November 17, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Bush Revolution
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Having crushed the resistance in Falluja, President Bush is now trying to do the same at the State Department and the C.I.A.

Colin Powell may have "resigned," but don't kid yourself - the White House didn't want him. Mr. Powell's own statement said that he and Mr. Bush "came to the mutual agreement that it would be appropriate for me to leave at this time."

The real winner in this foreign policy wrestling match is Dick Cheney. One of his former aides, Stephen Hadley, will now be the national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice was run over so many times by Mr. Cheney in the first term that she'll be docile at State.

In a conversation with the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, Mr. Powell once referred in frustration to Mr. Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz as "[expletive] crazies," according to a recent British biography of Tony Blair. Mr. Powell had a point, but they're getting the last laugh.

The central question of President Bush's second term is this: Will he shaft his Christian-right supporters, since he doesn't need them any more, and try to secure his legacy with moderate policies that might unite the country? Or, with no re-election to worry about, will he pursue revolutionary changes on the right? To me, it looks increasingly like the latter.

Many liberals are still enraged at Mr. Powell for misleading the world about Iraqi W.M.D. in his U.N. speech. Fair enough. But wait six months, and they'll fervently wish they had him back. The reality is that Mr. Powell was a voice of reason in foreign policy discussions ranging from Pakistan to Venezuela. Without him, foreign relations would have been even more catastrophic.

On North Korea, Iraq and Europe, Mr. Powell was like the man in the circus who follows the elephants, cleaning up their messes. Yet his even more useful role in the administration was not sensible diplomacy. It was his willingness to disagree, to offer another viewpoint. He pushed back.

Condoleezza Rice is smart, diligent and honest, but she has zero record of pushing back. And that's what Mr. Bush needs - somebody besides Laura who will tell him when he's about to do something stupid.

He needs lots of those somebodies in the intelligence community, whose crucial role is not so much to steal secrets abroad but to resist political pressures at home and offer unwelcome analyses. That will be much less likely now that heads are rolling down the corridors of the C.I.A.'s directorate of operations.

It's fair to replace Mr. Powell, a political appointee, but the spies being pushed out at Langley are career professionals. The intelligence community's best assets aren't those spying for us in foreign capitals, but the thousands of Americans at the C.I.A., the D.I.A., the N.S.A. and the rest of the alphabet soup of spookdom. Their morale - already bad - will suffer a further dive, along with their effectiveness.

So what should we expect in a second term?

A squeeze on North Korea The hawks have been impatient with what they see as the coddling of North Korea, and unless there is progress soon, there will be a push to get tougher and apply sanctions.

A continued embrace of Ariel Sharon With Mr. Powell out, there will be no one in the administration pushing Mr. Bush toward a more balanced policy. Tony Blair will try, but he's too far away.

A collision with Iran When Iran's new agreement with Europe on curbing its nuclear programs falls apart, the U.S. will resume its push for regime change in Iran (ironically, pushing for regime change in Iran and Cuba is what keeps those regimes in power). Then the U.S. will discuss whether to look the other way as Israel launches airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

Dithering on Darfur Mr. Powell traveled to Darfur, proclaimed the slaughter there to be genocide and quietly pushed within the administration to get some action. I wish he had done much more, but, by contrast, the White House has been lackadaisical.

A litmus test of foreign policy prospects will be whether John Bolton, a genial raptor among the doves at State, is promoted to be its deputy secretary. For liberals who have been wavering on whether to move to New Zealand, that would be a sign to head for the airport.

Depressing reading Timber! But alas, I fear it is true. The last dissenting voice departs.

A sad state of affairs. There is a pattern emerging though - "My way, or the highway". Powell is not the first voice of reason to be pushed out of this admin - it is more painful though that he will be the last to be pushed.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,405554,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,405555,00.jpg

TL, so what other countries are those in the red. There's 3-4 of them. Guessing Saudi Arabia is oen. What about the others.

[ 11-17-2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Jonas Strider ]

Looks like Poland and Uruguay.

<font color = lightgreen>This is just one of the many crests in the wave-like nature of history. I'm sure that in 10 years when the Democrats control the White House and both Houses of Congress that conservatives will be gnawing on plants, drapes, etc. and wailing about when they might return to power.

Although I don't really look forward to that time, it sure will be fun to see things change. </font>

I've been waiting for this one :D
I Quote from the article "It's fair to replace Mr. Powell, a political appointee, but the spies being pushed out at Langley are career professionals. The intelligence community's best assets aren't those spying for us in foreign capitals, but the thousands of Americans at the C.I.A., the D.I.A., the N.S.A. and the rest of the alphabet soup of spookdom. Their morale - already bad - will suffer a further dive, along with their effectiveness."

These career professionals wouldn't happen to be the same ones that said there was WoMD's? Or maybe they are the one ones that couldn't connect the dots to 9/11? Effectiveness? What effectiveness? ever since 9/11 all we have heard is how Uneffective the intel comunity is! Now all of a sudden they have effectiveness? Come on folks you've been screaming for heads to roll, well now you got heads rolling and you're not happy.

Somebody please give me a break and be honest and say I hate President Bush I don't care what he does or says I'm not going to like it! I at least can respect that, but this flip flop side changing happy horse manure is simply unbelievable. The CIA can not be unable to connect the dots on 9/11 and also be effective it is one or the other, I don't care which side Just pick one!!!!

Cute T.L. but since when did the rest of the world get a say in who we elect? Who gives a flying Hot sweat dripping Monkey sex, what Candidate the world wanted to win? Oh yeah I forgot the 49% of US voters that voted for the LOSERS

Gee JD - don't bottle it up - tell us how you really feel :D .

I know you don't much care what that world map says, but your tetchy reply indicates that you are also aware there is more than a grain of truth to it.

I'm aware the map indicates the rest of the world didn't want President Bush to win re-election, I'm also aware that citizens of those countries have as much say about who we elect in the USA, as citizens of the USA has about who their leaders are, Zero say. There maybe concern/interest/desire to see one leader over another, but those things are not "say".

Edit: Things like the map are an attempt to make one feel better. To that I ask if you put your hand in a flame and it hurts, is it better to learn not to put your hand in the flame again or to learn to feel better about the pain?

You got to play the hand dealt ya, not play somebody elses hand. :D

[ 11-18-2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I'm not american, but yeah, I greatly dislike Bush - to say "hate" is too strong a word, but it comes close, no matter what he does, I won't ever like him - as a president. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I could do a better job, but I don't like how he's done his. Regardless of whatever circumstances or blah-blah-blah. It doesn't matter what he does in the next four years - I still won't ever like him. There, are you happy? ;D

I'm not american, but yeah, I greatly dislike Bush - to say "hate" is too strong a word, but it comes close, no matter what he does, I won't ever like him - as a president. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I could do a better job, but I don't like how he's done his. Regardless of whatever circumstances or blah-blah-blah. It doesn't matter what he does in the next four years - I still won't ever like him. There, are you happy? ;D </font>[/QUOTE]Yes I am Calaethis Dragonsbane, now you and I can converse openly and honestly. We know where each other is coming from, no justifications, just open honest dialoge.

gee, I'm touched :D . In all fairness, I feel exactly the same for Kerry. [img]tongue.gif[/img] . God bless America! (I suspect she needs it. ;) )

I'm not as harsh as CD. If Bush woke up today, walked on water across the Atlantic, made peace in the middle east, walked on across the Mediterranean and made peace with Europe, then walked back home and balanced the budget, and wound up his day by firing every EPA person he's put in place so far, then --- THEN JUST MAYBE -- I'd forgive his past buffonery. MAYBE. :D

hehe. Ok, well, if he did that ;) , I'd admire the man, for that, but not forgive his past ;) . I might allow him a few more mistakes though. ;) - Depending on how serious they were. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

nah! i'd be really happy if Bush gets rid of some of his cabinet secretaries including dumsfeld. and also get rid of cheney and frist if he could. then openly make a very sincere apologies to the Iraqi people for wrongly accusing them of having WOMD and having links to al-queda(sp?), and killing 100,000 people and still counting. however, he needs to stay and help rebuild the damages that he has done. no turning back. you big buffoon. and also he should get rid of that neck lurching when he speaks.

I do believe it's called money and political pressure. Those things are "say" John. The American economy relies on exports and imports with other countries who have opinions about who they'd prefer in the white house.

If America is the New Rome, and the Pres the Emperor, you can bet we provincials have every right to care about elections that determine, in some cases, life and death. If they really want to, those countries can have their say by boycotting American products, barring tourism and immigration to Americans, voting as a bloc in the UN, raising tarrifs, expelling diplomats etc etc etc.

It is an arrogant imperialist who doesn't care a fig what the rest of the world thinks. Arrogant imperialist. It's called "riding roughshod". I would think what the rest of the world thinks about the person that speaks and represents you to them is quite important.

[ 11-18-2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color = lightgreen>I would have to unfortunately disagree with you. It is a person with a positive self-image and who doesn't need the opinions of others for self-worth who doesn't care a fig what the rest of the world thinks. An individualist doesn't have to have a highly positive public opinion poll result in order to live life fully.
Since other world leaders don't consult popular opinion before speaking in public, why should ours?</font>

I do believe it's called money and political pressure. Those things are "say" John. The American economy relies on exports and imports with other countries who have opinions about who they'd prefer in the white house.

If America is the New Rome, and the Pres the Emperor, you can bet we provincials have every right to care about elections that determine, in some cases, life and death. If they really want to, those countries can have their say by boycotting American products, barring tourism and immigration to Americans, voting as a bloc in the UN, raising tarrifs, expelling diplomats etc etc etc.

It is an arrogant imperialist who doesn't care a fig what the rest of the world thinks. Arrogant imperialist. It's called "riding roughshod". I would think what the rest of the world thinks about the person that speaks and represents you to them is quite important. </font>[/QUOTE]So Yorick how did you vote? or your money vote? what about your feelings? when did they cast votes? Votes is what counts in an election or have you forgotten in the re-count thread you want to re-count votes? ;)

Stop buying our exports, stop exporting to us! Go ahead make my day cut the Largest consumer in the world out of your bussiness, just don't come complaining to me when you can't meet payroll, can't pay the bills because you decided to quit selling to your biggest customer. Stop American tourism, don't let us spend our money in your countries! Lordy, Lordy, I've been saying for years I look forward to the next Dark ages.

Nowhere did I say it wasn't important to the rest of the world, I said the rest of the world has no "say" in our elections any more then I as a US citizen has a "say" in the elections of your native country. That's the reality of life, I make no claim as to wiether it is pretty, or nice but that it IS. It is the United State of America not the United State of Earth. Now if any country wishes to become part of the USA we'll be happy to let them in provided they get the propper number of votes to join the Union. Until then they are not part of this Union and as outsiders to the Union they have no "say".

[ 11-18-2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I agree with Yorick. I try to always be polite and considerate. I act diplomatically and never offend. I always carefully weigh all factors before stating something in haste. I check and recheck all facts. I expect my elected officials to act according to the same principles. Is it wrong of me to expect my leaders to at least behave as cordially and politely as I myself do?

Careful what you wish for John D.

Well, Y2K let me down, I doubt there's a nearby Meteor, nobody wants a full scale Thermal Nuclear exchange, so the only hope I see is a new Dark Age to clear out the deadwood on this planet. ;)

Edit: had to break to deal with a customer :D

At the rate we, Humans are birth'n babes coupled with the advances in Medical treatments, we're quickly out pacing what this planet can do for us, resources are being eaten up, space in running out, we got to cut back on the number of human parsites sucking off the teet of Mother Earth. The Automobile sure isn't as good natural preditor of humans.

See and people thunked I was an uncarring for nature kinda guy. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-18-2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

John D, I lurve you. :D

[ 11-18-2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[quote]Originally posted by Azred:
It has nothing to do with self worth and everything to do with acting in a manner that affects the said people. American policy affects other countries. (See: Cold War, Iraq, Nuclear holocaust in Japan for further reading.) This then affects others policies towards you, which can trigger changes in your nation that lead to political issues - see: World trade Centre destruction/creation of homeland security dept.

You do not live in an island. Trade is important to the USA. Need I remind you you outsource jobs to India? Need I remind you your trade deficit with China is unthinkably large. Chinese policy influences American policy and you would be naive to think otherwise. Have you been following the recent speeches in Taiwan and the lack of US support for Taiwans proclaimations of independence? Need I remind you that America is a land of immigrant VOTERS and CONSUMERS who are influenced by Americans treatment of their homeland? See: Israel and Jewish America.

It has nothing to do with self worth, and everything to do with actions. America is no longer isolationist in foreign policy and has not been since WWII. I suggest those that do not care what the world thinks WAKE UP to concepts of international diplomacy and international relations and study nations that have ignored these in the past. He that ignores history repeats it.

You could start with GERMANY and how Wilhelm ruined decades of careful international relations, alliances and manouvering Bismark had orchestrated, and how Germany fell from an ascendant position in Europe following disasterous wars, that included Hitler thumbing his nose at international opinion. (He obviously didn't base his self worth on that now did he?)

When it unites, Europe will be richer, more populous and in a better location to influence global events. I would think it IMPERATIVE that America does not create an enemy where an ally once was. This is a very real possibility. Alliances have historically shifted. Read up on Bismark again. Fascinating.

Think about a world in which China, India, Europe, South America, Africa, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the Arab league etc were all actively antagonistic, both economically and militarily. Do you really want such a reality? Europe, China, India and Britain are all nuclear.

OF COURSE IT MATTERS WHAT THE WORLD THINKS!

Surely you have learned this with Iraq and Afgahnistan?? If one more war on a new front opens up, you will need the draft because your army is too small. Doesn't this ring a bell? 455 billion dollar budget deficit due to the war. Doesn't this mean anything to you?


Er...they often do. International politics mate. Been around a long time.

[ 11-18-2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Oh really? And how does political advertising get paid for? I suppose votes paid for the most expensive election campaign in history now did it? Please. Why do you think the poor vote for tax cuts for the rich? Why do you think all the candidates were billionaires? Money makes the world go round John, and money wins the election, and money influences global policy. So yes, money buys votes.


The largest consumer base in the world is China, followed by India and then Europe. America has 280 million people John. Not even a third of either China or India. Your buying power has been the strong US dollar. If you haven't noticed, that has been falling of late due to things like wars and 455 billion dollar deficits. A weak US dollar is only good for: EXPORTS.


Ah, but you do have a say in the elections of other countries. Iraq, Afgahnistan for startes. US policy is affecting the British election. If you are using Americans influence over other nations elections, then you just proved me right. Thanks John. Have a nice day.

Case closed.

Oh really? And how does political advertising get paid for? I suppose votes paid for the most expensive election campaign in history now did it? Please. Why do you think the poor vote for tax cuts for the rich? Why do you think all the candidates were billionaires? Money makes the world go round John, and money wins the election, and money influences global policy. So yes, money buys votes.

Quote:

Stop buying our exports, stop exporting to us! Go ahead make my day cut the Largest consumer in the world out of your bussiness, just don't come complaining to me when you can't meet payroll, can't pay the bills because you decided to quit selling to your biggest customer. Stop American tourism, don't let us spend our money in your countries! Lordy, Lordy, I've been saying for years I look forward to the next Dark ages.

The largest consumer base in the world is China, followed by India and then Europe. America has 280 million people John. Not even a third of either China or India. Your buying power has been the strong US dollar. If you haven't noticed, that has been falling of late due to things like wars and 455 billion dollar deficits. A weak US dollar is only good for: EXPORTS.

Quote:

Nowhere did I say it wasn't important to the rest of the world, I said the rest of the world has no "say" in our elections any more then I as a US citizen has a "say" in the elections of your native country.

Ah, but you do have a say in the elections of other countries. Iraq, Afgahnistan for startes. US policy is affecting the British election. If you are using Americans influence over other nations elections, then you just proved me right. Thanks John. Have a nice day.

Case closed. </font>[/QUOTE]Once agian Yorick I see you didn't answer a single question asked of you, instead you dodged and spun. But to show how nice a guy I am I'll answer your questions and address the points you raised as asked and as raised no dodge or spin.
question 1) Oh really what, how did your money vote?, how did you vote?, or your feelings? were the questions ask by me. So what do you mean by Oh really?
2)Money donated to the campiagns pays for advertising, advertising deigned to GET VOTES for the candidate.
3) Of course votes didn't pay for the advertising, nobody said votes did pay for the advertising. Advertising is designed to bring votes in to the candidates on election day not for exit polls, or for pre-election polls, election day is the only poll that counts that is why all the money was spent, to win on election day in the offical election held in each precenct in the country.
4) I don't know why the poor voted for anything, I don't know why anybody voted for anybody. I know I voted for President Bush because he gave me a tax cut when he said he would. He stood and delievered. I and my family are hardly rich by the standards used to judge who are the rich in the USA.
5) They are not all Billionaires! Although this maybe a cultural thing, IIRC I read from one of the UK members, what we in the USA call a Million they call a Billion. So if that is the case, then so what if they are, in a free country where you can make all the money you can make and the government doesn't get to tell you how much money you can make. The candidates can be what ever they are.
Point A)Nobody said money didn't make the world go around, of course money buys votes if it didn't the campaings wouldn't have spent as much of it as they did! The campiagns poured massive amounts of money to get VOTES, votes of citizens of the USA, not citizens of other countries in this world. It is the votes of the citizens of this country that had the final "say", which if you remember was the proposition I stated to begin with. Then you went off on the tagnet of other countries citizen had "say" because they had money and political influence to peddle. So I ask you, if you are able to answer the questions as asked, How much of the money spent on the USA's presidental campiagn was spent to get the money and political ifluence from citizens of countries other then the USA? How much money was spent to get the votes of same? On 20 jan., 2005 or there abouts, the man who is sworn into the office of President of the USA will he have won the most votes from around the world? Or will he have won the electoral college votes as prescribed in a manner decided by the State legislatures?

I have to go back to work I'll finish answering the questions you asked, and addressing the points you raised later.

PointB)I said the largest consumer, now remember all the arguements about how the USA is distroying the planet because we consume everything in larger amounts then everybody else. Well we do, you can't have the USA being the largest consumer when it fits your needs then not the largest consumer when it doesn't fit your needs. Now after I dealt with the emotional part of the arguement, I'll move the the fact part. I said largest consumer! not largest consumer base there is a differance. I don't know if you j=have any training in economics and bussiness or not, I admitt I have no formal trianing in either, but those that do will back what I am about to write. If you sell computers for $100 and you have two customer bases "C" & "U". "C" has 5,000,000 people in the base, those people have $10 each to spend. "U" has 1,000,000 people in the base, those people have $500 each to spend. (if you notice that is only 1/5 not the 1/4 it actually is see I'm such a nice guy I'm going to spot you 5%)
WHich one of those two bases will you sell to? Which one of them is going to be the Larger consumer? "C" or "U"? It is simple math to figure the numbers out. Yes, the weak dollar helps USA Exports, it did that in the early 80's, in the 70's and will do so again, but while you are happily singing a joyious song of showing me up, did the USA run a trade surplus or Defeict the last month? or the months before that? or the Years before that? how about the decade before that? I'll save you the Time Yorick, just to be nice to you, it was a defiect, there has been a trade defiect for as long as I can remember for the most part since the late 60's early 70's. What you don't see is a weak dollar causes the other countries to lose exports and US dollars coming in, it hurts their economies in the long run. Look at Japan, in the late 70's and early 80's Japan was exporting right and left to the USA, the dollar went down against the Yen. What happpend we didn't buy as much from Japan, we started buying from South Korea, or other places. Japan's economy has stagnated hardly moved at all in nearly 20 years. What has the USA economy done why it has gone UP and down and up again, in short it has gone through the Normal HEALTHY economic cycles. In the 80's the joke was the Japanese and the German had really won WWII because their economies were growing and so strong, The USA had to have their products. Well guess what happened their products got to expensive to buy we found others willing to sell for less, in an effort to STOP loosing market share, fancy words for MONEY, They built factories over here in the USA, because it cost them less to build. Employeed our people not theirs, we bought the products built here in the USA, because our people had the jobs now. When the USA economy sneezes the rest of the world's economies catch a cold.

Now here another thing for you to thunk on, I call it the 80/20 rule, I'm sure there is a fancy college edumacated phrase for it. 80% of most bussiness comes from 20% for their customers. You thunk it over, the rich have more money more money means they will spend more. Now back to the tax question You bet you sweet bippy I want the rich to have tax cuts, the more money they have to blow the more money there is for me to get. I don't know if you remember the thread about how the rich in the USA have so much buying power compared to the rest of the economic classes. Well everybody was saying that's not fair, I say bring the rich on I have something to sell them. Let you in on a little fact about the taxes here in the USA the top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes, so don't give me this fair share crap.

more later:

Point C) I wrote:"I said the rest of the world has no "say" in our elections any more then I as a US citizen has a "say" in the elections of your native country." I didn't say the USA as a country has no Influence I said I as a US Citizen, that is not the same as the USA has no influence. I'm not using any influence over any country!! never said I was, did, or would.

Now Yo, that is how you close a case!

[ 11-18-2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

You're completely missing the point.

<font color = lightgreen>I believe I see one source of miscommunication occuring here. I am fusing interpersonal dynamics with international politics; always a misstep.
On a personal level, one must live wihtout concern for what the world thinks, as long as one is not causing harm. On a political level, I agree that no country lives in a vacuum; thus, international policy need by treated with velvet gloves. National policy is another matter entirely, mind you, and may be conducted without consulting one's neighbors.

You do make several finely-tuned points, though. History does teach the error of thumbing one's nose at the world. I cannot disagree with that. It is simply a shame that apparently nations must conduct themselves according to the directives of other nations. Nature of the beast....

Are we certain that China conducts itself thusly? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] </font>

WHAT POINT? Yo, you have switched, fipped, flopped, and spun your way around. You bring up a point when asked questions about your point, and how you point works you move, dodge, slide to something totally differant. When your questions are answered you flee to the 'ole you are missing the point.

Answer the questions I asked you earlier as I asked them, I used plain simple words straight to the point no flipping/flopping/ dodging/twisting/turning. I answered your questions, and I did so with statements not another question. Answering a question with a question is an arguement trick that only works if the person you are trying to pull that on is afraid to answer, I ain't afraid of man nor beast.

They would have invaded Taiwan long ago if they did not.

WHAT POINT? Yo, you have switched, fipped, flopped, and spun your way around. You bring up a point when asked questions about your point, and how you point works you move, dodge, slide to something totally differant. When your questions are answered you flee to the 'ole you are missing the point.

Answer the questions I asked you earlier as I asked them, I used plain simple words straight to the point no flipping/flopping/ dodging/twisting/turning. I answered your questions, and I did so with statements not another question. Answering a question with a question is an arguement trick that only works if the person you are trying to pull that on is afraid to answer, I ain't afraid of man nor beast. </font>[/QUOTE]I have presented a consistent argument. I cannot help your perception of it. I have not flip flopped no matter how much you suggest otherwise. it is your perception that is out of whack, which is why I said you've missed the point.

As for not answering your questions, they were irrelevent. The type of question is important. It's like asking me "how did God begin". It presupposes I believe God has an origin, therefore I cannot answer the question because I don't believe the presupposed belief. Comprende?

[ 11-19-2004, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

WHAT POINT? Yo, you have switched, fipped, flopped, and spun your way around. You bring up a point when asked questions about your point, and how you point works you move, dodge, slide to something totally differant. When your questions are answered you flee to the 'ole you are missing the point.

Answer the questions I asked you earlier as I asked them, I used plain simple words straight to the point no flipping/flopping/ dodging/twisting/turning. I answered your questions, and I did so with statements not another question. Answering a question with a question is an arguement trick that only works if the person you are trying to pull that on is afraid to answer, I ain't afraid of man nor beast. </font>[/QUOTE]I have presented a consistent argument. I cannot help your perception of it. I have not flip flopped no matter how much you suggest otherwise. it is your perception that is out of whack, which is why I said you've missed the point.

As for not answering your questions, they were irrelevent. The type of question is important. It's like asking me "how did God begin". It presupposes I believe God has an origin, therefore I cannot answer the question because I don't believe the presupposed belief. Comprende? </font>[/QUOTE]So you have neither the Manners nor the courtisy(sp?) to engage in a conversation. You throw out terms like arrogant, yet you are the one that decides if a question asked by others are relevent or not. Who gave you the right to decide that? If your point can't handle some questions that's your problem not mine.

Yes you have flipped flopped, the first point you tried to make was the rest of the world has monetary and polictal influence over the USA election, I say it is the US votes that count. You then procede to back up your point by asking questions about how money is raised in order to get US VOTES, NOT one single thing to back up why the citizens of another country should have any "say" over what goes on in a totaly seperate country. You do understand we are talking about serperate countries each with their own gov't and method of coming power?

You are trying to equate feelings and emotion to reality, the fact is the entire world can vote for anybody they want to, but the winner of the USA Presidental elcetion will be the person that gets 1 over the majority of the electorial college vote from the USA, the rest of the world doesn't matter in the US elections. Guess what the USA doesn't matter in the elections of the rest of the world. That is why we have soveriegn countries, you do know what soveriegn means? Each is seperate, and independant each decides for it's self. AND yes the Afghanis decided for themselves who they would elect, you can't provide one single shread of eveidence that US citizens voted in the Afghanistan election held a few weeks ago! Absent of any evidence your point is null and void.

You try to equate the USA to "New Rome" then talk about Providentals(sp?), but your thesis ignors the reality of what a providence is. To be a providence you would have to be under the USA's Control the USA would decide who run your country. Remember the man the washed his hands in Christ's trial? Was he chosen by the Juedeans or by ROME? He was chosing by ROME because Jueda was a providence of ROME. Show me one soveriegn country that is a providence of the USA!

Rome had provinces and protectorates.
America has provinces and protectorates.

Australia is an American protectorate.
Iraq and Puerto Rico are provinces won in war.

Tasmania had it's sovereignty overriden when it used it's sovereign powers as a state of Australia to enact laws that were inconsistent with American drug law policy. America ran roughshod over Tasmania.

Maybe you should listen to the "provincials" before deciding America is not an empire. Ever heard of "anti-imperialism?"

The USA also directly interfered with the last Australian election. I was hoping Howard would win, and he won anyway, but the interference of the Americans against Latham had me incensed.

As far as Americans by virtue of it being a democracy interfering in the rulership of Afgahnistan, Iraq, and Panama... isn't it obvious John!!!!!!! Go and read it for yourself. I'm not here to teach you. If you can't be bothered waking up to the reality of what your country is doing in the world I can't be bothered talking to you about it.

Adios.

John... there is a difference between what is SAID and what actually IS.

Let's look at Taiwan.

China SAYS Taiwan is not independent, yet the reality is Taiwan is independent from China in all but name. For all intents and purposes it acts outside Beijings leadership.

The reverse occurs with many countries allied or protected by America. You need to understand what exactly a "sphere of influence" is. It is the amount a nation can go against the direct wishes of another nation. Though independent in name, the allied nation loses independence in areas like foreign policy, and certain economic areas in exchange for the continued "protection.

Malaysia for example, is an example of a "protectorate" that fell under the British Empire. As I said, Rome had many protectorates, many of which came under direct control at later dates. The aforementioned Judaea started out as a protectorate. Notice how Herod was King when Jesus was born, but how Pilate was governor when he died. Only the protectorate of Galilee continued to have a "King" Herod Antipas.

If Australians had decided to embrace a communist government during the cold war, you can bet your bottom dollar the American empire would have overthrown it. That is not true independence.

Yorick, you're painting with too broad of a brush. Using WTO trading rules to attack laws passed in other countries is a two-way street. Unless you want to say that the US is a protectorate of the UK since it lost some WTO trading cases and had to change its own national law. Note that the tax code just saw its largest re-write since Reagan, an avalanche started by one very big WTO mandate snowball.

And while the Kerry sisters may have visited Austrailia, the Aussies and everyone in the known world chimed in on the US election. We were blogged and bombarded to death with informational overload from the 4 corners of the globe. French and German and Chinese banks and newspapers announced positions on who should win -- many for the first time ever.

Puerto Rico, yes, is a terroritory, is quite happy that way, and can flip to being a state basically when they want.

Iraq.... well, I won't go into that except to say we all want the hell out of there at the end of the day. The last thing we want is a lasting US presence there. In fact, if they do become free people, chances are that in the long run they'll end up clamoring into the EU along with Turkey.

I was saying to John the influence was a two way street. I was using the American influence because John was citing that as nonexistent, and thus proof it was nonexistent into America. Provincials can influence politics. Rome, Russia and Germany all had leaders born outside the homeland for example.

Until they do, they remain a territory without parliamentary representation in America, that was won in a war against Spain.

Agreed.

Yorick, I Clearly wrote Influeneces are influences, and acknowledged there are influences, what part of that is the same or equates to American influence was nonexistent? Show me where I cited that!!! You can't do it!! You can show me and anybody else reading this piss'n contest where I wrote I as a citizen of the USA have no "say" in other countries. "Say" and influenece are not the same thing one is open and final the other is presuasion(sp?)One is acctually puting the mark on the piece of paper, or what ever, the other is trying to get those that put the mark on the piece of paper to mark it the way you want. NOT THE SAME THING

[Q] Correct, and subject to the laws of the USA, now show me where your native country is subject to the laws of the USA. Show me that if you can! Show me where the citizens living in Australia, NOT doing any bussiness in or with the USA pay USA income tax!But you can't there goes your providence arguement.

Agreed. [/QB][/QUOTE] Agreed T.L. nobody wants the USA to be there longer then it has to be.

Once again, why should we care what the world thinks? You may not have noticed but they don't care what we think.

And Europe will never be any kind of threat, economically or militarily. I am still of the opinion that the EU will fail in the end. Too many socialists.

Could you answer these questions.

1.Which out of Europe and America has the stronger currency?
2.Which out of Europe and America has the larger population?
3.Out of Europe and America who has historically been the more imperialistic, militaristic, colonial and expansionistic?

When you've answered those questions correctly come back and tell me Europe will never be a threat to America.

Perhaps you could look at Rome in the years before it fell and wonder how many citizens believed that Persia and the Germanics would "never be a threat".