"Savage Nation"

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

No.

I asked two questions, looking for an explanation as to why there is the hope that diplomacy would actually lead to a peaceful solution.

If I was saying anything at all, I might have been using a Socratic questioning technique encouraging us to examine what we hold as a "truth"...i.e., diplomacy is preferable and would indeed be effective. Is it? When has it worked?

What other countries are engaged in bringing about peace in the world? How are they doing so?

When you say “other”, I hope you do not mean “other than the USA”.

The USA's Military budget, which it falsely labels as the defense budget is larger than all the other nations of the world combined. (I say “falsely, because over 95% is used for offensive weapons, not defensive weapons.)

The USA has attacked more countries since WWll than all of the other countries of the world combined.

So if you are saying, that the USA's "Peace though War" rationale is accurate, then of course no other country is engaging in bringing about peace, because only the USA has the might (and thinks it has the right) to impose its will.

Or if you would like to be more accurate, you would note that the USA doesn't give a damn about Peace or Democracy, only that it keeps governments friendly to the USA in power, no matter how poorly those governments treat their own citizens or how badly they treat their neighboring countries.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

The USA calls the Military budget, the "Defense Budget" because calling it the “Department of War” has a bad sound to it. If the President (any president, not just BuSh) were to say, “I pledged to make war for this country” instead of “I Pledged to Defend this Country”, it doesn't have quite the same right. BTW, BuSh (like all other presidents) did neither, when he was sworn in he pledged:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

“Defend the Constitution”, not defend the nation, and definitely not to make War.

[missy4gordon 0]

Interesting notion, we should have opinions but no facts on which to base them, and those reinterpretations of what facts, however skewed to cast US actions in as bad a light as possible, because our collective political leadership has the gall to place US interests first.

Sounds like the old 'Ugly American' philosophy compounded.

Let's have an example of what would be a 'good' country that suppresses it's own national interest in favor of 'we are the world'....I'd like to see what that list would include. Start here, today....no arguments from me, I'd love to see the list. The order isn't important, just list those examples that fit the description of what SHOULD be done: 1)_________; 2)___________; 3)_________. Please....fill in the blanks.

And let's get that 'good country list' specifying what they HAVE done in fact, with blood and treasury...yes list what they have actually accomplished not for their own good but for others.

Let's pretend those in mud huts have a humanitarian right to somehow transform their existence into whatever model of 'something better' without interference by other nations...oh, wait....'it's not their fault'....'the evil US Empire is sucking their blood'....the evil US is harvesting their resource organs....the EVIL US is keeping them from attaining their goals....

We can't use the 17 UN resolutions and diplomatic attempts by the world body, to head an errant-but-well-meaning dictator back into the agreement he signed the last time he lost....

How is it, that such a good idea as giving up all our self interests and 'aggressive defense Dept' has not become the Rule of the Land after 40+ years of Enlightened Democratic rule?

Where is the historical evidence of the success let alone survival, of a country that followed the "YOU first" principle?

Where in human history, is the 'what SHOULD be' demonstrated by any country?

The entire history of the species is full of aggression, wars, conflict.

Regardless of religion, philosophy, politics, Rome brought roads and bridges to the Western world. All at a cost to the locals, and the locals continued to use those improvements even after Rome faded. The cost of the legions and the construct of such was part of the Roman budget too.

What defense purpose is an airfield in the middle of the sands of the mid-east? What defense purpose is having that standing army?

What defense purpose are those who specialize in vigilance and preparedness?

What defensive purpose is there in vaccinations and public health laws? Shouldn't we just wait until smallpox breaks out before we respond?

Shouldn't we just wait until Iran sends one of their little missiles over, at the same time Korea does another of THEIR tests? We don't want to inflame them do we....

We can depend on THEM to have only the best of intentions, right? They really do want to co-exist don't they.....

GOOD POST.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

[BJean 16]

Jack you're just making stuff up and trying to put my name on it.

If you believe that what George Bush and his administration have done in Iraq and elsewhere is right and the best possible (or even the last possible) way to achieve certain American objectives, so be it. I disagree and I am not in the minority these days.

You guys are going to push it until you have a snowball's chance in hell of electing a Republican president next time around.

[anonemouse 1]

You guys are going to push it until you have a snowball's chance in hell of electing a Republican president next time around.

To be honest, that's why I hope that Savage does run for President. He'll alienate moderate voters, making them vote for a Democrat, I think. Even if he isn't the final Republican candidate (which he will never be), I think he'll be so far right of center that he'll piss off moderate and liberal Republicans, making them a lot more likely to vote Democrat.

I actually think that is a benefit to the ultra-conservatives at this point. The Republican party has catered to them to the point that they are really making more moderate or liberal (as liberal as a Republican can get, anyway) Republicans wary of their own party. The general public doesn't want ultra-conservatives in power anymore.

[TommyO 5]

Wow, it's hard to read some of this stuff and not respond with my usuall sarcasm. Just to provide a non-American perspective as a Canadian (and I know that as a Canadian I can also be called American) Diplomacy works everyday all over the world and anyone who say's it doesn't is wrong. Every day represenatives from soveriegn countries meet and negotiate many resolutions of many issues. Some negotiations break down and this seldom results in war. The Canadian Government very often disgrees with the U.S. government but still we have yet to have gone to war.

So stop implying that diplomacy does not work.

Next the rest of the world does not always agree with the foreign policy of the U.S. because from their perspective it is wrong. There are many many people from around the world who are helping to feed and protect others who are less fortunate. Much of this work is done for no other reason than to provide help where help is needed. I should also add that I know that many of these people are Americans so I am in no way trying to say the rest of the world is good and Americans are bad. The issue is that the current U.S. administration does not appear in any way to be acting in a benevolent fashion. It appears that the motivation for this administration is self serving and based on greed. I don't care if you think that's okay, I don't.

I am not trying to bash Americans, I live meters away from the U.S/Canada border. I know how kind the American population is but this thread reafirms my belief that many Americans are unable and unwilling to view the issues of the day from any perspective but their own. A poor way to reach an acceptable solution to say the least.

Cheers

TommyO

[BJean 16]

I appreciate your Canadian perspective, Tommy. Thanks.

[Sunta 4]

I think the reason why many Christians like Michael Savage is because they love all the bloodthirsty violence and nastiness. I went to his Website and I noticed that he has lots of videos and pictures of killings, beheadings, and torture of Americans with the caption "show this to your liberal friends!"

There are many Christians that just LOVE that stuff... just look at how excited and stimulated they got over "Passion of the Christ" which was totally disgusting.

The funny thing is... I could post a Webpage with 1000 times more pictures of innocent Iraqi children and citizens BURNED, MUTILATED, TORTURED, and KILLED by Americans and put the caption "Show this to your conservative friends!"

Hey! Maybe because of their blood lust, I could win some Christian converts over to the liberal side!!! Surely, video and images of little Iraqi girls with their legs blown off are even more enticing than video of adult men being beheaded right?

If our news showed the real images of what is going on in Iraq, the war would end tomorrow.

[Wheetsin 714]

I think it's easier for people to support war when they don't understand what really happens or what war really looks like. I too believe that if more people understood this, the cries of outrage would be deafening. But many people don't know what it's like to have to gun down a little child because the opposition strapped a bomb to it and sent it walking in your direction. A friend of mine serving in the war on terror knows exactly what this is like because he has had to do it three times. Oddly enough, I also had an uncle in VietNam who had to do the same thing. Some things truly do never change.

I do not see how people think we can ever win a war on terror. Terror will never go away. A war on terror is like a war on gossip, or a war on jealousy, or a war on hate.

ToomyO - you're spot on. I have family that is not American and does not live in America, and they don't understand why we do what we do anymore than WE do. But, fortunately, they do understand that Bush does not equal America, and are comforted somewhat in the knowledge that even the country's own citizens hate having to sit here and watch what is happening.

[L8BloomR 1]

I think the reason why many Christians like Michael Savage is because they love all the bloodthirsty violence and nastiness. I went to his Website and I noticed that he has lots of videos and pictures of killings, beheadings, and torture of Americans with the caption "show this to your liberal friends!"

There are many Christians that just LOVE that stuff... just look at how excited and stimulated they got over "Passion of the Christ" which was totally disgusting.

The funny thing is... I could post a Webpage with 1000 times more pictures of innocent Iraqi children and citizens BURNED, MUTILATED, TORTURED, and KILLED by Americans and put the caption "Show this to your conservative friends!"

Hey! Maybe because of their blood lust, I could win some Christian converts over to the liberal side!!! Surely, video and images of little Iraqi girls with their legs blown off are even more enticing than video of adult men being beheaded right?

If our news showed the real images of what is going on in Iraq, the war would end tomorrow.

Sunta, although I don't agree with you politically, I usually think your posts are well thought out.... but this post totally disgusts me and I can't believe you could write such a terrible thing. I won't even address the Michael Savage issue, because unless you know for a fact that his audience is mostly Christian, which I don't believe it is, your argument there is simply mean-spirited and unfair. And if you really understood Christianity you would judge the message, not some of the flawed people within it. Christians are taught to love, respect and serve. Some don't do as they are taught. You will find those people within all religions, and in people with no religion. To call "many" Christians "bloodthirsty" because they liked the movie "Passion of the Christ" is to not understand that Christians are moved by Christ's suffering that he underwent for us all. It reminded us how much we owe to Him. To imply that we get off on watching torture and blood is just so far off the scale that I can't believe it came from someone on LBT. Your apparent hatred of some groups of people seems just so beneath you. I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, but I am sort of in shock at this.

[Sunta 4]

Sunta, although I don't agree with you politically, I usually think your posts are well thought out.... but this post totally disgusts me and I can't believe you could write such a terrible thing. I won't even address the Michael Savage issue, because unless you know for a fact that his audience is mostly Christian, which I don't believe it is, your argument there is simply mean-spirited and unfair. And if you really understood Christianity you would judge the message, not some of the flawed people within it. Christians are taught to love, respect and serve. Some don't do as they are taught. You will find those people within all religions, and in people with no religion. To call "many" Christians "bloodthirsty" because they liked the movie "Passion of the Christ" is to not understand that Christians are moved by Christ's suffering that he underwent for us all. It reminded us how much we owe to Him. To imply that we get off on watching torture and blood is just so far off the scale that I can't believe it came from someone on LBT. Your apparent hatred of some groups of people seems just so beneath you. I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, but I am sort of in shock at this.

Obviously my post had a satirical slant. Sorry it was lost on you. I definitely do not think "all" Christians are bloodthirsty. Like you said there are bad people of every religion. I was exaggerating in order to prove a point.

I wish Michael Savage could say his hateful, mean-spirited, unfair, and shocking rants are satirical too, but no such luck.

[L8BloomR 1]

Sunta, although I don't agree with you politically, I usually think your posts are well thought out.... but this post totally disgusts me and I can't believe you could write such a terrible thing. I won't even address the Michael Savage issue, because unless you know for a fact that his audience is mostly Christian, which I don't believe it is, your argument there is simply mean-spirited and unfair. And if you really understood Christianity you would judge the message, not some of the flawed people within it. Christians are taught to love, respect and serve. Some don't do as they are taught. You will find those people within all religions, and in people with no religion. To call "many" Christians "bloodthirsty" because they liked the movie "Passion of the Christ" is to not understand that Christians are moved by Christ's suffering that he underwent for us all. It reminded us how much we owe to Him. To imply that we get off on watching torture and blood is just so far off the scale that I can't believe it came from someone on LBT. Your apparent hatred of some groups of people seems just so beneath you. I'm sorry that this sounds harsh, but I am sort of in shock at this.

Obviously my post had a satirical slant. Sorry it was lost on you. I definitely do not think "all" Christians are bloodthirsty. Like you said there are bad people of every religion. I was exaggerating in order to prove a point.

I wish Michael Savage could say his hateful, mean-spirited, unfair, and shocking rants are satirical too, but no such luck.

Sorry, but I didn't see anything satirical in the first half of your post. Picked it up in the last part, though..... loud and clear....

[mousecrazy 2]

Jack asked for examples. I asked for examples.

No response. Just more despair and vows to never give up the despair.

If people want to achieve something worthwhile, dig deeper...take a look at the reality that is the world today.

Jack's post is right on target, and I predict, will be ignored or someone will pretend to take it apart by saying something equivalent to "Bush lied, people died". That's helpful. Not.

Sure, Canada has not been in a war. I wonder why? Let's think....

Earlier in this thread, I asked about a handful of incidents and wondered if you all had heard about them or seen them. No one responded. I asked for examples of how/when diplomacy had worked. I asked if we needed to define "worked."

As was mentioned...resolutions are passed by the UN...let's pile them to the sky! What does it achieve? More jobs for diplobureaucrats with an equal stack of parking tickets and diplomatic immunity. Truly one of the great scams of the modern world.

One of the reasons our US military budget is large is that, like it or not, we are the police force for the world. We are also the humanitarian aid delivery system for the world. Who else does what the US does? Let's focus here on the benefits we provide to the world. Yes, we do provide an awful lot of benefits.

If radicals were not busy burning American soldiers in effigy in the streets, or cheering on those who do (or have you seen or heard about that demonstration in Portland, OR?), they might stop to think about who would have the sheer guts and ability to land cargo planes full of equipment to help tsunami relief efforts, or earthquake relief efforts...or any of several dozen world disasters that everyone expects the US to show up for...and we do. Every time.

[missy4gordon 0]

I don't understand how the deliberations of the august body of UN diplomats who acting as a world body of diplomats, arrive at 17 separate resolutions regarding Mr. Hussein; in addition to Resolution 1441, continues to be ignored by this group. How you read them or whether you read them, they constitute evidence there was 'diplomatic activity' of the highest order. That their conclusion is at odds with your collective notion of world order seems to indicate only diplomatic efforts that mimics your own philosophy counts.

The excesses of the fundamentalists of any religious group will weaken as they annoy ever greater swaths of those like myself who don't buy their version of dogma masquerading as political solutions.

Savage is as unlikely to run for formal office as a turd in a punchbowl, as his views en block resemble such and are unsustainable in a voter-based system. He understands that. That he entertains many and has no fear in stirring up the politically myopic is refreshing. That he is successful at it agitates those who oppose his interpretation of events. Which is how this whole thread began....Savage has a perspective that is simply counterbalance to the Pseudomonas-infested pap exuded by such as Randy Rhoades, late of Air America infamy, and her distortion and exceedingly-leftist misrepresentation of factual events.

He's still on, she isn't. Someone else will rise to voice-sync her attempts at insightful political truths, and I will perhaps hold my breath until at least ONE liberal squeals in dismay over that palsied version of truth...sure....but they won't, preferring to believe whatever is spooned out on air..........

Re: putting names on made-up stuff....nowhere do I see any indication of any individual or their own unique comments...I thought this was a discussion....why would I pick on anyone in particular when there is such a hoard with such better ideas about how things should be....which of course, no one has actually identified SOLUTIONS or EXAMPLES requested, only bitched about how BAD it is now and how that isn't right....baloney.....

When Iran has the Big Nuke and Europe comes crying about being treated poorly, I'll be sure to ask our diplomats to schedule another meeting appointment....oh, wait.....it seems Iran has just kicked out those inspectors from IAEA and the UN....gosh, I better get another layer of diplomats involved in negotiating....we need MORE meetings to talk....

I agree talking SHOULD be better than fighting. Let's talk. Let's talk about the nuclear warheads in Iran. Let's talk about their upgraded missiles that now can reach every capitol in Europe. Let's talk about the poison gas in Iraq, and their sand-buried fighters...all against the 1990 UN resolution. Let's talk about the tons and tons of yellow cake sitting in Iraq, to the surprise of the post-invasion UN inspectors.

Let's talk about how having a journal beheaded on world wide web somehow is preferable than having Savage draw attention to the fact it happened.

Let's talk about just who is getting blown up in Iraq....and how many of those homicide bombers are picking soft targets promoting civil disorder.

I'd like to talk about how forgotten events such as the night club explosion killed hundreds of tourists. I'm sure you'll find a way that Mr. Bush is responsible. I'd like to talk about how none of the oil-rich countries sent help to the tsunami victims. Did they offer to help Katrina, or did I miss that? Who is helping Darfur? Has North Korea sent rice to any of the victims in the Philippines? Have the diplomats of OPEC somehow overlooked the floods in Guatemala and the Japanese earthquakes?

Just why DOES the EU ignore the plight of the 'under advantaged disaffected unemployed immigrant youths' who are burning an average of 50 cars a night in Paris....who continue to assault French Firemen daring to respond to flames in "their" neighborhood? I'd like our own diplomats to tell us all on the main front page of every paper in the US, just WHY we are overrun by violent 'immigrants' who are otherwise only looking for a job....and to explain why MY grandparents had to stand in line to get in to the country when no one else does now....and who labored like slaves but had no reparations demands...

Bash the Christians all you want; expose the conservative agenda for all its failures, and there are plenty. Then take a look and see just where the deterioration of our society began, and which part of our policies of entitlement have improved the plight of any of us...... The liberal agenda of social changes initiated in the 60s, has induced a horrid decline in many of our institutions. Guns and butter of Johnson's Great Society failed then, and it continues to fail us now. Ms. Albright herself agreed the Korean in her OWN words, "LIED to us"...

yes, and she was a diplomat....

We have multiple problems. Singing Kumbaya is not going to solve them.

But let's talk about singing....meanwhile, get your knife off my throat, quit blowing up my stuff and start acting like a citizen of the world we can emulate....

[NOTE: NONE of this is directed at 'anybody']

Wow, BRAVO!!!! WELL SAID once again, Jack!!!

[mousecrazy 2]

I do not see how people think we can ever win a war on terror. Terror will never go away. A war on terror is like a war on gossip, or a war on jealousy, or a war on hate.

This is strange logic. Does gossip or jealousy have the same consequences as does terror? Does it have the same purpose? In fact, it does not. Terror is used to control people, or cause chaos which will control people. It is meant to cause a destruction of society or fear that will break down culture to allow another culture to replace it. The consequence of "losing" the war on terror is that radical Islamists or jihadists or whatever term you want to use, will control more of the world. It is the stated goal. There are already judges in England who have ruled that it is legal for a Muslim man to beat his wife, because the Koran allows it. Now, we are that much closer to having two rules of law. Where will the future of gay rights and abortion rights be, if Muslim rule of law is accepted? A further example: some Muslim cab drivers believe they should not have to drive fares who are carrying alcohol, or dogs...continue that logic to more extreme "rights" that Americans want to be accepted.

The consequeces of not winning the war on terror are much more dire than not being able to take a cab, or knowing that your neighbor can be beaten, because she is a Muslim. I cannot understand that these are things you are willing to accept, and at the same time, rail against the Patriot Act, for goodness sake.

The comparisons made are false comparisons indeed. At any rate, most of America has never been known for throwing up their hands and saying...oops, can't be done. We're in the fight of our lives, for our lives and way of life.

If we can't win the war on gossip, does that mean we should never confront it, or even encourage it? You can tell a person that gossip is wrong...does that make them stop? Maybe, sometimes. I've never seen that tactic work with a terrorist. "Hey, buddy...blowing people up is wrong, okay? So, stop it already." When there is a war against your country, and your country is being attacked physically and philosophically, I think you have to try to win.

Giving up certainly will hasten the consequences.