Am I Hoplessly Naive?

[Knothead]

Is it just me or do people seem to avoid talking about the real reasons that the US is attacked and vilified in the Muslim world? While everyone is prattling on about apologizing for inane insulting movies and how poorly one person's comments are compared to someone else's. No one seems to be willing to talk about how the policies of the US are the single, fundamental reason that this sort of stuff happens.

The few that do, like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are ignored, ridiculed or both. The fact that our policies never seems to change despite which party is in office seems to escape everyone's notice.

Why is everyone so hung up on the distracting side issues and talking points that the main stream media and the political machine want us to focus on?

 

Am I really so stupid and naive to believe that the course can be changed and that the US can become a peaceful, self sustaining, generous ally to the entire world? Am I so naive to believe that there is a chance to become more evolved rather than to continue what we're doing?

[Buffy]

Is it just me or do people seem to avoid talking about the real reasons that the US is attacked and vilified in the Muslim world?

 

Well, not if you watch Fox News. The rest of the press is slowly getting better. Oddly enough Mitt Romney's decision to go far right has triggered it, and it's really only been since the conventions that the US press has started to wake up. (The liberal press has been there for a while, so watch MSNBC!)

 

It's important to note that there are two extremes here: the conservatives/reactionaries all say "the Muslims just hate us because we're beautiful." But on the liberal side, there are indeed "apologists" who talk only about the really boneheaded stupid US foreign policies that have antagonized much of the Muslim (and in general 3rd world). But what gets talked about much less is the fact that the leaders of these countries where the protests are occuring this week--even those who are ostensibly US allies--actively encourage the total ignorance of their people and the promotion of anti-US/West protests. Richard Engel of NBC on Rachel Maddow this week said something like this (the transcript isn't online yet so this is paraphrased, I'll put it up when it's there): the leaders in these countries encourage anti-American protests because it takes attention away from their own corruption and mis-management...and most of these people have no idea that the US government does not approve of everything that is on YouTube.

 

While Obama's record on drone assassinations and Guantanamo have been absolutely appalling, his diplomatic initiatives have been inspired (thank God for Hillary!), especially when you've heard Mitt basically saying his first act as President will be to invade Iran.

 

But it's most important to note that there's been so much damage, and there's so little incentive from our allies to help, even if we completely eliminated all the foreign policy actions that "inflame Muslims" that it will take decades to repair.

 

The few that do, like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson are ignored, ridiculed or both.

 

Ron and Gary are not taken seriously for a whole host of absolutely whacko opinions they have. That they're right on foreign policy is just a case of "a stopped clock is right twice a day."

 

Am I really so stupid and naive to believe that the course can be changed and that the US can become a peaceful, self sustaining, generous ally to the entire world? Am I so naive to believe that there is a chance to become more evolved rather than to continue what we're doing?

 

Not stupid or naive. It is important to recognize that the diversity of opinion in the US today is very broad, and there are many malevolent actors (Murdoch, Koch brothers, Pete Peterson) who are out to create a two-tiered feudal society, and are using jingoism, and pandering to extreme religious affiliations to make it happen (that's your Tea Party right there). It will take resolve and patient efforts to change public opinion, but when you look at our history, it sure seems it can be done. My grandmother could do virtually none of the things that I've done in my life, and we've made incredible progress on race and sexual orientation bias as well. History always swings back and forth: there's never monotonically improving progress, but the pendulum keeps swinging....

 

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, :phones:

Buffy

[Knothead]

Well, not if you watch Fox News. The rest of the press is slowly getting better. Oddly enough Mitt Romney's decision to go far right has triggered it, and it's really only been since the conventions that the US press has started to wake up. (The liberal press has been there for a while, so watch MSNBC!)

 

It's important to note that there are two extremes here: the conservatives/reactionaries all say "the Muslims just hate us because we're beautiful." But on the liberal side, there are indeed "apologists" who talk only about the really boneheaded stupid US foreign policies that have antagonized much of the Muslim (and in general 3rd world). But what gets talked about much less is the fact that the leaders of these countries where the protests are occuring this week--even those who are ostensibly US allies--actively encourage the total ignorance of their people and the promotion of anti-US/West protests. Richard Engel of NBC on Rachel Maddow this week said something like this (the transcript isn't online yet so this is paraphrased, I'll put it up when it's there): the leaders in these countries encourage anti-American protests because it takes attention away from their own corruption and mis-management...and most of these people have no idea that the US government does not approve of everything that is on YouTube.

 

While Obama's record on drone assassinations and Guantanamo have been absolutely appalling, his diplomatic initiatives have been inspired (thank God for Hillary!), especially when you've heard Mitt basically saying his first act as President will be to invade Iran.

 

But it's most important to note that there's been so much damage, and there's so little incentive from our allies to help, even if we completely eliminated all the foreign policy actions that "inflame Muslims" that it will take decades to repair.

 

 

 

Ron and Gary are not taken seriously for a whole host of absolutely whacko opinions they have. That they're right on foreign policy is just a case of "a stopped clock is right twice a day."

 

 

 

Not stupid or naive. It is important to recognize that the diversity of opinion in the US today is very broad, and there are many malevolent actors (Murdoch, Koch brothers, Pete Peterson) who are out to create a two-tiered feudal society, and are using jingoism, and pandering to extreme religious affiliations to make it happen (that's your Tea Party right there). It will take resolve and patient efforts to change public opinion, but when you look at our history, it sure seems it can be done. My grandmother could do virtually none of the things that I've done in my life, and we've made incredible progress on race and sexual orientation bias as well. History always swings back and forth: there's never monotonically improving progress, but the pendulum keeps swinging....

 

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, :phones:

Buffy

 

If it can be done, then what should we do if not try to shake up the established two party system? If I/we keep playing along, how can anything change?

 

I'm not questioning you, but could you explain a few of the worst of the wacko opinions that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson hold. And could those opinions be able to be transformed into some sort of policy?

Heck, Mitt and Barack both have a bunch of wacky ideas too. I'm more afraid of them.

[Buffy]

If it can be done, then what should we do if not try to shake up the established two party system? If I/we keep playing along, how can anything change?

 

Are you playing along?

 

Like any scientific question, it is useful to ask whether the problems are systemic or simply an issue of the current level of extremism on the right and the influence of money that we have not seen since Tammany Hall and Tea Pot Dome?

 

The problem with systems is that there are always downsides to any particular configuration. I actually prefer ours to parlimentary systems that allow third parties to have more influence, precisely because if you are in one of those on one side of the spectrum, you can be sure that you now have MORE to fear because of some party even further out on the other side of the spectrum that gains a short term (or in the case of Israel's Shas and other extreme rightist parties, permanent) advantage and can bend the majority party to adopt those extremist policies in order to build a coalition. Ours tends to change much more slowly, but that's not always a bad thing.

 

The thing is that we're all agents of change, and even those folks who don't get elected (like Ron Paul), do keep issues in play, and that can move things forward. The thing to avoid is apathy, because that just lets the crazies run away with the ball (as the Republican party just found out: happens to both sides!).

 

I'm not questioning you, but could you explain a few of the worst of the wacko opinions that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson hold. And could those opinions be able to be transformed into some sort of policy?

Heck, Mitt and Barack both have a bunch of wacky ideas too. I'm more afraid of them.

 

Oh gosh, I'll stick to Ron and leave Gary as homework. Bats#!t crazy stuff Ron Paul believes/advocates:

• The Civil Rights act was unconstitutional and reduced individual liberty. He's made lots of statements to the effect that if employers or businesses want to discriminate against anyone they feel like it, they should be able to. With Ron Paul around, you could easily be refused service because you're a liberal.
  
• He's a racist:
  • "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
    
  • ”Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,"
    
  • "...Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."
    

  [*] He wants to abolish the FBI, CIA and IRS: "...because you know, most of our history, we didn't have those institutions."

  [*] Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve and go back to gold-backed monetary system (and a good counter-argument here): "a dollar today is worth 4 cents compared to a dollar in 1913 when the Federal Reserve got in."

  [*] Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional: “Technically, they [social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid] are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

  [*] Planned Parenthood is evil incarnate: "I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.”

  [*] Homosexuals should stay in the closet: "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society were far better off when social pressure forced them to hid their activities."

  [*] He's anti-science: " I think it’s a theory. The theory of evolution. And I don’t accept it as a theory. ... The creator that I know created us, each and every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and uh, you know, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side..."

  [*] Believes that regulation is the cause of people doing things the regulations proscribe (whoo, that was hard to type): "The regulations are much tougher in a free market, because you cannot commit fraud, you cannot steal, you cannot hurt people, and the failure has come that government wouldn’t enforce this. In the Industrial Revolution there was a collusion and you could pollute and they got away with it. But in a true free market in a libertarian society you can’t do that. You have to be responsible. So the regulations would be tougher."

  [*] And sometimes he just babbles incoherently: " I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

 

Oh gosh the list goes on and on and on. Sure I agree with him on legalizing drugs and prostitution and reducing defense spending, but hell, so what? When there's someone who you agree with on 10% of the issues, do you still vote for them for President? If that's enough, maybe for once I should vote my party and vote for Mitt! :o

 

 

Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried, :phones:

Buffy

[Knothead]

I guess it depends on how important those 10% of the issues are.

[lawcat]

No, you are not naive. They are scavenging around the world for resources. Destroying communities, killing people, violating international law, killing our own people. It's a Third World War. We started it to conquer. It's insanity. We have bandits in government.

[Guest MacPhee]

Is it just me or do people seem to avoid talking about the real reasons that the US is attacked and vilified in the Muslim world?

 

Obviously the real reason is that Muslims perceive the US government to be controlled by a certain, ah, shall we say, ethnic group, whom we daren't mention?

 

(I only said that in a phantasm, it's just batsh#!t crazy, like Buffy so unscientifically said. No reasoned refutation needed)

 

Phew, good job I'm too unimportant to merit ADL attention. Or....will there be a midnight knock?

[lawcat]

Here's where the next NATO operations will be. 100 kilemeter crater of high grade diamonds, plus oil deposits and gold.

We give you democracy, you give us $$$.

 

http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/04-11/a-city-of-gold-and-diamonds-yakutsk-russia.html

[CraigD]

Here's where the next NATO operations will be. 100 kilemeter crater of high grade diamonds, plus oil deposits and gold.

We give you democracy, you give us $$$.

 

http://www.bootsnall.com/articles/04-11/a-city-of-gold-and-diamonds-yakutsk-russia.html [a link to travel information about Yakutsk, Sakha Republic, Russia]

I don’t believe the US, France, the UK, Germany, or any of the other NATO member states would, independently or as joint NATO operation, invade the Sakha Republic, because it’s part of the Russian Federation, which has substantial military might, especially a large arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of striking any place on Earth.

 

NATO states, even ones with large militaries with nuclear weapons, have not, and I think likely will continue to not, invade countries that have even small arsenals of nuclear weapon capable of striking only nearby places, or even countries without nuclear weapons that have effective militaries, because the military losses such countries could inflict on invading forces would be so great that they would ruin the political careers of the invading countries’ leaders.

 

In short, I think NATO is unlikely to engage in any military operation in which it doesn’t have overwhelming military superiority, that is, where the resulting war is very “asymmetrical”.

[belovelife]

its amazing that this whole think can go down like this in the forst place,

 

in america people spread pictures of our president next to a monkey, both making the same face,

 

these people are not hunted down and killed or tortured,

the level of this is outragious,

 

people die because domeone exercised their right to freedom of speech

 

bs

 

:thumbs_do

[Moontanman]

its amazing that this whole think can go down like this in the forst place,

 

in america people spread pictures of our president next to a monkey, both making the same face,

 

these people are not hunted down and killed or tortured,

the level of this is outragious,

 

people die because domeone exercised their right to freedom of speech

 

bs

 

:thumbs_do

 

 

You are correct, it is absolutely unacceptable...

 

Lawcat, I'm pretty sure NATO can't make a 100 kilometer crater... they'd have to settle for several dozen 100 meter ones...

Edited September 17, 2012 by Moontanman

[lawcat]

In short, I think NATO is unlikely to engage in any military operation in which it doesn’t have overwhelming military superiority, that is, where the resulting war is very “asymmetrical”.

I am convinced that endgame is Russia and China, likely through partition, militarily. It's a no brainer.

 

 

these people are not hunted down and killed or tortured,

the level of this is outragious,

 

Foreign policy has nothing to do with internal, legal, constitutional affairs. Although, the whole "Homeland Security," Guantanamo, color coded alerts, monitoring, during this time of war, affects us. I don't like it. Fireign affairs are political. People in power can do as they please. There are no constitutional limits.

 

Numerous things are disturbing. First is the obvious exposure to increased nuclear threat due to NATO's active participation in conquering regions of interest.

Second is the willingnes to partner with criminals overseas for a buck. Just as a reminder, we are in Lybia, Syria, Iraq, Afghan, threating Iran, supporiting Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmensitan et., Kosovo as well.

The leader of Kosovo is a known narco dealer, smuggler of ilegal tobacco, and was charged with taking out and selling organs from war prisoners (civilians and soldiers) in a Dick Marti report (a Swiss prosecutor.) Well, Hilary and others shake hands with him. He is installed as the leader of Kosovo.

In Lybia, Al Qaeda soldiers, trained by NATO and turncoated, fought and terrorized population in the overthrow of Gaddafi.

Which brings me to the third problem of destructoin of communities. These communities depend on resources they have. With overthrows, new people are brought in who can sign away these resources. They have that power as leaders. Aside from oil, there are resources like nickel, zinc, iron, gold. Mostly amounting to deposits of a few $ billion. They support local communities. (Just for comparison, Florida's GDP is $750 billion.) It's not a lot of money for a state. But in private hands, it's a lot. For oil, pipelines and military installations, these secondary resources amounting in billions of dollars come into hands of those who we support and are signed away to NATO companies. Corupption abounds. Money changes hands. It's criminal.

Edited September 17, 2012 by lawcat

[Moontanman]

I figure Pakistan and India are more likely in the short term. A 3rd world country like North Korea with nuclear weapons trying to strike a US Navy Base or carrier group is on my list of likely events. I have my doubts about major countries slugging it out with nukes.

[Eclogite]

Let's see: support for Israel, invasion of two Islamic countries, interference in several more, implied threat to attack Iran, general ignorance of Islam, arrogant belief that American culture is superior to any alternative (and that hamburgers constitute a healthydiet). Yes, when you look at it objectively there really isn't any plausible reason as to why the Islamic nations might be tiny bit touchy about the US.

[Moontanman]

Let's see: support for Israel, invasion of two Islamic countries, interference in several more, implied threat to attack Iran, general ignorance of Islam, arrogant belief that American culture is superior to any alternative (and that hamburgers constitute a healthydiet). Yes, when you look at it objectively there really isn't any plausible reason as to why the Islamic nations might be tiny bit touchy about the US.

 

 

I think you are being more than a bit disingenuous here. American culture is superior? Other countries don't feel that way? Pot Kettle Black? What people think of as American culture is really western culture, yes American culture tends to dominate but I have yet to talk to anyone from outside American culture that doesn't feel their culture is superior in some way.

 

On the other hand yes the USA has done some batshitcrazy stuff, supported two bit dictators when it was in our interests, squashed free elections when we thought it was to our advantage, but name a country with any influence what so ever that hasn't done that.

 

On the other hand there is no Islamic government I would trust as far as i could throw them, they cut people heads off for even suggesting that Islam is not absolutely true, try to stop being a Muslim and the penalty is death... I think almost any culture much less American culture is superior to that...

 

As soon as Islamic countries start showing some respect for basic human rights I'll show some sympathy for them, as soon as they stop killing people for questioning their favorite fairy tale I'll show them some respect...

 

On the other hand Americas support for Israel isn't rational, the idea they can do no wrong is just crazy...

Edited September 17, 2012 by Moontanman

[Eclogite]

I think you are being more than a bit disingenuous here. ...

My dictionary tells me that disingenuous means lacking in candor, frankness or sincerity. I am at a loss to see how a post, structured in an ironic way, yet made from the heart could be consider insincere, or attempting to conceal my thoughts. Perhaps you meant something else, or are using a different dictionary.

 

American culture is superior? Other countries don't feel that way? Pot Kettle Black? What people think of as American culture is really western culture, yes American culture tends to dominate but I have yet to talk to anyone from outside American culture that doesn't feel their culture is superior in some way.

1. If an underweight child with no street smarts tries to bully his classroom peers he will be laughed to oblivion. If a muscled, intelligent, aggressive type does the same think he will be resented.

 

2. Western culture is equivalent to American culture? Give me a break. Have you been to Europe?

 

3. Most conversations I have had with non-Americans will acknowledge that there are many worthy aspects to American culture. I find fewer Americans who will consider the same holds true for other cultures.

 

 

On the other hand yes the USA has done some batshitcrazy stuff, supported two bit dictators when it was in our interests, squashed free elections when we thought it was to our advantage, but name a country with any influence what so ever that hasn't done that.

And in their day those countries were rightly despised. Today America is the only super-power and some of that power is being abused.

 

On the other hand there is no Islamic government I would trust as far as i could throw them, they cut people heads off for even suggesting that Islam is not absolutely true, try to stop being a Muslim and the penalty is death... I think almost any culture much less American culture is superior to that...

Executing the mentally retarded by lethal injection in Texas for alleged crimes is certainly much more cultured. (That's not disingenuous, that's sarcasm.)

[Eclogite]

I think you are being more than a bit disingenuous here. American culture is superior? Other countries don't feel that way? Pot Kettle Black? What people think of as American culture is really western culture, yes American culture tends to dominate but I have yet to talk to anyone from outside American culture that doesn't feel their culture is superior in some way.

 

On the other hand yes the USA has done some batshitcrazy stuff, supported two bit dictators when it was in our interests, squashed free elections when we thought it was to our advantage, but name a country with any influence what so ever that hasn't done that.

 

On the other hand there is no Islamic government I would trust as far as i could throw them, they cut people heads off for even suggesting that Islam is not absolutely true, try to stop being a Muslim and the penalty is death... I think almost any culture much less American culture is superior to that...

 

As soon as Islamic countries start showing some respect for basic human rights I'll show some sympathy for them, as soon as they stop killing people for questioning their favorite fairy tale I'll show them some respect...

 

On the other hand Americas support for Israel isn't rational, the idea they can do no wrong is just crazy...