Heh, yes - you know if we wanted a cheap war we should have just dropped 10 $100M thermonukes on Iraq. That way we solve all of the critisms: It can't possible be used for recruiting, It's relatively inexpensive, and There is no quagmire!
It would also probably be harder to say we did it for the oil! (France is just mad because we took their Iraqi oil away...)
Technically, by attempting to assisinate former President Bush (Senior), Iraq did attack the US government. (But at least they had the balls to attack legitimate targets, not civilians)
As the other poster said, if you use surveys to get the real data (not just the people on welfare, and not just the people looking for work), something like 80% of the US is employed, while something like 60% of Europeans are.
Just for one, consider that Europe pretty much takes the month of August off. That means that even if everyone had a job, they would only have 88% employment! As I say, you can talk about lifestyle choices and happiness, but for pure economics and employment the US knocks Europe out of the park. (That's why we have so much higher GDP growth historically).
gold has stayed fairly solid in value for 3000 years
Well, yes, but if you had invested in virtually anything else (land, stocks, loans, etc.) you would have seen value growth - with gold the value just remains constant (except that because of the time value of money it is technically decreasing in value).
there'd be no major bubbles or recessions
It has been fairly well established that the boom/bust cycle has been happening for at least 8 centuries - although I do not have the papers in hand to point out right now. (The Europeans have fairly good records back that far)
Heh, did you know that gold has the lowest return of anything except cash? (It is supposed to keep it's value, but that does not take into account technological growth...)
I think inflation is mixed - and might be a better way to hand out the government's bill than taxes. (Taxes cost money to collect, essentially). The real problem to me is that the government just spends too much money, for too little return.
BTW, the things going on right now in the market interest rates is really weird - I'm not sure anyone really understands it. Remember that this is a free market, and the US government sells inflation adjusted T-bills - so it is really far weirder than if the Fed really was doing it. And it is world-wide! In fact, other countries are even weirder! (Did you know that is many countries the short term rate is now higher than the long term rate? That is just not supposed to happen!)
To be honest, I do not know too many details - a modern economics book might give you more. Basically, the primary elements of GDP are Population, Savings, and Technology. Population is a big plus for China, but Savings and Technology are problematic. (Savings in this sense is very related to natural resources). Technology takes quite a while to grow - and it is virtually impossible to totally catch up because it grows exponentially on both sides. The real clincher is to look at other countries that have larger populations than the US, and see where the GDP has stabilized. Population is the only thing China has over the US - the US has more resources and technology.
stronger, safer and happier
To a certain extent, you can never make someone happy I suppose - but as economies grow (even external economies) they benefit everyone. For example, Henry Ford developing the automobile factory is now benefitting China, even though they were totally external to the market Henry Ford played in. As economies become more closely linked, the benefits become even more obvious. We get the cool stuff they come up with, and they get the cool stuff we come up with. The one that can build X the easiest builds it, and trades for Y that is difficult for them to build.
Unfortunately, there is always a grey area about your effect on others. For example, those chemicals can make you a dangerous person - possibly increasing the risk to others. By breaking the encryption on the media you make piracy easier, possibly hurting those that made the media. By downloading stuff that no longer exists you might hurt someone who just bought the distribution rights to the stuff. By driving without a seat belt you might increase the risk to the rescue personnel that risk their life trying to save yours.
Yes, some of that stuff seems a stretch - and it is. But a lot of it is different viewpoints on what constitutes "harm" to others. Piracy harms society, by decreasing the rewards for creating content and therefor decreasing the content. But it also helps society, increasing the distribution of content (most likely to those that need it most). Everything is balance!
I disagree - I think that the one true way is "what works". The rule I apply to any proposed society change (or law) is: "What will people do in response to this?" Freedom of speech is definately something that should be protected - because when humans are not spoken about, humans behave in a manner that optimizes their own needs over others. When humans are being talked about, humans prioritize other's needs higher.
That is why people are so rude when anonymous, and why countries with limited free speech have higher corruption problems. (Not that free speech eliminates the problem - it just decreases it).
That article was kind of weird - the pessimists are quoted as saying that how are they going to buy house and stock if they don't have savings? Um, is that the whole point? If you save money in the bank, you are unlikely to even be keeping up with inflation, let alone cost of living!
I read an interesting perspective the other day - that if you think that the Government's deficit spending is bad (as in, has an adverse effect on you), then you should spend your percentage of it (the taxes that you are not having to pay now because of the deficit) on US Bonds. That way, from an economic perspective all of the effects disappear for you. Since no one does that (and I believe that markets are rational), I guess deficit spending is not seen as hurting individuals.
Leadership doesn't typically work the way you describe. The kind of leadership you describe (ultimate authority, no questions, etc.) works only on situations that do not change. In a changin environment (for example, an economy), what you need are people that build consensus. These people most often do not operate as an authority, rather they operate as an information clearing house. The most important duty of a rapid change leader is to listen - and ask questions. A decision is made, but normally it is really just being reported by the leader, not enforced.
BTW, China will almost certainly not be the next (economic) superpower. Economies are built on effort by population and resources. China has a huge population, which is currently vastly underutilized. Any time this happens (in a free economy), you see extremely rapid GDP growth. For an example of this, in the next few years watch Louisiana's state GDP - it will take a big hit, then recover exactly in line with the rest of the US, catching up, if you will. China is also currently in the "catch up" phase. But their GDP growth will level off when less people enter the work force (their population has strong negative growth, and is likely to remain so) - and will almost certainly level off at a lower level than the US, because of an imbalance of raw material distribution.
The thing to remember is that linear prediction (extrapolating growth) is always wrong, because it is always self limiting eventually. That, and that as China (and all others countries) catch up to the US, the US becomes stronger, safer, and happier. China's gain is our gain too - economics is a positive sum game.
Yes, because if we don't give any money to those nasty Chinese, they will be SO better off.
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself - really, this has to be the absolute, dumbest thing that many people believe! The people in China will do anything to work in a plant making products for the free countries - they are the only way to improve their lives. We consider the working conditions poor, yes - but to them it is heaven. You mean we would be able to buy enough food to feed our families? WOW, let me in!
Better working conditions are the natural result of full (or close to that) employment. Poor working conditions are the direct result of not enough jobs. These people are not slaves, no matter what you think or have been told - they are making rational choices, chosing to work because the alternative is worse. Than someone like you comes along and tells them that they are not allowed to work - throwing them back into the pit.
Even if you could enforce a law to say "minimum wage is now $20 per hour" or whatever, what you would be doing is decreasing the amount of jobs available, essentially taking money from those that have nothing and giving it to others.
Your plan doesn't work, and leaves everyone out of work - and then we all starve...
Um, you do know that by all objective measurements, the US has far lower unemployment than the EU, right? If you use total percentage employed, the difference is staggering. If you use percentage seeking work that can't find it, the numerical difference is small, but important. The US still has the "best" economy bar none.
You can argue about quality of life (but not unless you have experienced both, of course), but the economy is about numbers - stuff is pretty easy to prove there!
The UK does have a constitution anyway, it's just not in a single document.
I've seen this several times, and have to admit this is the first I have heard of it. I thought the big Doc was the Magna Carta (sp?). What are the others?
"Securing your country against terrorist actions" is an impossible pipe-dream
I guess we misunderstood each other - I totally agree with that statement, which is why we need to engage the enemy on their own soil, rather than either not engaging them (then they will come to us), or trying to wait for them to get here (as you point out, impossible)
Send in Delta Force
OK, that I would agree with - the problem being that (because of problems in the past), our government has a policy against that, unless the host government allows it (or we are invading anyway). Definately a dumb policy - but it is politically safer for both Congress and the President, so there it is. I think there would be a very difficult battle to change that, because of the same response this change garnered. (I'm actually surprised that you would go for that - surely that is the ultimate interference)
Because your news services are so ratings-obsessed
I totally agree, and think that this is one of the biggest dangers we face - too much editorial, too little facts.
You admit you aren't good at it, you admit you're culturally ignorant of other nations...
Yep, I admit all that. The problem is that you believe that it is possible to not "meddle" in foreign affairs - but history shows that it is not possible. At the very least, if you don't officially meddle, there is no way to convince others that the unofficial meddling was not official. Also, given that from time to time we will be forced to meddle, we better start meddling now so we get better at it.
no government meddles as much as the US
I'm sorry, that's just not true - you just do not perceive what others do as "meddling" because the comparative power of the two countries are much closer. What do you think the EU is, if not an agreement to let the countries meddle with each other? The problem is that the US doesn't meddle very much, so they only meddle (ineffectively and painfully) on issues where they can't budge - which leads to a perception that the US is a bully. We need to meddle more often, on less important things that we can compromise on. But that is kind of un-US - the public would hate it. (Did you know that we have people who think that Europe calls all the shots for the US? Research New World Order sometime!)
They basically spent 20-30 years pounding
I find this to be a little disturbing - you do know that Isreal was attacked first, right? Isreal did not exist, then Isreal existed, then the arabs attacked, then Isreal won and occupied the agressor's lands. A lot of the blame for the problems belongs with Jordan (which is too bad, in general I greatly respect there policies), because they refused to take in the Palestinians (after agreeing that they would).
The other interesting thing is that a lot of the terrorists talk about a new crusade (as you alluded to), and then talk about how bad the last one was (really no argument, that was bad stuff). But they won the crusade! I would think they would be proud of it, like Britain is proud of not succumming to Germany...
I think this only applies to domestic terrorists - and I agree that they are not preventable, and that the judicial system handles that well (Timothy Mcveigh, etc.). The problem, though, it foreign terrorists. We are simply not allowed (short of war) to bring those criminal (terrorist) masterminds to justice. Previously, Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Lebanon were harboring known terrrorists, instead of bringing them to justice. That was the problem, and why ignoring the terrorists lead to escalation. As for civil liberties being curtailed, that has always happened as a response to an attack on the US - and the liberties come back and restitution is made after the attack is resolved. Unfair, cruel, etc., but also a fact of life (I believe this is unavoidable).
IRA
Hmm... perhaps I do not know what is really going on. I remember reading about the public diarmament (wasn't it the third such disarmament?), and thinking "I wonder how long that will last?" And then I think I read a few days ago that "Ireland was burning", protestants and catholics were killing each other, and thought I was right. Was that not really the IRA?
A slow, careful, public, staged retreat...your average muslim isn't that much more in favour of blowing up people than your average christian
Unfortunately, we simply disagree here. I agree that this was true a few centuries ago, but it simply isn't true anymore - otherwise we would not have difficulties getting public support for war. Against a "christian" nation (really a free west nation, including free west muslims), yes, such an effort would probably work (although I still have reservations - much depends on if the IRA was actually resolved). Getting a muslim nation to go to war against the US is comparatively easy - even if you are not expected to survive! (Note: I don't think this is muslim vs christian, I think it is "grew up under dictator" vs "voted since 18") (I also think that Iraq will not stabilize for a few generations - but at least it is on the path now)
but not enough to start blowing people up again
To a certain extant, they really are attacking the US because we are the US, not because of anything we have done (pre 9/11, obviously post 9/11 they are attacking the military, which is unfortunate, but understandable). Once they have a real reason to attack (ocupation of Iraq), they stopped attacking civilians and started attacking the military. I agree that McDonalds etc is not reason alone to attack, but note that they attacked the "World Trade Towers", not military of government targets. To be honest, if they had attacked the Pentagon and the White House, they would not have been terrorists, it would have been a "surprise attack". (We would have still attacked back, but the response would have been much more limited).
forcing democracy
I agree that what you have said are major obstacles, and we will see if they are surmountable. (Except what you said about the interim leader - it really would not have made sense to pick someone good, because whomever the US picked would have been automatically excluded from future leadership) I agree that the US is lousy at foriegn relations, primarily because we don't care (very few of our livelihoods depend on foriegn opinion - we are somewhat unique in this). The reason we do so poorly is that we tend to ignore problems until they are already bad, and then we have to make a strong reaction. What is funny is that the propper response is increased foriegn meddling (like your governments do - they constantly meddle in each others affairs and are therefor adept at it), while the public outcry is to stop meddling - which is, of course, not possible once things blow up (figuratively or literally).
In all, I accept that your critism is valid, and that their are large probabilities of failure - but I honestly believe the probabilities of failure are larger following your recommendations of backing off. To
Sorry I didn't reply, I find your thought process interesting (and it is always a good idea to challenge your beliefs).
in this situation you don't deserve to win...
You're welcome to your opinion. That is the only method I know of in this situation that leaves me alive and free.
terrorist problems have ever ended,... is when both sides eventually sit down...
Can you give me an example? As for as I know, this has never worked. The IRA is still active in Ireland, etc. I believe whenever this has been tried there was a short period of peace followed by a resumption of violence. (Once the terrorism has been let out of the bag, anyone that gets upset resorts to it.) I notice that you seem to use the IRA as your example, while I use it as mine - do you really believe the IRA are not doing terrorist acts now? There is a basic problem with humans - once they kill, they often lose their moral locks that prevent killing - that's why repeat murders are so likely. Apply that human psychology to terrorists...
producing an exit strategy for Iraq as quickly as possible (that leaves a stable, government with popular support), ceasing interference in foreign countries, defending your borders like you wouldn't believe...
Esentially, you recommend a retreat - with no US interface to the outside world (even buying oil, selling burgers, or providing free medical care would constitue interference to the terrorists). Simply put, that is not even possible. If we did that somehow (like China and Japan tried), many innocent people would die on both sides. In addition, it is simply not possible to prevent a terrorist from entering the US - that's why they have to be stopped in their own land. I still maintain that you have not provided an alternative that is possible, given human nature.
My reaction (kill them all, let God sort them out) is also a bad idea (as you and I point out). Bush actually has a plan (sort of - more of a goal, really), that leads to a drop in terrorist recruits (democracy have a tendancy towards stability), redirects current terrorist activity towards the US military (who are best equipped to deal with it), and does not require changes to be made in the past.
Can you give me a plan that I can take to the president/public, that provides: 1) A long term drop in terrorism (your current plan works here) 2) Continuous safety for the US public (your current plan fails here) 3) Feasibility (it can only require money and US cooperation, it can require nothing from the terrorist)
It would also be nice if it was politically viable and would get world opinion behind it, though not quite necessary.
What are your thoughts? Are these the wrong measures? What would you add?
I wasn't really refering to favoritism, graft, etc. I was refering to the fact of life that when you need to get something done, you hire those you know and can trust to do a good job. You don't get the job by knowing people because of sucking up, etc. You get the job because your friend would rather take a known quantity (you) over an unknown (a resume). The same thing happens in business and politics - and it is an example of efficiency, not a problem to be solved, for the most part.
You're seriously suggesting that invading nations on trumped-up charges...
Yes, if that is what it takes. I know that we ave being forced to sink nearer to the level of the terrorists - but that is the only way forward that I know of. Seriously, what is your idea? Most people like to complain and talk about whos fault it is - that's not my job. I accept full responsibilty, and if you want to blame me, fine - but when I am done the problem is gone. That's what I do. It seems that people are under the delusion that if the US backs down, the terrorists will stop. We are about to see the perfect failure of that thinking in the Gaza strip. I will bet anything you want that Hamas is now going to attack Isreal from the Strip. The US may have done it's share of bad things, but that is blame, not a course of action.
Yes, I find people that want to negotiate with terrorists scary - and so does most of the US. What do you think the US should really do?
when your president publically threatens that he can nuke anyone
Well, to be honest I think this entire article is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The president has always had this power, until he voluntarily gave it up as too dangreous compared to the likelihood of needing to use the power. After the cold war ended, that made sense. It also makes sense to reverse that stance as soon as another cold war starts.
The US has spent most of this century meddling overtly or covertly
Fair enough. I know the US has done bad things. The further back in our history you go, the worse the atrocities commited are. But that means that we are getting better, not worse, and so I stand by my country. And as I have said elsewhere, I didn't start it (as you point out, I wasn't even born for most of it, and neither was the president), but I will see it finished. Yes, many Iraqis see it the same way - but why are the Iranians there, killing mainly Iraqis? It would be nice if there was a simple way out, but if we don't stop them over there, they will attack us here.
If you look at the history of the US, it tends not to do anything except in response to threats from others. Even Cuba and South America, where we have probably meddled the most - its mainly because Castro was dumb enough to let the Russians put nukes there.
As for the rest, yes priority one is freedom for the US - without that, nothing else really matters. Priority two is to help others.
BTW, you sort of weaken your argument by calling us both isolationists and meddlers. Surely, what you advocate is isolationism - because we cannot tell what others would like/dislike. (For example, you say that we try to force Democracy on those that don't want it - how would you really know that? The existing government will certainly state that their people do not want Democracy, and they are the only ones that can safely answer!)
Um, of course the US acts in it's own interests. It would be pretty dumb to try to act otherwise. If you think there is a single country on Earth where that isn't true, then you have been deceived (probably by your government). Specifically, all governments act in their own interest (not the interest of the country overall). The best governments tend to be where the interests of the government are forced to align with the interests of the people somehow - such as a democracy.
If the citizens of the US had known about giving Saddam gas, they would have stopped it. There is always a problem with "black ops" - they have to be unknown in general to be effective, but they also require oversight to prevent abuse. In this case (and many others), the system failed. If it was known who did it, I'm sure that they would be arrested (unless there was a greater evil that was avoided - such as the death of other millions, but that kind of thing is hard to prove).
We did not attack Iraq for oil. Honestly, that is the litmus test of does someone understand politics or not - if they believe that we attacked for oil, they do not understand politics. Even the money from the oil has to be very carefully tracked so that we can prove we are not making money from it. It is true that US companies are making hundreds of millions off of billion dollar contracts - but that is somewhat standard operating procedure in the West. It is also true that the president's friends got most of the contracts - but that is true of any contract, government or private (why do you think networking is the best way to get a job?).
The reason we invaded Iraq was to make a statement. Before we invaded Iraq, Iran felt safe enough to fund terrorists. The average muslim felt that the US was weak and should be destroyed. The invasion of Iraq changed that, and greatly decreased the probability of terrorism ten years from now (a short term cost for a long term gain).
It is amazing to me that people think that Bush and others are so evil that they would kill tens of thousands for their own gain! Honestly, have you ever met any of these people? Really, they are just like you - except that the media reports whatever they want about them. These are normal people, doing an impossible job, and trying to do their best.
To be honest, what worries me are the Democrats - surely you have heard the saying, "a man below 19 that is not a liberal has no heart, a man above 19 that is not conservative has no brain?" There are no Democrats in office below the age of 19 - so they are either lying to get in office, or are honestly just not thinking about the ramifications of what they do.
We need them (Democrats), in order to prevent stagnation (only liberals really want change) and pooling of power (you need the fight to maintain balance). But they do scare me a little!
Let me know when we use Nuclear weapons again, and I will agree that we are terrorists. The difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" is that we use highly directional weapons, designed to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. There was live coverage on TV! The reporters watched from blocks away as the government aparatus was destroyed with very few hotels/houses destroyed. Though it is true, terrorist weapons are more limitted.
Personally, I believe that once you are forced into war (as in they come over and try to kill you), you use whatever means are necessary to destroy the enemy. The Iraqis would be justified in defending themselves against the US, for example. But since the US isn't really killing Iraqis (and have pretty much convinced everyone that they do not want to be there long term), they are not the current target there - other muslims are. Thats why they are terrorists - they are killing people, not to defend their lives, but to force others into submission.
The US goes to war to save lives and preserve freedom. In other parts of the world, that would be an absurd statement, but it really does describe the US - and is interpretted as weakness by our enemies, right up to the point we kill them. (See Osama, see Hussien, etc.)
Actively supporting Democrats causes more problems than it solves, in my opinion. If there were people in the twin towers that did not try to make the world a safer place, then yes, they were somewhat responsible for their own deaths.
However, that is not what happened. "US's worst foreign interferences" were decisions made to choose the lessor of two evils - or in rare occasions they were the result of illegal actions by powerfull individuals - and in the US we seek out and punish those individuals (unlike say, France, where trading weapons for oil will go unpunished).
No one is perfect - but the US actively fights people (foriegn or domestic) that abuse power. I just didn't see that in the mid east prior to 9/11.
Um, do you seriously think it was ever different? Trust me, if you were a threat to the US, you were killed. Period. It is called "A clear and present danger". This case was just more public than normal.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, yes - you know if we wanted a cheap war we should have just dropped 10 $100M thermonukes on Iraq. That way we solve all of the critisms: It can't possible be used for recruiting, It's relatively inexpensive, and There is no quagmire!
It would also probably be harder to say we did it for the oil! (France is just mad because we took their Iraqi oil away...)
Iraq never attacked the United States
Technically, by attempting to assisinate former President Bush (Senior), Iraq did attack the US government. (But at least they had the balls to attack legitimate targets, not civilians)
As the other poster said, if you use surveys to get the real data (not just the people on welfare, and not just the people looking for work), something like 80% of the US is employed, while something like 60% of Europeans are.
Just for one, consider that Europe pretty much takes the month of August off. That means that even if everyone had a job, they would only have 88% employment! As I say, you can talk about lifestyle choices and happiness, but for pure economics and employment the US knocks Europe out of the park. (That's why we have so much higher GDP growth historically).
gold has stayed fairly solid in value for 3000 years
Well, yes, but if you had invested in virtually anything else (land, stocks, loans, etc.) you would have seen value growth - with gold the value just remains constant (except that because of the time value of money it is technically decreasing in value).
there'd be no major bubbles or recessions
It has been fairly well established that the boom/bust cycle has been happening for at least 8 centuries - although I do not have the papers in hand to point out right now. (The Europeans have fairly good records back that far)
Buy gold
Heh, did you know that gold has the lowest return of anything except cash? (It is supposed to keep it's value, but that does not take into account technological growth...)
I think inflation is mixed - and might be a better way to hand out the government's bill than taxes. (Taxes cost money to collect, essentially). The real problem to me is that the government just spends too much money, for too little return.
BTW, the things going on right now in the market interest rates is really weird - I'm not sure anyone really understands it. Remember that this is a free market, and the US government sells inflation adjusted T-bills - so it is really far weirder than if the Fed really was doing it. And it is world-wide! In fact, other countries are even weirder! (Did you know that is many countries the short term rate is now higher than the long term rate? That is just not supposed to happen!)
care to elaborate on that a little
To be honest, I do not know too many details - a modern economics book might give you more. Basically, the primary elements of GDP are Population, Savings, and Technology. Population is a big plus for China, but Savings and Technology are problematic. (Savings in this sense is very related to natural resources). Technology takes quite a while to grow - and it is virtually impossible to totally catch up because it grows exponentially on both sides. The real clincher is to look at other countries that have larger populations than the US, and see where the GDP has stabilized. Population is the only thing China has over the US - the US has more resources and technology.
stronger, safer and happier
To a certain extent, you can never make someone happy I suppose - but as economies grow (even external economies) they benefit everyone. For example, Henry Ford developing the automobile factory is now benefitting China, even though they were totally external to the market Henry Ford played in. As economies become more closely linked, the benefits become even more obvious. We get the cool stuff they come up with, and they get the cool stuff we come up with. The one that can build X the easiest builds it, and trades for Y that is difficult for them to build.
Unfortunately, there is always a grey area about your effect on others. For example, those chemicals can make you a dangerous person - possibly increasing the risk to others. By breaking the encryption on the media you make piracy easier, possibly hurting those that made the media. By downloading stuff that no longer exists you might hurt someone who just bought the distribution rights to the stuff. By driving without a seat belt you might increase the risk to the rescue personnel that risk their life trying to save yours.
Yes, some of that stuff seems a stretch - and it is. But a lot of it is different viewpoints on what constitutes "harm" to others. Piracy harms society, by decreasing the rewards for creating content and therefor decreasing the content. But it also helps society, increasing the distribution of content (most likely to those that need it most). Everything is balance!
there is no one true way
I disagree - I think that the one true way is "what works". The rule I apply to any proposed society change (or law) is: "What will people do in response to this?" Freedom of speech is definately something that should be protected - because when humans are not spoken about, humans behave in a manner that optimizes their own needs over others. When humans are being talked about, humans prioritize other's needs higher.
That is why people are so rude when anonymous, and why countries with limited free speech have higher corruption problems. (Not that free speech eliminates the problem - it just decreases it).
That article was kind of weird - the pessimists are quoted as saying that how are they going to buy house and stock if they don't have savings? Um, is that the whole point? If you save money in the bank, you are unlikely to even be keeping up with inflation, let alone cost of living!
I read an interesting perspective the other day - that if you think that the Government's deficit spending is bad (as in, has an adverse effect on you), then you should spend your percentage of it (the taxes that you are not having to pay now because of the deficit) on US Bonds. That way, from an economic perspective all of the effects disappear for you. Since no one does that (and I believe that markets are rational), I guess deficit spending is not seen as hurting individuals.
Leadership doesn't typically work the way you describe. The kind of leadership you describe (ultimate authority, no questions, etc.) works only on situations that do not change. In a changin environment (for example, an economy), what you need are people that build consensus. These people most often do not operate as an authority, rather they operate as an information clearing house. The most important duty of a rapid change leader is to listen - and ask questions. A decision is made, but normally it is really just being reported by the leader, not enforced.
BTW, China will almost certainly not be the next (economic) superpower. Economies are built on effort by population and resources. China has a huge population, which is currently vastly underutilized. Any time this happens (in a free economy), you see extremely rapid GDP growth. For an example of this, in the next few years watch Louisiana's state GDP - it will take a big hit, then recover exactly in line with the rest of the US, catching up, if you will. China is also currently in the "catch up" phase. But their GDP growth will level off when less people enter the work force (their population has strong negative growth, and is likely to remain so) - and will almost certainly level off at a lower level than the US, because of an imbalance of raw material distribution.
The thing to remember is that linear prediction (extrapolating growth) is always wrong, because it is always self limiting eventually. That, and that as China (and all others countries) catch up to the US, the US becomes stronger, safer, and happier. China's gain is our gain too - economics is a positive sum game.
Yes, because if we don't give any money to those nasty Chinese, they will be SO better off.
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself - really, this has to be the absolute, dumbest thing that many people believe! The people in China will do anything to work in a plant making products for the free countries - they are the only way to improve their lives. We consider the working conditions poor, yes - but to them it is heaven. You mean we would be able to buy enough food to feed our families? WOW, let me in!
Better working conditions are the natural result of full (or close to that) employment. Poor working conditions are the direct result of not enough jobs. These people are not slaves, no matter what you think or have been told - they are making rational choices, chosing to work because the alternative is worse. Than someone like you comes along and tells them that they are not allowed to work - throwing them back into the pit.
Even if you could enforce a law to say "minimum wage is now $20 per hour" or whatever, what you would be doing is decreasing the amount of jobs available, essentially taking money from those that have nothing and giving it to others.
Your plan doesn't work, and leaves everyone out of work - and then we all starve...
Um, you do know that by all objective measurements, the US has far lower unemployment than the EU, right? If you use total percentage employed, the difference is staggering. If you use percentage seeking work that can't find it, the numerical difference is small, but important. The US still has the "best" economy bar none.
You can argue about quality of life (but not unless you have experienced both, of course), but the economy is about numbers - stuff is pretty easy to prove there!
The UK does have a constitution anyway, it's just not in a single document.
I've seen this several times, and have to admit this is the first I have heard of it. I thought the big Doc was the Magna Carta (sp?). What are the others?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful
OMG! I just realized what that is - God was trying to bypass someones MD5 on DNA!
"Securing your country against terrorist actions" is an impossible pipe-dream
I guess we misunderstood each other - I totally agree with that statement, which is why we need to engage the enemy on their own soil, rather than either not engaging them (then they will come to us), or trying to wait for them to get here (as you point out, impossible)
Send in Delta Force
OK, that I would agree with - the problem being that (because of problems in the past), our government has a policy against that, unless the host government allows it (or we are invading anyway). Definately a dumb policy - but it is politically safer for both Congress and the President, so there it is. I think there would be a very difficult battle to change that, because of the same response this change garnered. (I'm actually surprised that you would go for that - surely that is the ultimate interference)
Because your news services are so ratings-obsessed
I totally agree, and think that this is one of the biggest dangers we face - too much editorial, too little facts.
You admit you aren't good at it, you admit you're culturally ignorant of other nations...
Yep, I admit all that. The problem is that you believe that it is possible to not "meddle" in foreign affairs - but history shows that it is not possible. At the very least, if you don't officially meddle, there is no way to convince others that the unofficial meddling was not official. Also, given that from time to time we will be forced to meddle, we better start meddling now so we get better at it.
no government meddles as much as the US
I'm sorry, that's just not true - you just do not perceive what others do as "meddling" because the comparative power of the two countries are much closer. What do you think the EU is, if not an agreement to let the countries meddle with each other? The problem is that the US doesn't meddle very much, so they only meddle (ineffectively and painfully) on issues where they can't budge - which leads to a perception that the US is a bully. We need to meddle more often, on less important things that we can compromise on. But that is kind of un-US - the public would hate it. (Did you know that we have people who think that Europe calls all the shots for the US? Research New World Order sometime!)
They basically spent 20-30 years pounding
I find this to be a little disturbing - you do know that Isreal was attacked first, right? Isreal did not exist, then Isreal existed, then the arabs attacked, then Isreal won and occupied the agressor's lands. A lot of the blame for the problems belongs with Jordan (which is too bad, in general I greatly respect there policies), because they refused to take in the Palestinians (after agreeing that they would).
The other interesting thing is that a lot of the terrorists talk about a new crusade (as you alluded to), and then talk about how bad the last one was (really no argument, that was bad stuff). But they won the crusade! I would think they would be proud of it, like Britain is proud of not succumming to Germany...
...ban all weapons and/or chemicals...
I think this only applies to domestic terrorists - and I agree that they are not preventable, and that the judicial system handles that well (Timothy Mcveigh, etc.). The problem, though, it foreign terrorists. We are simply not allowed (short of war) to bring those criminal (terrorist) masterminds to justice. Previously, Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Lebanon were harboring known terrrorists, instead of bringing them to justice. That was the problem, and why ignoring the terrorists lead to escalation. As for civil liberties being curtailed, that has always happened as a response to an attack on the US - and the liberties come back and restitution is made after the attack is resolved. Unfair, cruel, etc., but also a fact of life (I believe this is unavoidable).
IRA
Hmm... perhaps I do not know what is really going on. I remember reading about the public diarmament (wasn't it the third such disarmament?), and thinking "I wonder how long that will last?" And then I think I read a few days ago that "Ireland was burning", protestants and catholics were killing each other, and thought I was right. Was that not really the IRA?
A slow, careful, public, staged retreat...your average muslim isn't that much more in favour of blowing up people than your average christian
Unfortunately, we simply disagree here. I agree that this was true a few centuries ago, but it simply isn't true anymore - otherwise we would not have difficulties getting public support for war. Against a "christian" nation (really a free west nation, including free west muslims), yes, such an effort would probably work (although I still have reservations - much depends on if the IRA was actually resolved). Getting a muslim nation to go to war against the US is comparatively easy - even if you are not expected to survive! (Note: I don't think this is muslim vs christian, I think it is "grew up under dictator" vs "voted since 18") (I also think that Iraq will not stabilize for a few generations - but at least it is on the path now)
but not enough to start blowing people up again
To a certain extant, they really are attacking the US because we are the US, not because of anything we have done (pre 9/11, obviously post 9/11 they are attacking the military, which is unfortunate, but understandable). Once they have a real reason to attack (ocupation of Iraq), they stopped attacking civilians and started attacking the military. I agree that McDonalds etc is not reason alone to attack, but note that they attacked the "World Trade Towers", not military of government targets. To be honest, if they had attacked the Pentagon and the White House, they would not have been terrorists, it would have been a "surprise attack". (We would have still attacked back, but the response would have been much more limited).
forcing democracy
I agree that what you have said are major obstacles, and we will see if they are surmountable. (Except what you said about the interim leader - it really would not have made sense to pick someone good, because whomever the US picked would have been automatically excluded from future leadership) I agree that the US is lousy at foriegn relations, primarily because we don't care (very few of our livelihoods depend on foriegn opinion - we are somewhat unique in this). The reason we do so poorly is that we tend to ignore problems until they are already bad, and then we have to make a strong reaction. What is funny is that the propper response is increased foriegn meddling (like your governments do - they constantly meddle in each others affairs and are therefor adept at it), while the public outcry is to stop meddling - which is, of course, not possible once things blow up (figuratively or literally).
In all, I accept that your critism is valid, and that their are large probabilities of failure - but I honestly believe the probabilities of failure are larger following your recommendations of backing off. To
Sorry I didn't reply, I find your thought process interesting (and it is always a good idea to challenge your beliefs).
... is when both sides eventually sit down...
in this situation you don't deserve to win...
You're welcome to your opinion. That is the only method I know of in this situation that leaves me alive and free.
terrorist problems have ever ended,
Can you give me an example? As for as I know, this has never worked. The IRA is still active in Ireland, etc. I believe whenever this has been tried there was a short period of peace followed by a resumption of violence. (Once the terrorism has been let out of the bag, anyone that gets upset resorts to it.) I notice that you seem to use the IRA as your example, while I use it as mine - do you really believe the IRA are not doing terrorist acts now? There is a basic problem with humans - once they kill, they often lose their moral locks that prevent killing - that's why repeat murders are so likely. Apply that human psychology to terrorists...
producing an exit strategy for Iraq as quickly as possible (that leaves a stable, government with popular support), ceasing interference in foreign countries, defending your borders like you wouldn't believe...
Esentially, you recommend a retreat - with no US interface to the outside world (even buying oil, selling burgers, or providing free medical care would constitue interference to the terrorists). Simply put, that is not even possible. If we did that somehow (like China and Japan tried), many innocent people would die on both sides. In addition, it is simply not possible to prevent a terrorist from entering the US - that's why they have to be stopped in their own land. I still maintain that you have not provided an alternative that is possible, given human nature.
My reaction (kill them all, let God sort them out) is also a bad idea (as you and I point out). Bush actually has a plan (sort of - more of a goal, really), that leads to a drop in terrorist recruits (democracy have a tendancy towards stability), redirects current terrorist activity towards the US military (who are best equipped to deal with it), and does not require changes to be made in the past.
Can you give me a plan that I can take to the president/public, that provides:
1) A long term drop in terrorism (your current plan works here)
2) Continuous safety for the US public (your current plan fails here)
3) Feasibility (it can only require money and US cooperation, it can require nothing from the terrorist)
It would also be nice if it was politically viable and would get world opinion behind it, though not quite necessary.
What are your thoughts? Are these the wrong measures? What would you add?
I wasn't really refering to favoritism, graft, etc. I was refering to the fact of life that when you need to get something done, you hire those you know and can trust to do a good job. You don't get the job by knowing people because of sucking up, etc. You get the job because your friend would rather take a known quantity (you) over an unknown (a resume). The same thing happens in business and politics - and it is an example of efficiency, not a problem to be solved, for the most part.
You're seriously suggesting that invading nations on trumped-up charges...
Yes, if that is what it takes. I know that we ave being forced to sink nearer to the level of the terrorists - but that is the only way forward that I know of. Seriously, what is your idea? Most people like to complain and talk about whos fault it is - that's not my job. I accept full responsibilty, and if you want to blame me, fine - but when I am done the problem is gone. That's what I do. It seems that people are under the delusion that if the US backs down, the terrorists will stop. We are about to see the perfect failure of that thinking in the Gaza strip. I will bet anything you want that Hamas is now going to attack Isreal from the Strip. The US may have done it's share of bad things, but that is blame, not a course of action.
Yes, I find people that want to negotiate with terrorists scary - and so does most of the US. What do you think the US should really do?
when your president publically threatens that he can nuke anyone
Well, to be honest I think this entire article is making a mountain out of a mole hill. The president has always had this power, until he voluntarily gave it up as too dangreous compared to the likelihood of needing to use the power. After the cold war ended, that made sense. It also makes sense to reverse that stance as soon as another cold war starts.
The US has spent most of this century meddling overtly or covertly
Fair enough. I know the US has done bad things. The further back in our history you go, the worse the atrocities commited are. But that means that we are getting better, not worse, and so I stand by my country. And as I have said elsewhere, I didn't start it (as you point out, I wasn't even born for most of it, and neither was the president), but I will see it finished. Yes, many Iraqis see it the same way - but why are the Iranians there, killing mainly Iraqis? It would be nice if there was a simple way out, but if we don't stop them over there, they will attack us here.
If you look at the history of the US, it tends not to do anything except in response to threats from others. Even Cuba and South America, where we have probably meddled the most - its mainly because Castro was dumb enough to let the Russians put nukes there.
As for the rest, yes priority one is freedom for the US - without that, nothing else really matters. Priority two is to help others.
BTW, you sort of weaken your argument by calling us both isolationists and meddlers. Surely, what you advocate is isolationism - because we cannot tell what others would like/dislike. (For example, you say that we try to force Democracy on those that don't want it - how would you really know that? The existing government will certainly state that their people do not want Democracy, and they are the only ones that can safely answer!)
Um, of course the US acts in it's own interests. It would be pretty dumb to try to act otherwise. If you think there is a single country on Earth where that isn't true, then you have been deceived (probably by your government). Specifically, all governments act in their own interest (not the interest of the country overall). The best governments tend to be where the interests of the government are forced to align with the interests of the people somehow - such as a democracy.
If the citizens of the US had known about giving Saddam gas, they would have stopped it. There is always a problem with "black ops" - they have to be unknown in general to be effective, but they also require oversight to prevent abuse. In this case (and many others), the system failed. If it was known who did it, I'm sure that they would be arrested (unless there was a greater evil that was avoided - such as the death of other millions, but that kind of thing is hard to prove).
We did not attack Iraq for oil. Honestly, that is the litmus test of does someone understand politics or not - if they believe that we attacked for oil, they do not understand politics. Even the money from the oil has to be very carefully tracked so that we can prove we are not making money from it. It is true that US companies are making hundreds of millions off of billion dollar contracts - but that is somewhat standard operating procedure in the West. It is also true that the president's friends got most of the contracts - but that is true of any contract, government or private (why do you think networking is the best way to get a job?).
The reason we invaded Iraq was to make a statement. Before we invaded Iraq, Iran felt safe enough to fund terrorists. The average muslim felt that the US was weak and should be destroyed. The invasion of Iraq changed that, and greatly decreased the probability of terrorism ten years from now (a short term cost for a long term gain).
It is amazing to me that people think that Bush and others are so evil that they would kill tens of thousands for their own gain! Honestly, have you ever met any of these people? Really, they are just like you - except that the media reports whatever they want about them. These are normal people, doing an impossible job, and trying to do their best.
To be honest, what worries me are the Democrats - surely you have heard the saying, "a man below 19 that is not a liberal has no heart, a man above 19 that is not conservative has no brain?" There are no Democrats in office below the age of 19 - so they are either lying to get in office, or are honestly just not thinking about the ramifications of what they do.
We need them (Democrats), in order to prevent stagnation (only liberals really want change) and pooling of power (you need the fight to maintain balance). But they do scare me a little!
Let me know when we use Nuclear weapons again, and I will agree that we are terrorists. The difference between "terror" and "shock and awe" is that we use highly directional weapons, designed to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. There was live coverage on TV! The reporters watched from blocks away as the government aparatus was destroyed with very few hotels/houses destroyed. Though it is true, terrorist weapons are more limitted.
Personally, I believe that once you are forced into war (as in they come over and try to kill you), you use whatever means are necessary to destroy the enemy. The Iraqis would be justified in defending themselves against the US, for example. But since the US isn't really killing Iraqis (and have pretty much convinced everyone that they do not want to be there long term), they are not the current target there - other muslims are. Thats why they are terrorists - they are killing people, not to defend their lives, but to force others into submission.
The US goes to war to save lives and preserve freedom. In other parts of the world, that would be an absurd statement, but it really does describe the US - and is interpretted as weakness by our enemies, right up to the point we kill them. (See Osama, see Hussien, etc.)
Actively supporting Democrats causes more problems than it solves, in my opinion. If there were people in the twin towers that did not try to make the world a safer place, then yes, they were somewhat responsible for their own deaths.
However, that is not what happened. "US's worst foreign interferences" were decisions made to choose the lessor of two evils - or in rare occasions they were the result of illegal actions by powerfull individuals - and in the US we seek out and punish those individuals (unlike say, France, where trading weapons for oil will go unpunished).
No one is perfect - but the US actively fights people (foriegn or domestic) that abuse power. I just didn't see that in the mid east prior to 9/11.
As you put it:
Justice is a function of Net Worth.
So I increase my net worth, and then provide financial means to those that can give their time to use my money.
Not everyone here sits around all day dreaming...
Are you suggesting that a person is automatically in favour of ideas/actions that he or she does not actively oppose?
Yes. All that is necessary for evil to win is for good men to do nothing.
Do you spend all of your time, energy and resources opposing oppression and tyranny, even though it may be half a world away?
No, I do not expend all of my energy on this - but I do expend some energy on this. I oppose tyranny, whether foriegn or domestic.
Um, do you seriously think it was ever different? Trust me, if you were a threat to the US, you were killed. Period. It is called "A clear and present danger". This case was just more public than normal.