Sweden, huh?

A country who's greatest contribution to modern society is the Swedish Meatball!!! Just how serious do you expect us (U.S.) to take you? Why don't you just go back to the kitchen and leave world policy to a country that has the capability to set it!!!
:D

Randy

LOL
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...dishChef_s.jpg

Though, seriously; Alfred Nobel was a Swedish Industrialist who brought some dynamite to the technological table, quite a while back

BOOM -- that'sa spic'e meat-te-balla :eek:

Island, I would like to hear your thoughts about the Opec links i put up a while ago.

Just thinkin that there might be bunch of other issues too when talking about this war.

PS: What on earth is swedish meatball? I live next to their country and I have never heard of those. Meatball is a meatball, taste depends of the spices :)

Island, Re-reading my post, I don't think that it has a sub-text. What I meant to say was that our policies, (including the current one), are the problem. And will not negate the problem at hand. And incidentally, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but it sure hasn't happened yet.

As I think that I stated before, I am no fan of Sadam Hussein, (haven't met or heard from from anyone who is), and of course he is not a positive force for stability in the region, but I think that our current course of action is based on some wrong assumptions. And for that, I blame our leadership. :cool:

When it was first invented, wasn't dynamite considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction? In fact, isn't it because of the guilt that Alfred Nobel felt over the destructive use of his invention that prompted him to create the Nobel Prize? Hmmmmm, wonder what ol' Saddam is gonna do to get over his guilt...

Randy

Check it out, Z.
Swedish Meatballs

Bon Apetit!

ARRGHHH, I spoke french!!!!! YIKES!!! gonna have to wash my mouth out with soap!!!! LOL

speeder - are you saying you think i'm a Republican?? I consider myself an Independent. ;) ;) ;) (my opinions are formed by issues not political party).

Hummm...."""the notion that all immigrants/foreign nationals who move here or visit are obliged to immediately join the Republican party"""

Whose notion is that??? Certainly not mine & I have to say that is a pretty big generalization to make.

I asked those specific ques to Aurel because he seemed like he really did not want to be living here & seemed to lack a bit of compassion towards the WTC incident. I did not know if that was really the case or if I misunderstood him.

(And...as a side issue...i'm not French bashing him either...my dad was French & I still love french fries! ;) :D ;) )

Is there any truthful text regarding the intelligence of our current president? He definitely lacks communcations ability like past presidents, but alone that hardly makes one a poor leader. I'm not looking for commentary like "Bush is an idiot." I want to see a well-organized argument about why Bush is inept.

In my eyes, Bush's lack of great negotiating and communication prowess is substituted by his respected cabinet staff. I believe there is a saying like a successful person surrounds himself with successful individuals. I don't feel great leaders need great intelligence. There are other attributes more important.

jurgen

Dear Sarah,

I was in New-Jersey at work when the towers fell, and later in the evening, I could see the smoke from Sandy-Hook bay. Several of my friends lost relatives or friends. The guard at the desk in my company lost his parents in Flight 93. So, I have been very close to 9/11 and felt a lot of compassion and sadness for all my friends. Also very shocked and perturbed by this horror. For several weeks, I could not sleep when I heard a plane fly over my town... But, I beleive this adminstration has used this event in a despicable manner to justify a war with Iraq, while there is no connection with Al Quaeda. I am absolutely not anti-american, but I am opposed to the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfovitz-Perle-Cheney cabbal.
I do not beleive their motives are pure and high. I guess I could be defined as a leftist here, although in french standards, I`d be rater right wing...To give you an example, a guy that I really like and resonate with is Michael Moore. He has a very humane vision of the american society, and speaks with his heart.

Aurel

Dear Sarah, Actually my remark about "joining the Republican party" was directed at all of the "love it or leave it" crowd around here, but yes, it was prompted by your questioning of Aurel's reason for being here and his sympathy for 9/11 victims. Glad to hear of your political affiliation, I guess, but I have nothing against anyone's heartfelt beliefs if they respect other's beliefs. My problem would be w/ the (usually illiterate) responses here to anyone from another country who does not buy the Bush party line at the moment. This is an international BBS, let me remind everyone. Your posts are very polite and I do not lump you together w/ them.

As to the issue of Bush's competency, I do think that it is relevant. We never get to see what really goes on behind the scenes, but I seriously doubt that he can hold his own in policy arguments w/ much better informed members of his own team. It goes to the question of who is really leading us, the guy who was elected, (I'm not even going to touch that one), or some extremely powerful un-elected officials that he has "surrounded himself with". Certainly all good leaders hire a substantial brain trust to manage government, but the assumption in our system is that the President is truly in charge of all of them. By all accounts, before becoming President GW Bush was marked by an almost complete lack of intellectual curiousity about anything , much less complicated headache causing subjects like the history of recent world politics. He did compensate by being extremely lazy, though, working sometimes only a couple of hours a day while governing Texas.

It's a return of Reagan symptom, where the President is basically just a vesel for the interests of other powerful people, and can be easily convinced to believe their arguments. He is simply no match for them, intellectually speaking. Do you not consider that a problem, Jurgen? :cool:

I'm not intellectual. I'm just a working class person, so please forgive me if I sound less than smart, seriously.

It is my understanding that the US has three major branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, and no branch is driven by the actions and interests of a single person. After all, if the President represents the sole interest of the executive branch, there is no need for any other personnel, correct? I haven't been blessed to be on earth for a lengthy time, but I cannot think of any modern president who was the LONE voice for the executive branch. Clinton had his cabinet, and so did previous presidents. If we want a tyrant, we don't need elections.

I still do not feel you must be intellectually superior to be this country's president. The traits I do see in the President: Bush is assertive, Bush selects and interacts with quality advisers (perhaps a reflection of his MBA background), and Bush has a strong will. Bush just won't back down from a fight. I feel a President must know when to negotiate and when to stick firm, and I feel Bush fits that profile to an extent. Bush will make the wrong decisions occasionally, but living to never fail is the wrong way to live.

Like I said, I'm just a silly podunk from TN, but I like to see a President that has the traits of any good man.

Just my opinion,
Jürgen

Jurgen, I am a working guy myself, (and a lazy student as well, so I feel a kinship w/ Bush there), but I do believe that the most powerful political leader in the world has to be a bit more than just a "regular guy". And within the Executive Branch, no person or group of persons, (such as the cabinet), has ANY authority over the President's final say. They are all advisors to him or wield authority at the President's convienience, ie. he can fire them but not vice versa.

Furthermore, although our 3 branches are supposed to be a system of checks and balances, (avoiding too much of a concentration of power in the Executive Branch), in reality since the terrible events of Sept. 11 the President has seen basically no resistance within the government to enacting sweeping measures all sold under the heading of increasing security. Or to this war against Iraq, which would normally be beyond the President's authority to wage w/o the backing of NATO and the U.N.

I believe that our government has gone into the "fear business", using people's fear of terrorist attacks to enact odious legislation curtailing civil rights, (forgetting the number of people who have died fighting for those very rights), and to sell a war that will only cause further terrorism, and bankrupt the economy for a generation. Forget ideology for a minute, just as a pragmatist I do not think that this war will work to accomplish what it sets out to do, "make the world a safer place". That is my opinion, and the opinion of many people much better informed than me, (not lazy students). :cool:

Speeder-- since you want to make the argument about "smarts".. . Who Bush listens to, and why

A peek:
National Security Advisor; Condoleezza Rice; started college at age 15.

"While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information gathered around the world . . .

I have never questioned that he has competent people in his cabinet, but the same could be said of Clinton, (and every other president, really), and I am sure that this fact did not stop you from questioning some of his (Clinton's) policies, right?

I agree that our President gets intelligence briefings, but that still leaves a wide area for discretion on how to respond to Sadam Hussein. If, (and tonight's news says when ), he uses the last of his undestroyed chemical weapons against our soldiers, many people will be saying, "see, I told you so". And I will say, what exactly would have been the danger of continuing inspections and maybe finding the stuff? He certainly wasn't going to use WMD against the U.N. inspectors, but he will against an invading army as a last resort/ swan song. God I feel for those troops, I'm praying my ass off for them. :cool:

aurel & speeder both of your comments did help me to better understand where you guys are coming from & I appreciated not getting flamed for my ques/comments! :) :D :)

You are very welcome, Sarah. We peaceniks do not flame all day long as other bully war supporters on this board. http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/kao4.gif

Aurel

Good one, Aurel.
We war supporters do not flame all day long as other bully peaceniks on this board.

I did not name anyone, Dr. Island. Did you feel targeted by any chance ? :p

Aurel

Not really. Just thought I would turn the blanket backhanded name calling around to mock. :p ;)

I happen to believe that the type of intense political discussion that we have been having here is extremely healthy for a free, democratic society like the U.S. And I appreciate hearing from people in other countries, their viewpoints add to the total information resource by letting me know what "the street" is saying in other places, sometimes better than official news sources. I listen to NPR, (BBC, Arab news, plus all Centcom releases), conservative talk radio, watch NBC news, plus read a couple of papers a day and surf the net news sources. I am trying to keep an open mind, plus keep up with the war including behind the scenes.

I am extremely concerned about the American POWs, how will we get them back? When I saw those faces on the film clip, it broke my heart completely. They are good people, like Leland and the other service people on the board here. This is why some of us are against this war, not because we are cowards, (at least speaking for myself, I believe that my life is not so special and certain things are worth dying for if neccesary), but we believe that when you consider the real cost of war it should only be used when ALL other options have been exhausted. We can disagree on whether that was the case this time I guess, but I certainly hope for the safety of our military personnel and minimum loss of life in total. I also feel for the average Joes and Janes of Iraq, (not the ruling people and R. guard), we sure are lucky that we don't live there. :cool: