Page 1 of 1 pages
My parents taught me to not care what other people think about you ,do what you think is right. The old adage if all your friends jumped off the bridge would you jump too comes to mind. Kerry really lost the election on the misguided assumption that America needed to pass the “global test” before we did anything. I think that true leadership is acting on your convictions, doing what you think is right and and after taking counsel from people you trust make a decision and stick too it. America needs to be a leader and not really care about what France thinks. America is the world’s leader not the follower.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 12:13 PM
How can one begin to respond to such a post? How can one puncture such pious platitudes?
You speak about your parents teachings - think about that for a moment. Did your parents also not teach you that there might be times when what you THINK is right, turns out NOT to be right?
Sometimes when your friends offer you advice, they have your best interests at heart. Sometimes they may be wiser than you are and worth listening to. Perhaps, as in the case of France in Algeria and Vietnam, they have been through their own wars of aggression, and they know the folly & futility of fighting a nation of insurgents.
It is George Bush & his neo-con advsiors who have “jumped off the bridge” - with their arrogant & disastrous war in Iraq. But, unfortunately, they have taken all of us with them.
We are now responsible for the deaths of perhaps 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. And with the destruction of Falluja, America now has its own “Guernica”, which will be remembered by millions of Muslims for hundreds of years.
Although many Americans like to think they are the center of the universe, the fact is that we are not alone on this planet. What we do and what our country does affects the lives of millions of people around the globe.
True leadership is taking wise counsel, building strong alliances, & conducting a foreign policy that safeguards Americans & the rest of the world. John Kerry never said that America needed to pass a “global test”. That is a complete distortion of his words. John Kerry understands that for America to be a leader in the world, it must return to the moral high ground rather than unilaterally pursuing a perverted, narrow vision of its own national interest.
Posted by Karen Dickes on Nov 18, 2004 at 1:52 PM
sorry about seeming to produce a pious platitude. i assure you I am no holy man! of course you listen to counsel you respect in major decisions that is common sense. The mind should not be an impenetrable wilderess. Maybe Kerry never said that we need to pass a global test verbatim but that is what in my unsophisticated mind I got from him. I as a semi- conservative am concerned about this war. I am not sure 100% I am comfortable with this war and I apolgize to all the people who are in harms way while I sit here on my comfortable ass and write this display of uncertainty. I hope everbody comes home safe and not one more life is lost . But that is not realistic to hope for. two sides- one war -how many solutions can there be?
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 2:12 PM
I don’t believe showing leadership means indiscriminately bombing a nation to shreds and sending our military off on some hopeless expedition. Anyone can do that. Leadership is a far more complex process that involves:
1) Clear understanding of the situation now
2) Critically examining evidence and seeing what actions should be taken. And understanding the permutations of that action.
3) Looking at all sides and listening to all parties. Also caring for alliances.
4) Making a decision that will benefit the most people, and will compensate those who are at a disadvantage.
5) Confidence building so that local solutions are possible.
(I’m brainstorming here, but it’s a good issue, and I have seen a lot of this done in very large enterprises, and could go on and on).
George W. Bush has broken every rule of good leadership. He enmbarked on a war on false premises, without a clear exit strategy (his dad was far better in this venture) and without thinking the consequences through (a good talk with France might have helped, the French have a lot of experience with the Arab world).
In fact, redstate, the reason why Americans are so frightened of terrorism, even though the neocons purport to be winning the war on terror, is because as a collective the country realizes it is leaderless at this point. The Bush agenda in Iraq is not the war on terror. What he is telling his voters is not what he is doing, and people FEEL that. There is a gaping discrepancy there. That is where the insecurity comes from.
Many people knew that the USA would run into major problems in Iraq because of ethnic and religios divisions. Many of us predicted a civil war there if the Americans invaded. Even Wolfowitz admitted he had not predicted such resistance. So the question remains: Why are we there? Answer: Because the Bush people have another agenda. I don’t think it is only oil. It has to do with power. At home. In the US of A. It’s a straight ploy, nothing more: Keep the electorate insecure, in fear, and chip away at rights. It’s been done so often before, I cannot believe people still fall for it.
(Compare, for example, the Roosevelt agenda in world war two: Read the Four Freedoms speech (I think it was delivered in January 1940, nearly a year before war was declared). That outlined FDR’s agenda. It was a thinly veiled justification for going to war. But he was addressing everyone. People knew where they stood. They also knew that they had a leader. They had no need to fear.)
Posted by Talleyrand on Nov 18, 2004 at 4:45 PM
I guess in my try to be optimistic about the human race I guess I am prety naive about peoples motives. I would hate to believe that there was an ulterior motive to something as definitive as going to war where thousands will be killed and a country decimated. i do believe that Bush was misled terribly and made decisions based on that misinformation. Do I think that his intelligence might have been bad due to maybe Iraqi factions that for their own reasons wanted Hussein out of power- absolutely. your outline of leadership is on the money i believe but variables and human frailties/ulterior motives can have an devestating effect on decisions. The best way is to have actually have gone to Iraq and seen what is going on and the UN tried to do that but there seemed to be an effort on the part of Hussein to stifle those efforts. Like I said i try to be the eternal optimist and I would really hate to think of all those peolpe killed and wounded over less than honorable intentions even if the road to hell is paved with them.
Posted by redstate on Nov 18, 2004 at 5:32 PM
That link is dead, Adam. Like redstate’s brain cells.
Posted by tovarich on Nov 19, 2004 at 11:32 AM
do you think that my brain cells are dead just because my thoughts and ideals differ from yours? I did not realize the liberal perspective was the only one worthy if intellectual merit…soooo sorry.
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 3:40 PM
While I appreciate differing views and during my many years have learned a lot from those with conflicting opinions, I do have concerns about anyone who has such a limited life that they have enough time to comment on nearly every story at any web site. I hope redstate will, as the young people say, “get a life!”
Posted by Sidney on Nov 19, 2004 at 4:08 PM
my life is fine thanks! Well I have not won the lottery yet but.. I am sorry if I talk to much on this site but it fascinates me. I started out here a while back in a VERY anti-liberal troll mood and have (hopefully) mellowed. It also give me typing practice which you can figure out I really need.. I found that some of the folks here who I really had a pissing match with early on are pretty good people. The one thing missing in my life that i do get from here is political discourse which in lot of ways is like a bad car accident you know it ain’t gonna be pretty but you can’t look away.
Posted by redstate on Nov 19, 2004 at 5:00 PM
It seems to me that the U.S. is concentrating on the need to give the rest of the world “freedom” but in the process has forgotten the need for hope. I think the fundamental reason there is so much terror in the world today is that the people like Bin Laden are able to use those who feel they have no hope as weapons of mass destruction. Tell a palestinian who has just had his home destroyed that everything will be fine when he is free and how much better off is he? Tell an Iraqi that every thing is right now there is no Saddam -same thing. It took the U.S. a War of Indepence, several smaller wars and a savage war between the states over a hundred years or more to get you where you are now. Do you really think it will be any easier anywhere else?
Posted by Kevin Smith on Nov 20, 2004 at 9:01 PM
Good point… When Pandora closed her box after releasing all the evils, the one thing that remained in the box was hope. Not freedom.
Freedom is a very interesting concept in our world. In a totalitarian system it seems to be everything that the system is not. It becomes tangible. In our “free world,” the term is a lot more nebulous. We don’t think much about what it means to live “free,” and we quickly forget to protect it. In other words: We know when we don’t have it, and oftentimes by that time it’s too late to get it back again easily. Freedom is, unfortunately, both a privilege (not a right in our world, yet!), it seems, and a responsibility. A personal responsibility, mentally, ethically, physically and, yes, spiritually (in terms of the greater meaning of the word).
Hope, on the other hand, is a fundamental driving force, I feel. It is synonymous in many ways with hunger, which is one of our most basic forms of motivation. It starts in the cradle. It never really dies. Hope does not mean optimism, except in our consensus. Hope means, if anything, change.
Change scenes: I really wonder if our leaders even begin thinking like this. Does Pat Robertson, while tallying the millions he earns, really think of his parishioners. Did Roger Smith (thanks Michael Moore for that touching film!) ever consider the fact that GM’s billions were earned not by the CEOs alone, but by tens of thousands of workers as well? That there was an unwritten contract between GM and those families who were then simply dumped for sake of Shareholder Value?
It doesn’t sou8nd like it, but hope and freedom play a great role here too. We will not be able to bring either hope, or freedom, to anyone unless we ourselves have consolidated it at home. Our own society is only as strong and “free” and hopeful (ready for change) as it’s weakest element.
Sorry about my Sunday morning rant…
Posted by Talleyrand on Nov 20, 2004 at 11:53 PM
Where do you think that America is at Spiritually? Since we have under gone 9/11??
I could really use some input.
Posted by amanda on Feb 2, 2005 at 7:12 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
My parents taught me to not care what other people think about you ,do what you think is right. The old adage if all your friends jumped off the bridge would you jump too comes to mind. Kerry really lost the election on the misguided assumption that America needed to pass the “global test” before we did anything. I think that true leadership is acting on your convictions, doing what you think is right and and after taking counsel from people you trust make a decision and stick too it. America needs to be a leader and not really care about what France thinks. America is the world’s leader not the follower.
How can one begin to respond to such a post? How can one puncture such pious platitudes?
You speak about your parents teachings - think about that for a moment. Did your parents also not teach you that there might be times when what you THINK is right, turns out NOT to be right?
Sometimes when your friends offer you advice, they have your best interests at heart. Sometimes they may be wiser than you are and worth listening to. Perhaps, as in the case of France in Algeria and Vietnam, they have been through their own wars of aggression, and they know the folly & futility of fighting a nation of insurgents.
It is George Bush & his neo-con advsiors who have “jumped off the bridge” - with their arrogant & disastrous war in Iraq. But, unfortunately, they have taken all of us with them.
We are now responsible for the deaths of perhaps 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. And with the destruction of Falluja, America now has its own “Guernica”, which will be remembered by millions of Muslims for hundreds of years.
Although many Americans like to think they are the center of the universe, the fact is that we are not alone on this planet. What we do and what our country does affects the lives of millions of people around the globe.
True leadership is taking wise counsel, building strong alliances, & conducting a foreign policy that safeguards Americans & the rest of the world. John Kerry never said that America needed to pass a “global test”. That is a complete distortion of his words. John Kerry understands that for America to be a leader in the world, it must return to the moral high ground rather than unilaterally pursuing a perverted, narrow vision of its own national interest.
sorry about seeming to produce a pious platitude. i assure you I am no holy man! of course you listen to counsel you respect in major decisions that is common sense. The mind should not be an impenetrable wilderess. Maybe Kerry never said that we need to pass a global test verbatim but that is what in my unsophisticated mind I got from him. I as a semi- conservative am concerned about this war. I am not sure 100% I am comfortable with this war and I apolgize to all the people who are in harms way while I sit here on my comfortable ass and write this display of uncertainty. I hope everbody comes home safe and not one more life is lost . But that is not realistic to hope for. two sides- one war -how many solutions can there be?
I don’t believe showing leadership means indiscriminately bombing a nation to shreds and sending our military off on some hopeless expedition. Anyone can do that. Leadership is a far more complex process that involves:
1) Clear understanding of the situation now
2) Critically examining evidence and seeing what actions should be taken. And understanding the permutations of that action.
3) Looking at all sides and listening to all parties. Also caring for alliances.
4) Making a decision that will benefit the most people, and will compensate those who are at a disadvantage.
5) Confidence building so that local solutions are possible.
(I’m brainstorming here, but it’s a good issue, and I have seen a lot of this done in very large enterprises, and could go on and on).
George W. Bush has broken every rule of good leadership. He enmbarked on a war on false premises, without a clear exit strategy (his dad was far better in this venture) and without thinking the consequences through (a good talk with France might have helped, the French have a lot of experience with the Arab world).
In fact, redstate, the reason why Americans are so frightened of terrorism, even though the neocons purport to be winning the war on terror, is because as a collective the country realizes it is leaderless at this point. The Bush agenda in Iraq is not the war on terror. What he is telling his voters is not what he is doing, and people FEEL that. There is a gaping discrepancy there. That is where the insecurity comes from.
Many people knew that the USA would run into major problems in Iraq because of ethnic and religios divisions. Many of us predicted a civil war there if the Americans invaded. Even Wolfowitz admitted he had not predicted such resistance. So the question remains: Why are we there? Answer: Because the Bush people have another agenda. I don’t think it is only oil. It has to do with power. At home. In the US of A. It’s a straight ploy, nothing more: Keep the electorate insecure, in fear, and chip away at rights. It’s been done so often before, I cannot believe people still fall for it.
(Compare, for example, the Roosevelt agenda in world war two: Read the Four Freedoms speech (I think it was delivered in January 1940, nearly a year before war was declared). That outlined FDR’s agenda. It was a thinly veiled justification for going to war. But he was addressing everyone. People knew where they stood. They also knew that they had a leader. They had no need to fear.)
I guess in my try to be optimistic about the human race I guess I am prety naive about peoples motives. I would hate to believe that there was an ulterior motive to something as definitive as going to war where thousands will be killed and a country decimated. i do believe that Bush was misled terribly and made decisions based on that misinformation. Do I think that his intelligence might have been bad due to maybe Iraqi factions that for their own reasons wanted Hussein out of power- absolutely. your outline of leadership is on the money i believe but variables and human frailties/ulterior motives can have an devestating effect on decisions. The best way is to have actually have gone to Iraq and seen what is going on and the UN tried to do that but there seemed to be an effort on the part of Hussein to stifle those efforts. Like I said i try to be the eternal optimist and I would really hate to think of all those peolpe killed and wounded over less than honorable intentions even if the road to hell is paved with them.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~app5a/images/plan_for_iraq.jpg
That link is dead, Adam. Like redstate’s brain cells.
do you think that my brain cells are dead just because my thoughts and ideals differ from yours? I did not realize the liberal perspective was the only one worthy if intellectual merit…soooo sorry.
While I appreciate differing views and during my many years have learned a lot from those with conflicting opinions, I do have concerns about anyone who has such a limited life that they have enough time to comment on nearly every story at any web site. I hope redstate will, as the young people say, “get a life!”
my life is fine thanks! Well I have not won the lottery yet but.. I am sorry if I talk to much on this site but it fascinates me. I started out here a while back in a VERY anti-liberal troll mood and have (hopefully) mellowed. It also give me typing practice which you can figure out I really need.. I found that some of the folks here who I really had a pissing match with early on are pretty good people. The one thing missing in my life that i do get from here is political discourse which in lot of ways is like a bad car accident you know it ain’t gonna be pretty but you can’t look away.
It seems to me that the U.S. is concentrating on the need to give the rest of the world “freedom” but in the process has forgotten the need for hope. I think the fundamental reason there is so much terror in the world today is that the people like Bin Laden are able to use those who feel they have no hope as weapons of mass destruction. Tell a palestinian who has just had his home destroyed that everything will be fine when he is free and how much better off is he? Tell an Iraqi that every thing is right now there is no Saddam -same thing. It took the U.S. a War of Indepence, several smaller wars and a savage war between the states over a hundred years or more to get you where you are now. Do you really think it will be any easier anywhere else?
Good point… When Pandora closed her box after releasing all the evils, the one thing that remained in the box was hope. Not freedom.
Freedom is a very interesting concept in our world. In a totalitarian system it seems to be everything that the system is not. It becomes tangible. In our “free world,” the term is a lot more nebulous. We don’t think much about what it means to live “free,” and we quickly forget to protect it. In other words: We know when we don’t have it, and oftentimes by that time it’s too late to get it back again easily. Freedom is, unfortunately, both a privilege (not a right in our world, yet!), it seems, and a responsibility. A personal responsibility, mentally, ethically, physically and, yes, spiritually (in terms of the greater meaning of the word).
Hope, on the other hand, is a fundamental driving force, I feel. It is synonymous in many ways with hunger, which is one of our most basic forms of motivation. It starts in the cradle. It never really dies. Hope does not mean optimism, except in our consensus. Hope means, if anything, change.
Change scenes: I really wonder if our leaders even begin thinking like this. Does Pat Robertson, while tallying the millions he earns, really think of his parishioners. Did Roger Smith (thanks Michael Moore for that touching film!) ever consider the fact that GM’s billions were earned not by the CEOs alone, but by tens of thousands of workers as well? That there was an unwritten contract between GM and those families who were then simply dumped for sake of Shareholder Value?
It doesn’t sou8nd like it, but hope and freedom play a great role here too. We will not be able to bring either hope, or freedom, to anyone unless we ourselves have consolidated it at home. Our own society is only as strong and “free” and hopeful (ready for change) as it’s weakest element.
Sorry about my Sunday morning rant…
Where do you think that America is at Spiritually? Since we have under gone 9/11??
I could really use some input.
register a new account »Posting Security