Because, like it or not, the woman in your example was no better beating her husband than he was beating her. It may have worked, but more often than not, it doesn't.
The larger truth is that, if the husband is coming drunk all the time and beating his wife, he is a no-account man and he probably does deserve to be killed.
You are probably right (usually nothing exciting happens). But, are not the US financial woes a bit more fundamental than lack of competition with Europe? Isn't the problem that the US economy is based on assumptions that production actually occurs inside the US - whereas this is less and less true?
Ever since the dollar has fallen, US manufacturers have been breathing a big sigh of relief. For all of his other faults, Bush's Presidency has seen US Exports rise to a staggering contribution of nearly 15% of GDP. Unfortunately, this success is being drowned out by high oil prices. All we need now is for the next President to continue the track towards free trade, let the dollar continue a modest but perhaps more gradual decline, but also keep in place those other incentives needed to help ensure a transition towards a smarter energy economy. Once the USA gets off of foreign oil, we Americans will be an export juggernaut but also armed to the teeth with a ton of new alternative energy solutions.
That's the thing, is that, there's an aweful lot of children's software written for Windows, games, educational titles, and what not. There just isn't much out there for Linux for kids. Now, if you could play games on a $200 PC, that's not too shabby at all.
Sounds like an argument for why we don't want proliferation to me. Of course that won't happen if we withdraw from the global community as you suggest.
Why do you insist on saying that a military isolationist stance is the same thing as a trading one? I'm all in favor of free trade and diplomacy. I just don't see a need to keep American combat troops as atomic tripwires all over the globe. I don't see a need to put American cities on the line for allies that couldn't even be troubled to help us in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Here's what you are missing. You might look at "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq as a joke, and view the failure to capture OBL as proof that Bush failed in Afghanistan, but that's not how the rest of the world sees it. Put yourself in Ahmadinejad's shoes. For him, the relevant thing is not that we have had difficult imposing Democracy in Iraq. It is that, with relatively few lives lost and no meaningful international opposition, we could and did change the regime in Iraq and put Saddam's head in a noose. You might say, oh, but Bin Laden got away, but if you are a foreign leader assessing the conventional capabilities of the USA, then, you might also have concluded that living for the rest of your life in a cave totally sucks, especially after a life of unparalleled luxury.
Bottom line is, the military track record of the USA conventional forces is almost unequaled in history. Not even the Romans, Hittites, Greeks, or Egyptians asserted as much power in as so many places over the last 30 years as the USA. So yeah, we might view the follow on to military action as a lost, but there's a long line of people that we didn't like, that we got rid of, and that, no conventional army can even really oppose us.
Now, add to that, we've been very successful at pressuring allies into allowing us to use their countries as springboards for invasions, and you have to wonder, is any nation on the map which borders a US allied state with American forces present genuinely safe from invasion? If you are the slightest bit paranoid (as most dictators are), the answer is NO.
So, what do you do? You get the only thing that can level the odds at all. You could do guerilla warfare, but guerilla warfare didn't keep the heads of Haiti, Panama, Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan from being deposed. The only thing left to level the playing field is nukes.
Our response then, is to take away the troops out of all of these countries, and thus, not intimidate these "enemies" into getting nukes.
Do you really want nations on the 'firing line' to have to decide between surrender and the wholesale use of nuclear weapons?
Why should we intervene with American lives to fight in a war that only benefits them, when they would not do the same for us. The only country I can see defending, right now, is Great Britain, because they were with us right up until almost the end in Iraq, without the sort of bitching that other nations in the coalition of the willing did.
Funny that you should mention FDR, because he saw the dangers of America remaining isolationist quite clearly.
We are getting off topic. We started discussing isolationism. Somehow we wound up talking about free trade.
Isolationism has two dimensions, a military one and an economic one. In the 1930s, isolationism meant both. I propose to be militarily isolationist, but, trading globally. That's a huge difference.
. And FWIW, I also think it was stupid pandering on both sides to run away from free trade for the sake of a few votes.
I agree that the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea, and quite frankly so are the stimulus checks. I would much rather see that sort of federal money used to drill ANWR quickly. What I would like to see is that we drill ANWR and other offshore places, then, sell the oil on the world markets, and use the money to transition the American economy to something more fiscally sane. Like, there's a trillion dollars in ANWR oil alone. Le
The USA has not had that since FDR. To get it, what we need is a really, really rich Democrat.
Re:Why are you respoding to something you didn't r
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 1
Could you at least TRY to read what you're responding to this time, since you seem to have completely avoided doing so last time.
Uh, what, you don't care, you don't care... blah blah blah, its all their fault because of the evil chinese government. Somehow communism causes earthquakes. I followed you. So, does that mean, that, if there is a federal disaster in your area, we don't have to send in the rescuers because it was your own dumb fault for being there. Why do you deserve to ever have your life saved?
Your apology for atrocities because the majority of people in a place are bigots means nothing to me. Even if one person wants to exercise his right to look at pornography, then he damn well should without the rest of the world's assholes interfering with him.
Hey, when you go and start a world war with China to let people look at porn, you let me know, and I'll um, be right behind you..yeah, really...
But if you have an alliance with the United States and the protection of the American nuclear umbrella then you don't need nuclear weapons...Nobody wants that.
What you are not saying is that this American nuclear umbrella, as you describe, implicitly puts American cities on the nuclear firing line. If North Korea nukes South Korea today, USA soldiers get killed, then the USA retaliates by nuking North Korea. If they have the missiles with range, we cross our fingers and hope that NMD actually works, or, that, a future president doesn't shut it off in the interests of "stability". So basically, we can cut right through this and see that in order to protect South Korea from a North Korean bomb, American cities go onto the table. In a smaller nuclear club, this was a semi-reasonable risk to make. If the Russians nuke Europe, we nuke them. That's somewhat sane because the Russians at least had brains. You aren't going to get that when nuclear weapons proliferate. So what you really have is a situation where American cities are on the firing line up against -anybody- that has the bomb, and that's an absurd risk to take.
If you pull the GIs out of that equation, what happens is that, North Korea nukes South Korea, and Americans at that point, -may- be upset about it. But they aren't going to risk a nuclear war against North Korea unless we know for sure if we can intercept their missiles. But, if we don't intervene against North Korea, there are no nuclear missiles flying towards the USA, because, MAD applies. Therefor, the best and most logical course of action would be for the USA to not be involved! And, if the South Koreans do not want to get nuked, then, they would in fact build their own nuclear deterrent. At that point, a regional war would be just that.
The specific case of Iran is frustrating but it's not over with yet. A new President may be able to make a breakthrough with them or with the UN. In any case I'm surprised you used Iran to make your point -- they don't have the bomb yet and even without interference from the West are at least several years away from having it.
There's not going to be any breakthrough with them or the UN. We let the Europeans try their "soft" diplomacy and the end result has been nothing. The fact of the matter is, anyway, that, if you were in charge of Iran, you would be almost stupid to NOT get the bomb. Seriously, put yourself in the head of Iran's shoes, right now, and ask yourself, why should you not get the bomb. They are going to get it, and besides, the same experts you cite as giving estimates for the bomb lifetime botched the same sort of forecasts for the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Iran is going to get the bomb, and then, after that, Saudi Arabia (which already operates nuclear reactors for research purposes), will get it next.
I always thought it had something to do with the humiliation of Versailles and the economic burden imposed on Germany by the reparations included therein. In any case I don't see how that helps your isolationist argument, seeing as how it was the policies of isolationism and appeasement that allowed Nazi Germany to grow it's military to the point that it could threaten it's neighbors.
The humiliation of Versaille was a Nazi argument that doesn't hold up to historical analysis. If that were the case, then the NAZIs would have gained power in 1924 with Hitler's Putsch, but didn't. What happened, instead, was that initially after World War I, the German economy collapsed, communists nearly took over Germany, and the German industrial leadership funded right wing groups - like the Nazis, in response. There's a very telling story about how, when the Communists took over Germany in the strikes of 1919, they rounded up the Thyssen family and were about to execute them but had a last minute change of heart. Thyssen was so angry over the thing that he would wind up pouring his fortune into Adolph and Company, largely because they said they were going to kil
You know, its easy to paint everyone in China as a victim of internet persecution, but maybe the Chinese really do want a regulated and censored internet. I mean, think about it. China is a very conservative society. If the Chinese government really could block all porn, criminal sites, spyware sites, or even plain disruptive content, and everything like it, then, a lot of people who actually like where their country is headed wouldn't think too much of giving up the right to criticize their government in order to get their "safer" internet. I mean, if George Bush had won Iraq, and USA GDP was growing by 10% a year, real US wages were doubling, everyone was building like crazy, new skyscrapers were popping up everywhere, then, who would really be complaining?
Double down as disaster recovery for the likes of Myanmar and NOLA (replacing marines with Nat'l guard domestically). Screw the UN, countries would be lining up around the block to be our friends.
Exactly. We need to make our post invasion so good that countries will -want- to be invaded.
And I would add C.) After you liberate them, you have to follow through.
I couldn't agree more. If we are going to do "liberation" missions, then, we need to address what the US military lacks. They don't have the ability to plop in an instant infrastructure. Sadr and other militia organizers got popular in Iraq just because they organized soup kitchens. What if our soldiers could plop in semi-trailers with generators, water treatment, instant schools, and heck yeah, get corporate america to kick in and have semi-trailer sized McDonald's, Taco Bells, and more. Who wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people more if, in the immediate postwar, we're passing out double QPCs, when Sadr just has some kind of crappy soup? Who wins the hearts and minds more when GI's drop a trailer generator off of a C-130 or a helicopter right into a village where militia leaders are trying to organize. Occupation is all about, who bribes the villagers the best.
If we had had that kind of vision and planning, then, we would probably not even in be in Iraq by now.
China is a lot more open than it was before. I mean, China may have a great firewall, but other regimes do not have an internet at all. Plus, you have to realize that there are plenty of Chinese people on the other end of a phone call or even meeting in person with western business partners. Is China as free as we would like, no? But, then, when Western Europe was in the same economic level as China, we were all serfs and slavery was legal.
If its the former, no duh, we already knew that. If its the latter, are you trying to get us to want to do something about it? and if so, what do you propose? that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?
Free trade with Syria is the answer. The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Sanctions are a form of war, remember.
Of all ironies is that Bush, by invading Iraq, threw away the lessons of his own party. Republicans, for better or for worse, have been staunch free traders since Reagan and it is that commitment to free trade around the globe that has caused nations to adopt more open societies, not American bombers. Have a strong defense, but for god's sake, don't start any wars and try and sell people stuff. It's a simple game plan, and Republicans were so good at it. But, after Afghanistan they just got too cocky and thought we could knock off Iraq. I almost want to go back in time and throttle William Kristol, and say "no, no, no, it is not time to have a benevolent American Empire!"
But, we just have to get back to the original game plan. Don't lecture the likes of Syria. Sell them stuff.
While we are at it, get rid of all of this USA PATRIOT nonsense.
The threat is to geopolitical stability and the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation framework that we've worked so hard to implement over the last few decades. Do you think the United States would be better off if the World had a few dozen nuclear powers instead of eight? Do you think the World would be? Because I assure you that would be the outcome of an American withdrawal from the Far East -- regardless of whether or not North Korea invaded the South.
Yeah, and here's the rub. As we're having the ideological debate on slashdot, Iran is gathering centrifuges in Natanz and is obviously working on building the bomb. They have thumbed their noses at the IAEA, the UN Security Council, and have basically said that nothing will deter them from becoming a nuclear power. And what does the world do?
Nothing.
So, if we can't even bomb Iran and destroy its nuclear reactors, when clearly, they are out to proliferate, then, who exactly are we going to stop?
No one.
Isolationism was a bad idea in the 30s and it's a bad idea today.
Isolationism in the 1930s also included protectionism for trade. I support free trade. I think we should have open borders and be trading with everyone.
Incidentally, your guy, Obama, calls for rethinking free trade. If backing out of military alliances is so disastrous for the world, just imagine what would happen if the USA started backing out of all of its real trade commitments. Remember, if we are bringing up World War II analogies, it was the economic collapse caused by a wave of protectionist trade legislation that ultimately put the Nazis in Germany into power.
Hell, it's a worse idea today There's nothing the present global security system has that will prevent proliferation. There's no doubt that if you are a nation state, and you want the bomb, you can get it.
If we withdrew from the World and adopted your attitude then sooner or later some aggressor country would threaten our interests (ala Japanese actions in China before Pearl Harbor)
At some point, you have to ask the question, just what the hell were our interests in China prior to World War II? I mean, whatever it was, everything we did for China during World War II didn't buy us a damn thing - 5 years after World War II ended, we were fighting the Chinese in Korea.
Except that history tells us that wars involving "them" have a nasty habit of sucking us in sooner or later
No, we just opportunistically jump into them.
I don't see how you take that lesson and come up with the 'sky is falling' attitude and claim that we can't meet our treaty commitments.
How do you justify to the American people that we should defend these countries? If North Korea invades South Korea, what exactly is the real threat to the United States?
So your solution is to withdraw from those alliances and abandon our treaty commitments to our Allies? I'm still looking for some rationalization for why that wouldn't blow up in our face like it has every other time we've withdrawn from the global community.
Check this out. We can completely withdraw from the global military community without having to abandon any treaty commitments. Even NATO only binds member states to "give aid". It does NOT demand a military response. So, nobody in our alliances is actually obligated to engage in any sort of military response in the event a member is attacked. All of the US military alliance treaties were written to allow the USA to selectively attack some other rival on the theory that they are attacking an ally. But there's nothing that obligates our allies to help us, and they either. So, if an ally of ours is attacked, we could send them a bucket of guns or something, and be off of the legal hook.
I'm not the biggest fan of an interventionist foreign policy but I think it's foolhardy to argue that the United States should become an isolationist nation again.
If we are going to extend Pax Americana into the next century, then we are going to have to have a significant and long term expansion of the US armed forces. Iraq has shown that we do not have the strength of fight a long term projected war and right now our alliances demand we may have to fight several of them.
We are going to need:
a) an army sufficient to have a long term deployment of 500,000 men, if not 1,000,000. b) ever more F-22s. Probably looking at more like 1000, rather than 100. c) more carriers / some future surface combatant (rail gun battleships?) d) more submarines e) arming of space, strategic missile defense,
You could look at the current US military budget of some 500-600 billion and think its a lot, but the dollar has shrank by 50% in Bush's term. In real dollars Bush is probably fighting the war in Iraq with an army that is actually less well funded than Bill Clinton's.
So what we're really talking about is a trillion dollar military budget, and that sort of an investment requires a national consensus that we simply do not have. While I could be coaxed into supporting it, there are just as many Republicans who would rather be isolationists as there are Democrats who would be appalled at this sort of an expansion.
And, the thing is, if we built this juggernaut of a military, where would we get the money to pay for it? And, we can't even communicate to these supposed allies of ours that we are trying to save that yes, if they run us out of South Korea and Japan and any other place, that means they are inviting certain disaster, but, maybe that is what they want? We can't stop people from stupidity.
The alternative is to keep a low profile, disengage ourselves from various trouble spots in the world, invest in ourselves, and, if they nuke each other, its really their problem, not ours.
What I see is needless suffering that is the direct result of a government that deliberately hamstrung development, relegating many parts of the country to little better than third world level conditions. What I see is a disaster, made worse by conditions that said government was directly responsible for.
I wouldn't be so smug. I would not be so sure that the USA itself would be immune to a 7.9 earthquake even in areas that are purportedly prepared for them. A 7.9 quake is a damned big quake, and I would not be so sure even LA or SF would walk away from one of those without some loss of life. God help us if the USA had a New Madrid quake. A New Madrid quake usually is an 8-9 Richter job that would pretty level the entire mid western USA, and would kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Nature and justice are not the same thing. When a man falls through the ice on a lake and drowns, you just have to feel bad for the wife and children he or she left behind. Yeah, he made a mistake, but the tragedy is so terrible, that the punishment for that mistake is notably unjust.
Mother Nature is some bitch, and all of us, as humans, regardless of political system or religious beliefs, share a common ground in that.
Re:From the USA: Today we are all Chinese
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 1
Being a native Californian, living in the Bay Area, having had friends who had their house damaged in the Northridge quake in '94, it is real easy to say "that could have been me".
I hear you. My little brother, in the Coast Guard, was stationed in New Orleans during Katrina.
All these people pointing fingers, saying that if China had this or that sort of government, blah blah, things would be different or they got what they deserved. No, they didn't deserve that. What did someone I never even met in China do to have his children crushed to death?
Not everything is about politics. This is about seeing a bunch of people who are dirt poor, trying to make a better living for themselves, suddenly lose everything, including the people that they love. It's just a terrible tragedy.
Fair enough... but there's a wide gulf between wanting the U.S. to be the world's policeman and simply acknowledging (as an individual, even) that there do exist legitimate dissidents or governments-in-exile
Not really. We can acknowledge the dissidents who want to be free by inviting them to the United States to become citizens. We can honor those dissidents who genuinely cherish freedom by cherishing it ourselves, by building a country that lives up to its Statue of Liberty and by having a nation that works for a more civil discourse, more freedom, and not less, and not one that seeks to muddle into the internal affairs of other nations.
The American message to the world should be simple. We will not intervene in the internal politics of other regimes. We should not have State Department "bad regime" lists. We should not be labelling other countries for how their people live. If someone wants to be free, then yes, let them come to America, let them become citizens, let them live the American dream. Let American merchants and scientists criss cross the globe and trade and exchange ideas and products with everyone in the world. We'll take the best of the ideas that are brought back, and in turn, the world can see the best of us.
But having troops all over the globe, creating a sort of a modern day empire, all of that which seemed so necessary after 9/11, those things, indeed, don't work. Free trade works to make a free people. Free immigration works to make a free people. Imposing sanctions, invading countries, that doesn't worked, hasn't worked (except without hideous expense), and won't work.
So, let's bring the troops home, live free lives for ourselves, and send out the salesman instead!
So this guy DeGaulle == this guy Chalabi in your World view?
No, but, unless the NAZIs come back, I'm not planning on supporting any US intervention.
Interesting that you criticize Bush while adopting his black and white view of the world. All dissidents are bad, huh?
I support President Bush and voted for him twice. The black and white view of the world is legitimate. Things either work, or they don't.
Just look around the globe. The most credible dissident government is the one that was elected in Burma and then thrown out by the military government. Yet, even in their case, there's a lot of people that would support the military government and so, even if we invaded Burma to reinstall "the Lady", we would wind up risking a major war with China, would enmire ourselves in a long war at the long end of a long logistical chain, where none of our conventional assets such as air and naval power would be of much use, and there's no point.
That's the -best- case, and its bleak, so there's no point in invading anyone anywhere right now. For a time, during the 80s and 90s, we could do it. We did it in Grenada, Haiti, Panama and a few other places. But those days are gone.
I do not support any military action to install a dissident government overthrown by its own internal politics. I don't even like the idea of having US troops stationed as tripwires designed to bring America into some local war. Like, why do I care, about South Korean independence at this point. South Koreans see US troops as an imperial presence anyway, as do many people in many of our allies. So bring them home.
The war in Iraq has had a price that was extremely high. I think we will be successful under the current military leadership, but, the price is simply too high. I just don't want any part of liberation any more. If the USA is attacked, that's one thing, but, I don't see a need for the USA to go and invade people to put in new governments, regardless of the benefits.
Okay, this view isn't new... but then you go and say that it was the Iraq war, alone of all things in history, that pushed you to it? I don't even know what to say. For someone who thought Bush was full of crap from the start and hopes for some improvement in the world, this sort of seamless progression from warmongering triumphalism to world-encompassing defeatism is pretty frickin' hard to take.
I am in favor of total isolation because I believed the Iraqi dissidents. I was in favor of this war and the Bush administration and honestly, the price of this intervention was too high. Knowing the cost of being wrong is so high, I don't even want to risk it again. It's simply not worth it.
So yeah, I'm in favor of withdrawing all USA troops from every country, not just Iraq. I do not want the USA to get itself into any more wars, unless the USA itself, or perhaps a very close ally, like the UK, is attacked.
From the USA: Today we are all Chinese
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Just an American expressing condolences to the Chinese people for their terrible tragedy. I have a wife and son myself and all I can think of is those family members under the rubble and those waiting to dig out.
China is a pretty powerful country, but if there's anything China needs, I hope they ask just ask. Americans would be honored to help.
even Yasser Arafat expressed his outrage against the attackers.
Arafat's outrage come after CNN ran footage of Palestinians spontaneously demonstrating in the streets with cheers for the attackers. There was a massive and popular celebration in the middle east for 9/11. Regardless of what their leaders said, or even Arafat giving blood to help, all I could think was, wow, after all the USA did, particularly under Clinton, to help Muslims. The USA saved the Muslims in the Balkans, twice, from certain genocide. The USA worked tirelessly to create an independent palestinian state. Clinton did more than any world leader ever did to help Muslims and all we got, at the end, was 9/11 and massive street celebrations across the middle east, repleat with burning American flags.
You know, sometimes you really make it an uphill battle to love and respect America.
I still hate 90% everything from the middle east, for 9/11. But that's only because I knew people that were killed there.
With that said, most people who are capable are probably more like I was, really just stunned at the size of the Chinese disaster. This is way bigger than Katrina or 9/11 combined.
I feel bad for the Chinese, I really do. I keep wondering what if, an earthquake or some natural disaster happened to me and right now. This disaster just makes me want to be closer to my young son and wife, and enjoy them a little bit. Life is so fragile.
And I might actually go buy something made in China.
I'll be damned.
When you should be embarrased
on
Earthquake In China
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If you are looking at images of a Chinese man trying to pull his wife out of the rubble, or a mother searching for her baby, and all you can think of is what political system they have, then you need to get a life.
You ought to be embarrassed to think that way.
I don't think Chinese rescuers are thinking about chairman mao any more than US rescuers think about George Washington. I think they are more likely concerned with digging out as many wives, husbands and children so that husbands, wives and parents can have their loved ones back.
I don't see these images of destruction and desperate hoping a story of politics. Instead, I see incredible suffering, and I feel for them. I imagine how I would feel if it were my wife, or my son, smashed up inside my crushed house, if that earthquake happened to me. Thank god it didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, like it or not, the woman in your example was no better beating her husband than he was beating her. It may have worked, but more often than not, it doesn't.
The larger truth is that, if the husband is coming drunk all the time and beating his wife, he is a no-account man and he probably does deserve to be killed.
You are probably right (usually nothing exciting happens). But, are not the US financial woes a bit more fundamental than lack of competition with Europe? Isn't the problem that the US economy is based on assumptions that production actually occurs inside the US - whereas this is less and less true?
Ever since the dollar has fallen, US manufacturers have been breathing a big sigh of relief. For all of his other faults, Bush's Presidency has seen US Exports rise to a staggering contribution of nearly 15% of GDP. Unfortunately, this success is being drowned out by high oil prices. All we need now is for the next President to continue the track towards free trade, let the dollar continue a modest but perhaps more gradual decline, but also keep in place those other incentives needed to help ensure a transition towards a smarter energy economy. Once the USA gets off of foreign oil, we Americans will be an export juggernaut but also armed to the teeth with a ton of new alternative energy solutions.
That's the thing, is that, there's an aweful lot of children's software written for Windows, games, educational titles, and what not. There just isn't much out there for Linux for kids. Now, if you could play games on a $200 PC, that's not too shabby at all.
Sounds like an argument for why we don't want proliferation to me. Of course that won't happen if we withdraw from the global community as you suggest.
Why do you insist on saying that a military isolationist stance is the same thing as a trading one? I'm all in favor of free trade and diplomacy. I just don't see a need to keep American combat troops as atomic tripwires all over the globe. I don't see a need to put American cities on the line for allies that couldn't even be troubled to help us in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Here's what you are missing. You might look at "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq as a joke, and view the failure to capture OBL as proof that Bush failed in Afghanistan, but that's not how the rest of the world sees it. Put yourself in Ahmadinejad's shoes. For him, the relevant thing is not that we have had difficult imposing Democracy in Iraq. It is that, with relatively few lives lost and no meaningful international opposition, we could and did change the regime in Iraq and put Saddam's head in a noose. You might say, oh, but Bin Laden got away, but if you are a foreign leader assessing the conventional capabilities of the USA, then, you might also have concluded that living for the rest of your life in a cave totally sucks, especially after a life of unparalleled luxury.
Bottom line is, the military track record of the USA conventional forces is almost unequaled in history. Not even the Romans, Hittites, Greeks, or Egyptians asserted as much power in as so many places over the last 30 years as the USA. So yeah, we might view the follow on to military action as a lost, but there's a long line of people that we didn't like, that we got rid of, and that, no conventional army can even really oppose us.
Now, add to that, we've been very successful at pressuring allies into allowing us to use their countries as springboards for invasions, and you have to wonder, is any nation on the map which borders a US allied state with American forces present genuinely safe from invasion? If you are the slightest bit paranoid (as most dictators are), the answer is NO.
So, what do you do? You get the only thing that can level the odds at all. You could do guerilla warfare, but guerilla warfare didn't keep the heads of Haiti, Panama, Serbia, Iraq or Afghanistan from being deposed. The only thing left to level the playing field is nukes.
Our response then, is to take away the troops out of all of these countries, and thus, not intimidate these "enemies" into getting nukes.
Do you really want nations on the 'firing line' to have to decide between surrender and the wholesale use of nuclear weapons?
Why should we intervene with American lives to fight in a war that only benefits them, when they would not do the same for us. The only country I can see defending, right now, is Great Britain, because they were with us right up until almost the end in Iraq, without the sort of bitching that other nations in the coalition of the willing did.
Funny that you should mention FDR, because he saw the dangers of America remaining isolationist quite clearly.
We are getting off topic. We started discussing isolationism. Somehow we wound up talking about free trade.
Isolationism has two dimensions, a military one and an economic one. In the 1930s, isolationism meant both. I propose to be militarily isolationist, but, trading globally. That's a huge difference.
. And FWIW, I also think it was stupid pandering on both sides to run away from free trade for the sake of a few votes.
I agree that the gas tax holiday is a stupid idea, and quite frankly so are the stimulus checks. I would much rather see that sort of federal money used to drill ANWR quickly. What I would like to see is that we drill ANWR and other offshore places, then, sell the oil on the world markets, and use the money to transition the American economy to something more fiscally sane. Like, there's a trillion dollars in ANWR oil alone. Le
The USA simply needs to have more tact.
The USA has not had that since FDR. To get it, what we need is a really, really rich Democrat.
Could you at least TRY to read what you're responding to this time, since you seem to have completely avoided doing so last time.
Uh, what, you don't care, you don't care... blah blah blah, its all their fault because of the evil chinese government. Somehow communism causes earthquakes. I followed you. So, does that mean, that, if there is a federal disaster in your area, we don't have to send in the rescuers because it was your own dumb fault for being there. Why do you deserve to ever have your life saved?
Your apology for atrocities because the majority of people in a place are bigots means nothing to me. Even if one person wants to exercise his right to look at pornography, then he damn well should without the rest of the world's assholes interfering with him.
Hey, when you go and start a world war with China to let people look at porn, you let me know, and I'll um, be right behind you..yeah, really...
But if you have an alliance with the United States and the protection of the American nuclear umbrella then you don't need nuclear weapons...Nobody wants that.
What you are not saying is that this American nuclear umbrella, as you describe, implicitly puts American cities on the nuclear firing line. If North Korea nukes South Korea today, USA soldiers get killed, then the USA retaliates by nuking North Korea. If they have the missiles with range, we cross our fingers and hope that NMD actually works, or, that, a future president doesn't shut it off in the interests of "stability". So basically, we can cut right through this and see that in order to protect South Korea from a North Korean bomb, American cities go onto the table. In a smaller nuclear club, this was a semi-reasonable risk to make. If the Russians nuke Europe, we nuke them. That's somewhat sane because the Russians at least had brains. You aren't going to get that when nuclear weapons proliferate. So what you really have is a situation where American cities are on the firing line up against -anybody- that has the bomb, and that's an absurd risk to take.
If you pull the GIs out of that equation, what happens is that, North Korea nukes South Korea, and Americans at that point, -may- be upset about it. But they aren't going to risk a nuclear war against North Korea unless we know for sure if we can intercept their missiles. But, if we don't intervene against North Korea, there are no nuclear missiles flying towards the USA, because, MAD applies. Therefor, the best and most logical course of action would be for the USA to not be involved! And, if the South Koreans do not want to get nuked, then, they would in fact build their own nuclear deterrent. At that point, a regional war would be just that.
The specific case of Iran is frustrating but it's not over with yet. A new President may be able to make a breakthrough with them or with the UN. In any case I'm surprised you used Iran to make your point -- they don't have the bomb yet and even without interference from the West are at least several years away from having it.
There's not going to be any breakthrough with them or the UN. We let the Europeans try their "soft" diplomacy and the end result has been nothing. The fact of the matter is, anyway, that, if you were in charge of Iran, you would be almost stupid to NOT get the bomb. Seriously, put yourself in the head of Iran's shoes, right now, and ask yourself, why should you not get the bomb. They are going to get it, and besides, the same experts you cite as giving estimates for the bomb lifetime botched the same sort of forecasts for the Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and North Korea. Iran is going to get the bomb, and then, after that, Saudi Arabia (which already operates nuclear reactors for research purposes), will get it next.
I always thought it had something to do with the humiliation of Versailles and the economic burden imposed on Germany by the reparations included therein. In any case I don't see how that helps your isolationist argument, seeing as how it was the policies of isolationism and appeasement that allowed Nazi Germany to grow it's military to the point that it could threaten it's neighbors.
The humiliation of Versaille was a Nazi argument that doesn't hold up to historical analysis. If that were the case, then the NAZIs would have gained power in 1924 with Hitler's Putsch, but didn't. What happened, instead, was that initially after World War I, the German economy collapsed, communists nearly took over Germany, and the German industrial leadership funded right wing groups - like the Nazis, in response. There's a very telling story about how, when the Communists took over Germany in the strikes of 1919, they rounded up the Thyssen family and were about to execute them but had a last minute change of heart. Thyssen was so angry over the thing that he would wind up pouring his fortune into Adolph and Company, largely because they said they were going to kil
You know, its easy to paint everyone in China as a victim of internet persecution, but maybe the Chinese really do want a regulated and censored internet. I mean, think about it. China is a very conservative society. If the Chinese government really could block all porn, criminal sites, spyware sites, or even plain disruptive content, and everything like it, then, a lot of people who actually like where their country is headed wouldn't think too much of giving up the right to criticize their government in order to get their "safer" internet. I mean, if George Bush had won Iraq, and USA GDP was growing by 10% a year, real US wages were doubling, everyone was building like crazy, new skyscrapers were popping up everywhere, then, who would really be complaining?
Double down as disaster recovery for the likes of Myanmar and NOLA (replacing marines with Nat'l guard domestically). Screw the UN, countries would be lining up around the block to be our friends.
Exactly. We need to make our post invasion so good that countries will -want- to be invaded.
And I would add C.) After you liberate them, you have to follow through.
I couldn't agree more. If we are going to do "liberation" missions, then, we need to address what the US military lacks. They don't have the ability to plop in an instant infrastructure. Sadr and other militia organizers got popular in Iraq just because they organized soup kitchens. What if our soldiers could plop in semi-trailers with generators, water treatment, instant schools, and heck yeah, get corporate america to kick in and have semi-trailer sized McDonald's, Taco Bells, and more. Who wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people more if, in the immediate postwar, we're passing out double QPCs, when Sadr just has some kind of crappy soup? Who wins the hearts and minds more when GI's drop a trailer generator off of a C-130 or a helicopter right into a village where militia leaders are trying to organize. Occupation is all about, who bribes the villagers the best.
If we had had that kind of vision and planning, then, we would probably not even in be in Iraq by now.
Just look at how open China has become..
China is a lot more open than it was before. I mean, China may have a great firewall, but other regimes do not have an internet at all. Plus, you have to realize that there are plenty of Chinese people on the other end of a phone call or even meeting in person with western business partners. Is China as free as we would like, no? But, then, when Western Europe was in the same economic level as China, we were all serfs and slavery was legal.
If its the former, no duh, we already knew that. If its the latter, are you trying to get us to want to do something about it? and if so, what do you propose? that we bring them democracy at the barrel of our depleted uranium guns?
Free trade with Syria is the answer. The more open a nation is to trade, the more open that nation is to communications with the outside world. Sanctions are a form of war, remember.
Of all ironies is that Bush, by invading Iraq, threw away the lessons of his own party. Republicans, for better or for worse, have been staunch free traders since Reagan and it is that commitment to free trade around the globe that has caused nations to adopt more open societies, not American bombers. Have a strong defense, but for god's sake, don't start any wars and try and sell people stuff. It's a simple game plan, and Republicans were so good at it. But, after Afghanistan they just got too cocky and thought we could knock off Iraq. I almost want to go back in time and throttle William Kristol, and say "no, no, no, it is not time to have a benevolent American Empire!"
But, we just have to get back to the original game plan. Don't lecture the likes of Syria. Sell them stuff.
While we are at it, get rid of all of this USA PATRIOT nonsense.
The threat is to geopolitical stability and the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation framework that we've worked so hard to implement over the last few decades. Do you think the United States would be better off if the World had a few dozen nuclear powers instead of eight? Do you think the World would be? Because I assure you that would be the outcome of an American withdrawal from the Far East -- regardless of whether or not North Korea invaded the South.
Yeah, and here's the rub. As we're having the ideological debate on slashdot, Iran is gathering centrifuges in Natanz and is obviously working on building the bomb. They have thumbed their noses at the IAEA, the UN Security Council, and have basically said that nothing will deter them from becoming a nuclear power. And what does the world do?
Nothing.
So, if we can't even bomb Iran and destroy its nuclear reactors, when clearly, they are out to proliferate, then, who exactly are we going to stop?
No one.
Isolationism was a bad idea in the 30s and it's a bad idea today.
Isolationism in the 1930s also included protectionism for trade. I support free trade. I think we should have open borders and be trading with everyone.
Incidentally, your guy, Obama, calls for rethinking free trade. If backing out of military alliances is so disastrous for the world, just imagine what would happen if the USA started backing out of all of its real trade commitments. Remember, if we are bringing up World War II analogies, it was the economic collapse caused by a wave of protectionist trade legislation that ultimately put the Nazis in Germany into power.
Hell, it's a worse idea today
There's nothing the present global security system has that will prevent proliferation. There's no doubt that if you are a nation state, and you want the bomb, you can get it.
If we withdrew from the World and adopted your attitude then sooner or later some aggressor country would threaten our interests (ala Japanese actions in China before Pearl Harbor)
At some point, you have to ask the question, just what the hell were our interests in China prior to World War II? I mean, whatever it was, everything we did for China during World War II didn't buy us a damn thing - 5 years after World War II ended, we were fighting the Chinese in Korea.
Except that history tells us that wars involving "them" have a nasty habit of sucking us in sooner or later
No, we just opportunistically jump into them.
I don't see how you take that lesson and come up with the 'sky is falling' attitude and claim that we can't meet our treaty commitments.
How do you justify to the American people that we should defend these countries? If North Korea invades South Korea, what exactly is the real threat to the United States?
So your solution is to withdraw from those alliances and abandon our treaty commitments to our Allies? I'm still looking for some rationalization for why that wouldn't blow up in our face like it has every other time we've withdrawn from the global community.
Check this out. We can completely withdraw from the global military community without having to abandon any treaty commitments. Even NATO only binds member states to "give aid". It does NOT demand a military response. So, nobody in our alliances is actually obligated to engage in any sort of military response in the event a member is attacked. All of the US military alliance treaties were written to allow the USA to selectively attack some other rival on the theory that they are attacking an ally. But there's nothing that obligates our allies to help us, and they either. So, if an ally of ours is attacked, we could send them a bucket of guns or something, and be off of the legal hook.
I'm not the biggest fan of an interventionist foreign policy but I think it's foolhardy to argue that the United States should become an isolationist nation again.
If we are going to extend Pax Americana into the next century, then we are going to have to have a significant and long term expansion of the US armed forces. Iraq has shown that we do not have the strength of fight a long term projected war and right now our alliances demand we may have to fight several of them.
We are going to need:
a) an army sufficient to have a long term deployment of 500,000 men, if not 1,000,000.
b) ever more F-22s. Probably looking at more like 1000, rather than 100.
c) more carriers / some future surface combatant (rail gun battleships?)
d) more submarines
e) arming of space, strategic missile defense,
You could look at the current US military budget of some 500-600 billion and think its a lot, but the dollar has shrank by 50% in Bush's term. In real dollars Bush is probably fighting the war in Iraq with an army that is actually less well funded than Bill Clinton's.
So what we're really talking about is a trillion dollar military budget, and that sort of an investment requires a national consensus that we simply do not have. While I could be coaxed into supporting it, there are just as many Republicans who would rather be isolationists as there are Democrats who would be appalled at this sort of an expansion.
And, the thing is, if we built this juggernaut of a military, where would we get the money to pay for it? And, we can't even communicate to these supposed allies of ours that we are trying to save that yes, if they run us out of South Korea and Japan and any other place, that means they are inviting certain disaster, but, maybe that is what they want? We can't stop people from stupidity.
The alternative is to keep a low profile, disengage ourselves from various trouble spots in the world, invest in ourselves, and, if they nuke each other, its really their problem, not ours.
What I see is needless suffering that is the direct result of a government that deliberately hamstrung development, relegating many parts of the country to little better than third world level conditions. What I see is a disaster, made worse by conditions that said government was directly responsible for.
I wouldn't be so smug. I would not be so sure that the USA itself would be immune to a 7.9 earthquake even in areas that are purportedly prepared for them. A 7.9 quake is a damned big quake, and I would not be so sure even LA or SF would walk away from one of those without some loss of life. God help us if the USA had a New Madrid quake. A New Madrid quake usually is an 8-9 Richter job that would pretty level the entire mid western USA, and would kill hundreds of thousands of people.
Nature and justice are not the same thing. When a man falls through the ice on a lake and drowns, you just have to feel bad for the wife and children he or she left behind. Yeah, he made a mistake, but the tragedy is so terrible, that the punishment for that mistake is notably unjust.
Mother Nature is some bitch, and all of us, as humans, regardless of political system or religious beliefs, share a common ground in that.
Being a native Californian, living in the Bay Area, having had friends who had their house damaged in the Northridge quake in '94, it is real easy to say "that could have been me".
I hear you. My little brother, in the Coast Guard, was stationed in New Orleans during Katrina.
All these people pointing fingers, saying that if China had this or that sort of government, blah blah, things would be different or they got what they deserved. No, they didn't deserve that. What did someone I never even met in China do to have his children crushed to death?
Not everything is about politics. This is about seeing a bunch of people who are dirt poor, trying to make a better living for themselves, suddenly lose everything, including the people that they love. It's just a terrible tragedy.
Fair enough... but there's a wide gulf between wanting the U.S. to be the world's policeman and simply acknowledging (as an individual, even) that there do exist legitimate dissidents or governments-in-exile
Not really. We can acknowledge the dissidents who want to be free by inviting them to the United States to become citizens. We can honor those dissidents who genuinely cherish freedom by cherishing it ourselves, by building a country that lives up to its Statue of Liberty and by having a nation that works for a more civil discourse, more freedom, and not less, and not one that seeks to muddle into the internal affairs of other nations.
The American message to the world should be simple. We will not intervene in the internal politics of other regimes. We should not have State Department "bad regime" lists. We should not be labelling other countries for how their people live. If someone wants to be free, then yes, let them come to America, let them become citizens, let them live the American dream. Let American merchants and scientists criss cross the globe and trade and exchange ideas and products with everyone in the world. We'll take the best of the ideas that are brought back, and in turn, the world can see the best of us.
But having troops all over the globe, creating a sort of a modern day empire, all of that which seemed so necessary after 9/11, those things, indeed, don't work. Free trade works to make a free people. Free immigration works to make a free people. Imposing sanctions, invading countries, that doesn't worked, hasn't worked (except without hideous expense), and won't work.
So, let's bring the troops home, live free lives for ourselves, and send out the salesman instead!
So this guy DeGaulle == this guy Chalabi in your World view?
No, but, unless the NAZIs come back, I'm not planning on supporting any US intervention.
Interesting that you criticize Bush while adopting his black and white view of the world. All dissidents are bad, huh?
I support President Bush and voted for him twice. The black and white view of the world is legitimate. Things either work, or they don't.
Just look around the globe. The most credible dissident government is the one that was elected in Burma and then thrown out by the military government. Yet, even in their case, there's a lot of people that would support the military government and so, even if we invaded Burma to reinstall "the Lady", we would wind up risking a major war with China, would enmire ourselves in a long war at the long end of a long logistical chain, where none of our conventional assets such as air and naval power would be of much use, and there's no point.
That's the -best- case, and its bleak, so there's no point in invading anyone anywhere right now. For a time, during the 80s and 90s, we could do it. We did it in Grenada, Haiti, Panama and a few other places. But those days are gone.
I do not support any military action to install a dissident government overthrown by its own internal politics. I don't even like the idea of having US troops stationed as tripwires designed to bring America into some local war. Like, why do I care, about South Korean independence at this point. South Koreans see US troops as an imperial presence anyway, as do many people in many of our allies. So bring them home.
The war in Iraq has had a price that was extremely high. I think we will be successful under the current military leadership, but, the price is simply too high. I just don't want any part of liberation any more. If the USA is attacked, that's one thing, but, I don't see a need for the USA to go and invade people to put in new governments, regardless of the benefits.
Okay, this view isn't new... but then you go and say that it was the Iraq war, alone of all things in history, that pushed you to it? I don't even know what to say. For someone who thought Bush was full of crap from the start and hopes for some improvement in the world, this sort of seamless progression from warmongering triumphalism to world-encompassing defeatism is pretty frickin' hard to take.
I am in favor of total isolation because I believed the Iraqi dissidents. I was in favor of this war and the Bush administration and honestly, the price of this intervention was too high. Knowing the cost of being wrong is so high, I don't even want to risk it again. It's simply not worth it.
So yeah, I'm in favor of withdrawing all USA troops from every country, not just Iraq. I do not want the USA to get itself into any more wars, unless the USA itself, or perhaps a very close ally, like the UK, is attacked.
Just an American expressing condolences to the Chinese people for their terrible tragedy. I have a wife and son myself and all I can think of is those family members under the rubble and those waiting to dig out.
China is a pretty powerful country, but if there's anything China needs, I hope they ask just ask. Americans would be honored to help.
even Yasser Arafat expressed his outrage against the attackers.
Arafat's outrage come after CNN ran footage of Palestinians spontaneously demonstrating in the streets with cheers for the attackers. There was a massive and popular celebration in the middle east for 9/11. Regardless of what their leaders said, or even Arafat giving blood to help, all I could think was, wow, after all the USA did, particularly under Clinton, to help Muslims. The USA saved the Muslims in the Balkans, twice, from certain genocide. The USA worked tirelessly to create an independent palestinian state. Clinton did more than any world leader ever did to help Muslims and all we got, at the end, was 9/11 and massive street celebrations across the middle east, repleat with burning American flags.
Yeah, I hate them for that.
You know, sometimes you really make it an uphill battle to love and respect America.
I still hate 90% everything from the middle east, for 9/11. But that's only because I knew people that were killed there.
With that said, most people who are capable are probably more like I was, really just stunned at the size of the Chinese disaster. This is way bigger than Katrina or 9/11 combined.
I feel bad for the Chinese, I really do. I keep wondering what if, an earthquake or some natural disaster happened to me and right now. This disaster just makes me want to be closer to my young son and wife, and enjoy them a little bit. Life is so fragile.
And I might actually go buy something made in China.
I'll be damned.
If you are looking at images of a Chinese man trying to pull his wife out of the rubble, or a mother searching for her baby, and all you can think of is what political system they have, then you need to get a life.
You ought to be embarrassed to think that way.
I don't think Chinese rescuers are thinking about chairman mao any more than US rescuers think about George Washington. I think they are more likely concerned with digging out as many wives, husbands and children so that husbands, wives and parents can have their loved ones back.
I don't see these images of destruction and desperate hoping a story of politics. Instead, I see incredible suffering, and I feel for them. I imagine how I would feel if it were my wife, or my son, smashed up inside my crushed house, if that earthquake happened to me. Thank god it didn't.