Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
War is un-comprehensible to anyone who has not experience it firsthand. It is more brutal and more de-humanizing than anyone could imagine.
Much like the Federal deficit, it is just beyond most peoples ability to really comprehend.
The powers in control understand this and are able to use this fact to their benefit.
This is an insightful and unusually candid look at war. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...shop_20120507/
Baascially the world has always had conflict betweeen humans. Nations and individuals. One might ask the same question on individuals. The we also see s much crime which is about the same;individuals who can't obey the rules and thus the police. lookig at riots shows the same results.people unable to get their wqay in peaceful means. defense is always good to have and not ahving can cost morer lives. After WWII thew US became pretty much it on defense of democray as western europe had pretty much destroyed itself thru wars amoung themsleves;often called europe's civil war by hisatorians.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,060,466 times
Reputation: 11862
Self-interest is the main motivating force, plain and simple. As History has shown, Saddam and Osama weren't so evil back in the 80s when the Commies were the enemy, not 'terrorism.' War on 'terrorism' is such a ridiculous concept...how can you wage war on an idea, a concept? It's like waging war on 'violence.' It's about as likely as eradicating every cockroach from the face of the earth.
There are plenty of unjust regimes in the World, should the government really play global police and get involved in them all? If they really wanted to depose Saddam, how on earth is bombing the heck out of civilians helping to achieve that goal? It should've been a covert SWAT operation with minimal crossfire. Somehow, I think some of these 'honourable' men and women in uniform just want some excuse to 'kick some A-rab ass' as if it's some video game.
Self-interest is the main motivating force, plain and simple. As History has shown, Saddam and Osama weren't so evil back in the 80s when the Commies were the enemy, not 'terrorism.' War on 'terrorism' is such a ridiculous concept...how can you wage war on an idea, a concept? It's like waging war on 'violence.' It's about as likely as eradicating every cockroach from the face of the earth.
.
So to you, Sadaam killing 200,000 people isn't so bad?
Are you choosing to ignore the facts, are you choosing ignorance or do you just not have any clue what you're talking about.. or maybe you think killing 200,000 people is ok?
So to you, Sadaam killing 200,000 people isn't so bad?
Are you choosing to ignore the facts, are you choosing ignorance or do you just not have any clue what you're talking about.. or maybe you think killing 200,000 people is ok?
How many people have died under North Koreas Kim Jong?
How many people died in Chinas tiananmen square in 1989?
Pol pot killed how many people?
Oh but Sadam Hussein just seems more convenient
So to you, Sadaam killing 200,000 people isn't so bad?
Are you choosing to ignore the facts, are you choosing ignorance or do you just not have any clue what you're talking about.. or maybe you think killing 200,000 people is ok?
So the end justifies the means? Despite the fact that civilian peril was never the reason nor justification for the war?
I think the issue many take with the "American war-machine" is the almost complete disregard of international law and how, until recently, there has been a reluctance to play by the rules, so to speak.
Iraq was never attacked because Saddam Hussein posed a threat to his people, though he undoubtedly did, the war was initiated on the premise that he posed a threat to us, a poorly defined and not very unified "the west" (in this case including Israel). The war was very aggressively pushed on not only the public (through a barrage of media "propaganda") but on the western world, both in NATO, and the UN; Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and the technology to harm us with them.. The justification America presented, in favor of an attack was "Self Defense", not a humanitarian disaster or the immediate and undeniable peril of the Iraqi people.
And what has changed? In roughly 2 decades of Hussein rein, somewhere in the region of 200,000 civilians were killed. That's a lot, but again, what has changed? When looking at verifiable deaths alone, that is civilian deaths that can be verified through government sources, media etc, the number of killed Iraqi civilians since the beginning of the invasion is at least 106,000 (Source), that's by all accounts a conservative number too, some studies have indicated number upwards of 700,000 (which is likely on the high side).
So looking at the numbers; even if civilian peril and a humanitarian need was the reason for the war, which it wasn't, at the very best of scenarios, the civilian population only suffers equally under the new reign, likely, they have it worse.
And if one were to continue to look at Iraq, while debating the original premise of the thread, it becomes even more interesting.
The OP asks: "Do Americans love war or are we just apathetic to it's consequences?". It's a good question, albeit a pointed one. The OP also brings up an interesting comparison between Afghanistan and the Vietnam war. I think part of the answer to the question here can be seen in the differences between Vietnam and the current wars, including Iraq.
During the Vietnam war, the American population was barraged by images, and news reports of death, destruction and what appeared to be endless and after a while, pointless, suffering. The intense media coverage of that war had a direct impact on concluding that war. The US population was against it, sometimes violently so, to a degree where it became politically impossible to endure.
Now look at Iraq; so far in May, 147 civilians have been killed, has there been any news reports about it? What about atrocities committed by coalition forces? Outside of Abu Ghraib it has hardly been reported on, in the US. That's not to say that the information isn't out there, a US soldier named Joshua Key wrote a book about his experiences in Iraq, experiences which ultimately led him to desert from the US Army and seek asylum in Canada. In this book he describes acts, committed by US troops, both in the lower and higher ends of the "military food chain", one eye witness account of his remains with me to this day, and I'll make it short; He witnessed his fellow soldiers playing football an the base, using the heads of murdered Iraqi civilians as footballs.
There are other sources too, there's plenty of cell phone videos and video caught by US troops and even News organizations out there capturing both US, coalition and Iraqi police committing murder, rape and gross abuse (in one particular video I witnessed myself, US Marines use an old Iraqi man for target practice, calling out shots before making them, including almost dismembering one foot, by repetitive shots to the ankle, before one soldier walks over and executes the man.)
But how many Americans have seen such "viral videos"? How many want to? The biggest and most significant difference between Vietnam and Afghanistan and Iraq is not what's happening on the ground, an the OP is right, there are strong parallels to be drawn, the difference is how what's happening on the ground is reported on. The general US population simply does not care, and does not want to know . I can not say for sure if it's apathy, ignorance, wishful thinking or simply not being able to digest the crude and horrifying reality of war, or if maybe it's a little of all of them, but what can be said is that there's been a fundamental shift in the American populations interest in remaining educated and informed about the military actions it's country is committing. And that is indeed apathetic.
Now, please don't take my examples as berating the American armed forces as a whole, I do still believe that most of them are honorable people, even many of those who commit some of these horrendous acts. They are simply a symptom of a fundamental and systemic attitude problem, much higher up in the "ranks". One also have to take into account that war is and always will be gruesome, and that in war, gruesome things happen, be it right or wrong, my point was simply to illustrate how little the general American public know about what's happening, every single day, something that also affects the honorable soldiers when they come back home, to a world they no longer recognize.
And to tie everything back to the post I quoted, knowing that nothing has changed since the war, except for who is responsible for the killings, and knowing that the reason for the invasion was either a government conspiracy or a figment of their vivid imagination (there were no WMD's), and also taking into account that as horrid as 200,000 deaths in two decades is, there are many, significantly worse, humanitarian crisis: Do you think it's OK to go to war and change nothing?
No other country on earth spends as much money on defense as the United States, in fact, unless it has recently changed, the United States, the richest nation on earth has spent more yearly on "defense" than the rest of the world combined
No other country spends as much on humanitarian aid, either. No other country has as big an economy, either. No other country has as much to protect, either. Look at defense spending as a percentage of GDP and the USA's spending stops seeming so exorbitant. You're picking an absolute number (total defense spending) and taking it out of its defining context - a simple logical fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
We had nothing to gain by being in Vietnam, and reports of rampant corruption were evident from the time of our earliest involvement. Over 3 million Vietnamese died from our invasion. We blatantly lied to the world by inventing a reason to gain access to Iraqi oil reserves (Mission Accomplished) and in the process ripped apart an entire country, bringing terror, chaos, and hundreds of thousands of deaths. We have been in Afghanistan as long as we were in Vietnam and have accomplished the same there as we did in Vietnam, the local population resents our presence and the death and destruction our presence brings.
The USA had lots to gain by being in Vietnam (remember the cold war?) and the South Vietnamese were begging Americans to stay.
The Iraq war was not fought to gain access to Iraqi oil. The idea is silly to any thinking person. The USA doesn't need Iraqi oil and, moreover, has not benefited oil-wise from being in Iraq. Actually, Chinese and Russian oil companies have benefited from it more than Americans have.
Afghanistan finally has a semi-respectable government and that government is asking the ISAF not to leave prematurely. Polls in Afghanistan show majority support for the coalition and the direction the country is now taking. Regardless of those points, however, the war was primarily fought to prevent Afghanistan from remaining a safe haven for terrorists (particularly the ones who perpetrated 9/11) and that has been achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
why do we continually ignore the consequences of wars and the suffering, fear, and death that results? Ignorance, apathy, xenophobia, or something else?
Who is ignoring the consequences of war? Do you believe that it is impossible to be informed about a war and still support it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
There is something wrong with a nation that does not care it continually kills innocent people in their own country on a daily basis. There is something wrong with America.
Well, Americans do care that innocents have gotten killed so I'm not sure where your second sentence comes from.
No other country on earth spends as much money on defense as the United States, in fact, unless it has recently changed, the United States, the richest nation on earth has spent more yearly on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, adding trillions to our crushing national debt.
Please tell us about the Standard of Livingâ„¢ in the US. Is there a relationship; a correlation between the amount of money you spend on Defense and the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢?
Yes.
If you want to keep the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ and your incredibly high Standard of Livingâ„¢ the you will need to spend a proportionate amount of money on "Defense."
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
We had nothing to gain by being in Vietnam...
The Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
We blatantly lied to the world by inventing a reason to gain access to Iraqi oil reserves...
But, of course!
The future of the US hinges entirely on gaining control of the eastern Russian republics rich in oil, natural gas, coal, strategic metal ores and non-metallic minerals, and timber (among things -- it is also the only natural corridor to get oil and natural gas from the Central Asian region to seaports).
The only way the US can gain control of the eastern Russian republics is by controlling the 5 Central Asian States (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan).
And the only way the US can gain control of the 5 Central Asian States is to control Iran (or Baluchistan) so that the US has air, railroad, highway and pipeline access from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean) to the 5 Central Asian States.
And to do that requires that the US have control of Iraq or Afghanistan or both.
It's global geo-political strategy, not nuclear physics.
So, when I come to you and say, "Odanny-boy, in order to guarantee the United States still exists as a 1st World State and not some has been dilapidated 3rd World Country in the year 2060, it is absolutely imperative that we get our hands on those resources in eastern Russia, and to do that we have to invade Iraq to get the ball rolling" your response would be what, exactly?
No? Because you see "No" would actually be, "No, I and my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren are willing to forever forfeit the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ and enjoy a Standard of Livingâ„¢ like Belarus or some other 2nd or 3rd World country.
And if you truly believe the answer should be "No" then my question is why aren't you "Walking the Walk" and setting the example, instead of just "Talking the Talk?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
...(Mission Accomplished)...
I don't recall that.
I do recall that the carrier and its battle group accomplished its specific mission, and that it posted a banner stating "Mission Accomplished" in praise of the marines and sailors in the battle group, and that banner happened to be flying when Bush the Younger landed on the carrier, but I don't see what it has to do with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
... and in the process ripped apart an entire country, bringing terror, chaos, and hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Yes, I know. Every Radical and everyone of my ilk (I'm a Constructivist) predicted exactly that. Why? Because the underlying theories that form the basis of foreign policy and international relations for Radicals and Constructivists are vastly superior to the theories that form the views of Conservatives, Liberals, Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberal Institutionalists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
We have been in Afghanistan as long as we were in Vietnam and have accomplished the same there as we did in Vietnam, the local population resents our presence and the death and destruction our presence brings.
Again, not only do I know that, but Radicals and Constructivists predicted it.
From a military standpoint, it was an obvious fail. Why did the US lose in Vietnam? Because the strategy was flawed and because the US refused to invade North Vietnam. Why did the Soviets fail in Afghanistan? Again, the strategy was flawed (being identical to US strategy in Vietnam) and because the Soviets refused to invade Pakistan. Why did the US fail in Afghanistan? For the exact same reason the Soviets failed (and both the US and Soviets failed for the same reason Britain did -- and they also refused to invade Pakistan).
How successful would the Allies have been in WW II if they had employed the strategies used in Vietnam and Afghanistan? Capture Paris and then do nothing other than patrol the roads between Paris and other major French cities, without ever invading Germany?
WW II would have never ended, or ended badly for the Allies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
The days of needing a military bulwark to millions of Soviet troops are over.
Wow, you really don't get it, do you. It was never about the Soviet Union. It's about Empire. Empires must expand, or they become stagnant and die. That was the fate of every empire that ever existed; it is the fate of the US Empire now (expand or stagnate and die);, and it will be the fate of all future empires that arise long after the US Empire collapses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
Much of American manufacturing has moved to China and they are now a close business partner of the U.S.
Yeah? So what?
You are in a Global Market/Economy. You can never undo it or change it. You must learn to adapt, or you will become "Belarusized."
You have two choices:
1] Forfeit your Standard of Livingâ„¢ and the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ for something more compatible with the world, like the Humble Japanese Life-Styleâ„¢; or
2] Spend more money on "Defense" so that you can force your way into more markets, gain control over more resources, and expand.
There is no Middle Ground here. Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
... but why do we continually ignore the consequences of wars and the suffering, fear, and death that results? Ignorance, apathy, xenophobia, or something else?
Because you are too busy living the Extravagant American Life-Styleâ„¢ to give a damn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
There is something wrong with a nation that does not care it continually kills innocent people in their own country on a daily basis. There is something wrong with America.
But you're the Great Benevolent Freedom Loving Christian Nation. What could possibly be wrong?
One fact is that you are all insulated from the realities of Warâ„¢. You don't have planes dropping bombs on you, no artillery dropping fire on you, no soldiers shooting at you, no soldiers in the streets, hell, you don't even see a military vehicle unless you happen to be near a military base.
You don't even have the benefit of having Warâ„¢ broadcast into your living room every night, like we had during the Tet Offensive and other operations in Vietnam -- I guess the propaganda machine learned a valuable lesson from that experience (pretend there is no Warâ„¢ and give the people Bread & Circusesâ„¢ instead).
Consequently...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
The people we elect do NOT always act in OUR best interest.
Those people are not the problem.
Sadly, people have no idea how the US government operates, and many of those people mistakenly believed that all they had to do was vote against the Republicans and the Neo-Conservatives would be out of power.
Never mind the fact that Neo-Conservative Tony Lake was Obama's foreign policy adviser during the 2008 Election Campaign, and never mind that at last count, there were six (6) Neo-Conservatives on Obama's White House Staff.
I guess the point is that your elected officials do not run the US. It is the Bureaucracy that runs the US, and the Bureaucracy has been filled with Neo-Conservatives sinces the 1930s (when they were called Social Democrats at the time) and they will continue to run the show, until you get rid of them, someway, somehow.
Good luck with that.
There was one man in the US who tried to get the Neo-Conservatives out of the government bureaucracy. His name was Senator Josephy McCarthy, and he got played by the Neo-Cons (who set up an House committee and turned it into a witch hunt of Hollywood producers, directors, script writers and actors/actresses) and ended up getting [wrongfully] crucified in the Media.
The president is merely a temporary employee. He sits for 4 years, maybe 8 years, but no more. What does the president have to do with long term Geo-political strategy -- looking 25-35 years down the road?
Absolutely nothing.
Long term Geo-political strategy is solely the purview of the Bureaucrats, people who hold those positions for 20 years, 25, years, 35, years or even 45 years until they retire (or jump ship to a consulting firm or "think-tank" -- and those are simply extensions of the Bureaucracy).
You're going to let a president who sits for 4 years decide the fate of the US 25-35 years into the Future via long term Geo-political strategy?
No, you're not. That would be insane. How could you possibly formulate a cogent coherent Geo-political strategy 25-35 years into the Future, if you're constantly changing direction every 4-8 depending on who is president and which party controls the Senate and which controls the House?
You cannot, which is why presidents have nothing to do with it (out of "respect" for the office of president, the president gets by default a Secret ATOMAL security clearance --- not a Top Secret clearance).
So the Bureaucrats shape the US as it currently is and as it will be in the distant Future through policy-making.
I'm not talking solely foreign policy here, I'm talking about all policies. Look at H&HS. What does Obamacare say? Nothing of any substance. It's all open to interpretation and who does the interpreting? The Bureaucrats at H&HS.
Read the laws that Congress enacts and the president signs. They are extremely vague. There is rarely anything that is substantially explicit. The Bureaucracy responsible for executing, over-seeing or carrying-out the law is the one who interprets the law, and then writes the regulations for the law.
Again, look at Obamacare. Where does it say that women should get "free" birth control? It does not say that, but that is how the Bureaucrats have interpreted the law and that is how they wrote the regulations pertaining to the law.
So when we come to foreign policy, who makes the policy? It is shaped through the eyes of the Neo-Conservatives who control key bureaucratic positions in the State Department and all of the Alphabet Agencies. And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that if there isn't a Neo-Conservative occupying a key position, there's a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist sitting there.
A traditional Liberal believes in Collective Security. Many of the senior ranking US military officers are Liberals, because they believe in things like NATO. SEATO, Warsaw Pact, ANZUS etc etc etc to keep the peace, because Collective Security really does work (at least better than many other systems).
Whereas Liberals use Collective Security to maintain peace, and to force, coerce or influence change, Neo-Liberal Institutionalists use that, plus they take it a few steps further using non-governmental organizations like Green Peace, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, etc etc etc and then also multinational corporations.
In other words they use multinational corporations to fight wars by proxy.
So who wants to ask a really stupid question like, "Why won't the President or Congress ever penalize US Corporations for off-shoring jobs?"
Because Neo-Liberal Institutionalists, like George H. Bush, like Bill Clinton, like George W. Bush and like Barack Obama believe it its better to fight proxy wars using US Corporations to gain access and control of new markets than it is to send troops and put boots on the ground.
Now, if you truly want and desire real change, you'll have to figure out a way to get the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberal Institutionalists out of the Bureaucracy.
Bureaucratically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by burgler09
So to you, Sadaam killing 200,000 people isn't so bad?
Are you choosing to ignore the facts, are you choosing ignorance or do you just not have any clue what you're talking about.. or maybe you think killing 200,000 people is ok?
Facts?
You want facts?
You got it.
During the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and several MENA countries, the Mossad asked the Kurds to attack Iraq in order to take pressure off of Israel.
Kissinger sent the Kurds a cable (dated October 16) stating:
We do not repeat not consider it advisable for you to undertake the offensive military actions that Israel has suggested to you.
Since the Kurds trusted the US, they did as Kissinger asked.
At that time, the Shah (of Iran) was using the Kurds as pawns against the Iraqis for several years. The CIA knew that if the Shah and Iraq ever came to an agreement on their border dispute, the Shah would drop the Kurds like a bucket of puke. In April 1972 the Iraqis signed an FCN with the Soviet Union that gave the Soviets the right to port ships at Iraqi ports, plus Iraq received Soviet military aid and equipment (that was still in use during the Gulf War 1991).
In June, the Iraqis nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company (of which 23.75% was US oil company assets). That is what got the ball rolling, because the Shah wanted a more prominent role in OPEC and to do that, the Shah had to deal with the Kurds to set an example for other minority groups living in OPEC member countries.
In March 1975, the Shah met with the Iraqi vice-president, and then cut off all supplies to the Kurds. The Iraqis then launched a massive offensive against the Kurds.
The Kurds sent a cable to Kissinger:
There is confusion and dismay among our people and forces. Our people's fate in unprecedented danger. Compete destruction hanging over our head. No explanation for all this. We appeal you and USG [US Government] intervene according to your promises...
[Note: Emphasis Mine]
Another cable to Kissinger:
Your Excellency, having always believed in the peaceful solution of disputes including those between Iran and Ira, we are please to see that their two countries have come to some agreement...however, our hearts bleed to see that an immediate byproduct of their agreement is the destruction of our defenseless people.... Our Movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way with silence from everyone. We feel your Excellency that the United States has a moral and political responsibility towards our people who have committed themselves to you country's policy.
[Note: Emphasis Mine]
Several hundred Kurdish leaders were killed, or captured and summarily executed. Kurdish forces suffered heavy losses. Kissinger and the US did nothing.
More than 200,000 Kurds fled Iraq into Iran, but the US and Iran refused to provide any humanitarian assistance, and also refused to allow the UN or any other humanitarian non-governmental organizations help the Kurds.
At Iraqi insistence, the Shah handed over 40,000 of the Kurdish "intelligentsia" to the Iraqis for execution.
The US government refused to acknowledge any of the events, and so refused to allow any of the 40,000 condemned, or those that remained of the 200,000 to seek political asylum in the US, even though each and every single one of the qualified for political asylum under the laws in place in the US at the time.
What's important to understand here (because it might not be readily apparent) is that the Kurds could have attacked the Iraqis at their weakest -- during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and that the Kurds could have obtained weapons from the Soviet Union and armed themselves against the Iraqis -- but Bazrani the Kurdish leader declined the Soviet offer of weapons, because Kissinger told him not to accept them.
And the US knew that this was going to happen, because the US/CIA was telling the Shah to use the Kurds as pawns against the Iraqis.
So spare us your pedantic musings and platitudes, because your hands are bloodier than Saddam's ever could be.
And before you respond, I strongly urge you to read the Pike Committee Report about this (and other failed CIA operations and examples of failed US foreign policy that resulted in the slaughter of thousands of innocent people used like pawns by the US).
"Covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
-- Henry Kissinger
See Page 66 of this document (for the Quote) which discuses US-Kurdish History.
If you people have not read the Pike Committee Report, or the Church Committee Report, or the House Select Committee on Assassinations Report (and there are many other congressional reports that are free for the reading that accurately describes the United States of Satan), you need to do that, because nearly all of the comments I make on US foreign policy can be found backed up by those reports, especially where it concerns US plots to murder heads-of-State in cold blood and where the US interferes in the domestic, cultural, economic, social and political affairs of other countries.
Sadly, people have no idea how the US government operates, and many of those people mistakenly believed that all they had to do was vote against the Republicans and the Neo-Conservatives would be out of power.
Never mind the fact that Neo-Conservative Tony Lake was Obama's foreign policy adviser during the 2008 Election Campaign, and never mind that at last count, there were six (6) Neo-Conservatives on Obama's White House Staff.
I guess the point is that your elected officials do not run the US. It is the Bureaucracy that runs the US, and the Bureaucracy has been filled with Neo-Conservatives sinces the 1930s (when they were called Social Democrats at the time) and they will continue to run the show, until you get rid of them, someway, somehow.
Good luck with that.
Does not the President make the appointment for the top positions in the federal bureaucracy in this country? Would it then be fair to say that whatever idiot we vote in IS in a way responsible?
There's no need to explain the current POTUS, I am not a supporter of him by any stretch of the imagination and I've made myself quite aware of who he's appointed. I do, however, completely agree with you that Neo Cons are just as bad and have been a thorn in the side of this country for a long time. It is time to get rid of the Neo-Cons. Neo-Cons who now control the Republican party are no different, in my eyes, than anyone on the left.
Good luck with that, indeed. Hard to do when most of the population sits by, zombified, completely unaware of what they are supporting.
Quote:
There was one man in the US who tried to get the Neo-Conservatives out of the government bureaucracy. His name was Senator Josephy McCarthy, and he got played by the Neo-Cons (who set up an House committee and turned it into a witch hunt of Hollywood producers, directors, script writers and actors/actresses) and ended up getting [wrongfully] crucified in the Media.
Media...another major problem. Granted, it is up to the people to educate themselves, unfortunately, they do not and the media preys on that.
Quote:
The president is merely a temporary employee. He sits for 4 years, maybe 8 years, but no more. What does the president have to do with long term Geo-political strategy -- looking 25-35 years down the road?
Absolutely nothing.
Long term Geo-political strategy is solely the purview of the Bureaucrats, people who hold those positions for 20 years, 25, years, 35, years or even 45 years until they retire (or jump ship to a consulting firm or "think-tank" -- and those are simply extensions of the Bureaucracy).
You're going to let a president who sits for 4 years decide the fate of the US 25-35 years into the Future via long term Geo-political strategy?
No, you're not. That would be insane. How could you possibly formulate a cogent coherent Geo-political strategy 25-35 years into the Future, if you're constantly changing direction every 4-8 depending on who is president and which party controls the Senate and which controls the House?
You cannot, which is why presidents have nothing to do with it (out of "respect" for the office of president, the president gets by default a Secret ATOMAL security clearance --- not a Top Secret clearance).
So the Bureaucrats shape the US as it currently is and as it will be in the distant Future through policy-making.
As I said earlier, isn't it the president who makes the appointments for these top positions?
Quote:
I'm not talking solely foreign policy here, I'm talking about all policies. Look at H&HS. What does Obamacare say? Nothing of any substance. It's all open to interpretation and who does the interpreting? The Bureaucrats at H&HS.
Read the laws that Congress enacts and the president signs. They are extremely vague. There is rarely anything that is substantially explicit. The Bureaucracy responsible for executing, over-seeing or carrying-out the law is the one who interprets the law, and then writes the regulations for the law.
Again, look at Obamacare. Where does it say that women should get "free" birth control? It does not say that, but that is how the Bureaucrats have interpreted the law and that is how they wrote the regulations pertaining to the law.
I agree here, and my only response is, I know we are being played. I also know that people focus on Right vs Left, this president or that one, but we all know, they are merely, shall we say, puppets?
Quote:
So when we come to foreign policy, who makes the policy? It is shaped through the eyes of the Neo-Conservatives who control key bureaucratic positions in the State Department and all of the Alphabet Agencies. And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that if there isn't a Neo-Conservative occupying a key position, there's a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist sitting there.
A traditional Liberal believes in Collective Security. Many of the senior ranking US military officers are Liberals, because they believe in things like NATO. SEATO, Warsaw Pact, ANZUS etc etc etc to keep the peace, because Collective Security really does work (at least better than many other systems).
Whereas Liberals use Collective Security to maintain peace, and to force, coerce or influence change, Neo-Liberal Institutionalists use that, plus they take it a few steps further using non-governmental organizations like Green Peace, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, etc etc etc and then also multinational corporations.
In other words they use multinational corporations to fight wars by proxy.
Yes. I've become vaguely aware of this in the past 5-7 years.
Quote:
So who wants to ask a really stupid question like, "Why won't the President or Congress ever penalize US Corporations for off-shoring jobs?"
Because Neo-Liberal Institutionalists, like George H. Bush, like Bill Clinton, like George W. Bush and like Barack Obama believe it its better to fight proxy wars using US Corporations to gain access and control of new markets than it is to send troops and put boots on the ground.
Now, if you truly want and desire real change, you'll have to figure out a way to get the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberal Institutionalists out of the Bureaucracy.
Bureaucratically...
Mircea
Unfortunately, with the attitude in this country where American Idol, Desperate Housetramps and whatever that dancing contest is called being top priority, that isn't going to happen...at the extreme frustration to some of us.
These are but a few of the reasons public opinion around the globe is turning against the US, 'patriots?' seem to be oblivious to what their 'patriotism?' entails. The patriot act is just a means to strip a nations peoples of more civil rights under the guise of protecting those same people.
I love my country as well, but I will never call myself a patriot, I believe in, and value my freedom more than that. A proud Australian maybe, but never a 'patriot?'. Patriotism to me is just another word for oppression.
More and more people around the globe are slowly but surely becoming more aware of the 'Oligarchy' which is painfully evident in the western world.
Very, very true about the feelings of people around the globe. There are a lot of people here who are blind to what we are doing, they actually believe the BS about our meddling in other countries like Iraq actually somehow being good. But I have been to a couple other countries (in Asia), and they see through it, they see us as a nation that cannot be trusted- though they are not our enemies, they see us going around the globe invading nations, and they feel that is a horrible injustice. I mean really- let's pick a random country like Russia- what if they were to go and invade Saudi Arabia because they felt regime change was necessary there. Would the US stand by and buy their line of BS about why that invasion is necessary? No way, we'd be all up in arms and trying to bring UN action against them to stop it... but yet when we do the same thing, we expect everyone else in the world to just go along with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
