 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
JCG
|
 |
between a rock and a hard place
Feb 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
Modern Russians are rather capitalist (they've even sold some helos to Colombia in the past), so I wouldn't make too much of the claim of them wanting to "extend their influence" in any "Cold War"-like fashion.
Instead, what is clear is that Venezuela's simply trying to arm itself with non-U.S. weaponry, in order to widen their already existing military superiority over Colombia. That's it. Venezuela can currently slice through any of their non-Brazilian neighbors (like Guyana, with which they have a rather big territorial dispute) quite easily, anyways.
quote:
Last month, irregular combatants from Colombia, who have still not been identified, crossed into Venezuela and killed five Venezuelan soldiers and an oil company engineer.
|
Yet the Venezuelan "Scientific Police" (Cicpc) has stated that preeliminary evidences do point to the FARC... Not to mention that they were involved in a previously botched kidnapping (of Venezuelans) which has been linked to the murders...seems that vague "neutrality" isn't worth too much these days if your own citizens are still going to be hurt.
quote:
Another local academic, Aníbal Romero at the Simón Bolívar University, cited rumors according to which Venezuela may try to acquire MiG-29 combat planes and light arms from the Ukraine after purchasing the Mi-26 helicopters. |
They're not going to be all Mi-26; most will apparently be Mi-17. Which is confirmed by the article itself:
quote:
But Rangel noted that the helicopters that Venezuela plans to buy are already used by other countries in the region, like Mexico, Peru and even Colombia.
|
And that's all....*fades out*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Shawn, thousands of people lost their votes in Florida due to technicalities? Really??????
Ask the Gore supporters about overseas military whose votes were not counted due to just such technicalities. |
Very few military votes weren't counted. The problem to which you are refering is the fact that the Democrats correctly challenged illegal absentee ballots, some of which were opened, most were unwitnessed, some sent after the election date, all clear violations of Florida law. However, the Dems backed down when the Repugs squealed about Gore screwing the military, and 3,000 illegal votes were counted when they should not have been.
On the other hand, at least 50,000 non-felons were pured from the voting roles on something more sinister than a technicality. They were deliberately purged even when the company during the purging informed the Secretary of State, Kate Harris, Bush's Florida Campaign manager, that they were getting a lot of false positives (which is illegal under Florida law). That wasn't a technicality, that was vote fraud. So we have to major cases of vote fraud which clearly aided Bush in 2000.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Ned: I dislike the control of the executive branch, whose control stems from either an agreement or a disagreement with the Legislature. I think the President has too much power, and that derives from the two-party system. You either agree with your party or you seperate from it: that's not how I believe government should be run.
Take Zell Miller for an example. He has "seperated from his party" in his decisions, often aligning with the Republicans. However, he isn't a Republican. The same with Jim Jeffords. They shouldn't have to "seperate" from their party in order to get thing accomplished. A stable government works together to solve things, and all perspectives are respected, not just TWO. |
IIRC, prior to Jackson, there was effectively only one party in the US. People within the party argued issues of states rights and central banking. Jackson changed that, fracturing the party into the Democrats and the Republicans (Whigs). So, both American national parties can trace their roots back to Jefferson.
Over time, the parties seem to change their positions on fundamental issues. For generations, the Democrat Party was the party of States Rights and Separate But Equal. They obviously have changed when the Southern Democrats revolted in '68 and backed Wallace. The decline of the power of the Southern Democrats then began and continues even 'till this day.
The benefits of a two party system seem obvious. The parties have the hue to the center in order to get elected. Radical opinions and views are never endorsed. So society is relatively stable.
The presidency is a powerful office, indeed. It was intended to be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Emperor Fabulous
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Actor-in-Training
Aug 1999
time: 00:21
|
|
1.) You said a great deal. Doesn't mean I support it.
2.) Jackson seperated us from 1 to 2 parties, apparently. Does that mean that Jackson was right?
3.) Parties shouldn't HAVE to "hue to the center"...that's not what politics should be. That doesn't mean that's not what politics is...I just have a different opinion of what it should be.
4.) The President may be powerful but was not intended to be the be all, end all as the two-party system has shown him to be...GWB, for example, has far too much power because Congress, controlled by the Republican party, has granted him too much power, far more than he was given by anyone in our first 100 years of existence.
5.) Just because history is on the side of the president does in no way mean that I need to support it. Same goes for the two-party system.
6.) Jackson apparently changed how things operated by making two parties. Is it inconceivable that things change again to create the possibility of more parties having say?
Don't give me a history lesson...I know history. My opinion is not based on history, but based on current issues and current motives that lead me to conclude that the two-party system, in today's increasingly polarized and insteresting political world, is highly flawed.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-10-2004 20:40
Mi-26 is the largest and most powerfull transport helicopter in the world, not combat. They should buy Ka-50 or Mi-28 instead.
Attachment: 
|
