Re: Interesting thread…

Forums Other Forums The Pub Political Ravings of Intolerance Re: Interesting thread…

#68618
Anonymous
Guest

[quote=”Valdron”]You did not kick the crap out of some terrorists.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Didn’t say we did. Although, I do think we did, to an extent. But terrorists are like Pringles potatoe chips. Crunch all ya want, they’ll make more.

So, what do you think should be done about terrorism? You can’t negotiate with them. What do you do when faced with a bunch of fanatics who would kill themselves in order to kill you? The argument I keep hearing, is that fighting terrorists simply makes them madder and more likely to come after you. The “don’t stir ’em up” argument. That is essentially a do-nothing mentality. It’s been tried for years, it doesn’t work. Maybe we haven’t found the right tactics for dealing with terrorism yet, but doing nothing is certainly not the answer. We must try.[/quote]

Well, there’s the floundering around like a drunk in a bath tub approach, which doesn’t seem to particularly work well for anyone, and didn’t actually work out well in Afghanistan.

And then there’s the sensible approach, which is basically police work, intelligence gathering, reasonable and prudent security, and the judicious application of force when and where it will do some good. Not as flashy, but it has better results.

[quote=”Valdron”]The second thing is: Dude what are you talking about? Saudi Arabia gives away a lot bigger portion of its GDP in foreign aid than the US.[/quote]

[quote=”Valdron”]I could give away 90% of my income to foreign aid, and it would still be a lot less than the US. This is the old percentage versus bottom line argument. I said the US is one of the most generous nations, and I stand by that statement. Frankly, I think our government is TOO generous.[/quote]

Beep. Wrong again. Well sort of. I note that you’ve qualified your contention by pointing out that the US is *one of the most generous* nations.

And in a flat dollar rate, yes it is. The United States consistently holds *second* place, behind Japan in terms of the raw value of foreign aid dollars. The Japanese on average give away thirteen billion dollars, the Americans eleven. Of course, Japan has only 40% of the population of the U.S., but obviously, those little folk have great big hearts.

Other big generous donors are Britain, averaging five billion, with only 20% of the U.S. population, France, similar populatlion, also comes in around five or six billion. Teeny tiny Denmark and the Netherlands are at around two billion.

Of course, if we were to chop Israel and Egypt out of the American equation, then in raw dollar terms, America would be far far far behind Japan, on a par with France and Britain, and only just keeping ahead of Denmark.

Nonetheless, the United States gives the lowest amount relative to the size of its economy; less than 1 percent of its annual total budget and about 1/30th of the United States’ annual defense spending; while other donor countries give an average of roughly 0.40% of their gross national income, the United States gave 0.11 percent of its GNI and has not given amounts greater than 0.40% of GNI since the 1960s. Denmark, by contrast, in 2001 gave 1.03 percent of its gross national income in aid, almost ten times what the United States gives (0.11 percent of GNI), and gave 309 per capita, almost ten times what the United States gives on a per capita basis.

Feel free to pat yourselves on the back though. Every little bit of aid helps, no question about that. And if you aren’t doing as much as others, at least you’re doing something.

[quote=”SgtDraino”]I used to love the UN, now I don’t trust them.[/quote]

It seems that the feeling is reciprocated.

[quote=”Valdron”]And these would be the troops that do not directly engage in ground combat, but have been known to bomb the crap out of weddings?[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]<gasp> Really? How many weddings? Four or five? More?[/quote]

Five is the current count, last time I looked. It doesn’t go over well with Afghans.

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Or could you be refering to a one-time event? Dare I say, an accident? [/quote]

Well, accident doesn’t cut it when some guy in a fighter jet deliberately launches his rockets at a target. We’re more in the country of negligence, recklessness, manslaughter… You’re a cop, you know how these things work.

What seems to be happening is that from time to time, Afghan warlords have discovered that a very good way to attack their rivals is to feed the Americans false information about guerilla/Taliban movements and sic them on a gathering of their rivals.

Weddings are particularly good for this kind of thing, since many Afghan celebrations, particularly weddings, involve discharging firearms into the air. Sort of like fireworks.

So, you’re fighter pilot gets assigned to the area, he’s patrolling for enemy, he sees flashes of gunfire…. and its goodbye bride and groom, goodbye maid of honour, goodbye best man, goodbye toaster oven, etc.

Now, obviously, its a messy business. And maybe the first wedding that got blown up was excuseable. We wuz played for suckers.
But not the next four.

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Accidents happen. Everyone makes ’em.[/quote]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but America’s finest seem to be particularly prone to them. U.S. soldiers are getting a worldwide reputation as the ‘friendly fire bastards.’ It isn’t a good thing.

[quote=”SgtDraino”] How much do any of us really know, that haven’t actually been there and seen for ourselves? The “war on terrorism” is so politically charged, I don’t really trust anybody’s judgement on what goes on in there, if that person hasn’t been there themselves. And even if they had been, I would seriously consider the source, and take into account the filter through which they view world events. How much do I actually, 100%, KNOW? Same as you. Very little.[/quote]

To some extent I agree with you. But you seem to be saying that because it is difficult to get the full facts and make an informed opinion, that we shouldn’t bother.

I disagree. Sure, things are politically charged. Sure, everyone has an agenda. Sure, you always, always, always consider the source. And sure, you always acknowledge the biases built into the sources of information.

The point is not to surrender and just assume its all unknowable, or that we can just abandon facts and stick with opinions, irregardless of facts.

The point is that we have to make the effort. Which means going out there, getting the information, trying to evaluate it, consider the sources, the inherent biases, taking information from multiple sources, evaluating it, and coming to reasoned conclusions.

[quote=”Valdron”]Not to put too fine a point on things. But wasn’t the stated reason for going into Afghanistan in the first place was to get Osama Bin Laden? Wasn’t that the demand President Bush made: Hand over Osama or we’ll go and get him ourselves. How come he’s not important any more.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]He’s important. I’m just being realistic. And as with Nazi war criminals, it may take decades to bring him to justice, or we may never know for sure. We’re pretty sure Hitler committed suicide, but we never got hold of his body.[/quote]

Actually, the Russians got hold of his body, compared the dental records, and shared their findings with American doctors and experts. It was verified to everyones satisfaction.

And yes, I can accept a certain amount of realism. We won’t get him right away. But then again, it offends me a little to see the guy minimalized.

[quote=”SgtDraino”]People that have always been against these actions like to hold Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein over our heads, and say that because we don’t have them yet, everything is a failure. That is not realistic.[/quote]

Two points.

First of all, we’ve got a right to hold people accountable to their own words and statements. So if P Bush holds up Osama Bin Laden as the scourge of the world one week, invades a country on the explicit grounds of getting him, and then two weeks later tells us he wasn’t really that important…. Well, I for one am entitled to be a little cheesed. Same thing with Saddam Hussein and these fictional weapons of mass destruction.

Second, at some point, we have to gage success or failure by some standard that relates to the objectives going in. That’s just common sense. The Afghanistan mess fails on just about every sensible standard.

[quote=”Valdron”]Basically, there’s stuff if you keep your eyes open and make a minimal effort to look for it.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Ever heard, “Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear?” Take a close look and most of the accounts coming out of the “war on terror,” from either side, and you will almost always find someone with an axe to grind. Ulterior motives.[/quote]

So what you gonna do. Just ignore everything and go with your gut? Read tea leaves? Consult your fortune cookie?

You take what you can find, and then you assess it carefully, and you form your opinions. New evidence comes along, you re-evaluate those opinions.

[quote=”Valdron”]Canada has 7500 troops in Afghanistan the last time I looked. So far Canada’s major casualties have come when American fighter pilots hopped up on amphetamines opened fire on them. Not that I’m pointing fingers.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Oh, I’m sure you would NEVER point fingers. 🙂 Friendly fire? Does that actually happen? Wow. The amphetamine thing sounds doofy, though.[/quote]

The amphetamine thing is what sent me ballistic. It seems that US fighter pilots in Afghanistan, and other theatres, were regularly prescribed amphetamines to extend their mission capability. More missions, longer, etc. These amphetamines are prescribed by Air Force doctors on instructions from superior officers, theoretically, pilots have the right to refuse them i think. But overall, the situation seems to result in almost unregulated self medication.

Both pilots involved in the ‘friendly fire’ incident, were on amphetamines. I would assume that this was not unusual, but have not verified any other documented instances of amphetamines connected with wedding bombings or peculiar friendly fire incidents during, say, the Iraq invasion (I’m thinking of one particular incident where an American jet fighter fired on a clearly marked british convoy and ignored both flags and radio messages). But it certainly does make you think….

[quote=”Valdron”]Actually, no its not. The Governments job is paving the roads, building and maintaining bridges, keeping schools, libaries, childrens wading pools, and hospitals going, national defence, making sure that people don’t commit crimes, ensuring a level playing field, national defence and things like that.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Granted, there are certainly aspects of peoples lives that the government should not regulate or define. But there are also many aspects that are regulated and defined. That’s what laws do, regulate and define. You cannot kill, killing is wrong. Regulated, defined. You can not defraud me of my life savings, fraud is wrong. Regulated, defined. Etc.[/quote]

Not good enough. Killing, assault, theft, fraud are all actions imposed by people against the will of other people. Completely non-consensual. Basically, a good yardstick of rights is that your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins. This is a legitimate area for Government.

[quote=”Valdron”]With all due respect, you set priorities in life cause there isn’t enough time or enough resources to take care of everything.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Of course. But we don’t always do the most important things all the time. It’s impossible. Sometimes the timing isn’t right, and sometimes it’s simply because we’re human. Are you suggesting I stop writing traffic tickets altogether, because traffic infractions aren’t important enough? [/quote]

I used to work a tow truck, and we would drag all sorts of twisted wreckage off the road. I found an ear once. When I was with Justice, I prosecuted drunk drivers, and had many occasions to see what could happen when someone ran a red light or drove too fast for road conditions. So, if you’re asking me to minimize traffic infractions, nope, sorry, you have the wrong guy. I’ve got no sympathy for guys who habitually run stop signs, because, even if they’re in the clear 99% of the time, then one time in a hundred, they’re going to kill someone.

At the same time, I still stand by my point that in our personal lives, and in our government policy, we have an obligation to set intelligent priorities. Fools and their money are soon parted.
Poor allocation of resources wastes those resources, and sooner or later, you come to the point where your budget is gone. You have to decide where you are going to focus on.

[quote=”Valdron”]Ashcroft has chosen to spend $40,000 to have the bare breasts of statues of Justice covered up, and he’s invested a huge amount of time and money in an undercover operation to bust 11 hookers in New Orleans. He’s clamped down hard on medical marijuana, and he’s sent Tommy Chong to jail for six months for selling bongs. That tells you where his priorities are.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Don’t get me started on the “war on drugs” or other vice-enforcement. You and I would likely be in agreement on most of these. But Ashcroft does not make the laws, he enforces them. That’s his job. Big laws, and little laws, he’s supposed to enforce them all. The breast thing was just silly, though.[/quote]

Sure, he should enforce them all. In theory, he does. But in real life, he sets his priorities just like everyone else. Seen Ken Lay do the perp walk yet? Seems that Enron isn’t quite as high a priority as New Orleans hookers… Gotta wonder about that. Also, Ashcroft deliberately downgraded terrorism and investigations of arab/saudi activities… in favour of… what?

[quote=”Valdron”]Are these good priorities. Maybe. Maybe not. But given priorities like that, you should stop wondering why 9/11 happened.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]I don’t wonder why 9/11 happened. I wonder why it hasn’t happened again. The terrorists’ plan was low-tech and easy, I see no reason why it couldn’t be pulled off again, no matter what measures are taken.[/quote]

Well, especially since no measures are being taken. Your airport security is still the worst in the world. Congress held up nationalizing airport security cause they didn’t want to risk creating union jobs. You’ve got 1500 sites, ranging from nuclear power plants to chemical factories, etc., for which no security is provided. Meanwhile, the air marshalls program is being cut back, the US refuses to outfit civilian commercial airplanes used for military transport with anti-missile defenses, and police and fire departments – ie, the first responders, are still being shortchanged on adequate radios, supplies or training.

This recent blackout showed very little more than how completely inept Tom Ridge and the department of homeland security is at actually dealing with security issues or responding to a crisis.

No offence, but when it comes to actually protecting the security of the American people… as opposed to hatcheting political enemies, or knocking off oil rich third world countries… it seems the administrations policy is to spread legs, bend over, and whistle.

[quote=”Valdron”]If that’s all they want, then why is everyone getting so upset…[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Something about deciding “what opinions I should hold.”[/quote]

You can hold whatever opinions you want. If you feel homosexual acts are immoral, then here’s my advice: Do not engage in these acts. Do not watch gay pornography. Do not have gay people over to your house to have sex or watch TV.

On the other hand, if a gay couple holding hands walks by you on the street, its not your business unless they try and clothesline you, a la WWE.

[quote=”Valdron”]I would expect that homosexuality is normal behaviour for homosexuals. That’s the point, isn’t it. If it wasn’t normal behaviour for homosexuals, then they wouldn’t be called that. They’d be called ‘thinkingaboutitsexuals’ or something bizarre like that.[/quote]

[quote=”SgtDraino”]Yes, yes. And cooking fries is normal behavior for a fry cook, feeding children is normal behavior for a parent, and murdering people is normal behavior for a serial killer. From that view, ALL behavior is “normal” behavior. I think you know that I’m refering to “normal” as it pertains to the “norms” of society. Homosexual behavior is still not considered “normal.” At least not by society in the US. They’re trying hard, but they’re not there yet.[/quote]

I absolutely defend the rights of fry cooks to cook fries, irregardless of those darned vegans. I also defend the rights of parents to feed their children.

Pedophiles and Serial Killers, on the other hand, are doing stuff to the unwilling, so they’re up against other peoples rights, and are properly regulated and imprisoned by the government.

If two men are engaged in a game of hiding of salami not their own, then that is their business, and I don’t want to know about it.
But I sure as hell do not intend to stop it. Mark my words, I have no intention of inserting myself in between the two of them.