| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
When did it change? The name rules for African countries are too
complicated.
|
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
Used to be a great country in my day: pity.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
Yep, dead easy to get a ballistic missile from North Korea past
South
Korea and Japan, Indo-China, Singapore, round India, past Pakistan
and Iran and up through the Gulf blockade. Can't imagine why he
didn't do it, really.
North Korea managed to supply much of the Middle East with medium
range missiles and missile technology. This included Yemen and
Libya
as I recall. I think Libya was caught buying 100 of the things. 100
missiles much more powerful than Scuds would be a big deal if they
pointed at a European city.
|
Well, yes. It can be done, with collusion from other states: Iraq
didn't have useful allies, if any at all. But note, Libya was
_caught_: there are some pretty fearsome intelligence services
around, even if our own perform rather eccentrically -- Israel's find
out stuff in impressive detail. And in any case, Saddam didn't
actually _do_ it, and why would he? The prime task of these
gangster-dictators is always survival and salting away the loot.
| Quote: |
One threat that I think is too easily dismissed is the use of
nuclear
capable missiles to attack maybe with and maybe not with nuclear
weapons. The attacked country wouldn't know what sort of response
it
could justify until the missiles hit and as long as they never
actually were nuclear, this game could go on for months. A good
idea
of what could happen was given to us by Israel during the 1991 Gulf
War when Saddam repeatedly fired Scud missiles that may or may not
have contained chemical weapons. That country was brought to a
standstill. Imagine Saddam (or whoever) doing that to London or New
York City or Paris.
|
And look how quickly that threat was neutralised. He launched only
when he was under direct counter-attack: indeed, at the time he must
have imagined the game was up -- he presumably wasn't expecting Bush
Senior to hand him the get-out-of-jail card with which he was
rewarded for it all.
I maintain that the analogy for Saddam is not Hitlerian expansionism
(how could it be, with Iraq's resources?) but the old-fashioned South
American dictators. Men like that, you can buy, or hem in, or even
ignore.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:46:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
When did it change? The name rules for African countries are too
complicated.
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
The 1997 Statesman's yearbook has the same - English "Republic of |
Sudan", Arabic "Jamhuryat es-Sudan".
Unlike The Gambia, which is not only "Republic of The Gambia", but has
a Central Bank of The Gambia, The Gambia College, and a national
anthem called "For The Gambia, our homeland". The national airline,
though, is just Gambia Airways.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From address is not read; to email me,
use don-aitken@clara.co.uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:50 pm
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') [...]
Obaue: I'd write "the Sudan".
I think they insist on the "The" getting the initial cap. They
don't
have much of a government to get you, so you are free to do what
you
want.
They certainly don't have much of an English translator for their
Web
site <http://www.sudan.gov.sd/english.htm>, but it just says
"Sudan".
You may be thinking of The Gambia (sic).
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
|
You're okay anyway.
I suppose it's possible that my dislike of those capital "The"s, as in
_The New York Times_ and TESC (The Evergreen State College, which is in
Olympia, Wash., if you're keeping track), is mere prejudice on my part.
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:25 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: |
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
Yep, dead easy to get a ballistic missile from North Korea past
South
Korea and Japan, Indo-China, Singapore, round India, past Pakistan
and Iran and up through the Gulf blockade. Can't imagine why he
didn't do it, really.
North Korea managed to supply much of the Middle East with medium
range missiles and missile technology. This included Yemen and
Libya
as I recall. I think Libya was caught buying 100 of the things. 100
missiles much more powerful than Scuds would be a big deal if they
pointed at a European city.
Well, yes. It can be done, with collusion from other states: Iraq
didn't have useful allies, if any at all.
We've seen that it had oil to bribe even people supposedly untouchable |
at the UN.
| Quote: | But note, Libya was
_caught_: there are some pretty fearsome intelligence services
around, even if our own perform rather eccentrically -- Israel's find
out stuff in impressive detail. And in any case, Saddam didn't
actually _do_ it, and why would he? The prime task of these
gangster-dictators is always survival and salting away the loot.
If Saddam only cared about surviving, he wouldn't have behaved as he |
did. He repeatedly acted in ways that insured eventually he'd be either
killed or arrested.
| Quote: | One threat that I think is too easily dismissed is the use of
nuclear
capable missiles to attack maybe with and maybe not with nuclear
weapons. The attacked country wouldn't know what sort of response
it
could justify until the missiles hit and as long as they never
actually were nuclear, this game could go on for months. A good
idea
of what could happen was given to us by Israel during the 1991 Gulf
War when Saddam repeatedly fired Scud missiles that may or may not
have contained chemical weapons. That country was brought to a
standstill. Imagine Saddam (or whoever) doing that to London or New
York City or Paris.
And look how quickly that threat was neutralised. He launched only
when he was under direct counter-attack: indeed, at the time he must
have imagined the game was up -- he presumably wasn't expecting Bush
Senior to hand him the get-out-of-jail card with which he was
rewarded for it all.
He launched at Israel for much of the air war. There is no evidence that |
even one of his launchers was destroyed by allied efforts which were
concentrated way beyond any military value, not that there were many
targets left in Iraq to hit anyway. In future with ICBMs and a crazy
dictator far away from a country's forces, how long could shooting off
maybe nuclear maybe not missiles at cities be got away with? A very long
time, I think.
| Quote: | I maintain that the analogy for Saddam is not Hitlerian expansionism
(how could it be, with Iraq's resources?) but the old-fashioned South
American dictators. Men like that, you can buy, or hem in, or even
ignore.
But what does that get you when it is the hopelessness in the Middle |
East that is the real driver behind the terrorist threat a la 9/11? The
hopelessness in South America still exists and is causing us problems
even now. Thankfully at least they don't seem so into strapping on belly
bombs.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:32 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:46:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
When did it change? The name rules for African countries are too
complicated.
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
The 1997 Statesman's yearbook has the same - English "Republic of
Sudan", Arabic "Jamhuryat es-Sudan".
Unlike The Gambia, which is not only "Republic of The Gambia", but has
a Central Bank of The Gambia, The Gambia College, and a national
anthem called "For The Gambia, our homeland". The national airline,
though, is just Gambia Airways.
I wonder how definite articles are handled in, for example, Wolof. |
That's interesting that Senegal is official French and The Gambia is
official English language.
--
Why do sequels seem not to continue the story but instead retell the
original? I still want to see a real sequel to "Universal Soldier" where
the new girlfriend and the reanimated soldier who has to take a break
and recharge in a special recharge machine every few days, and might
melt if he gets too excited, learns to live within his limitations,
perhaps getting a job selling life insurance nine to five while starting
his own country western band as an evening outlet, finally taking the
time out in his life for romance and smelling the lovely flowers. Have
some guts Hollywood, turn a full out violent action movie into a woman
friendly romantic comedy sequel! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:11 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
Yep, dead easy to get a ballistic missile from North Korea [...]
Can't imagine
why he didn't do it, really.
North Korea managed to supply much of the Middle East with medium
range missiles and missile technology. This included Yemen and
Libya
as I recall. I think Libya was caught buying 100 of the things.
100
missiles much more powerful than Scuds would be a big deal if
they
pointed at a European city.
Well, yes. It can be done, with collusion from other states: Iraq
didn't have useful allies, if any at all.
We've seen that it had oil to bribe even people supposedly
untouchable
at the UN.
|
Didn't net him any long-range missiles, though.
| Quote: | But note, Libya was
_caught_: there are some pretty fearsome intelligence services
around, even if our own perform rather eccentrically -- Israel's
find
out stuff in impressive detail. And in any case, Saddam didn't
actually _do_ it, and why would he? The prime task of these
gangster-dictators is always survival and salting away the loot.
If Saddam only cared about surviving, he wouldn't have behaved as
he
did. He repeatedly acted in ways that insured eventually he'd be
either killed or arrested.
|
Kleptocratic dictators don't think like that, especially when they've
been given so many let-offs. As is customary with such people, we
told him he could stick around; we told him we didn't care what
happened to his people. He pursued the usual strategy of such
dictators, which does not include firing rockets at potential enemies
more powerful than himself.
| Quote: |
One threat that I think is too easily dismissed is the use of
nuclear capable missiles to attack maybe with and maybe not with
nuclear weapons. The attacked country wouldn't know what sort of
response it could justify until the missiles hit and as long as
they never actually were nuclear, this game could go on for
months.
A good idea of what could happen was given to us by Israel during
the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam repeatedly fired Scud missiles that
may or may not have contained chemical weapons. That country was
brought to a standstill. Imagine Saddam (or whoever) doing that
to
London or New York City or Paris.
And look how quickly that threat was neutralised. He launched only
when he was under direct counter-attack: indeed, at the time he
must
have imagined the game was up -- he presumably wasn't expecting
Bush
Senior to hand him the get-out-of-jail card with which he was
rewarded for it all.
He launched at Israel for much of the air war.
|
And that lasted how long? It wasn't even a war: it was a battle. And,
in air terms, not really even a battle.
| Quote: | There is no evidence
that even one of his launchers was destroyed by allied efforts
which
were concentrated way beyond any military value, not that there
were
many targets left in Iraq to hit anyway. In future with ICBMs and a
crazy dictator far away from a country's forces, how long could
shooting off maybe nuclear maybe not missiles at cities be got away
with? A very long time, I think.
|
That's the point, though: he wasn't crazy. He was just an immoral
dictator. He tried one aggression the US wasn't prepared to stomach,
and the US and friends rolled him back, but left him in power when
they could have removed him. He perfectly reasonably worked out that
this meant it was OK by the allies if he stayed in power as long as
they didn't get hurt.
Firing Scuds at Israel once he was attacked seems to me to have been
a vain attempt to get Israel into the war: this might just have
turned the war into an Americans and Israelis against the Arabs
thing. He was desperate.
| Quote: |
I maintain that the analogy for Saddam is not Hitlerian
expansionism
(how could it be, with Iraq's resources?) but the old-fashioned
South
American dictators. Men like that, you can buy, or hem in, or even
ignore.
But what does that get you when it is the hopelessness in the
Middle
East that is the real driver behind the terrorist threat a la 9/11?
The hopelessness in South America still exists and is causing us
problems even now. Thankfully at least they don't seem so into
strapping on belly bombs.
|
So we tackle it by increasing the hopelessness in the Middle East?
Yes, of course that, and not Saddam, is the driver behind the
terrorism. That's what I've been saying. We know exactly what
triggered 9/11, and it's proved to be dangerous to ignore it.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:46:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The 1997 Statesman's yearbook has the same - English "Republic of
Sudan", Arabic "Jamhuryat es-Sudan".
|
jumhu:riyya(t) al-su:da:n |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') [...]
Obaue: I'd write "the Sudan".
I think they insist on the "The" getting the initial cap. They
don't
have much of a government to get you, so you are free to do what
you
want.
They certainly don't have much of an English translator for their
Web
site <http://www.sudan.gov.sd/english.htm>, but it just says
"Sudan".
You may be thinking of The Gambia (sic).
[...]
The "The" is now obsolete; but when it was in official use, I'd
certainly have applied the capital letter.
|
the form without the articleis used in more casual contexts and
when brevity is desired, like in stamps. in arabic it is al-su:da:n
in the UN guidelines (mainly oriented towards translators in official
UN publication the article appears. the official "short form" is the
Sudan,
or "Sudan, (the)".
thsi is what I found:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html#Govt
conventional long form: Republic of the Sudan
conventional short form: Sudan
local long form: Jumhuriyat as-Sudan
local short form: As-Sudan
former: Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan
The Republic of the Sudan, or Republic of Sudan (in
recent years the definite article has increasingly
been dropped in common usage)
notice here, both "the Sudan" and "Sudan" are used, but
notice that the formal mailing address has "the Sudan":
http://www.sudanembassy.org/
http://www.unsudanig.org/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: | ...
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
|
It has a definite article because it is short for "bila:d as-su:da:n" which
is Arabic for "the country of the Blacks/Negroes." Look it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Bollard
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:14:37 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
<maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Drifting off the topic:
In the late 1940s, when I was 5 or 6 years old, there was a German woman
(from Germany, speaking German) living down the street. (That was 23rd
Street in Detroit.) The kids in the neighborhood were afraid of her, and
"hated krauts," and told each other that she carried a butcher knife and
would use it on us because she was German and lost the war. It was all
nonsense, of course, but not to kids. We smartened up, though, probably
when it became obvious that no one was getting attacked with a butcher
knife. Still, it must have been hard for the woman, being feared and
hated by kids. (How long did it all that last? I couldn't say. Maybe a
few days, maybe longer. But it's there in my mind while other events of
those times are not.)
|
This sort of thing went on even when I was at school in the 1970s. The
lady teaching German, Mrs Kratochville, was treated very badly by some
of the students because of her Germanness (I don't think she was even
German but that didn't matter).
The "Germans are bad" attitude was fuelled by war movies.
I noticed an interesting shift in who were goodies and baddies in
World Championship Wrestling (1). When I first watched it, the baddies
included Killer Karl Kox (a German) and the goodies were Spiros Arion
(the Golden Greek) and Mario Milano, an Italian.
Killer Karl turned good claiming that his sainted mother (it might
have been his granny) on her deathbed, had asked him to turn to the
good side and only use the Brainbuster on those who truly deserved it.
The Greek and the Italian, conversely, turned bad at about the same
time as migrants from their countries were becoming numerous enough to
be topically "different".
(1) An Australian version. All bouts were refereed by "Wallaby Bob"
McMaster who must have been an ex-wrestler. We used to joke that
Wallaby Bob's brother was called Roo Ted.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
...
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which
seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
It has a definite article because it is short for "bila:d
as-su:da:n"
which is Arabic for "the country of the Blacks/Negroes." Look it
up. |
I can shamsify an al all by myself, thank you; though of course it
was kind of you to offer. I quoted a printed and a web document: look
them up yourself.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wayne Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:59 pm
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Richard Bollard wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 03:14:37 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Drifting off the topic:
In the late 1940s, when I was 5 or 6 years old, there was a German
woman (from Germany, speaking German) living down the street. (That
was 23rd Street in Detroit.) The kids in the neighborhood were
afraid of her, and "hated krauts," and told each other that she
carried a butcher knife and would use it on us because she was
German and lost the war. It was all nonsense, of course, but not to
kids. We smartened up, though, probably when it became obvious that
no one was getting attacked with a butcher knife. Still, it must
have been hard for the woman, being feared and hated by kids. (How
long did it all that last? I couldn't say. Maybe a few days, maybe
longer. But it's there in my mind while other events of those times
are not.)
This sort of thing went on even when I was at school in the 1970s. The
lady teaching German, Mrs Kratochville, was treated very badly by some
of the students because of her Germanness (I don't think she was even
German but that didn't matter).
The "Germans are bad" attitude was fuelled by war movies.
|
[...]
The Germans got nearly pushed out of the picture by the Russians when
"Russian" was almost a curse word in the US during the Cold War. There was a
farcical question going around Western Europe when the Soviet Union
collapsed. Europeans were asking what the Americans were going to do without
someone to hate and who was going to be their hate object after the
Russians. Europeans didn't have to wait too long for an answer. There was no
need, however, for a feeling of superiority on this in Europe, where every
little country, be it no larger than a handkerchief, has its hate objects,
often its neighbors in the next country. A traveler who gets to know many
peoples throughout the world must be astounded by the level of hatred of one
nation for another. Meanwhile Americans seem to have become everybody's bad
guys and the very word "American" has a negative ring in the ears of many
peoples around the world. How long will that last? Who's next?
Regards, ----- WB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:12 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:41:17 -0800, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus
of recirculation')" <John.Methuen@magersfontein.co.uk> wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@Ă©ircom.net
wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
People now call for impeachment the minute they think someone has been
elected president. One of the reasons why 9/11, and perhaps the previous
attack on the WTC, made it through is because al Qaeda attacked at a
transition point in presidents. It's the new guy who might be personally
ready for anything but must take time out to have all options vetted
that opens us up. We need to learn to transition not by stealing all the
W keys from keyboards and cutting the White House phone lines, but by
keeping important people in place for six months or even a year working
with the new people and getting them up to speed. Ever since the Bay of
Pigs, presidents have been rightly unwilling to just take the
recommendations of previous administrations without first taking many
months to review.
The British system makes an interesting contrast. Here, the new
government is expected to be up and running within 24 hours of the
election result being known. That is possible because we have
*permanent* civil servants, who, among other things, read all the
party manifestos as soon as they are issued. When the new ministers
get to their offices on day one, they find a legislative program based
on their manifesto, complete with draft Bills, waiting for them. The
one based on the *other* party's manifesto gets shredded. It is taken
as a matter of routine that the same people should be able to work on
policies based on diametrically opposite principles. The idea that it
is necessary to replace all the "important people" seems bizarre,
|
The Republicans seek to put the least competent, but most
politically connected, people into government offices in order
to prove that government is incompetent. It also allows their
corporate constituency to get away with all sorts of
shenanigans.
--Jeff
--
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed
from without. It has to come from within.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:17 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation') wrote:
| Quote: |
Charles Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:46:47 +0100, Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:42:07 +0000, Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net
wrought:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
Since Nixon, calls for impeachment have been the pre-eminent feature
of all presidential second terms -- Reagan's (Iran-Contra), Clinton's
(Monicagate and Whitewater) and now Dubya's (Plamegate, now
metastasising into the Whole Iraq Thing). Wouldn't it be simpler and
make for a better-run country to allow no second terms, while perhaps
extending the term of office from four to five years?
I might take the opposite approach. Once we've found a good prez --
another FDR, perhaps -- allow him to remain in office for as long as
the people approve of him or her.
I think that's a bad idea. FDR was acting closer to a king and being
treated that way than I think Americans should want. He also lied to get
them into WWII in Europe.
|
He lied about Germany and Italy declaring war? Passing strange.
| Quote: | Immediately remove any bastard whose
popularity falls as low as Bush's is right now. We have a democracy,
don't we?
Looking at these state-wide initiatives I've got to vote on, I suspect
that the sort of pure democracy you seem to be suggesting would be
really scary. I pay attention to politics and I'm not sure what to do
just with some these ten odd questions. What would happen if people who
pay little attention had to decide the lot of it? One reason for
America's great stability comes from its predetermined beginning,
duration and end of terms of office. We have issues, a major one being
transitional stablity between administrations but we don't have to worry
that some coaltion in the ruling government will get wet feet and piss
off.
|
Your last governor wasn't given a predetermined term of office.
I might agree with you if the Democratic Party actually stood
for something, something consistent anyway.
--Jeff
--
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed
from without. It has to come from within.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in