Accidental transport of nukes

Nobody, least of all Patrick, will be surprised that I love New Zealand. It is a green and beautiful country with some fantastic hiking (I hiked the Hollyford Trail in Fiordland, at the southern end of the South Island when I was there) and I applaud the Kiwis for choosing to become a non-nuclear country, and for refusing to back down to U.S. bullying on the matter. The U.S. does not need to take its military ships into NZ harbors, but it just wants to impose its will on other countries out of principle. Like a bully who steals a smaller kid's lunch and then throws it away: He does not want the food, he just wants to establish his dominance over the smaller kid. I don't think there's another non-communist country that has taken such a principled and admirable stand against the U.S. And the Kiwis don't hate us at all. I was treated great there. They just stand by their democratic right to be a non-nuclear country.

And I'm curious about Patrick's use of the term "a daniel." Are there several of me? Or is he saying that anybody named Daniel is liable to be a frantic hand-waving peace protester? Or is he saying that anybody who shares my opposition to nukes is essentially "another Daniel" even if his methods are diametrically opposed to mine? Why didn't he say "a frantic peace protester" rather than "a daniel"? This fixation on me makes me wonder if Patrick is secretly in love with me. Love and hate are so often linked in a confused tangle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 6 2007, 07:15 AM) [snapback]507848[/snapback]</div>

Quick question... Do you think countries who rely on the United States for their national security should be able to pick and choose what "pieces" or "parts" of that umbrella of security they are provided with?

also,

Would the United States be within its "rights" if a country refused its military access to bases to withold non-military aid and assistance - say for example in times following a natural disaster.

and...

what if the US Navy was needed to aid the survivors of a natural disaster... in this case there would probably be ships like aircraft carriers involved in the mission that carry nuclear weapons... would it be hypocritical for such nations who refuse these ships access to their ports for them to all of a sudden say its ok??

I respect a countries rights to do whatever they want to do... i just think that there will always have to be consequences for every action...

my personal take as a tax paying US citizen... i strongly believe the US should stop letting our military be used and stood behind by other countries - especially some european countries who spend little if nothing of their gdp for their national defense. it countries have ties economically or in whatever fashion to places far away or even nearby - they should be able to defend their own countries national interests - and they should not rely on the US to come to their aid in times of need. Or we should start charging for services rendered?? This is especially especially true of countries who "pretend" to be our friends or act in ways detremental to US interests.

lets say new zealand has a problem with some country or entitiy that takes its assets or does something aggressive or offensive towards it -- let new zealand handle it -- do not call for me to use my tax dollars or my countries blood to do something that new zealand should have been prepared to do itself... just an example here.

i dont want any "lapdogs" i just want true friends and allies who share common ideas and beliefs and goals.

i can go one step further... there are countries that the US should focus on and be willing to partner up with... a list should be made of the top 10 or 20 or whatever the number may be and we should stop there and let the others worry about themselves.... i am tired of my country being the butt of foreigners jokes, bad thoughts, negativity, etc.... why should we care if others dont want us to.... and if they are trying to change my country to emulate theirs, no thanks... if their "operating system" was so good, we would know about it...

 

In fact the US government is one of the most hated government among the people of it's own friend nations. This is evident by the level of security required for the US president to move around outside the USA.
No wonder the president becomes isolated from the population. None of them are allowed near him.

I think a lot of people outside USA see the US as the bully big brother, a pain in the arse but good to have backing you up in a fight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(samiam @ Sep 5 2007, 05:16 PM) [snapback]507507[/snapback]</div>

I guess they declassify them 40 years after the event

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Sep 6 2007, 10:49 AM) [snapback]507915[/snapback]</div>

The level of presidential security is a multifactorial issue, the least of which would be law abiding citizens of foreign countries - who happen to glady take our financial, agricultural, military..... aid and or assistance.

I agree, a lot of people see us as a force for evil, i think a lot of them see us as a shining beacon of freedom - somehting their own countries do not represent for them... funny how we have soooo many people wanting to move here and so few americans leaving for other countries... wonder why??

and being there to back someone up in a fight ... my humble US tax paying citizens opinion -- i would let them rot on the floor unless it was a direct national security issue for the US... i wonder if we wasted our time and money with the tsunami the other year too.... if people really hate us - be true - dont take from us either.... a lot of americans are tired of giving and getting bitc* slapped in return...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 09 06 07:27 AM) [snapback]507906[/snapback]</div>

There are some pretty serious consequences to American actions, too. Perspective is everything. As long as you think the US is the world's protector, and that a nation's worth is judged on the size of its military budget, you will never understand world events from a global perspective. And, if you want to be friends, you'll have to start acting like one. 'True' friends can tell it like it is without fear of repercussions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 6 2007, 11:42 AM) [snapback]507944[/snapback]</div>

What you say is true - we have to act like a friend. In my humble opinion the good the US has done for the world far outways the "bad". Of course there are reactions for every action - there are also reactions for inaction too.

When you say we must act like a friend - please explain.

And tell me how the US has not been the protector of the "free world" for the past 50+ years? I dont see Canada protecting the free world - in fact the state of Canadian national defenses is appalling, why? Do you think defense spending is not necessary?

BTW - do you think overall the US has been a force for good or evil?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 04:27 PM) [snapback]507906[/snapback]</div>

I think you missed some basic cornerstones of international politics. If the US is prepared to defend its allies over the world, do you really think it is because of some kind of warm, sympathetic feeling? Of course not. It is out of self-interest. It's all about spheres of influence, and not allowing other big powers increase theirs at the cost of yours. The cold war was a good example. If Russia would have invaded Western Europe, that would have increased their power and influence tremendously at the cost of the US power and influence. The US would not (and could not) let this happen.

If, for some reason, Russia would invade Belgium tomorrow (what a joke!), the US would come to the 'rescue', whether we want that or not. Even if we would say "no thanks", the US would intervene. Not at all because they like the Belgians and their beers and chocolates, but because they cannot afford to let a rival power grow too strong.

This was the main reason why, finally, the US entered WWII. Not because they felt sympathy for the French or something (they were occupied for a while already anyway), but because there was the risk of loosing all influence in Western Europe, either at the cost of the Germans or at the cost of Russia. Then a new superpower would arise that was strong enough to threaten the US directly.

This is the way international politics is played, now, in the past and in the future. The UK has played this game for centuries in Europe. There is no such thing as "true friends" in international politics. There is only self-interest, and allies are welcome as long as they align with that.

So, no, I don't feel obliged in any way to be grateful for the "protection" offered by the US to my country. Ultimately, it is driven by self-interest. There are enough people rotting away in forgotten wars all over the world to prove that countries only come to the help if it is in their own interest, protecting their influence sphere. They won't help you because they like your smile.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 6 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]507993[/snapback]</div>

Kind of like the shower room in a prison.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 6 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]507993[/snapback]</div>

without any offense being intended, if Russia invaded Belgium I would not favor the US going to the rescue in that case - there is little for us to gain and the gain for the soviets would be minimal. In fact I feel that way about a lot of countries. Heck, if the people think that there is NO difference between the US and the Soviets or between the US and anyone who attacks them or puts them in the middle of a "conflict" than why should the US bother. We came to europes defense because the people of europe and the people of the US shared similar values and beliefs - which were opposite the Nazi's and fascists - we were not a world power then - we came to our friends defense at great cost to us.

there are true friends in international politics - i believe the US and GB are true friends and Australia and the US are true friends and will include Israel in that equation too. thats about it. my point is that i think the USA should only help its true friends and when our national security is threatened - thats it. if the people dont want us - easy - they are on their own - i dont want my country wasting its time or money or blood in that case - again.

q? do you think the US is a force for good or evil?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 01:57 PM) [snapback]508001[/snapback]</div>

True. That is why I think the US should really evaluate each country that we are involved with carefully and we should draw back from those that really dont want us - and I mean that whether for security reasons or natural disasters - i am sick and tired of us coming to the aid and rescue of people all over the world to get this bile spit back in my face. how many natural disasters do we come to the rescue in?? how many HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS do we donate around the world in cash, in food, in clothing, etc, etc. and for what. personally, ask countries if they want to be our friends or not, that that want to hang with us cool those that dont fine by me - just dont come calling when you need us - the bat phone is disconnected.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ 2007 09 06 11:11) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

Funny, I was taught in school that WW2 started in 1939, and the US joined 2 years later, after being attacked at Pearl Harbour. Were you taught that WW2 started in 1941?

Why isn't New Zealand on your list of 'friends'? Oh yeah, they don't want nukes - off the team. And Canada? Of course, they have socialised medicine, those subversive leftists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 07:57 PM) [snapback]508001[/snapback]</div>

I do admit that I made my point indeed in a cynical way, and that the reality is of course always more complicated than what you can write in a few sentences. And I wholeheartedly agree with your remark that Americans typically have good hearts, are open minded and believe in freedom. I came to this conclusion after travelling countless times in the US. If I would ever need to chose between the influence sphere of the US and that of Sovjet Russia, my choice would be made in a heartbeat.

Personally, I consider the very limited effort done by the international community to stop the ongoing conflicts in Africa as an example to prove my point. If I'm not mistaken, the money sent to the Phillipines was to a large extent collected by individual initiatives, which proves the willingness of individuals to do good. Virtually every prosperous country sent money, and it is actually an interesting and revealing excercice to compare the amount of money per capita across countries.

Perhaps I should stress that the remarks I made hold for every country, as they are one of the driving forces of international politics. A major country can't afford to behave in another way. There is a constant, silent battle going on, the battle for influence. If you behave too nicely, your rivals will laugh silently and run over you. It helps a lot to understand world history if you see this.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

You wouldn't be a very good president for your country. Your rivals would be astonished for 1 second, laugh for one week, and slowly build up their influence and power around the world for 10 years, little piece by little piece.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

You really should read something about the history of your own country, and the debates prior to the forced involvment more than one year after the German occupation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

Let's keep on being cynical: GB sticks to the US like a parasite because it is the only way for them to be able to keep on dreaming about the superpower they once were. Israel sticks to the US because it a matter of survival. Follow the money.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

Again: that would be a very poor strategy for a US president. You would slowly but steadily let erode your influence, and in the end you would find yourself with a superpower directly threatening you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]508010[/snapback]</div>

Ah, the good old "you are with us or against us" rhetoric. Your president abandoned that a while ago already. It sheds some light on your thought processes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 6 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]508020[/snapback]</div>

I believe the question was related to when the US of A was considered a superpower and the reason of our entry into WWII.

In terms of friendly nations - it is not up to me alone - and I understand each and every nation has a vocal minority and a silent majority - either way it is my belief that the US should not waste its time or money or blood on countries that dont like us - dont want us - or think that we are a force for evil. Specifically about New Zealand - if they dont want us - cool, I could care less, their choice, I might still go and visit, heard its beautiful down there, my daughter loved it - just dont come a knocking for anything in the future from the US of A - and I mean anything - natural disaster, military disaster, nothing - it could be possibly pay as you go - natural disaster we come and help out - you get a bill bro and there will be a % for profit in there as well because thats how we roll - that way there are no hard feelings on either side - they made the decision they dont want us or like us and we made the decision that we could help fellow human beings in need but not on our dime - i could possibly see a payback plan over time with interest of course.

Q? do you think the US is a force for good or evil?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 6 2007, 02:28 PM) [snapback]508024[/snapback]</div>

Which side would you choose?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 6 2007, 02:46 PM) [snapback]508039[/snapback]</div>

Actually you could not be more off base.

Lets say we let belgium fall into the soviet sphere of influence - so what? if they go further i might choose to save germany or france because they are more meaningful in lots of different ways. let the soviets have the little guys - heck they eventually lost poland and hungry etc to the US anyway - and they are now some of out best allies in europe.

its not all about money - that is your cynacism and shortfalling.

what is wrong with the with us or against us strategy in some cases?

again, our influence is not our economy, it is our way of life and our american operating system - which is the energy behind our economy and our military , etc. people have a tough time understanding the differences. what do you think - if we opened the doors to the US ... how many people would flock here in a second from european countries or "westernized" countries.

again, do you think the US if a force for good or evil?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]508063[/snapback]</div>

The fundamental problem is that the world is a complex place, with complex problems. How easy it would be if everything were black and white.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]508042[/snapback]</div>

You really do have a naive view on international politics . That would be a proof of lack of power by itself, and interpreted by your rivals and allies as a sign of weakness. You would lose credibility amongst your allies, and your rivals would gain confidence. For those exact reasons, superpowers constantly battle out such kinds of small proxy conflicts, real ones or silent ones.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]508042[/snapback]</div>

Of course not - it's about power and influence.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]508042[/snapback]</div>

Because it it a clear sign of simplistic, black/white reasoning that is not fit to model a complex and ever changing reality.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]508042[/snapback]</div>

From western Europe, very few actually. Not one single person I know in my circle. I do own a business in the US (great country to do business!), but I prefer by far living where I live, because the quality of life is so much better (but that's of course a personal appreciation)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]508042[/snapback]</div>

Since you keep on asking that question, I will take to effort to try to answer you. From my personal perspective, judging over the last 20 years, I definitely consider it a source for good. (Not in the least because I made my fortune selling stuff there ) But I do realise that there are many people in the world that have reasons to consider it a source of evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 6 2007, 03:11 PM) [snapback]508063[/snapback]</div>

your point on iraq is totally wrong

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Sep 6 2007, 03:40 PM) [snapback]508077[/snapback]</div>

Explain please.