17 Sep 07
Originally posted by buffalobillChurchil is a good name.
For my money there can only be one - Winston Churchill. He led the free world against tyranny and with odds stacked against, succeeded in fighting a war on three fronts, was a consumate politican and diplomat, kept the Commonwealth in, forged and held together a multi-party government. Besides, who else (ever) can have the three most powerful people in t ...[text shortened]... most of the fighting and all but won the war, but he was murderous thug, so he doesn't cut it.
He, Einstein, and Mandela seem to be getting all of the votes.
I'm surprised there isn't more support for Ghandi.
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightDid you like this quote of his.
Mandela was a political prisoner for over 3 decades for opposing an unjust law.
Freedom don't come free!!!
"Nelson Mandela: The United States of America is a Threat to World Peace"
Which appeared at the end of.
"Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan."
Easy to follow the romance isn't it.
Thirty years ago you would have called him a terrorist and probably advocated bombing the hell out of him if he'd got anywhere near government.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by WheelyNot maybe...I was in no position to bomb anyone thirty years ago.
Maybe but do you like the quote?
I have never bombed anyone and I am all but certain that I never will.
As for the quote, I think Mandela made some very erudite points. If you read the whole newsweek interview you will see that he has a particular problem with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In that, he is not alone.
The US was instrumental is giving mandela the right to speak freely. I'm in favor of him having that right. Most US citizens are in favor of him having that right.
17 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightAs it turns out, I don't really think he was as far off with his opinion as some people might have thought. I respect his opinion, and truthfully think we might have been able to come to a better solution to the situation. And I am not sure 911 would have ever happened had George Bush not have become out Commander in Chief. But after the attack of 911, who really wanted to listen. Looking back maybe we should have. But what real choice did we have given the circumstances. I don't know. I am not sure we could have taken the risk. I would have preferred a different administration myself, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with me as usual.
Not maybe...I was in no position to bomb anyone thirty years ago.
I have never bombed anyone and I am all but certain that I never will.
As for the quote, I think Mandela made some very erudite points. If you read the whole newsweek interview you will see that he has a particular problem with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In that, he is not alon ...[text shortened]... I'm in favor of him having that right. Most US citizens are in favor of him having that right.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by cashthetrashEvery action has both positive and negative consequences.
As it turns out, I don't really think he was as far off with his opinion as some people might have thought. I respect his opinion, and truthfully think we might have been able to come to a better solution to the situation. And I am not sure 911 would have ever happened had George Bush not have become out Commander in Chief. But after the attack of 911, ...[text shortened]... a different administration myself, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with me as usual.
If we had done nothing after 9/11, the world would be different, but not necessarily better.
If we look for political and diplomatic solutions that have nothing but positive reults we will not find them.
I doubt that there are very many people in the world who want to see Saddam back in power.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by Red NightI certainly hope you don't think that was what I was saying. To do nothing come on, I don't believe any US President would just do nothing. As far as Saddam is concerned. I can't think of anyone who wants him back, but I will be willing to say this. They better find someone soon, because what they have now is not working either. I can't say they are better off as it is.
Every action has both positive and negative consequences.
If we had done nothing after 9/11, the world would be different, but not necessarily better.
If we look for political and diplomatic solutions that have nothing but positive reults we will not find them.
I doubt that there are very many people in the world who want to see Saddam back in power.
17 Sep 07
Originally posted by cashthetrashI think that they are no worse off. It was pretty crappy over there before we invaded.
I certainly hope you don't think that was what I was saying. To do nothing come on, I don't believe any US President would just do nothing. As far as Saddam is concerned. I can't think of anyone who wants him back, but I will be willing to say this. They better find someone soon, because what they have now is not working either. I can't say they are better off as it is.
But, I agree that we need to find a better solution than what we have now.
And I wasn't disagreeing with you, in fact I thought I was agreeing with you and continuing to respond to those who want to bash the US because we do things and those actions have negative consequences that could not be avoided.
18 Sep 07
Originally posted by rbmorrisI lean toward Ford as the father of American industry and mass production. But good arguments can be made for Gates..
I hate Microsoft just as much as anybody, but I'd choose Bill Gates over Henry Ford.
Do you feel Gates had a comparable impact and revolutionized society the way Ford did?