And McCain's VP pick is...
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Current Affairs
Forum Discription: Debates on topical, current World politics
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25290
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 21:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: And McCain's VP pick is...
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Subject: And McCain's VP pick is...
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 16:45
Right now around 15 minutes presidential candidate John McCain will announce his runningmate. The morning news has heavily speculated that a Governor from Alaska Mrs. Palin will be the VP pick. We will really have a choice now between a woman vice-president or a black president? This is just mind-boggling for me because this just takes the marks in the history books 
|
Replies:
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 16:57
|
Good God.
All of a sudden, I want to print signs: "Joe Biden for President."
 |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 17:55
|
This is not good for women's rights. How so? Subjecting another female to political humiliation just to end up losing the election anyway is gruesome. Do we really need another Geraldine Ferraro? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 18:38
|
This does not sound like a thoroughly thought out decision, if they wanted to go the woman route there are many more qualified candidates. Plus to make a gimmick pick is more Balkanpolitics than what you would expect from a major world power.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 18:43
|
A stupid choice. If he was going to chose a minority VP He should have chosen Bobby Jindal, a successful son of Indian immigrants who governs one of the deep south states where Duke and co. of the KKK hail from. If he thought that chosing a woman will bring women votes he is dead wrong, the woman is anti abortion which will rally women against her rather than for her. Plus even though she is a not a Washington insider she comes from the richest state in America. She knows little of the trouble faced by people of other states which is why Jindal would have been the best choice, he governs Louisiana where Katrina hit and still affects life there.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 21:16
|
It is back to the demographics. Something like 54% of registered voters are women. Someone has figured, based on some BS polling data, that all the Repubs have to do is swing enough percentage points their way from the Hillary fans, and they have the election.
It can't be anything else. A politically active person I spoke to today called it a "hail Mary play." And he is a Republican.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 21:25
|
Al Jassas:
Bobby Jindal is in reserve for the future. If the Repubs are that desperate to choose this lady, they have probably given it up for this election.
Bobby Jindal may be getting a baptism of fire this week if Hurricane Gustav comes ashore near Louisiana. How that goes may determine much about his political future and marketability.
|
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 21:47
I've also read he may speak at the convention. They are definitely grooming him for the future. He's only 37 years old and potentially has a very long political career ahead of him. No need to burn him out on this circus of an election. ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 22:20
|
Hello to you all
While I am not that much into internal US politics I think that if a minority was to be chosen it should be a man and he should compliment McCain's weaknesses because he is neither a social conservative nor a part of the christian part. Jindal fits the criteria but there are others, A catholic conservative or even a Hispanic catholic will draw much more votes in those two catagories. Obama's performance with Catholics is extremely poor and these are traditionally more democrat than republicans. A catholic conservative will take the catholic vote. A Hispanic is even better, he will take Catholic and Hispanic votes and victory will be certain in at least one big state, Florida. Don't know if there is a politician fitting these criteria but this is my choice.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 23:02
With Gustav possibly impacting Louisiana sometime early next week, it is unlikely Jindal will be in Minneapolis for the convention. His first responsibility is of course as governor, but if he is able to distance himself from this ticket, so much the better for him. (at least as I see it, but who knows?)
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2008 at 23:16
Bobby Jindal is a Catholic. As a Republican, he is conservative enough, and as a Southern governor, he should have been able to appeal to the "Reagan Democrats" of the South and West. Why wasn't he chosen? Who knows? But with the situation regarding the Republican ticket as it is, it may be just as well. Jindal will be overseeing the state response to the approaching hurricane, and may not make it to the convention. He can score political points with a skillful magement of Gustav's expected effects, and distance himself from what may be a Republican problem.
There are not that many Republican Hispanics of note (since Henry Cisneros of Texas), so that is not a strength of the Republicans.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 03:13
|
I'm like most other people. I've been wondering and racking my brains about his reasoning for the pick. Some of my initial conclusions:
1.) Alot of pi$$ed off Hillary fans out there up for grabs, who have absolutely no love for Obama.
2.) The impression is that alot of people & the press are into Mr. Obama seems to be primarily because he is: A.) An ethnic minority. Where as for Gov. Palin while not an ethnic minority, it is the obviousness of it being the second & only time in the last 25 years, as well as... in this country's 230 plus year history that a female is tapped for the 2nd most powerful position in the land. B.) Experience obviously doesn't count with alot of potential voters this year. C.) Politically speaking, a fresh face too the Presidential elections. D.) Not much time to be considered a Washington insider.
When i think of it like that, i think Mr. McCain has in a way, killed more than several birds with one stone. Besides being a female conservative on the politically opposite side from Mr. Obama, they share most, but not all, things in common in this campaign, as i noted above. Also, while i don't think the McCain campaign isn't all that worried about attacks from the Obama campaign, if he keeps it as civil as possible? It's the attacks from Obama's grass root supporters, that neither candidates can control within their own party anyhow, that i think he was trying too force them into rethinking the best way of strategizing and handling his campaign without coming across as a bunch of sexists bigotted supporters of Obama! I'm mean the potential is there for one or the other campaign of imploding quite easily if neither of them treads carefully of not alienating the American public?
3.) And finally, maybe with this initial shock, the press might actually wake up and realize that there is more than one political campagin being conducted this year?
Then again... i am probably barking up the wrong tree with my assumptions? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 05:05
|
The Hillary supporters are not going to rally behind Palin. Conservative strategist don't get Democrats, it seems. The Hillary supporters, the true fundamentalists in the Democratic race, don't want a woman president... they want Hillary as president.
And there is already a video of Palin circulating of her telling Hillary to stop whining. Not a way of win them over.
I really believe this was a bad move. I would have gone with a person with enough conservative credentials and younger to persuade the lukewarm conservative base that it is okay to vote for a 3rd. Bush term. After all, with a bonified conservative, if McCain dies (which considering his age and his clear poor health, is a big possibility) then you will have a good conservative behind the wheel. Instead he picked the hockey-Mom Palin who was major of a city that had the same population that my high school and is a two-year governor of a state with less people that Memphis. And she has a great chance to become president, considering the poor health of McCain. Would you like her to answer that phone call at 3 AM in the morning? And Palin's anti-abortion stand will go very well with those pro-choice Hillary supporters. I can see the Hillary Emily List brigade ready to vote Republican now. Yeah, right. And what is this thing about keeping Ron Paul supporters out of the Republican convention? They fear their own party members? ------------- |
Posted By: snowybeagle
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 18:02
| Good pick. Obama got a fight. I'm not an American and I don't live in America. I got an American family as my neighbout who put up the sign barackobama.com in front of their house, and they agreed that Obama got a fight on his hands. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2008 at 23:20
|
Hello Hugoestr.
I don't always get the strategists from either party. Your right about her hardcore supporters, but i think they might sit this one out? As for her more moderate ones, they would probably prefer McCain now after what they may have felt of the way she was treated by the Obama campaign?
Not that i care anymore about the debate of either campaign surrounding political experience. But i think the democrats possibly shot themseleves in the foot with pushing the meteoric rise of the equally inexperienced Mr. Obama to lead their party to the whitehouse? Just the same as with McCain's pick for VP might cause him the election?
Again, i don't think the hardcore Hillary supporters are interested in the election as much anymore, in which... as of yet remains to be seen? That is purely speculation on my part. Whether any former Hillary supporters have chosen too support McCain's campaign, also remains too be seen?
------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 00:55
|
This seems like such political pandering, to suggest that women will vote for a woman regardless of her record or intentions. Sarah Palin might be a very competent governor but a better VP than say, Tom Ridge? If I were a GOP woman, I'd be insulted. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 01:44
|
Hi, Panther,
The Obama campaign treated Hillary supporters fine. There media is doing a lot of noise about nothing. Are there some people angry? Sure, but the vast majority of Hillary supporters will listen to Hillary herself and vote for Obama in November. And Obama has plenty of experience. More than a decade in public office, and he shows command over a number of areas. McCain, on the other hand, has said that he doesn't know about economics and he has shown a horrible knowledge about foreign affairs. If there is experience, it is not showing. He seems massively unprepared for the task, but as my former McCain supporter mother-in-law says, he may be going senile.
McCain, in other words, doesn't bring experience in foreign affairs or expertise in anything else. All what he brings is a war hawk philosophy to foreign affairs; the same one that has proven deadly and ineffective in the last 8 years. Back to the VP and Hillary. If McCain believes that bringing Palin is going to bring the Hillary supporters, they are wrong, wrong, wrong. It also seems to indicate that they are desperate. The women Hillary supporters are like the Hispanic Hillary supporters: after they grieve their loss, they realize that they must be out of their mind to vote for McCain. Just so that you can see how absurd this goal is, what would you think if Obama found a libertarian for his ticket to get the Ron Paul votes. What would you think about this hypothetical strategist? That he just doesn't get Republicans and Ron Paul supporters. You might think that pro-choice women are a radical fringe among Hillary supporters, but they actually are the majority. And pro-choice supporters won't vote for McCain because him winning may be the end of legalize abortion. Now, polls say that it may attract independents to the McCain ticket. That might be the positive from this pick. Again, I would have gone with a solidly younger conservative man. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 02-Sep-2008 at 17:02
| Personally I think McCain should have picked the good governor of Minnesota, Pawlety. Picking him would have brought Minnesota over to the Republican column and cut into Obama's supposed Electoral Lead (183 to 142; Obama) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/ - 1 . The numbers in the previous sentence are a reflection of what the Electoral math is in states that are solidly going one way or the other. If we were to look at states going solidly for one candidate or the other and states leaning towards one candidate or the other the numbers would jump to 228 to 185; Obama. Alaska is already going to vote Republican so picking Palin really does not bring that much to the table. Alaska only has 3 electoral votes whereas Minnesota has 10 (and a battleground state). Also if McCain picked her to help court the Hillary block he made a big mistake thinking that because she is a woman the Hillaries will vote for her, ergo him. It's not that the Hillaries want a woman to be President or Vice President they want Hillary to fill that position(s). |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2008 at 01:10
|
Granted Carly & Kay B. Hutchinson might have been a better 'experience' choice but I don't think he chose Palin because he needed experience. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 16:28
|
Rumor has it that Palin was not McCain's first wish as VP. Lieberman was on that short list but the rank and file would have none of it. The discussion must have been a thing of beauty. Republican Party Bosses - "No you can't have Lieberman. He is as old as you and Americans don't like traitors even though he did flee from the dark side. Instead we will submit to you an unknown as pure as virgin snow". McCain - "But I hardly know her! I hope you know what you're doing...and I hope you made it clear to her that I have a rye sense of humor". Republican Party Bosses - "We know her so well...(hee hee) that you will never have to worry about the media bothering you over your age, wisdom, and lack of economical experience ever again (hee hee)." I couldn't have schemed it better than this. Unwed teen pregnancy, firing a brother-in-law state trooper over a custody dispute, invoking God that the Iraqi war was a task from Him, and urging ministry students to pray for a 30 billion dollar pipeline. Can't wait for what tommorow will bring. Parting words of wisdom from Saint Palin:
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." "God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said. "I can do my job there in developing our natural resources and doing things like getting the roads paved and making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded," she added. "But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/n/content/shared-gen/ap/Presidential_Elections/CVN_Palin_Vulnerabilities.html - http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/n/content/shared-gen/ap/Presidential_Elections/CVN_Palin_Vulnerabilities.html ------------- |
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 17:11
| McCain really shot himself in the leg with this choice. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 17:16
|
She sounds like a bigger nut than him  Love how Rove praised her "mayor of 2nd largest city of Alaska, (9,000)."  But blasted Tim Cain, "he's been the mayor of the hundred largest city of America, Richmond just isn't a big city..." Who has been a Lt. Gov and Governor, ... Love these dualities. O'Rielly blasted Spear's sister for a teen pregnancy called the parents idiots, but in Palins... case it is a personal matter, a personal decision, bla bla bla. http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml Clips of this are shown on the Daily Show, too. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:17
|
My own feeling is that Palin cements the support of the crazy religious right, the single-issue "pro-life" obsessives and so on.
I can't see her taking any votes at all, female or male, from the Democratic base, and to most independents she will be a joke - or at least a soap opera as we wait to hear 'will he won't he' as they pick daisy petals over whether the guy will actually marry the girl (or the gilr silly enough to hook up with an evident loser).
But she will bring in the fundamentalists that McCain had risked losing (to apathy, not to the Democrats). After all when did 'family values' mean she and her daughter had to get married before they conceived children?
Instead of 'just say no', do we get 'just say anytime baby'? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:27
|
She does take the idiot vote however, albeit in small numbers, I have a co-worker that grieves from problems that the republican government is fond of doing but will vote for McCain because he is a "maverick," and she is a "little maverick herself." Which I found laughable.
------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 19:37
|
I love how this thread resembles the smokey backroom machinations of the DNC or Obama campaign headquarters.
 ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 21:33
|
I agree. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 22:09
Well, gender and ethncity seems too be a touchy subject nowadays? About the elections, how can a Republican disagree with Obama without coming across as a rascists or portrayed as one in the media? The same goes for the Democrats as well w/o sounding like they're chock full of sexist bigots? I can tell that within either camp, there are a few of those who are just chomping at the bit too really let loose, but can't because of todays PC atmosphere?
Also, i would like too mention the elephant in the room, Mr. Obama's parents were white and black, but most people and the media has focused in on him possibly being the first black President, which by the same standards does come across as some pretty impressive and very sophisticated pandering. We have to face the possible facts, our politicans don't seem to try to appeal anymore for voters, they pander too them!
 ------------- |
Posted By: beorna
Date Posted: 04-Sep-2008 at 23:12
| I saw the convention of the Republicans yesterday. It was the first time ever I watched this. I listened to Giuliani and to Palin. I was very astonished how contemptuous they talked about Obama. It is not that I like Obama. Instead of a great mass of my German fellow-citizens I am not impressed of him. I am no Democratic supporter as well. OK, if I would be allowed to elect for a party, than it would be rather the Democratic party than the Republicans. A lot of people in Germany compare the political spectrum of the US with their Republicans and Democrats with those of the German with the conservative CDU and the Social Democrats SPD. For me it seems, that the Democrates are more like the Liberals from FDP and the CDU, whereas the Republicans can be compared with right-winged conservatives or nationalists. But back to the convention. Especially Giuliani seemed to love to play the clown. Perhaps this style of adress appeals to Americans, I don't know, I did not like it. But more than about Giuliani I was impressed about Palin. It was so easy to look through her speach. And when she introduced her family - oh, no word about her pregnant daughter. Just a nice picture-book family. How stupid! During her speach she sometimes spoke about what she and McCain would do, e.g. bring the war on Iraq to an victorious end. So it is not accomplished? I was very happy to see that your politicians lie as much as ours do. But it was so obviously. By the way, what is clean coal? Do you have different coal in the States? Perhaps it's like our clear nuclear power. Just a little bit of nuclear waste! I do not like the current president Bush, sorry, I do believe he's an idiot. But that's not his fault. He's just the man he is. Well I think you can have a big time with him at a party or a barbecue, but all the rest? But Palin? She seems to me as an ambitious, greedy and cold woman that would do everything for her success. And we heart she shall be vindictive too. I don't know much about McCain, but I think she will be a deserving successor of Cheaney. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 00:03
Hello Hugoestr,
There is no accurate way to really tell how effective the reconciliation has been, we'll just have too wait and see in Novermber?
I thought Mr. Obama was elected to the senate in 2004?
I guess his three decades of service doesn't account for anything, then why should Mr. Obama's decade or less service count either? Or is that the point of whittling down Mr. McCain's candidacy? As for our foreign affairs and current unpopularity, we weren't hated by the terrorists or despised by many in the world during the Bush administration, but also during Clinton's, Bush Sr., Regan & Carter's. If Mr. Bush's administration has only created more terrorists, then what was creating them in the thirty plus years prior? Yes, i know it's been said to be about Israel, injustices and the occupation. But' let's face it, the other half of the equation really boils down to is hate & prejudice on the terrorists part & massive misinformation passed on by their media to the muslim population in general! Both Israel and Muslims have been dealt a great disservice for over sixty years. The only way for some type of relative peace too come in the middle east without outside interference, is either by Israel ceasing too exist or Muslims getting so fed up with the constant drumming for war too forget their other more pressing problems from their national, intellectual or religous leaders, that they either throwout the entire crop of idiots and replace them all... en masse with fresh new ideas from homegrown original Muslim thinkers? Atleast that is how it has appeared to me for the past couple of years, that is, to be as politely blunt as i dare!
I don't know? I should just give up trying too second guess the rationality of any politican? But, then half of the fun is gone out of my life when they don't do as i expected or demand, then i can't turn around and call them all a bunch of idiotic @$$h*les when i think i'm right and their wrong!
I understand your point. But, what i would like for you to see from my pov, is how absurd both parties can be when the whitehouse is up for grabs? I have seen and am starting too believe everything & anything is possible at those times.
Now your scaring me.
 Well, i can see how the choice of Gov. Palin as VP is probably causing them panic attacks at night! But, let's be honest, since Roe vs Wade.... of the administrations since then we have had five out the eight administrations being Republican Presidencies, which have consistently failed too reverse that decesion, and they were adamantly opposed too abortion as much and perhaps even more so then McCain has ever been! I think if they couldn't have gotten the decision reversed within the first few decades, then their chances are that they never will succeed? That is, if they have even bothered too really try in the first place!
Independent or moderates? It hard too tell which way this election wil go? If anything, this is one interesting election year!
Personally, the country is of much more interest to me than my personal politics! Of this hypothetical scenario... even though my stress level would have been significantly reduced going with a conservative running mate of like mind... i more than likely would have gone with Mr. Lieberman myself? A bigtime ex-Democrat liberal from the northeast with leftwing socialist ideals, virtually abandoned by his party, judging from appearances, for daring too have an independent view on foreign affairs! That appears being more in line with the maverick persona then Mr. McCain has claimed himself to be! The man still won his seat in the senate from his district constituents, despite his former party throwing everything it had at him but the kitchen sink, just to get him unseated! So you are probably right in Mr. McCain not being a maverick. Atleast he didn't have his party trying too destroy his several decade political career, just for bucking their politically expedient new found belief!
Anyways... hopefully some of my bluntness didn't put you or anyone else off? So far, I've really enjoyed all my interactions with those of differing opinions here! Hopefully others might feel the same of my minor contributions?
Until the next time i have the pleasure of discussing any other topics further with you, take care of yourself...
Panther
Edited to straighten out the quote marks - gcle2003 ------------- |
Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 01:30
Yes indeed. Pandering is definately the name of the game, for both sides. ------------- The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 02:11
|
Hi, Panther,
It sounds like you are hoping against hope that Hillary supporters were going to abandon ship. Well, they may have done that until McCain picked Palin. As I thought, many Hillary supporters are angry at the idea that Palin, a regressive social conservative with a new skeleton coming out of the closet each day, is supposed to stand for Hillary  .
As for experience, Obama served as a state legislator from 1997 to 2004, when he became US senator. That makes a total of 11 years of experience in elected office, a lot more than Palin, unless we are counting her tenure as PTA leader as part of her experience
As for McCain, he has shown himself as a total idiot on foreign affairs. As you yourself say, the Middle East is important. Yet McCain can't tell the difference between the Shia and the Sunni? He talks about the border of Iraq and Pakistan??!! This shows total incompetence on this most important issue. Once again, being a war hawk doesn't turn you into a foreign affairs realist. As the last 8 years of our country has shown, war hawks can be totally out of touch of reality. And that is what he are getting with McCain: a out of touch war hawk policy.
As for Lieberman, he is only interested in himself. He lost a primary, he threw a tantrum and Republicans helped him get elected for his senate seat again. He is not an ex liberal; he is still a big liberal in everything except in foreign affairs. He is yet another chicken hawk. And from what I have read, Lieberman was in the VP list. But Lieberman seems to have declined the candidacy, as all of the other male Republicans with a future in the GOP. The only one who seems to have said yes was the former beauty queen kook from Alaska.
Okay, joking aside, I say this again: McCain choosing a solidly conservative male would have been a better choice. It would have brought together most of the people who traditionally side with conservatives. At this point McCain is losing the strongly conservative Biblical types, since a woman leader of the armed forces is unbiblical (so they say), it is probably going to lose whatever sector of misogynist men exist in the party, and it already lost the Hillary supporters who were leaning for McCain. The more mainstream conservatives are probably happier with the selection, but then, they were going to vote for McCain in any case. Here is my opinion about the election: the internal polls of McCain have him losing, so him picking Palin was supposed to change the dynamics. Maybe they are overly pessimistic, since I still see McCain winning as being very plausible, but their actions speak louder than words. And there is no danger that you can upset me. I actually enjoy going back and forth with someone who won't get upset about it either. That is part of the fun in politics ------------- |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 02:26
Can't it be both?
Seriously though, since I view the type of political debate that takes place on this forum as a secondary concern, I can hardly act as if I'm shocked. If this site is to be turned into a spin-zone, so be it; just not on Phil/Theo.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 11:16
Personally I miss the smoke. I wonder if all those traditional smoke-filled rooms are now non-smoking areas?  ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 11:26
The point isn't that the US is unpopular with terrorists or anti-Israel Arabs in general. The point is that under Clinton the US was still very popular world-wide (as indeed was Clinton himself personally) whereas under Bush the US has become unpopular with all the people that used to be allies or at least neutral, while Bush himself is either despised or mocked. In the last few years I've never heard anyone have a good word for Bush, even among expat Republicans of whom there are many here.
I'm pretty sure the US has never in its whole history been as looked down on so widely as it is now. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 20:56
Hello again Hugoestr,
I'm just trying to pass on what i've read & how i think i understand it. Whether it happens or not, my day won't be ruined based on whatever choice they choose too make. Besides, whatever the private or public faults of Gov. Palin, i thought the democrat party or it's supporters was made up , this election year, of tolerance and acceptance of those who are different or had their fair share with problems?
Good for him, and i am not going too say that i wish for him to fail out of any vindictiveness or spite, but i still suspect that his meteoric rise from national anomity is also bound for a fiery crash if he ever loses control of his carefully crafted and controlled image he has built around himself or the media abandons him for the next new thing? There is always still a chance that either campaign can still implode over the next few months! Of course, i know i can be wrong, seeing that at the beginning of last year i didn't suspect him too even get this far, or for McCain too remain interested after all these years of trying. So again i say, he has impressed me too the extent that i have gotten the impression that he is probably one of those old time politicans who recognizes a superbly golden opportunity that is presented too him and has run with it for all that it is worth, and McCain is simply reacting to what has caused him a disadvantage so far! Also, not that i am offended, but your statement regarding Gov. Palin is exactly the shortfall the Democrats need too publicly avoid at all cost, too keep women from abandoning the Democrat party en masse during this election cycle? I'm starting too really think this choice of Mrs. Palin as VP was extremely shrewed?
Personally, i'm not interested in the mistakes candidates make on the campaign trail. There are more than several factors at work that can cause such a thing. Ranging from, as you say, personal ignorance all the way to the fatigue of running a campaign and trying too keep the news interested enough to report it! Now, i know you don't want too turn this into which candidate is the most incompetent or the most exhausted? I believe it is safe too say that whoever wins the elections this year, will only have too govern 50 states and not 57!
That is very true. However, from my US-centric pov... painting oneself as a peacenik or isolationist hasn't ever stopped a war from happening either, specifically speaking... our inability not to get drawn into it! Anyways... both can be just as equally out of touch with reality as the other!
Aren't most politicans only interested in themseleves too a certain degree? Besides, i didn't say, or mean too imply... he was an ex-liberal, i thought i had said that he is just an ex-democrat!
If that is so, then i think that is a smart choice?
That might be true, seeing that there are some Republicans who are openly supporting Mr. Obama's candidacy. But, i'm not real sure whether it is because the issue is one of a female VP over a male candidate, or some other reason like difference over the runnng of foreign affairs for instance?
There is always that chance in politics! I suspect the possibility of "change" that Mr. Obama has talk about, will probably effect the two respective parties much more than the actual society that he had in mind? In your last sentence, might you be conceding that there are more hillary supporters giving their support to Mr. McCain then to Mr. Obama, then you have otherwise let on so far?
Yes, you are right, they would have anyway, just like the mainstream Democrats were going to vote for their party all along!
Well, if McCain is going to govern according to polls, then perhaps he deserves to lose the election anyways? However, whatever the effects of his choice will cause, i do think it has made the election a bit more interesting, from a historically cultural pov that is!
That is a relief! I do have a tendency too make myself a nusiance
, that is also not too say... a bit long winded on whatever subject i happen to throw myself into!  ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2008 at 21:59
That's not entirely true, IIRC... his decision too involve the US in the balkans wasn't well recieved by plenty of people in Western Europe, especially in the Balkan countries! For that matter... by the end of his terms, the original coalition against Saddam had virtually collapsed due in part i think, the world's growing displeasure with the impression of the US bullying the nation of Iraq, and he did absolutely nothing too rectify the situation for anyone involved! Now, i am not stating that i had wished for a war then, between the US and Iraq. I preferred some peaceful resolution to that diplomatic quagmire. Unfortunately, the day the twin towers came down, is the day i realized the death of an era; After awhile of mourning, it was time to move on!
Still, he is an incredibly skillfull politican and has that rare charm nowadays, for a politican who can charm anything as long as it is made up of any biological material! Personally, i did see that charming appeal about him, but at the same time, it had scared me to a point of never trusting him! I don't trust any politican with that type of charm. In Mr. Obama case, i give him the benefit of the doubt, atleast so far! Not so with Bush, The man doesn't and never has terrified me in the least, thanks in part to the impressive amount of opposition against him from day one! Now, i know i would be viewing him differrently if he had no opposition what so ever too speak of! Sure he has that little bit of personal one on one charm that can last for a while & can get some things done, but as far as the public is concerned, the first media impression of him will be the only public impression of him, for a while atleast!
Also about the Bush administration, as i distinctfully recall, was not warmly receieved from day one, nationally or internationally. I guess you could say it started with the recount decision and then snowballed from there making him into something he has never been. Then again, IIRC... Mr. Regan's administration wasn't as popular either! Besides his taking a tougher stance with the USSR had made plenty of people nervous around the world, and his intervention in Central America against communism and also taking on the illegal drug trade & their routes from roughly that area. I suppose or suspect the legacy of Nixon has left a very nasty impression in the world regarding all Republicans in general, much more then it had been realized at the time... as the most likely of the two parties who will abandon all their principles in which it is based & go insane; That is forgetting that in doing so would cause it's immediate collapse due too an extreme lack of support! Of course, that is... only what i presumed people had always suspected of them and that is what they have looked for?
Besides, i think there has been multiple times when the US was looked at rather unfondly, the most recent of course was the Vietnam war! ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 06-Sep-2008 at 11:20
Depends which Balkan country you are talking about. Not in Serbia, certainly. But most of Western Europe was firmly on the side of the other ex-Yugoslav groups. As for general popularity, Clinton was received with ovations wherever he went, whereas Bush effectively has to stay out of the light.
In fact if Clinton was criticised in Europe over the Balkans it was because of his hesitancy in acting.
The coalition dissolved once Kuwait had been freed. You can't really blame either Bush Sr or Clinton for that: it had served its purpose. Most people then lost interest in Iraq, since it was no longer a real threat to anyone. Many people were upset over the US failure to support the Shiite rising that they had encouraged, but that was under Bush Sr, not Clinton.
All that Iraq meant after that was an occasional emergence of 'no-fly' enforcement into the news, but it was hardly an emotional issue.
What have the twin towers got to do with the subject. Yes the attack profuced a large upswell of emotion favourable to the US, but the Bush adminstration frittered that away within two years.
Abandonment of international agreements and conventions, disregard for the US constutition and the rights of citizens, tightening surveillance of private activity, stirring up fake fears and xenophobia, eight spendthrift years encouraging profligacy, domestic and national, increasing militarisation of the society... doesn't terrify you?
True. However 911 changed all that, until, as I said, the administration threw it all away.
Reagan was never as unpopular outside the US as Bush. He had quite a few supporters around the world: the eighties marked an upswing in right-wing sentiment in much of the world - notably of course in Britain with Margaret Thatcher, whom Reagan emulated in many ways. Of course the left-wing didn't like him, but the right did and the middle found him acceptable in foreign policy. In contrast, today right, left and middle ALL find Bush and his associates intolerable (except in a few near-puppet states, but the US doesn't have the wealth to support many of those any more).
Reagan's deleterious effect was domestic, on the whole his foreign policy worked OK with the people outside the US.
Why would that happen? You can always wave the banner of the war on terror to justify anything. And if that doesn't work, bring up Roe vs Wade and family values. And of course, lie.
Most people, me included at the time, didn't care about the Vietnam war. Apart from anything else, US motives for the war weren't suspect, even if the conduct of it wasn't brilliant. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 18:14
Yes, the United States has turned into the equivalent of a fascist police state. There are concentration camps and gulags set up where people are dying by the thousands, right under the unconcerned populace's nose. All freedoms have been taken away; there are cameras at every street corner, in every kitchen faucet, under every bed. "Foreigners" are being rounded up and mysteriously relocated. There are parades of armed soldiers goose stepping down every Main Street. Citizens are forced on a daily basis to provide food and shelter for soldiers. Oh the humanity, Hitler and Stalin are back in the US!
You can always bring up the fact that the "conservative" side waves the banner of war on terrorism or that they pander to country bumpkins who have guns and too many babies in order to advocate the consolidation of a one world government and citizenship where everyone is "helped" and there are no unfortunate differences. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 18:43
|
B.E.:
You forgot that due to the "increasing militarisation of the society" we have all become Prussian. Buy yourself a monocle.
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 19:14
This kind of wild exaggeration of what I said is a great way of covering up the feeling that I was closer to the mark than you want to admit.
As a matter of fact I have myself seen soldiers parading through Atlanta airport, in a way that wouldn't happen in any other western country. And I know from others that's not unusual. Neither are the cheerleaders who were w^sent out ahead of the parade to encourage people to cheer and applaud.
Moreover it's now trivial that the administration has arrogated the right to detain citizens without trial for as long as rthey care to.
Sarcasm is only a refuge for those with no sensible answer.
You can also do it for a whole host of other reasons. The point is that the accusation is true irrespective of the motive for doing so.
Your last paragraph is simply idiotic tosh. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 19:17
Same point. If you don't think America is more militaristic now that at any point in its history, you are simply ignorant of history.
Outside WW2 possibly, whenever before did the US spend so much of its money and time and effort on supporting the military? ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 19:55
Alright then. Removing all the "wild sarcasm," we are then left with the fact that the USA has, except in a few fringe coastal areas, police who do their jobs and keep the peace?
By comparison, let us look at other more enlightened areas of the Western world where there are openly subversive and hostile elements preaching hatred and anarchy in the streets, where there are gangs of drunken and disgruntled "youths" knifing each other in broad daylight. How do these enlightened western governments plan on restoring peace in these instances, with "police" armed with water guns from the local supermarket?
What is wrong with soldiers being out in the open in a public place, a place which they freely volunteered to protect and preserve with their lives? I am guessing you are going to say in response that the evil dictator Bush culled these unfortunate poor and uneducated bumpkins, brainwashed them, and forcibly impressed them into military service?
Yes, and please pardon the "wild exaggeration" again, but these poor citizens were most likely "detained" in a plush, hotel-like "prison" where they had air-conditioning, cable TV, and three square meals a day.
It sure seemed to get my point across to you I think. It is a useful tool when dealing with the misinformation spewing from conspiracy theories and geopolitical snobbery.
Sorry, I never liked reggae music like that of Bob Marley and Peter Tosh anyways.
Examine European history, especially that of the last 70-75 years, and notice the prominence of several dictators who managed to lure entire populaces into the ideologies, and even into the actual practices, of the kind that I outlined in my "wild exaggerations" above. Perhaps silly Americans like us were onto something when we expelled King George way back in the Revolutionary War. Perhaps.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 07-Sep-2008 at 23:37
|
gcle:
In the last 200 plus years, about 150 of those have been characterized by European militarism. Europeans were not able to overcome that without killing 50 or 60,000,000 people (give or take
 ), so outsiders did it for you. In the last 60 years, European states have been huddled under the American umbrella and not pulling their military weight. The costs for the US, military and otherwise, which we really would have preferred not to bear, only BEGAN after 1945. You are not the only human alive with an historical perspective, nor with historical knowledge. Trash talk about how "militaristic" America is, and the implications about how naive, and how clueless Americans are is just the residue of an exhausted, weak continent whose collective efforts now amount to how many weeks of vacation they can get. Yours is rather a condescending attitude as Europe is now just a chess board on which others play.
If you want a real historical example of militarism, look east of Poland. That is closer and might be a larger concern, but then you haven't had to be concerned about that have you?
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 01:10
|
Pike and B.E.,
We should listen with respect what other people have to say about the U.S. Decide if what they are saying is true or not, rather than just defend the country in a reflexive manner. What gcle says is true. The U.S. has become militarized to an obscene degree. Our regular civil liberties have been trampled on to a point of humiliation. And the people who brought all of these things were the conservative party in Congress and in the presidency. The fact that Russia is highly militarized, which I personally ignore if this is the case today or not, is not the issue. The issue is, do we really think that the U.S., with its good historical record overall, should be compared with Russia on account on what war hawk conservatives in power have done? Rather than resent people from Europe pointing out that the emperor has no close, let's hold accountable those who are responsible for making the comparisons even possible. This is why it is so important to vote against the Republican Party in this election. It is not about the candidates per se; it is about the terrible policies that the Republican Party has brought to this country, and whether we are going to hold them accountable or let them get away with it. The conservative media machine is pumping the shameful talking points about how terrible things will happen if they don't stay in power. This is nonsense. Republicans in Congress know how to be a good opposition party. Nothing radical can happen under their watch, and they know it. Are we as a country gullible and stupid? It all depends. We can prove that statement wrong by denying a 3rd term to Bush. Yet, if we fail to hold the people who brought the broken economy, the Iraq War, and Katrina accountable, there will be hard evidence against us. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 08:46
|
hugo:
Thanks for your reasoned comments. B.E. has to speak for himself, but I am not required to respect all the views of some in the faux-intelligentsia who don't respect the views of others.
But then I am "simply ignorant of history," so what can one expect?
What Graham wrote is not "true," it is his opinion. Ignorant, provincial clod that I am, I stand by what I wrote concerning Europe, and the historical militarism of Russia.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:26
|
Hello gcle2003,
There are two sides to most issues. One side says the US was popular and the other says the US was resented for it's power or interference in Europe's or anyone else's backyard. Ok... let's just go ahead and say Mr. Clinton was well recieved throughout the world, it doesn't change the fact that there is any understanding towards things Americana, especially within the border's of the US from it's own citizens? People may honestly dislike Mr. Bush and look at it as the honest issue, but under the the thin layer of anti-bushism, there is that sneering elitist disregard for the US and it's average citizen. I don't really support that kind of elitist, low brow rudeness against anyone, even if it has nothing to do with the US!
The coalition didn't dissolve, it drifted away and eventually collasped to a few remaining core members primarily made up of Britain and the US, until many of it's former members were in an easier position for bribery. So it did fulfill a short term purpose, but in the long term, unbeknowst too many people, it's original goals were on the verge of falling apart prior too the 2003 invasion because of any lack of direction of purpose from Washington and it's old coalition of remaining allies from the first gulf war. In my view most people in the world didn't view Saddam as a threat because most of those countries were not doing the containing anymore, and saw more reason for a return to a business as usal attitude of the 80's! I agree, the encouragement of the shiite uprising was a disgrace and should not have been pushed unless the allies were prepared too help them!
Unfortunately, the no-fly zone was an after thought, a sad side effect of our lack of support for the uprisings. The implimentation of which, kept Saddam from launching a much worse mass genocidal campaign from taking place against not only the shiites primarily in the south, but also against the kurds to the north as well! The world may not have thought much of it, and giving the shiite failure in their uprising following the gulf war, didn't feel much appreciation for the effort due to our uninvolvement in helping to over throw Saddam; But for the kurds, the benefit of the no-fly zone was an enormously emotional issue, giving them a barrier from... and the first real taste of freedom from Saddam's brutal rule over them! Buit, then most of us don't have a real idea of what it is like too live under governments like that!
The destruction of the twin towers have alot to do with it! 9-11 wasn't the only time the twin towers were attacked by Al Qadea and it's extremist groups, it was just the most successful of the other attempt(s)! While many look at it as only a word representing a tatic employed by the weak, it is also a tatic many state supporters of terrorism use illegally too hide behind & too keep from suffering the consequences of their actions from the UN! It has proven to be a highly successful tatic too further their agenda and campaigns while holding onto the legitimacy of a supposive legitimate peaceful state, while at the same time making a mockery of the UN and the principles it was founded under! That is the short version, if you want the longer version, i would be happy to supply it to you if you ask?
Answers correspomding to your parargraph, in which he is hardly the first, nor the last, too cause controversy or have it plans implimented and then eventually reversed:
1.) Only if congress signed it into law and even then can be negated due to the nature of this new type of conflict; Example "enemy combatant vs. a uniformed soldier" 2.)... a debateable point & the fear only held by those on the extreme left, in which itself has done some disregarding itsef with it's own activist judges, as an example... 3.) Does "Echelon" not ring a bell with anyone???... 4.) the current government/administration hasn't even tried too fan those flames which has caused it too lose a few far right supporters within it's base... 5.) another reason why it has lost even more from within it's base, of whom forget that there is a conflict going on... 6.) Ignorance of American society can be very deadly, it is not and still hasn't become an militaristic society, it is a society that greatly appreciates those who serve for them, but at the same time do not expect those who serve too control them either (No posse comiattus is going on here!). Nor do those whom serve want too control them or even could if it tried, but they do swear & take seriously their ultimate alliegance too the constitution and don't care to impress any civillian or foreign admirer's; it is still a careful balance of civillian control over the military most foreigners and even some native born often overlook in their regrettful paranoid fears...
Does that respectfully explain why i am not terrified of this administration to you? Now, if Mr. Bush tried too pull a Chavez or a Saddam... or believe himself to be a demigod along the lines of the N. Korean leader... then your points amonst others, might start too resonate with me? Until then... i confidently expect him to be a memory in history books after Jan 2009!
It has been said that the administration itself didn't have much too throw away in the first place? It has also been said, that it was because the US was a victim & finally been attacked, that it acquired any sympathy that day as being equal amongst all the rest? There were even those who sympathised enough in helping us replace the Taliban in Afghanistan? But, of those very same ones, they who felt they had their own legitimate or not...reasons for not supporting the Iraq operation? Even then... in a more sinister light, across the world and regardless of nationality, many have said that the US deserved what it got? Even though it was primarily civillians who were targeted and not the military that suffered the predominance in death that day! Whatever a persons belief, the equation of victimization wasn't going to stay the same for very long and i don't know why anybody thought otherwise?
I see... no disresepct is meant with this comment, but then what was the big deal about our involvement in the first place? Was there a media distortion that highly favored an anti-war view against a soveriegn state that was wiped off the map because of an aggressor to it's north?
The conduct of it wasn't brilliant from the political angle, but for the military... it did the job that was asked of it and then some! ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:37
It also has the whole Homeland Security apparatus, the FBI, the ATF, the Secret Service, the DEA, the National Guard and I don't know what else. It's even a crime in the US to lie to a federal agent.
The local police aren't a problem in general. No more than they've ever been, anyway, and that's no more than in other countries.
You don't have street gangs in the US? No hate crime? No drug dealers quarrelling over markets? Take the US and any other western country (and most other ones). Which one has the bigger percentage of people in prison? Which has the most murders? Which the most muggings? Where did the term 'drive by shooting' get invented and why?
We have peace. How many western European countries can you name that have had significant rioting in the last ten years? And where in the same countries has there been any equivalent to, say, the Rodney King riots, just for one?
You need to learn about mo^tes and beams and eyes.
What I said was that it was 'militaristic'. It doesn't happen in other countries. In the UK at least - and I believe elsewhere - soldiers are forbidden to wear uniform in public unless they are on ceremonial or actie duty, and when being shipped abroad they don't take over civilian airports. (Lufthansa was forced to give up valuable check-in space to the army at Atlanta; another example of the military dominating the civilian.
What I described is militaristic. Whether it is right or wrong is a different question, and not one I addressed.
Not in the least. You don't seem to have been paying attention to what I've been saying. The US has become a militaristic society to an extent it never was before. In such a situation you shouldn't have any problem getting recruits, without any brainwashing or propaganda. And indeed there hasn't been a problem until the death toll in Iraq started getting over to people that maybe it wasn't as glamorous as they thought.
Is that relevant? Even if it's true, which isn't apparent. Detained is detained, quotes or not. And prison is prison, quotes or not.
No it's not. It's simply a defensive strategy to make up for the lack of serious argument, and it is obviously so to anyone reading.
It dodn't get any point across to me. It irritated me of course, but then childish behaviour always does.
Back to wild exaggeration agaon. It's the fact that Europe saw what can happen when militaristic societies arise that makes Europeans sensitive to the dangers now. And it is certainly no useful reply to an assertion to say, well other peoples did it too.
Where's your evidence that the US is no more militaristic now than it used to be? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 11:50
What has that got to do with anything. I'm not talking about the last 200 plus years buit about now. I'm a great admirer of the US that used to be, and I bemoan its vanishing.
That 'preferred not to bear' is unconvincing. The US was not only motivated by a desire to help or shelter European societies (though I accept that was indeed part of the motivation): it was also determined in its opposition to Soviet Communism for its own sake.
Moreover, the UK and France at least deliberately in the 'fifties chose to adopt a nuclear first-strike option if attacked. In that situation you don't need to spend so much money on defence.
There was a while when that was true. But it's over. The EU is now richer than the US, and in the crunch money counts. Meanwhile, financially strapped, the US is reduced to dependency on its military strength, now it's only claim to being a superpower.
And, incidentally, where did the US get the money from to build up that military in the last 25 years (since Reagan)? From western Europe, Japan, and parts of the Middle East. Europe may have 'huddled' under an umbrella, but in the last generation it has certainly been paying for it.
Don't try and be snide. I had to be concerned about it. I was in the army. But again, that misses the entire point.
Nothing you said here relates to the question of the creeping militarisation that has been going on in the US (compared for instance to the way things were in the '70s). What happened or is happening elsewhere is immaterial to that. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 12:11
Hello Hugoestr,
I hope i am not being rude, seeing that i wasn't addressed from the above, i feel i should answer in a way as i only know how... has it occurred that many of them have listened with respect and disagreed, only for the points to constantly be addressed with no resolution? It's like if they don't agree, then keep pumping them full of propaganda until the desired results are reached? Personally, i would rather have a discussion with a human who disagreed with me politically, rather then have them echo everything i have too say on a subject.
Hmmm...
I don't know why Russia should not be under the microscope of the media and it's 24/7 obsession with the evils of militarism? If a person really cares about equal standards with no bias, then you would think of a highly militarized Russia, amongst others, with an alarm similiar too events preceding every global conflicts from history of the past? I'm not saying it is primarily because of the Russians it will happen, i'm not that blind; But when major powers are in a much higher state of alertness, is when things are incredibly more dicey in the international arena and the stage is set and prime for a misunderstanding that can lead to another catastrophic global war!
I remember reading about a time when the parties had no control over the eonomy. Now i am living in a time when everybody and their dog, think they do control even a smidgen of it? Yes, the republicans brought us the Iraq war. No i still think Katrina was a supreme failure on the part of the state of Louisianna to prepare for the possiblity of Katrina making land fall, though they did do a magnificent job with Gustav! The evidence is already there... it's just getting through all the political biased mumbo jumbo thrown about by either party, that we might even begin to see the truth for ourseleves.
------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 12:30
I can't disagree with that. However I don't think the elitist, lowbrow attitude is as widespread as is often implied by Americans. A lot of quite serious and moderate people are sincerely alarmed by what has been happening in America, and that shouldn't be disregarded.
Well, that's what I meant by 'dissolved'.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. The first Gulf War was largely financed by Kuwait itself, Saudi Arabia and Japan. Presumably they were the ones doing the bribing.
It's original goal was to eject Iraq from Kuwait. That done, the coalition had served its purpose (as the coalition saw it). It wasn't just Bush Sr that didn't want to go as far as regime change, it was everyone else too.
They were right. Saddam was no longer a threat. Not even to Iran any more.
I'm a little lost here. I really meant what had it to do with Iraq. With regard to US popularity it helped a lot. So it has nothing to do with America's loss of respect in the world.
I don't see what it has to do with the question of respect for and popularity of the US in the world.
What difference would it make if Congress signed it into law? The US is a signatory to the conventions - it cannot just pick and choose what it wants to follow and what it doesn't. That is tries to do so is exactly what the complaint is.
It's not just the extreme left. It's the other way around. It's the extreme right for instance that says torture is constitutional. How you get that past 'cruel and unusual' I have no idea.
A warning one. That the US is not alone is not at issue. Whether or how far it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights is a separate question. Basically though it the matter of increased surveillance is worrying wherever it happens.
Associating Iraq with 911 is exactly one example of fanning flames.
I didn't mean to imply that only the left was terrified. (I'm not particularly left wing myself.) Yes there are a lot of people on the right and in the centre who are worried about the profligacy, just as there are libertarians on the right who are worried by things like Echelon and Federal demands for informtaion from phone companies, libraries and so on. A pity there aren't more.
Interesting you should say that. It's close. In 2006 (came into force 2007) the posse comitatus and Insurrection Acts were in effect repealed by Congress, and the President given power to use Federal forces within states for various reasons. This year, the acts were reinstated, power having returned to the Democrats.
I don't quarrel with much of what you said (as my comments shoudl indicate). However, I continue to think your spectacles are overly rosy
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. The attempt to connect them, the blatantly selfserving attack on Iraq, and the refusal to follow UN procedures were what alienated people more than anything.
Some but not many. A more common view was that 3,000 people killed is not that big a number, but it was enough to horrify most.
I'll point out that my wife is American, and I've spent quite a lot of time here, averaging about three months a year between retiring in 1998 and her mother dying in 2005. But I will accept that I'm most familiar with Georgia and the South, and I'll accept the South has a more militaristic tradition than the North.
Internationally there wasn't a big deal about it. There was more opposition to it in the US than there was in the world at large (not counting communist states
)It was seen as a legitimate effort to aid a sovereign state against an internal uprising. Much indeed as Afghanistan was seen in 2002 (and still is).
Come ON! It was a military defeat.
Actually that refusal to accept that the US forces were defeated in Vietnam is one of the signs of the insidious grip that militarism has got on America lately. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 15:14
Please....you were in the army because of National Service. American troops are volunteers one and all. That mere fact puts you closer to the historial European militarism that outside powers had to dismantle.
Actually it is not the points, opinions or historical "truth or dare" that concern me as much as the hortatory assertion that everyone else misses the point and that others' counterarguments are immaterial. That is arrogance of the highest order.
So, we disagree and let's leave it at that.
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 15:49
|
Well, looks like a few of you have had a jolly good time. I must say that I am impressed with much of this dialogue and that the facts, or assumed facts, have been delivered with some gumption. A few comments though. Instead of taking remarks personally there are two things you guys can do to keep from getting feelings hurt. Don't demean another through personal criticism and don't be too sensitive to cutting remarks. The topic turned into an exciting and intense sub-discussion. Keep writing about the change in America as viewed by Americans and foreigners (to some extent) with a type of maturity you can be proud of.
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 16:37
| Personally as an American from the "liberal, elitist northeast" I would have to agree with gcle. All Americans have seen their rights eroded. The Patriot Act is the major contributer to such erosions. For a party that came to power preaching little government the Republicans have sure done a great job of instilling BIG government. Why is it that anytime somebody disagrees with another person's political views, the disagreer immediately resorts to calling the other person's argument propaganda? Simply put a disagreement is not propaganda, especially if the disagreeing point has facts behind it. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 18:37
At the same time the US also had conscription. There was a severe danger of major war (in fact the one in Korea was on when I was serving, though I wasn't there). In that kind of situation you need conscription, largely because the society wasn't militaristic (either the US or Britain). As I was at pains to point out. Militarism is a new phenomenon in America. That it isn't new anywhere else is beside the point.
Even in the US Civil War conscription had to be introduced on both sides, because the military establishment was so tiny. Certaonly as late as the thirties the US military was minimal, compared to now.
My point is about the US now and over the last 25 years or so. Going on about other countries or other times is irrelevant, unless you can show that the US was more militaristic in the past than it is now, and I am sure you can't do that.
But you're not making counter-arguments. A counter argument would be one that suggested either that the US is in no way a militaristic society now, or that it was more militaristic in the past. Everything else just distracts attention from my original point: that the US now is a militaristic society. Not that it is more militaristic than anyone else (though compare the size of the US military budget with anyone else) but that it has developed a very different attitude to militarism in the last quarter century, and is much more militaristic than it traditionally was. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 21:16
|
to a large extend military spending is a mean to an end and should be judged according to its achievements. and there I guess no one can deny that the past 8 years have been a major failure
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 08-Sep-2008 at 21:33
|
Hi, Panther,
I have twice tried to write to you a lengthy answer, and twice it was erased by the miracle of the back button.
Some force is preventing me to answer your points, so I should respect it, whatever that is . ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 00:02
Here again, counter-arguments are not counter-arguments unless you say so.
The United States is not, and has not been "militaristic" at any time in its history. Has it been "military" when necessary? Yes. In the years 1861-65, and 1941-45, although not bred to war, it has been equal to the challenge. Same for the UK 1939-45.
I challenge you to demonstrate, other than in your ill-informed opinion, that American society is militaristic. That doesn't even make any sense.
Militaristic societies have universal conscription. The US hasn't had a draft since 1973. The UK also had conscription and national service when they were needed, but that did not make Britain a militaristic society.
You are mesmerized by military expenditure...OK. The military expenses of the UK for FYE 2005 were 42.8 billion US$. For Russia, expenditure for 2004 was 50 billion US$, so I guess the UK is a roughly equivalent militaristic state to Russia. Come on, you know better than that. American military superiority is expensive; the air force and navy like the high tech options, and that is fine by most of us. Force multipliers cost money, but they are still ultimately cheaper than the ongoing expenses of millions and millions of troops.
A militaristic society of necessity assumes a general acceptance of military discipline, and if you can identify that in the US, other than in the services, and at the military academies, good luck.
Prussia was a militaristic entity with its peculiar society; Russian society, generally, was not much different, it translated readily into Soviet militaristic society, and probably is still the same under the capitalist veneer. Even the French had militarist tendencies. It is understandable. They are continental nations and have had historical adversaries right on their borders.
The Brits are not. The Yanks are not. Neither has reason to be, so....they aren't.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 01:08
Thanks for your comments. I am done with this topic, and I assume Graham is as well since neither of us is ever going to convince the other. The discussion has been heated, but it has been a good one.
What ever happened to Sarah Palin as McCain's VP choice?
 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 02:26
How about the last 63 years? I am no fan of the USSR, but the expenditure of the bi-polar WW II era, both US and Russia, was, frankly, money well spent. There was no wholesale butcher's yard a la 1939-45. That has been almost 2/3 of a century.
As (I am assuming) a French national, you were not so much financially impacted by the last 8 years. But, would you rather pay taxes or live through something like WW II?
EDIT: This whole discussion should have a thread of its own.
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 04:31
|
Pike,
The U.S. historically has not been militaristic. You are right on that. The draft that existed since WWII is actually the historic anomaly. You are right about that as well. That said, the amount of money that we spend in war costs is huge. It is approaching half of our budget, once all costs of having wars are counted in. Let me repeat this: the U.S. spends more money on war costs, for this and past wars, than we do in social security and medicare, which are the next two biggest expenses. We as people may not be militaristic, but the U.S. as a government is. And we have enough people who like the idea of having a super strong military power when the reality is that our geography has been and is our biggest defense. It it is so terrible to fight the wars of others, maybe we shouldn't. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 04:37
|
Oh, Pike, that thing that you said about the Cold War spending is hard to defend.
The money spent by the Soviet Union in defense was the biggest waste of money in history. The USSfrigging R is no longer around. Rather than building nukes, they would have been better off focusing on grain harvest and making working refrigerators. The USSR would still be around, and I am sure that their neighbors would have been a lot happier about a USSR focused on pressure cookers and automobiles than what they had to deal with. The U.S. almost went bankrupt on it as well. It was that the USSR was a lot weaker to begin with, so it went belly up before hand. Never one to learn history too well, our current administration increased military spending so that what the USSR couldn't accomplish a third rate terrorist loser will do by our overreaction. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 05:00
This is a subjective view as its also relative to the person's national POV and therefore open to degrees of interpretation. In Australia we would see the US as more militaristic (religious and right wing) than ourselves. Israel more so than the USA and so on. U.S.A. President, Dwight Eisenhower, 17 January 1961
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech - en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech ------------- 
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:37
No, i was talking about, amongst others, the oil for food scandal that rocked the UN.
Yes, your right and i was wrong, i don't know what i was thinking? My stupidity i guess! I think Bush Sr & other middle eastern states wouldn't have minded regime change(Without saying it), as long as they or the US didn't have to get further involved? Ironically, we did anyways!
No, i'm right and they were wrong! No, no, no.... they say i'm wrong and their right! On and on it will likely go til the end of eternity? Sure, he might not had been still a threat, maybe not in the short term, then again... his past history definitely made him one in the long term as he had proven himself time and again.
It is a subject that does seem to create some quite difference in opinions! If i have more time then i otherwise have had of late, i'll post on this subject in a different discussion board by creating my own thread topic, rather then keep monopolising this one?
You might not see it or understand my pov? But i do remember my feeling on being shocked by the end of semptember in 2001, on the attitudes that were starting on being expressed and the conspiraciy theories that were starting to crop up! To be fair, i've listened and read about them and can't believe how effective they have been in changing the history of that day and eroding the little understanding the world and americans had at that time.
Of course it is, i know that. But picking and choosing what it wants to follow isn't the issue. The issue is how much the times have changed since those laws and conventions came into being, when a soldier was clearly defined from a civillian. Now a days, there is no clear distinction primarily because the method employed in many of those theatres is that of an unmarked person on the battlefield, taking up arms and killing people like a soldier, but still wants the protection provided to an innocent civillians or a uniformed soldier & vice versa. I'm sure you are aware that i am not even talking about only the targeting of the US and it's troops either.
I see both as unnecessarily creating problems.
I'm sorry, but unfortunately that issue has been warped beyond all reason. What started out as legitimate criticism at the time, has morphed into one confusing misunderstanding after another!
I didn't take it like you were quarreling, just expressing our difference in opinions!
Duly noted. I guess it stands too reason that i should mention that i think you expect the sky too fall any moment
I was basically putting in writing what has been said and often unheard or quickly dismissed due to the volatile nature of the current political atmosphere. I'm sure you understand what i am talking about when extreme rightist lash out at liberals and dismiss them as traitors?
Personally, any attack against any nationalities on the planet is a big enough number for me, therefor... it has taken on a big deal in my mind! Turks get attacked... it is a big deal to me! British subjects get attacked... it is a big deal to me! Egyptians get attacked.. and it is a big deal to me! Germans get attacked... and yes, it is a big deal to me! I think you get my point?
Yes, i remembered that shortly after posting, that you had mentioned it in a pevious posting somewhere on the forum.
Ok... no problem! Point out most of the battles where the US military was overwhelmingly defeated? Until then i still see it as a major political defeat, which is all the N. Vietnamese leadership realized they could have ever hoped for. Not that i am trying too sound like an ultra-nationalist or a contrarian, but, ummmm... somewhere along the road of writing up the history about the war, the documentarians hardly ever metioned or acknowledged any battles that defeated the US military commitment.
Take care,
Panther ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:46
Was that directed towards me? ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 09:55
That's quite alright
The phenomenon has happened to me more than you might possibly know? I too find myslef respecting the force that has usally prevented me in times past of posting lengthy replies. However, it seems that that force is currently taking a long break right now, letting me spew my nonsense all over the place, to the extreme horror of other forumers here!  ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 10:02
Point well taken! ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 11:39
Nope. Counrter-arguments are only counter-arguments when they address the original argument.
My statement referred to the current state of the USA and its difference from the USA in the past. Anything that is not related to the USA now or in the past is not a counter-argument to that. It may be true, it may not be true, but it is not a counter argument.
You don't seem to be paying attention. My point was that the US was not militaristic in the past. And since you are agreeing with me on that point, how can it possibly be a counter-argument?
Military spending, 2007
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Not necessarily. That may have been truer before warfare became so technological, but it isn't true any more. But even in the ancient world Rome, for instance, did not have uniiversal conscription, and it was very much a militaristic society.
Moreover non-militaristic societies like Britain and the US in the forties and fifties may be driven to universal conscription in the face of sufficient danger.
It's the attitude to the military that counts, plus the reliance on it for the aggressive pursuit of national interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism
See the point above about the glorification of a professional military class. You seem to be arguing against yourself: up above you stated that militaristic societies had universal conscription. Now you'r emaking the same point I made.
'Mesmerised' is an exaggeration. Military expenditure is a valid yardstick, especially when the figures are so dramatic. I don't know where you got the $50 billion for Russia from, but (see above) I have less than that for 2007, and it is reputed to have been increasing under Putin, not decreasing. In fact the new militarism in Russia is just that, new. Under Yeltsin it faded away. And, moreover, Britain itself can't entirely escape the charge of becoming more militaristic, though you will still never see British troops in combat gear in public in Britain except in emergency.
I don't know why you seem to think I said the US was the only militaristic state in the world. In fact it's a problem that militarism has been growing in many parts of the world, but this topic is about US politics, not the dangers of global militarism.
And there you go...America is to have 'military superiority'. If that isn't militarism, what is?
The US has military academies. I'm glad you brought that point up. A militaristic society doesn't necessarily mean civilians have to accept military discipline for themselves. It does imply that they admire and praise military discipline in others, and that attitude is widespread in the US in my experience.
I don't think you've met many Russians.
The only reason Britain didn't classify as 'militaristic' is because it depended on the navy not the army. If you take what seems to be the American usage, and include the navy as part of the military, then Britain would be as militaristic certainly as France.
If the US has no reason to be militaristic, why does it set out - with your approval apparently - to become the world's dominant military power? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 13:32
|
Panther, just a couple of points:
I'm shocked by them too. In fact elsewhere I've spent some time combatting them. They're not really that widely held, even in Europe
I think you misunderstand the criticism. The point is that combatants, even out of uniform, are still protected by the conventions, unless they are specifically convicted of spying. They could be cnvicted conceivably of war crimes, but they still are entitled to due process to determine guilt.
Ok... no problem! Point out most of the battles where the US military was overwhelmingly defeated?
[/QUOTE]
Battles are unimportant in such circumstances. What counts is winning the campaign and the war. When one side deliberately adopts the strategy of avoiding battle, they don't forfeit the game, because it isn't a game. Remember, Hannibal won the battles but lost the war.
------------- |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 14:07
|
Hello to you all
Some here argued that the US needs more money for defense because of high technology, well, that is good but here is the thing, why the hell the US needs 13 supercarriers for? Why does the US, which already has the most sophisticated and the largest and best equipped air force in the world need some 200 billion for the raptor program? Why does the US continue to stockpile weapons right now more than it ever did during the cold war, in terms of money spent that is?
Hearing and reading literature from the US in the recent conflicts I have been getting some alarming signs that the US military and its position is turning into another Prussian militarism and we all know what Prussian militarism did. Many commentators not only justify war crimes committed by American troopss, they make any attempt to hold those accountable amount to high treason. Conservative critics in particular have been advocating a hostile military policy despite the fact that most of them never been to battle and see how tough things go. If this isn't a sign of rising militarism I do not know what is.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 14:22
 Graham, you are a very skillful two-stepper, but you are not convincing me. You debate "Cleverley," but you just dance around this stuff asserting that you are right. I disagree, but......whatever. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 15:30
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 18:35
Graham made clear observations and put forward his position that the USA has become more militarist. The opposition failed to produce credible counter-arguments. In fact you proved him right by claiming that the US should spend more than the rest of the world put together on its military because it should have military superiority, use the military aggresively for its own interests and that's fine by most Americans. I.e. that you agree with him that you are militaristic.
The only reason you are angry with him and write ad-hominems is because 'militarist' sounds bad. You don't want to be associated with that label but you want to stick it to others for propaganda purposes.
Anyway, I love to see liberal Europeans and American neo-cons violently disagree. It happens a lot nowadays, especially in discussions of foreign policy. Hopefully these public attitudes will develop into a wedge that capable leaders (of, say, Russia) will drive into NATO and pry the both sides of Atlantic apart, weakening their hold on the planet. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 20:35
All has been revealed.
Actually, whatever label one wants to put on it, if it involves defending the country in which I live (USA) and to which I pay my taxes, I support a well-equipped and trained military. So I guess I am not shying away from the label no matter if it comes from a European elitist or an international socialist.
As far as "counter arguments" go, it is not as if either side would agree that they were proven wrong if verifiably true ones were put forward. Each likes to claim that they are putting forward unassailable counter arguments but would never admit error. Such is the postmodern, relativistic world in which we presently live.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 20:44
|
Regarding counter arguements; most threads have them (along with stubborn egos). This one should too. Taking a point of interest and dissecting it without the personal shenanigans would be a good place to start. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 21:02
I do not like McCain but I do not know enough about her to judge. I am against Obama so I may have to vote for McCain; I think both are globalist anyway and would support the North American Union. Michael Savage was the only conservative that seems to be negative about her; her lack of experience. I am sure some thought John Kennedy was too young; a great leader. I vote Nobama because for me it is an obamanation-  ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 21:27
|
I assume your typo meant, Palin, and not McCain? As far as being knowledgeable about Sarah Palin, who really is anyway? Most fly-by-night admirers like her simply because she is a woman -Imho.
Experience in office is a must and she has that as Governor of Alaska. Though youngest of all on both tickets she is also the least experienced too. Republicans are in desperate straights and have tried desperate measures to gain the office again. Even though America has shown the capability to vote for "sameness", I think this time too many people are out of work and have too many serious issues to remain passive and allow fear to dictate their welfare. Taking a chance for change is a viable alternative to national 'insecurity'. The Republicans have had their time. Now that time has flown. Policy makers need to pay attention to the serious nature of problems we have in this country. We need somebody who is more in touch with economical issues not someone who plays the military bravado tune and nothing else, then assumes that a terrorist is waiting behind every street corner so as to elimnate the last vestiges of freedom from our minds. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 22:35
No way.
I am not angry with Graham, I just think he is wrong. And he likes an argument.Graham is a debater, as surely you have noticed. If you turn things over often enough, you might make the other guy think that he thought of it, so you become "right" (actually, just the winner of the debate). The more narrowly you define something, the closer to the end of the debate, the more likely others may see you as the winner.....maneuver room is more limited.
If Graham thinks he is right, fine. He is still wrong though.
|
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 23:07
|
Now that we can get back to the topic of the thread, Mrs. Palin's presence on the Republican ticket seems clearer as she becomes more familiar to us. There are articles (NY Times/Wash. Post/Assoc. Press) showing that Palin may indeed be starting to draw women voters from the Democratic Party. And, now we are aware of her Pentacostalist background (actually a "fallen away Catholic" ) that may be appealing to the fundamentalist evangelical constituency that has supported "W."
It does not hurt in the media age that she is attractive and has nice looking kids.
However, as with so many fundamentalists, she seems to use that as armor to deflect as much criticism as possible, and to justify political expediency. It does not, however, qualify her to be in high office. If pandering to Pentacostals is the only strength left to the Repubs, and if pissed off women are the swing vote (not sure if that is the case), Democratic is the only way to vote this year.
I was undecided until Palin's nomination. I plan to vote for Obama.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2008 at 23:39
Ok... here we go. Regarding the Vietnam war, yes a loss is a loss! We did lose Vietnam, that isn't the problem here. The probelm is that there are two views to the situation, one see it politically and the other sees it militarily. Even though my view might be looked upon as one of only an assumed fact only held by myself? History is far from done in drawing a conclusion of what actually happened there, regardless of how popular the current view of it being the hopeless war! Time is the judge, most of us are just the biased participants!
Now, my main problem when studying the war, is how the history of it was written shortly after the US got involved; An eventual conclusion was drawn, while the lesson wasn't even clear of what that conclusion was; Not even today is that lesson clear, hell... we are still understanding WW 2!
Now, onto my unpopular view! After 68' and the Tet offensive, the Northern leadership realised the war was virtually lost for them. The Viet Cong was decimated and they knew it! It was through their efforts of smuggling northern soldiers into the south, following that disasterous defeat in order too heavily reinforce their southern counterparts, that it was able to barely struggle on til the US gave up politically and withdrew militarily!
Once done, the North soon realised they couldn't defeat the South along the same lines employed aganst the US military, they themseleves had their limits too in how many corpses had piled up over the years. Of course an outright invasion was always contemplated once the South was isolated, even though it was considered illegal considering the treaties they had signed, a peice of paper is of little importance too most other countries, except to Western ones! 73' to 75' saw the fruits of their efforts come too pass with an outright invasion of the South. With it's death, there was no mourning in the world, least of all by the UN, except for the millions who fled from the communists death squads and their reeducation camps, who fled in rinky dink boats or any other way they could by any means necessary! Hence, the US military did the job required of it, the politicans, otoh... certainly did not!!!
That is my short uninfluential verison. I didn't mean to come across as condescending, like you haven't read the history yourself & not have drawn your own conclusion? But i felt a bit of an explanation of my stubborness was long due to you? Now, i'll try and stick to the topic of this thread!
Best regards,
Panther
------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 00:17
|
about Palin the Financial Times remarked that her success and charisma just underlined the fact that Mc Cain lacked momentum.
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 00:30
|
I firmly believe her "success" and charisma are due to her looks. She may in fact be a good politician, but she is not qualified for the national ticket.
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 00:55
|
Well... she is good looking. ------------- |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 02:15
|
Besides, ain't there something a bit strange in the fact that they piked someone from Alaska. The only short supply she had to deal with while in office is polar bear. She gave away millions of dollars in tax rebate, that's the richest state in the Union as well as being tiny in terms of population. The only real challenge any Alaska governor has to face are infrastructure, and we know how badly she failed there. So not only has she little experience but the little she has is potentially harmful, you don't rule the US the way you'd rule Saudi Arabia if you catch my drift.
------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 02:28
I'd imagine McCain would think that it's his Dan Quayle in a skirt. And we all know how he use to feel about Mr Quayle. "I can't believe a guy that handsome wouldn't have some impact." ------------- "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind" |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 03:34
I would be happy to respond King John.
Both the Democrat and Republican parties seem to be onboard with the patriot act, atleast that is how it appears to me? So i don't think it is a party-specific issue? If any rights have indeed been eroded, judging from my American history, it is quickly righted with repeals against it. Seeing that it is not the first time to have taken place (Probably a dozen times or so... with this one being the more questionable of recent?), especially in a confusing time of war or conflict; Therefor... it's not like it is without precedent and doesn't cause me any concern as of yet. That is why i don't think the character that makes up this country has changed that much.. if at all? I think only the world's understanding or actual experience of what it has always been like (My assumption of course) for this country during times of great international stress. I suppose we can thank television and the web for the speed of dissemination & informational transfer in the modern world? However, as much as i am not afraid as of current, is in part due to our multitude of critics, in which... i am thankfully greatful that there are people out there who are keeping an eye on it for any signs of abuse, no matter if it is suspicous on how they play the political angle on it! I still appreciate all the paranoia to a degree!
About bigger government, i have to be honest. At that time, in 2000, i liked Bush's message of less military involvement and nation building in the world & perhaps less government spending? In 2004, i held my nose and voted for him too follow through on what he started in the foreign sphere. Domestically, i think i realized roughly around that time of the 2004 elections(?), that between the two parties, one was just a tad less bigger on more government than the other. Now i tend too think even the Republicans are abandoning that position, leaving it entirely to the Libertarian party to be the only ones who still hold onto the prinicples of smaller government. The evolution of my political support goes something like this... I started out liking Fred Thompson, then switched my support, albeit... lukewarmly, to Mr. McCain. Then i found myself even underwhelmed by his performance so far, that is before Gov. Palin. Now i am not sure which party i might vote for this Novermber, The Libertarians or the Republicans? Whatever the reasoning for throwing Gov. Palin on the ticket, it seems to be working in reenergizing the GOP base!
Well.. if i came across or even stated an accussation of someone's thought as being propaganda (I'm sure i have somewhere on the Web?), then i offer my apologies for any extreme rudeness on my part, but no apology for my belief.
Why do we use the word "propaganda" if we disagree with one another? I'm afraid to joke around with this subject, because people might actually take me seriously? Persoanlly, i'm not always do dure... but when i use it, it's not out of avoidance of an issue, or perhaps it is too a degree, but i would guess it is probably the lack of any originality for an arguement when i possibly find myself using the word when it sounds like an echo of any particular party line, verbatim that is...; Much like i suppose when it is used against me or the beliefs i happen to agree with. I can't doubt that i can be a biased person, and don't think i am that much of a fool who denies it! Other then what i had mentioned, i can't think of anything else too add?
Maybe more intelligent posters here could give you a much better perspective then i can? Anyways... i hoped this helped a little?
------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 04:45
as for the arguments on how your not militaristic, apart from Pike narrowing the definition into somthing like 'we are not like North Korea', nothing has been tabled against Grahams case directly. For a western democracy it certianly seems so, compared to its peers.
If you want to defend your country you already have a national Guard, and as it seems a well armed society anyway with strong gun rights. Otherwise you can comfortably do it with a quarter of what you have in the normal military (its not a defense force ). i also support a strong national defense force but that defition of 'strong' and even words like 'defend' can mean many things. Many in the US belive they're defending the country by fighting in Iraq....you dont have to be European 'elitist' or commie to argue over such flawed logic.
-------------
|
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 06:55
Ok... our liberal friends and allies want an explanation for this supposive monstrosity they are currently faced with, then i suggest people are to go and look it up in your governments archives or ask your grandparents? Who better to explain why the US is still involved in the world? It's like people expected it too remain small & militarily weak while facing a powerful military advesary, such as the USSR?
Ummm yeah, well if it ever came down to a shooting war, we could always have shot back with daisies  go figure...------------- |
Posted By: King Kang of Mu
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 07:30
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html - http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html
About this talkIn this bracingly honest talk, international security strategist Thomas Barnett outlines a post-Cold War solution for the foundering U.S. military that is both sensible and breathtaking in its simplicity: Break it in two. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum/forums.html |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 12:11
It's not totally party-specific. There are libertarians on the right who are against many provisions of the Act, and there are Democrat conservatives who are for it. On the whole though, opposition to the act was mainly from Democrats and the support for it mainly Republican.
Things are rarely party-specific in the US because the parties aren't cohesive enough.
Not if the populace puts up with it. Whether recent legislation erodes old rights is not susceptible to majority vote. I don't think many gun control extremists would accept their rights were not being eroded if gun ownership were forbidden, even if a large majority of the people were in favour of forbidding it.
A large number of the people who complain about eroding second amendment rights are keen enough to erode ninth amendment ones.
I don't think you did. I don't think King John had you in mind. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 12:21
Who was asking for an explanation? The issue was about what the situation is, not why it's that way. Though I'd agree that would be also an interesting discussion, a more germane one is what it is likely to lead to.
And, as it happens, I don't really need to ask my grandparents
Nope. I don't think anyone here is talking about the '50s and '60s except as a distraction from the point. The US was reluctant to get into 1914-18, it was reluctant to get into 1937-45, and I also think it was initially reluctant to get into the Cold War (look how disbanded units had to be hastily recalled to the colours in 1950 for Korea).
It did of course get into all of them and decisively. But that is a major difference in attitude from that of the US today - what, for instance, happened to the 'peace dividend' that was supposed to occur after the USSR collapsed?
I'd have thought throwing a few nuclear missiles around would be more effective. That's what has put a stop to major wars for the past 60 years. ------------- |
Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 13:17
-------------
|
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 16:19
Damn, my cover is blown! I am outed as an anti-imperialist!
This is the revelation, not what I said. You support 'defending' the USA by maintaining a super-military and invading Iraq, of course you are a militarist. I will believe the US is not militaristic the day I won't read such disgusting lame justification attempts mixed with stale propaganda lies as the following:
In other words, 'the commies killed everyone, we tried to save the gooks, our armee did alles it could and won the krieg, but it was stabbed in the back by the jews (ee sorry, the politicians)...' Outside of the Fox-TV timeline, the world knows that the USA killed millions in their South East Asian colonies to keep their Empire. And oh, you lost the Vietnam war, and did not particularly win the Korean War either.
Yes, but the public opinion means little in the Western so-called democracy. Vast majority of the Europeans opposed the Iraq war, but half the governments sent troops over there, and the other half provided logistical support.
Let's see if any real political results will come about in the future. Such as breaking up of NATO or the EU. Or Europe growing balls (and an alternative joint military- what happened to that project?) I don't actually think these will happen, but the pressure on the governments will surely increase.
You nailed it. Discuss their imperialism with the Americans and they are invariably reduced to 'yes, but we are better than the nazis'. So I want to tell to all Yankees worldwide through the medium of All Empires: yes, you are better than the nazis, now get your asses the f**k back to the US and leave the world alone.
For instance blaming the American aggression in Vietnam on the Vietnamese people is not an opinion. It is propaganda. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 16:40
When did I say that I supported the invasion of Iraq above? For the record, I think the "occupation" (to use your brand of terminology) was absolutely botched and a waste of lives on both sides, not to mention tax payer dollars in the USA. The focus (or again, the imperialist conquest) should have been on Afghanistan the whole time. One more factoid, which I doubt you care about, I really do not like the Bush administration or the Democrats; they might as well be the same party as far as I am concerned.
A quick question for you. How would your communist superstate rule the world? Not through a well-funded military and capitalistic economy? Or would it be some kind of naive, idealistic communist utopia which occupies a territory the size of Lichtenstein or Luxembourg and never meddles in anyone else's business?
I would appreciate it if you would put the name of the person you are quoting in the box instead of trying to lump us all into the same pre-fabricated bin of Capitalist Imperialist Fascist Scum.
Such enlightened language for a member of the intelligensia. So who will fill the void once the Capitalist Imperialist ascendency of the USA recedes? Will the world suddenly see the light of Marx and the religion of materialist dialectic and live in peace and harmony? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 16:41
So is Paris Hilton, and frankly, it seems that Paris has a lot more accomplishments
At least Paris doesn't go around lying about her support for Alaskan pork and neglecting her new-born child. It was great that he had Down Syndrome until he started breathing; then it was time to shove him to the side to do something better. If she treats her own son like that, how should we expect her to treat the country? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 18:41
I don't particularly line up with Beylerbeyi, as he at least is sharp enough to realise. But where did he say anything about 'ruling the world'? The only country that seems to have ambitions to 'rule the world' at the moment is the USA. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 18:53
Please don't seed-pick my responses. Read the rest and then reply. I was pointing out the naive idealism in thinking that once the terrible USA is knocked off its "imperial" pedestal that no other nation, capitalist or communist or whatever, would not then try to take its place.
I wonder what kind of reactions the world, after being downtrodden for so long under American imperialist domination, would react to a non-capitalist, non-western, country taking its place as the imperialist aggressor?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 19:00
Then don't put up straw men, and try and avoid rhetoric.
I did.
Why is it not naive to think they wouldn't? Some other nation might I suppose, but at the moment no other nation seems to be in a mind or a position to do so. That's why what is needed is collective security.
Europe has pretty well learned that lesson.
Oppose it. If you don't believe in militarism, it doesn't mean you have to be a pacifist. It means you have to concentrate on defence not aggression.
But what has that got to do with the current situation? You seem to operate on the basis that US domination (not that it does de facto dominate) would automatically be good, whereas you only have to look at the US and compare it with other societies to realise that the US system is inferior, certainly on many counts, in providing a secure, peaceful, prosperous and liberated lifestyle. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 19:15
What straw men have I set up? For what party or group have I been acting as rhetorician? Surely not the Bush administration for I already said what I thought of it. I have also acknowledged the mistakes the USA has made; I do not believe it is above reproach.
It sure did not seem like it when you did not include the qualifications and expansion I made on the statement about "ruling the world."
That statement pretty much says it all. Political correctness and unequivocated "tolerance" has surely blinded you and who knows how many others in Europe if its citizens think this way. How can you not see what is happening in the streets, religious establishments, and hospitals of Europe if you are living there? Surely you have read the news and see what is happening in Britain and France at least.
What are the alternatives that you would put forward? Perhaps the European Union or maybe some other universal body put together by Russia or China?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 19:41
I'm curious. Maybe missed some important trendy news too.
What is going on with Britain and France regarding hospitals and relgious establishments? ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2008 at 20:12
|
Since we are deviating from the original topic I'd like to share some figures from European sentiments over this election.
A European poll conducted over the summer has some interesting numbers for the American presidential candidates.
By significant margins, Europeans have high hopes for a potential Obama administration, according to a Transatlantic Trends poll of 12 European countries.
47% believe an Obama victory would strengthen relations between Europe and the USA. The number goes down to 11% if McCain wins.
75 percent of British respondents said they had a favorable or very favorable opinion of Obama.
This next quote hints at the impression Americans and Europeans have about America's leadership (hence, militaristic) role.
While 80 percent of Americans call it very or somewhat desirable for the United States to “exert strong leadership in world affairs,” just 33 percent of Europeans say the same. A quarter of European respondents called an assertive United States “very undesirable.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080910/pl_politico/13312 - http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080910/pl_politico/13312 ------------- |