Whatever happened to the McCarthurs and the Pattons
With the offensive in Fallujah clearing up, some issues have become evident to this writer. The most glaring of these issues is the complete rank and file nature of our military now. Generals and upper level commanders are not taking initiative and are listening to civilian orders too closely. Accordingly, as pointed out in his latest KnightRidder article by Joe Galloway, these civilan commanders, have never seen a day of combat, or know anything outside political expediency.
Now that we are heavily engaged in Iraq there needs to be decisive action waged by commanders in the field to ensure defeat of foriegn insurgents in Iraq. The micro managing by civilian authorities in the name of politics is going to ruin us in the end, lead to more destruction and further death, than if operations can persist with commanders in the field discretion. This is a huge problem, and I see nothing but further set backs for our military unless one of these generals or colonels. WWI and II saw some insubordination at times, but I think it's essential to winning victory.
The boys in DC are second guessing and monday morning quaterbacking way too much these days. There needs to be a maverick here that gets results.
-Walrus
I don't think any General dares to be a MacArthur or a Patton these days -even MacArthur or Patton wouldn't dare to do today what they did back then. War has become a media event, and you have to play by the rules, such as they are. The dilemma is that the nature of conflict is evolving faster than the law. Civilians, the media, and technology all impact the present operational environment. The line between combatants and non-combatants has become blurred and humanitarian issues are coming under world scrutiny.
According to the definition of "Declaration of War" under treaty law, a "just" war (Jus ad bellum) embodies these components:
1) Just cause
2) Last resort
3) Lawful declaration
4) Political objectives proportionate to costs of fighting
5) Reasonable chance of success
6) Rightful intentions
Under international law, the UN charter, Iraq did not break any law that would have necessitated our attack on that nation. The fact that Saddam was a despot and opposed to the idea of Western democracy is not sufficient justification for what we did under international law. There has been no proof EVER that Saddam intended to destroy the US or that any attack by Iraq upon the US was imminent. In theory,our military commanders could one day find themselves facing a war crimes tribunal because of this.
Naturally, such an outcome is unlikely, given the military superiority of the US over other nations, but the thought must give our commanders in the field some pause, since they have studied the laws of war and the international implications of breaking them.
I find it hard to believe that any international war crimes tribunal would find in favor of Saddam over our guys. Give me a break!
The type of talk that Marchiko is using is exactly why we can't earn a decisive victory in Iraq. It comes down to the man in the field now. George Bush and the Congress of the United States are responsible for deploying the troops, not generals. They need to wage the war they see fit once deployed.
I hate to say it but we are descending into a Vietnam style mess up here. We need decisive action from a non-partisan soldier, period. None of this, "Well what will these people think?" That was done the day we stuck it to the UN. If you truly follow a policy of pre-emptive war, and a go it alone attitude then heckling with international governments for 4 months while Saddam packs up any illegal goodies and gets the terror war ready is exactly the kind of thinking that got us in this mess. Yeah, let's tell people were coming and give them plenty of time to booby trap the position and get key personell out of the hot zone. This is the worst offensive tactics I've ever seen. We fight a blitzkrieg style war in Spring 2003, then lead a flopy occupation effort. The night we got into Bagdad it should have been 0 tolernence curfiew. We should have kept more Saddam era funtionaries in place longer, offerred them more power in the new government, and set about
creating a new government. Starting from scratch was a disaster and foolish to boot.
And what if we actually get these foriegn insurgents on the run, and they start to cross back over the borders to Syria, where most of these crazys are from, what then? We stop at the border and call the UN, screw that. This is where we stand now. Furthermore many of the countries on the security council had much to gain from keeping Saddam in power. The new invesitgatiion into the oil for food program shows that France, Germany, and Russia may all be implicated in this scandal, hmmmm, isn't that strange, the same bozos who didn't want to topple Saddam. Besides the fact that if all these countries could they would have been selling the guy nuclear secrets and missle guidance systems.
The bottom line: We now find ourselves in a precarious situation in Iraq obviously. Pulling out is going to earn us any respect anywhere, decisive victory is our only recourse. With Iraqi popular sentiment turning towards outside combatants I think there needs to be a non stop offensive effort by commanders in the field, not Washington, to kill and or neutralize these fighters, period. It comes down the guy next to you out there in the field, we all know that, and these commanders need to put the lives of their men first. This means whatever it takes to meet security standards for free elections. Then, and only then, do you consider an exit strategy. Too many folks have died, as GW Bush would say, and in part he's right, but you don't honor their memory by fighting the same stupid war. Now its not just about Saddam and whether or not he had arms, its about foriegn fighters and terrorism. They're not fighting for Iraqis, in fact popular support for these foriegn fighters is starting to erode. This is not like the VC here people, these individuals are not fighting for a free communist Iraq.
Finally, in regards to the UN's standards of a "just war" are simply outdated and irrelevant in today's context. These standards are just as irrelevant as the Leauge of Nations standards were in 1933. This goes for the Geneva standards as well. We are fighting an enemy that recognizes nothing but Allah. Western conventions, and civilities are only going to end up getting us all killed. There needs to be some sort of logical and coherent suspension of these "play nice" rules to root out this plauge on humanity, once and for all.
-Walrus
So do you go straight to the nukes, or try the strategy of smallpox-infected burkhas first?
The only excuse for war that has not turned out to be false was to save the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator. In a war with that justification, aren't we obligated even more to be humane and careful with human life?
I don't think taking it to these individuals will mean the use of nuclear armaments. Its as simple as following all available intel from the field, and recognizing tactics that work for this context. We are acting to slow and beuracratic to solve these issues. These people don't work on petitions and committees lets get real here. We need to work outside the box to defeat this enemy is all I'm saying. As far as UN standards, I'm not saying no standards, but new ones. Western style standards need to be applied to Western style nations. You can't apply them to non-tiethed terror organizations, its just ridiculous. You can't fight these people with the same tactics you use for countries with organized armies and a civilian population, for these people there one and the same. Same goes for borders of Islamic countries, they were drawn in the sand after WWII for the most part, hence part of issue there, these people see only the fidels and the infidels, that's it. Compartmentalizing is not going to work here. The nukes will be dropped without our help, we're just facilitators. Letting that cat out of the bag, it's only a matter of time before those missles fly, but in the meantime, we need to mount offensives in Iraq in a shorter period of time. Civilian casualites will be higher in this case, but there needs to be a comprimise, what's really acceptable here. I think the Iraqi people will turn against these fighters after Falluja, so there may be no need for this type of action to take place. Having said that though, if they set up shop someplace else, we need to take action sooner, that's it. We're going to get called on it anyway, might as well try to get some of these bastards.
-Walrus
You can't fight these people with the same tactics you use for countries with organized armies and a civilian population, for these people there one and the same.
THEN WHY ARE WE THERE? Our only excuse for being there is to help the civilian population. If we can blithely classify them as one and the same as the enemy army, or as expendable as long as we get some actual enemy, then we have lost any justification for being there at all.
So do you go straight to the nukes, or try the strategy of smallpox-infected burkhas first?
Someone knows their biowarfare history.
So let me get this right walrus....you suggest that basically, kill anything that moves, torture suspects and assume everyone is a tango and whatever it left gets to vote in 'free and fair elections'? Now i've smoked some damn good stuff and come up with some interesting concepts but you, well, how much for a 1/8?
The type of talk that Marchiko is using is exactly why we can't earn a decisive victory in Iraq. It comes down to the man in the field now. George Bush and the Congress of the United States are responsible for deploying the troops, not generals. They need to wage the war they see fit once deployed.
The kind of talk I used is from the law of armed conflict and is part of basic training for officers and most NCO's, as well. It is not some liberal hype or peacenik diatribe. It comes from both international law and a US doctrine known as the
Bellum Americanum that hinges on precision-guided bombs, standardized targeting, accepted levels and types of collateral damage, and higher bomb flight altitudes. Officers who "wage the war as they see fit once deployed" are going to face court martial or worse if they overstep certain boundaries and break the laws of armed conflict.
I hate to say it but we are descending into a Vietnam style mess up here. We need decisive action from a non-partisan soldier, period. None of this, "Well what will these people think?"
In other words, you want a soldier to commit an act of insubordination against the Commander in Chief and the upper level brass in the Pentagon. Do you have the faintest understanding of what would happen to such an individual? He could kiss his career good-by, and that's just for starters.
The new invesitgatiion into the oil for food program shows that France, Germany, and Russia may all be implicated in this scandal, hmmmm, isn't that strange, the same bozos who didn't want to topple Saddam. Besides the fact that if all these countries could they would have been selling the guy nuclear secrets and missle guidance systems.
hmmmm, remember that 2nd rate Hollywood actor who starred in "Bedtime for Bonzo"? What WAS his name? Oh yeah, Reagan. Reagan sent arms and munitions to Iraq and Saddam until the country was abristle with weapons. People (and countries) who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The bottom line: We now find ourselves in a precarious situation in Iraq obviously. Pulling out is going to earn us any respect anywhere, decisive victory is our only recourse. With Iraqi popular sentiment turning towards outside combatants I think there needs to be a non stop offensive effort by commanders in the field, not Washington, to kill and or neutralize these fighters, period.
In other words, we have met the enemy and he is us. Let's be as ruthless or more so than Saddam ever was. Since it's difficult to distinguish civilians from combatants, let's kill 'em all. Poison the drinking war, use nuclear weapons, engage in biological warfare that would make the 7 plagues of Egypt seem like a bunny hop by comparison and find a second General Sherman (to hell with MacArthur and Patton - they had too much integrity) to lead a scorched earth march to the sea. The US has almost zero credibility in the MidEast, anyhow, so what do we care whatever what is left of them will think? And our allies can go to hell because we're Americans, and, by definition, America does no wrong. Right.
Finally, in regards to the UN's standards of a "just war" are simply outdated and irrelevant in today's context. These standards are just as irrelevant as the Leauge of Nations standards were in 1933. This goes for the Geneva standards as well. We are fighting an enemy that recognizes nothing but Allah. Western conventions, and civilities are only going to end up getting us all killed. There needs to be some sort of logical and coherent suspension of these "play nice" rules to root out this plauge on humanity, once and for all.
-Walrus
"Sweet is war to him who knows it not" - Pindar,
Fragment, 110 (500 B.C.) Again, these are not just the UN's standards of a "just war". They are also (in theory, anyhow) a part of US standards, as well, and derive from the thinking of various statesmen and philosophers going back to Clausewitz and Grotius (who wrote
De Jure Belli ac Pacis in 1625) and as recently as 1998 when Schmitt formulated the
Bellum Americanum. Soldiers are not just stupid fighting machines as you seem to imply. Upper level officers are well aware of the fact that when world opinion or the tides of war turn the wrong way, it is the commander in the field who will go before the world court, not the politicians. This was true in recent history in the war crimes trials in the wake of the Rwandan and Kosevo conflicts.
Your desired course of action for some US commander is both inhumanitarian, illegal, and impossible.
It seems all sides will spin it however they like anyway; one can, for example, do a remarkable job of avoiding civilian casualities and still have whining, frightened people wringing their hands over invented ones. Kill them all or kill only the bad ones, the argument will be the same. So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.
So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.
Tell me when you get to the 21st century. War has always been a political tool, to try and separate the two is foolish, to attempt to do so in the this day and age, where the relationship between political machinations and military muscle has never been closer is silly. The way in which forces operate is dictated by the environment they operate in, to try and disconnect it is to deny reality. Asymmetrical warfare is not a new concept, while the realities of it are only starting to hit home to the armchair crowd there are enough papers and discussions on the topic to fill a stadium, if there was a better way of doing it that was accepted by the US military establishment, they would be doing so.
Furthermore, this isn't world war two. This isn't the US in shining armour rescuing the world for fascism, this is, really, a morally bankrupt conflict, better than Vietnam only by virtue of scale. The forces aligned against the US are fighting in essence a downhill battle, they only have to destroy. While Hearts and Minds has become yet another addition to the political lexicon it doesn't yet seem to have sunk in. The British forces managed to hold a peace in soft hats though engagement and understanding, the US tries to win by force. Guess who is doing a better job.
The funny thing noone seems to be mentioning is that the US does not want 'free and fair' elections in Iraq. It'd be a disaster, Shia hardliners in power, Sunnis up in arms and the Kurds threatening to go off and form their own state properly. I'm looking with trepidation and what kind of dodgy dealings they're going to do to pull that off without a disaster.
Nothing like a little whining and frightened hand-wringing over invented dangers to underscore my point.
If you're scared, get a dog.
In response to Marchikos response: Well your right it may be immoral and wrong, but at some point after sustained casualties and zero results, I think there will be dissent on tactics. I by no means advocate scorched earth tactics, please marchiko, you read too much into my comments. I simply think it's time for a commander to continue when it's ammeable to do as such. My case in point is the ceasing of the initial foray into Fallujah, which was stopped by Bremner.
Now I'm hoping that after this election we have a more effective war effort in Iraq. Now that Bush doesn't have to worry about winning and we have 4 years I hope something is done. Pulling out will only embolden the terrorists, and hostile or semi-hostile states to assume we are on the retreat. They'll beat the hell out of us in a trade war or be working a way to get surretripous agents through our borders, regardless it's either now or never. Sitting and bitching about the Geneva convention or delveing into the ramblings of the diplomacy set isn't going to help us now.
As far as Reagan is concerned, Iraq's build up was deemed necessary at the time. I think we have learned our lesson, or maybe we haven't, point being that was then this is now. There are true stakes for the future of Western civilization as we know it. It's too late to close up shop and hope that by reconginzing Western style laws and edicts we can appease the zealots out to kill all of us.
-Walrus
It seems all sides will spin it however they like anyway; one can, for example, do a remarkable job of avoiding civilian casualities and still have whining, frightened people wringing their hands over invented ones. Kill them all or kill only the bad ones, the argument will be the same. So I'm with Walrus; separate politics from war, both will be more effective for it.
Hello? Come on, UT, you're conservative and I'm liberal. Much as we disagree on just about everything, I have always considered you to be a pretty intelligent person. You CANNOT seperate politics from war. You cannot seperate international law from the acts of war committed by commanders in the field. Sooner or later the final bomb will be dropped, the last soldier, the last civilian will die and the smoke will clear from the eyes of a watching world, and judgements will be made.
When it comes to civilian casualties, I agree to some extent, that a spin can be made either way - at least in certain cases. Take a communication center that is vital for the enemy forces. This communication center is actually the telephone company. Suppose you are a computer systems administrator for QWEST (or whoever the big phone co back East is). You are going about your work, making sure that Joe from from Indiana and Ma and Pa Kettle and all your friends and neighbors can jump on the telephone and share the latest gossip. The pentagon also happens to make use of Qwest's phone lines. An invading army sends a missle aimed straight at your office. Are you an enemy combatant or an innocent civilian? That's just one example and there are jillions of others.
I am going to share with you all some comments made by a friend of mine who is a veteran of the First Gulf War. I have mentioned this individual before. He didn't have some safe behind the lines job. He was in a tank that led the first wave of assault in that war. In the course of that engagement he saved the lives of the men in another tank crew. I read the letter those men wrote him afterward thanking him for his heroism, and every single man on that crew signed the letter. In other words, my friend is no wussie-boy and he also supported Bush in this past election.
A few nights ago he came over to my house to talk. He hadn't been able to sleep for two days. He told me, "I keep dreaming about a man who is a serial killer. I see him and look into his eyes and I know, and I know that he knows that I know. Everyone else can't see this person for who he is. Then in the dream I look into a mirror and I see the killer's face reflected back at me. I AM the serial killer. The military made me into a serial killer except that I have a conscience and a sense of right and wrong. I killed nine men in the First Gulf War. I wonder what their mothers' faces looked like. I wonder what their names were. I wonder if they left behind children or wives who mourn them. I am a veteran and I can tell you this much: No one wins in a war. No one."
This easy talk of killing some of you like to engage in is easy talk. Nothing more.
iamthewalrus109 - when one chooses to stare into the abyss one should be be shocked when it stares back and looks pretty familiar.
War is hell, I think most people have an incling of that. I have a friend who also served in combat. He doesn't sleep anymore, it's just a nightmare fest. Yeah it's easy to say and hard to do, of course. Why are we there? Well there are initial reasons, but those for the time being have been made to be false. Have we gone into Syria to check? no, not yet anyway. Have we heard of any clear intel on movements of large vehicles shortly before the war? No, not yet. In any case this is where we are today. Of course there is always politics in war, but to be totally contolled by what's going on here is doing the effort a diservice, it's either we're there to win or just blow up a bunch of impoverished Iraqi homes, kill there children, and call it day, give me a break. No amount of training will ever prepare you to deal with a combat kill, even when it's a combatant trying to kill you. It's true we will have severly mentally damaged people in our society after this, that is if one still exisits. I think we need to make some decisions here. In hearing that story of First Gulf war vet, I have heard similar from a host of other veterans, hence why we honor them so highly. It's probably one of the worst jobs in the world to have, to be haunted by the memories of every kill. Of course there are some that it doesn't really bother, they can justify the kills. Then there are some that killed a child mistakenly, or an old woman, these people will never be the same.
In the end what's to be done. We are already there. Unilateral withdrawal I think is not the best choice. There needs to be less civilian control, I'm sorry, it's the only way. To keep a civilian leadership in place when the war is still being faught is living in a state of denial. Let's face it, it's all politics. They put the civilian leadership in control prematurely due to the speed of the victory of convential forces and to heighten PR effect. This was a mistake, and I'll wanted to voice by starting this thread is that someone with Kahonies will have to take charge to get us out of this mess without us ending up with no credibilty with who is still allied with us while emboldening enemies, either quiet or vocal.
One frigtening factor to add to all this is that, we are the only ones really putting in the time and money here. While we fight this war, China and the EU are exploding on to the global trade scene. Inflation is on the rise and the cost of living increases. To pull out on Iraq and just try to play nice and play catch up with our competiors is not going to do it, we need leverage now, and a win in Iraq, and some diplomacy in the wake of Yasser Arafat's death will help. We need to secure the region, get energy costs down, stabalize then try to find our way out of dependency on foriegn nations for anything, period. Will any of this happen, most likely not, but its really the direction we should be going in.
-Walrus
It has stared back, it's my reflection in the mirror every time I look into one.
-Walrus
*laughs.
You're still thinking in the padigram of conventional warfare. Declaring war is easy enough, so is killing some bad guys, declaring peace however is a touch more difficult, you won't see columns of surrendering officers marching down the streets of bagdhad at the 'end' of this conflict. You're also still a touch stuck in an economic period that was well over before we were born, every nation is interdependant in thousands of different ways and as time goes on only more and more so. The real threat to your SUV fuel bill and mortgage comes from the US deficit and the spectre of the collapse of fiat currency.
How many times have you heard the politicians should go to the front instead of sending others to fight?
Well it’s worse than that, they’re sending others, only giving them the equipment the pols think they need. Only the troops the pols think they need. Only the targets the pols think they need.
It’s a bad war. It’s an unjust war. It’s an illegal war. Blah, blah, blah......
Well maybe so, but it’s real and it’s here and now, we have to deal with it.
War crimes tribunal? Get real, only losers are tried and there’s not much chance of that, yet.
Get the reporters and politicians out and give the military the materiel they need to subjugate Iraq. Absolute, complete, and utter domain over Iraq, then we talk about freedom and self government.
Foreign wars are not won in Washington or in the media but they sure as hell can be lost there.
The politicians trying to micro-manage any war is a definite loser.
:rant:
Get real, only losers are tried and there’s not much chance of that, yet.
To be be more accurate, only the conquered are tried, and we won't be conquered, even if we lose.
One frigtening factor to add to all this is that, we are the only ones really putting in the time and money here. While we fight this war, China and the EU are exploding on to the global trade scene. Inflation is on the rise and the cost of living increases. To pull out on Iraq and just try to play nice and play catch up with our competiors is not going to do it, we need leverage now, and a win in Iraq, and some diplomacy in the wake of Yasser Arafat's death will help. We need to secure the region, get energy costs down, stabalize then try to find our way out of dependency on foriegn nations for anything, period. Will any of this happen, most likely not, but its really the direction we should be going in.
-Walrus
What? I'm sure that I heard our leader in the debates stress that we are part of a coalition, and that it is disrespectful to our allies to denigrate their contribution. :3_eyes:
But seriously, I sort of agree that we need to come up with a graceful exit strategy. The problem is that noone has defined the term 'win' in terms of Iraq. Is it just getting the elections through? What if the Shi'ite majority elect a primarily or exclusively Shi'ite government? It's a lot harder to play Red State - Blue State when both sides have guns and will not meekly become the minority party. Even if we get a stable Iraq, we have lost our credibility with many Arab nations. They know we want oil. They know that the Bush administration got away with invading Iraq on a technicality and that the UN was unable to stop it or even condemn it.
In terms of economic power, China and the oil states have all of the power. If they wanted to, they could start selling dollars and take a hammer to the US economy.
We have placed a large burden on our military. If we decided to invade another country, the draft would be a necessity. Saddam isolated himself by invading Kuwait, but the other Arab states are more connected. It's possible that a US invasion of another country in the Mideast might draw in other countries who would interpret it as the US trying to establish a hegemony in the Middle East.
There is NO graceful exit strategy to a situation we made fools of ourselves by entering into in the first place. How many lives did we throw away over some bullshit notion of "peace with honor" in Vietnam? How honorable were those final scenes of the fall of Siagon with the last US helicopter flying out with desperate Vietnamese trying to hang on? How many "dominoes" fell as a result of our leaving that godless war behind? Remember who our REAL enemy in the Vietnam conflict was? The "red" Chinese. Now look around and see how many items made in China are sitting around in your home, your office, the very clothes you wear on your backs. The Chinese won, not because of the Vietnam conflict, but because the American people went to sleep and allowed our government of the people to become the government of the international corporations which happily outsourced American jobs to the lowest third world bidder.
You bet China and the oil producing countries have all the economic power. Why? Because the American people handed it over to them, giving away our manufacturing capacity and ensuring that this country would do NOTHING when it came to viable solutions for a petroleum based economy. Where are our mass public transit systems? Where are our alternative energy programs? I'll tell you where - in the pockets of sociopaths like George Jr. who doesn't give a damn about the American people, only about ensuring that the wealth of the Bush dynasty and its friends at Halliburten will be secure.
Economic power = wealth = military prowness. We can skate along for maybe another 20 or 30 years, but without manufacturing, without an educated and productive population, we will ultimately meet the same fate as did the USSR - brought down by outrageous military expenditures, and foolish refusal to invest in its own people.
We can kill every last man, woman, and child in Iraq, and sit like some bloated spider on the resulting petroleum spoils of war and all we will have done is to sow the wind in order to reap the whirlwind. Your children will mark my words.
We can kill every last man, woman, and child in Iraq, and sit like some bloated spider on the resulting petroleum spoils of war and all we will have done is to sow the wind in order to reap the whirlwind. Your children will mark my words.
Nice spot of writing, that.
+5 for horrid image of bloated spider. Very nice, Mari.
hyperbole don't make it so. There is no win or lose in Iraq, it's acheive the objective or not. Bush determines the objective and whether we've achieved it or not.
Some will declare it a win and some a loss, no matter what the outcome. ;)
Mari, you need like three or four dogs. You're afraid of shadows cast by objects that don't exist, created by light sources that are truly dim bulbs. They move and you move with them so you can make sure you can still see the shadows, so you can still be afraid of them. You live on the adrenaline created by your fear. If somebody says boo you'll jump out of your shoes. Cowgirls are supposed to be brave?
Alternative energy: remember, this question has been considered by the best and the brightest for about 50 years. Every single physics and engineering student has spent a good deal of time thinking about it. After the Carter presidency the government put a ton of money into that particular rathole. If this one were easy, it would be solved by now. But actually there is a very proven alternative energy source and the Europeans you like so well use it a lot. It's called nuclear fission. It's extremely clean, unless you happen to screw up and make an entire area of the planet uninhabitable.
But before you advocate for it you should spend some time living next to one of these plants. The towers cast a long shadow, and you may be frightened of it.
UT, Reagan dismantled the better part of the government research programs into alternative fuels back in 1980. I watched the whole oil shale thing out on the West slope of Colorado go from boom to bust, literally over-night. There are parts of the Uncomphaghre Plateau where you can take a cigarette lighter and literally set fire to the dirt, the oil shale content is so high. But the US would rather spend $200 billion dollars and countless lives in a foreign war than spend the money to come up with the technology to make shale oil a viable resource. The same for every other form of alternative energy.
I have spent time in Europe and been extremely impressed with their modern, efficient forms of public transportation and their use of energy sources like hydro-electric and, yes, nuclear. In Europe I know that extremely rigorous training for nuclear power plant operators is required. In the US, Homer Simpson runs them.
I can't afford to own a dog. I barely can cover the expenses for my cat. Besides, I'm not afraid. I'm older than most on this board, and I have no children. I figure the US will probably hold on for the rest of my lifetime. What happens after I'm dead is a matter of indifference to me, other than the fact that I wish my country and future generations well.
Mar, as much as you would like to think so, the US government does not control whether shale oil is used. Simple economics does. If the price of oil remains high, your burning carcinogenic rocks will be used, as well as the burning corn they grow in the next state over, and the turkey guts processor, and all the other $50/barrel "alternatives". It would cost much more than $200B to demand the economy run on it when it is a more expensive approach.
Lastly, The Simpsons is a fictional cartoon, and should not be used to advocate public policy or determine the nature of our world. HTH.
Mari, you need like three or four dogs. You're afraid of shadows cast by objects that don't exist, created by light sources that are truly dim bulbs. They move and you move with them so you can make sure you can still see the shadows, so you can still be afraid of them. You live on the adrenaline created by your fear. If somebody says boo you'll jump out of your shoes. Cowgirls are supposed to be brave?
But before you advocate for it you should spend some time living next to one of these plants. The towers cast a long shadow, and you may be frightened of it.
Let's show How Very Afraid you are on Inauguration Day. We'll go digital that day. :) Is fear an alternative energy resource? Specious poetics.
Is fear an alternative energy resource?
It's been demonstrated of late to be an excellent source of power.
There is no win or lose in Iraq, it's acheive the objective or not. Bush determines the objective and whether we've achieved it or not.
This objective seems to change though...when it seems that the objective simply cannot be reached for some reason, it shifts. First it was WMD. Then when it came out that there were no WMDs that matched what Bush said was there, the focus shifted to terrorism in general. Right now we're basically fighting the bogeyman. It manifests as all kinds of things but isn't something that can be touched itself. Terrorism is an adaptable creature much like the cold virus. It changes and mutates itself whenever it realizes it can't get things done the old way. Unless we get a more tangible objective or get an actual GOAL, this war will never ever end...or will at least last 4 more years. Cuz as soon as Bush & Co. 'stabilize' Iraq (ha ha!), we'll be off to some other country the Hill says has shifty, beady eyes and start all over again there; same fight, different playground. Rinse and repeat until all countries with even a history of having terrorists set foot on the soil have been subjugated and Americanized while America itself turns into a rich third world country.
It's been demonstrated of late to be an excellent source of power.
AAAh.....I'll spell out my point. ;)
It's ridiculous to point out weaknesses other people don't have a huge quantity of. It's rabid and none too bright to impose your ideas about how other people feel. Especially if you are known to attack them on some anonymous board. Should I start accusing people of feeling like Losers? How brilliant would I be then? Hey jag you feel great today....get rid of your dog.Impressed? :yelsick: (really not directed anywhere near Jag)
CW the larger objective, not stated so plainly, was to create a more pro-US state in the middle of the Middle East. So far it hasn't worked out, but it still could.
NT Times Friedman column today says so, registration req'd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?oref=login
Every time I visit Iraq, I leave asking myself the same question: If you total up all the positives and negatives, where does the balance come out? I'd say the score is still 4 to 4. We can still emerge with a decent outcome. And the whole thing could still end very badly. There's only one thing one can say for sure today: you won't need to wait much longer for the tipping point. Either the elections for a new governing body happen by the end of January, as scheduled, and the rout of Saddam loyalists in Falluja is consolidated and extended throughout the Sunni triangle, or not. If it's the former, there are still myriad challenges ahead, but you can be somewhat hopeful. If it's the latter, we've got a total fiasco on our hands.
Ehhh...I think I see. That concept is not nearly as marketable as the idea of destroying all who might threaten our way of life. It's be easier to rally the US public to support "putting those 9/11 plotters and US Soldier killers and fuel pipeline destroyers in their place" than it is to rally them to support "creating a political foothold in the Middle East because that's the one place we haven't gotten our feet firmly planted in yet".
Lastly, The Simpsons is a fictional cartoon, and should not be used to advocate public policy or determine the nature of our world. HTH.
Duh, really? I am soooo disappointed! Bart was my role model! Now what do I do? I can't give a cite for this, but about a million years ago I read an article in some respectable magazine - "Atlantic Monthly" or "New Republic" or one of those - that outlined the differences in certification for nuclear power plant operators in Europe versus the US, and the US showed very poorly in the comparison. Maybe things have changed. I'm too tired to look it up, and I don't feel like going to the barricades over a relatively minor point. But it does bring me to my next point, which is this:
Just as "The Simpsons" is a vast over-simplification of the credentials of real life nuclear power plant operators, your statements about alternative energy energy are a vast over simplification of the role of government in a nation's energy use. For example, policies encouraging reliable mass transit systems both locally and nationally could make an incredible difference. Tax breaks for corporations using alternative energy sources could speed up research and development in that area by light years. It's a complex issue where government policy DOES play an important role.
Oh yeah, by the way, since when is shale oil any more "carcinogenic" than petroleum? I've camped on the Uncomphaghre Plateau on a regular basis for 20 years now and have yet to come down with cancer. This despite the fact that the place thrills the latent pyrromaniac (however you spell that) in me, and I spend countless happy hours setting bits of cliff face on fire everytime I'm out there.
Cyber Wolf
This objective seems to change though...when it seems that the objective simply cannot be reached for some reason, it shifts.
That's the beauty of it, he can't fail. The path of least resistance has been a lifelong pattern and he got to be Prez......twice. ;)
Cyber Wolf
That's the beauty of it, he can't fail. The path of least resistance has been a lifelong pattern and he got to be Prez......twice. ;)
Wow,that's actually a really good point. But isn't the path of the least resistant a bread trail to McDonalds management? (at best)
Yeah, it must be nice to have your path of least resistance paved by a parent who's President of the US and richer than a Saudi oil sheik. Given that background, even Homer Simpson could drink himself into the presidency. :eyebrow:
And so clearly all the children of all those other wealthy presidents we've ever had must be lower than Homer Simpson on the intellect scale, since none of them managed to waltz into the White House? :eyebrow:
GWB ain't the only person ever to have the President for a father.
No, actually, the other kids were the bright and sane ones, because they wanted nothing to do with the presidency. ;)
oh please, I wouldn't be shocked if bush couldn't do up his own shoelaces, with everything handled by Rove, Cherny or Dad it's not too hard and having a pliable idiot as president suits the pocket-lining and agenda setting desire of those around him nicely.
Oh, I think he can handle the shoelaces, but why should he if he doesn't have to? His only sucessful endeavors have been in the position of front man and gladhander for people with money and a plan. Just follow the script, but in fairness I don't think the script is completely detailed. More likely an outline with established limits of wiggle room. Think of a bowling ball on an alley or bobsled on a track. :king:
An exerpt from a
new report[font=Arial Narrow][size=1](big pdf)[/size][/font] from the Defense Science Board:
'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.
Note that this may or not be the motivation for individual terrorists or their leaders, but it is instead the background environment that gives terrorists popular support and access to new recruits. Fixing this environment is immeasurably more important than killing the current generation of enemies.
And why do they hate the Spanish?
Why the Aussies?
Why the Brits?
Why the French?
Why the Russians?
Well, there are different terrorist groups targeting different countries, but for the most part you just listed some of the closest allies of the US, almost all of which (not Australia, AFAIK) have also had imperial incursions into the Middle East. What point were you trying to make?
That the problem can't be fixed that way because even if you are a great friend of Arafat and Palestine and lavish them with gifts and billions of dollars, you can decide to mandate no headgear for students and suddenly you are festering hate and creatiing terrorists.
One problem is that they hate Jews. Very well then allow them to wipe Israel off the map. Where does the hate go then?
The real problem is the intolerable clash of the successful western world against the repeatedly failing middle east. They could wipe Israel off the map and it would only cause them to find another external reason for their overall failure on the world scale. Co-dependency is not good foreign policy.
The only way to do away with the problem is to do away with the hate, or at least the power behind it, not to do away with Israel or try to massage and work with the hate in some way.
There will probably be a minority who are willing to kill as long as Israel exists, and Israel's existence will probably always stick in the craw of a majority of Muslims. But the mere existence of Israel is not enough to generate most of the non-Palestinian terrorists. It is one (though a big one) of a million issues that combine to bring the mainstream towards the extremists.
You seem to read the article as saying we should shower Muslims with gifts and submit to their every demand (do away with Israel? WTF?). That's not what it says. Our policies are almost unvaryingly detrimental to Muslim citizens, for varying reasons. The cumulative effect is that first, terrorist groups gain recruits, and then anti-American sentiment becomes strong enough that even the governments we try to bribe start America-bashing to divert dissatisfaction from them to the US.
The only way to do away with the problem is to do away with the hate
That's the point. You have to deal with root causes. Killing current terrorists is like picking the leaves off of a tree one at a time to try to kill it.
Germany seems to have awakened to the idea they have a problem. (yes, the way I phrased that was intentional)
"Multiculturalism has failed in Germany."
Our policies are almost unvaryingly detrimental to Muslim citizens, for varying reasons.
Clearly untrue. You are bending the truth to fit your narrative. You want it to be the fault of the US and/or of the politicians you don't agree with.
It is not, it is a cultural problem and the US will find blame no matter what it does.
The only way to do away with the problem is to do away with the hate,
Bombing people into oblivion, actively supporting the biggest thorn in their side and acting with nothing short of extreme arrogance are well proven ways of solving problems such as these.
Bombing people into oblivion, actively supporting the biggest thorn in their side and acting with nothing short of extreme arrogance are well proven ways of solving problems such as these.
The first part of it actually works if you do the job right.
The hate preceded that by decades so it must have developed from something else.
Clearly untrue. You are bending the truth to fit your narrative. You want it to be the fault of the US and/or of the politicians you don't agree with..
I don't want the fault to be anywhere in particular, except insofar as the aspects of it that are our fault are the ones we can work on most easily.
It is not, it is a cultural problem and the US will find blame no matter what it does.
That's not an excuse to do anything. Of course there are some who will blame the US for everything. We need to make it obvious that they are wrong, and the only way to do that is to decrease the legitimate issues that they wrap the bogus ones around. If we take on the attitude that they'll blame us no matter what, so we might as well trample them, then we are giving their lies legitimate support, and providing the terrorists with more support from former moderates.
The terrorist goal is to goad the enemy power into actions which decrease their popular support.
The hate preceded that by decades so it must have developed from something else.
Perhaps something like this:
one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.
Nobody's saying the bombing caused the hate (you seem to be setting up a lot of strawmen), just that it doesn't fix anything.
The first part of it actually works if you do the job right.
That's the terrorists' plan.
That's the terrorists' plan.
No, it's not. They can't make enough bombs to eliminate America.
We, on the other hand, do have the resources to eliminate them.
Turn the middle east into glass. Real stylish. Fuckwit. Next time the US bombs somewhere (doubt it'll be a long wait) I'll suggest the obliteration of every major US city, civvies be damned or maybe even targetted and well see how you react.
The hate preceded that by decades so it must have developed from something else.
Sure it does, your reasoning about why is largely, correct, however your solutions don't seem to match the causes.
Turn the middle east into glass. Real stylish. Fuckwit. Next time the US bombs somewhere (doubt it'll be a long wait) I'll suggest the obliteration of every major US city, civvies be damned or maybe even targetted and well see how you react.
Control yourself.
Comparing resources and methods is not the same thing as agreeing with their uses.
Asshat :)
I didn't say I was reaching for an "excuse to do ANYTHING"; I'm just trying to get the narrative better.
Jag, perhaps the better solution is complete disengagement?
It's a stupid thing to say TS, on every level, end of story.
No, the best solution is complete engagement.
Well if you really want to participate in this thread you'll have to get more specific.
It's a stupid thing to say TS, on every level, end of story.
No, the best solution is complete engagement.
Your second statement is only agrees with my statement. Partial measures are what cause most problems in the first place.
Partial measures aren't the problem, the wrong measures are the problem.
UT I feel a touch like a broken record on that one, what's needed is a Marshall plan for the ME, massive economic stimulus, give them jobs and SUVs and watch the decrepit dictatorships and terrorist sympathies slip away. Really is that simple. Apart from Saudi, US backing and Suadi Royal policies have created a country so FUBARed if they leave I don't know what the answer is.
Their governments won't stand for such a thing, so won't we have to overturn them first?
Since the
average GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia is higher than that of Poland, Latvia, Russia, Chile and (*ahem*) Turkey, and since we already give Egypt $2.2B per year and they still hate us, what evidence do you have that poverty and/or lack of giving is a solution?
Well, it's not quite that simple, since the decrepit dictatorships will still be there while the plan is in effect, so you have to have a good way to work around them.
Since the average GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia is higher than that of Poland, Latvia, Russia, Chile and (*ahem*) Turkey, and since we already give Egypt $2.2B per year and they still hate us, what evidence do you have that poverty and/or lack of giving is a solution?
The Saudi and Egyptian governments, which are the beneficiaries of the GDP and foreign aid, are quite supportive of the US, at least to our face. Ironically, US support of these dictatorships feeds anti-US sentiment, which allows the governments to use anti-Americanism to deflect resentment away from themselves.
Er...take a look at a wealth distribution chart for Saudi. Then get back to me about averages. HM is dead on, the US has fostered these regimes for decades - knowing full well they've formented islamic rage as a tool for controlling the population. In terms of how to go about it, bypass the governments, start programmes to foster small biz, R&D, charity type stuff, I'd love to see the governments publically try and shut a programme like that down. Give me a breakdown of where that 2.2B goes, I doubt much of it goes in anything near that direction.
It's not just about poverty, it's about what economic stability and growth brings to a society. It's a bit hard to follow when you've lived in a western country all your life where we moved from needs to wants a long time ago but keeping people inpoverished is a damn good way to keep them under control, they don't worry too much about politics when they're desperate for work.
I'm reminded of the issue in 1984 where the gov'ts maintain conflict to keep the countries manageable.
$1.3B goes to millitary aid, the rest is in
humanitarian programs like USAID:
In 1999, the United States and Egypt agreed to a ten-year plan to facilitate Egypt's transition to a self-sustaining market economy. The plan emphasizes promoting job creation, investing in people, and optimizing use of human and natural resources. It focuses on increasing mutual trade and attracting more investment to Egypt, while at the same time developing a more productive and better-trained workforce. Continuing infrastructure investments, protecting the environment and natural resources, strengthening health and family planning services, promoting citizen participation, and expanding and improving educational opportunities are all areas of mutual concern.
98% of Egyptians hate the US. It's a much higher number than hate their own government. How are we doing exactly what you want in Egypt, and it's having exactly the opposite result?
Firstly, giving 1.3B to prop up a corrupt undemocratic regime.
Secondly, doing it for decades.
Thirdly, doing it to a regime that also has at times actively encouraged hatred of the US.
Since you like quoting:
Significant challenges remain to Egypt's full participation in the global economy. These include policy constraints, a work force growing faster than job creation, an educational system which is not providing all the skills needed by the economy, and low levels of investment in training.
It's a drop in the ocean, the stuff that's needed isn't there. The Marshall plan was over 100billion in today's money (not far off what invading Iraq and creating another focus point for hatred cost), if you threw that at it you'd see real change. You're dealing with decades of indoctrinated hatred, that's not easy to dismantle, nor is it cheap but it's a lot cheaper than *not* spending that money. Extremeists of all shades, nazis to jahidis rely on angry, hurt, disinfranchised people for recruits, remove that pool, remove the problem. It really is that simple.
Bombing people may be a satisfying simplictic solution to placate hyperpatriotic americans but it takes real balls to suck it up and solve the problem instead.
There's one big difference between the Marshall Plan and such a concept in the M.E. That is what you have at the end of it after you've spent all that money.
The root problem of Arabic failure is not that they don't have a batch of infrastructure. It's that their culture is fundamentally flawed in the direction of never becoming productive and modern. Germany was the most productive nation in the world before it had to be crushed and re-built. It could be made productive in a new direction. The heart of the M.E. has not produced anything but oil and violence since the years had three numbers in 'em. 1B or 100B is a rathole until the culture changes.
I simply think it's time for a commander to continue when it's ammeable to do as such.
Had we had a Patton or McAurthur, then we would not be in this mess. The 8000 mile screwdriver has done its damage.
Commanders talked back then of having 45 days to get it right. But they could not. The 8000 mile screwdriver failed to do the planning and shorted the military of men. Generals were quite clear about this up front - 200,000 men for two years - minimum. The 8000 mile screwdriver did not do its job - plan for the peace (as demonstrated in the after action reports of the Third Infantry and the resulting widespread looting). And most important - what should have been obvious to every member of the 8000 mile screwdriver:
don't disband the army and police. This well written and long understood principle (even in 500 BC) is demonstrated even in the movie Patton - because it is that common knowledge. Patton was at war with domestic politicians because he put the ex-Nazi party leaders back to work fixing the phones and restoring water. Patton did what even Sze Tzu said in 500 BC
45 days later - where was the water and electricity? Notice what Tobias was doing in Iraq then. No one there who knew how to do the work. Anyone in Iraq who knew how to do the work was fired - because they had to be members of the Baath party to get that training.
We are talking about the intelligence of the 8000 mile screwdriver. As a result, we will remain bogged down in Iraq - without a doubt - at minimum for most of a decade. We broke it. Now we own it. Those with intelligence knew that long before we even 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq. What do the troops repeatedly say they are short of? Men. What does the administration not supply? Men. We needed at least 200,000 soldiers in country. As the situation festers, we probably now need more. We provide only 130,000. And just like in Vietnam, more killed insurgents only makes more enemies. They are our insurgents. We created them.
Now we have a situation that is more unsolveable than Hati. How long have troops been in Hati? Democracy can not be forced on a people - no matter what your bible or president says.
It is called the 8000 mile screwdriver. It created the insurgency. It even lied about the electricity supply like it lied about aluminum tubes - for political reasons. We had 45 days and failed. Even the commander of the 101st Airborne took over what Bremmer & Co were suppose to do because many month later - nothing from Bremmer and Co. appeared. Bremmer, et al rarely even left Baghdad. 45 days later and we only made things worse.
Prime breeding ground for insurgency when the rebuilding does not start that week. Virtually all reconstruction projects years later remain stifled - halted.
One learns from history of both Patton and McAurthur. These men did not use war to create peace. There was no interfering 8000 mile screwdriver because back then, those in Washington had planned for the peace years before WWII ended. Requires intelligence and knowledge that the George Jr administration (the 8000 mile screwdriver) has yet to demonstrate. Even worse, Rumsfeld fired the people (transfered from State) who had planned the peace.
We are now killing over 100 American every month- a number that increases every month - years after a mental midget president declared 'Mission Accomplished'. Obviously he thought so because they never bothered to plan for the peace - as was done in the days of both Patton and McAurthur. Back then, the Generals had a president who had intelligence.
98% of Egyptians hate the US.
Classic Rush Limbaugh education. As one Egyptian friend keeps telling his family back home - its the government - not the American people - who have changed so adversely. Most all people throughout the world both loved the American government and American people. How do you destroy so much popularity so quickly? Impose Christian morals (ie. the Crusades) on international relations. Use the Bible as the basis of all solutions. Fix their governments in with moral Christian values - whether they like it or not. Encourage zionist Israelis to kill anyone who is not a Jew and call that moral. To justify their anti-American propaganda, Rush Limbaughs must claim the world hates Americans. Its called a self-fullfilling prophesy. The world - even Canada - hates George Jr. But can an intelligent person blame them?
The heart of the M.E. has not produced anything but oil and violence since the years had three numbers in 'em. 1B or 100B is a rathole until the culture changes.
Been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh again? Iraq and Iran have been two of the most productive nations in that part of the world - even with governments that subvert progress. These were some of the world's more industrious emerging nations. Only nations of great abilities can accomplish nuclear weapons and other advanced technologies - especially with such destructive governments. An American must learn of the world before making wild and speculative conclusions.
No one can fix their governments. That is something they must learn. And until they do, they will not achieve what other third world nations such as S Korea have accomplished. It is up to them to fix what holds them back. But instead, we decided to fix it for them. Dumb dumb dumb - Rush Limbaugh thinkers. No wonder these same people see enemies everywhere in the world. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Yea those arabs have never invented anything, ever. Clearly Islamic culture is completely flawed. If you want to make ignorant racist (yes, it is racist) statements like that you're going to have to provide some pretty amazing proof that an entire peoples is destined to failure or some shit.
tw, that's why I said "the heart" - Iraq is not "the heart", and Iran isn't even all that Middle-Eastern at all.
Jag, every culture has a different level of productivity, and that level is determined roughly by a combination of the government in place and the character of the people. It's not racist to notice that some nations are productive while others sit there and stagnate. Here is
Ralph Peters' "Seven Signs of Unproductive States":
# Restrictions on the free flow of information.
# The subjugation of women.
# Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
# The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
# Domination by a restrictive religion.
# A low valuation of education.
# Low prestige assigned to work.
It's not hard to see why these cultural factors would keep a people back. It's not racism to simply notice that cultural factors prevent a nation from becoming productive. The Arabic world has unfortunately started with a very tribal character and then has been gifted the greatest gift the planet has to offer: oil. Without getting them to send their kids to school, stop keeping the women at home, and stop blaming everyone else (the jews, the west) for their collective failure, further gifts would be a waste.
How do you suggest those things are overcome? Bombing? You seriously think the entire population is unwilling to work? On a community scale with wealth comes enlightenment and a higher chance of progressive culture. I'd also question where and how you think the last two apply. If you can show me an example where wealth and these symptoms don't correlate I'll be interested.
As for oil, only about 0.01% of the population ever sees the money, particularly in saudi. One reason these places are in the sorry state they are is the corrupt, undemocratic regimes that have been artificially propped up and installed for decades. Now who did that...
Then I fail to see your differences with the Bush administration. The entire goal of the administration is to tear down the dictatorships and set Democratic reforms into place. Unfortunately the governments in place will not stand idly by while this happens so it may take a little force to start the process.
Goal (though this admin has put more effort into getting the oil flowing than getting power and water to people) may be the same, methods used are abhorrent. In Iraq the elections are frankly, irrelevent, no matter what happens the outcome is unlikely to be democratic - if it is the US will balk at the government and *cough* modify the result anyway. What matters is whether there are basic services and beyond that, jobs and slowly, over decades, you might get somewhere. Invading places isn't the solution, the solution is to gradually empower the people to choose their own government. Democracy isn't the answer either for that matter, singapore runs quite nicely on a virtual dictatorship. Economic growth and stability are the key. If there is an example here it is, oddly enough, Iran. Sure, the current reform effort may have hit for now, a brick wall but wait, next time, my money is on success.
The Marshall plan was over 100billion in today's money (not far off what invading Iraq and creating another focus point for hatred cost), if you threw that at it you'd see real change...
Bombing people may be a satisfying simplictic solution to placate hyperpatriotic americans but it takes real balls to suck it up and solve the problem instead.
let's not forget that the marshall plan was put into place after completely leveling a few countries. you can't buy love where they already hate you and feel they are beating you. part of the reason the marshall plan worked as well as it did is that those who opposed the allies were absolutely crushed. the aid was intended to help those that had been hurt in the process.
A few countries that had been invaded by one, the only one that needed crushing was Germany, a country led by a man who had risen to power on the back of hurt nationalism and economic colapse that followed the 'punishment' after that first world war. The levelling of parts of the UK, France, Belgium etc was collateral. I don't think the muslim world feels it's beating the US. I'm very much of the opinion that there are many correlations between germany circa '36-'40 and the Islamic world today. However the distributed nature doesn't lend itself to traditional war as you're rapidly learning, it plays into the enemies hand. The only way to win is to remove their support. The biggest danger at the moment, from the top of the US admin to the actions of individual soldiers is this eye for an eye mentality. We all known what ghandi said about that.
Well again, since the governments in place won't stand for that kind of meddling, the administration doesn't have the luxury of advocating politically impossible approaches.
Well Saddam probably wouldn't have. Egypt probably would. Syria would bend fairly easily and the house of Saud is reliant on the US anyway. Turkey is trying to get into the EU, that's a wonderful lever. There's a fuckload of political capital there than can be used to squeeze pratically all of these countries. Explain how it's politically impossible.
Well again, since the governments in place won't stand for that kind of meddling, the administration doesn't have the luxury of advocating politically impossible approaches.
The only way those people will get a new government (that works) is when they want one. You can take a horse to water, but ....
When will they want one? One condition necessary to make a stable government - massive internal war, numerous deaths, AND the people finally decide THEY want change. Only a fool (ie George Jr) would think we can fix their government. History is something that George Jr has no knowledge of - being that his entire knowledge of the world comes from a 1.5 year indoctrination from Rice and Wolfovitz.
How to get the entire world to hate Ameicans. Impose American values on other nations - especially when those other nations don't want those values.
Previously, when western nations tried to do just that - it was called the Crusades. If you believe in good and evil, then you know Christianity was the most evil power then. All good religions are tolerant. Extremist Christians instead want to save everyone else. That meets the definition of evil. This paragraph written for simplicity of those who see the world only in black and white - as extremist Christians do routinely. No wonder they never expected the Spanish Inquisition. They listened to perverted bible stumpers rather than learn god's laws. Many of god's laws are found instead in history books. Christian extremists would rather have those books rewritten (ie. ignore the history of Constantinople - once the center of then human universe). Instead they foolishly think their religion can save others.
The best thing we could have done for the Middle East is let them solve their own problems - and continue as the honest broker. America is no longer an honest broker. George Jr has literally destroyed what took American 40 years to create. It was working. But it violates extremist Christian morality.
In the meantime, great generals such as Patton and McAurthur demonstrated that god's laws work. Not the perversion promoted from the bible or koran. They used god's laws as learned and recorded by god's profits - such as Tze Szu in 500 BC and the authors of a Declaration of Indepence.
tw would you advocate the "complete disengagement" idea?
Jag, does the New Marshall Plan have a problem as being seen as cultural imperialism, making the world safe for Coca-Cola(TM) etc?
tw would you advocate the "complete disengagement" idea?
An honest broker does not disengage. An honest broker does not take sides. America earned unmatched popularity among the entire world - no other nation even came close - when we operated as an honest broker. That means talking softly, carrying a big stick, and never using it until the smoking gun makes the need obvious.
Korean war was an example of an honest broker that finally was forced to take sides. In the early days of Lebanon's last civil war, we operated as an honest broker - until Lt Col Oliver North decisions made us the enemy of two sides. We remained the honest broker in Eisenhower's day when we stopped an earlier Lebanon civil war AND when we stopped the British and French from attacking Egypt.
These are historical examples that appear in bold letters. America was even far more effective when we supported the UN to detooth Saddam, confronted arparthite in South Africa, encouraged reconcilation and political stability in Argentina, gave the Panama Canal back to Panama as promised, left the Philippines when they demanded, took advantage of and encouraged Libya to enter an almost 10 year process of becoming a responsible nation, permitted Japan to restore its cultural integrity without a destructive militaristic mentality, advocated international trade through various means such as international air transport standards, the Fundamental Declaration of Human Rights, etc.
There was nothing in the Middle East that was a threat to the US - unless we made it so. An honest broker would have empowered the UN. Instead we now undermine it because we now want to impose Christian bias upon the world. IOW we are no longer considered an honest broker even by Canada and Mexico. George Jr has been that destructive to American prestige. In fact, you are now watching a world try to create new honest brokers due to a vacuum left by America.
We made the same mistake in Vietnam. The parallels are shocking - in part because (for example) most here never read the Pentagon Papers. Most have knowledge about Watergate from the grossly distorted movie "All the President's Men" - and have so little idea of how McCarthyism is so easy to create. These are cancers that also pervet the honest broker. We cannot be an honest broker when too many Americans believe biblical parables (children stories) rather than god's lessons in history.
But again, there was nothing in the Middle East that should have caused war other than a rescue of Kuwait. We have now encouraged every nation there to go nuclear - as Iran now must. A Kuwait invasion that happened, in part, because we accidently told Saddam it would be OK. Even an honest broker can make mistakes.
How to solve problems as an honest broker? We kept out of the Balkan until the Balkans were ready to have their problem solved. Therefore we did not foolishly kill 100+ Americans every month. We did same in Argentina. It is how honest brokers work. We negotiated Milosevik and his friends right out of power. Diplomacy - properly applied as an honest broker - and we should all be singing praise of Richard Holbrook - is far more powerful than a military solution.
An honest America need not disengage. But an honest America also uses military force only as a last resort - the smoking gun. An honest broker cannot takes sides - as anti-humanity religions would have us do.
Ressurecting this thread,
this article addresses the question of root causes of Muslim anti-US sentiment and is kinda compelling because it lists counter-examples:
Muslim states have never supported Pakistan on Kashmir because most were close to India in the so-called nonaligned movement while Pakistan was a US ally in CENTO and SEATO.
When Hindu nationalists demolished the Ayodhya Mosque, no one thought it necessary to inflame Muslim passions.
Nor has a single Muslim nation recognized the republic set up by Muslim Turks in northern Cyprus. The reason? Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine and plays occasional anti-American music while Turkey is a US ally.
When the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 10 years ago, not a ripple disturbed the serene calm of Muslim opinion. At that time, the mullahs of Teheran and Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were in cahoots with Slobodan Milosevic, supplying him with oil and money because Yugoslavia held the presidency of the so-called nonaligned movement. Belgrade was the only European capital to be graced with a state visit by Ali Khamenehi, the mullah who is now the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic.
And what about Chechnya which is, by any standard, the Muslim nation that has most suffered in the past two centuries? Last October the Muslim summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, gave a hero's welcome to Vladimir Putin, the man who has presided over the massacre of more Chechens than anyone in any other period in Russian history.
Right now there are 22 active conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved. Most Muslims have not even heard of most of them because those conflicts do not provide excuses for fomenting hatred against the United States.
Next time you hear someone say the US was in trouble in the Muslim world because of Israel, remember that things may not be that simple.
But that last statement doesn't logically follow. All the previous examples show is 'they hate the US, and everyone who is friends with the US.' That doesn't mean there's no step before the US. Why can they not hate the US because we're allies with Israel, just like they can hate Turkey (apparently) only for being allied with the US?
It even mentions that "Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine"... They hate the US, but they hate Israel way, way more.
Truth be told Israel is one of the strongest symbols of American/western hemogeny of post WWII Earth. It's not only that the US supports Israel, but that they are in continous support of foriegn policy doctrine that recognizes a world order that was the result of agreements made at the end of the war. The parceling of Arab land, the reclaiming of land to form the state of Israel, and the pre-contstruction of the cold war infrastructure. All this ties into the mess we are all in now. All of these factors, mixed with the basic greed and averest of the United States has landed us here, its pure and simple really. Israel stands as a world order detested by Arabs, and reinforced by the military might of the US. Get ready for hardball
-Walrus
UT's post suffers from a fundamental flaw. He sees the world same as Rush Limbaugh. Them verses us. Cowboys with black hats versese cowboys with white hats. Good verses evil.
Reality - the world is a multi dimensional complexity where two enemies share a common adversion to a forth or seven different enemies.
Those who understand the world also knew that Saddam more feared the Muslim Brotherhood than he did the US. They knew that Osama bin Laden was just another example of a multi-dimensional entity that has existed since the 1400s. In a single dimensional world, the enemy of Saddam - bin Laden - was a Saddam ally.
In a previous discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood, UT all but denied it even exists. Well yes. He must if he views the world only in terms of 'them verses us'.
Even in Israel - a close American friend - is an adversary of America - who also happens to be its leadership. Likud stands for things adversarial to principles that America stands for. But then it is a complex and multi-dimensional world. The world cannot be as UT has just posted. "Them" - the evil muslims - verses "Us" - the righteous christians? This is the same mentality that says "god is on our side".
Wait, wait, wait ... how can Israel, and the Arab conflict be the fault of the US, when it was the Brits that carved up the Middle East?
Wait, wait, wait ... how can Israel, and the Arab conflict be the fault of the US, when it was the Brits that carved up the Middle East?
Because tw sees the world in the black and white tones painted by Al Franken and Bill Maher.
Thanks. I'll sleep better now.
Wait, wait, wait ... how can Israel, and the Arab conflict be the fault of the US, when it was the Brits that carved up the Middle East?
Where did I post - anywhere - that "Israel, and the Arab conflict [is] the fault of the US". This is also how Rush Limbaugh hypes his lies. Why do you do what Rush Limbaugh does?
Rush totally misrepresents what another says, then he aquaints that person with Hilary. And no I do not know Hilary nor did I ever vote for her. Just dispelling another Rush type accusation before it too is posted.
Even by stripping down what was posted into black and white, no where is there anything that even comes close to "Israel, and the Arab conflict [is] the fault of the US". We should be discussing the merits of UTs post - and not misrepresenting other posts with fictional interpretations. The point was that some misrepresent reality by condensing everything into 'good verses evil', 'black verses white', etc.
For example, UT continuously avoids all discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood - as if it did not exist and was not relevant. This he must do to reinterprete all parties into either 'good or evil'. This he had to do to blame Saddam for terrorism in the US. This is how he justifies the evil Arabs verses the good Christians and their allies the righteous Jews.
This 'good verses evil' rationalization is also how Nazis promoted hate - to justify using propaganda the invasions of other sovereign nations. What other nation would be so evil as to invade and occupy another nation only on lies, myths, and radio talk show host propaganda? Hummm.... Lets see. Japan for most of WWII. North Korea against South Korea. USSR against Afghanistan. Indonesia against E Timor. America against Vietnam. Iraq against Kuwait. There must be a most recent example of such evil. What could it be?
All this ties into the mess we are all in now. All of these factors, mixed with the basic greed and averest of the United States has landed us here, its pure and simple really.
Do you mean avarice?
tw, just a quick note... I've been an atheist all my life. Wanted to make that one clear.
I would love to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and I hope I don't "avoid" discussion of anything.
Most of what you've attributed to me was quoted text. Thanks.
I hope I don't "avoid" discussion of anything.
Izatso. :lol:
What other nation would be so evil as to invade and occupy another nation only on lies, myths, and radio talk show host propaganda? Hummm.... Lets see. Japan for most of WWII.
I don't follow this at all. The Jap military had an agenda which they took as far as they could with Hirohito's blessing. The civilian population had no say in the matter whatsoever. They weren't even allowed to question why. :confused:
tw, just a quick note... I've been an atheist all my life. Wanted to make that one clear.
Actually, I tried to raise a discussion about religion and pagan beliefs long ago in another thread. No one wanted to bite.
I am not an atheist. But I am not a Muslim, Christian, or Jew in the conventional sense. My problem with all these religions. They all have the same pagan worship that was problematic with Greek and Roman religions.
If a god has a will, then a god is only human. A real god is not on anyone's side. Pagan religions have problems with this concept. Pagan religions need to see everything in 'good and evil'.
These concepts - their religions and mine - should be no problem as long as these pagan religions don't forget their purpose. Religion is only a relationship between one person and his god. Anytime that relationship is imposed on any other person, then that religion has then become satanic worship.
I suspect that concept is too new, too different, or too threatening for others. But then I am not trying to impose religious beliefs on anyone else.
However, that is not true of the Muslim Brotherhood which in many ways is very much like the worst Zionists and is now proclaimed by right wing religious American fundamental Christians. So are all these religions united to attack me? Of course not. That would be interpreting the world as George Jr sees it.
Take this same line of reasoning further. Who should we now blame for creating the Israel Arab problem? There is no black and white viewpoint. However, "blame tw. He is clearly a threat because he is not of our religion." If I saw everything in black and white, then I would have to expect 'them' to all think just that. The Arab Israeli problem is more found in intolerance - a concept that the great Middle East writer Kahlil Gibran exposed.
There is no good and evil, per say. There are numerous parties all with different prespectives. Difficult to explain to a nation (America) who sees Al Qaeda everywhere and that is now so contrary to what Gibran wrote. If it is a Muslim fundamentalist, then it must be Al Qaeda? Again reality is far more complex. Insurgents in Iraq are not Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has come and has probably gone. This is more the nature of Muslim Brotherhood. To better understand the Arab world, assume that Al Qaeda no longer exists and but another branch of the Muslim Brotherhood has risen to attack the enemies of Islam. And in a few years they will be replaced by others.
Ever wonder why Americans have so much trouble understanding the Arab world and its insurgencies? Americans want to see everything as if all were a common enemy. Does not work that way. Muslim Brotherhood or Wanahabism is not a fixed entity. There is no single enemy. At best, we are trying to attack a concept. A concept we call Al Qaeda - so that we can explain it all only in black and white; good and evil. Unfortunately, by attacking the concept, we threaten the religion and only make more enemies. Ever try to punch out a ghost? This is the problem with the George Jr war on terror. There is no terrorist to attack. Just a lot of insurgents mostly created by America. That is the problem with attacking something you don't understand - be it trying to impose democracy on people not interested or trying to wipe out the VietCong in Vietnam. A military war cannot be won against a concept. Maybe readers of Mao might better explain this. Even King George of 1775 England also made the same mistake.
We never first learned why the enemy existed. We foolishly think we were winning a war because we won every battle. One cannot win a war if one does not first properly define the "enemy". In Vietnam, we were doomed to lose because "we met the enemy and he was us". Without first understanding what the Muslim, Arab, Iranian, etc people want, then we are as doomed as Britian was in India and Afghanistan.
There is no fixed enemy in the Muslim world unless we create it. However we are creating more ghostly enemies every week in Iraq. Just like in Vietnam, they are enemies of our creation for numerous reasons - including our religious biases and some god forsaken need to impose democracy on people who do not (yet) want democracy.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]
Just so we're all on the same page.[/FONT]
re·li·gion n.
1- a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
....b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Idiom: get religion, Informal
To become religious or devout.
To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.
If a god has a will, then a god is only human.
This seems to conflict with 1a where god is considered "governor of the universe". If you're saying humans have a will, therefore if a god has a will that god is only human, your premise is flawed. There is no reason to believe that a human can't also have an attribute that a god has.
Pagan religions have problems with this concept. Pagan religions need to see everything in 'good and evil'.
Are you refering to Christians, Jews and Muslims as Pagan religions? Because of the number of people on this board that consider themselves Pagans
instead of the "Big 3", we should define them separately.
Religion is only a relationship between one person and his god. Anytime that relationship is imposed on any other person, then that religion has then become satanic worship.
Here again, Satanic worship is a religion worshipping a particular deity.
One person and his god? See "institutionalized" in definition 1b.
If I believe my god is "considered governor of the universe", then he/she is your god too, you just don't know it. This is where the big problem lies. How much effort should I expend to make you aware that you are under my god's juristiction.
Extreme Christians are prone to converting the heathens "up 'side the head". The Mormons go so far as to baptize long dead forbearers.
Extreme Muslims don't seem to want to convert the heathens, they appear to feel that if you haven't figured it out yet there's no hope, so they just cut your head off.
Extreme Jews don't seem to want to convert anybody. They just want everyone else to get out of town before they slam a stinger air-to-ground, up your butt.
The Arab Israeli problem is more found in intolerance
Absolutely....I'd take that thought further......global. :thumbsup:
Difficult to explain to a nation (America) who sees Al Qaeda everywhere
The press seems to use Al Qaeda, terrorists and boogie man, interchangeably. Rather than getting into the nuances of this group or that sub-group, they lump them together under "bad guys" for public consumption. I've seen this in the past and assumed the people I employ to handle such threats (US Gumint) would break it down further for analysis. I think I was wrong. :o
Ever wonder why Americans have so much trouble understanding the Arab world and its insurgencies? Americans want to see everything as if all were a common enemy.
When I'm out and about, if something bites me I swat it. I could get out my field guide to insects and figure out just what it was but I'd rather kill it and grunt "bug bad". I also accept that no matter how many I kill there will always be more.
The same goes for terrorists, in there will always be groups that have a grievance (real or imagined) against me or just need an enemy (me) as an organizational tool. "Hey guys, forget you're living in ignorance and squalor, god wants us the attack "The Great Satan".
At best, we are trying to attack a concept. A concept we call Al Qaeda - so that we can explain it all only in black and white; good and evil. Unfortunately, by attacking the concept, we threaten the religion and only make more enemies.
Yes, we're attacking a concept and yes, we lump it under Al Qaeda, but I don't agree that we are threatening the religion by attacking those groups that have avowed the US to be the enemy and taken up arms against us. I don't agree with Bush's war but that doesn't mean I don't want to crush any group that wants to attack us. Reasons and nuances be damned, make them understand that attacking the USA is
NOT one of the viable options in solving their problems.
One cannot win a war if one does not first properly define the "enemy".
In this case "the enemy" is in constant flux, try to define it and it will change before you're done. I'm afraid we'll have to settle for anyone that (ideally)plans or (practically)trys to attack us.
they are enemies of our creation for numerous reasons - including our religious biases and some god forsaken need to impose democracy on people who do not (yet) want democracy.
Yes, agreed. :beer:
hey bruce, not to suck up or anything, but that is possibly the best post i've ever seen in the cellar. you discussed, refuted, agreed, and explained using facts, without becoming snide or personal. good job. i think this post should be used as the poster child for Quality Posting 2005 .
Many Pagans may actually have a harder time with the concept of "good" and "evil" than most Christians.
Christians and Jews have a nice, easily codified, set of 10 basic behavioral rules, as well as someone to blame when you stray from them. Notice, blame here is externalized ... "The Devil Made Me Do It."
I know that all Christians and Jews are not so simplistic in their understanding, but I'm personally just amused as all get out by people who profess such belief in Free Will and then don't accept the same responsibility for doing "bad" things as they do "good." When was the last time you heard some Christian donate to charity, or provide some other good samaritanly act and exclaim "God made me do it! ... Nope. They made the choice to do good, but the Devil made them sin.
Anyway, where was I going with this? Oh yeah, a lot of folks in the pagan and new age communities (there's overlap in those two factions, but not 100%) approach life, morality, and ethics in a very naive fashion. El will likely agree in my assessment of the Fluffy Bunny types ... they don't even accept or acknowledge the existence of or concept of evil. By pretending it's not there, it will just go away and we can all be sweet happy, loving people together forever and ever, and golly weren't things so much better before the xtians conquered all of Europe?
To address another of TW's statements ... pagans are more likely to "humanize" their godforms than most christians. For us the Gods play a real and active part in our lives rather than representing an unattainable (or difficulty attainable) ideal like the Christian God or Jesus.
... and golly weren't things so much better before the xtians conquered all of Europe?
Kids are fun and entertaining for different reasons at different stages in their lives. [Yes, this will connect up in a moment]
One of the things I like about the current phase is that my kids are getting old enough to be studying more interesting stuff. And since I'm the one who helps them study for tests, I get to remember how all this stuff works. The oldest is getting into algebra and both are studying some neat stuff in science.
But the stuff I'm finding the most fun is their social studies. The youngest just finished working through the Tigris/Euphrates "cradle of civilization" stuff. The more I read about early history, the more convinced I am that the whole of history from hunter/gather to yesterday's newspaper is one big long power struggle.
It's comic in a way. Once we discovered/developed farming we had more time. And so we had time to develop the arts -- and tools of war.
It's comic in a way. Once we discovered/developed farming we had more time. And so we had time to develop the arts -- and tools of war.
And turf to defend, half the flight or fight choice was essentially removed. :yelsick:
hey bruce, not to suck up or anything, but that is possibly the best post i've ever seen in the cellar. you discussed, refuted, agreed, and explained using facts, without becoming snide or personal. good job. i think this post should be used as the poster child for Quality Posting 2005 .
Yeah, well fuck you, what the hell do you know you dumb........ :lol2:
Seriously though, thank you. I have great respect for TW, even if we don't always agree. I'd be embarrassed to say how long it took me because I don't type and can't spell and still had to do two edits for spelling and grammer. :blush:
But the stuff I'm finding the most fun is their social studies. The youngest just finished working through the Tigris/Euphrates "cradle of civilization" stuff. The more I read about early history, the more convinced I am that the whole of history from hunter/gather to yesterday's newspaper is one big long power struggle.
I'm reading Joseph Campbell's
Transformations of Myth Through Time It covers history, religion and art in one illustrated, readable book. It might help you tie it all together.
It's comic in a way. Once we discovered/developed farming we had more time. And so we had time to develop the arts -- and tools of war.
Science is a leisure activity. Romans, chinese, greeks, egyptians, etc all developed a leisure class who didn't have to work for their food and could devote time to broadening perspectives. You have to conquer to make time for thinking, so to speak.
You have to conquer to make time for thinking, so to speak.
I don't read it that way. It's farming and division of labor that creates leisure time. More than one early culture had developed arts and so forth, but didn't have the inclination for war. Then, BAM. Here come the Assyrians, or whoever, that used their leisure time to create chariots and bronze weapons.
They must have made better beer. :)
I don't read it that way. It's farming and division of labor that creates leisure time. More than one early culture had developed arts and so forth, but didn't have the inclination for war. Then, BAM. Here come the Assyrians, or whoever, that used their leisure time to create chariots and bronze weapons.
I guess I should have fleshed out the point better, sorry. The conquering cultures are the ones that end up with the time I think would be a better way of putting it. I think that the vital spark that makes a culture go to war is also going to make a culture attempt to conquer in other venues as well.
I think that the vital spark that makes a culture go to war is also going to make a culture attempt to conquer in other venues as well.
That's a bit of a leap. And I don't think I buy it.
i don't know how it could be proven empirically, but it does make some sense. *reminder, my view of the world is that man is in perpetual conflict* societies that promote and encourage competition (conflict) do generally achieve greater achievements within their culture and that could potentially spill over into the relations with neighboring cultures.
interesting. that really is the argument of capitalism vs. socialism.
I think it would be easier to make a case for Fundies or people from colder climes being aggressive. :eyebrow:
Bruce has a point on Northern peoples. With the diaspora of the human race from warmer regions of the world to colder regions, the quest for resources has driven tension between peoples. Peoples in northern climates have tended to develop more technologies and industries to support life in regions that at best, may have only seasonal agricultural harvests. With the spread of humanity to almost all regions of the world, regionalism has become an issue. Herein lies a major paradox for the concept of globalism.
According to Montisque, regions have certain characteristics that filter to the inhabitants of these regions. Each region has it's pros and cons, including some regions that have only cons. In many instances man has made previously useless tracts of land valuble due to ingenity, progress, and technology. For example, many semi-artic regions and colder temperate regions host industry. Here only man made structures and devices can make these regions thrive and give way to development and settlement. With this in mind, these developments do not supply all that is needed for survial. Large foodstuffs, and other resources from more temperate areas are necessary for these settlements to persist. Accordingly, in many cases certain fuels only found in certain parts of the earth can maintaing the technologies that these settelment subsist on. It's a recipe for disaster when you throw in global capitalism. There are regions that strife other regions on there own products and agricultural goods for there own well being. Local workers and economies that create the goods get very little of what they create. Although the province of global capitalism is world wide, non of the parts of the sum are ever truly equal, or recieve equal treatment. This is where trouble arises. Mix this with information and communication exchange, and resentment breeds conflict and hatred. It's a reciipe for disaster, and has the world teterng on destruction.
-Walrus
Although the province of global capitalism is world wide, non of the parts of the sum are ever truly equal, or recieve equal treatment. This is where trouble arises. Mix this with information and communication exchange, and resentment breeds conflict and hatred. It's a reciipe for disaster, and has the world teterng on destruction
What you are really describing are markets that are not efficient. The enemies of globalization advocate such inefficient markets. In an efficient market, salt that is worth more than gold in Africa is provided by Northern regions - where salt is so cheap as to be thrown everywhere. A solution to the salt shortage in Africa is only possible with globalization.
But here is where it all breaks down. Tell me how much foreign aid the US *actually* puts out into the real world. Virtually the entire civilized world can see the US really provides no effective aid. For example the US government spent maybe $1/2 billion on the Ethiopian drought. But how much did we actually provide in aid? About $4million. Most of that money went to buying consultants, transporting emergency foodstuff, and other last minute stopgaps that never really addressed the problems. Consultants went there, came back, gave $multi-million reports. What changed? Then when Congressman see so little accomplished, they just wildly assume money must have been totally wasted on corruption.
Reality is that most US aid is channeled for the benefits of American corporations, military aid, emergency transport after neglect has let a minor problem fester, Congressional pork, AND - this is the damning part - to countries such as Turkey and Israel. Israel, if I remember the numbers, gets more US aid then entire Africa (excluding Egypt).
The US asked for foreign assistance to rebuilt Iraq. Other civilized nations went to the meeting? How much did the US demand (and yes we demanded - not asked)? If I remember the number - $20billion. More money to rebuild an oil rich nation than the entire foreign aid to Africa excluding Egypt. Where is the world interest - which is therefore America's long term interests? Zero. Again, are you part of the solution - or did you also not hear this news story?
Why does globalization get a bad name? You tell me. How much did you know about the above numbers. Those who subjectively blame globalization distort or even completely avoid the numbers. Everyone just knows - facts and numbers be damned? Where does globalization get a bad name.
Jeffry Sachs on Charlie Rose repeatedly demonstrated this problem but again. Again because outside of America, US foreign aid all but does not exist. Do you remember when Bono and Sec of Treasury O'Neill went to Africa? They identified a major accomplishment that could have been solved with less than $1million. When he came back to Washington, the distain among President Cheney and his staff was blunt and obvious. Such solutions are not in America's interest. Where is the pork? Nation building is anti-American. Instead we just invade a nation - and the people welcome democracy with open arms? We the people are so naive as to even believe lies about WMD. Then when the lies don't pan out, we then blame globalization?
We Americans are so insulated, so ill informed, and so decieved by Rush Limbaugh propaganda as to not even see what virtually the entire civilized world complains about. America only does things for its own short term, self serving interests. Deny it. You tell me where the American government solves problems before they fester. This means bad, long term consequences for America. Worse, America has become massively less cooperative in solving world problems only in the last four years. If we cannot solve it by blowing up something, then it is not worth solving? This is what give globalization a bad name. Ignorance so widespread in the American public.
Recently, the South East Asian countries are again trying to form new trade organization to replace ASEAN with only one intent - to eliminate the US. In the past four years, the US repeatedly stifles what most other nations in that trade group agree they want to accomplish. Another example: how the US (and France) intentionally stifled free trade in agriculture in the famous Cancun conference .... Well you tell me what happened in that conference? If was major news in virutally every other nation - including Mexico and Canada. Do you know what happened? Do you understand why that has created massive inefficiencies in the market? Do you have any idea what is happening outside of America? Do you appreciate how much anti-American hostility is forming - not because of globalization.
This is a fact. When it comes to providing aid with the intent of advancing the world (and therefore long term American interests), America provides about as close to zero as we could. Where are all these new technologies that could have made land in Darfur fertile enough to grow crops? It exists. It is quite old and well proven. Left are people without jobs and easily recruited by extremists. You want to eat in Darfur, then join vigulantees.
History has proven this fact often. In Thailand, for example, all communist insurgency was eliminated - by enabling people to run profitable businesses in exportable products. Provided was how to catch fish - not provide fish after millions die in a famine. Did your news sources of the 1970s and 1980s tell you this? Why not.
Give people the ability to grow crops and they have little reason to kill and murder. Either thing done so that they can eat - either grow crops or murder. But that means basic technology and knowledge must be provided to regions such as Darfur. That means access to and development of clean fresh water sources must be provided. American government now does nothing to avert any upcoming disasters.
It is a point made so fundamental in the famous book "The Ugly American". So what do we provide? A new highway that employs American corporations. This is where globalization breaks down. Mules and barefoot humans don't need a highway. They need fresh water. They need the jobs that make the water supplies and other capital improvements. They don't need employees of the American highway corporation. Globalization works - if the participants have basic knowledge. If they understand what the other continent's problems are.
Globalization works when a northern country learns what the African country needs - salt. Its called efficient markets. It requires informed people in that northern country. A misguided northern country may instead send consultants, build a highway, send Apache helicopters, forgive a debt that should have never existed in the first place, and then send potassium (because potassium is also a salt). IOW ignorance - not globalization - is the problem. That is what America calls foreign aid.
Actually, I tried to raise a discussion about religion and pagan beliefs long ago in another thread. No one wanted to bite.
I am not an atheist. But I am not a Muslim, Christian, or Jew in the conventional sense. My problem with all these religions. They all have the same pagan worship that was problematic with Greek and Roman religions.
Having raise a concept far too large for this thread, I have instead continued this discussion in the Philosophy group at
Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism. Warning: I have maybe written too much more than I originally intended. Its a religion disucssion. You know how they can grow.