america, love'em or hate'em, is the world's super power. in most cases, we're the problem causers and/or the problem solvers. we're the last result / hope, we're the charity, we're the uncle who hands out dontations, we're the john wayne cowboys, etc, etc...
my question to you (both american and otherwise) is...
what SHOULD our stance be? should we continue being world leaders, concentrating on helping run the UN, solve the problems of other countries, fixing the global economy, etc...
or, should we be more reserved? more interested in our own, domestic affairs and problems, than with everyone elses? let the rest of the world go to hell (or heaven), without a care from us?
I feel that we have a duty to help those that can't help themselves. We have too many resourses not to share/help other less advanced countries.
Helping others also protects ourselves. In these days of the global village, so many things are connected and related that it would be folly to ignore what goes on outside of our own borders.
Good Question again, Rob! As much as the thought of a single-government domination annoys me, I think that America has done a good job in the past acting as "Big Brother", however, from the little I know, I don't think I'm very comfortable with Dubya having that power. On the other hand, as much as this will give you Americans an ego boost I don't know if any other country could do the job America has done.....am I making sense?
Its all well and good to say the US is "involved" in other countries to "help" them...but lets take a look at our military involvement in Viet Nam and Desert Storm? Was that really politically motivated or for profit? And what the hell is a Cuban embargo really doing but keeping me from getting good cigars?
do i (or will we ever) know the full implications and underwritten desires of these wars? no. never. however, its VERY safe to say both were good causes.
tho, obviously in great microcosmic aspects to the great wars, both were fought for a global cause, as an opposition to tyrany - sadam in dessert storm, communism in viet nam.
did the president(s) go about it wrong (vietnam)? yes. the american public, tho certainly on a need to know basis, needed to know the cause of so many american deaths. that was a horrible display, and entire lack of respect towards our own country -- almost as bad as the treatment of our soldiers by their own nation, upon their return.
re: our stance.
its my belief that we should infact continue our world leadership, helping those who cant help themselves. however, i believe its about time we evaluate who, exactly, we're helping. for example, years of benefitting and catering to the japanese, helping boom their economy, just to have them turn around and call us "fat and lazy" (razy?) 10 years back? like any good allowance-giving parent, an outburst like that should have called for an immediate "cut-off" of all funds -- and yet we still support them.
re: george dubya in power.
georgie isn't the most brilliant man, sure, but its grossly stretched out, for the purpose of a "president stereotype" (its easier for the media and comedy shows that way).
however, id much rather have him as a leader (especially a world leader) than clinton. clinton was a president who would gladly cowtail towards another country, kiss their ass in a political fashion. georgie, on the otherhand, is more than willing to stand up for, and defend his nation, whenever threatened.
yes, we are in "peaceful" times right now, however... when looking at the countries in the world, even the ones we support in some way, there's not too many that like and/or respect us or what we do, for whatever reason. many countries hold us, even in the aspect of being the leader of the free world, as the butt of many jokes, and the target of many insults.
it might take someone like W to straighten that mess out.
Please explain to me how these were "VERY good causes". Especially in relation to the numerous other conflicts that go on throughout the world.
re: our stance.
I agree with this to some extent, however on another level, I will never understand why we are feeding the "starving children of Asia" when homeless (I cant spell undomiciled) people are dying daily on the streets of America.
re: george dubya in power.
While Clinton may have been more of a "pacifist" then you liked, please cite examples when a "tough guy" in office would have done a better job during his term. What major conflict went unresolved as a result of one of Clinton's time in office. And was it really necessary for duh-bya to have one his first move in office to increase the defense budget?
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: re: vietnam and desert storm.
Please explain to me how these were "VERY good causes". Especially in relation to the numerous other conflicts that go on throughout the world.
again, it wasn't as black and white a depiction as WWII was (there's a reason its called "the last great war"), but it was still an opposition to tyrany and a fight for freedom.
in vietnam's case, a messy one. a very, very messy one. with poor planning and horrific support. also again, the president(s) went about the situation the wrong way, and partially for the wrong reasons. regardless, few causes, if any, are better than freedom.
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: I will never understand why we are feeding the "starving children of Asia" when homeless (I cant spell undomiciled) people are dying daily on the streets of America.
agreed.
first and foremost, we are a family, bound by country borders. you can sacrifice yourself, but you always help your family first.
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: While Clinton may have been more of a "pacifist" then you liked, please cite examples when a "tough guy" in office would have done a better job during his term.
a good tough guy in office -- any leader in our country, or england, during the WWII years. gulianni in NY.
they wanted results? they got results.
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: What major conflict went unresolved as a result of one of Clinton's time in office.
none.
cuz he didnt do anything.
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: And was it really necessary for duh-bya to have one his first move in office to increase the defense budget?
under clinton's "rule," our armies reached an all time low, in budget and in number. and, with knowledge that we're under constant threat of attack (in some cases, nuclear, from countries that dont even have an official name), yes -- im all for increasing the defense budget.
WHO? Who are we in constant fear of attack, at last count I thought we had enough nuclear weapons to blow the world up several times over, I should think once is sufficent.
defense isnt about building the nuke, its about preventing it. (in theory, anyway)
and, just 'bout any country in the middle east hates us, even the ones we're quasi-defending. there are some very angry muslim or militant groupings that are just waiting to attack us in some fashion; military strike or smnall acts of terrorism
add in some of the smaller used-to-be-russia "countries," and we're in not too friendly territory, quite often.
then, there's the fact that we just found out that india has nuclear technology, only within the past 2 years or so.
"While Clinton may have been more of a "pacifist" then you liked, please cite examples when a "tough guy" in office would have done a better job during his term. What major conflict went unresolved as a result of one of Clinton's time in office."
TWO AMERICAN EMBASSIES BOMBED BY BIN LADIN. CLINTON'S RESPONSE:NADA
U.S.S. COLE BOMBED CLINTON'S RESPONSE:NADA
THE U.S. INVOLVMENT IN BOSNIA/SERBIA. UNDISCLOSED MISSION STATEMENT & 'PULLOUT PLAN'. OF COURSE HIS DECISION TO SEND AMERICAN SOLDIERS TO FIGHT WAS MADE DURING ON OF MONICA'S ORAL MINISTRATIONS,AS PROVEN BY THE COURTS & PHONE RECORDS.
WHAT CONFLICT WAS RESOLVED HERE?
CLINTON LAUNCHES PATRIOT MISSLES INTO THE SUDAN,AFGHANISTAN,SERBIA,IRAQ,& CHINA(EMBASSY) IN AN ATTEMPT TO DISTRACT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM HIS PERSONAL LEGAL WOES...THIS HALF HEARTED ATTEMPT AT STRENGTH INVITED FURTHER AGGRESSION AGAINST THE PEACEFUL AMERICAN PEOPLE.
"And was it really necessary for duh-bya to have one his first move in office to increase the defense budget?"
quote:Originally posted by THE Franta: WHO? Who are we in constant fear of attack, at last count I thought we had enough nuclear weapons to blow the world up several times over, I should think once is sufficent.
Originally Posted By: Rob Kamphausen, September 6, 2001
Originally Posted By: THE Franta
While Clinton may have been more of a "pacifist" then you liked, please cite examples when a "tough guy" in office would have done a better job during his term.
a good tough guy in office -- any leader in our country, or england, during the WWII years. gulianni in NY. they wanted results? they got results.
Originally Posted By: THE Franta
What major conflict went unresolved as a result of one of Clinton's time in office.
none. cuz he didnt do anything.
Originally Posted By: THE Franta
And was it really necessary for duh-bya to have one [of] his first moves in office [be] to increase the defense budget?
under clinton's "rule," our armies reached an all time low, in budget and in number. and, with knowledge that we're under constant threat of attack (in some cases, nuclear, from countries that dont even have an official name), yes -- im all for increasing the defense budget.
Originally Posted By: Rob Kamphausen, September 8, 2001
defense isnt about building the nuke, its about preventing it. (in theory, anyway)
and, just 'bout any country in the middle east hates us, even the ones we're quasi-defending. there are some very angry muslim or militant groupings that are just waiting to attack us in some fashion; military strike or smnall acts of terrorism
add in some of the smaller used-to-be-russia "countries," and we're in not too friendly territory, quite often.
then, there's the fact that we just found out that india has nuclear technology, only within the past 2 years or so.
dats not good.
The words of Kamphausen the Prophet, just 5 days before 9-11.
Liberals were bemoaning what Bush was spending on defense before 9-11. After 9-11, they were bemoaning that he didn't spend nearly enough to prevent 9-11. (An act of terror whose planning, funding and implementation began in 1998, but has magically become all Bush's fault, despite the fact he didn't take office till January 20, 2001.)
And they're still in denial that there's a threat, alleging that it's all just "fearmongering", as they collectively push for our troops to leave prematurely from Iraq.
always liberals to blame, huh? I think the complaint about Bush's spending have to do with his pushing for a Cold War-esque missile shield while ignoring CIA reports like "Bin Laden determined to attack the US." Bush spent a record number of vacation days at the ranch in those first 7 months after he was sworn in, and even after 9/11 he's spent a record number of vacation days hanging out at the ranch. I guess 9/11 changed everything except for his love of taking time off.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
always liberals to blame, huh?
If you were less prone to demonizing me, you'd see I've had a lot of negative criticism of the Republicans too. And while I don't think Democrats are evil, I think the 1960's-forward brand of liberalism is, and the ideas its now-forgotten communist founders were/are unquestionably focused on destroying western democracy, with its relentless undermining of our nationalism, history, culture and sovereignty, to pave the way for something distinctly un-american. I frequently praise Democrats who I think "get" what are the real issues, and I frequently point out the marxist roots of those who wittingly or unwittingly seek to destroy us. And included in those wittingly or unwittingly destroying us is the free-trade/offshoring/globalist wing of the Republican party.
Originally Posted By: Ray
I think the complaint about Bush's spending have to do with his pushing for a Cold War-esque missile shield while ignoring CIA reports like "Bin Laden determined to attack the US."
That's actually a valid and objective criticism you've raised. It's a criticism I raised myself 7 years ago in Bush's opening months in office, pre-9/11, that he should follow the advice of his pentagon generals, and not spend billions on an unnecessary and untested missile shield, that would only piss off the Russians that Reagan and Bush Sr. had made peace and signed arms reduction treaties with. Russia and China have recently done joint military maneuvers, I think precisely because of the Eastward encroachment of NATO, the presence of U.S. troops in former-Soviet Georgia, Armenia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan, which collectively are threatening to Russia.
Which is very aggressive toward a nation that has recently been so helpful in the opening years after 9-11, that our policy is needlessly alienating. Although I'm not blind to the fact that it's an increasingly authoritarian state, that could rationalize its actions regardless. But in this case, I do think they feel legitimately dicked over by the United States. As does Iran, when they passively supported our Afghan invasion, and then were branded the "axis of evil". They might well be, but that was a clumsly and undiplomatic move on W. Bush's part. I believe in either using the sabre or putting it away, not rattling it. And all that did was increase cooperation between Iran, Syria and N. Korea, when a more diplomatic approach would have allowed us to isolate each of them and leverage change within those nations, short of military force, or inadvertantly rallying them together in unison against the United States, as Bush did.
My only criticism of that is: Bush was in office less than 8 months. If he had implemented every anti-terror measure the Joint Chiefs recommended, they still wouldn't have been in place to prevent 9-11. If 9-11 happened a year or more later, I'd say yeah, Bush is to blame, and I think Bush and Clinton have shared blame for 9-11. As do the private airlines, who should have established security comparable to the Israelis and Europeans 30 years ago.
Originally Posted By: Ray
Bush spent a record number of vacation days at the ranch in those first 7 months after he was sworn in, and even after 9/11 he's spent a record number of vacation days hanging out at the ranch. I guess 9/11 changed everything except for his love of taking time off.
Maybe valid criticism, maybe not. Cel phones and the nuclear-code suitcases follow the president wherever he is, whether it's the White House, Camp David, Paris, Berlin, wherever.
And the President can conduct business just as easily from his home in Texas.
Bush Sr. did this leading up to the Persian Gulf war in 1990-1991, where the media scorned him for being out golfing or fishing. But it turned out later he was on the cel phone with world leaders that whole time, coordinating the multinational invasion of Kuwait.
So just because he's at his home in Texas doesn't mean he's not working.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
always liberals to blame, huh? I think the complaint about Bush's spending have to do with his pushing for a Cold War-esque missile shield while ignoring CIA reports like "Bin Laden determined to attack the US." Bush spent a record number of vacation days at the ranch in those first 7 months after he was sworn in, and even after 9/11 he's spent a record number of vacation days hanging out at the ranch. I guess 9/11 changed everything except for his love of taking time off.
6 minutes into the video, you can see a bemused Rumsfeld reacting to Senator Levin criticizing missle defense and ignoring the most likely threat: terrorism.
Also if you click the video, you can access the TIME article where it shows it was the BUSH Administration who ignored the Cole bombing and mocked the outgoing Clinton Administration for being "obsessed with osama".
While Clinton spent that time being "obsessed with Osama" and his Administration was seeing him as a growing threat, the GOP was obsessed with Monica. All that 'Osama obsession' of course came to a halt on January 2001.
But of course after 9/11, the lie meisters of the right went furiously to work to portray these incompetents as the party of counterterrorism. Despite having a long record of thwarting Clinton's anti terror legislation for years. Suddenly it became "Clinton did nothing".
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
I don't know if any other country could do the job America has done.....am I making sense?
