To be fair even if Clinton could have had a 3rd term 9|11 would prob still have happened and the the following two bars would have occured anyways. The various string of last year's hurricanes would have still happened and then there is New Orleans and the South Coast in general....Well you get the drift... Doubtless, more like duh, the war/s didn't help and frankly I've seen better economic policies in grade school classrooms but its not totally...god I can't believe I'm defending him....Shrub's fault. Just mostly. :xP
God. I think I need to go shower...I feel all dirty now.
Uhm.. there're theories that speculate on wether 9/11 would've happened had someone else been in office, but those are just theories. Also I read there were plans to strenghten the leves on New Orleans, but the funding was cut because the money went to the war/s
But, well, yeah, a lot of the inevitable would've happened anyway; but the way the head of office deals with things also has a big impact on the economy
> Uhm.. there're theories that speculate on wether 9/11 would've happened had > someone else been in office, but those are just theories.
I'm pretty sure it would have. We have a long history of screwing with the affairs of other countries, and it had been long in the making.
> Also I read there were plans to strenghten the leves on New Orleans, but the > funding was cut because the money went to the war/s
Correct.
> But, well, yeah, a lot of the inevitable would've happened anyway; but the way > the head of office deals with things also has a big impact on the economy
I don't think that graph related to the economy's trading (im)balance, but rather just the state of government spending versus what it collected (in taxes and fines) over the years.
Yeah, that's why the US has been given the alias "world's police" or "globo-cop", which is negative, despite what it may sound like.
Clinton did bomb Iraq I think twice or thrice at least.. and poked his (the US') nose in a variety of other places where it didnt belong.
Even 'bailed' us out, which may've been helpful, but wasn't much appreciated by the population at large here, the US help rarely ever comes without strings attached, and that wasn't the exception...
But even with those things considered there're people saying 9/11 may not have happened, especially if you were to beleive that they knew it was comming and failed to act on it...
sides if we didn't poke our noses in maybe they would bomb us with a nuke enstead of a plane. our existence enough is more then the errorists want, and they will take steps to end us anyway they can cus of our way of life.
I can at least vouch personally that those places in Africa where the US hasn't poked its nose are nice and peaceful, despite being pluri-ethnic and islamic.
*laughs soflty* Sorry, hon, but that was indeed not my point, and in fact I'm a bit chagrined that you'd think me able to seriously make such a crude generalization as 'no US == peace', come on. :) But that's okay, please don't take offense; and please excuse me for tickling your mental automatisms a little, too -- it may be sort of entertaining, but it's not very nice, honestly.
Nah, I already made that point once, a good while ago -- september 2003, if you still have your ICQ history from back then -- and I don't see any need to belabor it. It's between you and yourself, now.
As for keeping you honest, no one can do it but yourself, dear. Here's a general hint, though: if you're not able to provide a serious logical argument in favor of a standpoint you personally disagree with, you are probably not being logically honest. (Yes, it's difficult. Yes, I do try to do it. Yes, I can construct a logical argument that invading Irak was a good move for the US. No, it doesn't have to mean I agree with it.)
This is tangential to the article by Peter Suber that I posted about a while back. It was a good read then, and it still is.
One of the french master divers that came out with the outfit here in Djibouti said that Paris wouldn't grant him a Visa to Sudan. He was to likely to pick up a stray bullet because he was white.
And kip, the places in Africa that are fucked up started going downhill after the British and the French collapsed their economies trying to do what we're doing. 99 percent of third world africa is prior colonized and slaved. Yeah, this shit really IS the white worlds fault and a lot of the continent is bitter about it.... their memory goes back past the revolution. Don't think our purpose out here is noble; a lot of us get the chance to do noble things out here but back home? In the end it's political agenda, just like everything else.
If the US didn't poke its nose? Well, states would be sovereign, the way they're supposed to be.
You (I use you since you used we) belong, roughly, in here
Outside of that area belong the people from outside of that area If someone asks for help... well, it's up to the US to help or not, and then strings attached are understandable, and up to the country asking for help to accept the help and strings or not.
But when, say, Venezuela has a president they don't want, but that they prefer instead of US "help" (that was offered and refused in the past); then what is the US doing organizing riots and rebellions to throw Chavez out?
Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P
I would've used Hussein or Castro as example, but... Well, this is already rude enough with Giza, and for that I apologize. If you want to continue this discussion feel free to e-mail me, IM me or something
> If the US didn't poke its nose? Well, states would be sovereign, the way they're supposed to be. I guess what I'm getting at when I posed that question was, if we just simply do what many people demand and withdraw from world affairs, pulled out everywhere, you'd see things fall apart in a real big hurry. Wars would erupt all over the place very quickly, and across the globe. Within a year, you'd have India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea blowing up big time, Iraq and Afghanistan falling into anarchy and civil war and a general Middle East war not far behind. All this would have worldwide fallout--figurative and literal.
Give the world some credit, the US isn't the glue that keeps it all together. Would there be wars? Probably, but There are wars anyway. The US is in a war right now, that's not any better than if it were another country.
1) We're a large nation and by definition have national interests that go far beyond our borders. Interests that have to be promoted and defended worldwide. They include such things as free trade and open sea lanes, as well as the safety and security of our citizens. We can't defend those from inside our own borders. And if somebody starts threatening those, asking nearby states or UN for permission to defend them is a loss of *our* soveriegnty.
Free trade is not a right, it's a privilege. If it were a right Free Trade Agreements wouldn't have to be signed. It's not a right defendable by war, it's a privilege earned. Granted it can also be stolen by force, by invading a country, taking its leader and keeping its oil, for example. But most countries would consider that unethical. Security? Sure, who can blame you for wanting security for your citizens. Afghanistan was like "We hoped it didn't come to this, but, well, they got it coming after 9/11"; even if for every people that died in 9/11 several died in Afghanistan. Iraq isn't and never was about security and/or 9/11. There were no weapons of mass destruction (and arguing over that would be a moot point if the US government themselves has finally accepted that there weren't, and that they knew from the start), there were no links to Al Qaeda, nothing. What Iraq has is oil, lots of it. Sure, the more childlish version that Bush wanted to finish what his dad started is also a posibility, but money speaks louder than bloodline. At the begining of Bush's term oil prices were, adjusted to inflation, lower than before the OPEC was founded; because of that the OPEC was declared a failiure. What's a quick and certain way to raise oil prices? War. Invariably whenever there is a war oil prices go up. The longer you keep the war the higher prices get. And what better than to start a war with a country that supplies lots of that oil? Why buy out the competition when it can just be taken over by force? But again, most countries don't think that ethical. Sea lanes are a source of conflict since the dawn of civilization, sadly.
2) We have allies we are responsible for defending. There's Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Israel that are all under the American Aegis (never mind Iraq and Afghanistan)... and that's not even counting NATO. You could say that they did ask for our help, but we can't *just* defend them without also being able to control the seas, having nearby bases, trade agreements, etc.
Well, sure, if South Korea, Kuwait or Israel ask for your help it's only logical they'll let you place bases there.
3) You just can't take actions on the basis of public opinion--whether they want you there or not. You do that, you're just pandering to opinion polls and have no right to call yourself a leader either at home or abroad; will find yourself impotent will you really *do* have to assert your will and defend your interests. A few examples:
The rest of the world doesn't call the US a leader. A true leader is someone people follow naturally, if the leader has to use force for people to follow him it just becomes dominance. Invading a country for economic reasons... well, isn't that what Germany was doing when WWII started? It's not right.
The US used to be a true world leader though, its people have many admirable features, but the actions of the government that you seem to be defending have pretty much wiped that image
Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes. The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask pegla whose father is from there and who's been there since the US devastated it. If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way. I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely. More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily. It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help? Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet. Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached. In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out. That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it? Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa). Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama... It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.
Unfortunately, even when you leave out the cost of the war(s) on terrorism, we'd still be deeply, hugely in deficit spending from Bush's budgets. It's probably a mistake to read too much into a man's governing style from what we can glean about his personality, but from the way his life's motif has been one of getting bailed out by influence and family connections, I think the fact that he's never really had to stick around to pay a bill or clean up his own mess in his life might have something to do with his "Borrow and Spend" economic policy.
I like conservatives, I'm fairly conservative on some issues myself. I just wish the Republicans would nominate a real one.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 05:05 pm (UTC)God. I think I need to go shower...I feel all dirty now.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 06:49 pm (UTC)Also I read there were plans to strenghten the leves on New Orleans, but the funding was cut because the money went to the war/s
But, well, yeah, a lot of the inevitable would've happened anyway; but the way the head of office deals with things also has a big impact on the economy
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 06:54 pm (UTC)> someone else been in office, but those are just theories.
I'm pretty sure it would have. We have a long history of screwing with the affairs of other countries, and it had been long in the making.
> Also I read there were plans to strenghten the leves on New Orleans, but the
> funding was cut because the money went to the war/s
Correct.
> But, well, yeah, a lot of the inevitable would've happened anyway; but the way
> the head of office deals with things also has a big impact on the economy
I don't think that graph related to the economy's trading (im)balance, but rather just the state of government spending versus what it collected (in taxes and fines) over the years.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 07:08 pm (UTC)Clinton did bomb Iraq I think twice or thrice at least.. and poked his (the US') nose in a variety of other places where it didnt belong.
Even 'bailed' us out, which may've been helpful, but wasn't much appreciated by the population at large here, the US help rarely ever comes without strings attached, and that wasn't the exception...
But even with those things considered there're people saying 9/11 may not have happened, especially if you were to beleive that they knew it was comming and failed to act on it...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 09:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 10:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 07:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 02:05 pm (UTC)Sorry, hon, but that was indeed not my point, and in fact I'm a bit chagrined that you'd think me able to seriously make such a crude generalization as 'no US == peace', come on. :)
But that's okay, please don't take offense; and please excuse me for tickling your mental automatisms a little, too -- it may be sort of entertaining, but it's not very nice, honestly.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-22 08:58 am (UTC)As for keeping you honest, no one can do it but yourself, dear.
Here's a general hint, though: if you're not able to provide a serious logical argument in favor of a standpoint you personally disagree with, you are probably not being logically honest.
(Yes, it's difficult. Yes, I do try to do it. Yes, I can construct a logical argument that invading Irak was a good move for the US. No, it doesn't have to mean I agree with it.)
This is tangential to the article by Peter Suber that I posted about a while back. It was a good read then, and it still is.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 02:32 am (UTC)And kip, the places in Africa that are fucked up started going downhill after the British and the French collapsed their economies trying to do what we're doing. 99 percent of third world africa is prior colonized and slaved. Yeah, this shit really IS the white worlds fault and a lot of the continent is bitter about it.... their memory goes back past the revolution. Don't think our purpose out here is noble; a lot of us get the chance to do noble things out here but back home? In the end it's political agenda, just like everything else.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-20 09:23 pm (UTC)You (I use you since you used we) belong, roughly, in here
Outside of that area belong the people from outside of that area
If someone asks for help... well, it's up to the US to help or not, and then strings attached are understandable, and up to the country asking for help to accept the help and strings or not.
But when, say, Venezuela has a president they don't want, but that they prefer instead of US "help" (that was offered and refused in the past); then what is the US doing organizing riots and rebellions to throw Chavez out?
Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P
I would've used Hussein or Castro as example, but... Well, this is already rude enough with Giza, and for that I apologize. If you want to continue this discussion feel free to e-mail me, IM me or something
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 04:00 am (UTC)I guess what I'm getting at when I posed that question was, if we just simply do what many people demand and withdraw from world affairs, pulled out everywhere, you'd see things fall apart in a real big hurry. Wars would erupt all over the place very quickly, and across the globe. Within a year, you'd have India-Pakistan, China-Taiwan, North Korea-South Korea blowing up big time, Iraq and Afghanistan falling into anarchy and civil war and a general Middle East war not far behind. All this would have worldwide fallout--figurative and literal.
Give the world some credit, the US isn't the glue that keeps it all together.
Would there be wars? Probably, but There are wars anyway. The US is in a war right now, that's not any better than if it were another country.
1) We're a large nation and by definition have national interests that go far beyond our borders. Interests that have to be promoted and defended worldwide. They include such things as free trade and open sea lanes, as well as the safety and security of our citizens. We can't defend those from inside our own borders. And if somebody starts threatening those, asking nearby states or UN for permission to defend them is a loss of *our* soveriegnty.
Free trade is not a right, it's a privilege. If it were a right Free Trade Agreements wouldn't have to be signed.
It's not a right defendable by war, it's a privilege earned. Granted it can also be stolen by force, by invading a country, taking its leader and keeping its oil, for example. But most countries would consider that unethical.
Security? Sure, who can blame you for wanting security for your citizens. Afghanistan was like "We hoped it didn't come to this, but, well, they got it coming after 9/11"; even if for every people that died in 9/11 several died in Afghanistan.
Iraq isn't and never was about security and/or 9/11. There were no weapons of mass destruction (and arguing over that would be a moot point if the US government themselves has finally accepted that there weren't, and that they knew from the start), there were no links to Al Qaeda, nothing. What Iraq has is oil, lots of it. Sure, the more childlish version that Bush wanted to finish what his dad started is also a posibility, but money speaks louder than bloodline.
At the begining of Bush's term oil prices were, adjusted to inflation, lower than before the OPEC was founded; because of that the OPEC was declared a failiure. What's a quick and certain way to raise oil prices? War.
Invariably whenever there is a war oil prices go up. The longer you keep the war the higher prices get. And what better than to start a war with a country that supplies lots of that oil? Why buy out the competition when it can just be taken over by force?
But again, most countries don't think that ethical.
Sea lanes are a source of conflict since the dawn of civilization, sadly.
2) We have allies we are responsible for defending. There's Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait, Japan, and Israel that are all under the American Aegis (never mind Iraq and Afghanistan)... and that's not even counting NATO. You could say that they did ask for our help, but we can't *just* defend them without also being able to control the seas, having nearby bases, trade agreements, etc.
Well, sure, if South Korea, Kuwait or Israel ask for your help it's only logical they'll let you place bases there.
3) You just can't take actions on the basis of public opinion--whether they want you there or not. You do that, you're just pandering to opinion polls and have no right to call yourself a leader either at home or abroad; will find yourself impotent will you really *do* have to assert your will and defend your interests. A few examples:
The rest of the world doesn't call the US a leader. A true leader is someone people follow naturally, if the leader has to use force for people to follow him it just becomes dominance.
Invading a country for economic reasons... well, isn't that what Germany was doing when WWII started? It's not right.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 04:09 am (UTC)Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes.
The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask
If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way.
I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely.
More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily.
It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help?
Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet.
Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P
On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached.
In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out.
That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it?
Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans
The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa).
Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama...
It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 01:20 am (UTC)I like conservatives, I'm fairly conservative on some issues myself. I just wish the Republicans would nominate a real one.