I think Bush grew a couple feet in stature tonight. Excellent speech, well delivered. Very Presidential.

-Andrew

I think it was an excellent speech.

Mainly because of the fact that at certain sports, at certain times, where he was talking about certain things (rebuilding New York, freedom, liberty, making those who did this serve justice) you could actually see him try---and try hard---to keep from either frowning, smiling, or showing emotion.

He wasn't as stony as he was the first couple times, but I think that was because he was in shock.

I think now he's just trying as hard as he can to not show us how he's really feeling---super pissed like the rest.

I agree. That won't surprise anyone here, but I thought it was an excellent speech. Far above what I think most expected. I was impressed. Certainly the most well-delivered speech he's given as President, and, probably, ever.

Yep, good delivery on his part. And his speechwriters should be applauded! (Not a dig at him-I've sworn those off after last week... Every president since Lincoln has depended on good speechwriters.) He delivered it well- nice,understated ultimatum. "Give up the terrorists, or we will make a non-stop effort to destroy you. Your choice."

He must have replaced his entire speechwriting team. That wasn't even on the same planet as everything written for him previously.

The line that caught me in Bush's speech was this one (surely one for the history books):

"We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

Here's the full transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/

-Andrew

I really liked it when he was talking about the badge of the officer who was killed trying to rescue people. You could tell he was really fighting back tears.

He was so genuine.

So genuinely manipulative.

Bullcrap-- Get over yourself.

It was a fine speech, especially for Dubya. It's good to see a speech written for him that wasn't chopped up into three word segments for ease of delivery. And the line Andrew pointed out is excellent, apt and poetic. Granted we're not talking Tom Chick caliber prose, but it's damn good for something from a public servant.

Brad Grenz

Speaking as someone who was generally unimpressed with Bush's presidency so far, I must admit I was pretty surprised with how good that speech was. It touched on just about every aspect of this whole mess, and helped summarize what our goals are as a country for all the Joe and Jane Six-Packs out there. Well done.

While I had no problems with the speech. I think the absence of Cheney sent a bad sign. We will talk tough, but we are still scared as hell.

Just think if gore had won. Having an orthodox jew as the VP? That would make a bad situation so much worse.

Chet

Maybe or maybe it would have led to an 'only Nixon could have gone to China' situation. Lieberman could have taken a harder line with Israel than we have in the past. This is something that must be done sooner or later if we're ever going to convince the people, not just the West dependant rulers, of the Middle East we're honest brokers.

As long as we're seen as meddlers, dabblers and the power behind thrones then anyone with an issue with those governments, including but not limited to Israel, is going to see us as the first obstacle. I don't think the key is to abandon Israel, that's an unthinkable policy, but we must admit they're essentially squatters on another man's land. With that perspective we can begin to shape a more reasonable policy in the region that can be accepted.

Until you undermine the secular sources of hatred that motivate young men to become religious fanatics you haven't won the war on terrorism. There will always be more recruits operating somewhere with money flowing through backchannels and black markets. With the upcoming changes in our intelligence laws allowing us to put these sorts back on our payroll we can imagine that other governments will be doing the same thing.

Terror is psychological warfare. So we must answer with a better grasp of psychology than the terrorists have.

I wish The President had touched on these issues to reassure me that he understands the nature of the war he's embarking on. Still, what he delivered he delivered very well.

I just hope his insistance on a friend or foe status from every nation in the world doesn't create more problems than it supposedly solves. Free nations don't like ultimatums as a rule. At least his writers did remember that Islamic nations like "Crusades" even less.

I thought it was a good speech, too, but this line:

"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism."

conveniently leaves out communism. I suppose the omission was made so as not to offend our "allies" over in the land of brush calligraphy and massive human rights violations.

Like everyone else, I'm steadfast in my condemnation of terrorism, terrorists, the awful Jamie Lee Curtis movie Terror Train, actual Terror Trains, and especially that horrifying little zuni fetish doll from Trilogy of Terror. But except for the fact that they haven't started bombing us yet - granted, kind of a big exception, and, come to think of it, we did blow up their embassy - I'm much more scared of China. I guess we have to fight one battle at a time. Also, what's the difference between "Fascism", "Nazism", and "Totalitarianism"?

Anyway, regardless of everything I'm saying, it was a good speech. This is my first post after a long, shock-induced absence, so it's is kind of rambling. U.S.A.!

'Maybe or maybe it would have led to an 'only Nixon could have gone to China' situation. Lieberman could have taken a harder line with Israel than we have in the past. This is something that must be done sooner or later if we're ever going to convince the people, not just the West dependant rulers, of the Middle East we're honest brokers.'

Huh? Israel offered the entire West Bank, no new settlements, and half of Jeresaleum to Arafat in the last round, and he wouldn't take it. What more can they give? I actually agree with some conservative commentators on this one: the Palestinians are out to destroy Israel, not negotiate. If Arafat had actually agreed to a peace settlement, he probably would have been killed by his own radicals.

Fascism: Spain.
Nazism: Germany.
Totalitarianism: Chile.

They're subtly different! That's why Bush said them all, not just to pad out the phrase.

I thought "Totalitarianism" was a good stand in for Communism. Didn't Reagan consistently refer to "The Evil Empire" as totalitarian? I mean, it really wasn't Communist at all, was it.

Erik. China isn't scary. They have something to lose, they aren't half as scary as a random attack from people who have NOTHING to lose.

-Andrew

"China isn't scary. They have something to lose, they aren't half as scary as a random attack from people who have NOTHING to lose."

China is a massive nation with a vast military machine, an ideology fundamentally opposed to ours, and aggressive policies towards its neighbors.

If you think that's not scary, might I suggest a history book? :)

-Tom

BTW, totalitarianism implies a mode of government; not necessarily an ideology. It can be right (fascist) or left (communist). It can even be indeterminate a la Orwell's 1984.

The Nazis were totalitarian and fascist. The Soviet Union was totalitarian and communist. The Khmer Rouge were totalitarian and, well, just crazy.

-Tom

Jason: From an Arab perspective, much less just a Palestinian one, you're looking at a man who's had his sandwich stolen and being told the thief's being generous by offering one slice of bread back. The Israeli's are only, and understandibly, interested in survival as a state and we've, among others, given them the military and economic muscle to do just that. We've poured billions if not trillions into aid there but given the Palestinians comparatively little other than lip service. This fact isn't lost and combines with others to make us appear very untrustworthy to many in the middle east.

Tom: China. I've got a funny feeling there will be only one winner if our attacks trigger popular uprisings in Pakistan and the Middle East. It won't be Osama bin Laden. The Chinese military is becoming undermined by the success of the economic modernists over there - they just got into the WTO. If China becomes more active in the global economy there will be less support for the generals and more for the salesmen. I have to confess I find it hard to understand why we haven't heard the usual pronouncements and hostility out of Bejing if we're planning an operation right in their backyard. My theory is that the generals want us to get embroiled in a global conflict against religious extremists so that we alienate allies and are denied oil resources. The Saudis among others won't be able to withstand a popular revolt at this point. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Chinese military-intelligence community is one of Laden's covert sponsors.

"I don't think the key is to abandon Israel, that's an unthinkable policy, but we must admit they're essentially squatters on another man's land. With that perspective we can begin to shape a more reasonable policy in the region that can be accepted. "

Hardly any countries are NOT "squatters." We brutally put down the American Indians, The Normans brutally put down the Saxons, the British oppression of the Irish for close to a thousand years, and all before we even get to colonialism. At this point in history, there is hardly any piece of worthwhile ground that hasn't belonged to somebody else already. The difference with Israel is that the entire region surrounding that state is and has been unified in treating Israel as a virus infecting the body of the middle east ever since the Jews invaded/rose up in what? 1948? Hardly any Palestinians are alive who can remember a Palestine in their lifetime, yet their resistance remains constant, and their nature completely uncompromising. The Israelis are hated and despised by everyone around them, and even from within their own borders by their subjugated peoples. Some of their neighbors have made peace with them, but I don't think they've ever really accepted the Israelis. I also don't see that changing. Since we are their prime supporter, we get to be hated and reviled along with the Israelis themselves. Oh, joy.
I think that it's just the nature of the 20th century that we hear about all these things that happen, and have tried to evolve the sensitivity to hold life in a higher regard. I have no illusions about the rest of the world sharing those sentiments, though.

"If you think that's not scary, might I suggest a history book? :)"

Well, the second sentence in that quote you pulled puts the first sentence in relative context. Might I suggest reading for comprehension? :) Of course a burgeoning superpower with nuclear capability, a huge military machine, a blase attitude re: human rights, a chip on it's shoulder, and an ideology like Communism is scary!

But I think they're certainly less scary than what happened last week.

China's in our league. Any conflict we have with China is likely to result in a detente or Cold War. A hot war would be too costly for both sides and no matter how uncivilized China may act internally, they don't want a nuclear confrontation any more than we do. That makes China more predictable and I find more predictable = less scary.

Fighting an enemy with nothing to lose is infinitely more frightening. As we saw last week.

-Andrew

Nothing to do with China, or Israel, but a very interesting look at Russia and all this. I'm startting to see why Geryk has professed love for this Anne Applebaum.

http://slate.msn.com/foreigners/entries/01-09-21_115984.asp

-Andrew

China isn't a match in open war with the US. Their technology is largely 20 years behind ours in terms of capability. They also have very few nuclear missiles, one missile sub (boomer), and not too many modern planes. The nature of their largely coastal navy means that such a hypothetical war would be fought on their side of the Pacific, not ours, which would limit their tactical nuclear options. They do have a pretty good and really, really big army, though. Our big problem would be that if we needed to fight them, getting enough men and material OVER THERE to fight anything as huge as the Chinese nation would be a task that I don't know we could pull off.
That's what bothers me about our commitment to help Taiwan. That island is in easy land-based missile range of the Chinese mainland, which would put any naval units we base there at extreme risk if hostilities broke out, and make it hard for our own aircraft to get close enough to do any real harm. Of course, if the Russians gave us permission to base out of THEIR territory, then things would change. And the Russkies, with good reason, are plenty worried about China.
Agh, politics make my head hurt.

"China is a massive nation with a vast military machine, an ideology fundamentally opposed to ours, and aggressive policies towards its neighbors."

Tom, you forgot that China is about 7,000 miles from the West coast, is surrounded by a bitter enemy(ies) who still probably wants revenge against them for past relations (Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Tibet, India, etc), is universally hated thru-out the world by most civilized countries, has most of it's population along the Pacific rim, has most of it's population in the ruts as poor peasants, etc. etc. etc.

A hot war with China would never happen, and if it did, well, there goes the world as we know it, because it'd eventually come to total destruction. (Some idiot pushes the big red button that he shouldn't)

A cold war would be the only war we ever have with China.

China is _not_ the enemy everyone makes them out to be. Luckily. ;)

There's no question that we could beat China in a war. What's frightening is the cost, the potential scale, and China's history as a hardline pretender to superpower status. Oh, also the nukes.

September 11 was certainly terrible. But in the overall scale of things, it's much more practical to be worried about China than terrorists.

-Tom

Anne's been writing great foreign entries for Slate for a while.

As to Israel: I wrote this summary post over on the OMM forums last week:

http://www.oldmanmurray.com/wc.dll?poe~showforummsg~RANTS~243557~MURRAYGAME

I think saying they stole it from Palestine isn't quite the right term. The Jews lost it to the Romans ~100 BC, then the Romans (the remaining eastern part of the empire) lost it to Islamic conquest ~600 AD.

The Ottaman Empire somehow ended up with the area from there, and then they lost it to the British in WWI. Lots of Jews started moving there after 1900, with "a lot" turning into "a flood" mid-WWI after the Balfour declaration (ambigiously stating that Britian wanted to set up a Jewish state).

Post WWII, the British unloaded their mandate government over the area to the UN, who set up an arab country and a jewish country there based on population distribution (as near as I can tell, check the link for exact numbers). The UN plan looked mostly fair to me; the only "fairer" Arab alternative would be to either deport all the Jews or not segment the area at all.

Since then, the Arab states have been trying to destroy Israel, but Israel keeps winning the wars and taking land from them. Lately, Israel offered pretty much the entire UN partition to Palestine, and they turned it down.

They don't have sufficient population in Israel anymore to make a serious case that they should have Arab majority government of the entire region, so the entire "who's right" issue hinges on the fairness of the initial UN partition, near as I can tell, and I've been unable to find any useful information on it.

Since then, however, it's illustrative to note that every one of the Arab governments in the region have acted like complete assholes, only recently agreeing that Israel has a right to exist, for Nixon's sake.

Summary: Jews stole the sandwich from Arabs who stole it from the Romans who stole it from the Jews. Fairness depends on the historical timeline you're using.

In my political opinion, the entire region is just marking time until actual democracies arise in Syria and the like. Until then, the authoritarian regimes surrounding Israel will continue to manipulate the setup to stay in power.

Check out this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/0109/nirenstein.htm

'From such hatred it is but a short step to incitement and acts of violence. Arab schools teach not just that Israel is evil, but that extirpating this evil is the noblest of callings. As a text for Syrian tenth graders puts it, �The logic of justice obligates the application of the single verdict [on the Jews] from which there is no escape: namely, that their criminal intentions be turned against them and that they be exterminated� (emphasis added). In Gaza and the West Bank, textbooks at every grade level praise the young man who elects to become a shahid, a martyr for the cause of Palestine and Islam.'

"But in the overall scale of things, it's much more practical to be worried about China than terrorists."

Practical? What an odd choice of word that seems to be. Terrorism, last week, basically wrote the word "Touchable" on the elevator wall. That's something worth worrying about now. I doubt China will do anything in the short term to jeopardize it's Olympic games, including funding terrorists, and there's little reason to think they'd ever get backed up to the wall enough to use those nukes they've got.

So, right now at least, why worry about China?

Or are you dispassionately looking at the long term future threat? Is that what you mean by "overall scale of things"? Hell, in the overall scale of things I'm more worried about terrorists getting a nuke. Again, the threat that has nothing to lose cannot be controlled or predicted.

-Andrew

"Or are you dispassionately looking at the long term future threat?"

What I'm doing is addressing your comment that "China isn't scary".

You're welcome to be scared of whatever you want. But to discount China is foolish.

-Tom

No Tom, you're quibbling, reaching, and ignoring the second sentence in my post. I quantified the statement right there. Thanks for welcoming me to be scared of whatever I want though, that's kind of you.

-Andrew

After watching the up-and-down parallel to China, the USSR, implode, what's there to be scared of? Sure, they may cause a few crises, but I no more expect a rich communist China or rich dicatorship China to arise than, well, Stalin to come back from the dead.

Hey Tom!
Can I be afraid of whatever I want toooo? I choose Smurfs. They have nothing to lose AND they got nukes!

-DormOnkey

"I choose Smurfs. They have nothing to lose AND they got nukes!"

I think you're confusing Smurfs with Pakistan. Or is that Afghanistan? I get them all confused with Cabbage Patch dolls.

-Tom

"After watching the up-and-down parallel to China, the USSR, implode, what's there to be scared of?"

Hmm, methinks Jason might be trolling...

China and the US have:
1) diametrically opposed ideologies
2) an inordinate interest in Taiwan
3) lots of muscle

This is the sort of formula that has led to World Wars. Just substitue for Taiwan places like Poland or the Balkans.

To be honest, however, I have a lot of confidence in post-Cold War geopolitics and American statesmanship. But Chinese/US tension is still a far greater threat to the world's stability than Islamic terrorism.

-Tom

'But Chinese/US tension is still a far greater threat to the world's stability than Islamic terrorism.'

I think it really comes down to whether you think two nations with nuclear weapons will engage in open conflict. The worst thing I can imagine is a rerun of the cold war, with proxy wars and terrorism. I think it's *highly* unlikely, though, as China's a complete basket case. Their western provinces are rebelling; Stratfor and Janes are projecting the country will degenerate into civil war in the next 20 years, etc, etc.

"Summary: Jews stole the sandwich from Arabs who stole it from the Romans who stole it from the Jews. Fairness depends on the historical timeline you're using. "

Tsk. That sandwich is older than that. The Jews originally stole the sandwich from the original Palestine. It was Palestine before Israel, Judea, etc.

China has also been pushing the US hard for the past year. Don't forget all the crap over the intelligence plane that collided with one of their MiGs. They made us crate it up and ship it out, rather than allowing us to fly it home. They also held our pilots hostage for about a week before we were allowed to bring them home. In violation of treaty, they also boarded our plane and refused us access to it for over a week.
They are angry with us because we bombed their embassy in the Balkans, and because we didn't adequately apologize. Of course, they were using radars on the roof of that embassy to paint our B2 bombers...

China is large and has a sense of idealogical superiority, just as we do. They are also a totalitarian government, with a leadership that does not have a real connect with their people, who are treated as peons. They have nuclear weapons and a huge army. The Soviets used to keep a quarter of all their forces on the Chinese border, they were so worried about the threat.

Anyone who isn't worried about China isn't considering that, one day very soon, China is going to want to ensure it's superpower status by seeking more solid economic and resource power. That means oil from the seas around Taiwan. That means Taiwan's manufacturing and banking base. That might mean the potential resources untapped in the Russian far east. It seems a little too coincidental to me that just over the past few years China has begun to assert itself more forcefully on the world stage, in the UN, lobbying for the Olympics, getting into pissing matches over the safety of a US plane and the crew.

I wouldn't underestimate this. China could be a really big problem, and soon at that.

"This is the sort of formula that has led to World Wars. Just substitue for Taiwan places like Poland or the Balkans."

But both of those World Wars were pre-Nuke Tom. Pre-Superpower too. The parallel you're making is invalid due to vastly different stakes and circumstances.

Still, you're right about Taiwan being a dangerous situation. I strongly doubt it'd lead to a Sino-US war. (Jeez, I hope I used that right, Sino=China, right?)

-Andrew

"But both of those World Wars were pre-Nuke Tom. Pre-Superpower too. The parallel you're making is invalid due to vastly different stakes and circumstances."

The parallel is invalid, huh? Can I come live in your universe?

If anything, the parallel is even more frightening because of the 'vastly different stakes and circumstances'.

-Tom

'Tsk. That sandwich is older than that. The Jews originally stole the sandwich from the original Palestine. It was Palestine before Israel, Judea, etc.'

I'll admit - I have no idea who owned the area before the Jews ran things. However, that doesn't invalidate my point of ambiguous ownership.

"If anything, the parallel is even more frightening because of the 'vastly different stakes and circumstances'."

But those very stakes and circumstances are what makes your historical scenario all the more unlikely. Taiwan isn't worth a war with the US (and therefore the world) to China, no matter how they may posture and frighten you. Of course, the converse is true as well.

And, yes, you can come live in my universe. There's room on the couch.

-Andrew

"Taiwan isn't worth a war with the US (and therefore the world) to China."

Whatever, Bub. I'm sure the Chinese government and the Republicans in Congress will be relieved to hear this.

BTW, when can we expect your "peace in our time" speech?

-Tom

"Until you undermine the secular sources of hatred that motivate young men to become religious fanatics you haven't won the war on terrorism. "

er, "secular"? Make no mistake, it's purely religious in nature.

I have to agree with Tom on this, China is a greater threat to the free world than terrorism could ever be.

If you want to look at it this way, this scenario, then do it:

Osama bin Laden walks. The world is bloody furious about it, but they slowly forget as Osama peers into the darkness once again, elluding capture. The anger of American slowly boils down, and so does the rest of the world's anger.

Boom. Suddenly a nuke is detonated in Detroit, or Dallas, or D.C., or Los Angeles. Highly unlikely, VERY highly unlikely, but let's just say one did. Or maybe let's say a chemical bomb went off, nerve gas, in one of those cities.

Suddenly, instead of a few thousand people dying, you have a crime against humanity in effect. Hundrds of thousands would die from the nuke, if not millions, and quite a few would end up with a severe suntan (cough cough).

You want to talk about chemical warfare? Fine, let's talk chemical warfare. You want to drop a bomb large enough to do significant damage to a city (not one of those measley subway bombs that can't hardly kill a person), that will kill and maim thousands upon thousands of people, then you best recognize what that is. That's a crime against humanity.

You commit a crime against humanity, and suddenly, violently, the entire world, NATO, the United Nations, the US, Britain, Russia, Israel, hell throw in China and Japan for some fun, wants your blood. You can't commit a crime like that, no, not a nuke, not a chemical weapon, because then you take war, atrosity, to a whole new level.

So yes, Tom is extremely right. I believe China is not the enemy everyone makes them out to be, but Tom is very right, we have more to fear from them, then we ever will terrorism.

Tom,
The only thing we have to fear... etc.,
;>

-Andrew

Christ!
Bubs an optimast, Chicks a pessimast.
And Met K thinks Chick is both extremely and very right, at the same time.

Me?
I hope Bub is right
Peace in our time, Ya!

-DormOnkey

Anonymous says, "er, "secular"? Make no mistake, it's purely religious in nature."

People are conditioned by their environments. Look at the realities and the history of the Middle East and it's not hard to see how folks become radicalized. That much of that history involves manipulation by outside powers with alien mores helps focus the outrage with clarity.

People who perceive themselves as oppressed will turn to whatever they can to rally around. Faith, extremist political ideologies, or the nearest drug lord with cash and guns.

The U.S. hasn't done much but prop up corrupt status quo regimes in the middle east in order to ensure that the oil keeps on coming. Our state department has even forbidden its people to talk to opposition parties in many such countries for fear of offending the leadership. That includes pro-democracy and civil rights parties in various monarchies whom we support not only economically but with our own troops. We can even look back to the installation of the Shah of Iran to see the CIA taking direct action to overthrow a democratically elected prime minister. And how hard is it, really, to see Israel as an apartheid state?

I know. This isn't the whole story but it does help to explain the light in which we are seen. If we want to keep the level of frustration from growing and creating more religiously motivated terrorists we need to understand psychology and the social factors that contribute to it. Encouraging social equity and democracy aren't bad places to start even if it cuts into Texaco's profit margins.

Actually I should have said "support not only technologically". They've got cash. They need us for Patriot missles and F-15s.

"The U.S. hasn't done much but prop up corrupt status quo regimes in the middle east in order to ensure that the oil keeps on coming."

No disagreement there.

Everyone I hear seems to be going to great lengths to avoid the real issue - Islam. Have you ever tried to reason with a religious fanatic? (or any kind of fanatic: UFO, etc) You *cannot* use reason and logic, because their mind is made up.

First, Islam is not open to reason. There's Allah, and Satan. It's not coincidental that Muslim-led countries had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world; they turned their back on science several hundred years ago.

Second, it's no secret that Muslim religous leaders have been calling America "The Great Satan", and you don't have to look far to find their views on the nation of Israel.

Both of these things lead to Fanatics. You do not reason with fanatics. You do not engage in group hugs with fanatics. You do not try to new-age "understand" fanatics. You do not sing "Kumbaya" with fanatics. When someone says they're going to kill you, and goes to great lengths to kill you, there's only one response.

Yes, there's decades of stupidity behind all this, but we live in a PvP world, not a carebear world.

Now, do I hope that this ends quickly with a minimum amount of deaths? Of course. But there's that human stupidity factor. So, *IF* this escalates into retaliation and bloodshed, then there's the Western, Christian concept of "Armegeddon" that could stir the pot.

My point? That the underlying source of the problem is no less than Islam Vs Christianity. Ignore at your peril.

>That the underlying source of the problem is no less than Islam Vs Christianity.

The Muslims responsible for these attacks--and other terrorist actions--are the minority, not the majority.

The news reports on anti-American demonstrations over there, but most of those are "state sponsored", meaning the government tells the people when to show up and what to say. When I was in college I had a very close friend who was Muslim and from the ME and he would tell me about the things that went on there; it'd blow your mind. Very often it came down to a simple choice--do what the government tells you or die.

"Christ!
Bubs an optimast, Chicks a pessimast.
And Met K thinks Chick is both extremely and very right, at the same time."

Since Tom's a pessimist, and I agree with a pessimist, that means I think God doesn't exist and that your use of the word 'Christ' is hereby nullified.

No, really.

Anon-- I'd disagree, religion isn't the basic motivation for a zealot moved to agregious violence. Their true greivances are more base than that, jealousy, fear, etc. Religion only provides a structured system to validate your beliefs and an excuse for your actions. It's just as easy for a Christian fundementalist to hate musilems for being heathens as it is for an Islamic fanatic to hate America for being the 'Great Satan'. But there's no real reason in either faith for hating the other. Just historical precident founded in human frailty.

Brad Grenz

"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. (so even if u have never supported any terrorists, even if your whole country mourns the incident, we will kick your ass regardless just because u remain even neutral. it doesnt matter what kinda state of turmoil or problems your country is facing, because my ideal now is of utmost importance [right, cause it matters with the world], so u should leave what u are doing to improve your citizens lives and provide the help i want, otherwise u are with the terrorists)"

doesnt sound like theres a choice for neutrality. i dunno if theres some kind of world treaty for nations to declare itself as a neutral faction, but to think about it, theres no freedom to take sides this time around. i can really see that statement being exploited to eliminate communism or any other ideology that capitalism or 'freedom' doesnt agree... of course none of us want a world war, but the intention behind that statement, im sure, has a few country leaders thinking really hard now...

in fact people dont hate americans, they hate something else...

Why would a country need to be neutral?

Here's how I see it. Any country can say "Hey, we're with ya, George!" and then, unless bin Laden tries to flee into that country, there'll never be much of a test.

Basically, Bush is asking "If bin Laden were to flee to your country, would you hand him over or harbor him?" In such a case, I see no neutral ground to be taken.

Yeah, I don't think Nuetrality is an issue. My reaction would be that any government who wouldn't want to help the US in this matter probably isn't much interested in improving the lives of its citizens either. Ethan, I think you're trying to hard to create a grey area where one simply does not exist. Hell, a country wouldn't even have to apprehend Bin Laden themselves, they could simply give American forces permission to operate within their borders.

And I can't see how we could use that statement to eradicate communism. China and Cuba are the only of note left. We'd like China on our side for this effort, and no one really cares about Cuba anymore. Cuba may have seemed to matter at one point, but no longer. One of these days Castro 'll kick the bucket or the country will go broke or both and it'll be over. We just can't afford to be waging a war on terrorism and communism at the same time.

And there's an important reason communism was left out of that sentance in the speech. Aside from not wanting to rile up China, there's the fact that Communism, socialism isn't inherintly evil. It just doesn't work and efforts to force it to work lead totalitarianism, which is evil.

Brad Grenz

'And there's an important reason communism was left out of that sentance in the speech. Aside from not wanting to rile up China, there's the fact that Communism, socialism isn't inherintly evil. It just doesn't work and efforts to force it to work lead totalitarianism, which is evil.'

This is like saying gasoline is composed of carbon compounds, but unfortunately, it burns. It's more-or-less a direct implication.

maybe cause im a few thousand miles away from the States, i havent really seen any real evidence that bin laden is really behind all that. i wouldnt doubt he is a terrorist but is he the one i dunno. actually with the present situation, it probably doesnt matter cause every terrorist is gonna get their asses kicked. maybe cause im a few thousand miles away i heard something that even cnn neglected to mention. maybe what i heard is true, maybe not, maybe it matters, maybe not...

like i said the statement can be exploited easily, god knows a few monthes later, when most of the terrorists have dead or fled, no nation will be pointing fingers saying 'hey i have intelligence saying such and such terrorist has fled to your country, find em out or u are with them". its such an easy way to frame someone when everyone else is so hyped and emotional.

i dont pretend to know how politics work, i just see the possibility of this event turning into an uncontrolable conflict world wide. im sure none of us want a world war again, but then again i dont pretend to know how politics work...

Well, you're right; none of us want another world war. If there's any way of avoiding it, I sincerely hope that our leaders choose that path. I fear, though, that if we do what we have to do -- and we do have to take some action -- that other countries won't like whatever action we take, and things will escalate until we're in the middle of a full-fledged WW3. I just don't know if there's any way of handling that will avoid that path.

But I pray that there is. And I pray that our leaders take that path.

I'm praying that the Colin Powell elements in the White House prevail and we wage a war against the Taliban to overthrow them, and get Bin Ladin's Al Quaeda, surrounded by alot of diplomacy and cooperative intelligence work with a broad coalition.

If we just start dropping the hammer on everyone to 'clean house' we'll just be making a big mess and both international and domestic support will peel off over time. That's not even the worst of it if we generate more radical, militant, recruits for Al Quaeda and its component organizations. The Middle East could become unmanageable. Moderates, pro-democracy groups, would become extraneous as the totalitarians battle the fanatics.

Unfortunately it looks like the rest of the administration wants to fight a broad war. There's way too much WWII nostalgia going around for our own good right now. And, in honesty, it's hard to argue for reason in the light of September 11th.

How could the middle east possibly get any messier? Every country but Israel, and possibly Egypt, is a dictatorship. I think you're confusing the Islamic radicals in each country, who don't have any official power(excepting Afghanistan, and possibly Iran), with the secular dictators that are running the countries.

Syria is just Pinochet all over again, for one. Why the CIA has been supporting dictatorships over democracy in the region, I have no idea.

We don't disagree here. The existing governments will be fighting the most radical elements - the Islamic extremists.

Right now the Middle Eastern extremists don't have the numbers or the support for full on revolts. If we start killing thousands of folks trying to root terrorist cells out, willy nilly, they will gain more recruits and support and we'll be stuck backing those dicators as they kill even more of their people.

The CIA, hell the whole government, backs dictators because a dictator can't get voted out of office. Oil is an issue of national security. In many cases they were there before we got involved and in others we helped see to it they got where they are.

I think we're beginning to see the err of our ways. The countries we call 'moderates' are in many cases repressive regimes. But there is an educated class that does seek democratic reforms in many of the wealthier countries. We'd just rather they not rock the boat from what I've been able to sort out. Now their radical Islamic cousins might rock the world instead.

'The CIA, hell the whole government, backs dictators because a dictator can't get voted out of office. Oil is an issue of national security. In many cases they were there before we got involved and in others we helped see to it they got where they are.'

Well, maybe. Back in the Cold War, we supported them because the populist alternatives in the countries were all Soviet-funded. I'm going to give the CIA the benefit of the doubt and suggest that they haven't got out of the habit yet. Hopefully it'll change.

>Well, maybe. Back in the Cold War, we supported them because the populist alternatives in the countries were all Soviet-funded.

And in the case of Iran in 1953 we overthrew a democratically-leaning government and put a dictator in place.

I'd forgotten about the Shah.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

'In 1951, Iran's Parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry, and legislators backing the law elected its leading advocate, Dr. Mossadegh, as prime minister.

Britain responded with threats and sanctions.

Dr. Mossadegh, a European-educated lawyer then in his early 70's, prone to tears and outbursts, refused to back down. In meetings in November and December 1952, the secret history says, British intelligence officials startled their American counterparts with a plan for a joint operation to oust the nettlesome prime minister.'

'The newly inaugurated Eisenhower administration was intrigued. The coalition that elected Dr. Mossadegh was splintering, and the Iranian Communist Party, the Tudeh, had become active.

Allen W. Dulles, the director of central intelligence, approved $1 million on April 4 to be used "in any way that would bring about the fall of Mossadegh," the history says.'

They were democratically-leaning?

Actually, yes. Dr. Mossadegh was a bit eccentric but he was hardly pro-Soviet. He was a nationalist and a modernist. While Iran's Communist party hoped to manipulate him, early on, by the time of the CIA backed coup they'd given up on him.

We got rid of him because we couldn't afford a ruler there not under control of the West.

There's another article, also in the New York Times, that reprints the journal of the lead American agent there with a good deal of background and context. I put a link up to it at cgonline.com but can't get into the open forums for some reason right now to pass it along.

As for the breadth of the war - from what I've been able to read and hear, I believe that we'll be smart about this and only do what's neccessary to eliminate the terrorist groups with global reach (as much as possible.) If we were just wanting to thump our chest and assuage the public, we'd have already bombed a bunch of empty tents. But note that Bush stated that much of this war would be covert ops that the public would never know about, that the battle would be also be about ensuring no safe haven and economically, that the attacks would include sowing confusion and doubt (again, that sounds like covert special ops.) I think taking out Bin Ladin and his organization is step one, but then we have to continue going after the other organizations in a focused, non-stop manner. Colin Powell has been given a lot more visibility lately, and I read an article a couple of days ago that led me to believe that the Bush has tremendous respect for Powell's counsel in this matter.

They should just scroll the TelePrompTer text on the screen and cut out the middleman.

With Bush, it's a fine line between Evil Doer and Ab Doer.

I didn't know President Bush made another address today:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/ret.bush.transcript/index.html

Perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but who would be keeping tabs on the government?:

(edit)

"We're putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments and ask them to freeze or block terrorist ability to access funds in foreign accounts.

If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their banks' assets and transactions in the United States.

We have developed the international financial equivalent of law enforcement's "Most Wanted" list, and it puts the financial world on notice: If you do business with terrorists, if you support or sponsor them, you will not do business with the United States of America.

I want to assure the world that we will exercise this power responsibly. But make no mistake about it, we intend to and we will disrupt terrorist networks.

I want to assure the American people that in taking this action and publishing this list, we're acting based on clear evidence -- much of which is classified, so it will not be disclosed.

It's important, as this war progresses, that the American people understand we make decisions based upon classified information, and we will not jeopardize the sources. We will not make the war more difficult to win by publicly disclosing classified information.

And by the way, this list is just the beginning. We will continue to add more names to the list. We will freeze the assets of others, as we find that they aid and abet terrorist organizations around the world"

(edit)

D'ja see the breifing with the White House press secretary? Reporters kept asking the same questions over and over about when they'd get to see the classified evidence. Journalists seem to think they have some kind of inailiable right to know anything and everything and they don't like taking no for an answer. But this simply is not the case. The First Ammendment guarantees freedom for the press to report anything they want. It does not entitle the press to any and all information. That's, quite simply, and unreasonable request (or demand). Information is classified for a reason, in the interest of national security, whether that means keeping an intelligence collecting asset concealed and/or alive, or denying our enemies information on our planned actions which could help them evade a strike or plan an counter-attack.

As to who will be keeping tabs on the government, I assume foreign governments who we ask to help us won't be taking action on blind faith. Beyond that, well it's up to history to judge the action of our current administration. Frankly, I don't see why people are so worried about Bush, considering our last administration sold Presidential pardons, stole the furniture and vandalized the office equipment on their way out of the Whitehouse. Not to mention that whole President commiting purjury thing.

Brad Grenz

'Frankly, I don't see why people are so worried about Bush, considering our last administration sold Presidential pardons, stole the furniture and vandalized the office equipment on their way out of the Whitehouse. Not to mention that whole President commiting purjury thing.'

The pardon and perjury things are debatable, but the vandalism story is flat-out wrong:

http://slate.msn.com/code/PressBox/PressBox.asp?Show=1/29/2001&idMessage=6969

"we're acting based on clear evidence -- much of which is classified, so it will not be disclosed"

howcome i dont really like that statement... i know, another easily exploited case, 'hey your account is frozen, cause i have here evidence that i wont disclose showing u are a terrorist or related to them'... ok screw me...

While I understand your concern, I certainly think that they have the right to retain some information as classified. For once, the media might not get the best of the government.

Thank goodness the media hasn't always been as it is now...

"This just in...We're gonna invade Normandy tomorrow!! More as it develops..."*

Can't you just imagine that being broadcast all over the world??

*Credit where it's due: Jason Alexander was using this example on Politically Incorrect last Friday night. It was much more amusing when he did, too.

Unfortunately, I did not catch the telecast. i wish I had. I do believe we don�t need to know *everything*, but I don�t like the idea of having to �blackmail� world wide financial institutions because the US has all this evidence behind an iron curtain. It seems, well�wrong. It just doesn�t feel right that we are asking to put pressure on foreign banks because we �talked� to their respective governments with this evidence that is �classified�. Are we going to share this information with the banks that it directly affects? Are the foreign governments going to take our �classified� information on face value?

It seems we brought the fact that we ARE the world police right in everyone�s face. And the attitude is: �You�re either with us, or you�re against us.� The thought of not being allowed to know the court hearings to prosecute someone seems very un-American. And the US is prosecuting.

I just hope the US isn�t just pressuring foreign governments into playing a game of �follow the leader�.

- "I want to assure the American people that in taking this action and publishing this list, we're acting based on clear evidence -- much of which is classified, so it will not be disclosed."

Perhaps it's just me that is wary of taking this classified evidence at face value, oh well.

Heheh...I totally agree that the media shouldn't know or broadcast military strikes until *AFTER* they happen.

But, we aren't talking about how and when we are going to attack Afghanestan (if it comes to that). What I'm worried about is what right do we have to tell foreign PEOPLE how to run their businesses based on our ideals because the fact that we claim to have evidence of some sort.

"The pardon and perjury things are debatable"

How is the perjery thing debatable? He lied under oath. That's what perjury is.

"This just in...We're gonna invade Normandy tomorrow!! More as it develops..."*

Can't you just imagine that being broadcast all over the world??"

It's worse then that. Remember the amphibious marine landing in Somalia? There were hordes of news cameras, reporters and idiots with big bright lights waiting for the soldiers when they hit the beach. (it was a night landing, the hope had been to enter the country steathily.)

"What I'm worried about is what right do we have to tell foreign PEOPLE how to run their businesses based on our ideals"

These foreign nations are free to do what they want. The President's press secretary has said we ARE sharing sensitive information with the nations who we'd like to cooperate in our efforts. This is a complete non-issue in countries in Europe like the UK or Germany. We can't force them to do anything with their banks. We can ask them, show them evidence as to why we think they should help and it's their call. If the evidence is deem substancial by a foreign government, then they will help. If they feel the evidence they see is weak, their free not to. We'll probably tell them how disappointed we are, but we're not going to nuke Switzerland for not freezing some assets. The real issue is countries like Iran or China or somewhere else whose government we are not on great terms with. If they refuse to help despite substancial evidence, then we might rebuke them on the international stage or, more importantly, hurt them economically with the influence we wield in that arena. And that's our nation's perogative.

And I think the fear that the US government will start executing hidden, naughty-naughty agendas. I don't see how these things could be wielded in the way you suggest. Are you thinking the Bush administration is going to go around the world seizing the assets of foreign competitors to US industries? He could never get away with it! Christ, it's not like this is all a charade manufatures to give Bush the means to crush OPEC to the benefit of his Big Oil. That's simply absurd. (and I'll sock anyone who says "stranger things have happened) Or is this about some private citizen unlucky enough to get his assets seized. What would he have done to have brought his accounts to the attention of investigators. This is a very PC country, I doubt you'll see every persian rug store's bank accounts frozen. And who's to say there's no legal recourse? There's still a bill of rights. I don't remember voting in any new ammendmants over the last couple weeks so if you have a greivance with a new law or executive order, that's what the Supreme Court is for.

Christ, I feel like I always need to qualify my statements whenever I get into this kind of debate. I'm not some kind of Bush booster. I didn't vote for the guy and he is in my opinion a complete doof. I'm a registered independant, I didn't vote for Bush, but then again, I didn't vote for Gore either. But I certainly am not going to believe that everything he does is a calculated attempt to make his oil friends richer and to start a war to make his military-industrial complex friends richer. People talk about how the attack on 9/11 plays perfectly into his legislative agenda. Well, that's one way of looking at it. Or maybe the Republicans were kinda right when they said the military needed better funding, the intelligence community needed more money, we needed to tighten our borders some, and we needed to lessen our dependance on foreign oil. There's that side.

One more thing to get off my chest. I don't think I've seen much of this in this forum. But we've all seen postings or letters to the editor, or other online editorials written by left wingers blaming insensitive US foreign policy for the current problem with terrorism. This is, pardon my french, a huge load of shit. First, I've got to point out the irony in this position. The USA should be more tollerant, sensitive and understanding of the greivances claimed by militant, oppresive, evil organizations like the Taliban? Your average democrat in America is disgusted by the notion of discrepancies between the pay of a woman and a man doing the same job, inequitable hiring practices, an inability to worship the way you want, or not at all, or losing a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy (please, I don't want a pro-life/pro-choice debate). But these people on the far left, who believe all that, only more vigorously, think we aren't being fair to a government where you are a practicing muslim, or a criminal dissedent, where amazing works of art, carved into the side of a mountain are destroyed for depicting Budha. In a country where women are murdered for having sex outside wedlock, in a culture where it is not uncommon for a young girl to have her genitals forcefully mutilated to promote monogomy. In Afghanistan women can not vote, are raped and murdered if they rufuse an arranged marriage. This is not a society worthy of our sympathy or our tolerance. I agree that the whole Israel situation is a cluster-fuck. But that's not why these people hate the USA and the west as a whole. That hatred is born from a disgust of our entire cluture. They fear the influence of western media and industry will corrupt their peoples. That by watching American TV or reading American magazines, books their women might come to expect the kind of rights enjoyed by other women around the world. Not just women, but the youth, the disadvantaged would start expecting such western decadence as freedom of speech and religion. The power to vote for their leaders. This is so not about religion it's not even funny.

Sorry, I know this is off-topic.

Brad Grenz

A big part of the enmity that Moslems feel towards the US is due to our support of Israel. I don't think that can be danced around.

We do meddle in the affairs of the Middle East. Because of the oil, we have an economic interest in the region that we don't have in other parts of the world. We stood by and let millions be slaughtered in Rwanda, but we spent billions and risked the lives of U.S. (and others) soldiers in Kuwait to restore a non-democratic regime.

One way to cut down on the threat of terrorism would be to withdraw from the Middle East entirely and stop giving Israel aid. Does anyone disagree with this? We could go in, get bin Laden, and then withdraw from the affairs of the Middle East. I'm not advocating we withdraw, but it is one possible solution.

The other solution is harder. Find a way for Israel and the Arab states to co-exist.

I think bin Laden is just a symptom of a larger problem, though admittedly getting the guy might reduce the level of attacks from that of something engineered by an evil mastermind to smaller acts of violence.

"What I'm worried about is what right do we have to tell foreign PEOPLE how to run their businesses based on our ideals because the fact that we claim to have evidence of some sort"

wala the root of all evil, u have found the reason! replace businesses with governments and u see the real picture.

"If they feel the evidence they see is weak, their free not to (help)"

well the statement, "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists" still rings in my head pal...

"The real issue is countries like Iran or China or somewhere else whose government we are not on great terms with"

what are u trying to say? has the china or iran government done anything politically to bother u personally or your nation? why is the US not in good terms with these nations? what is the reason behind this seeming supremacy and hostility over these governments that the US not in good terms with?

"...we might rebuke them on the international stage or, more importantly, hurt them economically with the influence we wield in that (area). And that's our nation's perogative"

can anyone please tell me why thats the case? is it because u are a free country so u are free to suppress other people / nations that u dont agree with too? lets step back to the last quote, so if the US isnt in good terms with some countries, why not seek a way to improve? why choose violence or 'hurt them back' as the solution? thats just bully...

"This is not a society worthy of our sympathy or our tolerance."

double standard? well actually u are right, they dont need u to tolerate them, just leave them alone. if their women and men are civilized enough they would do something about it themselves. every culture is different than 1 and other, theres no set rules for living, theres not even an absolute right or wrong in the world. yes raping is wrong, mutilating someone's body against their will is wrong, but case by case study please. there were crazy folks shooting kids up in high school in the States, does that mean the US is a bad country? does it mean u would become a crazy dude and do the same thing too? of course not, thats misconception and generalisation on 1 case or a few cases!

"That hatred is born from a disgust of our entire cluture"

its not your culture, like i said, refer to my 1st quote...


i really hope my english is good enough to convey what i have in mind. please be objective... i sitll live by this quote from tolkien

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

- Gandalf - J.R.R. Tolkien - The Followship of the Ring

Brad: I'd like to think the best of what our government does behind closed doors. With the exception of WWII, and despite the rhetoric this is no WWII, history doesn't fill me with much confidence.

I've said my say about the Clinton Impeachment and I've found getting down into the weeds about it sheds more heat than light. Some folks will see what they want to see. I was furious too at the time but for very different reasons.

Trust me, even during WWII, we engaged in naughty, naughty agendas. Many of the Bush campaign's biggest contributors were oil interests (which he and Cheney have ties to) and military-defense concerns (which Cheney and Rumsfeld have ties to). The Christian Right also wants a crusade. I even saw Pat Robertson briefly last night waging a "prayer war" - send in your prayers and dollars and he'd put them in boxes around the big wall clock with the superimposed globe. It would be insanely naive not to keep this stuff in the back of one's mind. I'm not saying we should assume anything either. But we'll never know what's really going on for another 20 years (if that) and, unfortunately, this is a democracy and a republic: you and I are responsible ultimately for anything our country does. I for one don't want to feel like a fool who took his hands off the wheel. We need some level of disclosure at least.

As for the Taliban and the war in Afghanistan. I support it. I think our boys are heros who are in for one of the toughest fights we've ever seen. I do think for that to have any long term meaning we must fight to overthrow the current government - as bloody as that will be - and then engage in a Marshall Plan to rebuild a new country on the ashes of the old. Otherwise that swamp will just fill up again and keep attracting more Bin Laden's. As long as we conduct in our current foreign policies, as Mark points out, there will be huge hostility for us amongst a very large population. It's not just Levis and "Sex in The City" that has the majority of the Arabic people riled up. It has to do with dignity and self-determination. Our policy has kept any democratic impulses in check and, unfortunately, fanned the fires of radical religiousity.

That's my take on the situation. And honestly I'm more worried about what our government will do than the terrorists next moves. My guess is that al-Quaida already hit us with their best shot. Laden wanted us to attack. He hopes that our response will trigger popular Muslim uprisings all over the Middle East.

- "It's worse then that. Remember the amphibious marine landing in Somalia? There were hordes of news cameras, reporters and idiots with big bright lights waiting for the soldiers when they hit the beach. (it was a night landing, the hope had been to enter the country steathily.) "

Yeah, I remember seeing that on TV when it happened. Man, the look on the faces of the soldiers as they were greeted by blinding news photofloods was priceless. I'm just glad our enemy didn't take the opprotunity to waltz in with explosives and machine guns and mow them down.

- "We can ask them, show them evidence as to why we think they should help and it's their call. If the evidence is deem substancial by a foreign government, then they will help. If they feel the evidence they see is weak, their free not to. We'll probably tell them how disappointed we are, but we're not going to nuke Switzerland for not freezing some assets."

(From Bush's address) - "If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their banks' assets and transactions in the United States."

No, we won't be nuking Switzerland (plus I've always wanted to visit there), well just freeze their assests in the US, the financial power house of the world.

You're off-topic statement is more than welcomed. I agree, the atrocities commited by foriegn countries/government/whatever shouldn't be tolerable in this day and age. At the same time, shoving cruise missisles down their throat saying, "Bad people, BAD!" isn't the best solution. I don't know what the solution should be. We have a hard enough time controlling our own internal crime problem, how do we control the world's? I fear it will lead to a global "civil war" if we start shoving people around.

'One way to cut down on the threat of terrorism would be to withdraw from the Middle East entirely and stop giving Israel aid. Does anyone disagree with this? We could go in, get bin Laden, and then withdraw from the affairs of the Middle East. I'm not advocating we withdraw, but it is one possible solution.'

It'd cut down on the threat of terrorism to some extent, but it wouldn't eliminate it; the kooks there object to our existence, not our involvement.

A withdrawal would be national security suicide, though. We have oil supplies that come from there, and we need to keep China & Russia out of the region to assist in denying them great power. Even if we started getting our oil elsewhere (South America comes to mind, and we're already doing it to some extent), we'd don't want the region to end up looking to the Chinese (or hypothetically, India, the other up-and-comer). Until a new energy source comes along, we don't want anyone else to have it either. By "us" here I mean the US, Japan, Britain, Germany, France, and the second-power countries of Europe; the West, more or less.

Myself, I think the best solution here is revolutions to install democracy in all the countries of the region. Iran's an encouraging example of liberalizing democracy - they're a lot less insane than previously.

'How is the perjery thing debatable? He lied under oath. That's what perjury is.'

I didn't mean legally, I meant it being an actual bad thing for him to do. Ungh.

"One way to cut down on the threat of terrorism would be to withdraw from the Middle East entirely and stop giving Israel aid. Does anyone disagree with this? We could go in, get bin Laden, and then withdraw from the affairs of the Middle East. I'm not advocating we withdraw, but it is one possible solution."

Yeah, but that would result in the death of every Jew in Israel who isn't able to flee in time. Iraq invading Kuwait, again, and very probably Saudi Arabia and Iran. And who knows next. I'm not sure putting Saddam Hussein in charge of an Arab super-state is a solution preferable to the problem. And as I've said the common people may resent us most for our meddling, but the extreme, the terrorists hate us for being us.

Plus we could never do that to Israel. We quite literally got them into this. We helped establish an Israeli state following the end of WWII.

"The other solution is harder. Find a way for Israel and the Arab states to co-exist."

That'd be great. Only problem is the Arab states don't want to co-exist. Arafat has refused some very fair peace agreements. The best offers he'll ever get.

"what are u trying to say? has the china or iran government done anything politically to bother u personally or your nation? why is the US not in good terms with these nations? what is the reason behind this seeming supremacy and hostility over these governments that the US not in good terms with?"

Not up on your international politics? Iran's a lot better now, but there's a history of animosity. And China? Well there's the human rights violations, are you familiar with Tienemene Square? Their policy on forced abortion? Their suppression of every religious or psuedo-religious movement for being poitically undesirable. Not to mention any actions they may take in the future to establish themselves as a true super power.

"can anyone please tell me why thats the case? is it because u are a free country so u are free to suppress other people / nations that u dont agree with too? lets step back to the last quote, so if the US isnt in good terms with some countries, why not seek a way to improve? why choose violence or 'hurt them back' as the solution? thats just bully..."

It's not dictation to or supression of another culture. We can't force everybody to act as we want, but if we are unhappy with the actions of a foreign nation we are free to take our buisness elsewhere. This IS a non-violent way to encourage change.

"u are right, they dont need u to tolerate them, just leave them alone."

We have been leaving the Taliban alone. We can't anymore because they willingly allow known terrorist to wage a war on our country, one which has taken thousands of American lives, from within their borders. But I don't even think "leaving them alone" is something we should do. We should have interveened sooner when Germany was rounding up and murdering Jews. I wish to God we had done something to interveen in Rawanda when millions were dying.

"I didn't mean legally, I meant it being an actual bad thing for him to do. Ungh."

And I was bein' technical. Fair enough.

Brad Grenz

Brad, just so you don't feel like you're fighting alone, I agree 110%. I don't really have anything meaningful to add, though.

"Not up on your international politics? Iran's a lot better now, but there's a history of animosity. And China? Well there's the human rights violations, are you familiar with Tienemene Square? Their policy on forced abortion? Their suppression of every religious or psuedo-religious movement for being poitically undesirable"

shit, i was out on the streets, i was part of the angry mob about tienenmen, those are my blood too. but dude thats our business, my dad was killing my siblings, my family problem... if one day i get killed too sorry, i could have left, but i didnt, cause thats my dad, i want to make a different. but on the other hand, has any country on earth gets on your gun control issue ? or the racial problems that quite a lot of people feel in the States ? no ? why ? because thats your own problem ! we mind our own business, so should u.

"Not to mention any actions they may take in the future to establish themselves as a true super power"

what does that mean? u jealous they can become a super power too? or u think becoming a super has certain criteria on how they deal with things? or u are worried that they would take extreme measures to climb up the ladder? either way, i dont understand.

"This IS a non-violent way to encourage change."

right, thats a very good mentality. but lets hinder them economically, lets hinder them by selling guns and tanks to their surrounding countries. and u know what, i am seeing a change, for christ sake i lived in the States, i breathed your freedom air and now i choose to be back in the hands of those u deemed 'not worthy' instead. everyone, every government has done something wrong, should we dig up every ugly dirt? hey i do remeber a chinese ambassy was 'mistakenly' hit and people in there killed. and u do believe thats a mistake? dont tell me your government had never erred, nor the rest of the world. a non violent way to encourage change is to be there physically, understand the problem and tackle it with your hands and brain, not by being thousands of miles away and preach your ideologies of a utopia.

your intention might be good, but your method is not the best. i understand that every nation should protect their interests, but like i said, 'even the very wise cannot see all ends'

"lets hinder them economically, lets hinder them by selling guns and tanks to their surrounding countries. and u know what, i am seeing a change,"

Yup, just like we've been doing against Iraq these past 10 years. And you know what? Saddam's still in power, and Iraq remains the very same thorn in the side of this region as it did 10 years prior. Good plan if you enjoy losing the war of attrition. Some change, indeed. Hrumph.

"...for christ sake i lived in the States i breathed your freedom air and now i choose to be back in the hands of those u deemed 'not worthy' instead."

At least you had this choice.

Let's look at China. They're the only nation to increase their GNP per military expenditure for forty years straight. Save North Korea, no other country has come close. Should the world just ignore this hoping it will go away. History tells us otherwise.

"...everyone, every government has done something wrong, should we dig up every ugly dirt? hey i do remeber a chinese ambassy was 'mistakenly' hit and people in there killed. and u do believe thats a mistake? dont tell me your government had never erred, nor the rest of the world. a non violent way to encourage change is to be there physically, understand the problem and tackle it with your hands and brain, not by being thousands of miles away and preach your ideologies of a utopia."

Sounds like you misunderstand and/or are truly misinformed about US global involvement during the past sixty years. A hefty amount of US debt is based on US financial support and backing of friendly and non-friendly nations, ie the Marshall Plan, USAID, Global AIDS package, Kosovo, etc. Of course, the US has made mistakes, but there have been worthwhile successes. As a world leader, the US can't be everywhere at once, but it sure tries. (and not everything the US does internationally is publically known or reported by the media)

"your intention might be good, but your method is not the best. i understand that every nation should protect their interests, but like i said, 'even the very wise cannot see all ends'"

And the dumb become dumber, the passive grow weaker, and the misinformed become more ignorant. Unfortunately, human nature is rotten at its core.

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

Did Gandalf mention this before or after he slayed Balrog? A contradiction, perhaps?

Raphael

"what does that mean? u jealous they can become a super power too? or u think becoming a super has certain criteria on how they deal with things? or u are worried that they would take extreme measures to climb up the ladder? either way, i dont understand."

I worry that China's ambitions might lead to something very unfortunate. I worry that China may decide to invade Russia. Having two nuclear powers embroiled in a shooting war is very scary. In a Sino-Russian war over Syberia the use of nuclear arms may seem like a viable option. At least during the Cold War nuclear weapons were never, ever a viable option. We built so many, and the Soviets built so many that the Mutually Assured Destruction if they were every employed guaranteed we'd never use them. But Chiina only has a few and Russia's got all that sparsely populated land. What if Russia, unable to repell an invasion through conventional means might nuke an advancing army as it crossed Siberia. The Chinese, in retaliation, might lob half a dozen ICBMs at major Russian cities. And in reprisal Russia would nuke Beijing and a few other industrial centers. The world wouldn't end, but there goes a billion people.

But that's just an example of a nightmare scenario I, as an American, worry about. But I don't believe that will happen. I hope it never does. I believe you that China is getting better. They're coming to embrace capitalism quite a lot for a communist country. I wish the Chinese people the best in their pursuit of freedom.

That said, if the government of China changes direction somehow. Does something we can't excuse, we reserve the right to take our business elsewhere. That's the beauty of a free market, we vote with our dollars.

"everyone, every government has done something wrong, should we dig up every ugly dirt? hey i do remeber a chinese ambassy was 'mistakenly' hit and people in there killed. and u do believe thats a mistake? dont tell me your government had never erred, nor the rest of the world."

I'm not saying we're perfect. We've made mistakes, I openly admit to that. The way the native peoples of this continent were treated is a disgrace. Creating Japanese internment camps during WWII was a terrible thing to do. There's lots of stuff we regret. As for the bombing of the Chinese embassy, I do believe it was an honest mistake. My understand is that the embassy was hit by an anti-radiation missle. These weapons are fire and forget. The pilot launches them without every aquiring or designating a target. They automatically hone in on radar instalations in flight. These are usually used to take out anti-aircraft batteries. Unfortunately there was a radar station on the roof of the Chinese embassy and the missle assumed it was hostile.

So, yeah. Our government isn't infalable, it's certainly imperfect. But I also think it's the best system of government anyone has every created. The United States is a very young nation when comparred to China of Great Britain or Japan who've been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. But I think the fact that our government has existed longer then any other current government in the world is a testement to the quality of its foundation.

"a non violent way to encourage change is to be there physically, understand the problem and tackle it with your hands and brain, not by being thousands of miles away and preach your ideologies of a utopia."

Well, I'd love to visit China. I'm not sure I'd be preparred to live there. But I don't have that option. I don't expect to bring about social change in the People's Republic of China through a friendly debate of the issues on a computer game message board. And I don't claim to know how to create a utopia. And I think you have mistakenly assumed that I have passed judgement on China. I don't agree with many of the government policies and I think socialism is a fundementaly flawed way of doing things. But I have nothing bad to say about the people who live there. I don't think we should alter our trade relationship with China right now. I think the west's best bet on influencing China right now is through open trade. But things might change. And dependant on future circumstances we may decide altering our economic relationship is neccisary. That's all I'm saying.

Brad Grenz

Good god people, are you guys even listening to what Ethan's saying? If he's telling the truth he was at Tienneman Square standing under a replica our own Statue of Liberty while facing the possibility of his own death.

And here we are, taking a break from our game du jour, lecturing him on how dangerous his government is. You think he doesn't know this? China is his 'father' killing his 'siblings'. It's clear he loves his country and my guess is that he admires our system of government. Is that so hard to understand?

We can get down into the weeds about this and I'm prepared to back up my words with links and cites if that's required. But it seems to me China is no monolithic entity. There are factions within the government and outside the government. They tend to align around either trade or militarism to one degree or another.

The pro-trade faction is the one we claim we want to work with because it would be profitable for our country and promote 'democratic and humanitarian' values in China. The pro-military factions are those we rail against and accuse of aggression and spying. Well, interestingly enough if the modern economists win the battle of minds inside the Chinese communist party China becomes not only /a/ superpower eventually but the biggest superpower. If the militarists win, other economic interests can keep China in check through political proxies in other countries as 'dangerous'. It makes me wonder what the US really wants in the long term.

And if anybody thinks the Chinese Embassy bombing was a mistake they need a quick dip in the lake of reality. We are pretty certain that Chinese Intelligence was passing along radar acquisition data from their experiences working in Iraq to the Serbian military. I've even heard it suggested that this resulted in the downing of the stealth fighter we lost. Most intelligence assests are based out of Embassies. What are the odds that we'd drop a wildly expensive bomb, at the risk of our aircraft being shot down, and inflicting civilian casualties in the heart of a major European city during a highly televised war in this day and age if we didn't know what we were hitting. This wasn't a milk factory.

As for huge amounts of our spending going to promote social justice overseas - that's a freakin' drop in the bucket. It doesn't come close to what Bush gave away in his tax cut much less defense or social security. Social security must seem a quaint concept to so very much of the world.

"Good god people, are you guys even listening to what Ethan's saying? If he's telling the truth he was at Tienneman Square standing under a replica our own Statue of Liberty while facing the possibility of his own death."

Yeah, and I was at Pearl Harbor, shooting at Japanese planes while the Arizona went down.

People will make up anything.

Geez Brian, you must live in lala land. Unless you've been there and/or actually studied anything about China in the past 20 years, your links aren't giving the insight you very much need right now. There's a big difference between "actual" reality and "assumed" reality. I suggest you regroup.

As for huge amounts of our spending going to promote social justice overseas - that's a freakin' drop in the bucket. It doesn't come close to what Bush gave away in his tax cut much less defense or social security. Social security must seem a quaint concept to so very much of the world.

Oh my, an informal logic alert. ;-) Since when is US foreign aid considered only social justice? The Marshall plan and Kosovo aid packages are not just US "social justice" promotions. They're also economic, paramilitary, and political aide packages. If you add it all up, US foreign aid in the last 60 years, accounts for a big part of US expenditures. It's no drop in the bucket by any stretch. FWIW, I learned a bunch of information about US foreign policy expenditures from an "American Foreign Policy" university course I took a few years back. It's absolutely astonding how much the US spends on foreign programs.

Understand this: the US must focus on eradicating the entire al-Qaida network. It must be done in a deliberate and systematic fashion and at many levels, ie political, economic, social, and militarily. They are the United State's (and other western democracies) current enemy and must be treated as such. Fortunately, there is hope for improving US-Chinese relations. There is none with al-Qaida.

<insert pity quote by a famous person>

ok ok, i WAS NOT physically at tienenmen, i didnt see anyone shot in front of me, and i certainly didnt stand in front of a tank. what i meant is that the incident angered me and many others, and we were protesting in the streets. for the government were killing our own kind, for they were unable to handle the situation peacefully and young educated people were killed, arrested, put in jail etc.

honestly if the chinese wanted a war, we wouldnt be talking here at all... the recent incidents were good excuses already to openly declare war on the States, but that didnt happen. of course we wont know what will happen in the future, but the chinese, as far as my history tells me, has rarely or rather never been a war like bunch that actively start a war or invade other countries. none of us normal average people want a war, none of us want to see our cities in ruins, none of us want to worry about our next meal or even our survival in the next hour. however, doubts, misunderstanding, misconception could always lead to bad endings. earth is the only place we can live in so far, theres no where else to go, so the best option is to co-exist.

thank you all for your opinions and i do hope that i didnt offend anyone here.

"honestly if the chinese wanted a war, we wouldnt be talking here at all... the recent incidents were good excuses already to openly declare war on the States, but that didnt happen. of course we wont know what will happen in the future, but the chinese, as far as my history tells me, has rarely or rather never been a war like bunch that actively start a war or invade other countries. none of us normal average people want a war, none of us want to see our cities in ruins, none of us want to worry about our next meal or even our survival in the next hour. however, doubts, misunderstanding, misconception could always lead to bad endings. earth is the only place we can live in so far, theres no where else to go, so the best option is to co-exist.

I agree-- Co-existing is by far the best option. However, when you have evil humans like Bin Laden and his terror network running rampant amongst the civilized world, peaceful co-existence becomes moot. His actions are best answered with extreme-prejudice. Not eradicating him and his network will only strengthen his/their resolve, (look at the WTC bombing, African Embassy bombings, USS Cole, etc).

By nature, US and Chinese citizens do not want war. As a matter of fact, most civilized post-industrial nations regard war as a hinderance to their everyday lives. Unfortunately, citizens are not in direct control of their governments-- (nor should they be).

thank you all for your opinions and i do hope that i didnt offend anyone here.

I appreciate your candor. Dialogue is a great venue for disagreement. It's also a good way to learn....

Raphael

'the recent incidents were good excuses already to openly declare war on the States, but that didnt happen.'

I'll agree: they were good excuses. They weren't good *reasons*.

And no matter how good the excuse, you don't start a war you don't think you're ready for.

"We are pretty certain that Chinese Intelligence was passing along radar acquisition data from their experiences working in Iraq to the Serbian military. I've even heard it suggested that this resulted in the downing of the stealth fighter we lost. Most intelligence assests are based out of Embassies."

That being true, it was a legitimate military target.

"As for huge amounts of our spending going to promote social justice overseas - that's a freakin' drop in the bucket. It doesn't come close to what Bush gave away in his tax cut"

Actually, I'd wager it's significantly more. But you're right, we do spend more domestically. It is the American people's money after all. You can't expect to collect taxes and give it all away over seas.

Brad Grenz

It's not. "Massive US foreign aid" is one of those urban legends that won't go away.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/index.html

Check out 'Outlays By Function' in the 2000 report. "International affairs" is mostly state department outlays and miscellaneous non-giveaway stuff like the import/export bank, but even if you assume the entire ~18 billion dollars is foreign aid, that's 1% of the ~1.8 trillion dollar budget. A realistic estimation of foreign aid is probably in the .25% - .5% range.

The Bush tax cut has an explicit price tag of $1.3 trillion over ten years, about 7% of the budget each year for that range, or 14 to 28 times the size of US foreign aid.

I need a new hobby.

I need a new hobby.

You sure do because that's x 60, my hubristic friend-- (as in 60 years). And you're leaving out the big programs too.

So, one snapshot does it all for ya, right? I guess you can condense the last 60 years in one minature portfolio. I guess the 1.6 billion debt we're forgiving then paying to Pakistan is an urban legend too-- come to think about it, that's just one small country out of how many we've bankrolled?

Besides, this report doesn't show all US foreign contributions-- there's soft money, classified infusions, US backed paramilitary joint operations, UN dues, tax reliefs for US businesses on the prowl, and tons of outstanding debt still owed the US. U need more links....

Raphael

Big programs? What big programs? The billions in debt we're forgiving in Pakistan is a military payoff, not the "welfare for foreigners" everyone gets so upset about.

'soft money, classified infusions, US backed paramilitary joint operations, UN dues, tax reliefs for US businesses on the prowl, and tons of outstanding debt still owed the US. U need more links.....'

Which, coincidentally, is all classified information. Since when is paramilitary operations considered "foreign aid," anyway?

Sheesh. This is a repeat of Every Welfare argument, where if you point out welfare is ~1% of the federal budget, the really anti-welfare people insist Social Security is welfare. As if people are up in arms over the existence of the SS program.

"Big programs? What big programs? The billions in debt we're forgiving in Pakistan is a military payoff, not the "welfare for foreigners" everyone gets so upset about."

First of all, who is upset here? You are the one marginalizing 60 years of US foreign aid and programs by making comparisons to Social Security and "welfare for foreigners" hoopla, not I. I happen to think infusing billions of dollars into other countries is be a good thing if done right. We are, after all, the richest country in the world with corporate ties to almost every nation. Why should we isolate ourselves, financially? And the debt we're forgiving in Pakistan just didn't arise from military aid only, therefore, it's not just a payoff. They owed us money before the tragic events of 11 SEP.

Big programs? How about one of the biggest of all time-- the Marshall Plan? We sank 13 billion into post WWII Europe. Last I read, the total amount, based on inflation costs and several splinter programs extended from the Marshall Plan, totaled 850 billion US dollars. And this figure does not include our hefty aid package to post WWII Japan, either. These are no "drops" in the bucket.

"Which, coincidentally, is all classified information. Since when is paramilitary operations considered "foreign aid," anyway?

Lemme give you a hypothetical example, one that I know and undestand based on experience. A small host nation (HN) allied to the US asks for aid in their fight against insurgency. The US dispatches a couple of Special Forces teams along with other federal and civilian agencies to this HN under the guise of Foreign Internal Defense (FID). In tow, we lug tons of mulla, medical supplies, equipment and arms and train this HN's forces in Internal defense and development (IDAD), ie counterguerrilla operations. In the meantime, we assess this nations economic, socio-political, and military infrastructure, then put into action a plan for internal growth through a myriad of military, civilian, and federal programs. We build new schools, create more productive farms, send their brightest to US colleges, reform their medical services, rebuild their military, etc, all using Uncle Sam's valuable dollar. Many times, FID lasts for years and comes at a hefty financial burden to the US. Much of the funding is drawn from both, the budgets of the federal agencies and military organizations in question and US foreign aid programs. The former amounts are usually undisclosed. This figure also doesn't include the millions in tax dollar kickbacks we provide US corporations for entering the HN and doing business there.

Sheesh. This is a repeat of Every Welfare argument, where if you point out welfare is ~1% of the federal budget, the really anti-welfare people insist Social Security is welfare. As if people are up in arms over the existence of the SS program.

Aside from the inherent fallacies within the above statement, I'm not sure how anti-welfare and 'social security is welfare' came into this dialogue on foreign aid. To be honest, I'm not sure how my contribution to this discussion relates to social security at all. What does this have to do with counterterrorism and how we bankroll other nations? Please enlighten me....

Raphael

I'm not sure what Raphael's getting at, but Jason's point is well taken. "Foreign aid" is a classic red herring for neo-isolationists to wave around. Relatively speaking, it's a miniscule part of US spending. And considering the amount of stability it's purchased the world, it's money well spent.

-Tom

And considering the amount of stability it's purchased the world, it's money well spent.

Agreed. But I still disagree with your ascertion on US spending abroad being miniscule. No way....

Raphael

"US spending abroad" isn't the same thing as "US foreign aid." If you've got numbers for either, it'd be interesting to see them.

"But I still disagree with your ascertion on US spending abroad being miniscule. No way...."

We spent $13 billion in 2000 for military and economic aid to other countries.

Did you see Jason's figure of a half to a quarter of a percentage point of the entire budget? Think of it has a hundred dollars. We spend between fifty cents to a quarter on military and economic foreign aid.

It's a non-issue. It's money well-spent and the sum pales in comparison to so many other more important issues. Complaints about foreign aid are isolationist canards for rabble rousers like Pat Buchanan.

-Tom

Foreign aid and foreign spending are the same-- at least according the course I took a few years back, from a leading political scientist. When I've mentioned foreign aid I'm saying all spending abroad. The example I provided above falls into this category. The $13 billion figure you state is only part of the equation. Like I mentioned before multiply that by 60 years. That's a hefty amount. If you want to believe only $13 billion then more power to ya. Can't help ya there. ;-)

Complaints about foreign aid are isolationist canards for rabble rousers like Pat Buchanan.

Are you "assuming" I'm a rabble rouser, too? If so, you have erred. Otherwise, why do you both keep bringing this up? Really, it's informal logic at its finest. ;-)

Raphael

'When I've mentioned foreign aid I'm saying all spending abroad.'

Oh, that's fine, but that's not the definition of The Guy On The Street. Most think of "handing out free money to poor countries."

I'm sorry I didn't qualify this earlier. I thought I made this distinction by providing examples. Again, sorry.

Raphael

"Foreign aid and foreign spending are the same-- at least according the course I took a few years back, from a leading political scientist. When I've mentioned foreign aid I'm saying all spending abroad."

This is playing fast and loose with the accepted terminology, Raphael. 'Foreign aid' is the classification for economic and military aid to other countries. It has very clear parameters. We give X dollars in military aid to Isreal and Taiwan. That's 'foreign aid'. We provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of an earthquake in Bangladesh. That's 'foreign aid'. In fact, everything but the paramilitary actions you gave in your example are 'foriegn aid'.

If you want to widen the discussion to 'foreign spending', then what are you talking about? The UN's budget? The IMF? The military? Investments by private companies?

"If you want to believe only $13 billion then more power to ya. Can't help ya there."

Your help is hardly required. You'll find that figure in the United States budget, which is publically available. :) Jason provided a link earlier.

"Are you "assuming" I'm a rabble rouser, too?"

I'm talking about how this issue is traditionally used. For instance, if someone mentions 'gun rights', he's probably an NRA fan. If someone says 'pro-abortionist', she's probably pro-life. If someone decries foreign aid, he's usually a neo-isolationist a la Pat Buchanan.

It's just a matter of knowing the shibboleths for various political issues.

-Tom

I'm a big fan of foreign aid. Giving 16 Billion dollars a year may seem trivial compared to other big numbers - but it's still a lot of money, and can be used to do a lot of good.

But I also must admit that I get quite irritated when some country to whom we are doling out major money and other aid recipricates by doing everything they can to condemn the U.S.

Does this win me some nice label, Tom? ;)

(By the way - for those who like to label folks - I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and think drugs should be legalized and regulated. )

"If someone says 'pro-abortionist', she's probably pro-life."

Huh?

Oh wait, now I understand what you meant by that Tom. I sort of added the word "means" after probably. Apologies.

-Andrew

This is playing fast and loose with the accepted terminology, Raphael. 'Foreign aid' is the classification for economic and military aid to other countries. It has very clear parameters. We give X dollars in military aid to Isreal and Taiwan. That's 'foreign aid'. We provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of an earthquake in Bangladesh. That's 'foreign aid'. In fact, everything but the paramilitary actions you gave in your example are 'foriegn aid'.

Wow, this lecture feels like shades of Bragg after returning from a long stint-- when a newbie Civil Affairs officer approached a team fresh off the tarmac, and he began instructing them on how to perpare a Politico Mission Briefback. They then walked past him, almost trampling him as if he wasn't there. His nerve.

Tom, I don't want to flame ya, but after reading your above statement, I can't figure if you're being trite, presumptuous, or pretentious. Not that you care, but I would think after earning one of my degrees in Poli Sci with emphasis national security issues and foreign policy, while having an extensive military background in international affairs, I should, at the very least, have some semblance of what foreign spending means. Drats, I feel hurt. ;-)

I'm talking about how this issue is traditionally used. For instance, if someone mentions 'gun rights', he's probably an NRA fan. If someone says 'pro-abortionist', she's probably pro-life. If someone decries foreign aid, he's usually a neo-isolationist a la Pat Buchanan.

It's just a matter of knowing the shibboleths for various political issues.

Wow, it's nice to be known as "the enemy." ;-) No matter, it's still an informal fallacie no matter how ya slice it (BTW-- i think you're creating an ad hominem, but you prolly know). This kinda knee jerk rationalization does not further the discussion, IMHO.

Like I mentioned before, if you feel snug knowing one suggested link answers all your questions about US foreign spending or "aid" in the last 60 years, then so be it. Next?

Raphael

As in pro-lifers use the term pro-abortion. The she and the someone are the pro-lifer.

What about private contributions to charitable organizations that operate abroad? Peace corps and Sally Struthers and what-not. All we seem to be counting is federal budget spending. That certainly isn't the whole picture.

And you can't compare a one year number to a ten year number as was done in comparing the tax cut to foreign aid. First you'd need to show the foreign aid number in terms of a ten year period. Quick and dirty we can just multiply by ten the 13 billion for a year figure. Now we can compare the ten year foreign aid number of 130 billion to 1.3 trillion for the tax cut. Now if you add up all the foreign aid spent by the US since WWII and adjust for inflation, I'd say it's easily more then the Bush tax cut. Which is what I meant.

Brad Grenz

Raphael,

Don't be silly. There's nothing ad hominem going on here. I'm not trying to lecture you. I'm not calling you a rabble-rouser or the enemy. I'm not calling into question your education.

I am, however, calling into question your interchangeable use of 'foreign spending' and 'foreign aid'. The former sounds like some sort of catch phrase for something you have a beef with. The latter is a specific government expenditure often attacked by isolationists who blow the cost out of proportion.

Foreign aid is a miniscule part of our budget. And as far as the returns it gets us, it's a much sounder investment than most government spending. You seem to know this, so what exactly were you saying when you disputed Jason?

That we should cut foreign aid? That it's really a greater sum because of some covert 'shadow spending' we don't see? That there are some 'big programs' that aren't counted under the US budget for foreign aid?

-Tom

"By the way - for those who like to label folks - I am anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, and think drugs should be legalized and regulated."

It's pretty fashionable to chafe against labels, but they're useful shorthand when you can separate them from their baggage.

For instance, Jeff, you say you're anti-abortion. But this implies that pro-choice folks are in *favor* of abortions. But most of them probably realize that abortions are drastic last resorts that involve no small amount of anguish for the women who get them.

Pro-choice and pro-life are good enough labels for me. Of course, it's not a far reach to then figure the other side of the issue is anti-choice or anti-life...

-Tom, registered Republican, Clinton fan, pro-choice, hawkish, gun control advocate who thinks OJ really did do it

Heh, I'm just poking at ya Tom. I don't like the pro-choice verbiage because people like to hide behind it as a way to avoid talking about the subject, which is abortion. And I truly sympathize with those who agonize over such decisions. I've been to the hospital with a young girl who gave her baby up for adoption, and this past year I went to the hospital with a 17 year old who had an abortion (meeting them at a social service place that lets me work there occasionally.) I personally think the act is abhorant, for my own reasons, but I don't look down at those who are faced with the decision and make a decision I don't like (although I know that you know that most of the abortions in this country are upper middle class women who do it as a form of birth control, i.e. they didn't mean to get pregnant.) BUT let's not open the abortion can of worms here!

We all use labels. But far too often, we use them to avoid thinking and to avoid having to think about the other side of the issue. Having met you Tom, I'd never accuse you of doing that.

But I'd also never pass an opportunity to poke at you when you use the terms. ;)

Don't be silly. There's nothing ad hominem going on here. I'm not trying to lecture you. I'm not calling you a rabble-rouser or the enemy. I'm not calling into question your education.

Good deal. But I can't help the silly part, just ask the ms. ;-)

I am, however, calling into question your interchangeable use of 'foreign spending' and 'foreign aid'. The former sounds like some sort of catch phrase for something you have a beef with. The latter is a specific government expenditure often attacked by isolationists who blow the cost out of proportion.

I do not support isolationist policies. As a matter of fact, I wish the US spent more helping Africa. If we started 40 years ago... ah, but hindsight is 20/20.

I think where this discussion went awry is when it became assumed, through terms and labels, that I was an isolationist. Of course, this ruffled my feathers a tad. But I hope I didn't become too belligerent.

Foreign aid is a miniscule part of our budget. And as far as the returns it gets us, it's a much sounder investment than most government spending. You seem to know this, so what exactly were you saying when you disputed Jason?

My original statement on foreign spending went something like this:

Sounds like you misunderstand and/or are truly misinformed about US global involvement during the past sixty years. A hefty amount of US debt is based on US financial support and backing of friendly and non-friendly nations, ie the Marshall Plan, USAID, Global AIDS package, Kosovo, etc. Of course, the US has made mistakes, but there have been worthwhile successes. As a world leader, the US can't be everywhere at once, but it sure tries. (and not everything the US does internationally is publically known or reported by the media

Somehow, someone assumed I was against foreign aid based on my orginal post. Of course things grew more confusing and antagonistic from there. I was basically saying foreign aid/spending is not just "social justice" spending, as someone mentioned above. Hence the genesis of this dispute.

That we should cut foreign aid? That it's really a greater sum because of some covert 'shadow spending' we don't see? That there are some 'big programs' that aren't counted under the US budget for foreign aid?

No-- on cutting foreign aid. As I stated a couple of times, previously, I fully support foreign aid/spending/infusions/blah blah blah. It's a good thing, especially when done right. We sorta owe it to the world, however bold this ideal may seem to others.

FWIW, today was the first day in weeks where I had time for leisure activity. And what did I do? I trolled the QT3 forums. I'm a loser. ;-)

Raphael

'And you can't compare a one year number to a ten year number as was done in comparing the tax cut to foreign aid.'

I didn't. The tax cut is 1.3 trillion dollars spread over ten years; therefore, it's 130 billion dollars a year, which is about 7% of the annual budget. Foreign aid is 1% of the budget, as an upper bound, but probably a lot less.

'(although I know that you know that most of the abortions in this country are upper middle class women who do it as a form of birth control, i.e. they didn't mean to get pregnant.)'

As opposed to the people who *do* mean to get pregnant and then have abortions? ;0

I've never seen any statistics indicating that abortion is used as primary birth control for anyone; it's the backup route when condoms (uselessly) and the pill fail.

Myself, I'm perfectly fine with the current trimester situation, though the Casey decision has resulted in some odd third trimester stuff. The abortions everyone does procure happen a lot earlier than I thought, though, according to the CDC data on this mostly pro-life site:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/gestation.asp

85% in the first trimester, and the age distribution is centered at 20-24, which I would assume is almost entirely college women. The specific distributions for specific states are kooky, too (Kansas is 9% third trimester?) Most abortions are a woman's first or second, 80%. I couldn't find anything about birth control in use by the women, though.

Amusingly, the "I am Pro-Choice" section doesn't list my opinion of "I think mothers should have the legal right to kill fetuses regardless of whether they're people or not due to the varying legal interests involved" on their options.

I'm upping the troll factor!

"I've never seen any statistics indicating that abortion is used as primary birth control for anyone"

I don't think anyone would say that. But I do think there are women out there who don't worry about birth control very much because they know they can always just get an abortion (and, Planned Parenthood willing, as many free, convenient, confidential ones she wants). That's my problem with abortion. It's really, really easy to prevent pregnancies, You can get contraceptives for free, AND you can simply not have sex... Why are people so lazy? And I'm not thrilled about the state paying for what is essentially an elective medical procedure.

This thread is going weird places.

Brad Grenz

Once upon a time I recommended a brief news item in the New Yorker to Jeff Lackey on this subject. The article is notable because it shifts the debate to a place many of us might agree on.

According to the article the alarming issue re: abortion is that Europe is having, on average, 1/3rd the number of abortions of the US. The US apparently leads the world in that statistic too. Obviously this isn't because Europeans are having less sex. Does anyone believe that? It also isn't for lack of opportunity, in many nations in Europe an abortion is easier to find. (Some of the reason might be because of the easy availablity of the the morning after pill - the article doesn't note that.) According to the author it's because Europeans use more birth control and have much more liberal notions of sex education in schools.

The main point the author makes is that, according to stats he uses that I don't have handy right now, Europeans are also have far fewer pregnancies (on average) than we do.

It sort of puts a new spin on the issue, doesn't it? Given that the very same people so vociferous against abortion legality are also the one's who block safe sex and planned parenthood legislation.

Anyway, thought that was interesting. Sorry to contribute to this thread's total deviation from it's title.

FWIW I believe in the legality of abortion. I don't equate it with murder. But I find it repugnant and would like to see it become as marginal a practice as possible. I also do not consider myself "pro-abortion" in any way.

-Andrew

'I don't think anyone would say that. But I do think there are women out there who don't worry about birth control very much because they know they can always just get an abortion (and, Planned Parenthood willing, as many free, convenient, confidential ones she wants). That's my problem with abortion.'

Oh, I agree it's insanely stupid; I'm just not sure it ever really happens, extrapolating from the statistics.

*reel reel reel*

---

Quote:

FWIW I believe in the legality of abortion. I don't equate it with murder. But I find it repugnant and would like to see it become as marginal a practice as possible. I also do not consider myself "pro-abortion" in any way.

---

Like I said. It's not something you write down on a questionaire or tell a pollster over the phone.

Brad Grenz