Anti-American Politics in America

[dvnc]

Gotta respect your beliefs, and your complete candor in expressing 'em, Biscuit. Must be why I like ya, even when ya disagree wit' me.

Part of my disagreement wit' you and Q is that I think that the US *should* have to own it's own majority decision. The populace of the US is always whining when the RESULTS of a decision made proves bad. No one, however, will OWN that a) their party was part or that b) they voted for the PROBLEM they got.

Oh, and y'get an extra double bonus no-prize for the fine use of a 5 syllable word, Biscuit!

dvnc

 

[Biscuit]

Quiz-Ship and Deviant,

I have to say that it's refreshing to talk to people that can disagree with me without taking it as a personal attack that I "dare" to have an opinion that doesn't coincide with thier own.

I've always been a bit mystified by that attitude, personally, Constant agreement is boring and often unproductive. Yet it always seems to be turned around into "he's attacking me", when I'm really just expressing myself just as freely as they just did! Humph! I suppose my less-than-charming manner could have something to do with it, eh? (nobody ever called me politically correct)

😉

Oh, and incidentally, I couldn't agree more about people needing to own responsibility for their own actions or lack thereof. Unfortunately, politics in the US (both national and international) always seem to be about fixing the blame, rather than fixing the problem, as though pinning responsibility on someone ever fixed much of anything directly... Politicians AND countries seem to spend all their time trying to evade or diminish responsibility for their actions and policies. I find it a bit repugnant, actually.

But that's just me...

🙂

 

[qjakal]

Blame Game

Okay...I think that was a "4" syllable word, d, but I get your point. 😉 As for affixing blame and not taking responsibilty, I think it does happen, but that it's not as rampant as many would believe. There IS accountability at many of the highest levels, and although quite a bit of it is generated by covering their own asses, it still works out as though it was being applied due to high ethics, so at least the result is constant, even if the moral path leading to it isn't as defined as we would like.
We've discussed this issue before on a few parallel threads, but I definitely feel we're living through a pivotal decade in the development and direction of the US and the world in general. The catastrophes and attacks we've seen have led us to a crisis point, whereupon we either need to become an expansionist (militarily as well as economically) power, or we're about to enter a phase of isolationism. Either path looks like it'll bring chaos with it, but I guess that's the cycle of the world. Not sure which is really more constructive though...opinions? Q

 

[Biscuit]

Q -

Hmmm.

I agree that this will be a pivotal decade. Are you asking which path I tend to think the US will take, or which one I think we should take?

Isolationism has been a part of the American national persona and character since the Revolutionary War. The attitude has always been that we were strong enough to be self sufficient, and better off not being dragged into the problems of others. Now, on a personal level, I agree wholeheartedly. But nationally, I think there is a significant fallacy, akin to an Ostrich burying his befeathered head in the sand with a startled squawk. Historically, the US has had it proved time and time again what a bad idea this is as a national policy, yet the basic attitude still remains.

I tend to believe that popular opinion (and therefore Congress) will always tend toward isolationism, and that this will become more pronounced in the next 10-20 years or so. You would think that all the economic, political, and military trouble that we've gotten into historically with this general attitude would cause us to "learn from our mistakes" but alas, that seems to not be the case.

The US population, in my opinion, has less of a personal knowledge of world (or even national!) history than the occupants of many of those "poor European" nations we look down upon so. I think this results in uninformed, mass mentality thinking among voters. Let me be clear: I don't think the average American taxpayer is stupid per se, but rather intellectually lazy and thus rather short sighted. Actually, I think there are a lot of very smart people in the US, but intelligence and wisdom and two entirely different qualities.

I think, personally, that an expansionist, globalist policy would be the best one for the nation (and the world, indirectly), but this won't happen without a strong President who's willing to stand up to Congress and look at the long-term. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but I don't see it happening.

🙂

Thanks for the food for thought, Jakal/Hyde.

I await your responses, gentlemen.

 

[qjakal]

Re: Q -

Hmmm.

The US population, in my opinion, has less of a personal knowledge of world (or even national!) history than the occupants of many of those "poor European" nations we look down upon so.

I "hear" that statement a lot. But it also makes sense that Americans might not hear about events that aren't relevant to their lives, while much of the rest of the world seems to be immersed in our pop culture and hence would of course be more aware of events IN that culture. This of course doesn't excuse the appalling lack of geographical or overview knowledge of much of the USA population, but it IS an important distinction in that it explains why that common statement is on the order of a self fulfilling prophecy and shouldn't be taken so seriously.

On to other matters. What do you say to the argument that is frequently put forth that the US should pull its foreign aid, and apply those many hundred of billions of dollars to our own internal problems? Is this isolationism or sound economics? How can we justify sending all this aid to countries that think we're so "wrong" in so many ways? Do we generate this aid to justify our economic rape of their resources? Do we need to justify it? Would these countries EVER be able to access those assets without our technology and help? Is it actually a guiding principle of capitalism, albeit an unwritten one, that to expand our markets this type of initial outlay can be compared to "start-up capital?" Do we do more harm than good to countries who we develop trade relations with? Shouldn't they NOT deal with an evil empire such as the USA if that's the case?

I think many people try to simplify the role of our nation in the world. There are some who claim the USA is the only significant player that exists currently, in economic terms. Also a simplistic viewpoint when dealing with questions and markets this widespread and complex in nature. BUT, to expand globally in an effective manner, we would need to actually remake other countries economies into fairly efficient capitalistic models. This could segue into a discussion at this point as to whether or not capitalism is right or wrong, but for the purposes of THIS discussion, let's assume that if nothing else, it is efficient and currently the most prolific system in the world, ok?

Why we want to do that? Would it benefit us to stimulate other nations technological urges and abilities? It might...and it might just lead to our ruin. Look at where aiding Iraq has gotten us....perhaps if we had looked ahead we might have allowed them to slug it out with Iran "unaided".

Lot of questions...as always. 🙄 Q

 

[Biggles of 266]

sorry guys, I've tried to keep out of this thread for as long as possible, but I just had to ask Biscuit:

Why is Cuba a threat to national security? It's tiny, poor, falling apart... It's not like they can invade or anything. Am I missing out on something?

Biggles

 

[Biggles of 266]

Righto, I looked it up, but perhaps it'd be better in another thread. Check out the Cuba and Terrorism thread.

Biggles

 

[Strelnikov]

And now, back to our original topic. There are too many dickheads like this professor, and too few others - especially on the Left - with the guts to stomp on them like the roaches they are.

Strelnikov

********************

Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2002
The Professor And The Cadet

The unthinkable has happened on an American campus. A professor attacked a man in uniform for "aggressive baby-killing." Actually, that's all too believable. The surprise is what happened next at Chicago's Saint Xavier University: The professor was forced to apologize.

The rumpus began last month when Robert Krupiel, a first-year Air Force Academy cadet, e-mailed professors from other universities asking for advice on how to publicize an annual student political forum slated for February. Saint Xavier history professor Peter Kirstein responded as follows:

"You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby-killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit. Who, top guns to reign [sic] death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir? Resign your commission and serve your country with honour."

Professor Kirstein went on to declare that "September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra. You are unworthy of my support."

The exchange soon found its way to military sites on the Internet, provoking hundreds of outraged e-mails to the university. To his credit, President Richard Yanikoski saw the exchange for what it was, apologized for his professor's boorishness and promised to initiate disciplinary hearings. "Prof. Kirstein," wrote Mr. Yanikoski, "is free to hold views critical of the military if he wishes to do so, but he is not free to issue demeaning, degrading statements AS A PROFESSOR in or outside the classroom" (his emphasis).

So we have a happy ending. A professor flush with his own moral afflatus was forced to apologize as an uncivil bully. Cadet Krupiel graciously accepted. And at least one university president was willing to stand up to his faculty.

 

[august spies]

and the cadet went on to kill more babies, and create more hatred towrds the us, while satisfying the imperial needs of a greedy oil man

 

[ShiningIce]

Uh....did I miss something??? What was the forum about??? 😕 😕 😕

 

[asutickler]

To those who would bash en masse the United States Military and the fine men and women who serve therein, I would like to present the following quote:


"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

 

[dvnc]

Confused, Ice? This section is General Discussion. The topic is chosen by the initial poster, and discussion continues. This thread is titled Anti-American Politics in America, and is a political thread.

What? Oh, you wanted to know why there was no tickling discussion here? That'd be in the Tickling Discussion section.

asutickler, it's a fine sentiment, but the country was also founded by folks contesting the rule over them. We were founded on revolution, and require the freedom to effect change. That some disrespect the WRONG people, sometimes, is sad, but it beats bein' some trampled mass under dictatorial rule...

Happily helpin' to moderate,

dvnc

 

[ShiningIce]

No no no.......................In Strels post a cadet wanted to create a forum, I dont see why the prof. got so mad. 😕 😕

 

[shark]

Air Force cadet

I have been deliberately avoiding comment on these types of topics,but I just can't pass this one up.

Hey august,if you want to be a blind ideological idiot,that's fine,
but at least know what you're talking about.This kid is a first year cadet. That's the same as a freshman in college.He wanted a forum,to interact,and a college professor,of all people,chastises him.

While it is possible that the cadet was in the military prior to his acceptance as a cadet,this professor has no way to know if the cadet was even out of the States,let alone in any shooting.




People in the peacetime service got the same bullshit from you assholes,too. Stuff it.

There are people in this forum who are going into the service.Why not tell them now how they are to blame,too?

 

[Strelnikov]

Quoting Ice:
"In Strels post a cadet wanted to create a forum, I dont see why the prof. got so mad."

Because there's a faction of the American Left (not all, but far too many) who are predisposed to believe that America and Americans are the cause of all of the world's evils. The Prof is one of those anti-American lefties. Doesen't matter that the doolie (freshman) cadet had probably never had either desire or the opportunity to drop bombs on an orphanage - in the prof's mind, the cadet WANTED to do so, or otherwise he would have chosen to go to college somewhere else. And as we all know, in the magical world of the Academic Left, wishing will make it so. So the kid's a baby killer. QED.

There are equivalent pathologies on the fringe Right, but they take a different form. That's a subject for another thread. Daumantas or Shem, why don't you start one?

Strelnikov

 

[asutickler]

asutickler, it's a fine sentiment, but the country was also founded by folks contesting the rule over them. We were founded on revolution, and require the freedom to effect change. That some disrespect the WRONG people, sometimes, is sad, but it beats bein' some trampled mass under dictatorial rule...

Oh, LORD no! I didn't mean to somehow imply that civil dissent to the use of force was in some way wrong or damaging! Far from it. This country was based on the principles of democracy and freedom, and I certainly wouldn't want to change any of that.

I simply wanted to ask all of those who would unilaterally disrespect and villify ALL American service personnel by calling them "baby killers," and the like, to stop and think for a moment before uniformly trashing those who have, do, and will again defend their right to dissent openly. That's all.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression...

 

[JoBelle]

ASU,

I think some of us knew what you meant.

I shudder to think what would happen to our country if everyone in the military suddenly had a change of heart and decided to make a career change! LOL

I like your quote. It's right on spot.


"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

🙂 Without our service men and women, all of our rights would go down the tubes. Every single one of them...except maybe our right to beg for a merciful death from the crazies in the world.

Joby

 

[august spies]

that is the dumbest quote i have ever heard, its so far out there that its pratically orwellian. of all of the hundreds of thousands of people killed for demonstrating (including in the us) have been killed by the military. All of the millions of people tortured have been torutured by the military. All of the anti democratic actions that have happend throughout the world, happen because of the military. the world spends 800 billion a year to maintain this murderous bastards, while the world starves.

It is the campus organizer, it is the union organizer, it is the civil rights movement, it is the mass will of the people figthing agianst the brutality of state power, that has won us whatever freedoms we have and whatever concessions the state has given us.

 

[kyle]

that is the dumbest quote i have ever heard, its so far out there that its pratically orwellian. of all of the hundreds of thousands of people killed for demonstrating (including in the us) have been killed by the military. All of the millions of people tortured have been torutured by the military. All of the anti democratic actions that have happend throughout the world, happen because of the military. the world spends 800 billion a year to maintain this murderous bastards, while the world starves.

It is the campus organizer, it is the union organizer, it is the civil rights movement, it is the mass will of the people figthing agianst the brutality of state power, that has won us whatever freedoms we have and whatever concessions the state has given us.

August, go hug a tree and save a cricket.

 

[ForgottenTcklr]

I think one of America's biggest problems right now is that it cannot support each other.

They need not agree, in fact it's better that they don't, but they do need to support those in power.

We had an ongoing discussion about this awhile ago😀

😎 ~FT

 

[ShiningIce]

Its more fun to hug a cricket and save a tree.

 

[asutickler]

that is the dumbest quote i have ever heard, its so far out there that its pratically orwellian.

Oh, riiiiiiight. As compared to what, your ingenious diatribes of regurgitated ultra-paranoid polar-left sentiments? Spare me... 🙄

It is the campus organizer, it is the union organizer, it is the civil rights movement, it is the mass will of the people figthing agianst the brutality of state power, that has won us whatever freedoms we have and whatever concessions the state has given us.

What are you, some sort of anarchist? "Mass will of the people?" WHAT "masses" of people? 😕 You know, there's a reason that your extremist views are held by a teeny minority of humans...

 

[shark]

Because OF the military? The military is a tool. If it weren't for communists,dictators,and Islamic extremists,there would be minimal need for the military.

Civil rights workers and union organizers are well and fine,but without a free nation protected by the military,they will,and are today in many places,be under the thumb of the government.Save us the argument that doing away with the military will insure peace....
take a look at the world and it's obvious that those without a powerful military are in deep shit.

By saying those killed demonstrating in the US,I assume Kent State is foremost in peoples' memories.After seeing a couple documentaries on that,the students involved were at least partially at fault.not only were they involved in an escalatingly violent demonstration, but the National Guard troops were only college age kids themselves.
Their final position,when the shooting occurred,was that they were actually trapped on a hillside and surrounded by either a fence, buildings,or the rioters themselves,and somebody panicked.

In my view,the biggest obstacle to our cohesion as a nation is this multiculturalism garbage.No nation or society can survive being divided into factions.Not long ago,everyone came to the big "melting pot" and became part of one culture,as happens in a melting pot. All parts have their own qualities,but are all part of the same mix,not trying to be separate entities. I had previously posted about communistic influences having no part in our society.Not only are they a self-declared enemy,but have also stated they would disrupt our society through institutional infiltration. The far left fringes of today are the example.Nothing American is any good,but they never have the strength of their convictions and leave.That tells me they are either total hypocrits or have a reason for staying in the hell that is the US.

Incidentally,much of the world's food problems are addressed by the US.Much of what is left is connected to local troubles, overpopulation, and basic ignorance of the population. Another documentary about the spread of AIDS in Africa bears this out, as the sexual conduct of many go unrestrained,even after being made aware of their risks.The attitude reflected was that of "If I get it,I get it". Where there is short food supply,either find a way to get it,or go to a source.Much of the problem there is also civil war and internal strife.Some places have the equivalent of mob rule. Leftist or rightist doesn't matter.

Since world hunger is mentioned,here's a topic. Recently, the US shipped a load of biotech corn to an African nation whose identity escapes me.The corn was refused due to concern of possible "side effects" of the biological engineering. Said concern is about the effects 50 years down the road,much like those involved in radiation exposure.

While I understand the concern over such products,starvation is imminent in this area.Would you rather die the slow route of starvation, or risk some possible side effect in 50 years,realizing that the average lifespan is in the 40s anyway?Either way,the starving population has no say...the corn was "quarantined".

 

[ShiningIce]

August, are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you're not a liberal?? 😕

 

[Biggles of 266]

Is Jimmy Carter anti-american?

Biggles