Confused about War on Terror

Don't disrespect Australia.

If someone in Ireland won't hire me, I might head for Adelaide.

Actually...in particular...the beaches south of there. My friends down there already told me they could get a friend of theirs to sell me a nie beach house...cheap.

And they don't have hurricanes in Adelaide!!! :D

Hope the ear's healing proper.

Son

Th US had 1000s of Iraqi nationals here in the US who had been petitioning our government for regime change.

One of them is an oncologist I know very well. He is moving back to Iraq. He no longer has a price on his head, so it isn't suicidal.

Except for the fact that EVERYTHING is poisonous and that they keep beating us at sports that we invent, there's not a lot wrong with them really. I was just using a little irony.

I've been told the ear is doing OK but I haven't seen it yet. My goddaughter, who says she saw it before the dressing went on, reckons it was "cool". I have a feeling that she was peering round the door of the treatment room watching. There's a plaster on it now and this comes off on Thursday when I visit the guy who did the original stitching.

You take care with Ernesto although it looks like it's going up the West side of Florida as a Cat 1 once it's trashed Eastern Cuba.

Dad :D

Hmmm, I do not know if I have heard or seen about it and then forgot. After doing some programming in dBase III, I moved to FoxPro. Was FoxBase available for DOS/Windows systems?

I knew there was dBase IV, but by that time I had switched to FoxPro (2.5 if I remember correct).

Your 000's of Iraqi nationals just don't cut it. Regime change occurs when we're talking majorities 000,000's - and not disaffected very much minorities who just happen to say what you want.

What it all boils down to is whether the US had the [b]right[/b] to do it. If you do believe that you have that right then you also have the obligation to forcibly effect a regime change in other countries that fit the pattern - North Korea, China, Zimbabwe, and so on.

I wish the damned thing would hit my house and destroy it...so I could collect all of that $250k+ the house and its contents are insured for.

I have enough room to put the important things in the back of my car...if I knew it was cat 3-5 and gonna hit here...I'd load em up...and head to Tennessee and wait it out.

Well...everything except the piano :(

anyways...thanks.

Depending on my available time, I might be back on tomorrow...gotta wait and see what happens...my parents are on the east coast...they had 2 storms hit over there last year.

See ya later...

(p.s.- new major map updates are out at 4am, 10am, 4pm and 10pm BT...just in case you wanted to know :) )

So he could have a legacy beyond "getting a Lewinsky".

... we do not blindly accept Islam, and have made a steller financial success of things without paying tribute to the Islamo-fascist caliph-du-jour.

Kill them all, let God (or Allah, or Cathulu) sort them out.

Yes, there was a Foxbase. My shop actually started out with Condor on DOS 2.0, went to dBase II, then to Foxbase (2.0, I think), which was much better than dBASE II. Syntax was more clear, Foxbase was full relational with at least one-dimensional arrays in v2 (Ashton-Tate didn't provide arrays until dBASE III+), and the search & sort algorithms ate dBase's lunch. A pack & reindex on a 1,000-record table in Foxbase usually took less than half the time it took in dBase II. V2.5 was the first FoxPro release.

It's truly a pity that the only way Ashton-Tate could find to compete with Fox was to try to sue them out of existence. It's even more a pity that Fox got caught short when Win95 was released. I think v1.0 of FoxPro for Windows was the only piece of work Fox Software did that didn't set the standard.

Read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union".

http://tinyurl.com/gp36p

God, you're making me tech-horny!!! ]:)

(The swill is back!)

We'll get around to it.

You'll just have to be patient, Neil.

Nick: Wow, you do remember lot of stuff :-)

I might have seen Foxbase on somebody's machine or maybe I might have used it couple of times. Can't say for sure.

Hey you bring memories when you mention pack and reindex. I remember those days. I like the DOS versions of FoxPro always better than the Windows version. Though I did not work on FoxPro 2.6a for Windows, I had seen my friends using it. But I moved to PowerBuilder and Oralce Forms by that time (albeit for a short time).

FoxPro was fun. I remember two events "When" and "Then" for a field where we could write code, that I used to tout or argue with the PowerBuilder programmers, when they came up with their event based programming. I was the second best FoxPro programmer in a small band of programmers who had split into FoxPro and PowerBuilder camps :-)

To lying in the Sun with a redhead...

To working when I felt like it in Perrysburg...

To the ancient days from BGSU and the comp sci department implementation. I was one of the faceless drones who helped put the package together. One of our gifts to the IT world...

Back when DG Nova equipment was where it started...

Senility may be starting to set it. It seems like it was yesterday...

Benjamin Franklin, perhaps my favorite of all the American founders (for a variety of reasons), did not [b]BEG[/b] the French for anything. He was a master statesman, perhaps the best America has ever seen (not to mention the first), and he convinced the French to enter into a win-win arrangement. Benjamin Franklin did not have to resort to [b]BEGGING[/b]. He was much to smart and savvy, he was very charming, which played right into the French persona, and he would never have had to resort to such a thing as begging. Please, Neil, don't make light of Mr. Franklin's brilliance just to support another one of your flawed points.

Anytime people equate Hitler to anything it is time to stand up and fight. Either against a Hitler or against the idiot who invoked his name.

You want to use Hitler as a reference to control others.

That is really Hitlerian. Or, rather currently Liberal.

This happens especially when libs can't seem to control where socially, or discussions are going. Out comes Hitler. BTW, Hitler was a socailist. National Socializm. Lefties in the US really though he was turning Germany around...

Really he was dragging all of us into a Hell of his creation.

So crawl in hour hole and clam up. If you don't like it, yell loudly at me. I'll chew your ears off via PM.

Go find a sheep. If it follows you have a support group of two...

JamesRL may qualify, but I don't know if that's wool growing out of his ears, or hair? Hi JamesRL... Long time no clash!

You are free to criticise the US. But, you like the wind are impotent to change US opinion.

Since you really don't have a horse in the race, bet on it, but don't tell the jockeys how to ride it. Go read a good book. May I suggest Terry Goodkind sword of truth series?

Read them all, and then I want you to discuss FOTF with me. I am sure you can read all of them in just a couple of hours...

They had been bilking the Govt with her as a lobbyist for years, and him getting bills passed to help her airline buddies...

He was very lucky to have been in a position to head off most inquiries into the ethics violations...

The funny thing is that the all the Dems on the ethics committee walked out and refused to look at any evidence in his investigation. That way they could say they never saw any evidence of wrong doing...

Just like no Democrat except Joe Lieberman looked at either The report on Bill Clinton or on the Whitewater affair... However, only 16 Senators in total signed into the room to examine the evidence. 84 Senators didn't do the job they were elected to do...

That means you haven't been listening to the Left's rhetoric. Jerry Springer, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry have all made assertions that the issue is Bush's fault...

fixate Benjamin Franklin and ignore the point of my post which was that ITGirli's favourable comparisons of your Revolution and Iraq and Washington and Bush are just not on.

Other than my dissing of your hero, please indicate which point you consider to be flawed.

You might also like to comment on the fact that the French were your good friends for a considerable period of your history. Considering the - mostly unjustified - crap that you, as a country, heap on them now, perhaps your current (only) friends should watch their backs?

Shifts further West every bulletin. Doesn't look like there'll be too many people at Disney tomorrow. Probably a good time to queue for the rides!

Neil :D

it's shifting back west...all the hourly workers here are praying for a direct hit...means overtime working extra shifts to get things going again...

I'm still looking to work at Home Depot or something...

I would rather that GB not be involved.

as well as known drunkard...and unfaithful womanizer.

Actually, Thomas Jefferson was considered to be a better statesman and far more literate than Franklin. However, Franklin had an established rapport with the French (as he'd been essentially ambassador and lived in France for years).

I would tend to think our best statesmen who came to this country from England would have been the pilgrims who managed to live with the natives here and not run them off their own land and/or shoot all of them.

The pilgrims didn't beg...they didn't harm...they learned to live in peace with the existing inhabitants.

Brilliant? Perhaps somewhat. Charmer? Yes.

I wonder if Franklin ever drank Guinness?? ]:)

Neil, we've been seeing World War III for some time now. The problem is, however, not a lot of you chaps realize it. (Not all Americans realize it either.)

It's been going on against the west for some time now, and the United States didn't even respond in-kind until 9-11. These people have declared war against us, Neil; and they've been waging this war for years. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can collectively kick their collective asses and finally put an end to it. How many times have you heard me compare today's sentiment to 1936? It's happening, Neil, whether you admit it or not, and whether you want it or not. And the longer you sit on the sidelines, the longer it will take to end it, and the more difficult it will be. I fear that nothing short of a nuclear device, or something similar, being detonated in London will convince you.

It's no wonder we can't agree on the proper course of action. We apparently don't even agree on the severity of the threat. I see this as being at least thirteen years into World War III, at least as the USA is concerned, while you, on the other hand, are still trying to prevent it. (I choose thirteen years because that's how long ago the first attack on U.S. soil happened, although there were earlier ones against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests.)

X=1
DO WHILE X <> 0
GO AWAY
ENDDO

That enough tech for ya? :^0

Actually, I was the only Foxbase programmer there, and I had zero programming experience whe I got there, unless a couple of Cobol classes 10 years earlier count. There were two others on board, one working Microsoft Pascal to its limits and the other trying to do the same with Borland C. Both eventually succeeded, as I recall.

[i]The next change of UK government would have probably have made stuff better.[/i]

Not necessarily. How long were the even-more-restrictive-than-usual Corn Laws of the Napoleonic Era in effect? Even as an American, I can think of at least three different governments during that period.

You are correct about the dissent within the American population. Although the numbers were small (not more than 20%), Loyalists tended to be richer and older. http://tinyurl.com/orm3c

Politicians the world over are the same: never admit a mistake until the effects are so obvious you have no choice. This explains why so many legislative actions are not undone, but only redone (amended).

Are there people in Iraq who do want to live in a free society? Absolutely yes. In fact, the majority of them, I might surmise, want that very thing. Look at the recent voter turnout as proof. And these same people want an end to the terrorist activities in their country. I dismiss Neil's objection that all, or even most, Iraqis see America as the bad guy in this fight. I also dismiss Neil's objection that America is the occupying force, per se, in the sense of trying to get the indigent population to capitulate. Neil apparently has an extremely warped sense of who the bad guy really is. I see ITgirli's point (in her first paragraph) as only observing that an effort in creating a free society is taking place, most Iraqis want it, and there are forces who are trying to prevent it.

She then observes that, [i]"The war in Iraq has taken over 3 years. Our American Revolution took over 7 years."[/i]

This is also true. Drastic change will not happen overnight. Nobody in the Bush administration claimed it would happen overnight. In fact, to the contrary, the Bush administration has been very clear from the beginning, that this would take a very ling time. The instant gratification mentality of the detractors is blinding their long-term vision.

ITgirli goes on to say the, [i]"Bush's popularity has taken a rather steep dive in the past couple of years"[/i].

This is true.

She goes on to say, [i]"During the Revolution, Washington (who was not yet president, but commander in chief) had one of the worst popularity ratings of all time, mostly as a result of the loss of New York City in the first part of the war"[/i].

This is also true.

The only comparison to G. Washington that is being made with G. Bush is that in the heat of the present, support for both of them waned. History has proved G. Washington to be _________ (well, Neil, I won't presume to speak for your lessons in history in this regard. I'm not sure how the bulk of you Brits see G. Washington.), and history will also judge G. Bush with a similar benefit of hindsight.

And then she asks, where would the cause of 1776 gone had they quit and given up? Speculate all you'd like, but I'm glad they didn't. She subsequently asks the same thing about the efforts in Iraq, what if we quit and give up? It's all speculation, of course, but fast forward ten or twenty years and try to guess. Personally speaking, I don't like the answers that come to my mind.

Which all brings us to Neil's reply

Neil says, [i]"The difference is that they asked the French for help. In fact, Benjamin Franklin begged the French for help. The French, in their turn, although acting purely out of animosity towards Britain but, to give them their due, they were good allies to you and did not attempt to mould the fledgling America in their image..... I do not believe that the Iraqi people requested any part of the invasion, 'shock and awe' and what followed. I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy and that your attempts to foist US political and economic hegemonisation upon them is doomed to make things worse."[/i]

You suggest that there were no Iraqis asking for help? There weren't? None? None at all? On what basis is this claim made? And I already challenged your view of Franklin's dealings with the French, a point you conveniently side-stepped.

You also suggest that the Americans are trying to, [i]"mould the fledgling (Iraq) in their image" [/i]. What a stupid and silly thing to say. No such thing is taking place, and you know it. Your emotions are getting the better part of your reason. You have a way if stretching things to the absurd, just as you also did with your follow-up comments about 'shock and awe'. Get a hold of yourself, Neil, and try to sound rational instead of spewing silly emotional rhetoric.

And I would venture to guess that many Iraqis ARE ready, willing, and able to handle living in a free democracy, and they might vehemently disagree with your dismal view of their ability to do just that. Just because YOU don't believe they're capable of handling a democracy, I suppose we should just forget the whole thing? Okay, Iraq, Neil says you're stupid and incapable of self-rule. That about says it all.

Neil went on to say, [i]"George Bush is not Washington. Not in any way."[/i].

The only comparisons she made were listed and addressed above. For you to streeeeeeeeeeeeeetch anything more out of it is only, what has become, typical of Neil stretching a small point to the absurd.

Neil said, [i]"If Washington had given up, the revolution lost and you had remained a British colony then you may have ended up like Canada, New Zealand or, God forbid, Australia; possibly one of the most repressive and evil regimes on the face of the planet. (Nice beaches, though)"[/i].

Well, we'll never know, will we? But the comment is ridiculous, nonetheless. In the context of this exchange, we're discussing what would happen if we give up today in Iraq. If you can show that the outcome would make Iraq similar to Australia, you'll convince me to change sides and agree with you. Otherwise, you've just make another meaningless and silly comment.

By the way, my "lesson in history" is ALSO being ignored by Neil and his ilk - 1936.

IDENTIFICATION DIVISION...
DATA DIVISION...

uh uh .... uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

]:)

Thank you for expounding on my points. I really didn't think it was that hard to see my points, but I'm glad you saw them and were able to explain in logical terms for neil and his ilk.
I can't believe that there are people who can so easily twist and warp things completely out of context to support their own theories.

you have to remember that not everything you read is true.

I would say that your discription of Franlins drinking matches very closely to your own described drinking? does that make you a drunkard? Of course not. Reading in a book somewhere that he was a heavey eater and drinker does not equate to drunkard.

Liking woman. Maybe he could have borrowed the oval office (now offically called the oral office...).

The biggest part that was disparaging was your assertion that a man credited with as many inventions as Franklin was, was not "briliant".

Yes TJ was "doing" his slave girl, but from everything I have ever read, he loved her and she was very well taken care of, working in the main house, not some ignorant slave raped at his whim.

Conclusion, you can praise the good works of a man that has done great things in his life, or you can concentrate on the negative things that everyone has in their lives. We seem to see how you look at things.

I think we need to have a better understanding of Islam. I admit I know little about it but from I have read, democracy and Islam are not exactly compatible. There are many aspects of "freedom" that are opposite of the teachings of Islam. So, did anyone ever take a poll of the Iraqi people to ask them if they really wanted a Western-style democracy?

Bury your head in the sand, and it is 1936 all over again. Appeasement is not the answer.

Only when the people currently committing terroristic acts (muslim extremists) love life more than they hate others will terrorism not be considered a valid action in the world.

It is amazing how easily you can recognize someone eles brilliance when they agree with you! We even picked the same year without me reading your post...

Hmm. Did you read Churchill's autobiography?

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=199570&messageID=2086213

One of my favorite Quotes from Churchill:

One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

We dealt with the Israelis when they were bombing us. We dealt with a large number of terrorist organisations in the countries that comprised the Empire over the last coupl of centuries- Mau Mau, Malaya, Thuggi,...

We dealt with the Irish. Without your help, thank you.

What I want us to do is to deal with Middle East terrorism intelligently rather than steam in with NO IDEA WHAT WE ARE DOING. It is NOT World War III. At least, not as we understand war.

I want the UN to mean something.

Hezbollah were not my enemy ad my country did not recognise them as a terrorist organisation. Israel has never been my friend. I could go on - but I can't be bothered to argue against this gung-ho attitude that applauds the use of US-supplied cluster bombs by the Israelis in Lebanese cities and has the gall to label Hezbollah as the only terrorists.

IBM029
READ
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
.
.
.
EOR

Funny, that. IBM's part number for those stinkin' cards was 1500. Each military service assigned it as a form without changing the number; there was the AF Form 1500, the DA Form 1500 (Army), the DD Form 1500 (DOD), and I think even the Navy had their 1500, too.

Just a regular font of now-useless information... :)

[i]you have to remember that not everything you read is true.[/i]

Then perhaps you should quit believing so much in the Bush political propaganda and develop your own political beliefs?

I didn't base it on one source...or even just a couple. I've read several books, magazine articles, and even watched television programs (if I remember right, one on The History Channel quoted diaries of French people around Franklin) that talked of his regular drinking...even while he was working with the Continental Congress.

Maybe drunkard isn't a politically correct enough term for you.

How's "functional alcoholic"? Does that make you feel better? Bush was a functional alcoholic too ;)

[i]I would say that your discription of Franlins drinking matches very closely to your own described drinking? does that make you a drunkard? Of course not. Reading in a book somewhere that he was a heavey eater and drinker does not equate to drunkard.[/i]

Again...not *a* book. I've read and seen information on it several times in my life. I'm sorry you have lead the same less-educated life I did.

Franklin did it on a daily basis. It was well know that, in France at least, he was out at the local pubs nightly.

As for me, even in my heaviest drinking times I did not go out nightly or drink nightly...well, except while I am on vacation.

[i]Liking woman. Maybe he could have borrowed the oval office (now offically called the oral office...).[/i]

Indeed...hence...why do you ride Clinton's case for it, but not Franklin?? Bias? Ignorance? Chosen shading of history based only on what you've learned? Chastise and make fun of Franklin now as you have Clinton in the past (and your last post) for infidelity, jdclyde. Prove your unbiasedness in this aspect at least.

[i]The biggest part that was disparaging was your assertion that a man credited with as many inventions as Franklin was, was not "briliant".[/i]

I did not say he was NOT brilliant. There you go misquoting me again. I said "Perhaps somewhat". And, that is based on the fact a) he did have great inventions, and b) he did contribute to the founding principles of this country.

But to say he had brilliance (and, it was specifically in Max's implication about his ability) in statesmanship was a stretch. If you want to say someone had truly brilliant statesmanship, head for Richard Nixon. He wasn't buddy-buddy with the Chinese for over a decade when he went to communicate with them. It's easy to go ask your buddy for a favor...not a total stranger.

[i]Yes TJ was "doing" his slave girl, but from everything I have ever read, he loved her and she was very well taken care of, working in the main house, not some ignorant slave raped at his whim.[/i]

TJ was doing more than her. He had several women between visits from his wife while he was at the Continental Congress too. As I suggested to Max too...you should go read more.

[i]Conclusion, you can praise the good works of a man that has done great things in his life, or you can concentrate on the negative things that everyone has in their lives. We seem to see how you look at things.[/i]

How do I look at things? Well, I give praise for the good. However, I equally give scorn for the bad. So, are you going to tell me that womanizing and infidelity and alcohol abuse is not worthy of scorn and disdain?

The fact is, you want only to praise the good attributes of those you like and bring out only the bad in those you don't.

I won't deitify someone for one aspect of their person...whether Clinton, or Nixon, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Bush, or Franklin.

[i]comprised the Empire over the last coupl of centuries- Mau Mau, Malaya, Thuggi,... [/i]

Neil, are you referring to Thuggees of India? If you are, were'nt they robbers? I did know they were involved in freedom fighting.

and I'm proud of my part in it!

:D

Not only because you have class and taught me well to rebel against lemmingistic standards, but...

because you didn't try to put your "part" in my "it" :D

Now I have Stevie Wonder songs buzzin around in my head...where's my sunglasses!!! ]:)

I just called...to say...I love you...I just called...to say how much I care...

Yes...twisted swill...that's me...

Any ladies need a date? ]:)

Your twisting your love? :0

MAN would that hurt! :D

I certaily don't think they were "freedom fighters". :)

It was a late-night posts. I just grabbed a couple of random organisations of people in history with their own agenda who were renowned for introducing fear and that interacted with Britain. I'd always understood that there was a religious element to the Thuggee but I'm willing to be corrected.

Anyway, Britain dealt with the Thuggee by good intelligence leading to executions - no questions asked. They dealt with the Mau Mau in Kenya by kicking the crap out of them militarily and yet conceded nearly all of the demands made by the rebels back when the whole affair kicked off. So here we had a carrot and stick and Kenya was born peacefully in 1963. On July 28, 2005, the Provisional IRA Army Council announced an end to its armed campaign. We managed that one without invading Ireland.

The "War on Terror" as popularised and described by Bush is total bollocks. All of the terrorist groups, Islamic and otherwise, are different and most have different targets for different reasons. All I'm asking for is a bit of intelligence in working out the different ways to mitigate the effectiveness of these groups and not invading countries seemingly at random.

What I see is a totally different agenda.

Neil :)

This was so that I could go and stay with my boy in Florida until we could get him over to the UK. The problem is that, firstly, my local council don't consider me a good mother (why NOT?) and secondly, after seeing the SIZE of him, they won't believe that he's only ten!

At the moment, they won't release the adoption papers.

Neil :(

Pardon me. I missed the crucial "not" in my statement, though I was thinking about it. Infact I had googled before making my post to check if they were at all involved in some kind of freedom fighting. It should have read "I did not know...."

Blasted typo...changed the entire meaning of my post :-(

You are correct, they had religious elements. Infact thuggess were mostly some kind of Kali worshippers, there were muslims who were thuggees too and were involved in all the cult worship.

I agree with your last paragraph just above the last line.

1)George Washington was fighting for the freedom of his own country from an oppressive monarchy, including his own freedom.

Bush's fight for freedom in Iraq was based on false pretense of WMDs being present, and the premise that removing Saddam would free the Iraqi people.

2) Once Washington's goal was achieved, we ran our own government as we saw fit in a form we chose.

Bush did not leave the Iraqi people to determine their own form of government. Democracy was pushed upon them.

3) Washington defeated the British and we were free from the tyranny and taxation.

Bush defeated Saddam and his regime and the Iraqi people are now free from it, but now are being killed by terrorists.

So...why isn't Iraq free to run themselves and choose their own form of government now that Saddam is in prison, if Bush and Washington were so much alike and fighting for the same principle , i.e.- freedom from oppressive government rule?

Why did the Iraqis not get to decide on their own government structure?

If Bush wants them to have our freedoms, perhaps the Iraqis should have their own civil war to determine their future as well?? After all...we had one...maybe they should too? ;)

I don't understand any commonality other than they were both leaders and proclaimed they were fighting for the cause of freedom in regards to their campaign.

Other than that...I see no other common links at all.

Oh...historically:

Washington retreated from NYC to regroup...maybe Bush should retreat from Iraq too? ;)

I twist my love EVERY NIGHT ]:)

Thought I'd give you that mental picture...as punishment...SWILL RULES :D

that you need to crawl down into the gutter with the rest of us and then re-read my post! :0

I didn't want to get into discussions about "twisting my love" in case anyone assumed that I'd brought Junior up badly.

The Swill that he has become is all his own work.

:D

I did it on my own. Dad is not at fault.

New Swill saying:

"I'd rather my Dad be aloof than a poof!" ]:)

That it was that easy for Franklin to "court" the French.

Read enough about Franklin and you will realise he was an Anglophile. Many of his lifelong friends were British aristocracy. His son was the last loyalist governor of Jew Jersey - a post that Franklin no doubt lobbied the British Monarchy/aristocracy for. Franklin spent years in London, as a printer, as an agent for US states. He liked the way that the British Parliament had democratic (for the times) power that at that time no other country had given.

France on the other hand, was being ruled by a ruler who had brought back the notion of the absolute right of kings. Franklin had supported the British in throwing the French out of Canada (Washington was a general in that war for the British).

As to Franklin's drinking, the pub was often in those days much more than it is today. There was no TV, radio, and people went to socialise, debate, discuss the news and events.

Seems you like to eat and drink too - what does that say about your charecter? Nothing to me. And if I hear about it third hand, I look at it sceptically.

Intimate company. Well what can I say. I suspect if we knew the truth, we would find many presidents (and prime ministers) who have had affairs. Certainly evidence that Kennedy, Eisenhower exists and some rumours about Roosevelt.

Franklin may have even had affairs to gain access to information or to court favours on behalf of his country.

To me, Jefferson's transgression is not only with Sally Hemmings, who may or may not have had much of a choice, as a slave can't easily turn down an owner, but with Sally's offspring. Given that Jefferson would have strongly suspected or know that the children were his, how could he not free them and their mother?

As for the jdclyde/jck slugfest a pox on both your houses, I think both of you start the slide into irrational mudslinging when you "debate" each other, and you go from facts to opinions about each other.

James

It is a well-documented fact that Franklin had an illegitimate son state-side that lived with him for some time before he went off on his duties to England, while he disowned him later over a disagreement.

Fact is, no one knows if he has any other illegitimate children here or in France. However, there is documented proof that Franklin was quite the ladies' man while in France, even at the point he was there and his wife was dying from strokes in the United States and he was promising her he would return home.

Think what you like. I know that I've read a lot about the topic from a young age. In fact, Franklin was one of my favorites as a kid and I read Library of Congress book series incessantly on the founding fathers before I was even in kindergarten.

As for the eating and drinking bit, you seem not to get the understanding that Franklin was drinking regularly to excess. He often was heard using "gaut" as his reason for drinking so much, but he was known to be a heavy drinker before the gaut ever affected him in his later years.

Just because you discuss both the good AND the bad aspects of a person's life doesn't mean you think they are a scumbag.

However, putting someone on a pedestal for only the positive fraction of their life as some kind of supreme statesman is just hero worship.

Give the man his due for his positive actions, but also give him the proper due for his negatives as well.

A few quick notes, as I only have a few minutes.

You can dwell on your negative aspects of people who made more of a difference to the world than you ever will if you want, but it doesn't take a single thing away from their accomplishments.

Were they gods to be placed up on high and worshiped? Of course not, and no one ever implied such a thing.

You have written more negative things about Franklin alone here than you ever have about people in positions of political power, that just happen to support your political ideals. No matter how much Franklin drank, to my knowledge he was never allowed to legally kill anyone.

The great spiritual leader of the Democratic party has at least one love child, and has used charity funds to support both her and the mother. So what.

I am confused here. You have never made a point of slamming Franklin here before, so why start now? If you felt so strongly against Franklin as a person, you would have brought this up at some time over the last year or so.

You have only jumped up now so you can argue with Max? That is a pretty sad way to go. Max likes someone so we had better find something bad to say about them and focus only on that. No no, we don't care of how many ways this single person improved the entire world, we will find something negative and dwell on that same thing over and over and over and over and.....

What have you gained by your "factual" slam on Franklin? Drinking everynight, liking women, inventing things that improve our lives, get the French to help in the war. Yeah, I can see why you would focus on it like that. What a terrible person he was....

Whine on, you crazy diamond... ;)

I've said...time and time again...Clinton was a pig for cheating on his wife...and that she should be allowed to cut his penis off if she wished. Same goes for Jessie Jackson, Warren Sapp, Ben Franklin, FDR, and any other cheating pig. Don't try to pin me as politically partisan on the cheating thing. I don't condone it for anyone.

BTW...I love at the end of your post how you validate his excess drinking and sleeping around with the fact that he went to the French and got them to help and phrasing sleeping around as "liking women". That's really upstanding of you and a fair expression of his sleazy act of infidelity.

Getting the French to help: Good, cause it helped us win.

Sleeping around, especially when he was married: sleazy (or do you think it okay?)

Drinking to excess on a nightly basis: poor example of representative leadership (or do you think that okay to as he was a representative of our country?)

By the way...there is a difference between *liking* women and being *promiscuous* with them...especially when your married. Thought you'd especially know the difference.

Did I do it to argue with Max...no.

Did I do it to prove a point that he was not a "great statesman"? Yes. There were several others of the period who were considered a far better statesmen...Jefferson was considered the best of that era. And, there have been more since. As I pointed out, Nixon being one of them. And yes, Nixon did illegal crap.

And, notice I pointed out too that Jefferson slept around. So, your argument that it was just against Franklin is proven absurd.

I said it once...I'll say it again.

It's fine to give people their due for the positive, but give them their due for the negative.

Besides. If Clinton had gone and openly been affectionate with aristocratic socialites in England and gotten the English favour that way, you would have screamed about what an insult to our nation that is.

Why is my bringing up that Franklin committed infidelity too so offensive to you, yet berating Clinton for it is okay?

And just remember, jd...that if you only tell posterity of the rose-colored things:

To forgive a man for he acted is honourable. To forget how he acted perpetuates stupidity.

First of all, you have yet to date show any examples of Franklin NOT being a "great statesman".

Womanizing and drinking are not proof of that.

So besides CLAIMING that he isn't a great statesman AND going on about his womanizing and drinking EVERYNIGHT which you claim to be fact dispite James pointing out that EVERYONE went to the pub nightly because that was the social gathering place, you really haven't said much. Have you in this discussion given him credit for ANYTHING POSITIVE? Sorry, but if you did, I missed it.

Do I care if he drank a lot at the pubs each night? Not at all, as he still performed his duties the next day and accomplished great things. Can you say the same?

Do I excuse affairs? Of course not, and I never claimed I did. Just because I didn't DWELL on that topic does not mean I condone it. I am just not in a position to do anything about his affairs, now am I?

No proof to back up that he wasn't the great statesman, only tears him down, AND only right after Max says something positive about him? If you would have EVER said anything negative about Franklin before, your claim that it coming out now isn't just because Max said something would ring true. You didn't and it doesn't.

You are a very shallow person sometimes. Sad.

Go back to your crying.

I am off before that pox James set comes in.

Pertinent facts:

1. The liberal politicians in America, which really is the Democratic party for the most part, and the liberal media, are wrong. They are pursuing a dangerous course. Not because they are stupid, IMO, but because they blindly only want to defeat the Republican party. Hatred of Bush is a convenient scapegoat. There are more problems with the liberal viewpoint in America, but that is outside the scope of this post. (In case you think I am biased, I hate the Republican party too. I think both should be abolished.)

2. The real issue almost everyone misses. And that issue is that these militant islamic types HATE THE WEST and want to see our form of civilization eradicated, along with Israel. You cannot negotiate or argue with a mentality like that.

3. The best FACTUAL explanation of what is happening is probably found here:

www.obsessionthemovie.com

This is the web page for "Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against the West." I have seen this movie, and it is quite powerful. Using actual footage from middle-eastern television broadcasts, we in the west can see how they really think about us.

www.memri.org

This is the web page for the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute. Go there and see real middle eastern television and how they view the world.

3. America is a nation of selfish sheep. We would rather have someone else do our thinking, and would rather follow fads than what is logical or right. We want our comfort and entertainment NOW, completely effortless. The political party that lies errr promises the most to meet these two areas will be the popular choice, regardless of their real motivation or character.

for you.

wah...there's another for good measure...just for you :p

Now...you say that...I only brought out Ben Franklin now cause Max commented...sorry I was gone for a few months and busy with work, and that I didn't have time to parse through 10,000s of posts to go back and find Ben Franklin being represented as "great".

But you will notice...I said NOTHING about Max's comment about his being "...a diplomat, perhaps the best the USA ever had...".

Because...what's a diplomat? Someone who is skilled in negotiations. Was he a great negotiator? Yeah...I can agree there. Diplomacy involves schmoozing. Franklin was a great schmoozer.

But...what is a statesman? A statesman is someone who is highly knowledgable in the principles of government, especially in terms of running government or setting its policies.

I guess the desireable qualities of a statesman ... especially one who is running or shaping government...includes infidelity and heavy drinking? Yeah...GREAT qualities for a statesman. We'll make Andy Dick the ambassador to Greece next. :D

Yes...fine statesman there.

BTW, I do believe I complimented him. Better go back and read where I said:

[b]I did not say he was NOT brilliant. There you go misquoting me again. I said "Perhaps somewhat". And, that is based on the fact a) he did have great inventions, and b) he did contribute to the founding principles of this country.[/b]

Thanks for missing the fact I complimented his inventions and his contribution to the founding principles of the country. The gift certificate is waiting for you at LensCrafters. :p

And too again, underplaying what I said is what you are good at. There's a difference between going to a pub to visit and socialize...and...going in there and drinking heavily every night. Not everyone goes to a bar and gets sloshed to have fun...not everyone now or then had to get drunk nightly to socialize.

Guess they'd get drunk nightly on a golf course if they were around now, eh? That's how everyone socializes today...right?

Again...if it was Clinton who'd gone out and got drunk every night in his role in government, you'd have bashed him. At least I can admit when Clinton was a screw-up and not fulfilling his role to a respectable level.

And, evidently you only care when someone is a poor representative of your country based on whether or not you like them. And, you seem even less concerned about teaching full truth about things in this world...including the not-so-complimentary facts about historical figures in the country's past.

Oh...another thing...I've never seen you comment on Franklin here before either. Does that mean you shant be able to reply to my comment on Franklin either?

Sorry you disagree with me and that you haven't read all the material I have.

But, I won't put rose colored glasses on just to make you happy.

Now...go get busy working...I'm going home sick. Payroll gal gave me a cold or something.

Trust but verify.

You cannot trust a crook near the public till.

im not saying the system works. but would you honestly prefer a system where a bunch of rich white guys all actually agree on how to run our lives?

scary.

mjwx wrote, "...what we (as in the not US world) need to do is to first show that we are not the imperialist Christian US puppets that we are perceived of being and then work to separate the other middle-eastern states from fundamentalist Iran."

I really would like to see the "not-US" parts of the world step up. It is not likely or it would have happened already. In Afghanistan NATO has taken over much of the responsibility. How is that working out? Are the "not-US" countries actually doing anything or are they operating at minimal levels as a political sop? I cannot tell.

It is still too early to tell but I believe the US has already seen the turning point in the Iraq area of operations. That occurred when the people selected their own government. Turning points are tricky. It is hard to see them until long after the fighting is over.

But then, I believe we are winning.

night wrote, "His mistake was pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where we were searching for the person responsible for 9/11, in order to have the resources to invade Iraq..."

How many troops do you believe we had in Afghanistan before the invasion and defeat of the Iraqi dictator's military? What types of troops were they and where were they used in the invasion of Iraq?

I am eager to see your assessment. In the meanwhile I will do some additional research myself.

neil wrote, " In invading, we destroyed the last bit of hope that the UN was worth anything..."

What is your opinion of the Oil for Food scam the UN had going on with Iraq aided and abetted by France, Russia and others? What impact did that corruption have on your "last bit of hope"?

robert wrote, "Iraq had nothing do do with 911."

Only those on the left say this. It is not relevant. It has never been relevant. Repeating it will not make it relevant. We did not defeat the Iraqi dictator's military, depose him, try him and execute him because of any supposed role in the unprovoked attacks on the US and the murder of 3000 of our citizens.

Nice try though.

neil wrote, "I do not believe that the Iraqi people are ready for democracy..."

And yet 20 million of them showed us by their act of bravery as they voted for their government just how wrong your belief is.