"Why We Fight"

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Flash,
I have a question for you. I somewhat see real military experience as a qualification for a good president, although not required and definitely doesn't automatically make them a good president. So I am sort of along the lines of your thinking, I think. What is your feeling of John McCain? Honestly I voted for Ralph Nader in the last two elections, and no I didn't help Bush win (not that I cared I don't really believe Gore and Kerry were good candidates either) I live in Texas Bush would of won my state anyways. I honestly feel, eventhough as liberal as I am, that if McCain ran for president I would probably vote for him. It seems to me that someone with real military experience knows the consequences of war and isn't necessarily a politician (although some are). McCain just seems like the most real person in politics right now. I think he is more honest than most on capitol hill right now, is a free thinker, and usually is straight forward with the public. So I was just wondering your thoughts on McCain as a viable president? I think I would give him a shot.

I think McCain would be a better president than either kerry or bush (that isn't saying much). That being said, I don't think he would be a very good president. He seems to have crafted this aura about him that he's a washington outsider, free thinker and independent of party politics. His POW record is also looked at as a character trait that would most likely not lead itself to war. I used to be under that assumption as well. Now, however, I see him as a status quo politician who would embrace any sector of population if it meant political backing, as can be illustrated by his comments about the religious right hijacking the republican party, only to begin pandering to them as his election campaign is gearing up. His voting record on military affairs isn't really awe-inspiring, nor is his current position on Iraq.

Domestically I don't see him being much 'better' than Bush either.

But that's just me.

[Vulcan]

I'd like to see the day that no presidential candidate has war experience. Why, because this might mean that the USA hasn't been to war in a while. Other countries such as Canada, GB, France, Australia, etc don't make a habit of electing former war heroes. In fact most democracies like to keep their governments and military separated so they don't get run over by this military industrial complex.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'd like to see the day that no presidential candidate has war experience. Why, because this might mean that the USA hasn't been to war in a while. Other countries such as Canada, GB, France, Australia, etc don't make a habit of electing former war heroes. In fact most democracies like to keep their governments and military separated so they don't get run over by this military industrial complex.

Naturally I'm not opposed to that thinking, however, if the US is going to continue to insist on policies of imperialism, I would atleast like to see the person in command have some sort of military philosophy background.

I don't think we are so intellectually superior at this point in our evolution to expect an end of armed conflict completely. I support a strong, capable armed forces (in which I include police and RCMP), however, they should be under heavy scrutiny by the public, including internal investigations and oversight.

The US armed forces (radically re-organized) could be a tremendous force for positive change throughout the world, but that takes a severely confident, intelligent and charismatic person to accomplish. Post Iraq could conceivably be the catalyst that the Vietnam War was for George McGovern. Though, I don't think that has a chance in hell of happening.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Naturally I'm not opposed to that thinking, however, if the US is going to continue to insist on policies of imperialism, I would at least like to see the person in command have some sort of military philosophy background.

I agree, getting rid of the chickenhawks would be good but what is even better is having a president who just says no to the military. To accept that our govenments have lost the power to make policy leads us on to a bad ending.
The military industrial complex is the driving force behind the USA's imperialism and has to be stopped.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I agree, getting rid of the chickenhawks would be good but what is even better is having a president who just says no to the military. To accept that our govenments have lost the power to make policy leads us on to a bad ending.
The military industrial complex is the driving force behind the USA's imperialism and has to be stopped.

Agreed.

[tjinaz]

Imperialism is really not accurate. The US has no desire to occupy any of the countries it is in. Because there are troops in Germany, Japan, and Britian does that mean they are part of some american empire? No. Would the US like to pull out of Iraq? Yes.

Say you don't like the policy but find a more accurate word to describe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism

I am sure the US would love the the Euros to take a turn at being the world's policeman but they don't have the stomach for it. The EU is struggling to find 15k troops to put into Lebanon. They want to sit at the adult table but not pay the admission to get there. Lebanon will be the next Kosovo with the UN in charge. The pendulum is starting to turn now. In 5 years when the US refuses to become involved in the world's problems people will complain just as loudly as they do now.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Imperialism is really not accurate. The US has no desire to occupy any of the countries it is in. Because there are troops in Germany, Japan, and Britian does that mean they are part of some american empire? No. Would the US like to pull out of Iraq? Yes.

Say you don't like the policy but find a more accurate word to describe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism

I am sure the US would love the the Euros to take a turn at being the world's policeman but they don't have the stomach for it. The EU is struggling to find 15k troops to put into Lebanon. They want to sit at the adult table but not pay the admission to get there. Lebanon will be the next Kosovo with the UN in charge. The pendulum is starting to turn now. In 5 years when the US refuses to become involved in the world's problems people will complain just as loudly as they do now.

I believe imperialism is a very accurate term. I argue that the US has very little interest in any kind of swift withdrawal from Iraq. It doesn't make sense to expend the monetary and personel assets to build and staff the 14 permanent military bases currently under construction in Iraq, only to abandon them shortly after construction. I believe a plan might be to establish a new forward command in Iraq, sensing the political instability in having a forward command in Saudi Arabia.

Imperialism also does not have to be solely defined as having troops on the ground, and some evidence of this is provided in your link. New Imperialism often revolves around pure economic imperialism, often involving the local elites playing the role of the occupational bureaucracy. Two prime examples of this are the British and their handling of India as well as the United States and their involvement in 1970's Chile. Elites being contacted, educated/trained within the 'Imperialist State' to be sent back as the local enforcement of that imperialist policy.

[Flames in 07]

Lanny, if only the world could get its head on straight and give you the keys to drive. Anyone who believes you is smart, anyone who doesn't is dumb. when you strip away the clever insults and you demonstrating all the homework you have done on everything; all you are saying is believe me and you are smart, don't and your dumb.

Obviously you have quite a large interest in world affairs, but one thing I've found in every aspect of life is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know ... I can only presume that CP is a lobby during your summer break somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd year of post secondary.

One day you'll see the world is a little more complicated than insulting people to make you feel you are smarter than everyone else.

[tjinaz]

Still don't think it is the right word but...

I think the term you are looking for is (gasp) NeoImperialism. (I think Neo is way over used and mostly out of context)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

The list of practioners of this concept are long and distinguished.

So would you say that when a foreign group comes into a country and tries to change its government to one that is favorable to their aims and interests it is Imperialism?

Doesn't that describe what the islamists are doing as well? Not to mention the Soviets and Cubans in the middle east, Asia, Africa and South America in the 70s and 80s? I don't see America as being the only one doing this. By this defintion Chavez is undermining the Governments of all his neighbors and trying to create an empire of his own. What is the difference between revolution aided or sponsored by a sympathetic foreign government and imperialism?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lanny, if only the world could get its head on straight and give you the keys to drive. Anyone who believes you is smart, anyone who doesn't is dumb. when you strip away the clever insults and you demonstrating all the homework you have done on everything; all you are saying is believe me and you are smart, don't and your dumb.

Obviously you have quite a large interest in world affairs, but one thing I've found in every aspect of life is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know ... I can only presume that CP is a lobby during your summer break somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd year of post secondary.

One day you'll see the world is a little more complicated than insulting people to make you feel you are smarter than everyone else.

Well, please enlighten me with your obviously advanced education. I enjoy the peanut gallery types jumping in with their drive-bys. Feel free to share your expertise in these and other matters.

Oh, and assume all you want, but you're so far off it isn't even funny.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Obviously you have quite a large interest in world affairs, but one thing I've found in every aspect of life is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know ... I can only presume that CP is a lobby during your summer break somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd year of post secondary.

I disagree with Lanny 99% of the time, but that still doesn't mean his is an un-educated college student.

You might be suprised if you knew what exactly he does.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Still don't think it is the right word but...

I think the term you are looking for is (gasp) NeoImperialism. (I think Neo is way over used and mostly out of context)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

The list of practioners of this concept are long and distinguished.

So would you say that when a foreign group comes into a country and tries to change its government to one that is favorable to their aims and interests it is Imperialism?

Doesn't that describe what the islamists are doing as well? Not to mention the Soviets and Cubans in the middle east, Asia, Africa and South America in the 70s and 80s? I don't see America as being the only one doing this. By this defintion Chavez is undermining the Governments of all his neighbors and trying to create an empire of his own. What is the difference between revolution aided or sponsored by a sympathetic foreign government and imperialism?

I think there is an important distinction you aren't making here. In the case of Chavez, he is going to some of these governments that are either disenfranchised by the United States and parts of Europe, who, at some point, have been victimized by either (but mostly the US in the last century) and saying, "We are united as south americans."

What the US has a history of doing in south america is simply installing not just governments that are 'favourable' to the US, but who are puppet dictatorships (there is also some history of this in the middle east, examples being Iraq in the late 60's and Iran in 1953). Whereas Chavez is saying, "united, we have a better chance of improving our position," the US is simply removing democratically elected officials and replacing them, often with military officials keen on keeping arms shipments coming.

edit: also, what I'm talking about isn't neocolonialism. I'm talking about direct military intervention, funding or training, not economic policies.

[tjinaz]

You might be suprised if you knew what exactly he does

Because he works for the great satan doesn't make him an expert on foreign policy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Lanny, if only the world could get its head on straight and give you the keys to drive. Anyone who believes you is smart, anyone who doesn't is dumb. when you strip away the clever insults and you demonstrating all the homework you have done on everything; all you are saying is believe me and you are smart, don't and your dumb.

Obviously you have quite a large interest in world affairs, but one thing I've found in every aspect of life is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know ... I can only presume that CP is a lobby during your summer break somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd year of post secondary.

One day you'll see the world is a little more complicated than insulting people to make you feel you are smarter than everyone else.

You know, Lanny may not be an angel when it comes to being civil to other posters--he can be a little... "impassioned" sometimes. I also sometimes disagree with his source of choices. But your characterization of him is pretty crass. Lanny comes by his opinions honestly, and shares them as opinions. This kind of stuff:

I can only presume that CP is a lobby during your summer break somewhere between your 2nd and 3rd year of post secondary.

is both unwarranted and pretty clearly not true. You may have noticed that until you came along there was a virtual cessation of hostilities between the flame-warring parties. What positive effect is adding another insult going to have on the conversation?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

Because he works for the great satan doesn't make him an expert on foreign policy.

I never said that, did I?

Ask Lanny if he works for the great Satan...

[tjinaz]

What about FARC and Shining Path? Were/are they not instruments of the Soviets and Cubans still active to this day in Peru and Colombia. You can't really say the US is the only one stirring the pot. Cuba is very influential in aiding sympathetic revolutionaries in South America. I don't think Che died in Boliva while selling Pravda door to door.

Also the legacy of Spainish colonialism created a culture of "strong man" regimes prior to any US involvement. The Paraguayians, Brasilians and Argentines were completely sympathetic to the Nazis in the 30s and 40s due to Franco and Spain and against all US influence.

Chavez himself led a coup attempt in 1992. Needless to say the US had nothing to do with that. Funny thing is Chavez was in charge of counter insurgency forces for the Venezualan army. I guess it takes a revolutionary to hunt one. I would not be suprised at all to find Chavez aiding like minded revolutionaries operating in or near his borders.

the US is simply removing democratically elected officials and replacing them, often with military officials keen on keeping arms shipments coming.

your description of what the US does is exactly what Chavez attempted in 1992, but he is a hero and the US is bad. How is that?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

What about FARC and Shining Path? Were/are they not instruments of the Soviets and Cubans still active to this day in Peru and Colombia. You can't really say the US is the only one stirring the pot. Cuba is very influential in aiding sympathetic revolutionaries in South America. I don't think Che died in Boliva while selling Pravda door to door.

Also the legacy of Spainish colonialism created a culture of "strong man" regimes prior to any US involvement. The Paraguayians, Brasilians and Argentines were completely sympathetic to the Nazis in the 30s and 40s due to Franco and Spain and against all US influence.

Chavez himself led a coup attempt in 1992. Needless to say the US had nothing to do with that. Funny thing is Chavez was in charge of counter insurgency forces for the Venezualan army. I guess it takes a revolutionary to hunt one. I would not be suprised at all to find Chavez aiding like minded revolutionaries operating in or near his borders.

your description of what the US does is exactly what Chavez attempted in 1992, but he is a hero and the US is bad. How is that?

I'm not proclaiming chavez a hero, nor do I think Castro is one. There are serious rights abuses going on in both countries regarding freedoms of the press and political expression. However, even taking reports of secret police as fact, the abuses of those two leaders pale in comparison to those committed against the indigenous populations of guatemala for instance, or the mining of nicaraguan sea-ports.

I'm not denying south/latin america's history prior to US involvement, which is comparatively worse, but I'm digressing from the question you posed. I think a large portion of US Foreign Policy is in fact, imperialism. not that it is any worse than other acts of imperialism by other states.

[tjinaz]

I agree. It is human nature and when the US is no longer the world power it is now it will be another country pulling the strings just as it was the French and British before the US.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by tjinaz

I agree. It is human nature and when the US is no longer the world power it is now it will be another country pulling the strings just as it was the French and British before the US.

It will happen, but I still wonder who the next nation will be...

[tjinaz]

Lanny - do you roll with the Neo Cons?