Obama and American Arrogance

President Barack Obama is taking some hits for referring to America’s “arrogance.” Karl Rove rushed onto Fox News this morning, huffing and puffing, to criticize the president, saying that he could have made the same remarks with a positive spin on the subject. He should say what good things American is going to do not dwell on the bad she has done. If he needed to, Rove opined, he could even show a contrast with the past, but without admitting to our weakness. Act presidential.

But there is a time to quit “acting.” Most of the people in the world think that we are arrogant and talking about that perception openly is disarming and long overdue.

The Pope could have answered the Church pedophile crisis by announcing a new “quality search” for the best men, the most balanced and moral of men to serve the Church as priests. “This is a new, forward looking program that will make the Catholic experience better for us all.” But ignoring the truth of what was happening would not have helped. Sometimes you have to hit the problem head-on.

It doesn’t hurt for Americans to learn what the rest of the world thinks. They think we are myopic, self-centered and foolishly arrogant know-it-alls who are wrong at least half the time and should quit trying to tell everybody else how to run their countries. Balance your own budget, they say. Don’t lecture us on how to solve the Global economic crisis, you started it, you ninnies. Educate your own stupid children, they say. And start doing something about your own epidemic of pornography and violence, as in the spate of killings this week, before you lecture us on “freedom.”

Mary Wells transformed Madison Avenue by her “truth in advertising” philosophy. According to Wells, you simply state a truth, especially a negative one, and people will then believe everything else you have to say.

In the 1960’s the French automobile manufacturer, Renault, took out full page ads in major newsweeklies to headline why their cars broke down on American highways. People read the ads and thought, now why did Renault pay all that money to talk about their mistakes? But then the ad went on to say something along these lines, “our cars broke down because they were built for the smaller European roads but now, the engineers who built the bestselling automobiles in Europe have designed a new car for the American highways.” They started with the unpleasant truth and everything else they said was believable.

Barack Obama cannot be blamed for the worldwide perception of American arrogance. But in an age when some believe that it is only a matter of time before a terrorist will possess a nuclear device, it is a dangerous, isolated place for this country to be. The first way out is to see what others see and admit it and try to solve it. At least now, thanks to Obama, they will listen to what else we have to say.

Of course, the next step is to listen to them.

I’m not a socialist and I feel the painful irony as Europe looks on aghast at America’s flirt with the very leftist policies that sent their economies reeling. No wonder the Germans and Swedes are horrified. Has America lost its’ mind? And I am hoping that the first thing America learns in its retreat from arrogance is that embracing what Europe has already tried and abandoned will not work. I am hoping that President Obama means what he says and that he is actually rethinking things after encountering Merkel and others at the summit. But admitting to American arrogance is not a bad start.

Now if Obama will only admit to his own.

15 Responses to Obama and American Arrogance

  1. tex2 says:

    Doug,

    Looks like some idiot hijacked your blog. I will respond as if you wrote the above story, however.

    Sounds like you and George aren’t the best of friends, since you secretly recorded him and got into hot water over this disloyalty.

    I think more people have called Rove “Bush’s Brain” than he has claimed it. Can you provide a link where Rove uses that “title” to describe himself? Also, if Bush were so stupid (I dont’ know the man, but I certainly don’t believe the media or someone with an ax to grind), isn’t all the more impressive Rove got him elected president, twice?

    I listed a variety of reasons for the Iraq war, which you left unanswered. If not Iraq, where is the source of our “arrogance?” Does it come close to the arrogance Russia has displayed the past few years? Or Germany/France, not stepping up to the plate yesterday and providing soldiers, not just “trainers” in the safe zones, where they can have a warm shower, sleep in a soft bed every night, and have 3 hot meals a day?

    When they put their young men on the line to protect people around the world, I’ll start to care what they think.

    Obama is the one looking for other countries to overspend like he is, make sure you identify the target prior to pulling the trigger.

    You have to expect a few nuts when there are over 300 million people in our country. You are assuming the rest of us behave like that or approve of that behavior.

    Barry O. has enough teleprompters to tell him how to get the idea across without falling on our sword.

    Barry O. has been lying since he took the oath of office (twice, the second time WITHOUT a Bible). What happened to working with the Republicans, reading bills, let alone allowing the public to read them for 5 days, before getting them approved? No tax increase for 95% of the people, then going after energy “fees” that are simply taxes wearing different clothes? How about the tax of inflation when all of his overspending hits the fan in a couple of years?

    I doubt very much the Germans and French changed his socialist mind. How could a couple hour visit impact what he has been planning his entire adult life? I think the issue is FAR more critical than just one more socialist country. We are the last and best chance for the world economy. If we go socialist, I believe the entire world will suffer greatly.

    Okay Doug, tell us who wrote this thread when you find out.

  2. nexttouch says:

    Well done, Doug! This idea that patriotism involves turning a blind eye to all of America’s mistakes is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. It takes intelligence to hold two competing ideas in mind at the same time; an intelligence we have not seen borne out in recent history. The first rule of leadership is to define reality. Reality is perception. The perception around the world is that American’s are fat, selfish and narcissistic. If those charges are wrong, it makes perfect sense to acknowledge that perception, search our hearts, humble ourselves and lead with humility. I remember that it is written somewhere of individuals and nations: “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” What have the humble to fear?

  3. tex2 says:

    nexttouch,

    That quote is from the Bible.

    America has made FAR fewer mistakes than most countries. There is no need to apologize to any of those cowardly countries who are more than happy to allow our husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and friends die in battle, while they sit back and reap the rewards of our lost human and financial treasure. You and Doug are dead WRONG on this issue. The Europeans and others are playing us, and you guys don’t even recognize it. I’m glad Doug wasn’t advising Bush, we would have had to deal with 4-8 years of Gore.

  4. tex2 says:

    I neglected to include sons and daughters in the above, probably the most tragic scenario.

  5. chrishudgins says:

    Tex2 wrote: “America has made FAR fewer mistakes than most countries”

    America is also FAR YOUNGER than most other countries and could learn a thing or two FROM the mistakes of other countries. Doug’s advocating taking responsibility for what we’ve done wrong, in spite of what they have or have not done wrong. Doug isn’t advocating socialism…

    “I’m not a socialist and I feel the painful irony as Europe looks on aghast at America’s flirt with the very leftist policies that sent their economies reeling.”

    You’re reading something more into what he’s actually written. American arrogance is real and not right, EVEN IF everyone else is worse.

  6. tex2 says:

    Actually, America has the OLDEST continuous government than ALL other countries. We could count the American Indians as much as the other countries count their kings and warlords and be considered as old as the other countries. Sure, they have some old stone structures that are old, but that’s about the extent of it.

    We already learned from their mistakes, and fixed their problems while being made. They were called WWI and WWII, as 2 examples.

    I never said Doug was advocating socialism, but supporting virtually ANYTHING Barry O. does IS supporting socialism.

    You’re reading something more into what I’ve actually written. America isn’t arrogant, we simply back up what we say, unlike most other countries and the U.N.

  7. teynnensweig says:

    tex2 writes:

    “I listed a variety of reasons for the Iraq war…”

    ALl of which was just so much neo-con spin, it’s amazing that you can still fall for it, when it’s been reguritated now for close to 20 years in one form or another. If you care to educate yourself, check out anything by the PNAC for ex. has disseminated since inception (Lynn Cheyney, Secretary).

    “If not Iraq, where is the source of our “arrogance?””

    How about escatlatin the war in Afpak, thinking we can prevail in that 4th gen conflict with 2nd gen warfare tactics? Or being there at all and feeling that it is the righteous thing to do?
    Or how about making an AGREEMENT with the Gorbatchev/USSR NOT to expand NATO onto its front porch, and then doing just that by bringingi in the Baltics, and trying it with the Ukraine etc?
    If you think, WE don’t have to keep a pact made with THEM, and that our word means nothing, well Q.E.D. as to your own arrogance.

    “Or Germany/France, not stepping up to the plate yesterday and providing soldiers, not just “trainers””

    Well, imagine that, these effimates don’t even play baseball, they don’t even know what you mean.
    In fact, even trainers are too much, why should they give ANYTHING for someone else’s war? Just because WE were dumb enough to get suckered into fighting the Brit’s war twice last century, doesn’t mean other countries have to make the same mistake.

    “When they put their young men on the line to protect people around the world…”

    WE shouldn’t be doing the protecting for anyone else, and neither should they. It is not our role, nor our responsibility to “protect people around the world”. Funny how we seem to be the only ones who feel the need that anyone needs protecting “around the world”, which situation is shown by the fact that no one else seems to really want to do anything around the world.
    YOU think are right, and the other 6,000,000,000 people around the world are wrong, and THAT is not arrogance?

    “any of those cowardly countries who are”

    coward, or perhaps just not stop, which is when you get suckered into doing someone else’s dirty work.

    “more than happy to allow our husbands … to die in battle … of our lost human and financial treasure.”

    Well, WE should not be sacrificing our own relations, and wasting our own treasure, why should any one else?
    What reward? Do you actually believe there is A REWARD? What might that be? The pax americana of George W. Bush?
    Ever heard of blow-back? It is our CURRENT acttions that are making things worse for us, not our inaction.
    The places you want to help us fight this unjust and unnecessary conflict are not threatened, what IS in it for them?

    Every single American life of the 5000+ lost sofar was a wasted life. The cause and effect you seem to believe in was just smoke and mirrors by clique in DC, enriching Blackwater, Haliburton, etc, and supposedly helping protect a small part of the Middle East, when long-term, even that will be counterproductive.
    We have already killed or caused to die 1,000,000+ Iraqies in the two wars, some protection and liberation from their dictator that was for them.

    “Actually, America has the OLDEST continuous government than ALL other countries.”

    No arrogance? Switzerland has had a continuous government for 800 years, and England for about as long (the chromwellian interregnum not withstanding, as he did lead parliament’s forces). More important, the lenght of a governments continuous existence says nothing about the lenght of a culture’s/societies existence. Here just about every major European country is at about 1200+ years, no to mention any Asian countries like Japan, or China.

    ” We could count the American Indians as much as the other countries count their kings and warlords”

    That is completely not apposite here. What connection does our culture and intellectual heritage (Christian and that of the Enlightenment) have to a hunterer-gatherer “civilization” such as you mention?
    That is even less appropriate than the Turks laying ANY claim to any of the Greek or Armenian cultural heritage, just because they now inhabit territories that were once part of those civilizations. If the Turks did/do that, at least they would be aspiring upwards (towards more of it), which would be rational. But the other way (to less)? Not only is it factually wrong, but irrational to boot.

  8. teynnensweig says:

    BTW, I meant Dick, not Lynn, as a co-founder.

    and it should say:
    “coward, or perhaps just not stupid, which is when you get suckered into doing someone else’s dirty work.”

    As to any other typo, can’t proof in this small field so easily, so @*^%$#! DB.

  9. tex2 says:

    teynnensweig,

    It’s absurd to declare the other Iraq war reasons as “neo-con spin”, you need to address EACH reason listed, and show why I am wrong or the issue should have had no consequence.

    Afpak is a dozens, if not scores, of generations conflict. Do you suggest we allow the terrorists to plot their next 9/11 attack without any interference?

    Show me a link for the NATO agreement you referenced. Here’s one that says you’re wrong: http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10643&Itemid=65

    Who cares if they understand a baseball analogy? I’m not talking with them, I’m talking with you.

    Terrorists attacked England, Spain, Germany, and I believe France. They have probably been stopped before they attacked several other countries. This is NOT a U.S. war, it is a world-wide war.

    We entered WWI because Germany was attacking our merchant ships in the Atlantic and Med., and trying to get Mexico to side with them. Hitler was trying to take over 2 entire continents with a brutal dictatorship. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of having allies.

    9/11, plus several previous terrorist attacks, PROVED I am right. Most of the other 6 million people don’t have a clue, especially you. Again, would you prefer we clam up and allow the terrorists to organize for an even BIGGER attack on U.S. soil, or take the fight to them?

    We haven’t killed 1 million Iraqis, the terrorists and power hungry Iraqi factions did.

    Switzerland isn’t a country, they are perpetually neutral so they don’t have to be involved. England has had major changes, as the Queen no longer has any meaningful power, and the other countries you mentioned have had a variety of forms of governments over the past 200 years, including Japan and China. It wasn’t even 70 years ago the Japanese considered their Emperor a god, and the Chinese Communists have been in power for even less time. Hope you didn’t major in history, because your ignorance is astounding.

    The Indians have about the same amount of influence as the various kings and warlords did in Europe prior to about 1500. Christianity was mostly oppressive, not anywhere close to what we consider “religion” today.

  10. teynnensweig says:

    tex2:

    “…absurd to declare the other Iraq war reasons as “neo-con spin””

    So who made a local conflict into a multi-side war? IF you are so fond of history, what happened when Saddam Hussein sought guidance from us, through our official representatives (ever heard of Ms. Glaspie?) as to our attitude and reaction towards a possible armed conflict between Iraq and Kuweit?
    But you seem like the type who actually believes that Iraqi soldiers bayonneted babies in incubators I guess. Or that oh so touching testimony by that poor war-scarred Kuweiti girl, who actually was the ambassadors daughter?

    “Afpak is a dozens, if not scores, of generations conflict.”

    Oh, so we need to stick it out for generations now? Not according to anythign Bush or McCain ever said, the latter retracting his 100 year thing. And if so, gee what does that mean, now that Obama is sounding ever more like Bush? When the twain meet, the fool sits in between, and the truth is elsewhere.

    “Do you suggest we allow the terrorists to plot their next 9/11 attack without any interference?”

    So how many Afghanis were involved in 9/11? As to the harboring issue, have you ever heard that the indigenous were willing to give up any vestiges of the foreigners, and could have been worked with? And you must now believe, that that bearded, dialysis patient is still holed up somewhere in a Hindukush cave, if you still want to be fighting there.
    Do you actually think the man is still alive?

    “http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10643&Itemid=65”
    A most trustworthy outlet. Of course Georgian official voices are independent arbiters. Are you aware that there is no such thing as free Georgian anything in the country under that regime. Their foreign mouthpieces have about the same value as disgraced Iraqi businessman operating out of London while supplying CIA with false data.

    “Terrorists attacked England, Spain”
    Blow-back, hello? As to the English ones, where were they from, looks homegrown to most.

    “Germany, and I believe France.”

    Must have missed those, what happend🙂

    “They have probably been stopped before they attacked several other countries.”

    And if we just keep looking hard enough, we WILL find those pesky little WMDs in IRAQ, just you wait.
    And if you just give some more regulatory oversight power to the SEC, FED, FDA, USDA, ATF, DEA, etc, etc, then finally, they will be able to get all bad behavior under control. Oh happy days!

    “This is NOT a U.S. war, it is a world-wide war.”

    What are they fighting against, our freedoms? If so, which Chinese, Zimbabwean, Cuban, Swedish, or you name it freedoms are they attacking, as you imply they are agains everyone.

    “We entered WWI because Germany was attacking our merchant ships in the Atlantic and Med., and trying to get Mexico to side with them. Hitler was trying to take over 2 entire continents with a brutal dictatorship. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of having allies.”

    Oh, the US was Britains ally in 1914-1916? That’s a new def. of neutrality. Our ships were supplying materiel to Britain, and we claimed that right as a neutral. Now you admit we were their ally.
    Using this famous ship as an illustration: the Lusitania was unquestionably loaded with materiel, making it FAIR game under international law for attack by a belligerent. Germany advertised in major US newspapers for days before the sailing of the Lusitania that it will be considered a fair target, warning passengers not to embark. The docks could be seen holding materiel being loaded on the ship for days ahead of sailing as well. A cynical British government, and the Wilson administration complicit, was willing to sacrifice innocents by allowing this militarization, making the ship FAIR target.
    What did YOUR president say about the regrettable loss of life, when bombarding military targets Saddam placed in civilian neighorhoods? It was all the fault of the cynical Saddam, by placing fair targets in civilian neighborhoods.
    When German subs attacked those types of our targets, it was the evil German torpedoers fault, but when we bombed those types of targets in Iraq, it was the evil Saddam’s bombee fault.

    You can only have it one way, not which ever suits you at any one time.

    Which two continents with respect to Hitler are you talking about? North America? Is that what all those super-long range German bombers, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and troop carriers of the German navy were for? Oh you never heard of them? Interesting, for no one else has either.
    And of course there were no serious discussions at least as far as 12/1939 between Germany and the Chamberlain government, to keep a German/Polish dispute from going global? And of course our president was doing everything in his power to prevent a world wide conflagration, working every step of the way to deescalate as much as possible.

    “Again, would you prefer we clam up and allow the terrorists to organize for an even BIGGER attack on U.S. soil, or take the fight to them?”

    Because with these super-sealed borders all around the US, especially the fortress along our southern border, we have already done as much as possible to really keep them out over here, so all that is now left to do, is to take it to the one and only possible refuge of these evil towelheads, Afghanistan. They can’t possibly emanate from Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Kuweit, or Egypt. Of course if we do determine that those countries are involved, then we can go kick some ass there too. And lets not forget the Uighurs, those bast#@^#! Two of them are still stuck in Guantanamo. I say we bomb Uighuristan, the Chinese would love that.

    All kidding aside, if this were the threat you make it out to be, can you please explain why the MOST-CROSSED border anywhere in the world has been wide open since the 12th of September, 2001, with NO serious attempt at policing it for over 7 years now? Anyone who does try, goes to prison, just ask Ramos and Campian.

    “We haven’t killed 1 million Iraqis, the terrorists and power hungry Iraqi factions did.”

    And Stalin didn’t kill 9 million Ukrainians, they just refused to eat. And the million+ German POWs in the cow-pens along the Rhine, they also just refused to eat. Sounds like a Nuremberg defense to me.

    “Switzerland isn’t a country, they are perpetually neutral”
    My history understanding is astounding? By your novel definition, only those that engage in “entangling alliances” as our first Pres. called them, is a country?
    That means we haven’t been one for very long. Washington and Jefferson claimed neutrality, as we did during WWI, so there goes your argument even on your own terms. Of course those terms are bunk.

    “England has had major changes…Hope you didn’t major in history, because your ignorance is astounding.”

    And I hope you didn’t either, because that sure would have been a waste of tuition money. One thing one learns in college is deductive reasoning, and being able to understand arguments, not just regurgitating facts.
    The main point was, and remains, that one form of government, and its continuity, does not a new country make.
    On your terms, the major change in England that you point to is a gradual devolution of power from the crown to parliament, and the government. If that qualifies, then the US is not very old. We are not even a shadow of the country that our founding fathers set up, one that DID NOT envisage an “unitary executive”, or power flowing from the federal government to the states, or the congress abrogating its power to coin money to another entity.
    The only true break in English history you could point to happened long before the USA came to exist, I did mention that Chromwellian interregnum, and I stated why that does not count in your argument.

    But AGAIN, that is NOT the point. England has existed as a cultural entityfor at least 1000 years, so that country alone disproves your argument.

    And the US broke asunder de-lege much more for 5 years not too long ago, so that again on YOUR terms, your argument is false. We did NOT fight a civil war, or even a war to PREVENT secession, but a war to reannex seceeded entities. The USA founded in 1787 ceased to exist1860/1861, and the country that was reestablished 5 years later, was not the same one either.

    “Indians and Europe prior to about 1500”

    You really do not know much about history. Ever hear of the “stupor mundi”, the “wonder of the world” as Frederik II Barbarossa, the German Holy Roman Emperor, was called? Or perhaps, you might try reading about Charles the Great, who was crowned emperor over 1200 years ago, to see what his level of civilization was.
    Chartres Cathedral or Speyer cathedral were built by Indian-advanced civilizations after 1500?

    “Christianity was mostly oppressive, not anywhere close to what we consider “religion” today.”

    Your religion du-jour maybe.
    Christianity was never oppressive.
    Christianity, save for the reformation, was not that much different then as it is today. They believed in the holy trinity, and that Christ died for the sins of mankind, and that redemption comes through Christ.
    Judaism, in its true form did not change much in that time, neither did Hinduism, and I doubt very much, that Islam changed terrible much once it was fully established a few hundred years after Muhammad.

    **What humans do in the name of religion is NOT the religion itself.**
    And any of the war crimes committed by our country just in the last 10-20 years belie your point, for all those leaders of ours professed to being Christian. (no need to talk about any other’s actions, they are no better. Stalin and Hitler don’t count, they were not believers.)

  11. teynnensweig says:

    tex2, you write:

    “…absurd to declare the other Iraq war reasons as “neo-con spin””

    So who made a local conflict into a multi-side war? IF you are so fond of history, what happened when Saddam Hussein sought guidance from us, through our official representatives (ever heard of Ms. Glaspie?) as to our attitude and reaction towards a possible armed conflict between Iraq and Kuweit?
    But you seem like the type who actually believes that Iraqi soldiers bayonneted babies in incubators I guess. Or that oh so touching testimony by that poor war-scarred Kuweiti girl, who actually was the ambassadors daughter?

    “Afpak is a dozens, if not scores, of generations conflict.”

    Oh, so we need to stick it out for generations now? Not according to anythign Bush or McCain ever said, the latter retracting his 100 year thing. And if so, gee what does that mean, now that Obama is sounding ever more like Bush? When the twain meet, the fool sits in between, and the truth is elsewhere.

    “Do you suggest we allow the terrorists to plot their next 9/11 attack without any interference?”

    So how many Afghanis were involved in 9/11? As to the harboring issue, have you ever heard that the indigenous were willing to give up any vestiges of the foreigners, and could have been worked with? And you must now believe, that that bearded, dialysis patient is still holed up somewhere in a Hindukush cave, if you still want to be fighting there.
    Do you actually think the man is still alive?

    “http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10643&Itemid=65”
    A most trustworthy outlet. Of course Georgian official voices are independent arbiters. Are you aware that there is no such thing as free Georgian anything in the country under that regime. Their foreign mouthpieces have about the same value as disgraced Iraqi businessman operating out of London while supplying CIA with false data.

    “Terrorists attacked England, Spain”
    Blow-back, hello? As to the English ones, where were they from, looks homegrown to most.

    “Germany, and I believe France.”

    Must have missed those, what happend🙂

    “They have probably been stopped before they attacked several other countries.”

    And if we just keep looking hard enough, we WILL find those pesky little WMDs in IRAQ, just you wait.
    And if you just give some more regulatory oversight power to the SEC, FED, FDA, USDA, ATF, DEA, etc, etc, then finally, they will be able to get all bad behavior under control. Oh happy days!

    “This is NOT a U.S. war, it is a world-wide war.”

    What are they fighting against, our freedoms? If so, which Chinese, Zimbabwean, Cuban, Swedish, or you name it freedoms are they attacking, as you imply they are agains everyone.

    “We entered WWI because Germany was attacking our merchant ships in the Atlantic and Med., and trying to get Mexico to side with them. Hitler was trying to take over 2 entire continents with a brutal dictatorship. You obviously don’t understand the meaning of having allies.”

    Oh, the US was Britains ally in 1914-1916? That’s a new def. of neutrality. Our ships were supplying materiel to Britain, and we claimed that right as a neutral. Now you admit we were their ally.
    Using this famous ship as an illustration: the Lusitania was unquestionably loaded with materiel, making it FAIR game under international law for attack by a belligerent. Germany advertised in major US newspapers for days before the sailing of the Lusitania that it will be considered a fair target, warning passengers not to embark. The docks could be seen holding materiel being loaded on the ship for days ahead of sailing as well. A cynical British government, and the Wilson administration complicit, was willing to sacrifice innocents by allowing this militarization, making the ship FAIR target.
    What did YOUR president say about the regrettable loss of life, when bombarding military targets Saddam placed in civilian neighorhoods? It was all the fault of the cynical Saddam, by placing fair targets in civilian neighborhoods.
    When German subs attacked those types of our targets, it was the evil German torpedoers fault, but when we bombed those types of targets in Iraq, it was the evil Saddam’s bombee fault.

    You can only have it one way, not which ever suits you at any one time.

    Which two continents with respect to Hitler are you talking about? North America? Is that what all those super-long range German bombers, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and troop carriers of the German navy were for? Oh you never heard of them? Interesting, for no one else has either.
    And of course there were no serious discussions at least as far as 12/1939 between Germany and the Chamberlain government, to keep a German/Polish dispute from going global? And of course our president was doing everything in his power to prevent a world wide conflagration, working every step of the way to deescalate as much as possible.

    “Again, would you prefer we clam up and allow the terrorists to organize for an even BIGGER attack on U.S. soil, or take the fight to them?”

    Because with these super-sealed borders all around the US, especially the fortress along our southern border, we have already done as much as possible to really keep them out over here, so all that is now left to do, is to take it to the one and only possible refuge of these evil towelheads, Afghanistan. They can’t possibly emanate from Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, or Kuweit, or Egypt. Of course if we do determine that those countries are involved, then we can go kick some ass there too. And lets not forget the Uighurs, those bast#@^#! Two of them are still stuck in Guantanamo. I say we bomb Uighuristan, the Chinese would love that.

    All kidding aside, if this were the threat you make it out to be, can you please explain why the MOST-CROSSED border anywhere in the world has been wide open since the 12th of September, 2001, with NO serious attempt at policing it for over 7 years now? Anyone who does try, goes to prison, just ask Ramos and Campian.

    “We haven’t killed 1 million Iraqis, the terrorists and power hungry Iraqi factions did.”

    And Stalin didn’t kill 9 million Ukrainians, they just refused to eat. And the million+ German POWs in the cow-pens along the Rhine, they also just refused to eat. Sounds like a Nuremberg defense to me.

    “Switzerland isn’t a country, they are perpetually neutral”
    My history understanding is astounding? By your novel definition, only those that engage in “entangling alliances” as our first Pres. called them, is a country?
    That means we haven’t been one for very long. Washington and Jefferson claimed neutrality, as we did during WWI, so there goes your argument even on your own terms. Of course those terms are bunk.

    “England has had major changes…Hope you didn’t major in history, because your ignorance is astounding.”

    And I hope you didn’t either, because that sure would have been a waste of tuition money. One thing one learns in college is deductive reasoning, and being able to understand arguments, not just regurgitating facts.
    The main point was, and remains, that one form of government, and its continuity, does not a new country make.
    On your terms, the major change in England that you point to is a gradual devolution of power from the crown to parliament, and the government. If that qualifies, then the US is not very old. We are not even a shadow of the country that our founding fathers set up, one that DID NOT envisage an “unitary executive”, or power flowing from the federal government to the states, or the congress abrogating its power to coin money to another entity.
    The only true break in English history you could point to happened long before the USA came to exist, I did mention that Chromwellian interregnum, and I stated why that does not count in your argument.

    But AGAIN, that is NOT the point. England has existed as a cultural entityfor at least 1000 years, so that country alone disproves your argument.

    And the US broke asunder de-lege much more for 5 years not too long ago, so that again on YOUR terms, your argument is false. We did NOT fight a civil war, or even a war to PREVENT secession, but a war to reannex seceeded entities. The USA founded in 1787 ceased to exist1860/1861, and the country that was reestablished 5 years later, was not the same one either.

    “Indians and Europe prior to about 1500”

    You really do not know much about history. Ever hear of the “stupor mundi”, the “wonder of the world” as Frederik II Barbarossa, the German Holy Roman Emperor, was called? Or perhaps, you might try reading about Charles the Great, who was crowned emperor over 1200 years ago, to see what his level of civilization was.
    Chartres Cathedral or Speyer cathedral were built by Indian-advanced civilizations after 1500?

    “Christianity was mostly oppressive, not anywhere close to what we consider “religion” today.”

    Your religion du-jour maybe.
    Christianity was never oppressive.
    Christianity, save for the reformation, was not that much different then as it is today. They believed in the holy trinity, and that Christ died for the sins of mankind, and that redemption comes through Christ.
    Judaism, in its true form did not change much in that time, neither did Hinduism, and I doubt very much, that Islam changed terrible much once it was fully established a few hundred years after Muhammad.

    **What humans do in the name of religion is NOT the religion itself.**
    And any of the war crimes committed by our country just in the last 10-20 years belie your point, for all those leaders of ours professed to being Christian. –no need to talk about other leaders’ actions, they are no better. Stalin and Hitler don’t count, they were not believers.

  12. tex2 says:

    Saddam thought he could pull a Hitler, and take over a country instead of paying back his debts: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait”

    However, he stepped in a pile of crap when he took over a critical oil producing country that was our strong ally. See also: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie” and you will find the U.S. did not encourage one country to invade another.

    McCain never said 100 years of fighting troops in an armed conflict. We have been in Germany, Japan, etc., for over half a century, why aren’t you bitching about that? Obama is sounding more like Bush because he now has access to the secret information Bush had, and understands he needs to go after terrorists planning another 9/11 in other countries rather than waiting for them to come here.

    It’s not Afghans we are going after, it’s the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, made more difficult by sympathetic Afghans that don’t have a clue what is going on.

    It matters little whether Osama is alive, the entire organization needs to be attacked.

    I don’t understand the point you are trying to make regarding Georgia. Maybe Jimmy Carter can help.🙂

    Regarding Al-Qaeda, read: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qa’eda” I’m not going to look up every single country for you. Besides, many planned attacks have been prevented, and many of these probably haven’t been released for security reasons.

    Whether the WMD existed or was move to Syria or somewhere else is a mere detail compared to Saddam’s other treaty violations from the first gulf war.

    They are planning terrorist attacks, such as 9/11. Remember that “minor” incident?

    Where did I claim we didn’t consider England and ally in the early 20th century? Of course we tried to help our ally, and I wouldn’t doubt we took chances. So what?

    What did YOUR president say about the regrettable loss of life, when bombarding military targets Saddam placed in civilian neighorhoods? It was all the fault of the cynical Saddam, by placing fair targets in civilian neighborhoods. —- That’s because it WAS illegal, according to the Geneva Convention: “http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq_human_shields/index.html” You have an interesting, absurd, and ignorant view of history.

    War is always “messy”, and the winner gets to write it. Always has, always will. However, we take FAR more care to minimize collateral damage than anyone else.

    No, the two continents are the ones he actually invaded: Europe and Asia. One could include Africa as well.

    Hitler was planning for war WAY before 1939, and probably would have stopped after invading his first country, had he been opposed. The U.S. was in no position militarily to do so in the mid-1930’s.

    I have said for many years we need to improve our border control, especially with Mexico. The reason the border is open is because of greed. American and Mexican.

    Your examples of other mass killings bear zero similarity to our involvement in Iraq.

    We have never been neutral in the Switzerland sense of the word. We have always had allies, and have usually honored our treaties. The world has changed significantly since George Washington, he lived in a far different world. Even the U.S. depended upon a partnership with France in order to win our independence.

    I agree we have adjusted our Constitution, but it is still essentially intact. The U.S. didn’t cease to exist for 5 years during the Civil War, it got smaller, then bigger again. The problem with your examples is the various kings were replaced with very different governments, repeatedly, over the past 500 years. I never claimed “cultural entities” haven’t existed for long periods of time, my original comment was directed towards the form of governments.

    Ever hear of the Crusades?

    Being Christian doesn’t mean you have to be a doormat. You and a lot of wimpy Christians don’t understand that concept.

  13. teynnensweig says:

    tex2 says:

    “Saddam thought he could pull a Hitler, ”

    Well, in a timely article published just today, Buchanan shows what “pulling a Hitler was all about”, esp. as you are implying Czechoslovakia and/or Poland with your comparison.

    He also talks about much of what I mentioned.
    Just see the quote of Churchill’s that starts off the article. See:
    http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-march-madness-1939-1489

    What he says are FACTS not opinion, so whether or not you like the source, you can’t argue the facts. Unless you are just the typical kind person, who can never be convinced no matter how the facts are against deeply held opinion.

    “(Kuweit)…strong ally.”
    Well, Iraq may not have been our strongest ally, but we certainly supported it for many years throughout the 80s, something you don’t do with your enemies.

    “…and you will find the U.S. did not encourage one country to invade another.”

    I never said encouraged. But stating that it is not a concern of the US, and that we have no position, is saying by implication, that you will not get involved. In real-politics, that is a sucker punch, and Hussein fell for it, probably believing that America keeps its word.

    “McCain never said 100 years of fighting troops in an armed conflict. We have been in Germany, Japan, etc., for over half a century, why aren’t you bitching about that?”

    The fighting is implicit, if you are there, and being attacked. We are not wanted there, so do you think our presence would be like that of a disarmed, reeducated, and pacified Japan or Germany has been to 60 years of continued military occupation?
    I did not object to that here, because it is not part of this argument. Since you raise it, I do object, we should close ALL 700+ foreign US bases in the roughly 150+ countries we maintain them in, this unholy empire of ours.

    “Obama is sounding more like Bush because he now has access to the secret information …”

    So, that means betraying the myriad of Americans, who believed in, and voted for an Obama, that promised to disentangle us militarily, not to keep escalating?

    “It’s not Afghans we are going after, it’s the Taliban”

    What a joke. The Talibans ARE Afghans, even more they ARE Afghnistan. 60+% of the country is Pashtun, they are the backbone of the country, the most Afghan of the multi-culti there. The Uzbeks/Tadjiks, etc used to be communists supporting the USSR and were our enemies, the Pashtuns were anti-commies and our allies. You can not separate the Taliban from the Afghans, and you can not “win” a war by allying with 20% of the population against the huge majority.

    “…Georgia…”

    You might want to find out more about sovereign Georgia, such as its current president clamping down at least as hard on media and freedom of speech (jailing people, etc) as anything happening in Russia today.

    Regarding Al-Qaeda, read: “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qa’eda” I’m not going to look up every single country for you. Besides, many planned attacks have been prevented, and many of these probably haven’t been released for security reasons.

    “Where did I claim we didn’t consider England and ally in the early 20th century? Of course we tried to help our ally, and I wouldn’t doubt we took chances. So what?”

    What I sais was that the US was officially a NEUTRAL country, during WWI up to decl of war. and also (see Buchanan for more details) we were a NEUTRAL before WWII.
    NEUTRALITY means NOT being an ally with obligations to ANYONE, or is that so hard to understand? Thus we did NOT consider them to be an ally, we had NONE, including Britain.
    You are saying they were our ally, so either you are wrong, or if not, you are implying that the US was lying about our neutrality. Which is it?

    – That’s because it WAS illegal, according to the Geneva Convention: “http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq_human_shields/index.html” You have an interesting, absurd, and ignorant view of history.

    OK. I did not say that one of my examples was right, and the other not. I said, that both cases need to be measured the same way.
    If it is illegal for Saddam to place military targets in civilian areas, then it is illegal to do that with military targets in civilian vessels.
    Actually, the situation during WWI was, that if you DID place military materiel on CIVILIAN vessels, you made them fair military targets by so doing, and thus making such sinkings LEGAL, even if non-military collateral damage ensued.

    THUS, again, compare the situation. You are measuring the SAME thing (placing military targets amongst civilians), but applying a yardstick that suits your preconceived notions of who is right and who is wrong.
    In WWI you think the party who does the bombing/torpedoing wrong (the Germans) and the party who puts the military target amongst the civilians (US) in the right, but in Iraq, you think the party who does the bombing right (US) and the party who puts the military target amongst the civilians (Saddam) in the wrong.
    You can’t have it both ways. And thus, while international law appears on your side in Iraq, it squarely is against you in WWI, but you ignore that.

    “War is always “messy”, and the winner gets to write it. Always has, always will. However, we take FAR more care to minimize collateral damage than anyone else.”

    Might makes right. Far more care? Tell that to Hiroshimas 130,000 dead, or Dresden’s. They were not even collateral, as they WERE the intended targets. There were NO military targets (first order) not even much second order there, the civilians were targeted as though they were military targets. And NEITHER was necessary, being done purely as retribution. Japan was already beaten, we did not HAVE to invade Japan, thus there was no military necessity for the A-bombs. If we simply had stopped taking our fight to the Japanese, they could have taken NONE to us. Dresden, there is no case you can make for military necessity.

    “We have never been neutral in the Switzerland sense of the word. We have always had allies”

    Simply is not true. We were official neutrals during the Napoleonic wars, and went to war with England to protect our right to trade with anyone, not having to take any side, whether actively or passivly. Neutral does not mean pacifist, only not choosing sides, which is what you do when you have allies and fight for them against others.

    We WERE officially neutral during before and during WWI and WWII (until decl. of war or attacked), and (see Buchanan) that is why we refused to sell aircraft to France, as it would have violated this neutrality. These are facts, that any spin you choose to apply on them, can not outweigh.
    The reason for this neutrality, is that in both conflicts, the great preponderance of the American people were for no American involvement. Only the wish of our Democratic power elite to get us involved finally bore fruit, in 1917 and 1941. Like 9/11, it took catastrophic type events to finally break the mainstreams resistance. Our elites were not innocent in those events.
    By this I do NOT mean conspiracies as to the specific events involved (U-boat campaign resupmtion, Pearl Harbor, 9/11), but our conduct in the years leading up to each event, which, certainly for the first two, was provocative. None of these three incidents happened in a vacuum or out of the blue, despite what you have been conditioned to think. That is what blow-back means.

  14. tex2 says:

    We should learn from history. In this case, the WWII principle is appeasement doesn’t work, and you shouldn’t shrink your military to the extent we did after WWI, aka, “The World War”, aka, “The War to End All Wars”. Other than that, I don’t what point you’re trying to make. I do know that Hitler broke the WWI treaty by building up his military, and if he had no intent to go to war, he had no reason to do that. Not to mention the millions of civilians he had shot, gassed, or just buried alive.

    It’s a complex and changing world. The struggle is that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach often bites you back, eventually.

    We thought he was interested in negotiating horizontal oil drilling, not taking over another sovereign nation. I think he bears SOME responsibility to communicate his intentions, don’t you? Or is everything in the world automatically our fault?

    We are wanted there by many Iraqis, at least until they can take care of themselves. You need to stop watching the “drive by” media so much.

    Our enemies would like us to close all of our foreign bases as well. Do you realize which side that puts you on?

    Obama would be betraying the country if he learned new things and automatically kept his old opinions. He fooled you so he could get elected, simple as that. Jimmy Carter did the same thing, it seems we have to relearn the lesson again every so often, as people don’t learn their history, and are therefore doomed to repeat it.

    Most Afgans are misinformed, uneducated, etc., which makes that country MUCH harder than Iraq. That’s a big reason why Bush didn’t rush in, and we better be VERY careful as we increase our troop levels, especially since the Europeans are happy to watch our young men die and sit on the sidelines, while saying what a great guy Barry O. is.

    I’ve never been to Afghanistan, but have traveled the world, through dozens of diverse countries. A very high percentage of people in all of these countries don’t want war with anyone, they want to live in peace, feed and raise a family, etc. But it only takes a few knuckleheads to screw things up.

    Just because Georgia isn’t perfect is no reason for Russia to invade, just like we have no reason to invade Mexico.

    Just because you originally intend to be neutral, does not mean things don’t change over time: “http://www.oppapers.com/essays/United-States-Neutrality-Wwi/81061” and “http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch20b.html” I realize you would like the world to be simple, it isn’t. People like to claim neutrality. It sounds good, keeps your options open, is easy to do in peace time, and even have it as official policy, until the bullets start flying. The WWI link above says we weren’t happy with England initially either, as we were trying to have commerce with sides. However, England paid for lost cargo, Germany just sank ships. That type of thing tends to change your stance of staying neutral.

    If it is illegal for Saddam to place military targets in civilian areas, then it is illegal to do that with military targets in civilian vessels. —- First of all, the Geneva Convention didn’t EXIST before WWI, and as I said above, we were supplying BOTH sides, and one side had a different “inspection” program, in the form of a torpedo! THUS, again, you are wrong.

    The term “war is hell” isn’t just a simple comment. WAR IS HELL. There are competing opinions about Dresden, it was a large industrial center, and I find it hard to blame England after getting London bombed for a couple of years. There were estimates of losing a million of our own forces by invading Japan, and we needed a full and complete surrender, not just a slap on the hand. as per wikipedia: “During World War II, the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.[7]” Why do you list ONLY the areas that don’t reflect totally positive on the U.S., yet TOTALLY ignore the things Japan and Germany did before and throughout WWII? We tried the “wrist slap” with Saddam, and it came back to bite us, remember? I say “us”, but it doesn’t appear you’re a real American.

    Perhaps WWI and II wouldn’t have happened if we had allies prior to those wars, and assuming we kept our military built up. We haven’t had a major war since, so perhaps we are learning there is no choice but to have allies, especially as technology and trade makes the world smaller.

    I don’t think the “Democratic power elite” (who is that, by the way?) had to influence much to change public opinion when Germany started sinking ships and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

    I realize these events didn’t happen in a vacuum, as described above. I’m not sure what you mean by “provocative”, when what the other side was doing was deadly.

  15. tex2 says:

    I answered your post, it didn’t “stick”. I will say this, YOUR ARE WRONG, and if you want to talk, go to my site and set up a phone call.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: