The War, The President, and Everything Else

I left a minor jab at that in a non-political thread.

You know, after so many years of Republican dominance it all seems like a dream. I keep pinching myself thinking "did that really happen?" I'm no fan of political parties, especially when the only two viable parties keep trying to out-do each other in the "culture war." I believe in a vital, multiparty system that represents all shades of the spectrum. A pipe dream for sure, but a dream nonetheless.

The immediate outcome is too far off for me to see through the haze of the waking dream. I'm not sure anything the Dems propose will fly without some serious kibitzing and a lot of compromise. Is this a good thing? My reactionary side says hell no, my rational side saw what happened to the contract with America, how the president at the time claimed responsibility for what did pass and the rest became the stuff of legend.

As far as Rumsfeld, boy howdy, where to start. Lets just say that Bush knew full well that if the dems took control Mr Rumsfeld would be emasculated, the smart thing was to gracefully step aside, and they both did the smart thing. The thing was, IMO, that nobody in the GOP expected to lose when the famous "decider" spiel was given.

__________________
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." -David Cronenberg

Yeah, I've always felt that in reality having only two parties to choose from must be very unsatisfying.

This morning I read that Giuliani wants to run for president. I have to admit that I don't know too much about his political stance. He's kind of a New Yorkified republican, right? Is he a good candidate, would you say?

Is it possible for a president to appoint ministers and secretaries from both parties? I guess it's possible, but is it likely? What about if Hillary won and appointed Obama her vice president, Colin Powell was let back in as secretary of state, John Edwards secretary of justice, John McCain secretary of defense and Al Gore was given the environmental issues? Or perhaps the job as UN Ambassador.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

He is a relative moderate. Of course considering the serious rightward leanings of the Republican party, I would classify him as a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, which puts him pretty squarely middle-right.

Honestly I think he would actually make a decent president. There are things about him that I don't like, his management style for one, but he has shown great grace under pressure. I do believe he will ride on the coattails of 9/11 if he does decide to run, and depending upon exactly how much that is still a part of the American consciousness, it will be a major aspect of his campaign.

I do think that he will have to appeal to the middle, and he already has that in his favor. He will be tough to beat in the next election if he decides to run. The coolest thing about his possible candidacy would be the fact that he would be the first truly ethnic Italian-American president. And only the second Catholic, any progress is good progress.

You know what the sad thing is, I cannot think for the life of me, of a viable candidate from the democratic side. Hillary is far too polarizing and I just don't like her as President. Her views are muddled and she carries too much baggage. The Republicans seem to be dead set on promoting her for this very reason, I think its so funny that the spin-doctors have spent so much time promoting her "agenda" and her potential candidacy that they have burned this idea into the American consciousness.

So many Dems have been shot in the foot by remarks or actions amplified beyond belief in the media. But as the last election proved, that kind of politics only works to distract when the party in question is on top. It gives me hope that the "politics of personal destruction" has left a bad taste in the mouths of many voters.

Add to that the continuing failings of evangelicals and their supporters and you have a weakened power base. I think it is a matter of course that those who shout the loudest in favor of "values politics" are the ones with so much to hide. This is true on both sides, Jessie Jackson and Bill Cosby to name two random names, have been outspoken critics of African American "culture" and have both been felled in a way by scandals involving out of wedlock children and extramarital sex.

I would love to see a Giuliani/Lieberman or Giuliani/Powell bid, I honestly believe either combination would be as unbeatable as it is groundbreaking.

There's always going to be war. It's how history decides what's right.

__________________

Now you'll have to elaborate a bit here.

If there's an issue where two sides can't agree who's right and they end up fighting, the winner gets to walk away and say they're right. They might have to defend that with more fighting but until they lose, they're right - in theory. Also, I think more modern countries, like the U.S., want immediate results. We'd (We'd, being used loosely) would like to think everything can be settled with words and that a half-hour sit down with Dr. Phil would fix problems and have everyone walk away satisfied when in reality the person with the backyard that has the crater caused by a mortor is less likely to want to sit down and talk it out.

Bit of a side note: Why is American military numbers made public for all the world to see? I mean should there not be some sort of "national interest" law/rule/bill that says our troop numbers and equipment numbers and our "dates of withdrawal/reenforcement be kept secret? Seriously, be against the Iraqi war or for it, our and every nations military "moves" should be kept secret during a time of war.............or am I wrong? Do we not endanger our own when we publicize this information?

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I think having a set date to withdraw is a bad idea. I couldn't imagine trying to fight an enemy that new I'd be leaving on Tuesday. I think letting people know how large our military is is a good idea. Sort of a mutual assured destruction thing.

I don't think the public knows too much, but sometimes I think they think they do.

I pretty sure the public knows just about as much as the US military wants it to know. And as Pimp sniffed at, why rattle your nukes if you don't want the boogie men to know about them.

I'll make it short and sweet because I've talked about this in length through other chanells. We've screwed up a lot of things regarding this war but we have to win. Plain and simple. If we do not win, it's the beginning of the end of the united states.

__________________
"You need people like me..."

Well, the folk in charge realize this, too. They won't allow for a loss.

What we really need to worry about is Iran...

For the first time in my life I feel that my own country has let me down. I think "we" have forgotten where we have come from. Sure some can say America thrived and established itself on the backs of slaves, or that we stole land and lives from Native Indians, but I say that even though this may be true, look at what we have become: Anyone of any race of any background can succeed in the U.S. There are no limits to what "one" can achieve in the United States of America. I am not saying that we did not get to this point without suffering, certainly a lot have suffered, but instead of wallowing in pity for those before us we should rejoice at what "they" have sacrificed, and think about what dreams they (our great grandmothers and grandfathers, ancestors, fellow peoples) have let go so that ours may come to fruition so that we could become one and hold hands like those guys in the coke commercial. Hate Bush all you want, hate republicans or democrats 'till your heart explodes, hate the war or support it, but please do not hate America, because for better or for worse, if you are an American, please understand the sacrifice that those before us have endured and support the growth of this great country not the demise of it.

Do you wanna know the best way to win a war? Just don't start one.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Do not kill children with mustard gas and cut off their ears with dull knives first and then okay I might not start one.??? Mr. SaddamnuBastard!!!

In a nutshell:

__________________

Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.

There's a lot of crap I don't agree with in that video but the motion graphics were done really well.

Yeah thats it none of you matter unless you are American, France is next, yep.

And after we're done in Iraq we can go to Sudan. And then after that we can go to Iran. And then after.... And then after that.... And then after that....

So we should do nothing about these countries you mention? Is it okay for there to be a nuclear capable Iran? The U.N. doesnt think so, but they will never do anything about it other than unexecuted sanctions. I hope sanctions do work, but if they do not then what? It is easy to be against something, but hard to offer another option. So what if Iran does ignore the U.N. John? what?what shold be done? What are the options? Why are these countries Sudan and Iran mentioned by you? Because they are great places to live and raise a family? I mean you do not mention Canada, or Australia or even Russia. Why not? And who are the countries that fall into to your after that and than after that category. N. Korea, Cuba, China, Mexico?

I was for the war mainly to see Saddam removed, but how could we just leave after taking him out? I want to see another feasible option than military action in the future, but is there one in all cases? If so what is it? Certainly do not mention the U.N. not many have faith in them anymore.