Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zhivvy

Following the middle east

Recommended Posts

The Republicans are bungling as well.   They criticized President Obama for not acting aggressively enough and early enough with Mubarak in Egypt.  However, President Obama did well with Egypt, and Egypt is an entirely different case from Libya. Among other attributes--most notably a more sophisticated populace--Egypt also has a military with strong ties to the U.S.   There was always the luxury of assuming some stability in the aftermath of Egypt's uprising.

Libya is an entirely different story, and essentially a dysfunctional state. Pressuring President Obama into responding with aggressive calls for Gaddafi to step down was not a wise course of action.  Allowing himself to be pressured is even less wise. Stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Republicans are bungling as well.   They criticized President Obama for not acting aggressively enough and early enough with Mubarak in Egypt.  However, President Obama did well with Egypt, and Egypt is an entirely different case from Libya. Among other attributes--most notably a more sophisticated populace--Egypt also has a military with strong ties to the U.S.   There was always the luxury of assuming some stability in the aftermath of Egypt's uprising.

Libya is an entirely different story, and essentially a dysfunctional state. Pressuring President Obama into responding with aggressive calls for Gaddafi to step down was not a wise course of action.  Allowing himself to be pressured is even less wise. Stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s coming through a hole in the air
]from those nights in tiananmen square
It’s coming from the feel
That it ain’t exactly real
Or it’s real, but it ain’t exactly there
]from the wars against disorder
]from the sirens night and day
]from the fires of the homeless
]from the ashes of the gay
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming through a crack in the wall
On a visionary flood of alcohol
]from the staggering account
Of the sermon on the mount
Which I don’t pretend to understand at all
It’s coming from the silence
On the dock of the bay
]from the brave, the bold, the battered
Heart of chevrolet
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming from the sorrow on the street
The holy places where the races meet
]from the homicidal bitchin’
That goes down in every kitchen
To determine who will serve and who will eat
]from the wells of disappointment
Where the women kneel to pray
For the grace of God in the desert here
And the desert far away
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty ship of state!
To the shores of need
Past the reefs of greed
Through the squalls of hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on...

It’s coming to america first
The cradle of the best and of the worst
It’s here they got the range
And the machinery for change
And it’s here they got the spiritual thirst
It’s here the family’s broken
And it’s here the lonely say
That the heart has got to open
In a fundamental way
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

It’s coming from the women and the men
O baby, we’ll be making love again
We’ll be going down so deep
That the river’s going to weep
And the mountain’s going to shout amen!
It’s coming like the tidal flood
Beneath the lunar sway
Imperial, mysterious
In amorous array
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
That time cannot decay
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
This little wild bouquet
Democracy is coming to the u.s.a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at Libya, and think the same thing I did with Egypt: any change is going to have to come from the Libyans themselves, or it's not going to work. Witness Iraq: the U.S. went in and overthrew the government, and the Iraqis still have not really "stepped up." The only thing the U.S. can really do is to offer humanitarian and evacuation assistance, and keep speaking out against Qaddafi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Barbara: Wow, did you write that poem? If not, who did, please?

 

@LinneaS: I just want to be clear on my opinions:

 

It is not the case that the US cannot do anything. It can do a lot, and is/ will.

 

Nor am I saying there should not be a military act against Gaddafi--more likely than not, there will need to be.  I am only saying that this should not be a US-led initiative, at least not on the surface.

 

I am also NOT saying that military action would require a UN resolution--it certainly would not.

 

Before anything happens, it really needs to be determined WHO, exactly, within the Libyan rebels are asking for this foreign intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me a cynic? lmao. I'm probably the most cynical person you'll ever come across when it comes to the US and it's involvement in the World's affairs. And I have good reason. Since 1775, there has been a total of only 26 years that the U.S. has not been involved in conflict. Since 1990, the US has been continually involved in conflict in Africa and the Middle East, amongst other countries.

 

In many cases, the U.S has been the cause and "solution" (I use this term loosely) of those conflicts. For instance, the Gulf War of 1990-92 happened because the US backed Iraq in the Iran Iraq War so that Iran would not succeed. The result? The war officially ended in 1988 with the signing of a ceasefire between both countries. By this time Iraq was virtually bankrupt and owed a huge debt to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Debts that neither country would forgive. This debt was exacerbated by the reduction in oil prices. Iraq accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas, and that it was also slant drilling into Iraqi territory. Furthermore Iraq felt that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi territory but that the UK had created a separate country from that region after WWI, which Iraq felt was created by the British to limit any Iraqi government from threatening Britain's Domination. It was due to the above reasons (full or partially) that Iraq invaded Kuwait.

 

Who was responsible for the cause of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

But you know, this is a similar story to how WWII started... The Treaty of Versaille. I prefer to call it "The Treaty for WWII". Who came up with the treaty? Again, the U.S. and the U.K. were well in the thick of it. It set the stage for a second world war.

 

Who was responsible for this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Who was mainly responsible for the solution of this situation? The U.S. and the U.K.

 

Now we have the Libyan situation.

 

The U.S. backed Libya's independence from Italy in 1951. It was only when Gadaffi got into power in 1969 that the U.S.' relationship with Libya became strained. And for the most part, this was justified, esp. because of his support for terrorist organisations. He also used oil embargoes to try and force the west to terminate their support for Israel. The U.S. has had a number of hostile confrontations with Libya in the 1980s where there were an exchange of missiles where at least 4 Libyan planes were shot down. Incidently, these skirmishes took place in what Libya considers territorial waters, whereas the U.S. considers it international waters.

 

Gadaffi is responsible for acts of terrorism, including the Berlin Discotheque bombing, the Lockerbie disaster, and UTA Flight 772 bombing. Throughout the 80s Libya's relationship with the West and also with the Soviet Union was becoming more and more strained. Libya had to re-think its objectives and throughout the 90's it worked to improve its international relationships but with UN sanctions imposed upon it in 1992, sanctions which were not challenged by the Arab states, the Libyans relationships with both the Arab and Western countries were severely diminished. So, Gadaffi decided to improve his ties with the African states. This has worked out quite well.

 

In the meantime Libya has paid compensation for those affected by its terrorist acts in the 70s and 80s. This included paying compensation for the killing of a UK policewoman outside their embassy in London in 1984. This act helped to improve their relationship with the UK. Throughout the noughties, Libya has made further steps to improve its relationships with the West. This included dropping its program to create weapons of mass destruction. It's compensation for the aforementioned terrorist acts paved the way for the U.S. to improve ties with Libya in 2008. Gadaffi even got to visit the U.S. for the first time in 2009. The most notable development was Italy's agreement to pay Libya 5 billion dollars for it's military occupation of the country pre-1951. Interestingly, Italy is the biggest exporter of military weapons to Libya.

 

Italy was also one of the countries that signed the Treat of Versaille (The Treaty of WWII).

 

What's my biggest problem with the U.S. taking military action against Libya? The U.S. ties with Libya for the most part have been strained. Maybe in the early days of the state's independence, when it was a monarchy, were it's ties at its strongest. And it's no harm to mention that in those days, the UK was it's biggest supplier of arms.

 

Consider the following:

Do the people of Libya want the West to help them take the Libyan leader out of power?

Who is mainly responsible for leading the rebels?

Will the state of Libya disintegrate with the removal of Gadaffi?

Would Western involvement solve the situation or make it worse?

Would it be better if someone close to Gadaffi end his rule?

If there are many who profit greatly from Gadaffi's rule, it may prove extremely difficult to get to him because if the game is up for gadaffi, the game is up for those individuals also.

There is little reliable information coming out of Libya to know how many exactly support the man.

If the West go in, and to quote Colin Powell: China shop rules: you break it, you own it. Who wants to "own" Libya?

Who, in the Western World, would be foolish enough to rise up against an Arab leader when there is so much Muslim hostility?

 

The Libyan Revolution was initiated by the Libyan people. It is their revolution. It is their war. When they initiated it, they must have expected their leader's reaction. There is no turning back. Either they will usurp their leader or they will fail. In any case, whatever your view of Gadaffi, if any military action is taken by the Western nations could cause far greater problems than he staying in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.  They want to be  armed and foreign airstrikes leveled against Ghaddafi's forces, but no foreign ground troops.  And they are calling for the no-fly zone to be imposed.

But, it is not yet clear WHO, exactly, are these Libyan's calling for this foreign military intervention.  Do they even represent the Libyan people?  Or are they serious trouble makers taking cover under the popular uprising, which is quite possible.

According to the US Secretary of State and intelligence services, many of the al quaida fighters operating in other parts of the world come from Libya--especially from the now "free and liberated" Eastern part of the country that the "rebels" hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.  They want to be  armed and foreign airstrikes leveled against Ghaddafi's forces, but no foreign ground troops.  And they are calling for the no-fly zone to be imposed.

But, it is not yet clear WHO, exactly, are these Libyan's calling for this foreign military intervention.  Do they even represent the Libyan people?  Or are they serious trouble makers taking cover under the popular uprising, which is quite possible.

According to the US Secretary of State and intelligence services, many of the al quaida fighters operating in other parts of the world come from Libya--especially from the now "free and liberated" Eastern part of the country that the "rebels" hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.  They want to be  armed and foreign airstrikes leveled against Ghaddafi's forces, but no foreign ground troops.  And they are calling for the no-fly zone to be imposed.

But, it is not yet clear WHO, exactly, are these Libyan's calling for this foreign military intervention.  Do they even represent the Libyan people?  Or are they serious trouble makers taking cover under the popular uprising, which is quite possible.

According to the US Secretary of State and intelligence services, many of the al quaida fighters operating in other parts of the world come from Libya--especially from the now "free and liberated" Eastern part of the country that the "rebels" hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that the rebels have formally asked for assistance yet you have no idea who the rebels are exactly.  So who formally asked?   And where is this formal request?  What is considered a formal request?  A bunch of unknowns talking on BBC or PBS?  

You have a definite opinion on what the West should do in regard to Libya but you clearly show that your knowledge of what is going on in the region is, at best, muddled.  

A better understanding of what is exactly going on in Libya is required before anyone jumps to conclusions and makes a mistake that cost them more in the long run... but then again, the U.S. is used to making mistakes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='security_in_anonymity wrote:


mummy']

It's clear that foreign governments are concerned that Libya doesn't slip into Civil War for a fear it would have a detrimental impact on oil reserves.  Their concern for the Libyan people is a secondary mission.  Whether or not Gadaffi is in any position to withhold oil sales is not the issue here.  The primary concern is to save the oil.
You are so cynical.  But since you believe this so strongly, have you tried to live a fossil-fuel free life?  Try it.  It might be an interesting exercise for you, and you would be playing your part to diminish the rapacious appetite for oil, which, you believe, supersedes all else.  Now you realize, this means no gas, no electricity, no plastics, no clothes you did not make yourself--by hand, no food you did not grow yourself (and without fertilizer),   etc, etc....

I have always done my best to minimize my fossil footprint to the extreme.  But without the stuff, unfortunately, developed society cannot function.  The developing world is lucky--much of it has yet to build infrastructures and when they do, hopefully they will be able to benefit from new energy technologies and will design their societies on something other than fossils.  But the rest of us are, to a certain degree, lamentably stuck.

Ireland are currently working on developing fossil fuel free energy.  It is highly likely that they will become a world leader in this respect and will make billions selling it to the rest of the world.  

I believe that once the world runs out of oil, the better it will be for humanity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To correct you, Mummy.

1.  I have repeatedly stated that I do not think the US should lead any sort of military intervention in Libya.  I don't know what you are reading and understanding from my posts.
I stand corrected.

2.  I have stated several times that information about who is leading the 'rebel' movement is unclear.  That has been my point.  So, I am not sure what would prompt you to say I am jumping to conclusions without a better understanding.
I never said you were jumping to conclusions. I'm not sure what would prompt you to say that I said that you were jumping to conclusions.

3.  For a couple of days, some political voices internationally were responding to the reported calls for assistance from Libyan rebels, who this past Tuesday said they would issue a formal request for international intervention.  Whether they formalized that request or not, I don't know.  But it is likely that even if they did, nobody bothered to acknowledge or report on it because....
Now here you have changed your tone... first you said there were "formal requests" and now you say "reported calls".  If you read up above, you will see that you even underlined that section for emphasis. The following is your words, not mine:
Members from among the Libyan "rebels" are the ones who have asked the international community, formally, for foreign military intervention.  They have asked for it.

3.  .... a majority, especially in the US,  have come around in the last couple of days to really not wanting anything to do, militarily, with this mess.  Let the Europeans deal with it.  That, or everyone just accept right now that the world might instead just stand by and watch a civil war rage in Libya.  That will mean all sorts of nasty things, including diminishing the inertia behind some of the other more-promising uprisings, like the one in Egpyt.

I understand you are anti-American, Mummy, and perhaps you are not exercising the most sophisticated analysis possible.  And, I don't really expect that on this board anyway.  But this is no reason to blatantly twist my words into the exact opposite of what I am saying.  Doing this makes you appear both puerile, mean-spirited and, most important, not overly bright.  But I understand, and will leave you to your campaign :-)

I'm not anti-American.  I am anti-American-War-Campaigns. You can think whatever you like of me.  I'm not going to join you in character assassination because my point of view, though it doesn't reflect your view, has nothing to do with my view of you personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the best of all possible worlds, our world will figure out how to build a bridge that will entice Qaddafi to walk over it and out of the country.

 

He is killing his people, and if he begins to slaughter them in the thousands, frankly I think somebody will have to do something. I think it should be the Europeans. But the likelihood of them pulling themselves together and finding the moral spine to do this is fairly slim.

 

If things come right down to it, the US may end up being the only ones willing to act, which would just piss me off.

 

I know there are a great many who would rather witness genocide in Libya than see the US take any actions to stop it.  I find such individuals loathsome.

Do you always contradict yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last I have to say on the subject of whether international intervention is required.... or rather, I'm giving the last word to the Libyan people themselves:

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good.  I am glad the rebels have backed off from asking for outside help, because we don't want to go, and this gives us an easy way out.

My opinion of the rest of the world has changed greatly over the last few years.  I have always been internationally oriented, but never as a "One World Government" type, which I think is a nice idea but essentially stupid.  It bothers me deeply when barbarism is not confronted and stopped.  But I do not see why anyone or any nation should sacrifice itself in an effort to help those who don't want the help.

I am tired of the US being criticized regardless of what it does.

I am tired of countries who have benefited greatly from US actions over the decades, now refusing to carry their share of the weight for assuring global stability.

I am tired of the lack of stiff spines among so many of the Europeans and their arrogant indifference to human suffering.  Mostly I am tired of Europeans trying to pass off their indifferent passivism as cultural sophistication.


I would like the US to focus the bulk of its efforts on:


  •  reforming its energy base and getting off of fossil fuels, to the extent that it can, as quickly as possible 


  • rapidly advancing our society on the backs of new technology innovations;


  • assuring that the best and the brightest from the world over have the means and desire to immigrate to the US;


  • focus on opening up the space frontier;


  • assure that the radical advances in medical technologies are quickly developed and disseminated to our population first.


  • If our interests are absolutely threatened somewhere in the world, then act.  But also recognize that the arena we have to play in is becoming larger than just this planet now, so some of the things that were once our "interest" are increasingly less so.


  • Leave most of the rest of the rude world to muck it out with itself for the next 20 years.  Let them live with the consequences of their attitudes while we assure the US is living in the 22-nd Century by 2040


  • Do the best we can to save the billions caught powerless in the grip of inferior cultural forces, but understand we may have to let a lot of them go for awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good.  I am glad the rebels have backed off from asking for outside help, because we don't want to go, and this gives us an easy way out.

My opinion of the rest of the world has changed greatly over the last few years.  I have always been internationally oriented, but never as a "One World Government" type, which I think is a nice idea but essentially stupid.  It bothers me deeply when barbarism is not confronted and stopped.  But I do not see why anyone or any nation should sacrifice itself in an effort to help those who don't want the help.

I am tired of the US being criticized regardless of what it does.

I am tired of countries who have benefited greatly from US actions over the decades, now refusing to carry their share of the weight for assuring global stability.

I am tired of the lack of stiff spines among so many of the Europeans and their arrogant indifference to human suffering.  Mostly I am tired of Europeans trying to pass off their indifferent passivism as cultural sophistication.


I would like the US to focus the bulk of its efforts on:


  •  reforming its energy base and getting off of fossil fuels, to the extent that it can, as quickly as possible 


  • rapidly advancing our society on the backs of new technology innovations;


  • assuring that the best and the brightest from the world over have the means and desire to immigrate to the US;


  • focus on opening up the space frontier;


  • assure that the radical advances in medical technologies are quickly developed and disseminated to our population first.


  • If our interests are absolutely threatened somewhere in the world, then act.  But also recognize that the arena we have to play in is becoming larger than just this planet now, so some of the things that were once our "interest" are increasingly less so.


  • Leave most of the rest of the rude world to muck it out with itself for the next 20 years.  Let them live with the consequences of their attitudes while we assure the US is living in the 22-nd Century by 2040


  • Do the best we can to save the billions caught powerless in the grip of inferior cultural forces, but understand we may have to let a lot of them go for awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good.  I am glad the rebels have backed off from asking for outside help, because we don't want to go, and this gives us an easy way out.

My opinion of the rest of the world has changed greatly over the last few years.  I have always been internationally oriented, but never as a "One World Government" type, which I think is a nice idea but essentially stupid.  It bothers me deeply when barbarism is not confronted and stopped.  But I do not see why anyone or any nation should sacrifice itself in an effort to help those who don't want the help.

I am tired of the US being criticized regardless of what it does.

I am tired of countries who have benefited greatly from US actions over the decades, now refusing to carry their share of the weight for assuring global stability.

I am tired of the lack of stiff spines among so many of the Europeans and their arrogant indifference to human suffering.  Mostly I am tired of Europeans trying to pass off their indifferent passivism as cultural sophistication.


I would like the US to focus the bulk of its efforts on:


  •  reforming its energy base and getting off of fossil fuels, to the extent that it can, as quickly as possible 


  • rapidly advancing our society on the backs of new technology innovations;


  • assuring that the best and the brightest from the world over have the means and desire to immigrate to the US;


  • focus on opening up the space frontier;


  • assure that the radical advances in medical technologies are quickly developed and disseminated to our population first.


  • If our interests are absolutely threatened somewhere in the world, then act.  But also recognize that the arena we have to play in is becoming larger than just this planet now, so some of the things that were once our "interest" are increasingly less so.


  • Leave most of the rest of the rude world to muck it out with itself for the next 20 years.  Let them live with the consequences of their attitudes while we assure the US is living in the 22-nd Century by 2040


  • Do the best we can to save the billions caught powerless in the grip of inferior cultural forces, but understand we may have to let a lot of them go for awhile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...