2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

reply to post by semperfortis

Although I could certainly be surprised, I also think that Huckabee is going to be McCain's running mate ... I really thought Romney would get the "nod" but perhaps Huckabee is the better choice after all ...

One major problem faced by the genuine adherents to the doctrine of Conservatism is that it either 1) does not work, as I contend or, 2) it is betrayed by those who have urged it only to obtain high office. Many times it is not easy to tell which is the case.

The Free Market advocates cut and ran when the going got tough! In any really FREE market, we’d sit back and watch Bear Sterns lead the way to Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 courtrooms around the country. Country-wide Mortgages would be right behind. Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley. Really big players. In other words, we have once again been deprived of a real test of the doctrine of the Free Market's inherent self corrective nature versus liberals notions of strict regulation and timely intervention. Instead the BIG players have called on Keynesian economics to pull their coals from the fire. Little government guys lambast BIG government guys until they need them! Then it's the one that always works in the CRUNCH!

Condi Rice is a light-weight amongst heavy weights. More like a cake decoration than anything substantive. Attractive - nay pretty - but you need more than a perpetual smile on a pretty face to be VP nowadays. If you think you’re going to follow VP Cheney, you’ll need direct injections and often of 100% testosterone.

Look back on the campaign. Which candidate did MORE for John McCain than any other? A. Mike Huckabee. He singlehandedly ran the No. 1 contender - Giuliani - the Mayor for a Day - was never for real - out of the race because of his Salt Lake City connection. His Mormon religion.

NOT one time did any of the co-candidates DARE defend Mitt Romney on the platform or put the Huck to shame when Huckabee launched into him. That had to be a calculated and coordinated move on the Huck’s part. Huckabee could not win the top prize.The huck is affable if not laughable, but he has too many of Spiro Agnew’s traits. But he could help another win, and I say, that is just what he did.

We’ll see in September if not before.

[edit on 4/7/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by semperfortis
I really thought Romney would get the "nod" but perhaps Huckabee is the better choice after all...

Unlike other politicians Romeny wasn't able to sell his flip flops to voters or rather more accurately the Republican core supporter base. Huckabee will be brought on board as the VP pick in order to try and bring the RR to the polls.

reply to post by xpert11


Rudy Giuliani - NY
He turned out to be both politically inept and embarrassingly opportunistic. His claim to fame is his Mayor for a Day performance.

Mitt Romney - MA
Actually, he was more pragmatic than conservative. That is, he was willing to try new approaches to new problems he found in MA that he never encountered in UT. Unfortunately, as I have said here many times, no politician can be elected who tells the TRUTH.

Condi Rice - CA (she says no, but we're still hoping?)
Well, I don’t like her, and I never have. If she was Ms Token, then Colin Powell was Mr Quota in B43's GOP administration. I don’t know anything about her political philosophy. I have never heard anyone who does. Condi is a lightweight in a world of heavyweights. She got trapped once when she tried to claim close association with the FOUR young girls killed at the 16th Street Baptist Church terrorist attack. It turned out Condi was a mere toddler when the dead girls were near teen-agers. She has dropped that line. Like Hillary dodging bullets in Bosnia. Colin Powell readily admits he is a product of Affirmative Action, and I think Condi has reluctantly admitted as much. Say Thank You LBJ!

Newt Gingrich - GA (another?)
I guess he’s OK unless you’re married to him. He was shrewd in 1994, but has never had an equal follow-on. He has a serious character flaw. He accepted a $6 million bribe from Rupert Murdoch after becoming the House Speaker-designate.

For those of you who do not recall, let me elaborate. The 1933 Federal Communications Act forbade foreign ownership of radio and later, tv stations. Murdoch was - may still be - an Australian. A very rich and extremely conservative Australian. After turning several decrepit British newspapers into soft porn knock-offs of the National Enquirer, he amassed a fortune.

Looking to the market of all markets, he began to “buy” American radio and tv stations. He used the patently obvious evasive device of setting up an American company, then using it to buy the stations. He of course being the 100% owner of the American company. Under Reagan and the First Bush, all the R&Fs got - get - a free ride. Hey, one hand washes the other! Murdoch founded FOX and he has never disappointed his protectors.

But Rupert knew that if and when the Dems ever got into power, they would make him pay! He needed the law to be amended to allow RICH Australians to own American radio and tv stations. Heretofore SPECIAL interests usually “BUY” one or two congresspersons. Usually one in the House and one in the Senate. Tragically, their fellow members know exactly what is going on, but hey, they have their own SPECIAL interests so what goes around comes around. For example, Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) was jocularly known by his compatriots as the "Senator from ADM." Only we long suffering taxpayers are out of the loop.

Rupert went straight to the top! He “offered” and PAID Newt $6 million for a book yet to be written! Good God A’mighty. Talk about a book ADVANCE! Shades of former Dem Speaker Jim Wright! When word of the dubious "payment" was “leaked” to the public, Newt thought better of it and grudgingly returned the check. Whew! Surely America is worth MORE than a mere $6 mil?

Tom Tancredo - CO
This guy is from the Stone Age. I never heard him say anything applicable to Century21. And I’m no realtor!

Ron Paul - TX
Highly likable even if his ideas are mostly crazy. He reminds me most of the long deceased home-spun humorist, Will Rogers. And his political philosophy is about equally applicable. But he's one nice guy.

Mike Huckabee - AR
Tolerant? Who says a Baptist preacher must be should be ought to be tolerant? How about being INTOLERANT? I call him “The Huck” short from Huckster. He actually believes he is entitled to gifts from his audience. As outgoing governor, he signed up on the Bridal List of every department store in Arkansas despite having been married over 20 years. Cheap? Yup. A Spiro Agnew, Junior. Then Huck attacked Mitt Romney for being a Mormon. To the everlasting discredit of each of his other platform sharing candidates NOT ONE of whom denounced the Huck for his religious attack on Mitt. A genuine religious bigot!

Sam Brownback - KS
He fits well with Tancredo, IMO.

Fred Thompson - TN
Lazy.

Duncan Hunter - CA
Another glimpse into the past.

John McCain - AZ
The nominee. He is actually hard to place, neither all conservative nor all moderate and surely none liberal. He is either pragmatic if you like him, or opportunistic militarist if you don’t. And I don’t.

[edit on 4/13/2008 by donwhite]

Fear not people... here's the man you need to know by Novemeber.

www.abovepolitics.com...

He says he didn't leave the Republican Party... the Republican party left him. If you feel the same way, go check out this thread and Root for America!!

reply to post by RabbitChaser

He says he didn't leave the Republican Party ... the Republican party left him.

Mr RabbitChaser, enthusing for 3rd or 4th parties in America is OK if you do not take it too seriously. A snowball's chance! All the less if those parties are what are called fringe parities. You may already know my description of Libertarians. I call them Anarchists in drag.

Have you noticed that it is an endless Republican mantra to promise if elected to "reduce the size of government?" I've heard that from Eisenhower to Bush43. (Except Gerald Ford who was honest about it). YET the size of government GROWS in every administration including GOPs.

I assume all those men are honest in their desire and start off with that intent. But it don't work that way. The problem is that when GW was prez, we had 3 million people but today we have 300 million if you don't count the undocumented workers. It takes a big government to serve a big population. Not to remind of 3.8 million square miles. So why not use our brain-power to be constructive in the present instead of lamenting the past?

But it is so far, a free country and your POV is equal to mine!





[edit on 4/13/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by RabbitChaser


Libertarians in the US are my favourite lost cause they are the biggest supporters of a system that helps keep them down . Don as I said on another thread McCain is starting to grow me as time goes on. McCain isnt purely idealogical driven like Bush and co and I support the concept of the League of Democracy's .

Giuliani would have the embarrassing honour of being the worst Republican candidate in terms of performance if it wasn't for Thompson. Tancredo , Hunter and Brownback were all nobody's who went nowhere.

reply to post by xpert11

Don as I said on another thread McCain is starting to grow me as time goes on. McCain isn’t purely ideological driven like Bush and co and I support the concept of the League of Democracy's.

Revive the old Hanseatic League? Sweet Jesus! Say Hello Woodrow Wilson. League of Nations. And now a League of Democracy. Hmm? An 80 year old idea for an 80 year old candidate? But with an updated name for the sake of modernity?

Look, we already have the OAS - Organization of American States - through which to exercise our dominance of the Western Hemisphere. Through gross mismanagement, we have lost 99% of our clout in the United Nations. Republicans don’t like blacks except on election day, so we will not be welcome in the African Union. The Atlantic is TOO wide for us to petition the EU for membership. And the Ruskies will not let us into the CIS which they regard as their own.

So what other “Democracy” will join with Mr McCain? Canada, a logical choice, is happy in the Commonwealth. Mexico is still smarting from the GREAT WALL. We can’t solicit Cuba until Castro dies. Hello! I give you Israel! But shucks, we are already joined at the hip with Israel. McCain is STILL a day late and a dollar short!

And add Iraq if we can JAM our Maliki type hand picked lackeys down the Iraqi throats which begins to look to be about as hard a task as we found it to be in Vietnam.

[edit on 4/16/2008 by donwhite]

Points taken, folks, but...

... why is it in this country, when something doesn't need changed, it gets changed anyway (if it ain't broke, don't fix it)... but when something IS broken, ie: our entire system of government, we just continue on with the same idiots who got us here in the first place...? This thing isn't broken, people, it's on its last legs headed for a quick death. And getting even bigger won't fix anything, that is gauranteed. It is beyond time for everyone to leave both the mainstream parties.

And for the comment regarding population size... isn't the idea of returning many issues to being up to the individual states, rather than federal issues? (hence the, 'let's not make a federal case out of it')

Yep... your choices... go ahead and keep on making the same ones and see where that gets us... it can't get much worse, right... ?... right...?



[edit on 4/16/2008 by RabbitChaser]

reply to post by RabbitChaser

“ . . but when something IS broken, i.e., our entire system of government, we just continue on with the same idiots who got us here in the first place? . . . people, it's on its last legs headed for a quick death. It is beyond time for everyone to leave both the mainstream parties.”

Consider this Mr R/C. The Federal bicameral legislature - House and Senate - needs to be replaced as in Nebraska. It is unique in that it is the only American state legislature that is BOTH unicameral - one chamber - and nonpartisan. Repeat that, NONPARTISAN. Nebraska is divided into 49 equally populated districts. Members are chosen for 4 year terms. If it was up to me, I’d make the Federal legislature an even number of member - say 250 - and have half the members stand for election every 2 years, so the public could express its opinion more often.

To break tie votes, I’d have a computer choose from all citizens between 50 and 65 years of age, put on a list shuffled randomly and the names kept top secret. The top person would be allowed to cast the tie breaking vote. Then the next person on the list would cast the next tie breaking vote and so on. Prepare a new list every 2 years. No repeats on the lists.

This single chamber legislature would put us closer to the UK where the real power is vested in the single House of Commons. To offset that immense power, in the UK the loss of a vote of confidence ends the term of office and elections are held not sooner than 30 days but not longer than 60 days. Quick turn around time! Americans voted NO confidence in Bushr43 in November, 2006, yet he remains in power as a LAME DUCK president until January 20, 2009. More than TWO YEARS. In such important matters we cannot continue the risks inherent in SLOW response time in the 21st century! This president is trying to throw a monkey wrench into the NEXT president's options for Iraq and elsewhere.

Foot Note. A Dem website reports Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice chaired repeated White House meetings approving specific torture techniques before they were used - then lied about it to Congress. Brave New Films put it all together in a "smoking gun" video.

The Bush administration is going ahead with plans to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the rapidly melting habitat for one-tenth of the remaining polar bear population. Can we save the Spotted Owl? Can we save a Snail Darter? Must we not save polar bears to see if we can save ourselves?

[edit on 4/16/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


I will have to look into that further, but it certainly looks promising on the surface. Thanks! Of course, I am not including your last 2 paragraphs

Agreed... it all needs fixed. But it won't get done without someone to lead the way, and it won't be anyone you've seen so far on the MSM who will forge that path...

reply to post by donwhite


The UN has failed the thing is we haven't had a world war to convince its last remaining supporters of this fact. As for the LOD assuming its gets off the ground I reckon the following countries could foundering members South Korea , Japan , France , UK Australia and New Zealand . That is of course assuming the respective governments signed on the dotted line.

For the LOD to be viable avenue of diplomacy the right frame work has to be put in place . There must be no line of veto . Don when you have a unicameral house it is vital that you have some in built way that you don't end up the failure of the two party system .

reply to post by xpert11

The UN has failed . . the thing is we haven't had a world war to convince its last remaining supporters of this fact . . There must be no line of veto.

My knee-jerk first response to a LoD is: America is looking for allies to attack Iran.

UN failed? UNICEF. WHO. Peacekeeping forces in a half dozen places. This is a very SHORT list of the UN’s accomplishments. I suggest more than any one thing it was MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction - that slowed the rush to WW3. I never bought into the Cold War. The Soviet threat and capability was always exaggerated here. It was a Pentagon and CIA scam the KGB could not publicly refute.

At the end of WW2, the US had all of the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande “in its pocket.” About 15 'automatic' GA votes. In 1946 Western Europe needed the US t0 forestall the Red Army. Germany, Austria and Italy. France, and BeNeLux counted as one. In short, out of the 50 founding members of the UN, The US could “rely” on 40+ votes in the start up General Assembly. The 15 member Security Council included 5 permanent members and 10 rotating members.

In order for us to get the USSR into the UN, we had to give full membership to Ukraine. Full membership to Belarus. Full membership to Moldova. We balked when they demanded Outer Mongolia as a full member. So the Ruskies had 4 votes in the General Assembly. To get the USSR on the Security Council we had to give them a veto. The 5 permanent members could take no action they did not agree to unanimously.

You can argue it either way but without the veto the USSR would not have been in the UN. Unlike Bush43 who does not talk to his enemies, Churchill and Roosevelt believed it was better to have your enemy where you could watch him. I think the original compromises have proved their worth by keeping the peace all those years from 1945 to 1991!

I reckon the following countries could foundering members South Korea, Japan, France, UK Australia and New Zealand. That is of course assuming the respective governments signed on the dotted line. For the LOD to be viable avenue of diplomacy the right frame work has to be put in place. There must be no line of veto.

Sure, McCain has to win before the LoD could become a reality. I am opposed to creating yet ONE more multi-national organization when we already have more than enough to do any respectful job needed. From Reagan onward we mucked up our spot in the UN and now we want to take one more step to destroy the UN. It sounds to me more like America (McCain) wants another platform to operate from. We need to get back to the UN and mend our unilateral ways!

I doubt seriously France would join a new American platform. Japan might join a league of like-thinking countries for its own reasons unrelated to democracy. We’re the ones hung up on “democracy.” South Korea wants to unite with North Korea. Unless the SK government believes this LoD would encourage unification, I don’t see them coming on-board.

The US will not consent to submit to any multi-national organization it does not control or have a veto over. McCain is trying to DISTRACT the electorate. He wants to distance himself from Bush43 but he is NOT a UN backer. Heck, Republicans have never supported the UN. They did not support the League of Nations. International cooperation is contra-indicated to being a Republican. We only worked in the UN as long as we could run it. Like war: win, good (IN), lose, bad (OUT).

Umm Don UN lead peacekeeping missions have a pretty poor record all round .
I cant think of one UN lead peacekeeping mission that has had any long term success . Australia and New Zealand troops have had to return to East Timor to restore order . The government of East Timor wanted the troops to remain after the UN mandate expired but the governments of Australia and New Zealand either said no or withdrew the bulk of there troops. As a result any net gain was lost.

The LOD is a way for McCain to open avenues of diplomacy and mover away from the you either support are how baked policy's or your against us mentality without coping flak from his fellow Republicans . South Korea , France e.t.c are all members of the international community that need to be brought on board in order to tackle global problems.

The UN is beyond a joke just take a look at who gets appointed to the likes of the Humans Rights council .

reply to post by xpert11

(1) Umm Don UN lead peacekeeping missions have a pretty poor record all round. I cant think of one UN lead peacekeeping mission that has had any long term success.
(2) Australia and New Zealand troops have had to return to East Timor to restore order. The government of East Timor wanted the troops to remain after the UN mandate expired but the governments of Australia and New Zealand either said no or withdrew the bulk of there troops. As a result any net gain was lost.
(3) The LOD is a way for McCain to open avenues of diplomacy and mover away from the you either support are how baked policy's or your against us mentality without coping flak from his fellow Republicans.
(4) South Korea , France etc. , are all members of the international community that need to be brought on board in order to tackle global problems. The UN is beyond a joke just take a look at who gets appointed to the likes of the Humans Rights council.

1) On its own volition the US served a peace keeping mission in the Sinai Peninsula following the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt (that cost Anwar Sadat his life) and Israel. See Note 1. Everyone still talks about the good outcome of that Treaty. The negotiations had been held at Camp David in 1978 with the help of Pres. Carter. See Note 2.

This peace keeping failure is not systemic to the UN. It is due to the inability of the parties to reach agreement. Note also this has happened to the African Union especially in the Darfur Province issue. Simply put, there MUST first be a peace to keep!

The “keepers” have usually done a great job, for the most part. Failures in Force discipline are more attributable to NON support or training from UN countries like the US who want to see the UN fail. That failure in turn reinforces their urge to “Get the US out of the UN, Get the UN out of the US!” It's a lot easier to QUIT a failed organization than one that is working. GOP tactics.

2) I thought the East Timor problem was in the past? Is it on-going? You should know, Mr X11, of all the colonial powers, the UK alone prepared the natives for self government. I believe the East Timor colony was a Dutch colony. I’ve always said, “If one must be a colony, then let it be a British colony.”

3) The LoD is a campaign ploy. It’s a sop to those few remaining Republicans who still believe in the United Nations. As is said often, if there was NO UN, we’d have to “invent” one. As bad as it is and again I remind the UN per se is neither bad nor good; it is the members who make it what it is (or is not).

4) The US could easily accomplish worthy goals - if it had any - at the existing UN HQ located in Lower Manhattan without looking for a new place or group to do good with. That site of world collaboration reaffirms that New York City IS the Capital of the World! See Note 3. I'm look forward in 2009 to a renewal of the Goals of the UN first enunciated in 1941 by FDR, The Four Freedoms:
1. Freedom of speech and expression. 2. Freedom of religion.
3. Freedom from want. 4. Freedom from fear.
A worthy work in progress!


Note 1. On Thursday, December 12, 1985, the chartered PRIVATE DC8 plane carrying 248 members of the 101st Airborne Division of Ft. Campbell, KY and 8 crew members returning home for Christmas from NON UN peace keeping duties in the Sinai Desert. The fully loaded DC8 crashed during takeoff after refueling in Gander, Newfoundland. Although at first it was rumored by the charter company that some soldiers had carried live hand grenades on-board the plane it was later determined the cause of the crash was the operator's FAILURE to de-ice the plane a second time. The lapse in time between the plane’s only de-icing and final clearance for take off was too long for the rate of snowfall. Ice formed on the wings causing a loss of lift and the plane never really “got off the ground.” It cost $7,000 to de-ice the plane.
nlt.rootsweb.ancestry.com...

Note 2. The Initial peacekeeping force was provided by the US Sinai Field Mission, SFN. Efforts were made to create a UN force. In 1981 the President of the UN Security Council indicated that the UN would be UNABLE to provide the force, due to the threat of a veto by the USSR at the request of Syria. Then Egypt, Israel and the United States opened negotiations to set up a peacekeeping organization outside the framework of the UN. In 1981, the Protocol to the (1979) Treaty of Peace established the (MFO) Multinational Force and Observers.
en.wikipedia.org...

Note 3. United Nations Headquarters is considered "international territory" - not part of the United States, diplomacy-wise. Its borders are First Avenue, on the west, East 42nd Street, on the south, East 48th Street, on the north and the East River, on the east. FDR Drive passes underneath the Conference Building of the complex.

The United Nations Headquarters was constructed in New York City in 1949 and 1950, on seventeen acres of land. (2.5 acres equals 1 hectare). The purchase was arranged by Nelson Rockefeller. The $8.5 million purchase price was funded by his father, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who donated the property to the City. Aside: The Rockefeller family funded the property buy in NYC because 1) they wanted it there and 2) the US Congress might not have acted quickly enough (if at all) to keep the UN in the US. Very many if not most Americans have always been isolationists. Look at our attitude on globalization or immigration today.

[edit on 4/18/2008 by donwhite]

Australia and New Zealand troops will be in East Timor for while yet it remains to be seen if they will be pulled out to soon once again . The president of East Timor has just recently returned to his country after recovering from an assassination attempted in a Darwin hospital . I expected supporters of the war in Iraq to use East Timor as an example of what happens when troops are pulled out to soon . But hey the American schools produces people that cant find Iraq on a map.

If my memory serves me correctly UN peace keepers failed to prevent a massacre in Bosnia . As for the LOD tackling Iran we could say a case of only Nixon could go to China or Rather McCain backed up by the LOD go to Iran .

reply to post by xpert11

I expected supporters of the war in Iraq to use East Timor as an example of what happens when troops are pulled out to soon. But American schools produces people that cant find Iraq on a map. If my memory serves me correctly UN peace keepers failed to prevent a massacre in Bosnia. As for the LOD tackling Iran we could say a case of only Nixon could go to China or Rather McCain backed up by the LOD go to Iran.

On your last point Mr X11, you have a highly relevant observation. That happens sometimes. Only the OPPONENT can do the settling of some divisive issues. On Bosnia. If perhaps John McCain had been president, and not so much because he was in the Armed Forces but because he is more conservative by nature (no Neo Con), he would have acted with more dispatch than we - under Clinton - displayed in our disappointingly tentative move into Bosnia and Herzegovina by the UN or NATO.

But here again Mr X11, I believe the problem was we - the West - sent in the peace keepers before there was a peace to keep. There have always been advocates of a PRO-ACTIVE United Nations. To remove from office such people as Zimbabwe’s current Mogabe. But peacekeeping is entirely different project from restoring order or enforcing minimum humane rules.

Much of the rhetoric by Bush43 on ‘democracy’ implies that he, Bush43, would launch many “pre-emptive” strikes in the furtherance of democracy. He has never explained the obvious contradiction inherent in his (weird) notion of bestowing COMPULSORY democracy on reluctant recipients. Whether that’s due to his sense of urgency or his abysmal ignorance of the slow evolution of democracy in history I do not know but you do know I have a very strong personal opinion on which it is.

Q. Would President McCain’s response be different than either Obama or Clinton as president would follow in the current brouhaha in Zimbabwe, in Kenya and (forever) in Somalia? Not to even mention the clash on-going in Nigeria. And as you remind, in East Timor. And the low intensity war in Gaza?

To partly answer my own questions, I’d offer that McCain is NO Neo Con. That implies he is NOT going to pre-empt into any NEW war. Including Iran. He’ll have his hands full getting OUT of Iraq and Afghan. Despite his “off the cuff” remark about staying in Iraq “100 years.” It was not in the context of a formal policy statement that he made that remark. He should not have mis-spoke, but what the hey! Anytime you run a campaign on for 2 years, you’re going to have a lot of that. Guns and God. Ducking sniper-fire. Etc.

I’ve asked more questions than I’ve answered, but I have offered some opinions on the LAST Conservative standing in the primary season. Well, NEARLY a conservative standing.

[edit on 4/19/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


The problem with peace keeping is that there has to be the political will to see a mission thou over a long period of time . You are correct that there has to be a peace to keep so in my mind either peace keepers are given more teeth or the concept of peace keeping be done away with. But there are are issues tied in with peace keeping such as the ability of third world governments to govern and fight corruption that also need to be examined when dealing with this topic.

Bush stance on Democracy has been inconsistent due to his support for Musharraf and the Saudis . You can also throw the failure to support an Independent.

Now to answer your question.

East Timor is in Aust and NZ backyard so those countries will always do the bulk of the load in that country . The US will fight one or proxy wars in Africa in attempted to try and keep Chinese influence in check . This will happen under the guise of intervening on the grounds of preventing genocide , starvation e.t.c . This will happen no matter who is president .

reply to post by xpert11

The problem with peace keeping is that there has to be the political will to see a mission thou over a long period of time. You are correct that there has to be a peace to keep so in my mind either peace keepers are given more teeth or the concept of peace keeping be done away with.

I would not give up out of hand on peace keeping. When there is a genuine opportunity to stop a clash between two unstoppable forces - as in Zimbabwe today - then IF the 2 sides will AGREE to a peaceful resolution or to just a non-violent accommodation of their differences, the opportunity for Peace Keepers is there and needs to be acted on quickly lest the opportunity dissipates!

Furthermore, it does appear to me we have been niggardly in our application of Peace Keeper force strength levels all too often. That - peace keeping - is one instance where the Powell Doctrine has good application. Overwhelming strength. Don’t send a boy on a man’s job. Etc.

But there are issues tied in with peace keeping such as the ability of third world governments to govern and fight corruption that also need to be examined when dealing with this topic.

I cannot prove times are worse today vis a vis 3rd world governments since the demise of the USSR, but I “feel” that is the case. Formerly we had our lackeys and they had their lackeys and we generally kept them under some semblance of control. Any shooting wars were to be proxy wars and not genuine wars of independence. Neither the US nor the USSR had that in their crystal ball.

Bush stance on Democracy has been inconsistent due to his support for [Pakistan’s] Musharraf and the Saudis. You can also throw the failure to support an Independent.

Pakistan. In 1947, Pakistan and India divided. Despite the Mahatma’s pleas to “go in peace” there was much violence and ethnic cleansing on both sides, Hindu and Muslim. I can still remember the scene in the RKO newsreels shown every week at local theaters of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi lying on a stretcher refusing to eat until the killing stopped. He grew so weak that both Hindu and Muslim feared for his life. They “faked” a truce to get him to resume eating.

America’s nascent CIA made contact with the new Pakistani General Staff (coordinated by MI6 I'm sure) and we have had OUR man in Islamabad ever since. Elections smee-lections! Those are held periodically for the US bill-paying audience. I sure you know the quirk of nature which makes Kashmir the only large fertile valley in the region over which both desperately overpopulated countries continue to wage war. Off and on.

What can I say? It is the way West-Euro types deal with people of color. Will it ever change? I do not know. As long as there are people of color in those countries willing to sell out to the foreigners, I doubt conditions will improve.

Saudi Arabia. (Saudi being a possessive noun). Recall from history that in 1943, at the Cairo Conference between FDR and Churchill, and despite his lack of personal agility, FDR flew up to Arabia and met with King Ibn Saud. Whether on a handshake or by a written document I do not recall, but the US in the person of the president guaranteed the Saud family perpetual dominance of the Arabian peninsula and in return the Saudi family guaranteed the United States all the oil it wants. No one spoke of price, but spoke only of source. Hey, FDR was always a capitalist. But a rare one. He had a heart. Empathy.

Now to answer your question. East Timor is in Aust and NZ backyard so those countries will always do the bulk of the load in that country. The US will fight one or proxy wars in Africa in attempted to try and keep Chinese influence in check. This will happen no matter who is president.

I can only lament that you are correct Mr X11.

Its hard to know what to exactly do with the concept of peace keeping . All I can put forward is that in some hotspots the mandate that peace keepers have isnt enough to deal with the troubles at hand. As for the Powell Doctrine peace keepers are more likely to face an insurgency then a convention war. But as we have seen you still need to have a sufficient number of boots on the ground to tackle an insurgency .

You could say third world governments are worse off since the USSR fell because there has been an abundance(SP?) of arms from the former Eastern Block countries that have fuelled conflicts .

reply to post by xpert11

It’s hard to know what to exactly do with the concept of peace keeping. All I can put forward is that in some hot spots the mandate that peace keepers have isn’t enough to deal with the troubles at hand.

Premature PK insertion by definition. We have no differences about peace keeping. PK. But it is becoming obvious how hard it is to know when to put in peace keepers and how easy it is to wish yourself into trouble. Maybe the UN should have PK Level 1 and PK Level 2. Use first enlistment innocents on Level 1 jobs. Hand out candy boys. Use commandos and special forces for Level 2 jobs. Kick ass boys. Kick so hard that kickee can’t ever kick back!

You could say third world governments are worse off since the USSR fell because there has been an abundance of arms from the former Eastern Block countries that have fueled conflicts.

Yes, and the West esp. the US just “walked away” and left the mess they had 50% created. On the Cheap! But we will never learn. If we can't FIX a problem in 6 months, we don't want to be involved.

I think I know why America is such a socio-religio mess. We were settled early on by MALcontents, DIScontents and NONcontents more or less asked to GET OUT of Eruope.