"43" is used to distinguish G.W. Bush (the 43rd President) from his father, G. H. W. Bush (aka "Bush 41").
fishin
come on...other three ignored because they aren't relevant...the subject is US hegemony. There's no possible justification in the first three for present US international policies, but the fourth is relevant in that it acknowledges sovereignty and points to what policy should not be.
on the Harrison/Roosevelt point...yes, I didn't read that. But surely we have a difference now? Look, I'm really not interested in debating for the prettiness of form. Do you think those examples identical to the present policies? Did Harrison and Roosevelt act on these notions?
Re the 'hegemony' quote...that clinton staffer DIDN'T acknowledge such a policy for goodness sake, he said that some folks claimed it was the case. And he is yakking to someone. These are critical differences. Did Clinton make an address at West Point laying out a policy of hegemony or did he have a staff who had been publishing this idea for a decade? (the three monkey reference was to that fellow's claims as to American universal goodness)
blatham - When did this turn into a discussion of whether or not there is justification for current US policy? This was, I was led to believe, a discussion on the moving of lines and to identify whether the movement of those lines is in some way unique to the Bush administration - NOT a justification of any movement. If you want someone to justify those lines you had better call the Whitehouse. I'm afraid they haven't consulted me in making any decisions.
I find it rather amusing that when Bush makes a speech at a military academy it is somehow all important yet you dismiss a speech given by the Undersecretary for National Security Affairs presented to the Council on Foreign Affairs as "yakking" since that very council is the main body of advisors for the formulation of US Foreign policy decisions and the Undersecretary IS the policy maker for the sitting President.
(btw, no, I don't think the Harrison and Roosevelt examples are identical to what we have now. What I've been trying to get you to do is define precisely what the differences are instead of throwing around general rhetoric of the day.. When you use vague terms it leaves a wide array of items for me to use as counters.)
I've started another thread for fishin and I (and anyone else) to carry on so that we don't use up all the available oxygen here.
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=102853#102853
I'll put something on it tomorrow AM.
Too late bla bla blatham. (Darn! I gotta get that stutter fixed!)
Max...I think you ought to leave the stutter as is, it's appropriate.
It is not the Father's fault who had projected a slogan
NEW WORLD ORDER.( what is new?. which world? what kind of order)
nor the son who is in constant touch with a jewsish son by name jesus
AXIS OF EVIL( the other two are vivid and dare to face the son)
.
neither the father nor the son deserve my respect.
RAMA
