I read this article some months ago.

Matthew Parris of The Times



May 08, 2004

Why I will be rooting for a George Bush election victory




GEORGE W. BUSH needs a second term at the White House. This US presidency is halfway through an experiment whose importance is almost literally earth-shattering. Its success or failure could be a beacon for the future. I want to see that experiment properly concluded.

What the President and his advisers are trying to do will be a colossal failure. But failure takes time to show itself beyond contradiction. The theory that liberal values and a capitalist economic system can be spread across the world by force of arms, and that the United States of America is competent to undertake this task, is the first big idea of the 21st Century. It should be tested to destruction. The opening American presidency of the new millennium — George W. Bush, 2001-2009 — should serve as an object lesson to the world for the decades to come. There must be no room left for argument. The President and his neoconservative court should be offered all the rope they need to hang themselves. When they do, when they fail, when America's dream of becoming the new Rome dies, there should be no possible excuse, no straw at which Republican apologists can clutch.



Throughout history, failed ideologues have protested that they were never really given the chance to put their ideas into practice. Their disciples remain, still believing, still evangelising for the next attempt. Let the former President George W. Bush find no such cult to puff his memory. Give him the chance to see this thing through to the end, so that nobody will be able to claim that it was the American people who let him down; that the voters’ nerve failed before he could finish the job. Let him finish the job. Then the failure can be pinned to him and to his project, not to any infirmity of the people’s purpose.

Incoming governments, especially if they represent big new ideas, are rarely well served when their victory leaves a lingering sense that the loser lost only the election, not the argument. It was good for Thatcherism and for Britain that in the 1974 general elections Harold Wilson was given the opportunity to resume a Labour government until five years later his successor could run it right into the buffers. We needed first to test the muddle of postwar British socialism through to its complete discredit.

We well and truly did. James Callaghan’s Government really was the last gasp of all that, and a quarter-century later one need only say “winter of discontent” to recall the total and humiliating extinction of a whole philosophy of government. The awful memory still haunts, and has moulded, its new Labour successors. Even today, even after the pain of Thatcherism, there is almost nobody alive who would with a straight face argue that a mixed economy run in partnership with organised labour is the answer for Britain.

In 1974 the British people had not despaired of corporatist government. They needed one more kick in the groin from the ghost of Karl Marx before they were ready for the shock of Margaret Thatcher. She was lucky to inherit a country which, in more than the electoral sense, had turned its back on the ideas she routed.

Tony Blair, when his time came, was lucky to inherit a similar sense of national revulsion against the former governing party. If the Tories had been ejected in 1992, Neil Kinnock would have taken the reins of a nation quite unsure what it should do next. Thatcherism had not quite run its course. A few years more were needed for the electorate to realise that her party had lost its way.

It was not John Major’s fault that he presided over a gathering storm of impatience and disgust, but he did. The storm broke in the general election of 1997, and cleared the air for his new Labour successors. Mr Blair had won the argument fair and square. He has since enjoyed the two terms that he probably deserved to prove that fine words and a lot of fiddling about cannot be a permanent prescription for government. His time, too, will come, and when it does nobody will be able to claim that the Third Way was not given a fair crack of the whip. The Third Way is dead: we have let its own originator kill it.

America’s neoconservatives deserve a similar chance. I have listened to what Senator Kerry has to say, the way he says it, and the record of what he has done in politics so far, and I cannot gather from it any sense of national direction which can rival that of Mr Bush. Mr Kerry is full of intelligent doubt, and all at sea. Mr Bush knows what he stands for.

The President is magnificently and unambiguously wrong. He has become the vehicle for a dawning neo-imperialist urge which surely had to surface now that the US has become the world’s only super- power; and he has surrounded himself with a cabal of advisers ready to turbocharge the imperialist impulse — “because we can” — with a moral energy — “because we should”.

It would have been strange indeed if a great nation, unthreatened by any rival in the world, had not felt the stirrings of an adventurism such as this. Given that the Soviet Union fell more than a decade ago, the question to Uncle Sam should perhaps be: “What took America so long?” But carried into action the new impulse is doomed. The answer to “because we can” is “you cannot”. The answer to “because we should” does not therefore arise.

What the world has begun to receive recently is a lesson in the impotence of brute power and technological sophistication. The lesson is set to continue through Mr Bush’s second term, if he gets it.

Earlier this year, before most people in Britain had even noticed that Washington was to “hand over” sovereignty to Iraq on June 30, I tried to explain on this page how the plan was doomed, and how the new government in Baghdad would be a despised puppet, ruinous to maintain, just as those long-forgotten governments of South Vietnam became. But I reckoned without the zeal which can keep such experiments alive.

As a plant cutting may “take” in the right soil, Mr Bush and his friends believe that in the Arab world their new administration will take, because (they believe) what America wants for Iraq is what, deep down, Iraqis want for themselves. When at first this approach does not succeed, the neocons persuade themselves that one more heave will do the trick. They have to believe this because they cannot allow themselves to think that an Iraqi insurgency could be anywhere near the popular pulse. When evidence points to an ambiguous Iraqi attitude towards the insurgents, Bushites must resort, as Marxists do, to the doctrine of false consciousness: they will say that Arab opinion has been brainwashed.

We should be properly inoculated against this error for it has a potency. The President may be no genius, but I am not one of those smug leftwingers who takes Donald Rumsfeld or Richard Perle to be fools or knaves, or who dismiss their argument as shallow. Their argument is deep. It may not work in practice, but it does make sense. Like classical Marxism, it has a logic of its own, a thrilling and terrible cogency whose philosophical roots can be detected in J.S. Mill, in the American Declaration of Independence, in the preamble to the US Constitution, in Kipling and Rhodes.

A simple and moving idea resonates through all these words. It is the idea that the principles we now hold are, at the most profound level, universal. Other peoples, other cultures, other nations hold them too — or would, if only they were given the chance. Show them the light, and they will follow. Through the prism of this theory every system of government which fails to uphold our own values is seen as a perversion of natural law, a denial of essential human nature, and at war with the real (if unconscious) wishes of its own citizens.

The removal of such systems of government, if necessary by force of arms, and the installation — if necessary by force of arms — of governments which resemble our own, become, to the liberal interventionist, only superficially acts of coercion, for he is lifting from people an alien yoke. If this is not how they see things today then tomorrow they will, they must. To the liberal interventionist, the thought never occurs that Saddam Hussein might have been a product of the whole Iraqi people and their history, as well as an imposition upon them. They think that he was only an imposition and in their hearts the people know it. Remove him, thinks the interventionist, and they will love us. If at first they do not rise and hail us then another heave is called for: one last heave.

Let them have that one last heave; and another; and another. And when every heave fails, and this President's successors have to begin the cruel and dirty process of withdrawal, let there remain not the ghost of a suspicion in any American mind that George W. Bush and his friends were not given their chance to try.

Thoroughly tongue-in-cheek, I know (hope?), Donut, but on a serious note:

I don't think another four years will see the end of this thing; I'm not sure another 20 will. This seems to be a much larger endeavour than most people apparently think, and the DoD is telling us to be prepared for the long haul...

Hey!!!! I had mentioned something like this a while back on this forum AND to my friend. She thought I was nuts. But my point was to show to Americans what a real ***** president Bush really is. It would be appropiate that he was impeached not un-reelected. ;)

Wow, I like this Matthew Parris' style. I like it alot [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]


What exactly is 'this thing'?

What the President, et al., call The War On Terror. What everything we've been doing since the invasion of Afghanistan has been a part of...

Ok, just wondering as to whether you were worthy of my respect or not. Cheers for clarifying.

Vicious, Hierophant. You're in fine form. :D

Thanks for posting the article, Donut. It's a distinctly higher level of thinking than many of the articles we see, even though it certainly has a point it tries to get across.

It brings up some extremely important ideas, particularly (IMO) false consciousness and the universality of principles - a classical liberal theory that is widely cherished by some (I often include myself in that category) but is subject to cultural blindness.

Ouch Hierophant! Thanks Donut, good reading.

Is it just me, or does this sound like a page from Rousseau with all the accompanying sinister implications...for a government to claim that it knows what the people really want opens up a whole can of worms.

I have to disagree with his desire to see things through to the bitter end however, think of the cost. Still, with luck, even Bush will have to wake up to the deficit which should constrain him from doing anything too drastic.

[ 11-02-2004, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Well - that all sounds well and good, but I still am hoping for a Bush loss ;) .

I agree with this article as to what the only good thing to come from a Bush win will be. It's an idear we've bandied about quite a bit, the notion of Bush's little experiment.

However, I agree with Davros -- I'd prefer Bush to lose, even if it is to someone so annoying as Kerry.

This author has a certain sad resignation that I don't necessarily agree with. He feels that a bad idea should be carried through to its logical end to prove its badness. Thus, he seemingly argues, we will learn better from history and we will not distort the occurences of the past.

I say poppycock. As Hegel said, we learn from history that we don't learn from history. While the lessons of British social failures that led to Thatcher and Torrie failure that led to Blair may currently be a reminder for this author, I think we could find large camps of people around the world who don't agree that these historical failures were so "clear." And, more importantly, these lessons were not carried outside of England very much, for many parts of Europe are still heading down some of the same types of roads that the UK, in her infinite wisdom, has already learned lead nowhere.

So, to be blunt about it, I'll give up knowing for a certainty whether neoconism was provably a horrible terrible idea. Rather, let those of us who recognize its badness ahead of time act to stop it rather than simply watch the train wreck happen. Let us also see other bad policies of the Bush administration (such as putting industry lobbyists in charge of all the regulating agencies), and act to change those as well.

In short, I'm happy to stop Dr. Frankenstein's experiment en medias res, and I'm willing to give up all the theoretical and metaphorical lessons that the monster could teach me. Having a brain means I should be able to think myself into an understanding rather than have to experience horror firsthand to know what it is.

I hate to say this, but Mr. Clinton keeps looking better and better every election since. I still say it would be a crime to let things go on like they are another four years.

<font color = lightgreen>I would agree to giving Bush four more years because I believe America is the new Rome. It isn't wrong to be the best, you know, unless you are one of those people who think that strength is to be found only through plurality.
International politics does not work according to the same principles as interpersonal relationships. On a personal level you may (usually) speak with those who dislike you and acheive a "working relationship". Between nations this is generally not possible due to unresolved conflicts that happened centuries ago or petty jealousies over relative strength. One may always deal with a disruptive neighbor by ignoring said neighbor; one may not ignore a neighboring country. At the end of a failed relationship one may pack one's bags and move into a new apartment; at the end of a failed relationship with another country you have...a failed relationship with another country and nowhere else to go. In short, quit trying to use personal thinking when the topic is international policy.

The neoconservatives don't always have the best answers. I, myself, disagree with some of their policies and agendas. However, the answers proposed by those who are in the political left of our arena will have more damaging long-term fallout than the answers proposed by those on the right.

Although many political scientists argue the benefits of a two-party system, a third party--I mean a real party, not a failed Perot-style shambles or the "I wanna play" attempts by Libertarians and Greens--would really revitalize this country and release a lot of political pressure.</font>

Did you see "Clinton" during the SNL Bash last night? ROFL!!!! He was so funny!!! "Yes, America, I too wish what you wish for: that Bill Clinton could run again." [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

When Clinton got Bush and Kerry together and reminded them of their similarities, it was the best. Clinton reminded them that they both had 2 lovely daughters. I mean, really nice daughters. (At which point Kerry turned and said "Bill..." and Clinton said "Sorry") -- It was great, all around.

It was really cool that they went back and included past SNL debate spoofs as well, including Johnson/Carter, Perot/Clinton/GHWB, Gore/Bush, and Dukakis/GHWB. I'd forgotten how good John Lovett was at playing Dukakis.

Agreed on the need for a 3rd and 4th and more parties, Azred. But, we can't just create one in a day. The Libertarians began in the 70's, and have been building the party the way it has to be done -- from the ground up. There are over 500 Libertarian candidates in local government around the country, and that is how a party starts. This year was the first time the Lib party was not on the ballot in all 50 states since the 1980's -- and they only failed to qualify in 2 this year. So, if you want a real third party, pick one that fits your ideology and go vote for it, volunteer for it, and help build it. It ain't gonna happen on its own.

3rd and 4th parties? Have you lost you everloving mind T.L.? Have you looked at the snivel'n pukes in office, they can't take a dump without argueing about the political ramifications! Now you want to have even more parties where not one party has clear control, That would be a "CHARLIE FOXTROT" if there ever was one. We are not a Paralimentary(sp?) system where coalitions are formed and when the coalition falls the gov't falls, and time for new elections. That will not work here, we have elections every 4 years even if the people don't want to have them. Think of our system as a Football game there is a set amount of time, the UK is a baseball game it can go on for a long time or a short time no time limit.

*EDIT* I'm at work so I type when I can. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The USA has always been a country where opposing forces meet on the field of battle and the winner takes all, to the victor goes the spoils. The field of battle maybe a real battle field ie: the Civil War(War of Northern Agression) or an Idealogical battle field. The rules are simple you win you get to decide how it goes, you lose you remain the loyal opposition and maybe the next time you'll win, after all we are all in this boat together.

[ 11-02-2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

That's fine Timber. Unfortunately today may well prove that many of your fellow Americans do not yet have that understanding.

Parris believes that by abandoning the policy before it is seen to have totally failed may well result in it returning soon. I would liken it to the rewriting of history with regard to Vietnam. Neocons now claim that the US didn't fail there, they just weren't allowed to finish the job.

Sorry, JD, I disagree. Our basically 50/50 two-party split on issues, voters, and ideas creates a stalemate. I actually think more parties competing speed things up. For one, they make us look at the candidates and the issues, rather than just the party. If you think adding parties makes people less likely to speak their mind or take a stance, you need to tune into a session of Parliament someday.

Having more parties has nothing to do with speaking ones mind, in each party now there are wide differances, ie: pro choice and pro life Republicans same for the Democrats. The national psycie is if you win you get to run things until you lose, that has worked for over 200 years, and it ain't broke now. Stalemates are not always a bad thing. During the 30's & 40's there was a two party system, only one party had a clear majority, so having two parties doesn't mean a 50/50 split. we are in a transition period the party that a t one time had a clear majority is losing power, the party that was the minority is gaining power. (Looking at the whole and over time.)

*EDIT*
For the first 30-35 years of my life My party was in the minority, the other side was in the majority. Now that the power is shifting, I ask is the former majority going to follow the rules or try to take their ball and go home? If that is the case (taking them ball and going home) I would suggest we split the country now, before it is done by force of arms.

[ 11-02-2004, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Well, a party is supposed to be a group of people supporting a platform of ideas. I don't particularly like the Repug or Democrud platforms, and in this country I'm free to join or establish a party with a different platform of ideas. I'll be voting 3rd Party for President today, and thankfully so, despite the small size of the party.

That is your right, more power to you T.L.!!!! You are the one that has to look themself in the mirror, as do I.

Now here's one for you T.L. I wish we had never passed the last admendment to the Constitution limiting the President to 2 terms. I would have Gladly endured the economic hardships that would have resulted from no tax cuts, 9/11, and everything else we as a nation have gone through, for the total and complete change that would have happened today if the policies of the former administration had remained in power. But the cookie didn't crumble that way.

What makes us differant then most of the other democracies around the world is the winner has a set amount of time to inact anything, then weither the winner likes it or not there is a new election. I beleive in the 1850's for a short period of time there were 3 parties, one party split in two, the other remained. The splitting party lost their shorts, and soon reformed into one party.

Our parties have split and reformed again, and it is all natural evolution.

The "winner take all" scenario you mention didn't really apply until the 20th century, because the President had much less power. However, during the 20th century, Agencies, Administrative Law, and Regulations came into being. Whereas in prior years you had the President, his cabinet, and a few specific government regulators (like the ICC), in the 20th Century Congress created litterally hundreds of agencies and put them under the control of the executive.

Our government is about 75% executive these days, so when a new Pres. comes in, he sweeps the top jobs from all the agencies and puts his cronies in charge of everything from the Army Corps of Engineers to the SBA to the EPA to the FCC. It's ridiculous how much power the president has, and in my mind it's a perversion of what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

As you may guess, I'm accordingly not a big fan of the "winner take all" mentality.

How would you introduce a third or fourth party when the political arena is so dominated by the Democrats and the Republicans? A third party have massive obstacle to overcome if they aim for the White House. ALOT of Americans would all of a sudden have to choose to vote for this party for them to have any chance.

Inertresting article, but the writer doesn't understand the U.S. psycie, we were and are set up for cycles in our national ideas. That very thing was inbeded from the very begining. Winner takes all for a short period of time, then they must win again inorder to continue, the loser has the oppotunity to win in a few short years and change the way the nation goes. All that is asked is they we agree these are the rules and we have the guts to follow the rules. Today we may change, today we may not change that is the way it goes. As for the rest I believe PM Blair summed it up best when he said The measure of a great country is not how strong they are, but how many people want to get in to it. (paraphrased by me) And believe me we have the masses beat'n at the doors to get in. Remember that green lady standing in a harbour, we'll take your dregs and turn them into our jewels.

God bless the U.S.A. may she never fall, a skinned knee every once in a while isn't a bad thing through. :D

[ 11-02-2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

It has always been a winner take all, did not George Washington decide who would make up his cabinet? Same for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, remember the Monroe doctorine(sp?)? Did not Monroe get to decide what that doctorine was going to be because he won? or did the American people decide to alow Monroe to dictate doctorine out of the kindness of their hearts? All you are saying is the pie is bigger then it used to be, no arguement here, I am saying the winner gets the pie NO MATTER how big it is. I don't care if it is one pie, two pie, three pie, four, who's not ready howl'r for more. The spoils go to the winner, for 4 years, then we get to play this game agian. :D

Well T.L you're a lawyer start the process to change the US constitution so the gov't is more like a Parlament/PM system and if you can get it done then guess what you have just particapated in the US's winner take all system. ;)

<font color = lightgreen>John, what Timber and I are trying to pursue vis-a-vis more--and larger--parties is because when you look past the latest sound bytes from the campiagn trail what you find is that there are no fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans. Over the last 40 years the stock market has risen at an annual rate of 11%, pay rates have risen, crime rates have fluctuated (Dallas has triple the crime rate of New York City per 100,000 residents?! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] ), etc. regardless of which party controls either the Presidency, the Congress, or both. They are identical, a clear indication of needing a change if ever there were one.

Imagine how you would feel if you could buy all your food, clothing, gasoline, etc. from only two stores and you didn't like one store? I, for one, don't like having only limited options.</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Az, I have nothing against 3 or 4 parties, but with the current make-up of the USA 3 or 4 parties would be a terrible thing. There would be chaos, the US political system is not designed for coalitions it is designed for a winner take all, for a set amount of time. Then the people can change and pick a new winner to govern for a set period of time. Unlike most of the Parlament/PM systems where the PM must mantain a majority coalition in at least one of the houses, in the USA the Executive can govern without a majority in either house, if the executive has a majority or not doesn't matter he serves his term until the time is up or he passes away which ever comes first. Our founding fathers where familular with the Parlament/PM system and Chose not to go that route. They chose the route of a set term, if you win you get the right to decide what happens in the gov't, if you lose you try again when the time comes for the next election. Personnaly I'd love to see the Dem split into 2 or 3 smaller parties, that would be a dream come true. :D

<font color = lightgreen>I agree. No one wants to see the endless bog of a coalition government, but having a few more choices would be nice.

Actually, I would be happy simply for policies that are actually though out by someone with a modicum of intelligence! :rolleyes: </font>

The maximum life of the UK Government is 5 years. Is that a long time? It doesn't seem that much longer than 4 years.

The drawbacks of the US system include the fact that everyone knows when the elections will be. It seems to me that the last 2 years of the first term involve almost full time campaigning when efforts would be better spent running the country. In the case of a second term the Government can basically do what they want because they don't have to worry about being re-elected.

Not all countries with a Parlamentary system have two houses, and a political party don't need a coalition if they can get a majority of the votes. Further, many coalitions are dominated by one party who more or less sets the agenda. The other parties might just be "tag-alongs" who cooperate to have at least some measure of political influence. They could leave, but then they would lose what power they had.

It's refreshing at last to hear someone finally admit that the US under the neocons is an imperialist country

:D :D You may believe you are the best, there are some of us in the world who differ.

It's refreshing at last to hear someone finally admit that the US under the neocons is an imperialist country

Quote:

Originally posted by Azred: <font color = lightgreen>It isn't wrong to be the best, you know,.</font>

:D :D You may believe you are the best, there are some of us in the world who differ. </font>[/QUOTE]*Salutes Donut*

Well argued! :D

The maximum life of the UK Government is 5 years. Is that a long time? It doesn't seem that much longer than 4 years.

The drawbacks of the US system include the fact that everyone knows when the elections will be. It seems to me that the last 2 years of the first term involve almost full time campaigning when efforts would be better spent running the country. In the case of a second term the Government can basically do what they want because they don't have to worry about being re-elected. </font>[/QUOTE]If the Coalition falls apart is there not a call for EARLY elections? There is no such thing here in the USA. Here it is 4 years no matter what, Now if your system works for you people, more power to you! I wish you all the happiness in the world, carry on and all that kind of stuff. That kind of system is not what we have here, our gov't wasn't designed that way. Until the 2000 elections there was no draw back to knowing when the elections would be, it alowed for an easy transition of power, as designed by the founding fathers. As for the time line on the terms basicly you are correct, but guess what we like it that way, it's the way we do things, it is not a disadvantage to us. You gots to play the cards you was dealt. ;)

Don't know where you get your ideas from John D. When was the last coalition Government in the UK?

As for our system - I never claimed it works for me, it doesn't and that's why I no longer vote. But that's got nothing to do with your reasoning.

Don't know where you get your ideas from John D. When was the last coalition Government in the UK?

As for our system - I never claimed it works for me, it doesn't and that's why I no longer vote. But that's got nothing to do with your reasoning. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say there currently was a coalition gov't "ole holey pastry", the discusion was about multi-party systems(as in more then 2 parties). Now the vast majority of Parlamentary/PM systems on this dust ball we call Earth, do have to form a coalition, at some time, in order to get a PM and a gov't. So what if the UK at this present time doesn't have a coalition, big woopty-doo. In no way does that mean in the future there will not be one. If there is not a clear majority would not there be a scramble to form a coalition? Do the laws of the UK forbid coalitions? Now I understand you seem to have a hard time following that reasoning, you were the one that made the point of 5 years MAXIMUM being not such a long time compared to 4 years. Now where I come from the word Maximum means (in ecesence) NO more then, but it could be less then. Now there can be a no confidence vote that calls for early elections, usualy because of the coalition falling apart BUT not limited to that reason. The point is there is no such animal here in the USA. We don't do that we have a set time winner take all, more then 2 parties here would ensure a victory for the largest party damn near everytime. I don't give a rats rear end if you vote or not, form what I can tell that is your call to make.

[ 11-03-2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Well, Donut, we took your advice. Let's hope this administration fails so horribly there is no doubt as to the idiocy of the preemptive action doctrine.

Let's hope for an utter failure in Iraq. Let's hope the US defaults on its debt, and that China and Japan decide (like France and Germany) that it can no longer lend us money. Let's hope we run out of money to support the troops, and have to cut 1/2 our domestic programs just to pay to get them back home. Let's hope our children fail horribly, and a whole generation of dumber-than-dumb Americans result. Let's hope for 10%+ unemployment. Let's hope for more terrorist attacks, especially at the ports to highlight our failures to protect them. Let's hope for environmental disaster, killing many innocents. Let's hope for a 100,000 hectares of clear-cut "healthy forests" and dozens of extinct species. Let's hope we lose every ally in the war on terror. Let's hope a failed Iraq drives Halliburton bankrupt. Let's hope for rampant senior citizen death rates, to highlight the failures of our medical system.

Let's hope for all these things, because it will be better for us all in the long run. A little suffering over the next 4 years -- so that we never make such a collosal screw-up again.

Let us hope. Let us pray.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
TL that is hardly being a gracious looser. So far it looks like the winners have better manners than the loosers.

Donut, being the best and listening to the advice from nations who have previously squandered super power status, doesn't seem like the wisest course of action....why would a nation seek guidance from nations who lost their former greatness to sink into mediocrity? Im not talking about one nation in particular...there have been several nations on that side of the Atlantic who once held everything in their grasp....Personally I think the US should ignore any advice on how to proceed from them and continue to try and chart new territory. If we fail let it be by our own hands and not because we listend to those who have come and gone before.

And I of course completely disagree with your assessment of the US being imperialistic. [img]smile.gif[/img] But we so rarely agree on anything, that that is no surprise....

The US has some hard work to do in the future and it would be in the best interest of all western civilizations to work with us andnot against us, our allies and our....well the people who used to depend on us to protect them, will eventually see I think that it is in all our best interest to put petty jealousies behind us and join to fight the current threat to our ways of life....unless you don't mind converting to Islam.
</font>

Graciousness is for pussies and nice guys. I am neither. I thought you knew that.

The point is that Donut's post points out the real quandry I'm in. Our path as a nation is one that attacks the environment with aplomb, attacks gay rights, spends with profligacy, and ignores the accepted rules of peace/war. We have reaffirmed this path by choosing GWB yet again.

So, a dilemma:

1. Hope for good for the US for the next 4 years -- which would confirm you can do these IMO evil things and still prosper; or
2. Wish my country ill so that my central beliefs will be proven true, and so we can correct our course after abject failures over the 2004-2008 period.

Either way, it's lose-lose for me.

[ 11-03-2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

We have a multi party system and the last time we had a coalition was during WWII. There would be no scramble, there would be an effort fo form a consensus Government. I really don't find it difficult to follow your reasoning at all. In fact I find your reasoning to be very simple. And I don't give a tinker's cuss what you don't give a rat's rear end about. Although I'm suprised you find the need to tell me so.

In which case why do you ask us to join in your imperialistic escapades.

I think you'll find it was an American who said he believes "the US is the new Rome"

More assumptions! I can only convert if I'm already something else.