American Arrogance

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: jpete On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:19 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:It is our business. We made it so. They made it so.

So when China invades because it's in their "interest" to make sure we pay back all the money we owe them, you're going to be cool with that right?

I mean, we made it their interest by taking the loans so they have every right to land troops and start shelling the place right?
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm

jpete wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:It is our business. We made it so. They made it so.

So when China invades because it's in their "interest" to make sure we pay back all the money we owe them, you're going to be cool with that right?

I mean, we made it their interest by taking the loans so they have every right to land troops and start shelling the place right?


Don't bring logic into this. The argument is about emotion and jingoism.

Anything we do is good simply because it is we who are doing it.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:19 pm

jpete wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:It is our business. We made it so. They made it so.

So when China invades because it's in their "interest" to make sure we pay back all the money we owe them, you're going to be cool with that right?

I mean, we made it their interest by taking the loans so they have every right to land troops and start shelling the place right?


Is it an issue of global security?

Recall that Britain and Spain and others concurred with the US. In fact the UN concurred that Saddam was a threat to regional peace and security.

When we act on our "interests" we act not only for ourselves but for others who depend on the action. I explained this. Your analogy is incomplete.
Last edited by mikeandgerry on Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M


Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:21 pm

stockingfull wrote:See the edit: discredited neocon attitudes


That's a laugh...discredited only by left wingers in op ed pieces.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 9:30 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:When people talk about a nations arrogance, they're talking about you mike.


Calling me arrogant is a rather personal attack, don't you think Mr. Moderator? You fail to see your own caustic remarks.

I have been arguing the facts, you haven't addressed any of those facts. I call that changing the subject.

Neither you nor Stockingfull can win on facts or logic so it is YOU that resort to name-calling, patronizing words, sarcasm, and innuendo. Erik, you drew first blood with me in this thread.



Neither of you seem to understand what an ally is.

You all refuse to acknowledge that diplomatic resources were exhausted.

All of you refuse to acknowlege the security docrines mentioned.

None of you acknowledge the state of mind of the government post 9-11.

All of you are Monday morning quarterbacks who only acknowledge that it was GWB's fault in all cases. You never address facts, just fault finding. It's lame. It's lazy. It's sophomoric. It's pathetic.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: coalmeister On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:50 pm

I thought this was all Prez Clinton's fault, he started it!

The Clinton Administration's Case Against Saddam
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT Al Gore recently told an audience that "the [Bush] administration did not hesitate to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism after September 11th, to create a political case for attacking Iraq." With this in mind, I would to like draw your attention to a Project brief entitled, The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein. Some highlights:

* The New York Times reported that at the November 14 [1997] meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare." During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."

* On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C."

* In an article ("America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," November 24, 1997), Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups,


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 2bqypn.asp
coalmeister
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska 140 Furnace -sold
Stove/Furnace Model: Harmon VF3000 -sold

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: coalmeister On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:53 pm

Albright Can't Explain Why Clinton Failed to Disarm Saddam
NewsMax.com ^ | Feb.10, 2003 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

Posted on Monday, February 10, 2003 9:09:00 AM

Faced with President Clinton's and her own almost frantic warnings in 1998 that Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with posthaste, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was unable to explain why Clinton failed to act.

Nor was she able to explain why President Clinton passed up a golden opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden when it was offered to him.

Meet the Press host Tim Russert played a videotape from February 17, 1998 showing Clinton saying: "Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I guarantee you, he will use the arsenal."

Russert then quoted Albright speaking two days later in a similar but even more bellicose manner: "I can honestly tell you that I don’t think that the world has seen, except maybe since Hitler, someone who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein. ...If you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far - that he can do untold damage. ...If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier, then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War. So, my lesson out of all of this is deal with the problem at the time that you can and don’t step away from it thinking that it’ll go away."

Said Russert: "Five years ago, and for four of those years there have been no inspectors in Iraq. Why not listen to Bill Clinton, listen to Madeleine Albright and deal with the problem now than delay it because it will only get worse?

Albright failed to explain why, when faced with what both she and Clinton warned was an immediate threat, they failed to follow up.
coalmeister
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Alaska 140 Furnace -sold
Stove/Furnace Model: Harmon VF3000 -sold

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: cybdav On: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:11 pm

You guys remind me of me and my siblings. the arguments are the same. Daja vue.

You go mikeandgerry.
cybdav
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: Mark III

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: jpete On: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:02 am

mikeandgerry wrote:
jpete wrote:
mikeandgerry wrote:It is our business. We made it so. They made it so.

So when China invades because it's in their "interest" to make sure we pay back all the money we owe them, you're going to be cool with that right?

I mean, we made it their interest by taking the loans so they have every right to land troops and start shelling the place right?


Is it an issue of global security?

Recall that Britain and Spain and others concurred with the US. In fact the UN concurred that Saddam was a threat to regional peace and security.

When we act on our "interests" we act not only for ourselves but for others who depend on the action. I explained this. Your analogy is incomplete.


So if the USA defaulted on it's loans, that wouldn't effect global security?

What happened when a few mortgages went belly up?

Want to imagine what happens when the guy printing the money goes belly up?

Oil isn't the only thing that makes the world go 'round. I've heard it said that "money" has it's role too.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: ErikLaurence On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:37 am

mikeandgerry wrote:Calling me arrogant is a rather personal attack, don't you think Mr. Moderator? You fail to see your own caustic remarks.


Where to begin?

Do I really have to explain what ad hominem means?

Apparently I do.

When you post something like "We needed most of all a forward operating base from which to secure the region. Iraq was conveniently located in the center of it all" and I point out that the idea of taking over another country to serve as a FOB is arrogant, it is not an ad hominem attack.

When you reply to a post by saying "you're a democrat and therefore because you are a dem you are wrong" you are attacking the person, not the argument.

You're coming to the conclusion based on who is making the argument rather than the argument itself.

I know it's nuance, but a lack of understanding of nuance is the root of many of our problems.





mikeandgerry wrote:You all refuse to acknowledge that diplomatic resources were exhausted.

All of you refuse to acknowlege the security docrines mentioned.

None of you acknowledge the state of mind of the government post 9-11.

All of you are Monday morning quarterbacks who only acknowledge that it was GWB's fault in all cases. You never address facts, just fault finding. It's lame. It's lazy. It's sophomoric. It's pathetic.


This situation is by no means all GWB's fault and frankly, I've never argued it was (that's your ad hominem problem showing again, assuming what my argument is because of who you think I am rather than actually reading my argument).

This problem is also Clinton's fault. The lion's share of the blame goes to Bush41 who decided to pick sides in the internal arab fight. It's Reagan's fault. It's Carter's fault. It's Nixon's fault. Heck, most of all it's Winston Churchill's fault going back to post WW1 when he partitioned the area. The fault is completely bipartisan.

I readily acknowlege the security doctrines. I think they're WRONG. Iraq/Kuwait was a border dispute going back to the partitioning of the Brits (who wanted to keep a strategic port). Frankly, through the 1990s Iraq was far more of an ally in the region that Kuwait was. We supported Iraq both financially and with intel.

You say "diplomatic resources were exhausted". What was about to happen? Nothing. Saddam didn't give a *censored* about the US. Saddam was worried about Iran. By removing Saddam we strengthened Iran (even a troglodyte should see that now).

The state of mind of the government post 9-11? They were hysterical and emotional. That was the problem.
ErikLaurence
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Reading Lehigh
Stove/Furnace Model: LL Hyfire II w/heat jacket

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:02 pm

ErikLaurence wrote:
This situation is by no means all GWB's fault and frankly, I've never argued it was (that's your ad hominem problem showing again, assuming what my argument is because of who you think I am rather than actually reading my argument).

This problem is also Clinton's fault. The lion's share of the blame goes to Bush41 who decided to pick sides in the internal arab fight. It's Reagan's fault. It's Carter's fault. It's Nixon's fault. Heck, most of all it's Winston Churchill's fault going back to post WW1 when he partitioned the area. The fault is completely bipartisan.

I readily acknowlege the security doctrines. I think they're WRONG. Iraq/Kuwait was a border dispute going back to the partitioning of the Brits (who wanted to keep a strategic port). Frankly, through the 1990s Iraq was far more of an ally in the region that Kuwait was. We supported Iraq both financially and with intel.

You say "diplomatic resources were exhausted". What was about to happen? Nothing. Saddam didn't give a *censored* about the US. Saddam was worried about Iran. By removing Saddam we strengthened Iran (even a troglodyte should see that now).

The state of mind of the government post 9-11? They were hysterical and emotional. That was the problem.



Erik, let's push aside all the ad hominem stuff. I apologize. Generally, I try to treat others as they treat me. Quite often you side with certain other bombastic/smarmy/caustic/condescending liberals on the board and, yes, I have heaped you into that barrel. It is unfortunate and I would like to start fresh with you because you are far more thoughtful in your responses.

Ok?

Your account of the historical events is mosly correct. However, given the circumstances, what should have GB41 done in the aftermath of Saddam's invasion and seizure of Kuwait? In the arab world we would be viewed as weak if we didn't respond. We would have been viewed as an empty ally. There was a general sentiment in the west to aid Kuwait.

Good, bad or indifferent, the British and the Americans established nations in the middle east for the purpose of doing business there. The region was essentially tribal and essentially politically unorganized one hundred years ago. There were no boundaries. After establishing agreements with tribal leaders over the years, again, through events both equitable and not, monarchies were formed for the purpose of conducting trade which was in the interest of the West and the arabs. I do not believe that the arabs found this distasteful until the American media and political left found it so. They then used the media and popular western sentiment to their advantage to acquire global hegemony.

Obviously the west enriched and empowered the monarchies and despite cultural differences alliances were established. Kuwait was one of them. We have had diplomatic relations with them since the fifties.

The border issue was ancient. It was unfortunate that Saddam didn't consider it settled. The ROTW did. Iraq missed a lot of opportunities to correct it peaceably as an independent nation through the UN. The reason he invaded Kuwait was because his regime was under financial pressure and Kuwait would not forgive its loans to Iraq made to finance the Iran-Iraq war.

The unfortunate part of it all is that it may have been the unwitting fault of ambassador April Glaspie who stated to Saddam that the US had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the US did not intend to start an economic war against Iraq". While we may never know, I believe she was trying to carve out a neutral stance for the US as Saddam amassed his troops on the border. Saddam took it as approval to invade which is certainly an error on his part. The US never supports such aggression against sovereign allies. It was a diplomatic error. I don't believe it was a policy error.

Are we in agreement up to this point in the discussion?
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:38 pm

I guess not.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: samhill On: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:32 am

How about eight figure bonuses for wall st execs that would all have been out on the streets by running the businesses into the crapper if it wasn`t for public money now they give themselves a bigger bonus than some countries have for a budget. Not only does main st. look at this as arrogance just think of what the rest of the world thinks.
samhill
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage
Stove/Furnace Make: keystoker/hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: koker 160/ hitzer 75

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: jpete On: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:48 am

I forget...did the CEO's storm Capitol Hill with Tommy guns or did Congress cough up the money? I seem to recall GWB saying "I abandoned free market principles to save the free market" and then there was some bizarre notion of "too big to fail" forwarded by the last administration and perpetuated by the current one. Anger is understandable. Misplaced anger is a waste.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: American Arrogance

PostBy: smokeyCityTeacher On: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:55 am

Poconoeagle wrote:heres real arrogance. not him just the reasoning...

http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/ ... ?aid=11991


Obama would gladly sell us out to appease Islam. He despises Christians and his choice of Errol Southers for TSA shows how far he will go to paint Christian groups as the real enemy of America to draw attention away from Muslim extremists. To avoid saying this Ft. Hood shooter was an Islamic Terrorist is inexcusable.

Obama is a Manchurian Candidate - we find that impossible to believe because its sounds so fantastic.

Wake up.
smokeyCityTeacher
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Hitzer 30-95
Stove/Furnace Make: Englander, Hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: 30-NC, 30-95