fighting the British. Since we lost many early battles it wasn't until much later in the war that there started to be a greater outpouring of support. That is why the American Army had such difficulties with manpower. The country was most definitely NOT solidly behind the Revolution.

If you oppose Bush you're Un-American and hate Christians.
What a load of bullcrap! Where do we live now, in China? We aren't allowed to disagree with Bush and still love our country? I find comments like jawpr's to be elitist, and rather insulting. They assume that the only "right" opinion is their opinion. All others are treasonous and anti-Christian.

Teddy Roosevelt said it best: "To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people." Guess what folks, he was a Republican.

I personally can't see how anyone could arrive at any other assumption other than that he is not just corrupt, but very much so. Regardless of what you may think his intent is, he still is. He may think he is right, even Stalin didn't think what he did was wrong. People don't think that way. But it doesn't matter what you may think his intentions are, the fact is, he is still a corrupting influence.

I agree that many politicians are often corrupt to one degree or another, but some are MUCH more so. Do you think that for one minute if Clinton were in office, and doing what Bush is doing, he wouldn't be impeached in a flash? One thing I've noticed in the past 30 years is that when a Democrat becomes president, the right devotes the whole of their energy to destroy and obstruct that president's ability to operate.

They did it to Carter and they went after Clinton with a vengeance. You'd think he was the Anti-Christ the way they talked. I personally don't see how you can compare his corruption with Bush's. Not even in the same league kids. His crimes were misdemeanors and his staff didn't need to be investigated for wrongdoing. Both Reagan's, and Bush's, can't say the same thing. Dubya, and his staff, have committed felonies. There just isn't anyone who is going to prosecute them for it...yet.

Think the media is liberal and hates Republicans. Look again. Remember how they attacked Clinton mercilessly. Have they done the same thing to Bush with all his excesses? I think not. They rarely say anything bad about him, except on PBS or NPR. When they do it there it’s not personal, it’s just the facts. Look where that’s got them. The government has cut their funding again and is continuing to try and cut it even further. If there is one thing they can’t stand, it’s an independent voice that criticizes them.

Watch the media carefully and you’ll see just what I’m saying. Compare how our media reports things and how the BBC does it. Remember, the British are our allies, but they still seem to hold free speech dear enough to keep supporting the BBC as an independent organization. Democracy can NOT survive without a free and independent media. Something we do NOT have right now. The owners of the media companies and their right-wing allies will not allow it. The media has become more conservative in it’s reporting in the last 15 years. Even the journalists say that.

As for the Republicans , I don't say that they all are bad, but the majority of the party is. I quite like Senator McCain and Colin Powell. They’ve been the only major voices of sanity I’ve heard in their party, and look where it got them. They were attacked and ostracized by their own party. They refused to march in lockstep with the rest of them. They refused to be unthinking robots. The Republicans are starting to sound more like a group of fascists than Americans in they way they stamp out opposition. In fact here are two good links that talk about what the Republicans are doing to themselves and the rest of us:

Caveat Emptor: The Selling of The GOP's Soul To The Religious Right (http://www.atsnn.com/story/129507.html)
NYPress: The Conservative Case Against Bush (http://theoldcoach.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6554)

How jawpr got that I was anti-American and attacking Christians is beyond me. Sounds like a McCarthy statement to me. I WAS spouting Anti-BUSH statements. The U.S. is not all Christian and in love with Dubya you know. There are other religions here that are just as patriotic as the right, more so actually. WE still believe in free speech. On top of that there are a lot of people who ARE Christian who don't think what he is doing is right either. In fact, if you read your bible, what he is doing is very definitely NOT Christian behavior.

Contrary to popular opinion, this country was NOT founded by men who were all Christian. Most of the men who formed this country's Constitution, and rules, were sick of Christianity's excesses. That is why they put the separation clause in the Constitution. Many of them were Deists. Washington was. So please stop trying to tell me how the U.S. is basically a Christian nation, founded on Christian values. That is just NOT completely true. If you don’t believe me, do a little research. The information is not that hard to find. I’m just not going to find it for you.