Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who should be our next Commander in Chief?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
    As I read this thread, the terrifying thought that the Americans here are about to choose the next Leader of the Free World and I have absolutely no say in the matter.

    I am sorry but I really find this statement really offensive. The US President the leader of the free world??

    The last I recall, the US president is not the leader of a 1 billion free people. Prime Minister M Singh is.

    India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.

    There is no such thing as the leader of the free world. It is bullshit.

    Comment


    • #47
      India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.
      India isn't free [yet]l

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Praxus
        India isn't free [yet]l

        And what makes you so qualified to make that judgement???

        The last time I looked, India elected a leader through peaceful elections with very little violence happening.

        Or is some typical bullshit you like to pull out of your ass and throw it around?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Praxus
          India isn't free [yet]l
          WTF is that for ? And who the F are you to decide whats free and what is not??
          A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Blademaster
            I am sorry but I really find this statement really offensive. The US President the leader of the free world??

            The last I recall, the US president is not the leader of a 1 billion free people. Prime Minister M Singh is.

            India is a free country and sure didn't elect the US President as the leader of the free world.

            There is no such thing as the leader of the free world. It is bullshit.
            But India is not able to dictate policy outside her borders. The US is, even within India (the Evil Empire anyone? I don't mean the Soviets unless they happenned to be lead by the Supreme Chancellor Bill Gates).

            What I mean is that we cannot and will not elect the next leader of the most powerful country on earth which naturally will have a profound effect on all international relationships. Doesn't mean that the next POTUS can dictate what goes on in India or Canada. What it does mean is that the POTUS can say yay or nay to alot of Indian (and Canadian) international dealings.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Praxus
              While he is at it he should fire Secretary of State Collin Powel!

              At every turn he trys to appease the enemy and the rest of the world.
              General Collin Powell was a soldier given a statesman's job. His job is to make peace. And given a soldier's high distaste for war, he will go the extra mile before spilling the first drop of American blood. For that, I cannot and will not fault him.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
                General Collin Powell was a soldier given a statesman's job. His job is to make peace. And given a soldier's high distaste for war, he will go the extra mile before spilling the first drop of American blood. For that, I cannot and will not fault him.
                I'm gonna agree with the Colonel on that one. Everyone has heard the rumors of the Secretary voicing opposing viewpoints to what the Administrations policy is, as OOE stated he knows the price of war and the sacrifice it warrants.

                I will say though you would be hard pressed to find an actual public statement from Sec. Powell dissenting from the Administrations platform. Generally it seems to be leaked information that we hear about.

                Also with regards to the United States role in the Post-Cold War world we could start another thread and add up 50 pages of opinions. For an American to say that the President is the leader of the free world is a stretch, yet at the same time its not. POTUS policy reverberates throughout the world.
                They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                --Benjamin Franklin

                There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.--John Adams

                Comment


                • #53
                  And what makes you so qualified to make that judgement???

                  The last time I looked, India elected a leader through peaceful elections with very little violence happening.

                  Or is some typical bullshit you like to pull out of your ass and throw it around?
                  I didn't mean to insult India. My point was that India has made some great progress, but still isn't to the point where I would label it one of the freeer countries on the planet.

                  Then again I deem the US to not be very free either, so my scale is probley scewed;)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by phalanx
                    I'm gonna agree with the Colonel on that one.
                    Me too...
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Praxus,

                      That's a nice one. I am glad that you retracted.

                      India is as free and close as one can get to freedom. You have your own way to the goal and we have ours. The goal is the same. No country can acheive it since freedom means being existence beyond repression. So long as their is society, government, arms, laws, etc, no one can be beyond repression or free do what their heart actually wants them to do. Freedom in its true sense is utopia.

                      Colonel,

                      There is a difference between 'Leader of the Free World' and 'Leader of the most Powerful Country in the World', as I see it.

                      The first one, to my mind, is rhetoric. It is as 'cavernous' as 'we will smoke them out'. There is a lot of smoke but those who were to be smoked out are coughing (not choking as yet) and are not out, even though I wish they were really smoked out. Osama is scampering around the rugged hills like a mountain rat gleefully and Musharraf is playing ring a ring a roses and I posted a letter to my sweetheart. While all around the world smokescreens are spouting to disrupt, distrat and obfuscate the quest.

                      If the US is the example of the 'Free World', I am afraid that the US alone is symbolising it, since no other country has the same matrix in policy and the same matrix in implementation as the US. It is an example by itself. Apparently, it looks like its in a stand alone mode.

                      Let me explain.

                      Canada is singular in its way to progress and freedom and so is Europe and so is Asia and Africa and Australia. So, if one compares any of the countries with the matrices of the US (which claims to be the leader of the free world), it will found that all countries are disparate in their own ways. Therefore, while they are 'free', they are not similar to the US and obviously to the Americans (if they apply their matrices), they would find that no other country is 'free'! Pardoxical to say the least to citizens of other countries, who feel they are free and have no serious grievances with their countries.

                      India is an independent country and has many goals similar to the US. She is she and she never can be the US. Her social, economical, industrial etc difference would be totally singular and cannot emulate the US. If she implemented everything that the US has (which it cannot do owing to cultural disparity and no where near the US in economic or military might etc) she would totally disoriented and finally collapse!

                      Further, if she followed the 'Leader of the Free World', then she would not be 'free', because she would be conforming to the dictates of the 'Leader'. She would then at best be a 'vassal state'.

                      That is my view and I don't claim that it is THE view or that I am correct totally. Just food for thought.
                      Last edited by Ray; 17 Aug 04,, 07:07.


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        A friend of mine read what my opinions are on both candidates, she decided to write me back and I want to share it with all of you ( I was not in the mood to place it as a new thread because it is related to the policies implemented by Bush anyway):
                        __________________________________________________ _____________

                        It's crazy!!! For those of us who live in the middle class George Bush has screwed us royally, which brings me to my next point.

                        I don't think (or at least I have not heard any one say) any American is against our troops. They are always highly respected because they are the most vulnerable. When a President lies and sends our sons and daughters to die in an unjust war; however, he (that is G.B.) divides this nation & its troop. While many have been de-briefed and quietly assimilated back into their mid-America life, the stories are still coming out about some of the terrible things Bush and Ashcroft and the group have involved them in. Also, I don't think that getting angry with our troops for human rights violations can be ignored. Put simply, it is not Un-American to call our troops out when they do wrong. If your child goes out and kills another child at school, you can't just say "he's a good child and always have been....the other kid must have done it." As the global leader, we cannot kill innocent civilians in violation to dozens of treaties and conventions and then turn our backs and accuse those who want accountability (and want to prevent such instances from happening again) and say, "You are un-American, you must support our troops no matter what they do b/c they are fighting for me." Let's be clear: I don't want ONE innocent life taken so I can drive an SUV or for any other reason. (For some reasons, Americans have come to believe their lives are much more important than other people). It is arrogant and only adds fuel to the fire, which is what I think GB is doing (in hopes of creating more terrorism so he can justify his presidential actions) in effect only puts our boys in harms away more. Anything American gets the blame. So your scenario of "show support" is not so simple, though the overall goal may be. In other words, SUPPORT our troops, but never blindly. Whether we like it or not, the images of Abu Gharib will hunt us for years to come SIMPLY because they were AMERICAN TROOPS....the putative liberators. And also, Christine, we must remember that Iraqis NEVER asked for our help. This was initiated by G.B. for divert Americans that Osama has not been found and to finish the Bush legacy. The claim that "everyone ask for our help, then just turns their back" cannot hold true here.
                        __________________________________________________ ____

                        Can't wait....

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Ray, national independence is not the same thing as individual freedom. I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom? I'm not talking about India, but the point is not to confuse "independence" with "freedom" A so-called vassal state can still be free, even if its not independent (and following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime). If Canada became an oppressive dicatorship I would like to have India invade and implement its laws on Canada. Foreign leadership does not always have to mean oppression.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Sir,

                            My apologies but you're talking to an old dog who has not learned new tricks. "Free World" has been drummed into my head as the NATO countries and the US is undoubtly our leader.

                            Christine,

                            As a former Officer of an Allied army, I can assure you that your soldiers hold themselves more accountable than you ever imagine. The USArmy went after Abu Gharib with no holds bar. Relatively speaking what happenned at Abu Gharib is child's play compared to the PoW courses that I've been on. No non-Western army would think anything out of the ordinary here. Abu Gharib is an issue because the USArmy made it an issue and that should serve to reassue you of your soldiers' professionalism.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Folks,

                              Sorry I didn't realise so quick reactions.

                              I changed (minor) the above post first and then when it opened I realised that you all have responded.


                              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                              HAKUNA MATATA

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                                Ray, national independence is not the same thing as individual freedom. I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom? I'm not talking about India, but the point is not to confuse "independence" with "freedom" A so-called vassal state can still be free, even if its not independent (and following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime). If Canada became an oppressive dicatorship I would like to have India invade and implement its laws on Canada. Foreign leadership does not always have to mean oppression.
                                This post is from the academic point of view.

                                >>I mean, who really cares if a country is independent if its government suppresses individual freedom?

                                Then, the bottom-line is merely that it is a matter of convenience. Then, what's all this about giving "Freedom and Democracy" to Iraq? Then
                                1. What is the exact meaning of 'Free World'? Dies it mean Dictatorships are acceptable because they toe the line but suppress their citizens? There is no end to that as far as the US is concerned.
                                2. What is this Freedom and Democracy we are taking about?

                                Are you suggesting that when Iraq gassed, it was OK. Rumsfeld himself visited. Are you suggesting that suddenly the people found their conscience?? What is the psychology that took them that long? Were they plumb dumb? Are you suggesting that?

                                Vassal means:

                                1. a person who held land under the feudal system, doing homage and pledging fealty to an overlord, and performing military or other duties in return for his protection; feudal tenant.
                                2. a subordinate, subject, servant, slave.

                                A vassal state means instead of ‘person’ substitute ‘state’. The dictionary meaning does not suggest a vassal to either free or pursuing democracy. Rather odd to be that as is being suggested that a vassal is free and also in bondage!

                                >> following the US does not make one a vassel state because the nation is free to stop following anytime

                                It does. A nation must follow her national interest. The suggestion that it’s being free to be a vassal (follower) and then decides to break the bondage is to be free!

                                Under no circumstance will I condone if India invade any country just because the Indian govt decides a country is being oppressed. Let the people of that country decide. If the world community decides a country is being oppressed and want our help, we will do it only then.

                                What is sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander is my way of looking at things.


                                "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                                I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                                HAKUNA MATATA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X