The shape of things to come

[Sand]

I don't see it is our right to interfere the workings of another nation regardless if it is good or ill, just as much that other nations have no right to interfere with us.

 

Just to recap, in the last few weeks you[ve argued in favour of:

 

1) The treatment of defeated enemies according to the principles of the Treaty of Versailles.

 

2) Ignoring crimes against humanity.

 

3) Opposition to the principles of the Marshall plan

 

4) A general stance of isolationism

 

Is that a fair summary? And if so, can we assume that you therefore would like to see the United States wither to an appendix, her friends desert her, and her enemies be encouraged?

 

No, not isolation. I say we keep trade relations open and commerce. Also what friends? The only "friend" that is left is Great Britain in case you haven't noticed thanks to Bush. As for our enemies being encouraged, have you seen Iraq and Afganistan lately? Al Qaeda is making a major comeback, the civil war in Iraq is getting worse, and Iran are now taking soldiers from other nations. I think our enemies are quite encouraged, thank you very much.

 

If we just focused on the nation that actually attacked us, Afganistan, and focused on Al Qaeda and not invade Iraq, you know... "staying the course" we wouldn't be in the shape we are now.

Edited March 25, 2007 by Sand

[Guard Dog]

and Iran are now taking soldiers from other nations.

 

For which bombs should be falling on Tehran right now. Since when was kidnapping uniformed citizens of a sovereign nation not an act of war?

[Sand]

Well, they were in contested borders and on Iran's side without permission.

[Guard Dog]

Well, they were in contested borders and on Iran's side without permission.

Factually incorrect according to CNN and the AP. Either way, Iran knows exactly what it is doing. If they are not punished for this, next time will be worse. They are doing exactly what Saddam did by publicly funding suicide bombers and shooting at NATO planes in the no-fly zone. They are pushing the envelope and testing resolve. They think the west is weak. Stammerring, hesitating, hand-wringing, going to the UN, these are all signs of weakness to them and it will only embolden them. Trust me, they understand only one thing, violence. You repay force with overwhelming force. It will have to be done sooner or later. Might as well get on with it.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

Well, this is between Great Britain and Iran. If Bush decides to do a military action against Iran he is even more stupid than he looks. Its bad enough he got us in a two front war.

[Guard Dog]

Well, this is between Great Britain and Iran. If Bush decides to do a military action against Iran he is even more stupid than he looks. Its bad enough he got us in a two front war.

If Britain goes, we go. I would not advise a ground camping but a prolonged air campaign will achieve the same ends. I don't like it either. I thought the Iraq invasion was a mistake, but done is done. If you are in for a penny, you need to go in for a pound. I know you want to drop the whole mess and pull out now, but if we do, we'll be back after the next 9-11. Remember what I told you before, when we were packing up to leave in 1991 everyone I spoke to agreed we would have to come back and finish the job one day.

[Volourn]

"Isn't that what has happened anyway with the overly-aggressive intervention in Iraq?"

 

Encouraged them to do what? What exctly has the US encouraged their enmies since the Iraq War/ Say mean things to them?

 

 

"The only "friend" that is left is Great Britain in case you haven't noticed thanks to Bush."

 

O RLY? You are wrong. the US still has LOTS of friends including amongst them are GB, Kanada, Australia, France, Japan, South Korea. They have tons more too.

 

 

"Al Qaeda is making a major comeback,"

 

Define major. I doubt tyhis is true. Youa r elikely mistyaking AQ with the Taliban. Two completely different groups, and the Taliban aren't making a major comeback. Just a harder push likely out of desperation.

 

" the civil war in Iraq is getting worse,"

 

It couldn't be worse than what it wa sunder Saddam hussein. R00fles!

 

 

" and Iran are now taking soldiers from other nations. "

 

Which has little to do with the Iraq War or the US.

 

 

"Well, this is between Great Britain and Iran."

 

GB is an ally. If they go to war, likley both our countries (US and Kanada) will join them. That's what friends do.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Volourn

[theslug]

America is the greatest nation in the world and our leaders are infallible. We should be able to do anything we want because we can. Who is say that we are wrong when we are far superior to any country out there besides Japan? God Bless America!

Edited March 26, 2007 by theslug

[Walsingham]

I think that's yaki-soba unless it's a Okinawan twist on it. I could use an Asahi or three though.

Right there with you.

... her friends desert her, and her enemies be encouraged?

Isn't that what has happened anyway with the overly-aggressive intervention in Iraq? The US had broad support and/or acceptance for its attack on Afghanistan, which it had squandered by the time it invaded Iraq. The US promised it wouldn't let Afghanistan degenerate into a tribal mess, yet for many places it did so. Some of us who opposed the Iraq war did so because the US has form.

 

A fine point, if I may say so. Although I should observe that the principle failure in AF has been a lack of humanitarian funds, rather than an absence of military personnel. Something which ALL nations are guilty of not just the USA. Made all the more uninitelligible when the amounts missing are so small - barely 600 million. If that aid had been extant we would now be well on the way to seeing a stable AF rather than seeing it turning nasty again.

 

However, a measured and sensible intervention strategy is not what our esteemed colleague is arguing in favour of. My understanding is that he is arguing for an entirely partial strategy more akin to that of a crotchety old man in a woodland cabin than the most powerful nation on Earth.

 

As for turning friends away I should disagree after much reflection. Certainly it has alienated certain countries, like Germany, France, and Russia. But I have reached the conclusion that they were never true friends in the first place. France showed its anti-US fervour at every opportunity in the commercial and military sectors. Russia has Vladimir Putin. While Germany seems intent on cementing an Eastern European bloc in direct competition with the US.

 

Conversely, events since 2001 have shown Americaa developing a new clique of friends more willing to back it up. Poland, Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea being some of them.

 

~~

 

As for the missing marines and sailors my thoughts are with them etc etc. However, war is a terrible thing and I would prefer the govt to continue jawing for a while yet before we start throwing bombs at people. This strikes me as pure brinksmanship by Iran looking for chips to play so that Britain wil quit backing anti-nuclear sanctions. Something which might not have happened had Russia not expressed opposition to the notion of serious sanctions being used.

[Sand]

However, a measured and sensible intervention strategy is not what our esteemed colleague is arguing in favour of. My understanding is that he is arguing for an entirely partial strategy more akin to that of a crotchety old man in a woodland cabin than the most powerful nation on Earth.

 

The only sensible intervention strategy is not to intervene unless the citizenry, on US soil, and sovereignty of the United States of America are directly threatened by another nation. That means we do not interfere militarily or humanitarily with that nation. We conduct trade to get goods we need from them, and to sell goods that nation needs or wants. We can give favored trade status to nations who are poor and have developing markets but no money for nothing. For those who are our allies we will give logistic support, but not military support unless the threat they face has proven themselves a threat to the US as stated above. Those who have proven to be a threat needs to be neutralized so they can never be a threat to the US again, period. We protect our own first and foremost.

 

Also we should create a legitmized guest worker program for foreigners who simply wish to work in the US but not live within it on a permanent basis. This program would be fully taxable for basis of income taxes and must abide by all current wage laws.

 

I am not saying we should become hermits, but be responsible to our own people first. All that money going into Iraq should be used to help the states affected by Katrina or other disasters here in the US.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

Firstly, if you think your economy would be as strong as it is if you weren't 'intruding' all the time in other countries you're bananas. This is the real world and not to sound all gung-ho but it does play hard ball. You build alliances, you trade favours, you threaten, and sometimes you intervene. To use a comedy quote:

 

"Fran: Do you know that in Tibet when they want something they give something away?

Bernard: Do they? That must be why they're such a dominant global power. "

 

I'm not saying you couldn't be more equitable and a bit less power crazed. But if you abandoned the aproach entirely the world would be dominated by someone else who used it.

 

And as for Katrina I think it's been well established that the problem was firstly Washington treating Lousiana in precisely the way you advocate -"Use your own damn money and stop expecting handouts". And secondly a total failure of emergency planning and management. Neither of which was for a lack of available funds due to Iraq.

[Sand]

I advocate such policies toward foreign nations, not for our own citizens Walsh, or haven't you notice. We need to take care of our own people instead of foriegn nationals.

 

You just don't get or you just don't give a damn. As long as we are footing the bills on parasites such as Israel, iraq, Afganistan we will be weak. Hell, right now China has more resources and more economically stable than the US. Hell, we owe them money. There is something terribly wrong with that.

 

Of course you either don't get it that it is wrong or just don't give a crap, Walsh. We are not the most powerful nation in the world. To think that we are is to be delusional.

Edited March 26, 2007 by Sand

[Atreides]

Even if you want to have a purely business/trade relationship you'll be involved in politics. Look at China cutting deals with Russia, Venezuela, Africa, Iran over energy/oil. They expect China to cover them when the need arises and that's precisely what China and Russia have been doing with respect to Iran.

[Sand]

Politics is fine. Over-extending our resources in a useless two front war is not.

[taks]

Hell, right now China has more resources and more economically stable than the US. Hell, we owe them money. There is something terribly wrong with that.

actually, no, china does not have more resources and they certainly aren't more economically stable. they may be growing faster, but they're not more stable. heck, the recent turbulence in the US stock market is attributed to fears about china's unstable economy. duh.

 

and "hell, we owe them money" is a joke: everybody owes everybody. the US has more outstanding loans to the world that it'll never see payment on than you can ever imagine.

 

taks

[Sand]

Which is why we need to stop taking and giving loans. Pay up what we owe and make those who owe us pay up.

[Walsingham]

Which is why we need to stop taking and giving loans. Pay up what we owe and make those who owe us pay up.

 

You're being desperately naive about who you owe the money to. You're too old to be taking this kind of grade school approach to serious issues. And even if you aren't I know you're far too smart to be so simplistic. Tell me you honestly think the World is as simple as you're saying.

 

Irrespective, why on Earth are you so hot for your 'own' people. Why give a damn about some folks in South Carolina? or Hawaii? Hell, the Uk is probably closer. Does that mean we should expect handouts? I don't believe in no borders, but are you saying that your responsibilities begin and end with whatever nonsense the international comunity has agreed are the borders in 2007? Take the Uk for example. Certainly we have well established national boundaries, but we have long standing and perfectly sensible ties to Australia, Canada, Nigeria, and other commonwealth countries.

[Sand]

Why give a damn about South Carolina or Hawaii? That should be simple enough for you to understand. They are Americans. The US government needs to stop putting other countries first and turn its responsibility here at home. Here we are using billions and billions and billions of our tax money for the benefit of another nation half across the world yet at the same time we have millions of children without adequate healthcare here at home.

 

Who should be more important to the US government?

 

Some non-citizen half across the world in a nation in the grips of civil war or an American child. A child died because his mother could not afford to take him to the dentist and couldn't get aid she needed at the same time we can build hospitals ansd schools in another nation. If you seriously cannot see what is wrong with that then there is no point in discussing this issue with you any longer.

Edited March 27, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

It isn't simple. It's arbitrary. You won a war way back you got those states. If you want to go to brass tacks you should abnegate all responsibility west of Connecticut. Hell, why not give up on the Americas entirely and come back to Blighty?

 

Basically I'm saying you can't take a utilitarian view and say nuts to the rest of the World, and you can't take a moral view and say nuts to the rest of the World. If this isn't true help me out and explain how. Because frankly it sounds like your objective function is heroic levels of apathy.

[Sand]

What I am saying that the US government primary responsibility is to its own people, the people who it governs, the people who pay the taxes to keep it running. The needs of the US people need to come first. The Bush Administration is a failure in that regard. We need to be as self sufficient as possible and make sure the needs of our own citizenry are fulfilled. You just do not get that, do you. What other nations do and don't do within their borders is not our problem. If they want to make it our problem and attack the US then we should respond with 10 times the force, then leave.

 

It is obviously that you are just too thick to understand why a government should give priority to its own citizens, and you are in very good and large company. That is probably why the world is so ****ed up today.

[theslug]

I think the catch with giving foreign aid is that the money isn't exactly free. They have to spend the money we give only on services and products from us, so the money is somewhat funneled back to the U.S through businesses that do the work or provide the products they want. I could be wrong but I think I remember a teacher of mine saying that. Anyways politics suck.

[Walsingham]

What I am saying that the US government primary responsibility is to its own people, the people who it governs, the people who pay the taxes to keep it running. The needs of the US people need to come first. The Bush Administration is a failure in that regard. We need to be as self sufficient as possible and make sure the needs of our own citizenry are fulfilled. You just do not get that, do you. What other nations do and don't do within their borders is not our problem. If they want to make it our problem and attack the US then we should respond with 10 times the force, then leave.

 

It is obviously that you are just too thick to understand why a government should give priority to its own citizens, and you are in very good and large company. That is probably why the world is so ****ed up today.

 

No, you're taking too narrow a concept of how that wellbeing arises. Things like keeping the global economy on an even keel, ensuring fareign hostile powers don't become a military threat, global diseases like AIDS. These things don't stop to wipe their feet at the line the taxes start getting paid. US predominance has come about precsiely because as the UK started doing what you advocate the US stepped up to assume the reins.

[Sand]

No, you're taking too narrow a concept of how that wellbeing arises. Things like keeping the global economy on an even keel, ensuring fareign hostile powers don't become a military threat, global diseases like AIDS. These things don't stop to wipe their feet at the line the taxes start getting paid. US predominance has come about precsiely because as the UK started doing what you advocate the US stepped up to assume the reins.

 

Did I say that we should stop trading with other countries? No. Did I say that we shouldn't defend ourselves against hostile nations? No. Did I say that we shouldn't find cures for diseases that plague us? No.

 

When a nation attacks us, then we should attack in full force as quickly and as efficiently in a way that nation can never harm us again. The US has the most powerful and technologically advance military in the world and so far we have used it with one arm tied behind our backs. Those who attack us deserve our full fury and no mercy. Those who just spout empty rhetoric should be ignored.

 

In any case Iraq was not our problem. Saddam had no way to harm US Citizens on US soil. The UN had him contained. The only threat he was to anyone was his own people, therefore their problem. I say good on the Democrats on forcing the issue of pulling our troops out and I hope they do not back down from the president who has abused his power for far too long.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

I advocate such policies toward foreign nations, not for our own citizens Walsh, or haven't you notice. We need to take care of our own people instead of foriegn nationals.

 

You just don't get or you just don't give a damn. As long as we are footing the bills on parasites such as Israel, iraq, Afganistan we will be weak. Hell, right now China has more resources and more economically stable than the US. Hell, we owe them money. There is something terribly wrong with that.

 

Of course you either don't get it that it is wrong or just don't give a crap, Walsh. We are not the most powerful nation in the world. To think that we are is to be delusional.

 

 

Which is why we need to stop taking and giving loans. Pay up what we owe and make those who owe us pay up.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

Your understanding of economics is hi-freaking-larious.

 

 

Anyways, carry on everyone.

[Sand]

Then, oh great one, explain how owing and being owed money on a constant and uneven basis is a good thing. Please enlighten me.

 

A few years back the US was borrowing on average $665 Billion annually from foreign lenders. That is on average about $5,500 a year per household. I just don't have $5,500 just laying about to pay for this yearly acquired debt, Alanschu. With some of this debt being owed to potentially hostile nations such as China and with our economy stagnating I think it is a very much a bad idea to continue this course. Along with the growing trade deficit in many markets we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign interests. That is a bit of bad thing.

 

"The United States Government: Sponsered by China" is definitely something I would not want to see.

Edited March 28, 2007 by Sand