State of the Union

Rwanda also comes to mind. No, I think we're very much on a Bismarckian trajectory at the moment. But, if we are we should be calling a spade a spade and not putting on airs.

 

America's invasions are questions of geopolitical advantage. Period.

The rest is just whitewashing for the moral among us, unable to come to terms with their own hypocrisy.

 

Unfortunately there are major human rights violations going on at any one time in too many countries to list. Economics obviously play a big part in deciding which genocide or potential genocide gets the attention. There was no economic benefit to getting involved in Cambodia so the US choose to ignore the situation. It seems cold to use economics as a deciding factor in who gets the US attention as the world traffic cop, but for better or worse, economics make the world go 'round.

 

Hence the Bismarckian statement. However, unless we're willing to come right out and say it then we come off as complete and utter hypocrits. And then there's that rub again. That's probably the single biggest reason we didn't get much support around the world (at the individual level). Everyone knows there's an ulterior motive and that undermines our credibility.

 

Unless an armada relative in size and scope to the US world war II model is revived, there is no way the US can be in all of the worlds 'hot spots' at the same time. Some critieria has to be used to prioritize the needs and I guess that is usually economic. I don't think that fact necessarily cheapens waht the United States has stood for over the years. For better or worse the US is all the world has when it comes to a 'police force'.

 

If we continue to insist that the war on terror can only be fought on a military front, then it is certainly true... but I disagree that the war on terror requires us to wield military power and nothing more.

We think of ourselves as "Team America : World Police" but police do more than the glorified act of hunting down the bad guy. They're supposed to become accepted as an integral part of the community... they're supposed to be mediators, and solve problems, not always with force. Heck... force should always be a final resort for a cop.

If we are intent on policing the world, I have reservations about the way we are proceeding.

 

The Capitol Police are serious about enforcing the "no sloganeering" rule in the chamber. The wife of Republican Congressman C.W. Bill Young was booted also for wearing a tee-shirt that said "Support The Troops Defending Our Freedom" (see http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne..._id=1001955837)

 

I'm not sure how I feel about this case... whether it was done because the rules of the Capitol are strict, or because they didn't want to be portrayed as unfair?

 

I am not always comfortable with the US acting as the world's police force, I just don't see any real alternatives. The US vacating that role would create a huge vacuum with very unknown potential results.

 

I just feel the course of action we took in Iraq... primarily a military action, shock and awe and such... is the wrong approach for being the world's police.

It's an imperfect analogy. We have declared a War on Terror... but we want to be the World Police. Which one is it?

War is very much different from what police do. War implies no holding back. Police... that's something completely different.

 

To paraphrase the conservative's dream president Regan 'the buck stops at the President's desk'. Bush, on the other hand, blames everyone else, especially Clinton time and again. He also constantly uses the excuse that 'everyone else is (did) doing it. Remember what YOUR mother said when as a child you used such an argument? Something about jumping off a cliff...

 

Can a deaf mute be smart? Or are they all idiots?

Its interesting to me that the radio ad that says "people judge you by your vocabulary" is correct. I've known many a smooth talker who are dumb as rocks.

Bush isn't a dummy. Either was Clinton, or Kerry, or Gore. I think Bush was better in school than any of the others, wasn't he? Higher grades, anyway. Finished graduate school. But only Clinton was a "self made man", as the rest are from prominent, rich families, so they had the connections to get their starts. But all of them had to work hard to get as far as they did.

The character assassination comes into play when people cannot intelligently debate the issues, either because they cannot counter a superior argument or lack the necessary knowledge to articulate an opinion. Any time I hear someone use character assassination in their argument, it is discounted in my mind, and they are relegated to the category of "sheeple" they seem to dispise (I actually think the average American is pretty damn smart).

 

"Goooooooooooooooooooooooood morning, Viet Nam!"

We are back in the quagmire. No exit strategy, no end in sight, spying on antiwar protesters, promises to "stay the course" even though we change course (Saddam/9-11, no wait, WMDs, no wait, stop terror camps, no wait...).

 

That's not correct. EVERYONE believed Iraq had or was developing MWD. France's intelligence service was the source of the "Yellow Cake" rumor, remember? The difference was that France, Germany, and Belgium did not support an invasion based on that intelligence.

Actually, neither did I, not because I didn't think they had them. But simply because I thought the threat of MWD was far greater for Europe than it was for the US, and we should only go to war to protect our own national interest.

The same holds true for Iran. If they threaten to nuke Europe, then Europe should take care of it.

 

The problem with your logic is other than Britain, i don't think Europe will make a move until it is too late.

 

As long as they can make intelligent statements in the via the medium of their choice. Bush often struggles to do that. Cheney and Kerry were clearly superior in the debates. They had much better command of the material they were working with than either Bush or Edwards who spent most of their time parroting the party line and continually returning to safe, pre-thought material.

Does that mean Bush is dim witted? No. But he has often struggled in non-scripted public dialog. So he's either very self-conscious or doesn't have command of the facts and analysis that he needs to support himself.

 

Maybe you should visit Oakland, CA. Police likes to shoot first. :lol:

 

there was one...?

 

I concur entirely with your observations, one should judge leaders for their ability to confront mistakes, re-evaluate, and take necessary measures to remedy them. No politician or any person that presides an important position upon which peoples life and political discourses depend is perfect, we all should agree to that. Unfortunately many are trapped by hubris, megalomania and sheer possession of power not to mention being corruptible, thousands of volumes are written about it; it's a general knowledge. Hubris, megalomania and other negative characteristics fit as universal human condition (existentialism) and apply to all races and nationalities, all political and religious inclinations. And that includes the GOP and the current Potus.
For those who seem that "FACTS" exist only in governmental secret files such PREMISE might be difficult to comprehend.

To further concur on your brilliant observation and other posters as well I have to resort to a dose of sarcasm.

WARNING! NOT ALL IS BASED ON ACTUAL FACTS! (as for that I would need to have a time machine and actual ability of mind penetration combined with telepathic capabilities)

Paulus: "Mein Fuhrer we are crossing the river Don and are several hundred kilometers from Stalingrad and our forces need desperate rest and long overdue logistical support"

Fuhrer: "STAY THE COURSE"

Paulus "Winter is coming, we are outstretched"

Fuhrer: "STAY THE COURSE"

Paulus: "We lost all panzer divisions and we completely surrounded, 250,000 had to surrender"

Fuhrer: "I need the CAUCASUS OIL, STAY THE COURSE"

Paulus: "We are in complete retreat"

Fuhrer: "STAY THE COURSE"

I know some will find this not funny and offensive and that's fine with me.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Its a long standing, zero tolerance policy for sloganeering in the "gallery" by guests. It has never been allowed, even if the sloganeering is "America is great!" As the media reports this story, brought to attention only because Sheehan is famous, we'll get all sorts of reports regarding the people barred from the chamber.