RE: US Foreign Policy

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: US Foreign Policy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: US Foreign Policy

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/30/2006 8:20:22 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: magpies
That would be,' Talk softly and carry a big stick. '

Try: "Speak softly, and carry a big stick."

More good Teddy quotes.

http://www.teddyroosevelt.com/teddy_roosevelt_quotes.htm

(in reply to magpies)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/30/2006 8:20:39 PM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Rich,

What do you think they use to make the massive amounts of fertalizer needed to grow all that corn? I will give you a hint, there are only three letters in it...

(in reply to mnottertail)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/30/2006 9:37:45 PM

WyrdRich

Posts: 1733
Joined: 1/3/2005
Status: offline

Not just the fertilizer factor CD. We also have issues of water for irrigation, building the refineries, probably a need to legislate drastic reductions in usage.

I never meant to suggest it would be easy or cheap, only that it could be done if we had to and were willing to write off the rest of the world. What little we are doing now with B20 and E85 is already driving up the prices of grain.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/30/2006 9:47:27 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

AT the retail level, yes..........

If we quit making whiskey and slaughtered every kine and kind, we could ony produce 2% of americas E85 needs right now..........
Corn is still between 4 and 5 a bushel which is as it has been for most of your lifetime.

Let us sit down and reason together people. Gas? If you will pay whatever market is, you may have as much as you want........let's don't be vapid for fuck's sake.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 12:49:08 AM

Kedicat

Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline

I think the Bush gang has accelerated the idea that it is right to do dirty things. That there is some honour and destiny to it. At least in the past, it was seen ( when it was seen ) as dirty business. Things that we hoped we and the world would outgrow, with better ideas and policies.

Now it is Rah Rah we are screwing them. We are the helpless innocent victims, so we can fight dirty with pride.

Lies to make the ugly truths, and dirty deeds, noble and heroic. Sign up to fight for freedom.

No more need to look for better smarter ways. Here's your medal. Your benifits run out in a month, welcome home hero.

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 25

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 1:14:52 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

MeatCleaver,

Paragraph 3 - it's vague to say Capitalist and Socialist societies are too much alike to appreciate each other. The two don't appreciate each other because of fundmental differences such as the self-interest v collective argument.

Both are purely materialistically philosophies that claim to be able to deliver and distribute more wealth to the people. Like religion they both claim to deliver you to heaven only this time, heaven on earth. Neither do what is claimed they do and any redeeming factors to both philosophies are brought by individual adherents. They really are so much alike.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 8/31/2006 1:15:35 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 26

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 1:51:55 AM

seeksfemslave

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

I cant see that America bashing does much good, especially from European sources. All dominant nations tend to do what the leaders of the time think is in the interests of the nation.

Europe's history is virtually continuous world wide military conflict, I think its time do a "Switzerland", sit back and watch currenly the USA and then China/India have a "rumble" or two. So long as the dont invade us of course !

I'm thinking of the threat the US saw in Grenada in the Caribbean. That escapade really upset the Brits. If we had had a gunboat you can be sure it would have been on its way!

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 27

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 5:19:57 AM

pahunkboy

Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline

"the USA and then China/India have a "rumble"',

if china stops funding our debt- there will be global consequences.

we are safe to 08. we bought a few years of peace, by granting bijjing the olympics. after that- ild guess tiawamn will be back as an issue.

can we defend tiawann? lets ask a katrina surviver........

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Profile

Post #: 28

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 5:50:26 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

The US has a foreign policy? i thought they just had a domestic policy that extended beyond their borders.........

Oh, and has anyone heard of enlightened self interest? The concept that screwing other people over will ultimately come back to bite you, so it is in ones own best interests to be altruistic........

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 29

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 5:50:27 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Now Bush is getting us involved with Iran over nuclear weapons!
Ah,..... to our EUROPEAN friends, could you guys handle one once in a while?
Man! After Bush I'm REALLY becomming an Isolationist.
And some people think "Isolationism" is a "bad" thing?

(in reply to pahunkboy)

Profile

Post #: 30

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 7:13:33 AM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

The US telling Iran it can't have nukes is a sure fire way to make them more determined to have nukes. The US supported the Shah and the hated SAVAK that used terrorise them, it's no wonder the Iranians see the US as trying to humiliate them.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 31

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 8:02:40 AM

Chaingang

Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The US telling Iran it can't have nukes is a sure fire way to make them more determined to have nukes.

Bush practices brinksmanship as if it were Russian roulette. Too bad someone else's head will be at risk when the gun finally goes off.

_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Profile

Post #: 32

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 10:17:52 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

As long as our energy comes from foreign lands and we need raw materials only available oversees, we cannot be isolationists. It is a sophomoric pipe dream that only seems workable to those with too little understanding of the world to see otherwise.

That said, we DO have a choice of how to be involved. Making it clear to the rest of the world that we will do whatever the fuck we want to works fine for about a decade and then they rest band together and tell US to fuck off.

Bush's foreign policy incompetence has done nothing but weaken our hand overseas. We are impotent to deal with Iran. The military is spent, we are having to recall old men and women to bolster the military enough to make a half hearted showing in Iraq and only idiots think airpower can deal with Iran.

Iran, KNOWS we need her to keep pumping oil and Iran and the rest of the world know she can shut down shipping in the Straights of Hormuz enough to cause havoc in the worlds oil markets. Before the idiots say "we don't get our oil from Iran" oil is a commodity and as such goes to the highest bidder and that is increasingly China/Walmart. In other words, Bush is playing fish and Iran is playing as shrewd a game of poker as can be played and boy have we been played.

Iran will get the bomb, Iran will keep them safe because they are not dumb enough to use, and Iran, not our allies Saudi Arabia will become the dominant ME power. Iran is shrewd, they whine and bitch about Israel but had no problem doing secret arms deals with them when it benefited them. They know Israel can and would wipe them out with a second strike, Iran wants the bomb to protect themselves from us and since the rest of the world isn't as dumb as the American public, they are not about to get anywhere near an idiot strike on Iran.

However, we MUST strike Iran, well not "we" as in the sense of the citizens, but Bush needs to. Iran will strike back at us in all sorts of ways because they know we don't have the ground army capable of dealing them and they can tie down what we have left of an army in Iraq with a phone call just as they did Israel. Bush needs terrorist strikes on American soil in order to stave off losing congress and thus impeachment and perhaps a few trials of treason thrown in for good measure. They know the evil they have done and have no interest in paying the price for it. So they need to attack Iran and kick over a hornets nest.

The real question is how does Iran see it. While it is true Bush has done more for Iran than she could ever have hoped, Bush is unwilling to do what Iran wants which is readmit her to the West. Democrats just might do that, it would be like the taming of China that Nixon and Clinton did. So Iran, if she was smart would step up pressure in Iraq a tiny bit, ensure it is a huge mess but not big enough to get caught. Then, just like they did with Raygun, make a secret deal that changes the American political landscape.

Oh, the world is an interesting place...

(in reply to Chaingang)

Profile

Post #: 33

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 10:29:27 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Rich,

Corn = welfare

The amount of subsidies we pump into corn would embarass Castro, ethanol is a welfare queen's wet dream of an idea to suck money from blue states and pump it into red ones, it is a dead end.

Energy efficiency is the winning strategy, give tax breaks or other incentives for people who drive fuel efficient cars and put a penalty tax on SUVs and other gas hogs.

End suburban sprawl so that mass transit is more viable

End subsidies of the trucking industry and return freight to where it belongs, the railroads

Just mandating the replacement of incandesent bulbs with florescent ones yields a massive savings on energy

Currently solar power is handicaped in several ways. Mandate that utilities buy back power from household arrays at the value of the power AT THE TIME OF GENERATION. Currently, utilities get to buy it at the lowest nightime cost (when there is excess capacity )and yet solar is generating at the moment of peak demand and highest price. This one action would make solar economically viable overnight.

(in reply to WyrdRich)

Profile

Post #: 34

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 10:53:50 AM

popeye1250

Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

Crappy, no but there's a lot of other things we can do to become more isolationist!
Why do we have troops in more than 130 countries?
Bring them home and put them on the Mexican border where they're needed!
How much longer do we have to have troops defending S. Korea's border? Isn't 54 years long enough?
We give foreign aid to more than 130 countries. When can we start paring that back?
We need to be closing embasseys, not opening them.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 35

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 11:06:50 AM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

popeye,

Let me explain a few basic things to you.

Rich American companies DEMAND we have troops all over the world, they are there to protect our commercial interests and allow us to rape and plunder the world economically.

Forein aid is the same, almost all of that money we "give" away is earmarked to be spent on American goods or services. We "give" away free seed, but that seed is GMO and we give it away free until they run out of domestic seed stock and then they are screwed and we start selling them GMO crap with is designed to be sterile (great fucking idea eh? No way THAT could bite us in the ass is there?)

The way to "fix" Mexico is help her get her economy booming so poor American's who the Republican have fucked over have a place to go and beg for work.

The world worked pretty fantastic after WWII and we were involved all over the world. Being involved with the world isn't good or bad, it is how we choose to go about it. Unlike the American public which is dumber than fenceposts and too stupid to see through things like "Fox news" and "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" most of the rest of the world sees how our generostity isn't genuine.

We did a lot better in the 1950s and 1960s. You should pick up a copy of "The Ugly American" it would do y ou a lot of good and it is in fact a book talking about how wonderfull we Americans are but how a few rotten apples screw it all up.

quote:

When can we start paring that back?

When we don't depend on foreign oil and when our corporations don't make more money stealing from poor countries than from doing honest business.

(in reply to popeye1250)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 12:39:05 PM

NorthernGent

Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline

Meatcleaver,

To an extent I take your point. Of course socialism is concerned with raising the living standards of certain parts of the population and you could tag materialism on to this. Yet, socialism does not demand the same desperate search for personal wealth that capitalism does, it is far more about equality and the collective rather than individualism and self-interest. Also, there are may more differences - internationalism, pacifism, social equality.

Regards

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Profile

Post #: 37

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 2:11:05 PM

CreoleCook

Posts: 321
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

Damn, Crappy! I got to give kudos for either being "in the know" of damn near a lot of different aspects, Or being a particular well informed bullshit artist. I think the jury is still out deliberating....

Seriously though... I got to agree with several key points you made. Got to ask one thing though.... If Chicago is known as the windy City, why the hell doesn't somebody have a few windmills in that area of the country? Got another redundant ponderance for ya... One would think the desert of Texas would be a hell of a place to position a few thousand solar cells, and maybe run a few of them towns, like El Paso, or the like...

CC

(in reply to NorthernGent)

Profile

Post #: 38

RE: US Foreign Policy - 8/31/2006 2:46:46 PM

caitlyn

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom
Bush's foreign policy incompetence has done nothing but weaken our hand overseas. We are impotent to deal with Iran. The military is spent, we are having to recall old men and women to bolster the military enough to make a half hearted showing in Iraq and only idiots think airpower can deal with Iran.