Post by: Desertdog on November 01, 2007, 01:35:18 AM
Stating the Facts (No Brag, Just Facts!)
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.
**************
Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying "Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?"
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three
meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
Once again, dead silence.
*****************
A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone
was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that,'whereasEuropeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe its because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'
You could have heard a pin drop!
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2007, 01:47:34 AM
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on November 01, 2007, 10:17:53 AM
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three
meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
Last I checked, which as about 15 years ago, France did have several aircraft carriers.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on November 01, 2007, 10:27:42 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/powell.asp
Post by: jefnvk on November 01, 2007, 10:27:53 AM
Can't help it we decided long ago it was better for everyone to speak the same language. They do it out of necessity, not intellect.
Post by: richyoung on November 01, 2007, 10:37:08 AM
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: "Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three
meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?"
Last I checked, which as about 15 years ago, France did have several aircraft carriers.
One - and Charles De Gaul : NOT = : Nimitz class
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 10:40:42 AM
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
That's an awesome quote. Unfortunately, the statement is inaccurate. In pretty much every country whose "freedom" we "fight for," we demand garrisons. Overseas US military bases represent over 687 thousand acres, and include over 32,000 owned buildings and over 16,000 leased buildings. South Korea and Okinawa are particularly egregious examples, where the US presence actually dwarfs the local population and/or economy.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 01, 2007, 10:48:49 AM
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
That's an awesome quote. Unfortunately, the statement is inaccurate. In pretty much every country whose "freedom" we "fight for," we demand garrisons. Overseas US military bases represent over 687 thousand acres, and include over 32,000 owned buildings and over 16,000 leased buildings. South Korea and Okinawa are particularly egregious examples, where the US presence actually dwarfs the local population and/or economy.
--Len.
really we outnumber either the okinawans or south koreans?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2007, 01:17:53 PM
The thing about Americans speaking only one language always bothered me. We only have a need to speak one language. If every state spoke a different language, we would definitely be bilingual.
Can't help it we decided long ago it was better for everyone to speak the same language. They do it out of necessity, not intellect.
Can't help it we decided long ago it was better for everyone to speak the same language. They do it out of necessity, not intellect.
Very true.
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 02:43:06 PM
really we outnumber either the okinawans or south koreans?
Note the weaselly escape clause: "and/or economically."
The Korean economy has, for most of the years since the Korean war, been propped up by US military expenditures plus US aid.
Okinawa is one giant military base whose economy is dwarfed by that of the military presence. Having just double-checked, servicemen represent less than 4% of Okinawa's population. I grossly overestimated their numbers based on the fact that about 75% of the island is used for USFJ facilities.
--Len.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on November 01, 2007, 02:47:46 PM
He answered by saying, "Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."
That's an awesome quote. Unfortunately, the statement is inaccurate. In pretty much every country whose "freedom" we "fight for," we demand garrisons. Overseas US military bases represent over 687 thousand acres, and include over 32,000 owned buildings and over 16,000 leased buildings. South Korea and Okinawa are particularly egregious examples, where the US presence actually dwarfs the local population and/or economy.
--Len.
And every time the US military starts talking about closing the base and pulling out the locals start crying about what it will do to their economy.
Post by: El Tejon on November 01, 2007, 02:47:57 PM
Darn Dutchies!!!
English nur Police=>
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 02:57:02 PM
And every time the US military starts talking about closing the base and pulling out the locals start crying about what it will do to their economy.
No idea. But it wouldn't be surprising. Whenever the government extends a teat, it creates two classes: the ones who suckle; and the ones who don't. The sucklers always lose it at the terrifying prospect of being weaned.
--Len.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on November 01, 2007, 03:00:07 PM
Post by: jefnvk on November 01, 2007, 03:19:21 PM
Quote
jefnvk, that year was 1917. Until then the school where I am taught in German.
Hmmm....
I wonder what caused them to switch in 1917
Post by: Scout26 on November 02, 2007, 03:32:43 PM
When I was stationed in Baumholder Germany from '87-'91, there were ~20,000 Americans and around 5,000 Germans, and the Germans spoke better English then most of the Americans.
Here's the current numbers: http://www.baumholder.army.mil/sites/local/FactsFigures.asp
Post by: Dannyboy on November 02, 2007, 07:29:06 PM
The Korean economy has, for most of the years since the Korean war, been propped up by US military expenditures plus US aid.
Considering it's been 50+ years, yeah, that's true. However, for the last 20 or so, I'd say that things have, um, changed a bit. The mid-80's being when Korea hit the 1st world and started paving roads and going high tech and stuff. Losing bases in TDC or Uijongbu may hurt the local economy but not the national economy and there aren't really enough troops in any one are anywhere else in the country to affect it either.
Post by: Bogie on November 02, 2007, 10:30:33 PM
Fine.
That's an area 10 miles x 100 miles (ish, okay?).
Ain't all that much.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 03, 2007, 07:02:13 AM
Post by: Finch on November 03, 2007, 08:42:00 AM
Quote
Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
I think it is time they start fighting for freedom within our borders....
Let other nations be responsible for themselves for a change.
Post by: K Frame on November 03, 2007, 09:29:17 AM
The de Gaulle can, in many ways, hardly be called a serious aircraft carrier. Even the French have called it a "half-carrier."
Post by: Len Budney on November 03, 2007, 10:40:01 AM
The Korean economy has, for most of the years since the Korean war, been propped up by US military expenditures plus US aid.
Considering it's been 50+ years, yeah, that's true. However, for the last 20 or so, I'd say that things have, um, changed a bit...
Nothing to brag about. They wouldn't have stagnated for half a century without our occupation--or, if they did, it would at least be their fault and not ours.
That's an area 10 miles x 100 miles (ish, okay?). Ain't all that much.
I was only pointing out that it's considerably more than "nothing except a place to bury our dead."
But "not all that much" is pretty subjective. Supposing you're worth a million bucks, and I only steal $1,000 from you, I'm taking less than 0.1% of your net worth. "Not all that much." You might still object to being robbed, greedy pig that you are.
--Len.
Post by: Scout26 on November 03, 2007, 12:43:08 PM
In fact up until we turned it back over to the German Government, we rented the IG Farben (aka Gen Abrams Complex) Building in Frankfurt Germany for a buck a year.
I know that we pay more for "rights" in other areas, in addition to the economic benefits we bring. Anyone ever stationed (and even most of the Germans) in Baumholder will tell you that it would dry up and blow away if and when US forces ever leave.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2007, 02:11:45 PM
Quote
Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.
I think it is time they start fighting for freedom within our borders....
Let other nations be responsible for themselves for a change.
What do you want them to do, exactly? I thought our founders were pretty adamant about the military being subject to civilian control, rather than enforcing freedom on us.
Post by: Finch on November 03, 2007, 09:52:52 PM
What do you want them to do, exactly? I thought our founders were pretty adamant about the military being subject to civilian control, rather than enforcing freedom on us.
Our founders were pretty adamant about avoiding foreign entanglements too, but that hasn't seemed to stop these asinine wars. And I wasn't talking about "enforcing" freedoms on us, those who want freedom will take it in a heartbeat (Hint Hint Iraq). Freedoms don't need to be enforced on anyone except the government. By the way, it was somewhat of a joke; I was suggesting that it would take military force to correct the injustices that our own government has perpetrated against us. "PATRIOT" Act, Military Commissions Act, etc; you know, all that ballyhoo and tomfoolery.
Post by: K Frame on November 03, 2007, 10:29:42 PM
What an INCREDIBLE crock of crap that is.
Do you know ANYTHING about Korea?
In the partition after World War II, the contrast between the North and South was incredible.
The Communist North got virtually ALL of the Korea's industrial infrastructure, almost all of its surviving rail infrastructure, and it's largest and best ports. The south was almost totally agrarian.
What was created in the South was largely created BY South Koreans. Yes, with the financial backing and investment of the United States, but the heavy industry that developed there developed as the result of South Koreans making it happen. You don't create an economic model or infrastructure of the kind that the South Koreans have in 20 years. South Korea's economic rise, both agriculturally and industrially, was measured and progressive and started in the wake of the Korea war.
Today the contrast between the North and South is even greater than it was in 1950, when the North invaded.
Prior to the Communist invasion the United States had fewer than 500 troops in Korea, all of them non-combat advisors and trainers.
The United States NEVER occupied Korea. American troops remain there at the invitation of the South Korean government.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 03, 2007, 10:32:16 PM
What do you want them to do, exactly? I thought our founders were pretty adamant about the military being subject to civilian control, rather than enforcing freedom on us.
Our founders were pretty adamant about avoiding foreign entanglements too, but that hasn't seemed to stop these asinine wars. And I wasn't talking about "enforcing" freedoms on us, those who want freedom will take it in a heartbeat (Hint Hint Iraq). Freedoms don't need to be enforced on anyone except the government. By the way, it was somewhat of a joke; I was suggesting that it would take military force to correct the injustices that our own government has perpetrated against us. "PATRIOT" Act, Military Commissions Act, etc; you know, all that ballyhoo and tomfoolery. Ok, yeah, I took it a little too seriously.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 02:29:26 AM
"They wouldn't have stagnated for half a century without our occupation--or, if they did, it would at least be their fault and not ours."
What an INCREDIBLE crock of crap that is. Do you know ANYTHING about Korea?
What an INCREDIBLE crock of crap that is. Do you know ANYTHING about Korea?
I know that we made South Korea "safe for democracy," and then denied them democracy--first setting up Syngman Rhee as a puppet dictator, and then, when the Koreans overthrew him and tried to set up a democracy, helping General Park Chung Hee take Rhee's place. Following Park's assassination, we supported Major General Chun Doo Hwan's seizure of power, and in 1980 released to his command Korean troops assigned to U.N. "peacekeeping" along the North Korean border, so he could use them to crush dissent in Kwangju. It was not until 1987 that South Korea finally began achieving a measure of democracy despite the American support for one dictator after another. In 1989, the US government refused to assist in the investigation of the Kwangju massacre, for obvious reasons.
Quote
What was created in the South was largely created BY South Koreans.
Exactly! And that despite decades of the US propping up a series of dictators.
Quote
The United States NEVER occupied Korea. American troops remain there at the invitation of the South Korean government.
LOL. At the "invitation" of the puppet dictators we propped up? Do tell.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 04, 2007, 08:13:51 AM
It is never a perfect world and there always are people in need of expedited transit to Hades. It is part of the cost of living.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 09:40:06 AM
Lesser of two evils, Len. Commies are significantly worse than the puppet dictators...
I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 04, 2007, 12:02:45 PM
I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.
Try to be more intellectually honest. Just as I admit we should be driven by national self-interest in foreign policy, you should admit that commie regimes are by far bloodier and more murderous to their subjects than any of the petty dictators set up by US. Therefore, the installation of such in fact is in the particular country's interests as well, since the inescapable alternative would be so much worse.
Your difficulty is that if you accept the above truisms, your internationalist Libertarian position is indefensible.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 02:19:55 PM
I'd be considerably more impressed if the costs of that decision fell on yourself. It's easy to talk about the "lesser of two evils" when, either way, someone else is the one getting massacred.
Try to be more intellectually honest...
What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.
Quote
Just as I admit we should be driven by national self-interest in foreign policy...
You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that? Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?
Quote
...you should admit that commie regimes are by far bloodier and more murderous to their subjects than any of the petty dictators set up by US.
Than any? Including Saddam Hussein, Ferdinand Marcos, Shah Pahlevi, Augusto Pinochet, Bertrand Aristide, Idi Amin, Ngo Dinh Diem, Francois Duvalier, Manuel Noriega... (I give up, my fingers are tired)?
Nobody beats Stalin and Mao for sheer numbers, but the majority of communist dictators also don't rival Stalin or Mao. If we exclude those two from consideration, your question becomes very tough to answer. For example, Castro killed perhaps 35,000 Cubans in his purges, but Suharto killed between 300,000 and one million Indonesians. Pol Pot killed perhaps 150,000 (the figure of two-million or so often advanced includes deaths in fighting against Vietnam and other causes), but Saddam Hussein is accused of killing about 100,000 people--plus another half million in his US-backed war against Iran.
But all of that's of secondary importance: we were not fighting a defensive war in Korea, nor Vietnam, nor anywhere else. To say that the Koreans are better off because we had a hand in X thousands of deaths, whereas a "commie" would have subjected them to Y>X thousand deaths, aside from being speculative, is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.
Quote
Therefore, the installation of such in fact is in the particular country's interests as well, since the inescapable alternative would be so much worse.
Sure, I'm responsible for the deaths of your family, and I was not acting in self defense--which makes me a murderer--but at least on only killed them. So-and-so would have killed even more people!
Quote
Your difficulty is that if you accept the above truisms, your internationalist Libertarian position is indefensible.
"Truisms"? What a howl.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 04, 2007, 03:56:24 PM
What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.
Please. Your accusative connotation is obvious. Stop being coy about it. As I have said in other threads, I invite you to clean up and flesh out your arguments. Arguing by connotations and innuendos is best left for dishonest cowardly leftists.
Quote
You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that?
We live in a constitutional democracy. Gov cannot necessarily trumpet all its intentions and motivations, and still be effective in re-election. The direct cause is a combination of leftists and idealists who have the temerity to protest policies while enjoying their benefits.
Quote
Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?
Substantiate. Since when is the US gov a byiatch to petty dictators? You are contradicting yourself - I thought it was the other way around.
Quote
Nobody beats Stalin and Mao for sheer numbers, but the majority of communist dictators also don't rival Stalin or Mao.
Right. Let's exclude what happened to a quarter of the landmass and population of the world, to help Len's argument. Instead, how about we compare apples with applies, e.g. N & S Korea? I am sure S Koreans would be thrilled to hear that they would have been so much better off under the Beloved Leader. Three inches of average height is a small price to pay for getting those Yankee puppets out.
Quote
To say that the Koreans are better ... is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.
Since you like to deal with absolutes, I invite you to join a monastery. The rest of us have to live in the real world, where a murderer is worse than a thief, a mass-murderer is worse than a murderer, and where casualty numbers are a quantitative concept.
If you want your criticisms to be something more than whiny preaching, you have to provide workable superior alternatives.
Post by: Len Budney on November 04, 2007, 04:46:57 PM
What's dishonest about noticing that neither a "commie" nor a US-supported dictator were going to massacre you--just a bunch of South Koreans? It's quite true.
Please. Your accusative connotation is obvious...
I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."
Quote
Quote
You appear to be claiming that preventing South Korea from having democracy for about four decades was in our national self-interest. Fascinating. Why hasn't the US government been intellectually honest about that?
We live in a constitutional democracy. Gov cannot necessarily trumpet all its intentions and motivations...
You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.
Quote
Quote
Perhaps because "making the world safe for US-backed puppet dictators" doesn't have quite the same ring?
Substantiate. Since when is the US gov a byiatch to petty dictators? You are contradicting yourself - I thought it was the other way around.
Your sentence makes no sense. I have never used "Snoop Dogg" slang in my life, and certainly not in this context, so I have no idea what you're saying. We've propped up dictators the world over. That's what I've said multiple times in this thread, and haven't contradicted myself. I think you've shizzled your nizzle, or something.
EDIT: I think I understand your confusion. "Making the world safe for democracy" does not mean what you seem to think--namely, in some way promoting US security by containing communism. Rather, it means giving democracy to the rest of the world. Specifically, it means that our involvement in Korea was ostensibly for the purpose of making it possible for the Koreans to have democracy--which is precisely what we didn't do. We denied them democracy, and gave them dictatorship instead. To apply Wilson's logic, therefore, we must have been fighting to "make the world safe for dictatorship." My best guess is that you're construing a false choice between "US interests" and "Rhee's interests," and then concluding that I'm suggesting that the US was acting at the behest of Rhee.
Nothing of the sort. I'm saying that we claimed to be fighting for the altruistic purpose of securing democracy for the Korean people, and instead we imposed dictatorship on the Korean people. Truman was certainly not acting under Rhee's orders. I can't say what Truman's motives were; perhaps he sincerely believed that ordering MacArthur to intervene would secure our borders--i.e, perhaps he was so retarded that he thought the North Koreans posed a threat to our borders 3,000 miles away. I do know that we weren't fighting to give democracy and freedom to the South Koreans, because Eisenhower refused to do so when he could have--and neither has any subsequent President through 1987.
Quote
Quote
To say that the Koreans are better ... is morally blind: it's like saying that one criminal is better than another, because he stole less, or killed fewer of his victims.
Since you like to deal with absolutes, I invite you to join a monastery. The rest of us have to...
"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!
BTW, I'd ask you to prove that we "needed" to prop up Rhee, instead of allowing the South Koreans to set up a democracy, but it'd be a waste of my time. You'll reply with the usual platitudes about the "real world," wrap yourself twice in the flag, and ultimately evade the question. We didn't need to; it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose; it was in no way beneficial to the Koreans themselves (assuming arguendam that it would be a justification if it were); and was utterly immoral. And if you even tried to engage the facts, you'd have to admit it. Thus responses like your "monastery" crack.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 04, 2007, 09:24:22 PM
I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."
You are insinuating that US policies buy US security at the expense of the locals. As explained, that is not so, because without US involvement, the respective countries would have suffered much worse.
Quote
You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.
That is how it ends up working at least in some cases. Feel free to be speechless about it.
Quote
Your sentence makes no sense.
You claim that US sets up puppets to do its bidding. Then you say US acts to make the world safe for puppet dictators, suggesting that the puppets are in charge. Which is it?
Quote
I'm saying that we claimed to be fighting for the altruistic purpose of securing democracy for the Korean people, and instead we imposed dictatorship on the Korean people.
The two motivations are not mutually exclusive. That the more altruistic one is emphasized is simply salesmanship. In the long run, democracy and Korea were better served by the military rule than the commie alternative. I do not believe S Korea would have survived without tough measures against indigenous commies, measures that would not have been possible under democracy. You are free to dislike it, but that's the reality.
Quote
"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!
There we go again with the rape analogies.
Whether you like it or not, life is a competition, a struggle in many ways. It seems you think any motivations other than purely altruistic ones is rape. Quote
it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose;
The global spread of communism was irrelevant to US national security???
Post by: Bogie on November 04, 2007, 10:28:44 PM
Post by: Bogie on November 04, 2007, 10:34:16 PM
It's about who is likely to cause the greatest harm to US.
Yeah, I'm greedy.
I'd rather have a sonovabitch in power in some other country, as long as he's not going to cause harm to my nephew and the kids who are gonna be my stepmonsters (sigh...), than have a Really Nice Guy in there who is going to hurt them... Because, when it all boils down, a lot of the "communist" governments have succeeded in killing a LOT more folks than the outfits sponsored by the US...
Now refute that.
Post by: Finch on November 04, 2007, 10:53:39 PM
Now refute that.
Ok...
IT IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOR DO WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY, TO SCREW AROUND IN OTHER PEOPLES NATIONS!!!!
Hmph!
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:07:02 AM
I didn't accuse you of killing South Koreans, if that's what you're trying to say. If it's not what you're trying to say, then I have no idea what "obvious connotation" you're talking about. I meant no more nor less than what I said. You can try to justify America's support of Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s, despite the people he killed and raped, but you'd sound a lot more convincing if you volunteered yourself, or your wife or children, to fall victim on behalf of "America's interests."
You are insinuating that US policies buy US security at the expense of the locals.
Definitely not: no security whatsoever was "bought."
Quote
As explained, that is not so, because without US involvement, the respective countries would have suffered much worse.
An unprovable statement, which doesn't justify aggressive war or murder.Quote
Quote
You mean, government needs to lie to us for our own good? On the one hand, they need to be accessories to murderous dictators, and on the other, they need to keep it from us so we won't feel bad about it? I'm speechless, kamarad. Completely speechless.
That is how it ends up working at least in some cases. Feel free to be speechless about it.
Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.
Quote
Quote
"Absolutely" condemning rape, say, makes one a kook. Sometimes in the real world we rape people. Deal with it. Don't like raping people? Go live in a cave or something, freak!
There we go again with the rape analogies...
You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.
Quote
Quote
it was completely irrelevant to the security of our borders; it served no legitimate defensive purpose;
The global spread of communism was irrelevant to US national security???
Yup, exactly what I predicted you'd do. Instead of proving that the US was threatened by a bunch of Koreans singing the Internationale, you assume it and feign incredulity.
The US was not in any danger whatsoever from North Korea, and was not acting in self-defense when she intervened.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:12:10 AM
I'd rather have a sonovabitch in power in some other country, as long as he's not going to cause harm to my nephew and the kids who are gonna be my stepmonsters (sigh...), than have a Really Nice Guy in there who is going to hurt them... Now refute that.
It's impossible to refute an unprovable statement. But since you're the one advocating intervention, the burden of proof is on you to show that North Korea was "going to hurt your nephew." You're suggesting that North Korea was going to invade the US; go ahead and prove it. But I must say you've got your work cut out for you. All in all, it's a pretty crazy thing to be afraid of.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 05, 2007, 06:08:44 AM
no security whatsoever was "bought."
Military budgets across the globe say otherwise, but apparently not to Len. Also, are we to infer that you stole your guns or that you don't pay taxes?
Quote
An unprovable statement, which doesn't justify aggressive war or murder.
If comparative analysis is not a viable tool for you, exactly how do you proceed in daily life? Do you stick your hand in a boiling pot of water? After all, without comparative analysis, there is no way to know your hand will get burned UNTIL AFTER you burn it.
Quote
Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.
By your own professed values, Jefferson would then be an aggressor, and your values would entitle me to shoot him in the face. Repeatedly.
Quote
You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.
If you recognized your impractical idealism as unworkable in the real world, I would not have a problem with it. But, you have the gall to criticize, insult, and insinuate when being unable to provide viable alternatives yourself. I do find such behavior annoying.
Quote
Yup, exactly what I predicted you'd do. Instead of proving that the US was threatened by a bunch of Koreans singing the Internationale, you assume it and feign incredulity. The US was not in any danger whatsoever from North Korea, and was not acting in self-defense when she intervened.
The US was not in any danger whatsoever from North Korea, and was not acting in self-defense when she intervened."My vas pohoronim!" Nikita Khruschev
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 06:18:31 AM
no security whatsoever was "bought."
Military budgets across the globe say otherwise, but apparently not to Len. Also, are we to infer that you stole your guns or that you don't pay taxes?
You aren't making a shred of sense. You might be making some sort of ass-backward argumentum ad vercundiam, but I can't tell since you don't actually express a complete thought.
Quote
Quote
Sigh. That's what I was afraid of. Jefferson would have spit in your eye.
By your own professed values, Jefferson would then be an aggressor, and your values would entitle me to shoot him in the face. Repeatedly.
Crummy satire: I never prescribed lethal force as retaliation for a misdemeanor. You're right; he can't spit in your eye for taking the contemptible stance you did--but I must admit I'd understand.
Quote
Quote
You condemned my "absolutism." I just proved that there are absolutes, and you're annoyed about it.
If you recognized your impractical idealism as unworkable in the real world...
Yawn. Once again you make vague, meaningless statements. Is it "impractical idealism," for example, to state that rape is absolutely a crime? You're mad when I cite it as an example, which suggests that you realize that it's perfectly legitimate to be an "anti-rape absolutist." But the rest of the time you toss around the word "idealism" as if it proved something.
Quote
But, you have the gall to criticize, insult, and insinuate when being unable to provide viable alternatives yourself...
I don't have to give you an alternative to rape. You can't do it, period. If you can't think of any "alternatives," that's really your problem. I could suggest that you ask any twelve-year-old boy ever born what he does to vent his hormones, I suppose--but I'm under no obligation in that regard.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 05, 2007, 06:34:45 AM
You aren't making a shred of sense. You might be making some sort of ass-backward argumentum ad vercundiam, but I can't tell since you don't actually express a complete thought.
We have to spell it out for you. Very well. If indeed security were never bought, but your guns are security, then you never bought your guns, so have you stolen them? Countries have military budgets to buy security in force of arms. You seem to think that is not the case. If you pay your taxes, some of them go to maintain law enforcement, which provides some security. If you never bought security, you must not have paid your taxes.
Quote
Crummy satire: I never prescribed lethal force as retaliation for a misdemeanor. You're right; he can't spit in your eye for taking the contemptible stance you did--but I must admit I'd understand.
The "crummyness" is in the impracticalities and inconsistencies in your worldview.
Quote
Yawn. Once again you make vague, meaningless statements. Is it "impractical idealism," for example, to state that rape is absolutely a crime? You're mad when I cite it as an example, which suggests that you realize that it's perfectly legitimate to be an "anti-rape absolutist." But the rest of the time you toss around the word "idealism" as if it proved something.
We were not talking about rape, but politics. Whenever pressed, you always change the subject and lob a moralistic stinkbomb to force everybody to run for cover. That is your modus operandi. But, nobody is fooled. The world of politics has a lot of relativity to it, and the analogies you try to draw do not hold.
Quote
I don't have to give you an alternative to rape. You can't do it, period. If you can't think of any "alternatives," that's really your problem. I could suggest that you ask any twelve-year-old boy ever born what he does to vent his hormones, I suppose--but I'm under no obligation in that regard.
Again, we were not talking about rape, but that does seem to be your favorite subject. We are left to wonder why.
Post by: Bogie on November 05, 2007, 06:38:59 AM
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 06:42:22 AM
We have to spell it out for you. Very well. If indeed security were never bought, but your guns are security, then you never bought your guns...
Wow are you drifting around aimlessly! You spoke specifically of the Korean War, and said that I suggested that in the Korean War, we bought security at the expense of victimizing some Koreans. I replied that in Korea the US did indeed victimize Koreans, but in no way did any of this secure the United States. We killed a bunch of little yellow people for no reason whatsoever, and we in no way benefited from doing so.
Does that resolve your confusion?
Quote
The "crummyness" is in the impracticalities and inconsistencies in your worldview.
I challenge you to point out an inconsistency. Don't hold your breath while you look.
Quote
We were not talking about rape, but politics...
Properly speaking, we're talking about deceased Koreans. "Politics" is an abstraction, and you switch to it from literal dead Koreans because it allows you to sanction murder without appearing to sanction murder. We murdered Koreans. You claim that this made the US borders safer. You don't even try to prove it--you just lob around a few sound-bytes.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 06:48:59 AM
I don't think we should be the world's police force, but at the same time, I think that we need to keep any conflicts OFF our shores... Which means we need to be other places.
There are practical problems with that statement, as pertains to things like invading Iraq or garrisoning North Korea. But in general, keeping conflicts off our shores isn't hard: when the North Koreans do decide to invade us, they've got a good chunk of the Pacific to cross. When their navy makes a beeline for our shores, you have my blessing to sink the lot of 'em. Likewise, when the Iraqis come invading, they've either got to march across Asia or Europe, or launch their navy out the Persian gulf. If they pick the former, the Russians, Chinese and/or Europeans will fight them, saving us a lot of trouble, and we can mop up the ones who make it anywhere near the US. If the latter, once again you have my blessing to sink the bloody lot.
If Brazil decide to come take over, you can either engage them down near Panama, or destroy their navy en route. If Cuba, then obviously they're coming by sea, and I once again bless you as you sink their navy.
The only two countries you could even TRY to justify preemptively invading are Canada and Mexico.
But that's assuming that any of those nations intends to invade the United States--i.e., assuming that their leaders are crazy enough to launch a suicidal invasion, that their soldiers are stupid or suicidal enough to obey those orders, and the citizens are stupid enough to take it lying down, knowing that fierce retaliation is in store. I repeat, that's a pretty crazy thing to lose sleep over at night.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 05, 2007, 01:20:34 PM
Wow are you drifting around aimlessly! You spoke specifically of the Korean War, and said that I suggested that in the Korean War, we bought security at the expense of victimizing some Koreans. I replied that in Korea the US did indeed victimize Koreans, but in no way did any of this secure the United States. We killed a bunch of little yellow people for no reason whatsoever, and we in no way benefited from doing so.
As stated, your statement was ridiculous.
Quote
I challenge you to point out an inconsistency. Don't hold your breath while you look.
I can produce one in a NY second. You bitch and moan about US foreign policies, yet those are the policies that helped curb the spread of communism and ultimately won the Cold War. If things had gone the way you recommend in your sermons, you likely would not be around now to make them.
To be taken seriously, you have to produce viable alternatives that outperform the default. If you cannot, what you say is useless in terms of policy-making. That is a point that you continuously and stubbornly ignore, so there is really no point for me to keep repeating it.
Quote
Properly speaking, we're talking about deceased Koreans. "Politics" is an abstraction, and you switch to it from literal dead Koreans because it allows you to sanction murder without appearing to sanction murder. We murdered Koreans. You claim that this made the US borders safer. You don't even try to prove it--you just lob around a few sound-bytes.
Incorrect. We are talking about policies and policy-making. You are unhappy with a few dead foreigners and the policies which you blame them on, but ignore that many more foreigners and likely Americans would have been dead otherwise, under alternative policies you espouse.
I have provided plenty of logic and proof. You do not believe in predictions based on comparative analysis in this case, but you still refuse to stick your hand in boiling water or jump from a tower. That's called intellectual dishonesty.
Anyway, it is clear to me we are not getting anywhere with this. Feel free to whine all you wish; you have the luxury to do so.
Post by: Len Budney on November 05, 2007, 01:44:42 PM
I can produce one in a NY second. You bitch and moan about US foreign policies, yet those are the policies that helped curb the spread of communism and ultimately won the Cold War. If things had gone the way you recommend in your sermons, you likely would not be around now to make them.
Um, that's not a contradiction in my position. Nor is it remotely proven--yet again, you make random assertions and casually mistake them for facts.
Quote
I have provided plenty of logic and proof.
Only if "plenty" is Swedish for "none." Among the "logic and proof" I just deleted was the casual assertion that if we hadn't intervened in Korea, I (and presumably, everyone else in America) would "not be here." Talk about delusional.
--Len.