Re: PEACE:? Gotta love those polls!

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 05:58:44 MST

  • Next message: MaxPlumm@aol.com: "Re: PEACE?: Gotta love those polls!"

    Alex wrote:

    "I should have stated my meaning and standpoint more clearly. From My casual
    observation and those of the 'general public" types that I have spoken to.
    Nixon is viewed as somewhat a loon who broke the law while in office.
    Granted, he also achieved a great deal and these achievements are greatly
    overshadowed by the events at the end of his Presidency.
    I will admit that I am far from an expert on the subject as I was too young
    to care at the time and today it really does not interest me a great deal as
    I live in the UK. This may go far in explaining my viewpoint or may just be
    fuel for an Ad-Hominem attack."

    It does elaborate on your viewpoint, which as I said is what I expected. I
    would merely suggest that Nixon is viewed as "somewhat of a loon" to many
    people in this country who held that point of view of him even before any of
    the Watergate affair began.

    "My view of the current President is that he was not elected by the people
    and should never have made it to the white house."

    I would respectfully disagree with this position. As Lee illustrated, the
    popular vote has never been the final arbiter of decision in an American
    election. (Again, the aforementioned Nixon won the largest popular vote
    margin of all time in 1972, and that didn't save him from a Congress with a
    lynch mob mentality) President Bush clearly won the election in the system we
    have. Perhaps it wouldn't have come down to the "messy" ending had Mr. Gore
    not initially attempted to have only the votes recounted in three heavily
    Democratic counties in Florida, especially when he was espousing a mantra of
    "count all the votes". Given that New Mexico was even closer than Florida at
    that point, it concerned me that he was not interested in truly having "all
    the votes counted", but merely the ones that he thought would have put
    himself in the White House. It is not my intention to reopen or rekindle the
    flames of debate regarding the 2000 election, I merely mean to illustrate
    that neither side is completely isolated from the charges and accusations
    regarding their conduct.

    "This is all an aside as my original post was simply a question as to "how do
    you remove a person from elected office in the US?"

    Let me say that is certainly true, however, since you chose to include what
    some might call an "inflammatory" comment regarding President Nixon, I felt
    that characterization was up for debate. As Lee has subsequently illustrated,
    there are methods that can be used to remove a public official before his
    term expires. But let's be fair, in the United States, this removal is almost
    always due to some sort of corruption/ illegal financial gain. It is not
    based on, say, a President inflicting mass murder/torture on his people. So
    let us be clear in illustrating the merits of this system as opposed to
    Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

    "My question was in order to give me a better understanding of what safety
    guards are in place to stop someone like Any President from doing something
    utterly mad? For example, breaking international law, Illegally invading
    another country or even forcing the country to follow a course of action that
    is against the wishes of the majority of the public and could conceivably
    start a second cold war."

    I think Lee answered these queries quite well in his post, but I will touch
    on a few of them. To touch on international law, and more to the point the
    UN, let me say this. The Korean War was fought under the auspices of the UN
    ONLY because the Soviet Union was boycotting the body because of the US led
    effort to block Mao Zedong's People's Republic of China from taking the seat
    of Jiang Jieshi's government on Taiwan. Had the USSR been present, then they
    would have vetoed the resolution endorsing action against the North Koreans.
    (Yes, this is obvious, given that the Soviets were bankrolling the North
    Koreans and North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung actually went to Joseph Stalin
    for permission to invade beforehand). So, my question would then be would you
    now be criticizing President Truman's decision to save the South Koreans from
    the tyranny of the North because he would have broken "international law"?

    To the point about "illegally invading a country", I would offer that this
    appears to be a phenomenon that is reserved by its critics for the United
    States. Just to use Nixon's administration as an example, he was (and
    continues to be) unfairly criticized for "illegal operations in Cambodia."
    Now, the neutrality of Cambodia was established in the 1954 Geneva Accords,
    an agreement that was not endorsed by the United States but was by the North
    Vietnamese. Yet, the US is criticized for attacking the NORTH VIETNAMESE in
    Cambodia, five years after the NVA began trampling the sovereignty of that
    nation! If universal standards are not going to be held for the conduct of
    ALL COUNTRIES, which they are not, then this concept is meaningless.

    I would again say that I felt Lee answered your question on public opinion
    well. It is not logical for the President of the United States to base his
    decisions that will impact not only us now living but future generations by
    how the wind is blowing in Peoria today. To use Nixon as an illustration, in
    1971, 90 plus percent of the American public would not have known Chinese
    Premier Zhou Enlai from a Sloppy Joe. So I don't think it particularly wise
    for a President to engage in foreign policy decisions based on the mob
    mentality of an (unfortunately) largely uninformed group. The public opposed
    entering World War II until December 7th. They consistently opposed action in
    Korea. Their judgements are constantly shifting and changing by what they see
    in two minute soundbites on the evening news. Roosevelt, Truman, and Nixon
    all deserve tremendous amounts of credit in those instances for guiding
    public opinion, not being a slave to it.

    In terms of your opinion of Bush's actions beginning a second Cold War, I'd
    be curious if you would be willing to elaborate on them further. In terms of
    with who and what dynamic you would foresee the world alliances taking.

    "Glean from this question what you will. Undoubtedly I am against the war in
    Iraq. However this does not by definition make me Anti American or Pro
    Saddam, far from it."

    I am not sure who this comment is addressed to. I at no point have accused
    you of any of these charges. It is obvious that we disagree in regard to
    action against Saddam Hussein. But it has always been my feeling that healthy
    debate can occur on the topic even if two people's opinions are 180 degrees
    apart.

    Regards,

    Max Plumm

    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you
    really make them think they'll hate you."

                                                                             -Don
    Marquis

    "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

                                                                             
    -Anatole France



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 14 2003 - 06:05:57 MST