posted
Republican suit???? That doesn't go well with his tin foil hat he wears to keep the government from reading his mind. Or did you upgrade to an Armedillo hat Glass?
posted
Right Glassman- funny thing is if you are a repub Why have you spent so much time sticking up for the religous left? Why have you made it a priority to make sure that the democrats are known as having a religous wing to their party? In fact - why are you pointing out the democrats positives like family values and how religous they are? Why on earth would a died in the wool republican do that?
posted
why have you spent so much time sticking up for the religous left? Why have you made it a priority to make sure that the democrats are known as having a religous wing to their party? In fact - why are you pointing out the democrats positives like family values and how religous they are? Why on earth would a died in the wool republican do that?
because i care about the truth???? why is that such a foregn concept to you?
my country before my party ... this here thread makes it sound like half of my country supports genocidal maniacs...
think about that; foool...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Care about the truth? Hard to decipher the truth with your tin foil hat on isn't it? You believe every conspiracy that comes down the pike and you care about the truth?
Face it Glassman you are a democrat. my hunch is you where forced to vote republican due to some unseen influence, (hence the tin foil hat). It's ok to come out of the closet and admit you are a democrat. I think it would make you a much more believable poster.
posted
"half of my country supports genocidal maniacs..."
Democrats aren't half the country. Further, I am pointing out the policies they adopted amounted to support for genocide. I mean that Warren Christopher quote and the press that spun off that to ask why the US prevented UN action should problematic to the American conscience in much the same way the present crisis in Sudan should be a more urgent concern for the UN but it's not.
I think the course of this thread has made it plain that I am refering to the transition in Democratic leadership from 1968 to 2000. I don't believe the grass-roots Democrat supports genocide any more than you believe all Republicans support fascists. But the consequences of their actions speak for themselves. By drawing stark attention to that we may just embarass complacent people to get motivated and take back their parties.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Well if you didn't get your panties in a bunch every time I mention it I wouldn't get such a kick out of it. Boy you where right about this one Griff.
Bush only won the last presidential vote by a popular vote of 51 to 49 percent...
and the election before that? he LOST the popular vote...
now? you can quibble all you want about %registrations etc.... but registered democrats basically represent 1/2 the nation and the GOP represents the other half... you're topic title sux... therefore?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
not only is the country more or less evenly divided? Bush's majority was not at all impressive for an incumbent....
especially considering we were at war, and Kerry was a weak opponent... he didn't even answer the swiftboat jerks for three weeks....
Reagan got 51 percent of the vote in '80, 59 percent four years later.
LBJohnson? 61 percent of voters in 1964, as was Richard Nixon in 1972.
Al Hunt observed in the Wall Street Journal (11/4/04) that Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."...
you guys live in the midwest....i don't really expect you to have a pragmatic political opinion about the state of the union... but nobody believes the dems are below 43% and i mean REGISTERED dems....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Truth hurts huh? Dem policies led to genocide in Rwanda. Refute that. Nuff said.
20% of the political scene is Independent. That bening the case we know Dems are around 38% across the nation. Dems lost by 2%, quite a trouncing given that Susan Estrich and James Carville had them picked to slaughter Bush. Electorially narrow, but popularly, big! 3.5 million votes is a pretty big margin * 1.25% of the whole population of the country (including non voters). That's a waxin' given the expectations.
Bush had two weak opponents which is how he won either election. And that says alot about the state of the Democratic Party. They are issues-weak. But the activating RL will make them stronger. GB 1 got the nod only as a favor to Reagan because the nation was glad he won the Cold War for us
But Gore couldn't win as the VP to a popular sitting president with a strong economy and no war. How did he lose? Can't win on anger.
"i don't really expect you to have a pragmatic political opinion about the state of the union"
you don't know farmers then.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
With much respect for the fans of "Peanuts", I have always felt that the voice given to the characters on TV lessened the weight of the whole concept.
For those that prefer or accept the limitations imposed by the tv imatations of the "Peanuts" characters, I think you miss a great deal.
For those whose view interpretations of life through those tv imatations of the "Peanuts" characters, I think you miss even more.
IP: Logged |
posted
Caricature is an art form Bdgee, you miss alot of life if you can't imagine bits of color-giving character in literature and celluloid. After all, the Simpsons lived on those images that were caricatures of life.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
Actually, as you read the post you will note I equate caricature with art, Homer with caricature and the parody of life within the hyperbolic situations and often sophomoric actions embodied in celluloid. How did you all miss that?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Toward a new approach to foreign policy and UN responsibility, written three years ago. You will see some noticeable refining of my understanding and you will find places to attack. Feel free, I am only growing, having no answers of my own, only ideas. More will come tomorrow.
My goal is to elevate the debate to find a humanitarian foreign policy alternative to endless violent response. It will be idealistic, and you are free to rip it apart, but I ask as you critique and perhaps even destroy this idea, put something better in its place. We are all victims of colonialism and Cold War, rigid ideologies that served us well, but with grave implications for the present and future. For if colonialism, as applied from roughly 1500-1975, polluted indigenous cultures around the world seeding corruption, destruction and despair; then the Cold War, roughly 1947-1990, marked the era of the subjugation of personhood and community to wanton socio-political-economic goals. A new era beckons, calls us to respond. But how? What happens now? The imperialist, colonialist wars are over. The struggle between capitalism and communism is at the very least pausing. What should the guiding principle of our foreign policy be? Terrorism threatens us and I think in the midst of the action we engage in now, part of our response must be to ask: “Why?” Several factors could be held up as causative, but among the most compelling are the very colonialism and Cold War strategies that have destabilized the world for no less than 500 years. The reality goes far beyond those 500 years, but for the moment I focus on that time-span. Please understand there will be gaps and over-simplifications in this discussion as time and space limit what I will say. I recognize and acknowledge it is incomplete and you are welcome to add to or critique what I say and what I leave out. The case could be made that emergent nation states, mercantilism, industrialization and colonialism are natural, coincident partners in the continuing development of Western culture, though I see them more as an economic progression rather than hybridization. With the creation of the nation state came a settling economic base. New territory was becoming a premium resource, and so colonialism was born. Brave sailors, and later families, left home for untold riches in the Orient, and then took a wrong turn. Eventually, a prosperous merchant class rose on the city streets. As resources for investment grew industry began to take root. With industrialization came the need for two things: cheap resources and ready markets for goods. And so a re-invention of colonialism was born. Colonies became an economic panacea; they were a dumping ground for undesirable people, a ready base of resource materials, a market to sell things to. I mentioned this economic progression, preferring that language to hybridization now let me explain where the latter fits in. As all of these events were taking place the Renaissance and the Enlightenment shaped and formed minds, pollinating the nation states, the merchants, the industrialists and even the colonists with new ideas. A scientific approach flowered in human activity and it effected change in nations, economies and so forth. But a dark fungus, a terrible addiction was growing at the base of this economic progression that tainted the Enlightened thought. Nations became economically dependent upon the cheap resources and labor of the colonies. Nations became economically dependant on the colonial market as an outlet for their goods. With that realization came a re-invention of the intellectual perspective on colonies, a re-invention never far from the surface in the first place. Colonies must remain economically and materially bound to the “homeland.” Never mind that homeland for the colonist was under foot, not in Europe. They might be subjects to a European power, but they were still of a distinct tribe, where mother and father for generations are buried and hopefully children and grandchildren for generations will live. The limitations of colonialism were beginning to show. A chill fear grew in the hearts of those that ruled over colonies, too few soldiers, too many colonists. If Europeans were to be in control, they must find allies within the colony to rule with brute force. Divide and Conqueor! Play one tribe against another. Never let one tribe gain complete supremacy. Trade on old, tribal hatreds. Now the United States was a kind of “Johnny-come-lately” to colonialism, and we had our failings, but we did seem to learn from European mistakes. There was usually some mitigation of the worst behaviors and attitudes, based in idealism and the strong missionary efforts. Paternalistic as missions were, they also developed relationships with the indigenous people and worked to meet physical and spiritual needs together. In every single part of this progression the indigenous culture was revealed as somehow inferior. The indigenous identity was lobbied against as economically and socially inferior. “I mean, they don’t even have a shower and they wear feathers.” Said in an air that suggests showers and pants are necessary for full expression of life. Indigenous peoples began to resent being presented as inferior. Eventually, in the 20th century, two world wars tore into the myth of Western cultural superiority, and ended their enthusiasm for colonies. Too expensive you know and so colonies were gaining freedom. But that only began the struggle for what had Western nations taught their colonies: brutal repression, torture, dictatorial rule, military power keeps stability, denigration of smaller tribes, payback visited on tribal enemies, lack of administrative education that might have made transition possible. The litany of crimes perpetrated against former colonies is huge. And the aftereffects? Well, former colonies showed they were good studies, embarking on genocide, mass murder, military repression, torture, disappearing opponents, tribal paybacks and others that are escaping me just now. This is the legacy of Western colonial rule. We in the West are to some large extent, responsible for the instability and violence perpetrated on innocents abroad. I am not suggesting personal responsibility is not applicable. We are not culpable instead of those who do evil, nor is our guilt on the same level as those who butcher their own people, but we have taught the lessons and now they are visited on a world struggling with terror. And if it only ended there, but later, I will post another article to hopefully kick this discussion off right. Next stop Cold War, or another form of colonialism, politicized and economic, but suppressing cultural. If colonialism tore at cultures, the Cold War subjugated people for political and economic reasons. Humanity was dehumanized by the nuclear arsenals. The result was people were not people anymore, they were communist or capitalist (we always put it in terms of communist or democratic, but these are incommensurate categories), totalitarian or democratic. The first two are economic systems while the latter are political systems. To be sure there were other options, but the significance is less in the options but how the interaction between superpowers further damaged the colonies, hereafter refered to as the "Third World." The implication is there even in the name. Somehow, the third world is kind of the also rans. The significance is that we only intervened when there was a perceived national interest. If not, too bad so sad. Millions have died from the way world powers stripped their resources and left them to waste away. That might seem bad, but worse were those areas where the powers saw national interest. Political, Military, Economic and Military support went to brutal leaders who held the people in line through force. It wasn't about ideology as much as location. How many died is unknown, but the people learned lessons in power. Hussein and Milosevic are two of them we know too well. Spheres of influence were so important that we tolerated leaders who should never been in power simply because they gave us room for a base. Places seemingly forgotten were suddenly flying American and Soviet flags. Torture of persons was acceptable for the sake of the cause. People were expendable for the sake of the cause. Terrorism arose from this lesson of personhood expendable for the cause. Now this is a very brief summary. Let me begin by asking for your help in this endeavor. It is never easy to open one's self for review, and this format tends to lend itself to harsh criticism, especially between people of differing views. I am not asking for you blanket acceptance of this platform, I am asking that if you rip something apart, then put something better in its place. Feel free to critique, but move the discussion forward with an idea with a purpose toward peace. I am seeking a better world, and want this discussion to be predicated on that assumption. To help in the tearing down and putting better in its place, I will try to provide reference numbers at the beginning of topical changes. I am sure this condensation leaves some things out, so do feel free to ask anything or challenge some transitions. A PROPOSAL FOR FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH 1. The present configuration of the United Nations is still a reaction to the Cold War. A new paradigm is needed. Structures need to be re-examined and re-designed. The Security Council is one example, but the peace-keeping mandate, the genocide treaty, UNICEF, various relief agencies all need to reflect a global community, not three worlds hopelessly divided. One area of proof of its antiquated structure is the Israel/Palestine question. Clearly, this situation is too volatile for the present expressin of peace-keeping, nevertheless the terrorism on both sides needs to end. Further, the dilema of two nations having historical, social, cultural and religious ties to what is essentially the same plot of ground defies present legal conceptualization of nationhood. Similar trouble is essentially borne out in the question of China/Taiwan/Hong Kong. The international community lacks the jurisprudence to acknowledge simultaneous claims to the same land. This must come from a re-definition of nation as well as of the UN. The ties to the land are brilliantly put forth in Elias Chacour's "Blood Brothers" and "We Belong to the Land." He also is the founder of the Mar Elias School for Palestinian-Israeli Jews, Christians, Muslims and Druze. It is the first Palestinian school of its kind and it became a University under the direct support of James Baker and Shimon Perez. The notion that one can or should be dispossessed now is patently ludicrous. However, tribal claims to the land must cease too. What is my suggestion (sure to be unpopular in some sections of academia)? 2. I suggest that we should actively lobby for a new UN mandate that better reflects the needs of the world community. I also suggest that the UN and world community declare Jerusalem an open city and the new UN headquarters. In this declaration, priority needs to be given for the formation of two national governments to function in Jerusalem: one Israeli, the other Palestinian. Only by working out a jurisprudence that empowers both people to have a nation that occupies the same space can there be healthy resolution and coersed reconciliation. If sovereignty is closely observed by the UN both sides stand to lose too much to risk continuing the struggles. It will also generate the needed economic systems to empower both nations. I did say it would be unpopular but give it a moment to settle in. 3. Next, somehow the US and the UN as a whole need to set standards in black and white that define genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. There has got to be a clearer, less debatable and quicker evaluation of what these things are. There must also be clear delineation of the consequences are for those who engage in genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. I am sure the instinct will be to say we should stay out of them all. It is an isolationist foreign policy that has consistently failed the historical, empirical test. Isolationism encouraged Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Milosovic, Panic, Hussein and others in their efforts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. I hope you recognized that I was blaming the lessons of brutal leadership on colonialism. The colonial powers brutally frequently brutally repressed colonists. The Western powers’ administration of colonies taught leaders to be brutal, played upon tribal tensions, taught that might equals right, taught that power meant better culture, and exploited land and people. That is the lesson we handed down to the new leaders of fledgling nations. The legacy of colonialism is found in brutal dictators, military juntas, coups, exploitation of the masses, cultural malaise, terrorist governments and militant opposition. Because the Western powers taught the lessons of brutality and mass murder out of economic and political expediency, they must now raise a new issue. The world community is morally, ethically responsible for removing leaders who brutalize their populations, first in the powers who caused the instability, but also as the world. The world community must stand together, even if arms must be raised. The world community must cry with one voice against these dictatorial monsters whose power is expressed in terrorizing and neglecting their culture, nation and/or tribe. Until the world stands together and in resolve against depersonalizing leaders genocide and murder will happen regardless of the party in the White House. Those brutal, evil leaders must know, absolutely know, that if they mistreat their people, they will lose power and live in a cage for the rest of their lives. They simply must not be allowed to have control of other peoples' lives. It should also be pointed out that in these cases at present, when the world community represented in the UN lacks political or ethical will to help the powerless end mass slaughter, it is still the absolute duty of all nations to take action. Genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder must end and where the UN fails to act, it does not relieve the world community of its moral obligation to end these atrocities. 4. To that end, the UN needs a "Quick Reaction Force" of trained professional troops and equipment to deal with these situations in order to prevent the onset, or react immediately to events that equate with mass murder. Now the reason such need to be in place is well documented in events surrounding the Kurds in 88-89 and the Rwandans in 94. National and even international political and ethical will cannot be counted on to do the right thing. There must be a clear threshold that is easy to monitor and document, and some proverbial "lead in the pencil" to back up the promise that we will remove leaders that abuse their people. For the nations that have a process in place removal of leaders and peaceful transfer of power is becoming tradition. In our country, elections take place as they have for 200+ years. But many nations only experience transition through violence, through coup. That violence often spills over into the administration. The threat of immanent removal for malpractice might instruct would-be leaders that they better not take their aggression out on innocent people. 5. The US must adopt a foreign policy that works on consistency. The Presidential preferences for certain national priorities as they perceive them provide more of a roulette game approach from the perspective of petty dictators. We too need a threshold of intervention that is clear, detailed and concise. There are too many political games played and the cost is paid in too many lives. 6. The foreign policy approach we take must cease the effort to create socio-political-economic-cultures in our image, instead we must work to empower nations to built their own cultural expression of socio-political-economic structures. These structures must be an extension and expression of their communal (tribal) sense of being. We must embrace a unity in diversity understanding of international relationships, recognizing that other nations need not embrace our ideology for us to share peace. 7. As we fight the War on Terror, we must also analyze what has caused this world wide struggle. This war is not only about the US but we have been struck deeply by it. The damage has been terrible, emotionally, psychologically and materially. The instability caused by colonialism and Cold War has now visited us. May I suggest this is our most complex task.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
From what I could tell.. Gore was the one who rigged the election... Well.. too vague I guess.. I think they both rigged the election.. Gore got beat by Bush.. may not have seemed fair from our perspective.. But they were both playing the same game by the same self made rules. They are all scum Gordy.
IP: Logged |
posted
Since the impartial Supreme Court decided how the votes would be counted as per the Constitutional rule of law, the vote was certified in Congress as per rule of law, the two recounts occured as per the rule of law, a 6 month review conducted by New York Times, Washington Post and CNN verified the results in Florida, I would like to point out none of this adequately explains why Democratic leaders do not work to prevent genocide.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
