Shoudl Bush follow Caesar's example and become President for Life?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:26:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Shoudl Bush follow Caesar's example and become President for Life?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Shoudl Bush follow Caesar's example and become President for Life?  (Read 2149 times)
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 14, 2007, 12:27:10 AM »
« edited: August 14, 2007, 01:08:24 PM by Dean »

Just want to lol at some of those people here:

link here

Page was removed, but is still in Google Cache.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I can see it now. After the Senate passes a non-binding resolution demanding for power to be restored, Bush gets stabbed in the back by a former ally. His last words are: "Et tu, Lieberman?"
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 14, 2007, 12:41:52 AM »

This is satire, right?

Right?
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2007, 01:03:30 AM »


how dare you not take this seriously, this is after all, the grand future of our nation/empire. Especially due to the fact that Bush has god on our side because of his abortion and gay rights stances.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,876


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2007, 02:09:53 AM »

Hm... if Bush did become Caesar, who would be his "Brutus"?
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2007, 06:55:02 AM »

Hm... if Bush did become Caesar, who would be his "Brutus"?

Lieberman according to the article

Dave
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2007, 06:56:01 AM »
« Edited: August 14, 2007, 07:29:53 AM by nlm »


No it isn't. Family Security Matters is one hell of a scary web site. Look around it and read a little there and you will understand that this isn't a joke to them.

Then check out their board of directors to get an idea of who runs that place.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/about_board.php

Yeah, that's right - you do see a number of ex-governmental officials on their board. Folks like the former director of the CIA and former high ranking DoJ officers. Not exactly a bunch of nuts wearing tin foil caps. These folks are a part of the spine of the Republican Party - and they clearly couldn't give a crap about things like.......say......the Constitution of the United States of America.

Barbara Comstock is the leader of this group - do a google search on her if you want a lesson in how to be a political hack. Yeah, she used to work for the NRC and for Bush.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2007, 07:30:21 AM »



It makes some good points in the beginning, but in the end, the article is a joke.
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2007, 09:08:32 AM »



It makes some good points in the beginning, but in the end, the article is a joke.

It doesn't seem to bother him that Iraq didn't have weapons--"might" is good enough for nuclear war. Further, he seems to be forgetting what happened to Ceasar the same year he declared himself dictator for life. Far from "ending the personal threat" to himself, his assumption of power directly and quickly led to his assassination at the hands of Brutus and other defenders of the Republic.  Many caesars were assassinated within a short time of assuming the throne. The Praetorian Guard actually ran things much of the time. In short, this guy is insane.

I agree democracy has its drawbacks, but how do they explain how this "great nation" was built up in the first place and how it has survived for 225+ yrs? Compare that to the lifespan of any modern dictatorship... And do they really want to repeat the history of Rome? It is precisely the institution of caesar that actually helped lead to the Dark Ages. These people should learn a bit more history before they choose to repeat it.

I find it hard to believe that people like James Woolsey, Congressman John LeBoutillier, General Paul Vallely, or any of the other memebers of the FSM board would associate their names with the extremism and outright treason being put forth there - but they have.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2007, 10:01:08 AM »

I find it hard to believe that people like James Woolsey, Congressman John LeBoutillier, General Paul Vallely, or any of the other memebers of the FSM board would associate their names with the extremism and outright treason being put forth there - but they have.

I don't think the article was meant to be taken seriously, as far as advocating Bush becoming a dictator.  My view is that he was mixing satire and logic together into a humorous point-counterpoint discussion.

Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 14, 2007, 10:23:34 AM »

Reagan should have done this in 1988 Tongue
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 14, 2007, 10:33:35 AM »

I find it hard to believe that people like James Woolsey, Congressman John LeBoutillier, General Paul Vallely, or any of the other memebers of the FSM board would associate their names with the extremism and outright treason being put forth there - but they have.

I don't think the article was meant to be taken seriously, as far as advocating Bush becoming a dictator.  My view is that he was mixing satire and logic together into a humorous point-counterpoint discussion.



Because FSM has a long history of publishing satire? I can not find a single piece of satire at FSM. Given the context of the rest of the FSM publications, this one is the most extreme, but it still fits with the balance of their talking points.

You may also want to read a bit more from the author, Philip Atkinson (if you can stomach it), he isn't known for his satire either - he is known for his attacks on cultural diversity.
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2007, 10:35:29 AM »


You must not think much of the Constitution.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2007, 11:02:10 AM »


Further, he seems to be forgetting what happened to Ceasar the same year he declared himself dictator for life. Far from "ending the personal threat" to himself, his assumption of power directly and quickly led to his assassination at the hands of Brutus and other defenders of the Republic.

You need to read up on your Roman history; you've fallen into the trap that every dramatization of the events of the late Republic, from Shakespeare to HBO/BBC, has fallen into, that is thinking that Caesar was assasinated shortly after gaining power. In reality Caesar was in power for four years before his assasination in 44 BC. He had originally come to power in a coup d'etat in 48 BC. Caesar was, of course, not the first time this had happened in Rome, that would be the coups and counter-coups of the First Roman Civil War, sometimes called Sulla's civil war.

Also the people who wrote this article need to bone up on their Roman history. Caesar was actually what is known as a proconsul, a provincial governor, of Cisalpine Gaul, IIRC. He illegal led his forces into Gaul searching for fame and glory from conquest and although his triumphs soothed some tension between him and the central government many still called for his head. When the war was over he came back to Cisalpina a victor but the Senate would not grant him the triumph and recognition that was due to a conquerer, they demand that he come back to Rome and disband his army and Caesar considered that the most likely action that would take would be to try him for disobeying a direct order of the Senate and waging an illegal war. So he decided that it would actually be less risky for him to just march his army on Rome take out the Senate and Pompey and declare himself Dictator just as his father-in-law Sulla had done.

I don't know what can be said about the article beyond the fact that I hope this is satire and if it isn't then I hope these people are a small minority even in the Family Security Matters team of idiots. They did take this article off of their website which shows that they disapprove of it in some way. I mean praising Caesar, nuking Iraq, genocide of Muslims, sure this wasn't written by the ghost of Slobodan Milosevic?
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2007, 12:22:14 PM »

Screwballs... always screwballs!
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2007, 12:25:10 PM »
« Edited: August 14, 2007, 01:31:58 PM by nlm »


Further, he seems to be forgetting what happened to Ceasar the same year he declared himself dictator for life. Far from "ending the personal threat" to himself, his assumption of power directly and quickly led to his assassination at the hands of Brutus and other defenders of the Republic.

You need to read up on your Roman history; you've fallen into the trap that every dramatization of the events of the late Republic, from Shakespeare to HBO/BBC, has fallen into, that is thinking that Caesar was assasinated shortly after gaining power. In reality Caesar was in power for four years before his assasination in 44 BC. He had originally come to power in a coup d'etat in 48 BC. Caesar was, of course, not the first time this had happened in Rome, that would be the coups and counter-coups of the First Roman Civil War, sometimes called Sulla's civil war.

Collin, Ceasar was not proclaimed Dictator Perpetuus until 44 BC, granted he had taken control of Rome as more than just the Consul (in name) when he crossed the Rubicon with the Legion in 49 BC and had Pompay killed in 48 BC. However, in reference to this article, talking about Bush being named President for life, the Parallel is to Ceasar being named Dictator Perpetuus (perpetual dictator) - not Ceasar crossing the Rubicon. You may want to refresh your Roman history - though I'm not going to play the fool and tell you that you have fallen into the trap of not having read Dio and Plutarach. Conversations are so much more pleasant when people talk to one another as opposed to starting a post in the manner you chose to here.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,043
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2007, 04:13:57 PM »


I guess that wouldn't have been so bad.  He wouldn't have done anything at all for the last ten years of his reign, which certainly isn't a bad thing for the average president to do.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2007, 07:33:40 PM »
« Edited: August 14, 2007, 07:45:28 PM by President Colin Wixted »


Further, he seems to be forgetting what happened to Ceasar the same year he declared himself dictator for life. Far from "ending the personal threat" to himself, his assumption of power directly and quickly led to his assassination at the hands of Brutus and other defenders of the Republic.

You need to read up on your Roman history; you've fallen into the trap that every dramatization of the events of the late Republic, from Shakespeare to HBO/BBC, has fallen into, that is thinking that Caesar was assasinated shortly after gaining power. In reality Caesar was in power for four years before his assasination in 44 BC. He had originally come to power in a coup d'etat in 48 BC. Caesar was, of course, not the first time this had happened in Rome, that would be the coups and counter-coups of the First Roman Civil War, sometimes called Sulla's civil war.

Collin,

It's one L, I don't take kindly to people spelling my name wrong.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you are correct in saying that Caesar was proclaimed Dictator for life in 44 however he was declared Dictator - rei gerendae causa, or Dictator for the Remainder on Account of the Matters of State (a rather loose translation on my part), a de facto Dictator for Life though I will grant you that the actual proclamation of his Dictatorship for Life was probably the "killing blow" to his fortunes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plutarch is, in my opinion, rather overrated and he's only used as widely as he is because he fills in a gap in the chronical. If I want pleasant conversation I would call my sister or talk with my own friends. I come on to the forum so a few of the bars of civility are lifted though I try to keep a rather curteous nature about my conversations here. It is impossible to have a thoroughly civil debate about politics or even about some matters of history unless you dissect the matter down to its most theoretic levels. I can say, though, that I especially hate it when people give this sort of non-chalant, "oh I'm above all this" sort of nonsense to their rebuttals. It actually makes me angrier then someone coming out and throwing every slur and put down in the book at me because it's more insulting than outright slander. If you were truely above the ho-hum debates you wouldn't have added the seething whiff of anger and resentment in your prior post.

You are correct that I was mistaken, I thought that you considered, like many people that I have met, that Caesar's reign was short and that, within a year of his crossing the Rubicon, he was a dead man. To see this impression in entertainment you need not look any further than the great playwright himself, William Shakespeare, who, in Julius Caesar, makes it appear to his audience that the action is taking place quite quickly instead of the years that it took in reality. I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence but I am often suprised by how little many people known about certain areas of history.
Logged
nlm
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,244
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2007, 06:54:16 AM »


Further, he seems to be forgetting what happened to Ceasar the same year he declared himself dictator for life. Far from "ending the personal threat" to himself, his assumption of power directly and quickly led to his assassination at the hands of Brutus and other defenders of the Republic.

You need to read up on your Roman history; you've fallen into the trap that every dramatization of the events of the late Republic, from Shakespeare to HBO/BBC, has fallen into, that is thinking that Caesar was assasinated shortly after gaining power. In reality Caesar was in power for four years before his assasination in 44 BC. He had originally come to power in a coup d'etat in 48 BC. Caesar was, of course, not the first time this had happened in Rome, that would be the coups and counter-coups of the First Roman Civil War, sometimes called Sulla's civil war.

Collin,

It's one L, I don't take kindly to people spelling my name wrong.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well you are correct in saying that Caesar was proclaimed Dictator for life in 44 however he was declared Dictator - rei gerendae causa, or Dictator for the Remainder on Account of the Matters of State (a rather loose translation on my part), a de facto Dictator for Life though I will grant you that the actual proclamation of his Dictatorship for Life was probably the "killing blow" to his fortunes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Plutarch is, in my opinion, rather overrated and he's only used as widely as he is because he fills in a gap in the chronical. If I want pleasant conversation I would call my sister or talk with my own friends. I come on to the forum so a few of the bars of civility are lifted though I try to keep a rather curteous nature about my conversations here. It is impossible to have a thoroughly civil debate about politics or even about some matters of history unless you dissect the matter down to its most theoretic levels. I can say, though, that I especially hate it when people give this sort of non-chalant, "oh I'm above all this" sort of nonsense to their rebuttals. It actually makes me angrier then someone coming out and throwing every slur and put down in the book at me because it's more insulting than outright slander. If you were truely above the ho-hum debates you wouldn't have added the seething whiff of anger and resentment in your prior post.

You are correct that I was mistaken, I thought that you considered, like many people that I have met, that Caesar's reign was short and that, within a year of his crossing the Rubicon, he was a dead man. To see this impression in entertainment you need not look any further than the great playwright himself, William Shakespeare, who, in Julius Caesar, makes it appear to his audience that the action is taking place quite quickly instead of the years that it took in reality. I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence but I am often suprised by how little many people known about certain areas of history.

Ah, just pointing out as politely as possible that you were giving lectures based on incorrect and snarky assumptions. Aren't we all above having incorrect and snarky assumptions directed at us?

Ah well, apology accepted - even if it was rather backhanded.
Logged
frihetsivrare
Volksliberalist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 613


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2007, 06:25:33 PM »

These people are basically saying that they hope that George W. Bush becomes the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Going to war against any nation he hopes, killing millions of people who politically disagree with him.  That sounds Hitlerian to me.  The only difference would be that Bush would not kill anyone in America just because of his or her race.  Although all Iraqis would die according to this plan due to nuclear holocaust.  Why is this?  LEBENSRAUM!!!

These people are so evil that they make the East German SED seem like a caring, compassionate, freedom-loving organisation.  Erich Honecker is a hero to me compared to the Rockefellers, Rothchilds, Bushes, Clintons and the others at the very top.  Honecker was bad.  He was in charge of the building of the Berlin Wall and was charged with the killing of 192 East Germans who tried to cross into the West.  Then there was the Stasi, the East German "security force", aka secret police, probably the worst thing about his rule.  

The U.S. government also funded Pol Pot in Cambodia.  Here is the article:

On the Side of Pol Pot: U.S. Supports Khmer Rouge
by Jack Colhoun
Covert Action Quarterly magazine, Summer 1990


For the last eleven years the United States government, in a covert operation born of cynicism and hypocrisy, has collaborated with the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. More specifically, Washington has covertly aided and abetted the Pol Potists' guerrilla war to overthrow the Vietnamese backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen, which replaced the Khmer Rouge regime.

The U.S. government's secret partnership with the Khmer Rouge grew out of the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War. After the fall of Saigon in 1975, the U.S.-worried by the shift in the Southeast Asian balance of power-turned once again to geopolitical confrontation. It quickly formalized an anti-Vietnamese, anti-Soviet strategic alliance with China-an alliance whose disastrous effects have been most evident in Cambodia. For the U.S., playing the "China card" has meant sustaining the Khmer Rouge as a geopolitical counterweight capable of destabilizing the Hun Sen government in Cambodia and its Vietnamese allies.
When Vietnam intervened in Cambodia and drove the Pol Potists from power in January 1972, Washington took immediate steps to preserve the Khmer Rouge as a guerrilla movement. International relief agencies were pressured by the U.S. to provide humanitarian assistance to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas who fled into Thailand. For more than a decade, the Khmer Rouge have used the refugee camps they occupy as military bases to wage a contra-war in Cambodia.

During his reign as National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in determining how the U.S. would support the Pol Pot guerrillas. Elizabeth Becker, an expert on Cambodia, recently wrote, "Brzezinski himself claims that he concocted the idea of persuading Thailand to cooperate fully with China in efforts to rebuild the Khmer Rouge.... Brzezinski said, " I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could."

...

Direct U.S. Aid

But there are indications of direct U.S. Iinks to the Khmer Rouge. Former Deputy Director of the CIA, Ray Cline, visited a Khmer Rouge camp inside Cambodia in November 1980. When asked about the visit, the Thai Foreign Ministry denied that Cline had illegally crossed into Cambodian territory. However, privately, the Thai government admitted that the trip had occurred. Cline's trip to the Pol Pot camp was originally revealed in a press statement released by Khmer Rouge diplomats at the United Nations.

...

By late 1989 the distinction between "direct or indirect" U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge was less clear. When CGDK forces launched an offensive in September 1989, Sihanouk's and Son Sann's armies openly cooperated with the Khmer Rouge. Moreover, by then the Khmer Rouge had infiltrated the military and political wings of the ANS and KPNLF.

...

Evidence of increased involvement of U.S. military advisers in Cambodia has also begun to surface. A report in the London Sunday Correspondent noted that "American advisers are reported to have been helping train guerrillas of the non communist Khmer resistance and may have recently gone into Cambodia with them....Reports of increased U.S. involvement have also emerged from the northern town of Sisophon, where local officials say four westerners accompanied guerrillas in an attack on the town last month.''

Although the U.S. government denies supplying the ANS and KPNLF with military hardware, a recent report claimed that KPNLF forces had received a shipment of weapons from the U.S. including M-16s, grenade launchers, and recoilless rifles. It has also been reported that the U.S. is providing the KPNLF with high resolution satellite photographs and "several KPNLF commanders claim Americans were sent to train some 40 elite guerrillas in the use of sophisticated U.S.-made Dragon anti-tank missiles in a four-month course that ended last month." When the KPNLF launched a major offensive on September 30, a large number of U.S. officials were sighted in the border region, near the fighting.

Right Wing Support
According to the Reagan doctrine, the goal of U.S. foreign policy was to "contain Soviet expansion" by supporting counterrevolutionary groups in Angola, Nicaragua, Cambodia, etc. and, in essence, "roll back" the "Soviet empire." Many of the right wing groups which gained prominence after Reagan's election immediately started programs to support contras across the globe. The World Anti-Communist League, the Heritage Foundation, the Freedom Research Foundation, as well as many others, all pressed hard for support of the "freedom fighters.''

In its 1984 policy report entitled, Mandate for Leadership II: Continuing the Conservative Revolution, the Heritage Foundation called on the Reagan administration to focus even more closely on these counterrevolutionary struggles and to: ...employ paramilitary assets to weaken those communist and noncommunist regimes that may already be facing the early stages of insurgency within their borders and which threaten U.S. interests....Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam reflect such conditions, as do Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Iran and Libya.

...

Conclusion
Although most people believe that the U.S. ended its intervention in Southeast Asia in 1975, it is evident from the information provided here that the U.S. continues to support repressive and non-democratic forces in the jungles of Cambodia. When asked about U.S. policy in Cambodia during an April 26, 1990 ABC News special, Rep. Chester Atkins (Dem. Mass.) characterized it as "a policy of hatred."

The U.S. is directly responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia over the past 30 years. Now, the U.S. government provides support to a movement condemned by the international community as genocidal. How long must this policy of hatred continue?


Some of these neocons, maybe even FSM, are saying that the 11 September attacks were a good thing and they want another attack like that to happen.  WHY?  THEY GET MORE CONTROL.  THAT IS ALL THEY GIVE A DAMN ABOUT!!!!  THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT FREEDOM!  Please research it for yourself.

Anyway, if Bush does not become Fuehrer for life, it will probably be Hillary Clinton.  She would appear to be different on the surface, but in reality she would be nearly the same, if not worse.  Most of the current candidates for President would be that type of leader, sorry to say.  Yes, Hillary, Rudy and Mitt are neocons.  Many of the others are slight neocons, but not definine ones.  I can think of only three that are not at all (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel).  By the way, the Family Security matters article does not surprise me whatsoever.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2007, 11:50:58 AM »

Hey - I love Bush, but we have term limits/democracy for a reason.  Now I'm open to getting rid of/lengthening term limits, but no P4L sutff.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 11 queries.