Which way do you swing?

[MadPanda]

Do a little more homework on this and you may find something interesting.

Clinton 'cut and run' in no small part because if he hadn't, the House and Senate would have yanked the rug out from under him: there were resolutions pending that would have forced him to either withdraw the troops or defy the Legislative branch (at which point they would have flayed him alive for daring to defy them).  That does not excuse his actions, but it does put them in a different light.  Needless to say, many of those who castigated him then (for putting troops in harms way) now shriek when a 'mere' 2500 casualties is reason to rethink Iraq.  *cough*DeLay*cough*

Events are rarely as clear as they seem in sound bites.

And before I forget...

Nixon cut and ran in 1972 from a place called Vietnam.  And Ronald Reagan cut and ran from Beiruit in 1982.  What makes their decisions different?  Where is the anger for these two incidents?

Is it 'cutting and running' to decide that a given policy has failed and move to save American lives and taxpayer money, rather than continue to blunder ahead and waste more or both?  Or is the admission of error so painful that it must be left for a successor, no matter what?

[kylie]

And by the way, if we ever go to war with Iran, Kerry has already said (on the record) that we must go to war with Iran if they get a nuke and we can't peacefully resolve it.  So, if that comes true, don't go saying that whoever is President has overstepped his authority.

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one.  Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty.  We should honor it.

Really, I don't see it as a simple choice of Democrat or Republican and one of them must be right.  Big money structures political institutions that way, so that everyone can be wrong but both sides will take bribes.  People can both choose problematic routes on all sorts of things, and there are plenty of issues for each individual to weigh against others. Kerry saying one thing does not make Bush right.  Any individual has all sorts of reasons (some good, some bad) to change their tune, and plenty of politicians in both camps do it.  "Flip-flop" is no more useful than say, "war president" in telling us what someone really does and why.   

Legal is not the same as useful or right.  A Houseful of legislators saying one thing does not necessarily make it practical.  They can pass resolutions about North Korean horror and evil until the end of time.  But if they're concerned about consequences, they won't invade that country.  In this sense, I'm inclined to say too bad Saddam was nowhere close to having nukes.  It would have saved so much waste and hubris if the administration thought he really might use some.  Risk a nuclear attack on our troops, or upon the Saudi royals with all our support for that oh-so-democratic government?  I don't think so. 

We go to war with forces we _presume_ will fold.  Flowers in the streets of Baghdad, remember?  But use the least advantaged segments of our society for infantry, just in case that little business of attrition or urban combat arises.  The muja in their caves do not call us cowards for no good reason, while we bomb from high altitudes and bribe local thugs to (maybe) hunt for them.

I'm not saying the noble thing to do is get more boots on the ground.  I think it's better to stay out where we didn't have much historical interest aside from economic exploitation.  Arrogance and greed make targets for many miles.  Ask the WTC and Pentagon.

And our forefathers...  Were slave owners.  Who were much more cautious about foreign entanglements, in the days before air superiority and all-consuming transnational capital.




 

[Sugarman (hal)]

Really, I don't see it as a simple choice of Democrat or Republican and one of them must be right.  Big money structures political institutions that way, so that everyone can be wrong but both sides will take bribes.  People can both choose problematic routes on all sorts of things, and there are plenty of issues for each individual to weigh against others. Kerry saying one thing does not make Bush right.  Any individual has all sorts of reasons (some good, some bad) to change their tune, and plenty of politicians in both camps do it.  "Flip-flop" is no more useful than say, "war president" in telling us what someone really does and why.   

Legal is not the same as useful or right.  A Houseful of legislators saying one thing does not necessarily make it practical.  They can pass resolutions about North Korean horror and evil until the end of time.  But if they're concerned about consequences, they won't invade that country.  In this sense, I'm inclined to say too bad Saddam was nowhere close to having nukes.  It would have saved so much waste and hubris if the administration thought he really might use some.  Risk a nuclear attack on our troops, or upon the Saudi royals with all our support for that oh-so-democratic government?  I don't think so. 

We go to war with forces we _presume_ will fold.  Flowers in the streets of Baghdad, remember?  But use the least advantaged segments of our society for infantry, just in case that little business of attrition or urban combat arises.  The muja in their caves do not call us cowards for no good reason, while we bomb from high altitudes and bribe local thugs to (maybe) hunt for them.

I'm not saying the noble thing to do is get more boots on the ground.  I think it's better to stay out where we didn't have much historical interest aside from economic exploitation.  Arrogance and greed make targets for many miles.  Ask the WTC and Pentagon.

Thinking she is describing the US as a school-yard bully? We pick on a kid we thing we can push about, thinking we want risk much. But 2,600 lives lost later (and counting) are we so inclined to rule the yard still.

I'm old enough to remember marching with 300,000 other people  in SF trying to get LBJ and Nixon to feigin stop bullying.  55,000 lives lost we got out. And the lesson was unlearned.

[kylie]

Yes, I think of it more as a big, fat bully that isn't worried if a couple pounds get rubbed off in the scuffle.  And those pounds are frequently young, less educated, and not upwardly mobile pounds.  Also not to be photographed on the way to their final resting places. 

Vietnam took a good few years to wind down, was a new form of media event, and involved more young people who never desired to be in the military.  This, we are _led_ to believe, is just the 'business' of "national security."  Whatever you say, Mr. Cheney-Capone.

[robitusinz]

We do not hand over our sovereignty and control to anyone else, not the UN, not the World Court, no one.  Over 225 years ago, our forefathers fought to give us our freedom and sovereignty.  We should honor it.

I'm really tired of this uber American rhetoric bullshit.  C'mon, give me a fucking break already.  Be proud of your own accomplishments.  Don't spout off on shit done by people centuries before you, who were completely unrelated to you.  And no, I don't give a fuck if you can trace direct lineage to Benjamin Franklin.  The simple fact is that no one can precisely say what our forefathers were thinking, or what their intentions were when they made those "great" decisions that people say they made.  Not only that, but it's impossible for the modern man to adequately put the "forefathers" into context.  Like Kylie mentioned in her post, the forefathers were slave-owners without access to nukes and stealth bombers.

You know what...I'd go so far as to say, "Fuck the forefathers".  Give praise to the mass of immigrants who flooded this country and actually stabilized it.  The Irish, the Italians, the Spanish, the Africans, the Germans, the Dutch, the Cubans (hey if the Ities get props for NY, we're taking props for Miami), the Mexicans, the Portoricans, the Polish...I mean, you want to assign praise, give it to the people who've provided the manpower, and subsequently the leaders who pushed this country beyond a clone of England to a healthy, thriving melting pot bursting with flavor.

Americans need to jump on ladders and see if they can see something beyond our borders.  It's time we started being citizens of the world, and not its usurping rulers.

[Zakharra]

 USA, lone superpower in military and economic reasons.

I'm really tired of this uber American rhetoric bullshit.  C'mon, give me a fucking break already.  Be proud of your own accomplishments.  Don't spout off on shit done by people centuries before you, who were completely unrelated to you.  And no, I don't give a fuck if you can trace direct lineage to Benjamin Franklin.  The simple fact is that no one can precisely say what our forefathers were thinking, or what their intentions were when they made those "great" decisions that people say they made.  Not only that, but it's impossible for the modern man to adequately put the "forefathers" into context.  Like Kylie mentioned in her post, the forefathers were slave-owners without access to nukes and stealth bombers.

Then what have other nations done to be proud of? I am proud of the US. It has done alot of good in it's history. I know that it's done evil too. But over all, it is a good nation and will do more good. We, as a nation, did not give up soveriegnty for other organizations to say wether we can or cannot go to war.

Which we did declare war. Twice in fact. Thry two resolutions that passed both Houses of Congress. The Constitution does not spell out a specific way that war has to be declared. Only that the Congress has to authorize action. Which it did.Twice. So it's a legal war. One that we do not need the UN's permission to begin again. Yes again, since the 1st Gulf war never really stopped. The open fighting ended with a cease fire. Since the cease fire terms were violated, open military action could be resumed at any time by any of the Colaition members.

Immigration is good, as long as it's legal.

Yes, I think of it more as a big, fat bully that isn't worried if a couple pounds get rubbed off in the scuffle.  And those pounds are frequently young, less educated, and not upwardly mobile pounds.  Also not to be photographed on the way to their final resting places.

Remember , it's an all volunteer military. Not a compulserary one.  Iraq is not Vietman, no matter how some people may wish it is. vietman had 55k dead in 10 years. Iraq is 3 years old and has 'only' 2500 dead. That's unheard of, to have that few of battlefield deaths in any war.

Iraq has a constitution, a duely elected government. It's military and security forces are growing by the day. Several insurgant groups are looking to lay down arms and join in peaceful discussion with the elected and legal Iraqi government.  There is a real chance that the Middle East can actually see a real change in how things are run. After thousands of years of dictatorships and kings, the people finally have a chance to determine their own destinies.

[Apple of Eris]

Illegal immigratio is good for the economy of the USA. In fact most of the inexpensive goods we have are because of cheap immigrant labor. I haven't heard a singl economist dispute that fact, and that is why the immigrant reform movement pretty much crashed and burned in the congress. there is simply too much money involvedto shake it up substantially without risking our economy.


GODDAMMIT!!
Argh!
I said I was NOT going to get involved in these political threads. *shakes head aand stalks off muttering about not being able to resist posting*

[Zakharra]

 that's why the politicals are not doing anything about illegal immigration. Most of the voting public is very much against illegal immigration. It's not as important to the economy as some say. The illegal labor force is about 5% of the entire US labor force. Not enough to have a large effect if the illegals are stopped.

If the Senate plan is ever enacted(which it won't be. Thank Goddess for that!), any effect that kicking the illegals out would still happen since the illegals would be waived of any crimminal doings and be made legal. Which means thety would haver to be paid minimum wage.  Which is higher than many are paid right now. 

[Apple of Eris]

ACtually a number of studies show that if illegal immigrants are removed from the workforce, many common goods will go up by 2-3 dollars, including things like milk and bread.

Illegl immigrants may be 5% of the workforce which seems small, but they make up a majority of some important staple industries, such as agriculture (esp as migrant workers).

Its interesting stuff, and as a member (sort of) of teh hospitality field, I'm all in favor of illegal immigrants. Sure, some are criminals, but so are some legal citizens, the vast majority are law abiding and simply looking for opportunity. And I say, welcome to the USA :)

Anyway, now I'm going to bed.
And I swear, no more political threads, I swear. really. Honest.

[kylie]

Honestly, Zak, I feel like you keep switching points of reference whenever you don't like one outcome. The issues are tied together, so that won't work.

First it's look, 17  broken UN resolutions.  Then it's oh but we don't need the UN anyway.  As Noam Chomsky once put it, if you're going to "be a Nazi" and trample the rest of the world regardless, then "at least have the decency" to say so at the start.

Then it's some 5% of the economy doesn't count.  Or maybe it does, and immigration is fine as long as it's legal.  But if it were all legal, they'd be making more money, and that 5% of the economy wouldn't be making the big capitalists so much money.  So perhaps the GNP would not be gaining that amount and the "economic superpower" slumps a tad.  At any rate, if you go with legalization, you may take a certain economic risk on the immigrants' (if not the collective) behalf. 

I don't believe whole nations or governments are good or evil.  Some policies seem to help or not only IF you've been taught that a certain cause is particularly good.  I think you'll have a difficult time convincing much of the Middle East that we're helpful.  I've seen films of multiple Baghdad people saying sure Saddam was cruel, but at least he didn't disrupt the national economy and steal oil. 

The militants are not conceding defeat.  They're saying either stay and cause a brutal scene like the globally-beloved Israelis, or get out and leave us be.  And the Bush administration has said repeatedly that they won't set a timetable, because when the American troops are gone people would still be there with other ideas.  Well, it looks to me like people are going to keep having other ideas no matter how many bullets and dollars we toss around.

In unconventional war, lots of common people think the rebels are honorable and the occupiers are not.  For example, the History Channel ran a show called Targeted: Osama which repeatedly mentioned that _many_ Saudis and Pashtuns support Osama.  Even a member of Pakistani intelligence, among our many complicated allies, sat up and said, are you kidding of course we wouldn't tell you where he is if we knew!  (Although, I sincerely doubt Bush wants Osama captured alive and talking.) 

Then what have other nations done to be proud of?

They have maintained local social systems under frequently harsher environmental conditions.  Often they've managed quite happily with widespread rice farming or herding.  Meanwhile, the West concentrated power in the hands of a few industrialists, then went around the globe disrupting local markets.  Even China which the US likes to fear these days, has historically been content to stay on its own landmass and take symbolic gifts or hold skirmishes (Tibet being an exception).  While the US was actively colonizing a whole continent and not a few Pacific islands.  America could never take care of its own without stealing someone else's, from the very start.  I'm not proud of that.  Nor would I argue we're the only ones historically (we have Greco-Roman symbols in Washington buildings for a reason).  But I think it's honest and worthwhile to say so.   

[Brandon]

I often dont care to talk politics because of my views on organizations as a whole (that being that any organization run by mankind has the potential to be corrupt but doesnt neccasarily mean it is). However I consider myself an independant. I dont belive in everything any party does or says but I also belive in giving praise where praise is due. Instead I take what bits of information I can and choose what I think is best for our society overall. I know thats a very broad idea but theres no real way I can narrow it down without keeping the broadness and falling into a "your left wing, right wing, etc" category

[kylie]

That quote thing quite lost me.  I'm not sure I see the point in quoting a whole post, especially a long one.

But I'd like to think I said a little more in there than screaming, I am some "wing."  In My Haughty Opinion.

Of course, people will take things as people will.  *hmms*

[Brandon]

Sorry It acctually wasnt ment to be quoted at all, I just had a catastrophic mouse failure there. Still not sure what happened  ??? However I did modify it so that the post is how it was supposed to appear.

[kylie]

Ah ha.  Gotcha. 

I agree we have a tendency to rely too much on concepts and labels to get us by, as if they were black and white.

Just wish I didn't see so many convincing suggestions that the present administration tends to run pretty black.

[Zakharra]

 

First it's look, 17  broken UN resolutions.  Then it's oh but we don't need the UN anyway.  As Noam Chomsky once put it, if you're going to "be a Nazi" and trample the rest of the world regardless, then "at least have the decency" to say so at the start.

People have been saying that the Iraq war is illegal. I'm merely pointing out the legal reasons for not needing any UN permission to go to war.  There was no end to the 1st Gulf war. Just an end to the open conflict. That's all. Hells, we are still at war with N. Korea. The Korean War ended with a cease fire. Open combat could be started by either side at anytime and it would be legal.

Then it's some 5% of the economy doesn't count.  Or maybe it does, and immigration is fine as long as it's legal.  But if it were all legal, they'd be making more money, and that 5% of the economy wouldn't be making the big capitalists so much money.  So perhaps the GNP would not be gaining that amount and the "economic superpower" slumps a tad.  At any rate, if you go with legalization, you may take a certain economic risk on the immigrants' (if not the collective) behalf.

I just want legal immigration.

ACtually a number of studies show that if illegal immigrants are removed from the workforce, many common goods will go up by 2-3 dollars, including things like milk and bread.

Illegl immigrants may be 5% of the workforce which seems small, but they make up a majority of some important staple industries, such as agriculture (esp as migrant workers).

Its interesting stuff, and as a member (sort of) of teh hospitality field, I'm all in favor of illegal immigrants. Sure, some are criminals, but so are some legal citizens, the vast majority are law abiding and simply looking for opportunity. And I say, welcome to the USA Smiley

I find this disturbing in so many ways. Illegals are committing two crimes, one very serious. Tresspassing and identity theft. The last is the most serious. The illegals, namy of whom do not want to be citizens of the US, come here looking for work. Not because they feel a love of the US. They disrespect our laws by crossing the border and add the their crimes by staying.

I have seen statistics and illegals are not the majority in any industry. The largest one is agriculture and there they are only 24%. That's a minority.  So what if it raises prices for a time? The industries affected wll spend money in R&D and make ways to do their business cheaper. The same thing was said about the Simpson/Misoly(sp) Act(I think it was called) and the tomatoe growers. That if the act was passed and enacted, that the price of tomatoes would go up. What happened? Tomatoes are being picked by machines now. The industry adapted and survived.

I have said before that was annoys me about illegals is the ILlegal part. I do not care why they came here, or anything about that it's the fact that they came here illegaly that pisses sme off.

I don't believe whole nations or governments are good or evil.  Some policies seem to help or not only IF you've been taught that a certain cause is particularly good.  I think you'll have a difficult time convincing much of the Middle East that we're helpful.  I've seen films of multiple Baghdad people saying sure Saddam was cruel, but at least he didn't disrupt the national economy and steal oil.

The militants are not conceding defeat.  They're saying either stay and cause a brutal scene like the globally-beloved Israelis, or get out and leave us be.  And the Bush administration has said repeatedly that they won't set a timetable, because when the American troops are gone people would still be there with other ideas.  Well, it looks to me like people are going to keep having other ideas no matter how many bullets and dollars we toss around.

The Middle East has been run by dictators and theocrats for millenium. That's all that most people there know. We are trying to change that social dymanic. To give the people there a choice and improve their lives. To live without the fear that Saddam used to stay in power. 'Cross me and you die.' That was how he ruled.  Saddam controlled the Iraqi economy and the oil. It was run for his benefit. Not his people's.

They have maintained local social systems under frequently harsher environmental conditions.  Often they've managed quite happily with widespread rice farming or herding.  Meanwhile, the West concentrated power in the hands of a few industrialists, then went around the globe disrupting local markets.  Even China which the US likes to fear these days, has historically been content to stay on its own landmass and take symbolic gifts or hold skirmishes (Tibet being an exception).  While the US was actively colonizing a whole continent and not a few Pacific islands.  America could never take care of its own without stealing someone else's, from the very start.  I'm not proud of that.  Nor would I argue we're the only ones historically (we have Greco-Roman symbols in Washington buildings for a reason).  But I think it's honest and worthwhile to say so.

England; colinized most of the globe. Creating an empire that truely spanned the entire planet. France; had lands in Africa and Indo-China. Germany; the same. Holland; the same. Belgium; had the Congo, run as a department for the king of Belgium. Spain controlled all of Central America and most of South America in fairly rutheless ways. Portugal; similar on a small er scale. Both of the later nations engaged in the cross Alantic slave trade up into the late (about) 1800's. Russia; conquored the lands around it ruthlessly.  China has been a very agressive nation before and is looking to be so again. Japan; very agressive colonization in WWII. Ruthelessly occupied Korea and most of China.

Most of the nations above were ruled for many years by kings. queens or oligarchies who controled things for their benefit. The US has done it's share of conquest, that is true. But we have also freed many nations. Of all of the nations we defeated in our history, how many have we given up voluntarrily? Mexico, Phillipeans(sp), Cuba. Most of Western Europe. I do not know the entire list, but we have helped many nations as well. We're not perfect, but we try and we do a damned good job at it. Sometimes that requires doing what others disprove of. Like Iraq. A war that France and Germany didn't want to have started for selfish reasons. To protect their economic reasons and because officials in thos nations were being bribed by Saddam to aid him and look the other way on certain things. Oil for Food program.

[Swedish Steel]

The Middle East has been run by dictators and theocrats for millenium. That's all that most people there know. We are trying to change that social dymanic. To give the people there a choice and improve their lives. To live without the fear that Saddam used to stay in power. 'Cross me and you die.' That was how he ruled.  Saddam controlled the Iraqi economy and the oil. It was run for his benefit. Not his people's.

So I can look forward to you bringing democracy to Saudiarabia next? Cool, that'll be something to watch.

[Elvi]

*coughs*
I seem to have forgotten, some one remind me?
Who helped Sadam into power?

[Apple of Eris]

If I were a woman in Iraq, I'd live with much more fear now than under Saddam. Especially since the collapse of that secular regieme, gangs of militist extremists threaten women for simply going unveiled.

Theres random kidnappings, shootings, uncertainty if utilities will continue to operate, and unstable government and police force.

I don't see things as having improved for the people of Iraq.

[Swedish Steel]

Right. And you also did a great job of bringing democracy to Chile by getting rid of that vile military dictator Allende and getting the democraticly elected Pinochet into power. Or wait...did I get that mixed up?

But back to the middle east. You also did a great job for democracy by getting rid of Iran's elected Prime Minister Muhammad Musaddiq in 53. I guess you are only safe as democraticly elected leader as long as you do what the US wants you to do.

[Apple of Eris]

You are only safe as a democratically elected offical if you are not a *gasp* socialist

[Elvi]

Or someone who wants to rule their own country, or dare to say "hang on why cant we use nuclear energy when you not only have that BUT still have weapons."

[Swedish Steel]

Better warn my PM then, though I doubt he deserves to call himself a socialist these days.

[Swedish Steel]

Or get the crazy idea that "Hey, all these foreign companies come here and drill our oil, how much of that money do we ever get to see? Shouldn't the oil wells belong to us, the people of Iran?". That's your ticket to a swift kick in the ass.

[kylie]

Re: Japan...  Japan was once by far the largest participant in multinational "peace" operations of its time: enforcement of the opium trade against the Chinese Boxer Rebellion.  And then, after years of draining Japanese silver through unequal (gunpoint) treaties, and as Japan carried on attempting to gain sovereignty in tune with the prior examples of Europe and America, the white powers that be limited the size of the Japanese navy (although they marginally helped the Allies in WWI) and changed the rules.  Realizing Japan was gaining power by seizing the sort of resource access that gave them power, they blockaded Japan from the oil market.  American diplomats were very aware that this would set up a US-Japan conflict. 

This is the same sort of thing Bush says today: no dictator should have control of too much oil (never mind that he's an Iraqi and the oil sits under their land - or that a line was drawn by Britain handing it to some neighbor), because after all oil 'is' _American_ national security to police.  The US is busy prying foreign control away from local industries, from cocoa beans up to oil and (now) nuclear science.  Many of the brutal leaders we claim to "free" people from gained power through popular, nationalistic responses to hopeless and demeaning economic situations that global powers set up (and responses to foreign invasions serving them).

China...  If you know more about the history of who originated the notion of a Chinese geographic sphere, I would be interested to hear that.  Granted the Han have done some nasty things around Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet.   However, they had the naval capability to do a serious invasion of South Asia or Africa hundreds of years ago.  They considered themselves all high and mighty and civilized, yet the only global expedition they mounted was a demand that some African kingdom hand over "the Buddha's tooth."  After some time, they scrapped the navy for the most part.  For me, this simply doesn't compare to what the US, or some of the other empires you mention have done with their navies.  These have caused socioeconomic disruption across much wider swaths of the globe. 

[Zakharra]

 Fine then. If the US had not helped, the Europe would be saying 'Heil Hitler!" Russia might still be Communist, Japan would have murdered hundreds of millions of people in China and still be brutally holding most of the western Pacific. What the Japanese did to the people of the lands they occupied is atrocious. The Rape of Naking ring any bells?

In  geopolitical politics, you often have to mnake a choice of the lesser of two evils. Saddam was already in power when we backed him. At that time, it was better to back him than to see Iraq very likely overrun by a violent theocratic regime from Iran.

I'm not sure what happened in Chile. My history on that is sketchy at best.

If I were a woman in Iraq, I'd live with much more fear now than under Saddam. Especially since the collapse of that secular regieme, gangs of militist extremists threaten women for simply going unveiled.

Theres random kidnappings, shootings, uncertainty if utilities will continue to operate, and unstable government and police force.

I don't see things as having improved for the people of Iraq.

You would rather live under the threat of rape rooms? The kidnappings and murders that happened under  Saddam's rule? Would it be better if Saddam had been left in power? You can say that since we set Saddam up, we are not trying to fix the problem. The man is safer in jail or better yet, dead.

We are trying to change the Middle East for the better, which is something that (sorry, I'm really pissed off right now) NO  ONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY EUROPE!! IS WILLING TO DO. They'd rather let a murderous dictator stay in power so they can keep getting bennies.  At least we are TRYING! Are your nations? No.