Just don't get it :(

[Spathiphyllum]

I know this poll is a bit dated but I just ran across it. It was conducted in allied lands prior to the Iraq war in the context of a nuclear North Korea (SAS target Korean threat). The question:

Which country poses the greatest threat to world peace?
Dec. 2002 Poll

So back in the good old days before we got the world upset over our killing terrorists and eradicating a murderous regime, the U.S. was considered a greater threat to world peace than N. Korea and Iraq combined. We are most certainly held in lower regard publicly today though privately I sense otherwise.

The "reward" for expending treasure and life? Public contempt on a grand, exhibitionist scale. Truth is stranger than fiction... simply stunning.

All I can say is Go BUSH! and Cheney! and Rumsfeld! and Rice! In your face!

[Ron]

When there was a cold war, when there were two sides, we had allies -- we were a partner with them in protecting them from the other side. The other side was hated -- humans have a much larger capacity for hate and jealousy than grattitude.

Now that we're alone as a "superpower", we are all that there is to hate and to be jealous of.

Switching gears, I had an argument about politics within my family last weekend. Someone (a dyed-in-the-wool Dem, absolute Bush hater, voted for Dean) was being quite emphatic that the root of all evil in the White House, apparently was the fact that George W. Bush has said that he "answers to a higher Authority". This person claimed that this is a very scarey thing for our country, that the Religious Right is taking over our country!

The other thing that this person was very concerned about, was Dick Cheney's use of a four letter epithet on the Senate Floor. (This person didn't have any problem with a certain president's behavior re: the Oral Office).

I tried desperately for nearly an hour to convince this person that we (and another Dem in the family) had almost no difference in our politics... that the country is so close on most of the issues that the level of vitriol has to be tyurned up to a shattering din to try and differentiate the candidates, but could get them to see any of this.

I asked for specifics on anything they said about Bush. "He lied" So I asked "About what?" The answer? "Oh come on. [implying I know the answer]" This went on for a bit. I told them that all they can do is attack the President's credibility, and his motives, and the fact that they didn't want to go to war (really, the problem is he's a Republican, and they're just looking for anything to grasp).

I went down the list of major issues: There was NOT ONE difference between us. Then this person started screaming: "YOU KEEP SAYING THAT THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN US! Well, YOU SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH AND THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE RIGHT THERE"

Even very intelligent people in a lengthy discussion can't get past this ad hominem and personal stuff and actually look at the issues. It's very very very sad state of affairs.

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by Ron - quotes in bold

Someone... was being quite emphatic that the root of all evil in the White House, apparently was the fact that George W. Bush has said that he "answers to a higher Authority". This person claimed that this is a very scarey thing for our country, that the Religious Right is taking over our country!
The perfect gift for someone. O'Reilly suggested that people living next door to members of the ACLU should buy them. (Where's Galen? I need to get his mailing address. )

The other thing that this person was very concerned about, was Dick Cheney's use of a four letter epithet on the Senate Floor.
Heavens to Murgatroid, Batman! Not a profanity... on the floor even? Ooooh, the humanity!

...really, the problem is he's a Republican, and they're just looking for anything to grasp.
I have a relative like that that survived the Depression years. It is a mortal sin for him (ex-Union) to vote Republican since it is probably the equivalent of dancing on FDR's grave. I think if God/Buddha/Allah himself (herself for the PC police) was a Republican, he'd vote against him (her - see above).

Even very intelligent people in a lengthy discussion can't get past this ad hominem and personal stuff and actually look at the issues.
Um, may need to rethink that "intelligent people" theory. Or maybe this is the exception that proves the rule.

[Ron]

That flag is fugly

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by Ron
That flag is fugly

Yes, but it's the thought that counts. And I hope you don't use that kind of language at family-get-togethers. Jumpin' jiminy! They'll say you "pulled a Cheney".

[Ron]

I self-edited. I was going to say:

"That #### flag is #### ugly, and any #### who would #### fly it is a complete ####, whose taste is really ####, and has #### allowed themself to be #### taken in by a #### #### #### quasi-news commentator." but I wasn't sure that the software censor would allow it.

I guess it does!

[Spathiphyllum]

Quit pullin' my Cheney...

[Df_Gamer]

Originally posted by Ron
When there was a cold war, when there were two sides, we had allies --

Come on!...We were in the midst of a nuclear arms race and both sides had ICBM's. I think the scenario is just a tad different now.

Assuming for a moment that Iraq had chemical and biological WMDs, they didn't have the missile program to send a payload very far beyond their border. And even if they were a threat to their neighbors, don't you think Iran, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, and Saudi Arabia should have been the ones to decide when to attack Iraq? Iraq was not a threat to the United States and we should not have invaded a sovereign nation without the backing of the international community. We attacked a nation because that nation was not complying with a U.N. resolution. Who are we? The new global dictator? People don't like us for many reasons and with George W. Bush throwing the weight of the U.S. around like some bully dictating the world order they will like us less.

The United States MAY have the common good in mind, but other countries see us as competitors attempting to establish an economic, political, military, and in some cases, religious monopoly.

Think of the U.S. as Microsoft in politics, economics, and military force. (We are not a united nation re: religion and are greatly outnumbered on the religious front)

Nobody likes a bully, 'cept maybe his parents.

We can not do it all. If Bush continues to act like he can police the world, it will create widespread conflict as nations see the opportunity to settle old scores (or start new ones) while the United States is tied up with someone else. If Russia or China or Germany or India or Pakistan decided to begin a campaign of expansion, we would be too busy to pursue the 'urgent' war on terror. Our priorities would change overnight -- again.

By not obtaining international support before invading Iraq. Bush placed the United States in a situation where the military is spread thin and incapable of answering any additional threats without sacrificing the current campaigns. Let's just hope no major player decides to take advantage of our precarious situation.

[Ron]

Your points would be valid if it were not for the fact that we were already at war with Iraq, just in the midst of a cease-fire, which they were persitently violating by firing on our planes, and by hindering the weapons inspectors.

Period. End of story.

Whatever other reason the President may have given to go back into full scale military action is immaterial, regardless of the stupid (but perhaps politically necessary to motivate the masses) emphasis on terrorism ties specific to al-qaeda.

His emphasis on WMD, which Putin, Clinton and every other sane person in the world (except, apparently, revisionist lefties) believed him to have, was appropriate since the President needed to protect our troops enforcing the cease-fire, the weapons inspectors, as well as the rest of the world.

[Ron]

Your point re: economic motivations of our competitor/allies is "right on the money" so to speak. But those were held in check while they thought the need for our friendship and security was greater than their need for money, which we were supplying in buckets through military spending in their nations as well as through humanitarian programs.

So while we spent untold billions of dollars defending Europe up until the wall fell (and continuing to his day!!!!), the proverbial minute the threat disappeared, there is no grattitude, no nothing.

Yes, defending Europe was in our own self interest, and because of that the rest of Europe thrived and was able to get on their feet economically without having to spend every dime on defense.

Sort of like what is going on in Iraq and the Middle East now, only this evil empire doesn't have borders. And this enemy has also established fifth columns within each of these European "allies".

[Ron]

HEY! I have a GREAT IDEA!

Why not have NATO, its member states and our other allies, send troops to the United States to man our bases, and patrol our borders to free up our soldiers for duty in Iraq!

That way they can spend some loot over here for a while, instead of in their own country training Iraqi troops.

Maybe they could offer to help us fix some of our roads and bridges to free up our civil engineers and contractors to go overseas and help Iraq!

That's what a real ally would offer to do if they couldn't get involved militarily with us.

Wouldn't they?

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by Df_Gamer - quotes in bold

Df_Gamer - We can not do it all. If Bush continues to act like he can police the world, it will create widespread conflict as nations see the opportunity to settle old scores (or start new ones) while the United States is tied up with someone else. If Russia or China or Germany or India or Pakistan decided to begin a campaign of expansion, we would be too busy to pursue the 'urgent' war on terror. Our priorities would change overnight -- again.

DF_, I don't want to rehash too much of what has been discussed ad naseum re "should we have gone to war with Saddam Hussein?". It's clear that the insurmountable force has met the immovable object in this debate. But I do want to address some of what you said.

The U.S., in recent history, and Bush, contemporaneously, have been the "bully" because no other nation on the planet had the intestinal fortitude or material assets to wage battles against oppressive governments. Responsible leaders try to eliminate potential catatrophes even if it means going against temporarily safe and convenient conventions. It is true that "we" cannot do it all, but too few have shown the grit and determination to do anything, so the unappreciated Uncle bites the bullet and gets things done and quits worrying so much about being popular.

As far as defining urgent, what is wrong with being flexible? When you have a fire, you redeploy your resources to protect those things that are most vulnerable/valuable or where the flames are the worst. Same with global threat and/or war. The U.S. government, and the military by extension, must always reevaluate international circumstance - it is just plain prudent and absolute. How is that a flaw?

Next, the U.S. acts when it is necessary. By some of your logic we should not be involved globally because any such intervention motivates global expansion by other countries since we would appear indisposed. I'm not convinced that that is correct or the right tack. Moving resources to confront "bad" people indicates a willingness to fight for what is right (and I define the U.S. as a genuinely moral country in spite of Hollywood and extreme secularism) and that deters "evil" wannabes. But enough of good vs evil.

Df_Gamer - By not obtaining international support before invading Iraq. Bush placed the United States in a situation where the military is spread thin and incapable of answering any additional threats without sacrificing the current campaigns. Let's just hope no major player decides to take advantage of our precarious situation.

For the umpteenth time, the Bush administration tried to get international support. He was able to get some but not all. Please, for the love of God, quit begging for the French (and Francophiles) to join in. They are enemies of American policy and will not support anything we do unless it keeps invading brigades off their soil.

Now the thinly-spread military is a concern and we have past, usually Democratic, administrations to thank for that. The country is now experiencing the folly of slashed military budgets and is now reacting accordingly. Should military budgets be reevaluated and increased/decreased according to need? Of course, but it is quite difficult to predict what resources are necessary since it would require a crystal ball. Until the DOD invents and builds one, appropriate military appropriation is a sort of coin-flip of decision making. But we must provide adequate resources for the research to discover crystal-ball technology, among others, and quit politically correct spending on domestic pork (even military pork) and keep our armed forces well subsidized. It is one of the few Constitutional mandates that musn't be compromised.

I, too, hope that other nations will not try to take advantage of currently strained military deployments, but there is no alternative. We'll make do with what we've got and live (or die) with the circumstances. But withdrawing in our turtle shell will not alleviate the risk of global terrorism, which is the threat we are having to pursue piece-by-piece and bit-by-bit in morsels throughout the world. If it makes us look like a bully, so be it. The world doesn't want to do us any favors unless it helps them too. Its practical and reasonable despite its selfishness. I happen to think that there are a few less selfish countries in the world and the U.S. sits at the head of that table.