What the Rest of The World Thinks of America

[Y.T.]

Funny thing is, that what keeps Turkey moderate and secular is its army .. and it does so in a quite undemocratic manner .. (see 1997 coup, 1980 coup ..)

Universal franchise is one of the dumber ideas of the 20th century, and I bet it'll go down into history books as a dumb idea. Having people vote welfare for themselves now that's a really neat idea.

Now, only if the US generals had such guts, US wouldn't be in the mess it is in now.. At least they know that invading and occupying country without a clear post-war plan and with only 1/3 of necessary occupation troops is a bad idea.

[erbiumfiber]

Now, only if the US generals had such guts, US wouldn't be in the mess it is in now.. At least they know that invading and occupying country without a clear post-war plan and with only 1/3 of necessary occupation troops is a bad idea.

Problem is, the Commander-in-Chief hasn't figured it out yet...:gloomy:

I would like to believe our troops are coming home soon. I don't believe it will happen as long as Bush & Co. are in power.

And I fear that even with a change in parties (a democrat in the White House, voted in on the basis of bringing the troops home) the troops will only come home in a very long, drawn-out withdrawal plan (think many years). The recent analogies that have been made to Korea (the 50-year plan) scare the hell out of me. Sorry if this has already been discussed, I didn't read all of the 20 pages...

[Plekto]

Well, that's exactly what's wrong with our country. The President gets to effectively be King. Untouchable, barring truly hideous acts locally, thanks to the last few terms and the shift in power that has happened.

So the President is also in charge of our military AND foreign policy. Basically wherever the Presidents wants to attack or occupy there's nothing that we can do about it as a nation. How this is different from a typical dictator or king... I honestly don't know anymore.

Way too much power in one place and definitely NOT what was envisioned by those who wrote our Constitution.

Bush could have the entire rest of the government, his soldiers, his advisors and cabinet, as well as the military itself yelling that he's wrong, but somehow this one man has the power to wage wars(for several months, but effectively forever), imprison enemies, spy on us, and control our futures, reguardless if he's even sane or not?

Oh - check out the report that just came out. The "surge" has resulted in not one goal being accomplished. 0% success rate. Utter and complete failure by any standard. Yet he *knows* it's going to work.... next time...

[Trump]

I think you overestimate the power the president has and underestimate the power of political propoganda. The president has to think about more than just getting himself reelected. He also has to worry about helping his party control congress. Just look what happened last election? People were pissed at the president and the republicans lost their majority in congress. I guarantee a first term president would not be able to do anything like you say.

[ruaidhri]

eriumfiber,

God, I hope you’re wrong. Yes, what you are suggesting could be the ultimate truth. We could be stuck in Iraq the same as we’ve been stuck in Korea for the past 50 plus years.

Today, the most serious immediate threat to our economy is the loss of oil from the Middle East. Already, we face increased competition and higher prices for the oil we consume. What would happen if Mid-Eastern oil were out of the picture? Where would prices go and what would be the American public’s reaction then?

I keep going back to my earlier statement: No matter what we do we’re fucked.

If we would continue to occupy Iraq:

How long can we continue to see our troops killed and horrifically injured?

How often can we return troops to battle without it affecting retentions and enlistments?

How long can we continue to afford the war while domestic programs and government funded research projects are put on hold.

How long will it be before inflation fears force our government to increase taxes to pay for the war?

When would we be forced to reinstate conscription (most likely of both young men and women)?

How many new terrorists would we create that are anxious to do harm to the Western Countries on their own turf?

But, yes, it would be even more catastrophic to the economies and people of all Western Countries if we lost access to Mid-Eastern oil.

Our former President was impeached for lying about having sex with one young woman. Our current President continues to rape each and every one of us daily and tells us to stop fussing and lie back and enjoy it. The fact that we never should have invaded Iraq is long forgotten. Actually, it’s no longer important because we are there and anything we do is a mistake.

Americans are, I believe, very short sighted. With Congressional elections every two years and a looming Presidential election so are our current and potential future leaders. All members of the House are up for reelection as are 1/3 of the 100 U.S. Senators. Supporting the war is not an effective way of winning the election. What they do today will follow them into the polling booth. Politicians become statesmen only when they are elected. Out of office they are powerless. They don’t want to lose elections. The American public wants out of Iraq. The Democrats in Congress want to set a timetable. Many leading Republicans are joining the call. Something will happen regardless of the efforts of the Bush White House.

I still believe we will start withdrawing from Iraq very soon. Like many, I fear the possible consequences. Still, I don’t believe we belong in Iraq. What keeps on going over and over in my mind is that we are truly fucked no matter what we do.

[Campion]

Campion, it's nothing more than speculation on all of our parts.

Ruaidhri, I highlighted my last two posts because I have nothing but my own opinion to back them up, the paper trail I would need to chase to create a plausible argument in this case is so long that I haven't the inclination to chase it, that is what I mean when I say speculate, my usual posts whilst not always agreeable to many are usually based upon reasoned arguments on topics that I already have a bit of knowledge on.

I don't like to be in a situation where I seem to be writing polemics on something I have no knowledge or experience of, which is why I would hasten anyone to base their opinion on what you Sparky Trump, or Plekto have to say, rather than heed my assumptions in regard to how America might react or perform in a given circumstance. All of you have a better understanding of American history and modern American politics than I do because you've lived it and studied it.


I think you overestimate the power the president has and underestimate the power of political propoganda.

I unequivocally agree with the last part of that statement, propoganda has become so intense in this day and age that it has become almost impossible to discern it from the truth.

One of the greatest propoganda coups of the second Iraq conflict was the embedding of journalists in military units. It was a psychologically brilliant move of course, few people would criticize their 'band of brothers' and the men charged with essentially keeping them alive, it replaces any objectivity with unquestioning loyalty. You move from trying to manage the propoganda to managing the propogandists. Whilst it does nothing for journalistic integrity, it does an awful lot for the perceived integrity of the military actions.



Campion.

EDIT: For clarity.

[stsparky]

The trick would be to change the goals.

We failed to isolate the trouble makers internally, and didn't secure the borders with Syria or Iran. Peaceful folks are at the mercy of haters. The Shitte religious radical leadership should have been labeled as traitors and expelled to Iran. And the Sunni radicals should have been exiled to Jordan. The new government needs more stick less carrot. I would have spent the wasted redevelopment monies on new dams and irrigation projects that benefited the political minority first, jailing anyone who took graft.

But hey, we know Cheney gets wet watching "Red Dawn (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Dawn-Collectors-Patrick-Swayze/dp/B000PMFS14/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3483096-3601758?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1184169081&sr=1-1)" and that he can only shoot caged animals or drunk bankers.

Despair ...

[Trump]

This whole situation is really horrible for me. In some ways I wish we could leave Iraq, but then in a whole selfish way I sort of want us to stay. The military in Iraq is heavily relying on a product my company produces. So in some ways, the war keeps me employed with a fairly decent salary. Gah, I hate being in this position.

[ruaidhri]

Trump,

I understand. I worked for 36 years for a company that brewed beer that was owned by a larger company that made cigarettes.

Now, at one time I both smoked and drank beer and I really have nothing against people that do either. But, I realize that both have hurt some people while providing employment for others, like me. I didn't quit my job then and I wouldn't now.

I remember long after I quit smoking (I quit in 1968), our parent company asked us our management (including me) to contribute to their PAC, which I did. They also asked us to write letters to our federal and state representatives, which I again did. I didn't like smoking but I did like my job and I didn't want to lose it.

Our whole office building was open to smoking. In fact, for many years, it was difficult to not be surrounded by smoke. Attending a meeting was especially difficult. Yet, I continued working and defending tobacco.

So, I am certainly not innocent. Would I do it today? Probably. Money, lots of money, can truly be corrupting.

[geesehoward4life]

Ruaidhri, I appreciate your honesty.

[Chris]

Now, only if the US generals had such guts, US wouldn't be in the mess it is in now.. At least they know that invading and occupying country without a clear post-war plan and with only 1/3 of necessary occupation troops is a bad idea.


Um, what did you expect them to do? You can't speak out while you're active duty military, that's against the regulations (and for good reason). Doing so will end your career.

However, if you want to speak out, you've got to retire. Thus, ending your career. Really a shitty situation to be in.

[Trump]

At least we aren't designing missiles or something, it is more of a night vision system which helps keep our soldiers safe instead of killing people. Though when I think about it, I could probably justify (to myself) working on a missile program. I'd say to myself that I was helping to make sure the missile worked the way it was supposed to so that it hit exactly what it was supposed to and nothing else. I realized this a while ago and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. I wish I could find a job more in the commercial sector, but I've had trouble finding anything. Ah well, I try not to think about it too much.

[Y.T.]

At least we aren't designing missiles or something, it is more of a night vision system which helps keep our soldiers safe instead of killing people.

More precisely, a system that allows them to safely kill brown skilled people who don't have such night vision gear, right ?

[ruaidhri]

Zakalwe,

Some things are funny; some aren't. That wasn't.

Are you so pure that you can cast stones? I'm not!

[Chris]

More precisely, a system that allows them to safely kill brown skilled people who don't have such night vision gear, right ?


Again, I'm gonna repeat myself and say what the hell do you expect us to do? I'm sure your country, actually, scratch that, any human in existence is probably gonna take advantage of a system that prolongs their life, especially in a combat scenario.

[Y.T.]

Nah. I was just putting things in perspective. If you work for a defence contractor, you are a bit more responsible for what happens when your country's military is used wrongly. Designing armor or protective gear is no different to designing guns. Both enhance the ability of soldiers to kill other soldiers. I just couldn't resist having a sarcastic remark. BTW, you are some kind of engineer (as in, one who has studied engineering at the uni ) then?


I'm hardly that pure. It's quite likely that I'll take part in what is now described as crimes against humanity. Forced repatriation, (that's ethnic / religious cleansing) and that kind of thing. Nothing wrong with that.
Except that currently, we tolerate people who are bent on living off others, breeding like rabbits, and who certainly don't have any respect for the rights of others. Once times are harder, such lofty attitudes'll no longer be affordable to maintain, and solutions'll be sought.


I'm sure your country, actually, scratch that, any human in existence is probably gonna take advantage of a system that prolongs their life, especially in a combat scenario.

Some time ago, my country followed a doctrine that was not overly concerned with preserving soldiers' lives, but instead with inflicting harm on the enemy, no matter what the cost. Warsaw pact doctrine.
Lots of rugged, deadly equipment. Overwhelming, if a touch indiscriminate firepower*. Works well, if you don't mind some casualties and the 'collateral damage'. Pretty much in the spirit of communism.

[Beowulf]

Why does anyone argue with ruaidhri when they are bound to lose to his patented Old Man Wisdom(©)?

The comment that I wanted to make was that I think we should return to a more isolated state. The US simply needs to realize that it lacks the drive, resources, and credibility to continue to be the self appointed planetary police force. Why are we bothering to try to help the Iraqi's when we have children starving to death in our own damn country?

[Plekto]

Because our leaders want us to be The Last Great Imperialist Empire(tm). No, honestly - they want us to own the world economy.

Seventy years later and we've essentially become what most of Europe and Japan was back then. Just a lot better at keeping our citizens from figuring it out or rioting about it.

[Trump]

Nah. I was just putting things in perspective. If you work for a defence contractor, you are a bit more responsible for what happens when your country's military is used wrongly. Designing armor or protective gear is no different to designing guns. Both enhance the ability of soldiers to kill other soldiers. I just couldn't resist having a sarcastic remark. BTW, you are some kind of engineer (as in, one who has studied engineering at the uni ) then?

Wait, so you claim that these missions would not be carried out anyway? You are really niave. While I am sure the highest levels of the military care somewhat about the safety of our troops, I believe they are willing to sacrifice troops to achieve their goals. Why else are we still in Iraq? If I can help reduce the casualties of the people serving my country, I will do so without reservation. If I can help our troops gain better intelligence so their missions are more effective or if I can help our troops avoide enemy fire and save their lives, I gladly give my time and energy to that cause.

[stsparky]

Our troops don't need to be there in Iraq. They needed to be in Afghanistan where the enemy was. That we can use armed robots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_robot) and drone planes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator), in place of actual American soldiers; And don't shows me how much the so-called leadership cares.

For example: We sent troops out with inadequate body armor. Smart soldiers invested in their personal safety by buying better armor. This directly enriched the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_group).

But hey - a blow job clearly hurts the nation more than deliberately lying to the nation and putting US soldiers in harm's way to be killed or maimed.

[Plekto]

I knew it was verified imperialism and politics when they weren't even giving body armor to troops in the beginning. Unarmored HumVees as well...

Basically the people in D.C. wanted a Grenada or Panama scenario where they rolled in, took over, and came home a month or two later. As little effort as possible for a workable outcome.

Of course, anyone who has studied wars or tactics even at a high school or recreational gamer level knows that a country of over twenty million people who as a rule hate outsiders messing with their affairs(having had it happen over and over)... Yeah, you better go in armed and protected like some Sci-fi movie. Oh - and send about 1-2 million troops from day one.

I still think the best way to solve this is to take away the President's control of the military entirely and give it to congress, where it originally was. Now, there are emergencies, to be sure, but our government has enough CIA and special ops forces around the planet to deal with any immediate threat.

As it is, its basically like the current President is a king or dictator. Virtually impossible to get rid of, can do anything with our military he wants, and also controls foriegn policy(as well as spying and putting peolpe in prison)

[manrush]

I knew it was verified imperialism and politics when they weren't even giving body armor to troops in the beginning. Unarmored HumVees as well...

Basically the people in D.C. wanted a Grenada or Panama scenario where they rolled in, took over, and came home a month or two later. As little effort as possible for a workable outcome.

Of course, anyone who has studied wars or tactics even at a high school or recreational gamer level knows that a country of over twenty million people who as a rule hate outsiders messing with their affairs(having had it happen over and over)... Yeah, you better go in armed and protected like some Sci-fi movie. Oh - and send about 1-2 million troops from day one.

I still think the best way to solve this is to take away the President's control of the military entirely and give it to congress, where it originally was. Now, there are emergencies, to be sure, but our government has enough CIA and special ops forces around the planet to deal with any immediate threat.

As it is, its basically like the current President is a king or dictator. Virtually impossible to get rid of, can do anything with our military he wants, and also controls foriegn policy(as well as spying and putting peolpe in prison)

There's only one problem with handing control of the military over to Congress. They cannot possibly do that without circumventing the Constitution. Because, technically, the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Unless there is an amendment that gives Congress control of the military.

In all, there should be Constitutional amendments that severely curtail the power of the Presidency. I would actually support a ceremonial Presidency.

[ruaidhri]

I revived this thread from the old forum in August, 2005 because I love my country and because actions the United States takes impacts people around the world. What I liked about this thread is that it offers citizens of other countries the opportunity to question what the U.S. does and it offers U.S. citizens the opportunity to provide insight into their country’s actions. In addition, It gives U.S. citizens the opportunity to question their own government and to offer alternatives.

The U.S. has three branches, each powerful and each a balance against any one of the three becoming too powerful. Regardless of his lack of popularity, I must admit that George W. Bush is a powerful President. I believe he has assumed too much power and that the other branches need to reign him in. So far, they haven’t. I believe Congress and the Judiciary have let us down. Their inaction has impacted both the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Perhaps, if we do have a face down, we will witness a constitutional crisis but if we do it will be resolved according to law. If we change the Constitution we change the law and chances are we might not like the results.

Constitutionally changing the power of the Presidency would, I believe, require nothing short of a Constitutional Convention and everything in our Constitution would be subject to change including the bill or rights, racial and gender equality and freedom of and freedom from religion. Does anyone honestly believe that the Christian Right wouldn't be at the front of the line? Who do you believe would have the most impact, the poor and politically weak or the rich and powerful who could finance and manage a campaign to mold an entirely new Constitution? I don’t like the odds.

So, my advice is to be careful what you wish for; you might just get it. I believe the best action is to contact your congressional representatives in both the House and Senate and demand they assert their authority as an equal under the Constitution. They do pay attention to the letters they receive especially if they see a trend. After all, they do want to e reelected, which is precisely why Republican Congressional leaders have recently strayed from Bush’s camp.

[Plekto]

All I wish for is to remove him as commander in Chief. Perhaps give that to the leader ot the House, instead. Afterall, Congress is the only body in The Constitution that has the power to declare war, so control of the military should be with them.

As it is, a President can de-facto declare war and there's nothing COngress can do about it as after several months and a hundred thousand troops in the field - it's not going to go away in a week.

Perhaps a more moderate conpromise would be to only let a President have the ability to deploy troops in self-defense. Agression can easily be handled by Congress, like it was in WWII. It took them hours to declare war on Japan, afterall. They can move quickly when they want to.

[Ichisan]

This whole situation is really horrible for me. In some ways I wish we could leave Iraq, but then in a whole selfish way I sort of want us to stay. The military in Iraq is heavily relying on a product my company produces. So in some ways, the war keeps me employed with a fairly decent salary. Gah, I hate being in this position.

To me it seems the American military in Iraq is faced with the job of doing what the brutal Turkish and Pakistani regimes do on a regular basis: keep radical Islam down, and prevent through oppression the general population from getting what they want, which is rule of Sharia law and the establishment of the Caliphate. Sharia law is simply just law, authorised by God, to Muslims.

It is not doing that job, since that requires systematic oppression and brutality and the American military does not want to see itself in that role; nor is the American public willing, nor does the world at large want to see America adopt the role of tyrant.

So they stick to closing off key areas and protecting them, which essentially means protecting oil and business interests, leaving the American administration open to the charge of being cynical capitalist exploiters. Meanwhile outside the Green Zones civil war between rival radical factions just escalates.

I don't see any good way to end this. America wants to establish a stable regime that is also democratic and progressive, but it seems like to be stable a regime would have to be ruthlessly undemocratic. Politicians would be happy to have a ruthless undemocratic regime so long as it's just progressive enough in appearance to present to the world. Some will believe torture and charade-like elections are justified as steps on the way to a future democratic utopia - but isn't that just how communists used to justify exploiting the people, i.e. as a step on the road to some future communist utopia?

The other option for the American administration is to make direct involvement acceptable by scaring the shit out of the American public and demonizing Muslims. So far people are getting very anti-Muslim but still not happy about staying in Iraq.

[Trump]

I knew it was verified imperialism and politics when they weren't even giving body armor to troops in the beginning. Unarmored HumVees as well...

Basically the people in D.C. wanted a Grenada or Panama scenario where they rolled in, took over, and came home a month or two later. As little effort as possible for a workable outcome.

Of course, anyone who has studied wars or tactics even at a high school or recreational gamer level knows that a country of over twenty million people who as a rule hate outsiders messing with their affairs(having had it happen over and over)... Yeah, you better go in armed and protected like some Sci-fi movie. Oh - and send about 1-2 million troops from day one.

I still think the best way to solve this is to take away the President's control of the military entirely and give it to congress, where it originally was. Now, there are emergencies, to be sure, but our government has enough CIA and special ops forces around the planet to deal with any immediate threat.

As it is, its basically like the current President is a king or dictator. Virtually impossible to get rid of, can do anything with our military he wants, and also controls foriegn policy(as well as spying and putting peolpe in prison)

In some ways you are right, but in some ways you are so far off base I wonder how you get anything right! It seems like you get just enough facts to be dangerous and then make wild and crazy jumps from thought to thought without considering all of the information and possibilities.

Fact, the people in DC did want a nice quick engagement. They wanted to get in and out as quickly as possible. Fact, they sent in troops without body armor and unarmored HMMWVs. How did you get from there to imperialism, dictatorship, and secret police? There is absolutely no link at all.

The lack of protection for our troops was due to the fact that the commanders severely misjudged what was going to be required for this effort. Furthermore, those things are expensive, and money is a big issue for the goverment. The army has a choice between developing new technology to protect our troops, or investing in current technology that offers our troops less protection. If you ask me, that is a pretty tough choice. At the beginning of the effort, the military thought they would not need the body armor and humvees, and instead tried to keep the money in future development. Then things changed when they realized the situation. You'll also notice the military budget went up... go figure.

If you believe we have enough CIA agents to fight some sort of war, I don't know what you are smoking. If you think we have enough unmanned and autonomous equipment to run a war without human soldiers, I'm not sure what world you live on. So far all uses of unmanned drones have been on an experimental and exploratory role. They haven't been mass produced and many are still in the early stages of their contracts. Do you realize how long it takes to make things like that? At the beginning of a military contract, companies are not likely to make more than one unit every couple months! After the first prototypes are delivered, companies move into Low Rate Initial Production contracts which might involve 1 or 2 units a month. Finally, as all the kinks in both production and management get ironed out, they can start full production. By full production we're talking maybe 10 a month. It's going to be a long time before we have the thousands required to field an army of them, and that is only if the government is willing foot the tremendous bill they cost. So please, get a grip on reality before you start throwing around crazy information.

Regarding the president, sure he is powerful, but we don't really want a weak president do we? Then the country would just stagnate. And it isn't like the president is a dictator, he can't just order congress around. He still has to follow the same procedures to get laws and bills passed as anyone else. Congress has to approve them. Do you know why he was so powerful? Because at the beginning of his term, he had the support of congress. He was able to work with them and get his bills passed. Whose fault is that?? Americans who voted for those congressman, not the president. The president just took advantage of the situation. You'll notice now the president is have a much more difficult time getting things done. He has to put more attention into playing the game with Congress. So I'm not sure why you feel he is a dictator. I'm not sure why you want to change the way the system works. I think the system is working exactly the way it is supposed to. Giving control of the military to Congress would be the most asinine thing you could do. Congress does NOT get things done quickly. They argue about every little thing and often do not get all of the information they need to make decisions right away. Handing military control to congress would be a huge mistake.

[ruaidhri]

Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the executive power of the President. It clearly provides that “The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States...”

Congress can not assume that executive power nor can the people change that executive power except by amending or replacing the Constitution itself. That, as I previously stated, would be dangerous as it could open the entire Constitution for change.

What Congress does control is the purse. While Congress can’t stop a President from exercising his or her (let’s not forget Hillary) Constitutional authority as Commander in Chief by deploying military forces, it can refuse to fund the operation and it can impeach and remove the President from office.

If Congress refused to fund our troops in Iraq, and Bush refused to remove them, the troops would be unable to conduct military operations, outside of limited self defense. Everyone would lose, The President, The Congress, the American people and, most seriously, the men and women in uniform that offer up their lives for our security.

Impeachment, the other option, would, in my opinion, be no bargain. Three times in American history American Presidents have faced the possibility of impeachment and removal from office.

The first was Andrew Johnson who was impeached primarily because he defied Congress by replacing a federal officeholder, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton. This was indeed a battle between the Executive and Legislative branches over the President’s executive power. Fortunately for Johnson the Senate acquitted him, albeit by a single vote.

The next President to face impeachment was Richard Nixon for his role in covering up the Watergate break-in. Those were indeed troubling years for America. We had Vietnam, protests, severe generational distrust (can’t trust anyone over 30), dirty tricks and Watergate. Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew had resigned in disgrace following charges that he had accepted bribes and falsified federal tax returns. Then, Nixon also resigned when it appeared evident that he would be impeached and removed from office.

Of course, we all remember Bill Clinton. He was impeached for lying about Monica. Like Johnson the Senate acquitted him.

I don’t believe there is much chance that Congress would care to impeach and remove George W. Bush. So, where does that leave us? If Bush continues to play hard ball we’ll probably remain in Iraq through at least the remainder of his term. Personally, I'm hoping, public opinion and pressure from within his own party will compel Bush to accept a timed withdrawal from Iraq. But, I'm not holding my breath.

[stsparky]

I'd be happy to see this Bush impeached.

And Trump? I'm the one who is for robots/drones I don't know if Plekto is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Twuav_13_02.jpeg
Predators (http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?184162) are a mature technology.
“... The air force currently uses armed unmanned Predators to fly a dozen round-the-clock combat air patrols over Iraq and Afghanistan a day ...”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3e/SWORDS_robot.jpg
And I've no problems with using military robots to swell our numbers of 'personnel' on the ground. We could 'slave' robots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller_TALON) to mimic a human master. Informing the bad guys that the only bugs to work out are overkill wouldn't be bad PR either. As to the Taliban & Alqeda cave dwellers - I'd like to do another kind of PR trick. Which is to convince them we've a gas that changes their gender. And if they don't surrender within two weeks - it's permanent! I believe we can claim any sophisticated cave systems will give off a distinct heat signature that we can target. And even if untrue — the folks we fight won't know.

[Plekto]

My point was that any strategist, and in fact, the leaders in the Pentagon were practically yelling that they needed far more troops and materials from day one to fight a real ground war in an urban environment.

They got the shaft, which made it clear that our leaders weren't interested in stability or democracy in Iraq, but instead, oil and increasing military funding for pet projects.

And so far, almost 40,000 soldiers have either been killed or injured badly enough to not be able to fight(35,000+ wounded with crippling injuries, and that's not counting the contractors and so on)

As for the CIA fighting wars, they did a good job versus the KGB. And in the end, would it have been any worse if we had put a bullet in Sadam's head? Really? Dead is dead, and a small group can easily react quickly to a potential problem.(Seals/Special forces come immediately to mind, for instance).

Lastly, about the President's power. The idea of being head of the armed forces was more of a "what to do when it's underway". The normal method was originally Congress declares war. THEN the President s notified and has to be in charge of the troops. As it currently is, it's reversed. The President does whatever he wants and notifies Congress to declare war(or else be eviscerated by the voters for "not supporting the troops")

We need a major amendment restraining the President's power at this point.

[Chris]

As for the CIA fighting wars, they did a good job versus the KGB. And in the end, would it have been any worse if we had put a bullet in Sadam's head? Really? Dead is dead, and a small group can easily react quickly to a potential problem.(Seals/Special forces come immediately to mind, for instance).


Think about that for a minute, and then think about what would happen considering his sons were still alive. And then think what would happen when the rest of the world found out.

[Plekto]

The factions hated Sadam and tried to kill him several times. His sons would have been fed to the dogs in the resulting power vacuum. Or just kill all three of them. Declare war. But don't send in troops - go in with those spy drones and Seals and such and decapitate the snake. Loads less impact and cost. Plus, it sends a better message - you mess with us, your leaders die. The peolpe can support that as well, since they didn't take much if any collateral damage(yay! - evil dictator got wiped out - party in the streets!)

[Chris]

lus, it sends a better message - you mess with us, your leaders die. The peolpe can support that as well, since they didn't take much if any collateral damage(yay! - evil dictator got wiped out - party in the streets!)

....nah. The messege that would hammer home a fear that even some of the European governments have sometimes. They knew the United States already has the ability to kill who it wants, when it wants, and probably how it wants. Now if we start using that as a diplomatic tool? That can't be good for relations. I'd almost say that doing that would have come pretty close to souring them the way our other foreign policy has.

Secondly, as nice as it is to think there'd be a party in the streets and the people would all be happy, no, that's wrong. Yes, the inside factions and Al Qaeda hated Saddam just as much, if not more than we did. But, Muslims are pretty senstitive about the West doing anything on their land, or being on any of it, whether they like the country that said land belongs to or not. They'll still take offense.

Al Qaeda (and all other extremeist leaders) would have taken that and claimed it was tortue and abuse by the west, it was us overstepping our bounds. Kinda like they did when we invaded, however this time around we wouldn't be in country, invading would be a pain in the ass if we decided to do it (we'd have to) because they probably would have put up just as much of a fight. Violence would have started just like it did. Except this time around we have no control whatsoever what happens, especially with all that oil that every western country needs (before you claim your country has better morals than the US, just remember oil). It would also have been much harder to do what good we have done to get the Iraqis on our side.

In other words, we would have pissed off the same amount of people but had less control on how it turned out, and a good amount of needed oil by the entirety of the world would have belonged to whoever the fuck got there first and decided to try and take it randsom.

[Trump]

stsparky, That article just helps prove my point. The orders for the drones are out there but they in no way have enough to wage a war with them even now, let alone 3 years ago. Furthermore, they require dedicated personell to maintain and control them. Next, look how they are being used. Most missions are basic reconnaissance missions and we don't even have enough units for that role. Yet you suggest we use them as the bulk of our forces? It just can't happen yet. Maybe in another 10 years when the military can get their hands on enough of them, but right now it just isn't possible. Humans are still the mainstay of the armed forces and will be for some time.

Pletko, I just can't follow your wild leaps of logic. You say our troops got the shaft and that Congress should have control. But wait, Congress is the one denying the troops money they need to be well equipped!!! If Bush could have gotten even more money for the military, do you think he would have hesistated? Bush's decision didn't come down to sending them either poorly-equipped or well-equipped, it came down to whether their current equipment was sufficient for the task or not. He thought it was and that was his decision to make. Overall, Congress is very very slow. To think they can't make quick decisions because they have to debate and debate and filibuster and check their supporters and check their political backing and all sorts of crazy things. Do you honestly think military control, which requires quick reactions would be better in that environment?

I think your comments also show you have a very shallow understanding (misunderstanding?) of how the world, politics, diplomacy, and human nature affect things. The CIA is supposed to be a covert organization. Every time in history the CIA has made overt actions, it has been a nightmare for the US. Seriously, fighting the KGB, another covert organization with similar manpower is what they are designed to do. How can you make the leap that they can successfully fight a whole country? Furthermore, do you understand what would have happened after an assassination? You are right, one of the main reasons we were there was to protect our oil interests. Do you think chaos, anarchy, and general lawlessness assocaited with a new power struggle helps us out?

[ruaidhri]

Assassination works two ways. If the U.S. targeted world leaders it didn't agree with, people throughout the world would fear us and consider us evil. Certainly, they would in turn target our own leaders. While I’ve lived through a number of Presidents I didn’t vote for or particularly like I never wanted any of them to be hurt or murdered. I may not be a religious person but I don’t like or support hurting or killing. Obviously, taking another’s life is understandable in a personal self-defense situation but I don’t believe that existed with Saddam Hussein.

Pletko, I don’t want to carry this on much further but read Article II of the Constitution. It does not say that the President is the Commander in Chief only when Congress declares war. Also, you keep forgetting the potential collateral threat to our constitution if we ever truly made a serious attempt to change Presidential powers. The separation of powers is basic to our governmental structure. Changing that could, I believe, only be accomplished through a Constitutional Convention, which would open up everything for change. You could get far more than you bargained for. Would you want that?

I understand the frustration on the part of many of OP9's members. There appears to be so little we can do to quickly change America's policies. The solution should not, however, be to tear up our Constitution. I doubt we'd like the results.

[stsparky]

stsparky, That article just helps prove my point. The orders for the drones are out there but they in no way have enough to wage a war with them even now, let alone 3 years ago. ...

We've been using Predators for 12 years now. As to the Talon's armed brethren - SWORDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster-Miller_TALON#SWORDS)

SWORDS or the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection System, is a weaponized version being developed by Foster-Miller for the US Army. The robot is composed of a weapons system mounted on the standard TALON chassis. The current price of one unit is $230,000; however, Foster-Miller claims that when it enters mass production the price may drop to between $150,000 and $180,000. In comparison to train a US soldier to a basic level of expertise with OSUT or AIT would cost $50,000 to $100,000. To train them for positions in Armor or Cavalry would cost approximately $100,000 to $200,000.

There are a variety of different weapons that can be placed on the SWORDS; M16 rifle, 5.56 mm SAW M249, 7.62 mm M240 machine gun, .50 cal M2 Browning machine gun, a six barrelled 40 mm grenade launcher or quad 66 mm M202 FLASH anti-tank weapon.

SWORDS units have demonstrated the ability to shoot precisely. It is not autonomous, but instead has to be controlled by a soldier using a small console to remotely direct the device and fire its weapons. Foster-Miller are currently at work on a "Game Boy" style controller with virtual-reality goggles for future operators. ...

It seems that they can be used with remotely. And I think a master/slave trick can put more out there as a force without putting actual soldiers at risk. And I suspect that both the Talon and Packbot are busy 'bots. And we don't lose operators when the bot get broken.

I think disinformation against our enemies is under utilized. One has to think that telling wannabe terrorists joining Al qeida will turn you into an ugly woman is pure 'gold.'

[ruaidhri]

So much of the discussion in this thread revolves around America’s current troubles in Iraq. There’s a lot more to the U.S. than what we’re doing in Iraq. We’re really a big country with 50 separate states and thousands of local governing authorities. The majority of our laws are passed, maintained and enforced by those state and local governments, which are not the same in each community.

One thing that’s consistent, however, is that regardless of where we live Americans believe they live in the best country in the world. My questions to OP9 members both outside and inside the U.S. are:

Are we fooling ourselves. How?

Is the U.S. standard of living the highest? Does the U.S. offer the best opportunities for growth? How?

Do we have the best system of government? Is our three equal but separate powers (executive, legislative and judicial) superior to the parliamentary system?

If you could, how would you change the U.S.?

[Chris]

stsparky, That article just helps prove my point. The orders for the drones are out there but they in no way have enough to wage a war with them even now, let alone 3 years ago. Furthermore, they require dedicated personell to maintain and control them. Next, look how they are being used. Most missions are basic reconnaissance missions and we don't even have enough units for that role. Yet you suggest we use them as the bulk of our forces? It just can't happen yet. Maybe in another 10 years when the military can get their hands on enough of them, but right now it just isn't possible. Humans are still the mainstay of the armed forces and will be for some time.




And to do what we're trying to do with Iraq we're gonna have to have humans on the ground. That goes for any ground war. And by ground war I mean every war where you actually want to have an effect on the country. Bombing only pisses most off and hurts production, but will do nothing to change a country.

[stsparky]

Depends on the bombs. Or what you're dropping. I like the idea of dropping pamphlets that tell them to report to the closest 'controlled' township for an antidote to the gender gas attacks. There's no point to bombing Afghanistan or Pakistan into the 'Stone Age' save for the fact Pakistan has nukes.

I think the 'balancing' act between lunatic fundamentalists and moderates that Pervez Musharra tried to manage has failed:

BBC: “The standoff between the Pakistani government and the clerics of the Lal Masjid in Islamabad finally came to a boil on the morning of 8 July 2007 when the official government delegation led by the Shujaat Hussain, declared that the negotiations with the militants holed up in the mosque had failed.

The militants have also held back several hundred students, many of who are young girls using them as human shields. The militants appeared to be well armed.

After the negotiations failed the troops were given the go ahead to storm the complex. Codenamed ‘Operation Silence’ the objective of the operation is to capture or kill the militants if they resist. The additional burden of rescuing all the hostage students being used as a human shield by the militants.

The Lal Masjid issue had put President Musharraf in a tough spot. The battle lines had clearly been drawn and reflected the social strife that plagues Pakistani society today. If one is to be honest this is a fight between secular and fundamental forces in Pakistan. It is a fight between radical extremism and moderation. It is a fight between fundamentalist Pakistan and modern Pakistan. This incident, seemingly localized, reflects the greater struggle that Pakistani society has recently been witnessing. The Lal Masjid issue is only the tip of the iceberg. The entire fate of the Pakistani society hangs in the balance; will Pakistan plunge into the darkness of religious fundamentalism or will the moderate voices prevail?

It is difficult to say who has the upper hand in this social struggle. But for the time being it seems that the moderate forces do have a chance given that the man at the helm is a moderate himself. It was a difficult decision that President Musharraf made when he ordered his troops to storm the Lal Masjid. It was a decision he would rather not have made but was forced to do so. It had become simply unavoidable. What is significant is that President Musharraf who has probably the toughest job in the world in terms of doing a balancing act between placating the hawkish forces within his country and yet maintaining a largely secular outlook, was put on the hot-seat with the Lal Masjid issue. He had to choose and it is heartening to see that he chose to crack down on extremism. However, his decision wasn’t entirely motivated by secular fervor as opposed to cold calculation.

In his endeavor of doing a balancing act President Musharraf has been recently guilty of trampling on the other end of the scale. This was clearly evident with the way he handled the protests against his decision to sack the country’s Chief Justice. The protestors were roughed up and the media was attacked for reporting it. The Lal Masjid incident was a good opportunity for Musharraf to redeem himself. Who could say he isn’t secular? Who could say he isn’t a defender of moderate voices? After all here he is cracking down on hardcore militants holed up in a sacred mosque. What could be more secular than that? Not to mention the brownie points he will get from the Americans for being such a valiant defender of secularism and a staunch enemy of terrorism. If anything the extremist forces in Pakistan have unwittingly helped redeem President Musharraf’s secular image with the Lal Masjid issue.”

Left mostly unsaid is that the total nutjobs at the Red Mosque kidnapped several Chinese women they claimed were prostitutes and killed them. I think 3 separate Chinese laborers were murdered on the 6th. I pray I'm wrong.

----
As to America, I have hopes we all will survive this usurper of power who has made our nation less safe. I hope we can impeach Cheney and Bush to completely discredit the GOP power elites. After all - they gave us this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_scandal) instead of a blow job.

[Ichisan]

If you could, how would you change the U.S.?

Before deciding how to improve the U.S, I'd first have to understand the U.S. but there's so much about it I don't understand. Could one, even if one wanted, change the character of the American people? What guarantee is there that you wouldn't expunge the good along with the bad, erasing generosity and inventiveness along with a tendency to hysteria and over-quick resort to gun violence?

[Trump]

Could you change people? I do not believe that is possible. However, you can affect people's reactions by adjusting the system.

[ruaidhri]

Yes, I do believe you can change people, especially Americans.

The United States of America I know has changed many times over my lifetime. Today the U.S. is vastly different from when I was 14 in 1955 or 21 in 1962 or even 40 in 1981. If it ever stopped changing it would cease to exist.

When I was 14 in 1955, my hometown, Milwaukee, WI had a Socialist Mayor with working men and women belonging to Unions in a city where just about everyone respected picket lines. Communism and the Atomic Bomb were our big fears. Whites and Blacks lived in separate neighborhoods and went to separate schools. Most women didn’t work outside the home and few people had college degrees. Dwight Eisenhower was our President and the USSR our feared enemy.

The 1960’s was the decade of Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, assassinations, civil rights, Vietnam and protests. It was the first decade where the multitude of children born following WWII became teenagers and young adults bringing about a colossal generation gap between the youth and their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

When Kennedy was President we had hope for our country. When Johnson was President we had despair as to where our country was going and when Nixon was President we were angered and saddened as to where we had gone.

The 1970’s were a continuation of the 1960’s with more and more “Baby Boomers” joining the protests and hating their own government. But, the majority of voters reelected Nixon in 1972, making the youth feel particularly powerless. They hated the “Establishment” that controlled everything.

Then, Watergate happened, not the breakin itself but the revelation that it had occurred and that the White House was in some way involved. That really tore up the Country, with many people standing behind Nixon and others gleefully watching events unfold that threatened his very Presidency. First Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned pleading no contest to charges of money laundering and taking bribes when he was Governor of Maryland. Then, Nixon, himself resigned over revelations that he was indeed involved in the Watergate coverup. Americans lost a lot of faith in their government when that happened.

From my perspective Gerald Ford was a breath of fresh air. I have always been a Democrat but I liked the man. At least he did get us out of Vietnam. But, he also pardoned Richard Nixon, which many protested. Personally, I supported the pardon. Although I did not like Nixon I believed America had suffered enough and needed to heal not go through a trial and possible imprisonment of a former President. In 1976, Jimmy Carter challenged Gerald Ford for the Presidency and won, probably because of Ford’s pardoning of Nixon. Because I was a Democrat, I voted for Carter. Today, although I respect Carter, I regret I hadn’t voted for Ford. Sometimes party loyalty is just plain stupid.

The later part of the 1970’s was plagued by inflation, stagflation and the hostage crisis in Iran.

The 1980’s were Ronald Reagan’s. He truly changed America. With Vietnam ended and with more and more baby boomers earning college degrees and landing good jobs, the people were ready for keeping the money in their own pockets. Say goodbye to social welfare and hello to tax cuts for the wealthy with a mere trickle down for the less fortunate. “Liberal” became a dirty word most frequently preceded by “Bleeding Heart”. Now, I may be wrong but I’ve always associated “bleeding heart” with the pictures of Christ. But, I guess there’s nothing wrong with lower taxes so long as you drop your quarter in the Church’s collection plate.

The 1990’s were Clinton’s decade and most everyone remembers the financial boom, the scandal and impeachment of the President and the dissolution of the USSR. Certainly, each one of these changed America and how we viewed, and are viewed by, the world.

Now, here we are in the Aughts. Bush, Jr. is our President and we’re in trouble. We’ve suffered through 9/11 and are between a rock and a hard place in Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve lost considerable respect throughout the world and we’re fucked no matter what we do.

We certainly are not the economically strong, independent country headed by Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950’s.

So, can America change? Yes, of course it can.

[Hatsumomo]

Ruaidhri, your post makes me wonder what I'll say about the America changing from when I was born in 1985 to when I hit my 60th birthday in 2045. I was too young to remember the Berlin Wall falling and the dissolution of the USSR, the majority of the first Bush presidency, the wars in the former Yugoslavia. My personal knowledge of Vietnam only stems from being the daughter of a veteran who died when I was 13, before I thought to ask him questions.

As of right now, I can only comment on how America was pre-Columbine and pre-9/11 and how it changed after those tragic events. I only have secondhand knowledge about schoolkids in the 1960s being told to hide under their desks in case of nuclear bombing from my mother, but I can attest to going from learning fire and tornado drills to "code blues" in case of bomb threats and gunmen in the school. My mom told me where she was when Kennedy and MLK Jr. were assassinated. My generation now has its own "Where were you when...?" I can remember quite clearly that horrifying day home from school in the 11th grade watching the Twin Towers burn and collapse and find out that another attack that day happened less than 30 miles from my house.

Are these the things my peers will be relating to their children?

[Ceirnian]

Ruaidhri, your post makes me wonder what I'll say about the America changing from when I was born in 1985 to when I hit my 60th birthday in 2045.

... I never really thought about that. I'll be 60 in 2045! Hot damn when you posted that it really sunk in for some reason. I'm still so damn young...

Just had to pop in and say that.

[Hatsumomo]

It seems so far away and yet so close at the same time. Given that the past four years of college sped by, 2045 will be here before I'm ready for it.

[Trump]

Oh, I agree the country can change. But have the people really changed? I know the world is different from the way it used to be, so people have different things to think about and react to, but if the same issues were present 60 years ago would people still react the same way?

[Chris]

Oh, I agree the country can change. But have the people really changed? I know the world is different from the way it used to be, so people have different things to think about and react to, but if the same issues were present 60 years ago would people still react the same way?


I'd say while countries, enviroments, and society change, the core values of people and people's ethics haven't changed all that much at all.

[ruaidhri]

I believe people see the world and react in concert with their experiences. As life goes on each of us experiences traumatic events that influence our future reactions to the world and people around us.

Was morality that much different in the 1950's from what it is today? Yes, I believe it is. With the possible exception of fear of the Communists, I believe people in the 1950's were far less militant and far more trusting. Overall, I believe people were more willing to share and be identified with mutual responsibility for society then simply for themselves as seems so evident today. In the Aughts, everything seems to be so geared to gaining position or power. We have refined the art of putting a spin on everything, which makes it difficult to tell what is the truth and what is not. We make snap decisions based on impressions such as price equals value rather than the other way around.

Hatsumomo, yes you have lived through traumatic events that will forever shape your life. Events that didn't occur in the 1950's. How would have the people then reacted to a September 11th. They might have responded with bombs and blown up the world. Columbine? Again, it's hard to say. Certainly, it would have been different from today. Back in the 1950's every kid had a knife in his pocket. They would never have even thought of using it against another person. If a boy had an argument with another boy it usually ended up with a fist fight in the schoolyard. It was no big thing. The teacher would keep both kids after school where they would shake hands and usually become friends. Sounds so innocent compared with today, doesn't it?

I also wonder what the world will be like when you are 60 in 2045 or my age in 2051. It's unlikely that I'll be around.

One day you're young and then, you're not. Inside I still feel the same as I did when I was 25. I can't act the same because people would look at me and say "who's he trying to fool". So, I'm a respectable old fart with two sons both in their 20's (Anders and Redbeard). Although we communicate on many levels we are not the same because it's our past that makes us who we are. I've had a lot more "past" they have in their 20 odd years.

[SoulPlay]

Snip about Robots

What about the Matrix? It could happen!!!:innocent:



My questions to OP9 members both outside and inside the U.S. are:

Are we fooling ourselves. How?

I don't think so. Coming from living in a developing (aka 3rd World Country) for 15 years I can positively tell you that living America is still great! Yeah, the people have made a few mistakes here and there but making mistakes is what makes us humans. To truly learn from those mistakes is what would make us "divine".


Is the U.S. standard of living the highest? Does the U.S. offer the best opportunities for growth? How?


Sadly, no. Although I strongly believe that the US has great opportunities for those who decide to take a hold of them, to my best of knowledge the country with the highest standard of living is Norway, voted numerous consecutive years by the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme).

Norway possesses the second highest GDP per-capita (US$72,306) and third highest PPP per-capita in the world (US$47,800), and has maintained 1st place in the world in the UNDP Human Development Index (HDI) for the fifth consecutive year (2006). Cost of living, however, is about 30% higher in Norway than in the US, and 25% higher than the UK.

The country is richly endowed with natural resources: petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world, partly from petroleum production and the substantial income related to this sector. Norway also has a very low unemployment rate, currently below 2% (June 2007). The hourly productivity levels, as well as average hourly wages in Norway are among the highest in the world. The egalitarian values of the Norwegian society ensures that the wage difference between the lowest paid worker and the CEO of most companies is much smaller than in comparable western economies.

Norway, makes so much money on Oil, it created an "Oil-money Fund". By January 2006, the Fund was at USD 200 billion, representing 70% of GDP in Norway. During the first half of 2007, the pension fund became the largest fund in Europe, totaling about USD 300 billion. Already (April 2007), Norway has the largest capital reserve per capita of any nation. Projections indicate that the Norwegian pension fund is set to become the largest capital fund in the world.

The population is fairly young, with a median age of 38.7 compared to US' even younger 36.6 and Japan's 43.5.

Also, in many other sectors like Labor, adhering to Human Rights, Lack of Corruption, etc. Norway is ranked among the top 10 in the world. It is also rated the most peaceful country in the world.

The reason I put all this information about Norway is not because I'm in love with Norway or because I want to move Norway. I love my country. I put this up here because maybe, it is time to accept that, we are no longer the best country in the world in terms of standards of living and economic power. Maybe we should accept that we reached a peak and that eventually, other countries with similar potential to US could reach that peak and match or even surpass the socioeconomic prowess of the US. China for example has a PPP GDP of 10.17 Trillion International Dollars, which is catching up to US' 13.13 Trillion.



Do we have the best system of government? Is our three equal but separate powers (executive, legislative and judicial) superior to the parliamentary system?


I'm afraid I don't know much about this subject matter so I can't answer this question. From my personal experience, I think the system is great... not without it flaws but great overall.


If you could, how would you change the U.S.?

Right now, I'm at work and i need to get back to it. But I will try to answer this question as soon as possible!

Also, my apologies, I am young and unexperienced in this matter called life, but do try my best.

[stsparky]

I'll be 49 this Sunday. I love my country. I despise the idiots who are ruining it.

[ruaidhri]

SoulPlay, very thoughtful answers. Thank you. I share your love for the U.S. and I do prefer our system of government, even with its faults. I'm anxious to read your suggestions for a better America.

stsparky, I always enjoy your comments and believe I fully understand and most likely share the intent of your last message but the way it was worded it is unclear. Please clarify who exactly are the "idiots" and how they're ruining America.

[Fred]

One thing that’s consistent, however, is that regardless of where we live Americans believe they live in the best country in the world. My questions to OP9 members both outside and inside the U.S. are:

Are we fooling ourselves. How?

I often hear politicians claim the US is the best country in the world. It has always bothered me. There are four reasons.

First, the claim is so non-specific that I don’t know how to analyze it. I wonder in what way people think the US is the best country in the world. For whom is it the best country. A better statement, in my opinion would contain the reasons why the speaker thinks the US is the best country in the world. For example, someone could say something like, “the US is the best country in the world because of its degree of religious freedom, intellectual freedom, and social mobility.” A statement like that invites critical thinking, whether it is about the appropriateness of those three criteria, or the relative presence of those criteria in the US and other countries.

Second, I think it tends to hinder a critical examination of our country and its systems. The implication is that if our country is the best, then we do not need to make any changes. I would rather see people focus their energy on how to make a good system better rather than on arguing whose system is the best. For example, lots of people argue that the US health-care system is the best in the world. Even if it is, there is still room for improvement. I would rather hear someone say something like, “We have the best health care system in the world and here is my plan to make it accessible to more Americans.”

Third, I think it is an arrogant statement, because it treats a judgment as fact. A more accurate statement might be something like, “Of all the countries I have lived in, I like the US the best.”

Fourth, it tends to blur the distinction between country and government. There also tends to be a blurring in the distinction between the US government and the current administration. I lived in Japan for nearly 8 years and from that experience, I have a very clear sense of myself as an American. That identity is not dependant on whether or not I support the current administration.

What would I do to improve the US (if I could)?

1. Remove the influence of “big business” on governmental policy
2. Promote small businesses
3. Revise the incentives in the US Health-Care system (towards maintaining good health and a healthy life-style)
4. Reign in the War-machine.
5. Repair our diplomatic corps
6. Make the Judicial branch of the government non-political (like it was meant to be)
7. Increase spending on educational loans
8. Increase spending on government research grants.
9. lots of other stuff

[Plekto]

It's simple nationalism. Go back in time 75 years or so and you see the same thing in Germany. I pays to be vigilant lest we fall into the same problems.

Btw - this is the longest lasting republic in human history. Now, it won't last forever(so political system has in human history), but it would be nice to see it last at least another generation or two.

Btw, Fred - your list is very close to Libertarian ideology. Just an observation :) (#7 and #8 aren't but are good ideas, IMO, reguardless)

[ruaidhri]

Fred, outstanding. There is nothing you wrote with which I disagree, especially point number 9.

Plekto, although I certainly do not support many of our current federal government's actions, I doubt they compare with those of Nazi Germany during the 1930's. Such a statement on your part demands specific examples before it can even begin to be taken seriously.

[erbiumfiber]

A small point concerning whether the U.S. is the "best country" for "x." We often say that America has the most freedom, etc. and that makes us the best. But what do we mean by "freedom?" Franklin Roosevelt had the four freedoms during WWII and one of them was "freedom from fear." It wasn't until I went to Japan that I truly experienced "freedom from fear." I can walk or ride my bike on any street I want, as late as I want, and never feel afraid. I never feel afraid on the subway or on trains, I never feel afraid in crowds, I never feel afraid of being pickpocketed (although I am careful concerning this last point as it's not unknown in crowded areas of Japan).

I also arrived in mid-2003 and felt "freedom from terrorist attacks" (yes, I know about the sarin gas attacks but I really feel like Osama bin Laden is not planning to strike here next even though Japan was supposedly a target at one stage in the 9/11 planning).

In America, I have no "freedom from fear." I grew up on Long Island. My (adopted) brother's sister was murdered when I was 12. There was plenty of crime in my town. I lived 50 miles outside NYC so we always heard the latest crime ("Son of Sam" etc.).

It's not always the government that causes fear (probably Roosevelt's point). If your fellow citizens cause you fear, you are not truly free.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Comparing the US to Norway, Luxemburg, etc. is absurd.

The US is the third most populous country on earth. More people live in NYC than live in the entirety of Norway.

Over 30% of its population growth each year is fueled by immigration. The US has the fastest growth rate of ANY developed country, and is growing faster than China.

Norway has an immigration rate of 1.74/1,000 population.

The US has an immigration rate of 3.10/1,000 population.

When you consider the fact that children born in the US are American, regardless of the nationalities of their parents, that becomes even more impressive from a diversity-standpoint.

Norway may have a great pension, and great social services, but it is a VERY controlled economy that would collapse under the strain of immigration along the lines of the US. It would collapse in a country the size of the US.

Yet despite these challenges, the US manages to have the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world.

Yes there are problems, yes there is income disparity, yes we aren't a socialist paradise. But the foundations that the US stands on are secure and almost without parallel in the world. That a country built on immigration has survived for over 230 years and assimilated so many people, that is a feat with few possible comparisons.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Norway may be a paradise for the Norwegians, but the US will continue to be paradise for those who weren't lucky enough to be born here.

[Plekto]

My point is that time-wise, we are at about the end of the old Germany and right before the beginning of when the Nazis took over. This next President will decide much about America's future. It's a bad position to be in as a country - spying on the people, ignoring basic rights, state sponsored torture and so on, plus rampant mixing of religious ideology and nationalism whever they can...

All very low-key and slow, though, as most power transitions and takeovers are. Of course, our version of it if this continutes will be more akin to the U.K. during the 1800s - hard-core imperialism and tactics that would make McCarthy happy as a clam. And it would be great for most Americans, at least until it implodes and we drop to third world status in a generation.

Mexico is a good example of this, actually. Pretty much run by one party and they pretty much make the laws as they see fit. All under a veneer of democracy.

[phenyl]

My point is that time-wise, we are at about the end of the old Germany and right before the beginning of when the Nazis took over.

Apparently something akin to the Ermächtigungsgesetz has been passed (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/06/02/white_house_revises_post_disaster_protocol/).
The whole directive can be read here. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)

I don't know what to think about this and would like to know your opinions.
The German page (http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/25/25796/1.html) I found it on, takes a rather dim view...
(Here is the google translat^h^h^hmangled english version (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fr4%2F artikel%2F25%2F25796%2F1.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools).

[Y.T.]

It's nothing like the Enabling Act .. (Ermachtigungesetz)

To actually invoke the emergency powers, a terrorist attack of an inconcievable strength (nuclear bomb- which no group has, or cannot ever get without help of another state ... in which case, it's no longer terrorism but an attack by another country ..) would have to occur.

Which'll never happen... so ..

----------

When you consider the fact that children born in the US are American, regardless of the nationalities of their parents, that becomes even more impressive from a diversity-standpoint.

Anchor babies ?
Aren't people opposed to illegal immigration going to abolish this ? I remember Michelle Malkin writing how it is not right at all to have something like that as law..

[Trump]

My point is that time-wise, we are at about the end of the old Germany and right before the beginning of when the Nazis took over.

So we are in a severe economic depression caused by the after effects of global war and smothering war loans coupled with frustrating international meddlining in domestic affairs all of which leads to a wholeheartedly discouraged population?

Do you even live in this country? What in the world gives you the idea that things are that bad?

[ruaidhri]

PLF, Thank You. You made me stand up and thump my chest. The U.S. is unique! And, considering all factors, including size, population, diversity, immigration, and opportunity, we are a indeed a great country.

Of course, we have problems, serious problems. Erbiumfiber mentioned that fear restricts freedom. She is correct, although, I do believe FDR was referring to freedom of fear from aggressive nations. His "four freedoms" identified the fourth freedom as:

"The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world."

That is the basis for one of my primary objections to the initial invasion of Iraq. We were the aggressor.

But, freedom of fear at the personal level is also critically important. Other freedoms mean little if you're afraid to exercise them. While I feel safe in my own affluent community with its police force always prepared to keep an eye on anyone that doesn't fit the mode, I certainly wouldn't take a nighttime stroll 10 miles due East from my house. The probability that I would be attacked would seriously increase. Yet, although my community is "safe", I still lock my doors at night. We do have some crime but our police blotter is fairly empty outside of people driving through at speeds greater than the posted 25 mph. My son, however lives near the University in an old neighborhood that is several blocks from a very rough neighborhood. He gets up every night to escort his girlfriend into the house when she returns from work. It's just safer that way.

As I wrote earlier, the United States has more than a single government. We are less affected by what the federal government does than how we interact with our individual states and thousands upon thousands of local governing bodies, some better, some worse.

Plekto, you completely lost me. Off the top of my head my response is: What!? Yes, we have problems in the U.S. but I don't believe they are anywhere near the degree you're suggesting. You need to be much more specific. Otherwise, I agree with Trump; we live in two different countries.

I don't have time right now to read all the references quoted by phenyl but will respond later.

[phenyl]

I am reading the discussion with great interest, it is a very nice forum to discuss politics in a polite manner, thank you very much.

I am sure that the issue at hand is less dramatic and more reasonable than a first reading of the german site suggested. The Boston Globe - article is far more balanced on the issue than the German link I provided.

According to both articles, The Thing which is left wide open to (presidential, if I understand correctly) interpretation is the definition of what exactly constitutes a catastrophic emergency.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;
which could mean basically anything, attack, flood, natural catastrophe....

But most probably, this is just a 'writing in stone' of fail-safe measures and protocols where the big part is not available or can not be made available to the public for security reasons.

But I guess, that that the issue could have been communicated better and not just via a cloak-and-dagger-operation of just submitting the directive to whitehouse.gov.

I lived in the US (CA) for two years during my PhD and would repeat that stay in a heartbeat. The research environment was great, I met lots of interesting people and am still in contact with quite a few.
Erbiumfiber mentions an interesting point though, the 'freedom of fear'. I lived in a relatively nice neighborhood and never felt personally threatened. However once the TV was switched to any particular news-channel, one could believe that doomsday would come knocking any day now. Dark-purple state of alert here, child-molesters there, killers on the loose, Natalee Holloway... All blown badly out of proportion in the quest for ratings. I would have preferred 'cute animals with wideangle-lenses'...
(Not that these things don't happen, but a thief on the run from the police in another corner of a country as vast as the US don't warrant a "++important news alert with full color transmission after a message from our sponsors, drink bud" (and neither does the release of a C-list celebrity from jail, but that was quite a bit after my time in CA :-) )

Here in Japan and back home, this 'culture of fear' seems to be much less pronounced. During my studies, I lived in a small city (30000) and was never afraid. If I forgot locking the door at night, so be it.

It's quite late, I am going to sleep.

p.s. to Zakalwe: The words 'nuclear' 'atom' or bomb do not appear in the directive, 'terror' only appears in 'Counterterrorism'.

[SoulPlay]

Comparing the US to Norway, Luxemburg, etc. is absurd.

I could not agree more. The US has done a remarkable job embracing population and economic growth. I was merely putting up Norway as a reference to what country is the best country to live in; a country that, given its resource availability, population size, system of laws, GDP, etc is managed quite remarkably. This is regardless of how big or small it is, or how fast or slow it growth.


If you could, how would you change the U.S.?

Well, what I would like to see the US put more attention on is:

• Making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The Kyoto Protocol, The Geneva Conventions, and many more part of US law. Not doing so is almost an insult to human dignity.

• Tame the war machine, there’s always other means. Send the troops home, they miss their families. Some people might argue, “Well if we set a timeframe, the insurgents are just going to wait and after we are gone, start mass havoc again” I say, First, how do we know that will happen for sure? Also, I think we should a little more faith in the Job we have been doing there. It’s been 4 years, something must have been done. Furthermore, if it turns out that as soon as we step a foot out of the country mayhem breaks, we should accept that it’s not our responsibility anymore and the Iraqi people are sovereign to rule their country. Less spending on war would mean more money for education, health and research.

• Reinforce the border and make it easier for people to legally immigrate to the country. Actually, I’ve always thought it would be a better Idea to try and find a way of keeping citizens in their respective countries than to keep them out of our country… or to find a balance in the two.

• The FDA should ban the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup, and any kind of hydrogenated oil. Unfortunately, because HFCS is artificially created, your body doesn’t know what it is? You touch this stuff and you’re dead. Not only does high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have a tendency to turn into fat, it also inhibits your body’s natural ability to secrete insulin and control glucose levels in your body. What does that mean? Normal sugars, like dextrose, typically turn into glucose so that the body can use it for quick energy. HFCS turns into fat and hinders your body’s ability to regulate other sugars, like glucose (IT TURNS INTO FAT AND INHIBITS YOUR ABILITY TO BURN OTHER FAT). Eat HFCS = get fat and lose energy. And hydrogenated Oils, well, you’ve heard of good fats and bad fats. These are the worst. Basically, you’re body doesn’t know what to do with these, because like HFCS, they are artificially created, so it throws them into the fat pile. Again, these are in most processed foods, so beware. And these are just to name a few!

A lot of effort was put into making things cheaper and faster, but not necessarily better. These things truly inhibit our ability to lead a healthy diet. Also, our lack of proper sleep (AT LEAST 8 hours) kills us because it is at rest that your body recover’s from its daily task. . It’s been proven that people who lead a healthy lifestyle, with a proper diet and a proper sleep routine, are more than likely to be substantially more productive than those who don’t.

• Increase government funding on Education, Health and Research and Development. Better education equals more efficiency, which equals to more productivity. Better health leads to a healthy mind and well-being which makes us more productive. More research on meaningful things, such as alternative fuels and better medicines. I say meaningful because won’t want to have something like former Sen. William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Awards.

• Change our consumption patterns… less fast (junk) food more healthy stuff. Less excess waste of resources; buy a car not an SUV if you live in FLORIDA! Increase the incentives of using environmentally friendly products; not just cars, but light bulbs, appliances, everything!

• And this one is kind of controversial but….raises taxes. I am firm believer that TAX CUTS hurt the government by creating huge budget deficits. Besides, America is one of the countries that are less taxed compared to other developed nations such as Switzerland, Holland, denmark, etc.

This is all I can think for now, but there are many more. If I can remember them I’ll post them.

I'll be 49 this Sunday. I love my country. I despise the idiots who are ruining it.

But you have to think, who’s the bigger “idiot”, those in power or those who put the aforementioned in power?

[SoulPlay]

Nobel Laurate Aung San Suu Kyi wrote this regarding the "freedom from fear",

http://www.uscampaignforburma.org/assk/sakharovessay.html

[Plekto]

So we are in a severe economic depression caused by the after effects of global war and smothering war loans coupled with frustrating international meddling in domestic affairs all of which leads to a wholeheartedly discouraged population?

Do you even live in this country? What in the world gives you the idea that things are that bad?

It's never exactly the same, but those in power are consolidating it slowly and surely. A right here, a pen stroke there... And the last year is especially appalling. Basically Bush is stating that the President functions as a de facto King/Dictator when they see fit. Immune to Congress or the law, able to assume total power in an "emergency", able to lock up anyone without trial on his personal authority(in the best intentions of national security of course)...

At this rate, we'll effectively be transformed into a larger version of most third world nations. A small elite class of rulers and everyone else will be effectively peasants and workers. No real rights, no real power, and no way to stop it anymore. We'll have gone from a republic to an oligarchy without anyone noticing.

If you talk to people who lived through it in Germany, or have, the general public didn't realize that most of this was happening at the time until it was already too late. For Germany it was one small political group of ultra-conservatives. For the U.S., it's another small political group of ultra-conservatives.

[Fred]

I am definitely concerned by Bush’s efforts to consolidate power in the executive branch of the government and his unwillingness to let his office be subject to scrutiny. The three branches of government are supposed to be both separate and equal.

[Y.T.]

The U.S. is unique!

And so is every other country on the fucking globe..
(take Switzerland. It has lived in peace for the last ... 400 years ? Or maybe only 200 .. point is, longer than any other country). My country is unique too... I doubt there is any other country where the premier was so irritated with the mostly ceremonial president, that he had a large counter installed on top of an office building just over the square from the presidential palace, that counted off the remaining hours of the president's term ...
Iceland has the longest democratic tradition in the world .. almost 1000 years back .. China has the longest recorded history ...


I could not agree more. The US has done a remarkable job embracing population and economic growth.


If, only if you did not have your heads stuck up your arses would you realize, that countries like Norway, Luxembourg, or Germany cannot afford to have any more migrants. They are simply too dense. Even with today's intensive agriculture, they can barely achieve self-sufficiency in food. You can't go ten kilometers in any part of Germany without hitting either a road, or a village ..
Population density in those places is 4-6x times that of the US.
Not to mention the amazing untapped natural resources. My country had Europe's largest gold and silver mines ... 500 years ago. We had extensive iron and coal mines, but alas, the iron in them helped build up Austria Hungary in the late 1800's, and it is no longer profitable to mine those resources.

The amazing growth of the US wouldn't even stand up, if you compared it to what happened in Europe in the 19th century. And right now, the US isn't growing at all. I suspect those GDP numbers are fudged. Consider ,that the influence of processor manufacture on the GDP is measured not in market value of those processors, but in their raw power (flops probably) ...
And all that is financed by an ever growing debt. There's a neat graph showing how the amount of GDP rise per debt is going down. Eventually, the debt'll keep piling up, and the GDP'll go down, but then most Americans'll be busy shovelling wads of old trillion dollar bills into makeshift furnaces to notice. At best. the US economy grows as much as the EU, that is a little, or maybe a tiny bit more. We'll know in due time, I suppose.


But you are right .. the US is more unique than any other country. The absurd gun laws, for example ('gun free zones on universities - how did that help Virginia Tech, eh ? Here, no one gives a damn whether you bring a gun to a (university) classroom, as long as you don't threaten anyone with it. They treat us as adults.. ) ,or that you can own automatic weapons, but not manufacture any more for civilians? WTF ? This drives prices through the roof. Here, with the necessary paperwork and a permit, I can waltz into a gun shop and buy a sparkling new MG-3 machinegun for 800$, or a shiny new Scorpion for 1500$ ).

Or the fact that if the US continues to get fatter at today's pace, in 2015, 75% of Americans 'll be overweight, and 41% greasily obese ... now that's *unique* ..



PS to phenyl

23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

Maybe it's mentioned there. Or it isn't. It doesn't matter, act of nuclear terrorism would clearly be a 'Catastrophic Emergency' that would necessitate the executive awarding itself broad emergency (legislative and other ) powers, especially, if someone realized the dreams of a billion people around the globe and nuked Washington DC.


And this one is kind of controversial but….raises taxes. I am firm believer that TAX CUTS hurt the government by creating huge budget deficits. Besides, America is one of the countries that are less taxed compared to other
developed nations such as Switzerland, Holland, denmark, etc.

I wouldn't be sure about the Swiss .. they don't have a welfare state, but the other state you named are all welfare states. Which are trying to look impossible to maintain without a growing workforce, which can't grow because there's really not much space left.

There's even a picture to illustrate this surprising concept that everything is unique.. see attachment ->

[SoulPlay]

What happened to rest of my quote? Mainly, "I was merely putting up Norway as a reference to what country is the best country to live in; a country that, given its resource availability, population size, system of laws, GDP, etc is managed quite remarkably. This is regardless of how big or small it is, or how fast or slow it growth."

lol.

This is where i get my facts about taxes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg

[manrush]

And so is every other country on the fucking globe..
(take Switzerland. It has lived in peace for the last ... 400 years ? Or maybe only 200 .. point is, longer than any other country). My country is unique too... I doubt there is any other country where the premier was so irritated with the mostly ceremonial president, that he had a large counter installed on top of an office building just over the square from the presidential palace, that counted off the remaining hours of the president's term ...
Iceland has the longest democratic tradition in the world .. almost 1000 years back .. China has the longest recorded history ...



If, only if you did not have your heads stuck up your arses would you realize, that countries like Norway, Luxembourg, or Germany cannot afford to have any more migrants. They are simply too dense. Even with today's intensive agriculture, they can barely achieve self-sufficiency in food. You can't go ten kilometers in any part of Germany without hitting either a road, or a village ..
Population density in those places is 4-6x times that of the US.
Not to mention the amazing untapped natural resources. My country had Europe's largest gold and silver mines ... 500 years ago. We had extensive iron and coal mines, but alas, the iron in them helped build up Austria Hungary in the late 1800's, and it is no longer profitable to mine those resources.

The amazing growth of the US wouldn't even stand up, if you compared it to what happened in Europe in the 19th century. And right now, the US isn't growing at all. I suspect those GDP numbers are fudged. Consider ,that the influence of processor manufacture on the GDP is measured not in market value of those processors, but in their raw power (flops probably) ...
And all that is financed by an ever growing debt. There's a neat graph showing how the amount of GDP rise per debt is going down. Eventually, the debt'll keep piling up, and the GDP'll go down, but then most Americans'll be busy shovelling wads of old trillion dollar bills into makeshift furnaces to notice. At best. the US economy grows as much as the EU, that is a little, or maybe a tiny bit more. We'll know in due time, I suppose.


But you are right .. the US is more unique than any other country. The absurd gun laws, for example ('gun free zones on universities - how did that help Virginia Tech, eh ? Here, no one gives a damn whether you bring a gun to a (university) classroom, as long as you don't threaten anyone with it. They treat us as adults.. ) ,or that you can own automatic weapons, but not manufacture any more for civilians? WTF ? This drives prices through the roof. Here, with the necessary paperwork and a permit, I can waltz into a gun shop and buy a sparkling new MG-3 machinegun for 800$, or a shiny new Scorpion for 1500$ ).

Or the fact that if the US continues to get fatter at today's pace, in 2015, 75% of Americans 'll be overweight, and 41% greasily obese ... now that's *unique* ..



PS to phenyl

Maybe it's mentioned there. Or it isn't. It doesn't matter, act of nuclear terrorism would clearly be a 'Catastrophic Emergency' that would necessitate the executive awarding itself broad emergency (legislative and other ) powers, especially, if someone realized the dreams of a billion people around the globe and nuked Washington DC.


I wouldn't be sure about the Swiss .. they don't have a welfare state, but the other state you named are all welfare states. Which are trying to look impossible to maintain without a growing workforce, which can't grow because there's really not much space left.

There's even a picture to illustrate this surprising concept that everything is unique.. see attachment ->


Are you Czech, Slovak, or Italian?

Nice mention of the war-profiteers.

[stsparky]

... But you have to think, who’s the bigger “idiot”, those in power or those who put the aforementioned in power?
I call him usurper. We've the USCCR (http://www.usccr.gov/) that revealed how the people behind the this Junta first stole power in 2000 in the chaos that Florida became. They don't care who knows. It was blatant. And they continue to use the 'dirty tricks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_election#Florida)' -:
"... Greg Palast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast) has claimed to have uncovered evidence that Florida Governor Jeb Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush), Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris), and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, along with the ChoicePoint corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChoicePoint), rigged the ballots during the US Presidential Election of 2000 and again in 2004 when, he argued, the problems and machinations from 2000 continued, and that challenger John Kerry actually would have won if not for disproportional "spoilage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_ir regularities)" of Democratic votes. ..."
2004 saw Diebold Election Tabulation machines tampered everywhere - but especially in Ohio. I see the mean chimp-faced moron in the White House as an oblvious tool for the those who pull his strings. America will survive him, and with luck, we've have blocked the 'Forces of Evil' from fooling the gullible next time.

Today I am hoping we will see an Edwards/Clinton ticket with Obama as Secretary of State.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I could not agree more. The US has done a remarkable job embracing population and economic growth. I was merely putting up Norway as a reference to what country is the best country to live in; a country that, given its resource availability, population size, system of laws, GDP, etc is managed quite remarkably. This is regardless of how big or small it is, or how fast or slow it growth.
But it DOES have to do with how big or small it is, and how fast or slow it grows. The smaller a country is and the slower it grows, the more unified the people feel (as a general rule). Large population growth is generally only caused by immigration (in first-world countries), and a large influx of immigrants WILL change the country.

Listen to the Japanese rant about the Zainichi Koreans, or the Brits rant about the Pakis, or even people from the US talking about Germans/Irish/Italians (and now Mexicans).

The more stability there is, the easier it is to continue with the status quo.

Well, what I would like to see the US put more attention on is:

• Making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, The Kyoto Protocol, The Geneva Conventions, and many more part of US law. Not doing so is almost an insult to human dignity.
No, it's an insult to national sovereignity. International law is one of the worst concepts to come out of the 20th century in my opinion. Trying to establish a law for the entire world removes the power from the people to decide what they want/don't want. The right to choose should be paramount.

Yes, Genocide and global warming are bad, but for fuck's sake, we already know these are bad, and signing a paper saying that they're bad creating commitments that won't help/may have negative effects is batshit crazy.

• Tame the war machine, there’s always other means. Send the troops home, they miss their families. Some people might argue, “Well if we set a timeframe, the insurgents are just going to wait and after we are gone, start mass havoc again” I say, First, how do we know that will happen for sure? Also, I think we should a little more faith in the Job we have been doing there. It’s been 4 years, something must have been done. Furthermore, if it turns out that as soon as we step a foot out of the country mayhem breaks, we should accept that it’s not our responsibility anymore and the Iraqi people are sovereign to rule their country. Less spending on war would mean more money for education, health and research.
I had [once] persuaded myself that a nation distant as we are from the contentions of Europe, avoiding all offences to other powers and not over-hasty in resenting offence from them, doing justice to all, faithfully fulfilling the duties of neutrality, performing all offices of amity and administering to their interests by the benefits of our commerce--that such a nation, I say, might expect to live in peace and consider itself merely as a member of the great family of mankind; that in such case it might devote itself to whatever it could best produce, secure of a peaceable exchange of surplus for what could be more advantageously furnished by others, as takes place between one country and another of France. But experience has shown that continued peace depends not merely on our own justice and prudence but on that of others also; that when forced into war, the interception of exchanges which must be made across a wide ocean becomes a powerful weapon in the hands of an enemy domineering over that element, and to the distresses of war adds the want of all those necessaries for which we have permitted ourselves to be dependent on others, even arms and clothing. This fact, therefore, solves the question by reducing it to its ultimate form, whether profit or preservation is the first interest of a State? We are consequently become manufacturers to a degree incredible to those who do not see it and who only consider the short period of time during which we [had] been driven to them by the suicidal policy of England.
--Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815. ME 14:258

• Reinforce the border and make it easier for people to legally immigrate to the country. Actually, I’ve always thought it would be a better Idea to try and find a way of keeping citizens in their respective countries than to keep them out of our country… or to find a balance in the two.
Agreed. Punish businesses which hire illegal immigrants, rather than the illegal immigrants themselves, and quickly we will cease having a problem with illegal immigrants. They come because there's work, there's work because they are cheap to hire, and they remain hired because there's no consequence to the business if they're caught.

But increase legal immigration and make it easier.

• The FDA should ban the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup, and any kind of hydrogenated oil. Unfortunately, because HFCS is artificially created, your body doesn’t know what it is? You touch this stuff and you’re dead. Not only does high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have a tendency to turn into fat, it also inhibits your body’s natural ability to secrete insulin and control glucose levels in your body. What does that mean? Normal sugars, like dextrose, typically turn into glucose so that the body can use it for quick energy. HFCS turns into fat and hinders your body’s ability to regulate other sugars, like glucose (IT TURNS INTO FAT AND INHIBITS YOUR ABILITY TO BURN OTHER FAT). Eat HFCS = get fat and lose energy. And hydrogenated Oils, well, you’ve heard of good fats and bad fats. These are the worst. Basically, you’re body doesn’t know what to do with these, because like HFCS, they are artificially created, so it throws them into the fat pile. Again, these are in most processed foods, so beware. And these are just to name a few!
Don't like it? Don't eat it!

Remember when McDonalds was using those horrid styrofoam containers for their food? What did we do? Did we ban the styrofoam? No! People complained, and McDonalds changed what they used to respond to customer demand.

There are already many many MANY food products in the US that are 'zero grams of trans-fat' and whatnot. Places like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, and similar places offer a wide variety of 'natural' food products with 'natural' fats and 'natural' sugars.

Requiring us all to give up Oreos because some people can't control how many they eat makes me very sad.

It's like international law -- punishing the whole for the mistakes of a few. Silly.

A lot of effort was put into making things cheaper and faster, but not necessarily better. These things truly inhibit our ability to lead a healthy diet. Also, our lack of proper sleep (AT LEAST 8 hours) kills us because it is at rest that your body recover’s from its daily task. . It’s been proven that people who lead a healthy lifestyle, with a proper diet and a proper sleep routine, are more than likely to be substantially more productive than those who don’t.
So we should regulate sleep as well? Awesome. America's sounding fun.

• Increase government funding on Education, Health and Research and Development. Better education equals more efficiency, which equals to more productivity. Better health leads to a healthy mind and well-being which makes us more productive. More research on meaningful things, such as alternative fuels and better medicines. I say meaningful because won’t want to have something like former Sen. William Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Awards.
No, no, NO! We have tossed more and more money at the schools forever. They haven't improved. The source of education that's failing is the parents. The more money we pay for schools, the more we believe it's the responsibility of the schools to educate. And the more that happens, the less responsible the parents feel, and the more fuckups who disrupt the classroom we get.

More money does NOT solve health either. It just exaggerates the inefficiencies. Create a solid system or reform the one we have. You want to have a second person help you bail out your boat as it's sinking, rather than to plug the hole and continue bailing it out yourself. One approach will be successful.

• Change our consumption patterns… less fast (junk) food more healthy stuff. Less excess waste of resources; buy a car not an SUV if you live in FLORIDA! Increase the incentives of using environmentally friendly products; not just cars, but light bulbs, appliances, everything!
That's OUR responsibility -- not the government's. Do you have any idea what it was that the US was created for? Do you believe that it was created to micro-manage our lives for us?

• And this one is kind of controversial but….raises taxes. I am firm believer that TAX CUTS hurt the government by creating huge budget deficits. Besides, America is one of the countries that are less taxed compared to other developed nations such as Switzerland, Holland, denmark, etc.
More taxes = More spending

Tax cuts don't hurt the government. Spending drastically more than you earn does. The current Bush has increased spending while reducing revenues, and that's a problem. Clinton on the other hand increased revenues and increased spending.

People seem to think that was splendid, ignoring the fact that spending was STILL overboard. This is like the boat with the hole in it all over again.

The problem with the US deficit is that spending is way overboard. We waste money on pork-barrel projects and things that simply aren't necessary. And it's crap.

[Plekto]

And when the world switches to the Euro and our hold on the world's monetary markets, the G(forget how many there are now.. 11?), and so on all evaporates, our deficit will come rolling in. Expect the dollar to be worth 1/2 of what it is NOW in ten years.

We need to become fiscal scrooges and penny-pinchers in order to survive it. Our leaders included.


My country is unique too... I doubt there is any other country where the premier was so irritated with the mostly ceremonial president, that he had a large counter installed on top of an office building just over the square from the presidential palace, that counted off the remaining hours of the president's term ...

Now, that's just brilliant. :)

The Democrats need to do this as well. A nice big clock on top of the nearest building that they control or can buy a sign in front of on Pennsylvania Avenue. "Hours left until Bush leaves office"

[manrush]

Every country is unique in its imperfections.

Norway: whaling, idiotic ethnocentric policy from the late 19th to the mid 20th centuries, oppression of the Saami and Kven cultured due to said idiotic ethnocentric policy, Vidkun Quisling, high taxes, even with oil money, good ol' Johan talking with Hamas, the Socialist Left's boycott of Israel, a batshit insane princess (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1901846.ece), Oslo being the heroin capital of Europe (if not the world), Jens and Gro being fucking hypocrites.

Switzerland: Nazi gold, anyone? crooked banks, selfish isolationist neutrality, don't like foreigners.

Austria: Jorg Haider, hate Turks.

Iceland: Whaling.

Germany: Two world wars, shit porn.

Unites States: crooked politics, the Bush Administration, Iraq, torture, wiretapping, belief that global warming is a myth, won't sign a lot of international treaties, PATRIOT Act, Tom DeLay, Christianist hypocrites who get busted for sending dirty messages to pages, Christianist hypocrites who get busted for taking meth and fucking gay male hookers, Christianist hypocrites who get busted for fucking straight female hookers, rightwing nutjobs, leftwing nutjobs, Bill O'Liar, The Limbaugh twins, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Robert Spencer, high healthcare costs, Sean Hannitytitty, Michael Moore, the list just goes on and on.

Australia: shitty policy towards the Aboriginies, Howard being a nationalist toolbag, the historical "White Australia" policy, Pauline Hanson (who was a nationalist, xenophobic toolbag long before it was trendy to be a nationalist, xenophobic toolbag), the government blowing Bush like crazy

Canada: seal-clubbing, Alberta wingnuts, Teflon Jean not getting his just desserts, the Libs being ultra-corrupt, the Tories being ultra-fascistic, Stephen Harper

Denmark: I want a Dane to explain to me how in the fuck an anti-Islam and anti-immigrant party became the third most popular party in the country. And what's with the harsh immigration laws?

Britain: the most surveilled democracy in the world, no official constitution and no bill/charter of rights, media censorship during the Troubles.

[SoulPlay]

PLF-sama, I'll agree that you are right. The government should not tell us what to eat, buy or how to sleep at night or enforce anything on us for that matter. I was merely asking the OP's question, "What would you change about the US?"

In my view, if we educated ourselves on leading healthier, more productive lives, it would be better for all us. This, however, does not need to be shoved down our throats of course. It is indeed OUR responsibility.

I do however still think that whats happening in Guantanamo Bay and several other prisoner of war detainment facilities is horrible. Wouldn't these conventions help those people being punished without right to a trial?

I have one question though, about taxes. What do you think should be done about Taxes and spending?

[Chris]

Every country is unique in its imperfections.

Norway: whaling, idiotic ethnocentric policy from the late 19th to the mid 20th centuries, oppression of the Saami and Kven cultured due to said idiotic ethnocentric policy, Vidkun Quisling, high taxes, even with oil money, good ol' Johan talking with Hamas, the Socialist Left's boycott of Israel, a batshit insane princess (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1901846.ece), Oslo being the heroin capital of Europe (if not the world).

Switzerland: Nazi gold, anyone? crooked banks, selfish isolationist neutrality, don't like foreigners.

Austria: Jorg Haider, hate Turks.

Iceland: Whaling.

Germany: Two world wars, shit porn.

Unites States: crooked politics, the Bush Administration, Iraq, torture, wiretapping, belief that global warming is a myth, won't sign a lot of international treaties.

Australia: shitty policy towards the Aboriginies, Howard being a nationalist toolbag, the historical "White Australia" policy

Canada: seal-clubbing, Alberta wingnuts, Teflon Jean not getting his just desserts, the Libs being ultra-corrupt, the Tories being ultra-fascistic.


The stuff you mentioned in the US column with the exception of Bush, Iraq and global warming were stuff that almost every other country in that last has participated in some form of. Doesn't mean it's in any way right, but we aren't the first, we certainly won't be the last.



-edit- I think japan also holds the record for 'shit porn', though Germany's is pretty bad sometimes.

[Jetsetlemming]

WTF is wrong with whaling? :P

[japanat]

And when the world switches to the Euro and our hold on the world's monetary markets, the G(forget how many there are now.. 11?)G-11? Do you even read the newspaper, or just make this up as you go along? It's the G-8...

[Trump]

Why do people bring up insignificant statistics like the GDP insignificant details like why they think it is fudged? Who cares? Do people have jobs homes and food? Is the quality of life in the country improving? THOSE are the important questions, not whether some made up number is changing. Sometimes this conversation is frustrating because people get so tied up in arguing over little stupid details instead of what is important.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Why do people bring up insignificant statistics like the GDP insignificant details like why they think it is fudged? Who cares? Do people have jobs homes and food? Is the quality of life in the country improving? THOSE are the important questions, not whether some made up number is changing. Sometimes this conversation is frustrating because people get so tied up in arguing over little stupid details instead of what is important.
So if we closed the borders and gave everyone homes, that would make America better? BULLSHIT. Allowing people who have a crappy home to have a higher standard of living is worth more than giving someone who's working out of a car a home.

[Y.T.]

Originally Posted by Trump
Why do people bring up insignificant statistics like the GDP insignificant details like why they think it is fudged? Who cares? Do people have jobs homes and food? Is the quality of life in the country improving? THOSE are the important questions, not whether some made up number is changing. Sometimes this conversation is frustrating because people get so tied up in arguing over little stupid details instead of what is important.


I hear that people in the US are getting deeper and deeper into debt..
That they work longer and longer hours ..
That their health is getting worse..(being over-weight is not generally associated with being healthy ...)
That the schools are getting worse..
And those that aren't getting worse..
are getting expensive... (Why is it that my country can afford to fund state universities, while we pay roughly 39.6% of our incomes to the state, and US with 32% cannot? Moreover, the US is much richer, so it should have more money for things such as schools. Anyway, young people here have enough debts - mortgage for a house or a flat is quite enough. I can't understand why anyone would bother with a degree in the US.... for example, you don't need a CS degree to be a software developer ..just a quick mind , dogged persistence and an iron ass. I know a senior one without a degree.... heh, he pays about as much in taxes as most people earn ..)

What USE would someone have from say .. an English degree escapes me...
It's more of a hindrance, if it goes with a student debt.

(besides, people have jobs and homes nearly everywhere, except places like Zimbabwe. But it's a bit different being a junior software developer in Brno (I live in a one room apartment, work 8 hours a day, earn ~ 12000$ a year and spend roughly 3000$), being a textile worker in China (maybe they earn 2000$, work 12-14 hours a day, 6 days a week, and they don't have 5 weeks off every year)

So, things like GDP, and even details like labour laws and enviromental regulations... are important. The air in China is so thick you can see it...
Visibility in cities is ~ 150 m. I know this, because I've talked to people who went there....

And guess how things'll shape up once the oil shocks start coming. Even the most robust economy'll be badly shaken by a 180$ (current $) a barrel..

See you down the road.

I remember Ruiadhri writing about how he hoped the Iraq situation'll shape up... just a few days he posted about how the US is fucked, no matter what it does by that uneccessary war.

This thread is pretty long, and I wonder what it'll be about by page 50..

[manrush]

I should have known that you were Czech. Though you did give subtle clues, what with the stuff about the president fightinhg the prime minister, and your location being the "godless lands." But you gave it away when you mentioned Brno :P

Back on topic: I wonder why people in this country grow all paranoid about a terrorist attack of any calibre, when they are more likely to die (individually, of course) by being shot/stabbed by a batshit insane friend/relative/co-worker.

[SoulPlay]

To better illustrate my point of the needs to healthy diet....peter griffin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJN-lYHkSfc

[SoulPlay]

I should have known that you were Czech. Though you did give subtle clues, what with the stuff about the president fightinhg the prime minister, and your location being the "godless lands." But you gave it away when you mentioned Brno :P

Back on topic: I wonder why people in this country grow all paranoid about a terrorist attack of any calibre, when they are more likely to die (individually, of course) by being shot/stabbed by a batshit insane friend/relative/co-worker.

Because terrorism is a threat to national security, not individual security!
George Bush said it right the first time, why won't you listen!!:watson:

[manrush]

Because terrorism is a threat to national security, not individual security!
George Bush said it right the first time, why won't you listen!!:watson:

Oh noez :eyepop: Whatever do I do? Bush was right all along. :duh: How could I have been so stupid as to think for myself instead of listening to our dear leader.

(to everyone: you know I'm being sarcastic, right?)

[SoulPlay]

dear leader = kim jeung il

oh no you didn't!

for reference...

By the time of the Sixth Party Congress in October 1980, Kim Jong-il's control of the Party operation was complete. At this time Kim assumed the title "Dear Leader" (친애하는 지도자, ch'inaehanŭn chidoja), the government began building a personality cult around him patterned after that of his father, the "Great Leader".

[Angelyne]

I hear that people in the US are getting deeper and deeper into debt..
That they work longer and longer hours ..
That their health is getting worse..(being over-weight is not generally associated with being healthy ...)
That the schools are getting worse..
And those that aren't getting worse..
are getting expensive... (Why is it that my country can afford to fund state universities, while we pay roughly 39.6% of our incomes to the state, and US with 32% cannot? Moreover, the US is much richer, so it should have more money for things such as schools. Anyway, young people here have enough debts - mortgage for a house or a flat is quite enough. I can't understand why anyone would bother with a degree in the US.... for example, you don't need a CS degree to be a software developer ..just a quick mind , dogged persistence and an iron ass. I know a senior one without a degree.... heh, he pays about as much in taxes as most people earn ..)

Sadly, most jobs that pay a decent salary these days require a Bachelor's. This is why so many people are enrolling in college despite not having the money or not being mentally prepared. Since you mentioned CS, experience alone will get you somewhere in the field, but having BA is more lucrative in the long term. The person with the BA will be promoted through the ranks faster than the person without one.

And many Americans are upset over the outrageous tuitions. However, just as socialized medicine wouldn't work in this country, neither would funding a college education for everyone. Throwing money at the problem won't make it go away (and we should know, as our K-12 public school system is full of problems despite the tons of money we dump into it).



What USE would someone have from say .. an English degree escapes me...
It's more of a hindrance, if it goes with a student debt.

Above all, money isn't everything. If you have a serious interest in English and have a talent for it, then why make yourself miserable going into a different major/career that you aren't passionate about? Personally, I dropped my finance degree about a semester away from graduation and took up another major that will never make as much money (FYI, it wasn't English). And it was one of the best decisions I've ever made--I'd rather have a career that I enjoy than a career that makes me rich and miserable.

Furthermore, many jobs only require a BA. Doesn't matter what the BA is in, it only matters that you have the diploma. And if you go into graduate school, your Master's becomes far more important than your undergraduate degree.

[manrush]

You know what, the Department of Homeland Security is actually doing a good job protecting the country from threats. It's not like they would let a known paedophile work in their department without screening him first. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/06/MNGKMI47P01.DTL) This man had a history of downloading porn on workplace computers, but I'm sure the DHS noticed that and took appropriate action.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/06/AR2006040601876.html)
And the department in charge of making war upon other countries is 100% morally clean (http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/40341-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS), so we can trust them.

[ruaidhri]

Wow! There have been 26 entries since I last posted in this thread. Great!

Phenyl, yes, I also enjoy civil conversation even with people with whom I disagree. I’ve often found opposing arguments important to forming my own positions. Sometimes, picking a side and sticking with it through think or thin is not a virtue. Unlike many of our leaders on both sides of the aisle, I often question my own beliefs. I don’t believe changing one’s position is necessarily a sign of weakness.

I agree there is cause for concern regarding the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. Basically, like so much in the world today, we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. We need a plan that takes into account today’s threats. But, especially with Bush Jr. as our President and Cheney as our Vice President, I do believe we need to be alert, whatever good that would do.

I’m interested in what you studied for your PhD. That’s an amazing accomplishment! My son will graduate with his in Materials Engineering this coming December, provided, of course, that his research goes as planned.

You need so much more education to move up in the world today. It wasn’t always that way. When my parents were young all you needed was an Eighth Grade Diploma (Yes, they used to give diplomas for completing Eighth Grade). When I was young, High School was all you really needed. Oh, college was coming in as more and more important if you wanted to move into upper management, but High School was all that was necessary for a good job. And, following WWII, there were plenty of good jobs. If you had a Bachelor Degree you were almost assured of a well paying position is senior management.

My father was a Registered Pharmacist. He was born in 1898 and completed his Freshman year in High School before he quit school to help support the family following his Father’s death. He apprenticed with a Pharmacist and took the State Board Exams for Pharmacy, the same test those that went to college had to take. He passed with the third highest score in the state. My father held his license for over 50 years and worked as a Pharmacist into his 80’s. Today, he’d be nothing more than a High School dropout with no future. There is no alternative to college.

Following my discharge from the Military in 1966, I went back to school but didn’t complete college. I quit school in 1967 when I was 26 because I wanted to make some money have fun. So, I entered the work force in a clerical position. Over my many years (36) with the company I steadily moved up the ladder until, when I retired, I held a solidly middle management position that required a Masters Degree, although I didn’t even have a Bachelors. Oh, I did take a lot of college courses specific to my needs but what I neglected was the core courses necessary for the degree. Outside of computer certifications, I don’t believe that would work today. Even computer certifications cost money not available to everyone. Also, not everyone has the skills necessary to succeed, And, as more and more of those that do enter the field, the pay will drop.

The sad part is that while higher education has become more and more important the opportunity for all to receive that education has dwindled. A High School Diploma won’t get you much. Most of the jobs at my own company were “upgraded” to require a Diploma. They weren’t any more difficult or responsible, just more exclusive.

Everyone wants the “good life”. If allowed to work for it, I believe most people would put forth their best effort. Denied that opportunity and you create the scenario for frustration, jealousy and anger. Throw in the multitude of weapons so readily available in America and you have crime. Add drugs into the mix with its billions of dollars in income and you have organized crime that puts the Mafia of the early 20th Century to shame. Meanwhile, those addicted will commit any crime to have their “fix”.

Soul Play, great post! I especially related to your comments on High Fructose Corn Syrup. I am a Weight Watcher having lost 90 pounds through the program. I also believe HFCS adds fat to our bodies. Now, on the question as to whether or not the government should ban its use I add my vote to Yes it should. That would, of course, increase the use of cane sugar which would jump in price and add quite a bit to the cost for a bottle of soda or the myriad of other products that now include HFCS. A recent check at our local supermarket revealed that 7 our of 10 of the packaged products we checked included HFCS. No wonder excess weight is such a problem.

Interfector, no need for hostility. Of course every country and every person is unique. I hope you’re not always so easily enraged. It’s not necessary to insult in order to debate. Actually, that takes away from your argument. Unique also means that a lot of bad goes along with the good. Just as there have been exploiters in Europe and throughout the world, so have there been people in the U.S. that have grown rich off the labors of the poor. American always prided itself on being the melting pot of the world because we didn’t have an indigenous population of white or dark skinned people. We stole the land from the American Indians and created a population where, following a few generations, just about everybody is a mix of this or that. Personally, my ancestry is Irish, German, and English.

I try very hard to be an optimist. Sometimes, that’s impossible. With Iraq, I can’t see a good exit. The results, I believe, would be bad no matter what we do. The mistake was going in and staying, staying and staying.

I’m tired of writing now so I'll add more later.

[Trump]

PLF, you must have been having an off day because that was one of the worst posts I've ever seen you make. Somehow you took what I said, wrapped it around completely backwards and threw in some cuss words. What the hell? I said nothing about closing borders. All I said was that the GDP is, for the most part, a meaningless number. It does not reflect on standard of living, it does not reflect on quality of life, it does not reflect on, well, anything. All it says it that somewhere, somehow, in this country people are making money. We have no idea if one person is making all the money or if it is evenly divided between the people. Regardless of the situation, there are so many more meaningful statistics out there it makes me wonder why anyone below the level of the president cares about the number.

Oh, and if you want to pretend that housing does not impact the quality of life, you can keep living in whatever drug induced dreamworld you were in when you wrote that post.

Interfector, thank you for bringing many of the other statistics that make more sense to discuss. I say the GDP is not important because it has no details. Things like labor laws, air quality, cost and availability of education, and average income are the things I DO want to discuss, not the stupid GDP.

[Pierrot le Fou]

You seem to have missed my (admittedly poorly expressed) point.

The US lets lots of under-educated poor people live here. Those people drag down your mystic 'standard of living.' Were we to pull a Scandinavia and only allow a small amount of highly educated/skilled immigrants into the country, we too could announce a higher average standard of living.

What that ignores is that we are only providing a higher standard of living for the people here now if we do that. By allowing for immigration, we see the standard of living suffer (no socialized healthcare, fewer social programs, blah blah blah) in figures, but the reality is that the people coming into the US are actually seeing an increase in their standard of living.

Country A: 10 people, $100 = $10 per person
Country B: 10 people, $100 = $8 per person, +$1 to an additional 20 people

Country A: $10 median/average standard of living! Awesome!
Country B: $1 median standard of living, boo. $3.33 average standard of living.

If those extra 20 people were making $0.10 before, then they just increased their quality of living 10-fold. Yet the statistics on country B don't reflect that.

This isn't a zero-sum game. There is no way to make everyone happy. People who regard Scandanavia as a paradise with a tremendous quality of living ignore the fact that it is quite restrictive in regards to who can enjoy that quality of living. If you actually factored in the increase in standards of living for immigrants to the US, you'd get a VERY different picture.

[Trump]

I do agree with you that standard of living was probably a bad example and you bring up good points. Perhaps you should take it a step farther though. Don't just stop with those 20 people who went from $0.10 to $1, also take into account how the standard of living for everyone else who stayed in the country changed. It is just terribly hard to generalize into numbers like this, and that was my original point. Sure, the GDP or average income provide useful information to someone, but for the most part people don't care. Needs before wants, people are usually concerned more with food, housing, education, and health care before things like entertainment. So while some people may make less money, if they have those needs taken care of they might consider themselves to have a higher standard of living. So all I ask is we avoid the overall and general facts (and arguments about those) in favor of the more specific and meaningful discussions.

[ruaidhri]

PLF, In many ways our opinions are not that different. However, you are much more of a Libertarian. I believe government regulation is necessary to keep people and business honest and truly working in the best interest of society.

Your arguments are normally well thought out and logical, even where I disagree. One place where I do strongly disagree is that I believe government has not only a right but an obligation to regulate actions by individuals and businesses that harm the health of its citizens. That is precisely what I believe is the danger with High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

I agree with Soul Play, the U.S. should “ban the use of High Fructose Corn Syrup ” in foods and beverages. Excess weight is a health problem. It robs a person’s self-esteem while shortening their life. Certainly, I believe a person has responsibility for themselves and what and how much they stuff into their mouths. I know what it is like to be overweight. I’ve dropped 90 pounds over the past couple of years through Weight Watchers, with whom, I’m now employed as a meeting leader. Yet, while I do believe in personal responsibility, I am also aware of how industry has not concentrated on producing healthy foods that don’t increase an individuals chances of becoming obese.

Years ago the primary sweetener used in products was from sugar cane. The price of sugar cane went up while a new, far sweeter, and far less costly alternative (HFCS) became available. When Coke changed its recipe they introduced HFCS into their new Coke. When they brought back the “original recipe” they kept the HFCS. Today, as far as I know, all Soda Pop is made with HFCS. During a recent visit to a supermarket my wife and I viewed the ingredients on various packaged products down each aisle. We found that 7 out of 10 contained HFCS, not regular sugar. Some of the more expensive brands did have sugar, but even a higher price was no guarantee. Bottom line, it costs less for HFCS and less cost equals lower prices and greater profit, which one would believe is a win-win situation if it were not for HFCS’s health risks.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is not upfront like the styrofoam containers McDonalds used to use. The containers were easy to see. It was easy to go to a different restaurant. When McDonalds realized that the containers were hurting their sales they replaced them. But, how many people do you know that actually check the ingredients on everything they put into their mouths? How many are aware of the dangers of HFCS? And, even if they are aware, how many would search for alternative products that don’t contain HFCS? If they actually found an alternative, how many would pay the added cost for a quality product? Meanwhile, America gets fatter and fatter and health costs rise as type 2 Diabetes soars even among young people.

There’s a lot of talk about Universal Health Care and how much it would cost. I believe banning HFCS in packaged products would reduce that cost.

[Roxie]

hfcs is nasty stuff. I am vigilant in making sure I consume as little as possible (Jones soda)

[SoulPlay]

:)

I'm extremely glad we are on the same page. And yeah I can see where PLF stands with not regulating what we eat, but, when something is for the better, wouldn't it be a sacrifice thats worth it? I think it's the governments responsibility to lead us into a better America.

[Scott]

If there's anything I've learned from Japan so far, it's that Americans are white or black, and I'm not American.

[ruaidhri]

Yesterday evening the I-35W interstate bridge spanning the Mississippi River collapsed during the evening rush hour. The current confirmed death toll is 4 but they expect many more. Scores were injured. Why did this happen. Several years ago Federal Inspectors gave the bridge a structurally deficient rating. Subsequent inspections by Minnesota determined that the bridge was not in danger of immediate collapse. Plans were to replace it around 2020.

So, what did happen? In my personal opinion the problem can be summed up with one word, “money”. The tax dollars are not there for the federal, state or local governments to keep up with America’s crumbling infrastructure. Ever since Ronald Reagan, “taxes” has been a dirty word. We don’t talk about increasing taxes to pay for needed repairs or services. No, we still talk about reducing taxes. And, who gets the bulk of the reductions? Certainly, not our poorest Americans. But, none of that matters does it when bridges collapse? Both rich and poor used that bridge. Outside of the loss of life and the injuries and the impact on the survivors and their families, not to mention the cost of removing the debris and replacing the bridge, Minneapolis’ economy will suffer because that bridge was a integral component in intra-city transportation.

Without increased taxes, the bridge replacement will take money from other projects. The losses to the Minneapolis economy will however impact the entire city. Those will be dollars never recovered. Which would have been less costly? Replacing the bridge when it was found to be deficient or suffering the current consequences of doing nothing and hoping nothing happens?

My heart goes out to Minneapolis and the families impacted by this disaster.

[stsparky]

... Ever since Ronald Reagan, “taxes” has been a dirty word. We don’t talk about increasing taxes to pay for needed repairs or services. No, we still talk about reducing taxes. And, who gets the bulk of the reductions? Certainly, not our poorest Americans. ... My heart goes out to Minneapolis and the families impacted by this disaster.

They're finding people who were trapped in their cars. As to Reagan, he's on my list of EVILIST AMERICANS ever. We can blame him for the ascendency of the Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family) Crime Clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_%26_Bones) we're suffering today. I blame him for the Challenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster) disaster because the he rushed novice contractor to perform the PreFlight Readiness Review (PFRR) and Flight Readiness Review (FRR) so he could have his Public Relations moment of a "teacher in space".



Reptilian humanoids—According to David Icke, a group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood control a secret world government. Icke has accused many prominent politicians and celebrities of being such creatures, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson.

[Roxie]

Yeah. Reagan also made up the welfare queen stereotype by large exaggeration.

The first attributed use of Welfare Queen is by Ronald Reagan in 1976. While campaigning, he referred to what one critic claims was a non-existent woman[1] in Chicago this way:

"She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names."[2]

The New York Times article goes on to refute the idea that the woman was "made up", but rather that the case of Linda Taylor was exaggerated. She was charged, not with using 80 aliases, but rather four, and the amount the state is charging that she defrauded, was not $150,000 but rather $8,000. Ms. Taylor again appeared [3] as the investigation of her case by the Illinois state Attorney General continued. She was ultimately found guilty of "welfare fraud and perjury" in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.[4]

Other cases of welfare fraud include Barbara Williams who was sentenced to eight-years for defrauding Los Angeles County out of $239,000 and Dorothy Woods who claimed 38 non-existent children.[5]

[Jetsetlemming]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETiXXf0ZqRQ
Penn and Teller end their show every night with this trick, a demonstration of the first amendment and patriotism. It is fantastically realized and superbly makes its point.

And for something similar, but opposite:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtyVfZF3HOk
Aha, epic failure. :3

[shinobi_kokujin]

what i dont understand since following the news......is why Koreans are starting to shift thier blame towards Americans regarding the Hostage Crisis.


im like.....wait a minute...thier 707 unit Special Forces and ROK soldiers are typically better trained than the average US soldier. even the female ones can take out 4 men in the blink of an eye from what ive seen

when training with them. and they also have these bad azz mercenaries who deploy to the middle east sometimes that hardly anyone knows about.

so im like.....if you have all this talent at your disposal.....why not initiate a plan of rescue an stop crying? negotiating.....i can understand that

but i just dont see the logic in Shifting hatred towards Americans just because you dont have anyone to hold your hand about the situation

while they are waisting time with this.......those Innocent women are suffering......2 men are already dead.

[ruaidhri]

shinobi_kokujin, I admittedly don’t know enough about the Korean hostage situation to offer an informed opinion. I do know that the Koreans were captured and are being held by the Taliban. I know that the Taliban has threatened to kill them and has in fact killed two of the hostages.

Where have you read that Koreans are beginning to blame the United States for the hostage situation? Do the Koreans really hate the U.S. because of what happened? Please elaborate. Would you link an article that identifies the Korean position? From what I’ve read the Koreans don’t want the U.S. to take any military action to free the hostages.

[chad mullet]

Britain: the most surveilled democracy in the world, no official constitution and no bill/charter of rights, media censorship during the Troubles.[/QUOTE]

Makes it easy to modify in the light of new experience -unlike some. By "Troubles' I assume you are referring to the murderous Irish terrorists we had
to deal with.

[shinobi_kokujin]

shinobi_kokujin, I admittedly don’t know enough about the Korean hostage situation to offer an informed opinion. I do know that the Koreans were captured and are being held by the Taliban. I know that the Taliban has threatened to kill them and has in fact killed two of the hostages.

Where have you read that Koreans are beginning to blame the United States for the hostage situation? Do the Koreans really hate the U.S. because of what happened? Please elaborate. Would you link an article that identifies the Korean position? From what I’ve read the Koreans don’t want the U.S. to take any military action to free the hostages.



I came across it in one of the Korean newspapers. and this week when i went up to yungsan......as usual theres the anti-american protestors.

they tend to come out more than the Pro-american supporters.

some of them had posters with derogatory pictures of bush which i dont mind cause i dont like him either.....an some were crying an burning american flags which is messed up.

they did the same thing when that incident happened with the Korean shooter at Va Tech......they shifted the blame to Americans

i dunno what poin they were trying to make.......that growing up in american society turned him into a psycho? well if thats the case then why are thousands of you migrating to America to start new lives if its so bad?

[Trump]

Well, some people will jump at any excuse to blame the US for things regardless of whether the US is responsible or not. Just like people will jump at any excuse to blame Bush, or a political party, or the education system, or video games, or.... well, you get the idea.

[rl*united]

You have a thousand things to regret conserning the Pearl Harbour attack. You just weren`t prepared for it and nevermind that inteligence on all levels had the chance to warn the millitary and naval base on PH at least half an hour in advance. Check "code of winds" check "miracle machine" you had all the cryptic communication between Tokyo and the Japanese embassy in Washington an hour before the embassy got it - that`s how fast you learned to decypher it with years. You had all the necessary information to issue a warning call in due time and you didn`t - there`s a thousand polititions to blame about it and in the end you threw a sacrificial lamb trial against Kimmel and Short the two leaders of the army and navy at PH who were never warned in the first place.

I`m not in any way generalizing about America but in that case you sucked and suffered for it.

Well, some people will jump at any excuse to blame the US for things regardless of whether the US is responsible or not. Just like people will jump at any excuse to blame Bush, or a political party, or the education system, or video games, or.... well, you get the idea.

Yeah - it`s great entertainment. Rather than stateing the obvious you should dig into hystory books.

[rl*united]

I came across it in one of the Korean newspapers. and this week when i went up to yungsan......as usual theres the anti-american protestors.

they tend to come out more than the Pro-american supporters.

some of them had posters with derogatory pictures of bush which i dont mind cause i dont like him either.....an some were crying an burning american flags which is messed up.

they did the same thing when that incident happened with the Korean shooter at Va Tech......they shifted the blame to Americans

i dunno what poin they were trying to make.......that growing up in american society turned him into a psycho? well if thats the case then why are thousands of you migrating to America to start new lives if its so bad?

North Korea is currently under the rule of a totalitarian regime that allows for no sympathy for America whatsoever - people are brainwashed in the way they are dead scared to do anything that could be interpreted as pro-american. If a family member escapes into another country they execute his family. If you say or do anything remotely wrong they send you in work camps for the rest of your life.

South Korea as much as it may appear progressive still lives in a very unstable situation. There were no official peace treaties when the DMZ was formed and everyone is waiting for the time to come when the state will no longer be profitable to both sides. Americans no matter what cause they serve are bang in the middle of the issue patrolling alongside with South Korean soldiers. My thoughts are that in this situation the Americans provide a ballance of forces that keeps the prospect of an all out war unprofitable for the North. Your presence is what keeps the status. But others may not see it that way.

In the end the whole story about VTech was a boy raised in America snapped. I think that`s what realy counts besides any foreign origin the boy might have had - mostly because of the simmilar cases of mass murders by people who were purely American.

[Trump]

Yeah - it`s great entertainment. Rather than stateing the obvious you should dig into hystory books.

What am I digging into the history books for? You don't make any sense.

[ruaidhri]

rl*united, yes, I don’t question that the U.S. has made, and continues to make, many, many mistakes. All people and all nations make mistakes. Certainly, allowing the Japanese to execute a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was caused by our failure to communicate the imminent threat of an external attack on Pearl Harbor.

Following the attack, Americans demanded that somebody pay the price. Sadly, it was the military leaders at Pearl Harbor that became the scapegoats. Be aware that they were captains of the ship. Any captain that allow his ship to be damaged has no excuse. That’s always the way its been. They’re always guilty. Also, remember, they were not totally without fault. They were on high alert. In fact, it was because of this alert that they ordered all planes to be parked together away from potential local saboteurs, a fatal mistake. The threat was from without, not within.

Because of Pearl Harbor America went to war against Japan. We also declared war against Germany. If we had not joined the war against Germany and had we not provided supplies to both the British and the Russians, I personally believe Germany would have survived long enough to perfect jet planes, rockets and most notably nuclear weapons. I don’t doubt that they would have used all those weapons against their enemies. So perhaps, in a backward sort of way, the world has Japan to thank for saving us all from the Nazis.

You also made the following response to Trump’s earlier post:

Originally Posted by Trump
Well, some people will jump at any excuse to blame the US for things regardless of whether the US is responsible or not. Just like people will jump at any excuse to blame Bush, or a political party, or the education system, or video games, or.... well, you get the idea.”

Response from rl*united
“Yeah - it`s great entertainment. Rather than stateing the obvious you should dig into hystory books.”

I’m confused. What exactly do you question? Do you doubt that to many people throughout the world the U. S. has itself become a convenient scapegoat for their personal problems? Do you doubt that people normally seek the easy answer without regard to facts? You suggested that Trump should dig into history books as if we were unqualified to offer his opinion by simply “stating the obvious”. That sir, is an insult to one of the most knowledgeable posters in this entire forum. While we don’t always agree on every issue I do read and consider Trump’s every word because he is intelligent and he is aware not only of history but of human nature and the multitude of influences on current events.

In your following post you appear to have confused North with South Korea. It was South Korean radicals that were blaming the U.S. for the Afghanistan kidnappings. They are certainly in the miniscule minority in South Korea and in no way reflect their government’s position. As for North Korea, yes they are indeed a dangerous nation both a threat to the world and a horror to their own citizens. But, where did you get and how did you verify your facts as to their internal atrocities?

Then, you attempted to place blame for the Virginia Tech slaughter of students by a young man of Korean ancestry. I agree it would be a stretch to blame the events on his ancestry. Likewise it would also be incorrect to blame the attack on the fact that he lived in the United States. The primary cause from my perspective is his apparent mental illness, the community’s failure to recognize and treat said illness and the relative ease with which he acquired deadly weapons. This was an all around sad and horrific event.

[rl*united]

rl*united, yes, I don’t question that the U.S. has made, and continues to make, many, many mistakes. All people and all nations make mistakes. Certainly, allowing the Japanese to execute a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, was caused by our failure to communicate the imminent threat of an external attack on Pearl Harbor.

Following the attack, Americans demanded that somebody pay the price. Sadly, it was the military leaders at Pearl Harbor that became the scapegoats. Be aware that they were captains of the ship. Any captain that allow his ship to be damaged has no excuse. That’s always the way its been. They’re always guilty. Also, remember, they were not totally without fault. They were on high alert. In fact, it was because of this alert that they ordered all planes to be parked together away from potential local saboteurs, a fatal mistake. The threat was from without, not within.

Because of Pearl Harbor America went to war against Japan. We also declared war against Germany. If we had not joined the war against Germany and had we not provided supplies to both the British and the Russians, I personally believe Germany would have survived long enough to perfect jet planes, rockets and most notably nuclear weapons. I don’t doubt that they would have used all those weapons against their enemies. So perhaps, in a backward sort of way, the world has Japan to thank for saving us all from the Nazis.

--Yeah, then again allow me to have some reservation on the tactics the US employed in defeating the Japanese enemy. Some say that for a country in war the war ends when it can no longer endure the atrocyties of wageing war. Need I remind that bombing civilian targets was a terorist tactic used primarily by the Nazis in their time. You did the same thing by burning Tokyo down and later on destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I realise your role in saveing the world from the Nazis and I give that to the way fate goes - in life there`s not a single event that`s purely good or bad - much less claim that in war.

You`re in position of defending your country and so were your ancestors when they faced the prospect of a tactical war against Japan. You simply weren`t willing to sacrifice any of your people in spite of your military superiority so you chickened and sent in the nukes. And that`s understandable. You employed in it`s full force the above stated rule - more than a hit on any millitary target or a squad of soldiers you hit the civilians.--

You also made the following response to Trump’s earlier post:

Originally Posted by Trump
Well, some people will jump at any excuse to blame the US for things regardless of whether the US is responsible or not. Just like people will jump at any excuse to blame Bush, or a political party, or the education system, or video games, or.... well, you get the idea.”

Response from rl*united
“Yeah - it`s great entertainment. Rather than stateing the obvious you should dig into hystory books.”

I’m confused. What exactly do you question? Do you doubt that to many people throughout the world the U. S. has itself become a convenient scapegoat for their personal problems? Do you doubt that people normally seek the easy answer without regard to facts? You suggested that Trump should dig into history books as if we were unqualified to offer his opinion by simply “stating the obvious”. That sir, is an insult to one of the most knowledgeable posters in this entire forum. While we don’t always agree on every issue I do read and consider Trump’s every word because he is intelligent and he is aware not only of history but of human nature and the multitude of influences on current events.

--Why do you involve personal problems here? It`s just that America is a popular country. Every issue that is generated within it quickly becomes a world issue through mass media and that`s the normal way. I`m not stateing that America is to blame for any of the world`s problems. What I consider to be 'obvious' is that any problem that America has will eventualy be duiscussed by the people from the rest of the world. Hence all the America bashing. In that manner I`m sorry if any of you felt insulted upon reading this.--

In your following post you appear to have confused North with South Korea. It was South Korean radicals that were blaming the U.S. for the Afghanistan kidnappings. They are certainly in the miniscule minority in South Korea and in no way reflect their government’s position. As for North Korea, yes they are indeed a dangerous nation both a threat to the world and a horror to their own citizens. But, where did you get and how did you verify your facts as to their internal atrocities?

-- A History Channel program on the topic - they were the first reporters and moreover Americans to set foot in North Korea in the last couple of decades. Along with some interviews with emigrants from the country and a few satelite snaps of the internment camps they painted a prety clear picture of the situation. You should have seen the capital city during midday - empty boulevards and squares with no cars as far as you can see - not a single soul around. You should have also seen the fanatic belief with which ordinary people would talk of their leader - every word as if taken from a textbook on propaghanda.--


Then, you attempted to place blame for the Virginia Tech slaughter of students by a young man of Korean ancestry. I agree it would be a stretch to blame the events on his ancestry. Likewise it would also be incorrect to blame the attack on the fact that he lived in the United States. The primary cause from my perspective is his apparent mental illness, the community’s failure to recognize and treat said illness and the relative ease with which he acquired deadly weapons. This was an all around sad and horrific event.

--Yes it was community`s failure and those radicals` mistake was that no one is actualy throwing charges against Korea for it. It was a stupid overreaction for them to claim otherwise. I for myself see a pattern in those kids` reasoning - they`re all excluded from society in some form - usualy molested by their schoolmates. If it happens to be so that the schools neglect that form of molestation my opinion is you as a community should deal with it.--

[Roxie]

RL, if you could please use the quote function when replying to posts, we'd greatly apperciate it.
The mixed formatting in your previous post makes it very hard to distinguish what you're replying to and what is actually your voice.

Thanks!

[Candyvan Stan]

In your following post you appear to have confused North with South Korea. It was South Korean radicals that were blaming the U.S. for the Afghanistan kidnappings. They are certainly in the miniscule minority in South Korea and in no way reflect their government’s position. As for North Korea, yes they are indeed a dangerous nation both a threat to the world and a horror to their own citizens. But, where did you get and how did you verify your facts as to their internal atrocities?



http://youtube.com/watch?v=FVA4kgVGmX0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dm5xiFwnOSg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQUipc28cwA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=toOi1_7aNmM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NEIv9gcLmt8

It might be slightly off topic. However, Ruaidhri, I feel you might be interested in seeing this. Everybody else, of course, is welcome to see these videos for a glimpse into North Korea.

[c-rex]

Britain: the most surveilled democracy in the world, no official constitution and no bill/charter of rights, media censorship during the Troubles.

Makes it easy to modify in the light of new experience -unlike some. By "Troubles' I assume you are referring to the murderous Irish terrorists we had
to deal with.[/QUOTE]

By murderous Irish terrorists I assume that you talking about the freedom fighters trying to get the genocidal British off their island.

It works both ways, payback from the Potato Famine is a real bitch hunh?

[rl*united]

Uhm... well terrorism is no way out of a tough conversation. What do you fuckers expect to get by killing people? Sympathy over your problems? Ha you bet they`re just gonna send in more squads.

Anyway what`s your long term plan besides from bombing the shit out of random people? I mean you`re obviously aiming at getting publicity for your own little form of misery there.

You know what? A fuckton of countries are worse off than you. The difference is they don`t have the convinience of a commonly hated enemy to keep them all cosy inside full of their patriotic shit. They`re just struggling to do good for themselves and if you think nobody`s employing the shittyest polytics to try and push them down and keep them in the gutter you`re wrong.

Difference is a girl or a boy in Kazakhstan tries real hard to get a degree and get out of country and try to make a life in the modern world. In a few years time if this girl is sucsessful she`ll make just one family in Kazakhstan wealthyer by simply helping her parents.

If there`s anything you IRA degenerates can do about your English induced misery in the twenty fucking first century is get a position in life and then try to change things. Now that`s harder than shooting down a cop ain`t it?

[Trump]

rl*united, WTF are you ranting about? Are you so lost in history you don't know what is going on in the world? Last I heard the IRA officially disarmed a couple years ago. The only militants that remain are violent radicals similar to Al Queda. So how can you compare the entire population of the region to these people?

And I still do not believe you answered my original question. I related the current topic to other topics showing how people outside and inside America react similarly to these situations, and you claim I was stating the obvious and need to dig into history books. What is obvious? What should I dig into history books for? SPECIFICS PLEASE!!!

I can't really see any point behind your posts. You seem to just be randomly spouting internet hate for no reason. You have been scathing with your comments but don't mention any specifics to back up your biting remarks. What are you trying to say? Or are you just spouting this angry garbage to hear yourself talk?

[Roxie]

Whew, okay, so I wasn't alone in scratching my head at that post

[rl*united]

I`m getting overly emotional on c-rex trying to portray the IRA as freedom fighters. If I`m missing history it`s because my post is a direct refference to his. If I`m being extreme about it it`s because I can`t accept terrorist acts against anybody as freedom-fighting. First and foremost because it`s so obviously counter productive and going into an idiotic loop of meaningless violence. I personaly believe 'ranting' as you put it on these kinds of topics is justified because of the seriousness of the situation.

What I find random about you`re posting is that you make a general two-sentence description of a problem without offering a possible solution. Moreover it`s a situation that we are all aware of.

"Originally Posted by Trump
Well, some people will jump at any excuse to blame the US for things regardless of whether the US is responsible or not. Just like people will jump at any excuse to blame Bush, or a political party, or the education system, or video games, or.... well, you get the idea.”"

I mean hasn`t it always been like this? I advise you to be more specific on what you think we are blameing the US for and why is the US not responsible for it. You should dig into history books in order to find facts that support your claim and that`s all I ask for. It makes for a nicer conversation when you can talk about events rather than ideas.

If you can`t give a specific event to support your idea then my only choice to reply to you would be elaborateing on the pure idea you have - how can I even hope to disprove a claim that`s so generalized that it`s statisticaly correct in every given situation. That`s why I gave you a "That`s obvious - get a book - and give us something to talk about.".

Again I`m sorry if it offended you.

I`d like to thank @Candyvan Stan for the videos on Korea. What I stumbled upon on Viasat History was something simmilar but lacking the actual footage from the rural areas.

Also there`s a web-site aimed at helping Korean refugees. http://linkglobal.org/ I don`t know how credible the whole thing is but they`re selling cell-phone 'charms' hand-knitted by the refugees - it helps deal with expenses i guess - they`re worth 5 USD each as a form of charity. I personaly think they`re nice. In a months time I`ll get a credit card and get one of those - I have a Visa Electron which can`t be used with international transactions. Or at least it doesn`t work with this one - I`ll look it through. In short:

LIBERTY IN NORTH KOREA

*LiNK stands for Liberty in North Korea. We are a non-profit, non-partisan, non-ethnic and non-religious group formed in pursuit of the following mission statement:
*To educate the world about North Korea
*To advocate for human rights, political and religious freedom, and humanitarian aid for North Korea
*To protect the North Korean people where they can be reached
*To empower citizens of the world to take effective action and make a difference
*To bring together and support existing NGOs and other organizations working to achieve the same ends
*To tell the world the truth

[ruaidhri]

Candyvan Stan, absolutely horrific images of North Korea. I had previously seen this documentary but watched it once again in its entirety. Sad, sad, sad!

I never questioned that North Korea perpetrated atrocities upon their own people. My comments were directed at the disorganized manner in which rl*united presented his position, including coming totally off topic without explanation or support for his statements. What’s most sad is that there’s little if anything external countries (including the U.S or even the UN) can actually do to help the suffering in North Korea. Obviously, sanctions only affect those who are least guilty and already suffering the most. Also, anything beyond sanctions could, I believe, result in North Korea’s leader sparking a nuclear conflagration. Of course, there would be retaliation and again who would suffer, not the leaders.

rl*united, I trying to give you some slack because you are new on OP9 and on this thread. First, it helps if you organize your thoughts before hitting the post button. All word salad does is confuse the reader. Then, ranting without understanding the situations you’re ranting about doesn’t give you a lick of credibility. And, most important, logic and civility are the order of the day. OP9 members customarily treat others with respect regardless of their position and how much they may agree or disagree with their positions. Personally, I’ve found that I often learn more from those with whom I have the most disagreement.

Now, about Ireland. You speak about understanding history. Do you? Do you understand what led up to the Easter Rising of 1916 and why the Irish resorted to terrorism to win a degree of independence from the British. Do you understand the anger of many Irish to the creation of the Irish Free State with its allegiance to the British Monarchy and the separation of the Northern Counties from that Free State? Are you aware of the Civil War over those very issues. And then, are you aware what precipitated the latest round of IRA actions in Ulster? Yes, they were most definitely acts of frustration and terrorism. Yes, acts of terrorism are never defensible because of their purpose and their targets. Still it helps to, as you proclaim, understand “history”. Here’s an abbreviated history of the Irish struggle to be free from Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%281922–1969%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles

And, yes, I agree nothing in any of those articles justifies killing and maiming innocent men, women and children.

Now, today, the Irish are no longer killing each other, even in Ulster. So there is peace. The IRA has disarmed so calling them names serves no purpose. Also the Irish aren’t destitute. In fact they’re doing quite well.

rl*united, your lesson is to think hard before hitting the post button. Be careful that you are actually communicating logical arguments and not simply spouting meaningless word salad.

[erbiumfiber]

Come to the War Museum in Tokyo.

America FORCED Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, they had no choice.

I spent several hours there with a Japanese coworker. It IS interesting to see the other side's point of view. And there IS some truth to their position that they were trying to keep Western powers from colonizing Asia. However, they just substituted themselves (Japan) for Western occupying nations...

Yes, the museum is just a little right wing...

(Sorry, this is in response to a few posts back, talking about Pearl Harbor, didn't mean to derail the current IRA discussion).

[ruaidhri]

erbiumfiber, very interesting comment. I'm sure you were quite amused at how history can change depending on who is interpreting the events. There are so many different views of the same historic event. It is difficult for any people to believe that their country was guilty of starting a war and committing heinous war crimes. Generally, it is the victor that writes the history but obviously the Japanese have succeeded in putting their own spin on Pearl Harbor. Have they done the same with Nanking and the Bataan Death March?

I wonder how the American Indians would have written history if they had prevailed against the U.S. during the Indian Wars. America certainly had dirty hands and by todays standards many of our actions would be considered war crimes. But, it's not the victors that are imprisoned.

Anyway, I'm glad you changed the subject. Very interesting comments. I would have enjoyed being with you for the "history lesson". I would have listened with respect and realized that there was nothing I could say that would have changed anyone's opinion.

[Chris]

erbiumfiber

I wonder how the American Indians would have written history if they had prevailed against the U.S. during the Indian Wars. America certainly had dirty hands and by todays standards many of our actions would be considered war crimes. But, it's not the victors that are imprisoned.




Had they won I'm not even entirely sure there'd be a United States. Or anything resembling a 13 colonies. That is unless Europe decided to join hands and conquer the Native Americans. That'd make for an extremely interesting United States today with much more French, Spanish and Russian influences.

[erbiumfiber]

Nanking is approximately one small sign. Says that there was an "uprising" and the Japanese had to restore order. And that's about it.

This museum is at the Yasukuni shrine- the one that everyone complains about if the Prime Minister visits (because of the enshrined war criminals). The shrine itself is pretty innocuous but the War Museum will drive both Koreans and Chinese crazy.

The museum talks about how happy Korea was to be "annexed" to Japan...

And, at the end, all the letters from kamikaze pilots back to their families (couldn't drag my coworker away from that- and they had no translations so I just tried to see how many kanji I could recognize).

[Fred]

America FORCED Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, they had no choice.

I can understand how the Japanese government may have felt forced to attack Pearl Harbor. The U.S. was engaged in an oil embargo against Japan and destroying the fleet and the port at Pearl Harbor would have helped Japan control the Pacific trade routes.

However, the oil embargo was a response Japan’s invasion of China, so another way to break off the embargo would have been to withdraw from China.

However, the Japanese justified their invasion of China by stating the need to create a “security buffer” against western military forces and the need to secure a supply of natural resources. The oil embargo only reinforced their belief in this justification.

So, there are lots of “howevers”. The truth is that there are always choices.

Consider the Iraq war. Bush claimed that we had to attack Iraq preemptively because they were a direct threat to the U.S. Even though he manufactured the data to support that claim, there is no doubt that Iraq considered the U.S. an enemy.

However, Iraq had to consider the U.S. an enemy because of the Gulf War and the subsequent embargo against Iraq.

However, the U.S. had to take those actions in response to the invasion of Kuwait

Obviously, this analysis is overly simplistic. My point is not to explain these two events but to emphasize that countries do have choices, and that understanding our enemy’s point of view can help us to make better choices based on the outcomes we truly want.

This is a digression, but I keep thinking about our politicians and trying to understand what the fuck do they truly want.

[ruaidhri]

Both Germany and Japan were fond of military conquest. Both considered military action the answer to most of their "problems". Neither had any qualms subduing any country that stood in their way.

The U.S. during the 1930's was a country that wanted nothing of European or Asian wars. The general populace simply did not want to get involved. Our President, Franklin Roosevelt, was most concerned about Europe and the Germans. He feared that if England fell America itself would be endangered. Yet, outside of Lend-Lease there was little he could for England with a populace that was overwhelmingly isolantionist.

Meanwhile, in Asia, Japan was on the march and needed fuel for their Army and Navy. The U.S. stood in their way so were, of necessity, a target for attack. That, I suppose justifies Japan attack on Pearl Harbor. I suppose its no different than the atrocities the U.S. Government and its Army perpetrated against the American Indian. They stood in the way of our Western Expansion. Oh, we called them savages but that was of little import because we also expelled the five civilized tribes from their lands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes.

Japan's biggest error was in waking the sleeping giant, the U.S. and allowing us to enter the war. They thought we'd quickly retreat and give up. Bad mistake! Once, we fired up our industrial might, Japan didn't have a chance. We could bomb them back to the stone age while our factories continued to pump out more and more planes, bombs, tanks, ships, rifles and ammunition. We also had sufficient oil to fuel all our needs. I believe an invasion of Japan would have been difficult and deadly for the Allies but it would have been even more so for the Japanese. If we hadn't dropped the A-Bomb on two of their cities far more of their people and infrastructure would have been killed and destroyed. As cruel and inhuman as the bombs were, they prevented even more cruelty and inhumanity of both sides of the battle.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

Now, about Ireland. You speak about understanding history. Do you? Do you understand what led up to the Easter Rising of 1916 and why the Irish resorted to terrorism to win a degree of independence from the British. Do you understand the anger of many Irish to the creation of the Irish Free State with its allegiance to the British Monarchy and the separation of the Northern Counties from that Free State? Are you aware of the Civil War over those very issues. And then, are you aware what precipitated the latest round of IRA actions in Ulster? Yes, they were most definitely acts of frustration and terrorism. Yes, acts of terrorism are never defensible because of their purpose and their targets. Still it helps to, as you proclaim, understand “history”. Here’s an abbreviated history of the Irish struggle to be free from Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Free_State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%281922–1969%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Northern_Ireland_Troubles

And, yes, I agree nothing in any of those articles justifies killing and maiming innocent men, women and children.

Now, today, the Irish are no longer killing each other, even in Ulster. So there is peace. The IRA has disarmed so calling them names serves no purpose. Also the Irish aren’t destitute. In fact they’re doing quite well.

[off topic]
Awesome to see people who have a keen knowledge of the Emerald Isle's history from across the pond! :) Personally, as far as Ireland's politics are concerned, I dont think much can go either way until that arse Ian Paisley hurries up and drops dead! He's the prime example of yesteryear's loyalist poisoning the current day non-sectarian based households in 2007 Northern Ireland.

[Roxie]

In high school I was obsessed with Ireland...I've read every book Morgan Llwelyn has ever written and she's done quite a few on this, starting from what brought about the events of 1916 up to 1972. I've learned alot.

[Vic_Rattlehead]

You should read up on a person called Bobby Sands. (post 1972 troubles)

[ruaidhri]

Vic_Rattlehead, thanks, I will. I've always been interested in Ireland considering that's part of my ancestry.

Back to the United States. There’s another side to America. It’s the side we Americans see every day; it’s family. What it shows is that we’re actually pretty much the same as people throughout the world.

My wife’s last living aunt turned 89 last Saturday. Her family decided to throw a big party for all the family. Now, my wife’s aunt lives in a small home on a corner of the family farm in central Wisconsin. She has 8 children, 23 grandchildren, 24 great grandchildren and 1 great-great grandchild. Most still live in the same area, which is actually quite unique in today’s America. She had three siblings, which all preceded her in death. Each of her siblings’ families were also represented at this big party, which was hosted by one of her sons who actually runs the big farm and lives in a the main house on the property.

My wife’s father was her aunt’s brother. Also, a farmer, he had 3 children, which all left the country for the city. My wife and I and her brother and his wife all live a hour’s drive from the old homesteads. All four of us attended the party. My wife’s sister and her husband recently moved to Mountain Home, Arkansas and were unable to attend. They have a beautiful home up in the Ozark Mountains and are truly loving the people and the area.

Politics never came up. Nobody talked about Iraq or Bush or even the state or local governments. Everybody was more concerned with their own and their families’ lives. Everyone was happy for my wife’s aunt. They were celebrating her 89th birthday, which is quite an accomplishment. She was diagnosed with bone cancer last February and it’s questionable whether she’ll be around for her 90th. She is a real fun person, very sharp witted and still quite mobile. We plan on seeing her again in early September when we’ll go for a drive around the the country roads passing many farms that both my wife and her aunt will remember and talk about the people that used to live there and who’s living there now. After the drive we’ll take her to a nice restaurant for a meal and good conversation. Both of my sons have expressed an interest in joining us.

America, like all other countries is made up of families striving to make a living. What I witnessed and was part of last Saturday was a bringing together not the tearing apart we’re all so used to with political objectives.

[ruaidhri]

Vic_Rattlehead, I am getting old! I do know who Bobby Sands was. When I read your post I misread "post" to be "pre" 1972 and was unaware of who you were talking about. Of course, I remember the hunger strike and the election to Parliament, his death and the uproar.

You've sparked my interest and I still plan on reading what he wrote while in prison.

[Plekto]

Both Germany and Japan were fond of military conquest. Both considered military action the answer to most of their "problems". Neither had any qualms subduing any country that stood in their way.

And this now seems to describe the U.S. government's position as well since WWII.

Too bad the people always pay the price in the end for what their governments do.

[Chris]

Plekto, I've been reading this thread and have been thoroughly enjoying the debate. But if you're going to add pretty big claims (Ie saying that we chose the military route 100% of the time) then please, do something to back it up.

[Plekto]

There is an astounding amount of data on the military actions that we have taken since WWII - from direct invasions and wars to subverting governments(too many to count), coups, assassinations, propping up dictators, falsifying and altering elections(Mexico last year with our help for instance), bombings, giving weapons to the wrong people(Iraq to use vs Iran for one - nukes to Pakistan for another), and that's not counting hostile economic sanctions and such.

It's a truly appalling history of our using military action or direct confrontation as a first resort. There are hundreds of sources online and in your local library - just the media won't cover it on the nightly news.(Somalia for instance is our latest misadventure, yet it's a footnote in the news)

[Trump]

Wait, you first say the US is fond of military conquest, yet then you go on to say most actions are more covert and not direct military actions....

[Campion]

In response to the number of people who have made their opinions on Ireland known.

The troubles and the Easter uprising were two distinct and very different time periods, there is a lot of difference between true Fenian heroes such as Michael Collins or Pádraig Pearse and people like Martin McGuiness or Gerry Adams. Confusing the times or the people is a grave insult to the history of a country I love.

Although the uprising was a necessity to shake off the yoke of the British Empire, twenty years of the troubles could have been completely avoided if it wasn't for the meddling of people like Conor Cruise O'Brien and the political machinations of Gerry Adams. Their political positioning ruined Ruairí Ó Brádaigh's attempts to have a united Ireland that would have been acceptable to both the loyalists and the republicans. This arrogance and lust for power condemned us to decades of further violence before Adams came to the table without the political gravitas or goodwill and left it without a united Ireland.

Yes Vic, Ian Paisley is scum of the worst kind, but Ó Brádaigh swallowed his pride and dealt with him, if you really want to know why the troubles continued and there is still no united Ireland you have no further to look than Gerry Adams.

EDIT: To bring this back on topic, it makes me physically sick when I see that pompous bastard invited to dine with the American President.



Campion.

[japanat]

A few comments on what I've read...

rl_united - Of course, the US used the bomb in order to save their own troops' lives! The goal of a war is not to save the other countries' lives while wasting your own if not necessary. Was the suffering of the bomb horrendous? Undisputed. But what country up to that point had ever not used a weapon available to it, if the cost to their own troops would be less? After WWI, many countries signed conventions to stop using the poison gases, right (and not Japan, btw)? Do you think that's because they wanted to save enemy lives? No-o-o. They knew how many of their own lives would be either forfeit or horrendously injured (and the monetary and manpower costs of medical care are often/usually a larger factor for a state at war than the deaths).

Carpet or saturation bombing, and the related firebombing, was, as you said, a Nazi innovation which was then enthusiastically adopted by the British and then the Americans. But, again, the mass slaughter of civilians is not exactly something new. Raiding armies have slaughtered the inhabitants of their victim lands since time immemorial. Troy, Constantinople, Masada, Jerusalem.

Has the US performed actions of which I am unhappy/in horror/deeply angry? Yes. Do most Americans acknowledge that many of the problems of South America's regimes in the '60s, for example, were of direct or indirect US cause? Sure.

Do we hope to move beyond such actions? Of course. At least after the world saw the effects of the atomic bombs, there haven't been further attacks. I grew up in the '60s, born just after the Cuban Missile Crisis and felt the terror of nuclear war, did the useless 'Duck & Cover' drills. I have been in the Denver Federal Center, designed to be the new capital of the US in event of nuclear war: a huge underground building with beds and food for 5000 troops for 3 years, 36-inch blast overpressure doors, and a national command center. But life under communism truly was something I'm glad I missed...

And Plekto, where do you get that the US gave Pakistan the bomb? Do you read all the conspiracy websites, or what? Given our political history, regardless of the current search for Bin Laden, the US would have been much more likely to support India than Pakistan. And with the continuing border dispute over Kashmir, even the US wouldn't be dumb enough to arm either side with nukes.

[Ichisan]

I appreciate that using the atomic bomb cost fewer lives than a full-scale invasion or, worse still and probably not seriously contemplated, use of poison gas. And of course the Japanese should have surrendered. But still Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible beyond comprehension. Sometimes I think there are things which are so terrible they are wrong even if you have to do them or even if you cannot, rationally, be blamed for doing them; cases where even if your lawyer can prove your innocence in court, you still have an emotional need to atone.

However, do Hiroshima and Nagasaki really fall under the category of necessary actions? This might seem a naive question but even if you can prove Hiroshima was a necessity what possible justification is there for Nagasaki? And why couldn't a bomb have first been exploded in an uninhabited area as a demonstration?

[Chris]

I appreciate that using the atomic bomb cost fewer lives than a full-scale invasion or, worse still and probably not seriously contemplated, use of poison gas. And of course the Japanese should have surrendered. But still Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible beyond comprehension. Sometimes I think there are things which are so terrible they are wrong even if you have to do them or even if you cannot, rationally, be blamed for doing them; cases where even if your lawyer can prove your innocence in court, you still have an emotional need to atone.[quote]

War is full of evil acts, in that case we had to choose the lesser in which we'd lose the least amount of people.

[quote]However, do Hiroshima and Nagasaki really fall under the category of necessary actions? This might seem a naive question but even if you can prove Hiroshima was a necessity what possible justification is there for Nagasaki? And why couldn't a bomb have first been exploded in an uninhabited area as a demonstration?

That's a very valid question, but at the same time, if Japan didn't surrender after two bombs (Which too more coercion from inside and outside) then how would a bomb being exploded where nobody died have made that much of a difference? I think the only place would have been the ocean, and that would have royally screwed things up for many years to come.

[ruaidhri]

The question was raised if the U.S. was justified in using the A-Bomb on Japan during WWII. That's a very interesting question because it depends on how each person interprets justification.

There were many insightful posts on this issue in an earlier thread in the All Things Japan Forum.

http://www.outpostnine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1998&highlight=Hiroshima

[ruaidhri]

George W is now comparing Iraq to Vietnam. This after saying time and time again that there is no comparison. Now, he saying that the terrorists believe the longer the U.S. in involved in a war the more its citizens protest forcing our eventual withdraw, just like we did in Vietnam. So, he's not comparing the wars so much as the protests and their impact.

At the same time the Hawks are airing ads on TV supporting the war. The thrust is we can't leave a job half finished and leaving now would betray all those killed and injured to protect Iraq's democratically elected government.

Personally, I believe we should get out of Iraq specifically because we can't win for losing. As the war continues we'll only create more internal violence against the Iraqi people and our soldiers. Meanwhile, we're trowing billions of good dollars after the bad dollars already wasted in our ineffective attempt to keep the lid on the powder keg. Consider, if we did stay, how long are we talking about 5, 10, 15 or more years. How many Americans would have lost there lives during that time? How many Iraqis would have been blown up or kidnapped and slaughtered in sectarian violence?

As far as I'm concerned the only reason for staying in Iraq would be to protect our sources of oil because a real battle between the Shiites in Iraq and Iran and the Sunnis in the rest of the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic to the world's oil supply. Today, I'm of the mind that staying might be more of a threat to the region than leaving because our presence is creating more terrorists and more hatred toward the United States and the West.

What do you think?

[h2orowe]

I pretty much agree with you about Iraq, Ruaidhri.


I have a question, not sure if this has been brought up because I've only read this page and the first page, but what is everybody's thoughts on recruiters at high school? Personally, I'm somewhat disgusted by it.

They promise students that they can get "up to $82,000" or something like that for college, yet in reality they'll probably only get $2,000 after paying some money to get in there. They also say that you can work on computers the whole time and not worry about going out on a tour of duty. During this last school year, I noticed something. They usually only targeted the Mexican, Samoan, or Black students at my school. They'd only usually talk to Whites or Asians if they were hanging around minorities or looked.. well, poor. I had been talking to my brother about recruiters at school and how I wanted to maybe do something about it, like talk my friends out of talking to them and such, and my brother said he had read in his textbook (I forgot what class it was, but it was like a social studies type thing) that they purposely recruit kids from bad areas/poor neighborhoods because it seems like it's their only option. Then last night I was looking up anti-recruiter sites, and I learned about the poverty draft. http://notyoursoldier.org/article.php?list=type&type=3 It makes sense. The statistics they list, however, are not sourced so it's questionable, BUT, I've heard those statistics used before. Anyway, thoughts?

[stsparky]

... As far as I'm concerned the only reason for staying in Iraq would be to protect our sources of oil because a real battle between the Shiites in Iraq and Iran and the Sunnis in the rest of the Persian Gulf would be catastrophic to the world's oil supply. Today, I'm of the mind that staying might be more of a threat to the region than leaving because our presence is creating more terrorists and more hatred toward the United States and the West. What do you think?

If we're there just for the oil (as many suspect) - then someone should remind our implacable enemies that the Iraqis are then "surplus" to requirements. Doubtful we'd see an improvement in behavior. Maybe some folks need a reminder JUST how 'godless' Americans can be. And I'm thinking diverting rivers with MOABs not simple neutron bombs to make the point. If the GOP numbskulls want to claim we're there to stop the Iranians with our five bases of trained armed soldiers - then we should withdraw to those after wishing the Iraqis 'good luck!'

[Plekto]

No, we're there to destabilize the area as much as possible. Civil war is exactly what our leaders want, despite giving lip service to the contrary. Why? Because if the region is in constant conflict, it's almost impossible for OPEC to mount any sort of action against us. And, it's part of a goal going back to the 70s - to get to Iran, which is the *real* goal - always has been, actually.

Oh, and yes, it's exactly as bad as they say about the recruiting. Welcome to the reality of government.

Oh - oddly enough, the U.S. and Japan are about the only two countries in the world anymore that actually believe that their government has the citizen's interest in mind. It's amazing how trusting and naive people in the U.S. are. The reality? Almost every conspiracy, evil deed, and twisted agenda that you hear about is real. Our government isn't any different than any other in human history. Our media is just fantastic at diverting attention and sugar coating it.(as well as marginalizing contrary opinion of course)

Go to Mexico, for instance. The people there assume that the government is lying to them outright unless they are shown otherwise. Somehow we lost this normal level of distrust in the U.S.(Japan, too, so it seems)

[Chris]

They promise students that they can get "up to $82,000" or something like that for college, yet in reality they'll probably only get $2,000 after paying some money to get in there. They also say that you can work on computers the whole time and not worry about going out on a tour of duty. During this last school year, I noticed something. They usually only targeted the Mexican, Samoan, or Black students at my school. They'd only usually talk to Whites or Asians if they were hanging around minorities or looked.. well, poor. I had been talking to my brother about recruiters at school and how I wanted to maybe do something about it, like talk my friends out of talking to them and such, and my brother said he had read in his textbook (I forgot what class it was, but it was like a social studies type thing) that they purposely recruit kids from bad areas/poor neighborhoods because it seems like it's their only option. Then last night I was looking up anti-recruiter sites, and I learned about the poverty draft. http://notyoursoldier.org/article.php?list=type&type=3 It makes sense. The statistics they list, however, are not sourced so it's questionable, BUT, I've heard those statistics used before. Anyway, thoughts?


Companies do the same thing when they advertise. And why not? The military is a pretty good option, especially for someone who's relatively poor. I've seen the military pull many people out of a shitty situation and do great things for them.


I'm not gonna say the recruiters tell the truth 100% of the time, they sure as hell don't, but people should do their research before signing up. It's possible to get the army to send you to school, but that's a pretty far shot. Well, if you're planning to go while in the army. If you want to go before, you can look at ROTC and if you try to be competitive you definitely have a chance. If you want to join and go after a tour of service, well then you have the GI Bill. They aren't completely BSing you. And while theres always a chance of deployment, that largely depends on which MOS (job) you chose.

[Roxie]

Companies do the same thing when they advertise. And why not?

well, they aren't playing with your LIFE, now are they?

[volomavi]

Its the Army. Sure they may try to sway your descision using some shady tactics. But its the frikking Army. You can't blame the recruiters for doing their job well. Just like in any job you should research what you are getting into. You can't pretend these people are children blindly following their government after being given a lollypop.

[Roxie]

But you can't pretend recruiters telling kids that 'no, they won't have to go to Iraq' isn't wrong.

[Candyvan Stan]

The more I think about it, the more I think the military is darwinism at its best.

Despite having thought (and still often do) about joining the military.

[Roxie]

The more I think about it, the more I think the military is darwinism at its best.

pls elaborate

[ruaidhri]

h2orowe, you are a welcome addition to this thread.

Like it or not, I recognize that the U.S. needs a strong military to protect its interests. Certainly, I often don’t agree with our leaders about who’s interests need protection or how the military is actually deployed. I was originally and remain absolutely opposed to our invasion of Iraq. That, I believe was an aggressive act against a sovereign nation. It was also a stupid act because it accomplished what many had predicted by placing us in a quagmire where we can’t help but make mistakes that cost American and Iraqi lives along with wasting billions of dollars on an action I believe will never produce positive results.

Regardless, we need protection that only a strong military can provide. That military needs recruits both in the enlisted and commissioned ranks. The U.S. no longer conscripts young men. Our military is all voluntary. So, military recruitment needs to advertise and make service attractive. For lower income youths with few job opportunities outside McDonalds following High School the military offers good pay, valuable training and money for higher education following their enlistment. It also offers young men and women academy and ROTC opportunities to prepare them for military service as commissioned officers. There is no question that what the military offers is valuable experience for those willing and capable of taking advantage of its opportunities. The problem is that the military also offers death, and serious injury. So, recruits should be very careful they fully understand the risks along with the advantages before they sign away their lives. Sadly, most young people don’t really appreciate their mortality until they’re actually in harms way.

Will some recruiters stretch the truth or outright lie? Of course! The difference between signing on for a job at a local business and the military is that you can’t just up and quit the military. That’s called desertion and punishment is severe. So, again, it’s very important that everyone realizes that there really are no guarantees only promises which can be broken. Suppose a recruiter tells a young man or woman they can go to military school for a specific job. That’s not untrue but admission is probably competitive. Not everyone that wants it will get it. And, not everyone that actually goes to the schools will graduate and actually get the job. Where will those that don’t get the coveted training be assigned? Most likely, they’ll be sent to the front lines.

Will everyone in the military receive training valuable to civilian companies. No, only the brightest will receive that training. Is everyone suited to college following their enlistment? No! Following military service not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity. Others enter college or trade school and drop out. Did the military fail to deliver on their promises? No, there are no absolute guarantees. A lot depends on the individual.

Yes, the military does target people from less affluent neighborhoods. However, that doesn’t stop them from also contacting people from the most affluent communities. My two sons were contacted a number of times by letter and by phone by the Army and the Marines. I remember the frustration of a Marine Recruiter I talked to when he told me that he could offer my sons money to go to college following their enlistments. I told him I was able to pay for their entire college years, including tuition, room and board and entertainment. There was nothing more he could say. He had just wasted 15 minutes where he could have instead contacted someone from a different community and produced results.

Bottom line is that the U.S. does need the military. If they should ever be unable to attract enough volunteers then they will have no option but to draft. While many people would protest those protests would of necessity fall on deaf ears. Without a military we all would be vulnerable to attack right here at home.

Back when I was a young man I joined the U.S. Coast Guard. I did it for several reasons. First, I was subject to the draft and didn’t want to go to Vietnam. Second, I didn’t want to kill anyone and I knew the primary objective of the Coast Guard was to save, not take, lives. And, third, my brother had served in the Coast Guard during WWII. I believe the Coast Guard is still a great option for young men and women that want the advantages offered by military service without the extreme risks associated with the other services.

Again h2orowe, I'm glad you joined the discussion on this thread.

edit spelling

[Chris]

well, they aren't playing with your LIFE, now are they?


If you join the military then you know full well that you should still have a chance, however small of being deployed. As I said, they are some MOS' that have a small chance of being deployed, but that chance is always there.


The more I think about it, the more I think the military is darwinism at its best.

How's that?

[h2orowe]

h2orowe, you are a welcome addition to this thread.
Thank you :D Means a lot coming from you, ruaidhri.


Like it or not, I recognize that the U.S. needs a strong military to protect its interests. Certainly, I often don’t agree with our leaders about who’s interests need protection or how the military is actually deployed. I was originally and remain absolutely opposed to our invasion of Iraq. That, I believe was an aggressive act against a sovereign nation. It was also a stupid act because it accomplished what many had predicted by placing us in a quagmire where we can’t help but make mistakes that cost American and Iraqi lives along with wasting billions of dollars on an action I believe will never produce positive results.
When we originally went into Iraq, I do not think I was old enough to fully comprehend the situation (hell, I may not be old enough now to have a full grasp on it) and I didn't really care back then. However, with time and talks with my brother, I learned what a mistake it was going in. Through my own reading that shortly followed that, I found out that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and that we were in the for.. well.. no reason, really. (I was 13 at the time, turning 14. I remember because once I started reading more, I started caring a bit more about the government and I pretty much watched the Kerry campaign channel thing we had for our cable box non-stop during Summer.)


Regardless, we need protection that only a strong military can provide. That military needs recruits both in the enlisted and commissioned ranks. The U.S. no longer conscripts young men. Our military is all voluntary. So, military recruitment needs to advertise and make service attractive.
I have no real problem with them advertising it, but I just don't really like the idea of having military officials at my school so frequently, hounding these kids non-stop without showing them other options outside of military. I know it's not their job to do it, but still. This last school year, we had some veterans come by and pass out anti-recruitment fliers I kept one, I forgot where I put it though. However, the rest of the day, all I heard was how "stupid and unpatriotic" the pamphlets were, even though they brought up GREAT points. One of the recruiters was shown the pamphlet and was just like "What is this? Ha. Ha. Ha. What a bunch of lies." although it had facts followed up with sources (if I recall correctly, almost positive.) So, it's almost as if these kids won't believe anything about the military unless they hear it from the military themselves first.


For lower income youths with few job opportunities outside McDonalds following High School the military offers good pay, valuable training and money for higher education following their enlistment. It also offers young men and women academy and ROTC opportunities to prepare them for military service as commissioned officers. There is no question that what the military offers is valuable experience for those willing and capable of taking advantage of its opportunities. The problem is that the military also offers death, and serious injury. So, recruits should be very careful they fully understand the risks along with the advantages before they sign away their lives. Sadly, most young people don’t really appreciate their mortality until they’re actually in harms way. A lot of my peers have that mentality. They see me get good scores on tests and go "Joey, how are you so smart?" (which is actually kind of funny because they usually get better class grades because I have a God awful work ethic outside of English.) when in reality, they're not stupid. No one's stupid. You just have to turn off the TV once in a while and pay attention in class. No one has to do bad in high school, there's scholarships, you just bust your ass and work as hard as you can and you can do it. I, myself, should've done that earlier on, now I'll have to do either community college first then a 4 year, or I might be able to get into a particular private Buddhist university I have my eyes on. (As for paying for college, I have NO bloody clue how I will go about doing that. I'm thinking I'll have to do those student loan things.. and bury myself in debt, but as long as I can get my education I'll be happy. If I'm lucky, my mom won't marry her boyfriend before then and financial aid will take much pity on me. My dad said he'd pay for college, but loooooool that guy has just barely showed up to my life so we'll see how that goes.)

Anyway, the idea of McDonalds or Military is absurd. Kids just need to learn to bust their hump. They need to study at school AND at home. Not just one or the other. Getting by with C's just doesn't cut it. (I'm such a hypocrite, but my test scores allow me to be.) B's and A's should be what kids aim for.

I just really don't like that whole aiming for lower class kids thing as well because, technically, I'm lower class (Although my family was middle class most of my life, and before me and my brother it was upper class.) although not 100%, and I know a lot of kids who come from lower class families. It's not fair knowing that you and your friends have disadvantages like that that are completely out of your control, and it sucks knowing that if you want to make something out of yourself you're going to have to bust your ass harder than kids who live in a situation MUCH nicer than your's.


Will some recruiters stretch the truth or outright lie? Of course! The difference between signing on for a job at a local business and the military is that you can’t just up and quit the military. That’s called desertion and punishment is severe. So, again, it’s very important that everyone realizes that there really are no guarantees only promises which can be broken. Suppose a recruiter tells a young man or woman they can go to military school for a specific job. That’s not untrue but admission is probably competitive. Not everyone that wants it will get it. And, not everyone that actually goes to the schools will graduate and actually get the job. Where will those that don’t get the coveted training be assigned? Most likely, they’ll be sent to the front lines. A lot of these kids are either told they're going to get the nice jobs, or at least promised they have a high chance, then it comes around and they get shipped out and return with something missing, whether physically or mentally, or they don't come home at all. I've seen the recruiters tell these kids things like that before, that they'll be just working on computers basically and they won't have to worry about getting shipped out.


Will everyone in the military receive training valuable to civilian companies. No, only the brightest will receive that training. Is everyone suited to college following their enlistment? No! Following military service not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity. Others enter college or trade school and drop out. Did the military fail to deliver on their promises? No, there are no absolute guarantees. A lot depends on the individual.
In the ASVAB thing I took, it has pamphlets with career skills you'll get when you're in the military and on it says like "Join the army, you'll learn crucial skills to use in the outside world" or something along those lines, but reading the stories from people that come back, it seems like they don't learn those skills at all. Kids believe all that and are not told any different.


Yes, the military does target people from less affluent neighborhoods. However, that doesn’t stop them from also contacting people from the most affluent communities. My two sons were contacted a number of times by letter and by phone by the Army and the Marines. I remember the frustration of a Marine Recruiter I talked to when he told me that he could offer my sons money to go to college following their enlistments. I told him I was able to pay for their entire college years, including tuition, room and board and entertainment. There was nothing more he could say. He had just wasted 15 minutes where he could have instead contacted someone from a different community and produced results.
The military will target anyone, but, at least on my campus, they seem to pressure those who appear lower class and try their damnedest to get them into the military. Of course that's their job, but it's also the 16 year old kid's future.


Bottom line is that the U.S. does need the military. If they should ever be unable to attract enough volunteers then they will have no option but to draft. While many people would protest those protests would of necessity fall on deaf ears. Without a military we all would be vulnerable to attack right here at home.
That's a given. If you want to join the military, all the power to you, go ahead and join, it's just some of these kids are very unsure and soon regret it after joining. They find out that it's not what they expected (Yes, call them stupid stupid for joining and not expecting to get shipped out to Iraq, but still.) and are basically screwed over because they have to fight when they didn't think they would.


Back when I was a young man I joined the U.S. Coast Guard. I did it for several reasons. First, I was subject to the draft and didn’t want to go to Vietnam. Second, I didn’t want to kill anyone and I knew the primary objective of the Coast Guard was to save, not take, lives. And, third, my brother had served in the Coast Guard during WWII. I believe the Coast Guard is still a great option for young men and women that want the advantages offered by military service without the extreme risks associated with the other services.
If I were to join any military branch, it'd probably be Air Force >_>; but I'm too tall and I have bad eyesight so.. I wouldn't be able to actually fly. So, instead, I'd join either the Navy or Coast Guard, because those two appeal to me much more than the marines or army. Coast Guard does seem like a very good route to go.


Again h2orowe, I'm glad you joined the discussion on this thread.
Once again, thank you :D Means a lot.

[Trump]

The military recruiters are salesmen plain and simple. I doubt they get paid on commission or anything, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have penalties if they don't get people to sign up. So they act like most salesmen who have to sell something of questionable value. They dress up the good, they focus on the better prospects, and they try to gloss over the bad and drown out their competition (not that the army has much). I really can't blame them for what they do, can you?

And I think you underestimate how stupid the general population is. Every time I spend time isolated and shut up in my little world and things run smoothly I start to think "well maybe I was wrong, people aren't so bad!" Sadly, every time I am totally surprised when I stick my head out. I wonder how people can do the things they do. People take horrible gambles with their lives on the road to save maybe 30 seconds of travel time. People throw their money away on silly things at the store because someone made it sound cool, regardless of whether they need it or would even us it at all! People who have no money to spend eat out all the time, two to three meals a day, every day. I just don't get it. So yes, people are that stupid.

[ruaidhri]

This morning I chose to watch a couple of minutes of the Today Show. They reported some disturbing news. Oh, it’s nothing I haven’t heard and feared before but this time the threat appeared somewhat more real. They reported that indications of an attack by terrorists on a Western Nation, probably the USA, are more evident than at any time following 9/11.

We all remember with horror the events of September 11, 2001. They didn’t end with that day. While we had the sympathy of the world’s nations, Americans wanted more than revenge; we wanted retribution. I remember normally liberal friends talking about creating Lake Afghanistan. Many people I knew were saying “Nuke ‘em”. They had no idea of where to drop the bomb and certainly didn’t care about the innocents that would also be “nuked”.

We also allowed what I consider a dull witted President to assume almost dictatorial powers because he declared it necessary to protect America from further attack. The terrorists resented our way of life and here he was destroying it through the Patriot Act and Executive Order.

We invaded a sovereign nation on faulty intelligence and a totally unfounded and incorrect belief by many that Iraq’s leadership was aligned with Al-Qaeda and somehow responsible for 9/11. Today we’re in a lose-lose quagmire with continued loss of American, coalition forces and mostly innocent Iraqis lives. We’re spending untold billions upon billions of dollars to turn Iraq into a democratically elected government representative of its people without understanding that the minority has to be willing to be overruled by the majority. That is apparently not happening and probably won’t happen in our lifetimes, considering the long seated hatred between the involved parties. What’s worse we're not respected for our efforts. No, instead, we're hated by many and responsible for creating an ever increasing cadre of Islamic extremists where, before our intervention, they did not exist.

So what happens if these latest threats prove true? What if they do detonate a “dirty bomb” or a nuclear device of any strength? What if they release a biological or chemical agent on innocent men, women and children?

What would be America’s reaction? How violent and terrifying could it be? Consider the anger, fear and demands for biblical retribution. Remember, we have the power to destroy life on Earth. Our leaders would have to react decisively.

That’s scary!

edited for spelling

[Micah the Great]

And I think you underestimate how stupid the general population is. Every time I spend time isolated and shut up in my little world and things run smoothly I start to think "well maybe I was wrong, people aren't so bad!" Sadly, every time I am totally surprised when I stick my head out. I wonder how people can do the things they do. People take horrible gambles with their lives on the road to save maybe 30 seconds of travel time. People throw their money away on silly things at the store because someone made it sound cool, regardless of whether they need it or would even us it at all! People who have no money to spend eat out all the time, two to three meals a day, every day. I just don't get it. So yes, people are that stupid.
Yeah, that's when you have to think "Why did i stick my head out here?"... then plop right back in your own little world. This happens when i try not to watch the news for a long time... then i'm finally like "Well, maybe there's something interesting and useful to talk about." Then i turn on the news and every channel is freaking out about some dumb-fuck celebrity overdosing on crack. Then i just pulled my head back down real fast and say, "WTF was i thinking!"

Anyways, ruaidhri:
I tend to be very easy going and don't ever worry about much at all, usually not even war. But possibilities of biological or chemical warfare tend to scare the crap out of me. I honestly wonder what the U.S. would do if hit by one. I imagine a finger would immediately be pointed somewhere, even without evidence. The actions thereafter would be scary.

[Plekto]

So what happens if these latest threats prove true? What if they do detonate a “dirty bomb” or a nuclear device of any strength? What if they release a biological or chemical agent on innocent men, women and children?


If that happens, thanks to a recent bill that passed a month or so ago, the President can declare a state of emergency and essentially disband Congress and toss out the Constitution "until the emergency is resolved".

yes, that's exactly what it does/says - and it made a lot of people in Congress and the courts cringe at the potential for disaster, since "fighting a war on terror" is essentially an unending situation/perpetual threat. Therefore, such an attack would be essentially an unending "emergency".

As expected, our government is doing NOTHING to protect itself. I mean, why would they? If nobody attacks, they saved a lot of effort.

But if someone does... well, we get to claim to be the victim and go on a rampage. (historical note - our government did this in WWII, since 60%+ of the population wanted peace and the 20% or so that wanted war were the ones in power) So they sat back and did nothing to protect themselves, knowing that the coming attack by Japan could be exploited to the same effect 9/11 had. They didn't know exactly when(fall 1942), but had an idea that it was going to happen in the next year or so. Oh - and most people don't know this either, but Japan declared war on us an hour before they attacked. Our leaders buried this, of course, and the news fell in line like 9/11. (eerily so)

I see history due to repeat itself. One dirty bomb and they have the perpetual power that they are seeking. We may very well see Bush and his cronies in power for several decades if that happens.

[h2orowe]

Alex Jones had come up with a theory about this. It was called the False Flag theory or something. Basically, the U.S. Government is going to set up an attack and blame it on a different country, that way it can declare martial law, letting the Bush administration stay in office, AND it can go to war with said country/countries.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, sometimes I don't know where you're coming from. I don't like criticizing writers but all too often I find what you write to be chock full of half truths, misconceptions and pure bullshit. Such is the case with your last post.

Yes, the President has and definitely needs emergency powers. They can not and do not supersede the Constitution as it is that document and no bill passed by Congress and signed by the President that is the ultimate law of the land.

You make unfounded charges that our government is doing nothing to protect us from terrorists. What, pray tell, would you suggest they do that isn't already being done. How do you suggest we pay for the added cost of that security. And, not least of all, how do you propose we justify the probable loss of freedom such protective actions would present to the American public.

You brought up WWII. Yes, the overwhelming majority of Americans wanted no part of a European war. President Roosevelt realized that Hitler's Germany was not only a danger to Europe but also to America. He was limited as to the assistance he could offer the British.

Consider for a moment what probably would have happened if Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Certainly, they had their eyes on the Phillipines. Eventually, they would have attacked us regardless of how prepared we were. Remember, we really didn't have a large Army or Navy going into the war.

But, Japan, was small potatoes. Germany was the real threat. What would have happened if the USA wasn't part of the battle. Would Britain have fallen? I believe it would. Without American supplies what would have happened to the Soviet Union? I don't believe they would have been able to hold back the Germans and eventual push them back into Germany. Most important, I believe Germany would have had the time to develop the jet planes, rockets and their own nuclear weapons. Then they certainly would have threatened the USA. They were a clear a present danger.

Simply put, I do not agree with your scenario.

[Micah the Great]

Plekto, sometimes I don't know where you're coming from. I don't like criticizing writers but all too often I find what you write to be chock full of half truths, misconceptions and pure bullshit. Such is the case with your last post
Sorry to take away from the seriousness of the conversation.. but that was awesome. You know... i find you arguments to sometimes be full of half truths, and well.. other times, full of pure bullshit. LOL. Signed.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Alex Jones had come up with a theory about this. It was called the False Flag theory or something. Basically, the U.S. Government is going to set up an attack and blame it on a different country, that way it can declare martial law, letting the Bush administration stay in office, AND it can go to war with said country/countries.
You need to stop listening to Alex Jones.

Plekto, I can't trump what ruaidhri has said, but something of particular annoyance is that you claim Japan declared war on the US prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. They declared war after, and I can prove it. (http://century.guardian.co.uk/1940-1949/Story/0,,127505,00.html)

[h2orowe]

I actually don't listen to Alex Jones. I'd heard about that while reading about 9/11 conspiracies, I have seen his little part on Waking Life, and I've seen this video of him asking Bush about something when he was a governor and getting taken out by security, but that's it. Alex Jones kinda comes off as a conspiracy nutjob.

[Plekto]

My point wasn't to discuss the points of why we went to war or not in WWII so much as to point out that the strategy is being used today. One of pretending to be vigilant but essentially leaving ourselves open to an attack to claim to be the victims.

In reality, the U.S. and Japanese they were going to start shooting at each other within months. Both sides knew it. It's a very old tactic to use if you want the people to rally around your cause - appear to be the victim. It was transmitted the night before and supposed to be delivered at 1pm(6am local Hawaii Time - jsut before the attack started) - but the peolpe decrypting it were slow and late.

Interesting footnote, though - we had broken their code and the message managed to make it to Hawaii hours late, despite it being decoded some 10+ hours earlier. We'll never really know, but its not as black and white as our history books make it out to be. Especially in the light of how our government flat out lied to get us into Vietnam. When we're talking about the U.S. military, it's unfortunately nothing BUT hidden agendas and motives several layers deep.

Oh - the main point you had a problem with, though - the emergency powers.
(had to dig for this one a bit...)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824

Absolutely 100% true, I'm afraid. This part I wasn't stating my opinion about.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
If this doesn't make your eyes open up a bit and take notice... nothing will.

Everyone thinks that it MUST be a conspiracy theory(and by labelling it as such, idiotic) - this one is real. He is trying to take over everything. All he needs is any (rather loosely defined) "emergency". By leaving us thin and unprotected, all he has to do, really, is wait. He's confident that our enemies will play into his plans.(they're not so bright either and probably will)

[Trump]

Pletko, so what would you have us do? Cower in our homes in fear? Run screaming at every little noise in the night? How much money are you personally willing to spend to try to prevent terrorist attacks? You make it sound like the government has infinite amounts of money and can implement effective and non-intrusive protective measures at a whim. Do you remember what happened with the .... whatever named bill... the one that allowed wiretapping of international calls? There was a huge uproar about it. It's funny how you blame the government and yet much of the burden falls on the people.

It's also funny, that if you read the actual page from the whitehouse it doesn't have that anti-Bush slant to it.... You do realize, this act doesn't really change anything and the president already had pretty much all of these powers in an emergency.


They reported that indications of an attack by terrorists on a Western Nation, probably the USA, are more evident than at any time following 9/11.


Sadly, if the news didn't phrase it like this, it wouldn't be newsworthy. I somehow doubt the threat is much worse than last time the reported the exact same thing. I notice the national threat level didn't change, so that really makes you wonder.

[Plekto]

Our government COULD do a great job of protecting us if it really wanted to. Consider the very real and similar... no, greater threat we faced during the Cold War. Yet the CIA managed to get their hands dirty and get people working hard on the ground. And we managed to come out of it okay.

What frustrates me is that we currently are dealing with Cold War level threats again, or close to it, yet merely lip service and P.R. as a response.

What you can do? Realize that there's going to be a massive collapse of the U.S. economy - another major depression. Save, plan, prepare, and you will probably weather it out. Live like there's no tomorrow and well, you might get what you wished for.

[Chris]

Our government COULD do a great job of protecting us if it really wanted to. Consider the very real and similar... no, greater threat we faced during the Cold War. Yet the CIA managed to get their hands dirty and get people working hard on the ground. And we managed to come out of it okay.



While the CIA's work in the Cold War certainly helped, I think you just largely simplified the way we won the Cold War. There was a hell of a lot more to it than just our spy work.

[Trump]

...


Wait, so now you are comparing highly organized government intelligence agencies and their interactions (like USA and USSR) with India, Pakistan, Iraq, the Taliban, and Hamas? You really don't have a clue do you? Spies work great against well defined entities and spies with well defined goals, but they don't work nearly so well against little minority groups who get their jollies from kidnapping and executing nuns. What would you have them do? Join those groups? Help execute innocent people? You have to draw the line somewhere. And how do you have a clue what our spies are doing? They call it covert ops for a reason. If you knew what they were doing they'd have failed their jobs.

Cold War level threats? Where are the nukes in Cuba? Where are the ICBM carrying satellites? Where are the billions of dollars spent on foreign weapons programs aimed specifically at us? It isn't there. To claim this is remotely close to cold war level threats is just stupid hysterics from uninformed, unthinking sources.

And a depression? Now you claim to know economics like you know spies and the cold war. What exactly is causing this depression? Your doom and gloom attitude probably does more to hurt the economy than anything else. Inflation and unemployment are at good levels, while the stock market is doing well. Military spending also helps keep things going in the right direction. And you do realize the goverment learned a thing or two from the last one so the chance of that happening is very slim.

So what exactly are you saying with your last post? That you really don't pay attention to what is going on in the world or that you just like making shit up?

[Plekto]

Well, to hear our news go on about it, it's as big as the Cold War. You yourself just said WHY it's as big as the Cold War. Not in threat levels, but in terms of effort, money, and manpower/resources. It takes THAT level of work to get these guys. And it means more men on the ground.(since 9/11, we've essentially gutted the CIA's agents and now they do most of their work via high-tech monitoring and such instead of getting guys there in person).

Unfortunately, that's what's required, like during the Cold War. Infiltration is key - and we're not training nearly enough people to get the job done.

I just hate when they give something that's supposedly this important nothing but lip service. Take the wars overseas. They weren't even issuing proper clothing or survival equipment, let alone flak jackets and the like when we first went over there. There's an appalling lack of real effort on our government's part to go after these guys. Now, sure, the soldiers want to get them, but the government kicks them in he shins every moment it gets and leaves them out to fend for themselves.

***
As for the economy, there are many signs that we're hading for a collapse.
1: Our money's value is dropping. This means our credit rating is going to go down and create more inflation.

2:We also have about 25% increased value from the world monetary funds/currency exchanges because the dollar is used to buy most goods and price them(ie - you buy oil in dollars for instance). there's good evidence to support that the Euro will take over in a few years and hit us even harder. The days of the dollar being 3:1 to the Pound well return.(already at 2:1!) When the switch happens, our money will lose 25% of its value instantly.

3:There's an astounding amount of leveraging of our economy. If it weren't for China and other countries artificially propping up our lifestyle, everything would double in cost - or not be available. And that's not even considering credit or the stock market being overvalued. We also have entire segments of our economy that we don't have a fallback mechanism in place for. This actually is what finally broke the Soviet Union's back. They did nothing but just-in-time manufacturing and outsourcing. And it worked great until a few cracks appeared. Then suddenly you couldn't make a tank because there was a problem with a factory in Ukraine. And your truck to transport th part - no replacement tires because they came from someplace else. Outsourcing works great, until it breaks down. Then without anything locally to replace the missing elements of your economy in a quick manner... *poof*.

Just imagine if there were say, no replacement light bulbs or toilet paper or shoes for six months. Entire parts of our economy would implode under the stress.

4:Record levels of foreclosures and lowest levels of savings to credit ratio ever recorded. (how many people here have money in savings?) This is the reason it'll not be a recession but completely collapse. Most of the U.S. has no safety buffer. In fact, most people are maxxed out on their credit or close to it, living month to month.

There are many other issues, but it's not like I haven't done the research. The parallels to a century ago are frighteningly similar.(worse in many ways, actually) We're right now at the trailing edge of a 1920s style boom, but the cliff that's looming is very steep indeed.

[Trump]

Well, to hear our news go on about it, it's as big as the Cold War. You yourself just said WHY it's as big as the Cold War. Not in threat levels, but in terms of effort, money, and manpower/resources.

Wait, you actually believe the news? The news lives to blow things out of proportion. And so now we measure the severity of the situation by how much money we spend on it? No! The cold war was huge because there was a real threat of world war and mutual destruction. As a result, they spent billions of dollars trying to make sure that didn't happen. That isn't the case today. Sure they are spending money, but do you think that is because the situation is that severe or because someone in DC wants to either make the country feel safer, wants to feel important, or wants to help make their friends rich? Yeah, because that is the same level problem as the cold war...

It's funny you mention inflation. If you look at history, the inflation rate from 1925 through WW2 never got above 5%. If you actually do some research you find that the depression actually has more to do with deflation than inflation. As money loses value and the value of your debt stays the same it becomes harder to pay off. I'm not saying high inflation is good, but it was not a cause of the Great Depression.

And another major cause was the collapse of some major banks. Today, all banks must be federally insured. So even if some banks do fail (which I doubt will happen anyway) the government takes over and makes sure everything comes out OK. This avoids the panic that caused the crash last time. Furthermore, as long as the government keeps writing paychecks to keep people employed that goes a long long way to avoiding a depression. What do you think got us out of the depression? Mainly it was government spending. If the government starts cutting back too much there might be problems, but given that it looks like the country is leaning more democrat recently (thank you bush) it won't even be an issue.

Sure, the housing market is in a downturn, but I guarantee in 5-7 years the cycle will reverse like it always does. People had money to invest and they lost it, not like that has never happened before. And in a few years they'll make it all back.

I also don't understand why you think our reliance on the Chinese economy or others that "prop us up" is a problem. It isn't like they are going to fail overnight. If goods become more expensive we'll shift jobs back to the US and it will actually help things. And if you think the government relies on foreign industry for their military supplies, you don't know the military very well. Sure, they use some foreign goods, but they always have domestic back ups available.

Sure, some things suck and are worse than 100 years ago, but there are also many things that are better both in knowledge and implementation. There are so many differences I really don't see how you can draw a comparison. So in summary, no cold war, no depression.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, I’m a trusting sort of guy. I believe our leaders in the U.S. are basically good and don’t have evil intentions. Certainly they have made many mistakes some, including invading Iraq, being incredibly serious. But, I don’t believe even George W. Bush has any intention of becoming a dictator. While I don’t agree with Bush’s leadership I certainly don’t hate him nor do I believe he is evil incarnate. And, even though I don’t agree with many of his policies I do respect his position as our President.

Now, can the President issue an Executive Order that, if actually executed, would usurp the constitutional powers of the legislative and judicial branches of our government? Obviously, George W. has under the guise of providing leadership in the event of a major disruption of existing governmental authority. I believe such a plan is necessary considering how dangerous the world is today. Has Bush gone too far with his specific order? Very possibly, he has. Yet, I do believe we have the constitutional framework to overrule any improper application of such an order. Except in an extremely apocalyptic situation, I do not believe any President (including George W.) would get away with attempting to take control over all federal and state governments, especially in areas not impacted by the emergency.

Considering that all we’re talking about is opinions this whole conversation is useless. I certainly hope we never have a situation to test exactly what Bush or any other President would do in an end of time situation.

So, on to another topic, Yesterday was Labor Day in the United States. To many Americans it was another long holiday weekend and nothing more. There was no understanding of or concern for the struggles of labor unions to give a fair break to working men and women.

A Gallup Poll reported that most american adults (60%) approve of unions while at the same time actual membership has declined since the 1970’s, with only 7.4% of private sector workers belonging to unions.

Following military service and the beginnings of college, I entered the workforce in 1966 as an office clerical worker. I was represented by an union for office workers. The company I worked for had a few managers and a lot of clericals that actually did the work. We had 13 salary grades with the higher grades holding very responsible jobs with comfortable salaries often higher than the lower level “management” employees.

I took over the leadership of the union at my company and was a member of the local’s executive board. During my tenure, I handled all grievances and negotiations and was very successful in improving the salaries, benefits and opportunities for the members. This was all unpaid as I still held my regular job with the company. I even paid my dues.

Then, as the baby boomers aged and completed college, the company rewrote more and more of the jobs to require a college degree. The jobs were no more difficult just more exclusive. Oh, I fought the changes and often won the arguments. Yet, I recognized it was a losing battle. Meanwhile, I had reached the zenith of my opportunities as a union employee. I was at the highest salary grade. I wanted more. So I concentrated on improving my education. I also quit my leadership of the union because I needed the time for school.

In early 1979, the company promoted me to a management position. Over the following years I was promoted several times but the jobs, while responsible were actually easier than what I had done as a union member. Soon, most of the purely clerical functions were replaced by word-processors, spreadsheets and databases. My former union remains with the company but is a mere shadow of its former glory. Still, it recently “won” a battle with the company.

Are unions a thing of the past? Can they ever regain their former power in the United States or around the world? Personally, I doubt it because employers can always move their production to another city, state or country with cheaper labor.

What’s your opinion.

[Trump]

Unions... wow... I have such mixed feelings. Today, I believe that unions (for the most part) do not serve the same purpose they used to. When unions were originally created they were battling completely inhumane conditions and wages. Jobs were dangerous and often left people maimed and unable to work. They were important because an individual employee or even a group of employees had no where else to take a greivance. But today things are totally different. The government has created many different organizations to support the average worker and lawsuits abound. So I believe the main purpose of the union just does not exist any more.

Now let me give you an example of what I see at work. There is a union for the technicians that work in our manufacturing area. They have people whose job involves taking equipment between different stations. As an engineer I sometimes need to take equipment between different lab areas, but I am actually not allowed to carry a light little box between areas. That is taking away someone's job and they can document a greivance against me!! So then the person who caught me gets paid for the job anyway, without having to do anything. So I have to wait on a union member to carry the box between areas and waste my time, reducing efficiency and raising costs. Talk about crazy...

So I really feel like many unions do not support the companies they work for any more. They are too self centered and greedy. I think they are afraid they are losing their power as many people decide not to join a union. Why pay for a union that requires you to pay dues but doesn't get you the pay raises you wanted anyway? And that just makes their situation even worse. And furthermore, instead of finding ways to work better with the hiring companies, they fight against them and cost the companies even more over really ridiculous things.

Overall, yes I believe unions are a thing of the past.

[stsparky]

German German Police Say 3 Arrested in Imminent Terrorist Plot (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/world/europe/06germany.html?ex=1346731200&en=45915ce8e261c78c&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

By MARK LANDLER and NICHOLAS KULISH
FRANKFURT, Sept. 5 — The police in Germany have arrested three Islamic militants suspected of planning large-scale terrorist attacks against several sites frequented by Americans, including discos, bars, airports and military installations.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/05/world/05terror.395.jpg
German special forces police officers escorting a suspect from the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe today.

The suspects — two German citizens and a Turkish resident of Germany — were in advanced stages of plotting bombing attacks that could have been deadlier than the terrorist strikes that killed dozens in London and Madrid, police and security officials said Wednesday. They said the possible targets included the busy Ramstein air base and the Frankfurt international airport.

“They were planning massive attacks,” the German federal prosecutor, Monika Harms, said at a news conference, outlining a vast six-month investigation. She said that the suspects had amassed huge amounts of hydrogen peroxide, the main chemical used to manufacture the explosives used in the suicide bombings in London in July 2005.

Ms. Harms said the two German suspects were converts to Islam who had trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan. They had 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide to make explosives, which they had hidden and were preparing to move when they were arrested on Tuesday afternoon. Officials said they also had military-grade detonators. German and American officials said that such indicators made them suspect connections to Al Qaeda.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/05/world/05frankfurt.ms.650.jpg

“This would have enabled them to make bombs with more explosive power than the ones used in the London and Madrid bombings,” Jörg Ziercke, head of the German Federal Crime Office, said, calling the links to Al Qaeda “close.” German officials were visibly relieved by the arrests, which they said were the fruits of a six-month investigation involving 300 people from the police and prosecutor’s office. On Wednesday, police officers raided 41 houses and apartments across Germany, seizing computers and other evidence.

One of the suspects, Fritz Gelowicz, a 28-year-old German born in Munich, was under surveillance by German investigators as early as December 2006, after he was seen scouting American military barracks in Hanau as a possible bombing target, according to court documents.

The arrests were made at a vacation home in Oberschledorn, a remote village of 900 people in North-Rhine Westphalia, north of Frankfurt. The suspects had rented the house to store chemicals to make explosives, officials said, and were preparing to leave when security forces swooped in.

One of the three men fled and, in a scuffle with a police officer, wrested a pistol from his holster and shot him in the hand before he was subdued. The officer was slightly wounded, officials said. Residents described the raid, by an elite police unit, as something out of an action movie.

The arrests came a day after the Danish police arrested eight people in a suspected terrorist plot there. The German interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, said there was no evidence of a direct link between the plots, despite similarities, including a suspected link to Al Qaeda. Six of those suspects have already been released.

Germans officials said the attacks could have come within days, noting that the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks falls next week and that the German Parliament will soon take up a politically sensitive debate about extending the deployment of German troops in Afghanistan.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/05/world/NYT2007090509092217C.jpg
German police officers escorting one of the suspects from a helicopter.

“There was an imminent security threat,” the German defense minister, Franz Josef Jung, said on state television.

Ms. Harms said the three suspects arrested Tuesday belonged to a German cell of the Islamic Jihad Union, a radical Sunni group based in Central Asia that split from the extremist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

While this group has not been linked to terrorist attacks in Europe, it has claimed credit for suicide bombings in July 2004 near the United States and Israeli Embassies in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent. The group has called for the overthrow of the secular government in Uzbekistan.

For months, German officials have warned that the country was under threat of a terrorist attack, in part because of Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan. Officials said they were particularly worried by reports of Germans taking part in terrorist training camps in Pakistan, near the Afghan border.

“The modus operandi looks pretty much like the one we had warnings about,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The lesson from this is the danger is not just abstract, it’s real,” Chancellor Angela Merkel said to reporters in Berlin. The consequences of an attack, she said, would have been “indescribable.” Mr. Ziercke said the United States aided German authorities in their investigation. Another security official here said the Americans tipped off the Germans to the existence of the Islamic Jihad Union.

President Bush, who is in Australia, was briefed on the arrests, according to Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “He’s pleased a potential attack was thwarted and appreciates the work of the German authorities and the cooperation by international law enforcement.”

An American intelligence official said Wednesday that suspicions that the cell might be plotting an attack in Germany led the American Embassy in Berlin to issue a warning earlier this year.

Twice this spring the United States Embassy in Berlin has warned Americans in Germany of the need for heightened security. On March 16, a “warden message” to Americans said that “the U.S. Embassy encourages American citizens resident in and visiting Germany to maintain a high level of vigilance and take appropriate steps to bolster their personal security.”

On April 20, in another warden message, the embassy said that American diplomatic facilities in Germany were increasing their “security posture.”

“We are taking these steps in response to a heightened threat situation,” the message said, again without providing details. It again encouraged Americans in Germany to increase their vigilance and ensure their personal security.

American officials, who have spoken publicly about Al Qaeda’s growing abilities to attack Western targets, also say that the group in Germany probably has ties to Al Qaeda operational figures in Pakistan. American spy agencies believe that Al Qaeda leaders have established a safe haven in the western mountains of Pakistan, where they have set up small compounds to train operatives for attacks on Western targets.

American military officials here said the Germans contacted them on Tuesday evening to warn them about the plot. They did not have further information about a threat to the Ramstein air base.

“This was a German-led investigation,” said Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker, a spokesman for the United States European Command in Stuttgart. “We do appreciate their commitment to safeguarding us against a terrorist attack.”

Ramstein is the largest American air base here and a transportation hub for troops deploying to Eastern Europe, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Commander Barker said the base had not lifted its force protection level, which is currently at B, the second-highest designation.

Frankfurt’s airport, the second busiest in Continental Europe after Charles de Gaulle in Paris, was operating normally on Wednesday morning, said a spokesman for the airport, Robert A. Payne.

A spokesman for the American embassy in Berlin, Robert A. Wood, said the State Department had not decided whether to issue a new warning.

“The successful operation carried out by Germany reminds us that the threat of terrorism is real and requires close cooperation by all like-minded nations, in order to put an end to this scourge,” Mr. Wood said.

Germany narrowly missed a terrorist attack in July 2006, when a pair of suitcase bombs left on commuter trains in Cologne failed to explode. German officials said that attack was motivated by anger over the publication of satirical cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper.

Unlike that case, in which the police said the suspects used crude materials to make relatively small explosives, these suspects amassed enough hydrogen peroxide, which when mixed with other chemicals, could yield a bomb with an explosive force equivalent to 1,200 pounds of TNT.

Last June, Mr. Schäuble and his deputy, August Hanning, warned that the terrorist threat was comparable to that in the months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. That plot was largely hatched in Hamburg by a circle of Islamic militants posing as students.

Mr. Schäuble coupled his warning with a call for stricter antiterrorism measures. He said he would like police to be able to conduct surreptitious searches of computers belonging to suspected terrorists.

“There is a growing problem with home-grown terrorism that’s also evident elsewhere in Europe,” Mr. Schäuble said at a news conference in Berlin.

Some critics here have accused Mr. Schäuble of ratcheting up fears of terrorism in order to push his tougher measures. The debate has been particularly fierce because of Germany’s deep aversion since World War II to law enforcement tactics that threaten individual liberties.

Souad Mekhennet contributed reporting from Frankfurt, Mark Mazzetti and Brian Knowlton from Washington, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Australia.

[Y.T.]

For once, fairly competent terrorists. Unlike the clows that set themselves on fire at the Glasgow airport, or the idiots who couldn't even make a proper car bomb... )

Although, they got caught. But I suppose that's inevitable.
Muslims inquiring about large quantities of high concentration hydrogen peroxide,
I would go to the police at once if someone asked me about procuring that...
(most likely, that's how they got caught. A private citizen has no business
in acquiring lots of chemicals... In fact, if one really needed to get explosives,
stealing some from a mine would be far easier and cheaper than establishing
a legitimate front business that could obtain the necessary chemicals
without raising suspicion .. )

(With peroxide, citric acid, and acetone, you can manufacture TATP...
It's highly risky. Hamas engineers call it the "mother of Satan" for it's instability and high risk of accidental detonation...)
A friend of mine made it at home with his father a long time ago, just
a few grams. That was the last time they experimented, the stuff blew up
and he almost lost a finger .. )

--
But this only serves to underline the need to remove all Islamists from Europe.
There is no place here for them. They don't belong here, they don't want to
assimilate, they don't respect our laws.

But, I bet the option of repatriation or extinction'll mulled once our buses
are about as safe as Israeli were before they built the wall.

--------

But then, we will have other traitors to defeat. For example the current mayor of Bruxelles. For some reason (maybe because half of the city council members of his party have names like Abu, Mohammed, or Mustafa) he denied the request to hold a peaceful protest against islamization of Europe and moslem immigration to the old continent scheduled on 11th september this year.

You may not have heard this, but it's pretty significant.
(Because, of the 3500 demonstrations he allowed in the past six years.
He banned only six. Yes, they have more than one a day in Brussels.. they
didn't even bother to remove the barricades in the city centre last time my father was there on a business trip )

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2382

[ruaidhri]

Oh, Interfector, I must say your opinions force me deal with my own fears and prejudices while remaining true to my liberal background. I really doubt that the way to deal with distrust and hatred is with our own distrust, hatred and expulsion. Does a single rotten apple truly make the whole barrel bad?

Here, in America, there are more opportunities for terrorism than from Muslims. We have our own home-grown idiots on both extremes of the political spectrum. I doubt it's any different in Europe. If we (Americans and Europeans) continue to expel any group with any members that scare us, what will be the exact criteria for such expulsion and who will make that decision? After awhile, who would be safe and would we even want to live in the "new" USA or the "new" Europe? And, if you protested, would you not be next in line for the exit.

Edit spelling

[Y.T.]

Even some Muslims have expressed the opinion that ultimately the only way to facilitate peace between them and the rest of the world might be segregation, that is, they don't live in our countries and we don't live in theirs.

I can't find the article now. It was by an Iranian living in Canada.. Hmm..
An extreme measure, but then why should we accept people in our countries whose way of life is alien. Moderate Muslims who see no need to implement sharia law, respect the state, don't practice polygamy, etc, are only a little more dangerous than other religious people.

But, what would you think if, for example, Muslims kids threw rocks at a holocaust memorial, and the police did nothing. (I don't think you can arrest 12-13 yr old kids in Europe - Certainly you can't prosecute them for assault). Holocaust denial is common among Muslims. Even moderate ones, afaik. Most of them believe Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a historical document..
Or if that scum starts torching cars and schools when two juvenile delinquents break into a transformer station to escape from the police and subsequently acquire Darwin Awards.

Certainly, it's the fault of the majority population. Society made them do it, right?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=34cbfbb7-eb95-4e77-a155-3904297e45de

This article is interesting.
While I dislike Mr.Sarkozy, even vile people can sometimes do good.

He proposes that immigrants who have not assimilated to a sufficient degree
(they keep their women locked at home, can't speak French, etc) are to be deported among other things...

That's sensible. Make all immigrants swear an oath to uphold certain principles which the native population generally accepts, and if they break the oath, send them back from whence they came.

Ultimately, it's much better than the alternative, that is, that through demographics they achieve majority, then they start to legislate their own warped morality into law. That would lead to civil war.

Or that we end up with medieval ghettoes and slavery in our own countries.
(is there any difference between the status of a Muslim wife and a slave, I wonder?)

[manrush]

Holy shit! Fjordman is now in this forum?

[ruaidhri]

Interfector, you didn't answer my questions, specifically:

If we (Americans and Europeans) continue to expel any group with any members that scare us, what will be the exact criteria for such expulsion and who will make that decision?

After awhile, who would be safe and would we even want to live in the "new" USA or the "new" Europe?

And, if you protested, would you not be next in line for the exit?

Interfector, I know that you're an intelligent person. Yet, from my observations, I believe you have many prejudices against people that have different religions, ethnicity, economic status and past educational opportunities. I truly question and disagree with your opinion that it's appropriate to judge the many based on the actions of the few.

The world truly is smaller than it was when I was born. Then, neighbors were the people across the street. Today, they can just as easily be the people in the country next door to yours or even across the globe. If expulsion is your answer, just where are we going to expel all these people you find so undesirable? Where would they no longer be a threat?

I doubt being expelled from their homes would make anyone happy. I further doubt that such expulsions would lessen the threat of terrorism. And, then, if separation fails, what’s your next step, confinement in concentration camps and a final solution?

[nanashi]

All I want to add is that Alex Jones is a quackjob, and I unfortunately have to listen about him nearly every day since the people in my family are conspiracy nuts.

I work with some Muslims and know people who've worked with Muslims; I can't believe the idiots who believe in this propaganda prejudice garbage they read on youtube and the internet.

It makes me sick and I realize why I don't go into this thread much. >.< (No offense to the frequent posters that don't say those things, it's just the infrequent uneducated kids that bother me.)

[Y.T.]

If we (Americans and Europeans) continue to expel any group with any members that scare us, what will be the exact criteria for such expulsion and who will make that decision?

Islamists, for one.

You see, Islam is not just a religion*. Surely, there are people who treat it as just that, but in its entirety, it also incorporates rules on how to rule a state, wage war, punish thieves(cutting off hands) and adulterers(stoning for women, I believe).

Now, some moderates don't take those bits seriously, but they are always in danger of being called insufficiently pious for cherry-picking the holy book(and the hadiths).

Anyway, there is a significant number of people who feel that this corrupt modern age is utterly despicable, and that living in a sharia inspired theocracy would be preferable.

That's islamism in a nutshell, I believe.

------------------------------------
So, people espousing that kind of worldview ought to be deported.
They abhor the secular state, abhor democracy, consider women to be unequal to men in their rights, and so on.

To be fair, everyone with a similar worldview (at least first two criteria fulfilled) ought to be thrown out too, ´so hardcore nazis and communists would have to keep quiet to stay citizens.

That's not unreasonable.


Interfector, I know that you're an intelligent person. Yet, from my observations, I believe you have many prejudices against people that have different religions, ethnicity, economic status and past educational opportunities. I truly question and disagree with your opinion that it's appropriate to judge the many based on the actions of the few.

I don't judge them. I say Muslims are a group especially vulnerable to Islamist teachings. You don't expect devout Christian to strap bombs on them and blow buses up because of what's happening in Palestine, do you?
Somehow, it's always young, angry Muslims men.

So, as a purely precautionary principle, to ensure that we don't keep that kind of people, every Muslim ought to swear an oath to obey the law and
respect the secular state. Yes, they can lie in order to escape persecution,
but then if you taped them saying otherwise, deporting them would be a slam-dunk. Right?

Where to?

Their country of origin. Where else? If they are second-generation, too bad. You just have to wait until they step over the line, and jail them.
Anyway, good thing is, that cooler heads have already started deporting the most loathsome imams from Europe. Now, if only somehow we could cut off Saudi funding. ( read up on Wahabbism. They have lots of money, and somehow, their peace-oriented religion managed to produce the bulk of 9/11 hijackers.. ).

--------------------------------
*and as a religion, it's pretty abhorrent too. Even more than other ones.
In fact, the Hadiths are on-par with the old testament ..
There are a few good examples on Ali Sina's site. Now, he's strongly partisan,
but the point is, those gems he pointed out are present in Quran and hadiths ..
(for those who don't know, Mohammed basically ordered his followers to kill a woman who badmouthed him. That kind of stuff Jesus definitely wouldn't do.)


The world truly is smaller than it was when I was born. Then, neighbors were the people across the street. Today, they can just as easily be the people in the country next door to yours or even across the globe. If expulsion is your answer, just where are we going to expel all these people you find so undesirable? Where would they no longer be a threat?

It's exactly the same size. They had air travel back then, too. Only it wasn 't so prevalent. I would be content if Islamists lived in reservations on another continent. I would be content if Muslims lived next door, if they had no objection to me eating pork, drinking beer, and being technically able to obtain legal pornography if I so desired. And respected my right to own automatic weapons, curse every possible Religious Concept, Muhammad, Jesus, Allah included. (though I do admit I curse God more often than Allah.
"Do Boha ("By God" in English), sounds far better than "Do Allaha".. ))

I would also prefer if they, alongside with everyone else, were discouraged by monetary penalties from having more than three kids per adult male/female pair.

That's about it.

And, then, if separation fails, what’s your next step, confinement in concentration camps and a final solution?

Hmm. I do admit that as almost everyone who has ever lived next door to an extended gypsy family begins to doubt Hitler was entirely wrong with the final solution..
Anyway, Muslims aren't gypsies, and the only reason why they should ever be rounded up in camps would be full-scale civil war between them and the rest.

And then, final solution should only be for people guilty of treason. Uprising, rebellion, call it whatever you want, has been traditionally punished by death. Moreover, rebellions are usually supported from abroad. That makes it treason, and that used to be a hanging offence. But maybe forced labour is more profitable. Too bad we don't have Siberia in Europe..


uneducated kids

You got the first right (I didn't have enough willpower & ambition to finish university, and probably won't in the next ten years). But I am probably not a kid anymore(Hmm. Employed full time, can vote, drink, driving license, and all that stuff. Down to definitions, I guess).

[MNJetter]

Geez, you're fast. I looked them up right after making that post, and upon realizing my mistake, I deleted the post. So....never mind.

EDIT: And actually, knowing that there is a difference between "Islamist" and "Muslim," I can see where Interfector is coming from slightly more than before, though I still think he takes it way too far.

[mugen]

I deleted my post before you posted again.

:boggled: twilight zone

[MNJetter]

:rofl:

Well, now I'm just going to leave that last post up there to confuse people with. :D

[Trump]

...

I don't even know where to begin...

How can you claim to be toleratant of things and yet at the first sign of something you don't like you threaten deportation? How can your views be so narrow as to assume that because maybe 1 in 100 young Muslim men have joined a terrorist organization that all young Muslim men are inclined to do so? Everything you talk about penalizes the innocent and accedes victory to the terrorist. If my next door neighbor is a devout southern baptist (would abhor drinking and pornography) and was a vegan (would abhor eating all meat let alone pork) should they be deported too? Your post just floors me! I really can't respond in any organized fashion!

You come across as racist and frightened and willfully ignorant about people in general. Sure you've done a little research on an extremist sect or two, but what do you know about most people? Do you honestly belive deporting normal every day people will help prevent terrorism? Hell no, because those who want to blow themselves up will find a way in (back in?) to the country anyway. They will lie in the first place so they don't get deported. They will still do the same things they are doing now, in the same places. Please explain how your solution does anything besides foster more hate and more violence!

[stsparky]

I wish moderate Muslim Americans would step up to the challenge of making their disenfranchised youth happier here. And I wish those who champion "Muscular Christianity" would shut their big fat mouths and stop alienating those not of their faith.

I'm now 5 years older than my 44 year old cousin who died in the 9/11 tragedy. And the issues it showed us seem unaddressed still ...

[bakagaijin]

[QUOTE=stsparky] And I wish those who champion "Muscular Christianity" would shut their big fat mouths and stop alienating those not of their faith.

QUOTE]


Great phrase sparky, and I agree 100%.

[Y.T.]

How can you claim to be toleratant of things and yet at the first sign of something you don't like you threaten deportation? How can your views be so narrow as to assume that because maybe 1 in 100 young Muslim men have joined a terrorist organization that all young Muslim men are inclined to do so? Everything you talk about penalizes the innocent and accedes victory to the terrorist. If my next door neighbor is a devout southern baptist (would abhor drinking and pornography) and was a vegan (would abhor eating all meat let alone pork) should they be deported too? Your post just floors me! I really can't respond in any organized fashion!


So what that he abhors it? Point is, as long as he doesn't harass me, or tries to tell me it's wrong, it's entirely OK. I don't go around telling Christians that their religion is a beautiful lie. (Not usually, but I tend to tell those things to people who proselytize)

I imagine most Muslims don't go around telling people that porn is bad, masturbation sends you to hell, and that we shouldn't eat pork.


How can your views be so narrow as to assume that because maybe 1 in 100 young Muslim men have joined a terrorist organization that all young Muslim men are inclined to do so?

They are the only group from which terrorists recruit. Therefore, they should be watched more closely.

Everything you talk about penalizes the innocent and accedes victory to the terrorist.

Well, if the person deported is innocent according to Sharia..
Really. People with medieval world views have no place in Europe.
We don't have any of your foaming-at-the-mouth protestants,
we don't need any Muslims of similar persuasion. That's why we should
reserve the right to deport immigrants who have that kind of world view.

Why should we allow them to live here? It's not their right.
Moving to Europe should be considered a privilege. They should
be grateful to be allowed to come here and do shit jobs.


Demanding that we conform to some of their rules*, or that we tolerate
their customs is very disrespectful to us, especially if their home countries
force our visitors to conform to their rules. (Try not wearing headscarf while visiting Saudi Arabia if you are a woman).

You come across as racist and frightened and willfully ignorant about people in general.


I am not frightened. No reason to be. I live in a country that has very few Muslims, and is in little danger, unless the Islamists miraculously manage to create their Caliphate, which is unlikely. (Famous for its weapons, beer, castles, consumption of pork and so on)

Do you honestly belive deporting normal every day people will help prevent terrorism? Hell no, because those who want to blow themselves up will find a way in (back in?) to the country anyway. They will lie in the first place so they don't get deported.

Yes. Deporting deeply religious Muslims who produce children like there's no tomorrow, don't want to learn the language, view women as little better than animals, and think any form of democracy is a sham, and that we ought to live in a theocracy is a good idea.

You don't want that kind of fellow citizens. Certainly you don't want them becoming a significant minority.

They lie? Well, that's ok. We know they lie. That's why we have secret services. Who probably try to recruit informants among the more sensible
young Muslims to have them infiltrate extremist organization.

That's why the police in many countries monitor what's being said in mosques.
If it's hate speech, they tend to deport imams who use it.


*as of today, they only object to our free speech. But you can bet that if they were the majority, they would start legislating their own warped morality on the rest of us. Just like the bloody Catholics in Poland.

[Trump]

So, you are saying that deporting the nearly 3 million Muslims living in Germany right now would have avoided the recent situation that led to the arrests of the three terrorists last week? Do you really believe you would make things better instead of just making them worse? Is there a better way to put a bullseye on your forehead than to piss off the entire Middle East!?

Demanding that we conform to some of their rules*, or that we tolerate their customs is very disrespectful to us, especially if their home countries force our visitors to conform to their rules. (Try not wearing headscarf while visiting Saudi Arabia if you are a woman).


Yet you refuse to tolerate others. How are you any better? You come across as completely intolerant of other viewpoints (whether you intend to or not), and then you blame other people for making you that way. I say you are just as bad if not worse than those you criticize.

[Y.T.]

No.

It would be a highly unpopular move. Besides, Turks are far less troublesome than other Muslims. (esp. Arabs. If I recall correctly, last year inept bombing attempt was done by a Jordanian student..)


Is there a better way to put a bullseye on your forehead than to piss off the entire Middle East!?


Put a bullseye? Eh? So far, I don't think Al-Qaeda ever shot anyone outside of Afghanistan. I wonder why. I suppose five men with Kalashnikovs going on a rampage in a crowded tourist destination somewhere in Europe would cause far more carnage than any stupid suicide bombing, and there would a fair chance of some of them escaping to repeat it.


Yet you refuse to tolerate others. How are you any better? You come across as completely intolerant of other viewpoints (whether you intend to or not), and then you blame other people for making you that way. I say you are just as bad if not worse than those you criticize.


Tell me, why should I tolerate them? They are supremacists (Islamists, that's who), who believe that Islam is the one true way to follow for everyone,
and that everyone is inferior to them.

I don't feel it's wise to tolerate them.
(of course, tolerating Muslims who keep to themselves, and are in their conduct and mores scarcely distinguishable from religious people of other faiths is much simpler)

[japanat]

Interfector,

Reading your posts over the last couple of years has just left a bad taste in my mouth. Your tendency to overgeneralize, to marginalize, to treat all who are not "Interfector" are all indications of a massive inferiority complex. How exactly are you any better than those you criticize?

You sound very intelligent; how about thinking through your responses before you post, and giving a reasoned argument?

[Y.T.]

Who am I treating badly? I usually don't attempt to insult anyone except he who used to be some kind of Lemming.

Marginalize? Now what does that mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalization
Ah.
Now, I am not a society, so I can't 'marginalize' anyone.

Sorry, but your post makes little sense.

[japanat]

I don't mean that you insult OP9 members, but rather that your writing is often insulting to any ethnic or religious minority (kick out all Muslims because of a few radicalized Islamists?). You marginalize (sometimes, not always) by judging entire cultures by the actions of a few, and saying that they should all be treated the same.

I understand how Muslim and Islamist are different, and actually understand most of what you are trying to differentiate, but the tone of your writings often makes it difficult to tell the difference in what you are saying.

[Trump]

I still don't think you understand marginalize very well. From the wiki entry:

A group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination

That is almost exactly what you are doing. Instead of treating groups like "Turks" or "Arabs" as people similar to yourself, you refer to them as if you consider them to be subhuman. "They should be grateful to be allowed to come here and do shit jobs." Also, the way you tack on adjectives like "foaming-at-the-mouth protestants" gives the impression you feel all protestants are foaming at the mouth instead of trying to restrict your views to a small subset of protestants. In general, your posts come across as derisive and racist.

[ruaidhri]

Interfector, I’ve read and appreciated your posts for a long time now. Undoubtedly, you are unique to OP9 and force me to really think about what I believe and why. I like that.

Many times I hear or read the news and wonder how people could hold beliefs so alien to my own. With you, I can actually question and receive intelligent answers to those questions. Certainly, we don’t always disagree but when we do it’s a doozie.

Now to the question at hand. Europe, America and the world are frightened by terrorism. Terrorism thrives because it give power to the weak. Individuals can stand up to governments of all sizes. They can influence policies and actually become heroes to many. Who’s to say that the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor by the American patriots would not be considered an act of terrorism by today’s standards.

Certainly, my own country isn’t innocent of forcing unwanted ethnic groups out of their homes and transporting them to a place where they are no longer considered a physical or economic threat. All one has to look at is how we treated our native American Indians, or the Japanese in the USA during WWII. But, that doesn’t justify doing the same today.

Yes, extremists of all flavors are dangerous. I’m often reminded of what my mother used to say to me when I first became interested in politics: “Beware of Zealots”. They are indeed dangerous because they let their emotions (and faith) rather than reason control their actions.

Do Islamic zealots scare me? Absolutely! Do I believe what you have suggested would reduce their numbers or make the world safer? Definitely not! Not only would what you suggest be unfair and inhuman to many innocent Muslims, I believe it would more likely create new, than solve old, problems.

From your perspective, does doing nothing make us safer? Again, the answer is no! We must do something. Sadly, it’s mostly reacting to what has already happened. We must spend billions on defense against potential dangers that could better be spent on improving our lives. Without a doubt, terrorism is the loudest voice of the fringe minority but I believe it would be totally wrong to create the oppressive undemocratic world they want simply as a defense from our fears of their potential threat.

In regards to your marginalizing groups of people I do agree with Japanat and Trump.

[Fred]

Islamists, for one.

You see, Islam is not just a religion*. Surely, there are people who treat it as just that, but in its entirety, it also incorporates rules on how to rule a state, wage war, punish thieves(cutting off hands) and adulterers(stoning for women, I believe).

Now, some moderates don't take those bits seriously, but they are always in danger of being called insufficiently pious for cherry-picking the holy book(and the hadiths).

Anyway, there is a significant number of people who feel that this corrupt modern age is utterly despicable, and that living in a sharia inspired theocracy would be preferable.

That's islamism in a nutshell, I believe.

I sometimes feel that I am living in a Christian theocracy, although I know I am not. Everything Interfector has attributed to Islam, I think applies, in principle, to the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists.

Even though I do not think it is accurate to describe the US government as a Christian Theocracy, I believe the influence of Christian fundamentalists on government policy is very strong and has been growing since Ronald Regan was president. At the very least, they are opposed to a purely secular government.

It’s not the specific religion that bothers me, rather it’s that behavior of insufferable intolerance where everyone must act in accordance to the code or else they are evil and must be destroyed (or deported).

It’s not acceptable to blow people up in a suicide bombing. It’s not acceptable to murder doctors at an abortion clinic. It’s not acceptable to assault people or damage property. It doesn’t matter whether people do these things because they are Christians or Islamists or militant, vegan, long-haired, bad-smelling eco-terrorists. It is also not ok to intentionally prosecute people for the crimes that others committed.

As for having immigrants take oaths, etc., I think that is just silly. It would be a huge expenditure of resources and would not fundamentally change people’s intentions.

[Y.T.]

Also, the way you tack on adjectives like "foaming-at-the-mouth protestants" gives the impression you feel all protestants are foaming at the mouth instead of trying to restrict your views to a small subset of protestants. In general, your posts come across as derisive and racist.


Well, I am not a native speaker. I thought that when I put "foaming at the mouth" before protestant, I singled out those protestants who are fanatical in their beliefs, and totally unreasonable. The kind of people who thought that D&D games promoted devil worship, rock music has hidden satanical messages inside, .. etc.


That is almost exactly what you are doing. Instead of treating groups like "Turks" or "Arabs" as people similar to yourself, you refer to them as if you consider them to be subhuman.


I did not. I wrote they are less troublesome. Indeed that while Germans have problems fully integrating them into their society, the situation there is not so grave as in Britain. Which has a roughly similar percentage of Moslims, but those are mostly of south Asian descent, but has already experienced suicide bombings and foiled more attacks.


From your perspective, does doing nothing make us safer?


Well... most of what was done in response did not make you safer.
Iraq war definitely not, that's for sure. It created another 'almost' failed state, additional grievances that Islamists use to promote their agenda..

And a lot of what was done for security in the United States was, though not contraproductive, was not really effective.

All the additional airport security measures wouldn't have stopped people with liquid explosives, for example.
The names watchlist (the database that singles out people for additional screening) while hassling a lot of innocent people is never going to prevent
determined terrorists who can acquire counterfeit passports.
Bruce Schneier has criticized numerous security measures introduced after 9/11 in his newsletter. If you want to know more about it, look there.


(example) http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/terrorism_secur.html

Certainly, my own country isn’t innocent of forcing unwanted ethnic groups out of their homes and transporting them to a place where they are no longer considered a physical or economic threat.

There is a difference between deporting native tribes in order to gain their land and deporting troublemaking foreigners who don't fit into modern societies.


As for having immigrants take oaths, etc., I think that is just silly. It would be a huge expenditure of resources and would not fundamentally change people’s intentions.

Huge expenditure? A small ceremony? Immigration process is already long and tedious in most places, adding a small ceremony would not increase expenditures much.

[mugen]

So immigrants have to take oaths not to have any extreme thoughts? What you are saying is that immigrants should be subjected to laws natives don't have to abide. You are also proposing that immigrants subjected to these laws should be watched very carefully and when they are caught having thought considered "radical" should be deported to their country of origin.

How do you think Europe could achieve this? By stripping them of their right to privacy? Phone-tapping random muslims and immigrants residing in Europe? Following them around? Checking out what they just bought at the diy store?

What you are proposing is making muslim immigrants and muslims already living in Europe second rate citizens. You just candy-coated it by using words like oath.

[h2orowe]

How do you think Europe could achieve this? By stripping them of their right to privacy? Phone-tapping random muslims and immigrants residing in Europe? Following them around? Checking out what they just bought at the diy store?
>_>; Change Europe to the U.S., and diy store to library/book store and you've pretty much got what America has turned into. It's rather disgusting. It's not JUST Muslims though, it can be anyone at all.

If Interfector doesn't want Muslims in his country, they can come to mine =o I have yet to meet a single rude or even unfriendly Muslim. However, I've met a few European that have acted hostile to me (I am talking about in person, not on the interwebs, mind you.) for no apparent reason. Not saying that all Europeans are rude, because I have quite a few friends who are European, in real life and on the interwebs. I am, also, not saying that all Muslims are nice, I'm sure there's plenty of them that are just as bad as the bad people in every group. It's just absurd to think that all Muslims are bomb-toting, Allalalalalala screaming, infidel-killing assholes. Not even absurd, it's just plain.. idiotic. Just like it's idiotic to think all Christians are fundamentalists, and all atheists are more intelligent than your average Christian. I've met plenty of asshole atheists, just like I've met plenty of open-minded, relaxed Christians (both Catholic and Protestant.)

[Y.T.]

So immigrants have to take oaths not to have any extreme thoughts? What you are saying is that immigrants should be subjected to laws natives don't have to abide. You are also proposing that immigrants subjected to these laws should be watched very carefully and when they are caught having thought considered "radical" should be deported to their country of origin.

So? 'Not thoughts'. Conduct is what is important. You can't monitor thoughts.

No books in libraries except certain chemical textbooks are useful to terrorists. Only reason why should anyone report would be if a Muslim borrowed that kind of book..

(now, they can find pretty good instructions on bomb-making on the net, there is little need to check at libraries. It wouldn't hurt though.)

Diy stores? Now... there is no need. I am no chemistry expert, but I think
you would need a lot of expertise (chemical engineer) to manufacture regular, safe explosives from materials bought there. Specialized suppliers here sell only to registered labs.



It's just absurd to think that all Muslims are bomb-toting, Allalalalalala screaming, infidel-killing assholes.

I heartily agree. However, more idiotic is pretending there are no problems.
In Britain, there is a not insignificant percentage of Muslims population that believes suicide bombing in defense of faith is ok..

Those people would not go to the police if they knew of a plot, and if that group contains only a few non-stupid true believers...


Here's a Times Online article on a prominent British islamic cleric..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2402998.ece

(Now, I am fully aware of who exactly owns the Times, but I don't think they would have falsified excerpts from his speeches. Those are evidence enough)

[ruaidhri]

Interfector, I do not believe there is anyone who doubts that there are dangerous Muslims that wish to do harm to Western Countries and their peoples. Where we disagree is with your solution.

Simply put, for the reasons previously stated, it would not work. Most likely, it would accomplish nothing more than what the U.S. accomplished by invading Iraq. It would create more terrorists.

You are intelligent. Be smarter than George W. Bush. Stop for a moment and consider the effects of what you suggest. Thank God, that, unlike Bush, you do not have the power to actually put your “solution” into action.

edit grammar

[stsparky]

New Terrorism Case Confirms That Denmark Is a Target (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/world/europe/17denmark.html?ei=5088&en=1f1767a17a59d5c4&ex=1347681600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

By NICHOLAS KULISH
Published: September 17, 2007
This article was reported by Nicholas Kulish, Souad Mekhennet and Eric Schmitt, and written by Mr. Kulish.


COPENHAGEN, Sept. 16 — After three terrorism cases in less than two years, including an alleged bombing plot broken up this month, intelligence officials say tiny Denmark is on the front line in the battle against Islamic terrorism in Europe.

“Even though we’ve prevented one terrorist attack, we know that there are still people in Denmark and abroad that have the capacity, the will and the ability to carry out terrorist attacks in Denmark,” Jakob Scharf, the head of Danish intelligence, said in an interview in his office here.

He was referring to predawn raids on Sept. 4 that resulted in the arrests of eight suspects, two of whom are still in custody on terrorism charges and are accused of planning a bombing attack.

American authorities helped Danish security officials locate the suspects through electronic intercepts from Pakistan, just as they did in arrests the same day in a bombing plot in southern Germany, intelligence officials in Washington said. They said one of the men in the Danish case received instruction within the past 12 months in explosives, surveillance and other techniques at a terrorist training camp in Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan.

With Europe again focused on the threat posed by terrorist plots, Denmark illustrates the powerful interplay between foreign agitation and domestic discontent. The country became a target of foreign Islamist terrorist groups two years ago after a conservative newspaper here published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), drawing worldwide attention. At home, the children of Muslim immigrants complain of job discrimination and integration problems, feeding the disenchantment of the small but growing Muslim population.

“In the schools, Danish teachers are always talking about democracy and human rights, but now they see what Denmark is doing in Afghanistan and what they did here with the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad,” said Imran Shah, 31, who leads a youth group at a local mosque. “They ask themselves, is this a democracy or are they talking about double standards?”

While much of the world’s attention was focused on the arrests that took place that same day in Germany, but were announced one day later, intelligence officials here and in Washington said at least one suspect in the Danish group had direct ties to leading figures in Al Qaeda, which has regrouped in northwestern Pakistan.

“What’s coming from this is that they are now able to give military and terrorist training and able to plan and steer specific operations in Europe,” Mr. Scharf, the Danish intelligence chief, said. “Al Qaeda is back.”

Mr. Scharf drew a clear distinction between independent or loosely affiliated groups drawing inspiration from Al Qaeda’s ideology and specific control of plans for attack, saying the Danish bomb plot was clearly the latter. “I’m not indicating a direct phone line to Osama bin Laden,” he said, but leading members are able to “direct operations outside of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

This case was the first time officials here have linked an operation in Denmark to the group that masterminded the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

While Mr. Scharf underscored the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, he also differentiated between the religion of Islam and those who commit violence in its name, an important distinction in a country where debates over the role of Islam in a traditionally Christian society have often been contentious and the lines sometimes blurred.

The case in Denmark also highlights the uneasy coexistence of intelligence and prosecution. Danish authorities gave no indication of the quantity of explosive material found in Copenhagen this month, but they said suspects had begun mixing precursor chemicals for bombs. Of the eight men arrested, the authorities quickly released six of them, fueling skepticism about the strength of the case and the government’s ability to turn arrests into convictions.

In the first of the recent terrorism cases, stemming from arrests in October 2005, three of the four defendants found guilty by jurors had their verdicts overruled by a three-judge review panel. The fourth was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison on terrorism charges, and prosecutors say they will retry another. In the second case, nine suspects were initially arrested, of whom four are on trial. The court proceedings are under way in Copenhagen.

“They are manipulating the press and the public by giving the impression that they have a very serious case,” said Bjoern Elmquist, a lawyer for defendants in two of the cases, including this one. “They are scaring people.”

With a population of 5.5 million, Denmark is smaller than New York City by several million people, but it is a disproportionately large target on jihadist Web sites. Not only did Denmark achieve infamy across the Muslim world for the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, which incited violent and even deadly protests in other countries, it also has troops both in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are no official statistics, but researchers estimate that there are roughly 210,000 Muslims in Denmark. It is not a homogeneous group but is split among Turks, Iraqis, Bosnians and others. That jihadist Web sites have been translated into Danish for such a small and disparate group demonstrates the interest and effort they are putting into the country.

Mr. Scharf said the profile of Muslim men pulled into extremism was young, “normally in the age from 16 to 25.” The young men are courted by mentors whose job is to identify those predisposed to a jihadi mind-set, radicalize them and put them in touch with others who could help them plan violent acts.

“This is not taking place when the imam is preaching in the mosque,” Mr. Scharf said. “I think that these imams play a very important role in preventing the radicalization” of young Muslims.

Mohammed el-Banna, an imam from the famous family of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, said, “They like heroes, and heroes, from their point of view, are not those who talk but those who fight.” He preaches at a mosque in Heimdalsgade that Politiken, a leading newspaper here, reported had been attended by suspects in all three of the alleged plots. “We cannot check the ID cards of people who attend the prayers,” he said.

Mr. Banna, 49, moved to Denmark from Egypt in 1985. He is a Danish citizen and has four children, the eldest of whom is studying computer science at a university in Denmark. Saying he was speaking for himself and not the mosque, Mr. Banna said that before the cartoon controversy, Denmark enjoyed a very good reputation in the Muslim world, as a nation that did business in the Middle East rather than fighting or keeping colonies there.

For second-generation Muslims coming of age after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the American-led invasion of Iraq, it is a different story. Mr. Banna said young men had come to him looking for religious justification to go and fight in Iraq. “When I told them that there is no justification, they would look for someone else to get the justification,” he said.

The generational gap is a concern not only for security officials, but for Muslim parents grappling with the anger of their children.

“Young people have a problem of identity,” said Bilal Assaad the spokesman for the Community of Islam Mosque in Copenhagen, which led the protests here against the Muhammad cartoons. “They were born in Denmark but they don’t feel Danish. They don’t have good possibilities to get jobs because their name is Muhammad. My son tells me, ‘Yes I can see that I’m Muslim, but I can’t see that I’m Danish.’ ”

Mr. Shah, the youth group leader, said, “When I’m going on a train with my backpack, people start to look at me in a different way.” He said that he appreciated the irony of the fact that, while under suspicion on his commute, he was on the way to his job as a security guard at the airport.

Of the 11 locations searched by Danish authorities in the recent raids, it was an apartment on Glasvej Street in a mixed neighborhood of Muslim immigrants and ethnic Danes where investigators say the bomb-making materials were found. The front door is cracked where it was broken open by a police battering ram.

The apartment was occupied by two brothers of Pakistani descent. Both were arrested in the raids. The older of the two, who is 24, was released after less than a day. “They came at 2 o’clock,” he said. “They broke open the door. They broke everything. They came as animals.”

He added that he had not seen his brother since going to sleep the night before their arrest. Under Danish law, the authorities do not release the names of suspects, and he asked not to have his name used. The authorities say he remains under investigation.

“I work all day,” he said in a soft voice. “I don’t know what my brother and his friends do.”

Nicholas Kulish and Souad Mekhennet reported from Copenhagen, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.

[Trump]

Just quick comments while I catch up...

Saying the US has been getting more influenced by Christianity since Reagan, does that include 8 years of Clinton?

And it sounds like at least some of the money the US is spending on our counterterrorism efforts has helped save lives around the world.

[ruaidhri]

Personally, I believe the U.S. has been more influenced by Christianity in the past 20 plus years because:

The "baby boomers" born following WWII were aging and becoming more conservative and more aware of their mortality. It was no longer cool to call themselves atheists.

The conservative leadership embraced the conservative Christians as a voting bloc offering both increased power and influence.

Regarding Clinton, despite his "private" life he was and remains a strong Christian. Certainly, conservative Republicans used his indiscretions to further their connection with the Religious Right. Did Clinton's actions help strengthen the Religious Right? Yes, I believe they did with many one-issue voters.

Regarding terrorism, I agree the U.S. anti-terrorism actions have saved lives both in the U.S. and around the world. However, I can't say we're going about it in the correct way because often it only appears to create more young people eager to sacrifice their lives in an unreasonable attack against Western nations. But then, I don't really know what else we could do because we do need to defend ourselves. The sad part, I believe, is that it is fear that primarily guides our actions. Often, the result is that we create more enemies than friends.

[Fred]

I think that the role the Christian Right played in getting George Bush elected president indicates that they continued to grow in power even during the Clinton presidency.

[Plekto]

"Who’s to say that the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor by the American patriots would not be considered an act of terrorism by today’s standards."

****
Actually, it WAS. They also considered our military tactics at the time - typical of Guerrilla tactics today to be wrong and in the same light. They didn't have the word "Terrorist" but read some of the old papers. It's clear that the same views applied.

It's been said that the only difference between a terrorist and a patriot is which side you are on.

[Trump]

Then again we didn't bomb London or and we set up an official government instead of what is happening today. So it is hard to say, while I think the tea incident should be considered terrorism, it is on a completely different scale than today's events. Human lives compared to tea... hmm...

Ruaidrhi, I think you are right in that Clinton's actions did help strengthen the republican ties to the relgious right and helped Bush get elected. What do you think will happen after this next election then? Will it swing back the other way?

[stsparky]

It was just a blowjob. At least he didn't toe tap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig#Arrest.2C_plea_and_allegations_about_p rior_conduct_become_public) with aliens (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/07/bushs-alien-overlord.html).
http://www.boingboing.net/Picture%204-36.jpg

BTW the Carlyle Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group) is getting richer by our resident usurper not giving our troops in Iraq adequate body armor. I gather Cheney wants W to look like he is helping 'Poppy' out. Oh - 41 earned that nickname long before he was a grandfather.


And we have this headline:
Al Qaeda Threatens Swedish Paper Over Mohammed Caricature (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003641981) to further alienate moderates.

A Swedish newspaper is under death threats from Islamic extremists after publishing a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed.

Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering a bounty for the murders of artist Lars Vilke and Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of the newspaper Nerikes Allehanda -- which published a cartoon depicting the founder of Islam as a dog. Islam forbids depictions of Mohammed, and in many Muslim areas, it is a grave insult to liken anyone to a dog.

Johansson published the drawing to accompany an Aug. 18 editorial expressing dismay that several art galleries had refused to show Vilke's drawing, and to emphasize the right to free expression, according to the World Association of Newspapers (WAN).

"Art galleries let themselves be frightened by a diffuse threat," Johansson wrote in the editorial. "This sends a signal that it is easy to silence people through scaring them."

"While appreciating that the publication of the drawing may have caused offence to many Muslims, WAN emphasizes that the Nerikes Allehanda enjoys full freedom of expression and that a choice to publish the drawing falls within that right and should be duly respected," the Paris-based WAN said.

WAN said it is heartened to see that the newspaper has strong support among the Swedish publishing industry.

The publication was also officially condemned by the governments Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Jordan, according to a sourced entry in Wikipedia.

The controversy recalls the furor -- and frequent death threats -- that followed publication of a series of imagined images of Mohammed in the Denmark newspaper Jyllands-Posten in Sept. 2005. At least 200 people were killed in demonstrations or sectarian violence sparked by protests over the cartoons. A Roman Catholic priest was murdered in Turkey by a Muslim who said he was influenced by the publication of the cartoons.

[ruaidhri]

Trump,

It’s obvious that the Republican claim to be the party of family values has been sorely damaged. Will this cause the Religious Right to switch sides? I doubt it. However, what it could very likely accomplish is to sour many potential voters enough to sit on their hands and not vote for either major party or to switch their allegiance to a third-party candidacy. This would help the Democrats.

But then, it’s a long time to election day 2008. A lot can happen between now and then.

stsparky,

My sons and I have bumper stickers that read “I miss Bill”. I really do. Yes, he was a jerk for thinking with the wrong head. But, other than his sexual “indiscretions” and his attempt to hide it (probably mostly from his wife and daughter), I do believe he was an excellent President. I believe many women target politicians, and other famous people for sexual liaisons. Conversely, many politicians and famous people use their fame and fortune as a license to seduce. Many of our past leaders both in and out of the White House were guilty of extra-marital affairs and would find it extremely difficult to pass today’s muster. Benjamin Franklin was a revered forefather of our country and most decidedly a randy old man who enjoyed the company of many young women. Today, he’d probably be burned at the political stake.


What in God’s name is wrong with some people. Why would any cartoonist and newspaper publish anything that would be so immediately derisive. Would anyone in their right mind enter a redneck bar, walk up to the biggest, meanest and ugliest guy at the bar and tell him he looks like a donkey’s ass? Of course not, unless they wanted to be hurt. The same holds true for the cartoonist and his publishers. Sadly, not only will they be held accountable but also the entire population of Sweden.

edited for clarification of opinion

[h2orowe]

I'm somewhat confused. I believe in the right of freedom of expression, but it's just.. really disrespectful to draw things like that. Especially when there's already tension over someone who drew a picture similar to that. In Islam, you're not supposed to draw the prophets because you have no idea what they look like, so.. you know.. you can't draw them accurately. Muslims can't draw them, and yet some random Swedish guy thinks it's cool to draw a picture that'll just completely piss off extremists during a really.. well.. dark time? I'd be pretty pissed to, were I Muslim. That's just disrespectful. Maybe someone should draw Jesus Christ and a few Roman Catholic priests fucking children? Catholics would be pissed, too.

[Chuckles]

They've done similar things. People got pissed... people got over it.

Remember Chris Ofili?

[ruaidhri]

On the issue of the cartoon...

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Certainly, there was no law preventing the cartoonist from drawing the image nor was their anything to prevent the newspaper from publication. Yet, both acted without basic common sense.

Yes, this action will upset many people. Some are so caught up in the maelstrom of hatred against the West that they will not just "get over it". Sometimes, people that extol the virtues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are themselves the worst enemies to both freedoms.

[Neon Pink Shoehorn]

you know, this reminds me of what Danny Ledonne, maker of a game called "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" said about the Dawson College shooting, where the shooter referenced the game...

If one is interested in making something for the public to view--be it a painting, a book, an album, a film, or a video game, should the POSSIBLE harm that may come out of this work be grounds for its suppression from society? This is, in a sense, pre-crime. If you believe in what you're doing and you want to express yourself, the expression should be primary and any interpretations that come after must always remain of secondary importance to the creation of the work itself. On another level, the entire correlation between the Dawson College shooting and my game is unfounded. [...] What else did Kimveer like? Black clothes? Goth music? Pizza? [...] If anything, the Dawson College shooting is proof positive that games like SCMRPG SHOULD be made; until video games are no longer among the "usual suspects" for homicidal rampages, the public needs to more carefully consider why interactive electronic media is somehow the manufacturer of Manchurian Candidates

[mugen]

I don't know if any of you have seen the picture in question (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1079/1408226758_29bf6d8b1c_o.jpg), but it's pretty retarded which makes me believe the "artist" probably made it just to get the attention.

[manrush]

You should check out Brussels Journal. Fjordman does an unintentionally hilarious job of defending the cartooner's action.

Apparently someone forgot his dictionary. (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2490)

[stsparky]

UK Paper: Israelis Seized Nuke Material In Syrian Raid (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/22/uk-paper-israelis-seized_n_65475.html)

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.

The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

----
Israelis seized nuclear material in Syrian raid (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2512380.ece)

Israeli commandos seized nuclear material of North Korean origin during a daring raid on a secret military site in Syria before Israel bombed it this month, according to informed sources in Washington and Jerusalem.
The attack was launched with American approval on September 6 after Washington was shown evidence the material was nuclear related, the well-placed sources say.

They confirmed that samples taken from Syria for testing had been identified as North Korean. This raised fears that Syria might have joined North Korea and Iran in seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Israeli special forces had been gathering intelligence for several months in Syria, according to Israeli sources. They located the nuclear material at a compound near Dayr az-Zwar in the north.

Evidence that North Korean personnel were at the site is said to have been shared with President George W Bush over the summer. A senior American source said the administration sought proof of nuclear-related activities before giving the attack its blessing.

Diplomats in North Korea and China believe a number of North Koreans were killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials.

Syrian officials flew to Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, last week, reinforcing the view that the two nations were coordinating their response.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Sad. The trolls commenting on the HuffPo come off as haters. And they don't like Rupert Murdock (although he's never been a friend of Israel).

[Y.T.]

Murdoch not a friend of Israel?

Since when ? (not that I begrudge him that. When it comes to Israel, I know on which side I am).. otherwise I think he ought to be shot.

He is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with our political systems today, the propagandist & monopolist who decides who is going to win the blasted popularity contests...

I hope he gets some particularly nasty cancer.

---------------------------------------------

I wouldn't take anything that is now said at face value.
Yes, it is plausible that if NK had some nuclear material they now
find inconveniencing, they would ship it elsewhere .. rest is
just hearsay.

Until they show the material to IAEA and they say it's of NK origin, and
not say, a small amount of not very enriched uranium ..

[Roxie]

17-Year-Old David McSwane's Sting Operation Busts Recruiters (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq2_JSnZoRQ)

[stsparky]

Murdoch not a friend of Israel? ...
I think not. No one who was friends with Ronald Reagan really is. They have a different agenda.

Debunking the Myth of "The Israel Lobby" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mort-zuckerman/debunking-the-myth-of-th_b_65707.html)
by Mort Zuckerman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mort-zuckerman/#blogger_bio)

How to protect America? The flurry of recent terrorist arrests in Germany, Denmark, and Britain, make Europe a center of concern -- but we are in a different situation from the 20th century. Europe was then our strategic focus, the main theatre of conflict encompassing WWI, WWII, and the Cold War. Now, the danger of strategic pivot is in the Middle East because it is there that the main threats to American security originate from Islamic terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the prospect of Iran combining WMD with missile delivery systems.

In Europe, our principal ally for the 20th century was Great Britain with whom we shared common values of democracy, a Judeo-Christian tradition, the rule of law, a free press, and the confidence that if a new government was elected, it would not change our fundamental alliance. Similarly, in the Middle East, where Islamist terrorism was incubated, our principal ally has long been Israel, another country with whom we share common democratic and humanitarian values and a mutual opposition to Islamist fanaticism.

The joint strategic interest shared between the US and Israel has a long history of resisting aggressors in the Middle East who sought to invade their neighbors, some with the blessings of Moscow. When Syria invaded Jordan in 1970, it was only Israeli military strength that saved the Jordanian regime of King Hussein; in 1981, Israel destroyed the nuclear reactor of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, a critical factor in the US-led coalition being able to evict Saddam from Kuwait. For Israel's ongoing contribution to America's security through intelligence sharing, General George S. Keegan, a retired US Air Force Intelligence Chief, stated he could not have obtained the same intelligence "with five CIAs."

Recently, two well-regarded academics, John Mearshimer and Steven Walt, have written a book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND US FOREIGN POLICY, in which they attack the values of the strategic partnership between Israel and the US. They assert that the continuing support for Israel by the US government and the public is the result of the efforts of a domestic group, "The Israel Lobby," made up of Jews and Christians, who control America's Middle East policy and push it in a direction that does not serve American interests.

Some of their policy allegations are nothing short of startling.

Did you know for starters, that the Iraq War was not the work of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice, as we all thought but of "The Israel Lobby"?

Those who know most about what actually happened strenuously contest Mearshimer-Walt. So does the history for, after all, the world-changing event of 9/11 provoked the administration's key policymakers, all non-Jewish, non-lobbymakers, the President, the Vice-President, the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to decide that an attack on Iraq was in the best interests of the US. They were supported by most senior military leaders just emerging from an extraordinary victory in Afghanistan. Peter Wehner, former Director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives called Mearsheimer and Walt's description of the "Lobby" and their role in the Iraq War as "ludicrous."

Then there is 9/11. How can that be blamed on the "Israel Lobby"? Osama bin Laden and Islamist terrorists, we are told, wanted to punish America for not pushing Israel during their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza -- and America, of course, was doing what "The Israel Lobby" told it to do. Yet these attacks were planned during the Oslo years when there were high hopes for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. With America's encouragement, Israel and the Palestinians were in peace negotiations in 1993, the year of the first attack on the WTC; that Camp David negotiations were taking place in the year 2000, as bin Laden terrorist envoys were being trained as pilots in preparation of their attack on the WTC; not to speak of bin Laden himself who stated it was the US presence in Muslim Holy lands, especially in Saudi Arabia, that was what drove him to jihad and the attacks on the US. Most experts acknowledge that if Israel ceased to exist, al Qaeda's hatred and contempt for America would continue because of America's ties to "apostates and criminals" who rule in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, the Emirates, and Pakistan.

There's a whole list of characters missing from the Walt-Mearsheimer melodrama. Arab armies, airline terrorists, suicide bombers, are conspicuous by their absence. Why? Because the authors' thesis required every Israeli action to be seen as gratuitous oppression of the Palestinians. For example, when they argue that the 1967 Six-Day War could have been solved peacefully by Israel, they ignore the willingness of Israel to partition the land before 1967, just as they ignore the rise of Fatah and Palestinian terrorism, such as the Munich Olympic massacre, Black September, suicide bombings of innocent Israelis, the hijacking of airliners. They ignored the direct provocations to that war such as terrorist attacks coming from Egyptian territories, the closing of the Straits of Tiran and Egypt, the removal of the UN peacekeeping mission on Egypt's initiative, etc.

Perhaps the most unsettling description is their misrepresentation of UN Resolutions 242 and 338, the operative international resolutions that control the political parameters of a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The authors imply in several places that Israel is required to return all the territories in the West Bank to the Palestinians and withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. Why? Because they leave out the key phrase from 242, which is that the Israelis and Palestinians were to negotiate "secure and recognized boundaries," since the previous boundaries were neither secure nor recognized, and so 242 does not require Israel to return all the land they conquered in the 1967 War. The authors of Resolution 242 emphasized time and again that Israel was not required to retreat to the prewar lines, and that Israel's future boundaries would necessarily be different from the lines of June 4, 1967. This was so central to the debate over the Resolution and so critical to this conflict as to be inconsistent with the academic qualifications of the authors.

Then they deny the Palestinians were principally responsible for the collapse of the Oslo process and the Camp David talks. This is quite contrary to the knowledge of virtually all Americans who attended Camp David II, including President Clinton, who said that the Israelis were ready to make a deal within the parameters of his proposals, but not Arafat. Indeed, the Saudi Ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, was waiting at his home for Arafat to visit after the decisive meeting with Clinton, because he had arranged for political cover for Arafat's anticipated agreement from the Kings of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Jordan, and the President of Egypt -- only to have Arafat fail to show up.

Not to speak of the fact that if they allege that the US is so subservient to the "Israel Lobby," how is it that there are so many issues on which Jewish groups have been opposed by the US government? The dialogue with Yassir Arafat; the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia; the decision of President Reagan to go to the cemetery in Bitburg, Germany; the opposition to the construction of settlements in certain parts of the West Bank; the presence of Prime Minister Shamir to attend the Madrid Conference after the first Gulf War -- and the list goes on and on.

The authors' interpretations of so many of the events that they describe is contrary to that of many outsiders with expertise in the Middle East who have identified innumerable distortions, omissions, and errors, that cumulatively invalidate their conspiratorial thesis. One eminent Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who in fact is frequently quoted in their book in support of their thesis, had the following comment about it, "Their work is riddled with shoddiness and defiled by mendacity. Were 'The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy' an actual person, I would have to say that he did not have a single honest bone in his body."

How to assess a book that is hurled down from the ivory towers of Chicago University and Harvard's Kennedy School in Cambridge and that is dressed up as scholarship with a thousand footnotes and a 100-book bibliography, when only 3 of the footnotes refer to correspondence with sources and 2 to interviews with sources?

Walt-Mearsheimer argue they did not need interviews and indeed they said "We felt we already had sufficient information about 'The Lobby's' operations, and traditional research would not have altered our conclusions." Why the diminution of "traditional research," which in fact means original work? It means checking the nature and quality of that "sufficient information." It means testing it against other sources. It means the kind of documentation that is not just dressed up to appear as scholarship but, in fact, validates their conclusions, that would be necessary for a first-class publication, even for a decent undergraduate essay in an average university. Why were they afraid to test their interpretation of events against the facts? It can only be that their minds were made up already.

Conspiracy theories die hard. Much of the Muslim world still believes Mossad, not Osama, bombed the World Trade Center; cable television is currently running yet another weird take on the Kennedy assassination. How could two reputable academics leave themselves open to invalidation of their core arguments by experts in the Middle East who have identified so many one-sided presentations, tendentious statements, misquotations, omissions, and outright errors in the book?

Israel is certainly not immune from criticism as they suggest, nor should it be. There are plenty of grounds for criticism. There is much responsible criticism of Israel here in the US -- not to speak of criticism within the raucous process of Israeli politics. This prompted one commentator to respond to the perceived power of the "Israel Lobby" by quoting a 92-year-old man who was sued in a paternity suit, "He was so proud that he pleaded guilty."

Israel cannot and should not be blamed for everything that has occurred in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from the creation of Israel to the present day. Such a one-sided presentation by Walt-Mearsheimer, one that collects every charge against Israel and the Jewish community in the U.S., some from the most unreliable of sources and some that misrepresent and inaccurately represent the views of those quoted (I am one), only raises questions of the fairness and balance of the authors and makes a considered dialogue on the issue more difficult. The accusation that Jews unhappy secretly control the politics of the country has historical echoes and contributes to a conclusion the authors allege they don't believe.

What the authors seem unwilling to recognize is that, for decades, American public opinion and American policies have sided with the Israelis with or without the "Israel Lobby." Former Secretary of State George Shultz recently pointed this out in his comments about the book, "The US supports Israel not out of favoritism based on political pressure or influence, but because both political parties, and virtually all our national leaders, agree with the American people's view that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just." Then he said, "Those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for US policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong because support for Israel is in our best interests. They are wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence US policy. And they are wrong because the US government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any myriad lobbyists and groups that battle daily -- sometimes with lies -- to win American support."

Former Secretary Shultz is supported by another long-time White House counselor and insider, David Gergen, who wrote in US News and World Report, "Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interests."

There is another dimension which was left completely out of their "realist" approach to foreign policy that parallels the special feeling America has had for the United Kingdom (UK) even when we were the only superpower in the world counterbalancing Soviet power. We could have ignored England, but abandoning them would have been unthinkable given our long emotional identification with the UK and a century-long relationship of working together on foreign policy.

In a sense, the same is true with Israel. The United States supports Israel as a nation that shares its values and interests. The vast majority in this country recognize the consequences if America abandoned a long-time friend and ally for whom they have always had a special feeling partly because it is the "Holy Land" and the country of the Bible, and partly because it is a democracy founded by immigrants from different shores, many of them fleeing religious persecution. To do so would be a devastating comment, not just on the reliability of US commitment, but on the very character of the US. For if we do not stand by and for our friends, whom do we stand for?

[ruaidhri]

stsparky, you’ve really confused me.

Why did you post that long article by Mort Zukerman and how does what he wrote have anything to do with being a friend of Ronald Reagan?

Toxic Shock Syndrome, yes recruiters don’t always tell the truth. They are under a lot of pressure to produce results. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the officers in charge weren’t also in some way involved.

No matter how much we may dislike what’s happening in Iraq, the fact remains that the U.S. does need a military to protect its interests. If they are unable to recruit they will draft.

[stsparky]

Ruaidhri - it is the context. Sorry. The long article was just a different tack than my answer. I should have done 2 separate posts.

I'm Sparky or Alan. I view Ronald Reagan poorly. So I view his pals in the same light. Folks like them are no true friends of Israel. They used to view the country as a proxy to stand up to Soviet proxies in the Middle East.

[Plekto]

The Government lies to us.

How come we are the ONLY country in the world that doesn't see this as the normal way things are? Literally, the rest of the world assumes that politicians, media, and the military lie first and tell the truth only when they are forced to. But not here in the U.S.

What gives?

(Toxic - yes, recruiters lie. Right to your face. Welcome to reality.)

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, you are certainly the cynic. Yes, politicians around the world (including the U.S.) don’t always tell the truth. They also don’t always lie. And, I have absolutely no doubt that people throughout the world (including the U.S.) are aware that much of what a politician says has a spin that bends, obfuscates or even totally misrepresents the truth.

Please don’t paint a picture of Americans as dolts that are led around by the hand by the evil men and women that rule without regard for the truth. Everyone will protect their own interests especially under pressure. I’m sure the recruiters are under a great degree of pressure. If they can’t perform the job their superiors will replace them with someone else. Recruiting is a better job than patrolling in Iraq or Afghanistan. The recruiters in question went too far. They broke military policy and will be punished.

How far would you go with the truth to keep your job? Have you never hidden an error or made something look better than it actually was? Have you never just kept your mouth shut? Dishonest? Perhaps, but would you sacrifice your families or a friends well being for the truth? If you are indeed Saint Plekto, I commend you. As for myself, I’m no saint.

[Plekto]

The problem that I have is that every one acts so shocked if any politician lies to them AND they generally assume that we are being told the truth.

I'm not being cynical. As they say, you're not paraniod if they really are out to get you. It's not cynical to distrust our leaders, not with their track record.(especially lately - what a mess)

Our population in the U.S. has an odd trust in our leaders that frankly isn't warranted. Worst of all is our media. It's plainly obvious that our leaders lie to us. Willfully, bald-facedly, and unashamedly lie to us every time they get in front of the cameras and our press doesn't call them on it.

Instead I hear people on the street willing to give our leaders and government slack and the benefit of doubt way beyond what anyone would consider sane. Almost apporaching the levels you se in Japan. It makes me wonder exactly what our leaders would have to do to get our population to actually become properly distrustful of them.

P.S. I'm no saint, but I do believe that oaths of office and the like should be taken as seriously as the oaths doctors and soldiers take.

[Trump]

I think you said it there, it is all about the media. People believe the media and I have no idea why. The news programs and such put such spin on everything and yet people don't question their motives. So when they report on politicians people believe that too...

[ruaidhri]

Does anyone believe tainted journalism is new to the U.S. or to anywhere in the world? Events are always slanted or spun to reflect the impression of the writer. It’s not only what you read in the papers, internet or history books. It’s not only what you hear on the radio or see on television. And, it’s not only what you hear from a coworker or friend or neighbor. It’s also very much what all the aforementioned failed to tell you that taints the news.

So what’s a person to do? Well, first, not to get so upset about how the news is tainted. It just is, always was and always will be.

This forum is built around a young mans teaching English to Japanese middle school children. That begs the question: How much do they know about Japan’s role in WWII? Obviously, from what erbiumfiber and other previously posted, the Japanese view the events leading up to and during the war very differently. History is nothing more than old news and even that is slanted to meet the needs of the reporter.

As for politicians, it’s because they have the power to impact peoples’ lives that they have both supporters and detractors. Both have their own agendas and both influence what we read or hear about the politician. And, even when what they report is the truth, it could, because of omission, not be the whole truth.

[Trump]

I think my problem is that people expect to be told the truth. A lot of people take what they hear and don't think twice about it I'm not saying they believe it or not, just that people don't put any thought into the viewpoint behind the information. They don't think about what they aren't being told and only what is said outloud. I think that has a lot to do with the this information age we live in. There is so much information everywhere people think they get the whole story. Ah well, what can you do?

I also feel like people are shocked when they find out the news wasn't completely truthful. I still don't understand that one.

[ruaidhri]

I live in the Milwaukee, WI metro area. We have a weekly paper in Milwaukee called the Shepherd-Express, which often has very interesting articles not normally found in our daily paper, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The latest issue had an article about the news that's not reported which fits into our recent discussion.

http://www.shepherd-express.com/1editorialbody.lasso?-token.folder=2007-10-04&-token.story=178506.113121&-token.subpub=#print

“I’m Amazed by the Things They Don’t Cover”
A Shepherd Q&A with Peter Phillips of Project Censored

by Lisa Kaiser

October 04, 2007

For more than 30 years, Sonoma State University’s Project Censored has been finding and exposing news articles that the mainstream media have “overlooked, underreported or self-censored.” These stories include Vice President Dick Cheney’s influence on energy policy, the possibility of having recycled radioactive metals in your home, child labor in the United States, and President George Bush’s interference in an FBI investigation into the bin Laden family before 9/11.


Project Censored Director Peter Phillips was invited to speak Oct. 3 at UW-Milwaukee about this year’s most underreported news topics, as well as media self-censorship—what Phillips calls “the new American censorship.” On Monday, Phillips spoke with the Shepherd about the impact of the mainstream media’s consolidation of power.

Shepherd: Project Censored launched in 1976, and you’ve been with the project for more than a decade. How have the stories changed over the years?

Phillips: That’s a big question, because media has consolidated dramatically. When we started, there were 50 major media corporations. Now there are 10, and they are primarily in the entertainment business. So it’s become extremely easy for us to find news stories that they haven’t covered. We’ve got plenty of coverage of O.J.’s latest episode and the various celebrities.

But I think what’s happening, too, simultaneously, is that after 9/11 we’ve seen a very strong undermining of civil liberties in the United States. And people don’t know about it, or they don’t recognize the magnitude of it. Which you’ll see in the cover image [of our book]. It’s the Statue of Liberty with a burned head and part of the side is burned, with blood streaming down. It’s a very strong image, but it’s also very symbolic of loss of habeas corpus, the Posse Comitatus Act, practicing for mass arrests, building detention centers around the country—basically, the U.S. military dominance around the world. We’re involved in repression in a variety of places, under the auspices of protecting capitalism and the privatization of infrastructure worldwide.

Shepherd: This year, the top story was “No Habeas Corpus for ‘Any Person,’” which was sort of covered by the mainstream media.

Phillips: Actually, it was denied by The New York Times. An editorial said, “Don’t worry about it, it’s really just for terrorists and won’t affect American citizens.” Well, that’s not true. The [Military Commissions Act] itself says very clearly that any person can be designated an enemy combatant. If you’re a citizen, you have to be designated one to be denied habeas corpus. If you’re not a citizen you can be held indefinitely pending designation.

Shepherd: Why didn’t the media cover that?

Phillips: I don’t know. It’s quite amazing. I’m amazed by the things they don’t cover—things that undermine the credibility of government, the American capitalist system, are just ignored or covered over or spun as being a good thing. Literally billions of dollars are being spent by our government and corporations [on spin]. The government as of 2005 spent $1.6 billion in the previous 18 months on public relations firms to create news stories.

Shepherd: How has the Internet changed what ends up in the mainstream media?

Phillips: Certainly the Internet gives people access to information—news and factual information that’s quite useful. But you have to learn whether you can trust what’s there. You have to know what the sources are and whether it’s accurate information.

Shepherd: How important is the mainstream media when people have access to these alternative sources?

Phillips: Almost everyone gets their news from corporate media and television news. Young people aren’t reading newspapers like people 50 and above. About a third of them don’t even look at a newspaper. They do get news and information from the Internet and television. Concentrated news is very much part of how people understand the world in the U.S. MSNBC and other big ones are the most popular [news] Web sites. So people are getting glimpses of what’s going on in the world, but there’s no context, no understanding of the class bias and the biases of sources.

Shepherd: You’re going to be talking about media self-censorship in Milwaukee. Can you give us a preview?

Phillips: I call it the new American censorship. It’s really the transformation of not only the concentration of media, but the involvement of these massive PR firms in creating news stories on a daily basis.

I think that [Noam] Chomsky and [Edward] Herman in Manufacturing Consent, written 20 years ago, laid out a framework for understanding how it works. And increasingly there’s more evidence that that’s what is happening. There are filters throughout the media system. If you work in the system, you learn to understand what the culture is of your organization and that certain stories just aren’t going to fly, so you don’t even pursue them. So whether it’s voter fraud—the overt stealing of elections, in 2004 in particular—or the systematic torture of people overseas in military prisons, it’s not something that editors are choosing to run. Americans like to believe that we’re the good guys [and] all of these other people are terrorists, so being critical of the U.S. and our policies abroad, which are costing 10,000 lives a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, that kind of criticism doesn’t make it into our corporate media.

The question is: Is it possible for anyone to be truly informed?

[Plekto]

Nice - I was going to bring this up sometime.(went to Sonoma State, actually). It was a huge program even fifteen years ago, and while the list isn't nearly as large as it could be, their site has a long list of dirty laundry that the average person would know about if they got their news from outside of the U.S. Not that U.S. news is wrong or anything so much as the media consolodation that has happened makes it so that 95% of the news in this country comes from them, and they ARE biased.

Read some of it. This is a good reason why the rest of the world looks at us with distain. Because our government runs all over the rest of the world as it sees fit and hides the truth from its population. They don't hate Americans so much as they hate our government's interference and manipulation. Oh, and things like illegal invasions that we do because nobody in the U.N. has the balls to stand up to us.

http://www.projectcensored.org/

Oh - an easy way to get non U.S. news! Go into Windows to regonal and language settings. Then set your language on your keyboard/input to English (Canada). Go into customize and set it from metric back to English. Do the same under the date tab. Now it's Canadian with U.S. formatting again.

Check Canada as your location. Go to advanced and select English(Canada) again.

Reboot if required. After the reboot, go into date and time and turn on daylight savings manually. You are done. This will force Yahoo news and the other sites that have Canadian versions to default to there. It's not great, but it's far less biased as a source for news that what we get in the U.S.(most of which comes from the same 4-5 newsfeeds)

Edit - this works because Windows has a U.S./Canada license and so everything works the same from DVDs and regions and all the updates if you are say, in Vancouver B.C. versus Seattle. You just get Non-U.S. news as a bonus.(plus search engines and so on - all work the same, just a bit less junk and B.S.)

[ruaidhri]

What’s a politician to do?

An extremely volatile vote is facing members of the U.S. House of Representatives. It would label as "genocide" the deaths of Armenians more than 90 years ago during the Ottoman Empire and has won the support of a majority of House members.

House Resolution 106 urges President Bush to use his annual message to "accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation by the Ottoman Empire of 1,500,000 Armenian men, women and children during and immediately following the first world war as genocide."

History supports that the genocide did occur. Yet, Turkey has consistently claimed that “the deaths resulted from forced relocations and widespread fighting when the 600-year-old Ottoman Empire collapsed, not from a campaign of genocide -- and that hundreds of thousands of Turks also died in the same region during that time.” The resolution is complicated because Turkey is a long time and important ally to the United States.

Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy warned that if the House passed the resolution the Turkish Parliament would be furious, warning that an action by the French National Assembly in 2006 that criminalized the denial of Armenian genocide resulted in Turkey terminating military contacts and defense contracts with France. This is a serious threat because a recent poll by the nonpartisan group Terror Free Tomorrow found that 83 percent of Turks would oppose assisting the United States on Iraq if the Armenia resolution passed.

The truth is that we need Turkey on our side. We certainly don’t need to bolster the Islamic radicals that would love to take over the Turkish government and settle their problems with the radical Kurds in Northern Iraq that have crossed into and attacked targets in Turkey. Resolution 106, although non-binding on the President, would, warned all eight living former secretaries of state "endanger our national security interests." Three former defense secretaries said Turkey probably would cut off U.S. access to a critical air base.

Turkey is taking the threat very seriously and is spending more than $300,000 a month on communications specialists and high-powered lobbyists, including former congressman Bob Livingston, to defeat Resolution 106.

On the other side, most historians agree that the genocide did occur. Armenians have never forgotten and have secured promises from politicians in consideration for support from their pocketbooks and their large voting blocs. They would be furious at any politician that failed to live up to their promise.

So, again the question is: What’s a politician to do?

We’ve all witnessed that yesterday’s villain often becomes today’s ally. History is nothing more than old news with many spins depending upon who’s telling the story. Certainly, no nation wants to be labeled evil. Over time they round the edges as history becomes less blunt and they regain their dignity. They claim events, not actions, caused their problems. They blame others, not themselves, and gladly accept that deep down they are good people.

What passing Resolution 106 would accomplish is to snap Turkey back to reality. It would condemn them for actions of their great grandparents. They would not like that and would, I believe, react against the U.S. at a time when we need their support, not fury.

Regardless, the Resolution has a good chance of passing. Why? Because many members of the House of Representatives are beholding to their Armenian electorate to support the resolution. Reneging on that promise could very likely result in their losing their next election.

So, what should the politicians do? Acknowledge that the genocide did occur and threaten national security by losing a vital ally or vote against the resolution and very possibly lose their next election?

What would you do? Personally, I would abstain from voting not wanting to endanger national security yet still not wanting to deny that the genocide did occur. If I had a large Armenian electorate, I probably wouldn’t be reelected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100902347.html

[Plekto]

The choice is pretty clear, IMO. Do what will make you NOT be seen as a putz and criminal in the history books. It's sad that this sort of level of ethics seems to be the final deciding factor. That is, to limit the damage you do, but as you said, what's a politician to do?

But... the reality is that they will cave again. They always do. There are maybe ten people in Congress who have a spine and the rest - they have the numbers and still won't do anything about Bush. Non binding resolution? As if. "Suggested things to do" is another way to put it - except he isn't listening.

Yet another reason to get out while you can. This country is imploding and eroding right before our eyes.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, while we share distain for President Bush’s capabilities and policies, I do respect the office he holds. I certainly don’t believe he’s always wrong nor do I believe he deliberately intends to hurt the U.S. We simply have a difference of opinion when it come to what is best for our nation.

I disagree with you about the decision being clear. While I agree that the genocide did occur and that the Ottoman Empire was the responsible party, I question the benefit to any party resulting from passage of the resolution. Obviously, many Armenians still are pained at what happen more than 90 years ago. Obviously, they are angered by Turkey’s refusal to admit the genocide. But, really, what physical benefit would they derive if the U.S. were to pass the resolution other than to infuriate the Turks.

Considering that no party would realize any physical benefit, the question then becomes: Would anyone suffer if the House passed the resolution? The answer is yes. We would suffer! First, we would lose a valuable ally in a very dangerous corner of the world and second we could precipitate actions by Turkey that would further damage the stability of the Persian Gulf. Considering the potential impact of passage, I seriously question if voting for the resolution would be in the best interest of the United States.

What’s the difference between a politician and a leader? In my opinion, they’re one in the same. Without getting elected the leader has no one to lead. It is the true leader that considers what’s overall best for the nation not for any single group at the expense of everyone else. Would you truly want leaders that bowed to every group of potential voters with an ax to grind? Perhaps it’s the brave politician that stands up to the Armenians and says “No, I won’t damage America by voting for the resolution.” Hasn’t that person put the nation above his or her own best interest?

You throw around numbers suggesting that there may be only 10 people in Congress that have a spine. Pray tell, which 10 people do you hold above the rest? I believe we have a totally different concept of what is brave and what is stupid.

Then, your last paragraph further disparages the United States by suggesting that we “get out while we can”. You truly believe things are that bad? Were would you go?

As far back as I can remember I’ve had problems and disagreements with actions of our government. I certainly didn’t like Senator Joe McCarthy from my home state of Wisconsin. Even following his departure from the scene the House Un-American Activities Committee remained active up until 1975. America certainly wasn’t more tolerant back when I was young. If you disagreed with the right wing you could easily be labeled a com-symp, a pinko, a fellow-traveller or an out and out communist. Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s the common curse against those that differed from their government was “America, love it or leave it.” Now, you’re suggesting we do it on our own. Well, if you truly dislike the U.S. that much and don’t see any glimmer of hope than perhaps you should follow your own advise.

I won’t be joining you.

Edited to remove a clause that could give a false impression of what I intended.

[Trump]

My first question, and perhaps the most important question: why is this such a big issue right now? This happened 90 years ago, and everyone involved is long dead. Furthermore shouldn't we be focusing on more important issues such as the war in Iraq, the new airport screening machines they are trying, the upcoming launch of the space shuttle, and tons of more important issues?


And why is the house ready to pass this issue?? Estimates place the total Aremenian population of the US between 0.5 to 2 million people. (http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=USA) So with 435 members of the house, why should this get more than 10 votes? The people who promised to vote for it should, and everyone else should realize this will just serve to piss people off.

I feel the Aremenians have a huge chip on their shoulders and need to grow up. If they were worried about history, they should be going to the writers of history books not the US government. And why do they still hate Turkey? Is anyone in power even closer than 2 generations to the people involved? And why is it so hard for Turkey to say, "we are sorry this happened, but it was a different time and we need to move on with the life threatening issues of today."

I agree keeping up good relations with other countries is important. I also feel that passing retarded resolutions like this has no real purpose except to placate less than 1% of the US population. So why?

Seriously, sometimes I wonder what is going through people's minds. Because I sure can't figure it out.

[Y.T.]

I certainly don’t believe he’s always wrong nor do I believe he deliberately intends to hurt the U.S.

Why should he want to? Incompetence and corruption at the highest levels can accomplish the same thing ..


And why is the house ready to pass this issue?? Estimates place the total Aremenian population of the US between 0.5 to 2 million people. (http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=USA) So with 435 members of the house, why should this get more than 10 votes? The people who promised to vote for it should, and everyone else should realize this will just serve to piss people off.


RTFA. It's right there in the Washington Post article.
To sum it up: feel-good, get votes for Pelosi, lots of lobbying
My opinion: they also want to sabotage president's policy somewhat.

[ruaidhri]

Interfecetor,

Yes, I agree, George W. is not our brightest President. Yes, I also agree that incompetence can hurt the United States. But, you also suggested corruption. Now, certainly, that's always there regardless of political party, regardless of the leader's intelligence and even regardless of country and political system. I don't believe you have any indisputable evidence that George W. Bush is in anyway involved or even knowledgeable about ongoing corruption at "the highest levels". While I don't like Bush's policies, I would prefer to believe he is not an evil man wishing to do harm to the United States and the world's nations. Nothing you wrote would convince me otherwise.

Yes, it is also confusing to me why the Armenian grievance carries such weight in America’s Congress now 90 years after the event. Certainly, some representatives have reason to respond to large concentrations of Armenian voters in their districts, but as Trump suggested, certainly not enough to threaten passage of the resolution.

Do I believe the genocide occurred. Yes, I do? Was it horrific and should it have been condemned? Yes, it was and yes it certainly should have been condemned by the world’s nations at the time it occurred. It accomplishes nothing now other than to embarrass and infuriate a nation and government that in no way represents the Ottoman Empire it replaced. The guilty parties are long dead. What good does it do to blame their grandchildren or even great-grandchildren.

I do disagree with you again about the purpose behind the effort to pass the resolution. I doubt passing this non-binding resolution will in any way sabotage the President’s policy. In fact, if the resolution succeeds and it does damage America’s efforts in Iraq, I believe it would be Congress, not the President, that would bear the brunt of the blame.

[Plekto]

Of course, since it is yet another "non binding resolution".. it's all moot.

Actually, what the hell is up with that? Really. Do they sit in Congress doing nothing but debating the latest soap operas or something? What kind of lame cop-out term is "non binding resolution"?

"We can't be bothered to take a stand resolution"
"We have some suggestions we came up with resolution"
"We'll admonish you but let you have free reign anyways resolution"
"We have no spine, but we'll waste taxpayer money voting on our opinions as if they were laws resolution"

This is doublespeak at its worst.

The real question here is - what are they doing right now that they need this political diversion for? Somebody decided NOW was the time to do this, after all.

EDIT:
I also feel that passing retarded resolutions like this has no real purpose except to placate less than 1% of the US population. So why?

Seriously, sometimes I wonder what is going through people's minds. Because I sure can't figure it out.
****

When your government does confusing things in the press, it's because they are trying to keep something else out of the news.

P.S. The U.S. Dollar is worth 97 cents vs Canada's today. Keep up the good work, George!

[ruaidhri]

Interesting and wonderful! The Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden announced today they they awarded Al Gore and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize today for their efforts to spread awareness of, and to lay the foundation for combating, man-made climate change.

There is new speculation that Gore might run for President. Personally, I would love it if he were to announce his candidacy. I believe he’d be unbeatable. But, I doubt he will.

What do you think?

[Plekto]

He won't. Not this time around, at least.

But, he might accept being vice-President again. That would give him the ability to do what he does best - work with people - without having to actually be under a microscope. My money's on Edwards/Gore as a solid ticket. Obama's better, of course, but the DNC won't ever actually elect him. they'll go with safe, and getting Gore as the running mate to Edwards would be a solid, safe choice. Hillary - every person out there is waiting for a mistake or any excuse to drop her.

As for the prize, I'm a bit mixed on it. There are hundreds of peolpe who have worked their entire life towards fixing our environment who somehow seem more deserving. But it's not a bad thing, either, if it helps raise awareness.

[Trump]

Gore won a peace prize for that? I have to wonder how much of his effort has been allowed or at least facilitated because of his previous position as vice president. If he hadn't ever held that position, would he even have had a chance at winning this award? I think I lean a little towards Pletko's views in that there must be others who have worked less in the spotlight who have accomplished just as much...

[Y.T.]

Ruiadhri.

I don't have any evidence of anything that is officially criminal.

However, you know that most corruption (in the ethical sense) in the high places has forms that are technically legal. That is the corruption I meant.

Here is a long article from july 2003 about Iraqi reconstruction, and who was chosen to direct the reconstruction efforts by the Bush government.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EG11Ak01.html

You'll see that the aim wasn't to quickly restore necessary services.
And that is just one of many things that went wrong...

Here is about contracts ... and those cited are not just unjustified overrun,
but blatant stealing.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB02Ak05.html

As far as I know, a lot of large defense contracts are cost plus.
There are even no-bid cost plus contracts.
Very easy to overcharge, little risk of unprofitability.
Haliburton and its subsidiaries are famous for getting them.

[ruaidhri]

Plekto, I agree. I seriously doubt that Gore will run for President. I doubt even more that he would choose to run for Vice President.

Yes, hundreds of people have contributed to social awareness of global warming. The question is not how much work they did but rather how effective they were in communicating their message. It was the fact that Al Gore, a former Vice President and a Presidential candidate was the spokesperson in the film documentary An Inconvenient Truth that made the difference. His presence made the film a must see and thereby increased awareness of global warming.

Al Gore is not a newcomer to environmental issues. He has long committed his life to spreading the message that a clean environment is essential to everyones survival. He was a congressional pioneer when he held hearings on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and on toxic waste in the 1970’s. In the 1980’s he co-sponsored hearings and sounded the warning on global warming. Following his defeat for the presidency Gore focused his efforts on promoting global awareness of the dangers to our worldwide environment. In 1994, he started the GLOBE program, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".

In the late 1990s, while Vice President, Gore strongly pushed for passage of the Kyoto Treaty, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions , which was unanimously opposed by the U.S. Senate for its failure to include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations and probably, more importantly, "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Yet, Al Gore continued his battle which has, most recently, received the publicity it deserves.

For ease of research you can verify what I wrote above at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

I believe the reason he will not run for President, or any political office, is because he wishes to preserve the purity of his goal to increase awareness of the dangers to our environment. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were offered, and accepted, a Secretarial level position in the new Clinton White House.

As far as Edwards is concerned, he is also my first choice not because I dislike Hillary Clinton but because I dread the vile dirt that will be flung against her. All throughout Bill’s presidency, my right-wing fellow workers were united in their hatred for Bill Clinton. The only person they hated more was Hillary. As far as I know, Eleanor Roosevelt was the only other First Lady that elicited such hatred. She, like Hillary, was a strong, intelligent, outspoken woman. That, I’ve found, angers many men regardless of party.

In the end, I will vote for Edwards in the Wisconsin primary and Hillary Clinton in the general election. I do believe she will win. Sadly, I doubt the mud-flinging will stop when she enters the White House.

Interfector, I do believe you miss my point. I don’t believe that George W. Bush is directly and knowingly involved in any illegal activity to harm the United States. That’s a statement of opinion and a fervent wish that my country’s leaders only make honest mistakes.

[Plekto]

He would be a good person for a cabinet member. This is a safe and acceptable position - maybe the head of the EPA or something. I don't blame him for dodging that mess, either.

But there was a nearly identical movie made over a decade ago called Race to Save the Planet. Actually, a whole series about global warming and more. Al Gore's hollywood-ised take on the subject is a good movie, but not worthy of the prize he was given. Plus, peace? This has lately turned into a populatiy contest for ex political and religous leaders. Sad, really.

I'd have given it to that leader in Burma who's under house arrest(can't remeber her name right now) or.. there's a huge list actually, of peolpe who deserve a Peace Prize.(though if I was ever up for an award from them of any kind, I'd refuse it on principle since their parent company is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world)

http://www.dn-defence.com/en/index_1.html
Just one of their pages. They specialize in high explosives and supply most of the German army's materials. But they also make lots of guns and bullets and such as well.

http://www.dn-defence.com/en/index_5.html
Bazooka anyone?

(see I'm not making all of my stuff up - there's a really ugly side, folks, to most of this B.S. in the media)


As for Hillary, the fact is that she's really the Conservative's choice. Why? Because she's the weakest candidate in an actual vote, merely because she's female. Hillary as an opponent is their easiest chance at victory. But the DNC is too messed up to get even the basics straight.

[Jetsetlemming]

Interesting and wonderful! The Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden announced today they they awarded Al Gore and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize today for their efforts to spread awareness of, and to lay the foundation for combating, man-made climate change.

There is new speculation that Gore might run for President. Personally, I would love it if he were to announce his candidacy. I believe he’d be unbeatable. But, I doubt he will.

What do you think?
I fail to see where the "Peace" comes into play there.

[Trump]

Is there anywhere to go to get a candidates official stance on issues? I always get frustrated by having to use second and third hand sources.

[ruaidhri]

Yes, the “Peace Prize” is somewhat of a push. But, the award is not ours to give; it’s the the Swedish Nobel Award panel’s decision. It is this panel that has expanded the scope of the peace prize to include promoting democracy, eliminating poverty and starvation, and now, preserving and protecting the environment.

The question is, left unchecked, could global warming and the resultant climatic changes pit army against army? Even if you believe mankind is not the catalyst but that the changes are part of natural cyclical changes, you can not be blind to the suffering, jealousy, anger and military competition such changes can foster. Certainly the role of peacemaker should include giving people a voice in their own destiny, clothes on their backs, food in their stomachs and shelter from the storm. A changing environment is a also a threat to world peace and spreading the alarm is the first step to action.

On the question of the politicalization of the Nobel Peace Price Prize award I have no doubt that the panel is influenced by their individual views of the the world. Our President is not popular throughout the world. Could Gore’s award be partially a slap in Bush’s face? I wouldn’t be surprised. But then, you won’t find many Europeans arguing that Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a humanitarian action designed to save Iraqis from a horrific dictator and to open the door to a democratically elected government. Perhaps, if he had been successful he might have been the recipient. But, then, isn’t it a stretch to consider an unprovoked attack by a large and powerful nation against a weak and mostly defenseless nation a peaceful action?

Yes, Alfred Nobel, the founder of the Nobel awards was the inventor of dynamite. True, the explosives he created were snapped up by the military and brought about much suffering and death. But, it was his personal fear of how the world would view him following his death that prompted Nobel to attempt to redeem himself by giving all but six percent of his wealth to setup and fund the awards.

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way:
The capital shall be invested by my executors in safe securities and shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.
The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiological or medical works by the Caroline Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm; and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."

– Alfred Nobel

Yes, sadly, makers of munitions still bear Nobel’s name. Although I abhor war and killing in general, I would have to be blind to deny that we do live in a dangerous world and that armies are necessary for our protection. I could even go farther and suggest that if our only weapons were bare hands and stones one group would undoubtedly use them against another. My son is a materials engineer and scientist. Among other endeavors, he works on projects for the U.S. Army that if successful could save the lives of many U..S troops. Certainly you could consider increasing the invulnerability of U.S. troops a threat to peace. After all, how big a step is it from shields to bullets? Personally, I do not believe he should sit on his hands and do nothing to protect the lives of his neighbors.

[Jetsetlemming]

Actually, I've read up on some things that suggest positive reactions in the global climate to a warmer shift. Deserts see increased rainfall and become temperate and hospitable, Freezing areas become livable, etc etc. Overall, we're an amazingly adaptable, flexible species, and what other species on Earth can't survive a heat increase will be replaced by creatures who can, just like they have every other time the planet's gone through a hot age or ice age.
It's a bit early to predict doom and gloom, overall.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, Good question. If you find a place where candidates clearly spell out their positions on topics please let me know. Personally, I believe many would be afraid to speak in anything but generalities for fear that they’d be held accountable. After all, they wouldn’t want to be accused of waffling if they later changed their mind.

Doc Doogie Head, I can’t believe you actually offered an argument for global warming. Regardless of the cause for warming, the humans that inhabit the planet would be in crisis. Have you considered that the scientists spreading the alarm of human involvement in the environmental crisis might be right and we should heed the warning? Consider for a moment the reason why certain people are opposed to legislation to prevent human threats to our land, water and atmosphere.

[stsparky]

Two links:

Gore Shares Peace Prize for Climate Change Work (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html?hp?sr=hotnews&_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)


Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/11/gore/)
What's world peace got to do with global warming? Perhaps everything. Or it will if things don't change fast -- if, in 10 or 20 or 40 years devastating floods and droughts displace millions of refugees and spur nations and tribes to desperate bloodletting. At which point, no one will have the slightest doubt why members of the renowned Scandinavian foundation thought former U.S. Vice President Al Gore was an obvious choice for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Gore is, quite simply, the indispensable player in the drama of mankind's encounter with the possibility of destroying the climatic balance within which our civilization emerged and developed.

As anyone who read the book or watched the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" knows, Gore has been troubled by and fascinated with the science of climate change since his undergraduate days at Harvard, where he first encountered the theory that carbon emissions are slowly causing the planet to overheat. He began holding congressional hearings on the subject the moment he hit Washington in the early '70s and has not let up since -- perhaps because he understood instinctively that it was not a question of whether changing the atmosphere's chemical balance would disrupt climate, but when, and how fast.

He recognized, too, that the incredibly hard task of turning around the world's energy economy would become impossible if we waited for global warming to announce its presence, stage left, with alarum and hautboys as Shakespeare might have scripted.

So for years he accepted the thankless role of Cassandra, the Greek prophet no one would heed. But unlike Cassandra he did not sit by to watch fateful tragedy unfold. Once, when I was particularly frustrated by challenges I faced in my job at the Sierra Club, Gore heard me out and replied: "Never, ever give up." That would seem to be his motto, as reflected in the thousands of speeches he has delivered, the Live Earth concert he built from scratch, the naysaying he has endured, the movement he inspired.

What's all that have to do with peace? Look at Iraq, Darfur or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- bloody sites that have engendered three Nobel Peace prizes. Twenty-first century conflicts seldom feature stable governments colliding, but rather collapsing societies attacking themselves. These are much harder to solve with diplomacy or peacekeeping troops. Prevention is the key.

The Nobel Committee has recognized this in recent years, awarding its prize to such previously unlikely winners as Iranian feminist Shirin Abadi, and Muhammad Yunus, a pioneer of microfinance for the poor.

A quick list of trouble spots that climate chaos could ignite would include:

The Sudan and Darfur -- where the ongoing violence, fueled by drought and destitution, might be described as the world's first global-warming civil war.

South Asia -- where India, China and Pakistan might well go to war over the shrinking snow melt from the Tibetan Plateau.

The eastern Mediterranean, where Syria, Iraq and Turkey contest the Euphrates.

The Chinese-Soviet border, where the loss of agricultural lands could force even more of the Chinese population north of the Amur.

The gradually drying region around the Aral Sea -- Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan.

Even Canada, Norway and the Soviet Union, whose governments are beginning to make bellicose noises about control of the suddenly ice-free Arctic.

In 2004, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai. She is not a general or president. She was founder of the grass-roots Green Belt Movement, which planted more than 30 million trees across the country, providing jobs, power and education to women in the process. In the Nobel committee's words upon awarding that prize: "Peace on earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment."

The committee apparently sees Gore in a similar light, as someone who has spent much of his career staving off conflicts by uniting strange bedfellows behind the common cause of protecting humanity's only home.

In the 20th century peace was something to be achieved after the horrifying bloodletting of world war began. In the 21st century, although the world faces a new era of turmoil, peace ultimately must be about identifying and resolving the sources of conflict before battles break out. That's why no one deserves the Nobel Peace Prize more than Al Gore.

We could say that the US failure to embrace the Kyoto protocols is another reason for the rest of the world to not like us.

[Jetsetlemming]

Doc Doogie Head, I can’t believe you actually offered an argument for global warming. Regardless of the cause for warming, the humans that inhabit the planet would be in crisis. Have you considered that the scientists spreading the alarm of human involvement in the environmental crisis might be right and we should heed the warning? Consider for a moment the reason why certain people are opposed to legislation to prevent human threats to our land, water and atmosphere.
But that's just it; Climatologists are no better fortune tellers than you or I, and a scary amount of "Scientists" whose chosen field has nothing to do with glaciers, weather, or pollution are counted among the proponents of Global Warming being a man-made event and a total disaster.
An average global temperature raise isn't that number applied universally to the world; some parts will be hotter, some parts cooler.
It of course may have some bad effects, and some very bad effects. But you can't just stop there, call it a day, and start screaming the sky is falling.

Also, the Kyoto Protocols were bullshit, would've severly damaged our economy, and gave exemptions to countries that now pollution just as much or more than America, such as China.
And of course, were based on the unproven theorum that global warming is man-made, which has about as much evidence supporting it as claiming that Scientologists all get to be movie stars and celebrities.

[ruaidhri]

No, Doc Doggie Head, you're wrong; climatologists are better at predicting future climatic events than either you or I. Why? Because they’re not fortune tellers; they’re scientists with years of education backing up their findings. As for the “other scientists” you blasted, have you considered that much of science has common interests.

You make charges about topics you know little about but what you want to believe. Perhaps the most telling statement you made was in your reference to the Kyoto Protocols where your primary complaint was that they would have severely damaged our economy. Simply put, business doesn’t want to bear the cost of protecting the world. They’re afraid that without enforcement against third-world countries they won’t be competitive. Then, you attempted to justify the U.S. doing nothing because China and India are major polluters. You must subscribe to the Ostrich process of resolving problems, stick your head in the sand and ignore the evidence before you. Remember that doing nothing is also an action. It also has consequences only you have absolutely no control over their direction.

What especially bothers me is that you ridicule science without even understanding the process of scientific research and how they arrive at conclusions. What have you got, High School and perhaps a year of college. Have you even taken an advanced course in any science, what-less climatology. I’ll admit I am not an expert. While I can voice an opinion on global warming, I certainly don’t have the credentials to support any conclusions. Neither do you. The difference is that I know it while you are content to simply deny the problem even exists while hoping it will just go away. Well, it won’t. It will just get worse.

[Jetsetlemming]

Global warming is an inescapable future, ruaidhri. It's part of the natural cycle of the world, something that's happened many times in Earth's history. There's no magical solution, no cure-all, to the planet getting warmer. No amount of red herring demons you attack will make it go away. And yet all you'll ever heard is "We need to stop pollution because of global warming". You barely ever even hear "We need to stop pollution because it's toxifying the air and water" anymore. There are serious reasons why pollution is bad. Reasons that make sense, that have real evidence behind them. Global warming isn't one of them. It's been ages since I last heard a sane argument about global warming. What we need to be doing is preparing for a warmer world. Not bickering amongst ourselves and casting blame.

[stsparky]

But that's just it; Climatologists are no better fortune tellers than you or I, and a scary amount of "Scientists" whose chosen field has nothing to do with glaciers, weather, or pollution are counted among the proponents of Global Warming being a man-made event and a total disaster...
Trying to do something constructive is a better use of time than continuing to foul our environment. Real geopolitical events are happening because of Global Warming.
Ice melt raises passage tension (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7033498.stm)

"In another sign of potential friction in the warming Arctic, Canada has warned that it will step up patrols of the Northwest Passage.

Record summer melting of sea-ice has made the passage fully navigable; and immediately escalated a dispute over who controls the route.

Canada maintains that the waterway that connects the Atlantic with the Pacific lies within its territorial waters.

It has backed that up with plans for a new military base in the Arctic.

However, the United States, and other countries claim international rights to use the route for shipping. ..."

[ruaidhri]

Doc Doogie Head, I’ll agree with you on one point, “global warming is an inescapable future”. I believe this is true even if mankind stopped all activities considered contributory to global warming. Yes, you’re also correct, there have been cyclical patterns of warming and cooling of the atmosphere that have occurred throughout the earth’s history. That according to expert opinion is not what’s occurring today.

Now, you can certainly call the experts fools or eggheads or whatever you want but the fact remains that their education and knowledge of the past limits of cyclical changes makes their projections far more creditable than your opinions. You are free however to close your eyes, dig your feet into the sand and ignore whatever you want. That way you never have to be proven wrong because you’ll never admit defeat.

Oh, and by the way, where did you ever get the idea that environmentalists are no longer interested in mankind’s fouling of the land and water. It’s because of past actions to protect the environment that U.S. waterways are cleaner and we no longer read of communities located on toxic dumps. I am old enough to remember first hand the smell from the Milwaukee River where today condos and river walks line the river. I remember watching people forced out of their Love Canal homes because of what mankind left under the ground on which their houses were built ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal ).

It’s comparatively easier to clean up your own back yard; It’s far more difficult to clean your neighbors. The problem with the atmosphere above us is that its problems affect everyone throughout the world. That doesn’t mean we should deny a problem even exists because we fear taking unilateral action while others continue polluting and don’t share the economic expense.

So, continuing this specific discussion is worthless. While we agree we have a problem of global warming and that we’ll have to adjust to live within a new world, you wish to deal only with the symptom, not the disease. Thankfully, in this vast world, your opinion and mine mean nothing and have no effect one way or the other. Al Gore’s warning and the findings of countless scientists throughout the world are causing an awakening that will, I believe, bring about needed changes. I can only hope they’ll be enough and not too late.

[Trump]

When I really think about a politicians stance, I believe I care more about why they chose their stance on an issue than care about the their actual stance. If they told me why, I wouldn't care if they waffled because I would understand why they have changed their mind. But somehow I doubt that will ever happen. I feel there is a disturbing lack of honesty in the political arena.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I agree! I also value why they chose a particular stance and I do respect politicians that have valid and well thought out reasons for changing their minds. But, everything a politician says or does can be a subject of a 30 second commercial where everything can be misrepresented. That has to be constantly on their minds whenever they take a position on any issue.

[Trump]

And somtimes it feels like a 30-second commercial is more powerful than a 2 hour debate in today's society =/

Do you believe that? What causes that?