FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What you think about our president?





x6xyodax9x
I think he is a false prophet, full of lies
adri
Which country because there re alot of presidents on Earth. Razz


Happy Holidays!!



Adri
jwellsy
It would take a true prophet to understand this thread.
lyndonray
I assume we are talking about BUSH! Well I think he is a moron. I have no idea what Americans were on when they voted for him not once but TWICE. I mean really!! At least this time around there was more sense in the air and they actually voted for the right guy.

If we are talking about Obama I think he is the right man for the job right now. Imagine McCain and Palin. Sweet Jesus, would we be in trouble!!!So good luck to him, he has to clean up one hell of a mess!!! Go Obama!!!
OpposableThumbs
Shouldn't we be hearing from Bush supporters on this thread about now telling us what a fine job he did reducing violence in Iraq, and how the financial crisis was really someone else's fault, and how liberals just love to bash Bush for no reason at all? Come on, guys: I could use a really good laugh today.
OpposableThumbs
lyndonray wrote:
I have no idea what Americans were on when they voted for him not once but TWICE. I mean really!!


In my opinion the Supreme Court -- not the voters -- gave Bush his first term. But, yeah, keeping him around for a second term is one of the great mysteries of the cosmos. I blame (American) football and evangelical Christianity. And maybe mad cow disease.
ocalhoun
OpposableThumbs wrote:
Shouldn't we be hearing from Bush supporters on this thread about now telling us what a fine job he did reducing violence in Iraq, and how the financial crisis was really someone else's fault, and how liberals just love to bash Bush for no reason at all? Come on, guys: I could use a really good laugh today.

Well, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm not going to use him as a scapegoat or bash him for no reason either.

reducing violence in Iraq: the violence there is finally becoming greatly reduced, and the fledgling Iraqi government is becoming more and more independent.

the financial crisis: It was much more the fault of a) people living beyond their means and buying things they couldn't afford and b) banks being willing to lend them the money to do so, despite knowing that these people were risky borrowers. It is very easy to blame our problems on a president who is disliked anyway, but we need to own up to our own mistakes.

liberals bashing Bush for no reason: There are quite a few things he deserves bashing for, a few of the most heinous of which are inexplicably never mentioned... However, they do get a little bit excessive with it at times. (See the first post for an example of that.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
OpposableThumbs wrote:
Shouldn't we be hearing from Bush supporters on this thread about now telling us what a fine job he did reducing violence in Iraq, and how the financial crisis was really someone else's fault, and how liberals just love to bash Bush for no reason at all? Come on, guys: I could use a really good laugh today.

Well, I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm not going to use him as a scapegoat or bash him for no reason either.

reducing violence in Iraq: the violence there is finally becoming greatly reduced, and the fledgling Iraqi government is becoming more and more independent.

the financial crisis: It was much more the fault of a) people living beyond their means and buying things they couldn't afford and b) banks being willing to lend them the money to do so, despite knowing that these people were risky borrowers. It is very easy to blame our problems on a president who is disliked anyway, but we need to own up to our own mistakes.

liberals bashing Bush for no reason: There are quite a few things he deserves bashing for, a few of the most heinous of which are inexplicably never mentioned... However, they do get a little bit excessive with it at times. (See the first post for an example of that.)


Totally agreed. He also kept the terrrorists out of the United States after Sept 11 and took the struggle right into the Middle East, developing one of the most advanced systems and establishing valuable contacts for gathering of intelligence about the terrorists. Think that was the most obvious shortcoming when Sept11 happened, i.e. lack of sufficient advanced warning due to insufficient first-hand military intelligence. His decisions were not always of the best, but at least he did not shrink away from that responsbility, and was capable enough not to only make the decisions, but to follow through on them completely. For example, he could have bailed out of Iraq when there were no WMDs found, however stayed put. Iraq was a disaster, but many lessons were learned, and Afghanistan is definitely a very good position for the United States. I agree with Ocalhoun on the financial situation too. Bush did not want to help the banks who were in trouble due to bad management, however was forced to do so to save the financial system from a disaster that could potentially have been greater than the depression of the thirties. He also consistently campaigned for tax cuts.
liljp617
There was warning of 9/11.

He "stuck to his guns" throughout his Presidency because he's incredibly stubborn...and that was his downfall as a President.
Nick2008
Gunboat diplomacy is to use your military forces to push around the terrorists. Your military forces will only last so long, as soon as we withdraw from Iraq and enter Afghanistan... it will make many terrorists mad.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:

Totally agreed. He also kept the terrrorists out of the United States after Sept 11 and took the struggle right into the Middle East, developing one of the most advanced systems and establishing valuable contacts for gathering of intelligence about the terrorists. Think that was the most obvious shortcoming when Sept11 happened, i.e. lack of sufficient advanced warning due to insufficient first-hand military intelligence. His decisions were not always of the best, but at least he did not shrink away from that responsbility, and was capable enough not to only make the decisions, but to follow through on them completely. For example, he could have bailed out of Iraq when there were no WMDs found, however stayed put. Iraq was a disaster, but many lessons were learned, and Afghanistan is definitely a very good position for the United States. I agree with Ocalhoun on the financial situation too. Bush did not want to help the banks who were in trouble due to bad management, however was forced to do so to save the financial system from a disaster that could potentially have been greater than the depression of the thirties. He also consistently campaigned for tax cuts.

This rambling post is so full of malarkey that it would take a sentence-by-sentence refutation, and who has the time and what's the point?

But just in case someone educable is paying attention, here's the latest on the wonderful progress (read: huge mess and total failure) in "gathering of intelligence about the terrorists" that you give Bush so much credit for:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302888.html?hpid=topnews


Quote:
Evidence in Terror Cases Said to Be in Chaos

A former military prosecutor said in a declaration filed in federal court yesterday that the system of handling evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay is so chaotic that it is impossible to prepare a fair and successful prosecution.

Darrel Vandeveld, a former lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, filed the declaration in support of a petition seeking the release of Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who has been held at the military prison in Cuba for six years. Jawad was a juvenile when he was detained in Kabul in 2002 after a grenade attack that severely wounded two U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their interpreter.

Vandeveld, who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the lead prosecutor against Jawad until he asked to be relieved of his duties last year, citing a crisis of conscience. He said the case has been riddled with problems, including alleged physical and psychological abuse of Jawad by Afghan police and the U.S. military, as well as reliance on evidence that was later found to be missing, false or unreliable.

Vandeveld said in a phone interview that the "complete lack of organization" has affected nearly all cases at Guantanamo Bay. The evidence is often so disorganized, he said, "it was like a stash of documents found in a village in a raid and just put on a plane to the U.S. Not even rudimentary organization by date or name."

Vandeveld was assigned to the military prosecutor's office at Guantanamo Bay in May 2007, shortly before Jawad was charged. Vandeveld, who as a civilian serves as a senior deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania, said he was shocked by the "state of disarray" as he began to gather material for Jawad's case file.

He said the evidence was scattered throughout databases, in desk drawers, in vaguely labeled containers or "simply piled on the tops of desks" of departed prosecutors.

"I further discovered that most physical evidence that had been collected had either disappeared" or had been stored in unknown locations, he said.
deanhills
Thanks for the link. From the comment you made about my lack of insight, I expected something really good, yet was very disappointed with what I read.

Have you been to the Middle East yet? You should come here and live here for a while. It is a different culture. Life is chaotic. Unpredictable. And I am living in the civilized part, in fact the best part of the Middle East. Now go to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran. You have to go there and live there for at least a few months. Then you will understand that if you want to practice American law and apply the same law for the US in those areas, that they will laugh at you. I agree that things aren't perfect, but at least this got to be published in the media? Why do you always have to look at the negative? Why can't you give at least a little benefit of the doubt for that part of the US military in the Middle East that is working well. In fact, if you really look carefully, you may be surprised that most of it is working DARN well. And just for the record, there has not been another Sept11 yet, 8 years after! Which I thought was one of the real reasons that Bush and his Government had taken the war with the terrorists out of the United States and into the darkest parts of the Middle East. Wish you would visit those dark parts. And live there. And perhaps when you return a few months later, your take on things may be very different?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Thanks for the link. From the comment you made about my lack of insight, I expected something really good, yet was very disappointed with what I read.

Have you been to the Middle East yet? You should come here and live here for a while. It is a different culture. Life is chaotic. Unpredictable. And I am living in the civilized part, in fact the best part of the Middle East. Now go to places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran. You have to go there and live there for at least a few months. Then you will understand that if you want to practice American law and apply the same law for the US in those areas, that they will laugh at you. I agree that things aren't perfect, but at least this got to be published in the media? Why do you always have to look at the negative? Why can't you give at least a little benefit of the doubt for that part of the US military in the Middle East that is working well. In fact, if you really look carefully, you may be surprised that most of it is working DARN well. And just for the record, there has not been another Sept11 yet, 8 years after! Which I thought was one of the real reasons that Bush and his Government had taken the war with the terrorists out of the United States and into the darkest parts of the Middle East. Wish you would visit those dark parts. And live there. And perhaps when you return a few months later, your take on things may be very different?


1. Why are you going on about the Middle East in reply to a post about the constitutional tragedy and failure that is Guantanamo Bay?

2. Where do you live in the Middle East, and for how long? How did you end up there?

3. Aren't these Amnesty Int'l recommendations sane?

FROM AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:
http://www.kintera.org/TR.asp?a=jlKUK5PSJlIULjK&s=fqJQISMtHeLQJ1PIIsH&m=hoLRJ1PCImIYF
Quote:
20 days into the Gaza crisis and the humanitarian crisis there gets worse each day. 398 women and children are dead, another 4700 injured, 750,000 lack access to water and one million are without electricity. Each day that passes guarantees more innocent civilians will suffer. Tell Congress to act swiftly to help humanitarian workers get into Gaza and to suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel.
It’s critical that Congress acts. Congress can take two actions that will make a significant impact on the ground:


1. Urge Israel to allow for increased humanitarian supplies into Gaza and press Egypt to allow more wounded Palestinians to seek medical treatment in Egypt.


The Israeli three hour truce to allow for humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza is not sufficient. A spokesman for the UN relief agency UNWRA said “When you are trying to feed 750,000 people a day in Gaza as we are, you need a permanent ceasefire. You can’t do that in a three-hour window.”8

Although Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing allowing limited medical help in and injured Palestinians out, the number allowed to seek medical care outside of Gaza needs to increase dramatically. There are currently 4500 wounded Palestinians.

2. Suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel
until there is no longer a substantial risk that they will be used for serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law -- such as in attacks that disproportionately kill civilians -- while pressing all sides to stop unlawful attacks.

AI is calling for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups. The US Arms Export Act of 1976 was passed to help guarantee that US-made weapons would only be used for legitimate self-defense and not for violations of internationally recognized human rights. The act requires the State Department to report to Congress when there is a ‘’substantial violation” of the law9.

These demands comply with widely recognized international human rights law.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

1. Why are you going on about the Middle East in reply to a post about the constitutional tragedy and failure that is Guantanamo Bay?

Possibly to point out the idiocy of expecting documents and evidence to be collected with the same organization and careful procedures found in US crime scenes.

The detainees of Guantanamo bay are illegal combatants (for the most part). They don't get the protection of POW's and they don't get the protection of the constitution. They fall under the same category as spies, and therefore most of them could be summarily executed without violating international law. The USA is to be commended for not doing so, and trying to get them fair trials.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

1. Why are you going on about the Middle East in reply to a post about the constitutional tragedy and failure that is Guantanamo Bay?

Possibly to point out the idiocy of expecting documents and evidence to be collected with the same organization and careful procedures found in US crime scenes.

The detainees of Guantanamo bay are illegal combatants (for the most part). They don't get the protection of POW's and they don't get the protection of the constitution. They fall under the same category as spies, and therefore most of them could be summarily executed without violating international law. The USA is to be commended for not doing so, and trying to get them fair trials.


Idiocy? Let me get this straight -- you're calling former lieutenant colonel and military prosecutor Darrel Vandeveld an idiot? And you call him this because in supposedly gathering evidence (including through tortures) from inmates at Guantanamo, with the supposed purpose of getting info to stop further terrorism, the US gov't was so horrendously sloppy that he found prosecution to be not just impossible, but totally wrong?

Again-- you, someone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer and whose life's apparent dream is to evolve into a horse, is calling a military professional abiding by his training and conscience an idiot?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Idiocy? Let me get this straight -- you're calling former lieutenant colonel and military prosecutor Darrel Vandeveld an idiot?

Negative. He was perfectly correct that the evidence gathered was inappropriate and inadequate for US-style trials. It would be idiocy, however, to expect otherwise from such a chaotic place. Especially when most of the people gathering that evidence had little or no training in how to do so other than 'if you find any important-looking documents while there, take them'.

Quote:
Again-- you, someone who thinks Obama might be a terrorist sympathizer and whose life's dream is to evolve into a horse, is calling someone an idiot?

Again, you come very close to flaming... please do try to be civil.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

Idiocy? Let me get this straight -- you're calling former lieutenant colonel and military prosecutor Darrel Vandeveld an idiot?

Negative. He was perfectly correct that the evidence gathered was inappropriate and inadequate for US-style trials. It would be idiocy, however, to expect otherwise from such a chaotic place. Especially when most of the people gathering that evidence had little or no training in how to do so other than 'if you find any important-looking documents while there, take them'.


You have no idea what you are talking about. This isn't about a "crime scene" and it isn't about
"'if you find any important-looking documents while there, take them'" as you hilariously put it. This is about conducting interrogation activities at Guantanamo Bay.

It's that Guantanamo Bay itself, supposedly the great new tool in the WOT, has

Quote:
"complete lack of organization" (that) has affected nearly all cases at Guantanamo Bay

and Guantanamo's evidence involves
Quote:

alleged physical and psychological abuse ... by Afghan police and the U.S. military,

and
Quote:

reliance on evidence that was later found to be missing, false or unreliable.

Apparently you didn't even skim the article or you failed to comprehend it before spouting off about others "idiocy" .
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The detainees of Guantanamo bay are illegal combatants (for the most part). They don't get the protection of POW's and they don't get the protection of the constitution. They fall under the same category as spies, and therefore most of them could be summarily executed without violating international law. The USA is to be commended for not doing so, and trying to get them fair trials.


Thanks Ocalhoun, you put the finger exactly on it for me.

Handfleisch, the media is there to create sensational reports. You seem to be focussing exclusively on the darkest of them. I'm getting a little tired of reading them as they are beginning to repeat themselves as well. Same stories over and over again.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The detainees of Guantanamo bay are illegal combatants (for the most part). They don't get the protection of POW's and they don't get the protection of the constitution. They fall under the same category as spies, and therefore most of them could be summarily executed without violating international law. The USA is to be commended for not doing so, and trying to get them fair trials.


Thanks Ocalhoun, you put the finger exactly on it for me.

Handfleisch, the media is there to create sensational reports. You seem to be focussing exclusively on the darkest of them. I'm getting a little tired of reading them as they are beginning to repeat themselves as well. Same stories over and over again.

This is nonsense.
a) The execution of spies is NOT condoned by international law. I suggest you check the Hague convention - particularly articles 30 and 31.
b) Many of the detainees at GITMO are not spies by any reasonable definition of the word. Illegal combatant is an invented phrase. Presumably resistance fighters in France and Italy during WW2 would, by your definition, have been 'spies'? You should choose your side carefully.....
c) The US is to be, and is, roundly condemned for GITMO. It is an obscenity.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

1. Why are you going on about the Middle East in reply to a post about the constitutional tragedy and failure that is Guantanamo Bay?

Possibly to point out the idiocy of expecting documents and evidence to be collected with the same organization and careful procedures found in US crime scenes.

The detainees of Guantanamo bay are illegal combatants (for the most part). They don't get the protection of POW's and they don't get the protection of the constitution. They fall under the same category as spies, and therefore most of them could be summarily executed without violating international law. The USA is to be commended for not doing so, and trying to get them fair trials.


I somewhat cringe at this.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
This is nonsense.
a) The execution of spies is NOT condoned by international law. I suggest you check the Hague convention - particularly articles 30 and 31.
b) Many of the detainees at GITMO are not spies by any reasonable definition of the word. Illegal combatant is an invented phrase. Presumably resistance fighters in France and Italy during WW2 would, by your definition, have been 'spies'? You should choose your side carefully.....
c) The US is to be, and is, roundly condemned for GITMO. It is an obscenity.


Chris, it would be wonderful if international law could be as black and white as your posting indicates it to be. This is a grey area. Realities in warfare has changed radically since WW2. Sept11 is a good example of that and so is Mumbai. We have to do with ruthless killers of the most skilled and expert variety for whom there are no rules whatsoever. I doubt you could compare them with resistance fighers. Think there is a great difference here. Only problem for me is that the US did GITMO badly.

Regarding the treatment of "illegal combatant" I found an article at the URL below. I don't think it provides any answers, but it does underline how grey this area really is.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug02/law.asp
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

b) Many of the detainees at GITMO are not spies by any reasonable definition of the word. Illegal combatant is an invented phrase. Presumably resistance fighters in France and Italy during WW2 would, by your definition, have been 'spies'? You should choose your side carefully.....

Spies... not really, illegal combatants? Yes they were. Come to think of it, many of them probably did engage in espionage against the Nazis.
(As for being an invented term, all terms are invented terms. Though I'm not sure who invented this term, the US government uses it to describe one of the three categories of people in a war-zone: combatants, non-combatants, and illegal combatants. Illegal combatants are people who would normally be protected by the Geneva conventions as non-combatants, but who sacrifice that protection by fighting. This group would include spies, enemy combatants in disguise (who don't have non-combatant status anyway, but who sacrifice POW status), civilians taking up arms (without organizing into a uniformed force), military chaplains or doctors who engage in combat, and possibly some others that I forgot.)

I will have to do some research on the rights of illegal combatants that are captured though...
From what I've been trained though, I know that POW status is what protects captured enemies from mistreatment or execution, but that illegal combatants don't get POW status.
liljp617
There is little research to be done. It's referred as being a civilized human being. You need some kind of legal document that tells you whether or not you should/can torture another individual because you slapped some goofy label on him/her to suit your desires?
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
There is little research to be done. It's referred as being a civilized human being. You need some kind of legal document that tells you whether or not you should/can torture another individual because you slapped some goofy label on him/her to suit your desires?

*sigh*
That's the difference between something being legal and being moral. You're right in that there is little research to be done to decide if it is moral or not, but what is legal can often be more difficult to determine.


(Unrelated: Yay! I think I just became the first non-staff Frihoster to reach 5000 posts!)
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
There is little research to be done. It's referred as being a civilized human being. You need some kind of legal document that tells you whether or not you should/can torture another individual because you slapped some goofy label on him/her to suit your desires?


Hey, liljp617, how's your head? And how's the brick wall?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
And how's the brick wall?

<.<
The brick wall's feeling just fine, thank you.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
There is little research to be done. It's referred as being a civilized human being. You need some kind of legal document that tells you whether or not you should/can torture another individual because you slapped some goofy label on him/her to suit your desires?

*sigh*
That's the difference between something being legal and being moral. You're right in that there is little research to be done to decide if it is moral or not, but what is legal can often be more difficult to determine.


(Unrelated: Yay! I think I just became the first non-staff Frihoster to reach 5000 posts!)


No law will ever sway my opinion of when it's okay to electrocute or drown someone for the hell of it. I wish it were the same for everyone, but I suppose it's not.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
No law will ever sway my opinion of when it's okay to electrocute or drown someone for the hell of it. I wish it were the same for everyone, but I suppose it's not.


Sept11 changed everything iljp617. Those guys are really BAD, ruthless, do not care about rules, and some very profound undertakings were made by the US Government to fight those guys on all fronts and they stuck to their word. They made a number of mistakes, but never ever gave up to this day. This is the bad part of it. In order to fight those bad people, you need to get the necessary intelligence for their movements, this is the key to preventing any terrorists from getting to the US again along the lines of Sept11. That means that the people who are involved in getting the intelligence get tainted by it. Do you think it is easy for them? Can you imagine the horrors they are facing as they grew up with the same moral education as you did, in order to protect Americans so that they can have a safe country? All the weak spots of the military are tested. Can you imagine the terrorists picking themselves apart like the US does when it checks up on its conscience about things? Or is it laughing, and actually counting on this for maximum advantage? Think the US Military is learning, and hopefully will get better at it. It did Guantánamo Bay badly.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
No law will ever sway my opinion of when it's okay to electrocute or drown someone for the hell of it. I wish it were the same for everyone, but I suppose it's not.


Sept11 changed everything iljp617. Those guys are really BAD, ruthless, do not care about rules, and some very profound undertakings were made by the US Government to fight those guys on all fronts and they stuck to their word. They made a number of mistakes, but never ever gave up to this day. This is the bad part of it. In order to fight those bad people, you need to get the necessary intelligence for their movements, this is the key to preventing any terrorists from getting to the US again along the lines of Sept11. That means that the people who are involved in getting the intelligence get tainted by it. Do you think it is easy for them? Can you imagine the horrors they are facing as they grew up with the same moral education as you did, in order to protect Americans so that they can have a safe country? All the weak spots of the military are tested. Can you imagine the terrorists picking themselves apart like the US does when it checks up on its conscience about things? Or is it laughing, and actually counting on this for maximum advantage? Think the US Military is learning, and hopefully will get better at it. It did Guantánamo Bay badly.


I can't really tell what stance you're taking or if you're just using my post as a launching pad to elaborate on something you want to talk about :O

My stance is very firm on the subject, and I don't particularly care for any excuses the Bush Administration (or anyone who took part in the actions at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) throws out.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
My stance is very firm on the subject, and I don't particularly care for any excuses the Bush Administration (or anyone who took part in the actions at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib) throws out.


So is my stance, although I am always interested in other people's point of view and if they can come with enough convincing arguments to the contrary, I am always open for change. And "no", it was not a launching pad for a new discussion. Looks as though we are going off-topic, probably need to get back to what we think about the President. I think he has lots of support, has assembled some good people around him, seems to be a man with objectives and a planner, and a man of action. I like his motto: "Yes we can". He has a tough agenda ahead of him, but seems to be the right action-oriented person for the job. Wishing the President and everyone in the US best of everything and great celebrations on Tuesday for his inauguration. Think the whole world is looking at the President and the US for future direction. As whatever happens from his office is going to have an impact on everyone in the world. Smile
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Sept11 changed everything iljp617.


It didn't change the Constitution, the rule of law, or international human rights. Your line is the neocon soundbite sprayed onto the public to exploit a time of national hysteria. Instead of "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "we are a nation of laws and principles", we got yellow alerts and institutionalized torture, which has left the country in its present morally debilitated state at home, and destroyed its image abroad as the international leader in freedom and democracy.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
And how's the brick wall?

<.<
The brick wall's feeling just fine, thank you.


I was referring to obstinance, willful ignorance and insensitivity in reaction to people being tortured and children being massacred. If you took that personally, congratulations.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Sept11 changed everything iljp617.


It didn't change the Constitution, the rule of law, or international human rights. Your line is the neocon soundbite sprayed onto the public to exploit a time of national hysteria. Instead of "nothing to fear but fear itself" or "we are a nation of laws and principles", we got yellow alerts and institutionalized torture, which has left the country in its present morally debilitated state at home, and destroyed its image abroad as the international leader in freedom and democracy.


Perhaps you missed out on the US Declaration of War on Terror of 20 September 2001? There was definitely no fear in it. Just complete determination, focus, resolution and a declaration of war against terror. The US image may have been dented, but is definitely not destroyed, contrary to what you may think. That perception is a product of the media and judging everyone else of the world by US standards. People out in the Middle East love to hate Bush, but have a total respect for the strength of the United States. For US internal security and protection, that is what really counts!

Quote:


From Transcript of Bush Declaration of War Against Terrorists
On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.

Americans have known surprise attacks, but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.

Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"

The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.

Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.

The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.

The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries.

They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan we see al Qaeda's vision for the world. Afghanistan's people have been brutalized, many are starving and many have fled.

Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough. The United States respects the people of Afghanistan -- after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid -- but we condemn the Taliban regime.

It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists.

By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder. And tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban:

-- Deliver to United States authorities all of the leaders of Al Qaeda who hide in your land.

-- Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens you have unjustly imprisoned.

-- Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country.

-- Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. And hand over every terrorist and every person and their support structure to appropriate authorities.

-- Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.

These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion.

The Taliban must act and act immediately.

They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate. I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.

The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"

They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.

We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.

We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"

We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.

And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.

From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. Our nation has been put on notice, we're not immune from attack. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans. Today, dozens of federal departments and agencies, as well as state and local governments, have responsibilities affecting homeland security.

These efforts must be coordinated at the highest level. So tonight, I announce the creation of a Cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security. And tonight, I also announce a distinguished American to lead this effort, to strengthen American security: a military veteran, an effective governor, a true patriot, a trusted friend, Pennsylvania's Tom Ridge.

He will lead, oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come. These measures are essential. The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it and destroy it where it grows.

Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents, to intelligence operatives, to the reservists we have called to active duty. All deserve our thanks, and all have our prayers. And tonight a few miles from the damaged Pentagon, I have a message for our military: Be ready. I have called the armed forces to alert, and there is a reason.

The hour is coming when America will act, and you will make us proud.

This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

We ask every nation to join us.

We will ask and we will need the help of police forces, intelligence service and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded with sympathy and with support -- nations from Latin America to Asia to Africa to Europe to the Islamic world.

Perhaps the NATO charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all. The civilized world is rallying to America's side.

They understand that if this terror goes unpunished, their own cities, their own citizens may be next. Terror unanswered can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.

And you know what? We're not going to allow it.

Americans are asking, "What is expected of us?"

I ask you to live your lives and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight, and I ask you to be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.

I ask you to uphold the values of America and remember why so many have come here.

We're in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith.

I ask you to continue to support the victims of this tragedy with your contributions. Those who want to give can go to a central source of information, Libertyunites.org, to find the names of groups providing direct help in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your cooperation, and I ask you to give it. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter security and for your patience in what will be a long struggle.

I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source.

America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today.

And finally, please continue praying for the victims of terror and their families, for those in uniform and for our great country. Prayer has comforted us in sorrow and will help strengthen us for the journey ahead. Tonight I thank my fellow Americans for what you have already done and for what you will do.

And ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, I thank you, their representatives, for what you have already done and for what we will do together.

Tonight we face new and sudden national challenges. We will come together to improve air safety, to dramatically expand the number of air marshals on domestic flights and take new measures to prevent hijacking.

We will come together to promote stability and keep our airlines flying with direct assistance during this emergency.

We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home.

We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike.

We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.

Tonight, we welcome two leaders who embody the extraordinary spirit of all New Yorkers, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

As a symbol of America's resolve, my administration will work with Congress and these two leaders to show the world that we will rebuild New York City.

After all that has just passed, all the lives taken and all the possibilities and hopes that died with them, it is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear.

Some speak of an age of terror. I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them.

As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror. This will be an age of liberty here and across the world.

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment.

Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom, the great achievement of our time and the great hope of every time, now depends on us.

Our nation, this generation, will lift the dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail.

It is my hope that in the months and years ahead life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines and that is good.

Even grief recedes with time and grace.

But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.

Some will remember an image of a fire or story or rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.

And I will carry this. It is the police shield of a man named George Howard who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others.

It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. It is my reminder of lives that ended and a task that does not end.

I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice, assured of the rightness of our cause and confident of the victories to come.

In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom and may he watch over the United States of America. Thank you.


http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/
Nick2008
So much scrolling, any chance we could shorten the article and then say "Read More: Link Here"?

The topic is "What do you think of our new President."

Not sure why we are talking about Bush and the declaration on Terror. Did Bush get his 3rd term?

Now if we are talking about Obama... well, I can't say much. I guess time will tell.
deanhills
Nick2008 wrote:
So much scrolling, any chance we could shorten the article and then say "Read More: Link Here"?

The topic is "What do you think of our new President."

Not sure why we are talking about Bush and the declaration on Terror. Did Bush get his 3rd term?

Now if we are talking about Obama... well, I can't say much. I guess time will tell.


Agreed. Think I was trying to emulate Handfleisch with his many news articles. In one serious go! I also tried to illustrate that US direction took a major change as a result of Sept11. The President made a declaration of war against terror. That set a completely new course for the US. Maybe people have forgotten about it?

Bush was the President at the time when the thread started, but right again, we have a new President. Time will tell!
lagoon
I think to be honest that Bush's greatest mistake wasn't Iraq, but his failure to act efficiently to the news of Hurricane Katrina.
ocalhoun
lagoon wrote:
I think to be honest that Bush's greatest mistake wasn't Iraq, but his failure to act efficiently to the news of Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed: given recent news from the country, Iraq is one of the two things Bush could claim as a success.

*edit*

But the Katrina response can hardly be blamed on the president. Do you really think that Bush was personally involved in planning the details of the response to that hurricane?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
But the Katrina response can hardly be blamed on the president. Do you really think that Bush was personally involved in planning the details of the response to that hurricane?


Totally agreed. I remember Bush had said at his last press conference that removing US forces from their posts overseas at great cost in addition to aid that was instantly made available to the State of Louisiana had been a tough decision to make. And yes, he was not responsible for planning of the details. I was just wondering, why was there not some blame apportioned to the Louisiana State Government? Surely theirs is a State subject to natural disasters like these such as earthquakes in California. Take for example New York and its measures, including a major investment in skilled manpower and equipment, to be completely prepared for terrorist strikes along the Sept11 lines at any times. And the level of preparedness of the Louisiana State, when a natural disaster struck?
roxys_art
It depends on what "President" you are talking about. If it's former President Bush, well, I know many disliked him because of the mess this country is in right now. I never really liked him, but at the same time, I admire him because I truly believed he did what he felt was right. He stuck to his plan and stayed on course through some really tough times.

Do I think we should be at war in Iraq? No. Do I think the economic trouble is his fault? Only partially, because as someone put it above, I think this was more because people were trying to live outside of their means. This was escalated by a bunch of policies pushed through that only acted as a bandaid while the wound underneath became worse.
deanhills
roxys_art wrote:
I admire him because I truly believed he did what he felt was right. He stuck to his plan and stayed on course through some really tough times.

Do I think we should be at war in Iraq? No. Do I think the economic trouble is his fault? Only partially, because as someone put it above, I think this was more because people were trying to live outside of their means. This was escalated by a bunch of policies pushed through that only acted as a bandaid while the wound underneath became worse.


Wow! Someone who thinks the same as I do. So right about him sticking to his plan and seeing it through. This guy was relentless and did not care about popularity when he had to make his decisions. That takes some special character. I am almost certain that when his history is written that perhaps it will be much more appreciative of his accomplishments, rather than his deficiencies, as in some whay his accomplishments were responsible for some of his deficiencies. Just a pity though that he could not improve on his social skills. He always seemed to come out with the strangest blunders when he was making his speeches or was touring the world.
Bikerman
Hmm...doing what you are convinced is right, despite advice and evidence to the contrary, is not an admirable thing for a politician, in my opinion.
History is full of politicians who 'did what they thought was right' - a few names from the last century would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao. A good politician admits that they do not know everything, takes careful advice from experts, takes coucil from the wise, makes a decision rationally and based on evidence, continually reviews that decision in the light of experience, and takes overall responsibility for that decision personally.
I do not think this applies to Bush in many regards (though it should be obvious that I am not comparing him to any of the above names).
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Hmm...doing what you are convinced is right, despite advice and evidence to the contrary, is not an admirable thing for a politician, in my opinion.
History is full of politicians who 'did what they thought was right' - a few names from the last century would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao. A good politician admits that they do not know everything, takes careful advice from experts, takes coucil from the wise, makes a decision rationally and based on evidence, continually reviews that decision in the light of experience, and takes overall responsibility for that decision personally.
I do not think this applies to Bush in many regards (though it should be obvious that I am not comparing him to any of the above names).


I believe Bush took VERY careful advice from his experts along the lines you suggested and always did it rationally based on evidence. He did not mind being unpopular and took the decisions that he thought were the best for the US in overall, even when he was not too happy about them personally. He never hesitated, and he always followed through on his decisions. I think he acted with strength, and he acted consistently in that way right from the beginning to the end of his presidency. He was obviously really clumsy with his international protocol and way he communicated with the outside world, it did not do him any favours, but he was completely dedicated to the bigger picture, rather than his own image. I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.

Ah, but are you taking into account who writes the history books?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
I believe Bush took VERY careful advice from his experts along the lines you suggested and always did it rationally based on evidence. He did not mind being unpopular and took the decisions that he thought were the best for the US in overall, even when he was not too happy about them personally. He never hesitated, and he always followed through on his decisions. I think he acted with strength, and he acted consistently in that way right from the beginning to the end of his presidency. He was obviously really clumsy with his international protocol and way he communicated with the outside world, it did not do him any favours, but he was completely dedicated to the bigger picture, rather than his own image. I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.
Well, I think you are quite wrong and I am fairly sure that historians of the future will report as much. I think Bush is probably the worst President the US has had for at least a generation, I believe he acted with a combination of arrogance, vested interest (his own) and irrationality. I believe that history will be damning to him as a dupe of vested interests, and a corrupt, as well as quite stupid, man.

Iraq was clearly a 'private' crusade. It never had anything to do with 9/11 (despite Bush's best efforts to portray otherwise), it was no threat, did not harbour or sponsor major terrorism and was, frankly, a small issue. OK Sadam was a monster - but he was a monster created largely by the US. There was no justification and certainly no imperative, to invade Iraq, and there is no doubt in my mind that the historians of the future will be clear about this and damning in their judgements.
Perhaps the most tragic element of the Bush Presidency was the squandering of genuine goodwill around the world. After 9/11 much of the world was ready to stand with the US, and even quite cynical populations, such as we in the UK, were genuinely shocked and ready to do what we could. That all began to change with the 'you are with us or against us' rhetoric that came out of the Presidency. The choice to go into Iraq was greeted here, and in most of Europe, with puzzlement at first and anger later.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.

Ah, but are you taking into account who writes the history books?


The evil, blood thirsty, baby killing liberals I suppose.
Alton_gary
i don't know him enough to like him, i question everything he does and says, i will be watching him closely and i hope he does really good and save the economy and everything else. but i somehow doubt any of that will happen. but he will be my leader come jan 20th and will be treated as such then.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.

Ah, but are you taking into account who writes the history books?


The evil, blood thirsty, baby killing liberals I suppose.


Heh. Evil, blood thirsty, baby killing terrorist-sympathizing liberals.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
History is full of politicians who 'did what they thought was right' - a few names from the last century would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao.


Don't forget Abraham Lincoln (albeit the 19th Century). Wink

R,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
History is full of politicians who 'did what they thought was right' - a few names from the last century would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao.


Don't forget Abraham Lincoln (albeit the 19th Century). Wink

R,
M

Interesting example. My US history of that period is not brilliant, but there is currently an excellent series on BBC Radio 4 covering the run-up to, course, and aftermath of the American Civil War.
I think that there is an argument to be made that the war was inevitable by the time Lincoln took office and that Lincoln tried his best to avoid it rather than 'standing on a matter of principle'.
I know that Lincoln is a pretty revered figure in the US, and I don't really know enough about the period to challenge that view, but I sometimes feel that his beatification is a tad overdone Smile
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I don't really know enough about the period to challenge that view, but I sometimes feel that his beatification is a tad overdone Smile


I don't know much about that period either, but feel the same about it. I can't understand why he is so much revered when there are other Presidents who were more involved such as Teddie Roosevelt around the turn of the century. That guy was incredible with energy, gusto, leadership abilities. Lincoln has always been a dark horse type of figure for me.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I have a feeling history when it is written one day will be much kinder to Bush than present-day analysts.

Ah, but are you taking into account who writes the history books?


The evil, blood thirsty, baby killing liberals I suppose.


Heh. Evil, blood thirsty, baby killing terrorist-sympathizing liberals.

Evil: No
Bloodthirsty: No
Baby killing: No
Terrorist-sympathizing: Mostly not
Liberals: Mostly yes.

Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I vilify them, the way some people view those they disagree with.
Bikerman wrote:
[
I think that there is an argument to be made that the war was inevitable by the time Lincoln took office and that Lincoln tried his best to avoid it rather than 'standing on a matter of principle'.

Lincoln consolidated the federal government's power over the states, using slavery as the issue that the two disagreed over. Instead of doing this slowly and peacefully, he started what is still the bloodiest war in US history. Despite several different ways that the war could have been averted, he valued his political goals as more important than millions of lives.

He is portrayed as a great man because:
1: His side won. (The good guys always win because those who win define what 'good' is.)
2: He freed the slaves (though he did so for his own goals, not for their sake).

Often history books wrongly simplify the civil war as a war of pro-slavery vs. anti-slavery, which brings me back to the subject of the writers of history books...
liljp617
Yeah, crazy liberals.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
Yeah, crazy liberals.

Where did I say 'crazy'?
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth I didn't say?
Could we have just a little mutual respect, despite differences of opinion?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I think that there is an argument to be made that the war was inevitable by the time Lincoln took office and that Lincoln tried his best to avoid it rather than 'standing on a matter of principle'.

Lincoln consolidated the federal government's power over the states, using slavery as the issue that the two disagreed over. Instead of doing this slowly and peacefully, he started what is still the bloodiest war in US history. Despite several different ways that the war could have been averted, he valued his political goals as more important than millions of lives.


Was it Lincoln who started it, or the election campaign that preceded his election as President? Viz Wikipedia:
Quote:
In the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, had campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed. The Republican victory in that election resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. Both the outgoing and incoming U.S. administrations rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.


Perhaps it had been brewing for a very long time and the election determined where everyone stood and the die had been cast even before Lincoln took office? I think Lincoln is overrated, in that he just followed the course of the inevitable. The Republicans had been sallivating for the South for a long time and he followed that course with no brakes along the bloodiest of roads. Like a boil that exploded and people just did what they had to do, and all of it ended up pretty bad in the end. Horribly bad. What could have defined him as a President with special character, is if he had tried to reconcile differences. The relentless direction he took, suited someone with pretty much rigid religious views. No doubt those would have piloted his world views too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
History is full of politicians who 'did what they thought was right' - a few names from the last century would be Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao.


Don't forget Abraham Lincoln (albeit the 19th Century). Wink

R,
M

Interesting example. My US history of that period is not brilliant, but there is currently an excellent series on BBC Radio 4 covering the run-up to, course, and aftermath of the American Civil War.
I think that there is an argument to be made that the war was inevitable by the time Lincoln took office and that Lincoln tried his best to avoid it rather than 'standing on a matter of principle'.
I know that Lincoln is a pretty revered figure in the US, and I don't really know enough about the period to challenge that view, but I sometimes feel that his beatification is a tad overdone Smile


I agree that the war was indeed inevitable by the time Lincoln took office. Any presidential responsibility for the war falls to Lincoln’s predecessor (and the worst president in U.S. history), James Buchannan.

I believe Lincoln is revered because he successfully kept the Union intact and because the war (and Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation) directly led to the abolishment of slavery after the war.

However, I mentioned Lincoln because of some of the actions he took during the war:

Lincoln declared martial law and suspended Habeas Corpus. Ohio congressman Vallandigham, an outspoken opponent of Lincoln, gave a speech in the House of Representatives of which Lincoln did not approve. In response, Lincoln had U.S. soldiers take Vallandigham into custody in the middle of the night. He was subsequently thrown into a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason, and deported from the United States. And in another incident, Supreme Court justice Roger Taney issued an opinion that only congress could suspend Habeas Corpus and therefore President Lincoln’s suspension of it violated the constitution and was therefore illegal. President Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Taney in response.

Lincoln is my favorite president, but he was a flawed man like all of us and not all of his decisions were right. And to keep the Union intact he took some extreme measures, sometimes ruling in an almost tyrannical way. (J. W. Booth and others certainly saw it that way.)

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Thanks for the summary.
Unfortunately new job committments mean that I have missed several episodes of the BBC Radio 4 series on this very matter. Fortunately they broadcast an 'omnibus' edition on Sunday so I will be listening with interest. Smile
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Thanks for the summary.
Unfortunately new job committments mean that I have missed several episodes of the BBC Radio 4 series on this very matter. Fortunately they broadcast an 'omnibus' edition on Sunday so I will be listening with interest. Smile


Sounds good. Could I find a copy of it or stream it online later? I broke my elbow in two places this evening and could use some entertainment/education while I'm laid up.

Respectfully,
M
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Thanks for the summary.
Unfortunately new job committments mean that I have missed several episodes of the BBC Radio 4 series on this very matter. Fortunately they broadcast an 'omnibus' edition on Sunday so I will be listening with interest. Smile


Sounds good. Could I find a copy of it or stream it online later? I broke my elbow in two places this evening and could use some entertainment/education while I'm laid up.

Respectfully,
M

Sorry to hear that - hope you get well soon.
The Radio 4 series is available on 'Listen Again' but I'm not sure if it operates outside the UK. By all means give it a try :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/america/

If it doesn't then let me know and I'll try to find a source which you can access.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
The Radio 4 series is available on 'Listen Again' but I'm not sure if it operates outside the UK. By all means give it a try :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/america/

If it doesn't then let me know and I'll try to find a source which you can access.


Wow Chris, this is so neat. I could receive the broadcast loud and clear in the Middle East. Have not listened to radio for ages. But this is certainly good stuff and very interesting to listen to. Smile

Moonspider wrote:
I broke my elbow in two places this evening and could use some entertainment/education while I'm laid up.

Respectfully,
M

Sorry to hear about this Moonspider. Real darn luck! If you are laid up, maybe we will get more of your good postings, or is it the writing elbow which got broken?
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
The Radio 4 series is available on 'Listen Again' but I'm not sure if it operates outside the UK. By all means give it a try :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/america/

If it doesn't then let me know and I'll try to find a source which you can access.


Wow Chris, this is so neat. I could receive the broadcast loud and clear in the Middle East. Have not listened to radio for ages. But this is certainly good stuff and very interesting to listen to. Smile

Yes, I am a huge fan of Radio 4. The programmes are often repeated on the BBC World Service - I'm not sure if this series is or not.
roxys_art
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Yeah, crazy liberals.

Where did I say 'crazy'?
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth I didn't say?
Could we have just a little mutual respect, despite differences of opinion?


No, probably not. Republicans will always say Democrats are wrong, and Democrats will always say that Republicans are wrong. When their is a differing opinion - as their often is between the two parties - then it's always the "crazy" Republicans/Democrats.

Personally I think both political parties are stupid, and no one party has "the answer". Use common sense, logic, and thought. It would be much better than any political party.

I think Bill Hicks had it correct, "You want to hear what politics is in America. I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. ....Hey, wait a minute. There's one guy holding both puppets.
Bikerman
Well, I have to say that I think you are way too pessimistic.
Let's consider a case in point. I disagree fundamentally with Moonspider on many issues. We are, in some respects, at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
At the same time I find Moonspider to be an intelligent, coherent and civil opponent in debate. I might not respect the views that he holds but I do respect the way he expresses those views.
In short, I 'could do business' with a man such as that. I think regular readers will know that I certainly have strong opinions on many things.
Now, if I, as a 'leftie atheist' could 'do business' with Moonspider who is way 'to the right' of my own views, then why not others?
It is not about what you believe - it is about respecting the other persons right to believe something different, and being prepared to debate the differences in a civil manner.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:
Well, I have to say that I think you are way too pessimistic.
Let's consider a case in point. I disagree fundamentally with Moonspider on many issues. We are, in some respects, at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
At the same time I find Moonspider to be an intelligent, coherent and civil opponent in debate. I might not respect the views that he holds but I do respect the way he expresses those views.
In short, I 'could do business' with a man such as that. I think regular readers will know that I certainly have strong opinions on many things.
Now, if I, as a 'leftie atheist' could 'do business' with Moonspider who is way 'to the right' of my own views, then why not others?
It is not about what you believe - it is about respecting the other persons right to believe something different, and being prepared to debate the differences in a civil manner.


Well said, my friend. I could not agree more.

Regards,
M
deanhills
roxys_art wrote:
I think Bill Hicks had it correct, "You want to hear what politics is in America. I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs. I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking. ....Hey, wait a minute. There's one guy holding both puppets.


This is a good one? Feel the same about not one of the Political Parties having the answer. Time for a radical change in not the US but all countries who have this "either" "or" party situations.
lrj945
In response, Lincoln had U.S. soldiers take Vallandigham into custody in the middle of the night. He was subsequently thrown into a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason, and deported from the United States. The Republicans had been sallivating for the South for a long time and he followed that course with no brakes along the bloodiest of roads. Like a boil that exploded and people just did what they had to do, and all of it ended up pretty bad in the end. Horribly bad.


Despite several different ways that the war could have been averted, he valued his political goals as more important than millions of lives.
Alaskacameradude
lrj945 wrote:
In response, Lincoln had U.S. soldiers take Vallandigham into custody in the middle of the night. He was subsequently thrown into a military prison, convicted by military tribunal of treason, and deported from the United States. The Republicans had been sallivating for the South for a long time and he followed that course with no brakes along the bloodiest of roads. Like a boil that exploded and people just did what they had to do, and all of it ended up pretty bad in the end. Horribly bad.


Despite several different ways that the war could have been averted, he valued his political goals as more important than millions of lives.


Interesting, and not the usual things you hear about Lincoln as he is usually held as
a hero for 'stopping slavery'. But could there have been what we would term
these days as a 'diplomatic solution'? One which would have save countless lives?
Very interesting thoughts!
ocalhoun
Alaskacameradude wrote:

Interesting, and not the usual things you hear about Lincoln as he is usually held as
a hero for 'stopping slavery'. But could there have been what we would term
these days as a 'diplomatic solution'? One which would have save countless lives?
Very interesting thoughts!

I like to bring up the point that the civil war was not a very efficient way to free people.
There were an estimated 4 million slaves (in South and North), and to free them, we had a war that killed 6 million soldiers, and untold civilians.
slimviking
ocalhoun wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:

Interesting, and not the usual things you hear about Lincoln as he is usually held as
a hero for 'stopping slavery'. But could there have been what we would term
these days as a 'diplomatic solution'? One which would have save countless lives?
Very interesting thoughts!

I like to bring up the point that the civil war was not a very efficient way to free people.
There were an estimated 4 million slaves (in South and North), and to free them, we had a war that killed 6 million soldiers, and untold civilians.


the American Civil War killed a little over half a million people
slavery was not the major issue
darthrevan
Most people that has seen my political posts knows what I think Obama, and it is not good. Nov 6, lets change Presidents!
deanhills
I don't think Obama was one of the worst Presidents yet, however I'd have thought the US had better to offer along the line of Presidents than him for sure. Romney I think would be as bad as Obama in his total package. The US needs to fix its political system so it can offer its electorate better choices for the Presidency.
darthrevan
deanhills wrote:
I don't think Obama was one of the worst Presidents yet, however I'd have thought the US had better to offer along the line of Presidents than him for sure. Romney I think would be as bad as Obama in his total package. The US needs to fix its political system so it can offer its electorate better choices for the Presidency.


Most definitely. Maybe people should look at the alternate party as well.
jhonmarvi
Thanks for sharing.
http://www.frihost.com
jazzman
Here is some information on the President:
Quote:
President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961, to a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas. Growing up, he was also raised by his grandfather, who served in Patton’s army, and his grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to become vice president at a local bank.

After working his way through school with the help of scholarship money and student loans, President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked as an organizer to help rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.

He went on to Harvard Law School, where he was elected the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating, President Obama went on to lead one of the most successful voter registration drives in state history, and continued his legal work as a civil rights lawyer and a professor teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Barack Obama was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996. During his time in Springfield, he passed the first major ethics reform in 25 years, cut taxes for working families, and expanded health care for children and their parents. Elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, he reached across the aisle to pass the farthest-reaching lobbyist reform in a generation, lock up the world’s most dangerous weapons, and bring transparency to government by tracking federal spending online.

Barack Obama as sworn in as president on January 20th, 2009.

Source: http://www.barackobama.com/about/barack-obama/
jajarvin
Who is the President?

In my country, people choose a new president every six years.
teno
This is to post our opinion, right? So by telling my 2 cents on Barack Obama I hope I won't offend anyone!

He was a corporate candidate right from the start and proved to be one once being in office. He is just another shoe shine boy for corporations, wealthy people, big business and persues the exact same politics as Bush jun. did, just as Clinton did, just as Bush sen. did, just as Reagan did, just as Carter did, just as Nixon did, just as Johnson did, just as Kennedy did. It is not until Eisenhower and Truman that I can notice a distinctive difference in politics towards the actual 99%.

PS: Nice to see DarthRevan on a forum on politics... Very Happy ... But didn't he become a good guy in the end again?
Related topics
look at this
Smile continue....
FOR WAR OR NOT
More than 30 killed in London explosions (Al Qaeda?)
The downfall of american society
Bush 2.0
Troops in Iraq have to pay for armor?
What did Bush lie about?
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Hey
Why doesnt France contain the violence?
Anti-Saddam tendancy of our president is a good thing.
Is the death penalty wrong?
terrorism
Just when you think the Dems can't dig themselves any deeper
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.