NJ are you practicing your satire? There are extremes on the left (Castro) and right (Pat Robinson) that should be avoided.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle and have been alienated from both parties because the extremist on both sides seem to be in charge. The extremists are well organized and unduely influence the presidential nomination process of both parties.

Do the President of Iran or the leader of Hamas or Osama bin Laden fall in the middle? Those are our enemies, and the people who want to do their work have to be captured and killed until they're stopped.

the people who want to do their work have to be captured and killed until they're stopped.

How are you going to make sure that only the people who do their work are captured and killed? How do you propose to make sure that everyone with similar-sounding last names, or everyone in a particular village, or everyone that someone else, in the process of being tortured, said might possibly be involved is not rounded up, tortured, and killed in horrible ways, regardless of whether or not they actually are involved?

Or would you consider them a necessary sacrifice in the process of also getting the people who are actually responsible?

In which case, how does that make "us" any better than "them"?

Hi NJ

world strategy is not so simple :2hands:

As Hitler said " it doesnt matter which way you go if it leads you to your goal" (in french : "la fin justifie les moyens") and the result was WWII

You are right to support the fight against terrorism. But Bush and his 2 friends chose the wrong way or the wrong means. The real ennemy is the governement of Iran, and now US is not strong or not rich enough to fight as it should, because all the military power is stucked in Afganisttan and Irak.

Europeans made the same mistake in the 30tees, instead of killing the nazis in the egg (1932 trough invading Rheinland, as the treaty of Versailles gave them the right) they listened their public opinion and negociated, with the result of a powerfull Germany and the need of the help of US soldiers to win the war.

If all the billions the States spent in 1991 to rescue Koweit and 2004 to invade Irak would have been used against Iran, the situation would be much clearer. Now all the real work has still to be done, and it will cost much more. Its funny : same situation , same result, and nobody learns from the experiences from the past. If FDR (US President during WWII) would be still alive, the democrats could bring a solution, but I fears that the politicians of today dont dare to select the right solution. The only thing the world can do is hope

The hope of an happy future is in the hands of the next president. Its the responsability of each citizon of US to select the right man. Think of it and do right.

Farewell :sword:

Old bob with his memories of a strong America

Or would you consider them a necessary sacrifice in the process of also getting the people who are actually responsible?

In which case, how does that make "us" any better than "them"?

Hi Kitty

Here (I mean EU) some people think that the solution should come from the UNO. Unfortunately they are too weak to lead a world strategy and they miss the support of the States. "Si vis pacem, par bellum" To get peace, you must be ready to fight, but fight alone is wrong. Its not a question to be better but to be stronger, and US isnt it no more!

Old Bob

Or would you consider them a necessary sacrifice in the process of also getting the people who are actually responsible?

In which case, how does that make "us" any better than "them"?

 

Hi Kitty

Here (I mean EU) some people think that the solution should come from the UNO. Unfortunately they are too weak to lead a world strategy and they miss the support of the States. "Si vis pacem, par bellum" To get peace, you must be ready to fight, but fight alone is wrong. Its not a question to be better but to be stronger, and US isnt it no more!

Old Bob

Excellent points, Bob.

My use of the word "better" was in the moral sense. I think many Americans have this belief that we are superior to everyone else, just from our status as being Americans, without having to actually give it thought and back it up with behavior and actions. The result, as you say, is that the US is losing strength as well as its authority to make demands on the world community. I don't think it's hopeless yet. Depending on who we get as the next president, the US could re-establish its credibility on the world stage. (We'll leave the loss of economic power for another discussion so as to stay on the topic of Nick's blog entry ... although I guess it all does work together.)

Retaining one's ability to act ethically and morally in the face of one's fear takes courage and discipline. I believe that is a big part of what our greatest religious and spiritual leaders have tried to teach us through the ages.

We are a not a pure democracy, and neither are we a pure Republic. This nation is a democratic Republic. Not all power to legislate laws are entrusted solely to a deliberative body elected by our citizens. At the state level, we, as citizens, regularly vote up or down a series of propositions that become law based upon our vote. Those propositions may be brought before the people by their legislature or by petition of their fellow citizens, either way, people vote directly on laws that will govern them (an example are the anti-gay marriage amendments in various states).

We are also a nation founded on certain principles. We weren't created as a nation from the beginning, originally the thirteen states that founded this nation were colonies of the British King. When he took our citizens prisoner without charges, treated them poorly, passed laws without the consent of the governed, the founders of this country rebelled, establishing the greatest Democratic Republic this world has known. (last part of the sentence is my opinion)

We went to war in 1812 in part because our citizens were being apprehended without having committed a crime, and forced into abusive labor by the Navy and Army of the King of England. We went to war with pirates based out of Tripoli when they raided our ships, enslaved our people, and tortured them.

In part because the founders of our country rebelled against a King who had no respect for what the founders believed were inalienable rights granted by the Creator to ALL men, they established certain safeguards, certian principles, into our legal system. These include that no person shall be imprisoned without being charged with a crime. Every person charged with a crime has the right to face their accusers and defend against evidence brought before them, and they have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers (average citizens, not government lackeys).

Our constitution applies to our citizens and to those brought into lands that we control. That is the way the founders of this country wanted our legal system to work, so that this country would never become as rotten, as self-serving, as despicable as the government they rebelled against. They wanted this country they were creating to indeed be a country that respected the inalienable rights of all men.

The Geneva Conventions were established in an attempt to bring some civility to war. Many great nations were tired of seeing their sons come home broken shells of the men they once had been because they were not fed while imprisoned by their enemy, because their enemy tortured them, and many other negative things. The United States is not just a signer of the Conventions, the United States was a driving force behind the Conventions, in large part because the principles of the Geneva Conventions are the same exact principles upon which this country was founded.

The Geneva Conventions go so far as to say that just because another country violates the Conventions, any signatory remains obligated to the requirements of the Conventions. Why? Because a truly civilized nation does not commit uncivilized behavior just because someone else does. A civilized nation holds to its principles to the bitter end, because to be otherwise is to be the same as the barbarians we oppose.

Further, the Geneva Conventions were approved by the US Senate. They are not 'foreign laws', they are UNITED STATES LAW by an act of Congress and the President of the United States of America. We are bound by the conventions as part of our own laws, not because other countries say we are. (I hope they still teach how Treaties become law in high school).

It is my belief that since September 11, 2001, we have become a nation our founders would despise. If they could, they would strip the mantle of "United States of America" from us so that we would not share a name with the nation that they founded. We have, in short, become the barbarians we are fighting against.

When we choose to abandon the principles which once made this nation the greatest on Earth, we are diminished, we become something less than we once were. It is the sad truth that we have done this before, especially in times of war, and after the war is over, we have hung our head in shame. That is especially true when we find that the actions we took alienating the principles of our founding were not necessary and did not protect us any better. (An example, the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Not one instance of prevented attack was found by that great besmirchment of the principles of this nation, and yet we stole the property of millions and forced them into camps, denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

During Vietnam, while thousands of American Prisoners of War were being sadisticly tortured by the enemy, we prosecuted those on our side who gave in to the temptation. We did not imprison every citizen of Vietnamese descent, we were outraged at the picture of a South Vietnamese officer executing a TERRORIST with his pistol in the middle of the ravaged streets of Vietnam.

Now, in the days when the number of Americans who died on 9/11 is surpassed by the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are a nation that tolerates the imprisonment of people without their facing charges or a trial. We are a nation that allows the torture of human beings, merely so that we may feel safer behind our ivory towers and propped-up walls.

We are no longer the nation that cried "Give me liberty or give me death!" and we most definitely are not the nation that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Were we such a nation today, we would not be torturing human beings so that we might think our mother, our father, our siblings were safer (especially since they are more likely to die by a bolt of lightning than a terrorist incident). Nor would we be holding people prisoner without charging them and bringing them to trial. I for one want justice, I want to see the enemies of this nation captured, put to trial by the laws of this nation, and then executed for attempting to kill our citizens. I do not want this barbaric behavior our President had dragged us into committting.

As for Iraq, not here, not now. The mere concept that we are in that country while the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming the Pakistan mountains unchallenged, and our government has approved a peace agreement between Pakistan and Al-Quaeda brings real red to my eyes, and I really begin to wonder if your parents and siblings are any safer today than they were on September 11, 2001.

I think Nick

I did a bit of searching through some writings of the founders of the nation and what they said really suports Dkstories position on this -I got as far as Madison and Franklin and figured that was enough quotes!

JAMES MADISON -principle author of the constitution

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

***********

It's amazing to me how accurately these quotes pertain our situation now!!

-Aaron

Ben Franklin and James Madison were smart guys. I don't think they'd be happy with the state of the Union right now. But, that doesn't mean that we should give up on it. We are as much to blame for the problems we're complaining about because of our apathy as a whole. Democracy isn't a spectator sport.

And Nicko ... chill ... don't let yourself get so riled up so easily all the time.

Do the President of Iran or the leader of Hamas or Osama bin Laden fall in the middle? Those are our enemies, and the people who want to do their work have to be captured and killed until they're stopped.

No Nick. They are no where near the middle.

Typically political systems fall into a spectrum from left to right.

Far Left

Communism<===Marxism<===Democratic Socialism

(USSR)-------------(Cuba)---------(the Netherlands)

the Middle

Coalition/Parliamentarian democracy<==>Representative Republic

(UK, most of Europe)-------------------------(US)

Far Right

Oligarchy===>military Hunta====>"Strong-man" rule====>Nazism

(business-------(Thailand,Indonesia)---Iraq under Saddam------Nazi Germany

interests)

In the Middle, countries with democratically elected governments move to the left and right based on election results as the expressed will of the people. They are constrained from going too far in either direction by Constitutional mandates.

There is another system of government that doesn't fit in this model: Theocracy. There hasn't been a successful theocracy in recent history but fundamentalists factions of major religions have tried (ie. Holy Roman Empire, Iran under "the Ayatollah). bin Laden and Hezbollah are for the creation of a world-wide Islamic state based on Islamic law. This would be a holy terror to non-Muslims (infidels) who would have no rights and would be subject to execution under Sharia. They are more properly termed Islamists.

Bush's characterization of bin Laden, et al as Islamo-fascists is completely erroneous. Theocracies are outside the traditional right vs left spectrum but are very repressive and authoritarian. Punishments are extremely severe, corruption is rampant and anything that contradicts accepted doctrine is fiercely suppressed.

Islamists are the kind of religious EXTREMISTS that we had hoped that the world had grown out of. They are fanatically devoted to several causes- among which are the destruction of Israel and the US, motherhood, democracy and apple pie. We have our own extremists like Fred Phelps or Robertson. We're just don't usually elect them to any office with more responsibly than dog catcher.

All rhetoric aside, Bush is an Episcopal which is one of the mellower Christian denominations. Although Christian Fundamentalists support and are represented in his administration, Bush constantly irritates them by taking socially moderate positions.

There is another type of government that I characterize as the strong-man government. Saddam was a strong-leader because he enforced order by taking dissidents out and shooting them. A strong-man's politics can be either left or right. The strong-man rules by a cult of personality. They are characterized by being a very charismatic leaders that maintain power by appealing to popular opinion (populism). Chavez in Venezuela falls into this model as does Kim Il-Jong. These guys are quite dangerous to their own people and their neighbors as their power is completely unchecked.

JS

WOW! JS, your posts are always so impressive and informative.

You are absolutely right about the political spectrum not being just two-dimensional between left and right. There is this website that can determine your location on the political spectrum, called "Political Compass":

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Click on "take the test". It

This was very informative ... thanks for the link, Michael.

Kitty

(in good company with Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and the Dalai Lama)

the people who want to do their work have to be captured and killed until they're stopped.

How are you going to make sure that only the people who do their work are captured and killed? How do you propose to make sure that everyone with similar-sounding last names, or everyone in a particular village, or everyone that someone else, in the process of being tortured, said might possibly be involved is not rounded up, tortured, and killed in horrible ways, regardless of whether or not they actually are involved?

 

 

If they're captured on the battlefield trying to kill our troops or with bombs strapped to their chests trying to blow up innocent people, most likely, they're the ones we're looking for

Hi NJ

world strategy is not so simple :2hands:

As Hitler said " it doesnt matter which way you go if it leads you to your goal" (in french : "la fin justifie les moyens") and the result was WWII

 

You are right to support the fight against terrorism. But Bush and his 2 friends chose the wrong way or the wrong means. The real ennemy is the governement of Iran, and now US is not strong or not rich enough to fight as it should, because all the military power is stucked in Afganisttan and Irak.

 

Europeans made the same mistake in the 30tees, instead of killing the nazis in the egg (1932 trough invading Rheinland, as the treaty of Versailles gave them the right) they listened their public opinion and negociated, with the result of a powerfull Germany and the need of the help of US soldiers to win the war.

If all the billions the States spent in 1991 to rescue Koweit and 2004 to invade Irak would have been used against Iran, the situation would be much clearer. Now all the real work has still to be done, and it will cost much more. Its funny : same situation , same result, and nobody learns from the experiences from the past. If FDR (US President during WWII) would be still alive, the democrats could bring a solution, but I fears that the politicians of today dont dare to select the right solution. The only thing the world can do is hope

 

The hope of an happy future is in the hands of the next president. Its the responsability of each citizon of US to select the right man. Think of it and do right.

Farewell :sword:

Old bob with his memories of a strong America

So are you saying that we should have just let Iraq invade Kuwait and hold our citizens hostage (he also had American hostages if you do you research, you'll know that ) without acting?? That sounds like something the UN might want to do, or the democratic party would probably want to act like it wasnt happeneing, but it isn't the right thing to do.

Or would you consider them a necessary sacrifice in the process of also getting the people who are actually responsible?

In which case, how does that make "us" any better than "them"?

 

Hi Kitty

Here (I mean EU) some people think that the solution should come from the UNO. Unfortunately they are too weak to lead a world strategy and they miss the support of the States. "Si vis pacem, par bellum" To get peace, you must be ready to fight, but fight alone is wrong. Its not a question to be better but to be stronger, and US isnt it no more!

Old Bob

Excellent points, Bob.

 

My use of the word "better" was in the moral sense. I think many Americans have this belief that we are superior to everyone else, just from our status as being Americans, without having to actually give it thought and back it up with behavior and actions. The result, as you say, is that the US is losing strength as well as its authority to make demands on the world community. I don't think it's hopeless yet. Depending on who we get as the next president, the US could re-establish its credibility on the world stage. (We'll leave the loss of economic power for another discussion so as to stay on the topic of Nick's blog entry ... although I guess it all does work together.)

 

Retaining one's ability to act ethically and morally in the face of one's fear takes courage and discipline. I believe that is a big part of what our greatest religious and spiritual leaders have tried to teach us through the ages.

We are morally superiour to all nations anyway...we give our money to everyone, and they bad mouth us in return. Tax dollars that come from Americans are given away to poor countries that ought to be finding a way to exist on thier own, and yet, somehow we're this awful nation with no morals? Give me a break.

We are a not a pure democracy, and neither are we a pure Republic. This nation is a democratic Republic. Not all power to legislate laws are entrusted solely to a deliberative body elected by our citizens. At the state level, we, as citizens, regularly vote up or down a series of propositions that become law based upon our vote. Those propositions may be brought before the people by their legislature or by petition of their fellow citizens, either way, people vote directly on laws that will govern them (an example are the anti-gay marriage amendments in various states).

 

We are also a nation founded on certain principles. We weren't created as a nation from the beginning, originally the thirteen states that founded this nation were colonies of the British King. When he took our citizens prisoner without charges, treated them poorly, passed laws without the consent of the governed, the founders of this country rebelled, establishing the greatest Democratic Republic this world has known. (last part of the sentence is my opinion)

 

We went to war in 1812 in part because our citizens were being apprehended without having committed a crime, and forced into abusive labor by the Navy and Army of the King of England. We went to war with pirates based out of Tripoli when they raided our ships, enslaved our people, and tortured them.

 

In part because the founders of our country rebelled against a King who had no respect for what the founders believed were inalienable rights granted by the Creator to ALL men, they established certain safeguards, certian principles, into our legal system. These include that no person shall be imprisoned without being charged with a crime. Every person charged with a crime has the right to face their accusers and defend against evidence brought before them, and they have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers (average citizens, not government lackeys).

 

Our constitution applies to our citizens and to those brought into lands that we control. That is the way the founders of this country wanted our legal system to work, so that this country would never become as rotten, as self-serving, as despicable as the government they rebelled against. They wanted this country they were creating to indeed be a country that respected the inalienable rights of all men.

 

The Geneva Conventions were established in an attempt to bring some civility to war. Many great nations were tired of seeing their sons come home broken shells of the men they once had been because they were not fed while imprisoned by their enemy, because their enemy tortured them, and many other negative things. The United States is not just a signer of the Conventions, the United States was a driving force behind the Conventions, in large part because the principles of the Geneva Conventions are the same exact principles upon which this country was founded.

 

The Geneva Conventions go so far as to say that just because another country violates the Conventions, any signatory remains obligated to the requirements of the Conventions. Why? Because a truly civilized nation does not commit uncivilized behavior just because someone else does. A civilized nation holds to its principles to the bitter end, because to be otherwise is to be the same as the barbarians we oppose.

 

Further, the Geneva Conventions were approved by the US Senate. They are not 'foreign laws', they are UNITED STATES LAW by an act of Congress and the President of the United States of America. We are bound by the conventions as part of our own laws, not because other countries say we are. (I hope they still teach how Treaties become law in high school).

 

It is my belief that since September 11, 2001, we have become a nation our founders would despise. If they could, they would strip the mantle of "United States of America" from us so that we would not share a name with the nation that they founded. We have, in short, become the barbarians we are fighting against.

 

When we choose to abandon the principles which once made this nation the greatest on Earth, we are diminished, we become something less than we once were. It is the sad truth that we have done this before, especially in times of war, and after the war is over, we have hung our head in shame. That is especially true when we find that the actions we took alienating the principles of our founding were not necessary and did not protect us any better. (An example, the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Not one instance of prevented attack was found by that great besmirchment of the principles of this nation, and yet we stole the property of millions and forced them into camps, denying them liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

 

During Vietnam, while thousands of American Prisoners of War were being sadisticly tortured by the enemy, we prosecuted those on our side who gave in to the temptation. We did not imprison every citizen of Vietnamese descent, we were outraged at the picture of a South Vietnamese officer executing a TERRORIST with his pistol in the middle of the ravaged streets of Vietnam.

 

Now, in the days when the number of Americans who died on 9/11 is surpassed by the number of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are a nation that tolerates the imprisonment of people without their facing charges or a trial. We are a nation that allows the torture of human beings, merely so that we may feel safer behind our ivory towers and propped-up walls.

 

We are no longer the nation that cried "Give me liberty or give me death!" and we most definitely are not the nation that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Were we such a nation today, we would not be torturing human beings so that we might think our mother, our father, our siblings were safer (especially since they are more likely to die by a bolt of lightning than a terrorist incident). Nor would we be holding people prisoner without charging them and bringing them to trial. I for one want justice, I want to see the enemies of this nation captured, put to trial by the laws of this nation, and then executed for attempting to kill our citizens. I do not want this barbaric behavior our President had dragged us into committting.

 

As for Iraq, not here, not now. The mere concept that we are in that country while the REAL perpetrators of 9/11 are roaming the Pakistan mountains unchallenged, and our government has approved a peace agreement between Pakistan and Al-Quaeda brings real red to my eyes, and I really begin to wonder if your parents and siblings are any safer today than they were on September 11, 2001.

There are so many mistakes in what you wrote I hardly know where to start. First of all, we arent a democratic republic...we're a constitutional republic. Second, we weren't founded on principals, we were founded on liberty. The people rule this nation, not one person or a few guys in a room in the Whitehouse. The people elected George Bush twice, and it infuriates the democrats that not only did he stomp Gore and Kerry, but he also has both houses of Congress. Most likely, he'll keep them in November too.

You say that we were once the greatest nation on earth, but I think you need to look around...we're still the greatest nation on earth......I wouldn't move to another country for all the money in the world, and even if the terrorists were fighting us right here on our own soil, I'd want to stay here and fight. I'm not saying you wouldn't either, but I bet most of your sissy democrat friends wouldn't be willing to do that

I did a bit of searching through some writings of the founders of the nation and what they said really suports Dkstories position on this -I got as far as Madison and Franklin and figured that was enough quotes!

 

JAMES MADISON -principle author of the constitution

 

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

 

"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."

 

"We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties."

 

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

 

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

 

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

 

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

 

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

 

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

 

***********

It's amazing to me how accurately these quotes pertain our situation now!!

 

-Aaron

Here's the problem, Aaron....we're really fighting an enemy that wants to kill us.....remember 9-11? They came here and attacked us first, and now we're fighting them in their land. If we weren't doing it there, we'd have to do it here.

Do the President of Iran or the leader of Hamas or Osama bin Laden fall in the middle? Those are our enemies, and the people who want to do their work have to be captured and killed until they're stopped.

 

No Nick. They are no where near the middle.

 

Typically political systems fall into a spectrum from left to right.

 

Far Left

Communism<===Marxism<===Democratic Socialism

(USSR)-------------(Cuba)---------(the Netherlands)

 

the Middle

Coalition/Parliamentarian democracy<==>Representative Republic

(UK, most of Europe)-------------------------(US)

Far Right

Oligarchy===>military Hunta====>"Strong-man" rule====>Nazism

(business-------(Thailand,Indonesia)---Iraq under Saddam------Nazi Germany

interests)

 

In the Middle, countries with democratically elected governments move to the left and right based on election results as the expressed will of the people. They are constrained from going too far in either direction by Constitutional mandates.

 

There is another system of government that doesn't fit in this model: Theocracy. There hasn't been a successful theocracy in recent history but fundamentalists factions of major religions have tried (ie. Holy Roman Empire, Iran under "the Ayatollah). bin Laden and Hezbollah are for the creation of a world-wide Islamic state based on Islamic law. This would be a holy terror to non-Muslims (infidels) who would have no rights and would be subject to execution under Sharia. They are more properly termed Islamists.

 

Bush's characterization of bin Laden, et al as Islamo-fascists is completely erroneous. Theocracies are outside the traditional right vs left spectrum but are very repressive and authoritarian. Punishments are extremely severe, corruption is rampant and anything that contradicts accepted doctrine is fiercely suppressed.

 

Islamists are the kind of religious EXTREMISTS that we had hoped that the world had grown out of. They are fanatically devoted to several causes- among which are the destruction of Israel and the US, motherhood, democracy and apple pie. We have our own extremists like Fred Phelps or Robertson. We're just don't usually elect them to any office with more responsibly than dog catcher.

 

All rhetoric aside, Bush is an Episcopal which is one of the mellower Christian denominations. Although Christian Fundamentalists support and are represented in his administration, Bush constantly irritates them by taking socially moderate positions.

 

There is another type of government that I characterize as the strong-man government. Saddam was a strong-leader because he enforced order by taking dissidents out and shooting them. A strong-man's politics can be either left or right. The strong-man rules by a cult of personality. They are characterized by being a very charismatic leaders that maintain power by appealing to popular opinion (populism). Chavez in Venezuela falls into this model as does Kim Il-Jong. These guys are quite dangerous to their own people and their neighbors as their power is completely unchecked.

JS

I would think that anyone who wants to kill people who don't believe the same things they do are facists, like Hitler was. Remember the holocaust?

Ben Franklin and James Madison were smart guys. I don't think they'd be happy with the state of the Union right now. But, that doesn't mean that we should give up on it. We are as much to blame for the problems we're complaining about because of our apathy as a whole. Democracy isn't a spectator sport.

And Nicko ... chill ... don't let yourself get so riled up so easily all the time.

There's that pesky word again...we should be thanking God (or whoever you happen to worship) that we aren't a democracy...if we were, maniacs like Fred Phelps could have his followers vote that we all follow one religion....that's what a democracy is. It's mob rule. We're a consitutional republic, and that gives us all an equal voice

oh yeah, I'm not riled up, David...I'm having fun getting everyone else riled up. You should know that by now

I think Nick

I would think that anyone who wants to kill people who don't believe the same things they do are facists, like Hitler was. Remember the holocaust?

Nope. Just plain ole garden variety religious bigots.

Fascism is a political ideology that is associated with one or more of the following characteristics: 1) a very high degree of nationalism, 2) centralized control of private enterprise (corporatism), and, after it attains political control of a country, involves 3) a powerful executive-centered (or even dictatorial) state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it (authoritarianism.) Fascism also typically calls for the regeneration of the nation, uses populist appeals to unity, and extols militarism as a major virtue. From Wikipedia definition

Islamist ideology differs significantly from fascism. It isn't about nationalism or racial superiority. The basis for inclusion/exclusion is strictly religious. The Islamists do pass the fascism test in that they tend to favor Central control and authoritarian rule however that rule is placed in the hands of the clergy (Imans, Mullahs).

This is a case where it walks like a duck and tallks like a duck but it's really a turkey.

Theocracy is a form of government in which the divine power (in monotheisms the one God) governs an earthly human state, either in person (e.g. as incarnation in a human) or, more often, via its religious institutional representative(s) (e.g. church, temple, mosque), either replacing or dominating the organs of civil government as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s). From Wikipedia definition

This definition more clearly defines what the Islamists seek.

Central to what the Islamists seek is Islamic law or Sharia. If you check the link and see what that's about, you'll seek that it would be a real nightmare.

It's all a simply of sematics. Oppression of any peoples free will based on ideology, religion, race or national origin is repugnant to Americans of any political perspective.

Someone said it a lot better and in fewer words than I did.

"This will not stand."

G. W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2001

I think we can all agree on that.

 

Someone said it a lot better and in fewer words than I did.

 

"This will not stand."

 

G. W. Bush, Sept. 12, 2001

 

I think we can all agree on that.

I agree with it, but the problem is, most Democrats don't feel that way....they act like they'd rather see the terrorists win as long as it means a defeat for the Bush administration.

But Michael, if I did all the things on your list, how could I make people's blood boil?

Nick, you make my blood boil with your stories. Bodega Bay did it for me, as well as My Jump Off and Staking My Claim, and even your poems.

In fact you have a talent for making people's blood boil, and that's why we all love you so much.

Hey Nick, why don't you write a poem about the 9/11 attack? I know it's going to be a very painful and powerful poem, and it will certainly make people's blood boil.

Hugs,

Michael.

You know Nick; it just occurred to me that you don