Topic awaiting preservation: President Blair??

Is Blair really as popular in the US as this article suggests (or is it just us Brits talking up our PM?):
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,936169,00.html

What does the rest of the world think about him? US lapdog?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I didn't read the whole article but I can say that Blair is very popular here. I think a lot of Americans tend to be Anglophiles anyway and having a PM that is so eloquent and right on the money (I know you probably just lost your last meal after reading that) translates to instant popularity.

One thing that happened a couple weeks ago was really endearing, I thought. Bush and Blair gave that joint news conference and a reporter asked how long the allies would be in Iraq. Bush just blurted out something like, "only as long as necessary and not a day longer". Then Blair went on this eloquent dissertation with wonderful vocabulary and phrasing that basically said, "only as long as necessary and not a day longer". I thought that was pretty funny.

[edit] What I find particularly ironic is that Blair is Labour. I never would have thought he would be such a hawk as he has been. I've always thought the Labour Party was the rough equivalent of our Democrats. How do you see that dynamic from your side of things, Emps? Why was Blair so for this action? [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-15-2003).]

quote:

---

From New York to LA, and far right to liberal left, Tony Blair is a hero in America. His stance on the war and his eloquent support of an inarticulate president has won the hearts and minds of its people. But, asks leading US political commentator Joe Conason, how long will the affair last?

---

I won't speak for everyone, but I can say with certainty, that most people here see Blair the way our MEDIA present him, and I cant say that I've been watching tv a lot, but from what they write on the internet, that quote is pretty close : ) after all, he IS the only ally Bush has, who actually dared to join him on this crusade for the " Iraqi Freedom " (whatever the hell that means).

If ure just curious about opinions of different people on this forum, I think that Blair is in it for a nice Oil deal, and could not give less shit about Iraqi Freedom (not that bush could, but not sure that oil is his ONLY concern). I'm no expert, but from what I read (taking bias and propoganda into consideration) and see on the pictures (those where Bush and Blair look like they've just come back from a frat party), aside from his eloquence - cant say he's much of a hero.

The whole world resented this war, while Blair basically said "sure ok, lez go stick it to saddam..." is that right? should both of them be regarded as the world's heros? I dont know... let's see what happens next, then make conclusions. Maybe in this case, Results WILL Justify the Means (do you think they possibly could?)

I'll be content to let history be the judge of their actions. We may all be gone before the full ramifications of their actions today have been realized. And I'm glad that at least the Iraqi people now will have a chance of a better future. It hard to imagine a worse situation than what they had under Hussein.

Bugs: You said:

quote:

---

What I find particularly ironic is that Blair is Labour. I never would have thought he would be such a hawk as he has been. I've always thought the Labour Party was the rough equivalent of our Democrats. How do you see that dynamic from your side of things, Emps? Why was Blair so for this action?

---

Well the Labour party can be just as hawkish as the Conservatives and Tony Blair has dragged the party so far to the right that he has effectively cut the legs out from the Tories who can only really go support the Prime Minister on this (in fact while his won party has been revolting [no pun] the Conservatives have stuck with him).

I should own up to a bias here as he is a close friend of certain members of my immediate family and mine and Cherie's family have been close for over 50 years (my auntie features in her father's autobiography - my other auntie got embarassed and hid all the copies in the library).

So how do I see things from my side? Well I know that he sincerely believes that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I suspect he has a wider vision of how to make a better world and sometimes if those plocies initially prove unpopular then he will push them through (the swing in the polls suggests he now has the British people on his side over the war which must justify his thinking). As the article suggests his vision intersected with the American's wish to depose Saddam (although I'd imagine he probably didn't want events in the UN unravelling quite the way they did). He firmly believes in addressing climate change and a greater Europe (recent reports suggest he still wants a referendum on the Euro before the next election) which appear to diverge from the policy of the current US administration and while he will seek compromises where possible he will try and drive through these policies.

If the UK get some tasty contracts out of this (although I haven't read anything about them) then that is an added bonus but he is doing this because he thinks it is right.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I know that he sincerely believes that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

---

I'm glad that there are still politicians who Believe that something is the RIGHT THING TO DO, as opposed to Profitable Thing To Do.

Emps, that is very interesting. Thanks for the info, I didn't realize you were so close to "power" I had heard that Blair was a religious man and was very sincere in believing this war was necessary. You know I share his conviction.

I'm wondering why (if you do) doubt Bush's motives vis-a-vis oil interests then. He is a very religious man and it would seem he sees this conflict as a real struggle between "good and evil", just like Blair.

Although Blair's inteligence and education obcenely exceeds that of that other retard he certainly is considered no hero or wonder boy in the UK. The average person on the street in England is not blinkered and

stupified by the controlled and contrived media. Neither is he the fluent and poetically eloquent orator as some see him. (well, perhaps by American standards) His speaking style stutters and stumbles in

fragmented toneless phrases from a constricted truth blocking throat brought about by his clinical frigidity and lack of sincerity. He is a master of deception and the art of the lie. Lapdog? Poodle? Certainly not..

he has his own adgenda that you and a million others obviously cannot see. He has lied the the general public on a whole host of issues so often that his credibility is all about shot amonst his populace.... a far

wider perspective is required to see the real and whole picture as this is not about 'liar and Blush', I mean Blair and Bush. There is a far larger and more dangerous machinery at work To quote Queen Elizabeth

II after Diana's Butler's court trial: "You must be careful as there are forces at work in this country about which you know nothing" It seems you have also been skilfully shielded from the stories concernig his

wife who is a high court judge and was recently embroiled in a messy and pubicly damaging and embarrasing scandal involving shady property deals and association with a certain known criminal and con man

that had served prison scentances in three different continents and was subsequently deported from Briton. Religeous beliefs? Bullshit. Since when did he become the hand of god? or are you saying that god

backed the war? or backing it was a godly act? ..even his own spirirtual leader and advisor did not support his views at all. A religeous man does not mean a spiritial man. What a shallow qualification. Sadaam is

religeous, so so were all those wicked Popes.

It is not my desire to awaken you from your slumber... sleep on...


...xpi...


"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-16-2003).]

Bugs, I thought that the Iraq thing was about WMD, right?

Sure, the Saddam regime was harsh...but there are worse regimes in the world...North Korea, for one...and some lands in Africa, South America...I'm sure there are others, as well...

Remember, we 'pre-empted' Iraq, based on that...not on 'moral' grounds, right?

You did agree, that WMD would be found in Iraq, right?

So...I ask again, what if they are not found?

Also, if Saddam had close ties to Al Qaida, then why didn't Bin Laden help out? Where is the evidence of this connection? I thought that Iraq had posed a threat to America because of this...where is the evidence?

It was said, that the inspections were not working...remember? Where is the evidence of this? Why were no scuds fired, no WMD used? And where are they? I mean, Saddam had nothing to lose, right? Why didn't he fire scuds with WMD warheads into Israel or Kuwait? All he did was fire some short range missles into Kuwait...and Israel none. I find that very strange...considering that he did fire scuds into Israel in the first Gulf War...and used chemical weapons against Iran...and the Kurds.

I'm curious to know, what you think about this now.

WebShaman: great questions.. and ones that should be asked again and again and again. Because the answers we hear are such ****, it makes me so angry and sick.
No dam evidence. Blair promised the British people a dossier of 'evidence' that proved WMA were being developed and held. Well we now discover that that 'dossier' was a collecction of scraps of unsupported data assembled 10 years earlier by some nameless journalist. Lies and deception.

..xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-16-2003).]

Xpirex, you're exhibiting a very dark side in your second to last post not to mention that other thread just trashing Bush. Are you feeling entirely well? Are the personal insults on Bush and Blair really necessary? I don't see how it helps your argument at all... just the opposite really.

quote:

---

Bugs, I thought that the Iraq thing was about WMD, right?

---

WS, no. Taking down Hussein was no more "just about WMD" than it was "just about oil". I said as much several times in our many discussions on this topic. I was trying to find the list I gave as to why we needed to go after him. arrgghhh but it's late and I'll find it tomorrow

But look, it's my understanding that our government is beyond confident that WMD are there and if you've been following the news you will have heard that Syria had a large role to play in that process. There's no telling how many of them found their way across the border. There's no way to secure that border either... it's huge and extremely porous especially with no help from Assad.

If they're not there then I'm going to have to take a long vacation, ok? If I'm proven wrong, then so be it.

I'm going to try to get to your barage of questions one at a time tomorrow, I just hope I get enough time.

quote:

---

Why didn't he fire scuds with WMD warheads into Israel or Kuwait? All he did was fire some short range missles into Kuwait...and Israel none. I find that very strange...

---

Well, I'm sure that even if he did have the WMD, he might've had reasons not to use them, since he didnt use them. In other words, the fact that he didnt use them does not necessarily imply that he did not have them.
And that is not really the most interesting part.

What I'm curious about, is how the world will view U.S. and England after this is over, and there are no WMDs found (and yes, I've heard about traces of chem. on empty warheads, and canisters with other chem... but what can u do with a canister of chem. weapon? grab a cup and keep throwing it at an enemy?).
What's interesting, is to know how long the world will be silently watching U.S. envade other countries, one by one...

Bigimus: I am not exhibiting a dark anything in anywhere. and I am not trashing anyone. I am just bringing down to the true level what is falsly or mistakenly put on high. Perhaps the

truth of the matter is that I have unwhitingly touched an idol of yours...? I see and hear this British politic every day of my life. the UK is far more intimate than your enormaous

continent. Don't tell me to not say what I know and that you can find in any ordinary Britsh newspaper. One good thing about where I am from is that we can still speak our minds

without being people telling us we are 'bad' and dark, unpatriotic, dissident, or well. I am utterly unaffected by your comment. I am still free.

On the sublect of darksides, we all have one, the bible says so...including you... and you have nowhere near seen mine. So I would appreciate if you keep your witchfinder general hat away from me please. Or does one have to support 'your' views in order to be considered 'good' and 'nice' by you? Not for me thanx... I don't need approval that badly. Your regime may be seeking world domination but words and thought are forever public domain.

"nuff said"


[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-16-2003).]

Ok, slow down, X. You are perfectly free to speak your mind here and I never suggested otherwise.

I want to have a conversation with you and I'm not trying to piss you off too much. I'm just trying to push your buttons to get to know you better. When it comes to politics, I have some very strong views and I can see you do as well.

It's ok to disagree but it's also important make our opinions very clear to one another.

I'm worried that you are assuming a few things about me that are not true.

Bush is *not* an idol of mine. I have been very pleased with his administration so far and that is no secret. I did not vote for him in the primary elections but I most certainly preferred him to Gore. I am one of those neo-conservative types you mentioned, I also really like the compassionate conservative label. I agree with the vast majority of the policies endorsed by Empower America. This should give you a better view of what makes me tick.

You sound extremely left wing to me, how would you classify your politics so I can understand your point of view better? I've already told you mine.

Well, now that is interesting...

quote:

---

WS, no. Taking down Hussein was no more "just about WMD" than it was "just about oil".

---

But Mr. Bush explicitly said that it was...and that is what the whole UN thing was about...the 'regime' change thing came much later, if you recall. I think you are getting confused, here.

Of course, that failed, miserably...because there was no proof, whatsoever. Mr. Powell even testified to that...no 'smoking gun'. But Mr. Bush said that Saddam definitely had them, and that because of this, he needed to either totally destroy them, or step down. You will not re-write history on this one...it's on the record. In fact, it's on video, as well. In fact, the new national security doctrine is based on pre-empting countries who have and are developing WMD (esp. nuclear) and are willing to use them.

Unfortunately, and this goes for asptamer as well, Saddam didn't use them during this conflict...and they haven't been found yet. Thus, the legal reason for invading (and without WMD and/or their use), that's exactly what the conflict is, an invasion, is moot. This is a very dangerous, and precarious postion to be in. This means that Mr. Bush and his administration (as well as America) could really be guilty of war crimes...that is a reality shock. That is why it is imperative that WMD be found.

And Bugs...please, even the CIA is officially saying that WMD from Iraq haven't been sent into Syria...that there is just no evidence of this.

Based on that...one could say that they are anywhere. You, of course, must see the problem in that, right? That would mean, that it is more than likely, that Bin Laden has them...and that would mean that the war in Iraq caused this to occur...and that is worse than the consequence of Iraq having no WMD. You are really putting yourself, and the Bush administration in a very undesirable place, assuming that. It would mean that we indirectly helped Bin Laden obtain WMD, by invading Iraq...

No, what I am saying is, WMD must be found...I don't care if they are planted, they must be 'found'. The consequences of not finding them, are disasterous, on a political and global scale.

Now, if perhaps you are thinking 'well, we can morally justify this, based on good and evil'...think again. I once told you that good and evil are subjective terms...and the law upholds this. The law is not based on good and evil, but rather on rules and punishment. Follow the rules, don't get punished, break the rules, you get punished. So no international, or US law, covers the invasion of an Iraq without WMD...

It puts America in the uneasy postion of belonging to the group of other invading nations...and technically, that is not legal. I'm sure that China feels that it was morally in the right to invade Tibet, and would be in the moral right to invade Taiwan, soley based on that. In fact, I'm absolutely sure that many countries could make such a claim of the lands of their neighbors...

Remember, England used exactly that justification to invade many lands - 'we are bringing civilization to the poor savages - and democracy, and the King and Queen...blah,blah, blah'. It is assuming the moral right, to invade. Well, it didn't work out, in the long run, did it? In fact, a lot of the problems that we are having to deal with, come from the artificial borders left over from that eara...just take a good look at Africa, for example.

I'm sorry Bugs, but the 'moral' good and evil just isn't a real basis to invade. To defend, yes. That certainly. But not invade. By invading, we are forcing our beliefs on others (for moral reasons)...and that goes against everything that America stands for. That is why it is crucial that we find WMD.

And to think that the WMD of Iraq were sent into Syria...well, we saw what happens, when one sends their Air Force into Syria, to escape aggression...they don't get returned. So why would Saddam do this with his WMD, knowing that he couldn't get them back? In any regards, that would mean that he did get rid of them, right? So, then he did do what the resolutions demanded of him, and that would mean that the sanctions against Iraq were unjust...and that opens a whole big can of worms...it means that we, the US, intentionally starved the people of Iraq, without cause. And that for a number of years...are you sure you want to go there? In fact, that would be a pretty nasty place to go to...and undermines the 'moral' part, certainly.

Bugs:

quote:

---

I didn't realize you were so close to "power"

---

LOL - I've never met either Tony or Cherie (see first name terms!!) but I'm sure I can pass on Xpirex's regards (although it would help if they weren't written in verse - tip: the text wraps).

Despite what Xpirex thinks they are genuinely good people (despite their insanely busy schedules they have always been able to make time for the member of my family who is close to them), however, as the scandals over the Britsol flats has shown that doesn't mean that even if they think they are doing the Right Thing that their judgement can't be flawed or that they do the Wrong Thing for the right reasons.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugs (or does Bigimus work for you, and esp, Mrs Bugs?): I failed to address your more serious point:

quote:

---

I had heard that Blair was a religious man and was very sincere in believing this war was necessary. You know I share his conviction.

I'm wondering why (if you do) doubt Bush's motives vis-a-vis oil interests then. He is a very religious man and it would seem he sees this conflict as a real struggle between "good and evil", just like Blair.

---

I'm afraid it can't boil down to the fact that he is a religious man (although that may be part of his motivation) as religious men have done bad things and I'm sure there have been atheists who have done good things

Although it wasn't all about oil I was suspcious of the US administration's motives and if Tony Blair's most trusted advisors had draw up plans years ago to lay waste to the Middle East to rebuild it in their image (for profit and security) then I would be deeply sceptical of his motives. I don't necessarily think that George Bush is a bad man (I have no real way of judging him) either - right and wrong are such loose terms in the real world.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I think that Mr. Blair is waking up to some unpleasantries...for example, the lack of a 'roadmap to peace', that he said was promised for the middle east, and has yet to materialize, and the lack of WMD...and that the next election will probably be his end...

And maybe, just maybe, he is slowly coming to the realization, that the Bush administration has lied to him, and used him...of course, a little to little, a little too late...

WS: Some good points. I suspect that if at the start of the run up to war he could have known that he would have been dragged in without a second resolution, etc. that he would have been less enthusiastic.

And the next election? His popularity couldn't be higher and there is no effective opposition. He should watch out because the core of the people who still don't approve of the war are largely the core of his own party and there could be a lot of people (pos. including me) voting for other parties (I suspect the Lib Dems will pick up a lot of votes this way). However, there was talk about him having to give greater concessions to the left. However, he'll win comfortably although pos. not with the landslide victories he has enjoyed so far (although I wouldn't rule it out). It is still likely that he'll step down soon after - pos. in a deal with the Iron Chancellor over the Euro.

Again I think Teflon Tony has got away with it.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, when is the next election? One must remember, the longer the Iraq situation goes on...and still no WMD found, the cries will get louder...and we will start seeing some unpleasant consequences, I suspect. Also, we need to wait and see what type of role the UN receives (or decides to take) in post-Iraq...I suspect that will have a certain effect, as well.

Hehe...Teflon Tony...got a nice ring to it, after a fashion...

He may decide to ride on the 'I was lied to' bit...who knows? Certainly, you know more than I do, on this...and of course, there is the typically British stand by your friends bit...I guess one can't be too hard on ol' Teflon Tony for doing that...

If he can manage to 'put on' those roles...the good old friend, who was ashamedly used...I suspect he'll rather get away with it...Mr. Bush is, after all, making it easy for him to do this...hell, even I have trouble understanding exactly what Mr. Bush is doing and why...what does he do, spin a bottle on a world map?

I mean, in contrast to Mr. Bush and his administration, Teflon Tony comes across as looking sane and orderly...at least he hasn't been bashing Englands old friends right and left...at least not publically. He also doesn't seem to be a proponent of Pax Americana...at least, not at face value. And he has been tireless in attempting to mend fences and damage control...so who knows?

Of course, the lie of the road to peace plan for the middle east...at first, he said he had one...then, well, Mr. Bush will be bringing it out shortly...then, well, we are waiting for the Minister in Palastine to get settled...then ok, doesn't look like it's going to happen soon...are you British buying this? Or are you sympathizing with him, as being an idealist, that is being rudely awakened?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-17-2003).]

WS, your utter disdain for Bush never ceases to amaze me. Where does it come from? You don't cut him one sliver of slack! Your a tough one. I don't remember talking about this stuff when Slick Willie was in, but did you feel the same way about him? Why or why not?

[edit] I'm just asking out of curiosity just in case the tone of my words are in question [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-18-2003).]

Hahaha... Do you really believe that these people are good? Honestly in your hearts???

Emp: because 'Tony' has a little time for your relative does that make him worth voting for? Does that excuse his misleading the public about so called 'evidence' and 'intelligence' and what about all the other gross exaggerations and lies? In fact even worse allowing the very public that voted him in have no say in deciding whether they wanted to go to war or not? You failed to even mention any of this. I think this behaviour on his part does a lot to show his true values and his real character. Believing one is doing the right thing is not enough. Hitler believed he was doing the right thing with hi 'Final Solution'
I appreciate they are pleasant to some people somewhere but that is not really what we are talking about here is it?

Bugimus: I was worried that you were making statements about me that were not true too and so I too pushed a button or two of yours... peace and love dude, this is fun... and I am in actual fact apolitical, certainly not leftist. My head just reared when I saw 'President Blair.'

Is it true that in America there are only two choices? the right and the left, both of which are controlled by another behind the scenes gang of despots? I am far more complex then that, give me more options and we might start getting closer to what I believe. But I will tell you this: I don't believe at all in 'man governing man to his ruin' that should give you a clue. But you did not answer me Big, in fact you avoided ALL my questions...so I ask just one then (for now), how can a man of god such as yourself lay his trust and be so entangled in the ramifications of earthly governments? 'My kingdom is no part of this world"???

I wanted to expand on some other issues but WebShamen beats me to it everytime, so I can just second his comments...

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-18-2003).]

Xpirex: You said:

quote:

---

because 'Tony' has a little time for your relative does that make him worth voting for?

---

Not at all - in fact I am so digusted with this whole affair and my MPs behaviour that I (a lifelong Labour voter) am considering not voting for Labour in the next election

quote:

---

Does that excuse his misleading the public about so called 'evidence' and 'intelligence' and what about all the other gross exaggerations and lies? In fact even worse allowing the very public that voted him in have no say in deciding whether they wanted to go to war or not? You failed to even mention any of this.

---

I must apologise as I tend to assume that people have read what I've said on this issue in the numerous threads we've had here in the run down to war and I shouldn't assume that but I said that elsewhere here and didn't think it required repeating.

quote:

---

I think this behaviour on his part does a lot to show his true values and his real character. Believing one is doing the right thing is not enough. Hitler believed he was doing the right thing with hi 'Final Solution'

---

Quite and I've also argued that bad/stupid/incompetent people sometimes end up doing 'good' even if their motivations are suspect/flawed. I always think of Churchill in this kind of vein who was an incompetent butcher who thought very little of gassing the natives in his early army career but who in the darkest hour somehow led the country to victory.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I should add that Saddam was a nasty piece of work and it seems likely that he would had o be removed my concerns were with the haste this was forced through with and in the underlying motivations.

I am happy he is gone and I think history will have to be the judge of whether doing things this route worked - in the long run the winners write the history and as long as it doesn't drag the region down into war or leave Iraq a huge mess that is torn apart by internal divisions and mismanagement.

We'll wait and see.............

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ah Emperor, thankyou for that clarification, it assists and pleases me. As I am but a babe in the asylum I am lacking in knowledge of the inmates general views and feelings on the whole gammut of topics and issues that get discussed in here and I forget how well aquainted you must all be. I hope everyone will bear wth me as I gradually get to know you all a little better. Is there some basement archive where I can peruse past threads and so I gather files on you all, like the Bush administration does?

There is little doubt that Sadaam was a pretty unsavoury character, but could they not just have assasinated him instead of invading illegaly, screwing up the whole country and propelling Iraq back into the dark ages? I mean assasination is cheap, efficient and know one has to know about it. They apparently have used this method to 'adjust' the political envioroment with their own presidents so why not employ the same tactics with others political undesireables?

I see that the 'liberated' people of Iraq are already taking to the streets en masse screaming for the prompt eviction of the benevolent invaders. Also Iraqs' neighbours are joining in the rejection party. So much for the rejoicing and warm welcome predicted my all those highly paid experts and advisors. The blind leading the blind. Such arrogance.? such colossal ignorance.


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-19-2003).]

Xpirex, patience. I am not avoiding your questions. While I do spend a great deal of my life in this place, I do have other things to do you know. I am actually quite pleased that we are settling down into more of an understanding of one another. You're correct that there is quite a bit of history here between several of us inmates. You can always peruse the archive sections for older posts. You can also do searches to find interesting topics we done here.

I hope to get on the computer more this evening and address some of the points you raised. Like I said, patience, we usually get around to things asked eventually. Peace to you.

Okey dokey Bugs, take your time... and never be offended at anything I say, it's all in good humour, even if you do occasionally trigger a couple of my buttons sending me into uncontrolable convuslsions is this what is meant by shock therapy? Is this not Dr. Suho's realm?


...xpi...

"nuff said"

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-19-2003).]

I'll try to leave the shock therapy to the Master

[edit]
I just noticed the point about assasination. I think most of us agreed here that would have been pointless because the regime in firm control of the Baathists would have remained in tact.

About the dancing in the streets. There are plenty of Iraqis that are still doing that. But this is by no means a homogenous country. As you no doubt recall from history, Iraq was created by European powers. It will be very difficult to pull it all together but I am still convinced it is a better situation now than under Hussein. And this is not because the administration tells me so but because I have eyes to see and plenty of news sources from around the globe not influenced by our propoganda machine from which to use them.
[/edit]

[edit2]
You can see how hard it is to catch all of these but I knew you had said this

quote:

---

...so I ask just one then (for now), how can a man of god such as yourself lay his trust and be so entangled in the ramifications of earthly governments? 'My kingdom is no part of this world"???

---

Ok. Jesus did say, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." I am first and foremost a follower of Christ. Trust me, a poor one at that but it is my firm conviction and I do as best I can.

From the same source of sacred words that you referred to, I also find this as Jesus prayed for His followers, "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it."

You are correct about the kingdom of God not being of this world but you didn't mention the part about us having to continue to live in this foreign land. My trust rests on God. But we are commanded to obey legitimate earthly authorities. A peaceful order was assumed, recall the NT was written during Roman rule and anarchy was not in effect. Paul went so far as to say that earthly governments have been put in place by God Himself.

I make a distinction between good and evil on one hand and order and chaos on the other. I believe what Paul was talking about was that earthly governments are here to maintain a certain societal order and prevent anarchy. But they do not have the last word on what is righteous or what is "of the kingdom" so to speak. That is where the Body of Christ (all of the believers) comes into play because it should be clear that governments rarely act purely along moral lines.

So you see, I believe that government is a tool just as I believe science, medical science, politics, hammers, etc. are tools for us to live in this imperfect world. I don't expect perfection here. I believe this is where much of our disagreements come from. Some people have tried to create earthly utopias without God in the last century and it has resulted in mass murder each time, namely, Nazism, Communism the two great atheistic experiments.

I want to be a part of how the government I have a vote in conducts its business. My criteria differs greatly from many here, I understand that but the earthly goal I am after is an orderly peace so that people can live in relative freedom and human rights so they can at least have the opportunity to live up to God's potential while here and not live in fear of oppression, torture, famine, and pestilence.
[/edit2]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-19-2003).]

Hmmm...(one of my 'standard' beginnings... )

Ok, Bugs, you asked why I dislike Mr. Bush. So, I'll do my best to explain...

First of all, I do tend to seperate the President (i.e. the postion) from the actual person. For me, these are two seperate things...one is our figure head of authority (along with the congress and the supreme court, of course), the other is just a person, like you or me.

On to Mr. Bush. Basically, I don't like the man. He stands for just about everything that I am against. From Abortion, on to religion, the death penalty, the race question, and just what America stands for. He disgusts me, on a personal level. His politics, I am against, on just about every level. His idea (and choice) of a cabinet (exception : Colin Powell) makes no sense, whatsoever to me. He totally ignores Mr. Alan Greenspans advice, when it comes to the economy (which is just plain stupid). He doesn't seem to know what the word diplomacy means...and treats our allies like dirt. He has also put an instituion in question that we (as Americans) have worked so long to put into place, and improve - the UN. I am really furious about the pending law(?) covering oil drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge...which is quietly being forced though the congress. These lands are sacred, and should remain so! Also, he doesn't give a damn about my people, either (if he even thinks on them).

He used his family's connections to 'dodge' Vietnam...and then went AWOL from the service...I just can't forgive that. The amount of blood on his hands, as the Governor of Texas...His total failure as a businessman...that Daddy had to bail-out...IMHO, he's just not qualified to be President, on any level.

Now, initially, I didn't have so many points to raise...I thought, maybe he'll #grow' into the position...or maybe his cabinet would have a positive influence on him. And, after 9/11, despite my mis.givings, he seemed to 'toe the line'...i.e. didn't just 'flip-out', and do something totally irresponsible...like nuke the Middle-East. Then came Afgahnistan...and though i did support it, he surely didn't fulfill his 'promises' to re-build Afghanistan, now did he? In fact, he installed a 'puppet-government there, that is not widely accepted, and the one that the Afghans would of supported (the old king) was forced to forget about it...the real beginnings of 'Wtf??'...'business as usual?'. no, as it turned out, it wasn't 'business as usual', as Iraq soon proved...it was here that my...distaste of Mr. Bush really solidated...on just about every level. His handling of the situation was...unbelievably inept. I was actually incredulous at his political 'faux paus'...I witnessed some pretty stupid stuff, from my years in Intelligence (The Reagon years, C*****n)...but nothing so inept on this scale...he apparently is not interested in learning from his father...or didn't...at least his father understood how to manipulate the UN...and other countries.

I could go on, and on...but I think you get the point...the only thing I#m in any real agreement with, is that Saddam had to go...and research into alternative energy sources (if he ever really does anything there, like he said he would). His domestic policies...I'm not sure if he has any, to date...we'll just have to wait and see...

As for C*****n? For the man himself, total disdain. He became that which he despised, and wished to change...and his 'moral' (or immoral, if you will...you have a much 'better' understanding of this than I) were...lacking, to say the least. Cinton's foreign policy...hehe...well, ineffective, I guess...but that can be said about many Presidents...at least they weren't too damaging. His domestic policies though, were very good, IMHO. At least he let Alan Greenspan do what he does best...and did downsize the Government. He also did a pretty good job of 'wagging the dog by the tail'...he just couldn't keep his 'apettites' in check...

Now, why didn't I comment much on this back then? Well, first take a look at when I joined the Asylum...I was very busy in those days, learning about Web-design...and I was new here. Back then, I wasn't nearly as involved as I am these days, in the Phil forum...I sorta grew into this part of the board, I guess...it took awhile. I didn't know most of you (or you me), and I really was more interested in PS...and learning, at that time. But I'm glad that you asked