Severeal heads will be rolling amongst the secret service detail.
The journalist got off 2 shoes before he was tackled by other journalists.
The first secret service agent didn't leap into view until after the shoes had been thrown.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Severeal heads will be rolling amongst the secret service detail.
The journalist got off 2 shoes before he was tackled by other journalists.
The first secret service agent didn't leap into view until after the shoes had been thrown.
What if the shoes had been bananas?
Bush would have caught them,scamperd to the highest available point and had lunch.
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Severeal heads will be rolling amongst the secret service detail.
The journalist got off 2 shoes before he was tackled by other journalists.
The first secret service agent didn't leap into view until after the shoes had been thrown.
I don't blame anyone for not defending him, I think everyone but the staunchest of republicans want to see him get his too.
For all my distaste for his administration I've gotta say that I view Bush the man as more of a tragic figure than anything else. He's just a dude that got in over his head, and ended up as the political puppet of the Neocon jabberwocky.
So the Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino reportedly has a black eye as a result of being struck by a micro-phone at a press conference melee. F(&$ing hilarious. Some Iraqis are sure showing a lack of gratitude towards their benevolent overlords.
Yah, the lack of security is terrible...I'm suprised it was allowed to go on as long as it did. Really, they should have seen something was up long before he actually threw the shoes.
Having watched the video again I don't really see the lack of security. Its pretty much impossible to respond any faster than the 3-4 second delay seen on the tape. And it isn't like they could have reasonably caught him before hand. I mean really, the dude was armed with shoes, not hand grenades.
Remember that in that part of the world even showing someone the soles of your feet is very disrespectful. There's a reason they beat the statues of Saddam Hussein with their shoes...
dogma wrote:Having watched the video again I don't really see the lack of security. Its pretty much impossible to respond any faster than the 3-4 second delay seen on the tape. And it isn't like they could have reasonably caught him before hand. I mean really, the dude was armed with shoes, not hand grenades.
Well, what if it had been a weapon of some sort. They should probably have been moving as soon as they noticed something out of the ordinary, like some guy taking off his shoes.
Then the President would be dead. They probably were already moving when they saw him taking off his shoes. That is assuming they indeed saw him taking off his shoes. The only way to really prevent assassinations is to keep weapons out of a controlled perimeter. After that its almost completely about luck.
dogma wrote:Then the President would be dead. They probably were already moving when they saw him taking off his shoes. That is assuming they indeed saw him taking off his shoes. The only way to really prevent assassinations is to keep weapons out of a controlled perimeter. After that its almost completely about luck.
Well, I guess you know everything Dogma. You're an expert in science, theology, and what, national security now?
I think it was funny how that one Iraqi guy ( I'm presuming he was Iraqi, I really don't know ) jumped in front of that guy and put his guard up. That dude was ready to go to town.
Grignard wrote:
Well, I guess you know everything Dogma. You're an expert in science, theology, and what, national security now?
I don't think I've ever tried to give myself that kind of credit. I stated an opinion of which I am fairly confident, I don't see how that is offensive.
Why did the guy blame the US president for all the "widows and orphans"? Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why did the guy blame the US president for all the "widows and orphans"? Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.
Eh, I'd say it is both. Unfortunately no matter how much care you take, there are going to be non combatants at risk in a war zone.
Grignard wrote:
Well, I guess you know everything Dogma. You're an expert in science, theology, and what, national security now?
I don't think I've ever tried to give myself that kind of credit. I stated an opinion of which I am fairly confident, I don't see how that is offensive.
How much do the secret service guys amke anyway then ? I assume some form of performance related pay is optimistic ?
Once read that the president is watched even when in bed/asleep at the whitehouse from behind a giant two way mirror, the guards "turning away" at their discretion if things get..... y'know ..in there.
Thanks Dakka ! The source of my up to date American knowledge !
This shows Bush is neither a true Texan or from east of 405 in LA.
**True Texan would have walked over and beat him like a drum.
**True Angelino from east of the 405 would have just busted a cap in his .
Edit: I wonder if the press had to pass through a metal detector. I wouldn't be surprised. Thats how AlQaeda got the head of what would be called the Northern Alliance just prior to 9/11 in Afghanistan.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why did the guy blame the US president for all the "widows and orphans"? Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.
Well, he probably thinks otherwise. Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade, he might have a point.
Anyway, I kind of wish he'd gotten a better hit in. Not because I really care if Bush gets hit by a shoe or not, but this guy isn't going to be seeing daylight for quite a while. Seems a shame to go to jail for missing.
Meanwhile, having watched this I'm left wondering if perhaps the dog has been running things for the last few years, in a kind of "son of sam" type fashion. It would explain a lot.
Selected responses by US Presidents-if shoes had been thrown at them.
-Washington. No shoes would have gotten near the Great One.
-Jackson. “You son of &^!” Bang! Sound of body hitting the ground.
-Lincoln. He wouldn’t have noticed. His own cabinet was throwing far worse at him, not to mention the Rebels without a clue. Maybe would have challenged the reporter to a ten hour free ranging debate.
-Coolidge. Who? Come on there was a President Coolidge?
-Teddy Roosevelt. The shoe would have bounced off and he would have continued his speech (only President to give a speech after HAVING BEEN SHOT-Bully!). Later we he would have murderized him in a boxing match.
-Hoover. Would have raised taxes.
-Truman. See Teddy Roosevelt.
-Kennedy. Would have been hit by the shoe. If the thrower were male would have had Johnson launch an Apollo rocket at him. If female, would have invited her on a personal tour of the Whitehouse.
-Ford. Ford would not have been harmed but would have tripped over the shoe on the way out.
-Reagan. Shoes have no chance against the Power of the Dark Side.
-Bush (elder). What?
-Clinton. See Kennedy.
-Shrub. Well we saw that didn’t we.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.
The reporter was briefly captured previously by militants; militants being paid by the U.S. to have a "cease fire".
Also, I know this might be a bit difficult to fathom, but some Iraqis whose families were killed in the invasion might just be a little mad at America.
Acording to AP, he could be jailed up to 2 years for offending a foreign leader. I hope he is not, it would be excesive, a fine a to put him in the "people I don´t want at my next press conference" list should be enough.
Anyway I swear Bush was laughing when he saw the second shoe coming and he did wave back the secret service agent that went to cover him. Probably he was thinking: this is the lamest assasination attempt, ever.
I dunno, i'm not exactly a bush fan but the penalty for attacking a foreign diplomat in any manner should be pretty steep.
You want diplomats to feel secure.
Da Boss wrote:I dunno, i'm not exactly a bush fan but the penalty for attacking a foreign diplomat in any manner should be pretty steep.
You want diplomats to feel secure.
What about attacking the seemingly gloating instigator of illegal invasion based on the pretext of non-existent threats which destabilised your entire country?
Its easy
-Secret police putting protesters in wood chippers.
-Gassing Kurds (you know that whole WMD thing)
-Army putting down rebellions in the south with survivors going to the aforementioned wood chippers.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:No, I was meaning by the victors. Surely he should have been charged with War Crimes or something?
Worst thing is, we know what Gas was used there, because we held the receipt...
Bush the Elder was leading a coalition including Egyptian and other troops. To avoid a break in the coalition, the US forces stopped after they encircled a majority of Iraqi forces between them and Kuwait.
Frazzled wrote:Its easy
-Secret police putting protesters in wood chippers.
-Gassing Kurds (you know that whole WMD thing)
-Army putting down rebellions in the south with survivors going to the aforementioned wood chippers.
Frazzled wrote:Its easy
-Secret police putting protesters in wood chippers.
-Gassing Kurds (you know that whole WMD thing)
-Army putting down rebellions in the south with survivors going to the aforementioned wood chippers.
The Iraqi police disagree. It's fully possible the police are lying, but it's just as possible the guy's brother is lying to make his brother seem like more of a martyr.
Instead of, you, know. A failure. Who can't even hit Bush with the shoes.
Have to agree with Frazzle here. He's lucky he didn't get two in the dome.
I'm not going to rehash the Saddam or Bush, because that is irrelevant. If someone threw a shoe at the leader of France when he was here, He could expect real jail time.
It's not a referendum on Bush. If people are OK with shoes thrown at Bush, I hope they don't mind crap thrown at Obama. It's not about the person, it's about the office, and it's about the law.
If all he got was a few broken bones, then he should consider himself lucky. It might have even been worth it, if he didn't miss.
Have fun in the hoosegow, douche. Bush will enjoy his mansion, crying himself to sleep in his king-sized bed while you get the prison prom date.
Muscle memory only goes so far. When the fun begins, you have to remain calm and steady, else your aim will be way off.
EDIT: Anyone but me remember the two teenage girls trying to get an autograph from the President of their tardy slip only to be repeatedly tackled by the Secret Service and hauled in a van several blocks away?
Gen. Lee Losing wrote:Why did the guy blame the US president for all the "widows and orphans"? Last I checked, it was his Muslim brothers killing indiscriminately with roadside bombs, suicide attacks, etc.
Well, he probably thinks otherwise. Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade, he might have a point.
Anyway, I kind of wish he'd gotten a better hit in. Not because I really care if Bush gets hit by a shoe or not, but this guy isn't going to be seeing daylight for quite a while. Seems a shame to go to jail for missing.
Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.
dienekes96 wrote:Have to agree with Frazzle here. He's lucky he didn't get two in the dome.
I'm not going to rehash the Saddam or Bush, because that is irrelevant. If someone threw a shoe at the leader of France when he was here, He could expect real jail time.
It's not a referendum on Bush. If people are OK with shoes thrown at Bush, I hope they don't mind crap thrown at Obama. It's not about the person, it's about the office, and it's about the law.
If all he got was a few broken bones, then he should consider himself lucky. It might have even been worth it, if he didn't miss.
Have fun in the hoosegow, douche. Bush will enjoy his mansion, crying himself to sleep in his king-sized bed while you get the prison prom date.
There's two questions, isn't there?
'Why did the guy do this?' and 'Should he get away with it?' The answer to the first is Iraq and the general screw up that's been and how it's cost about a million lives. The answer to the second is that he should get jail time, because he assaulted the President of the US.
Whether or not the jail time is worth the assault is up to that guy. There's fair amount to be said for civil disobedience, though I have no idea if that's what was going through this guy's head when he threw the show.
I'm not sure how it being Bush has anything to do with the fact that diplomats/heads of state have to be treated with respect.
Seriously, it's an easy concept to grasp.
Zathras wrote:Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.
But no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam and he wasn't killing anyone for throwing shoes, so it's a little crazy to accuse a dead guy of something he might have done if someone had done something no-one had ever thought of doing.
Zathras wrote:Umm, I guess you forgot just who was in charge before the recommencement of hostilities. If the shoe thowing journalist had done this to the previous leadership of Iraq, he would have been drug out into the street and shot dead.
But no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam and he wasn't killing anyone for throwing shoes, so it's a little crazy to accuse a dead guy of something he might have done if someone had done something no-one had ever thought of doing.
Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him? Of course he would have him killed.
He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live. Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him?
Of course he would have him killed.
He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live.
Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.
Yeah, the guy would have been killed, and around a half dozen random by-standers would have been accused of conspiracy to throw a shoe and gotten show trials and long sentences. But that has nothing to do with anything, because no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam.
It isn't a nice thing, but more often than not it's better to have a tyrant with a stable power base than to have anarchy. Saddam was a tyrant, but everyone knew the rules and as long as no-one was threatening his power base people weren't being killed. Look at when he committed his murders, when first coming to power, during his major defeats in the Iran-Iraq war and after the ceasefire, and after the pasting in the first Gulf War.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Why? You think Saddam would be okay with someone throwing a shoe at him?
Of course he would have him killed.
He killed tons of Kurds for no reason at all. He wouldn't let someone publicly disrespect him like that and live.
Hell knowing Saddam, the guys family would be running too.
Yeah, the guy would have been killed, and around a half dozen random by-standers would have been accused of conspiracy to throw a shoe and gotten show trials and long sentences. But that has nothing to do with anything, because no-one was throwing shoes at Saddam.
It isn't a nice thing, but more often than not it's better to have a tyrant with a stable power base than to have anarchy. Saddam was a tyrant, but everyone knew the rules and as long as no-one was threatening his power base people weren't being killed. Look at when he committed his murders, when first coming to power, during his major defeats in the Iran-Iraq war and after the ceasefire, and after the pasting in the first Gulf War.
Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.
I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.
They certainly would have thrown shoes at him if they weren't so afraid of him, but they knew what would happen so they didn't.
I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.
And that's it exactly. I'm not excusing Saddam for the things he did, but we shouldn't pretend things are better now because a guy won't be killed for throwing a shoe. They knew not to throw shoes, and they didn't. This was replaced with near anarchy, and lots of people died. This guy was angry about that.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, there were plenty of people who wanted Saddam dead. They probably would have thrown shoes at him too, if they weren't so scared of him.
They certainly would have thrown shoes at him if they weren't so afraid of him, but they knew what would happen so they didn't.
I agree with you on the effect of the war though. There was less death going on when Saddam was in power.
Not that he's excused for his actions of course (he deserved to hang), but taking him out in the fashion we did wasn't a good idea at all.
And that's it exactly. I'm not excusing Saddam for the things he did, but we shouldn't pretend things are better now because a guy won't be killed for throwing a shoe. They knew not to throw shoes, and they didn't. This was replaced with near anarchy, and lots of people died. This guy was angry about that.
But to say "Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade" is so wrong it's not funny.
Zathras wrote:But to say "Given no-one was killing anyone before Bush decided they had to invade" is so wrong it's not funny.
Except Saddam's last purge was in the wake of the first Gulf War. At the time Bush invaded there weren't killings, and hadn't been for a while before that.
Frazzled wrote:Why don't you go over and find out for us?
You're the one arguing for the violent overthrow of tyranical regimes, and if Hussein's Iraq qualified, why not Zimbabwe. What's the difference between the two?
Frazzled wrote:What about attacking the guy who freed you from a dictator who put people into plastic chippers for fun?
How is that attack on Mugabe going, anyway?
Why don't you go over and find out for us?
Weirdly, I was arranging a booking at work with a lady, who explained she could only do specific dates before Christmas, as her mother was flying *back* to Zimbabwe.
My initial response was 'Why? Why the hell would you want to go back there?'
I didn't ask it of course, that would be rude!
But I do think it's high time the West as a whole did something about Mugabe. He's stolen elections, tortured people (or at least authorised it for those pedants amongst us) and so on, and we do nothing. What message is that sending out?
I'm tired of beng the policeman for the world. No more interventions, no more support, no more troops or nuclear shields unless US lives are threatened. Everyone hates us. Pull out and see what the world is like without the US saving the world's butt/being the imperialist dictator depending on your view point.
If you are going to set yourself up as a world police, you have to enforce it everywhere, whereas historically, the US has always appeared to be highly selective, usually going in where Oil is involved.
And I was meaning the West as a whole, rather than just the US (I'll forgive you. All too often it is just the US that is accused )If we stopped just beating things up that offend us, and made positive steps forward, things in the world would change. Look at a China. They export their excess labour to the third world, where they help to build infrastructure, without a hefty bill. That is the way forward. Humanity is a single species, regardless of cast or creed, and it;s high time we started acting like one.
I'm tired of beng the policeman for the world. No more interventions, no more support, no more troops or nuclear shields unless US lives are threatened. Everyone hates us. Pull out and see what the world is like without the US saving the world's butt/being the imperialist dictator depending on your view point.
Except of course that much of the US' wealth is dependent on world trade and key resources around the world. Key locations like Panama, Iraq... I doubt your economic interests will let you keep up that policy.
It's also wrong to think everyone hates the US. You should read the Economist some time because they run that survey every year. Even at the height of Bush' international unpopularity the US as a whole received positive ratings
Frazzled wrote:I'm not. I'm for nuking them. Why don't you go?
Yes, they're so horrible and barbarous it'd be better if we did the civilised thing and killed them all.
EDIT: Tests to see if the ignore function works on Sebster.
Classy. I've never done anything but ask you to clarify points, but that's too hard for fraz, who'd rather spout his O'Reilly talking points and ignore any facts that get in the way. Pathetic, really.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Weirdly, I was arranging a booking at work with a lady, who explained she could only do specific dates before Christmas, as her mother was flying *back* to Zimbabwe.
My initial response was 'Why? Why the hell would you want to go back there?'
I didn't ask it of course, that would be rude!
But I do think it's high time the West as a whole did something about Mugabe. He's stolen elections, tortured people (or at least authorised it for those pedants amongst us) and so on, and we do nothing. What message is that sending out?
It's pretty hard though, logistically and politically, to do much of substance without South Africa. And South Africa's politics in the area have been odd. I think everyone assumed it was just Mbeki's closeness to Mugabe, but after he's left it doesn't seem like Motlanthe (sp?) is much different.
I agree something needs to be done, but I don't know what that should be.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the UN, so I shan't comment on that.
Let me restate for clarity. I'm now all for charity. I'm all for the US working with other nations on regional issues. But I'm all about closing all the bases except for a few very strategic ones to project power, and bringing everyone home. I guess that could be called the Japan approach.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Unfortunately I don't know a great deal about the UN, so I shan't comment on that.
The UN is a big organisation, with some bloated and ineffectual parts that some people like to assume is the whole organisation. There are a lot of other elements that do thankless. But mostly people notice the complexity of international politics and the difficulty of peacekeeping missions, and assume these things aren't done perfectly because the UN is bad. Of course, when a nation goes it alone* in peacekeeping, like the US in Iraq they do as well or worse... because peacekeeping is really hard.
This criticism comes almost entirely from US conservatives. They don't like it because they really don't like it when the world passes a motion pointing out they did something that was wrong (or worse, something Israel did was wrong). They don't like government in general, and extend this on the UN (despite the UN not really operating like any other government). They don't like it because they like complaining about waste and assume they're paying for the UN (and while they're the major contributor, it's set on a GDP basis with a 22% cap on total contribution, and because the US is capped at 22% they're the only country paying a discounted rate). And they really hate the idea of an American being put in the Intl Court of Justice for warcrimes, because accountability is for other people.
And I'm not even that big a fan of the UN. I think it's model for allocating power (veto nations, other security council members, everyone else) is screwy to say the least. It's just that the 'I hates me the UN' approach you get from conservative Americans is so poorly thought out.
*Well, not exactly alone, as the overwhelming majority of a coalition.
The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!" If we intervene, countries say "mind your own business!" Regarding where we intervene, if we're going to commit U.S. resources and lives, there better damn well be a payoff for the U.S.
It's nice to think humanity could put aside petty differences and work together for higher ideals, but we just don't operate that way. Look at the financial crisis and "bailout" in the U.S. No one's to blame, but everyone apparently deserves a fat stack of dollar bills. It's equal parts pathetic and disgusting. If we ever learn the lessons about cooperation and sharing that we were supposed to learn in kindergarten, maybe we'll have a chance as a species.
P.S. Don't think for a minute that China's assistance for the third world doesn't come with a price tag. It's there.
Frazzled wrote:We also give billions upon billions in direct aid and aid to the horror that is the UN.
The UN is something of a mess, but don't believe for a minute that anything can be gained by simply throwing it out the window. It doesn't bode well for confidence in either the legislature, or any other international treaty, when a nation so deeply ingrained in the system is so willing to flout it.
Frazzled wrote:
Let me restate for clarity. I'm now all for charity. I'm all for the US working with other nations on regional issues. But I'm all about closing all the bases except for a few very strategic ones to project power, and bringing everyone home. I guess that could be called the Japan approach.
We probably need to cut our global footprint by about 30%, and invest in rapid reaction technologies. The idea being to reduce the outlay for the maintenance of pre-positioned equipment, which is where the real expense of military deployment lies.
gorgon wrote:The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!" If we intervene, countries say "mind your own business!" Regarding where we intervene, if we're going to commit U.S. resources and lives, there better damn well be a payoff for the U.S.
That has been the approach for the last 30 years, and its a very good one. Though recently it has evolved from 'we are going to reserve judgment' into 'we don't care about the rest of the world with respect to our judgment'. Iraq could have waited, Saddam's government wasn't in danger of collapse; meaning the flow of oil was not impaired.
gorgon wrote:
It's nice to think humanity could put aside petty differences and work together for higher ideals, but we just don't operate that way. Look at the financial crisis and "bailout" in the U.S. No one's to blame, but everyone apparently deserves a fat stack of dollar bills. It's equal parts pathetic and disgusting. If we ever learn the lessons about cooperation and sharing that we were supposed to learn in kindergarten, maybe we'll have a chance as a species.
No one deserves a bailout in the conventional sense of the word. They're getting one not because of any individual merit, but because it is in the state's interest to sustain its populace. Either way, the UN isn't about higher ideals, it is about the appearance of higher ideals; which grants legitimacy. And legitimacy is everything in the international system.
gorgon wrote:
P.S. Don't think for a minute that China's assistance for the third world doesn't come with a price tag. It's there.
It will be down the line anyway. Basically they're employing the same strategy that the US did during the Cold War; aiding any given state on the sole standards of future investment returns. The idea being that if you're less demanding than your immediate rival you have a better chance of securing international support.
And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?
The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.
No offence Frazzled, but from up here on the fence you're coming across as a little desperate. You know how to back up your comments with your debatable opinions, which makes it strange that you seem to be burying your head in the sand. It's obvious that advocating a nuclear strike on a country will raise some eyebrows, so don't convince yourself that heated counter arguments will come back to haunt you on this thread. Whilst it's forgivable to think that few, if any, natives of Zimbabwe are involved with GW, I'd steer clear of proposing genocide, however throwaway your comments might seem to you.
Stay open minded. Different opinions make this site colourful. Just appreciate that oranges aren't the only fruit.
And this is appropriate behavior for a MOD in what way?
The Ignore button works after all-excellent. Time to expand its healing balm.
I don't particularly care who you ignore, I care when you advocate a nuclear attack on a given nation and then ask someone to go to that nation.
Ah, sorry thats not what I meant. I wish no harm to Seb. If Sebster wants to go fight the world's wars then he can volunteer. I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.
gorgon wrote:The U.S. is in a catch-22. If we don't intervene, other countries say "why aren't you doing something!"
Isn't that the truth. I've heard people say that Iraq was a terrible idea, that America has no right to be the world's police, that we can't just sweep in and depose leaders we don't like, and that we can't be so careless and unthinking.
Then those same people complain that we haven't invaded Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. Because, you know, that's not an unstable region that has lots of internal conflicts that are being overlooked. Not like Iraq. And it's not like Saddam was behind horrific genocide, either.
I'm really pretty tired of it. The Cold War is over, I think it's time for us to let the world sort itself out.
Unless we'll be getting real forces to ally with - forces that won't back out, and we can rely on - I see no reason to try and start anything else.
Callous maybe, but we aren't Rome, no one wants us to be an empire.
Agreed. If its good enough for Japan, Switzerland, Latin America, Europe, and heck China its good enough for me. We can be constructive members of the community without giving money to every tin pot dictator or country, sending troops every which way, etc. etc.
Frazzled wrote:
I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.
The trouble is determining what actually entails a threat. Militarily Iraq was not a threat. Not to us, and not to anyone else in the region. But that nation's lean on an uncertain right of succession, combined with its large oil reserves, meant that it was certainly an economic threat to us. Simply put, Iraq was going to require some form of military action eventually. Were Saddam to pass away naturally it would be almost inevitable that the nation would collapse into chaos. Chaos which would sharply constrict the oil supply. In Chicago gas prices peaked at a little over 4 dollars a gallon virtually through the force of speculation alone. Imagine what would happen in the event of a legitimate supply contraction.
That said, there would have been better ways to handle the matter. Namely increasing the strategic oil reserve in anticipation of Saddam's demise, while simultaneously dumping all that cash which was spent in Iraq into alternative energy programs. The idea being to free ourselves from oil before the inevitable Iraqi collapse, at least to a degree which would mitigate the effects of such an event. Once that collapse actually took place it would have been a relatively easy matter to gather international support for some kind of regime change. Thereby dramatically lessening the burden on our military, and economy.
That said, there would have been better ways to handle the matter. Namely increasing the strategic oil reserve in anticipation of Saddam's demise, while simultaneously dumping all that cash which was spent in Iraq into alternative energy programs. The idea being to free ourselves from oil before the inevitable Iraqi collapse, at least to a degree which would mitigate the effects of such an event. Once that collapse actually took place it would have been a relatively easy matter to gather international support for some kind of regime change. Thereby dramatically lessening the burden on our military, and economy.
I agree on the first but disagree on the latter. The Frazzled Doctrine would now be European style engagement (aka do nothing). Fortunately Obama is in office and can put this to the test. Who knows I may yet become an Obama suporter. If he still sends in guys to take out the bad guys when we find them then I'm ok. But nuclear shields, troops in countries etc. -which means he has to immediately backtrack on a nuclear shield for Israel.
Lets trade, make money, get fat and raise our kids. The world will go to in a handbasket whether or not we are involved. We can be a positive agent, without draining our treasury and spilling our blood-just like everyone else.
Frazzled wrote:
I agree on the first but disagree on the latter. The Frazzled Doctrine would now be European style engagement (aka do nothing).
That's fine, but expect to pay 6-7 dollars a gallon for gas when a legitimate supply contraction occurs. And its considerably deeper than just our immediate costs. Even under the assumption that our spending on alternative energy would have born fruit there is a significant sense in which we have a vested interest in the prosperity of those nations who would still be likely to depend on oil (China, and India especially). As such, doing nothing isn't really a viable option. Not if we want to continue the flow of goods which has enabled our success.
Frazzled wrote:
Fortunately Obama is in office and can put this to the test. Who knows I may yet become an Obama suporter. If he still sends in guys to take out the bad guys when we find them then I'm ok. But nuclear shields, troops in countries etc. -which means he has to immediately backtrack on a nuclear shield for Israel.
So you see a kind of Nixon-esque foreign policy? There's some merit to that. But keep in mind that putting troops on the ground is often necessary within the larger context of the national goals. Especially with respect to the maintenance of the global order. Like it or not we are an Imperial power in all but name, and our prosperity depends on similar Imperial reasoning.
As an aside, you are correct, the nuclear shield is a bad idea. It only serves to undermine the authority of those states whose monopoly on nuclear power we should be seeking to maintain.
Frazzled wrote:
Lets trade, make money, get fat and raise our kids. The world will go to in a handbasket whether or not we are involved. We can be a positive agent, without draining our treasury and spilling our blood-just like everyone else.
It's kind of disingenuous to presume that the rest of the world undertakes trade without the spilling of blood. Sure, they do a lot less of the latter, but it is a part of their foreign policy. And, while we can learn from their example of limited engagement, we must also see their shortcomings with respect to domestic realities. Remember, less direct control abroad means more direct control at home. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to consider.
1) Gas will rise to $2 by FYE 2009 and potentially $3 - $3.5 by FYE 2010. That’s assume there’s no clash between Israel and Iran. I’d venture if instigated by the Israelis it will occur before Obama become el Presidente or not at all. It could be instigated by the Iranians any time Ahman whatever feels to much internal pressure and needs to do some scapegoating. That will occur regardless of what we do.
Having said that I agree completely we need to put great store in energy independence within 10 years, even if that requires Manhatten Project like efforts. I figure if the target is 10 then we would be independent with in 20 in real terms. Once free life gets a lot easier for the US.
2) We are not an Empire. Even if we were those days are at an end. Time to be like Japan or most other industrialized worlds. We can use diplomacy, we can use charity, and we can use envoys. But our troops? No longer. Get them out. We have overreached and are now bankrupt. Time for the next empire. Nothing wrong with being like Western Europe and Japan-well off and not bringing home body bags.
Frazzled wrote:(argh you're too hard to resist Dogma)
Respectfully,
I proffer that:
1) Gas will rise to $2 by FYE 2009 and potentially $3 - $3.5 by FYE 2010. That’s assume there’s no clash between Israel and Iran. I’d venture if instigated by the Israelis it will occur before Obama become el Presidente or not at all. It could be instigated by the Iranians any time Ahman whatever feels to much internal pressure and needs to do some scapegoating. That will occur regardless of what we do.
With equal respect:
The price of oil is going to remain somewhat stable at this point, you are correct, at least in the sense that we shouldn't see a major contraction of supply (unless, of course, the Iraqi state fails). My comments were meant to be taken in light of the necessity of utilizing the tools at our disposal to ensure stability in oil producing regions. Whether those tools are diplomatic (with respect to the use of coalition forces), or military (unilateral action per our current reality) is secondary.
Frazzled wrote:
Having said that I agree completely we need to put great store in energy independence within 10 years, even if that requires Manhatten Project like efforts. I figure if the target is 10 then we would be independent with in 20 in real terms. Once free life gets a lot easier for the US.
It does indeed. Though we will still be bound to economic realities like those of Western Europe. Namely, as the economic desire for export trade increases (and if energy becomes significantly cheaper it will), the need to encourage global stability does so as well. That isn't to say we need to go putting boots on the ground left-and-right, but that it is likely to be the best available solution during at least one period in the next 20 years.
Frazzled wrote:
2) We are not an Empire. Even if we were those days are at an end. Time to be like Japan or most other industrialized worlds. We can use diplomacy, we can use charity, and we can use envoys. But our troops? No longer. Get them out. We have overreached and are now bankrupt. Time for the next empire. Nothing wrong with being like Western Europe and Japan-well off and not bringing home body bags.
The Imperial character is often considered as one which is synonymous with military force, which is somewhat misleading. Effective empires have always leaned more heavily on diplomacy than conquest. The British, for example, maintained their holding with a minimal expenditure of actual British blood. Most of their infantry divisions were made up of levies taken from the domains of local tributaries over which the Imperial Offices presided. The idea is to use as little intrinsically American force as required, which is to say that we should prevent major deployments like Iraq where we can.
Frazzled wrote:Ah, sorry thats not what I meant. I wish no harm to Seb. If Sebster wants to go fight the world's wars then he can volunteer. I have no desire to send my children or anyone else's children to fight in a foreign war unless we are threatened. I freely admit I've learned my lesson from Iraq.
I don't know if you're reading this, but I never assumed you actually meant for me to go there and then nuke the place. I read 'why don't you go there' and 'just nuke the place' as not being very literal, but rather the kind of things people say in discussion when they don't have anything constructive to say.
I’m more puzzled by the idea of mod ignore listing someone. How do you moderate a board if you’re going ‘LALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU’ to one of its posters?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Isn't that the truth. I've heard people say that Iraq was a terrible idea, that America has no right to be the world's police, that we can't just sweep in and depose leaders we don't like, and that we can't be so careless and unthinking.
Then those same people complain that we haven't invaded Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. Because, you know, that's not an unstable region that has lots of internal conflicts that are being overlooked. Not like Iraq. And it's not like Saddam was behind horrific genocide, either.
To be fair, it isn’t always the same people. There are critics that say the US shouldn’t get involved in any overseas operation, and there are critics that say the US should get involved more.
But in general it’s an unfortunate reality that people will complain regardless of what gets done, but that’s why you shouldn’t worry about what people complain about, you should just worry about doing what you believe to be right.
I'm really pretty tired of it. The Cold War is over, I think it's time for us to let the world sort itself out.
Unless we'll be getting real forces to ally with - forces that won't back out, and we can rely on - I see no reason to try and start anything else.
Callous maybe, but we aren't Rome, no one wants us to be an empire.
It may or may not be callous, but it isn’t that accurate. The US doesn’t contribute heavily to peacekeeping operations (the majority contributors tend to be former colonists and developing countries). Most US engagement has been in its own operations, undertaken for its own reasons.
sebster wrote:To be fair, it isn’t always the same people. There are critics that say the US shouldn’t get involved in any overseas operation, and there are critics that say the US should get involved more.
But in general it’s an unfortunate reality that people will complain regardless of what gets done, but that’s why you shouldn’t worry about what people complain about, you should just worry about doing what you believe to be right.
I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...
It may or may not be callous, but it isn’t that accurate. The US doesn’t contribute heavily to peacekeeping operations (the majority contributors tend to be former colonists and developing countries). Most US engagement has been in its own operations, undertaken for its own reasons.
Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.
Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.
Orkeosaurus wrote: I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...
Oh, you won’t catch me defending the self-righteous leftists of the world, they’re more annoying than just about anyone out there (and clove cigarettes smell horrible. It certainly gets annoying when people take the default position of ‘whatever the US is doing is wrong’. Not that the other two types, those who believe you should be everywhere saving everyone and those who believe no intervention is ever justified, are much better. I mean, ultimately it’s a really complicated issue and every proposed operation has its own justifications (humanitarian reasons, protecting investments and key resources, ensuring it doesn’t expand into a greater conflict).
You can’t just take a hardline on the issue.
Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.
Yeah, the US has certainly been willing to commit overseas, but as its own operation (though typically with UN blessing, they haven’t had to wear those blue helmets). My issue was with the idea in this thread of being sick of the UN and sending troops overseas. When it comes to sending troops overseas as part of the UN, the US… well it hardly ever does.
Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.
Contributions to the UN are pegged at a percentage of national GDP. The US, being the biggest economy in the world by far, is the biggest contributor to the UN. However, there’s a clause that limits any one country’s contribution to 22% of total contributions. So while the US contribution is the largest, as a percentage of GDP it is lower than anyone.
Orkeosaurus wrote: I know it isn't always the same people, I'd say it's usually not, but it get pretty annoying when it is. Especially since those people tend get self-righteous at the same time...
Oh, you won’t catch me defending the self-righteous leftists of the world, they’re more annoying than just about anyone out there (and clove cigarettes smell horrible. It certainly gets annoying when people take the default position of ‘whatever the US is doing is wrong’. Not that the other two types, those who believe you should be everywhere saving everyone and those who believe no intervention is ever justified, are much better. I mean, ultimately it’s a really complicated issue and every proposed operation has its own justifications (humanitarian reasons, protecting investments and key resources, ensuring it doesn’t expand into a greater conflict).
You can’t just take a hardline on the issue.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was against any military intervention on my country's part; there have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when it's required. I just find it annoying when people strongly criticise an action that isn't far off from one that they advocate taking themselves.
It's definitely not a matter of America wanting to be left alone; we've started a lot of these quagmires ourselves.
Which are often given as peace-keeping. Or avenging wrongs, or something along those lines.
Then again, there's a fair bit of retconning going on their too. I remember a lot of talk about going into Iraq for weapons of mass-destruction, and not a lot of this "kill Saddam for great justice!" tripe that's being touted as the reason for the invasion.
Yeah, the US has certainly been willing to commit overseas, but as its own operation (though typically with UN blessing, they haven’t had to wear those blue helmets). My issue was with the idea in this thread of being sick of the UN and sending troops overseas. When it comes to sending troops overseas as part of the UN, the US… well it hardly ever does.
No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).
Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)
Also, don't forget that America does contribute quite a bit to the UN financially, even if they don't supply as many soldiers.
Contributions to the UN are pegged at a percentage of national GDP. The US, being the biggest economy in the world by far, is the biggest contributor to the UN. However, there’s a clause that limits any one country’s contribution to 22% of total contributions. So while the US contribution is the largest, as a percentage of GDP it is lower than anyone.
The amount may not be as much of our GDP, but it's still the most.
Then again, America has more to lose from global instability than most other countries, so I'm sure that ties into it.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I didn't mean to make it sound like I was against any military intervention on my country's part; there have been times in the past and there will be times in the future when it's required. I just find it annoying when people strongly criticise an action that isn't far off from one that they advocate taking themselves.
It's definitely not a matter of America wanting to be left alone; we've started a lot of these quagmires ourselves.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were arguing to be left alone. I was talking in general.
And yeah, you've started a few yourselves, and in other instances you're economically or historically tied to situations and have to get involved. If Panama went crazy tomorrow, you can't ignore it... economically and politically you'd have to send in troops.
No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).
Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)
Sort of. Funnily enough there isn't that much of a shortage of troops willing to go into nations, the rate of UN peacekeeping pay is way above the pay of soldiers in developing countries, so you always get Pakistan and Nigeria volunteering to send in troops. It's larger operations with greater logisitics demands that need greater contributions from the US and other first world militaries.
Not that that's necessarily a stumbling block anyway, normally UN involvement gets stuck around issues of national sovereignty vs human rights, more than a shortage of troop commitments.
The amount may not be as much of our GDP, but it's still the most.
Then again, America has more to lose from global instability than most other countries, so I'm sure that ties into it.
Sure, I don't mean to discredit US contribution. Just put it it's actual place in the world, not in the place assumed by so many.
No, no, I see what you're saying. It's not a matter of the UN begging us to go in and fight, it's more of a matter of "activists" (Americans, usually) begging for the US to do something without knowing enough about what they advocate we undertake. Or individual countries wanting assistance, although that's not all that common (especially with our recent track record, I'm guessing ).
Then again I'm sort of ranting here, it's not like activists are overrunning everything, trying to pull us into another war. (Not that they'd ever call it that...)
Sort of. Funnily enough there isn't that much of a shortage of troops willing to go into nations, the rate of UN peacekeeping pay is way above the pay of soldiers in developing countries, so you always get Pakistan and Nigeria volunteering to send in troops. It's larger operations with greater logisitics demands that need greater contributions from the US and other first world militaries.
Not that that's necessarily a stumbling block anyway, normally UN involvement gets stuck around issues of national sovereignty vs human rights, more than a shortage of troop commitments.
Yeah, the UN tends to go about things slowly. On the other hand, I can see the need to limit the power of a single body like that. Not that the UN really has power without it's members... Hm. This is all very complex... . . . . Oh man! He threw shoes at the President! Shoes!
.
)If we stopped just beating things up that offend us, and made positive steps forward, things in the world would change. Look at a China. They export their excess labour to the third world, where they help to build infrastructure, without a hefty bill. That is the way forward. Humanity is a single species, regardless of cast or creed, and it;s high time we started acting like one.
).