| Author |
 Topic  |
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/10/2011 : 2:56:01 PM
|
Upon reflection, Warmskin is using Neocon when he actually meas a political "Hawk." Since the reaction to Viet Nam, with each election "Hawks", like myself, including the Neocons, but many others besides them, have gravitated into the Republicans. Along with social conservatives etc, they are presenting a contrast to the "Dove" who have been collecting under the Democratic banner.
This situation is not likely to please our friend, Warmskin, who harks back to the era when the liberal side was "Hawk" reacting to Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Today, the choice is conservative hawks versus liberal doves, and he is wanting more conservative doves. whioh is the Libertarian Party's home base.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
 |
|
|
Jim in Boston
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 02/11/2011 : 9:21:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
jbsnc: quite true that 46% of income earners pay no federal INCOME tax, but that is a long way from saying they pay no federal tax. Payroll tax, Social Security and Medicare are all federal taxes. Your third point about how the higher income earners are paying an increasingly higher percentage of the total tax take each year is highly misleading. The reason they're paying a higher percentage of the total tax take is that their share of the total income is rising even faster. It is an inarguable fact that, despite the supposedly 'progressive' nature of the federal income tax, people in the lower brackets end up paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. Bush's tax cuts may have "benefitted everybody", but those in the bottom half averaged a couple of hundred bucks, while the top tenth averaged over a hundred thousand. And thanks to the Bush era of Crony Capitalism, there will be for the foreseeable future an even larger number of people paying no income tax because they're unemployed. Nor should we expect wages and purchasing power for the average American to increase any time soon. It's no wonder that while Wall Street is declaring the recession over, Main Street is unconvinced. And now we're treated to the spectacle of Mitch McConnell getting up on his hind legs to bitch about the proposed financial reform legislation, falsely claiming it's a bailout bill, just minutes after meeting with a roomful of bankers and lobbyists. It's obvious whose side he's on. The Tea Party's anger is understandable, but aimed at the wrong target. They have totally been played.
Hey, I thought we had resolved to be civil.
jameslkirtleyjr
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 79 |
|
|
|
Jim in Boston
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/11/2011 : 9:27:16 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
Bob, you may be right. The attention span of the average American voter may in fact be short enough that a majority has forgotten the geopolitical, military, economic, and social debacle that was the 8 years of Bush and the Neocons. It's interesting, in a depressing sort of way, that a lot of the old Neocons (Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich) are hastily re-branding themselves as Tea Partiers. As for Clinton, I seem to remember he managed to pull off a budget surplus, something no Republican has done in many decades. And he only became a lame duck after he was re-elected.
I will give the Tea Party credit for being highly motivated. Bob Bennett, hardly a bleeding-heart liberal, had the support of a comfortable majority of the Utah GOP rank and file, However, a certain degree of complacency was present in Utah, an overwhelmingly Republican state, and the Tea Party True Believers showed up at the GOP caucuses in disproportionate numbers and kicked Bennett to the curb.
There is no question the Tea Party can rally the right wing of the GOP. The question is whether they will continue to alienate moderate Republicans to the point where they start losing general elections to centrist Democrats. We're living in interesting times. Wait ... isn't that a Chinese curse?
Ok. This is enough of being warm and cuddly. Bubba posted a surplus only because appropriations were made by a Republican dominated House of Representatives. It is NOT fair to give him the credit. And as for Mr. Bush: he was doing fine until the Democrats got control of congress. (Economically: I understand some of you lefties disagree with his foreign policy but that is for a different and less fact-based debate).
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 79 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 01:22:58 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
Upon reflection, Warmskin is using Neocon when he actually meas a political "Hawk." Since the reaction to Viet Nam, with each election "Hawks", like myself, including the Neocons, but many others besides them, have gravitated into the Republicans. Along with social conservatives etc, they are presenting a contrast to the "Dove" who have been collecting under the Democratic banner.
This situation is not likely to please our friend, Warmskin, who harks back to the era when the liberal side was "Hawk" reacting to Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. Today, the choice is conservative hawks versus liberal doves, and he is wanting more conservative doves. whioh is the Libertarian Party's home base.
I see no problem with defending America, as long as America is not spending a lot of money and time bullying other nations. The neocons love to bully other nations for the benefit of yet another state. Neocons that shape our foreign policies are doing so with patent dishonesty. They cannot tell the truth because that would doom their plans for hegemony in the Mideast.
The folly of our neocon leaders could be seen in their predictions of a cake-walk through Iraq. They said it would cost only $50 billion, and that would be paid for by oil. Somehow they were fantastcially wrong; a negative fantasy if one will. Why did they lie, and why did they go against the CIA in the Mideast? Bush pushed the arguments of Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Cristol. He was the biggest sucker of all, and that showed up when the GOP did not want him in their convention.
The best way to win a war is to not start one. Saves a lot of money, not to mention thousands of American lives. We started the war in Iraq, even though the CIA told us it essentially would be a bogus war. I would never be for a war that had no basis in fact, and I would hope a president and congress would not fall for the rationalizing for a war. As I said before, Ike would never have started this war. He would have left the fighting to Bill Cristol and Cheney, where they would literally put on a war helmet and face death.
Iraq had nothing to do with nine 11. Hussein and Osama (not Obama) were opposed to each other. No connection there. So, where is the beef? If one reads the actual words of Osama, he never said that he hated freedom. Nothing even remotely similar to that. He did mention the lopsided favoritism of our foreign policy. One can agree or disagree if our policy is appropriate, but there is no basis for disagreement that Osama ever said that he hated us for our freedoms. Heck, we had much more freedom a long time ago, and his people loved us back then.
Ironically, PNAC said that it would take a Pearl Harbor to get Americans to fight a war.
The only trouble we have in the Mideast is the trouble we start. We should simply pull out of there with our financial welfare for all the countries in the Mideast. As with 1973, when OPEC stopped shipments of oil to us, because of our one-sided foreign policy, we still naively push for the same policies now, and then wonder why things are still the same.
We went from being loved to being hated. Better to make friends than to listen to lies from people with ulterior motives, that love war.
What we could learn if we injected truth serum into all those neocons. I can scarcely think that they have America's best interests at heart. You cannot practice neoconservatism and still be in congruency with what our Founders warned us about. With no hesitation would I declare a firm adherence to our Founders, while at the same time, avoid the duplicitous neocons in the think tanks and high places in government.
In no way do I refer to anyone in this forum. I speak of the big shakers and movers that put things into motion. My main point of disagreement is going behind the scenes and discovering why things must be so terrible, when they never had to be. Bring back Ike!!!!
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 03:29:04 AM
|
Agreed, there was no direct connection between 9-1-1 and Saddam. They were both seperate parts of the Islamic political sclerosis and drift into harsh dictatorships and Islamofascism. This leaves aside the false front of Saddam pretending to have WMD as a deterrant.
However, it is very important to note that some of the Egyptians interviewed during the current ferment have pointed to the new Iraqi democracy as one of their inspirqtions. "It showed that Arabs can have democracy!" This is an exquisitely valuable result of Bush's "Democracy Agenda."
Support for Israel remains dominant, and never really rested on a Neocon base. Among other things, most Jewish voters are Democrats, and dovish on everything except Israel. That makes the political coalition on this point rather different from other foreign issues and involvements.
In recent years, the Christian Right has joined very forcefully in supporting Israel, despite gigantic differences on other policies with both the Meocons and Jewish voting blocs. Of course the left-liberal Jewish Democrat majority have huge disagreements with most other policies of both Neocons and Christian Right.
And there are other, smaller, groups in agreement with yet different general programs. That is a wide-ranging coalition on the single issue. If all of the Neocons shrinking fasction disappeared tomorrow, others with different motivations and interests would continue.
It makes no sense to otherwise lump together such an oddball wide coalition except as "supporters of Israel."
But the hardcore Islamicists want forcible conversions until we are all suporters of Sharia. They
will continue to attack us totally apart from Israe; and Iraq. since their motivation is not dependent on any particular American actions. Ike could not change today's reality, but would have to work within it. It is no longer time for "Let's Pretend", as it was when George Canning (Brit PM) protected the US as we do with Canada today.
|
Edited by - balataf on 02/12/2011 03:38:32 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Jim in Boston
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/12/2011 : 9:55:40 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
Not all of the Tea Party rhetoric stands up to harsh scrutiny. For example ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-weiler/why-the-tea-party-is-a-fr_b_539550.html
So here we have a diatribe against the very people who pay all of the taxes in this country, used to suggest that income redistribution is somehow ok. No, it is not OK. It is wrong to take money from people who have made it legitimately and give it to those who have not. This was purportedly an attack on the Tea Party people, and maybe they deserve to be challenged. But not on these grounds.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 79 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 03:51:11 AM
|
Hi Balataf,
I was checking out a more or less list of neocons. No doubt, there are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Frank Gaffney, William Bennett, Vin Weber, LBJ, of old, and Francis Fukuyama. The last one mentioned changed his mind, and moved away from the neocons.
Also there is the Israeli angle. By that, I mean people who support Israel over America. They are Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz, David Wursmer, Douglas Feith, David Wursmer (these last four had planned the overall strategy of the Iraq war duing the Clinton years), Elliot Abrams, Cliff May, Dennis Ross, John Bolton, David Frum, Frank Luntz, Michael Chertoff, William Cristol, and many more. Netanyahu was consulted on the this war plan before it was offered to the White House. After all, Iraq is an enemy of Israel, as we found out in the Gulf War, back in the early 1990s, with Iraq shooting SCUD missiles at Israel.
Here is a quote from an Israeli newspaper:
"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservatives, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history."
—Ari Shavit Ha’aretz News Service (Israel) April 5, 2003
Of course, Ha'aretz is one of the main Israeli newspapers.
I want to state here that this is not Semite bashing at all. We all need a homeland, a place to live, each and every person. There are quite a few people in Israel who oppose the wars in the Mideast. I applaud them, for they will save Israel, long before their war maniacs will.
I should say, though, that before the late 1940s, we had no problems with the Islamic natioins. They were quite favorably disposed towards us. Since the late 1940s, we have developed a one-sided, myopic foreign policy in that who area, and it has predictably caused us a lot of grief. Truman's Secretary of State said that if we got involved in the Israel-Arab disputes and take Israel's side, we would get dragged into wars. He was right.
However, I put America first, because this is a great country, started by the Founders whose likes we will never see again. If there is anything to be saved, I hope it will be America. It's not us versus the world, it's us in the world, but with keeping our uniqueness, and not being forced into a world system.
As CIA operative in the Mideast said, I believe on Bill Maher's TV show --- paraphrasing --, "I don't care if Iraq is democratic or not." His point was, at least to me, that the USA will go on whether Iraq is a dictatorship or a democracy. Iraq is not about to invade the USA, (never was)so I don't believe it is factorial in the well or ill-being of the USA. If the Iraqi people want democracy, they can do the same thing we did in the 1770s. It's up to them. We took on the world's most powerful nation, England, and with our modest sources, beat them. The template is there.
That is a hangover of the Wilson Administration who wanted to make the world safe for democracy, even if the Founders denied it to us. Democracy is inherently unstable and subject to failure. We, of course, have a representive republic, wherein each person has non-negotiable rights, or so I thought, till Obama and Pelosi took over.
Let's say the who Mideast goes "democratic." What is the benefit to us? Oil prices go down? Obama can stop bowing to their leaders?
When we take on the mantle of real conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, and going back into history, John Quincy Adams, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, and the like, we can stop worrying about the world, quit picking on other countries who have not harmed us, and just leave others peoples alone, we can have our country back.
We simply don't have the money to monitor and attack all these countries, especially when we throw in all the welfare programs the have loaded this country down. Who will loan us the money for our next invasion? How much interest will we have to pay to finance all this domination? We have about a $15 trillion debt, and our deficit keeps going up, despite the pronouncements to do better.
A long time ago, we didn't get mixed up in the affairs of other nations, and simultaneously were loved and respected for our goodness. We don't have that anymore. As we try to mimic the old Soviet Union in dictating how others should live, we become an empire not completely unlike the USSR. Empires always come to an end, and I fear the American experience will equally come to an end.
We have soldiers in over 130 nations. Are they all going to attack us, or all their neighbors going to attack us? I can see having some overseas bases, but in over 130 countries? That troubles me a lot, and I believe it will come back to haunt us. We had the best strategy a long time ago, and thus never had to put up with major invasions for foreign war, save for England in the War of 1812.
We don't have to like the way other nations conduct themselves, but we don't have to bomb them, either. We don't need to make ourselves look like mad dogs to sustain America. To the contrary, we will come out ahead by paying heed to the words of Washington and Jefferson when they spoke of having no allies, except in times of emergency. One might read the fantastic "prophecies" in washington's Second Farewell Address. It's a must read to those interested in how we deal with the rest of the world.
I can really feel for the Tea Party's philosophy of minimal government, but it won't be achieved if we get pushed into an eternal state of war that does not affect the USA. We are becoming a mercinary force for the neocons.
Here is a link to a Cheney interview (1994), wherein he states that invading Iraq would be a bad idea. Between 1994 and 1998, he got "neoconned." I find this one fascinating, because we find that there are two Cheneys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Here is a quote from Washington in his Second Farewell Speech. It is dramatically haunting in light of today's foreign follies to which we are subjected:
"...a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Perhaps like the Tea Party, I place my secular trust in our Founders, because they have showed us the error of our ways in government. As I read the above quote, it were as if Washington was able to see into the future and detect what went wrong.
As for the evangelicals, they have either advertently or inadvertently turned their back on the teachings of Jesus, by promoting neocon "principles." "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword," said Jesus. The TV evangelists are the worst of the lot. Gimme that old, original, organic gospel!! Haha.
This is quite a meaty and enjoyable discussion, Balataf, and I hope the others appreciate our resourcefulness and enthusiasm in this subject. Nudism does not exclude deeper discussions, and quite happily not.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 11:41:52 AM
|
Warmskinm Hi!
A couple on your list are iffy. Weber, for one, is semi-correct as he was a close ally, tho not one himself. But LBJ, the Texas populist New Dealer, isn't even close, altho a handful were in small roles in his Aministration. Quite a few of the core were supporters of Humphrey, tuo, before they mostly became Republicans around 1979-80. I"ll accept the Neocon label, but I didn't switch until 1994.
"I should say, though, that before the late 1940s, we had no problems with the Islamic nations."
What that means is that then the British ruled Egypt, Iraq. Sudan, Libya, Palestine, Jordan, the UAE, and half each of Yemen and Somalia, and the French ruled in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Mauritamia, Syria and Lebanon. Several others were satellites under strong influences, like the Sa8dis, Oman, and Iran. Spain and Italy also had areas. But the region caused plenty of trouble for the colonialists. The list of rebellions in the region goes to about 50.
We were likely to get dragged into conflict whether we backed Israel or not.
The 130 nations point is rather misleading, some of those consist of running a couple weather stations for research, or running training schools to help the locals, as in several African nations. The actual spread of significan military force is more like 25 to 30 nations, which probably should be reduced with this round of budget cuts, just as we left places like Subic Bay before. Even some of the forces are in places like British Gibraltar, which support the fleet.
I don't think that Cheney switched his principles so much as reacting to changes like Saddam using chemical weapons on the Kurds. The situation changed around him, and they realized the mistake in not taking out Saddam in the Kuwait War.
Yes, this has been a good debate, touching on some very complicated interlocking points. My thanks to Naturist Resorts for providing the matrix for it. We obviously are going to have major disagreements, but can remain friends. It is not likely, but perhaps someday we can meet face to face. I know you are in California, but if you are ever in Philadelphia, I am close by it, and I have a spare room.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 9:43:04 PM
|
Responding to Naturist Doc (Hope he and his madame had a great Valentines Day.)
“Naturist Doc: jbsnc: quite true that 46% of income earners pay no federal INCOME tax, but that is a long way from saying they pay no federal tax.”
ND, I am guilty. I had included ‘income’ in the previous sentence but failed to do so in the next. Send out a hit team!
“Your third point about how the higher income earners are paying an increasingly higher percentage of the total tax take each year is highly misleading.”
My statement was completely accurate and factual. Such a statement cannot be misleading. The assessors of the statement mislead themselves.
“The reason they're paying a higher percentage of the total tax take is that their share of the total income is rising even faster.”
Caused in part by government (both Dem and GOP politicians) acceptance of inflation policy that hurts the poor more than the rich. Pre Federal Reserve (1776 to 1912) the value of the dollar rose 11%. In the Federal reserve era (1913 to 2007) the value of the dollar decreased by about 95%, some claim and seem on target.
“It is an inarguable fact that, despite the supposedly 'progressive' nature of the federal income tax, people in the lower brackets end up paying a larger percentage of their income in taxes than do the wealthy.”
Your first clause is about federal income tax. The second clause is about taxes. Apples and oranges?
“And thanks to the Bush era of Crony Capitalism,”
Or the Obama era of crony capitalism with billions of low interest loans given to GE, the largest military contractor in the world, and with very healthy balance sheets. The GE CEO is now head of Obama’s WH economic council.
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/15/2011 : 03:43:58 AM
|
Hi Balataf,
Thank you for you exemplary courtesy. Unfortunately my disability keeps me from going far from home. So far, I can do about 300 miles by car, and am terrified of airliners, TSA or no TSA. My condition is agoraphobia, which has many implications. In my case being too far from home is extraordinarily hard on my nerves and leads me to having panic attacks. A while back, I could only drive 4 miles from home. So, it's hard to say what tomorrow will bring.
I thought the mention of good ol' LBJ might be a little controversial, but I felt compelled to include him in some kind of list.
In 1967, there was an incident that to some was outrageous, as not that many people, thanks to the media, are aware of. LBJ took part in the killing of American sailors off the coast of Egypt, in order to spare our special ally in the Mideast. By doing that, LBJ joined the ranks of the hard-core neocons for a moment. But what a moment it was. 34 Americans killed and about 171 wounded, many of them badly so.
He took the side of our special ally, and turned against America's military. In the same way, the neocons have expended a lot of American soldiers for the attempt at neutralizing Israel's enemy, Iraq.
In many other ways, naturally, LBJ was not neoconservative, but he was for a few brief moments, and he committed treason against the USA.
Here is a website created by the victims and survivors of the attack on the US Navy, by our ally.
http://www.gtr5.com/
At first the malled vicitms were told by the US Navy that they could never speak of this attack, and were aslo told they could face the death penalty for talking about this to each other, or their families and friends.
WorldNetDaily printed an op-ed piece stating that American sailors and CIA were all wrong about the attack on the USA, and that this attack was an accident. They don't point out that only American frequencies were jammed buy our ally, thus proving our ally knew exactly the nationality of the ship. Only by miraculous heroism was the USS Liberty saved from the intended complete destruction of that US ship, and the killing of every sailor aboard. The ship survived napalm, large caliber jet machine guns, and a torpedo hit by our ally. Even the lifeboats were shot at by our ally, which is a War Crime by our ally against the USA. After the ship got hit by all this, it still floated, much to the disappointment of the ally high command. NSA officials were listening to our ally's communications by means of an NSA airplance close by.
There is a long video clip produced by the BBC on this indident, even though the American media barely touched this. I remember back then, I was up for the draft, and any attacks on the USA would have been my central focus in that day. That could have been me or a friend on that ship. That is why I am puzzled about why I never found out, and my family subscribed to a major newspaper back then.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3319663041501647311#
I have to admit that I was completely ignorant of this event until lately. If this were the USS Cole, it would have made headlines for days on end, and was. Not so for the USS Liberty. Why was that so? If Arabs attack us, it is in the news, but if our ally attacks us, it is kept a secret.
The strategy seems to have been -- threaten the survivors with death if they did any talking about this incident, and decades later, the media could proclaim that is is old business, and thus not noteworthy. The only widespread word was on WND, and that was a hit piece on our American military naval force. The author's "source", was from a dual citizen, who felt more allegiance to his own country than to the USA.
The whole thing is so corrupt from 1967 on. Thank goodness for the brave US officials who talked about this treason early on. Their names are household words, and they have stature mixed with impeccability.
Their names can be found on the first website in the "quotes" section on the upper left portion of the web page.
As far as the Arabs attacking us, we should remember, unlike the American media and political establishment's lies, Osama said the reason for the attack was because of our one-sided Mideast policy. It was not just a blip, but rather decades of one of their nations being perpetually humiliated, courtesy of the American taxpayers in funds sent to the Mideast to pay for Crimes Against Humanity. I don't like Osama at all, but it is useful to listen to one's enemy to see what is going on their mind. Sometimes we can learn things from our enemies, while we still don't like them at all. The only nation who has attacked us, as being a nation to do so, is our ally, and they attacked us twice. This is bizarre to me, but shows one where a fair amount of deciding power if directed from. There are many people who would be shocked in the nation that attacked us, and they would feel rightly angry with their own government for doing so. Apparently, these people were never heard from. I applaud the people of our ally-state who advocate reason, justice, and caring about their neighbors to the south. To have a good neighbor, one must be a good neighbor.
Bush kept repeating the mantra that "they hate us for our freedom." That was never the case. It did, though certainly whip up hatred against the Arab world, who at one time were our friends. We had ample justication to be angry with nine 11, but we directed our anger at the wrong people. Mostly innocect civilians were killed.
To me, at least, it's like sticking one's finger into a hornet's nest, when there was no reason to do so. Then, when the offending person gets stung, he naturally blames the hornets for his stings. Going back in time, the person should have left the hornets alone and go about his business. We poked our fingers in the Mideast hornet's nest, and we got stung. It took decades to happen, but we were persistent in jabbing the nest, because we were talked into hating the hornets.
Interestingly, McCain is mixed up in this attack, in that he has been fully co-operative in covering up the attack on the US Navy, because his dad, the Admiral was also complicit in the coverup. A naval officer who thinks it is okay for another country to attack a US naval ship, and defends that attack to his day? If the truth were known to all about the McCain family disdain for the US sailors, I wonder if he could have been elected to dog-catcher.
Ike had a great saying. When either a Soviet official, or a Democrat blundered badly, Ike told a vocal assistant -- "don't just do something; sit there." I.e., sometimes it is best to just let people alone, and let them stew in the own juices. They don't need help.
What turned the corner in the Mideast for us was the complete alliance with our ally, at the expense of our former friends, during the 1967 and 1973 wars. Thus the oil embargo. I remember seeing the last oil tanker, according to the SF Chronicle, head to its dock to unload its oil for Chevron (Standard of California). This never needed to have happened. We saw gas prices go from 35 cents a gallon to around 50 cents in a very short time, not to mention the long gas lines. Those were terrible days. G. Washington seems to have been right.
It was the price we had to pay to take sides in those wars. In one sense we lost those wars, and caused the enmity of many Arab nations, or at least the loss of former respect and love for the USA. This was yet another forerunner of neconservatism. The captain of the USS Liberty received a Medal of Honor for his bravery in the attack. All Medal of Honor winners are invited to receive their award at the White House. This captain was refused that invitation, because it would have caused to much attention, so he was awarded at Naval supply port. Makes me wonder who is in charge that an honorable US Navy man should be denied the tradional awarding. He was a hero beyond belief, defending America, and they treated him like dirt.
Our Founders would be appalled at what we have done. They warned us against this sort of thing, be we got conned, or neoconned. I don't know if we can ever repair the damage, but our misplaced alliances have gotten us into these problems. We should treat each country over there without bias, or other considerations. Sure, it is a volatile world there. One more reason to avoid alliances of any kind in that region; it makes for trouble and little else. We need to walk by this nest very carefully.
I must confess, I don't have that many answers, if any, but there are only imperfect people in this world, and thus we all are stuck with incomplete information, that leave the door open for plenty of opinions formed by what we read, and we all read from different sources.
It's the stuff of betting on horse races.
I think we agree on many things, but maybe not on foreign policy. Still, the sun will rise tomorrow. I was a GOP member, and one of my ancestors was one of the founders of the GOP in 1854. I felt horrible about leaving the GOP in 2006, but felt that the Eisenhower approach to foreign affairs was fading fast in the GOP. I did not vote for anyone for president in 2008. Funny how Julie Nixon Eisenhower voted for Obama, which would have left her dad wondering. I wonder if she is going to vote for him again. I think not. Also, Susan Eisenhower bolted and voted for Obama. One wonders how many faithful GOPers jumped ship in 2008.
Thanks again for your generous sentiments, Balataf. One of these days, perhaps I can conquer my irrational fears of being far away from home. Right now, Nevada is as far as I can go, and have driven about 100 miles into that desert state before experiencing panic. I am learning much from you, and your considerable knowledge.
Everyone from the east coast should ride through Nevada just once to see a very different world. The ride across Utah's
Bonneville Salt Flats is something that is awing to see. Looks like the moon on earth.
The end of the rainbow, so to speak, is finally arriving at Lake Tahoe from Carson City, with its forest and clear water. No one who has not driven across Nevada can express how inspiring it feels to see this oasis after the vrey long desert crossing.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/16/2011 : 3:44:10 PM
|
Warmskin,
Sprry to hear of your disability. Mine are leg amputqtion (csn't use prosthetic) and congestive heart failure,
Well, the Neocon group didn't get any label until the 1970s, but they gave LBJ very litle and very grudging support. They were all Jack Kennedy supporters who later clustered around Humphrey until McGovern's people took over the Democrqts, after which they (we) switched to Republican/
I was in college at the time, with a Jewish roomate. I think you are putting too much emphasis on it. Mistakes happen! This is similar to a WW2 incident in which American bombers mistakenly leveled Schaffhausenn, Switzerland, which is right near the border. They thought they were hiting a German town just a few miles to the North thwt actuqlly looked quite similar. I can see no, (none, zilch, nada, zero) relationship between the handling of this incident qnd the faction thqt became Neocons some years later. Other than tht the later Neocons were Israel supporters qlong with most other political factions and groups. Much of thqt support was focused thru several figures who were quite un-Neocon. such as Jacob Javits, who eventuqlly suffered defeat by ther Neocons on other issues. They were led by the anti-Neocon Bill Buckley, who had so mqny fights qnd disagreements thqt he largely did not welcome them when they later turned Republican.
The 1967 Israel incident is not important, especially when compared to the disaster arising fgrom Reagan's error in withjdrawing from Beirut after the 243 marines were killed. That withdrawal has cost us hundred of billions of dollars and thousands of lives. See Clausewitz and Sun Tzu on "deterrence". Whether or not he was right to copy Eisenhower, who alo put troops into Beirul in 1955, it is the Resgwn withdrawal that sent a very bad, extremely stupid, signal to everybody else.
Isolationism won;t work in the Internet world with jet travel, etc. It doewn;t take a severql weeks to go from Washington to Europe, and four to six months to get from there to California by land or clipper ship, When I saw Nevada, I was on a direct plane from Phila. to San Jose, and then across the Pacific.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 04:59:42 AM
|
Thanks for your kinds sentiments, Balataf. There are many people out there with medical challanges, and I have been familiar with yours for a while. Too often it seems like only the good folks have these problems to contend with.
Are any kinds of prosthetics of a breakthrough nature in the offing for you? If so, I know they would not be cheap, or easy to master in a short time.
Same thing for me, no cheap and easy way out of that malady. It's taken me 29 years of constant driving to be able to drive further. Perhaps like me, you feel a sense of vicariousness, when other people do what I cannot do, and take it for granted. I hear about someone going on a little 3 day trip, say, to southern California, and I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to do that. I got so bad that I could not even go into one half of my house, and that half contained my kitchen. Fortunately, I roll with the punches. Eventually, I got over it, and started being comfortable with that area of my home. There is no medication just for agoraphobics, although some that help a bit.
Medical conditions can be subtle in their causes, yet make huge differences. Whatever my medical situation, I try to find contentment.
Yes, McGovern seemed to be the last straw, and the neocons came on over to the GOP. Little did I know back then. I was just glad to see Nixon win, and didn't think about anything past that. At the time I left the GOP recently, I was highly concerned about what the neos had done to the GOP. Goldwater and the neocons were two very different types, and I was a big fan of the former.
One thing I learned recently, was that neocon Michael Ledeen (sp?) called for a "Spectacular State" that lied to the American people, was at constant war, that was Machiavelian (sp?) in nature, that saw people as basically bad folks, that constantly had to manipulate the people for the good of the state. Do real conservative really want a "spectacular state?" I know I don't.
I think Mike flew into the cuckoo's nest, yet there is a good deal of his ideals that match the usual type of neocon. I'll have to read up on this guy. Sadly, people listen to him. He was on the front cover of Hillsdale College's newsletter. I couldn't believe that Hillsdale would stoop to that lever, or perhaps they simply haven't read all his statements.
My concern about the USS Liberty was in seeing, in retrospect, that a country could attack us and get away with it. Also, this was the first time another country had the means to surpress the USA from defending itself. Israel pulled a similar stunt in 1954 when it bombed US property, hoping to make it look like Egypt did it.
Also, it gets me that while they did all this, they were called an ally. This is reverse logic.
Another concern is that Israel lied about it, and all the evidence backs up that conclusion. People like Admiral Thomas Moorer, Dean Rusk, and many other distinguished people like them, also objected to the deliberate attack on us. The wimps in this case were LBJ and Robert (very)Strange McNamara. They caved in and called off the US navy fighter that could have stopped Israel's deliberate attack. Oddly enough, the Israeli Air Force removed all their insginias during the attack. It seemed that they did not want to the navy to know who was attacking them. It's not just the event, but it's the circumstances around the event that should have been a severe warning to America as to what really happened, and it portended for the long term future. Deep in my heart, I can only wish Israel would have never planned this attack so carefully. I wish that LBJ would have had the courage to fight against the attackers, instead of committing treason against America. I believe my attitude to be pretty normal by American standards.
At the start of the attack, an Israeli pilot understandably radioed into his HQ that they were on the verge of attacking an American ship and hesitated in attacking. That part seems reasonable to me. The pilot was right. However, an NSA pilot overheard this conversation, and was surprised to hear the Israeli HQ answering back, "You have your orders, attack that ship.. The pilot repeated his original transmission, and got the same answer. Clearly the pilot was puzzled because he was just given an order to attack a US navy ship.
More than anything else, it revealed an ugly attitude that Israel had and still has about us. At that time, I was a huge Israel fan. Can one imagine if Britain had done the same thing, or maybe Egypt. What our reaction be then. If it had been Egypt, it would have been headline news for quite a while. But, it wasn't the case. It's hard for me to avoid the question -- why did Israel deliberatly attack us, and why are they the only nation in the Mideast that has attacked us as a nation, where we did not provoke them. By that, I would mean a nation's full military attacking us, as opposed to a hot-head trying to stir up trouble.
If Israel deliberately attacked us, and all evidence shows they did, why are they our allies? Only this attack is pushed off the headlines, and barely covered at all, and where the witnesses are threatened ultimately with death, do they remain silent until this horrible attack has become old news, thus held to be not notewothy, unlike the Alamo, or other attacks. What is the iron grip on normal American attitudes of nations who attack us in small or big ways?
There was a time when the USA would never roll out the red carpet for a nation that has attacked us, until now. One must ask why. It's not that fact that it was Israel, as any nation could have done this to us, and I would be just as cautious about that country, too. So, I'm not picking on just one country. I don't appreciate that Japan, and Britain attacked us, either, but at least we didn't have to cover up their attacks.
To me, and perhaps others of good will, it seems that our troubles started when Israel terrorized the Palestinians with mass murder back in the late 40s, where they gunned down whole towns to rid the land of the Palestinians. I believe that is a main source of ill-will toward the USA, because we backed those original terrorists. The Arab world, odd is it may seem to us, or even them, has not lost sight of those terrible years in Palestine.
I am very much in favor of the Jewish world-wide community having a homeland for themselves. Goodness knows they should have one, based on their history, but what they did at first to the innocent Palestinians was no better than what happened to them. What happened to the latter is one large source of hatred against the USA. Do not both peoples need a homeland, and deserve a safe place in this world?
If the USA could 1) secure Israel's safety 2) pour billions of $$ into helping the Palestinians with re-constructing their hospitals, farms, fresh water supplies, schools for the children, cleaning up the raw sewage that Israel has dumped into Palestine for years, and bring about a decent humanity they once had. Nothing we do militarily will help in the "War on Terrorism," until we have removed all the thorns in the side of all countries there.
If one removes the source of hatred, more is accomplished for safety than continuing the inhumane conditions that Americans have had to pay for, for decades. This one facet of the Mideast has cost us a lot of good will, many innocent lives. Each of which is just at important as anyone elses.
My thought is to do the easiet and cheapest things first, and that can be painful, because it would cause us to do things were not use to doing. All I can foresee are more decades of costly and endless wars. Terrorism, to me, has to have a motive behind it. I don't see terrorism as something that is done for recreation. If one know the source of hatred that spawns terrorism, then that source must be addressed in some way. One could think of neighbors who cannot get along for some reason. If an arbitrator could find the source of the squabble, some progress could be made. It's harder to do that, naturally, for nations, but it could be better than shelling out trillions over the decades.
I turned off my cablevision back in 2005, and it has given me a chance to look at non-hate sites to see what I could learn. what I found was much different than what I had found in the US media.
I do remember the era of JJ and KK. Javits and Kenneth Keating in N.Y. I'll gladly trust your opinions on that topic, since you were much closer to that area. I also remember James Buckley holding elected office at one time. Naturally, California had its share of controversy that I guess I'm more in tune with.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 11:12:44 AM
|
The fairest arbitration is often powerless. For example, the UN partition map of 1948 into Israel and Palestine was very equitable to both dides, yet the Arab armies attacked. So we got needless wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1968-70, 1973, 1982, 2006, and the two Intafadas. All Israel expansion has come from when they were attacked and then won. Arafat should hqve tqken the two-state solution off+ered in 1999, it was a fair and good deal.
But Israel is not central to the problem. The religious ideology of the radical Islamsists is critical, and I hope the current democratic revolutions and ferment will counter it. Check out the chapters on the process of revolutions in www//:groups.yahoo.com/group/Politicometrics. I am updating other parts of this for the 2010 election and the Arabs. I keep coming back to the Taliban policy of blinding schoolgirls with battery acid, How do you compromise with that?
///////////////
The problem is not the prosthetic, it is in the remainder of my leg.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 7:39:56 PM
|
Thanks for the reference, Balataf; I joined the group. Waiting for the approval of the group leader. I wonder if he knows what he is in for if he approves. Hahaha.
From what I have read, the early Zionists, just before the UN partition, had committed great acts of terrorism to scare the Palestinians out of their homeland. The blew up the King David Hotel, and did other atrocities at that time. I'm sure this was not universally loved by all other Israelis-to-be. There was one village that was almost completely wiped out by the Zionist militants. The townspeople were all innocent folks, never having committed any acts of violence.
Any response to this by Arabs would be understandable if they acted out of revenge for the aforementioned terrorist acts. It does not excuse it on either side, of coure
Israeli settlements are not according to laws that most nations adhere to. We would not like it if Canadians settled on USA land and seized our turf. The same over there. At some point, the civilized world will have to curtail that sort of thing, as it did with South Africa.
"Opertation Cast Lead" showed the world the use of white phosphorous bombs being dropped on mostly innocent people. Children were hit by these bombs, and ended up with badly burned faces. About 150 Christians died in that operation. Earlier, Israeli planes dropped illegal cluster bombs on civilian populations. There seems to be no regard for laws by Israel, and its enemies for that matter. Both factions are clearly unstable in that area, with few virtues on either side. That is what puzzles me as to the practicality of taking sides in this messy fight.
To be sure, the Arabs have their many flaws, and we cannot ignore that. My main point is that taking one side over another in this protracted fight does us no good.
The point you bring up of the battery acid is horrifying in nature. It's hard to say what could be done with Afghanistan. Both we and the Soviets have tried to dominate that country, with little success. Miracle above miracles, it might take the whole world to get to the Taliban. We can't seem to do that, although we have been somewhat successful in taking out some of the Taliban. It's a sticky wicket at best. One can imagine the entirity of UN forces taking on the Taliban, although that might not take place.
Israel has been in the torture business for decades as it tries to get information, or guilt-pleas out of individuals. People who have survived this have told of their experiences. Even innocent people have faced torture. It adds to the critical mass of how the world sees Israel, even as we see the Arab world with all its ills.
Ultimate solutions? Perhaps there are none. Generations come and go, but the differences will remain. If it were up to me, I'd divide old Palestine in half and each side could take their own half and do the best they can with it. We can maintain and enforce the peace. Much cheaper than fighting wars. A reasonably happy Palestine, to me, allows the passions in that area to cool down.
In the real world, however, the oppressions continue in the entire Mideast. Actions start with motives. We must learn what those motives are, and deal with them in a way that does not damage our uniquely American ideals.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 02/21/2011 : 04:13:04 AM
|
One point that you brought up, Balataf, that I failed to respond to in a timely manner (and I apologize for doing so) was the matter of the treaty back in the latter Clinton days (weren't those days special? Hah!).
That treaty was formulated in a way that divided Palestine into many, many small areas. Palestinians would have to go through inummerable checkpoints to go from one small area to another, even though it was all Palestine. No self-respecting country would want this imposed on them. It seemed that Israel wanted to put the Palestinians into a no-win situation, wherein if they accepted this treaty, they would face certain control placed over them by a predatory Israel. If they turned down the offer, the Palestinians would be shown to be non-co-operative in settling this conflict. Very clever stuff from Israel, and in keeping with their bad faith with international law.
If I had been in charge, more or less, of Palestine, I would have rejected this offer, too, because of the attempt at complete humiliation of the Palestinian people. We have to remember that Menachem Begin said that his people would crush the Palestinians like insects. Not exactly heart-warming stuff. Begin was one of the earlier terrorists. His and the actions of other Zionists caused the British to coin the word, "terrorism."
This conflict lays, I believe, at the heart of the wars over there, and by that I would not mean the wars between the Islamic nations, as in the old Iraq-Iran war, but rather anger between the Arabs and Israel over the inhumane treatment the Palestinian people receive everyday. They are the oppressed and the underdog.
Here is the link of a member of parliament, a member of the Jewish community, whose family faced the horrors of the Jewish holocaust, telling other parliament members about his very considered opinion of how the Palestinians are being treated. I believe he, above all, has a right to speak about one nation treating people of another nation with cruelty that exceeds our words to describe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8
I have no idea who uploaded this short video clip, and do not endorse them. My main theme is humane treatment of all innocent life, and I am sure you share this ideal.
"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
James Madison
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
