Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » message from democrats
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75739 is a reply to message #75738] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 14:00   |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's a double edged sword. A stronger dollar makes imports cheaper for the
US and makes anything we export more expensive to other countries. The US
government right now would like nothing more than to see the yuan stronger
v. the dollar to do _something_ to rectify the account deficit we have with
China. So it's not a one way deal.
Nobody an quantify what, if any, difference the 'petrodollar' makes in the
relative strength of the dollar. I can say this, when markets get scared
and capital 'flight to quality' starts nobody loads up on assets in Nigeria
and Bolivia. I think that's because, as screwed up as our economy is sometimes,
we're still _by far_ the largest and most stable economy in the world. Here's
a fed chart for the dollar vs. G-10 currencies.
http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/charts/exc1.cfm
which shows the dollar losing over 20% of its value over four years. No food
riots, no mass unemployment, nothing of the sort. Even if one assumes 10%
of the value of the dollar is from being a reserve currency (which is absurdly
high) that would put us back to being roughly where we were against G-10
currencies in 1997, which that chart uses as its 100 value.
TCB
"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSP.com> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've spent the last few years working in one of the most successful money
>>managing organizations in history, so I follow markets (willingly or not)
>>on a daily basis. The petrodollar thing is just nonsense.
>
>Then you should know...
>
>You think the United States does not derive economic benefit from having
>its currency serve as the dominant international reserve currency?
>
>You think the big oil companies are in favor of the switch to euro based
>oil currency? – They are fighting this with every “drop of energy” and tens
>of millions in PAC funds. It may only effect 0.5% - 8% of GDP but it will
>have a far greater effect on major oil. Have you noticed that whatever is
>good for major oil seems to be what good for America.
>This is not just about Dems vs Repubs. Since Clinton's Marc Rich pardon,
>Clinton has also found a place on my shit list.
>
>Oil and money, money and oil.
>Gene
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75740 is a reply to message #75721] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 14:05 |
Jim[3]
Messages: 1
Registered: November 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I'm no economist, but what happens when the Chinese and/or Japanese decide
to cash in their bonds? Other than influence in our government, isn't the
only reason they don't now is because their economies depend on our fat ass
consumption of their products.
Doesn't it make sense that the day the US consumer is so in dept and broke
that they can no longer buy Asian products by the gazillion, they will no
longer have a reason to keep they're $$ here. Won't they just go prop someone
else's economy up. Then what?
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>I've spent the last few years working in one of the most successful money
>managing organizations in history, so I follow markets (willingly or not)
>on a daily basis. The petrodollar thing is just nonsense. The rest of what
>you say, about foreigners holding massive amounts of US debt, is true. I
>don't necessarily think it's all that much worse to have Japanese banks
hold
>that debt instead of US banks, and those banks are so internationalized
it
>might not make any difference. The real problem, though, is that we have
>that massive debt in the first place, no matter who holds it. And that debt
>is just our governmental debt, no the personal debt and interest only loans
>that have been written. But if tomorrow the Euro is used for some percentage
>of oil transactions the world won't end, and the US won't be massively changed.
>
>
>TCB
>
>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>
>>"DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>
>>>3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton destroyed,
>>
>>>and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good economy,
>>
>>>the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic challenge.
>>
>>>They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not effective,
>>
>>>the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>
>>
>>This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a half
>>old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with trillions
>>of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that we
have
>>placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the danger
>of
>>working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>> But… To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL influence
on
>>our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the Bush
years.
>>Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and Halliburton.
>>
>>
>>“Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion dollars
>>in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is effectively
taking
>>most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United States.
>>The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with savings,
>>bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even though
>>the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value. More
than
>>any other nation in history, the United States depends, economically, on
>>the kindness of strangers.”
>>
>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>
>>Gene
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75741 is a reply to message #75740] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 14:19 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Remember, I agreed that all of the debt is bad. Whenever I hear republicans
complaining about how democrats tax everything too much I always think that's
preferable to running up trillions of dollars of debt. Which is what Bush
II has done masterfully.
In the 'good old days' the idea of national debt was that it was held by
the public. So in essence the government borrowed from it's own citizens.
That hasn't been true for a long time, and yes, there is always more risk
with foreign ownership of that debt. Right now it's in the interests of all
parties to keep the US afloat. I think that will be true for a very, very
long time, so I file 'China shows up and demands cash of California' in the
same risk folder as 'I get hit by meteor' and 'I bang Maria Sharapova.' But
yes, there is always some risk when so much national debt is held overseas,
but to me by far the greater problem is the debt itself, regardless of who
owns it.
And, by the way, whenever someone starts to tell you that the freemasons
or the trilateral commission or AIPAC really run the US government, keep
in mind that the house of Saud has close to a trillion of US treasuries they
keep here. That's just treasuries, not other investments and properties,
and so forth. I'd guess that gets some phone calls answered.
TCB
"Jim" <jp@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>I'm no economist, but what happens when the Chinese and/or Japanese decide
>to cash in their bonds? Other than influence in our government, isn't the
>only reason they don't now is because their economies depend on our fat
ass
>consumption of their products.
>
>Doesn't it make sense that the day the US consumer is so in dept and broke
>that they can no longer buy Asian products by the gazillion, they will
no
>longer have a reason to keep they're $$ here. Won't they just go prop someone
>else's economy up. Then what?
>
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've spent the last few years working in one of the most successful money
>>managing organizations in history, so I follow markets (willingly or not)
>>on a daily basis. The petrodollar thing is just nonsense. The rest of what
>>you say, about foreigners holding massive amounts of US debt, is true.
I
>>don't necessarily think it's all that much worse to have Japanese banks
>hold
>>that debt instead of US banks, and those banks are so internationalized
>it
>>might not make any difference. The real problem, though, is that we have
>>that massive debt in the first place, no matter who holds it. And that
debt
>>is just our governmental debt, no the personal debt and interest only loans
>>that have been written. But if tomorrow the Euro is used for some percentage
>>of oil transactions the world won't end, and the US won't be massively
changed.
>>
>>
>>TCB
>>
>>"Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton destroyed,
>>>
>>>>and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good economy,
>>>
>>>>the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic challenge.
>>>
>>>>They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not effective,
>>>
>>>>the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a half
>>>old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
trillions
>>>of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that we
>have
>>>placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the danger
>>of
>>>working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>> But… To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL influence
>on
>>>our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the Bush
>years.
>>>Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and Halliburton.
>>>
>>>
>>>“Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion dollars
>>>in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is effectively
>taking
>>>most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United States.
>>>The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with savings,
>>>bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even though
>>>the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value. More
>than
>>>any other nation in history, the United States depends, economically,
on
>>>the kindness of strangers.”
>>>
>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>
>>>Gene
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75745 is a reply to message #75741] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 15:39 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>Remember, I agreed that all of the debt is bad. Whenever I hear republicans
>complaining about how democrats tax everything too much I always think that's
>preferable to running up trillions of dollars of debt. Which is what Bush
>II has done masterfully.
>
>In the 'good old days' the idea of national debt was that it was held by
>the public. So in essence the government borrowed from it's own citizens.
>That hasn't been true for a long time, and yes, there is always more risk
>with foreign ownership of that debt. Right now it's in the interests of
all
>parties to keep the US afloat. I think that will be true for a very, very
>long time, so I file 'China shows up and demands cash of California' in
the
>same risk folder as 'I get hit by meteor' and 'I bang Maria Sharapova.'
But
>yes, there is always some risk when so much national debt is held overseas,
>but to me by far the greater problem is the debt itself, regardless of who
>owns it.
>
>And, by the way, whenever someone starts to tell you that the freemasons
>or the trilateral commission or AIPAC really run the US government, keep
>in mind that the house of Saud has close to a trillion of US treasuries
they
>keep here. That's just treasuries, not other investments and properties,
>and so forth. I'd guess that gets some phone calls answered.
>
>TCB
>
Thad-
What would you say to this? I don't know who Mike Whitney is, but this seems
worth considering.
-steve
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15440.htm
The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown
By Mike Whitney
10/30/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The U.S. Dollar is kaput. Confidence
in the currency is eroding by the day.
A report in The Sydney Morning Herald stated, “Australia’s Treasurer Peter
Costello has called on East Asia’s central bankers to ‘telegraph’ their intentions
to diversify out of American investments and ensure an ‘orderly adjustment’….Central
banks in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have channeled
immense foreign reserves into American government bonds, helping to prop
up the US dollar and hold down interest rates,’ said Costello, but ‘the strategy
has changed.’”
Indeed, the strategy has changed. The world has come to its senses and is
moving away from the green slip of paper that is currently mired in $8.3
trillion of debt."
[. . .]
"According to the Wall Street Journal the Chinese Central-bank governor Zhou
Xiaochuan stated unequivocally that “We think we’ve got enough.” The Chinese
presently have nearly $1 trillion in USD and US Treasuries."
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75746 is a reply to message #75745] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 15:49 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mike Whitney is, how you say in eenglish? Blithering eejjit. I think he's
the source of a lot of this nonsense. He was pushing the Iranian oil exchange
as the end of the world as we know it a while back. Look at the Mpls. fed
chart. Our economy, and the world economy, have problems, but if we're going
down it won't be because some people start buying oil using euros.
TCB
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>>
>>Remember, I agreed that all of the debt is bad. Whenever I hear republicans
>>complaining about how democrats tax everything too much I always think
that's
>>preferable to running up trillions of dollars of debt. Which is what Bush
>>II has done masterfully.
>>
>>In the 'good old days' the idea of national debt was that it was held by
>>the public. So in essence the government borrowed from it's own citizens.
>>That hasn't been true for a long time, and yes, there is always more risk
>>with foreign ownership of that debt. Right now it's in the interests of
>all
>>parties to keep the US afloat. I think that will be true for a very, very
>>long time, so I file 'China shows up and demands cash of California' in
>the
>>same risk folder as 'I get hit by meteor' and 'I bang Maria Sharapova.'
>But
>>yes, there is always some risk when so much national debt is held overseas,
>>but to me by far the greater problem is the debt itself, regardless of
who
>>owns it.
>>
>>And, by the way, whenever someone starts to tell you that the freemasons
>>or the trilateral commission or AIPAC really run the US government, keep
>>in mind that the house of Saud has close to a trillion of US treasuries
>they
>>keep here. That's just treasuries, not other investments and properties,
>>and so forth. I'd guess that gets some phone calls answered.
>>
>>TCB
>>
>
>
>Thad-
>
>What would you say to this? I don't know who Mike Whitney is, but this seems
>worth considering.
>
>-steve
>
>
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15440.htm
>
>The Dollar's Full-System Meltdown
>
>By Mike Whitney
>
>10/30/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The U.S. Dollar is kaput. Confidence
>in the currency is eroding by the day.
>
>A report in The Sydney Morning Herald stated, “Australia’s Treasurer Peter
>Costello has called on East Asia’s central bankers to ‘telegraph’ their
intentions
>to diversify out of American investments and ensure an ‘orderly adjustment’….Central
>banks in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have channeled
>immense foreign reserves into American government bonds, helping to prop
>up the US dollar and hold down interest rates,’ said Costello, but ‘the
strategy
>has changed.’”
>
>Indeed, the strategy has changed. The world has come to its senses and is
>moving away from the green slip of paper that is currently mired in $8.3
>trillion of debt."
>[. . .]
>"According to the Wall Street Journal the Chinese Central-bank governor
Zhou
>Xiaochuan stated unequivocally that “We think we’ve got enough.” The Chinese
>presently have nearly $1 trillion in USD and US Treasuries."
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75755 is a reply to message #75736] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 18:16 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
to be running foreign policy.<
perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we are
now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm predicting that we
are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and that it will come as a
result iof an intelligence failure due to democrats restricting the ability
of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm wrong.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45538a31@linux...
>
> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or not
> pleasing terrorists.
>
> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough to
> be running foreign policy.
>
> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy and
> negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who lets
> themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
> Tony Benson wrote:
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:455374c4@linux...
>>
>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>
>> Jamie,
>>
>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into our
>> Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers, almost
>> flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building? Those wacky
>> terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran who wants to
>> "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the one enriching
>> all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the Republicans and the
>> Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one
>> area we can't waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing
>> short of a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for the
>> drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>> trillions
>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>> Nixon.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that we
>>>>> need a constant flow of mideast
>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>
>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was no
>>> problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan, Bush1,
>>> Clinton, Bush2).
>>>
>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>
>>>
>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country by Al
>>>> Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to solve
>>>> this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent *as
>>>> in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic energy
>>>> options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and gas
>>>> reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are proven*
>>>> could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>
>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our economy
>>>> is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15 years...especially with a
>>>> party in power that is willing to negotiate with terrorists, which to
>>>> them is a sign of weakness. They will be encouraged by this.
>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>
>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> DJ
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good
>>>>>> economy,
>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a
>>>>> half
>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>>> trillions
>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that we
>>>>> have
>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>> mideast
>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>> danger of
>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL influence
>>>>> on
>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the Bush
>>>>> years.
>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and Halliburton.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>> dollars
>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is effectively
>>>>> taking
>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>> States.
>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>> savings,
>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>> though
>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value. More
>>>>> than
>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends, economically,
>>>>> on
>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75765 is a reply to message #75755] |
Thu, 09 November 2006 22:29 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
so there's reason to hope. ;^)
The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
have been planned before this election.
But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you
feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
for those times we're in a blaming mood.
For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
major parties AND the minor parties.
There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
has hardly been flawless.
Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
maybe, we're better than that.
The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
from the widest array of effective options.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DJ wrote:
>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
> to be running foreign policy.<
>
> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we are
> now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm predicting that we
> are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and that it will come as a
> result iof an intelligence failure due to democrats restricting the ability
> of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm wrong.
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45538a31@linux...
>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or not
>> pleasing terrorists.
>>
>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough to
>> be running foreign policy.
>>
>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy and
>> negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who lets
>> themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:455374c4@linux...
>>>
>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into our
>>> Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers, almost
>>> flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building? Those wacky
>>> terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran who wants to
>>> "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the one enriching
>>> all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the Republicans and the
>>> Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one
>>> area we can't waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing
>>> short of a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for the
>>> drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>>> trillions
>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>> Nixon.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that we
>>>>>> need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was no
>>>> problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan, Bush1,
>>>> Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>
>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country by Al
>>>>> Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to solve
>>>>> this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent *as
>>>>> in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic energy
>>>>> options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and gas
>>>>> reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are proven*
>>>>> could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our economy
>>>>> is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15 years...especially with a
>>>>> party in power that is willing to negotiate with terrorists, which to
>>>>> them is a sign of weakness. They will be encouraged by this.
>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>
>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good
>>>>>>> economy,
>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a
>>>>>> half
>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>>>> trillions
>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that we
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL influence
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the Bush
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and Halliburton.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is effectively
>>>>>> taking
>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>> States.
>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>> though
>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value. More
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends, economically,
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75768 is a reply to message #75765] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 00:41 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> like overcompensating insecure
spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just maybe,
we're better than that.
and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can die
by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you can face
reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left to argue
over once the dust clears.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>
> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before so
> there's reason to hope. ;^)
>
> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
> have been planned before this election.
>
> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and action
> by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>
> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame BOTH
> the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you feel
> better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>
> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>
> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
> major parties AND the minor parties.
>
> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the threat
> and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get some
> further options on the table now to meet this threat, and maybe, just
> maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which has hardly been
> flawless.
>
> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by terrorists
> into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure spendthrift
> fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject fear -
> IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just maybe, we're better
> than that.
>
> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
> from the widest array of effective options.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> DJ wrote:
>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>
>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm predicting
>> that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and that it will
>> come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to democrats restricting
>> the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm wrong.
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45538a31@linux...
>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or not
>>> pleasing terrorists.
>>>
>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
>>> to be running foreign policy.
>>>
>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy and
>>> negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who lets
>>> themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>
>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>> Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building? Those
>>>> wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran who wants
>>>> to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the one
>>>> enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the Republicans
>>>> and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being tough with
>>>> terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want to kill us.
>>>> I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off
>>>> is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at
>>>> that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing more than any other
>>>> scares me sick.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>>>> trillions
>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>
>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country by
>>>>>> Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic energy
>>>>>> options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and gas
>>>>>> reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to negotiate
>>>>>> with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness. They will be
>>>>>> encouraged by this.
>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good
>>>>>>>> economy,
>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a
>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that
>>>>>>> we have
>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75772 is a reply to message #75768] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 02:02 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
>>Jamie wrote:
>> like overcompensating insecure
> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just maybe,
> we're better than that.
>
> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can die
> by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you can face
> reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left to argue
> over once the dust clears.
Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
confusing it with unhealthy fear.
It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
enslave.
"...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
planet achieve peace.
The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
be one message of this election.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before so
>> there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>
>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>> have been planned before this election.
>>
>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and action
>> by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>
>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame BOTH
>> the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you feel
>> better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>
>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>
>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>
>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the threat
>> and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll get some
>> further options on the table now to meet this threat, and maybe, just
>> maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which has hardly been
>> flawless.
>>
>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by terrorists
>> into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure spendthrift
>> fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject fear -
>> IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just maybe, we're better
>> than that.
>>
>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>>>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>
>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm predicting
>>> that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and that it will
>>> come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to democrats restricting
>>> the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45538a31@linux...
>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or not
>>>> pleasing terrorists.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a perception
>>>> that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not smart enough
>>>> to be running foreign policy.
>>>>
>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy and
>>>> negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who lets
>>>> themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building? Those
>>>>> wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran who wants
>>>>> to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the one
>>>>> enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the Republicans
>>>>> and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being tough with
>>>>> terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want to kill us.
>>>>> I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off
>>>>> is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at
>>>>> that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing more than any other
>>>>> scares me sick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony
>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up with
>>>>>>> trillions
>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country by
>>>>>>> Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic energy
>>>>>>> options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and gas
>>>>>>> reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to negotiate
>>>>>>> with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness. They will be
>>>>>>> encouraged by this.
>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a good
>>>>>>>>> economy,
>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and a
>>>>>>>> half
>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough that
>>>>>>>> we have
>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75786 is a reply to message #75772] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 07:42 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
enslave.<
Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons to do
the job he will not be able to do it.
"...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money from
the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies and
sabatoeurs.
>At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
>with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>threats. <
It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required great
sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
>Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we are in
a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster, especially
in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To ignore this in
an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an entire city is a recipe
for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>
> DJ wrote:
> >>Jamie wrote:
>>> like overcompensating insecure
>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>
>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left
>> to argue over once the dust clears.
>
> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>
> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me on
> that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>
> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>
> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for sound
> policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to enslave.
>
> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>
> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
> threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at best. And
> dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>
> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
> planet achieve peace.
>
> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
> be one message of this election.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
>>> so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>
>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>>> have been planned before this election.
>>>
>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
>>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
>>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
>>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
>>> action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>
>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you
>>> feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>
>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
>>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>
>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
>>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>
>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>
>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>
>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>> smart enough
>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>
>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>> smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building?
>>>>>> Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran
>>>>>> who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the
>>>>>> one enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the
>>>>>> Republicans and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being
>>>>>> tough with terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want
>>>>>> to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet
>>>>>> nukes going off is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll
>>>>>> be too late at that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing
>>>>>> more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic
>>>>>>>> energy options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and
>>>>>>>> gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and
>>>>>>>>> a half
>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75794 is a reply to message #75786] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 09:27 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
> enslave.<
>
> Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons to do
> the job he will not be able to do it.
No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
My point is that it's important to operate from a position of strength
derived from rational planning, rather than fear-based, panicked,
knee-jerk responses, the latter being open to direct manipulation by
terrorists (and by self-serving politicians, for that matter). Can we
not agree on that?
> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>
> This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
> depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money from
> the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies and
> sabatoeurs.
Exactly, and I noted the different context. However the quote is germane.
Speaking of ex-presidents and war, Eisenhower said this:
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city,
every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
>> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>> threats. <
OK, we agree on that, right?
> It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required great
> sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
Right, no one has advocated a sacrifice-free response in this thread.
Although our current president and congress have actively worked to make
it seem like little sacrifice has been required by, for the first time
in history (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes in time of war. Of
course this only delays the sacrifice a generation or two.
We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the
essence of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>> Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
>
> I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we are in
Then we can be united despite our differences. Like a composite material
with fibers in different layers running in different directions we can
be bonded together, stronger for our union. :^)
IOW, it's OK that we sometimes think differently, as long as we listen
to each other, respect each other and can consider each other's
viewpoints. We can draw on all of our strengths to innovate workable
solutions.
> a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster, especially
> in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To ignore this in
> an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an entire city is a recipe
> for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must defend BOTH against a
crafty enemy AND against those who would sacrifice the ideals and
freedoms of our country. We must not lose the war in order to win the
battle. And we must not lose that battle.
We must choose paths that serve both our citizens and the people of the
world, not those that best serve the military industrial complexes of
the world's nations, nor the short term interests of short-sighted
international corporations, nor the power ambitions of a any obsessive
wannabe despots. This will take leadership in a style not seen for quite
a while in these parts.
Fear-based thinking on either side of a conflict props up illegitimate
power.
This is among the top dangers of major aspects of our current course.
While trying to appear "not weak" we run the risk of making it easy for
those against us to use our missteps, missed opportunities and
overreactions to literally scare up more and more followers.
As part of a well considered and comprehensive defense, we must
interrupt this dynamic. To not do so would be to fight with one arm tied
behind our back.
We need to think very long term, we need to look at alleviating root
causes of conflict and we need to consider the best interests of the
nations and citizens involved. As long as we don't, we are fighting
without a complete defense and we are in danger of blundering into trap
after trap, draining our resources and weakening our position.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>
>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left
>>> to argue over once the dust clears.
>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>
>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me on
>> that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>
>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>
>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for sound
>> policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to enslave.
>>
>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>>
>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
>> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>> threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at best. And
>> dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>
>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>> planet achieve peace.
>>
>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>> be one message of this election.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
>>>> so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>
>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>>>> have been planned before this election.
>>>>
>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
>>>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
>>>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
>>>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
>>>> action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>
>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you
>>>> feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
>>>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>
>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
>>>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>
>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>>>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>>> smart enough
>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>
>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>>>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>>> smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building?
>>>>>>> Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran
>>>>>>> who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the
>>>>>>> one enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the
>>>>>>> Republicans and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being
>>>>>>> tough with terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want
>>>>>>> to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet
>>>>>>> nukes going off is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll
>>>>>>> be too late at that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing
>>>>>>> more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic
>>>>>>>>> energy options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and
>>>>>>>>> gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and
>>>>>>>>>> a half
>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75798 is a reply to message #75794] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 10:18 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
<snip>
> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the essence
> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>
The patriot act and NSA wiretaps (immediate-no ***ing around trying to get a
warrant when you don't even know what you're really looking to find) are the
weapons I'm talking about here. It'sd a shame but our laws in this respect
have become our enemy's weapon. In order to deprive him of it, we must
sacrifice it.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554b420@linux...
> DJ wrote:
>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>> enslave.<
>>
>> Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons to
>> do the job he will not be able to do it.
>
> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
>
> My point is that it's important to operate from a position of strength
> derived from rational planning, rather than fear-based, panicked,
> knee-jerk responses, the latter being open to direct manipulation by
> terrorists (and by self-serving politicians, for that matter). Can we not
> agree on that?
>
>
>
>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>> context.
>>
>> This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
>> depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money
>> from the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies
>> and sabatoeurs.
>
> Exactly, and I noted the different context. However the quote is germane.
>
> Speaking of ex-presidents and war, Eisenhower said this:
>
> "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
> industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic,
> political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every
> office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for
> this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave
> implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is
> the very structure of our society.
>
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and
> knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial
> and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
> that security and liberty may prosper together."
>
>
>
>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>> potential threats. <
>
> OK, we agree on that, right?
>
>
>> It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required
>> great sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
>
> Right, no one has advocated a sacrifice-free response in this thread.
> Although our current president and congress have actively worked to make
> it seem like little sacrifice has been required by, for the first time in
> history (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes in time of war. Of course
> this only delays the sacrifice a generation or two.
>
> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the essence
> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>
>
>>> Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
>>
>> I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we are
>> in
>
> Then we can be united despite our differences. Like a composite material
> with fibers in different layers running in different directions we can be
> bonded together, stronger for our union. :^)
>
> IOW, it's OK that we sometimes think differently, as long as we listen to
> each other, respect each other and can consider each other's viewpoints.
> We can draw on all of our strengths to innovate workable solutions.
>
>
>> a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster,
>> especially in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To
>> ignore this in an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an entire
>> city is a recipe for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
>
> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must defend BOTH against a
> crafty enemy AND against those who would sacrifice the ideals and freedoms
> of our country. We must not lose the war in order to win the battle. And
> we must not lose that battle.
>
> We must choose paths that serve both our citizens and the people of the
> world, not those that best serve the military industrial complexes of the
> world's nations, nor the short term interests of short-sighted
> international corporations, nor the power ambitions of a any obsessive
> wannabe despots. This will take leadership in a style not seen for quite a
> while in these parts.
>
> Fear-based thinking on either side of a conflict props up illegitimate
> power.
>
> This is among the top dangers of major aspects of our current course.
> While trying to appear "not weak" we run the risk of making it easy for
> those against us to use our missteps, missed opportunities and
> overreactions to literally scare up more and more followers.
>
> As part of a well considered and comprehensive defense, we must interrupt
> this dynamic. To not do so would be to fight with one arm tied behind our
> back.
>
> We need to think very long term, we need to look at alleviating root
> causes of conflict and we need to consider the best interests of the
> nations and citizens involved. As long as we don't, we are fighting
> without a complete defense and we are in danger of blundering into trap
> after trap, draining our resources and weakening our position.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
>>>> left to argue over once the dust clears.
>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>>
>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>
>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>
>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>> enslave.
>>>
>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>> context.
>>>
>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>
>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>>> planet achieve peace.
>>>
>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>>> be one message of this election.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
>>>>>
>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't
>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered
>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>
>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>> not smart enough
>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo
>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital
>>>>>>>> Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president
>>>>>>>> over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the
>>>>>>>> planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I disagree
>>>>>>>> with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents actions,
>>>>>>>> policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one area we can't
>>>>>>>> waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of
>>>>>>>> a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>>>>>>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for
>>>>>>>> the drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going
>>>>>>>>>> to solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy
>>>>>>>>>> independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all
>>>>>>>>>> domestic energy options other than drilling for oil in old,
>>>>>>>>>> depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas
>>>>>>>>>> solutions that *are proven* could bring this about within the
>>>>>>>>>> next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75799 is a reply to message #75794] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 11:10 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ike is a fascinating one. The most recent (and likely last) president who
kinda sorta fit the classical model of a politician. He was a general, a
political moderate, a reader, writer, and even a painter. He respected the
constitution and the separation of powers, and was thus personally opposed
to McCarthy but did little to stop what was a Congressional matter. What's
odd was that he helped oversee the transformation of our state from a flawed
but generally improving republic into the empire it became by the time he
left office. Then, in that last speech, he suddenly felt something. Remorse?
Regret? Concern? And gave us the 'military-industrial complex.' Interestingly,
the original drafts had the phrase as 'military-industrial-congressional
complex' which is quite more accurate as we see our congress funding Navy
installations in home district in Nebraska while transport vehicles in Iraq
are not armored. But I guess even Ike wasn't feeling _that_ guilty, or he
was talked down from including our noble representatives in his thoughtful
complex.
But nevertheless Ike has always fascinated me, far more than other 20th century
presidents like Kennedy or Truman or even Roosevelt. As we learn more about
just how reckless JFK was, politically as well as personally, the mild mannered
moderate conservatism of Eisenhower seems compelling. But one also has to
wonder why, if he knew what was happening, he didn't warn of that military-industrial
complex earlier and actually do something to fight it. By the time he retired,
the goose was pretty much cooked, to all of our neverending detriment.
TCB
Jamie K <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote:
>DJ wrote:
>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>> enslave.<
>>
>> Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons
to do
>> the job he will not be able to do it.
>
>No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
>
>My point is that it's important to operate from a position of strength
>derived from rational planning, rather than fear-based, panicked,
>knee-jerk responses, the latter being open to direct manipulation by
>terrorists (and by self-serving politicians, for that matter). Can we
>not agree on that?
>
>
>
>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>>
>> This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
>> depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money
from
>> the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies and
>> sabatoeurs.
>
>Exactly, and I noted the different context. However the quote is germane.
>
>Speaking of ex-presidents and war, Eisenhower said this:
>
>"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
>industry is new in the American experience. The total
>influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city,
>every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize
>the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
>comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
>are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
>
>In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
>unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
>military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
>misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
>We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
>or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an
>alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge
>industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
>and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>
>
>
>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
agree
>>> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>>> threats. <
>
>OK, we agree on that, right?
>
>
>> It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required great
>> sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
>
>Right, no one has advocated a sacrifice-free response in this thread.
>Although our current president and congress have actively worked to make
>it seem like little sacrifice has been required by, for the first time
>in history (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes in time of war. Of
>course this only delays the sacrifice a generation or two.
>
>We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the
>essence of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>
>
>>> Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
>>
>> I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we
are in
>
>Then we can be united despite our differences. Like a composite material
>with fibers in different layers running in different directions we can
>be bonded together, stronger for our union. :^)
>
>IOW, it's OK that we sometimes think differently, as long as we listen
>to each other, respect each other and can consider each other's
>viewpoints. We can draw on all of our strengths to innovate workable
>solutions.
>
>
>> a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster, especially
>> in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To ignore this
in
>> an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an entire city is a recipe
>> for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
>
>The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must defend BOTH against a
>crafty enemy AND against those who would sacrifice the ideals and
>freedoms of our country. We must not lose the war in order to win the
>battle. And we must not lose that battle.
>
>We must choose paths that serve both our citizens and the people of the
>world, not those that best serve the military industrial complexes of
>the world's nations, nor the short term interests of short-sighted
>international corporations, nor the power ambitions of a any obsessive
>wannabe despots. This will take leadership in a style not seen for quite
>a while in these parts.
>
>Fear-based thinking on either side of a conflict props up illegitimate
>power.
>
>This is among the top dangers of major aspects of our current course.
>While trying to appear "not weak" we run the risk of making it easy for
>those against us to use our missteps, missed opportunities and
>overreactions to literally scare up more and more followers.
>
>As part of a well considered and comprehensive defense, we must
>interrupt this dynamic. To not do so would be to fight with one arm tied
>behind our back.
>
>We need to think very long term, we need to look at alleviating root
>causes of conflict and we need to consider the best interests of the
>nations and citizens involved. As long as we don't, we are fighting
>without a complete defense and we are in danger of blundering into trap
>after trap, draining our resources and weakening our position.
>
>Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you
can
>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or
you
>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
left
>>>> to argue over once the dust clears.
>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>>
>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from
me on
>>> that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>
>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>
>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
sound
>>> policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to enslave.
>>>
>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>>>
>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
agree
>>> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>>> threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at best. And
>>> dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>
>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and
our
>>> planet achieve peace.
>>>
>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That
may
>>> be one message of this election.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
>>>>> so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>>>>> have been planned before this election.
>>>>>
>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
you
>>>>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic
and
>>>>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to
face
>>>>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
>>>>> action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
you
>>>>> feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty
of
>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties
-
>>>>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>
>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
BOTH
>>>>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
eyed
>>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>>>>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
not
>>>>>>> smart enough
>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
we
>>>>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon
and
>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing
or
>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
not
>>>>>>> smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet
into
>>>>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building?
>>>>>>>> Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran
>>>>>>>> who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know,
the
>>>>>>>> one enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the
>>>>>>>> Republicans and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being
>>>>>>>> tough with terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want
>>>>>>>> to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet
>>>>>>>> nukes going off is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll
>>>>>>>> be too late at that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing
>>>>>>>> more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped
up
>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
that
>>>>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
this
>>>>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
was
>>>>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going
to
>>>>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic
>>>>>>>>>> energy options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil
and
>>>>>>>>>> gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that
*are
>>>>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off
the
>>>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
for
>>>>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck
a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
not
>>>>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
and
>>>>>>>>>>> a half
>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped
up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow
of
>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand
the
>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
the
>>>>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
with
>>>>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
even
>>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75801 is a reply to message #75772] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 10:41 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Jamie,
I didn't imply that you were "blind, deaf and dumb". I respect your
discourse, and strong defense of your views. I just feel the current
situation involves more than "a few wacky terrorists". Also, just because I
recognize there is a real, and likely threat of more attacks here in the US,
doesn't mean I'm an "overcompensating insecure spendthrift fool
undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject fear". I do
understand though that this isn't some war between two countries, where we
can "negotiate" an end to hostilities, or simply drop our support for
Israel, or change our policy and make everything better. Whether it was
decades of failed U.S. policy or not, these people want us dead right now,
and we have to be proactive. Once we do something significant about our
boarders and make sure we have the absolute best intelligence, defense, and
law enforcement agencies money can buy, then we can talk about long term
programs to make everyone "like us". Sorry, gotta go. It's lower body
workout day. I have to be in shape for all that "knee jerking"! ;>)
Tony
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>
> DJ wrote:
> >>Jamie wrote:
>>> like overcompensating insecure
>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>
>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left
>> to argue over once the dust clears.
>
> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>
> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me on
> that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>
> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>
> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for sound
> policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to enslave.
>
> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>
> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
> threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at best. And
> dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>
> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
> planet achieve peace.
>
> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
> be one message of this election.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
>>> so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>
>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>>> have been planned before this election.
>>>
>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
>>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
>>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
>>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
>>> action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>
>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you
>>> feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>
>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
>>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>
>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
>>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>
>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>
>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>
>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>> smart enough
>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>
>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>> smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building?
>>>>>> Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran
>>>>>> who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the
>>>>>> one enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the
>>>>>> Republicans and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being
>>>>>> tough with terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want
>>>>>> to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet
>>>>>> nukes going off is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll
>>>>>> be too late at that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing
>>>>>> more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic
>>>>>>>> energy options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and
>>>>>>>> gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and
>>>>>>>>> a half
>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75808 is a reply to message #75801] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 11:39 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Tony,
I never said anything about "a few wacky terrorists."
I was speaking of the wacky beliefs of a few terrorists, a very
different concept.
If we act in our best interest and the leadership of al-Qaeda happens
think we're being "weak" in so doing, it would be stupid for us to be
thusly manipulated to act to our detriment just to impress those few
terrorists.
We should act out of strength of purpose, clear vision and as much
wisdom as we can gather, being true to our ideals, regardless of the
wacky beliefs of a few terrorists.
More than one expert on the region has criticized our lack of long term
preplanning in Iraq before going in. We're now in a situation that the
current (for the moment) policy architects did not anticipate nor
prepare for, and it's not a great situation. Many lives lost and $300
billion tax dollars later, more lives and dollars every day, significant
tax money unaccounted for, Iran gaining influence in Iraq, these sorts
of consequences have been a significant factor in this election. Voters
are asking hard questions, as well they should.
Our various policies directly affect the region and so we must carefully
consider their effect. We will never have perfect intelligence systems,
a perfectly impenetrable border, flawless law enforcement and a blanket
defense against everything nor can we afford that. We can work in that
direction within what we can afford but we must also work in other
directions to help create peace. There is a balance. Anyone who preaches
that there is only ONE avenue of action is probably making money on that
avenue or listening to someone who does.
Yes you can recognize the possibility of additional attacks on the US
without subscribing to the notion that we have to behave shortsightedly
and predictably in order to impress a few terrorists with our
"non-weakness."
Consider that that kind of stubbornness and inability to see creative
solutions can actually make us miss opportunities to become stronger and
more successful, and to help create a better situation for ourselves and
for people who live in the region.
Am I being more clear?
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
Tony Benson wrote:
> Jamie,
>
> I didn't imply that you were "blind, deaf and dumb". I respect your
> discourse, and strong defense of your views. I just feel the current
> situation involves more than "a few wacky terrorists". Also, just because I
> recognize there is a real, and likely threat of more attacks here in the US,
> doesn't mean I'm an "overcompensating insecure spendthrift fool
> undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject fear". I do
> understand though that this isn't some war between two countries, where we
> can "negotiate" an end to hostilities, or simply drop our support for
> Israel, or change our policy and make everything better. Whether it was
> decades of failed U.S. policy or not, these people want us dead right now,
> and we have to be proactive. Once we do something significant about our
> boarders and make sure we have the absolute best intelligence, defense, and
> law enforcement agencies money can buy, then we can talk about long term
> programs to make everyone "like us". Sorry, gotta go. It's lower body
> workout day. I have to be in shape for all that "knee jerking"! ;>)
>
> Tony
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>
>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something left
>>> to argue over once the dust clears.
>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>
>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me on
>> that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>
>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>
>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for sound
>> policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to enslave.
>>
>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another context.
>>
>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't agree
>> with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to potential
>> threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at best. And
>> dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>
>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>> planet achieve peace.
>>
>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>> be one message of this election.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45541a10@linux...
>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong before
>>>> so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>
>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will probably
>>>> have been planned before this election.
>>>>
>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell you
>>>> it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still logic and
>>>> there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't want to face
>>>> the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered policy and
>>>> action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>
>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes you
>>>> feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major parties -
>>>> for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>
>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in BOTH
>>>> major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>
>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and choose
>>>> from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>>> smart enough
>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>
>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and we
>>>>> are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is not
>>>>>> smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over 3,000
>>>>>>> innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo jet into
>>>>>>> our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some passengers,
>>>>>>> almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital Building?
>>>>>>> Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president over in Iran
>>>>>>> who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the planet". You know, the
>>>>>>> one enriching all the uranium. I disagree with plenty of the
>>>>>>> Republicans and the Presidents actions, policies, etc., but being
>>>>>>> tough with terroists is one area we can't waiver. These people want
>>>>>>> to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet
>>>>>>> nukes going off is going to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll
>>>>>>> be too late at that point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing
>>>>>>> more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position that
>>>>>>>>>> we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized this
>>>>>>>>> back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there was
>>>>>>>> no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years (Reagan,
>>>>>>>> Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going to
>>>>>>>>> solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy independent
>>>>>>>>> *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all domestic
>>>>>>>>> energy options other than drilling for oil in old, depleted oil and
>>>>>>>>> gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas solutions that *are
>>>>>>>>> proven* could bring this about within the next 5 years are off the
>>>>>>>>> table?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time for
>>>>>>>> better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is not
>>>>>>>>>>> effective,
>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year and
>>>>>>>>>> a half
>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of the
>>>>>>>>>> Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush with
>>>>>>>>>> savings,
>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year, even
>>>>>>>>>> though
>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing value.
>>>>>>>>>> More than
>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75810 is a reply to message #75798] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 11:52 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
DJ wrote:
>> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
>
> <snip>
>> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the essence
>> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>>
>
>
> The patriot act and NSA wiretaps (immediate-no ***ing around trying to get a
> warrant when you don't even know what you're really looking to find) are the
> weapons I'm talking about here. It'sd a shame but our laws in this respect
> have become our enemy's weapon. In order to deprive him of it, we must
> sacrifice it.
There are elements of the Patriot act; our move toward justifying
torture; and aspects to wholesale wiretapping of American citizens that
are very unamerican IMO.
We must be extremely careful that we do not permanently lose our place
in history as a great step forward in personal freedom and opportunity.
Either by some nutcase reducing St. Louis to a nuclear wasteland or by
some other nutcase legislating away our core ideals. I don't care how
sincere the nutcase, those are both extremely damaging actions to America.
This is not an easy problem, so we need every viable idea on the table
and we need to come together with respect. And we need to remember:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554b420@linux...
>> DJ wrote:
>>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>> enslave.<
>>>
>>> Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons to
>>> do the job he will not be able to do it.
>> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
>>
>> My point is that it's important to operate from a position of strength
>> derived from rational planning, rather than fear-based, panicked,
>> knee-jerk responses, the latter being open to direct manipulation by
>> terrorists (and by self-serving politicians, for that matter). Can we not
>> agree on that?
>>
>>
>>
>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>> context.
>>>
>>> This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
>>> depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money
>>> from the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies
>>> and sabatoeurs.
>> Exactly, and I noted the different context. However the quote is germane.
>>
>> Speaking of ex-presidents and war, Eisenhower said this:
>>
>> "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
>> industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic,
>> political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every
>> office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for
>> this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave
>> implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is
>> the very structure of our society.
>>
>> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
>> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
>> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
>> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>>
>> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
>> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and
>> knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial
>> and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
>> that security and liberty may prosper together."
>>
>>
>>
>>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>>> potential threats. <
>> OK, we agree on that, right?
>>
>>
>>> It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required
>>> great sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
>> Right, no one has advocated a sacrifice-free response in this thread.
>> Although our current president and congress have actively worked to make
>> it seem like little sacrifice has been required by, for the first time in
>> history (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes in time of war. Of course
>> this only delays the sacrifice a generation or two.
>>
>> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the essence
>> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>>> Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
>>>
>>> I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we are
>>> in
>> Then we can be united despite our differences. Like a composite material
>> with fibers in different layers running in different directions we can be
>> bonded together, stronger for our union. :^)
>>
>> IOW, it's OK that we sometimes think differently, as long as we listen to
>> each other, respect each other and can consider each other's viewpoints.
>> We can draw on all of our strengths to innovate workable solutions.
>>
>>
>>> a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster,
>>> especially in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To
>>> ignore this in an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an entire
>>> city is a recipe for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
>> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must defend BOTH against a
>> crafty enemy AND against those who would sacrifice the ideals and freedoms
>> of our country. We must not lose the war in order to win the battle. And
>> we must not lose that battle.
>>
>> We must choose paths that serve both our citizens and the people of the
>> world, not those that best serve the military industrial complexes of the
>> world's nations, nor the short term interests of short-sighted
>> international corporations, nor the power ambitions of a any obsessive
>> wannabe despots. This will take leadership in a style not seen for quite a
>> while in these parts.
>>
>> Fear-based thinking on either side of a conflict props up illegitimate
>> power.
>>
>> This is among the top dangers of major aspects of our current course.
>> While trying to appear "not weak" we run the risk of making it easy for
>> those against us to use our missteps, missed opportunities and
>> overreactions to literally scare up more and more followers.
>>
>> As part of a well considered and comprehensive defense, we must interrupt
>> this dynamic. To not do so would be to fight with one arm tied behind our
>> back.
>>
>> We need to think very long term, we need to look at alleviating root
>> causes of conflict and we need to consider the best interests of the
>> nations and citizens involved. As long as we don't, we are fighting
>> without a complete defense and we are in danger of blundering into trap
>> after trap, draining our resources and weakening our position.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
>>>>> left to argue over once the dust clears.
>>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>>>
>>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
>>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>>
>>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>>
>>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>>> enslave.
>>>>
>>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>>>> planet achieve peace.
>>>>
>>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>>>> be one message of this election.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
>>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
>>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
>>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
>>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't
>>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered
>>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
>>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
>>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
>>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
>>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
>>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
>>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough
>>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
>>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
>>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo
>>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
>>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital
>>>>>>>>> Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president
>>>>>>>>> over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the
>>>>>>>>> planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I disagree
>>>>>>>>> with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents actions,
>>>>>>>>> policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one area we can't
>>>>>>>>> waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of
>>>>>>>>> a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>>>>>>>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for
>>>>>>>>> the drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
>>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
>>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
>>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going
>>>>>>>>>>> to solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy
>>>>>>>>>>> independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic energy options other than drilling for oil in old,
>>>>>>>>>>> depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> solutions that *are proven* could bring this about within the
>>>>>>>>>>> next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
>>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
>>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
>>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
>>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
>>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
>>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75818 is a reply to message #75810] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 09:36 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
this is the 800lb gorilla to be sure, but as far as Franklin oes, would he
have advocated exercisingone's freedom to walk into a plague infested area,
simply because it is ones' right to travel freely? Sure, you can do it.and
you will likely die. What we are facing is much more akin to a plague than
any conventional threat and it should be treated like one. In order to do
this it must be detected and prevented. the only way to do this is by
forensic means..but this particular plague has intelligence so letting it
know what you are doing to prevent it will cause it to mutate much faster
and more effectively than any microbe could ever do.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554d628@linux...
>
> DJ wrote:
> >> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
> >
> > <snip>
> >> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the
essence
> >> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The patriot act and NSA wiretaps (immediate-no ***ing around trying to
get a
> > warrant when you don't even know what you're really looking to find) are
the
> > weapons I'm talking about here. It'sd a shame but our laws in this
respect
> > have become our enemy's weapon. In order to deprive him of it, we must
> > sacrifice it.
>
> There are elements of the Patriot act; our move toward justifying
> torture; and aspects to wholesale wiretapping of American citizens that
> are very unamerican IMO.
>
> We must be extremely careful that we do not permanently lose our place
> in history as a great step forward in personal freedom and opportunity.
> Either by some nutcase reducing St. Louis to a nuclear wasteland or by
> some other nutcase legislating away our core ideals. I don't care how
> sincere the nutcase, those are both extremely damaging actions to America.
>
> This is not an easy problem, so we need every viable idea on the table
> and we need to come together with respect. And we need to remember:
>
> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
> Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin.
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> >
> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554b420@linux...
> >> DJ wrote:
> >>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
> >>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way
to
> >>> enslave.<
> >>>
> >>> Ask any military planner and he will tell you that without the weapons
to
> >>> do the job he will not be able to do it.
> >> No one has advocated military disarmament in this thread.
> >>
> >> My point is that it's important to operate from a position of strength
> >> derived from rational planning, rather than fear-based, panicked,
> >> knee-jerk responses, the latter being open to direct manipulation by
> >> terrorists (and by self-serving politicians, for that matter). Can we
not
> >> agree on that?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
> >>> context.
> >>>
> >>> This was from Roosevelts first inagural and referred to an economic
> >>> depression. He was trying to keep people from withdrawing their money
> >>> from the banks. He certainly wasn't talking about a shooting war/spies
> >>> and sabatoeurs.
> >> Exactly, and I noted the different context. However the quote is
germane.
> >>
> >> Speaking of ex-presidents and war, Eisenhower said this:
> >>
> >> "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
> >> industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence-economic,
> >> political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house,
every
> >> office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for
> >> this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave
> >> implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so
is
> >> the very structure of our society.
> >>
> >> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
> >> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> >> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
> >> misplaced power exists and will persist.
> >>
> >> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
or
> >> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert
and
> >> knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge
industrial
> >> and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals,
so
> >> that security and liberty may prosper together."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
> >>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
> >>>> potential threats. <
> >> OK, we agree on that, right?
> >>
> >>
> >>> It would be inaccurate to imply that wars have not *always* required
> >>> great sacrifices from the citizenry of the respective combatants.
> >> Right, no one has advocated a sacrifice-free response in this thread.
> >> Although our current president and congress have actively worked to
make
> >> it seem like little sacrifice has been required by, for the first time
in
> >> history (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes in time of war. Of
course
> >> this only delays the sacrifice a generation or two.
> >>
> >> We should, however, be very aware and careful to not sacrifice the
essence
> >> of American freedom and human rights to the altar of terrorism.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
> >>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.<
> >>>
> >>> I agree 100%. It seems that half the folks in this country believe we
are
> >>> in
> >> Then we can be united despite our differences. Like a composite
material
> >> with fibers in different layers running in different directions we can
be
> >> bonded together, stronger for our union. :^)
> >>
> >> IOW, it's OK that we sometimes think differently, as long as we listen
to
> >> each other, respect each other and can consider each other's
viewpoints.
> >> We can draw on all of our strengths to innovate workable solutions.
> >>
> >>
> >>> a war, the other half don't. This is a sure recipe for disaster,
> >>> especially in a war with an enemy who uses our own laws against us. To
> >>> ignore this in an era where one person with a bomb can wipe out an
entire
> >>> city is a recipe for disaster on an unimaginable scale.
> >> The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must defend BOTH against
a
> >> crafty enemy AND against those who would sacrifice the ideals and
freedoms
> >> of our country. We must not lose the war in order to win the battle.
And
> >> we must not lose that battle.
> >>
> >> We must choose paths that serve both our citizens and the people of the
> >> world, not those that best serve the military industrial complexes of
the
> >> world's nations, nor the short term interests of short-sighted
> >> international corporations, nor the power ambitions of a any obsessive
> >> wannabe despots. This will take leadership in a style not seen for
quite a
> >> while in these parts.
> >>
> >> Fear-based thinking on either side of a conflict props up illegitimate
> >> power.
> >>
> >> This is among the top dangers of major aspects of our current course.
> >> While trying to appear "not weak" we run the risk of making it easy for
> >> those against us to use our missteps, missed opportunities and
> >> overreactions to literally scare up more and more followers.
> >>
> >> As part of a well considered and comprehensive defense, we must
interrupt
> >> this dynamic. To not do so would be to fight with one arm tied behind
our
> >> back.
> >>
> >> We need to think very long term, we need to look at alleviating root
> >> causes of conflict and we need to consider the best interests of the
> >> nations and citizens involved. As long as we don't, we are fighting
> >> without a complete defense and we are in danger of blundering into trap
> >> after trap, draining our resources and weakening our position.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -Jamie
> >> www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
news:45544bcc@linux...
> >>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>> Jamie wrote:
> >>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
> >>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
eyed
> >>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
> >>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you
can
> >>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or
you
> >>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
> >>>>> left to argue over once the dust clears.
> >>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored
world.
> >>>>
> >>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning
and
> >>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from
me
> >>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
> >>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
> >>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
> >>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way
to
> >>>> enslave.
> >>>>
> >>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
> >>>> context.
> >>>>
> >>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
> >>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
> >>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive
at
> >>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
> >>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and
our
> >>>> planet achieve peace.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That
may
> >>>> be one message of this election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> -Jamie
> >>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
> >>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
> >>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many
times
> >>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
> >>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will
tell
> >>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
> >>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers
don't
> >>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly
considered
> >>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and
Republican
> >>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and
blame
> >>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really
makes
> >>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
> >>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty
of
> >>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
> >>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
> >>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
> >>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
> >>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
> >>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe,
we'll
> >>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
> >>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach
which
> >>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
> >>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating
insecure
> >>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
> >>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
> >>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
> >>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
> >>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
> >>>>>>>> not smart enough
> >>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple
and
> >>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
> >>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon
and
> >>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
> >>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope
I'm
> >>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
> >>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing
or
> >>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
> >>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
> >>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ
diplomacy
> >>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone
who
> >>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a
few
> >>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or
inaction).
> >>>>>>>>> Jamie,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
> >>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a
jumbo
> >>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
> >>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or
Capital
> >>>>>>>>> Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president
> >>>>>>>>> over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the
> >>>>>>>>> planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I disagree
> >>>>>>>>> with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents actions,
> >>>>>>>>> policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one area we
can't
> >>>>>>>>> waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short
of
> >>>>>>>>> a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
> >>>>>>>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry
for
> >>>>>>>>> the drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me
sick.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tony
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped
up
> >>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
> >>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart
that
> >>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
> >>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
> >>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
> >>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
> >>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended
there
> >>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
> >>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this
country
> >>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats
going
> >>>>>>>>>>> to solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy
> >>>>>>>>>>> independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when
all
> >>>>>>>>>>> domestic energy options other than drilling for oil in old,
> >>>>>>>>>>> depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas
> >>>>>>>>>>> solutions that *are proven* could bring this about within the
> >>>>>>>>>>> next 5 years are off the table?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
> >>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
> >>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
> >>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of
weakness.
> >>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
> >>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of
time
> >>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a
few
> >>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or
inaction).
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
> >>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> DJ
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that
Clinton
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck
a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest
domestic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it
is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a
year
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
> >>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped
up
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad
enough
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow
of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
> >>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred
billion
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
> >>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
> >>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the
United
> >>>>>>>>>>>> States.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> even though
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
> >>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75827 is a reply to message #75808] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 12:57 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Like I said Jamie, once we get a handle on at least fixing the big holes in
our homeland security we can then work on long term solutions to why they
hate us so. Hell, I don't even care if we work on the long term at the same
time, just get to work on the immediate security stuff now.
Yes, we should act in our best interest. I believe appearing weak to
terrorists will not be in our best interest. I'm sorry, I'll have to agree
to disagree with you on this point.
Iraq has been a dismal abyss. Saddam ruled with a genocidal iron fist, and
it appears that was the only thing keeping the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds
from tearing each other up. Now it looks like that will happen anyway. The
problem there is so huge and complicated, that I don't have hope anyone can
"fix" it. We didn't create the "real" problem though. We just removed
Hussein so the various divisions in Iraq could get back to their centuries
old civil war unimpeded.
I don't believe being tough with terrorists should be our only course of
action. We need to explore all avenues to work toward better relations in
the Middle East, and all around the world. Take care of protecting ourselves
right now, and I'm all over the making friends thing.
I must have mis-interpreted your "wacky beliefs of a few terrorists"
statement. I thought you were implying that our risk from terrorists is not
real, or something we need not aggressively address.
I have a hypothetical question for you Jamie. If by some miracle we could
reverse all the failed policy and all of our mis-steps, Israel went away,
basically remove any and all reasons for the terrorists to hate us, what if
after all that, they still hate us and want us dead? What if it really is a
war of ideology? What if the "infidels" really must convert or die? What
then? I don't wish anyone to die by war, aggression or violence, but at what
point do we decide to either fight or lay down and wait to die. I pray to
God that this isn't the case. I hope somehow we can find common ground and
live in peace with everyone. I haven't heard the terrorists ever express
this option though.
I anticipate your response, but will refrain from replying back. You have
much greater debating skills than I, and besides, I've already broken my
promise not to get involved in political threads. I'm such an opinionated
ass! ;>)
With Respect,
Tony
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554d313@linux...
>
> Hey Tony,
>
> I never said anything about "a few wacky terrorists."
>
> I was speaking of the wacky beliefs of a few terrorists, a very different
> concept.
>
> If we act in our best interest and the leadership of al-Qaeda happens
> think we're being "weak" in so doing, it would be stupid for us to be
> thusly manipulated to act to our detriment just to impress those few
> terrorists.
>
> We should act out of strength of purpose, clear vision and as much wisdom
> as we can gather, being true to our ideals, regardless of the wacky
> beliefs of a few terrorists.
>
> More than one expert on the region has criticized our lack of long term
> preplanning in Iraq before going in. We're now in a situation that the
> current (for the moment) policy architects did not anticipate nor prepare
> for, and it's not a great situation. Many lives lost and $300 billion tax
> dollars later, more lives and dollars every day, significant tax money
> unaccounted for, Iran gaining influence in Iraq, these sorts of
> consequences have been a significant factor in this election. Voters are
> asking hard questions, as well they should.
>
> Our various policies directly affect the region and so we must carefully
> consider their effect. We will never have perfect intelligence systems, a
> perfectly impenetrable border, flawless law enforcement and a blanket
> defense against everything nor can we afford that. We can work in that
> direction within what we can afford but we must also work in other
> directions to help create peace. There is a balance. Anyone who preaches
> that there is only ONE avenue of action is probably making money on that
> avenue or listening to someone who does.
>
> Yes you can recognize the possibility of additional attacks on the US
> without subscribing to the notion that we have to behave shortsightedly
> and predictably in order to impress a few terrorists with our
> "non-weakness."
>
> Consider that that kind of stubbornness and inability to see creative
> solutions can actually make us miss opportunities to become stronger and
> more successful, and to help create a better situation for ourselves and
> for people who live in the region.
>
> Am I being more clear?
>
> Cheers,
> -Jamie
> www.JamieKrutz.com
>
>
> Tony Benson wrote:
>> Jamie,
>>
>> I didn't imply that you were "blind, deaf and dumb". I respect your
>> discourse, and strong defense of your views. I just feel the current
>> situation involves more than "a few wacky terrorists". Also, just
>> because I recognize there is a real, and likely threat of more attacks
>> here in the US, doesn't mean I'm an "overcompensating insecure
>> spendthrift fool undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject
>> fear". I do understand though that this isn't some war between two
>> countries, where we can "negotiate" an end to hostilities, or simply drop
>> our support for Israel, or change our policy and make everything better.
>> Whether it was decades of failed U.S. policy or not, these people want us
>> dead right now, and we have to be proactive. Once we do something
>> significant about our boarders and make sure we have the absolute best
>> intelligence, defense, and law enforcement agencies money can buy, then
>> we can talk about long term programs to make everyone "like us". Sorry,
>> gotta go. It's lower body workout day. I have to be in shape for all that
>> "knee jerking"! ;>)
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>
>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
>>>> left to argue over once the dust clears.
>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>>
>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>
>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>
>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>> enslave.
>>>
>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>> context.
>>>
>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>
>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>>> planet achieve peace.
>>>
>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>>> be one message of this election.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Jamie
>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>
>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
>>>>>
>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't
>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered
>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>
>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>
>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>> not smart enough
>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo
>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital
>>>>>>>> Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president
>>>>>>>> over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the
>>>>>>>> planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I disagree
>>>>>>>> with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents actions,
>>>>>>>> policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one area we can't
>>>>>>>> waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of
>>>>>>>> a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>>>>>>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for
>>>>>>>> the drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going
>>>>>>>>>> to solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy
>>>>>>>>>> independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all
>>>>>>>>>> domestic energy options other than drilling for oil in old,
>>>>>>>>>> depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas
>>>>>>>>>> solutions that *are proven* could bring this about within the
>>>>>>>>>> next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75828 is a reply to message #75827] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 13:10 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Now look, I'm replying to my own damn post when I said I was done. What a
dork! ;>)
See my insert below.
"Tony Benson" <tony@standinghampton.com> wrote in message
news:4554e5a5@linux...
> Like I said Jamie, once we get a handle on at least fixing the big holes
> in our homeland security we can then work on long term solutions to why
> they hate us so. Hell, I don't even care if we work on the long term at
> the same time, just get to work on the immediate security stuff now.
>
> Yes, we should act in our best interest. I believe appearing weak to
> terrorists will not be in our best interest. I'm sorry, I'll have to agree
> to disagree with you on this point.
>
> Iraq has been a dismal abyss. Saddam ruled with a genocidal iron fist, and
> it appears that was the only thing keeping the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds
> from tearing each other up. Now it looks like that will happen anyway. The
> problem there is so huge and complicated, that I don't have hope anyone
> can "fix" it. We didn't create the "real" problem though. We just removed
> Hussein so the various divisions in Iraq could get back to their centuries
> old civil war unimpeded.
We actually did create Hussein, but I refering to the "real" problem right
at this vary moment, which is more about Iraqies killing Iraqies, than about
them not wanting us there. They want us out, so the real slughter can begin.
Sorry, I was affraid I didn't make that vary clear.
>
> I don't believe being tough with terrorists should be our only course of
> action. We need to explore all avenues to work toward better relations in
> the Middle East, and all around the world. Take care of protecting
> ourselves right now, and I'm all over the making friends thing.
>
> I must have mis-interpreted your "wacky beliefs of a few terrorists"
> statement. I thought you were implying that our risk from terrorists is
> not real, or something we need not aggressively address.
>
> I have a hypothetical question for you Jamie. If by some miracle we could
> reverse all the failed policy and all of our mis-steps, Israel went away,
> basically remove any and all reasons for the terrorists to hate us, what
> if after all that, they still hate us and want us dead? What if it really
> is a war of ideology? What if the "infidels" really must convert or die?
> What then? I don't wish anyone to die by war, aggression or violence, but
> at what point do we decide to either fight or lay down and wait to die. I
> pray to God that this isn't the case. I hope somehow we can find common
> ground and live in peace with everyone. I haven't heard the terrorists
> ever express this option though.
>
> I anticipate your response, but will refrain from replying back. You have
> much greater debating skills than I, and besides, I've already broken my
> promise not to get involved in political threads. I'm such an opinionated
> ass! ;>)
>
> With Respect,
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554d313@linux...
>>
>> Hey Tony,
>>
>> I never said anything about "a few wacky terrorists."
>>
>> I was speaking of the wacky beliefs of a few terrorists, a very different
>> concept.
>>
>> If we act in our best interest and the leadership of al-Qaeda happens
>> think we're being "weak" in so doing, it would be stupid for us to be
>> thusly manipulated to act to our detriment just to impress those few
>> terrorists.
>>
>> We should act out of strength of purpose, clear vision and as much wisdom
>> as we can gather, being true to our ideals, regardless of the wacky
>> beliefs of a few terrorists.
>>
>> More than one expert on the region has criticized our lack of long term
>> preplanning in Iraq before going in. We're now in a situation that the
>> current (for the moment) policy architects did not anticipate nor prepare
>> for, and it's not a great situation. Many lives lost and $300 billion tax
>> dollars later, more lives and dollars every day, significant tax money
>> unaccounted for, Iran gaining influence in Iraq, these sorts of
>> consequences have been a significant factor in this election. Voters are
>> asking hard questions, as well they should.
>>
>> Our various policies directly affect the region and so we must carefully
>> consider their effect. We will never have perfect intelligence systems, a
>> perfectly impenetrable border, flawless law enforcement and a blanket
>> defense against everything nor can we afford that. We can work in that
>> direction within what we can afford but we must also work in other
>> directions to help create peace. There is a balance. Anyone who preaches
>> that there is only ONE avenue of action is probably making money on that
>> avenue or listening to someone who does.
>>
>> Yes you can recognize the possibility of additional attacks on the US
>> without subscribing to the notion that we have to behave shortsightedly
>> and predictably in order to impress a few terrorists with our
>> "non-weakness."
>>
>> Consider that that kind of stubbornness and inability to see creative
>> solutions can actually make us miss opportunities to become stronger and
>> more successful, and to help create a better situation for ourselves and
>> for people who live in the region.
>>
>> Am I being more clear?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> I didn't imply that you were "blind, deaf and dumb". I respect your
>>> discourse, and strong defense of your views. I just feel the current
>>> situation involves more than "a few wacky terrorists". Also, just
>>> because I recognize there is a real, and likely threat of more attacks
>>> here in the US, doesn't mean I'm an "overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fool undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject
>>> fear". I do understand though that this isn't some war between two
>>> countries, where we can "negotiate" an end to hostilities, or simply
>>> drop our support for Israel, or change our policy and make everything
>>> better. Whether it was decades of failed U.S. policy or not, these
>>> people want us dead right now, and we have to be proactive. Once we do
>>> something significant about our boarders and make sure we have the
>>> absolute best intelligence, defense, and law enforcement agencies money
>>> can buy, then we can talk about long term programs to make everyone
>>> "like us". Sorry, gotta go. It's lower body workout day. I have to be in
>>> shape for all that "knee jerking"! ;>)
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you
>>>>> can die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism,
>>>>> or you can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have
>>>>> something left to argue over once the dust clears.
>>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored
>>>> world.
>>>>
>>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
>>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>>
>>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>>
>>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>>> enslave.
>>>>
>>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and
>>>> our planet achieve peace.
>>>>
>>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That
>>>> may be one message of this election.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
>>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many
>>>>>> times before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
>>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
>>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
>>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't
>>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered
>>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
>>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
>>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
>>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach
>>>>>> which has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating
>>>>>> insecure spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with
>>>>>> shifty eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but
>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
>>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough
>>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
>>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon
>>>>>>> and that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing
>>>>>>>> or not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ
>>>>>>>> diplomacy and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by
>>>>>>>> anyone who lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
>>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo
>>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
>>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or
>>>>>>>>> Capital Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky
>>>>>>>>> president over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of
>>>>>>>>> the planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I
>>>>>>>>> disagree with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents
>>>>>>>>> actions, policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one
>>>>>>>>> area we can't waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid
>>>>>>>>> nothing short of a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going
>>>>>>>>> to make this clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that
>>>>>>>>> point. Sorry for the drama, but this one thing more than any other
>>>>>>>>> scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart
>>>>>>>>>>> that vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
>>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
>>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
>>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this
>>>>>>>>>>> country by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the
>>>>>>>>>>> Democrats going to solve this? In order to do so, we need to
>>>>>>>>>>> become energy independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go
>>>>>>>>>>> about that when all domestic energy options other than drilling
>>>>>>>>>>> for oil in old, depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the
>>>>>>>>>>> table whereas solutions that *are proven* could bring this
>>>>>>>>>>> about within the next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
>>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
>>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
>>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped
>>>>>>>>>>>> up with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow
>>>>>>>>>>>> of mideast
>>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand
>>>>>>>>>>>> the danger of
>>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred
>>>>>>>>>>>> billion dollars
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
>>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
>>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
>>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75834 is a reply to message #75827] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 14:04 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Hey Tony,
Tony Benson wrote:
> Like I said Jamie, once we get a handle on at least fixing the big holes in
> our homeland security we can then work on long term solutions to why they
> hate us so. Hell, I don't even care if we work on the long term at the same
> time, just get to work on the immediate security stuff now.
>
> Yes, we should act in our best interest. I believe appearing weak to
> terrorists will not be in our best interest. I'm sorry, I'll have to agree
> to disagree with you on this point.
So if a terrorist said "jump or you're weak" you'd jump? Or would THAT
be a sign of weakness? I say jumping at the behest of terrorists is a
sign of weakness and a way to cede control to terrorists.
> Iraq has been a dismal abyss. Saddam ruled with a genocidal iron fist, and
> it appears that was the only thing keeping the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds
> from tearing each other up. Now it looks like that will happen anyway. The
> problem there is so huge and complicated, that I don't have hope anyone can
> "fix" it. We didn't create the "real" problem though. We just removed
> Hussein so the various divisions in Iraq could get back to their centuries
> old civil war unimpeded.
Kinda, but don't forget that modern day Iraq was imposed from the
outside by others:
"Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as
agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a
League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of
Iraq".
The British government laid out the political and constitutional
framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a HÄshimite monarchy on
Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into
account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in
the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had
to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922."
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq
And don't forget that Saddam came to power with our help and assistance,
as part of our cold war policies:
"In 1958, a year after Saddam had joined the Ba'ath party, army officers
led by General Abdul Karim Qassim overthrew Faisal II of Iraq. The
Ba'athists opposed the new government, and in 1959, Saddam was involved
in the attempted United States-backed plot to assassinate Qassim.[12]
Saddam was shot in the leg, but escaped to Tikrit with the help of CIA
and Egyptian intelligence agents. Saddam then crossed into Syria and was
transferred to Beirut for a brief CIA training course. From there he
moved to Cairo where he made frequent visits to the American embassy.
During this time the CIA placed him in a upper-class apartment observed
by CIA and Egyptian operatives. (UPI 'analysis' article)
He was sentenced to death in absentia. Saddam studied law at the Cairo
University during his exile.
Rise to power
Concerned about Qassim's growing ties to Communists, the CIA gave
assistance to the Ba'ath Party and other regime opponents.[5] Army
officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in
1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam
Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders
later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. He
escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party.
In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan
al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. al-Bakr was named president
and Saddam was named his deputy. Saddam soon became the regime's
strongman. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions
within the first Ba'athist government, which informed his measures to
promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his ruthless resolve to maintain
power and programs to ensure social stability."
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
> I don't believe being tough with terrorists should be our only course of
> action. We need to explore all avenues to work toward better relations in
> the Middle East, and all around the world. Take care of protecting ourselves
> right now, and I'm all over the making friends thing.
>
> I must have mis-interpreted your "wacky beliefs of a few terrorists"
> statement. I thought you were implying that our risk from terrorists is not
> real, or something we need not aggressively address.
Sure it's real. And it's intertwined with Western involvement in the
region as mentioned above. Forget that and you lose sight of reality and
end up in a blind boogieman fight. The danger there is the boogieman
becomes this unknown terror that can grow in your head. This way lies
madness. If both sides do that, and they have to some extent, it becomes
an escalating hatfield mccoy thing, as in Israel - with no end in sight
and the whole world eventually in the balance.
> I have a hypothetical question for you Jamie. If by some miracle we could
> reverse all the failed policy and all of our mis-steps, Israel went away,
> basically remove any and all reasons for the terrorists to hate us, what if
> after all that, they still hate us and want us dead? What if it really is a
> war of ideology? What if the "infidels" really must convert or die? What
> then? I don't wish anyone to die by war, aggression or violence, but at what
> point do we decide to either fight or lay down and wait to die. I pray to
> God that this isn't the case. I hope somehow we can find common ground and
> live in peace with everyone. I haven't heard the terrorists ever express
> this option though.
There have been statements but it's hard to put much stake in them.
However you can likely read them for yourself on the net, it's at least
interesting to see what Osama's stated reasons are for using terrorist
actions, and what he says it would take to make them stop. Keeping in
mind that he has lied before.
However it is important to understand the needs of people in the region
so we don't inadvertently walk into the trap of setting ourselves up as
the perceived bad guys, thus encouraging what we don't want, which is
more people being convinced to join al-Qaeda.
Have you ever seen the sorcerer's apprentice bit in Fantasia? Good
intentions and amazing power isn't enough, we have to be smart about our
policies. We have to understand the power we wield and be as aware and
as proactive as possible about unintended consequences.
There are interesting tidbits here, including rumors of Osama's death:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
As to your question, I am not interested in reliving the crusades now,
in the year 2006. I think very few people are, unless whipped up into
self righteous fervor by ardent nationalism to the point of jingoism,
(in place of patriotism). Whipped up for the benefit of some wannabe
despot or someone's short term financial gain at great expense to the
world. I think we may finally be getting to the point where such
intentions can be seen through. The challenge is to recognize and head
that stuff off. Be aware of the tools of dictatorship anywhere such
manipulations appear.
But since you asked, I will not convert forcibly to anyone else's
religion. Not Osama's take on it nor Bob Jone's take on it. And I'd
thank any corrupt or ignorant politicians, wannabe despots, wannabe
afterlife virgin collectors and ill-informed uberfundamentalists
everywhere to quit fighting and killing each other over matters of God.
How absurd, ironic and pathetic. Live with integrity, find your
potential, walk your spiritual path and respect the rights of others to
do the same.
I believe in freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by our
constitution and is our right in any case. Believe what you feel is
true, but respect the right of others to do so as well.
Be free to talk and listen, communication is essential and freedom of
speech is another basic human right. But remember that your right to
swing your fist ends before my face begins. Don't tread on me, bucko.
I also believe in personal responsibility. Mine and that of every
citizen that wants our great experiment to continue. We face threats to
our system both external and internal and must be ever vigilant. We must
be proactive, intelligent and constantly educate ourselves using
multiple sources. We must not be manipulated into betraying our rights.
Yep I believe in freedom. Don't even think of taking that away. If you
agree, let's stand together.
> I anticipate your response, but will refrain from replying back. You have
> much greater debating skills than I, and besides, I've already broken my
> promise not to get involved in political threads. I'm such an opinionated
> ass! ;>)
Opinions are great, thanks for sharing. And listening. I appreciate the
conversation.
United we stand. We have work to do.
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
> With Respect,
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:4554d313@linux...
>> Hey Tony,
>>
>> I never said anything about "a few wacky terrorists."
>>
>> I was speaking of the wacky beliefs of a few terrorists, a very different
>> concept.
>>
>> If we act in our best interest and the leadership of al-Qaeda happens
>> think we're being "weak" in so doing, it would be stupid for us to be
>> thusly manipulated to act to our detriment just to impress those few
>> terrorists.
>>
>> We should act out of strength of purpose, clear vision and as much wisdom
>> as we can gather, being true to our ideals, regardless of the wacky
>> beliefs of a few terrorists.
>>
>> More than one expert on the region has criticized our lack of long term
>> preplanning in Iraq before going in. We're now in a situation that the
>> current (for the moment) policy architects did not anticipate nor prepare
>> for, and it's not a great situation. Many lives lost and $300 billion tax
>> dollars later, more lives and dollars every day, significant tax money
>> unaccounted for, Iran gaining influence in Iraq, these sorts of
>> consequences have been a significant factor in this election. Voters are
>> asking hard questions, as well they should.
>>
>> Our various policies directly affect the region and so we must carefully
>> consider their effect. We will never have perfect intelligence systems, a
>> perfectly impenetrable border, flawless law enforcement and a blanket
>> defense against everything nor can we afford that. We can work in that
>> direction within what we can afford but we must also work in other
>> directions to help create peace. There is a balance. Anyone who preaches
>> that there is only ONE avenue of action is probably making money on that
>> avenue or listening to someone who does.
>>
>> Yes you can recognize the possibility of additional attacks on the US
>> without subscribing to the notion that we have to behave shortsightedly
>> and predictably in order to impress a few terrorists with our
>> "non-weakness."
>>
>> Consider that that kind of stubbornness and inability to see creative
>> solutions can actually make us miss opportunities to become stronger and
>> more successful, and to help create a better situation for ourselves and
>> for people who live in the region.
>>
>> Am I being more clear?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> I didn't imply that you were "blind, deaf and dumb". I respect your
>>> discourse, and strong defense of your views. I just feel the current
>>> situation involves more than "a few wacky terrorists". Also, just
>>> because I recognize there is a real, and likely threat of more attacks
>>> here in the US, doesn't mean I'm an "overcompensating insecure
>>> spendthrift fool undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed abject
>>> fear". I do understand though that this isn't some war between two
>>> countries, where we can "negotiate" an end to hostilities, or simply drop
>>> our support for Israel, or change our policy and make everything better.
>>> Whether it was decades of failed U.S. policy or not, these people want us
>>> dead right now, and we have to be proactive. Once we do something
>>> significant about our boarders and make sure we have the absolute best
>>> intelligence, defense, and law enforcement agencies money can buy, then
>>> we can talk about long term programs to make everyone "like us". Sorry,
>>> gotta go. It's lower body workout day. I have to be in shape for all that
>>> "knee jerking"! ;>)
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:45544bcc@linux...
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>> Jamie wrote:
>>>>>> like overcompensating insecure
>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty eyed
>>>>> abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe, just
>>>>> maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>> and a healthy fear of a real threat will keep you alive whereas you can
>>>>> die by living in the fantasy world of an idealistic anachronism, or you
>>>>> can face reality, deal with it for the time being and have something
>>>>> left to argue over once the dust clears.
>>>> Those are two of many choices. Black and white in a multi-colored world.
>>>>
>>>> Concern and awareness are useful when focused to motivate planning and
>>>> forethought that translates into appropriate action, no dispute from me
>>>> on that. You can call that "healthy fear" if you like, at the risk of
>>>> confusing it with unhealthy fear.
>>>>
>>>> It's dangerously possible, through fear, to react with insufficient
>>>> thought and understanding, and make a bad situation worse.
>>>>
>>>> Ask a military planner. Fear is the path to panic, not the basis for
>>>> sound policy or strategy. Ask any dictator, fear is an effective way to
>>>> enslave.
>>>>
>>>> "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" FDR in another
>>>> context.
>>>>
>>>> At any rate, it would be inaccurate to imply that anyone who doesn't
>>>> agree with a particular course of action is blind, deaf and dumb to
>>>> potential threats. Not a true nor useful characterization. Divisive at
>>>> best. And dividing ourselves IS one road to defeat.
>>>>
>>>> It's important to recognize what hasn't worked, to be open to better
>>>> ideas. So we can, together, find solutions that help our country and our
>>>> planet achieve peace.
>>>>
>>>> The first step toward getting out of a hole is to stop digging. That may
>>>> be one message of this election.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:45541a10@linux...
>>>>>> Sure, I hope you're wrong, too, Deej. Like me, you've been wrong
>>>>>> before so there's reason to hope. ;^)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The prediction that we will be attacked again has been made many times
>>>>>> before this election. And if/when we are attacked next it will
>>>>>> probably have been planned before this election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But should it happen I'm sure a lot of cable TV blatherers will tell
>>>>>> you it's the fault of this election anyway. Flawed logic is still
>>>>>> logic and there's no goat like a scapegoat when the blatherers don't
>>>>>> want to face the possibility of other causes, like poorly considered
>>>>>> policy and action by whoever's not being scapegoated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've suffered al-Qaeda attacks under both Democratic and Republican
>>>>>> presidents. Worse under Republicans with 9/11, but go ahead and blame
>>>>>> BOTH the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations, or if it really makes
>>>>>> you feel better, just blame Clinton and give Bush a pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I can blame foreign policy back at least to WWI for
>>>>>> contributing to the setup of this situation. So IMO there's plenty of
>>>>>> blame to go around through many administrations in both major
>>>>>> parties - for those times we're in a blaming mood.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those times when we can get BEYOND being in a blaming mood, the
>>>>>> assumption that one party or another is eager to invite attack is
>>>>>> presumptuous. Surely there are at least a few real patriots left in
>>>>>> BOTH major parties AND the minor parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are different ways to attempt to meet any threat, diffuse the
>>>>>> threat and find solutions for any situation. Maybe, just maybe, we'll
>>>>>> get some further options on the table now to meet this threat, and
>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, they'll work better than the current approach which
>>>>>> has hardly been flawless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whatever we do, let's not allow ourselves to be manipulated by
>>>>>> terrorists into strutting around acting like overcompensating insecure
>>>>>> spendthrift fools while undercutting our own democracy with shifty
>>>>>> eyed abject fear - IOW, becoming terrorized. Fear sells, but maybe,
>>>>>> just maybe, we're better than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best way to be strong is to come together, work together and
>>>>>> choose from the widest array of effective options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough
>>>>>>> to be running foreign policy.<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perception of weakenss is invitation to attack, plain and simple and
>>>>>>> we are now (especially now) perceived as weak and undecided. I'm
>>>>>>> predicting that we are going to be catastrophically attacked soon and
>>>>>>> that it will come as a result iof an intelligence failure due to
>>>>>>> democrats restricting the ability of the NSA to wiretap. I hope I'm
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:45538a31@linux...
>>>>>>>> I'm referring to any US leader who bases their policy on pleasing or
>>>>>>>> not pleasing terrorists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW, anyone who fails to take worthwhile action because of a
>>>>>>>> perception that it will make them "seem weak" to someone else, is
>>>>>>>> not smart enough to be running foreign policy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In individual cases it may or may not make sense to employ diplomacy
>>>>>>>> and negotiation. That judgment cannot be wisely made by anyone who
>>>>>>>> lets themselves be controlled by knee-jerk thinking.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tony Benson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:455374c4@linux...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>> Jamie,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you referring to those few wacky terroists who killed over
>>>>>>>>> 3,000 innocent people in the World Trade Centers, crashed a jumbo
>>>>>>>>> jet into our Pentagon, and, but for the extreme courage of some
>>>>>>>>> passengers, almost flew a jumbo jet into our White House or Capital
>>>>>>>>> Building? Those wacky terroists? Maybe it's that wacky president
>>>>>>>>> over in Iran who wants to "wipe Isreal from the face of the
>>>>>>>>> planet". You know, the one enriching all the uranium. I disagree
>>>>>>>>> with plenty of the Republicans and the Presidents actions,
>>>>>>>>> policies, etc., but being tough with terroists is one area we can't
>>>>>>>>> waiver. These people want to kill us. I'm affraid nothing short of
>>>>>>>>> a few smuggled in soviet nukes going off is going to make this
>>>>>>>>> clear to people. Too bad it'll be too late at that point. Sorry for
>>>>>>>>> the drama, but this one thing more than any other scares me sick.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tony
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely not....and who praytell, gave China the jumpstart that
>>>>>>>>>>> vaulted them into the position they are in nowadays?
>>>>>>>>>> Nixon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's bad enough that we have placed ourselves in the position
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we need a constant flow of mideast
>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going.<
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree. A president with some foresight would have recognized
>>>>>>>>>>> this back when we had the time to di something about it,
>>>>>>>>>> Carter did, but we voted him out and effectively pretended there
>>>>>>>>>> was no problem with our oil dependency for the next 22 years
>>>>>>>>>> (Reagan, Bush1, Clinton, Bush2).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gore probably would have tried to do something.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> especially upon having had ward publicly declared on this country
>>>>>>>>>>> by Al Qaeda. So what are we going to do? Are the Democrats going
>>>>>>>>>>> to solve this? In order to do so, we need to become energy
>>>>>>>>>>> independent *as in..yesterday*. Now how to go about that when all
>>>>>>>>>>> domestic energy options other than drilling for oil in old,
>>>>>>>>>>> depleted oil and gas reservoirs here are off the table whereas
>>>>>>>>>>> solutions that *are proven* could bring this about within the
>>>>>>>>>>> next 5 years are off the table?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm all for clean energy. enough clean energy to sustain t\our
>>>>>>>>>>> economy is 15 years away, at least. We don't have 15
>>>>>>>>>>> years...especially with a party in power that is willing to
>>>>>>>>>>> negotiate with terrorists, which to them is a sign of weakness.
>>>>>>>>>>> They will be encouraged by this.
>>>>>>>>>> Energy policy needs immediate attention. And some amount of time
>>>>>>>>>> for better policies to help, as you say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We also need leadership that won't let the wacky beliefs of a few
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists directly control their course of action (or inaction).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>>>> www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DJ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Gene Lennon" <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4553565b$1@linux...
>>>>>>>>>>>> "DJ" <no@way.jack> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Since the republicans have rebuilt the economy that Clinton
>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it usually takes the democrats at least 4 years to wreck a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good economy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the border control issue is going to be their biggest domestic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> challenge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to have to carry the ball on this and if it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not effective,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility will fall in their lap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is from an article in the New Yorker that is about a year
>>>>>>>>>>>> and a half
>>>>>>>>>>>> old. The numbers are much worse now.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you really happy that our economy is artificially propped up
>>>>>>>>>>>> with trillions
>>>>>>>>>>>> of dollars borrowed from countries like China? It's bad enough
>>>>>>>>>>>> that we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> placed ourselves in the position that we need a constant flow of
>>>>>>>>>>>> mideast
>>>>>>>>>>>> oil to keep our economy going. Very few Americans understand the
>>>>>>>>>>>> danger of
>>>>>>>>>>>> working under the threat of petrodollar conversion. (
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar).
>>>>>>>>>>>> But. To also be so far in debt to China that they have REAL
>>>>>>>>>>>> influence on
>>>>>>>>>>>> our policies is unconscionable. This is the hidden economy of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Bush years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny but it has been very good for The Carlyle Group and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Halliburton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Last year, Asian countries invested almost four hundred billion
>>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the United States, mostly in government bonds. China is
>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively taking
>>>>>>>>>>>> most of its excess national savings and lending it to the United
>>>>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Japanese, who despite their creaking economy remain flush
>>>>>>>>>>>> with savings,
>>>>>>>>>>>> bought a quarter trillion dollars of American debt last year,
>>>>>>>>>>>> even though
>>>>>>>>>>>> the interest is lousy and the assets themselves are losing
>>>>>>>>>>>> value. More than
>>>>>>>>>>>> any other nation in history, the United States depends,
>>>>>>>>>>>> economically, on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the kindness of strangers."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/050418ta_talk _surowiecki
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75848 is a reply to message #75827] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 17:50 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Tony,
This is simple.
Either you believe that the terror threat is real, and is a part of a
larger movement to impose sharia on the west, and grows from the
ideology of hate enclosed within that belief system.
(seen this?)
http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
Or you think that it is somehow the things we do, or that we did
years ago that have made people hate us, and if we just dialogue
with the mullahs and dump Israel, they will leave us alone.
Being that they kill other muslims simply for believing a slightly
different strain of islam, this is a risky proposition, but there are
millions who believe it.
I've said it before, but there is nothing more dangerous than
someone who refuses to take people at their word. Appeasers do
not gain peace; rather they end up in a corner with no option other
than the big red button...
What do you think will happen to the democrats if another major
attack happens on our soil?
Will they morph into uber-hawks? Will they give away Israel?
The next few years will be interesting to say the least.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75850 is a reply to message #75848] |
Fri, 10 November 2006 18:55 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Simple. Yeah...
It would be great to get beyond black and white thinking. Beyond
characterizations that rely on false dichotomies. No amount of straw men
will protect us.
Sure, such simplisticity fits in with the views of those itching to
revisit the crusades. But does that seem like a really, really smart
strategy in 2006? The crusades created piles of dead bodies and we have
such better weapons now. Can't we be just a little bit smarter almost a
thousand years later?
Using the Hitler appeasement argument is like fitting Cinderella's
sister's bloated foot into Cinderella's petite shoes. The shoe doesn't
really fit. There are some similarities between these situations, but
many differences. It would be limiting to cling to that one point of
view, pretending that some straw man is the only other point of view,
and sadly actively avoid considering the vaster spectrum of perspectives
available. From which may come other, more viable solutions. With
potentially better results than we are currently experiencing.
I hope we will have the benefit of a wider range of views on these and
other problems for the next couple of years. There's at least a chance
of that now, but it's by no means certain. I wonder what the switch at
sec of defense really means. I'm guardedly hopeful.
The last few years have, unfortunately, been more than "interesting."
Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
DC wrote:
> Tony,
>
> This is simple.
>
> Either you believe that the terror threat is real, and is a part of a
> larger movement to impose sharia on the west, and grows from the
> ideology of hate enclosed within that belief system.
>
>
> (seen this?)
> http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
>
> Or you think that it is somehow the things we do, or that we did
> years ago that have made people hate us, and if we just dialogue
> with the mullahs and dump Israel, they will leave us alone.
>
>
> Being that they kill other muslims simply for believing a slightly
> different strain of islam, this is a risky proposition, but there are
> millions who believe it.
>
> I've said it before, but there is nothing more dangerous than
> someone who refuses to take people at their word. Appeasers do
> not gain peace; rather they end up in a corner with no option other
> than the big red button...
>
> What do you think will happen to the democrats if another major
> attack happens on our soil?
>
> Will they morph into uber-hawks? Will they give away Israel?
>
> The next few years will be interesting to say the least.
>
> DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75858 is a reply to message #75848] |
Sat, 11 November 2006 12:37 |
TCB
Messages: 1261
Registered: July 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You know Don, I really wish I could live in your world instead of the actual
world. As you note, things are simple there, even something as complex as
'terrorism' and its motivations/manifestations. Not that I expect this to
make much of a dent to DonWelt, but the most flamboyant kind of terrorism,
suicide bombing, has been shown to be far more political than religious in
motivation. I've read this superb book, but here's a story about it that
you can read for free.
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/07/03/why_do_su icide_bombers_do_it/
The only part that religion plays is that civil wars that involve different
religions tend to have more suicide bombers, or suicide bombers at all. This
isn't unique to any one religion, and in the Lebanese civil war that started
modern suicide attacks 70% of the suicide bombers were--take a seat please--Christians,
though most of them came from secular groups.
So yes, the 'threat of terror' is real, and I'm sure the next big attack
against the US is well into the R&D stages. But it's anything but simple
to pull off a major terrorist operation, and anything but simple to stop
one, and in the larger picture applying simple answers to complex questions
gets us into stupid wars with countries that, until we attacked them, had
no history of producing anti-American terrorists.
Some lefties (and paleo-conservatives like me) argue that Bush 43 is the
worst president ever. I don't happen to think so, I'd say he's probably one
of the five worst but he can't compare to some of the real stinkers. Martin
van Buren (though a superb secretary of state) was a disaster, McKinley our
first taster of imperium, but for me by far the worst president ever was
Woodrow Wilson, who discarded the Monroe Doctrine, manipulated us into WW
I, and helped fashion the stupendously idiotic treaty at Versailles that
all but demanded another great European war. It shows what a bastard he was
that I didn't even get around to his support for the KKK and anti-semitism
in one sentence. Nevertheless, the worst thing he did was create the language
and thought processes that have been used ever since to make Americans think
our country is somehow more than just another country in the world, prone
to the same kinds of mistakes and missteps that the rest of history is littered
with. European writers call it 'American exceptionalism' and Wilson provided
the crucial vocabulary to make it possible. GW Bush's speeches these days
sound like Wilson carefully rewritten for someone with major problems speaking
in public. All of which is a warmup to another article by a Wilson hating
paleo-conservative. This from Bill Lind, who puts the paleo in paleo-conservative
and openly refers to himself as a monarchist. Just a little 'outside the
box' thinking on Iraq.
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_11_06_06.htm
TCB
"DC" <dc@spammersinbaghdad.com> wrote:
>
>Tony,
>
>This is simple.
>
>Either you believe that the terror threat is real, and is a part of a
>larger movement to impose sharia on the west, and grows from the
>ideology of hate enclosed within that belief system.
>
>
>(seen this?)
>http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/
>
>Or you think that it is somehow the things we do, or that we did
>years ago that have made people hate us, and if we just dialogue
>with the mullahs and dump Israel, they will leave us alone.
>
>
>Being that they kill other muslims simply for believing a slightly
>different strain of islam, this is a risky proposition, but there are
>millions who believe it.
>
>I've said it before, but there is nothing more dangerous than
>someone who refuses to take people at their word. Appeasers do
>not gain peace; rather they end up in a corner with no option other
>than the big red button...
>
>What do you think will happen to the democrats if another major
>attack happens on our soil?
>
>Will they morph into uber-hawks? Will they give away Israel?
>
>The next few years will be interesting to say the least.
>
>DC
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: message from democrats [message #75864 is a reply to message #75858] |
Sat, 11 November 2006 15:51 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote:
>
>You know Don, I really wish I could live in your world instead of the actual
>world.
Start by ending all drug use. Your version of "actual" may get revised.
Just a thought.
>As you note, things are simple there, even something as complex as
>'terrorism' and its motivations/manifestations. Not that I expect this to
>make much of a dent to DonWelt, but the most flamboyant kind of terrorism,
>suicide bombing, has been shown to be far more political than religious
in
>motivation.
There is absolutely no difference between the two in the minds of
those commiting the acts.
Just watch the trailer for Obsession.
Terrorism is indeed complex. The choice as to the magnitude of
the threat, and the likely success of various approaches to it, is
quite simple really. You either thake the assertions of the leaders
of terrorism seriously or you do not.
>I've read this superb book, but here's a story about it that
>you can read for free.
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/07/03/why_do_su icide_bombers_do_it/
Read it. Not very impressed.
Now you read "Because They Hate"
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/
And tell me what she did to bring on the wrath of her persecutors.
>The only part that religion plays is that civil wars that involve different
>religions tend to have more suicide bombers, or suicide bombers at all.
This
>isn't unique to any one religion, and in the Lebanese civil war that started
>modern suicide attacks 70% of the suicide bombers were--take a seat please--Christians,
>though most of them came from secular groups.
As most of the Irish terrorists have been. Now compare those
attacks to these in number and scope:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Make sure you check out the stats page.
>So yes, the 'threat of terror' is real, and I'm sure the next big attack
>against the US is well into the R&D stages. But it's anything but simple
>to pull off a major terrorist operation, and anything but simple to stop
>one, and in the larger picture applying simple answers to complex questions
>gets us into stupid wars with countries that, until we attacked them, had
>no history of producing anti-American terrorists.
Ok, so what is your plan? Obviously, the other side has failed in
your mind, so I would love to hear an alternative. Remember that
americans and millions of others around the world expect a plan
that reflects your view, stated above, that
----
So yes, the 'threat of terror' is real, and I'm sure the next big attack
>against the US is well into the R&D stages.
----
>Americans think
>our country is somehow more than just another country in the world, prone
>to the same kinds of mistakes and missteps that the rest of history is littered
>with. European writers call it 'American exceptionalism'
And what if Europe is a lost cause already?
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021906.html
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=25256
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson021106.html
Give me a reason to care what European writers think.
Tell me why you care in particular.
The last election went the way it did, not
because Bush was wrong, stupid, or evil, but because
he does not know how to lead, and there may be no solution in the
Middle East at any rate. Years ago, we could have started a
crash program to get our own oil resources and develop alternatives
but no, we blew it just like we blew all the chances to get OBL.
Now we will pay for ALL the stupidity of both sides.
I know you have little faith in the left or the
Dems, so you must feel about as cheery as I do concerning the
next few years...
DC
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Dec 15 23:47:39 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03355 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
