I saw this on another website, and though it an eloquent and powerful piece of polemic if nothing else, I would like to hear your opinions on it. Its a summing up of America's current position in the World and in the "war on terror" as its called, its thoughtful, and not knee-jerk anti-American agit-prop, but something more insightful, I warn you its long, but its worth the read, Here goes:
==========================================================
Remarks to DACOR (Diplomats and Consular Officers, Retired)
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
9 February 2007
DACOR-Bacon House, Washington, DC
In 1941, as the United States sat out the wars then raging in both the Atlantic and Pacific, Henry Luce penned a famous attack on isolationism in Life Magazine. "We Americans are unhappy," he began. "We are not happy about America. We are not happy about ourselves in relation to America. We are nervous – or gloomy – or apathetic." Luce argued that the destiny of the United States demanded that "the most powerful and vital nation in the world" step up to the international stage and assume the position of global leader. "The 20th Century must be to a significant degree an American Century," he declared.
And so it proved to be, as the United States led the world to victory over fascism, created a new world order mimicking the rule of law and parliamentary institutions internationally, altered the human condition with a dazzling array of new technologies, fostered global opening and reform, contained and outlasted communism, and saw the apparent triumph of democratic ideals over their alternatives. But that 20th Century came to an end in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of the United States as a great power without a peer. There followed a dozen intercalary years of narcissistic confusion. Americans celebrated our unrivaled military power and proclaimed ourselves "the indispensable nation" but failed to define a coherent vision of a post Cold War order or an inspiring role for the United States within it. These essential tasks were deferred to the 21st Century, which finally began in late 2001, with the shock and awe of 9/11. Then, in the panic and rage of that moment, we made the choices about our world role we had earlier declined to make.
Since 9/11 Americans have chosen to stake our domestic tranquility and the preservation of our liberties on our ability – under our commander-in-chief – to rule the world by force of arms rather than to lead, as we had in the past, by the force of our example or our arguments. And we appear to have decided that it is necessary to destroy our constitutional practices and civil liberties in order to save them. This is a trade-off we had resolutely refused to make during our far more perilous half-century confrontation with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union.
There is unfortunate historical precedent for this, as the author Robert Harris reminded us last year. In the autumn of 68 B.C., a vicious league of pirates set Rome's port at Ostia on fire, destroyed the consular war fleet, and kidnapped two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff. Rome panicked. Mr. Harris comments that: "What Rome was facing was a threat very different from that posed by a conventional enemy. These pirates were a new type of ruthless foe, with no government to represent them and no treaties to bind them. Their bases were not confined to a single state. They had no unified system of command. They were a worldwide pestilence, a parasite which needed to be stamped out, otherwise Rome – despite her overwhelming military superiority – would never again know security or peace." In response to these imagined menaces, Pompey (self-styled "the Great") persuaded a compliant Senate to set aside nearly 700 years of Roman constitutional law, abridge the ancient rights and liberties of Roman citizens, and appoint him supreme commander of the armed forces. With due allowance for a bit of pointed reinterpretation, if not revisionism by Mr. Harris, most historians regard this incident and its aftermath as the beginning of the end of the Roman republic.
The ultimate effects on our republic of our own slide away from long-standing constitutional norms remain a matter of speculation. But, clearly, our departure from our previous dedication to the principles of comity and the rule of law has made us once again unhappy about ourselves in relation to America and the world. It has also cost us the esteem that once led foreigners to look up to us and to wish to emulate and follow us. Our ability to recover from the damage we have done to ourselves and our leadership is further impeded by the extent to which we now cower behind barricades at home and in our embassies abroad. The current wave of anti-foreign and anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States also compounds the problem. A recent poll of foreign travelers showed that two thirds considered the United States the most disagreeably unwelcoming country to visit. There is surely no security to be found in surly discourtesy.
To fail to welcome the world's peoples to our shores is not simply to lose the economic benefits of their presence here but greatly to diminish both the vigor of our universities and the extent of our influence abroad. To lose the favor of a generation of students is to forfeit the goodwill of their children and grandchildren as well. And to fail to show respect to allies and friends is not simply to diminish our influence but to predispose growing numbers abroad to disapprove or even oppose anything we advocate. By all this, we give aid and comfort to our enemies and undercut the efficacy in dispute resolution and problem solving of measures short of war.
There has been little room for such measures – for diplomacy – in the coercive and militaristic approach we have recently applied to our foreign relations. Much of the world now sees us as its greatest bully, not its greatest hope. Self-righteous lawlessness by the world's most powerful nation inspires illegality and amorality on the part of the less powerful as well. The result of aggressive unilateralism has been to separate us from our allies, to alienate us from our friends, to embolden our detractors, to create irresistible opportunities for our adversaries and competitors, to inflate the ranks of our enemies, and to resurrect the notion – at the expense of international law and order – that might makes right. Thus, the neglect of both common courtesy and diplomacy fosters violent opposition to our global preeminence in the form of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and war.
With the numbers of our enemies mounting, it is fortunate that our military power remains without match. The United States' armed forces are the most competent and lethal in history. And so they are likely to remain for decades to come. Our humbling on the battlegrounds of the Middle East does not reflect military inadequacy; it is rather the result of the absence of strategy and its political handmaiden – diplomacy. We are learning the hard way that old allies will not aid us and new allies will not stick with us if we ignore their interests, deride their advice, impugn their motives, and denigrate their capabilities. Friends will not walk with us into either danger or opportunity if we injure their interests and brush aside their objections to our doing so. Those with whom we have professed friendship in the past cannot sustain their receptivity to our counsel if we demand that they adopt secular norms of the European Enlightenment that we no longer exemplify, while loudly disparaging their religious beliefs and traditions. Diplomacy-free foreign policy does not work any better than strategy-free warfare.
When war is not the extension of policy but the entrenchment of policy failure by other means, it easily degenerates into mindless belligerence and death without meaning. Appealing as explosions and the havoc of war may be to those who have experienced them only vicariously rather than in person, military success is not measured in battle damage but in political results. These must be secured by diplomacy.
The common view in our country that diplomacy halts when war begins is thus worse than wrong; it is catastrophically misguided. Diplomacy and war are not alternatives; they are essential partners. Diplomacy unbacked by force can be ineffectual, but force unassisted by diplomacy is almost invariably unproductive. There is a reason that diplomacy precedes war and that the use of force is a last resort. If diplomacy fails to produce results, war can sometimes lay a basis for diplomats to achieve them. When force fails to attain its intended results, diplomacy and other measures short of war can seldom accomplish them.
We properly demand that our soldiers prepare for the worst. As they do so, our leaders should work to ensure that the worst does not happen. They must build and sustain international relationships and approaches that can solve problems without loss of life, and pave the way for a better future. If we must go to war, the brave men and women who engage in combat on our behalf have the right to expect that their leaders will direct diplomats to consolidate the victories they achieve, mitigate the defeats they suffer, and contrive a better peace to follow their fighting. Our military personnel deserve, in short, to be treated as something more than the disposable instruments of unilateral belligerence. And our diplomats deserve to be treated as something more than the clean-up squad in fancy dress.
Every death or crippling of an American on the battlefields of the Middle East is a poignant reminder that, in the absence of diplomacy, the sacrifices of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, however heroic, can neither yield victory nor sustain hegemony for the United States. A diplomatic strategy is needed to give our military operations persuasive political purposes, to aggregate the power of allies to our cause, to transform our battlefield successes into peace, and to reconcile the defeated to their humiliation. Sadly, our neglect of these tasks, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, has served to demonstrate the limits of our military power, not its deterrent value. This is, however, far from the greatest irony of our current predicaments.
In the competition with other nations for influence, America's comparative advantages have been, and remain, our unmatched military capabilities, our economy, and our leading role in scientific and technological innovation. We spend much, much more on our military – about 5.7 percent of our economy or $720 billion at present – than the rest of the world's other 192 nations combined. With less than a twentieth of the world's population, we account for more than a fourth of its economic activity. Almost two thirds of central bank reserves are held in our currency, the dollar – which, much to our advantage, has dominated international financial markets for 60 years. The openness of our society to new people and ideas has made our country the greatest crucible of global technological innovation.
The moral argument put forward by both left and right-wing proponents of aggressive American unilateralism is that, as a nation with these unexampled elements of power and uniquely admired virtues, the United States has the duty both to lead the world and to remake it in our image. But our recent confusion of command and control with leadership and conflation of autocratic dictation with consultation have stimulated ever greater resistance internationally. Thus the aggressive unilateralism by which we have sought to consolidate our domination of world affairs has very effectively undermined both our dominion over them and our capacity to lead.
The most obvious example of this has been our inability, despite the absolute military superiority we enjoy, to impose our will on terrorists with global reach, on the several battlegrounds of the Middle East, or on Iran or North Korea. But, in many respects, these illustrations of the impotence of military power are far from the most worrisome examples of policy backfire. After all, despite all the lurid domestic rhetoric about it and the real pain it can inflict, terrorism poses no existential threat to our country – except, of course, to the extent we betray American values in the name of preserving them. The more worrisome examples are the mounting effects of unrelentingly coercive foreign policies on our political credibility, economic standing, and competitiveness.
As distaste has succeeded esteem for us in the international community, we have become ever more isolated. Our ability to rally others behind our causes has withered. We have responded by abandoning the effort to lead. We are now known internationally more for our recalcitrance than our vision. We have sought to exempt ourselves from the jurisdiction of international law. We have suspended our efforts to lead the world to further liberalization of trade and investment through the Doha Round. We no longer participate in the UN body charged with the global promotion of human rights. We decline to discuss global climate change, nuclear disarmament, or the avoidance of arms races in outer space. If we have proposals for a world more congenial to the values we espouse, we no longer articulate them. The world is a much less promising place for our silence and absence.
Our recent record in the Middle East alone includes the six-year suspension of efforts to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians and a seeming shift from the pursuit of al-Qaïda to the suppression of Islamism in Afghanistan. Although we seem belatedly to be improving, we have become notorious for delusory or self-serving assertions masquerading as intelligence assessments. Our disregard for treaties abroad and the rule of law at home is leading to the indictment of our operatives abroad by our closest allies. Our scofflaw behavior thus undercuts transnational cooperation against terrorists. The bloody consequences of our occupation of Iraq for its inhabitants are too well known to require mention. We continue to provide military support and political cover for Israeli operations entailing intermittent massacres of civilian populations in Lebanon and Gaza. We sit on our hands while wringing them over parallel outrages in Darfur. We are indifferent to the views of our friends and refuse to speak with our enemies.
Taken together, these acts of omission and commission have devastated American standing and influence, not just in the Middle East but more widely. There are examples of such policy backfires to be found in every region; I will not cite them to this audience. You've read the polls. You've heard the speeches at the United Nations and the applause with which they were received. You know how difficult it now is for us to obtain support from the international community and how often we need to exercise our veto in the UN Security Council. The point is this: every leader needs followers; with rare exceptions, we have lost or are losing ours. And even a superpower needs political partners.
This is true for the economic arena as well. Our ability to do business with others in our own currency has been a unique aspect of our global economic power. But our budget, trade, and balance of payments deficits have grown to levels at which some foreigners now have more dollars than they know what to do with. The value of our currency has come to depend on central bankers continuing to play a reverse game of chicken, in which they nervously hang onto dollars while watching each other to make sure that no one can bail out without the others' noticing and dumping the dollar too. No central bank wants to be the first to devalue its own and everyone else's dollar-denominated reserves. So every day, Arab, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Russian officials as well as assorted gnomes in the "Old Europe" lend our Treasury the $2.5 billion it needs to keep employment here up, interest rates down, and the economy growing.
Unlike central bankers, however, businesses and private investors are notoriously bad at "coordination games." They are not willing to wait for the dollar to approach collapse before getting out of it and into other currencies and places. As a result, there are now many more euros in circulation than dollars. The euro has displaced the dollar as the preeminent currency in international bond markets. In a few years, the Chinese yuan will clearly join it in this role. Hong Kong and London have overtaken New York in IPO's. The regulatory environment in our country, including the expensive annoyances of Sarbanes-Oxley and class-action suits, does, as New York Senator Schumer has claimed, indeed have something to do with this. But an equally important factor is our increasingly frequent resort to unilateral sanctions and asset freezes based on assertions of extraterritorial jurisdiction over the dollar.
Over the past decade, we have adopted unilateral sanctions against some 95 countries and territories. Most recently, we have worked hard to shut down banking in the occupied territories of Palestine, severely curtail it in Iran, and prevent the use of the dollar in Sudan's oil trade. The nobility of our motives in each case is not the issue. But, if we assert the right to confiscate dollar-denominated wealth, and to do without due process or legal recourse and remedy, it should not surprise us that people begin looking for ways to avoid the use of our currency. There is now an active search on the part of a growing number of foreign financial institutions for ways to avoid the dollar, bank-clearance procedures that touch New York, or transactions with US-based financial institutions. Adding oil traders to the list of the dollar-averse increases the incentives for them to find alternatives to our currency.
Our ill-considered abuse of our financial power may thus have put us on the path to losing it. The dollar accounts for much of our weight in global affairs. American investors are now increasingly hedging the dollar and going heavily into non dollar-denominated foreign equities and debt.
You would think that growing disquiet about American financial over-extension would impel our government to make a major effort to boost our exports to rapidly growing markets like China. Our exports are in fact growing. But our government's present policy focus, judging from its hiring patterns, is not export promotion but an attempt to block exports of scientific knowledge and technology to China and other potential rivals. Export controllers want to require export licenses for foreign graduate students and researchers in our universities and to compel U.S. companies to conduct detailed due diligence on prospective foreign purchasers of their goods and services. These initiatives reflect the mood of national paranoia and the concomitant growth of a secrecy-obsessed garrison state that have made Osama Binladin the greatest creator of federal employment since FDR. They encourage would-be customers to buy un-American.
Along with unwelcoming visa and immigration policies, such export-suppressive measures are a small part of a much broader assault on the openness of our society. The increasing restriction of American intercourse with foreigners encourages the outsourcing not just of jobs but of innovation in science and technology, research and development, engineering and design services, and industrial production. Xenophobic policies and practices have begun to erode the long-standing American scientific and technological superiority they were intended to protect. Like economic protectionism, intellectual protectionism, it turns out, weakens, not strengthens one, and makes one less rather than more competitive in the global marketplace.
The last half of the 20th Century was, as Henry Luce had hoped, in many ways an American century. We became the preeminent society on the planet not by force of arms but by the power of our principles and the attraction of our example. The effort to replace that preeminence with military dominion is failing badly. There will be no American imperium. The effort to bully the world into accepting one has instead set in motion trends that threaten both the core values of our republic and the prospects for a world order based on something other than the law of the jungle. Militarism is not an effective substitute for diplomacy in persuading other peoples to do things one's way. Coercive measures are off-putting, not the basis for productive relationships with foreign nations. Other peoples' money can provide an excuse for continued self-indulgence; it is not a sound foundation for economic leadership. Obsessive secrecy is incompatible with innovation. Fear of foreigners and rule by cover-your-ass securocrats is a combination that breeds weakness, not strength.
More than anything now, we need to get a grip on ourselves. 9/11 was almost five and a half years ago. There has been no follow-up attack on our homeland. We are far from Waziristan and al-Qaïda's leaders are obsessed with matching, if not exceeding, their previous standard of iconic success, something even much more talented terrorists than they would find it hard to do. Perhaps in time they will succeed but our nation will endure. Meanwhile, Al-Qaïda's associates elsewhere have felt no such operational constraints, especially in Europe. Yet, despite all the bombings there by homegrown and al-Qaïda-affiliated terrorists, government offices in Europe are still accessible to the public, security measures at transportation nodes are respectfully efficient, the rule of law continues to prevail, and the rights of citizens remain intact.
The contrast with the situation here underscores the extent to which al-Qaïda has achieved its central objectives. It has unhinged America and alienated us from the world. We are apparently willing to sacrifice everything, including the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, to achieve absolute security from risks that others rightly consider nasty but manageable. Quite aside from the fact that absolute security is absolutely impossible, this is not who we were. It is not who most of us want to be.
America defines itself by its values, not its territory or ethnicity. The supreme purpose of our foreign policy must be to defend our values and to do so by means that do not corrode them. By these measures, what we are doing now is directly counterproductive. It must be changed. Let me very briefly propose a few principles to guide such change:
First, an America driven by dread and delusion into the construction of a garrison state, ruled by a presidency claiming inherent powers rather than by our constitution and our laws, is an America that can be counted upon to respect neither the freedoms of its own people nor those of others. The key to the defense of both the United States and the freedom that defines us as a great nation is to retain our rights and cultivate our liberties, not to yield them to our government, and to honor and defend, not to invade, the sovereignty of other nations and individuals.
Second, it is time to recognize that freedom spreads by example and a helping hand to those who seek it. It cannot be imposed on others by coercive means, no matter how much shock and awe these elicit. Neither can it be installed by diatribe and denunciation nor proclaimed from the false security of fortified buildings. We must come home to our traditions, restore the openness of our society, and resume our role as "the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all ... [but] the champion and vindicator only of our own."
Third, credibility is not enhanced by persistence in counterproductive policies, no matter how much one has already invested in them. The reinforcement of failure is a poor substitute for its correction. Doing more of the same does not make bad strategy sound or snatch successful outcomes from wars of attrition. All it does is convince onlookers that one is so stubbornly foolish that one is not afraid to die. Admitting that mistakes have been made and taking remedial action generally does more for credibility than soldiering blindly on. The United States needs big course corrections on quite a range of foreign and domestic policies at present.
Fourth, we must recover the habit of listening and curb our propensity to harangue. We might, in fact, consider a war on arrogance to complement our war on terror. And to demonstrate my own humility as well as my respect for the limited attention span of any audience after lunch, even one as polite and attentive as you have been, I shall now conclude.
Guantánamo, AbuGhraib, the thuggish kidnappings of "extraordinary rendition," the Jersey barrier, and an exceptional aptitude for electronic eavesdropping cannot be allowed permanently to displace the Statue of Liberty and a reputation for aspiration to higher standards as the symbols of America to the world. To regain both our self-respect and our power to persuade rather than coerce the world, we must restore our aspiration to distinguish our country not by the might of its armed forces but by its civility and devotion to liberty. The best way to assure the power to cope with emergencies is to refrain from the abuse of power in ordinary times.
All the world would still follow America, if they could find it. We must rediscover it to them. That, not bullying behavior or a futile effort at imperial dominion, is the surest path to security for Americans.
Middle East Policy Council
1730 M Street NW, Suite 512
Washington, DC 20036
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;557518 wrote: I read this on another forum, very thoughtful and enlightening in many ways. I have often said that America is a corrupt, spoiled, greedy and imbecilic entity of no use to anyone.
I think that all one has to ask is "what great thing has America done for humanity in the last 40 years?". Aside from the internet where the only real reasons it exists is porn what have we done?
Defeated the Soviet Union? No they simply chose to change, cut loose eastern europe and the central asian republics. Russia simply changed its spots, it is, and was the same old cat underneath.
Invented Viagra?
It seems as we have become less respectable, we have relied more on threats, corruption and intimidation to get our way. We have no real standards of conduct for ourselves (as a nation or a people) we only care how others behave towards us.
We're like a fat drunken wife beater in a stained T-shirt pissing himself in front of a rundown house as everyone else in the neighborhood stares.
The list goes on.
Well, I think that America has done a lot of good things in the last 40 years, the moon landing was pretty impressive for a start. I do think that yes, there are issues that would certainly need to be addressed in the States (like everywhere we all have problems), I mean I would say that some simple things to do would be to limit the access of large money interests to the government by capping campaign spending, and the access of lobby groups based on their ability to buy up access and media time to the organs of state, those things are definetly corrupting and the relationship between big buisness and the legislature is way too cosy, but thats a big project and there is a lot of inertia against it, but it would be a good way to change the system's bias for grandiose and corporate thinking and that world view it entails. Without having to do anything too radical, to a system that in most respects works well. Thats my tuppence.
I think that all one has to ask is "what great thing has America done for humanity in the last 40 years?". Aside from the internet where the only real reasons it exists is porn what have we done?
Defeated the Soviet Union? No they simply chose to change, cut loose eastern europe and the central asian republics. Russia simply changed its spots, it is, and was the same old cat underneath.
Invented Viagra?
It seems as we have become less respectable, we have relied more on threats, corruption and intimidation to get our way. We have no real standards of conduct for ourselves (as a nation or a people) we only care how others behave towards us.
We're like a fat drunken wife beater in a stained T-shirt pissing himself in front of a rundown house as everyone else in the neighborhood stares.
The list goes on.
Well, I think that America has done a lot of good things in the last 40 years, the moon landing was pretty impressive for a start. I do think that yes, there are issues that would certainly need to be addressed in the States (like everywhere we all have problems), I mean I would say that some simple things to do would be to limit the access of large money interests to the government by capping campaign spending, and the access of lobby groups based on their ability to buy up access and media time to the organs of state, those things are definetly corrupting and the relationship between big buisness and the legislature is way too cosy, but thats a big project and there is a lot of inertia against it, but it would be a good way to change the system's bias for grandiose and corporate thinking and that world view it entails. Without having to do anything too radical, to a system that in most respects works well. Thats my tuppence.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
That's one of the finest speeches I've read in a long time, Galbally. Thank you for posting it here. The tone suggests that the US hasn't passed the point of no return. In the unlikely event that those in the corridors of power pay attention and change their approach we might find out. I think it's all too late, myself, but I'd love to see the effort made.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
spot;557550 wrote: That's one of the finest speeches I've read in a long time, Galbally. Thank you for posting it here. The tone suggests that the US hasn't passed the point of no return. In the unlikely event that those in the corridors of power pay attention and change their approach we might find out. I think it's all too late, myself, but I'd love to see the effort made.
I think that it just underlines the fact that the United States is a continental nation with a population of hundreds of millions of people, with a wide spectrum of opinions, and also that the tradition of self-assessment, free thinking, and a belief in tolerance and decency are alive and well in America, as well as all that other stuff that drives people nuts. Its too big and diverse a place to be able to pin down to one thing or another in my opinion. But yes, it was a fine speech, and thought provoking.
I think that it just underlines the fact that the United States is a continental nation with a population of hundreds of millions of people, with a wide spectrum of opinions, and also that the tradition of self-assessment, free thinking, and a belief in tolerance and decency are alive and well in America, as well as all that other stuff that drives people nuts. Its too big and diverse a place to be able to pin down to one thing or another in my opinion. But yes, it was a fine speech, and thought provoking.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Galbally;557554 wrote: I think that it just underlines the fact that the United States is a continental nation with a population of hundreds of millions of people, with a wide spectrum of opinions, and also that the tradition of self-assessment, free thinking, and a belief in tolerance and decency are alive and well in America, as well as all that other stuff that drives people nuts. Its too big and diverse a place to be able to pin down to one thing or another in my opinion. But yes, it was a fine speech, and thought provoking.
You want a comparable comment to go with "a belief in tolerance and decency"?Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced some tough questions here yesterday – not from the press, but from a group of fifth-grade students at Marshall Elementary School. [...] He heard fifth-graders sing “This is My Country,†and saw nearly 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags. [...] “This a fight worth fighting,†he said. “It is clear that the terrorists intend to bring this fight to America. They want to establish caliphates in every country that has the kind of freedoms we do. This is a long-term fight, and I have great faith that the American people understand the nature of this threat, and we will do what we must to defend ourselves.â€
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArt ... Caliphates in every country"? 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says this to ten-year-old children? It's the reality behind the mirror-fear which they project onto media-created bogeymen like Kim Jong Il, more like.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.
You want a comparable comment to go with "a belief in tolerance and decency"?Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced some tough questions here yesterday – not from the press, but from a group of fifth-grade students at Marshall Elementary School. [...] He heard fifth-graders sing “This is My Country,†and saw nearly 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags. [...] “This a fight worth fighting,†he said. “It is clear that the terrorists intend to bring this fight to America. They want to establish caliphates in every country that has the kind of freedoms we do. This is a long-term fight, and I have great faith that the American people understand the nature of this threat, and we will do what we must to defend ourselves.â€
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArt ... Caliphates in every country"? 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says this to ten-year-old children? It's the reality behind the mirror-fear which they project onto media-created bogeymen like Kim Jong Il, more like.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
spot;557660 wrote: You want a comparable comment to go with "a belief in tolerance and decency"?Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced some tough questions here yesterday – not from the press, but from a group of fifth-grade students at Marshall Elementary School. [...] He heard fifth-graders sing “This is My Country,†and saw nearly 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags. [...] “This a fight worth fighting,†he said. “It is clear that the terrorists intend to bring this fight to America. They want to establish caliphates in every country that has the kind of freedoms we do. This is a long-term fight, and I have great faith that the American people understand the nature of this threat, and we will do what we must to defend ourselves.â€
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArt ... Caliphates in every country"? 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says this to ten-year-old children? It's the reality behind the mirror-fear which they project onto media-created bogeymen like Kim Jong Il, more like.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.
I was unaware of what this senior officer said, but its not surprising, and after all you don't talk down a war while you are still fighting it, no one does that. I think that obviously yes, there are people within the state in the U.S. who hold views that others would consider hegemonenic, militaristic, unlilateral and perhaps intolerant, but equally there are people within all strands of U.S. life who hold polar opposite viewpoints to this staff officer, and so its not like dealing with the polit beaurea in the old soviet union, the diversity of voices and opinions that is contained within the american system is quite broad, though obviously the popularist right wing voices are usually loudest, but not always the most influential over the long term. I think also you have to be aware that your own political views colour your opinions of what is going on and what is being said, this is not a simple picture, and not something that is easily turned into a black and white issue. Thats my opinion anyway.
http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArt ... Caliphates in every country"? 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says this to ten-year-old children? It's the reality behind the mirror-fear which they project onto media-created bogeymen like Kim Jong Il, more like.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.
I was unaware of what this senior officer said, but its not surprising, and after all you don't talk down a war while you are still fighting it, no one does that. I think that obviously yes, there are people within the state in the U.S. who hold views that others would consider hegemonenic, militaristic, unlilateral and perhaps intolerant, but equally there are people within all strands of U.S. life who hold polar opposite viewpoints to this staff officer, and so its not like dealing with the polit beaurea in the old soviet union, the diversity of voices and opinions that is contained within the american system is quite broad, though obviously the popularist right wing voices are usually loudest, but not always the most influential over the long term. I think also you have to be aware that your own political views colour your opinions of what is going on and what is being said, this is not a simple picture, and not something that is easily turned into a black and white issue. Thats my opinion anyway.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
I think the part that ought to strike the fear of God into them is the bit about the value of their currency. The US is no longer revealing how much currency is in circulation in all forms. It's a little late for me to remember what it is called but I'll get spot to find it again in the morning. Not worth waking him up over.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;558392 wrote: So you are saying what comes around goes around with time. That is true Gall but you are forgetting one very important fact.
Coming and going is only 2 dimensions. There is an orbit here and as with Germany in the 1930s THERE IS AN ELIPTIC path the comings and goings are on. The degree of offset from the stable orbit can and does change.
It's about their side, your side and the third dimension, the truth.
I believe we are headed on a more radical/extreme eliptic. Corporate interests are running America, these corporations are becoming very powerful and there is no doubt in my mind that in the last 10/15 years they have come to control the US government.
These corps are seeking power and they are capable of harnessing certain aspects of their power and using it to influence the situation. Mercenary armies if you will.
I can see no reason why these corporate powers will not go to that extreme to protect their interests. After all, their interests and the interests of the people are intertwined are they not?
As for the radical elements of say the arab peoples it is simply a tool to be used to justify many things. It's the red herring. There is going to be no world wide caliphate. One way or another. Ever.
I hope this makes sense. :-3
Yes it does make sense, and I understand why many people believe this, but I think its a too pessimisstic assessment, I have no doubt that (as always) there are people with financial and political power who would wish to have a more controllable system within which to operate, and certainly the Chinese would prefer a more fully corporatist U.S. where financial interests were the final arbiters of what was going on as all this free citizens of a republic business is a nuscience. But again, there are counter-veiling forces in the U.S. totally opposed to giving corporate interests even more power and control than they already have and are working to undo much of the power that is corrosive to the free political system, while at the same time allowing free enterprise to function at the corporate level as its a perfectly valid and right thing.
Also these very large interests you speak of are now global by nature, and not only have to deal with the U.S. system, they also have to deal with the EU system, the Chinese, and the Indians, the Japanese, the oil producing nations, etc etc. I worked for instance years ago for a very, very large European petrochemical company, and these companies are the ones we are talking about, they are the biggest, best organized, geographically diverse, and economically influential organizations in the world, US and European, and in that company (anyway) general there was a lot of realism about what the true role of a commercial organization was, (aside from the grandiose thinking about large scale things), as well as an understanding that even huge companies require a dynamic and open society to prosper in the long term. t
These companies don't exist in a vacuum, and a system with no adherence to equitable civil and commercial law will in the long term turn on business when it suits the people in power (watch China) and although its certainly true that many companies have this belief that they are so big no one can touch them (wrong, wrong, wrong) others realize its good long term business sense to not get into a position where you are fundamentally destroying the society you depend on for your economic position on the top of the heap to survive, (including its pesky "free" culture). So I would yes always advice vigilance of these forces in our society, but I wouldn't be turning the lights out just yet.
Coming and going is only 2 dimensions. There is an orbit here and as with Germany in the 1930s THERE IS AN ELIPTIC path the comings and goings are on. The degree of offset from the stable orbit can and does change.
It's about their side, your side and the third dimension, the truth.
I believe we are headed on a more radical/extreme eliptic. Corporate interests are running America, these corporations are becoming very powerful and there is no doubt in my mind that in the last 10/15 years they have come to control the US government.
These corps are seeking power and they are capable of harnessing certain aspects of their power and using it to influence the situation. Mercenary armies if you will.
I can see no reason why these corporate powers will not go to that extreme to protect their interests. After all, their interests and the interests of the people are intertwined are they not?
As for the radical elements of say the arab peoples it is simply a tool to be used to justify many things. It's the red herring. There is going to be no world wide caliphate. One way or another. Ever.
I hope this makes sense. :-3
Yes it does make sense, and I understand why many people believe this, but I think its a too pessimisstic assessment, I have no doubt that (as always) there are people with financial and political power who would wish to have a more controllable system within which to operate, and certainly the Chinese would prefer a more fully corporatist U.S. where financial interests were the final arbiters of what was going on as all this free citizens of a republic business is a nuscience. But again, there are counter-veiling forces in the U.S. totally opposed to giving corporate interests even more power and control than they already have and are working to undo much of the power that is corrosive to the free political system, while at the same time allowing free enterprise to function at the corporate level as its a perfectly valid and right thing.
Also these very large interests you speak of are now global by nature, and not only have to deal with the U.S. system, they also have to deal with the EU system, the Chinese, and the Indians, the Japanese, the oil producing nations, etc etc. I worked for instance years ago for a very, very large European petrochemical company, and these companies are the ones we are talking about, they are the biggest, best organized, geographically diverse, and economically influential organizations in the world, US and European, and in that company (anyway) general there was a lot of realism about what the true role of a commercial organization was, (aside from the grandiose thinking about large scale things), as well as an understanding that even huge companies require a dynamic and open society to prosper in the long term. t
These companies don't exist in a vacuum, and a system with no adherence to equitable civil and commercial law will in the long term turn on business when it suits the people in power (watch China) and although its certainly true that many companies have this belief that they are so big no one can touch them (wrong, wrong, wrong) others realize its good long term business sense to not get into a position where you are fundamentally destroying the society you depend on for your economic position on the top of the heap to survive, (including its pesky "free" culture). So I would yes always advice vigilance of these forces in our society, but I wouldn't be turning the lights out just yet.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Posted by scrat
I read this on another forum, very thoughtful and enlightening in many ways. I have often said that America is a corrupt, spoiled, greedy and imbecilic entity of no use to anyone.
Methinks you are a bit unkind, you're no worse or better than anyone else. At least GW can't stand again and you have every opportunity to change and challenge the way things are done.
Along with unwelcoming visa and immigration policies, such export-suppressive measures are a small part of a much broader assault on the openness of our society. The increasing restriction of American intercourse with foreigners encourages the outsourcing not just of jobs but of innovation in science and technology, research and development, engineering and design services, and industrial production. Xenophobic policies and practices have begun to erode the long-standing American scientific and technological superiority they were intended to protect. Like economic protectionism, intellectual protectionism, it turns out, weakens, not strengthens one, and makes one less rather than more competitive in the global marketplace.
posted by scrat
I believe we are headed on a more radical/extreme eliptic. Corporate interests are running America, these corporations are becoming very powerful and there is no doubt in my mind that in the last 10/15 years they have come to control the US government.
These corps are seeking power and they are capable of harnessing certain aspects of their power and using it to influence the situation. Mercenary armies if you will.
I can see no reason why these corporate powers will not go to that extreme to protect their interests. After all, their interests and the interests of the people are intertwined are they not?[/QUOTE]
They might argue-and indeed do-that they are one and the same.
What is ironic about it is that by acting in such a manner the very nation that is supposed to represent the glory of a capitalist economy is acting in a way that is actually anti-capitalist. I would refer you to the father of capiotalism Adam Smith.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b4-c2.htm
[QUOTE]I How far it may be proper to impose taxes upon the importation of foreign goods, in order not to prevent their importation but to raise a revenue for government, I shall consider hereafter when I come to treat of taxes. Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade.
It's not unfair competition that threatens the US economy but the desire to try and stop competition. -imagine if microsoft expended as much effort developing it's products to hold thier own in the marketplace as it put in to trying to stop the competition.
Free societies are never destroyed by external forces but from within by those that seek power for themselves and use people's fear-wjether justified or not.
Paradoxiically repressive regimes often use external threats to hang on to power. arguably without the cionstant threats from the US Iranian moderates mught have ben able to get control by now. Their economy is a shambles and the islamic revolution has failed to deliver.
http://www.iranexpert.com/2006/oil28october.htm
The US can undermine the Iranian regime by avoiding statements and actions that help drive energy prices higher and bolster Iran's economy. Administration officials should lower the political temperature. They should again offer Iran direct talks. Bush should invite Ahmadinejad to Washington. Better yet, invite him to Crawford. Make him breakfast. Washington can also press the Saudis, who control virtually all of the world's spare capacity, to keep their output high to contain prices. Saudi Arabia's ruling Sunnis are more threatened than is the US by Iran's support for a shift in the regional balance of power toward Shia Muslims.
I always think it is a sign of intelligence to take a decision and always be prepared to concede that maybe it was the wrong one. Sadly at the moment on both sides of the atlantic we have politicians in command of the ships of state that lack the basic intelligence to be ready to change course when heading for rocks.
I read this on another forum, very thoughtful and enlightening in many ways. I have often said that America is a corrupt, spoiled, greedy and imbecilic entity of no use to anyone.
Methinks you are a bit unkind, you're no worse or better than anyone else. At least GW can't stand again and you have every opportunity to change and challenge the way things are done.
Along with unwelcoming visa and immigration policies, such export-suppressive measures are a small part of a much broader assault on the openness of our society. The increasing restriction of American intercourse with foreigners encourages the outsourcing not just of jobs but of innovation in science and technology, research and development, engineering and design services, and industrial production. Xenophobic policies and practices have begun to erode the long-standing American scientific and technological superiority they were intended to protect. Like economic protectionism, intellectual protectionism, it turns out, weakens, not strengthens one, and makes one less rather than more competitive in the global marketplace.
posted by scrat
I believe we are headed on a more radical/extreme eliptic. Corporate interests are running America, these corporations are becoming very powerful and there is no doubt in my mind that in the last 10/15 years they have come to control the US government.
These corps are seeking power and they are capable of harnessing certain aspects of their power and using it to influence the situation. Mercenary armies if you will.
I can see no reason why these corporate powers will not go to that extreme to protect their interests. After all, their interests and the interests of the people are intertwined are they not?[/QUOTE]
They might argue-and indeed do-that they are one and the same.
What is ironic about it is that by acting in such a manner the very nation that is supposed to represent the glory of a capitalist economy is acting in a way that is actually anti-capitalist. I would refer you to the father of capiotalism Adam Smith.
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b4-c2.htm
[QUOTE]I How far it may be proper to impose taxes upon the importation of foreign goods, in order not to prevent their importation but to raise a revenue for government, I shall consider hereafter when I come to treat of taxes. Taxes imposed with a view to prevent, or even to diminish importation, are evidently as destructive of the revenue of the customs as of the freedom of trade.
It's not unfair competition that threatens the US economy but the desire to try and stop competition. -imagine if microsoft expended as much effort developing it's products to hold thier own in the marketplace as it put in to trying to stop the competition.
Free societies are never destroyed by external forces but from within by those that seek power for themselves and use people's fear-wjether justified or not.
Paradoxiically repressive regimes often use external threats to hang on to power. arguably without the cionstant threats from the US Iranian moderates mught have ben able to get control by now. Their economy is a shambles and the islamic revolution has failed to deliver.
http://www.iranexpert.com/2006/oil28october.htm
The US can undermine the Iranian regime by avoiding statements and actions that help drive energy prices higher and bolster Iran's economy. Administration officials should lower the political temperature. They should again offer Iran direct talks. Bush should invite Ahmadinejad to Washington. Better yet, invite him to Crawford. Make him breakfast. Washington can also press the Saudis, who control virtually all of the world's spare capacity, to keep their output high to contain prices. Saudi Arabia's ruling Sunnis are more threatened than is the US by Iran's support for a shift in the regional balance of power toward Shia Muslims.
I always think it is a sign of intelligence to take a decision and always be prepared to concede that maybe it was the wrong one. Sadly at the moment on both sides of the atlantic we have politicians in command of the ships of state that lack the basic intelligence to be ready to change course when heading for rocks.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;559262 wrote: I can differ with that. With all of the potential we have what do we do with it? I firmly believe America is heading for the third world at a breakneck pace. The reasons are many, poor education, inequality of wealth, excessive taxation, the destruction of the nuclear family and many more.
Yeah we can get rid of GW but what will the replacement be?
Do recent events not also have the effect of getting americans more interested in politics? More ready to question what is done abroad in their name?
maybe it's a case of where not having been led in to catastrophic wars by their leaders Americans haven't acquired the innate distrust of politicians waving the patriotic flag we have in europe and still asume you can basically trust them as good people.
Slightly off topic, according to a study in new scientist (Don't read it normally but i had read everythiong else) only 40% of Americans believe in the theorry of evolution with only Turkey having fewer. Although I would take a stab at guessing Iran and iraq
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9786
I find that ever so slightly worrying. Religious belief is essentially irrational with followers being of a mind set to accept what they are told without question. If you look at some of the pronouncments about Islam and evil religon and how they want to take over the planet and the aparrent fact that many belief the most powerful nation on the planet could be trurned in to a muslim state the whole thing is very medeival.
Yeah we can get rid of GW but what will the replacement be?
Do recent events not also have the effect of getting americans more interested in politics? More ready to question what is done abroad in their name?
maybe it's a case of where not having been led in to catastrophic wars by their leaders Americans haven't acquired the innate distrust of politicians waving the patriotic flag we have in europe and still asume you can basically trust them as good people.
Slightly off topic, according to a study in new scientist (Don't read it normally but i had read everythiong else) only 40% of Americans believe in the theorry of evolution with only Turkey having fewer. Although I would take a stab at guessing Iran and iraq
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9786
I find that ever so slightly worrying. Religious belief is essentially irrational with followers being of a mind set to accept what they are told without question. If you look at some of the pronouncments about Islam and evil religon and how they want to take over the planet and the aparrent fact that many belief the most powerful nation on the planet could be trurned in to a muslim state the whole thing is very medeival.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
gmc;559300 wrote: only 40% of Americans believe in the theorry of evolution with only Turkey having fewer. Although I would take a stab at guessing Iran and iraq I think you may be mistaken. Islam has no belief in creationism equivalent to that of Christian fundamentalists. To quote Nature, "One practical advantage for science in Muslim countries is the lack of direct interference of religious doctrine, such as exists in many Christian countries" (Editorial, "Revival in Iran", Nature 442,719-720). Turkey is a secular state and has been since 1922, I don't think their appearance so low on the scale of acceptance of evolution (33rd out of 33, with the US at 32nd) has anything to do with religious dogma.
To comment on the figures in the study you mentioned, "fully one-third of American adults believe that evolution is 'absolutely false' while only 14% of adults acknowledge that evolution is 'definitely true.' In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France over 80% of adults had no trouble accepting the facts of evolution, nor did 78% of Japanese"
To comment on the figures in the study you mentioned, "fully one-third of American adults believe that evolution is 'absolutely false' while only 14% of adults acknowledge that evolution is 'definitely true.' In Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, and France over 80% of adults had no trouble accepting the facts of evolution, nor did 78% of Japanese"
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
koan;558265 wrote: I think the part that ought to strike the fear of God into them is the bit about the value of their currency. The US is no longer revealing how much currency is in circulation in all forms. It's a little late for me to remember what it is called but I'll get spot to find it again in the morning. Not worth waking him up over.
There's a definition of the measures used in the US to track money supply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States and the figure which is no longer being published is "M3".
Removal of M3 is said by some to de-link the dollar's repute from any choice made by foreign banking systems on settling net debt by exchanging dollars or, say, euros. The Sale and Repurchase Agreements which have been eliminated are effectively loans to the US government. Without that component, Government borrowing to finance current expenditure becomes far less apparent, though the debt still has to be paid back eventually.
There's a definition of the measures used in the US to track money supply at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States and the figure which is no longer being published is "M3".
Removal of M3 is said by some to de-link the dollar's repute from any choice made by foreign banking systems on settling net debt by exchanging dollars or, say, euros. The Sale and Repurchase Agreements which have been eliminated are effectively loans to the US government. Without that component, Government borrowing to finance current expenditure becomes far less apparent, though the debt still has to be paid back eventually.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;559262 wrote: I can differ with that. With all of the potential we have what do we do with it? I firmly believe America is heading for the third world at a breakneck pace.
Is not that (third world USA) what is wanted in the LONG term from the anti-capitalist
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
Is not that (third world USA) what is wanted in the LONG term from the anti-capitalist
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Diuretic;559281 wrote: The power of the US is limited and we've all seen that. The bluff won't work any longer.
Did he call Saddam's BLUFF? Or not?
Texans do not BLUFF........
Did he call Saddam's BLUFF? Or not?
Texans do not BLUFF........
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
posted by scrat
GMC. A lot of Americans are not that bright anymore. Your average high school student in their 12th year couldn't tell you the radius of a circle if you gave them the diameter.
Terrible confession to make. I would have to look up how to do that now.
When I was at school we had no computers and had to use pens and be able to write and speel even the bog words. Nowadays i can still spellbut my tipping is crip.
:yh_rotfl
GMC. A lot of Americans are not that bright anymore. Your average high school student in their 12th year couldn't tell you the radius of a circle if you gave them the diameter.
Terrible confession to make. I would have to look up how to do that now.
When I was at school we had no computers and had to use pens and be able to write and speel even the bog words. Nowadays i can still spellbut my tipping is crip.:yh_rotfl
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;564047 wrote: You both know how to find the radius of a circle using the diameter.
Before I forgot everything, I knew that pi R squared.
Now that I'm who you're talking about, I know that pie are round!
:D
Before I forgot everything, I knew that pi R squared.
Now that I'm who you're talking about, I know that pie are round!
:D
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;564065 wrote: ALRIGHT MAYBE I AM BEING UNFAIR!!!!!!
How about an open-book test?
Multiple choice?
Essay?
:D
How about an open-book test?
Multiple choice?
Essay?
:D
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Christ on a bicycle. The answer's a half. Or am I missing a subtle joke?
eta: okay, I thought about it, it's not as unfunny as I thought when I posted. Very clever, you caught me.
eta: okay, I thought about it, it's not as unfunny as I thought when I posted. Very clever, you caught me.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
spot;564073 wrote: Christ on a bicycle.
Those are four words I've never seen together! Now, how do I get it out of my mind?
:D
Those are four words I've never seen together! Now, how do I get it out of my mind?
:D
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Scrat;561819 wrote: This doesn't make sense. :-2
:-3
BTS says:
HUH......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat
I can differ with that. With all of the potential we have what do we do with it? I firmly believe America is heading for the third world at a breakneck pace.
Is not that (third world USA) what is wanted in the LONG term from the anti-capitalist
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
OR SCRAT r u gonna tell me diferent?
:-3
BTS says:
HUH......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrat
I can differ with that. With all of the potential we have what do we do with it? I firmly believe America is heading for the third world at a breakneck pace.
Is not that (third world USA) what is wanted in the LONG term from the anti-capitalist
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
OR SCRAT r u gonna tell me diferent?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
BTS;561763 wrote: Did he call Saddam's BLUFF? Or not?
Texans do not BLUFF........
This triggered a recollection and it's not totally off-topic. You'll remember that it was argued (without much resolution) that the US had suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East. There were assorted US statements before Iraq moved into Kuwait to the effect that the US had no commitment to bail the Kuwaits out under such circumstances, a position reversed within a day of Saddam ordering the troops to step over the border. Cheney, as Vice-President, was publicly rebuked by Bush-1 (when he'd brought the subject up in public in mid-July, three weeks before the invasion) with "You're committing us to war we might not want to fight" and told not to address the issue in public again. The State Department said five days later "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait", seemingly a green light to Saddam. A week before the invasion the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam in person that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait". Three days before the invasion the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, John Kelly, told Congress "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country" and "We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes", and when explicitly asked if it was correct that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the US did "not have a treaty commitment which could obligate us to engage US forces" there, he replied "That is correct".
Anyway - to my point here. As a one-off way to get public opinion on your side if you want to send your army into a region, getting the other guy to punch first is high on the list of desirable actions. The US had tried this before, against Syria in 1957 in an attempt to force a change of regime, but the Syrians hadn't bitten the bait. Despite getting 50,000 Turkish troops to stand on the border with Syria and rattle their sabres they couldn't provoke the aggressive reaction required to step in with the Sixth Fleet which they'd positioned on the doorstep. A 1978 Pentagon-commissioned analysis concluded that "Washington seemed to seek the initial use of force by [Syria]". That time they didn't get one. That time they didn't invade.
So, it's not so much a matter of calling Saddam's bluff as of suckering his chin into a punchable position. Without an overt act to counter, the US has a problem when it comes to invading foreign countries because even at this late stage the US electorate doesn't like them to. Quite what the cassus belli will be in the case of Iran I'm not sure, but putting a US destroyer where it can get missiled by an ambitious Iraqi coastguard would do it.
Texans do not BLUFF........
This triggered a recollection and it's not totally off-topic. You'll remember that it was argued (without much resolution) that the US had suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East. There were assorted US statements before Iraq moved into Kuwait to the effect that the US had no commitment to bail the Kuwaits out under such circumstances, a position reversed within a day of Saddam ordering the troops to step over the border. Cheney, as Vice-President, was publicly rebuked by Bush-1 (when he'd brought the subject up in public in mid-July, three weeks before the invasion) with "You're committing us to war we might not want to fight" and told not to address the issue in public again. The State Department said five days later "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait", seemingly a green light to Saddam. A week before the invasion the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam in person that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait". Three days before the invasion the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, John Kelly, told Congress "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country" and "We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes", and when explicitly asked if it was correct that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the US did "not have a treaty commitment which could obligate us to engage US forces" there, he replied "That is correct".
Anyway - to my point here. As a one-off way to get public opinion on your side if you want to send your army into a region, getting the other guy to punch first is high on the list of desirable actions. The US had tried this before, against Syria in 1957 in an attempt to force a change of regime, but the Syrians hadn't bitten the bait. Despite getting 50,000 Turkish troops to stand on the border with Syria and rattle their sabres they couldn't provoke the aggressive reaction required to step in with the Sixth Fleet which they'd positioned on the doorstep. A 1978 Pentagon-commissioned analysis concluded that "Washington seemed to seek the initial use of force by [Syria]". That time they didn't get one. That time they didn't invade.
So, it's not so much a matter of calling Saddam's bluff as of suckering his chin into a punchable position. Without an overt act to counter, the US has a problem when it comes to invading foreign countries because even at this late stage the US electorate doesn't like them to. Quite what the cassus belli will be in the case of Iran I'm not sure, but putting a US destroyer where it can get missiled by an ambitious Iraqi coastguard would do it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
BTS;561762 wrote: Is not that (third world USA) what is wanted in the LONG term from the anti-capitalist
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
Who is it wants that? The only ones that can make that happen are americans themselves.
They want the US to be a third world country SOOO bad...........
Who is it wants that? The only ones that can make that happen are americans themselves.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
spot;557660 wrote: "Caliphates in every country"? 300 elementary school students line his path waving American flags? The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says this to ten-year-old children? It's the reality behind the mirror-fear which they project onto media-created bogeymen like Kim Jong Il, more like.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.General Pace seems to like seeing his name in print, he's there again today. His current concern is that all adulterous American servicemen should be prosecuted.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... &track=rss
He draws a parallel between adultery and homosexuality. He thinks homosexual American servicemen should be prosecuted too.
The article in the Chicago Tribune points out as background that "A 2005 government audit showed that about 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy [of disbarring known homosexuals]. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report. The U.S. military, like the nation's foreign service and intelligence community, faces shortages of foreign-language specialists." It gives no indication of the number of adulterers currently serving in the forces but my guess is that discharges would be somewhat higher if the censorious General has his way.
I thought the holder of a post like that was supposed to be apolitical, too.General Pace seems to like seeing his name in print, he's there again today. His current concern is that all adulterous American servicemen should be prosecuted.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... &track=rss
He draws a parallel between adultery and homosexuality. He thinks homosexual American servicemen should be prosecuted too.
The article in the Chicago Tribune points out as background that "A 2005 government audit showed that about 10,000 troops have been discharged because of the policy [of disbarring known homosexuals]. Among those discharged were more than 322 linguists, including 54 Arabic specialists, according to the Government Accountability Office report. The U.S. military, like the nation's foreign service and intelligence community, faces shortages of foreign-language specialists." It gives no indication of the number of adulterers currently serving in the forces but my guess is that discharges would be somewhat higher if the censorious General has his way.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
[quote=spot;564304]This triggered a recollection and it's not totally off-topic. You'll remember that it was argued (without much resolution) that the US had suckered (Emphasis added by BTS) Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East. quote]
Facts spot............
And only FACTS..........
SHOW US all where the US suckered
"Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East."
PLEEZZZZZ DEW
Facts spot............
And only FACTS..........
SHOW US all where the US suckered
"Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East."
PLEEZZZZZ DEW
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
BTS;575629 wrote: And only FACTS..........
SHOW US all where the US suckered
"Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East."
PLEEZZZZZ DEWJust skip back to post#35, please, and read the rest of the paragraph. I thought I'd put quite a few facts there. Give me a clue why you find them inadequate. You don't believe they're facts? You don't believe they point toward my conclusion? Where exactly is the problem?
Here's I'll quote it for you in full so you don't have to search...There were assorted US statements before Iraq moved into Kuwait to the effect that the US had no commitment to bail the Kuwaits out under such circumstances, a position reversed within a day of Saddam ordering the troops to step over the border. Cheney, as Vice-President, was publicly rebuked by Bush-1 (when he'd brought the subject up in public in mid-July, three weeks before the invasion) with "You're committing us to war we might not want to fight" and told not to address the issue in public again. The State Department said five days later "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait", seemingly a green light to Saddam. A week before the invasion the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam in person that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait". Three days before the invasion the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, John Kelly, told Congress "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country" and "We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes", and when explicitly asked if it was correct that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the US did "not have a treaty commitment which could obligate us to engage US forces" there, he replied "That is correct".
SHOW US all where the US suckered
"Saddam into invading Kuwait in order to have an excuse to knock Iraq back a few years and reduce their potential to influence the Middle East."
PLEEZZZZZ DEWJust skip back to post#35, please, and read the rest of the paragraph. I thought I'd put quite a few facts there. Give me a clue why you find them inadequate. You don't believe they're facts? You don't believe they point toward my conclusion? Where exactly is the problem?
Here's I'll quote it for you in full so you don't have to search...There were assorted US statements before Iraq moved into Kuwait to the effect that the US had no commitment to bail the Kuwaits out under such circumstances, a position reversed within a day of Saddam ordering the troops to step over the border. Cheney, as Vice-President, was publicly rebuked by Bush-1 (when he'd brought the subject up in public in mid-July, three weeks before the invasion) with "You're committing us to war we might not want to fight" and told not to address the issue in public again. The State Department said five days later "We do not have any defense treaties with Kuwait, and there are no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait", seemingly a green light to Saddam. A week before the invasion the US Ambassador to Iraq told Saddam in person that "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait". Three days before the invasion the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, John Kelly, told Congress "We have no defense treaty relationship with any Gulf country" and "We have historically avoided taking a position on border disputes", and when explicitly asked if it was correct that if Iraq "charged across the border into Kuwait" the US did "not have a treaty commitment which could obligate us to engage US forces" there, he replied "That is correct".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
Far Rider;575628 wrote: I did not nor would I ever tolerate a homosexual in my unit, or amongst my troops. I'd drum them out so fast it would make thier head spin. If I met up with an adulterer I'd do the same.You ignored my question entirely, Far. The number of adulterers in the armed forces is (I presume you'd agree with me) higher than the number of homosexuals. Why are they a thousand times less likely to be ejected, given what you say? Or are you trying to tell me the detection and ejection rates are equivalent?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
An American opinion on current events in world politics.
posted by far rider
My personal opinion stands. A married person having an affair with another person, (married or not) when one of them has a military connection should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Is adultery a criminal offence in the states?
posted by far rider
I did not nor would I ever tolerate a homosexual in my unit, or amongst my troops. I'd drum them out so fast it would make thier head spin. If I met up with an adulterer I'd do the same.
How about if it was someone you had served with and had come to regard as a good soldier-someone you would have wanted at your side in a combat situation. If you found out later he was homosexual would your opinion of his value as a soldier change? If it was a choice between taking him and someone you knew wasn't up to it but was hetrosexual which would you take?
My personal opinion stands. A married person having an affair with another person, (married or not) when one of them has a military connection should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Is adultery a criminal offence in the states?
posted by far rider
I did not nor would I ever tolerate a homosexual in my unit, or amongst my troops. I'd drum them out so fast it would make thier head spin. If I met up with an adulterer I'd do the same.
How about if it was someone you had served with and had come to regard as a good soldier-someone you would have wanted at your side in a combat situation. If you found out later he was homosexual would your opinion of his value as a soldier change? If it was a choice between taking him and someone you knew wasn't up to it but was hetrosexual which would you take?