i hate George Bush!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

And Israel has proven itself to be very trustworthy hasn't it?

I am a little baffled at how you got Isreal out of my statement. But, so be it. No, they, along with all other nations cannot be trusted. History is full of examples of backstabbing, etc. So, if we learn from history, then we have to be armed. Again, I wish it was not that way, but it is.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

If I were to walk down the street and say that, I'd be stoned. But I totally agree. My sympathy has always been with them, not the Israeli's.

Lord Child - I and Goldie have said a few things on this board

I think Isreal has the potential to be great. They just are scared to lose any control over the land they were initially given and the land they subsequently acquired. So, they refuse to let anyone do anything they do not like or that will threaten their rule. It is, of course, far more complicated than that, but that is part of it. And, no American political party wants to anger the American Jews by making Isreal tow the line. So, Isreal can do what is wants withing reason and the definition of reason is growing.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

I don't have the page open, but I think you said that trusworhty nations can have posess these weapons (as opposed to non-trustworthy countries). I was just pointing out that non-truthworthy countries who we know have these weaopns (as opposed to speculation) are not condemned.

I think if all nations disarm (a great but highly unlikely event) and can prove it, then sure, get rid of all of the weapons of war. But, that will never happen. So, we have to stay armed.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

If you're going for safety, England isn't necessarily your place. When my parents lived there (in the '70s) there were the occasional bombings (IRA).

Well, without being too literal, that is a part of the reason that many hate America. Politically, people need to know about what's going on. On a personal level, mention that someone's American and you usually get the eye roll combined with an understanding groan. It's not meant to be entirely insulting, it's just commonly accepted that the America is likely to be not only ignorant but arrogant. Americans seem to go on about the French. I think that generalisation stops at the American border and the word 'French' switches to 'American'.

That wasn't meant as an insult to you guys personally, it's just my description of what we, as outsiders, see.

People always say this and certainly there are people that do not like Americans. But, I travel all of the time and to Europe often. I am usually welcomed whereever I go and no one treats me poorly or like I am a dirt American. Maybe it is just me (ya know I am a loveable kind of guy ) but I do not see it en masse. But, it certainly is there and more so now.

Interestingly and on a related issue, how is Tony Blair favoring in his PM position.

[strandinthewind]

From www.cnn.com - and a Republican from TEXAS no less.

Congressman omits 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance
Spokesman says omission was mistake
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 5:16 PM EDT (2116 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rep. Jim McDermott, a Washington Democrat who criticized President Bush while visiting Baghdad, omitted the words "under God" as he led the House in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance this week.

McDermott, of Seattle, was one of seven lawmakers who voted against a House resolution last year condemning a federal appeals court ruling that reciting the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional because of its reference to God.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused McDermott of "embarrassing the House and disparaging the majority of Americans who share the values expressed in the pledge."

"He and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors," Sessions said.

A spokesman for McDermott said Wednesday that McDermott, 67, made a mistake in his recitation of the pledge Tuesday on the House floor.

Spokesman Mike DeCesare said McDermott told him that as a child he had learned the pledge without the phrase "under God." The phrase was added to the pledge in 1954.

"Basically he caught himself up," DeCesare said, adding that McDermott was unsure whether to include the phrase "under God" while the 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

"Today he says, 'I should have said it,' because the pledge has been amended and in the future he will do that," DeCesare said. "Basically it was the wrong time to have a question in your thoughts."

McDermott, one of the most liberal members of the House, drew fire from Republicans last December, when he questioned the timing of the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. McDermott told a Seattle radio station that the U.S. military could have found Saddam long before if they had really wanted to do so.

In 2002, Republicans labeled McDermott "Baghdad Jim" for comments he made during a trip to Baghdad, saying that Bush "would mislead the American people" but that Saddam could be trusted.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

No, don't worry it's not on a personal level. When we meet someone we judge them for who they are, not their accent. The fact that my boyfriend (****, I must remember he's my EX-boyfriend. I house-sitting for him as we speak. I tend to forget that we broke up.) is American is testiment to that fact. When people first hear that he's American, they do respond (if not verbally, with their expression) with 'I see, one of those'. Most people are very welcoming, but as a whole that's how we see American people.

That is why I love the land down under!!!!!!!!!

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

But what I find so shocking is that you actually believe that all of this heartaches will eventually bring democracy to Iraq. It'll never happen.

It did for Japan and Germany...as well as the rest of Europe in the following decades.

While Bush may not be the greatest President, he is doing what he clearly said he would. He said he would go after all terrorists and all regimes that support, economically or otherwise, terrorism in the world. And regarding the comment about Bush Sr. not doing anything about Suddam...you're right. He shouldn't have listened to the Liberals and UN and backed off...he should have went after him during the first Gulf War....

Regardless of the biased spin...the US has never been an imperialist country. Unless, of course, you count the expansionism in the 1800's of the continental US. Remember the Monroe Doctrine?

After the Civil War, the US spent millions reconstructing the south...and after both world wars, the US spent billions helping to rebuild Europe and Japan. None were annexed. We can't say the same about communist Russia.

my 2 cents...

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Those are the exact questions you should be asking Bush. Although if you want the real answer, ask Cheney. He tellls Bush what to say anyway. I doubt Georgie could answer any of the questions unless they were given to him in advance.

Was that an explanation or did I miss something???

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

He didn't have his head in the clouds, it was very much on the ground. He chose to stay there. He was a coward. By the time he was outta there, the Pentagon was already under attack. His own words contradict himself. He said he saw the first plane, then he said he saw the second plane. Then he said he heard the second plane, but no, it was first plane. He said that the first thing he thought when he was TOLD about it was "Boy, what a terrible pilot." Yeah, nice thing to think of when the WTC has just been hit by a commercial aircraft. His story is so full of holes that it could mistaken for Swiss cheese.

Wait a minute!! When did we start talking about Kerry!!??

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

Actually I thought the pledge of allegiance was made up, or not for real, or maybe just in movies or something. I wasn't aware that something so absurd was real, until my ex told me that he actually had to say it everyday.

The POA did not have "under God" in it until the 1950's when it was put in it by Congress as an effort to stop Communism, which was godless. In America no one can be forced to say the POA nor can children be expelled from school for refusing to salute the flag, etc. But, many claim that children will feel peer pressure and be forced into saying "under God" against their will and that is contrary to the statement in the First Amendment of the U.S. Const. that the govt. will make no law establishing a religion. The most recent case is pending in the U.S. Sup. Court where no one can predict the outcome of "under God"

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

You're killing me.

No one wants it to fail. It's just common sense that tells us that democracy will not work in the Middle East. It simply won't. Wish all you want, but the rosiest of views won't disguise this mess. And any transitional body with Chalabi in it is a farce.

I dunno...Israel seems to be doing ok with it...I believe they have the highest standard of living in the Middle East as well as positive relations with most of the free world.

Pessimism that has no history to back it. What should US policy be to deal with the mIddle East then?

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

Falser words have never been spoken. In a very Romanist sense of the word 'imperial', America, if not stopped, will be the new empire. Unless us middle countries get off our arse and steer towards China.

Just when we were getting along - America is not imperialistic in the sense that it has few if any territories and these territories do not mind American "rule," if you will. Great Britian and Rome (the two most recent great empires) on the other hand had vast portions of entire continents and in some instances, the entire continent. So, I do not think America is imperialistic. I mean even in Iran, we will have to hand it back to the Iraqui's in the near future or it will be an all out war in the entire country as opposed to just in a few cities. And, perhaps more importantly, our allies will drop out.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Lux

Yeah, he said he wasn't required to say it, but that the teacher told him he should. He said by the end he just refused to say it.

It is just another example of the Christians and to some extent Jews trying to see validity in their own religions by making the state sponsor it. I think it is silly and wrong. But, something like 90 percent of Americans think it should be in the POA no matter how offensive it is to people who do not believe in God and the fact that it is a lie.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

The guy he was running against was clinically insane. He looked like a mental patinet, just the look in his eye.

Actually that guy is pretty intelligent. He was interviewed many times around here and he came across as articulate and straight forward. He didn't sound like a standard politician. Then there is dear old Arlen "SIngle bullet theory" Specter....ugh...

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by stefan

Btw I 'd like to point out how much the US government has damaged the image of the US in Europe or at least in Germany. That is a heritage which a different government will have to carry for a long time. But I still take bets that this will last another 4 years. People get what they deserve I guess... Very annoying thread and my vocabulary is not enough to express what I`d like to.

Ah...how soon the past is forgotten...sad...