Sarah Failin

[Stinger]

And after Biden said that, he stopped talking and walked over to the Senate to actually accomplish something.

   A little more history: Joe Biden went into the Senate in 1974, and was there for 6 full terms and some of a 7th before he was picked by Obama to become the Vice President.

   You know, instead of having less than half a term in office before quitting. Oh, and Biden's wife didn't do half his job while he was in office. Oh, and there was never even a whiff of a corruption charge, as Biden was known as "one of the least wealthy men in the Senate" for his entire tenure.

   Not only are Sarah's mistakes more elaborate, but if you actually compare their careers, she looks like even more of a joke.

   And yeah... Like I said, Biden may not always come off as wise in the first take, but the man is in fact wise. He can do interviews and actually say things of substance without color-coded cue-cards.

[Ruckus]

Anyone see the new Bill Mahr special on HBO yet ?  Hahahaa  that shit is hilarious. And of course he goes off on the quitter herself.

 He said  " Sarah Palin had to write 'cut taxes' on her hand, CUT TAXES , for a republican that's like Wiley Coyote writing 'road runner' on his paw " 

ROOOFL

[Zeradul]

I'm no fan of Biden, as his statement too was very embarrassing, but at least FDR did have to deal with the brunt of the economic problems, and so, being off by four years (less if you consider FDR's time campaigning) makes it less embarrassing.

Ugh.  It's important to not get mired down in nonsense discussions about gaffs, yet I have forgotten what we were discussing.  Sound bites don't matter, noone will remember them in the future, yet they seem to be driving modern political discussions and helping to decide how people vote.  Very disheartening.

[kai]

Soooo  you guys aren't down with people's intelligence being questioned because of gaffes? Did you carry the same attitude from 2000-2008 when people were pointing out all President Bush's gaffes? I mean he flew jets so I'm pretty sure he's not the pea-brain that people make him out to be.

You're right, VP Biden has a much more impressive career than Palin, seems smarter, and is more experienced.

[Ruckus]

Well Kai  I was in a squadron of A-6 intruders for 4.5 years. We had some intelligent pilots and we had some idiots. Kinda a roll of the dice like most everything in life. And you know my views on GW.    If he and Palin woulda married I'm sure their kids would be rocket scientists 

[dusty]

A-6 intruder? you're like 90

[Stinger]

1: I was constantly defending Bush's intelligence. The "7 minutes to react" thing, for instance, is a load of shit. He knew his best people were already handling it, and taking 5 minutes to not-scare some children wasn't going to effect what happened next. It was his qualifications, and his psychosis that gave me pause.

2: That aside, never being able to pronounce "nuclear" after many, many attempts is yet another argument in favor of teleprompters. They could have spelled it phonetically. NEW-KLEE-ER

[Ruckus]

A-6 intruder? you're like 90

hahaha  FU Q  Dusty 

[Zeradul]

You make good points Kai, and generally, you're right.  Most of that petty picking on Bush that was done was unfair.  I think he is a fairly smart guy, and I think he would be absolutely crush Palin in a world history / foreign policy quiz.  I still think much of what he thought was right, was absolutely wrong, Patriot Act, his aggressive and violent choices of militarism, his HUGE government policies that increased the debt and deficit by record amounts, even making Clinton looking fiscally responsible.  Also his nasty tactics of scaring the country into going along with his "war on terror" which in itself is a false, misleading claim.

I just think that the vast majority of what the media broadcasts and discusses are topics of utter irrelevance.  Whether the VP can spell potato or not is not ever going to matter to anyone, but the reasoning and strategy of Obama's surge in Afghanistan is hugely important and the average person doesn't know it's happening.

As the Daily Show pointed out.  In the three weeks following Anna Nicole's death, her name was mentioned five times more than any other key issue of the time, including Iraq and Afghanistan.  A frustrated Cafferty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgiwkcZxj7c  What happens when there are no more real journalists who recognize the absurdity of covering an x-playboy playmate's death 8 hours a day?

So it's sad to me that we focus on nonsense like this, and we don't demand more from the media.  But even the majority of our own discourse here is mired down with petty nonsense.  Yes I am guilty as well at times.

Blah blah I'm rambling

[Garr]

I hate that. You see that once in awhile. Mika Brzezinski from morning joe ended up refusing to report on a story about paris hilton which was great.

We need more of that. There is way too much trash that poses as news.

[Ruckus]

[rue]

Timely pettiness is timely.

[Ruckus]

Timely pettiness is timely.

I don't know. There's a lot of Taliban this, Taliban that in the media today. They seem to be our enemy now.  Or as Sarah Failin herself put it " pal'n around with terrorists"

[Zeradul]

Yea, we have no better recent example of why Non-Interventionist policies are a real need in the modern day.  We made the Taliban, in trying to get them to fight those evil Communists.  Is it any surprise that those people might be mad at us for that?

We undermined and destroyed the democracy in Iran and installed the Shah in the '50s.  Again, 50 years later, why are we surprised that their society is still mad at us?

Ruck, do you have any more information about that photo?  (like who is in the photo, when it was taken, where they met, how many times they met, etc?)

[rue]

Those aren't Taliban, Rucky.  The Taliban didn't take power until 8 years after Reagan was out of office.  Notice the woman on the right.  Taliban dignitaries don't let women work much less travel.  She's also wearing a keffiyeh and not a burka, a crime punishable by beatings under Taliban law.  


And Reagan did say those words.   Except he was talking about Nicaraguans, at CPAC in 1985.  

[Zeradul]

Granted, they weren't called the Taliban yet, as the Taliban hadn't formed yet, but the Mujahideen we funded, trained, and backed DID ultimately become the more extreme Taliban and al-Qaeda.

As for the quote attributed to Reagan, DD is correct, and undermines the message of Ruck's image.  However, the general sentiment towards the Mujahideen at the time, is correct.  We have many movies that very favorably portrayed the Mujahideen in the 80's, (e.g. Rambo + one of the James Bond movies) glorifying them for their fighting tactics, because they were fighting a common enemy.

Still it would be very interesting to have more info about that photo, especially if one of those men in the photo did lead the movement towards extremism, especially if any of them became one of the present day leaders.  Granted that is extremely unlikely given the 20 year gap.

But the lesson is valid.  The more countries we occupy, the more we sow discontentment around the world.  Our elderly were never occupied for even a minute by the Russians, yet even now, more than 30 years removed from the cold war, we have elderly still VERY angry and filled with anti-communist and anti-russian sentiment.  And this, a result of the mere THREAT of war, not even a real war or occupation!

We currently have 370,000 troops (of our 1.4 million total) stationed in 153 different foreign nations. W-T-F!?!?!?!  How would we feel if we had Chinese tanks and trucks driving around out country, building military bases wherever they wanted?

[rue]

Yes and we also invested in Germany prior to 1938, effectively assisting Germany to fund its war machine.

So clearly we supported Nazi-ism. 

[wargasm]

You talking about politics? Hmm? Y'all experts? Y'all know about politics? I'd like to hear about it, potheads.

Are you smoking that shit so's to escape from reality? Me, I don't need that shit. I am reality. There's the way it ought to be, and there's the way it is. Obama is full of shit. Obama is a crusader. Now, I got no fight... with any man who does what he's told. But when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, we break down. And I ain't gonna allow that... in any of you. Not one.

Y'all love Obama. Oh, you wanna kick ass. Yeah. Well, here I am, all by my lonesome. And there ain't nobody gonna know. Six of you boys against me. Kill me. Huh. I shit on all of you.

[Zeradul]

I'm not suggesting we are completely responsible for what they became, nor what they've done.

We have been aggressively manipulating the societies of the middle east for 60 years, both their political systems and military systems, and that has led to resentment.  It is not surprising that some of that resentment has bred extremism (and acceptance of extremism) in that part of the world.

The comparison to Germany is completely different, however, it is partially true, but in a completely different way than you intended.  The actions of the US, as well as everyone involved in WWI, after WWI put Germany in a really bad place.  Economically, politically, militarily, etc. (done so via how we restructured their government, forced them to pay ridiculously high amounts of reparations, etc)  It was really bad for them, and many of those elements led to decades of tension and feelings of exploitation among the Germans, which "set the stage" for a charismatic Hitler.

This was widely recognized post WWII and guided the actions of the Allies after that war, in hopes of avoiding a similar recurrence of war.

[Ruckus]

You talking about politics? Hmm? Y'all experts? Y'all know about politics? I'd like to hear about it, potheads.

Are you smoking that shit so's to escape from reality? Me, I don't need that shit. I am reality. There's the way it ought to be, and there's the way it is. Obama is full of shit. Obama is a crusader. Now, I got no fight... with any man who does what he's told. But when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, we break down. And I ain't gonna allow that... in any of you. Not one.

Y'all love Obama. Oh, you wanna kick ass. Yeah. Well, here I am, all by my lonesome. And there ain't nobody gonna know. Six of you boys against me. Kill me. Huh. I shit on all of you.

  Welcome back gw bush jr . I knew a picture of that dead fuckhead Reagan would pull you out of your closet.

[rue]

Nah, Zera.  Wilson didn't want the stiff penalties France and Great Britain wanted.  If you're going to say the actions of so and so, be precise.

[dusty]

[Stinger]

Whenever I forget what it is about you that I miss, you say something like "I am reality." and then I remember again.

[wargasm]

you wanna know how he got those scars?

[Stinger]

I always assumed it was a shaving accident. I'd hate to see his balls!

[Ruckus]

I always assumed it was a shaving accident. I'd hate to see his balls!

hahaha

[Zeradul]

Nah, Zera.  Wilson didn't want the stiff penalties France and Great Britain wanted.  If you're going to say the actions of so and so, be precise.

I was not saying WE (the US) was at fault, but all of the allies who took part.  Maybe we were less at fault, but rightfully so, it is not our part of the world, and so the neighbors should have more say, as THEY ultimately will have to deal with the results of their decisions.  They made a mistake obviously, one we are repeating now.

The connection I was trying to make (and I guess I failed) is that wars, occupations, and manipulation of foreign governments have long lasting negative effects.  And for our government to continue this big government militarism we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.  The more we try to police the world and set up puppet governments, the worse it is going to get.

I am all for sharing aid, be it medical, technological, or basic things like condoms and agricultural tools.  But the only way to rise above the problems we currently have with terrorism is to lead by example.  You cannot force a political system with the barrel of a gun.  The only way is through the hearts and minds of a populace, and you need a strong majority who will self police themselves and put a stop to harboring or tolerating terrorism.

[rue]

Zera, this is why the U.S. maintains its large military:

 We all know the problem leading up to WWII was appeasement.  The powers that be (Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.) signed the Munich Agreement and allowed Germany its expansion policies.  We know what happened next.  Ever since then, Western statesmen have been leery of foregoing preemptive diplomacy.  While we live in a relatively peaceful age, it's not to be scoffed at that while the biggest foreign bane of the U.S.'s entire history of being a superpower has been Communism, the U.S. and the USSR and China have never gone to war.  And this is because of our large military, not exclusively mind you, but necessarily.  

So why in 2010?  The USSR is gone.  China can't destroy the U.S. because even if it were possible, their own populace would suffer mass famine in the resulting economic collapse from losing its number #1 exporter.  The answer is a mix of military strategy, state policy, intelligence reports, mathematics, game theory and a few thousand computer simulations, that became known as the 1-4-2-1 requirements.  It means:

1 - The U.S. must be able to protect the homeland.

4 - The U.S. must deter hostilities between nations in four specific areas of the world:  Eastern Europe (i.e. Russia vs. its former Soviet States), Northeast Asia (i.e. North Korea vs. South Korea), Southeast Asia (i.e. China vs. Taiwan+Indonesia), and the Middle East (i.e. Israel vs. everyone else).  The key word is deter.

2 - Should determent fail, the U.S. must be able to operate military campaigns in at least two of these regions.

1 - One of these campaigns has to end quickly.

It's a strategy meant to avert World War III.  If you think it strange to use a little war to prevent a big one, recall Chamberlain did as well.


Ideally, these responsibilities would be taken up by some kind of world body.  A confluence of the good will of all civilized nations to not repeat the horrors of our planet's past.  A body funded with not only the monetary resources of good nature nations but their intellectuals, leaders and inspirational figures as well.  We thought that's what the UN would provide.  But the UN can't even provide food to starving Africans without miring itself up in fraud and embezzlement charges.

[Zeradul]

1 - Agreed.  Bring everyone home.  We have more than enough might to defend our borders and neighbors.

4 - Why?  Why are any of those regions our responsibility?  Note they are all 8,000+ miles away (more than a third of the globe)

2 - Why?  Again, sending aid is fine, but this idea that it is our responsibility to police the world is problematic, not just because we're making enemies, but also because we will not be able to continue to afford our empire, and at that point, a bunch of pissed off entities are going to have the upper hand.

1 - Not relevant if we don't get involved.

[rue]

In an abstract sense, it's because all major conflicts between multiple nations have had domino effects that invariably would involve us anyway, by necessity.  An Austrian prince dies at the hands of a terrorist group in Southeast Europe, then a year later, off the coast of Ireland, U.S. civilians drown at the hands of German sailors.  A Furher invades Poland and two years later, in the Central Pacific, American sailors are dying at the hands of Japanese aviators. Both those wars we were adamant that we'd never pick sides. And those times were when America's cultural and economical influence were several orders smaller.  

As an example:

Say a nuclear weapon detonates in downtown Jerusalem.  Who did it?  Was it a rogue terrorist attack?  Was it a sanctioned terror group Iran funded and equipped? Was it Iran directly?  It doesn't matter.  CNN puts the death count up.  It's in the hundreds of thousands.  Reporters in HAZMAT suits tell the saddest tales we'll ever hear. Shadows on the ground show where people stood before thermal radiation battered their bodies and evaporated them.  Children burned alive.  Israel goes to war with Iran immediately.  During the war, a Saudi Arabian jumbo jet crossing the Red Sea is painted as an Iranian Airborne Early Warning and Control plane. The jet had prior announced it's intentions and flight plan to the Israelis, but the detail was lost amongst the latest air campaign Iran has launched.  An Israeli fighter squadron is dispatched to intercept the jet.  It's the squadron's third CAP in 24 hours.  They're tired.  The blips are starting to bleed together.  The jet is shot down over the Red Sea.  Suddenly this isn't about Israel and Iran anymore.  The Saudis are pissed.  OPEC shuts down.  China (a 58% Middle East oil importer) is suddenly faced with an economic meltdown.  They call the U.S. on its massive debts.  The value of the dollar swan dives into near nothing.  Hyper-inflation shuts down Wall Street.  Our own economy collapses.  Nations with collapsed economies are unpredictable.  It's hard to say what happens next in this scenario.

There's a few billion scenarios that run something like this, and they involve those other regions.  Thankfully, this is the modern age.  Computers and the intelligent people that operate them can run such simulations with different variables and various shades of "worst case scenarios" juxtaposed with "best case scenarios."  When regression analysis explores these scenarios, what results is 1-4-2-1.  It says the cost of doing something is lower than the cost of doing nothing.