It was most unfortunate that the current Bush administration proclaimed the doctrin of "pre-emptive strike" as the "right" and policy of the United States.
Such a wanton and irresponsible national policy has undoubtedly caused the U.S. to be viewed as Imperilistic by much of the rest of the world, and greatly damaged the traditional image of being the protector of Liberty, Freedom, and Justice.
I would like to propose that the Unity08 movement, and the candidates to be considered for the presidential nomination make a clear and unequivocal repudiation and renouncement on Pre-emptive Strike.
By the way, I would also like to nominate Al Gore (D-TN) as the presidential candidate, and Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE)as the Vice-presidential candidate.
kflin
I am behind you 100% on this issue.
War needs to be a last resort. In the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, Nazi Germany was charged with "Waging Aggressive War" - that's exactly what we did in Iraq.
That Iraq had chemical and/or biological weapons was a widely held belief, but even if they did have them, there was no imminent threat, so "preemtive" wasn't even justified. The same hysteria is being tried now with respect to Iran. That Iraq and Iran are sitting on oil is merely a coincidence....
Because of chicken hawks, we now have more Americans dead in Iraq than Bin Laden killed...
Al Gore is fine with me, Mike Castle I don't know about.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69
Nuremberg is the first thing you should bring up with to refute the neoconservative idea of pre-emptive war.
Most all our wars have been preemptive if you really look at them starting with the Barbary Corsairsin the 18tn Century - our continental Homeland has rarely been impinged on directly except for the Brits in 1812 and the argument can be made that we precipitated that affair. We should never foreclose using ANY option including preemption. It should be a last resort for sure but do NOT preclude it - we need all the tools in our quiver. Wehave in the past, but we need to learn to use it in some rational Strategic context that is true to our vital national interests and our values as a nation.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
I support you when it comes to stoping these pre-emptive strikes. This policy is lunacy and a DANGER to the country and the world. I also am fine with Al Gore I don't know Castle.
Our entire defense strategy for the last 60 years has been one of pre-emption. Do you suggest that if a missle is on it's way we should wait until it strikes? If a gun is aimed at our head must we wait until we see the muzzle flash? As for Iran, our people in Iraq are currently under fire from them. When we invaded Iraq, I was not sure it was a good idea, not because we had no cause (they had been shooting at us ever since the gulf war), or because I didn't think we could win, but because we have no stomach for it. When I heard we had invaded, I said it would take 10 years to settle it, and the modern American won't accept that. Even though we STILL have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea. Given our progress in Iraq so far, his willingness to run roughshod over our God given rights, and his willingness to spend like a democrat(along with too many other republicans), the only good thing I can say about G W Bush is that he is not John Kerry or Al Gore. If either of these had been elected, we would probably be sweeping up the remains of another American city.
I was horrified by the republican debate in which so many of the candidates said that they would not only use a first strike but a nuclear first strike to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. This is insane! Such an action would revoke any moral high ground we have on this issue and prove to the rest of the world that we are even less worthy of having nuclear weapons than Iran.
War should be used as a last resort once all other diplomatic options have been exhausted anyway.
We are close to being able to plunder Iraq's oil, Iran is the next logical step. The terror BS is just a cover. Pakistan has Islamic crazies, has nukes, but no saber-rattling about Pakistan, because Pakistan isn't sitting on oil!
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Dude, the real reason we don't do anything about Pakistan and its nukes is that A) they already have them, B) we'd have to disarm India too, and C) they at least have a rational government that isn't insisting on the death of every Jew in the Middle East. It has almost nothing to do with oil at all, and the Pakistani government has also been at least loosely allied to our interests for decades. Afghanistan didn't have any oil either, but we went in there because they were backing al-Qaeda and firmly allied with global jihadism.
Also, close to plundering Iraq's oil? So far, oil prices have only gone up; I firmly believe you're wrong about this, no matter who gets into the White House next time around. I don't care if Iran is sitting on billions of barrels of oil or camel shit; their government is in the hands of certifiable lunatics that deny the Holocaust ever happened and think the solution to all the world's problems is the death of its Jews and Americans. Listen to their rhetoric sometime; they mean what they say, and hope to have the force to carry it out soon.
Phil Rowlands, Stoughton WI
1st Recon Bn., 1st Mar. Div. `82-`86
I don't think that's what I heard, I think they said thy would not take it off the table. We should never take any military response off the table. this would give our enemies a specific factor in deciding how much they are willing to sacrifice in order to defeat us. As long as total annihilation is a possible response, there is no risk to gain ratio.
The biggest threat America faces is from acts of terrorism carried out by foreign and home grown terrorists, supported by Radical Islamic Groups ..
A Pre-emptive Strike against IRAN will do nothing to reduce or eliminate that threat : it can only give moderates on the fence a reason to takes sides against us ..
WE have options : 485 American companies are helping to prop up the economy of the current Iranian Government, eliminate that source of revenue and a change in Government is almost a certainty ...
Focusing on maximizing our programs for intelligence gathering on the ground, and strengthening our rapid response capabilities - unhampered by unreasonable and un-necessary restraints SHOULD BE OUR PRIORITY NOW ..
Recent events in Britain, provide a dramatic lesson as to what a mere handful of civilian full of hate for the West and our Way of Life are capable of .. had these last two groups in London and Glasgow been successful - the loss of life could have reached catastrophic proportions ..
We just dare not wait until these homegrown variety terrorists get more proficient.
A pre-emptive strike against Iran would make things worse - not better, hit them in the pocket book by having the 485 American Corporations pull the plug on their investments there.
pete(popo)evans
Pete,
You've hit on an important aspect of the troubles in the Middle East. But you MUST cite your sources. Otherwise, your message fails to advance us toward a solution and is lost.
respectfully,
Jack
I agree, and Ron Paul is speaking out about how crazy all this pre-emptive first strike business is, check the video:
I agree that we should repudiate the doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike.
War should be the last resort after a diplomatic failure. Offensive War against nations is, IMHO, a war crime ipso facto, regardless of the merit of the perceived cause.
VietNam Vet, '71-'75
War should be the last resort after a diplomatic failure.
How far do you stretch the definition of "diplomatic failure"?
Munich 1938. Neville Chamberlain holding the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Munich.
It was a diplomatic success on the quest to avoid war at all cost. This policy cost tens of millions lives and tremendous devastation in the following 7 years.
But Nazi aggression could be easily preempted at that time.
How many hundreds of millions lives are we ready to sacrifice today in order to look peaceful and nice?
A policy of pre-emption is not a good general policy to deal with other countries, and should not be used as such. That is not to say, however, that it should NEVER be used. Let's say, for arguments sake, that Iran buys a dozen 20MT nuclear weapons and ICBMs from the black market in Russia, and starts fueling them and pointing them at Israel, Europe, and the U.S. If you know they are about to launch them, would you really just stand by and wait for them to launch, and kill millions of people? No, you can't. You better believe that the U.S. would take those missiles out-and they would do it fast, as they should. But as a general foreign policy, it just doesn't work.
No serious candidate is going to take the right of pre-emption off the table. No candidate will be elected. There's nothing moderate about doing so. Moderates can be tough, too.
There is already a party that is against Pre-Emptive strikes. They are also against the Patriot Act, against tax cuts, against holding terrorist down at Gitmo, I think the only thing they are really for is pay increases for themselves. They are called the democratic party. If it is known that a Country was about to launch against America, especially Rouge Countries like Iran or North Korea, I would expect our Commander in Chief to take the approiate steps to make sure that never happened. And that includes a Pre-Emptive strike. We are in a Global war with people who detest weakness and fear. And for that reason Hillary Clinton would be scorned by these Muslim Radicals. Altho they would really be pleased if a Democrat was elected, As they know weakness when they see it.
I agree!
Pre-emptive strikes isn't the stuff that make us safe. It makes us appear reckless and dangerous. Pre-emption alienates us from those that would otherwise be on our side.
The greatest weapon in our arsenal against extremism is political --- not military. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq? We are letting this tool slip from our hands on the world stage. It is high time we recognize that garnering the "hearts and minds" of our allies, would-be friends, and those disaffected in totalitarian countries is our best way to unify in this war on extremism.
Pre-emptive strikes is like trying to kill a crab by rashly cutting off a leg. Another one just grows right back. We need to ratchet up our proactive efforts at the financial, diplomatic, intelligence, and propaganda levels in lieu of automatic pre-emptive military strikes in other sovereign nations. And while we're at it, we might start doing something about our porous borders.
What makes Gore worthy of my vote?
Despite my previous remarks in this thread, I personally think the war on terror should be fought by SPOOKS and assasins. Although we don't currently have enough of these available, I think we should have been making the effort and diverting the money to recruit enough of them ever since 9-11. But alas, I've been hearing lately that the CIA has been sabotaging our efforts for political reasons.
Not to put too fine a point on the blade before I slip it in, but Mr. Clinton used this methodology too. This is supposed to be a Centrist organization; blaming Bush for the fact that American Presidents since Washington have used the pre-emptive strike when and as they needed to is stupid.
Second; swearing off such methods is an open encouragement to certain enemies of this country to push us as far as they feel our attention-span is capable of forgetting. I know you don't like hearing this, but there are some people out there we simply will never be able to bargain reasonably with. Do you think we could have tried to reason with Adolf Hitler? Sorry pal, but far greater minds than yours tried and failed miserably. How about Milosevic? Saint William of the holy humidor tried without success, so he sent troops into Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia to try to contain the brutal tyrant. The only offensive act Milosevic or his nation had performed against us was ignoring the threats of our President, so don't tell me that wasn't pre-emptive.
The sooner we stop the Bush bashing and decide what we stand FOR, the better our chances will be in the 2024 election. Otherwise, I'm sure you'll get a better reception at www.DNC.com
Phil Rowlands, Stoughton WI
1st Recon Bn., 1st Mar. Div. `82-`86
When it comes to foriegn policy, I used to think that the best things about our country, the things that kept us safe, were the ones that we, the general public, were not aware of. Call it youth, definitely call it naivety, but I felt "for sure" that the administrators of our country knew a hell of a lot about what was going on in the world and were taking actions to gather intelligence and initiate policies to protect our nation against all foreseeable threats to our democracy.
As is more and more apparent to me, it seems that indeed they are, BUT, the intelligence and policies gathered and implemented are not for the benefit of our nation, rather, for the benefit of connected special interests and corporations for purely financial gain.....and always with taxpayer subsidies of some nature.
Notwithstanding this opinion, as it pertains to the thread of this post concerning pre-emptive strike, IMHO one who is thoughtful would never relay their strategy to an opponent one way or the other. If as a nation we conducted all of our foriegn (as well as domestic) policy from a moral base whereas actions are taken for the purpose of benefiting society and humanity as a whole, any imminent threat would pay a price equivalent to the threat that is posed, maybe with warning, maybe not. If you occupy the high ground, you can see much further and your actions, when taken, will be supported by other nations as they acquiesce to your superior position.
It is precisely this "high ground" that we as a nation need to foster. For example, we need to cut off the mothers milk to American companies who do business in countries that threaten, or disallow for their own citizens, the principles that our nation was founded upon. It is not that we prevent these companies from doing business anywhere that they deem it is in their interest, rather we make it clear that they do so at their OWN risk with their OWN money. I propose that notice be given to all American companies that they have a timeframe (10 years or whatever) to recoup any present investments they have in countries that are not in step with our founding principles. After that the U.S. government will in no way support, protect nor bail out as in bankruptcy, their interests if they choose to do business in those countries.
I still have faith in the people of the U.S. I believe that we can develop our own energy sources that don't rely on fossil fuels originating from dictatorial regions and the accompaning bill of sale from multinationals and their purchased government proponents that we somehow "need" them to exist as a productive society. I have faith that with a concerted effort we can return our government back to the people of this nation who will then support humanity as opposed to corporations in finding solutions to the myriad of societal problems we face, including whether or not to initiate a pre-emptive strike.
p.s. I concur with popo in this thread, Common Sense Suggests .. but also would request that all posters provide sources for any info they present as facts so that those of us that are still learning can confirm the validity and possibly do something! It doesn't help to be told a story that doesn't offer a means to help (either change or support) such. We already have enough of that... it's called the mass media.
The only thing that I know "FOR SURE", is that nothing is..... but that doesn't circumvent an opinion!
thinkaboutit, WI06
I joined UNITY 08 because I thought it was for people who wanted to straighten out our country because it is definitely headed in the wrong direction. kflin wants Al Gore for president. The Democratic party is for people like you. Unity 08 is for change. I think I'll quit Unity 08 and just hope that the military overthrows our crooked government and puts somebody like LOU DOBBS as our leader.
Steve
I joined UNITY 08 because I thought it was for people who wanted to straighten out our country because it is definitely headed in the wrong direction. kflin wants Al Gore for president. The Democratic party is for people like you. Unity 08 is for change. I think I'll quit Unity 08 and just hope that the military overthrows our crooked government and puts somebody like LOU DOBBS as our leader.
Steve
If you think there should be a military junta in the US, and that they should install a facist government, why aren't you a republican? Isn't that what the Neo Cons think. You may be happy to know that there is a clause in the Patriot Act that gives the PResident the right to declare marshall law if he deems there is an emergency. You may get your wish sooner than you think.
I am giving Unity 08 a look because I am sick and tired of all the cowards in this country. We have 1,000's of times more fire power than any other country and yet we pre-emtively attack countries with a 4th rate military because we are so very afraid they will hurt us.
There were 16,000 people killed by drunk drivers last year. Perhaps we should kill anyone who is caught drunk behind the wheel. Forget the DUI, string 'em up.
To get back to this very thoughtful topic, I heartily agree that we should make sure we never pre-emptively attack another country. We are better than that. If we spent have as much helping other countries as we spend at war we would never have to worry. We would be loved by all.
As an aside, did you know that Hitler pre-emptively attacked Poland because he said terrorists killed German soldiers at a border outpost? (in truth they were killed by other Germans but Hitler needed a smoking gun) Did you know Hitler attacked Holland pre-emtively because he told his people that Holland (yes, Holland!?!) had emassed weapons of mass destruction? Now, where have I heard that before. Hmmm.
This country doesn't have a chance to regain its top spot in the world because most voters cast their ballots for either democrats or republicans.
Both parties are owned by big business. Big business doesn't care what party gets elected. If the voters knew how to vote they wouldn't vote for the three leading candidates in either party but they will because they haven't any common sense. People like yourself that are against pre-emptive strikes. You think Iran with nuclear weapons is OK. Our pre-emptive strike against Iran is going to happen despite fools like yourself. This country has done more to help other countries than the rest of the world combined and we are hated for it. People don't respect goodness. They respect strength. You talk about drunk drivers, Poland, Holland etc. Let local cops take care of the drunks and let Poland and Holland take care of themselves. It's time we started to put the United States first. The only way we can get rid of our crooked government is with a military coup. Please don't respond to this item. I feel foolish arguing with a fool.
Steve Dabrowski
I mentioned Holland and Poland because Hitler used the same excuses for attacking them that our administration uses to attack Iraq, Iran, and who knows. The German people supported Hitler's pre-emptive war because they were afraid and the Furor promised to keep them safe.
If Iran is trying to create a bomb it is because we are surrounding them with massive weapons. Why did we drop out of the Non-proliferation Agreement if we wanted to monitor and control the nuclear ambitions of other countries?
We are not proposing to attack Iran because they are producing a weapon. We want to attack them because we want to privatize their oil. and the Oil in Iraq. Also, war is a very big business in this country. We must maintain it indefinately in order to keep the revenue coming in.
Stop being afraid. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. Stand tall and don't drink the kool-aid.
Yes!
Even IF Iran is on the road to nukes, what would you expect them to do after being called part of the "axis of evil" and threatened at every turn. We went into Afghanistan on one border, and Iraq on another border....
Too bad for them they're sitting on oil.
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
You people writing in always mention IRAN. You must be Iranians. We're talking about electing a president who will turn things around and do things differently in our country. UNITY08 is for CHANGE. BIG CHANGE. All the letters I've read are written by liberals who will certainly vote for the liberal candidate who most certainly will be Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately she will become our next president. Lying and cheating come natural for her. Look at all the payoffs she and Bill have taken from China, an enemy that will make Russia look like a friend. Look at the pardons the Clintons sold at the end of his presidency. You think Hillarys different? Iran is a problem that can be fixed in one week. Our national debt is our biggest problem. It can be solved by the right people but they're not running for president because big business and the news media are happy with the status quo. Our money is controlled by the FEDERAL RESERVE BANK. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK is owned and controlled by European bankers that have alleigance to no country. They are just out to make a PROFIT. This same group owns the BANK OF ENGLAND and the national banks of just about every country. These bankers don't care if it's Clinton or Giuliani. They own both parties. I have been voting for third party candidates for the last 20 years. Unity 08 is trying to get people together to nominate somebody for president who works for the people.
The electorate in this country are too ill informed. They don't know how to vote. That's why I think the only chance this country has is by a military coup. Then they can set up a government of the people, for the people and by the people. UNITY 08 is not for REPUBLICANS or DEMOCRATS. IT IS FOR CHANGE. I will close by asking you to watch Lou Dobbs on CNN at 6:00PM eastern time. He is a POPULIST who cares about the little guy.
"You people writing in always mention IRAN." -
That's because this is the forum for the Mideast.
Take your rant for a military coup to another forum - like "items for discussion".
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
Sorry. I didn't know it was a only a forum for discussions concerning Iran. I'm sure I disagree with your outlook on just about everything but I do appreciate your military service. Thank you very much. On our coming war with Iran I would use only air power or missiles. No ground forces. On my rant for a military coup I will say that a coup was discussed by leading men in the pentagon during the Carter administration.
Steve
We're becoming more like a South American Banana republic every day - we'll all be speaking Spanish shortly, our rights are being limited, we have the equivalent of the Perons of Argentina with Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ruling, so why not a military coup?
I'm being sarcastic, but half serious at the same time.
"coming war with Iran" - Why? Do you know Iran actually coperated with us when we went into Aghanistan? Too bad for them they're sitting on oil....
US Marine vet Vietnam 4/68 - 8/69 5th District, NJ
I'm with you quick.
Lou Dobbs is a quack. Cnn is a biased left wing media outlet that never lets the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. They are in the Democratic Parties pocket. Next thing you will say is Media matters.org tells the truth. George Soros is a patriot and New York times has the military's back. Fat Chance
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
i dont think cnn actually rolls out democratic talking points and they actually report the news sometimes. fox is just the media branch of the republican party and there is no such thing as fox news even though they have a show by that name.
people like o reilly are becoming more and more just a joke, even to those on the right.
No. I just joined and sent a small contribution. I advised everybody on my mailing list to look into UNITY08 and join. This is a GREAT idea and the only way decent Americans can take their country back. I get sick listening to all of the presidential candidates begging for our votes when we all know that as soon as one of them is elected it will be business as usual. Most leading candidates are in favor of illegal aliens because they are all owned by big business. I have been a union member for the last 54 years and told the president of our union to look into it. He thinks it's a fantastic idea. He joined and is an active member. I think it's sickening the way our rights and privacy are being taken away. They start small. You MUST wear a helmet driving a motorcycle, buckle up when in your car, having road checks to see if your doing anything wrong like drinking etc. None of these things are bad but they shouldn't be forced on us. Let me decide if I want to buckle up. Nobody has the right to pull a car over for no real reason. What's next? Coming into our homes to check on things? I've had a permit to carry a gun for the past 35 years. Last year when I tried to renew I was turned down for no reason. I hired a lawyer and the police chief backed down.
I think every law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun if he wants.We are losing our privacy.
Steve
Driving is a privilege, not a right! I defy you to show me in the constitution where it says driving is a right. Driving is a matter of public safety and not a matter of civil liberties.
Freedom of speech does not give one the right to yell fire! in a crowded theater.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
If the founding fathers knew cars were on the way they would have included them as a mans private property, not to be messed with by any government employees. When cars were first invented the government had nothing to do with them. Through the years they started going after cars for the money they could steal from drivers.I remember my father telling me that when he was a kid he had a Harley Davidson Indian Chief. He said it was as big as a car and most motorcycle operators carried 22's to shoot dogs that chased them. No laws against it back then. We all know that every cop stopped for drunk driving is never arrested. Their alcohol and drug use is much higher than the average guy.
Motor vehicles are private property. Anyone can own a car! The issue with guns and cars is not that people can't own them. The issue is that the role of government here is to protect people from the actions of others.
Remember, everyone has a right to their own person. Your freedoms and rights end at my nose. The free exercise of rights implies responsibility. While it is a right for you to own a car, you must be responsible and not hurt someone else with reckless driving. That is why owning a car is a right and driving a car is a privilege. The same is true of guns.
Public policy is not about curtailing rights, it is about defining the parameters of responsibility that go along with those rights.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
This reminds me of a guy who was ticketed for driving without a drivers license some years ago in Tennessee! He was his own defense and asked the judge if driving in Tennessee was a right or a privilege? The judge answered, "a privilige", at which point the accused produced the law in Tennessee that clearly stated the state of Tennessee could issue no priviliges! The case was dismissed.
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.
I'll agree with iksworbad on this one. The definition of driving as a priviledge is a piece of propaganda the gov't put out to give themselves more power and money. It's just as much a right as walking down a sidewalk. Of course there are traffic laws that protect us from each other, just like there are walking laws that protect us from each other (you can't just walk up to people and slap the snot out of them). This is another one of those points where the gov't thinks it is the state/nation. The gov't doesn't own the roads, we do.
Surely you can see a departure from Constitutional authority in sobriety checks. It's nothing less than a warrantless search, without even the fictitious probable cause justification.
Driving as a privilege is a manner of speaking. Anyone that fulfills the requirements as enumerated by the state have a right to get a license and drive. However, to drive on public roads, rules must be followed. And there are rules because the people have decided they want rules. The constitution gives the states (or the people) the authority to determine what constitutes public safety when people exercise their right to drive on public thoroughfares. Cars and guns can be dangerous so it is in the people's best interest that people keep their use of this property under control.
You are correct that the police do not have the right to illegally search your vehicle. Nor do you have to submit to a sobriety test. Most people consent to such searches either because they don't realize they can refuse or they want to expedite the situation. When people break the law and are caught red handed, most just accept their responsibility.
All these laws like buckling up and so forth are what the people want, otherwise they would voice their objection and repeal the legislation. It is too bad that Americans have gotten into this mindset that they feel they need to be protected from themselves. They want a law for everything! I don't blame government, I say it is the people that are doing this to themselves. We are our own worst enemy somtimes.
My pet peeve when I am driving down the road in my 2,000 metal vehicle all buckled up is that some kid will pass me on the road shoulder on a mo-ped with no license and no protection at all. A little screwy to me!
The people repealed prohibition. They can repeal whatever they want!
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I live in Massachusetts. We voted for the death penalty and against mandatory seat belts and are against homosexual marriage. Our state legislature went against the voters as they normally do. Our Mass. Speaker of the House was convicted of a serious crime. No time but got a job as a radio announcer. The federal government should have NOTHING to do with automobiles. They should have nothing to do with housing or education. Their job is to protect our borders and control foreign trade. They can't do either. I don't think people ANYWHERE voted for mandatory seat belts. States that allow citizens to have guns have less crime than states that try to outlaw them.
I'm sure you're in a minority there.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
The MAJORITY voted for the death penalty. Ex-Speaker Finneran (a convicted criminal) twisted arms and threatened and our representatives beat it by one vote. The Majority voted against mandatory seat belts but the insurance companies must have gotten to our reps. I use seat belts but I don't like anybody telling me that I MUST use them. People in Massachusetts are against homosexual marriage by two to one and yet our disgusting Senator Kennedy approved it at the democratic convention without a vote by the delegates. Kerry and Kennedy are definitely in the top ten worst senators in congress. When the Abu Graib scandal broke Kennedy said the prisons are the same as under Saddam Hussein, just under new management. He knocks our military every chance he gets. He, like Hillary Clinton hate our military.
The experts are saying that the rising stature of Russia and its talk about stepping up the arms race is idle talk. However, they have had 25+ years to recover from the race that drove their economy down. As we keep sinking into debt we need to heed this and various other changes around the world regarding our foreign policy. The policy of pre-emptive strike is ill-conceived. While nothing is ever taken off the table, we need a foreign policy that makes sense on all fronts. We need to take care of business at home and embark upon a more restrained foreign policy that honors the soverignty of other nations.
Indiana - 2nd District
wrayphil@gmail.com
http://unity-usa.org
You're right about the insurance companies persuading your Representatives. In fact, big business does have a great deal of power over our representative from both parties which is hurting this country.
Kennedy may be, in your opinion, one of the worst senators in congress. However, since he has been in the senate for many years, I would surmise that the people in your state know him quite well and have decided that they want him there. Unlike the presidency, senators must win a majority of votes to win an election which means that the majority of people do not agree with you, even if it is by only a few votes.
I noticed that everyone you have criticized in your post are democrats. Since Unity's stated goal is non-partisanship, could you please give us a positive example where you agree with the democrats.
Betty
I voted mostly for democrats with few exceptions, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan. Democrats used to be for the working man. Now they're for Blacks, Illegal aliens and homosexuals. I'm not for any of them but I'm not against them. Republicans are for the rich and big business. I'm not for any of them. Nobody is for the working man. Special interests give politicians most of their money so the pols work for them. Lately I vote for third parties like Libertarians, Constitutionalists or write in people like Pat Buchanan. People vote for Kennedy from habit. If the voters paid attention they would never vote for him. He has what years ago we called "squash rot", a disease caused by excessive drinking. I can't think of anything I agree with democrats on.
I also voted for Goldwater and third parties. But Carter was right, there has been an American Malaise, and one of the symptoms is an irrational electorate. We'll see what happens with Hillary takes over.
I moved to Arkansas before she did, and have watched the Clintons a damn long time. Most people do not know that Bill actually *lost* an election to a Republican, Frank White. And had it not been for his corruption, and that of his GOP cronies, the Clintons would never have gotten anywhere. But in that loss, they learned how to avoid some of the usual Democratic party promises, and did learn how to negotiate with business for the betterment of the state, rather than enriching themselves as the GOP has done.
The Clintons now have a *global* support network in politics and finance. And if the economy is to be stabilized, it'll take someone like her to cut back entitlements to something the economy can afford, while at the same time increase the taxes on the rich without the power elite feeling the pain so much they dont support her.
The global power elite understands that the GOP is history, and that any other democrat would be a lot harder on them.
The American Malaise in part, has to do with the fact, which Hillary noted, that it takes a village to raise a child. The Nuclear family, with only 1-2 kids produces a mass of spoiled brats, who'd be more realistic about the world were the kids raised in a communal household with lotsa other kids, both older and younger, to compete with.
The traditional American farm families had lotsa kids, and their competitiveness as adults, ramped up the competence of the entire economy. One clue to the competence of kids who grow up on family farms is seen in the fact that 50% of the Green Beret soldiers were. This is but 1% of the total population providing half of the Nation's best soldiers.
we need to quit raising kids in nuclear family houses on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda, and get them back on the farm where they learn something about hard work early.
I'm nominating JWKABLE for president.
iksworbad
I agree with you. CNN is a biased ultra left wing media outlet that twists facts and sets up conservative guests on their shows. I ONLY watch Lou Dobbs. George Soros is probably the most dangerous man alive. He is trying very hard and spending millions of dollars trying to put our country under the control of the United Nations. The Clintons, especially Hillary, are owned by him as are Al Gore and many democratic senators. The only polital column I read daily is WorldNetDaily. I am a concervative and have a RON PAUL bumper sticker on my car. Lou Dobbs is the ONLY voice in this country that is loud and clear every day on his opposition to illegal aliens, against our trade policies with China, against losing our manufacturing and scientific jobs to foreigners and every day he knocks our politicians in Washington from George Bush down to almost every Senator and Representative. I don't see how you can possibly find anything quacky about this man. Watch him for a few weeks. Give him a chance.
Steve