# Admit it!



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

You know you're not "supposed to", but you really like 'W' and Cheney. You might not even know why.

It's 'ok' it's a secret poll. No one will know :icon_smile:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

While I have not been a big fan of either one's performance in office, they were still better than the alternative, IMO.

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> While I have not been a big fan of either one's performance in office, they were still better than the alternative, IMO.
> 
> Cruiser


Damn! We totally agree on something!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> While I have not been a big fan of either one's performance in office, they were still better than the alternative, IMO.
> 
> Cruiser


Yes, to clarify, one may like them and not be thrilled with the job they are doing 100% of the time. I'm mostly testing the "Bush-hate" per se.

I think Cheney is just the coolest old dude.

I also liked Rumsfeld and I thought he got a raw deal for a screwed up State Deptartment (Powell, Condi, Bremmer & Co.). The new guy, Amb. Crocker, seems competent.

I'm also starting to appreciate Bill Clinton a little more each day. Sometimes just for putting up with that woman. Sheesh.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I'm starting to gain affection for Bill myself, his behavior recently not withstanding. But Bush & Co(who I voted for) I dislike more and more everyday.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

During a Today Show interview a few weeks back Cheney was asked about polls and opposition to our involvement in Iraq. His response was "so". 

How can you not love and admire a guy like that!


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

*Sure*

In the same way one can admire Nixon -- it's amazing what can happen when people with an agenda and the reins of power institute their will. At some point you have to sit back and appreciate it.

Hubris of course, was their ruin.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*World is an uncomfortable place, right now.*

Many problems in the world that seem to be insoluble, at the moment.

We have never experienced: an attack on our homeland, that was worse than Pearl Harbor; nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people; an economy with new challenges every day; continuing racial divides in our country, when many of us thought that things were getting better, etc.

The tendency is to say that our leadership should just make these problems go away so that we could get back to an Ozzie and Harriet lifestyle. Probably won't happen.

It is quite fashionable to blame the administration for not fixing all of this, and bringing back $1.00 a gallon gas, while they are at it.

The administration proposed a fix for social security, with the invitation for the other party to submit their own proposal. No counter proposal, no negotiation. Policy of the loyal opposition: "Bush $ucks". Main stream media has been successful in selling this to the public for 8 years.

Soon, we will get to see how a probable Obama administration, and a filibuster proof Congress are able to deal with these issues.

Chances are, that the current administration won't look so bad in a couple of years, after sharply higher marginal tax rates, vast increases in government intervention, protectionist trade policies, handling terrorists through the criminal justice system, and a Carteresque foreign policy of cowardly appeasement.

That may all work out for the good of the republic, we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> During a Today Show interview a few weeks back Cheney was asked about polls and opposition to our involvement in Iraq. His response was "so".
> 
> How can you not love and admire a guy like that!


I can. He's a thug. (Most of my heroes used to be like that, when I was a punk.) Just what this world requires these days to sort it out.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

You would have to search a long time to find a more corrupt and incompetent administration than this one. Harding? Grant? I don't think even they make it. No, every collection of individuals has to have a worst member, and Bush-Cheney is it.

On the other hand, David Goodman, Amy Goodman's brother, who lives here in Vermont, gave a talk at our local library called "Why I love Dick Cheney". You can read more about it here:


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Intrepid said:


> Many problems in the world that seem to be insoluble, at the moment.
> 
> We have never experienced: an attack on our homeland, that was worse than Pearl Harbor; nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people; an economy with new challenges every day; continuing racial divides in our country, when many of us thought that things were getting better, etc.
> 
> ...


You say you want solutions from the loyal opposition, what are your supposed solutions, my friend?

I don't think that talking to people = weakness. I think that is a worse canard than "Cut and Run." And "Appeasers" with a big red 'no' symbol around it fits on a bumper sticker just as well.

I think you'll see a slight tax increase on the top of the bracket, a slight lowering in the middle of the bracket, and no change to the bottom.

Maybe the estate tax phase out will be allowed to sunset, but remember, most of your Reps and Sens care much more about being re-elected than they do about "fixing" America. There are a few thirds rails at work, and I really almost admire Bush and Co. for pigeon holing the opposition so well on these issues (tax hikes, Iraq, etc)


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I tried to give W the benefit of the doubt early on, defending him quite frequently and even supporting the reasoning behind Iraq. But as time wore on and their true colors became clear I simply couldn't stand up for the Administration's bad policy, lack of competence, obscene cronyism, hubris and complete disregard for outside opinions. 

And that's just the short list.

Cheney isn't evil, I do think he means well, but his overall philosophy is really wack. I'd argue he's been a net loss for the American people.

-spence


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Many problems in the world that seem to be insoluble, at the moment.
> 
> We have never experienced: an attack on our homeland, that was worse than Pearl Harbor; nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people; an economy with new challenges every day; continuing racial divides in our country, when many of us thought that things were getting better, etc.
> 
> ...


I fear you could be spot-on with this analysis...we are indeed living in a much more complicated and volatile world! The American electorate's pronounced inclination to bury their collective heads in the sand is far more frightening than anything the Bush/Cheney administration can be held accountable for.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

The Senator missed a 4 page NY Times explanation of the administration's proposal to adequately fund Social Security. The response of the loyal opposition was to huddle around the statue of FDR in the rain, look forlorn, and refuse to offer a counter proposal.

Reid, and Pelosi just stone walled the subject after their photo op.

The Liberals promised to get out of Iraq, if given control of Congress. After they gained this control, it would have been easy to get out of Iraq, by simply refusing to fund the campaign. This could have been done with ease, since they control the purse strings.

Instead of taking this forthright approach, they took the cowards way by Senator Reid calling Chief of Staff General Pace incompetent, in public; and running an ad in the NY Times calling General Pertaus, General Betray us.

Talking with our enemies may work out well. We'll get to see after President Obama concludes his tour of North Korea, Tehran, Caracas, and Syria. Yesterday, Hamas endorsed him.

Let's hope that it works out better than when Jimmy Carter and "Z" Brezenski extended the hand of friendship to Tehran. The result of that show of weakness was a captured embassy, our embassy employees paraded as hostages in the view of the world, crashed helicopters in the desert during a keystone cops rescue attempt, and a Nuclear Iran. You never know, next time may be the charm.

Unfortunately, history has proven that the only way to avoid armed conflict is to be capable of overwhelming force, with a credible, demonstrated willingness to use it. 

The Senator and I do agree that Congress richly deserves an approval rating of about 19% (roughly half of the Bush approval rating).

Bill Clinton tried to get a line item veto,and it was written in a such a way so that it was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A line item veto, and term limits seem to be the only way to keep the present system of self perpetuation from letting Congress do irreparable harm to the republic.

There are a few in congress that seem motivated by noble motives. Unfortunately, most seem motivated to earn $150,000 per year as long as they can hold on, leave with a multimillion $ estate, and hit on babes (sometime guys) while in office.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Intrepid said:


> The Senator missed a 4 page NY Times explanation of the administration's proposal to adequately fund Social Security. The response of the loyal opposition was to huddle around the statue of FDR in the rain, look forlorn, and refuse to offer a counter proposal.
> 
> Reid, and Pelosi just stone walled the subject after their photo op.


I can't stand either of these ninnies, and I don't understand the Dems' inclination to have them as the public face of their party, while they try to expand their tent -- that said, privatization is not a fix, it is a ruse. A ruse to destroy the system as we know it. And, if you think public companies' getting a bail out from the Fed is bad, just imagine the entire SS system needing a bail out. And don't give me insolvency -- its' good until at least 2025.



Intrepid said:


> The Liberals promised to get out of Iraq, if given control of Congress. After they gained this control, it would have been easy to get out of Iraq, by simply refusing to fund the campaign. This could have been done with ease, since they control the purse strings.
> 
> Instead of taking this forthright approach, they took the cowards way by Senator Reid calling Chief of Staff General Pace incompetent, in public; and running an ad in the NY Times calling General Pertaus, General Betray us.


You and I both know that a defunding of the war is a zero sum game that the Dems would lose a significant amount of seats if they fell into this trap



Intrepid said:


> Talking with our enemies may work out well. We'll get to see after President Obama concludes his tour of North Korea, Tehran, Caracas, and Syria. Yesterday, Hamas endorsed him.
> 
> Let's hope that it works out better than when Jimmy Carter and "Z" Brezenski extended the hand of friendship to Tehran. The result of that show of weakness was a captured embassy, our embassy employees paraded as hostages in the view of the world, crashed helicopters in the desert during a keystone cops rescue attempt, and a Nuclear Iran. You never know, next time may be the charm.
> 
> Unfortunately, history has proven that the only way to avoid armed conflict is to be capable of overwhelming force, with a credible, demonstrated willingness to use it.


I agree with parts of parts of this, but during the entire Cold War we talked to our #1 enemy, Russia, and since the 1970s have had contact and diplomatic relations with China. As to the use of force, we are relying on Guard troops on their third tours to shore up Iraq, so anything short of Operation Linebacker is probably not doable on another front in the near term. And our enemies know this. It's time to scramble for the high ground.

The Senator and I do agree that Congress richly deserves an approval rating of about 19% (roughly half of the Bush approval rating).



Intrepid said:


> Bill Clinton tried to get a line item veto,and it was written in a such a way so that it was deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A line item veto, and term limits seem to be the only way to keep the present system of self perpetuation from letting Congress do irreparable harm to the republic.
> 
> There are a few in congress that seem motivated by noble motives. Unfortunately, most seem motivated to earn $150,000 per year as long as they can hold on, leave with a multimillion $ estate, and hit on babes (sometime guys) while in office.


Line item veto IS unconstitutional, and if Bill Clinton had gotten it, the nattering would be even worse about what he did and didn't do while in office -- in terms of the economy, fighting terrorism, or anything else. Term limits are also unconstitutional -- and there is an easy solution to them -- vote people out.

I agree on the approval rating and the only motivation being re-election. Remember, that's mainly what got us into this war in the first place


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Senator LooGAR said:


> I agree with parts of parts of this, but during the entire Cold War we talked to our #1 enemy, Russia, and since the 1970s have had contact and diplomatic relations with China.


I don't think we can really compare the situation with either the Soviet Union or China with nations like Iran and North Korea. We are willing to negotiate with North Korea, but only in conjunction with their neighbors. And Iran is nothing short of a terrorist State with a leader who has vowed the total destruction of Israel and then the U.S.

With the Soviet Union and China we were dealing with nations that were at least rational. They were no more interested in the mass destruction of their homelands than we were. Mutually assured destruction provided a platform for talking. Given some of the statements coming out of Iran I'm not so sure their leaders feel this way. World war seems to be their end game. It's hard to negotiate with folks who think like this.

Cruiser


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Damn you for pointing out to me what I meant to write 

I actually had a whole graph about debating rational actor theory, etc worked up in my brain, but I got distracted by the deliverance of a Chic fil A breakfast burrito by my better half.

I think that the analogy does and doesn't work. You notice that North Korea is really just a silly nuisance that rears its head when it isn't being paid attention to? And that Citgo/the Venezualan government is propped up by our thirst for gas. They act like they are going to buck, but a cut off to the US, and or a boycott of Venezualan gas would be disastrous to Chavez.

But why the strong arm posture towards that dude? Why not a behind the scenes wink-nudge that says we agree to disagree but let's keep that oil flowing?

And all of you strong arm types -- what to do with the question of the Saudis? They pretty much fund all these madrassas/Islamic Hate camps, much of it with profits from exports to the US, and we let them off the hook because Bandar and GHWB are homies?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I am a middle of the roader. I personally think that Bush is totally unqualified and I do think they are totally dismissive of the ways they personally avoided military service during time of war and how easily they will force others to go to war. (During that time, the National Guard was a commonly used way to avoid Vietnam; Bush had to know this.)

While I like a lot of their policies; I deplore their pandering to hard religious right wingers.

I also think Bush is a totally unqualified ninny and that the Republicans deserve what they get for nominating such a loser for president. I hope Obama does not become president; if he does, the arrogance the Republicans showed by running such an unqualified jerk will be one of the reasons why Obama is successful if he is. I did not like either Kerry or Gore, but there was no way I could vote for Bush. 

Drinking and Drugging your way through your twenties and thirties is not the way to prepare yourself for the responsibility of being president of our country. And if Bush did not do a fair amount of cocaine, he would have directly denied doing so. Cocaine is a horribly destructive drug and permanently damages people. There is no way that anyone who has ever used this substance much has any business being president.

I was a partier during my younger days and had friends who learned these lessons the hard way and one actually committed suicide. (I have never tried to say I was qualified to be president, although I always managed to stay far enough away from it where I never became addicted or anything. I am totally clean now and have been so for at least ten years.)

The Republicans should not have manipulated this man into the presidency.

I will happily vote for McCain, though.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

What I wouldn't give for a breakfast burrito right now...

When a country like N Korea acquires a nuclear weapon, they have to be moved out of the "silly nuisance" category. Especially if they have a slightly nutty head of state.

I don't have a solution to the Saudi Arabia situation. If you have one. I'd like to hear it. If it is the "let's talk" solution, what do you want Obama to say, specifically, to them?


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

*Bat Brained Rambling!*



Relayer said:


> What I wouldn't give for a breakfast burrito right now...
> 
> When a country like N Korea acquires a nuclear weapon, they have to be moved out of the "silly nuisance" category. Especially if they have a slightly nutty head of state.
> 
> I don't have a solution to the Saudi Arabia situation. If you have one. I'd like to hear it. If it is the "let's talk" solution, what do you want Obama to say, specifically, to them?


Personally, I really don't know -- I wish we lived in a country where the debate over who will be President included debates such as these, instead of "appeaser/Hamas Candidate" v. "Old Man/BadTemper/Manchurian Candidate." I guess that's why I find myself here, then.

North Korea always rattles its sabers, but has not yet found its way to be a nuclear power -- and if it did is your proposal invasion? Make Pyong Yang Dresden Mk. II? Make it Hiroshima Mk. II? If you look to the end of the Clinton administration, they were getting regular contact and UN food supplements, etc.... Bush comes along cuts all contact, and they start acting like a feral dog -- coincidence?

Now, my solution, is what you are seeing the Dem candidates beat around the bush about: Moonshot for Oil Independence. Much of being president is setting the tone for the Nation's psyche (follow me for a minute) while Carter was a goof and in over his head, he looked namby pamby and weak, and the country fell into "malaise." Now St. Reagan, for all of his good and bad really did one thing: he made America believe in itself again. Even after having to push through the biggest tax increase in US history (1982, just like he did as Gov. of California) his smiling visage and general chipperness really made the country feel like it was going well.

GHWB, of course, "lacked the vision thing," and Clinton was the perfect steward for a country on the brink of the millenium -- good time Charlie, no blues. Bush II of course, is a fake tough guy. He looked good once he stopped reading his kiddies' books, stopped flying to SAC bases in LA and SD, and finally got back to DC. He looked great with the megaphone, but when it came to actually do something about the situation, he totally bricked and went after the one country NOT full of fundamentalist nutjobs.

Ok, so I got off track, but I think what McCain OR Obama will be able to do to simply deliver a bit of competence, a bit of inspiration, and I'll borrow a term here - get America moving again.

One of them might want to ask the American people to take their own destinies into their own hands, and start to work towards a common goal/solution to our problems. I would start immediately with ANWAR drilling/refinery building/Nuclear power plant building and serious research money going to non-corn based ethanol solutions (switchgrass, certain algaes and soybeans all take considerably less energy to convert to fuel) and I would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to push aside enviros and old companies (easier said than done, but I'd try)

As to the Saudis, again I don't have the answer, but I can guarantee we'll never get off that teat with one of Bandar's best friends at the helm of the ship of state.

The one thing I will assure you that either will do is turn the page on the neo-con cabal, and get us back to some kind of normal. I am generally a Dem, but have always admired McCain and will keep my ballot options open until probably November 4th.

I hope this makes sense -- sinus meds have me loopy, but I love to talk politics.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

You do have quite a few ideas I agree with, specifically WRT getting our own oil/alternatives production moving forward.

To suggest invading N Korea, at this point. is a bit pre-mature. However, most intelligence estimates believe that North Korea has developed at least a couple of nuclear devices. 

Also, to blame Bush for Korea's bad behavior just doesn't hold water; From a CNN report -

1993: North Korea says it has quit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty amid suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons. It later reverses that decision.

1994: North Korea and U.S. sign an agreement. North Korea pledges to freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for international aid to build two power-producing nuclear reactors.

Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires a multistage over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean, proving it can strike any part of Japan's territory.

May 25-28, 1999: Former Defense Secretary William Perry visits North Korea and delivers a U.S. disarmament proposal.

Sept. 13: North Korea pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

Sept. 17: U.S. President Bill Clinton eases economic sanctions against North Korea.

December: A U.S.-led consortium signs a US$4.6 billion contract for two safer, Western-developed light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea.

July 2000: North Korea again threatens to restart its nuclear program if Washington doesn't compensate for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants. 
***

Finally, the tired 'Bush loves the Saudi royals' bit will expire with the end of his term and we'll see just how radically different our relationship with Bandar becomes. My bet - you will be very disappointed.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

I may have oversimplified my argument re: N. Korea, but I think the Clinton era policy of engagement and containment is better than the "axis of Evil" posturing of the Bush Administration. 
I am sure I am in the minority around here, but selah.

As to Bandar and the Saudis: you're dead on -- meet the new boss, same as the old boss, but I don't think we ever find a solution that doesn't figure out the merry go round that is oil money to Saudis --> Saudi Money to Madrassas/placating their population --> Saudi nationals teaming with others to attempt attacks on the US. 

Not saying Barry or McCain could or would do that, only that until we get to that point, we're spinning our wheels.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*We Agree Again !*

We could go a long way toward dealing with the instability in Saudi Arabia, and other unstable areas, by developing our own sources of energy.

We agree completely on drilling immediately in ANWAR, off shore US, and ramping up refinery construction (last one was 35 years ago). Nuclear energy is also a must, if we want to keep the lights on.

Brazil has created a viable source of ethanol. However, theirs is sugar cane based. We have taken the nonproductive path of corn based ethanol because of the lobbying of ADM, and the farm lobby. (Dole once referred to himself as "Senator Ethanol"). Corn based ethanol uses more energy to produce a gallon of corn based ethanol, than the end product. We also destroy a food source, and deplete the water table in the process.

Sugar producers have succeed in keeping sugar based ethanol out of US by high tariffs.

It is also imperative that congress be convinced of the folly of a "windfall profits tax" on US oil producers. If we want to cut off exploration for new sources, a new tax should do it. It's easy to demagogue the Oil producers. However, they receive 8 cents from a gallon of gasoline, vs 12.5 cents of tax on the same gallon.

An excellent book on the history of the 8th Air Force in WWII , is entitled "Masters of the Air". Hitler had almost no petroleum, except for Rumania. He developed a synthetic oil industry that supplied the Nazi needs, and proved almost impossible for the 8th Air force to destroy.

A friend who is a retired scientist for Exxon says that we could do the same thing today, but it would be expensive. Can't be nearly as expensive as depending on people that don't like us for a vital resource.

Cruiser is right about the difference between the cold war and the present situation. Every time the Russians rolled out of Magdeberg, Germany, headed to Berlin, we were in the air with armed weapons. The Russians knew this, and were smart enough not to want to participate in "mutually assured destruction".

Our present adversaries have a different philosophy "You worship life, we worship death", according to the letter that they left at the destruction that they brought about in Spain. Different challenge. Seems to me that adversaries with this philosophy have to be destroyed, as long as that is their view. Maybe Obama can talk to them, let's hope so.

It has been pretty conclusively established that North Korea has nuclear weapons capability, and transplanted such to Syria, that the Israelis destroyed.

You and I fault the current administration, but for different reasons, I suspect. Bush initially referred to an "axis of evil" made up of Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Iran and North Korea are stronger now than they were 8 years ago. Eight years dangerously wasted.

I also fault the administration for Medicare Part D, that was not needed, and presents another huge unfunded liability. Rove apparently thought that he could outfox the opposition by taking an entitlement issue away from them. The American people are smart enough to know that if you want Democrats, you might as well vote for the real thing. Bad move, Karl.

I notice that you have been on board about a month. It is refreshing to encounter someone that is interested in politics, that brings a differing view on some things. You have the ability to present a rational argument, without resorting to name calling.

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Many good ideas/observations being put out here. Loogar, a good change from your original posts, but IMO, you are still painting with too broad a brush in many instances. If you pay attention, you will see that we might agree on many points, so do not be so quick to lump everyone into "the good guys" vs. "right wing nutjobs."

Intrepid, yes, Medicare Part D has upset me to no end. Not only is the program irresponsible in regards to open ended liability costs, it will end up achieving none of the goals. I am sure the political goals were to buy off some senior votes for the Repubs, which of course has failed.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You would have to search a long time to find a more corrupt and incompetent administration than this one. Harding? Grant? I don't think even they make it. No, every collection of individuals has to have a worst member, and Bush-Cheney is it.


Clinton was worse. He was better at keeping it hidden.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Senator LooGAR said:


> One of them might want to ask the American people to take their own destinies into their own hands, and start to work towards a common goal/solution to our problems. I would start immediately with ANWAR drilling/refinery building/Nuclear power plant building and serious research money going to non-corn based ethanol solutions (switchgrass, certain algaes and soybeans all take considerably less energy to convert to fuel) and I would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to push aside enviros and old companies (easier said than done, but I'd try)


This is a very good paragraph. I could not agree with you more, but we have some problems. First, a large segment of the US voting public no longer wants to control their own destinies. They want all things provided for them, at least in part, through the work of others. Second, enviro-folks and NIMBY liberals block the pursuit of such things as nuclear power plants (even though one of their favorite model countries, France, gets about 75% of its electricity via nuclear), ANWAR (which I agree tread very carefully there), etc.

I think the initial step needs to be a gut check for America to decide whether it wants to retain its current standing. The next POTUS needs to help foster a paradigm where Americans look to their own selves to make their lives better, not someone else.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Not replying to any one specific post, but more to the general spirit here. 

There's a good cover story addressing future of America in the May/June Foreign Affairs. Zakaria's "Is America in Decline?" He doesn't think so, but does contend the country, for its own good, will be forced to take better notice of the global marketplace. (This may, in part, be why Obama's brand is so appealing to many people who want to repair what they see as the damage done to America's reputation abroad.)

One of those international players, India, is not sitting still for the U.S. agricultural subsidies game. Hence a big reason for the WTO's Doha Round hangups. Recently heard Kamal Nath, India's minister for commerce and industry, address why for countries like his this subsidies business is a deal-breaker. When you've got hundreds of millions of people in subsistence farming (1-2 acres), as a politician your back's against the wall. 

As he put it: "India's farmers can compete fairly with U.S. farmers. They can't, however, compete against the U.S. Treasury." So far, this hurdle has stalled WTO talks. 

I agree with Zakaria that there's going to be increased international pressure for the U.S. to play a continued strong, constructive role globally, but a role that will be less defined by superpower than by collaboration with rising powers like China and India, among others (e.g. BRIC). After all, in a world that's seeing more nonstate actors creating mischief, superpower is looking less and less viable as a counterpunch. More people working together, harnessing the power of global information/communication technologies, will prove the front-line defence. That's already proving true and will only continue.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> Many good ideas/observations being put out here. Loogar, a good change from your original posts, but IMO, you are still painting with too broad a brush in many instances. If you pay attention, you will see that we might agree on many points, so do not be so quick to lump everyone into "the good guys" vs. "right wing nutjobs."


True dat. I definitely like the big picture stuff more than the minutiae -- which is probably why I somewhat buy into Barry's schtick, but also why I know that the path forward I describe SHOULD work, it won't probably ever be put into action.

Then again, I never thought a small group of people with some very strong and interesting ideas could for all intents and purposes hijack our country and put us on the road to financial insolvency -- ever read up on Starve the Beast theory?

I think more and more that part D, tax cuts and war are to put Americans to a decision like you would a poker player -- force them to either go all in, or scrap the system altogether.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bertie:

I also would like to see the US change its stance in regards to global politics. I think the US is spending far too much money in various military, government building, and NGO projects around the world. The US should not allow to have itself simultaneously thrusted into the role/portrayed as the global cop on the block while getting damned by the very countries pushing the US forward to do this. IMO, the US should greatly reduce all global efforts and rationally decide where to expend its limited resources. 

Large segments of the world population claim they want the US to stop meddling in world affairs to the extent it does. I agree with this and think the government should at least spend our tax payer dollars only on countries that actually thank us for our generosity. I am not saying the US should withdraw off the world stage, merely recast itself so that it gets acclaim for its actions rather than constant scorn.

I also agree we should stop government subsidies on farming. Then again, I think we should stop them on just about everything, something most of the Dem voting public would have a fit over, and something both Dem and Repub politicians would find unpalatable, as that is how they get themselves re-elected.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Individuals Controlling Destinies*

Wayfarer, you and the Senator make a good point about the need for individuals to control their own destinies. This is essentially the Libertarian theme.

Don't you both think that this issue is almost dead, in the US?

Once the instinct for self reliance dies, it seems to be gone for good,

For example:
1.In this country in the early 19th century, once our guilt over the way the American Indians had been treated became widely felt, the government stepped in to be sure that the Indians were cared for, for life. The Indian reservations became a petri dish for the welfare state. Disease, alcoholism, and a disintegrating social structure was our gift to the indians. (Bureau of Indian Affairs is still in existence.)

2.It took the Liberal Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan to clearly make the case that the welfare state had destroyed the inner city black family.

New orleans has been a socialist society controlled by the Liberals for generations. Once Katrina hit, there were a whole lot of people standing in the middle of the street wondering when the government was going to rescue them. Once you kill the self reliance instinct, it seems to be gone permanently.

One of the basic themes of Liberalism is to turn vast segments of the population into dependents of the state. Once people decide that an elite ruling class can make their life decisions better than they can, the society is a Socialist one.

With our present public education system, about 50% of those that attend school, fail to graduate, and those that do graduate are seldom educated in the basic skills necessary to survive in a high tech society.

Unfortunately, the black inner city schools are the hardest hit. The NEA is one of the most powerful unions in the nation, and they have a tight grip on keeping things the way they are.

Ergo, another permanent underclass that will have to be dependent on the government, as the entry level jobs move offshore. Jobs have moved, not because the heartless employers want to hire low wage workers, but because the supply of those that can read, write, perform basic math skills, and speak the English language aren't available here, in adequate numbers.

If someone were to run for office on the platform of getting individuals back in charge or their destiny, I'm afraid that the idea would fall on deaf ears.

As voters look today at various candidates, I'm afraid most people want to know what the candidate can do for them. I'm afraid that we are well on the way to a full fledged Socialist society.

The pity is, that when you ask most people what the government does well, beside the US military, I'm afraid the list is a short one.

The same combination of federal, state, and local governments that responded to Katrina will be asked to put together a single payer national health care system, etc.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Second, enviro-folks and *BANANA* liberals block the pursuit of such things as nuclear power plants (even though one of their favorite model countries, France, gets about 75% of its electricity via nuclear), ANWAR (which I agree tread very carefully there), etc.


Fixed.

NIMBY=Not in my backyard
BANANA=Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody

Sorry for the diversion...back to you're regularly scheduled interchange.


----------



## Beachcomber (Apr 6, 2008)

Far better than the alternatives then and still better than what we'll end up with next January. I am especially going to miss W, he is certainly a likeable fellow. I was glad to see Rumsfeld go and can't stand that Chertoff guy, but find myself likeing Rice despite myself. W has been a pretty good dresser, especially when he's at leisure in Maine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> As voters look today at various candidates, I'm afraid most people want to know what the candidate can do for them.


I think that sums today up quite well. A far cry from the, "Ask not what your country can do for you.." speech given by JFK.


----------



## chucklehead (Apr 27, 2007)

I like all politicians. In soup.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> There's a good cover story addressing future of America in the May/June Foreign Affairs. Zakaria's "Is America in Decline?" He doesn't think so, but does contend the country, for its own good, will be forced to take better notice of the global marketplace. (This may, in part, be why Obama's brand is so appealing to many people who want to repair what they see as the damage done to America's reputation abroad.)


Anytime the U.S. acts in its own interests, its reputation abroad is damaged. I sometimes think the international community does not recognize the U.S. as a sovereign power, merely a rich uncle. Let's really be grade A a**holes and see how people feel then. Guess what though, we never will. And when disaster strikes, like Myanmar, we're everyone's Daddy!



BertieW said:


> I agree with Zakaria that there's going to be increased international pressure for the U.S. to play a continued strong, constructive role globally, but a role that will be less defined by superpower than by collaboration with rising powers like China and India, among others (e.g. BRIC). After all, in a world that's seeing more nonstate actors creating mischief, superpower is looking less and less viable as a counterpunch. More people working together, harnessing the power of global information/communication technologies, will prove the front-line defence. That's already proving true and will only continue.


That's the problem with internationalists like you. You assume that other nations share your concern about the rest of the world. The fact is that caring about what occurs in the world is almost a uniquely anglo-saxon, to a lesser extent European, point of view. Unless something directly impacts most nations they could care less. Case in point: China is playing a very constructive role in Darfur. Russia is being very helpful with Iran.

As for "harnessing global information/communication technologies; that's the most absurd thing I've heard and it is the height of naivte. It's not global, its American. Global technology is American technology. Most of China is the 3rd world and lives in the stone age, as is India. If not being run by military juntas, most African governments are having to tell their citizens not to drink their own urine.

If we adapt Maslow's hierarchy to nations, 95% are at level 1-2, and about 1% at 5. Those at 1-2 could care less about anything other than their own immediate needs. You are projecting onto them a vision of an idealistic world that simply does not exist, nor is it our responsibility to see that it comes to fruition.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Bertie:
> 
> I also would like to see the US change its stance in regards to global politics. I think the US is spending far too much money in various military, government building, and NGO projects around the world. The US should not allow to have itself simultaneously thrusted into the role/portrayed as the global cop on the block while getting damned by the very countries pushing the US forward to do this. IMO, the US should greatly reduce all global efforts and rationally decide where to expend its limited resources.
> 
> ...


Amen! We should immediately stop meddling in the U.N., for example.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> If we adapt Maslow's hierarchy to nations, 95% are at level 1-2, and about 1% at 5. Those at 1-2 could care less about anything other than their own immediate needs. You are projecting onto them a vision of an idealistic world that simply does not exist, nor is it our responsibility to see that it comes to fruition.


I could agree with 1% are at Level 4. I'm afraid of what we would have to do to achieve Level 5. I think that's why approval ratings are so low for all of government. If we were at Level 5 couldn't we find a Presidential Candidate at Level 5? Will anyone claim that one of the three left are there? The whole thing is embarrassing. We arguably had one candidate at Level 5 and no one wanted to listen to him. I don't think that's Level 4. We might be collectively, but about 60% of our population is barely functional at Level 2 and probably 30% at level 1. I was at a HOA meeting last week where two people argued with me that 34 was 10% of 340. It was important because we only had 21 homeowners show up to elect the new board. 21 out of 340. People are apathetic and self-absorbed. Even the private sector is suffering from a severe ethical deficit, even common sense and normal business standards like conforming loans no longer are abided. Maybe we were at Level 5 at some point post-WW2. I don't know, but I don't think we are now. We have terrible crises in the family unit in this country and that is Level 3. Isn't part of Level 5 'lack of prejudice' and Level 4 'respect for others'? The whole Katrina thing was a city full of people that couldn't maintain Level 1.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> During a Today Show interview a few weeks back Cheney was asked about polls and opposition to our involvement in Iraq. His response was "so".
> 
> How can you not love and admire a guy like that!


Did you see his 'act' at the press awards dinner?


----------



## Cadillac-89 (May 6, 2008)

I have nothing against them. I almost wish the Dems were victorious in the 2000 election though because then they might be the "hated ones" today instead of the Reps.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*For those not yet offended*

Here are are two more items that argue against the conventional wisdom, that harms the US in the long run.

When Communism and Socialism took a setback after the Berlin wall fell, these fellow travelers had to find a new refuge.

The environmental facade was a perfect one. They could advocate positions that would destroy capitalism, and yet to debate them would let them put you in the position of advocating destroying the environment.

This whole man made panic over "global warming" is a scheme designed to penalize the economies of the developed world. A gigantic carbon tax will be a huge barrier to the growth of capitalism, which is exactly the point.

We have indeed had global warming to the tune of 1 degree C over the last century. However, we have global warming every 1500 years, and it is caused primarily by the sun. These are called weather cycles.

All three Presidential candidates have supported the global warming fraud, because so many people have bought into it, that it has become like a religion,that you dare not question. This all started with the fellow travelers, and was assumed by those that should know better, to be factual.

April of 2008 was 1 degree cooler than any April in the 20th Century. The weather on the earth is a result of things far more powerful than the efforts of mankind, such as the sun. To think that we could significantly heat or cool the atmosphere by our efforts represents the height of arrogance. Nature was here long before we were, and will be here long after we are gone.

If that hasn't offended everyone yet, there is a reference to the UN, above. Something to the effect of our meddling in the UN.

The UN was a spectacular idea designed after WW II to guarantee peace for all times. It has however, morphed into a gang of 135 made up primarily of thugs and dictators that hate the US, and those that would dare ally with us.

We fund most of the corruption that passes for UN business, and yet when trouble breaks out anywhere, the world turns to the US, not the UN.

Kofi would have been indicted if he was the CEO of a Fortune 100 co. in the US. However, the mantle of the UN has made his years of corruption worthy of world wide respect.

The Senate is wasting time on trying to figure out whether Roger C. took steroids, and whether the New England Patriots stole the signals from opposing teams, and yet there seems to be no concern over the billions that we shovel into the UN.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> The UN was a spectacular idea designed after WW II to guarantee peace for all times. It has however, morphed into a gang of 135 made up primarily of thugs and dictators that hate the US, and those that would dare ally with us.
> 
> We fund most of the corruption that passes for UN business, and yet when trouble breaks out anywhere, the world turns to the US, not the UN.
> 
> Kofi would have been indicted if he was the CEO of a Fortune 100 co. in the US. However, the mantle of the UN has made his years of corruption worthy of world wide respect.


Excellent points. One addition though, not only would Kofi have been tossed behind bars, members of his family and close circle of friends and associates would have too. Honesty, accountability, transparency, and integrity are values we should expect *more of* from high level UN officials, not less of.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Excellent points. One addition though, not only would Kofi have been tossed behind bars, members of his family and close circle of friends and associates would have too. Honesty, accountability, transparency, and integrity are values we should expect *more of* from high level UN officials, not less of.


I guess the point is lost on us in the U.S. because of our prosperity however in the third world, from where Mr. Anan hails from, working for the government or the U.N. is a way of getting rich. If not for the U.N. the Brioni wearing former U.N. SecGen would have been a corrupt dictator.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Anytime the U.S. acts in its own interests, its reputation abroad is damaged. I sometimes think the international community does not recognize the U.S. as a sovereign power, merely a rich uncle. Let's really be grade A a**holes and see how people feel then. Guess what though, we never will. And when disaster strikes, like Myanmar, we're everyone's Daddy!
> 
> That's the problem with internationalists like you. You assume that other nations share your concern about the rest of the world. The fact is that caring about what occurs in the world is almost a uniquely anglo-saxon, to a lesser extent European, point of view. Unless something directly impacts most nations they could care less. Case in point: China is playing a very constructive role in Darfur. Russia is being very helpful with Iran.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking about tomorrow; you seem stuck in yesterday.

Maybe it will turn out to be as you suggest, but I'm not betting on it, given the accelerating forces of global trade.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I guess the point is lost on us in the U.S. because of our prosperity however in the third world, from where Mr. Anan hails from, working for the government or the U.N. is a way of getting rich. If not for the U.N. the Brioni wearing former U.N. SecGen would have been a corrupt dictator.


The statement above is the most ignorant statement I have read on AAAC in a long while. It seems your world starts and ends in the US and National Geographic's TV enactments.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Asterix said:


> The statement above is the most ignorant statement I have read on AAAC in a long while. It seems your world starts and ends in the US and National Geographic's TV enactments.


Asterix:

That is not how I read his post. He was reminding me (and all of us) that high level government placement, in much of the world, has graft and corruption as part of the pay scale. While we in the developed world find it scandalous when a high level leader milks millions for him/herself and/or their family, it is common place in much of the world. While I still find it wrong, it was a good point to remember that many representatives to the UN find nothing uncommon about Kofi's actions.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Asterix:
> 
> That is not how I read his post. He was reminding me (and all of us) that high level government placement, in much of the world, has graft and corruption as part of the pay scale. While we in the developed world find it scandalous when a high level leader milks millions for him/herself and/or their family, it is common place in much of the world. While I still find it wrong, it was a good point to remember that many representatives to the UN find nothing uncommon about Kofi's actions.


Wayfarer:

Your explanation makes absolute sense but the issue I have is with his broad swipe and maybe unfair assertion in the comment in quote. "however in the third world, from where Mr. Anan hails from, working for the government or the U.N. is a way of getting rich. If not for the U.N. the Brioni wearing former U.N. SecGen would have been a corrupt dictator." I am inclined to believe there are numerous people from the third world countries who work for the UN that are not corrupt and there are people who work in the governments of third world countries who do not enrich themselves from the coffers of their respective countries.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Why are you so sure that that particular value is shared between first world and third world countries?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Another comment that I find inaccurate is "We fund most of the corruption that passes for UN business, and yet when trouble breaks out anywhere, the world turns to the US, not the UN." made by Intepid. 

The US is the most notorious nation on the UN for not paying its dues ($569 million in June '07) and the payment of required/stipulated dues to an organization one voluntarily joined/helped create is not a charity donation. So since the US has barely been paying its dues since 1986 ($1.68b in 1999) how is it funding the peacekeeping efforts which is the platform for the corruption in the UN? 

The sad thing is that most of the current peacekeeping efforts are being funded by the developing nations, which provide the majority of peacekeeping troops thereby footing the bill for richer countries. An example is Bangladesh which has an unpaid invoice of $77m because donor nations like the US are not paying their bills.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*UN Dues*

Absolutely true that US has been delinquent in paying UN dues.

We are on the hook for 25% of administrative costs of UN, and 30% of peacekeeping costs. Sorting out the delinquent dues matter isn't as easy as it may sound. It's not quite like deciding whether to pay your American Express bill.

US Congress has partially embargoed US dues payment, over the years, because of objections to UN programs, or lack thereof. Some congressional objections are valid, others are nothing but political grandstanding.

Here are some of the reasons that congress has objected to full dues payment:

1.Widespread corruption such as the "oil for Food program". Sadam got much of this, and the Iraqi people got almost none. Oscar Wyatt, a Texas billionaire, is now in prison for his participation in this scandal. Many others were from countries where they could just ignore subpoenas, and have escaped punishment. Volker's investigation found rampant fraud, but his report has been largely ignored.

2.Anti Israeli efforts by UN members. The "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution is still on the books.

3.The US has an interest in the UN participating in the efforts to damp out terrorism, worldwide. Since 2001, the UN has not taken a position on terrorism. The UN has debated the issue, but has never been able to agree on a definition of terrorism. The reason is that of the 135 members of the UN, the great majority would be classified as terrorists, because of human rights violations against their own people.

4.The administration of the peacekeeping efforts have come under some criticism, that may be valid. For example, many of the military assigned as peacekeepers have been found to be guilty of crimes against those that they were sent to protect. Rape by UN soldiers has been a particularly egregious problem.

5.Some of the objections by congress come from the "right to life" members of congress that oppose family planning efforts of the UN.

The list is endless. Some of the objections by congress are valid, some are not. Take your pick.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> Absolutely true that US has been delinquent in paying UN dues.
> 
> We are on the hook for 25% of administrative costs of UN, and 30% of peacekeeping costs. Sorting out the delinquent dues matter isn't as easy as it may sound. It's not quite like deciding whether to pay your American Express bill.


The agreement on who pays what percentage was based on each countries gross national product, which in essence means the United States should officially contribute close to 29% of the UN's regular budget but the General Assembly set a ceiling that no government should pay more than 25 percent. Also the Security Council's five permanent members (of which the US is one) are billed at a higher rate for peacekeeping since they can veto security decisions.

Paying past due bills is very simple; just pay it.



Intrepid said:


> US Congress has partially embargoed US dues payment, over the years, because of objections to UN programs, or lack thereof. Some congressional objections are valid, others are nothing but political grandstanding.
> 
> Here are some of the reasons that congress has objected to full dues payment:
> 
> ...


Political grandstanding on the part of the congress like you had rightfully mentioned somewhere in the response is the primary reason for not paying the dues and most of the the aforementioned atrocities are also committed by our troops too so we are really no better than the people we point fingers to.

The UN shouldn't be expected to take a pro-US position (which is what we term as not taking a position) on the terrorism issue when US - its most powerful member decided to usurp its authority.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

A fine third world view of the United States, Asterix.

Could you kindly clarify this quote from your post:

"most of the the aforementioned atrocities are also committed by our troops too so we are really no better than the people we point fingers to."


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> A fine third world view of the United States, Asterix.
> 
> Could you kindly clarify this quote from your post:
> 
> "most of the the aforementioned atrocities are also committed by our troops too so we are really no better than the people we point fingers to."


Relayer,

It was in response to this comment "The administration of the peacekeeping efforts have come under some criticism, that may be valid. For example, many of the military assigned as peacekeepers have been found to be guilty of crimes against those that they were sent to protect. Rape by UN soldiers has been a particularly egregious problem."


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Linked Article - UN troops face child abuse claims

"Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found.

The UN has faced several scandals involving its troops in recent years, including a DR Congo paedophile ring and prostitute trafficking in Kosovo."

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6195830.stm

And you seriously believe that "our troops... are really no better than the people we point fingers to." ?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Linked Article - UN troops face child abuse claims
> 
> "Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found.
> 
> ...


I really wish we are as saintly as we are wont to believe of ourselves. :icon_smile: As an old adage goes "everybody is shady only the ones busted/caught/exposed are crooks"

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3697615.stm

https://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2008/02/in-us-military.html

https://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?&act_id=16374&menu=11e

https://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_states_military_academy/index.html?query=SEX%20CRIMES&field=des&match=exact

............and many more for anyone who takes the time out to search. Either way, a bad act is a bad act and maybe we need to stop the sanctimonious attitude we seem to exude.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Linked Article - UN troops face child abuse claims
> 
> "Children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia, a BBC investigation has found.
> 
> ...


Soldiers of occupying forces have been raping, murdering, and generally abusing the occupied population from time immemorial. Such behavior is scarcely unknown among U.S soldiers:

https://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iraq/usgreen63006cmp.html

https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/25/usa.japan?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

Here's a DOD report indicating that in 2005 there were 2,374 reports of sexual assault by active duty U.S. military personnel.

https://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/d20060316SexualAssaultReport.pdf

Is this in the same league as the Red Army's rape parade through Eastern Europe in 1945, or the Janjaweed's use of rape as a terror tactic in Darfur? No. So what?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Seems like it gets hard to tell the "peace keepers" from the <insert bad guys here> without a score card. Maybe the UN does need to stop meddling so much?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I have not claimed that our military are all angels. 

If you folks insist on believing that the behavior of the American military toward an occupied civilian populace is no better than the very worst of the other armies in the world, that is certainly your prerogative (which was the premise of my challenge to Asterix).


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

No, I really don't care for W or his VP. Going to war in the Middle East was not "cool".


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I have not claimed that our military are all angels.
> 
> If you folks insist on believing that the behavior of the American military toward an occupied civilian populace is no better than the very worst of the other armies in the world, that is certainly your prerogative (which was the premise of my challenge to Asterix).


Your challenge to Asterix was in the context of the incidence of rape, prostitution, and other atrocities committed by UN peacekeeping forces, and you cited a BBC report on the issue. I rather suspect that the incidence of sexual assault by UN forces and US forces is quite similar, and that neither approach the level of violence and terror as "the very worst of the other armies in the world." That doesn't matter much to the victims of atrocities, however.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"I rather suspect that the incidence of sexual assault by UN forces and US forces is quite similar, and that neither approach the level of violence and terror as "the very worst of the other armies in the world." That doesn't matter much to the victims of atrocities, however."

I will have to hold with my disagreement on your suspicion of US troops. If occupying United States troops were thought for one moment to be involved in similar crimes to the level noted in the BBC piece I linked, you can bet there would be world-wide news headlines, outrage, investigations,and condemnation. And,rightfully so. But that is not and will not be the case.

I was patiently awaiting the old "one [insert heinous crime of your choice] is too many" post. My heart goes out to each victim of an atrocity. And, surely, on another level, the degree of depravity and violence does very much matter.


----------



## Senator LooGAR (Apr 19, 2008)

Relayer said:


> "I rather suspect that the incidence of sexual assault by UN forces and US forces is quite similar, and that neither approach the level of violence and terror as "the very worst of the other armies in the world." That doesn't matter much to the victims of atrocities, however."
> 
> I will have to hold with my disagreement on your suspicion of US troops. If occupying United States troops were thought for one moment to be involved in similar crimes to the level noted in the BBC piece I linked, you can bet there would be world-wide news headlines, outrage, investigations,and condemnation. And,rightfully so. But that is not and will not be the case.
> 
> I was patiently awaiting the old "one [insert heinous crime of your choice] is too many" post. My heart goes out to each victim of an atrocity. And, surely, on another level, the degree of depravity and violence does very much matter.


I'm Senator LooGAR and I endorse this message.

I am beginning to like you Relayer.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

Relayer said:


> I have not claimed that our military are all angels.
> 
> If you folks insist on believing that the behavior of the American military toward an occupied civilian populace is no better than the very worst of the other armies in the world, that is certainly your prerogative (which was the premise of my challenge to Asterix).


You make a good point, Relayer.

Unfortunately, every group of people has some bad apples, whether it is the military, the US congress, the clergy, etc. There was even a guy on AAAC that sold ties here, for a long time that should be in jail, if he's not.

My experience in the military was; that was the last place that you want to be if you have any criminal intent. The Uniform Code of Military Justice deals with service members that are accused of crimes much more rapidly than our civilian criminal justice system.

An accused member of the armed services is given a fair, but rapid trial. If found guilty, is immediately punished to the degree called for by the court marshall board. Most of these boards make some of our criminal judges and juries look like little bo peep.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I will have to hold with my disagreement on your suspicion of US troops. If occupying United States troops were thought for one moment to be involved in similar crimes to the level noted in the BBC piece I linked, you can bet there would be world-wide news headlines, outrage, investigations,and condemnation. And,rightfully so. But that is not and will not be the case.


Suspicion? I expressed no suspicion of anyone or anything. It is an established, indisputable fact that US soldiers commit crimes and atrocities against civilian populations in occupied territories, just as soldiers of all nations have done throughout history. Did you read the link that you posted and the links I posted? American soldiers _have_ been "involved in similar crimes" as those described in the BBC UN report. The BBC report mentions only three incidents with any specificity: sexual abuse of an 11-year old girl in Haiti, and the abduction and rape of an 14 year-old girl in the same country; and an attack on a 15 year old girl in Liberia. There are also references to a prostitution operation in Kosovo and a pedophile ring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but little detail is provided for these matters. The report also states that 316 UN peacekeeping personnel have been "investigated", presumably for sexual assaults of some kind. In the links I posted, there was described the gang rape and murder of a 14 year-old Iraqi girl, along with the murder of her family; the gang rape of a 12 year old Japanese girl; and the alleged rape of 14 year old Japanese girl. I also posted a link to a DOD report indicating that in 2005 alone there were 2,374 reports of sexual assault by US military personnel. Sounds similar to me. Further, the same report that implicates UN Peacekeeping forces in forced prostitution and human trafficking in Kosovo, also implicates American military personnel in the same conduct. See Sarah E. Mendelson, _Barracks and Brothels: Peacekeepers and Human Trafficking in the Balkans_ Center for Strategic and International Studies (2005). Interestingly, Ms. Mendelson describes the "not our boys" attitude among many she interviewed in a manner that is not terribly alien to sentiments expressed in this pages:



> Many who serve or who have served in the U.S. military, for example, have tremendous devotion to the institution. Theirs is a protective approach to the organization,and they find it painful and even cognitively problematic to address the fact that some in uniform, or some supporting missions, engaged in illegal and criminal activities. Equally, they find it difficult to believe the system in place has not been effective at rooting out those responsible and punishing them.


 (_Id._ at p. 22.)



> I was patiently awaiting the old "one [insert heinous crime of your choice] is too many" post.


 Please.



> My heart goes out to each victim of an atrocity. And, surely, on another level, the degree of depravity and violence does very much matter.


Which, of course, no one has denied. In fact, I so stated in a previous post. Military rape used as a tactical instrument of terror differs in degree from military rape and sexual assault as a byproduct of occupation. Neither the United States military nor the United Nations peacekeeping forces practice the former; they both engage in the latter.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Lushington... my mistake.

I inferred that your statement (which I quoted in my post) which began with the words " I rather suspect..." meant that you held some suspicion of someone or something. Namely that you suspected US soldiers of a quite similar incidence of sexual assault as UN forces.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Lushington said:


> Soldiers of occupying forces have been raping, murdering, and generally abusing the occupied population from time immemorial. Such behavior is scarcely unknown among U.S soldiers:
> 
> https://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/iraq/usgreen63006cmp.html
> 
> ...





Lushington said:


> Your challenge to Asterix was in the context of the incidence of rape, prostitution, and other atrocities committed by UN peacekeeping forces, and you cited a BBC report on the issue. I rather suspect that the incidence of sexual assault by UN forces and US forces is quite similar, and that neither approach the level of violence and terror as "the very worst of the other armies in the world." That doesn't matter much to the victims of atrocities, however.





Lushington said:


> Suspicion? I expressed no suspicion of anyone or anything. It is an established, indisputable fact that US soldiers commit crimes and atrocities against civilian populations in occupied territories, just as soldiers of all nations have done throughout history. Did you read the link that you posted and links I posted? America soldiers _have_ been "involved in similar crimes" as those described in the BBC UN report. The BBC report mentions only three incidents with any specificity: sexual abuse of an 11-year old girl in Haiti, and the abduction and rape of an 14 year-old girl in the same country; and an attack on a 15 year old girl in Liberia. There are also references to a prostitution operation in Kosovo and a pedophile ring in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but little detail is provided for these matters. The report also states that 316 UN peacekeeping personnel have been "investigated", presumably for sexual assaults of some kind. In the links I posted, there was described the gang rape and murder of a 14 year-old Iraqi girl, along with the murder of her family; the gang rape of a 12 year old Japanese girl; and the alleged rape of 14 year old Japanese girl. I also posted a link to a DOD report indicating that in 2005 alone there were 2,374 reports of sexual assault by US military personnel. Sounds similar to me. Further, the same report that implicates UN Peacekeeping forces in enforced prostitution and human trafficking in Kosovo, also implicates American military personnel in the same conduct. See Sarah E. Mendelson, _Barracks and Brothels: Peacekeepers and Human Trafficking in the Balkans_ Center for Strategic and International Studies (2005). Interestingly, Ms. Mendelson describes the "not our boys" attitude among many she interviewed in a manner that is not terribly alien to sentiments expressed in this pages:
> 
> (_Id._ at p. 22.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for helping to expatiate my points as it seems you have done an outstanding job at breaking it down for easier assimilation.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Isn't the overwhelming difference that the US actually prosecutes it's soldiers for these types of offenses?


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Isn't the overwhelming difference that the US actually prosecutes it's soldiers for these types of offenses?


Pretty much.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Asterix said:


> The statement above is the most ignorant statement I have read on AAAC in a long while. It seems your world starts and ends in the US and National Geographic's TV enactments.


Please explain yourself and try to refrain from ad hom attacks.

I suppose in a perfect world all nations would get along and we would be one among equals. We don't live in that utopia and the fact is that without American leadership the world would be lost. In my book therefore, the world starts and ends with us and our willingness to engage.

Asterix, look at the current debacle in Myanmar. Who was the first on the scene and whose C-130's are currently making air drops. Remember the tsumani in 2004, who was the first on the scene delivering aid.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Please explain yourself and try to refrain from ad hom attacks.


I had already answered that in my response to Wayfarer.



pt4u67 said:


> I suppose in a perfect world all nations would get along and we would be one among equals. We don't live in that utopia and the fact is that without American leadership the world would be lost. In my book therefore, the world starts and ends with us and our willingness to engage.


American leadership? Leading who? A country that doesn't have its home in order is trying to lead an equally screwed up world? Charity begins at home my good man. It is good ......... actually great to be patriotic but blind and egoistical patriotism IMO is a dangerous mix which borders on mindlessness. If we can't tell ourselves the cold and many times bitter truth then I don't see the sense in continuing this exchange.



pt4u67 said:


> Asterix, look at the current debacle in Myanmar. Who was the first on the scene and whose C-130's are currently making air drops. Remember the tsumani in 2004, who was the first on the scene delivering aid.


Being 1st on the scene means what? When right here in America there are people who are still reeling from the effects of a similar disaster even though of a smaller scale after 3+ years? The pretentiousness of our government's acts makes the world look at us with disgust and disdain. The world's largest debtor nation which has practically nothing to generate revenue from aside from taxes generated from businesses and its people. It keeps getting the same people who fund it into debt (that my future grand children would still be paying for) by borrowing continuously to look heroic to a world that looks at it scornfully?

Let us stop with the grand self delusion and focus on building our great nation that is failing instead of playing the police nation to the world. We have enough of our own problems here that we haven't resolved.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Asterix,

I think the world's "disgust and disdain" because of US aid to disaster victims around the world is in your eyes only. And that's sad.

So the US "... has practically nothing to generate revenue from aside from taxes generated from businesses and its people." 

Has the US government ever "generated" revenue"? Bascially, no. The government has always collected it's revenues through taxes on business and its people.

However, considering business (that then may be taxed) ...

From the US Census Bureau Foreign Trade Statistics for 2007...

* Exports in 2007 of $1,163.3 billion were a record.

* The 2007 exports of foods, feeds, and beverages ($84.2 billion); industrial supplies and materials ($315.6 billion); capital goods ($446.0 billion); automotive vehicles, parts and engines ($120.9 billion); and consumer goods ($146.4 billion) were records.

* The 2007 exports of petroleum ($37.7 billion) and non-petroleum ($1,125.6 billion) were records.

According to the World Economic Forum the United States tops the overall ranking in The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008: 

"The Global Competitiveness Report series has evolved over the last three decades into the world’s most comprehensive and respected assessment of countries’ competitiveness, offering invaluable insights into the policies, institutions, and factors driving productivity and, thus, enabling sustained economic growth and long-term prosperity."

So, do we have too large a deficit? Yes, no doubt, but please come in off of the ledge and join the real world.

Yes, the United States is still the leader of the free world and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. While we have problems, were are hardly a "failing" nation, and will not be any time soon.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Asterix,
> 
> I think the world's "disgust and disdain" because of US aid to disaster victims around the world is in your eyes only. And that's sad.


lol............ sad enough to make you cry and maybe ask for more help for our people at home first? Your comment above reads somewhat like the kind of response I occasionally encounter when people with little or limited international exposure find themselves in discussions about perspectives of people on the other side of the pond that differs from ours in our beloved nation. :icon_smile_big:



Relayer said:


> So the US "... has practically nothing to generate revenue from aside from taxes generated from businesses and its people."
> 
> Has the US government ever "generated" revenue"? Bascially, no. The government always been collected it's revenues through taxes on business and its people.
> 
> ...


Generating revenues from businesses that are shipping off production/manufacturing jobs whereby the taxes that can be generated is getting lessened by the day? The National Debt has continued to increase at an average of *$1.50 billion per day* since September 28, 2007 and the debt is currently at about* $9,357,000,000,000*. So while you are still dreamily wishing on a star, things are falling apart in the seams while the countries who have always looked up to us are fast catching up and buying our notes. :icon_smile_big:

Least I forget, I am definitely in the real world considering the fact that I run a few of those businesses that contributes to the revenue and global competitiveness you are talking about.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Congrats on being a business owner. 

And my condolences, also, since the US is failing and all jobs are being sent overseas and we will be bankrupt soon. 

I guess you will be out of business shortly. 

I hope you made enough money off of the backs of the working man to keep yourself whole for a while as we wait together for the end. 
It is nigh!


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Also, Asterix...

"sad enough to make you cry and maybe ask for more help for our people at home first?" No, not in this case. 

Per CNN, "Citing figures from 22 organizations in 58 townships, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies said estimates of the death toll in Myanmar range from 68,833 and 127,990." 

"Thousands of children in Myanmar will starve to death in two to three weeks unless food is rushed to them, an aid agency warned Sunday as an increasingly angry international community pleaded for approval to mount an all-out effort to help cyclone survivors."

Does your knowledge of world opinion make you blind to the immediate life or death issue here? 

Do you really want to try and claim that "world opinion" of the US would rise if we said we will do nothing for these people because we still have Katrina victims who need help?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Generating revenues from businesses that are shipping off production/manufacturing jobs whereby the taxes that can be generated is getting lessened by the day?
> 
> Least I forget, I am definitely in the real world considering the fact that I run a few of those businesses that contributes to the revenue and global competitiveness you are talking about.


I think you meant the tax base not the taxes, right?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Congrats on being a business owner.


Thanks. :icon_smile_big:



Relayer said:


> And my condolences, also, since the US is failing and all jobs are being sent overseas and we will be bankrupt soon.
> 
> I guess you will be out of business shortly.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your condolences but I have a strong feeling that If I go out of business shortly as you predicted, then you'd have to resort to pan handling for sustenance but since you are a hopeful one, I think we'd be alright in our different spheres.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Also, Asterix...
> 
> "sad enough to make you cry and maybe ask for more help for our people at home first?" No, not in this case.
> 
> ...


It was fun for a while but it is getting boring beating this issue so I'd leave you to your opinion as I know mine wouldn't change your views nor is yours going to change mine. We all know that opinions are like farts, we all let them out and they tend to stink most times. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I think you meant the tax base not the taxes, right?


Ksinc,
You are right, I meant tax base. Thanks for catching that.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Nice try, but my "prediction" is facetious as you are the doom and gloom poster here.

Also, your arrogance is duly noted.

One more question for you (futile, likely, as you preferred to skip by the ones in my previous post, but) in your remarks, 

".... perspectives of people on the other side of the pond that differs from ours in our beloved nation." Your term "our beloved nation" came across as pure sarcasm. 

I'm wondering if I mis-interpreted you... is it really beloved, to you?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Relayer said:


> Nice try, but my "prediction" is facetious as you are the doom and gloom poster here.
> 
> Also, your arrogance is duly noted.
> 
> ...


You just wouldn't stop would you? :icon_smile_big:

I love my country and would proudly carry arms and kill to defend it but I'm also intelligent and candid enough to know and admit it when when she does wrong things.

Now can we stop this farce of a debate?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23023

https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26340

twenty paces ... no cheating


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23023
> 
> https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26340
> 
> twenty paces ... no cheating


..................and I can testify that there was/is/will be no cheating. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Apparently, you couldn't stop, either. Your participation was/is up to you.

And I'm glad that I misjudged you when I thought you were being sarcastic regarding your use of "our beloved country." I'm also glad to know that you, like I, would take up arms to defend her. I always thought that my time in the US military (though never in combat) was time well spent and allowed me travels that were educational. 

But, I'm still curious as to why you think world opinion of the US would be improved by our refusing to do anything to help Burma/Myanmar when they have tens of thousands of dead, and the great possiblity of thousands dying from starvation.


----------

