joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, that's where things get muddy. I do believe we shouldn't be knocking over dictators unless they have attacked the US directly. But, in the case of Saddam, it's muddy because we were the ones that "installed" him. It's almost like "cleaning up our mess" from before.
We didn't "install" him. We may have supported him after the fact, and only as a temporary ally of convenience against Iran. But if US military action is justified by "cleaning up our mess," then we would need to have military forces all over the world in perpetuity. Since our military actions typically involve making even bigger messes, then we'll never get out of there if we go by that standard.
Actually we did 'install' him. In fact, the America media is ALSO at fault, for not really doing enough to report to the American people the EXACT SITUATION in Iraq. Journalists failed to explain the religion, the culture, ideas, the people, and even the infrastructure. Before the invasion in 2001, most Americans held the view Iraq was mostly a pile of nomads, rather than common people living in buildings. The only difference on infrastructure was Iraq had many sources to create concrete (all that sand and gravel....).
Later, after the removal of Saddam, did we learn of all three seperate factions whom fought for power in the power vacuum we created. That Saddam had to use brutality just to keep all three from waging war against each other was not understood by the American people before 2003. They all had their reasons for why they should led the whole of the nation. The Bush administration 'installed' someone totally loyal to them, rather than making in-roads to all three factions. Go figured, the other two factions not really represented got pissed off....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We should keep troops there since we're the ones paying, and the ones that brought the damn contractors over. Someone's gotta keep them safe!
Maybe they should wait until the fighting stops before attempting to rebuild. After all, what's the point in going to all the trouble and expense of building something if it's just going to get blown up anyway?
You want to keep troops there, DS? Get a BDU, rifle, and plane ticket over there. Why should we waste our US Military members on your petty political viewpoint on 'how the world should be'? The ones often stating so, are the chicken hawk Republicans. When conflict comes, they seem to find a creative assortment of excuses for why they can not 'take the fight to the enemy'. Like Dick Cheney on the Iraq and Vietnam Wars....
Likewise, the 'fighting' will never die down in the Middle East. Its like stating 'lets do something about firearms in America after everyone comes down about their usage". For the Middle East to be peaceful, there would have to be no humans living within it. The only way that will happen is by turning it into a nuclear wasteland. Be careful what you wish for. Since all those people will move elsewhere after that happens. They'll bring all their 'thousand year' squabbles with them. To America...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
True. But, we do have to acknowledge that at a later date, there may be actual direct security risks to the US because of those lie campaigns.
We should be more worried about our own government's lies than anything else. That's what brings the greatest risk to the US.
I have to agree with Zonie here, DS. The amount of lies and half truths, have done more damage to our nation, than the half-likely security risks. I did liked the Bush administrations use of 'The Ends Justify the Means". That lying about the usefulness of torture, to circumvent the 8th amendment.....SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. Had this nation known that Saddam's WMD pile consisted of less inventory and ability than even the Iraqis stated just two months prior to the invasion; would America be with President Bush on the invasion? Hell no!
Clinton got impeached for what? Lying about an affair? Obama and (Hillary) Clinton got attacked about Benghazi. All three, by the Republican Party. How many Republican committees got formed to attack Mrs Clinton over Benghazi? How many were formed over the 17 'Benghazi' like attacks under Bush? None. Imagine if President Gore had invaded Iraq using the same bullshit as Bush in 2003; would Republicans have formed committees to attack him all over the place on things? Oh Fuck Ya!
Why didn't they do this with a Republican President?
Shouldn't we investigate things fully regardless of 'whom is in power' or 'whom is likely to become the next US President'? Of course! But to many conservatives say that, and vote Republican in the next election. Sort of undermines their integrity to be taken seriously, doesn't it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What about arming bin Laden and creating the Taliban? Was that "damage control?"
One could make such a case, yes.
That was a bad decision. Not from the point of view of 'What we know now', but 'placing power in the hands of a people whom we could not control'. There is a reason we do not allow anyone under the age of 18 to hold public office in America. The concept of "Lord of the Flies' comes to mind here. A people that would misuse power. Or a metaphorical 'One Ring to Rule Them All' mentality; the desire to do great good, but accomplish extreme evil without realizing it.
To bad no one can really admit that from those whom signed off on the process.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I truly believe it's ingrained in our society at many levels. Yes, ad campaigns continue to pound it into our heads that we need this, that, or the other thing. Ad men and good at their craft, too. But, it's hard to sway someone who isn't willing to be swayed. If I'm not looking for the next "weight loss miracle pill," I'm significantly less likely to buy into an ad. Look at how people are raised, too. We get presents at certain Holidays, gifts on our birthdates, etc. We're almost "taught" from an early age to consume.
Yes, that's usually how it works, but it's not just about consumption. The same methods are used for political indoctrination and societal conditioning.
More scary then both of your observations? That with every piece of knowledge or technology, there exists two possible uses (generally speaking): a positive and negative use. With the use of behaviorial and mental techniques, humanity has started to understand the human mind. Understand how it operates and handles differing levels of stress and pressure. That I've used some of the same techniques these political individuals/groups used on the American population, but to help people with serious problems. You talk down a former US Marine about to kill themselves with a 1911....
I could not fully explain 'how this works' with this medium. I would have to show you in person. That I could 'condition' you onto a belief and you would think it was your normal belief with just ten to twenty minutes of 'work time'. Now try to imagine organizations like the NRA whom have had...YEARS....to do this same stuff. Most people will say what the NRA wants them to say, without once questioning the notion.
An organization with very little moral standards, deep pockets, and a thirst for power and domination; should be something to be worried about. One that can manipulate the population, while restricting the ability of media to expose the facts and truth, should ALSO be worried about. Worst than both of those? Many organizations working together, whose population is just a few percentage points, controlling the other 90% of the nation.
Hitler and his goon squad had early forms of this knowledge. Its been over seventy years. Do you have any idea how advance this knowledge is now? How its being applied? Towards 'Low Information Voters'?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We have thrust ourselves in as "World Police." Much of what we're doing with regards to maintaining smooth operation of the global economy has to do with that, too. I'm good with reducing our role down to policing our waters.
I'd be okay with that, too. But we'd have to be very clear on what our role in the world should be. We didn't become the "world police" by accident. We weren't even "police," as such, since that would imply a more neutral, objective, purely "law enforcement" function which was clearly not the case. We were acting as the leading member of an alliance which included Western European powers with extensive interests and possessions far flung around the world. After WW2, the collapse of their empires created a power vacuum in much of the world, and our whole foreign policy was based more on ideological enforcement than anything else.
So, it's not like we're the "world police," but we're more like the "world thought police."
'Why should the United States not be the World Police?"
'Why should the United States be the World Police?'
Lets use the more logical question:
'Why should the United States deal with some evil people, while allowing others to flourish?'
Or even more logical question:
'Why should the people of the world allow some evil people to exist, but attack others?'
At any point in time, someone, somewhere, is being evil towards someone else. Likewise, at any point, someone, somewhere, is being good towards someone else. So why cant the good people band together to remove the evil people? If things were so simple, that would have been taken care of by now....
We are the world police because we have the resources to do so. So long as our defense budget is equal to the next ten largest nations of the world; we'll be the world police. After all, we got to use those tax dollars on something, right?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yep, and that's why we need to have some sort of over-arching structure to help limit the rule breaking.
Yes, but if those in charge of that over-arching structure also break the rules, then we're really up the creek.
More plainly: Whom Watches the Watchmen?
That was the idea with the three branches of government. If one behaved in a negative manner the other two could deal with it. Of course, what happens when all three have been neutralized or corrupted? "They people will stand up and take action", right? Didn't see that happen when the GOP/TP have behaved in a tyrannical manner. Particularly by those folks whom say their guns are there for that sort of duty.
Or the Media? Yeah, what happens when the media, whom is controlled by corporate interests 'overlooks' one thing while intensely 'reporting' on something else? Conservative media right how is 24/7 attacks on Hillary Clinton, yet, not much is known of the 16 GOP/TP candidates on a huge variety of topics. We as the American people already know Mrs. Clinton and her stances on many things. Should we really care about what she is wearing on a particular day? When at the same time we are just as ignorant on the viewpoints of those GOP/TP'ers running for office on issues of the day: immigration, gun control, foreign policy, healthcare, infrastructure. Not only know their viewpoints, but know their plan as being 'well structured and thought out' rather than 'spur of the moment ideas'?
Yeah, we the American people are even more fucked, because we are allowing ourselves to be dumb down here and there.
All three make for a recipe of being controlled and manipulated by a small group of people. You know, those 'watchman' we just installed into power. They would....never...do anything bad, right?
Because we all know Ted Cruz and other other nut jobs running for the GOP/TP ticket are so 'honest' and 'truthworthy' of being a US President....
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Of course it didn't, but that's partially on the media.
20-30 years ago, I might have agreed with this, although it still wouldn't have been a good enough excuse. But in the Internet era, people have access to a wealth of information at their fingertips.
While at a party with friends recently (we are the entire spectrum of politics), I asked a simple question: What are all the rights given under the 1st amendment. Even with smartphones before them on the table, not one of them could guess two correct answers (of the total five). That's right, in 2015 we have more information at our disposal, but all to often, the inability to use that information for something useful. Any one of those could have picked up their smartphone and googled '1st amendment'.
When you next meet up with people for a political chat, ask them to define the 1st amendment's five parts. Most people (dumbly) assume they cant use a smartphone to look information up. Isn't a smartphone's technical ability the same as the human mind's bio ability for information purposes?
People (dumbly again) assume they must know everything in order to answer something. If that was true, we'd still be living in caves! That is while things are written down; so we don't have to remember it. All the stories in the holy bible were past down until someone got the brilliant idea 'lets write it down, so we dont keep fucking up the story'.
Back in the early 90's, I knew my neighbors quite well. Knew them on a first name basis. Their occupations, their hobbies, stuff they like to do on the weekend. Flash forward to 2015, and I only know half of them by last name. Dont know their kid's names or anything. We have better technology now, and know less of our own neighbors in good terms.
With more technical ability than any other point of humanity, you'd think we would be advancing left and right. Creating bases on Mars and Pluto by now! Solving hunger and energy problems around the world. Living better with our neighbors. Traveling to distance places on Earth with exceptional ease. That we would have found a better way to organize things, stable economies, little strife, and an end to hatred.
In the 1920-30, that is what they thought of those in the next century. By the 1950's the belief we would be in space and solving cancer. In the 1980's it was the dread we would all be dead by nuclear war before the next millennium. 2016, most Americans think 'The American Dream' is only accessible by the very rich or the exceedingly lucky.
So much technology. So little hope.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I shared an experience a year or two back about my boys and a friend's two kids. I want to say the school grade levels for the 5 kids were HS freshman, 7th grader (my oldest), 6th grader, and my twins in 4th grade. None of them knew why 1776 was an important time in US History. Not one. They all attended the same school district, too. I felt like a failure as a responsible parent that my boys barely knew why we celebrated on the 4th of July.
My father always had a lot of books about history and current affairs, and I grew up in a family where politics was discussed often - and very loudly at times. We also did a lot of traveling when I was younger, visiting all the famous historical sites. I was in sixth grade in 1976 when the Bicentennial was a pretty big deal. They had "Bicentennial Minutes" on TV every night for over a year or more. I don't think anyone could have avoided hearing about 1776 back then.
But I would think that the Declaration of Independence and the significance of July 4, 1776 would be pretty basic. We learned that stuff pretty early in elementary school. It was even covered on "Schoolhouse Rock."
In a few years, children born after 9/11 will be asked in college course, its significance. Measure that to any of ours, whom lived through the event and everything that followed. Which will feel more authentic?
For humanity, keeping a link to its past has always thought to be important. Yet, we often romance the past while overlooking the problems and hells that came with it. Many people romance the American Civil War. How many of them take that 'hardcore' role playing to the next step, and saw off an arm? Since getting shot in the arm during that time generally meant your arm would be hacked off. People romance about the American Revolution; try being George Washington and trying to eat food! We romance about Europe during the medieval to Renascence periods. Yet how many people want to 'vacation' with the Spanish Inquisition as a non-believer?
1776 was a tough period for America. So is 2015. Our politics is...UGLY....just as the Tories were ugly to the Americans. Yes, some good came out of that year, just as 2010 gave us the ACA. In both years, the same mentality of people were against the idea of liberty (of governing in 1776, of the body in 2010).
Ask your kids about the unions, DS. What created them. Who lead the innovation towards this formation of organizations. What was going on in America when it happened. Have the unions given good things to America? Have they given bad things? Most school systems gloss over many subjects. You should be happy, since that's your 'limited government' on display. Imagine if we gave more money to educated our children in schools? To cover more topics, in-depth, over a longer time. We do that in Massachusetts, DS. As a result, the children in my state are on par not just with other states in America (in the top 3 places for the last twenty years), but around the world.
You didnt fail to teach them, you failed to give them the environment to learn. I'm all for keeping taxes low and getting the most 'bang for the buck' on education. But I also know, that ego gets in the way of good decision making, which results in poor allocation of resources (or lacking resources) to make education better in the nation. To many education really sink into the mind, there has to be a connection. A motivation for the child to REALLY want to know more about something.
There are many things that happen in [color=#0000FF1776. Should we not teach all of them?
|
RE: Was the American Revolution a Mistake - 
Profile
). Never heard of him. There was another time many years ago where I was talking with a woman at work who was telling me about a new employee who said he was from Ukraine. She never heard of Ukraine - and she called several of her friends to ask if they knew about it, and none of them knew what it was. It just astounds me as to how many utterly clueless people are out there. .gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread