"U.S. Fears Fugitive Militant Is 'New Osama'" It just astounds me that the US actually considers it's draconian foregn policy to be a viable road to security. What if they actually catch osama? What if they actually get iraq under control? So What? They leave 100 times more hatred and rage against them in their wake. What's the payoff for the US? a brutalized economy, less personal rights and freedoms in their own country, less actual security and the contempt and outrage of the rest of the planet. I'm not knocking bush jr. this tendancy goes back a bit but for christs sake, wake up! This present course couldn't have been better crafted to dismantle their country and they're doing it to themselves. sorry for the rant, hardly new ideas but this article about the 'next osama' just made me want to scream DUH! how the hell could you not see this coming?!
If I had an infestation of rats in my barn, I would put one huge hunk of bait right out in the open and then climb into the rafters with my rifle and wait. Let the rats come to my bait, on my terms. Pretty soon, there would be a huge pile of dead rats in the middle of the barn. Sure beats the hell out of trying to find every single rats nest in the whole goddamned barn, don't it?
see buffys? If you just make some sort of folksy analogy it all looks like it will turn out ok, and you can appeal to your rural base as well! Of course the "Bait" are civilian lives, and the rats wont ever come out into the open for it, and your shotgun is likely to keep pelting civilians whenever you shoot a rat, and then the analogy breaks down because once civilians get hit, then your bait will turn into more rats... oh well, maybe folks with barns dont think this hard.
Yes, but I’m talking over his head, to you, in a mildly insulting tone. Don’t make me come out and say I’m being subtly insulting, it makes the subtlety much less... subtle.
Well, luckily a lot of Americans do see this. Unfortunately, however, those Americans aren't in power, and the ones that are high on their own global blood lust shout a whole lot louder.
spymouse my boy, it's impossible for you to talk over my head, so don't bother trying. I made it clear I carried a rifle into the rafters, not a shotgun, but you probably wouldn't know an A-5 from a 700 if they both crawled up your pantsleg and simultaneously bit you. The rats are out in force, and they will be slaughtered on a wholesale level. Their attempts to retrograde society backwards 800 years will fail. You can cry about it now, or later, the choice is yours.
At Buffys - they DO see it coming, but they don't care. They're greedy. They do everything for their own personal gain and think nothing of the consequences. The "War on Terrorism" is an oxy moron, for crying out loud. "Terrorism is bad and evil...so let's fight it with war (aka, large-scale terrorism)!" If you ever read one of Bush's many speeches about terrorism, you'll find that 95% of the things he says in describing terrorists and their actions also applies to the US.
I actually disagree, I think bush is wrong but I doubt a democrat would have done much different ... could have done much different at first. The people were too angry (rightly so) and required a response, I'm not so cynical yet that I believe even republicans would grind their own country into the ground for a few dollars. This course started from the majority, they wanted to hurt the people that hurt them I think any country would have done the same it's just that the US is the biggest guy on the block so when he hits everyone feels it. Now though the initial rage has subsided and the population is starting to see a bit more clearly, the futility of fighting war with war. What frightens me is the government is still going full steam ahead and acting surprised when the inevitable repercussions emerge like the 'new osama'. Cooler heads have got to prevail or we're all screwed. Remember the "war on drugs"? result: prisons full and training small time crooks to be big time, more money for the criminals, less resources and time spent on the underlying problems while spending a fortune 'combating' the symptoms and today anyone can still get any drug they desire with ease. The worst thing is "the war on terrorism" proves that nothing was learned. I'm proud to have the US as a next door neighbor. We have the longest undefended border in the world and, besides some petty bickering, very good and long standing relationships but you're pushing us and the rest of the world away ... that both scares and saddens me.
Buffy I understand your sentiments regarding the U.S. and I understand that the Bush Admin's foreign policy stance is brusqe, or even rude, one might say, but there is nothing unique about them. The U.S. has a history of taking unilateralist stances to force its policies and somehow the rest of the world agrees to a later date for a big group hug and a "promise you wont do that again". TR did it. RR did it. The world's not going to turn its back on the U.S.
Oh, definitely. My comments were aimed at the Bush Administration because they're the ones in power at the moment, but I agree, I don't think things would have been much different with a Democratic administration. The same stuff probably would have happened, but maybe not a such a quick rate.
Yup, seems to me we are seeing the self-destruction of the nation-state way of doing things. This phase of human social experimentation seems to have become incapable of putting reason and intelligence into positions of authority no matter what label these policy deciders claim allegiance too, Repugnant, Democrap or, as in the case of the half wit, barnyard mercenary. We are seeing what is known in system theory as a positive feedback situation, not that it leads to positive results aka the Norman Vincent Peale garbage, but that we have an oscillating misappropriation of energy that escalates until the system disintegrates. I suspect the disintegration will be characterized by people heeding the evidence and inventing some new social experimental phase, hopefully, with some real ability to help handle growing human abilities for our own good and before the failure of the current experiments takes out too much of the biosphere.
There are many problems in the world. The US, being the world's predominant hegemon, is oft looked to for solutions. We've got two possible avenues to take: We intervene and try to help. We're imperialists out to exploit the locals. The zealots hate us. We keep to ourselves. We're selfish, unwilling to waste a cent to help our fellow men. The zealots hate us. Either way they're going to hate us, so what's the best course of action? I am a pragmatist. Since we're not going to change anything, I'm all for taking the avenue that offers the largest ancillary incentive. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20021.../the-real-roots-of-arab-anti-americanism.html
yes intervention to help would be nice, I haven't seen that yet so the repercussions are hard to guess. What I see is just military flailing, actions that haven't been thought out beyond next week, unilateral and with no long term goals. The unilateral nature of this 'help' is, in essence, "keeping to yourself" or at least closing yourself off. The present foreign policy invokes the worst problems inherent in both of your avenues without the benefits of either. I agree that your military and economic power make you instantly hated, comes with the job but thats not what worries me it's how this power has been directed that is flawed in my opinion. Easy for me to say being from a country with the population of new york but thats my two cents.
Did you buy that stuff Stokey? I'm not about to give the CFR any money as I look before I leap and I have already heard of this organization's head in ass policies. If I recall correctly, didn't they help create the Project for a New American Century? Here it is, the system (or lack of one) falling apart. It's think tanks will justify any simplistic either or policy you want. Did you ever think there might be a third alternative, Stokey, my man? Got a clue?
Hegemon? uh, I guess, Stokey, you meant hegemony which is a word. Usually it applies to the relationship of a dominating country over a weaker one and not necessarily the characteristic of one country. But granted that your use makes sense, Stokey, if that is all the US can be, then it can not be a part of any solution, it will always try to take advantage of situations with welfare of people never foremost. I do tend to agree with that perspective. It was born of violence and will die embracing the brute force approach. Ah, don't you just admire those play-ground bullies and their superior ways?
Sounds like G. Bush and his gang of fundamentalist thugs with their crusade against free speech (re: Howard Stern), abortion, gay rights, science (creationism), the separation of church and state, and the democratic process(disenfranchising of black voters in Florida). I'm glad we got Saddam, but at what cost????
Pragmatic truth is human truth That was said by James on his philosophy of Pragmatism. But what a dangerous web one weaves with the theory of pragmatism. In order for Pragmatism there has to be a positive effect to counteract the action invested. The US' "pragmatic" policies of the past have not done that. I think Americans have to ask themselves why does the world hate the US and can tolerate Canada? We are just above you guys, and no one hates us. Americans go around the world carrying Canadian flags on their nap sacks, and their luggage. But why? Simple America abuses her power, Canadians come from a era of British hegemonic power (real hegemonic power), and we were once part of the world's most powerful empire. The British empire did not abuse it's powers like the US does. It becomes evident when the British lost the 13 colonies that they had to reform their imperial policy. From a pragmatic one to one of idealism. The Pragmatic approach is to alienate and reward on this almost cyclical basis, because the premise is that no one would ever dare challenge our authority! But idealism outweighs pragmatism when it becomes ruthless in nature. American foreign policy has been largely a failure, and it shows from the overthrow of the Shah in Iran (his support was pragmatic), to the Support of the Mujaheddjin in the 80's (pragmatic) did not those things blow up in the US' face or what? If the US had a policy that was more like Europe, and Canada for instance. The US would not be in the position it is in today. Canadians when they go overseas are respected by the population (I should know firsthand experience). Why? Because we aren't arrogant ppl, Americans of almost no fault of their own are innately arrogant. Of course this is undeserved arrogance but arrogance nonetheless. The French are no different, and when you have the French and Americans who have always been allies go against each other, with two proud and strong states behind them. Canada wisely did not go into Iraq, and we are watching those Americans die in Iraq, for what? We don't know or really care. What we do know is that we stood our ground on principles. Canada now doesn't have to waste billions on something like Iraq. Pragmatism is not the truth it is a abused variant.
As much as i enjoy feel'n the love for Canada I disagree with your premise. I would argue one of the biggest reasons Canada doesn't face the anger the US does internationally is the same reason New Zealand isn't hated ... we aren't a threat to anyone. From an economic, population and military standpoint, we're basically inconsequential. I'm not saying we have no impact at all but we couldn't really hurt anyone even if we tried, it's pretty easy to like someone if they have no power over you. I agree the US has used its power poorly, that's the reason I started this thread in the first place but I think you've over simplified the situation a bit.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Behold, the rabidly right-wing Council of Foreign Relations, shills of the Bush administration! http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82506/marc-lynch/taking-arabs-seriously.html http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101faessay82609/dimitri-k-simes/america-s-imperial-dilemma.html Seriously, it behooves you to actually learn some background on a source before making a hamfisted effort to debase it. Thanks for your attempted correction, Baron Von Grammarnazi, but you're wrong. Hegemon is a word.
