Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[Griff]

Turn off Fox News. Most of it never leads anywhere, because most people care only about what is personally happening to them and their families. There are very few real bad actors who take it beyond the personal. That tiny group can be policed.

[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?

[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.

[Undertoad]

I didn't really understand your post, but I thank you for writing it.

[Griff]

Maybe I'll sober up and clean that one up...

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.

You have yet again disgraced yourself, btw.

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.

I see, along with your inability to spell versus -- you're really not very good at foreign terminology, you know -- that you're still trying, in the old Soviet manner, to tell us there is no basis for seeing that we have, and are a living example of, a solution to the world's ills. This tired old Sixties-leftism claptrap will not suffice, tw, except for those as thickheaded as yourself. That is almost no one on this board, come to think of it.

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.

That is exactly the thing they did not do -- and I think a more careful reading of the Cuban Missile Crisis will show that. Both sides knew what might have happened; neither side wanted to make that happen. But then, are we to be surprised when tw deals in half truths?

Tw also needs perpetual reminding that for the "unnecessary deaths" he decries so vehemently, you cannot beat the Communists. But oh, no -- criticizing the Communists doesn't accord with tw's extremist agenda, and you'll never hear him do it. I've been listening for this for a couple of years now, and the lack of fire against the Communists tells me what tw is.

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.

It is clear that tw believes this implicitly and literally. So also, in my experience, did the Soviet propaganda mongers, who promulgated this very idea, inside the USSR and out -- in case anyone might be listening.

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.

I'm sure of two things: either this will remain unsourced, or a complete reading of the matter will show quite a different slant. Expect tw to deal in half truths only. He probably got all excited about a war plan, devised well ahead of events as a plan for what to do about prosecuting a war. They keep them on file, you know.

The people who insist that we are damaged strike me as myopic and as fatuous. Fatuity is not good for foreign policy.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Not negotiating with al-Qaeda does not define stupidity and cannot define stupidity -- as long as al-Qaeda doesn't want to negotiate. You're being unfair to Republicans because they're Republicans, tw. Please take your delusional bigotry elsewhere before I put it someplace that will make you walk very oddly on departing.

What did Reagan say? Not negotiating with your enemies is stupidity. Was Reagan was a Democrat? Who is being delusional here? The one who sees enemies hiding everywhere. The one who sees solutions only in 'big dic' terms. Only military solutions work. We should not talk to anyone. Just shoot 'em all. God will know his own.

[deadbeater]

Sorry, Urbane, but when the US is banging the war drums concerning Iran, which in my opinion the Gov't have a better basis for attacking than the US Gov't ever did for attacking Iraq; and the other countries are holding their collective heads to their ears this time; the US reputation is really damaged.