What do you think of our current President?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Actually Sys, The dem nominee for president is probably going to be Hillary and she makes the hair stand up on a lot of people's backs to the point that I think the voter turnout for the Republicans will be heavy, unlike the congressional elections just past. I don't see the dems making much more hay at Bush's expense, Alberto Gonzales or not. Most of it is just posturing. If Hillary gets elected and they maintain control of Congress it will be most interesting to see what they do about Iraq. My gut tells me it will be pretty much status quo.

My guess is opposite. Any Dem elected HAS to pull troops back - that will be one of the two or three mandatory platform promises.

The real question is "what next" if ME blows up or there are successful attacks on US. There will be zero mood from center and right to let US troops move out under UN control - and that is a fundamental premise of Hillary/Bill Clinton (or Obama) in the 'One World' scenario.

I think the Dems have cut off one side of their face and left zero manuevering room for major crises in the future. It will be easy for Repubs to dig in and freeze action even as a minority. The politics of 'divisiveness and polarity' works bi-directionally.

This country is right on the edge of withdrawing entirely from the 'affairs of others' - even when in our national interest.

I could be wrong

[Njaco]

Any Dem elected HAS to pull troops back - that will be one of the two or three mandatory platform promises.

I find the dem party, while never short of mindless rhetoric, woefully lacks planned policies with firm objectives.

As reported in the NY Times, they may be confirming the Republican plan of action. Amazing how things turn out!

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/us...nt&oref=slogin

But is this country ready for a woman prez or a black prez? I don't think its predjuice but a deep seated feeling of staus quo to keep the presidency filled with a white male. Don't think we're ready to accept anything else.

[syscom3]

I for one am an isolationist.

If other countries want to kill others, let them. Not our business.

Only certain allies deserve American protection. And NATO isn't one of them.

[Marcel]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I for one am an isolationist.

If other countries want to kill others, let them. Not our business.

Only certain allies deserve American protection. And NATO isn't one of them.

Tell me Sys, why is NATO not one of them?

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I for one am an isolationist.

If other countries want to kill others, let them. Not our business.

Only certain allies deserve American protection. And NATO isn't one of them.

I know how you feel - but if something horrible/inhumane in the world is happening and the US has the ability to stop it... there's a moral obligation to do so.

[renrich]

The past 5 or 6 posts are some of the finest I've ever seen. It gives me hope for the future of the world. I have to do some deep thinking so I can come up to their level.

[Emac44]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The one thing I will say though some seem to think their individual Civil Liberties are paramont. But their Civil Liberties are only guarantteed by our Constitution of Australia our Federal and State Laws. And that individual Civil Liberties means nothing if it means our country can not function properly. What I am trying to say the security and the well being of the country for all citizens comes before individual civil liberties

Ahh, Marcel and Emac - the devil is in the details regarding the balance of civil liberties versus the security of state and country. If free speech and assembly is drastically curtailed in the name of 'security' or arms removed from law abiding citizens, one must question 'Security for whom or what"??

As terrorist actions become more widespread and effective we will have the opportunity to see what extremes will be contemplated in the name of security or resistance in the name of Liberty to those future movements?

Regards to you both

Questions to ponder - what Liberties do each of you insist are the final 'do not take away list' beyond which no level of SUGGESTED Security steps are acceptable? And what contract, and PERSONAL accountability, would you demand from politicians that wish to make your country more secure?

Well Dragon. If I was pressed my right as an Australian Citizen to practise Religious Freedom. I know even in that Religious Freedom is under attack but not from Islamic Fundamentalists per say but by Civil Liberterians and those whom wish to apologize for crimes I didn't commit or from those whom wish to seperate Church from State etc.

I see it is hard to seperate Church from State as in politics. Because given the history of Religion and Politics both are intertwined greatly even though some would try and deny it. But that is getting of the point. I see we all have basic Civil Liberties and this can not over ride the security or the nation itself and place ourselves in losing our whole nation due to people only thinking of themselves. To me having Civil Liberties is a quid pro quo situation.

You are entitled to rights under your Constitution and these can only be changed by a referendum or the attitude of the whole nation as a whole in the voting process. But even having your Civil Liberties guarantteed under a Constitution at times you have to forsake those liberties in accordance to the law when the actual security of the nation is threatened.

For example the resent Doctor Haneef case here. Yes Doctor Haneef was accorded the rights under the Constitution of basic civil rights and liberties. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be charged or held for questioning by the Federal Police and Federal Govt on conspiracy charges in suspected supporting terrorism or have his Working Visa suspended by the Immigration Minister on suspected terrorist links. Of course we had the Civil Liberterians here near wet themselves over Dr Haneef being treated unfairly and our Federal Govt was dictatorial etc etc. But the problem was as I see it which came first. Australian National Security or the rights of Doctor Haneef? I would rather my Government make a mistake on handling the Doctor Haneef case then find out later he was actually a terrorist.

Some don't seem to recognise Dragon that in todays world has changed. And sometimes what we hold most dear as our fundamental rights we may have to give up for time being in battling the current world trend of terrorism.

I am not sure if I have answered you entirely to your satisfaction. But as far as gun ownership here Dragon we definitely have a different aspect to it then in the USA. I suppose it comes from our own history that we gained our independance from the British Empire via the ballot and not by the gun or by a rebellion as in the case of the US.

I am not saying what occured in the Revoluntionary War was correct or incorrect. It is just how your nation was formed in difference to mine. I see owning a gun not so much as a right but as a previlege as a responsible citizen to own or not to own. And I suppose you would find that different but that is my opinion and how I view it.

I view same as my rights to vote in elections. It is a right to vote but it is also a previlege to vote and have my say in Government in a small way which was guarrantted by Australians fighting in Wars to guarranttee my right to vote. They gave their lives for my FREEDOM to exercise my rights to have my say in Government. I believe in that strongly Dragon and I think you do as well.

I am still unsure how much I can answer your questions Dragon. I viewed it as you are asking another US Citizen to how they think of all your civil liberty debates in the US plus Gun and weapon ownership. I can only answer as an Australian Citizen as that is what I am and view it as an Australian within Australia. But as far as I am concerned all politicans are responsible in Government to the Australian People. It is not a blank cheque to over ride the people even given the status or war on terror. I suppose that is why Dragon Civil Liberties are a fundamental right so to speak but having civil liberties also comes with individual responsibilities as well as that of the Government has the responsibility as well. Perhaps that is why I view the whole issue as Quid pro Quo situation. Citizens have their responsibility per their rights and to sequest those rights to the Government as needed but Government has to guarranttee those rights are not trampled and dictate to the people. I believe its a balance in our democracies to be like that Dragon

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

If other countries want to kill others, let them. Not our business.

That's good sense, certainly if you want to conserve your military. Diplomatically it's a differant story.

But if you want to police the world, certainly the British did it, and they didn't do too badly in the main. But they needed an Empire status to be effective, and does the US have that interest?

I mean, what does the US want to be?

[Aussie1001]

Emac that was bloody good.... you hit the nail bang on the head....
I totally agree with everything that you said....
seems to fit in nicely what i hold for my rights and values...

[The Basket]

America has treaty obligations to NATO so it can't pull out.

America has to stay in Iraq until the bitter end IMHO. It has made a mess and has to be there to unmess it.

Remember that every time America has gone isolationist, it gets dragged in eventually. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour coz they though you were weak.

The Russians and Chineses are getting stronger and more confident. It is better to deal with them today than go to to sleep and have to fight them in twenty years time.

Remember that these countries have ICBMs which can destroy American cities. The idea that American can raise the drawbridge and be safe behind it borders are long gone.

[Aussie1001]

yes basket that does seem to be the case is it better to hit now or later though ? THere are certinatly other issues to discuss though before you start nailing them with nukes... First you got to find a way to stop their nukes everytime they don't need a whole country to launch nukes so u gotta nail them first....

[The Basket]

Not exactly my point. I don't want to attack anyone!

If Britain and France involved themselves in the Spanish Civil War would WW2 have happened?

If huge numbers of American forces had been in Europe in 1940, Hitler may have not bothered.

It is possible to avoid wars by having the big stick and saying to future enemies that you are ready and willing. If America goes isolationist then it is saying the absolute opposite and allowing the mice to play while the cats away.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Emac44

Well Dragon. If I was pressed my right as an Australian Citizen to practise Religious Freedom. I know even in that Religious Freedom is under attack but not from Islamic Fundamentalists per say but by Civil Liberterians and those whom wish to apologize for crimes I didn't commit or from those whom wish to seperate Church from State etc.

I see it is hard to seperate Church from State as in politics. Because given the history of Religion and Politics both are intertwined greatly even though some would try and deny it. But that is getting of the point. I see we all have basic Civil Liberties and this can not over ride the security or the nation itself and place ourselves in losing our whole nation due to people only thinking of themselves. To me having Civil Liberties is a quid pro quo situation.

You are entitled to rights under your Constitution and these can only be changed by a referendum or the attitude of the whole nation as a whole in the voting process. But even having your Civil Liberties guarantteed under a Constitution at times you have to forsake those liberties in accordance to the law when the actual security of the nation is threatened.

For example the resent Doctor Haneef case here. Yes Doctor Haneef was accorded the rights under the Constitution of basic civil rights and liberties. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be charged or held for questioning by the Federal Police and Federal Govt on conspiracy charges in suspected supporting terrorism or have his Working Visa suspended by the Immigration Minister on suspected terrorist links. Of course we had the Civil Liberterians here near wet themselves over Dr Haneef being treated unfairly and our Federal Govt was dictatorial etc etc. But the problem was as I see it which came first. Australian National Security or the rights of Doctor Haneef? I would rather my Government make a mistake on handling the Doctor Haneef case then find out later he was actually a terrorist.

Some don't seem to recognise Dragon that in todays world has changed. And sometimes what we hold most dear as our fundamental rights we may have to give up for time being in battling the current world trend of terrorism.

I am not sure if I have answered you entirely to your satisfaction. But as far as gun ownership here Dragon we definitely have a different aspect to it then in the USA. I suppose it comes from our own history that we gained our independance from the British Empire via the ballot and not by the gun or by a rebellion as in the case of the US.

I am not saying what occured in the Revoluntionary War was correct or incorrect. It is just how your nation was formed in difference to mine. I see owning a gun not so much as a right but as a previlege as a responsible citizen to own or not to own. And I suppose you would find that different but that is my opinion and how I view it.

I view same as my rights to vote in elections. It is a right to vote but it is also a previlege to vote and have my say in Government in a small way which was guarrantted by Australians fighting in Wars to guarranttee my right to vote. They gave their lives for my FREEDOM to exercise my rights to have my say in Government. I believe in that strongly Dragon and I think you do as well.

I am still unsure how much I can answer your questions Dragon. I viewed it as you are asking another US Citizen to how they think of all your civil liberty debates in the US plus Gun and weapon ownership. I can only answer as an Australian Citizen as that is what I am and view it as an Australian within Australia. But as far as I am concerned all politicans are responsible in Government to the Australian People. It is not a blank cheque to over ride the people even given the status or war on terror. I suppose that is why Dragon Civil Liberties are a fundamental right so to speak but having civil liberties also comes with individual responsibilities as well as that of the Government has the responsibility as well. Perhaps that is why I view the whole issue as Quid pro Quo situation. Citizens have their responsibility per their rights and to sequest those rights to the Government as needed but Government has to guarranttee those rights are not trampled and dictate to the people. I believe its a balance in our democracies to be like that Dragon

The problem in following the line of logic is the question "Who in the Government is accountable for egregious errors and when they occur, do we hold them accountable and criminally liable"

In the above case I am all for, as an example, for parole boards to individually serve out the balance of a parolee's sentence for early release should that felon commit another crime.. or a city Council which decides to flout our immigration laws be arrested and prosecuted for the violations..

The answer so far is basically No.

I would like to see a House and Senate with no special priveleges, no special retirement or medical benefits that all citizens do not enjoy..

I would like to see the same elected officials liable for slander in a small court argued by the accused and accuser - no attorneys, no fees except court costs - each obligated to serve the city they live in for at least one year of community service if they lose.

I could go on and on about my views of Governments, which of course are just people, but accorded far too much power over the years without serious restraint - a condition ripe for abuse.

You make good points and arguments for your slightly different views and I certainly agree the differences between the former Commonwealth country's peaceful transitions versus our violent one as crucial to different perspectives regarding the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I like to think that the balance between the Federal Government and the People is a contract, in which the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, are the guiding framework. When the Government goes 'rogue' they (it, they, the 'rogue ones') needs to be amputated and replaced with representatives who understand the contract and the spirit.

Anyway Emac, great to chat.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Remember that these countries have ICBMs which can destroy American cities. The idea that American can raise the drawbridge and be safe behind it borders are long gone.

What we need over our cities and factories is some kind of ray shield, some sort of laser cover or something agains't bombs.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by The Basket

The Russians and Chinese are getting stronger and more confident. It is better to deal with them today than go to to sleep and have to fight them in twenty years time.

Remember that these countries have ICBMs which can destroy American cities. The idea that American can raise the drawbridge and be safe behind it borders are long gone.

I'm not worried about loosing a major war (as opposed to guerrilla insurrection) to anybody for the next few generations. Mutually Assured Destruction has and will continue to keep us safe from nuclear holocaust.

I'm concerned with being economically buried like we did to the Soviets at the end of the Cold War. China is taking its time at learning Capitalism and keeping an iron fist while we outsource freakin everything to India, Maylasia China and Taiwan.

I have faith in our Econ Wizards but I gotta scratch my head when we're 6 trillion in debt:

China's 'Nuclear Option'

US polticians have been calling for trade sanctions with China or pushing for a revaluation of the Yuan. [20] Recently Mr. Xia Bin (a cabinet member of China's Communist Party) described using the possible sale of US Bonds as a bargaining chip against a yuan revaluation. Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels. It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.[21]