c.i., would it not be more profitable for those opposed to current administration policy to formulate and promote viable alternatives?
Attacking something, complaining about it, calling it names, and obstructing its efforts hardly does anything to solve the perceived problem. As opposed to "This is bad", where's "This is better"?
The Right has a united, foucussed front. The Left is as, if not more, engaged in infighting as it is in substantively challenging its traditional foe.
A couple years is not really a very long time ... The Left would be well advised to get busy, I should think.
timber
I guess if we had a Hitler in this country who was compelling us to disagree and dislike (or, more likely, hate) another country... This suggests that the other countries who dislike our war policy are not free societyies and are closed off to any outside information other than their own propaganda. What countries are these?
timber, Here's my considered opinion about what needs to be done: a) provide an immediate tax cut through reducing the payroll taxes to improve our economy, not some tax exemptions that benefit only the rich, b) be more engaged with world problems, especially in Israel and Africa, c) help the citizens in the US with health insurance, and control the cost of drugs by charging the same for all countries (the same drug should not be cheaper in Canada or Mexico), d) institute ecology improvement laws to reduce toxins, and safeguard our environment, e) put all those crooks that cheated their companies, employees, and investors in prison for 25 years or more, and f) GW gets an "F" on all these counts. c.i.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, former CIA director James Wollsey just said in an interview
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,231338,00.html
"We start with Iran", because they are the weakest. He says that Hitler did less (up to 1936) than Saddan. The Europeans would act with their appeasement politic,like the acted after with Hitler, knowing about thousands of deaths in Germany.
...
"Oil is the lifeline for all industrial nations. ... We must take away the oil weapon from the Near East."
(I hope, some paper will report this, European only, I suppose.)
Support for US
But other ordinary Iranians, interviewed at random in the streets, were inclined to favour an American attack.
"My belief is that they did a very good job in Afghanistan," said one engineer. "They saved all the people there after about 20 years of hell, and now I'm sure they're going to save both the world, and the Iraqi people."
With such mixed opinions prevailing among ordinary people, there is little chance that a US attack on Iraq would produce any serious unrest or dissent in Iran.
Ritual official condemnation and establishment-authorised anti-US demonstrations might happen, as they did over Afghanistan, but would be unlikely to get out of hand.
The precedent in Afghanistan - another of Iran's neighbours - is also cited by some senior Iranian officials who are not against US intervention to change the Iraqi regime, although official government policy is against.
Afghan model
"The new Afghan Government, of Mr Karzai, is better for us than the Taleban Government was, and it hasn't created any problems for Iran," said Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, the country's Vice-President.
Lifted this from the BBC. Entire article can be found on MSN newspage.
There are dissenters
and proponents of US intervention in Iran. Many of them, and some officials in Iran see US intervention as a savior to the people of Iraq, and an Afghani-model government as a stablizing influence for the region.
Maybe not a good smattering gets included in all these polls.
c.i.--Bush just threw billions at Africa... What more do you think we should do?
LW said:
I guess if we had a Hitler in this country who was compelling us to disagree and dislike (or, more likely, hate) another country...
I hope you're not suggesting this is all Hitler did, and I hope you are not suggesting that anything compared to a Hitler exists in US.
Lash, Those billions that Bush threw at Africa; where's the beef? It only shows Bush doesn't know how to spend money - properly. c.i.
c.i.--What is the beef of which you speak?
You said Bush should concern himself with a number of issues.
I pointed out one example of a magnanimous effort in the direction of one of them, Africa.
You criticised it.
Was he wrong to give the untold millions? (And now, for the question which seems to stop all Bushwackers in their tracks....)
What do you think he should do in leiu of the huge financial gift?
1) Set up an American regime to manage the hapless African continent?
2) Give another billion?
3) Fly them to California?
WHAT???
Taking my hypothetical suggestion out of the context of the rest of the statement is transparant (despite the admitted inference which certainly hit a hot button) -- I was obviously suggesting that that part of Hitler's propaganda was to convince their citizens to attack other countries. In this case, for other government leaders to also convince citizens that another country has a right to attack (not doing so well in England at this point). What countries who oppose our war policy as it stands today are their media and citizens compelled to think that we are going too far? Propaganda, of course, can still be propaganda even if the source is the Pope.
We have a very tenuous coalition right now. It's going to have to get a lot stronger. I don't see any action, just propaganda.
Once Hitler convinced his country that there was a group of people, who were less human, and therefore deserved to be wiped off the face of the earth, convincing them of other things was probably pretty simple.
I read it and responded to it in the context you wrote it. I also hope you note that I made no accusations about your comment, but asked what you meant.
I am generally transparent. I call it as I see it, and speak plainly. I like transparency. Sometimes refer to it as honesty.
timberlandko wrote:c.i., would it not be more profitable for those opposed to current administration policy to formulate and promote viable alternatives?
Attacking something, complaining about it, calling it names, and obstructing its efforts hardly does anything to solve the perceived problem. As opposed to "This is bad", where's "This is better"?
The Right has a united, foucussed front. The Left is as, if not more, engaged in infighting as it is in substantively challenging its traditional foe.
A couple years is not really a very long time ... The Left would be well advised to get busy, I should think.
timber
That actually strikes me as a bit funny. Most Americans won't see it - but to a lot of outsiders the U.S. looks like it's divided between right and slightly right of centre politically. There doesn't appear to be a viable left and the centre seems empty as well. It's a matter of very slight degree, but to me (and others i speak with here) americans all seem to be on the right of the political spectrum.
Exactly, ehBeth!
"The American parties are located to the right of their German counterparts. Former President Clinton for instance, a democrat, would have to be placed at the right wing of the German conservative party CDU. Some people at the right end of the American republican party are so radical that they would probably be under surveillance in Germany." (from a comparison Germany <> USA at
http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/us-d.html#communism )
Clinton was the perfect republican except he still liked sex (most republicans and democrats keep that part hidden)
Germany seems to have her hands full with her own radicals.
Lash Goth - i think that what you'll find in most other 'western' countries, is radicals at both ends of the spectrum. Radicalism in politics is normal and to be expected. It's just unusual to have a political spectrum so heavily tipped to one side. Or seems unusual to me.
When i have political discussions with friends/colleagues/acquaintances IRL, I expect (and usually find) to hear from the left, right and centre and radicals from the left and right. When I visit with friends in the U.S., they all appear to be discussing tiny degrees of the political right, but not realizing it. I'm always tempted to say 'hey guys, you know you're agreeing, doncha'.
I was referring to the article we looked at on extremists at universities in Germany.
And, Walter, I'd like to admit to a problem I'm trying to work out with myself, since our discussion is an example.
I tried to be sensitive to your dislike of criticism of Germany. Yet, you don't seem to be concerned about criticizing my country.
You state that members of my political party are so extreme that your government would have them under surveillance. When you make such a comment, I'd think you would expect a response similar to mine.
Every group has extremists. Every country has extremists. I imagine if certain Germans were to come here, we'd have reason to follow them, as well.
ehBeth wrote:Lash Goth - i think that what you'll find in most other 'western' countries, is radicals at both ends of the spectrum. Radicalism in politics is normal and to be expected. It's just unusual to have a political spectrum so heavily tipped to one side. Or seems unusual to me.
When i have political discussions with friends/colleagues/acquaintances IRL, I expect (and usually find) to hear from the left, right and centre and radicals from the left and right. When I visit with friends in the U.S., they all appear to be discussing tiny degrees of the political right, but not realizing it. I'm always tempted to say 'hey guys, you know you're agreeing, doncha'.
Do you know what is going on in the streets of America today? If you are saying American liberalism is considered to the right, where do the views of American liberals lean right of European views?
Lash Gosh
a) I didn't state. It's a quote. (URL given as source, quote in quotation marks.)
b) this quote says: "that they would probably...".
They wouldn't be under surveillance here. However, if a German would have some political ideas like some of them, that could be against our law here. The surveillance is regulating by law, the so-called "radical law", and done by the police/federal agency for internal security.
I'm not sure, but i think German extremists know they're viewed as extremists. I'm not as sure that Americans who other countries would perceive as extremists, would realize they are considered as extremists.
A number of times (not so much on this forum), I've run into people posting 'why do people hate america? we do so much to help others.' If they have to ask that, they're not really aware of the rest of the world. That lack of self-perception is perhaps a result of being a 'super-power'. Perhaps a dangerous result.
