Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Undertoad]

Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well. If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around. There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

[Griff]

I hear you man, but the particular media source isn't the big problem. There isn't much of a market for the sky isn't falling news. Prowar/antiwar both want to terrorize. Both will say the sky isn't falling only in reaction to the others over-reaction. When the news is skewed you need to look inside yourself and think, I'm a human what drives me? Very few of us look inside and see a real bastard. Folks that give great power to others out of fear risk handing their power to one of the few bastards, because those few bastards are by definition grasping.
I'm reaping the benefits of the accumulated knowlege of mankind. To attribute that to American hegemony seems a distortion of reality.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

I don't see that. I see wars continuing everywhere. Wars were becoming more international - sucking in more countries in every war - as weaponry increased ranges for each battlefield. It was not America that caused a mindset change. The world is not safer only because of America (as Fox News propaganda tell extremists). Where 'world policemen' justify their actions, then problems may actually become worse. It took wars so vast with weapons so massive to finally cause little people to rise up - to demand that the reason for war (the leaders) answer instead to the people. But again, an obvious fact identifies where such problems are created.

Neither WWII nor America stopped threats of war by 'big dic' mentalities. Probably the event that most brought worldwide sanity was the Cuban Missile Crisis. The power and need of institutions such as the UN, people who talk to their enemies (a direct comment on the stupidity of George Jr), the need for eliminating military conflict by solving problems at the negotiating table rather than with 'big dic' solutions, and the power of 'containment' - all became obvious and necessary. Many Americans were no different than other 'evil ones' with a 'big dic' mentality. 'Big dics' on all sides saw solutions only in terms of military conflict. The lessons from Kennedy and Khrushchev conclusively proved the fallacy of 'big dic' reaction.

What is an impediment to worldwide conflict? Learn the lessons of history AND appreciate concepts in this previous citation:
from "New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?"

Yes warfare is still ongoing. But no longer unrestricted. No longer sucking in every major power. It took something so fearful as a Cuban Missile Crisis to finally make obvious the stupidity of that 'big dic' reasoning. It was not America that brought sanity. My god. Some Americans are still so 'evil' (if evil exists) as to even want a shooting war with China over a silly spy plane. America, like other nations, can easily be enthralled in the emotion of power. As a result, America is responsible for unnecessary death of millions of innocent people just in Nam and Iraq alone. Is that a 'good' people, or a misguided people? To answer that, who was the leader then?

Don't for one minute fall for myths promoted by wacko and religious extremists - that Americans are the good guys. One benchmark for identifying the myopic and potentially 'evil' ones? They view in terms of "good verses evil" rather than a world full of perspectives. They cannot take the mindset of an honest broker. They see solutions only in military terms - the 'big dic' solution. They feel; therefore they assume they must know. Too many will not "look inside and see a real bastard." Too many still never learned lessons even taught by Kennedy and Khrushchev that one October when American and Soviet 'big dics' tried to destroy the world.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Flushed with oil money, the Russians are getting an erection.

Russia is planning to buy new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly aircraft carriers as part of an ambitious military programme, it emerged yesterday.
The defence minister, Sergei Ivanov, told parliament the military would have 17 new ballistic missiles this year - a hefty increase on the four deployed on average each year in recent times.

The purchases are part of a weapons modernisation programme for 2007-2015 worth about 5 trillion roubles (£96.4bn).

[SamIam]

Well, aren't we planning on more missles in various spots in Eastern Europe? Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Its the same old, same old, and, as I understand it, the US is the country that started the latest face-off, not Russia.

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

That was when America kept doing things that made Russian security threatened. America was building bases that surrounded Russia. NATO forces were being deployed closer to Russia. America would unilaterally 'Pearl Harbor' nations (ie Iraq) and threatened to attack others. The United States would unilaterally cancel international treaties intended to create mutual trust between Russia and America. All this started with George Jr whose staff had even written a memo saying that the United States should be ready to unilaterally attack Russia, Germany, or India. Why? The objective was to keep the United Stated number one at all costs.

Is this a nation that Russia could trust? Of course not. Putin had been repeatedly warning that actions of the United States threaten to restart the Cold War. How many Americans - especially the 'big dic' types who blindly support George Jr - ever heard these warnings even from many in the United States?

Under George Jr, the United States has repeatedly acted in ways that only worry Russia. My god. This American government is so wacko extremist as to even justify torture, extraordinary rendition, imprisonment without judicial review, nuclear weapons even for conventional warfare, unlimited wiretapping, nuclear proliferation, a fear of enemies who were even once friends, a population that even believes wacko extremist lies (propaganda) from their government, and even ‘Pearl Harbors’ nations using outright lies. Leaders who would even go to war over a silly spy plane. A nation that had no problem even destroying the Oslo Accords. Russians looking at history would recognize what preceded 1938.

What does Russia do when threatened externally? It consolidates domestic power. What is Putin doing? Consolidating power after having repeatedly and publically warned about American actions restarting the Cold War.

The damage done by George Jr to America's international reputation will be our legacy for at least the next 10 years. Even worse are the so many Americans who so hate America as to deny the damage.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Russia Good! Commies Good! Russia should be Trusted!... US BAD! Evil Empire! Down with America! Make US like Russia all will be GOOD! All evils in the world are fault of US! Down with America!

WTF?

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Was that before or after the Head of the KBG became thier leader?

Ah, but our president has examined his soul and found it acceptable.

PRESIDENT BUSH: I will answer the question. I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.

I don't know what is a bigger surprise, that President Bush thinks he is a good judge of mens souls or that he appreciates 'frank dialogue'.

President Carter used to be considered a wimp for talking too much about feelings. Yet I doubt that he would have used this kind of language for Putin. Maybe President Bush is getting a free pass on the wimpiness since he is responsible for two wars (and wore a flight suit).

Anyway, it is an interesting philosophical argument whether a tyrant can also be a patriot.

We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by richlevy

We always talk about democracy and patriotism, but we always seem to ignore the fact that in many cases the democratic and patriotic goals of other countries are in conflict with our goals. It's like saying to a five-year-old "I know I told you that you can have what you want for dinner, but you don't want pizza, what you really want is broccoli".

Yea, I know. We will always be in a position of making decisions which favor US interests on the stage of international politics which will always conflict with other nations interests. I guess it's what makes the world go round. Of course we could just abdicate all our interests to the UN and let there be One World Government. Or we can treat 5 year olds like 5 year olds. I am really not interested in allowing other countries to tell us what is in our best interest.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Pay more attention to Fox News and other sources you don't agree with as well.

I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets, not just to the media wing of the GOP. They all have their bias, but their main objective is the public's attention. They don't get attention by dispassionately presenting what happened. The last I watched cable news, CNN was working as hard scaring liberals as Fox was scaring conservatives.

Both outlets scare their people into believing that more power needs to flow to their politicians. The vast majority of people are basically good. Those few who are evil will try to gain power over others, politics looks like the path to power when centralizers are successful. If we give too much power to politicians we are asking for oppression.

If it weren't for US influence, most of the world's oil chokepoints would be controlled by those bad actors and/or the nations interested in throwing their weight around.

We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy" if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.

There wouldn't be US influence, actually because we'd be in Carter-era economic sluggishness/crisis.

I'd say we risk another era of sluggishness if we don't free ourselves of oil dependence. The money we've thrown at stabilizing tyrants was a subsidy for the established oil industry. Some would say subsidizing nuke, wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive. It is an argument worth having, especially if global warming is man's doing.

Look at history man. The time of world wars was before US throwing its weight around arrived on the scene. I know you don't like the World Police approach but you are reaping tremendous benefit... as does the entire world.

I stand by my previous thought that we are benefiting more from man's accumulation of knowlege than from US hegemony. Free societies are better at preserving and distributing knowlege. We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear? I do not believe we can continue to sow fear to justify foreign and domestic interventions and remain as free as we are. The voters will demand that people have less control over their daily lives.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

I see the problem as people paying too much attention to all news outlets [[because their main bias is to frighten]]

Oh it's people now and not me. Yeeeah, I thought you were just doing the usual Cellar attack style, in which we take whatever we know about somebody and attack them on that basis. If we know they have an orange cap and wear it backwards, we attack on that basis. If we know they are fat, we attack on that basis. Now since it's been noted that, in the past, I watched a lot of TV news, I assumed you were assailing me for doing that. I was going to retaliate by saying you don't get smarter about the world by turning off all your sources and living in isolation in the middle of nowhere. So thankfully it's people now, and you weren't attacking me, you were just making an unrelated point about news, right?

If you have other outlets, you can learn to determine what is fright and what is actual news. But do tell us what your wonderfully golden sources are, and we promise not to mock you.

We are a nation throwing its weight around. Our attempts to stabilize the region over the years have contributed to our problems on the Arab/Persian street. We were never great supporters of ME democracy before, supporting "undemocracy" if we thought tyranny suited our needs. We have this vision of ourselves left-over from WWII as international defenders of freedom, unfortunately that reality didn't survive the Cold War. In the work of halting global communism we lost the man on the street, when his democratic aspirations conflicted with our needs.

Do tell us your wonderfully golden sources.

When I went to college in the early 80s, I had a friend named Roberto. Roberto was lucky and got to go to school in the US for nearly free due to international programs. Roberto was from Uruguay.

Roberto hated America. He would bring anti-American propaganda from Uruguay. The Uruguayans were mad, or at least some of them were, because they didn't like American pressure on their country.

But there wasn't really American pressure on their country. Come on, it was Uruguay! The socialists just enjoyed saying that there was, so they could blame America for all their ills. The people liked to think that their little country was so important that it required the intimate meddling of the great powers.

Being the biggest guy in the room makes us a target for doing nothing.

Some would say subsidizing... wind, and solar at the same levels would make them competitive.

We need your sources on this so that we can properly mock them (and not you)

So now the worm turns: you're in favor of massive government research programs in the name of freedom... broadly preventing free people (well, Exxon/Mobil, we can easily color them the bad guys) from trading with nations we don't agree with... and you're saying that if we prevent trade and come up with a sensible alternative to oil that is cheaper *snort*...

...it would surely make the US more powerful...

...which according to you, would make everyone that we don't trade with, not hate us, and therefore make us less of a target...

...although at that point, having developed and exported these energy alternatives, we will have undercut their only means of making serious money at all.

We are a country at a crossroads, will we choose to be free or will we choose fear?

I'm sorry, weren't you the one who was carefully cautioning about sources that use fright to make their message important?

[Griff]

My reply is fair because you claim special insight due to intense scrutiny of media. Your criticism is fair because I intentionally ignore same.


My "other outlets" are regular people like your Roberto. Did you find him misguided or instead evil? Unless Rob was advocating or committing violent acts, I'd say he was merely misguided.


Yes, we will take heat for being successful, but I'd rather take my chances with that than to take heat for being truly wrong.


Note the weasle word "Some." I don't advocate subsidy. I advocate bringing home the troops and letting energy cost what it costs. If you argue for the military subsidy, I'll counter by noteing a lower level of force would be used by the state subsidizing alternatives.


It is fair to say I'm fear mongering. I believe that people with "evil" or misguided intentions try to concentrate power. I believe that power distributed is safer. I am not familiar with any cable news outlet with that bias.