A Constant and Unending War: The USA vs The World

Craven de Kere wrote:

dlowan,

It's not worth it.

I know.

But sometimes I just feel a need to say SOMETHING about this sort of "thinking".

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

dlowan wrote:
You attack my definition of cop - while ignoring the important fact that this is the definition of cop favoured by the US - (and Oz and most of the west of course) - and part of the parcel of values which the more - yes, CARTOONISH - thinkers amongst you wish to see enforced by the wondrous new world cop.

Funny given your signature.

Heehee - sometimes irony is more fun than a good scotch and soda.

I just realized there is another irony going on, too. But I ain't gonna say what it is.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Bill, the 'well, we got us one badass murdering sob' argument doesn't fly when there are at least twenty equally badass murdering sobs still afloat in the world.

It's a start Joe. You have to start some somewhere... hence the "I do hope we don't stop there"

dlowan wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
dlowan,

It's not worth it.

I know.

But sometimes I just feel a need to say SOMETHING about this sort of "thinking".

Don't follow Craven's childish lead, Dlowan. That's all I get from him anymore. Over and over, my topic relevant posts are attacked with his petty condescension. He's probably still smarting from his last couple of groundless attacks on my posts being exposed as the pointless BS that they were. Ever hear about the kid who dish it out, but couldn't take it?

Joe Nation had asked for conflicting opinions and then asked why no one had voted cop... so I answered, honestly, and in my opinion; that's what he had asked for. See for yourself. What was wrong with that?

Feel free to consider and call my opinions crap if you wish. I know that's a popular opinion in your sewing circle... and A2K is certainly dominated by likeminded individuals... But just think how boring these conversations would be if everyone agreed. Craven's pretentious habit of assuming those who disagree with him are stupid, ill informed and/or not worth responding to doesn't really suit you. And I, for one, find it very insulting.

0 Replies

Bill,

You are projecting, I am simply telling dlowan it's not worth arguing about.

And I'll not argue this with you either, I have no need for your incivility and there's no redeeming profit.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill,

You are projecting, I am simply telling dlowan it's not worth arguing about.

And I'll not argue this with you either, I have no need for your incivility and there's no redeeming profit.

Thanks for putting the exclamation on my point. You and I have discussed this very subject at considerable length, on several occasions, seemingly to the mutual enjoyment of us both, before you decided I was unworthy. I wish you'd just PM me with whatever your problem is, instead of sniping out childishly at my posts and then retreating to some phony facade of civility. The pattern you leave is crystal clear.

0 Replies

I'm not saying you are unworthy Bill, just that the argument is profitless.

Like I said, I really don't wish to argue this Bill. I see no profit in it and have no desire to keep trying not to respond to your insults. This will be mylast post on this matter.

I simply have less time for profitless arguments these days. I avoid most arguments now. Not just yours.

I'll especially avoid arguments that tend toward simply being rabid exchanges of insults. I avoid arguments whose premise is cleaving unto absurdity (yes, people will have different ideas on what is and what is not absurd, for the purpose of managing my own time I use my own estimation).

In the past I had the time to wade through it, and when both sides tire of the insults then sometimes very profitable arguments can proceed.

It's not about diametrically opposing views. You know me well and I don't shy from them.

It's about managing my time better. In the past I would have gone all the rounds with you, these days I'll swallow my pride and spend my time more wisely.

If that means letting you think I am backing off and being "beaten" in arguments so be it. If it means being "shown up" so be it. I can learn more with the time I have available if I continue to change the way I interact by being more selective in the exchanges I commit to.

I am committed to approaching discussion far less competitively than I have in the past and reserving arguments for profitable and most importantly thoughtful exchange.

You can take it pseronally if you'd like, but the truth is that I haven't seen very many arguments at all these days that are worth it.

I wish you would respect it. I just don't wish to argue with you.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I'm not saying you are unworthy Bill, just that the argument is profitless.

The "argument" as you put it, is, or at least was, the topic of the thread. If you find it profitless, why not just abstain?

Craven de Kere wrote:

Like I said, I really don't wish to argue this Bill. I see no profit in it and have no desire to keep trying not to respond to your insults.

That's rich, considering your insults are the sole reason for this exchange. Idea

Craven de Kere wrote:

I wish you would respect it. I just don't wish to argue with you.

When you ignore me Craven, I usually return the favor... just like I do when you're respectful... or disrespectful. :wink: I have mad respect for your ability to express yourself, Craven... so I find it highly unlikely that I've been misreading you. When you show up to insult me by way of encouraging others to ignore me (twice in the last three appearances, isn't it?), it usually works and I am insulted. Reap what you sow.

0 Replies

I did not insult you Bill, and I am sorry you feel that way.

Have a good day.

0 Replies

Have a good day.

0 Replies

Speaking of having a nice day, I took the 911 out for a spin today driving the I-40 out to the Rio Puerco bridge (one of the few old rte 66 bridges still standing.) well anyway, I left it in 3rd gear and red-lined it for the 15 miles out to the bridge and drove back in 5th just idling along about 85 per, the cops are all gone to Iraq for 18 months penalty box time for roughing the passer or some such thing. It was a very bright blue New Mexico sky and 61 degrees. I had a nice day.

0 Replies

I know that bridge well, Dys. How's the weather down your way?

0 Replies

Er...

. if my two favorite planets still revolving around the sun can re-focus for a moment...

. the question still remains..

Can the United States of America sustain it's role as policeman of the world, arbiter of dis-agreements and downright hate-filled conflicts, exporter of democracy, free trade and open media without being swamped by the load? Especially when GW Bush seems hellbent on trying to do all that without allies.

Joe (wrapped tightly in the flag as anyone, but still...) Nation

0 Replies

sure Joe, all it takes is cash and blood. We got plenty of both, right?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Can the United States of America sustain it's role as policeman of the world,

The answer is no. But as Ignatieff said in todays Times, George thinks he is doing gods' work, and as far as he is concerned, that is the only ally he needs.

0 Replies

.. and bloody scary, isn't it?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
Bill, the 'well, we got us one badass murdering sob' argument doesn't fly when there are at least twenty equally badass murdering sobs still afloat in the world.
It's a start Joe. You have to start some somewhere... hence the “I do hope we don't stop there”

dlowan wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
dlowan,

It's not worth it.

I know.

But sometimes I just feel a need to say SOMETHING about this sort of "thinking".

Don't follow Craven's childish lead, Dlowan. That’s all I get from him anymore. Over and over, my topic relevant posts are attacked with his petty condescension. He's probably still smarting from his last couple of groundless attacks on my posts being exposed as the pointless BS that they were. Ever hear about the kid who dish it out, but couldn’t take it?

Joe Nation had asked for conflicting opinions and then asked why no one had voted cop... so I answered, honestly, and in my opinion; that’s what he had asked for. See for yourself. What was wrong with that?

Feel free to consider and call my opinions crap if you wish. I know that’s a popular opinion in your sewing circle... and A2K is certainly dominated by likeminded individuals... But just think how boring these conversations would be if everyone agreed. Craven’s pretentious habit of assuming those who disagree with him are stupid, ill informed and/or not worth responding to doesn’t really suit you. And I, for one, find it very insulting.

Actually, re following childish leads, you are being quite unfair to both myself and Craven - I was, in fact, following your lead, as you were the one who mentioned cartoonish on this thread.

And I don't assume YOU are stupid etc - I DO think your views re this world cop thing are.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Actually, re following childish leads, you are being quite unfair to both myself and Craven - I was, in fact, following your lead, as you were the one who mentioned cartoonish on this thread.

And I don't assume YOU are stupid etc - I DO think your views re this world cop thing are.

My apologies if I've offended you. My use of "cartoonish" was specifically in anticipation of Craven's response and I assure you he knows well why. Enough about that...

My apologies to you too, Joe, for my part in this distraction.

Joe Nation wrote:

Can the United States of America sustain it's role as policeman of the world, arbiter of dis-agreements and downright hate-filled conflicts, exporter of democracy, free trade and open media without being swamped by the load?

I agree with the others that the answer is no. Spreading democracy and expanding free trade will end our economic supremacy, eventually. No good deed goes unpunished. The cost of peace, to the U.S., if we were too succeed at spreading democracy globally and establish truly free trade, would dwarf the cost of war... comparatively speaking in terms of economy, that is. But, IMO, it is the only way to avoid facing a future where terrorists make Hiroshima look as trivial as the September 11th attack by comparison. Or worse still; a world where security requires an iron fist (like China's for instance) in order to preserve order and prevent the type of attacks described above. Technology practically guarantees that killing power will continue to increase...

As bad as the world may think our reign at the top is... who knows what our successor may bring? I vote we clean up the world's most dangerous offenders before our successor arrives. Perhaps then, if we get very, very lucky, we can truly turn a corner and leave the infighting behind. Not unlike the Christian's Armageddon prediction, I fear doom really may be the alternative.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

the question still remains..

Can the United States of America sustain it's role as policeman of the world, arbiter of dis-agreements and downright hate-filled conflicts, exporter of democracy, free trade and open media without being swamped by the load? Especially when GW Bush seems hellbent on trying to do all that without allies.

IMO, yes the US can do so.

0 Replies

I didn't think it was possible to hold two opposing positions at the same time, but the present American administration is doing that. On the one hand, they, to use GWB's words, lead the march towards freedom and moral values, while with the other they work just as hard to lower the tax burden on the powerful and starve the US government of the funds it needs to lead the march towards freedom and moral values.

The first I fear is a smokescreen made of the bones and blood of those who must serve and the innocent casualties of war, the second is the actual objective of the people now in charge: to make government powerless in order for the multi-national companies and corporations to fully succeed as the empowered forces of the world.

Dictators and despots don't bother such entities, it only takes a few billion in bribes to keep the despots happy while business continues as usual. We've done this before, had a US government designed to stay out of the way of business while giving the people in it's way no protection. It was called the late 1800's and lead to a series of booms and busts and finally the Great Depression. It took the Great Depression for us in the US to finally empower our government to look after the governed and the results were Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Health and Safety Acts and MedicAid/Medicare.

This administration while beating the drums of freedom is preparing to dismantle as many of those protections as they can and they are going to do it in the name of freedom. The cop of the world is on the take, who's surprised?

Joe (blue from holding my breath, wondering what next?) Nation

0 Replies

Joe said: "Who else does this? Australia? Canada? FRANCE? Italy? Germany? OH, how about Great Britain? or Spain? How about RUSSIA? Finally, I remember, they have troops in Chechnya......... and how about China, does Tibet count? They have had troops there for almost forty years."

Oz does it only on a tiny scale befitting our tiny population - and we have a lot of border to watch.

We have some toops protecting what is basically a police force, and legal and other democracy experts, in the Solomon Islands - after wide scale violence and the decay of civic structures occurred there - and we were invited in.

We expect to be involved in a similar project in Papua Nuiguini - which is falling victim to widespread institutional corruption and the failure of law and order. Police have already been sent to work side-by-side with their police, to attempt to curb the indigenous force's violence and corruption.

Our troops still, I believe, form the majority of the UN military presence in East Timor - protecting them from Indonesian inspired guerillas.

We have a force in Iraq - and, but I am not sure about this, mebbe still in Afghanistan.

We often provide troops for various United Nations activities.

Interestingly, I gather that OUR military is rather overstretched by recent activities, too - at least so my step-son says - who has been in the Oz Army for 10 years. He says that, in order to get more folk in the military, entry requirements have been relaxed, training times shortened, and that the resultant soldiers are not reaching the standard of colleague that he is used to.

He has actually worked quite a lot with American personnel too - having done a sort of exchange program with your guys.

Heehee - it is kind of funny that you ask about "world cop" stuff - and my country seems to be developing a style of sending ACTUAL cops to countries in trouble in "our" region - with some military protection (though the cops in papua are working without this) - ours are sent where they are invited, though.

0 Replies

A Constant and Unending War: The USA vs The World

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know