Wisdom, not weapons
Once again President Bush has failed the American people by continuing to follow his failed policies at the expense of our brave brothers and sisters.
How dare he and his party attack the patriotism of so many of us, including myself and my four brothers who have served this country from the Korean conflict through Vietnam and today.
He has deliberately kept the same soldiers going back time and time again so that all Americans do not feel the pain that the soldiers and their families face each and every day.
Iraq is a mess now and will be for a long time because our president chose a war that our soldiers cannot win. They won the military battle but our soldiers and their weapons cannot defeat a mind-set. We must defeat them with our wisdom.
Michael Lamontagne, Aurora
Neo-con actions are startilng to hurt the base of their supporters. Now that everyone feels the pain this man has caused, maybe we can unite and get something done.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 04:17 AM"How dare he (Pres Bush) and his party attack the patriotism of so many of us..."
Michael, you have every right to disagree with the President on any issue or policy, and thank you and your brothers for serving this country. That said, please give me ONE....just ONE example where President Bush has "attacked" (your word) your patriotism. Not a talk show host, not a rabid right winger, not anyone else, but President Bush "attacking" you or those that disagree with him. He may have called them wrong or illadvised, but I can assure you that Presdient Bush has not "attacked" you or anyone.
Though I can say without hesitation that President Bush, his family, his cabinet, and most of the GOP are regularly "attacked" daily on this blog and in most major US newspapers.
Boy Micharl, Sounds like buyers remorse to me,
What the hell did your family join the service anyway. Iguess you thought you were just going to wear those cool uniforms.
Ah! The wonders of semantics!
Such political agression as the Patriot Act, and chicanery such as involved us in Iraq in the first place, are not "attacks" - except, perhaps, as the word might be used to describe attempts to finally destroy that "piece of paper", the Constitution; which is of no importance to Republicans anyway - but Bush, (et.al.), suffers from the "attacks" of his critics "regularly (and) daily".
Huxley and Orwell are surely becoming more and more validated as political prophets; with "Newspeak" an ever increasing way of defensive expression.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 06:28 AMIf you support the democrats you are unpatriotic.If you support Bush you support the troops.
Posted by bart on May 18, 2007 08:11 AMbart,
Thanks for outlining the Authoritarian Bush Cultist mindset in one simple sentence. I'm pretty sure it was snark. I hope it was.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:32 AMFW,
"What the hell did your family join the service anyway. Iguess you thought you were just going to wear those cool uniforms."
The above statement is a great example of why you are powerless in discourse.
Please tell us of your many acts of bravery in defense of our nation oh manly one. Those that don't involve the spittle-fisted pounding of your well-glazed keyboard that is...
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:37 AM"...weapons cannot defeat a mind-set. We must defeat them with our wisdom."
How will our "widom" stop murdering terrorists and Islamofacists from deploying and sacraficing their children as human bombs? Are you implying that we need to sit down and reason with these lunatics and apply a LIBERAL dose of "wisdom"?
I don't believe that you or anyone in your family ever wore an American military uniform, your comments are totally vacant of any "wisdom." It took bullets to kill the world's terrorist; like Hitler. Those who were waited for "wisdom" to work as a solution died waiting.
Charles B - You need to quit watching so much Olbermann. I'm sure you can get some new catchy phrases from Matthews, Lauer, Moyer, Maher, etc...
Maybe even try coming up with one on your own sometime.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 10:52 AMHank,
It took bullets to stop Hitler, you're right about that, but it took the economic rehabilitation of Germany to prevent another Hitler from rising to power. The reason a man like Hitler was able to rise to power in the first place has a lot to do with the prevailing mindset in Germany after WWI. We killed them, alright, and we did such a great job of it that 25 years later we had to do it again.
Unless you're talking about wiping out an entire population, you're going to have to at some point remove the motivation for people to kill.
Otherwise, we know what happens next. We've seen it all accross Africa. We'll end up with a series of bloody never ending civil wars until one dictator has enough military strength to control the country with an iron fist.
So basically, if we continue down the path you're advocating, the best situation possible would be another Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Grog on May 18, 2007 12:08 PMMonsieur Lamontagne,
You said:
"They won the military battle but our soldiers and their weapons cannot defeat a mind-set. We must defeat them with our wisdom."
You're right. It takes a lot of wisdom to make a big bomb. Wisdom has the power to change mind-sets very quickly. Just ask Japan. We wisdomed them pretty good. They have a totally different mind-set now.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 12:29 PMGood point John II. It's totally relevant, too. All we have to do now is identify all the terrorists in the area, including those who haven't yet committed any terrorist acts, convince them to stand in a big group, and get all the non-terrorists to leave. It would probably be best if we could get them out into the desert, so we don't blow up the buildings our fearless leader has already claimed to have "saved." Oh, and we DEFINITELY have to avoid the oil. Probably even more so than the cities and other people.
It's a super plan, though. And it was delivered with such wit! "Wisdomed them good." Priceless!
You are an asset to these pages, John II, no matter how many times you might be called idiot, dumbass, scumbag, fart-for-brains, clueless, mind-numbingly-stupid, vacuous, Republican, waste of carbon, the worst of the worst of Americans, etc, etc, etc.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by Grog on May 18, 2007 12:54 PMGrog,
You said:
"All we have to do now is identify all the terrorists in the area, including those who haven't yet committed any terrorist acts, convince them to stand in a big group, and get all the non-terrorists to leave. It would probably be best if we could get them out into the desert, so we don't blow up the buildings our fearless leader has already claimed to have "saved." Oh, and we DEFINITELY have to avoid the oil. Probably even more so than the cities and other people."
Sounds like a bipartisan plan to me. Let's do it!
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 01:01 PMGrog - You do know that we still maintain a very significant military presence in Germany since World War II and the German Government has a fit anytime the US makes noise about pulling the troops out a bringing them home.
Posted by Joe on May 18, 2007 01:14 PMWe are talking about a group of people who brainwash kids to become suicide bombers on TV. We are talking about a group of people who kill innocent people at a market place or bus stop. We are talking about a group of people who behaed innocent people on video. Now could someone PLEASE tell me how wisdom, in any way shape or form will work with these people? They hide in the general population and use "holy places" as launching points for their attacks knowing we will not attack a mosque. There is no wisdom dealing with them, you have to take them out, there is no other choice.
Posted by Nick on May 18, 2007 01:23 PMI beg your pardon. It is not President Bush who has failed the American people. It is the "we can't win" liberals who undermine the foundation of our republic. Is that patriotism? I hardly think so.
Posted by B Stuckey on May 18, 2007 02:56 PMYes, Brian (B Stuckey), you are right. I remember very well when the "we can't win" liberals got up to the podium, and pled their case for attacking Iraq in the first place. Then, as the bombs fell, we watched as the "we can't win" liberals reassured us in weekly addresses from the rose garden. Oh, and I clearly remember the aircraft carrier speech when the "we can't win" liberals, all decked out in their loaner jump-suits, told us both in words and banners, that it was "Mission Accomplished." And then, when the worm turned in the 2006 elections, it was the "we can't win" liberals who were sent packing in an embarassing loss on national levels.
You see Brian, I can change the facts too. The only difference is I'm not opperating on any level of denial, only sarcasm, where as you are swimming in denial.
Posted by shaupeen on May 18, 2007 03:41 PMPatriotism?
That is for weak-willed liberals.
Strong individualist conservatives only respect profit and business.
We buy from the cheapest source, and sell at the highest price that the market will bear. We outsource jobs to where the lowest costs are.
Patriotism is for the poor and the weak.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 18, 2007 04:16 PMoh yes, I almost forgot..
Abortion!
Gay Marraige!
Danger!
Islamofascists!
Clinton!!!!
You are either with us or you are a communist islamofascist lesbian CHRISTMAS HATER!!!
yeah, so vote for us.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 18, 2007 04:22 PMMr. Skank,
"We buy from the cheapest source, and sell at the highest price that the market will bear. We outsource jobs to where the lowest costs are."
Should we buy from the most expensive source and sell to the lowest bidder? Should we outsource jobs to where the highest costs are?
I sense some sarcasm in your post but I'm not sure where it's hiding.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 04:31 PMYes indeed. Let's sit down and talk with them. Just be sure you're wearing a kevlar turtleneck.
Posted by live on May 18, 2007 07:16 PMKW,
You said:
"Charles B - You need to quit watching so much Olbermann. I'm sure you can get some new catchy phrases from Matthews, Lauer, Moyer, Maher, etc...
Maybe even try coming up with one on your own sometime."
Nope KW, I can whittle you a new one with my verbal kung-fu anytime I want. I don't copy. I think for myself. I am an original.
Posted by Charles B on May 18, 2007 08:54 PMYou're right about Japan. We showed them.
Now Toyota and Honda are the best selling cars in America
Posted by on May 18, 2007 10:02 PM10:02,
Exactly. They went from building an empire to building cars and employing thousands of Americans. That's a pretty big mindset change.
Posted by John II on May 18, 2007 11:26 PMJohn II: "Should we outsource jobs to where the highest costs are?"
No, John II. Bango is talking about the choice between outsourcing jobs and keeping them at home. Get it now?
John II: "Should we buy from the most expensive source and sell to the lowest bidder? Should we outsource jobs to where the highest costs are?"
John II is under the false impression, as are many extremists, that we must go to one extreme or the other.
There is such a thing as buying from the lowest source that respects human rights. And, if I recall correctly, you oppose letting the fruit growers go to the lowest source to pick the fruit. As far as selling to the highest bidder goes, if we did that with such things as health care, we would have a very unhealthy population. And your apparent thinking that outsourcing jobs is obligatory is false; there is such a thing as keeping jobs at home. I hope it is OK with you if Americans have jobs they can go to.
Posted by on May 19, 2007 07:40 AMBuying from the cheapest source:
"Children who work long hours, often in dangerous and unhealthy conditions, are exposed to lasting physical and psychological harm. Working at rug looms, for example, has left children disabled with eye damage, lung disease, stunted growth, and a susceptibility to arthritis as they grow older. Children making silk thread in India dip their hands into boiling water that burns and blisters them, breath smoke and fumes from machinery, handle dead worms that cause infections, and guide twisting threads that cut their fingers. Children harvesting sugar cane in El Salvador use machetes to cut cane for up to nine hours a day in the hot sun; injuries to their hands and legs are common and medical care is often not available."
Posted by Truth on May 19, 2007 08:05 AMAh, the ever sapient Truth strikes again.
"No, John II. Bango is talking about the choice between outsourcing jobs and keeping them at home. Get it now?"
Was he? Then he should have said "We outsource jobs." instead adding "where the lowest costs are."
"John II is under the false impression, as are many extremists, that we must go to one extreme or the other."
Buy low and sell high is extreme? I think it's extreme that you think it's extreme.
"And, if I recall correctly, you oppose letting the fruit growers go to the lowest source to pick the fruit."
Not sure what you're talking about there. Can you provide an actual quote?
"As far as selling to the highest bidder goes, if we did that with such things as health care, we would have a very unhealthy population."
Again, not sure what you mean there. Can you clarify?
"And your apparent thinking that outsourcing jobs is obligatory is false; there is such a thing as keeping jobs at home. I hope it is OK with you if Americans have jobs they can go to."
Oh Truth, you are so dramatic. Yes, I suppose it's fine with me if Americans have jobs they can go to. Perhaps, I'll toss a few shillings their way this morning as I walk to my Bentley. Maybe, I'll even allow them to rub my feet and massage my oh-so-overworked muscles - planning the persecution of the proletariat is stressful work, you know.
Of course, I would love to keep jobs in America. That's why I favor lower taxes and less government regulations.
"Children harvesting sugar cane in El Salvador use machetes to cut cane for up to nine hours a day in the hot sun; injuries to their hands and legs are common and medical care is often not available."
It sounds like living in El Salvador is much tougher than living in America. Our kids spend about five hours a day watching TV and playing video games. Some even get carpel-tunnel syndrome in their hands.
Truth, why do you think those kids cut cane for nine hours a day? Should we take away those jobs? Then, instead of working nine hours a day, they spend 24 hours a day starving. But, hey, at least they wouldn't have cuts and scratches on their hands.
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 10:00 AMWhen someone says buy from the cheapest source, they are refering only to the monatary, not human, cost. These are often the very people who laugh at Humanism as relative morality.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 10:00 AMJohn II has already stated - many times over - that his fundamental philosophy is that of John Locke. And he has offered several quotations to emphasize this fact.
This philosophy is the epitome presentation of the idea that shallow selfishness is the sole and only reason/justification/purpose for anything, and everything. The flowery language of the day and age in which it was written serves to mask the fundamentals of the contents somewhat for today's reader.
However, one has only to read John II's postings to arrive at an understanding of what Locke means; and John II's own hearty agreement, as well his belief that this position should actually be dominant in today's world.
The clock does not run backwards. Other philosophies have long superceded Locke as viable/useful in the world today; and modern problems are not solved by questioning attitudes concerning historical events, as if expression of these attitudes were of significant value in relationship to current problems.
A fossil is educational - even entertaining - in its place; which is usually a museum, or National Park/Monument. And, when all be said and done, we do owe John II something of a vote of thanks for bringing us here on the forum a wide-range view of a living fossil - to use mutually contradictory terms, for illustration purposes only, of course.
Sharon,
Lockeianism - if I may be permitted the word - has no "morality". (Unless of course, one considers shallow selfishness to be a basic "moral" principle from which all other actions flow; and by which all other actions are to be judged.) Which may be the basic reason for those who follow Locke failing to understand the word; or the meaning of "Humanism" as well for that matter.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 11:26 AMOld Grouch,
If I function merely as a philosophical fossil on this forum, then I am happy for my role.
I have yet to see an argument or proposal from yourself, Sharon B., Truth, Charles B., and Mytwosense that has defeated my own logic.
But, if I serve as some sort of living ancient philosopher for you to bounce your fancy new ideas off of, then so be it. You only show that not every change is for the better.
Instead of worrying about my philosophical preferences, how about actually addressing the points I put forth rather than merely lecturing about the type of person John II is?
I may be wrong, but you have yet to prove me wrong. What does that say about your new and improved modern ideals?
Posted by John II on May 19, 2007 11:46 AMJohn II,
You're the one who wants it in terms of "right" and "wrong". And apparently, if I read your last sentence correctly, you are "Mr. right"; and whoever/whatever else comes along is to be forced to somehow "convert" you - i.e. "prove YOU wrong".
Now, you know just as well as anyone who has read your postings for any length of time at all, that you can't ever be "proved" to be "wrong"; since you hold, adamantly, to your own position, which is, a priori and ipso facto, the "right", in the face of any opposition or demonstration to the contrary.
And, as I said, you string out, interminably, every issue by insisting on questioning the attitude of others towards the methods used to accomplish past events. Since those methods are, equally, a priori and ipso facto, "right" according to YOU, any other methods are - and must be - themselves "wrong". And thus, you have "eliminated" the opposition; and once again, you can boast that no one has been able to prove YOU "wrong". You may call this "putting forth points" if you so choose. But in fact, even as "points", they do not address the idea, or ideals as such. And I certainly grant your pre-eminent ability to use the "red herring". Which is really the only addressing those "points" need.
It is an interesting - if time wasting - example of a certain kind of solipsism. And "your logic" can't be defeated, since it is an a priori system of merely going round and round, always begging the question.
For some, it's fun. For some, it's entertaining.
For some, it's even educational. So are fossils. And both have place.
Of course, not every change is for the better. But, there are those who do feel that ideas, ideals, and changes deserve better than they receive from what you deem to be - rightly, from the solipsistic framework of reference in which it operates - "my (your) own logic".
By the way, I am not alone in making reference to the "type of person".
That did not even begin with me. But that aside, since it is both irrelevant and immaterial.
If others want to engage in the game of playing at debate with you, that's their choice. All I can do is offer a sketch of how foolish and futile a waste of time that is. Just as you may offer a sketch of "character" - which you frequently do - when someone does not choose to waste time on that game.
As I said, we should all thank the RMN for the benefits of having our own resident fossil. Such is far and away more condusive to honing intellectual skills, than the 4,5,6,7,or even 8 reptitions of profane and raucous slams and slurs put up by others.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 02:00 PMJohn II"Truth, why do you think those kids cut cane for nine hours a day? Should we take away those jobs? Then, instead of working nine hours a day, they spend 24 hours a day starving. But, hey, at least they wouldn't have cuts and scratches on their hands."
It's amazing. It doesn't even occur to John II that there is such a thing as paying a decent wage to people so that the young children wouldn't have to work. He can't seem to wean himself from thinking that all there are are two extremes, with nothing in between.
John II: "Buy low and sell high is extreme? I think it's extreme that you think it's extreme." John II apparently thinks it's fine for young children to work for starvation wages so that he can get his goodies cheaper. It's as though he thinks compassion is a board game.
You can get an idea of John II's superficiality by this comment of his;
"You're right. It takes a lot of wisdom to make a big bom".
A more sensible statement might be that it takes intelligence to build a big bomb and wisdom to know what to do with it.
Truth,
"It's amazing. It doesn't even occur to John II that there is such a thing as paying a decent wage to people so that the young children wouldn't have to work."
You can't seem to acknowledge that standards of living are extremely different between our country and the third world. What seems like slave wages and a tough lifestyle here are not the same in a different country. Here, kids are coddled and pampered. Elsewhere, kids must work to help their family feed and clothe themselves.
I didn't make these rules. There are people in the world who are willing to work for wages much lower than you could imagine. Should we deny them this work simply because you feel, from your air conditioned home, that these wages are too low for the hard-working people of El Salvador?
It is not America's nor is it capitalism's fault that El Salvador needs work and money. Capitalism is bringing work and money to El Salvador. No one ever said life would be easy, Truth. We enjoy the lifestyle we do because we embraced capitalism, not from shunning it. Yet, you like to pick out every negative and use that as an excuse to abandon the whole system. No one is saying capitalism is perfect. It's just better than any other system out there.
John II: "Yet, you like to pick out every negative and use that as an excuse to abandon the whole system."
Once again, John II gives the impression that he thinks the poverty we see all around us was ordained in heaven and we are powerless to do anything about it. A very short-sighted, uncompassionate and selfish view.
Abandon what system? The United States has been giving aid to foreign countries for many, many years. There are many advocates for having human rights requirements in fair trade laws. Compassion has always been a factor in our foreign policy. It is a long-standing fact that our system is a capitalistic system overlain with many government regulations. It is not the predatory capitalistic system John II apparently yearns for.
I'm afraid John II is simply unacquainted with the system in which he is living.
Talk about someone who wants to abandon the system. John II thinks that taxes should only be used to pay for the military, and roads and bridges,so that he would abandon the programs which have made America one of the best places on earth to live. Programs such as these:
child labor laws
wage and hour laws
food and drug laws
industrial safety laws
workmen's compensation laws
deceptive advertising laws
consumer protection laws
usury laws
environmental protection laws
health care laws
children's health and educational laws
security fraud laws
corporate fraud laws
corporate governance laws
welfare laws.
The America which John II would have is nothing like the America we enjoy. The man is not just a libertarian, he is an extreme libertarian, bordering on the anarchal.
Posted by Truth on May 19, 2007 06:12 PMTo put down an insurgency, there are two basic classical methods to choose from.
1. Overwhelming force and utter ruthlessness to crush all opposition
2. "Hearts & minds" in which the majority is satisfied to the point where they will not support the radicals.
The Brits showed the former in the Boer and Mau-Mau wars, and the latter in Borneo.
The US has picked neither course in Iraq.
Neither enough forces and ruthlessness to crush opposition, nor enough effort to divorce the radicals from the majority by improving living conditions and prosperity.
Instead it has employed just enough ruthlessness to anger and radicalize the majority, and just enough humanitarian aid to look weak. Such is the result of the Rumsfeld military doctrine. Cheap and fast, Blitzkrieg without schwerpunkt - much more light and sound than energy.
Failure and humiliating retreat is now the only possible outcome.
To preempt JohnII, overwhelming force worked in Japan, but then overwhelming humanitarian aid followed soon after.
Mr. Skank,
"To preempt JohnII, overwhelming force worked in Japan, but then overwhelming humanitarian aid followed soon after. "
I am perfectly willing to follow up with overwhelming humanitarian aid after our overwhelming display of force.
Posted by John II on May 20, 2007 01:11 AMTruth,
"Once again, John II gives the impression that he thinks the poverty we see all around us was ordained in heaven and we are powerless to do anything about it. A very short-sighted, uncompassionate and selfish view."
I don't even know how to respond to you anymore. What exactly are you proposing to fight poverty? Do you honestly think that you care more about the poor than I do? Is that the point you're trying to get across in all your meaningless posts?
What do you want to do? Let's hear it. Create a worldwide minimum wage? Fine. You do realize that that would hurt the very people you are trying to save. But, no problem, right? You feel more than I do so that makes you right. Come on, Truth. Let's hear your plan to end worldwide poverty.
And please don't respond with another boring melodramatic post about what "John II thinks." It's boring. Let's hear what Truth thinks. Let's go genius. Let's hear it.
Posted by John II on May 20, 2007 01:21 AMWhat I want is for America to go further in the direction it has already started to go. We have included provisions in our fair trade policies which require companies which sell to American companies to have minimum humanitarian practices toward their workers, but the provisions need to be strengthened. WalMart and other companies regularly advertise how well they are doing with this; but as with all such policies, they need to be better enforced. What I would like to see are more Americans having an interest in the plight of the poor around the world, and fewer with the attitude of John II.
I applaud the efforts of those who emphasize the "fair" in "fair trade" and who advocate more energetic efforts to require humanitarian practices. I applaud the efforts of those who advocate that the United States increase its foreign aid. I applaud the various international conferences which are being held with the purpose of increasing and improving foreign aid to poor countries.
"President Bush has asked for about $25 billion for foreign assistance for fiscal year 2008. If approved, that would amount to a near doubling of foreign assistance since 1997."
"Although Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) figures from 2006 show the United States as the leading donor among the world's top twenty-two industrial nations in terms of volume, it was near last in terms of aid as a percentage of GNP."
I compare that with the money spent for military operations in Iraq. Military operations tend to alienate the people. Foreign aid tends to win their hearts and minds. The same is true of policies which require foreign companies which sell to American companies to observe minimum humanitarian standards. To me, humanitarian practices and foreign aid are more insurance than charity. They are "preemptive peace". While we certainly need both the military and compassion, I think that in the long run compassion pays higher dividends than military might, and it is a good deal less expensive. Our efforts in Europe and Japan after World War II are the products of what might be called "selfish compassion". They worked quite well.
Truth,
Foreign aid accomplishes very little. It may make you feel good, but some argue that foreign aid actually hurts the recipients. Countries that receive foreign aid are usually corrupt. Also, the free money tends to promote fiscally irresponsible budgets (worse than our own).
As far as humanitarian practices, who is the judge of that? Kids cutting cane for nine hours a day does not seem like abuse to me. It's sounds like a very rough life, but they must be willing to cut cane for a reason.
Now, you can say we shouldn't trade with El Salvador until they improve their working conditions, but why aren't the people of El Salvador saying that?
It sounds like, from your comments about controlling their work conditions and your wont of more foreign aid, that you desire to control another country. Foreign aid is welfare for other countries. You want to extend our welfare state to a welfare world. That's very generous of you to spend our money in that fashion. So, in addition to paying for your health care, you want me to pay more for the welfare of El Salvador. I don't think so, Truth. You can only push people so far before they revolt.
Posted by John II on May 20, 2007 07:55 AMJohn II: "Foreign aid is welfare for other countries. You want to extend our welfare state to a welfare world."
A nation that is not interested in the welfare of its people is not a nation I would want to live in. The same is true of a nation that has no interest in the welfare of its neighbors, and today who isn't a neighbor? If you want to live in a nation that has no concerns for the welfare of its people, and has no concerns for the welfare of the world, you are living in the wrong country. The debate is not about whether we should have an interest in the welfare of our citizens or the welfare of the rest of the world; few doubt that; the debate is about the degree of interest. Your position that there should be no foreign aid is an extreme position that no one I have read or heard would endorse.
John II: "It sounds like, from your comments about controlling their work conditions and your wont of more foreign aid, that you desire to control another country."
Foreign policy all has to do with controlling other nations in some way and to some extent. The same is true of war. Are you opposed to the nonproliferation treaty? The debate is not about whether we should try to exert some control, it is about how much. Your position that we should not try to exert any control over foreign countries is an extreme one that no one I have heard or read would endorse.
John II: "Now, you can say we shouldn't trade with El Salvador until they improve their working conditions, but why aren't the people of El Salvador saying that?"
The idea is that El Salvador needs to trade with us to survive. Given the choice between not surviving and paying more decent wages, it is likely to choose the latter. El Salvador very much would like to see American investment there. Given the choice between that not happening and paying more decent wages, it is likely to choose the latter. Your position that we should have no concern for the humanitarian welfare of other countries is an extreme one that no one I have heard or read would endorse.
John II: "So, in addition to paying for your health care, you want me to pay more for the welfare of El Salvador. I don't think so, Truth."
I do think so. You have been doing exactly that for many years and will continue to do so unless you choose to leave the United States. Your position that the government should not pay anything for the health care of its citizens or for other countries is an extreme one that no one I have heard or read would endorse.
John II, you use the word "you" as though my positions are only mine. The fact is just the opposite. My positions are those of the vast majority. Yours are quite unique to you. There are not any conservatives I know of who reject foreign aid, and I expect very few who reject the effort to get other countries to improve their humanitarian conditions. The debates are not about the principle but about the degree to which the principle should be implemented. You are the one who is alone in your views.
As before, you advocate an extreme that does not exist and hopefully for the sake of our country never will.
Posted by Truth on May 20, 2007 08:59 AM
Truth,
"The same is true of a nation that has no interest in the welfare of its neighbors, and today who isn't a neighbor? If you want to live in a nation that has no concerns for the welfare of its people, and has no concerns for the welfare of the world, you are living in the wrong country."
I never said I was not interested in the welfare of our neighbors. I just don't think a welfare program, such as foreign aid, benefits the recipient.
I've been watching those "Please feed the starving children of Africa" commercials since I was a kid. Why are they still starving in Africa? Foreign aid, in the form of food and money, simply prolongs their suffering. Twenty years from now, we will still see commercials about the starving children of Africa. But, for liberals starving for something to make them feel good about themselves, foreign aid provides the feel-good sentimental victuals their bleeding hearts crave.
"Foreign policy all has to do with controlling other nations in some way and to some extent."
Of course. I wanted to see if you'd admit your desire to control another sovereign nation. Now, that you have, let's go a step further: Do you think the standard of living would improve or worsen for the citizens of El Salvador if El Salvador became a State in our Union?
"Your position that we should not try to exert any control over foreign countries is an extreme one that no one I have heard or read would endorse."
That is not my position. Where did you get that from?
"The idea is that El Salvador needs to trade with us to survive."
Exactly.
"Given the choice between not surviving and paying more decent wages, it is likely to choose the latter."
You don't get it. El Salvador has little to do with the pay of their citizens. Sure, they could pass minimum wage laws. That would result in less foreign investment into their country. But, in order for El Salvador to raise their standards of living, they need more investment, not less.
"John II, you use the word "you" as though my positions are only mine. "
I use the word you because I'm addressing you.
"My positions are those of the vast majority. "
Why do you feel the need to say that in almost every discussion? Are you claiming that anything supported by a majority is always right? Or, do you lack confidence in your own ability to argue on the merit of your own positions?
If being in the majority wins the debate, then we could save a lot of time by simply posting poll results.
John II: "But, for liberals starving for something to make them feel good about themselves, foreign aid provides the feel-good sentimental victuals their bleeding hearts crave."
How many conservatives can you name who are opposed to providing foreign aid? It is clear that your position is not a conservative position but an extremist libertarian one. That does not of itself make it wrong, but it does make quite wrong and inaccurate your constantly pretending that it is only liberals who support foreign aid and who support efforts to increase humanitarianism in other countries when surely you know good and well that conservatives also support these causes, albeit to a lesser degree.
I continually point out your extreme libertarianism because I think that in order to really understand what you are saying it is necessary to know where you are coming from. That is why I have several times referred to your amazing rejection of the many social laws I have listed. You alway camouflage yourself in conservative clothes even though you are clearly not a conservative. Why do you do that? Are you afraid to own up to your libertarian leanings.
You have several times referred to the need to do something extreme such as revolt. Do you consider that to be a conservative position?
You say "Are you claiming that anything supported by a majority is always right?" Face it, you pretend to be a conservative so that you won't feel so alone, so that it will look like your position is that of the conservatives when it clearly is not, so that it will look like you are speaking for the many when you are speaking only for a very few extremists.
John II: "But, in order for El Salvador to raise their standards of living, they need more investment, not less."
But of course. And of course Salvadorians want to raise their standard of living. And of course they will be influenced to do better by their people if that will encourage greater foreign investment. That is why efforts in fair trade laws to persuade such countries, and their businesses, to a more humanitarian attitude toward their people are important and helpful, at least in the eyes of those who view all people as humans who deserve a fair break.
Posted by Truth on May 20, 2007 10:33 AMAgain we have the Clintonian question. This time it is, it depends on what you mean by the word "their".
When the leaders of so many countries such as El Salvador say they want to improve their standard of living, by "their" they mean the leaders of those countries. The United States and other first world countries can and do take steps that will to some extent force those leaders to have a concern for the mass of people in those countries. The world, including the United States, benefits from improving the standard of living in other countries. For example, the United States surely would have benefited if we had improved the standard of living in Iraq rather than decimating it. Once again, it is better to try to win over their hearts and minds than to just kill their bodies.
Posted by Truth on May 20, 2007 10:43 AMTruth,
"Do you think the standard of living would improve or worsen for the citizens of El Salvador if El Salvador became a State in our Union?"Posted by John II on May 20, 2007 11:37 AM
John II, I think it really depends on how good their football team is.
Posted by Truth on May 20, 2007 05:19 PM