|
Post by Jaga on Nov 16, 2007 23:08:36 GMT -7
Referring to the popularity. Hitler was popular in his own country but he was not popular outside Germany. Gorbatchev was popular abroad but not popular in Russia (since he destroyed the empire).
Do you know any great president who was considered a great president after his death but he was neither popular in his own country nor abroad?
Being popular means that you do at least something right.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Nov 17, 2007 3:48:03 GMT -7
Jaga,
It is interesting to follow this American and foreign policy (world) discussion as an European outsider. I have to say that I have to limited information and knowledge to participate in such discussions, but they are a great source of information for me. On American politics, the American political psyche and about how American voters and civilians think and debate things.
Pieter
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 17, 2007 9:00:22 GMT -7
www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Dpr/pressreview.htmlPress release from United Nations IAEA Sorry I don't have time today to respond to the whole post. I have to go pick up grandkids. I will get back in the discussion as soon as possible. The whole thing of politics and war makes us all think and wonder where we are headed, doesn't it? Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 17, 2007 10:38:00 GMT -7
Dear Mary,
thank you for your nice post. Yes, you are right - this all politics makes us wonder where are we headed!
I had some time look at these links and this is what I found:
Iran more transparent but expands nuclear campaign Iran has made important strides towards clarifying past nuclear activities but key questions remain unresolved and it has significantly expanded uranium enrichment, a U.N. watchdog report said on Thursday.
Iran: US Must Apologize for Nuke Charges By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 2:01 p.m. ET
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday that a new U.N. report disproved American allegations that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons and he called on the Bush administration to apologize for making false accusations. +++++ and here is a link from this website from AP:
The U.S. responded that the Iranian government should apologize to its own people for isolating them from the world by provoking international sanctions.
The International Atomic Energy Agency did not directly characterize Iran's nuclear program in its Thursday report. It said Iran had been generally truthful about its past uranium enrichment, which Iran says is intended to generate only fuel for nuclear reactors. But the nuclear watchdog also said that restrictions Iran placed on U.N. inspectors two years ago mean that the agency cannot eliminate the possibility of a secret weapons program. ++++ The agency repeatedly concluded that ''Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency.''
''Iran has provided sufficient access to individuals and has responded in a timely manner to questions, and provide (needed) clarifications and amplifications,'' the report said.
The IAEA also said, however, that Iran continues to defy U.N. Security Council resolutions that it stop uranium enrichment, confirming that Tehran is now running some 3,000 centrifuges.
A senior U.N. official, who agreed to discuss the Iran situation only if not quoted by name, said that many centrifuges running smoothly could produce enough material for a nuclear bomb within 1 1/2 years.
++++ I wonder why this guy did not want to reveal its name? The common understanding is that Iran is at least 10 years from reaching nuclear capabilities. ++++ there is no any information about Iran speeding up the program. It shared its data with UN. It does remind me Iraq - the US did not believe Iraq creating the vision of Iraq conquering the world... then the US attacked Iraq.
So, the US work very hard to build the case for another war.
As I mentioned earlier. Iran has no history of attacking any other country and many countries in this region have nuclear facilities. So, why Iran is a bad guy?
By the way, Russia helps Iran to build nuclear reactor. +++
My question is - even if Iran will have nuclear weapons - it will never be able to reach the US safely. Besides, Pakistan does have nuclear weapons, India and Israel. So, why we are so concerned up to the point that we want to start another war which will bleed this country completely?
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 17, 2007 10:40:38 GMT -7
Jaga, It is interesting to follow this American and foreign policy (world) discussion as an European outsider. I have to say that I have to limited information and knowledge to participate in such discussions, but they are a great source of information for me. On American politics, the American political psyche and about how American voters and civilians think and debate things. Pieter Pieter, I am glad, did you have a chance to watch yourtube presentation which shows fear-mongering for another war in FoxNews: bravenewfilms.org/blog/10777-fox-attacks-iran
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 17, 2007 11:07:22 GMT -7
So, there is an anonymous source which says that Iran will be nuclear in 1 1/2 years. This remind me a story of the curveball. The Iraqi's man living in Germany who claimed that Iraq has a nuclear program which then US used as a proof in spite of warnings from German authorities. He did it because he wanted to get political asylum in Germany... WHY NOBODY IN US GOVERNMENT TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR USING THIS STORY IN GOING TO WAR? It does not say any good about the judgment of this president. Here is more about it in Wikipedia: Rafid Ahmed Alwan, also known by his CIA pseudonym Curveball, defected from Iraq in 1999, claiming that he had worked as a chemical engineer at a plant that manufactured mobile biological weapon laboratories as part of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program.[1] Alwan's allegations were subsequently shown to be false by the Iraq Survey Group's final report published in 2004. Despite warnings from the German Federal Intelligence Service regarding the authenticity of the claims, the US Government utilized them to build a rationale for military action in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, including in the 2003 State of the Union address, where President Bush said "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs", and Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, which contained a computer generated image of a mobile biological weapons laboratory...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafid_Ahmed_Alwan
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 19, 2007 0:03:00 GMT -7
Here is from Collin Powell about Iran's chances for nuclear weapons:
so, this is not any ANONYMOUS source by the ex-secretary of state speakingPowell: Iran is a long way from having nuclear weapon By DIANA ELIAS,AP Posted: 2007-11-18 15:41:14 KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Iran is a long way from acquiring a nuclear weapon and is "foolish" for not investing its resources in its people instead of a nuclear program, former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "I think Iran is a long way from having anything that could be anything like a nuclear weapon," Powell told a gathering of bankers, businessmen and diplomats. Tehran rejects claims by the United States and some European Union countries that its nuclear program is aimed at secretly producing weapons and insists it is for peaceful purposes only. "I think the Iranians are being very foolish," Powell said. "When I look at Iran, I see the needs they have. They have not globalized, they have not come up in the international economic community. They are faced with 40 percent unemployment." Powell was invited by the National Bank of Kuwait to speak on economic opportunity and crisis in the Middle East. A report released last week by the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency found Iran has been generally truthful in the information it has provided the agency about aspects of its past nuclear activities. But the International Atomic Energy Agency said it still could not rule out that Iran had a secret weapons program because of restrictions Tehran placed on its inspectors two years ago. Asked if he sees a U.S. war on Iran coming, the retired U.S. general said although no American official will say that the option was "off the table," he did not see prospects of a military conflict with the Islamic republic. There was no base of support among the American people for such action which would be widely condemned, Powell said, adding the U.S. military has enough on its hands in Iraq and Afghanistan to get involved in another conflict. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. news.aol.com/story/_a/powell-iran-is-a-long-way-from-having/n20071118154109990002
|
|
|
Post by hollister on Nov 19, 2007 7:30:05 GMT -7
OPEC Interested in Non-Dollar Currency SEBASTIAN ABBOT | November 18, 2007 06:46 PM EST | RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper." His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state exposed fissures within the 13-member cartel _ especially after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling dollar in the summit's final declaration. Little closer to home - get ready for very expensive gas ... Chavez Tells OPEC to Use Politics, Curb `Imperialism' (Update1) By Daniel Williams and Maher Chmaytelli Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez brought his revolutionary zeal to the cartel that controls 40 percent of the world's oil, urging fellow members at a weekend summit to fight against ``imperialism'' and ``exploitation.'' Chavez used the Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to advance a struggle for the soul of the cartel. Countering him was the conference host, Saudi King Abdullah, who said the organization's goal was simply to produce prosperity. complete articles - www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071118/opec/tinyurl.com/2bg7ej
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 20, 2007 10:33:12 GMT -7
Since dollar is so weak we decided to do some major work at home now and not to wait a year from now when it may cost much more. Just yesterday we changed our windows (7 windows) and 2 pairs of doors to more isolated with a layer of argon inbetween. Yesterday was a good day since today a cold front came. We also bought the insert to our fireplace and a big LCD TV set all of these changes happened to be done the last weekend
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 21, 2007 16:40:49 GMT -7
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 21, 2007 17:32:19 GMT -7
I thought this Associated Press article was interesting. Note the date, 2 days after the 9/11 attacks.
Sep 13, 2001 By John Solomon Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The administration ultimately opted against an attack.
The information spurred a high-level debate inside the White House in December 2000 about whether the classified information provided the last best chance for President Clinton to punish bin Laden before he left office, the officials said.
Now nine month later, officials are discussing the incident as bin Laden's name increasingly is being connected with Tuesday's suicide attacks in New York and Washington.
Some in Congress have expressed anger that the United States has not been able to put bin Laden more on the defensive in Afghanistan with military strikes after years of intelligence linking him to global acts of terrorism against Americans.
"We should have put bin Laden on the defensive so he would be thinking about how we are going to get him rather than him plotting massive terrorist plots," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said.
Officials said the Clinton administration in its closing months reviewed several opportunities to possibly strike at bin Laden, but never felt they had enough information to risk such an operation.
"There were a couple of points, including in December, where there was intelligence indicative of bin Laden's whereabouts. But I can categorically tell you that at no point was it ripe enough to act," former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told The Associated Press.
Officials said the December meeting was the most pointed in a series of discussions over several months. Several officials familiar with the debate said top military and national security officials convened in the White House to discuss the options.
One individual familiar with the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the meeting was prompted by "eyes-on intelligence" about bin Laden's whereabouts - a term used to indicate a human or satellite spotting.
According to officials:
-Military officials presented a possible military strike option, and the pros and cons were debated.
-Among the concerns voiced was whether the intelligence wasn't already stale given bin Laden's tendency to move quickly and go into hiding. There also was discussion of possible collateral damage if such an attack occurred.
-Ultimately, the president and aides decided not to strike. Berger and one other official said military officials never made a formal recommendation to proceed with the attack.
"There was never a recommendation from the Pentagon," Berger said.
Military strikes were aimed at bin Laden once before. After U.S. embassies were bombed in Africa three years ago, Washington retaliated with a missile attack in August 1998, sending more than 70 Tomahawk cruise missiles into eastern Afghanistan targeting training camps operated by bin Laden.
The U.S. attacks killed about 20 followers but bin Laden escaped unhurt. Since then he has been forced by Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to stop giving interviews and making statements.
TBO.com IS Tampa Bay Online © 2001, Media General Inc.
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 21, 2007 20:15:27 GMT -7
From the "American Indian Nations" website (Andrew Jackson is still deeply hated by American Indians, when you read the last item you will understand why. They have been lobbying to have his image removed from the $20 bill)
Andrew Jackson’s Actions and Deeds Against Southeastern Indians Jackson at the Seminole War. Date Event 1812-1813 Jackson fights Indian and British troops in War of 1812. He threatens death to insubordinate soldiers (Even when the term of their enlistment has expired. (Remini, Indian Wars, 71-72)]. Redsticks defeated in Battle of Horseshoe Bend, March 27, 1814 1813 As Major General of U.S. Army, through the Treaty of Fort Jackson, Andrew Jackson imposes retributive measures on the entire Creek Nation though only a minority had been involved in the Red Stick rebellion. He threatens the Creek nation saying that if they do not cede the land they will prove themselves enemies to the United States. Though President Madison had called for land cessions to pay for the costs of the war, Jackson requires much larger land cessions and does not allow all friendly Creeks to remain in their homelands as Indian Agents had already promised under Madison’s direction. Jackson requires half of the Creek territory, 23 million acres of land, be ceded.
Jackson ignores orders to enforce Article IX of the Treaty of Ghent which required the return of Creek territory ceded in the Treaty of Fort Jackson. The Treaty of Ghent legally nullified the Treaty of Fort Jackson; but, disregarding a directive from the Secretary of War, Jackson refuses to return Creek land. 1816 Jackson is insubordinate when he learns of the treaty signed with the Cherokee in Washington on March 22. In this treaty the United States acknowledges the Cherokee right to land the Creeks had ceded in the Treaty of Fort Jackson. Secretary William Crawford reminds Jackson that the treaty had been “approved by the Senate and House of Representatives, and is the supreme law of the land. Submission to it is a duty which will not be neglected.” Jackson refuses to submit to the ratified treaty. In a letter to James Monroe (May 12th 1816) Jackson says that the Cherokee “never had the least semblance of claim ” to those four to five million acres. 1816 Andrew Jackson uses threats and secret bribes to gain the land cessions he desires in treaties signed with Cherokee and Chickasaw leaders. 1818 Jackson threatens war if the Cherokee do not sign a treaty ceding two million acres, July 8th. This treaty inaugurates Jackson’s ultimate “solution” to the “Indian problem” which he thereafter continues to pursue: removal of all Southeastern Indians. 6,000 Cherokee remove to lands west of the Mississippi within two years after the signing of the treaty. 1818 In the First Seminole War, Jackson invades Florida, taking control of Spanish forts and executing British nationals. He invades and takes over Pensacola, the Spanish capital in Florida. This action leads to international tensions, and the United States fears war with Britain. Afterwards, Jackson is accused of acting without authorization and threatening the peace of the United States (Remini, Indian Wars, 143-162). 1818 After an initial unsuccessful attempt to persuade Chickasaw to remove, Jackson threatens violence, withholds overdue annuities, misrepresents the facts, and bribes some of their leaders. A large Chickasaw land cession is consequently obtained on October 19. Jackson considers sections of Chickasaw land to legally belong to American settlers though the Chickasaw land had not been ceded. 1820 Choctaw treaty signed October 20. Jackson threatens the Choctaw that if they do not accept the treaty their “nation will be destroyed. ” 1829 Jackson recommends a speedy Indian removal in his first annual message, December 8th. As he has done in the past, he will use or recommend superintendents use threats, bribes, and fraud in removal treaty negotiations. Now that the United States is powerful enough to force its will he insists that Indians must remove or live as citizens subject to the laws of the States in which they reside. He believes that Indian nations are not sovereign and are therefore subject to the governance of the United States Congress and (more especially) to the laws of the states in which they reside. 1830 After passing the House and the Senate, Andrew Jackson signs The Indian Removal Act on May 28th. This act gives the President the power to negotiate removal treaties. It does not in itself mandate removal. But the illegal and immoral tactics used to coerce Indian acceptance of the treaties results in the removal of almost 50,000 Indians from the East to a location beyond the Mississippi River during Jackson ’s presidency. 1830 Chickasaw agree to removal, August 27th, after Andrew Jackson threatens that they will be destroyed if they resist; that their land “will be taken possession of by your white brethren” and they “will look on your conduct as acts of ill will & ingratitude…” (Remini, Indian Wars, 175). 1830 Choctaw Chiefs at first refuse to sign The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. After superintendents threaten invasion of Creek lands and government, they sign the treaty on September 27th. Superintendents had been instructed to be sure Indians gave “their own free consent” to removal. Before Congress ratifies the treaty Superintendent John H. Eaton assures Congress that no threats, bribes, or secret agreements have been made. 1832 In response to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, that Georgia’s laws are of no effect in Cherokee lands, President Andrew Jackson writes, “the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce George to yield to its mandate. ” 1833 April 26th, Jackson meets with and insists that Black Hawk be imprisoned in Fortress Monroe and remain there until given permission to leave. 1834 John Ross meets with Jackson in Washington on February 5th in an attempt to avert Cherokee removal. Jackson says “I tell you that you cannot remain where you are now… It [is] impossible that you can flourish in the midst of a civilized community. You have but one remedy within your reach. And that is, to remove to the West and join your countrymen, who are already established there.” Jackson reminds Ross of the fate of the Creeks, suggesting that the Cherokee will suffer the same if they do not accept removal. 1835 December 7th Jackson delivers his Seventh Annual Message to Congress. He states that the “plan for their removal and reestablishment is founded upon the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits, and has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality. ” 1835 The Second Seminole War begins on December 18th. It is not concluded until 1842. 1835 After calling for a “council of all the People” to meet at New Echota, John F. Schermerhorn concludes the Treaty of New Echota on December 28th. Almost all the Cherokee Nation boycott the council. It is approved with 79 votes in favor and 7 votes opposed. 1836 Jackson signs the Treaty of New Echota on May 23, after narrowly passing in the Senate. 1836 Jackson orders the military to forcibly remove the Creeks. 1837 Jackson retires as President and returns to Tennessee. 1838 Approximately 17,000 Cherokee are forcefully removed. Estimates of Cherokee population losses due to removal are between 4,000-8,000 (Remini, Indian Wars, 269).
Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 21, 2007 20:58:43 GMT -7
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the waning days of the Clinton presidency, senior officials received specific intelligence about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and weighed a military plan to strike the suspected terrorist mastermind's location. The administration ultimately opted against an attack. The information spurred a high-level debate inside the White House in December 2000 about whether the classified information provided the last best chance for President Clinton to punish bin Laden before he left office, the officials said. Hello Mary, Pres. Clinton had sworn enemies in the Congress, which were doing everything possible to make him less effective. The Republican congress was preoccupied with White Water investigation, Monica Lewinsky etc. One lie costs this country millions of dollars and time. I wish that the Congress paid more attention to the terroristic danger rather that trying to caught CLinton on lie. Do you remember when Clinton bombed Iraq - they were saying (even I believed so) that this was just action Monica, so that he would divert the attention of congress from his "terrible" lie. We would probably never resolve whether he could find Bin Laden earlier and bomb him. But, who knew that Bin Laden would carry 9-11? So it is easy to judge Clinton later. Besides, it was Bush who paid less attention to counter-terrrist unit of CIA acccording to Clark book, not Clinton. Bush got the memo about possible airstrike which he ignored. You cannot blame Clinton on war with Iraq which has nothing to do with 9-11. You cannot blame him on economy, which was terrific during his administration, on spending which went out of control. The original question was whether pres. Bush is a good and moral man.In my opinion, he may be a good man but he is a lousy president, really. He surrouned himself with dangerous people and he does have sufficient knowledge, common sense and interests with politics. He really should stay in his farm in Texas where he was quite happy. Pres. CLinton spent long hours in the White house. Pres. Bush prefers to be outside of DC, especially in his farm in Texas.
|
|
Mary
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 934
|
Post by Mary on Nov 21, 2007 20:58:55 GMT -7
Terribly sorry, but the link to this didn't show the post it should have. Perhaps that is for the best as this article was a very Conservative & controversial view.After all, here in the US, with all our faults, I will give thanks tomorrow that this is where I live, and that we can freely discuss, debate, and disagree, and will defend each other to do so. Happy Thanksgiving! Mary
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 21, 2007 21:13:41 GMT -7
|
|