<p>By the way this quote is something I find interesting. </p>
<p>"A government must not waiver once it has chosen it’s course. It must not look to the left or right but go forward. " Otto Von Bismarck</p>
<p>One of the best leaders in European History IMO.</p>
<p>
…and then we have the Bay of Pigs and the closest we have ever come top nuclear war.</p>
<p>Of course, JFK certainly was not a perfect president, but he did believe in free speech! And he also was up-front about taking responsibility for the failure of the Bay of Pigs - a good model, in my view. </p>
<p>IMHO during the Kennedy administration, we were closer to nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Luckily Kennedy was willing to be less bellicose than some of his generals advised. </p>
<p>Bismarck is an interesting leader. I always thought it was interesting that this anti-populist monarchist created the first national health care system in history to try to limit the power of socialist movements. As a believer in the divine right of kings (wasn’t he?), I don’t think he thought the people should have much say in government.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Affirmative.</p>
<p>I’d better know this or else my former high school teacher would come after me for not knowing this!</p>
<p>I also think Grigori Rasputin was an interesting guy too. (Not entirely on topic, but you can still quote someone from the Romanov dynasty).</p>
<p>“I was merely telling the OP that not all young people are about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I’m tired of people assuming this about me and my generation. It sounds like your generation has no faith in me or my generation, whatsoever. No need to get your knickers in a twist.”</p>
<p>dearheart, I must ask why would sex, drugs and rock n roll preclude someone from being intelligent or having a rational opinion? </p>
<p>Your confusing disagreement with you and the generation you belong to as a lack of faith. You’re incorrect. One can disagree with you and still like you and respect you. What I’ve been pointing out to you in this post and some others… is you tend to go nuke very quickly. Rather than re-explain your pov, ya blow up. We’ve gotten to know each other before, I know you are a nice kid. </p>
<p>And since I tend towards commando, bunched undies really aren’t a problem…</p>
<p>I kidd. ;)</p>
<p>Bismarck demonstrated a certain consistency in believing in the divine right of kings and believing that a government must not waver after choosing one’s course, but I don’t think that either idea is consistent with democratic government.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, we came more than merely close in WWII. Just ask the Japanese.</p>
<p>Smurfgirl, you seem to be confusing memorization with reflection.</p>
<p>Even if the Chaldeans and the Assyrians were as esoteric as you seem to think they are, memorizing their existence doesn’t really say much about one’s understanding. </p>
<p>Frankly, I wouldn’t care if a person knew the name of every man, woman, and child that ever lived in the United States, if that person thought that the relationship of the president to the people was based on unquestioning “faith” rather than the accountability of the government to the governed.</p>
<p>If we lose that one value, that the government rules by consent of the people, we have lost America, no matter how well we do or don’t do in our relations with other nations.</p>
<p>I might almost prefer it if kids were about sex, drugs and rock and roll. I’d feel a lot safer than with a generation who distrusts the government than one that thinks it can do little wrong and mustn’t be criticized in case they are right. And how anyone could possibly think that our little adventure in Iraq could have a happy ending for us is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You don’t have to memorize their existence. Chaldeans (and Babylon) are actually mentioned in the Bible, and if you are a Christian you should already know this. If you aren’t a Christian, it’s still nice to be informed. I don’t think Chaldeans and Assyrians are esoteric, at least in the area I live in. However, people in other states do not know these ethnic groups from Iraq. They do not know that Chaldeans are Catholic Iraqis, but rather they assume that everyone in Iraq are Arab terrorists. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that we should stand behind our government 100% now did I? I’d rather have people criticize our government (it’s a right) than see my generation in a moral decline.</p>
<p>Since Momfromme wants to stay on topic on her thread, I would like to honor that request. Please PM me if you want to discuss this, or create another thread. Keep the PMs polite, or they will be deleted.</p>
<p>Of course I know that Chaldeans and Assyrians are in the Bible. That’s why I said they aren’t so esoteric as you were suggesting. You were the one who brought them up in a “do you even know” kind of context.</p>
<p>should the fact that he wasn’t president at time he wrote this be taken into consideration?</p>
<p>has quite a different ring when you consider he was directing it against someone else,…</p>
<p>maybe this has been noted,…my bile-waders are on the back porch</p>
<p>“They do not know that Chaldeans are Catholic Iraqis, but rather they assume that everyone in Iraq are Arab terrorists.”</p>
<p>Chaldeans aren’t necessarily only Iraqis. There’s enough of a minority of Chaldean and Assyrian Catholics in Iran to warrant representation in the Majlis (parliament) of Iran (that’s what I learned from AP Comp. Gov). </p>
<p>I know it’s not really on topic of the thread, but I just wanted to address that since you’ve placed such importance upon knowledge of Chaldeans/Assyrians…and frankly that’s all I’ve learned of them from school.</p>
<p>In regards to the President, I think he should be criticized if he does something wrong. I wish we had a U.S. version of PM’s Questions so there would be a more direct forum of addressing the President. It’s not unpatriotic to question the government (or, in this case the head of governent). However, I think troops serving abroad should have the people’s support. It can’t be easy leaving a family and life behind to serve abroad (esp. in Iraq, where you’re fighting a war that many Americans no longer support…it’s disheartening to say the least).</p>
<p>Criticism of leaders during wars is one of those sticky issues that the US, and most other democracies, grapple with. The SCOTUS has waxed and waned on whether or not anti-sedition acts are okay, a necessary evil, or unconstitutional. The same body ruled in Komatsu that interning an entire population of people for ethnic ties was, in fact, acceptable. So, some argue, why not the abridgment of due process?</p>
<p>I come squarely down on the side that says that criticism is a democratic citizen’s prerogative and duty. Yes, it is a duty. After all, we should be keeping track of our leaders and their actions and saying quite loudly when they bungle something.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I don’t believe that that duty and real security concerns always meet eye-to-eye. C’est la democratic vie.</p>
<p>However, I do have to say that the notion that we went to war in Iraq for Iraqis in any way is quite absurd. No nation goes to war with another nation particularly in mind. Of course, I have to clarify that I’m a Mearsheimer/Keohane-style realist who says that nations do what’s in their best interest, and nothing else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think we have to modify this a little bit. Nations tend to do what’s in the best interests of the individuals setting policy and their supporters.</p>
<p>Which is why it’s so important that we the people insist on accountability.</p>
<p>Conyat,</p>
<p>I don’t know that I agree. Look at how often Presidents will make policies that screw their constituents. For example, look at NAFTA.</p>
<p>Modern Assyrians and Chaldeans are a myth. Those nationalities (they are not distinct enthnic groups, no matter what the “modern” ones say) were long ago absorbed. Doubtless, some group will claim to be modern Phillistines or Minoans some day. Or perhaps you’re going to tell me that there are still people speaking Semitic Babylonian/Assyrian who are living in Iraq today? The modern Chaldeans are just the old Nestorians.</p>
<p>In any event, what does this have to do with anything important?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think at least one of the basic problems is Clausewitz, at least in the modern age. Clausewitz’ idea of “total war” left very little option. One either “won” or “lost” a war, and the consequences of losing were so intolerable that only a total effort by the populace could suffice. WWII came along and gave some people the sense that all wars are like WWII and must be fought like WWII.</p>
<p>Democracies have often had critics in time of war. For instance, Lord North and King George III were widely criticized in the British Parliament during the latter stages of the American Revolution, and rightly so. The war was completely unnecessary and was certainly counterproductive. Had it not been fought, the British Empire would have been far more formidable than it was (hard to believe, huh?)</p>
<p>If democracies are reduced to withholding all criticism of the executive branch leaders during times of war, all it would take to shut down all criticism is to declare a war. </p>
<p>Not my idea of a great incentive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was my point. Policies don’t represent the best interests of we the people. They represent the best interests of the people who donate money or give backing in other ways to the head of state.</p>
<p>Again, that would be, at least for most poli sci literature, a constituent (an important one at that.) There is no doubt that Clinton got a lot of large donations and support from labor and unions, yet he signed NAFTA into effect. Bush was supported quite well by a number of major steel producers, yet he went ahead and used his fast-track authority to get tariffs dropped that hurt the same producers.</p>
<p>It’s not necessarily the “best” assumption in political science that leaders act in the interest of the nation, but we do see that overall presidents seem to act with a much broader purpose than most other leaders.</p>