# Obama's Foreign Policy Speech.....anyone catch it?..........



## tobyond (Aug 2, 2007)

I'm liking Obama more and more; I can't see him beating Hillary, but I believe true change would come from having him in office.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 2, 2007)

The problem with Obama is that he's very smart. He's come up with real solutions that would really work. The country as a whole I don't think can accept that. Obama has a high ability to accept and handle reality. I don't know if this country is ready to accept reality.

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2007)

To me what's quoted above is only a tiny piece of reality.

As a practical matter, the real "war on terror" is what the Brits did last month to stop the bombing in London: good espionage - and good espionage that doesn't put our free society at risk by dismantling all the checks and balances we've always had in our laws to prevent power from being consolidated into the executive branch. Electronic surveillance with a court-issued warrant, in other words - not that that's all there is to it, of course.

But you really have to look at the big picture. What is the terrorism all about? Is it blowback? For the most part I tend to agree with Republican candidate Ron Paul that it is, although I certainly don't agree with everything he says.

Now, whether muscling the Pakistanis into doing our bidding would have the desired effect is something I really don't know. But I'm convinced that we have to take a much longer range view of the problems we're facing and not just treat them as a policing problem. I saw a little of Rudy Guilliani on Charlie Rose last night, and I found his comments totally simplistic: "We have to go on the offense."

To me the fundamental problem is that we don't have a comprehensive, forward-looking energy policy. Until that gets in place we're destined to have endless wars over resources - and that's really what human conflict always comes down to, regardless of what else it's also about. When I was in college we learned in political science classes that conflict is all about power, but now I see it very differently.

By the way, I really like that the Democrats are selling the idea that finding our next energy economy will create jobs. I'd like to see Republicans doing that too.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 2, 2007)

In all honesty while I like and respect Obama, I think this is perhaps the silliest example of posturing by a Democrat since Dukakis took that stupid ride in a tank. Bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power with a leader who while very flawed is far more helpful to us than any likely successor would be?

He has taken a lot of heat for not having as much cojones as Hillary and is trying to prove that is not the case.

I think Hillary is far more ready to do the job. I just wish her negatives among white males were not so high. That causes me to be worried about her electability.

Damn white males ruin everything!


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 2, 2007)

I'd rather not have someone who is more concerned about wasting time and tax payer money on things like the hidden sex scene in Grand Theft Auto 3 than doing something real like spending that money on alternative fuel research.

Hillary Clinton? No thank you.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Aug 2, 2007)

> I think this is perhaps the silliest example of posturing by a Democrat since Dukakis took that stupid ride in a tank. Bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power with a leader who while very flawed is far more helpful to us than any likely successor would be?


I'm with you on this, Jay!

What is Obama thinking? 

Yeah, completely de-stabilize the Mid East and the Indian Subcontinent, create war with a nuclear power who has rocky relations with its next-door-neighor, India (another nuclear power), show our allies in the Mid East what we really think about them and how we will treat them in the future. 

Methinks the step from the Illinois state legislature to the White House is too big for this person at this time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 2, 2007)

I'm still holding out hope that Al Gore will run. He would be by far the best candidate.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 2, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 02 said:


> I'm still holding out hope that Al Gore will run. He would be by far the best candidate.


I second that motion!

I also think he has the best chance of winning.

Do you think he'd choose Lieberman to be his running mate again? [...runs for cover]


----------



## SvK (Aug 2, 2007)

He would choose Obama


----------



## VonRichter (Aug 2, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Thu Aug 02 said:


> In all honesty while I like and respect Obama, I think this is perhaps the silliest example of posturing by a Democrat since Dukakis took that stupid ride in a tank. Bomb Pakistan, a nuclear power with a leader who while very flawed is far more helpful to us than any likely successor would be?



I agree, I can dig Obama, but that is just ridiculous. Chalk it up to campaign babbling.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Aug 2, 2007)

Al Gore and Bilòâs   ^,Hâs   ^,Iâs   ^,Jâs


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Aug 2, 2007)

Once again when it comes to foreign policy we're being way too nice. I agree there are innocent people involved, but when a country habors terrorists on purpose we need to strike them hard. Otherwise we'll be looked at as weak just like always. Either let us come in there and do our job, or we'll do it anyway and risk killing your civilians.

Sorry, but that's the hard life.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 2, 2007)

The wrong thing to do is nothing.

Fear hypnotizes people. Makes them controllable and afraid to act. Living in fear is not the answer.

Fighting back at least we won't be in fear.

Look up a document called the Psycho-Politician. You'll see exactly what's happening here.

Jose


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

OMG! I cant believe you guys buy into that war on terror crap. The whole thing is a hoax to create an excuse to gain control of the ME resources. The whole right /left wing paradigm is a smoke screen. It doesn't matter which one you vote for as both are bough and paid for by the same guys. 

BTW, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than to get kill by a terrorist. And that so called terrorist attack may very in fact be state sponsored terrorism, or a false flag operation like they say in the military. A false flag operation is a country that attacks itself and blame it on and other country to have an excuse to go to war with that country. Hitler did it. He burner the German parlement and blame it on communist terrorism etc..

The only American politicians you guy should trust are Ron Paul, Kutccini and Gravel. All other are you usual whore or just plain stupid. Those three are the only ones who speak the truth.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 3, 2007)

josejherring @ Thu Aug 02 said:


> The wrong thing to do is nothing.
> 
> Fear hypnotizes people. Makes them controllable and afraid to act. Living in fear is not the answer.
> 
> ...



At least Musharef makes an attempt to deal with it despite repeated attacks on his life. And he would likely be replaced if he were to be, and he is hanging on by a thread, by fundamentalist Islamists who pose a far greater threat. Iran is also a bigger threat to be dealt with, not to mention Syria.

Either way, I don't believe as a President, Obama has any intention of doing this. He is just trying to convince the country he is not soft. Meaningless posturing is still my assessment.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 3, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Thu Aug 02 said:


> OMG! I cant believe you guys buy into that war on terror crap. The whole thing is a hoax to create an excuse to gain control of the ME resources. The whole right /left wing paradigm is a smoke screen. It doesn't matter which one you vote for as both are bough and paid for by the same guys.
> 
> BTW, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than to get kill by a terrorist. And that so called terrorist attack may very in fact be state sponsored terrorism, or a false flag operation like they say in the military. A false flag operation is a country that attacks itself and blame it on and other country to have an excuse to go to war with that country. Hitler did it. He burner the German parlement and blame it on communist terrorism etc..
> 
> The only American politicians you guy should trust are Ron Paul, Kutccini and Gravel. All other are you usual whore or just plain stupid. Those three are the only ones who speak the truth.



This kind of belief system is essentially what was espoused by Chamberlain in Britian and Lindbergh in the US when confronted with the Facism of WW 2.

If you think you are going to sit with these kind of people, talk to them, hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" and all will be well then by all means vote for Paul or Kucinich, or Gravel.

The lesson of Mein Kampf is that when people tell you repeatedly that they want to end your way of life it is best to believe them.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 3, 2007)

I fear you're right Jay. I'm not convinced by any of the candidates so far. It's another tough year.

I'm not sure if Obama has my vote yet. If he where a black, Jewish, gay woman then yeah he'd have my vote. But, being just black....I'm not sure that that's enough for me.

Either way I'll be looking at the debates closely to see who's full of it and who's really on the ball. Seems like all the politicians that I really like end up shooting themselves in the foot sooner or later. Hilary and Obama are slick. A little too slick for my taste, but truth is if you're honest with the American public you'll end up offending people and that loses elections. So these guys seem really good at riding the poling figures. And, that scares me.

Jose


----------



## VonRichter (Aug 3, 2007)

War, violence, killing, is retarded. Humans ought to know better by now.

A lot of people in the world seriously need to consider finding some kind of hobby other than hate and power tripping.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Thu Aug 02 said:
> 
> 
> > OMG! I cant believe you guys buy into that war on terror crap. The whole thing is a hoax to create an excuse to gain control of the ME resources. The whole right /left wing paradigm is a smoke screen. It doesn't matter which one you vote for as both are bough and paid for by the same guys.
> ...



My advise to you is to stop watching the main stream medias as they are own by the same guys the owns the politicians.

Muslim don't want to end your way of life. They couldn't care less about that. They want you to stay out of their affairs and to stay out of their country. They hate America because the US support Israel and for all kinds of other things. Like overthrow government in Iran. Or because the US support dictators over there. Yes I'm sure there are a few extremist here and there but it's a very small minority.

Ask yourself who gained from the terrorist attack? Did Muslim gained anything from those attack? The answer is no! In fact they lost tow country: Iraq and Afganistan and have a now more American forces over there. So who stand to gain from this WOT? Well the military industrialized complex(MIC) already made billions and billions with this war. International bankers are making a fortune as America keeps borrowing billions for that war, and those international banker have setup their money system in Iraq, and probably in Afghanistan too. That means Iraqis and the Iraqi government pay interest to these guys now. More billions there. The oil lobby certainly gained something as Iraq 's oil has now been privatized. Billions and billions right there. And last but not least Israel has eliminated one threat which was Iraq. Something they wanted to do for a long time. And they are now pushing the US to attack Iran threw the Israeli lobby(AIPAC). 

And of course America is now in a position to secure the oil flow. They are now building military bases in the region where you can find the biggest oil reserves. Exactly what the PNAC advocated one year before 911 in their paper called RebuildingAmericasDefenses. Notice what they wrote in that paper in sept 2000: 



> ''The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary changes, is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Purl Harbour. ''



One year later they got what they wished for on 911. Let's call it luck! 

Something else they say in that paper is the US should use it's power to keep access to vital raw material, especially in the Persian Golf.


Also there's an American company called Unical that is building a pipeline that will cross Afghanistan. And the US is building 4 military base all along that pipeline in Afghanistan. 

Do you see a pattern here?


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 3, 2007)

This is the same old tripe that belongs in a category with the theories of the Kennedy assasinations, the "we never landed on the moon it was all shot in a TV studio," Oliver Stone films' and Michael Moore's polemics which are mistakenly called documentaries, etc.

There is no point in our debating because those who think way you do will not change. I thank God that Americans will not elect a leader that comes even close to this kind of belief system.

And now I am through with this.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> This is the same old tripe that belongs in a category with the theories of the Kennedy assasinations, the "we never landed on the moon it was all shot in a TV studio," Oliver Stone films' and Michael Moore's polemics which are mistakenly called documentaries, etc.
> 
> There is no point in our debating because those who think way you do will not change. I thank God that Americans will not elect a leader that comes even close to this kind of belief system.
> 
> And now I am through with this.



:lol: I was gonna write something similar as some people just don't want to here the truth and that will never change. 

Funny thing is i knew someone would come in with the moon landing. Of course it's only because you have no argument so you try to discredit what i said by associating what i said with something completely unrelated.

Well the Project for a New American Century(PNAC) is quiet real. You can read up on it. And all those billions and billions of dollars in oil revenue and arm sales that comes in every month are real too. And they will keep on coming as long as the US is in control over there.

Anyway, you keep believing America is about spreading democracy and your leaders 
are telling you the truth. I'm done debating this too, as there is no debate anyway.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2007)

There's a huge difference between appeasement and ceasing to behave on the international scene in a way that triggers blowback.


----------



## José Herring (Aug 3, 2007)

Fernando,

You're waisting your time. People in this country aren't ready to accept any truth. That's why they elect politicians that get us nowhere close to solving the problems of the world or worse yet they actually make things worse.

Americans think that anybody who thinks is crazy. Partly because most Americans are quite ignorant of the things that go on outside of America so called culture. We are taught very early on about how good America is and how free America is and that we are the only free nation on Earth and that America stands for good, righteousness. blah blah. We are so ingrained with this thought so early on, the thought that we are God's country that most Americans can never confront the evil that goes on here or at the hands of vested American interest. 

America has laws that protect us from a lot of the degrading practices that happens in foreign countries. So Americans are blind to it and think that "it doesn't happen". Jay's response is a typical American response to your ideas. It's a knee jerk and it comes from people who have never even looked at the situation closely for themselves. Never studies the situation and get all their information from the news.

Bad things just don't happen by accident. Bad things are caused by people. Evil isn't some mystical force. One of the manifestations of evil people is the act of destroying things and other people for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many.

There's no doubt in my mind that the wars in the middle east and most wars are caused by people turning other people against each other in a effort to destroy others for personal profit.

If you read history you'll see that for the most part the middle east has been in relative peace. Not many wars at all. We forget that for thousands of yeas the middle east rulled most of the civilized world. They didn't do it by war they did it with trade. War is antipathetic to trade so war for most of the middle eastern empires was out of the question. You can't kick you're neighbors ass then expect that they are going to buy your rugs.

The real trouble started when Standard Oil and American owned company started to secure oil pipelines to and from middle eastern countries. I'm almost 100% sure that since then the policy has been to destabilize the middle east and to fund favorable governments to protect business interest. If they had democracy then the people would have power and the people might then decide to form their own companies and control their own oil for the benefit of their own people. 

If you keep an eye on what politicians are doing and the meetings they take you'll see right away that the furthest thing from their mind is to end war in the middle east. First on the agenda is to protect American business interest. That business is oil. Oil from the middle east that funds business interest going back to Rockefeller and Joe Kennedy. The old fashion Robber Barons. The name is appropriate. 

Jose


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 3, 2007)

I'm making popcorn. This thread is getting funnier than The Simpsons Movie. Thanks guys!

~o)


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 3, 2007)

Why is it that people who don't believe conspiracy BS are "blind to the 'truth'" and "non-thinkers" by those who love eating conspiracy? Perhaps people who don't buy into all the conspiracy bs THINK its bs because it is most likely bs and came to that conclusion all by themselves?


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2007)

With a name like Obama....it has to be good!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2007)

"Once again when it comes to foreign policy we're being way too nice. "

So far we've launched two wars, Nathan! What would you suggest as a way of being mean and showing that we won't be pushed around? And do you really think the Pakistani government is intentionally allowing these people to operate? I personally don't think they have any interest in doing that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2007)

And Jay, I have to disagree that what Michael Moore says - despite his getting some things wrong or leaving some things out - is the same as saying that 9/11 was done by our own government or that we didn't really land on the moon. I happen to agree with most of his positions but certainly not with the latter two.

As to the JFK assassination, is it far out to believe that it was a conspiracy? To me it seems pretty likely that Oswald and Jack Ruby didn't act alone, no? I don't remember what Oliver Stone's theory is, though, so maybe that's what you're talking about.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 3, 2007)

josejherring @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> Fernando,
> 
> . So Americans are blind to it and think that "it doesn't happen". Jay's response is a typical American response to your ideas. It's a knee jerk and it comes from people who have never even looked at the situation closely for themselves. Never studies the situation and get all their information from the news.
> 
> ...


\\

Counselor, you are assuming facts that are not in evidence. I read from news sources and books from all over the world. In the end however, I have to decide whose info to weight more heavily, as we all do.

In general I find that it in fact that the best info does NOT come from European sources. By and large they tend to be pacifistic, which is in my opinion an immoral philosophy, anti-capitalist despite all the evidence that despite its many flaws works better for the benefit of all that Socialism, Communism, or Fascism. Further they are so afraid of their ever-growing Muslim populations that they pander to their demands unaware that when you appease the crocodile all that you get is the right to be eaten last.

I far weigh heavily what comes out of Ha'aretz and the BBC for instance over Reuters.

Let us tell the truth here.

Islam is the only religion that AT THE PRESENT TIME has a large number of adherents (not all but a large number)who believe the following:

1. It is not only morally defensible to be a suicide bomber and in fact it will be rewarded in the next life. You do not see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus behaving like this.

2. If your honor has been impugned it is permissible to kill that person i.e. a daughter who has in your opinion shamed you by her behavior. You do not see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus behaving like this.

3. If you judge someone to have defamed your religion it is permissible to kill that person and in fact it is a holy act. You do not see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus behaving like this.

4. Women are not the equal of men and need not be treated as equals.

5. If you are a non-believer there are essentially 3 options for you:convert, live as a second class citizen, or die. No other religion AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY believes this.

Christians may believe you are going to hell if you are a Jew but they are not trying to send you there right away.

The actor Ron Silver said it well, "We are not at war with Islam, we are at war with Jihadistan."

The proof of this are the attacks in places around the world by Islamo-Fascists other than America and Great Britain.

The Bush administration has been the most incompetent in my lifetime and many of their actions are corrupt and morally indefensible but they do at least understand this. Obama is trying to show that he does to. I hope he really does because whoever the next president is, Democrat or Republican, in or out of Iraq, this is the reality of what he/she is going to have to deal with.

This is not going away.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 3, 2007)

I think it would be great with Obama or Clinton. Enough of all those old white men already! 

In al seriousness Obama strikes me as sincere, pragmatic and thoughtful. Good qualities.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> And Jay, I have to disagree that what Michael Moore says - despite his getting some things wrong or leaving some things out - is the same as saying that 9/11 was done by our own government or that we didn't really land on the moon. I happen to agree with most of his positions but certainly not with the latter two.
> 
> As to the JFK assassination, is it far out to believe that it was a conspiracy? To me it seems pretty likely that Oswald and Jack Ruby didn't act alone, no? I don't remember what Oliver Stone's theory is, though, so maybe that's what you're talking about.



My problem with Moore is that he deliberately edits his films in a way that is dishonest to lead people to the conclusions he wants them to reach. So does Oliver Stone in films like "JFK" but at least he does not call it a "documentary" when it is in fact a polemic.


As for JFK,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Once again you will see lots of people arguing to the contrary. It comes down to who you assign credibility to. I find the anti-conspiracy people far more credible.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

Spot on Jose. And i wont be waisting much more effort on this as I'm now starting to believe people deserves what's coming to them. 

And you're right when you say no one really wants to stop the war. Many people thinks things are not going well in Iraq but the fact is everything is going as planed. The MIC and international bankers favour long conflict as they are obviously more lucrative. And the US gov wants to stay there. In fact they are building military bases over there to secure the oil flow so they need a reason to stay, even though the Iraqi government has ask the US to leave. Bush told us it would be a long war didn't he? Plus it's only the beginning as they want to go after Iran & Syria next and God knows who else. The PNAC guys said it clearly in their paper, no conspiracy here.

Gravel tried to warn Americans on of the debate about the MIC controlling Americas culture. This courageous man has been working for years in Washington so he's in a far better position to know about these thing than any of us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA

BTW, anyone noticed where they placed him on the stage on the following debate?And he barely got a chance to speak too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2007)

The question in my mind is whether Oswald and Jack Ruby were acting on the behest of others or on their own. But we'll probably never know.

Anyway, as to your (Jay's) previous post about radical Islam: whether or not all you're saying is true - and it may well be - you still have to look at what the best responses are. Unfortunately, most people just say "let's get mean" in the most generic way, a position I feel is far worse than the opposite extreme.

I'm convinced that going after nation-states is not going to make anyone - least of all Israel - safer. On the contrary, all it does is escalate the problem and feed into the kind of extreme rhetoric you're talking about. These are pretty small bands of people, not states, and the way to police them is on a much quieter, smaller scale.

The most important thing is not to let 30 creeps with box cutters ruin our free society. I know Brian won't agree, but that is exactly what we've done. And the normal responses - "I have nothing to fear because I'm not a terrorist" and "once they do that they give up all rights" - are absolutely wrong. You can't apply the Constitution only in some cases; as soon as you throw out the checks and balances, the protections are broken and the potential for abuse can and probably will be realized. And has been, I should add.


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 3, 2007)

You know, we have military bases all over the world. Germany, Japan, everywhere. Middle East isn't anything new... AND, this war is costing us money. And a whole lot of it.


----------



## VonRichter (Aug 3, 2007)

We most certainly have NOT been to the moon. There is a layer of invisible radiation that will kill anyone who tries. It's all a hoax. It was all filmed inside a cows rectum!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> Why is it that people who don't believe conspiracy BS are "blind to the 'truth'" and "non-thinkers" by those who love eating conspiracy? Perhaps people who don't buy into all the conspiracy bs THINK its bs because it is most likely bs and came to that conclusion all by themselves?



What is a conspiracy really? Let me put it this way. It's a bunch of people who are willing to cheat, for profits in this case. We all know an athlete will take enhancement drugs if that can make the difference between a contract with Nike worth millions, a contract that will set him for life. We all know it's worth cheating sometimes. The people we're talking about here are cheating for billions and billions of dollars. Hell it's probably worth trillions in the medium/long run. We're talking about such big amount of money that it's beyond me. Don't you think cheating might be worth the risk here?

There's nothing wrong with believing in conspiracies. In fact it's extremely naive to think that there are no conspiracy going on.


----------



## midphase (Aug 3, 2007)

I can attest to that...I was there (in the cow's rectum).


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Aug 3, 2007)

> am is the only religion that AT THE PRESENT TIME has a large number of adherents (not all but a large number)who believe the following:
> 
> 1. It is not only morally defensible to be a suicide bomber and in fact it will be rewarded in the next life. You do not see Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus behaving like this.
> 
> ...



It does say this to a degree right in the Koran (not personally witnessed mind you). That is what some people don't realize.




> Christians may believe you are going to hell if you are a Jew but they are not trying to send you there right away.



"May" is the key word. My family doesn't even call themselves christian because of things like this. I've actually had christians say to me "Jesus was a christian!" and I want to slap them and say "NO, he was a jew!"

Anyway, just another example of human ignorance due to being influenced by the wrong people.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 3, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> You know, we have military bases all over the world. Germany, Japan, everywhere. Middle East isn't anything new... AND, this war is costing us money. And a whole lot of it.



That's right. And who's making money off of the military bases? The MIC. Who's paying for it? The US citizens. 

In the case of the bases in the ME, those are of a more important strategic interest to secure accest to the most valuable resources on hearth which is oil. And natural gas too. The whole idea behind the PNAC is that now that the USSR has crumble, and that the US has no opponent, it is an opportunity to secure the ME as one who control the oil pretty much controls everything. Let say a country do something you don't like then all you have to do is shut the valve and that country's economy is at an alt, as oil is at the hart of every industrialize nations. Let's say a country wants to attack you? Well it will be difficult to sustain a long conflict as they will soon be running out of gas...

Basically what the PNAC guys say is that the US should secure those vital resources before the rise of an other super power. And they wrote that in sept 2000 one year before 911. And 911 was exactly the excuse they were waiting for. Do you think these guys are at the very least lucky. Paul Wolfovitch said it himself 911 is an opportunity. The same guys who called for a new Pearl Harbour in that paper. Those are some amazing coincidence don't you think?


----------



## José Herring (Aug 4, 2007)

As a result of this I started to do independent research on Standard Oil and OPEC.

Man this is so fascinating.

Info on their own website and their own published histories is rich with information as to their intents and purposes.

I leave you with a cliff hanger: Standard Oil isn't a company any more. It hasn't been for a long time. Standard Oil is a Trust fund!!!! It's described as the most perfectly put together trust in the history of trusts and the trust is controlled by just a few people. These people have been able to expand this trust and now the trust includes banks under the funds control. Also to prevent anti-trust laws from being passed that would break up the Standard Oil trust they've also erected very well funded and very powerful washington lobbying organizations to protect its interest.

For those that don't know Standard Oil controls the pipelines that distribute the oil and petroleum from the middle east to the world. This trust has expanded so much that it now controls steel, banks, and the processing of many crude commodities that all major industries of the world rely on. These guys are so clever. Instead of trying to control populations they've extended the trust to control those raw materials that all of modern day society relies on on namely, steel, metals, oil, gas and the banks. The trust is solely a capitalistic venture started by Americas most famous capitalists like John D. Rockefeller. 

The plot thinkens when in 1960 OPEC was established. OPEC's sole purpose was to control crude oil and petroleum in the middle east. Every price spike in gas is directly related to decisions that OPEC's governing board has made.

These two organizations are the most powerful on Earth and both deal in Earths most valued commodity. Gas and Oil. In the case of OPEC its board is made up of government officials from OPEC member nations and in the case of Standard Oil they just outright control governments.

These guys are very smart. They've applied the philosophic principles of Aristotle. That is that everything stems from a foundation or a base. If you find the base then you can find the answer. These guys have found the answer to the control of Capitalism by controlling the base for which it rest. 

It makes so much sense. All capitol is controlled by banks. Control the banks and you control the world. Hell people these days can't even buy a car. The have to go to a bank to get the money. 

I love doing this kind of research but at the same time it's sad and I can only forsee disaster for this system. With economic strangulation of excessive debt owed to banks by all individuals in this supposedly free society.

Jose


----------



## david robinson (Aug 5, 2007)

josejherring @ Sat Aug 04 said:


> As a result of this I started to do independent research on Standard Oil and OPEC.
> 
> Man this is so fascinating.
> 
> ...



I wonder what the weather's like on Mars these days?...........hummmmm...
At least no capitalists..........
I always thought it was the "Knights Templar" organisation that controlled the world.
best,
DR9. :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2007)

Jose, you could look at the behavior of any large megacorporation as a secret society of conspirators if you frame it that way. Are they trying to control the world or just line their pockets? It's a fine line.

Oil companies form international consortiums. Projects such as pipelines that go thousands of miles are often too big for one company to build, so that's what they do. International politics are always involved, and that puts pressure on international relations and of course affects foreign policy. Our original support of the Taliban and present war in Afghanistan are both partly related to that, for example.

But does that mean the oil companies are Dr. Evil types bent on world domination?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2007)

OPEC is a totally different thing, by the way. While they also want to make as much money in as short a time as possible, their agenda is totally different from the oil companies'; what they do is set production quotas to control the prices. But of course it's very complicated - they can't just squeeze the supply in order to raise the prices, because then the economies of the world would get depressed and nobody could afford their oil. Since the competition between them is so fierce, it's probably a good thing they're all sitting down at a table together.

So in a way it's a good thing OPEC exists, because it helps stop these countries from being at each others' throats all the time. For example, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait after it threatened to flood the market with oil at a time when he needed money (he'd spent all of his on the war with Iran). That triggered the first Gulf War.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 5, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Aug 05 said:


> But does that mean the oil companies are Dr. Evil types bent on world domination?


No. That's Cheney's role.

One thing that cannot be denied is that in terms of cash, there have been big winners in the war on Iraq: The deficit is back, so banks win with huge, risk-free loans. Oil companies win with Iraqi oil withheld from a jittery market. This has lead to higher prices. Profits are at record levels. Military suppliers and contractors win with record breaking military spending.

Surprise, surprise. These industries are the big backers of Bush and Neocon, Inc. It's no secret that politicians work on behalf of their backers, is it?

There are also economic losers. When the debts are paid, US taxpayers will have spent about $10k per household - plus interest - to fund this thing. (No new taxes. Yeah right.) Iraq's economy has been all but destroyed. And what of the opportunity costs? Think of the research programs and infrastructure projects that could have created high paying jobs and future wealth. 

Rather than knee-jerk conspiracy nut claims, can anyone dispute the above facts?

Another fact: Cheney refuses to disclose the names of the people with whom he meets. Silly me. I thought that he was employed by the American people to work on our behalf. On the contrary. Those for whom he works is secret. Everything he does is secret. Yet we are to trust that he never, ever conspires. Yeah, right.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2007)

"can anyone dispute the above facts?"

Brian? How's the popcorn?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 5, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Aug 05 said:


> "can anyone dispute the above facts?"
> 
> Brian? How's the popcorn?



It's getting a bit...stale at this point. :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2007)

Well, Jon just picked up a new bag for you to munch on. It tastes bitter, but it doesn't have any false ingredients...


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 6, 2007)

Do you guys really feel the need to get into this all over again? We have hashed out all of this year after year on multiple MUSIC forums now. There is a difference between "facts" and one's interpretation of what those "facts" mean. There is a lot of interpretation going on to fill in the blanks and attempt to make sense of it all...which is all supposition and opinion. People's opinions are going to be tainted by their political beliefs and core principles. Some believe Bush is corrupt. Some don't. Some believe Clinton was corrupt and the Dems are corrupt. Some don't. It happens every political cycle and with most every president.

Really...I don't know if you all are trying to get into it all again because it feels good to just vent and bitch or what. I know you all are passionate about these issues and you just want what is best for the world around you. But, arguing about politics on a music forum, we have all shown, is divisive and tends to break up the fellowship many have here. I just don't really want to get dragged into a long drawn out argument when it really can be summed down to us agreeing to disagree about politics. A popcorn joke or a Bush joke every now and then is normal. It is funny. It is part of who we are. But...no one here is going to convince any one else to all of a sudden join the other policital party or anything. So...I really don't see the point any more when it gets beyond the trivial discussion.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2007)

Brian, I'm kidding.

But the Democrats could use some volunteer help if you have some spare time?


----------



## Brian Ralston (Aug 6, 2007)

Oh...I know Nick. I was too with the popcorn thing. But, I know how it starts. And then Jon comes in (Hi Jon =o ) and teams up with his point of view stating that I don't like facts or something...then...I feel the need to respond...then Jose comes in and quotes a wikipedia article (Hi Jose =o )...then...it begins...it is 3 against one. Then...then...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2007)

Tell you the truth, I kinda miss the old foaming at the fingers NS days when we had Brady Wrong, Xanax, Nick Phoenix, Bruce Richardson, the whole group...all of us going at it, mano à mano, no referee...


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 6, 2007)

Okay... Here's something new (previously unhashed at NSS) from the administration...

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 717-3.html

When parsing the above legalese, note the liberal use of the word "or." Look for the path of least resistance. The result?

Anyone who "poses a significant risk of committing an act" that threatens "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq"; or undermines "efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" can have their property "blocked" by the executive branch. Blocked property may not be "transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in."

Fortunately, the ruling against you must include the three branches of government, which, of course, are the "Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense."

But what of the right of due process defined by the 5th Amendment? Surely this doesn't apply to citizens. 

But it does. It applies to all "who might have a constitutional presence in the United States." You see, this is a "national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315", so we're all screwed.

You gotta love the chutzpah. Bush unilaterally defines an emergency, expands the emergency, then says he can take away your Constitutional rights, due to the emergency.

And just to make sure some ACLU lawyer doesn't get tricky, the EO adds that it "does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege", cause rights, benefits and privileges are apparently really bad for America.

...Okay, I've presented facts, and my interpretation of the facts. Anybody care to respond? 

* How can this be considered Constitutional?
* Isn't the "significant risk of committing an act" thing worse than Minority Report?
* Is it okay to punish people for "acts" that aren't even illegal (according to laws written by Congress)?
* Anybody notice that the acts defined are political, rather than terrorism?
* Are we really in a state of emergency that overrides the Constitution?
* If accused, how do you fight it? (For reference, how does one get off the no-fly list? You can't even find out if you're on it!)

And best of all,

* If we can trust the Administration not to abuse this EO, then why the hell did they write it so broadly? 

A dictatorial presidency cannot be defended by any true American patriot.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2007)

If you read Al Gore's book The Assault on Reason, he goes into great depth about how our current administration is doing everything it can to consolidate as much power as possible in the hands of the Executive branch. What's more, they've managed to get crackpot justices on the Supreme Court who believe in "executive privilege" too.

That's completely contrary to our Constitution, of course - it has a maze of checks and balances designed to encourage debate and not let any one person or branch get too powerful.

He quotes a lot of staunch conservatives who agree with him on many points, by the way - it's not Democratic posturing or sour grapes after losing the election, it's a serious indictment of what's been going on. And the warrantless wiretapping law that just got passed this week proves that there's no end in sight. I don't expect any better if we get a Democratic president either - the horses have left the barn.

The book is written rather poorly and needs an editor, but he says a lot of interesting things.


----------



## Scrypt (Aug 14, 2007)

Ashermusic @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> This is the same old tripe that belongs in a category with the theories of the Kennedy assasinations, the "we never landed on the moon it was all shot in a TV studio," Oliver Stone films' and *Michael Moore's polemics which are mistakenly called documentaries*, etc.



I'm going to try not to enter this enduring but polarizing debate, as it always seems to degenerate into an endless round of "here's why you're stupid and I'm not," with each side calling the other dupes.

What I will address is the familiar charge that Moore's flicks are "not real documentaries." FYI, Leni Riefenstahl's _Triumph of the Will_ is a real documentary. So is any other film that makes its argument through the editing and manipulation of ostensibly found and/or nonfiction material no matter how biased. The term _documentary_ was coined by John Grierson in 1926 and was used to describe Robert Flaherty's film, _Moana_, which was far from objective. People tend to forget that the first documentaries were exercises in manipulation and buttressed arguments with heavily finessed material under the guise of objectivity.

A less shrill criticism might be that Moore "plays too loose with the facts" (if that's your take). To which I'd reply: most documentaries do, and more so, in the wake of the Fairness Doctrine, which hasn't been in effect since Reagan. The irony is that people who repeat the charge that Moore's films "aren't documentaries" are usually quoting quasi-factual sources such as (here comes the cliched reference) Fox News. The difference is one of honesty, since Moore freely admits he's biased, while Murdoch's prating heads pretend Fox is a "no-spin zone." In my view, there's no such thing as a no-spin zone in the media (or even in blogs, since interpreting and compiling information involves making artistic (and therefore subjective) choices; even an apparently innocent decision such as privileging entertainment over full coverage can lead to slanted coverage). In the second, Fox News is even further from being such a place than certain of the sources its spincasters dismiss as biased.

I find all of this a bit depressing, since people on the left and right could be looking for common ground instead of calling each other stupid. There ought to be a median point between Murdoch and the Green Party that doesn't involve one side hissing _crackpots_ and the other jeering _media zombies_. That way, we might actually elect a candidate whom neither side would find criminally misguided.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Aug 14, 2007)

Out of curiosity... 

I have been watching all the debates avaialbe on you tube. My question: If your a democrat - why wouldnt you vote for Obama? I'm having a hard time seeing any flaws with him. He seems articulate, thoughtful, charismatic and pragmatic. 

So as a democrat - what do you see as his flaws?


----------



## Scrypt (Aug 14, 2007)

Warning: I'm about to speak in shallow and repulsively pragmatic terms.



Christian Marcussen @ Tue Aug 14 said:


> Out of curiosity...
> 
> I have been watching all the debates avaialbe on you tube. My question: If your a democrat - why wouldnt you vote for Obama? I'm having a hard time seeing any flaws with him. He seems articulate, thoughtful, charismatic and pragmatic.
> 
> So as a democrat - what do you see as his flaws?



His major problems, it seems to me, are not his but the public's, yet they factor into your question because they pertain to his electability. The first is the constant black-enough white-enough litmus test to which people in the media subject him: Sharpton claiming he isn't "black enough," for example, or fearful populists wondering aloud if he will have an exclusionist agenda (despite his clear record of _not_ having one). This will become less important over time but could hurt him in this election if people aren't allowed to hear him speak without his being drowned out by race-specific spin. The second problem is his _relative_ unfamiliarity to the public, which Repubs would use to market him as a stealth Everyman, but Dems will probably allow to be misused to make him seem cryptic despite the clarity of his thought and positions. Even today, I know college-educated voters who can't place Obama's name or remember who he is. The third problem is the profoundly high level of his education and intelligence, which can sometimes intimidate voters unless accompanied by a Southern accent (kidding!). Remember what happened to Adlai Stevenson when _he_ ran for President?

Likewise, Hillary Clinton's major flaw is not some aspect of her character but rather her Achilles jaw: the Right's seasoned, well-fueled and constant campaign to characterize her as atypically corrupt, arrogant and self-serving (despite the corrupt and self-serving arrogance on their side of the aisle). This makes her a fragile candidate no matter how solid she might prove as a politician -- she's the Democratic PR equivalent of Guiliani. Additionally, she has the baggage of being a woman and will therefore be subjected to the same too-threatening too-weak accusations that are always used to undermine her credibility. A despicable strategy, of course, but one that will be used against her in carefully couched reactionary terms. Her intelligence will also be used against her, as it has been against her and her husband frequently in what amounts to intellectual anti-Semitism (a facility with words and thought, which should be seen as a virtue, is frequently framed as wily and mercantile insincerity). 

Sadly, the American public seems to want its politicians to solve the problems of the world without being threateningly bright or educated. (If only they'd take a lesson from the culturally literate and multilingual British Secret Intelligence Service and compare its achievements with those of the perennially less prepared CIA.) Yet for some reason, Dem leaders often make the mistake of supporting the smartest person in the room with the longest party history instead of the most likeable candidate.

It seems to me that Edwards, with his credible sincerity, familiarity to the public, lack of political baggage, Southern marketability and patented earnest expression, is the Democratic candidate most likely to be chosen by moderates and fence-sitters despite Obama's and Clinton's superiority in certain areas. 

On the other hand, it could be that Bush's abuses have made voters leery of the conventionally accessible Southern white male Presidential candidate, and that this will prove to be Obama's or Clinton's year. 

If you're a Dem and are of the opinion there's a difference between the parties, then you are probably most interested in electing a Democratic President for the sake of the country's direction. If so, consider guarding against negative assaults wherever possible. If, however, you're more interested in creating change in the Democratic Party than in the White House, then vote to nominate your vision of greater things to come.


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 14, 2007)

I have two cents here:

True the US has needed to balance it's policy so deep resentment isn't fostered among large groups such as the Arab nations. But we've done better in some ways and worse in others.

Yes we should attack any nation that is systematically trying to do the same to us. Yes there are people who want to kill us because they like killing and use The Great Satan as an excuse.

Checks and balances of constitution cannot be ignored but even great men like Lincoln can step over the line in times of war. It takes people of great integrity to get this right. One dirty bomb and everyone would cry fowl on lack of diligence of government.

There are conspiracies throughout history (ask òæ   Yšxæ   Yšyæ   Yšzæ   Yš{æ   Yš|æ   Yš}æ   Yš~æ   Yšæ   Yš€æ   Yšæ   Yš‚æ   Yšƒæ   Yš„æ   Yš…æ   Yš†æ   Yš‡æ   Yšˆæ   Yš‰æ   YšŠæ   Yš‹æ   YšŒæ   Yšæ   YšŽæ   Yšæ   Yšæ   Yš‘æ   Yš’æ   Yš“æ   Yš”æ   _ Uæ   _ Væ   _ Wæ   _ Xæ   _ Yæ   _ Zæ   _ [æ   _ \æ   _ ]æ   _ ^æ   _ _æ   _ `æ   _ aæ   _ bæ   _ cæ   _ dæ   _ eæ   _ fæ   _ gæ   _ hæ   _ iæ   _ jæ   _ kæ   _ læ   _ mæ   _ næ   _ oæ   _


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 14, 2007)

"Yes we should attack any nation that is systematically trying to do the same to us. Yes there are people who want to kill us because they like killing and use The Great Satan as an excuse."

The people who want to kill us are not nations, though. That's why I posted earlier that the real "war on terror" is more complicated.

"Checks and balances of constitution cannot be ignored but even great men like Lincoln can step over the line in times of war. It takes people of great integrity to get this right. One dirty bomb and everyone would cry fowl on lack of diligence of government. "

The problem is that we're now in a state of perpetual war, as defined in a very nebulous way by the executive branch. It's not necessary to lose our Constitutional system of checks and balances in order to protect us from dirty bombs.

"There are conspiracies throughout history (ask Julius Ceaser) money hungry corporate oppressors (Railroad Barons/Standard Oil) and Facists that want to rule the world (take your pick.) If you play the nice guy you won't finish last - you'll be finished."

Right, and also note that Julius Caesar was the end of the Roman republic. After that it changed completely, and that's what I don't want to see happen here.

Get a warrant before you wiretap someone. Stop the "extraordinary renditions" and violations of the Geneva Conventions. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say that they don't apply to foreigners as well.

"It's not whether someone is Democrat or Republican but whether they can handle the job because their politics will be constrained by the office. So Guliani or Gore would seem to fit that for me. "

Guiliani is absolutely useless in my opinion. A terrible candidate. His ignorance about what Ron Paul was saying about blowback is appalling, and his 9/11 response was even worse - whether or not he agrees with it. He's uneducated in many ways and lacks any historical perspective. We'd only continue to travel down the wrong road when it comes to foreign policy.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2007)

Dave, you and I are largely on the same page.

So far I have always voted for a Democrat for president and I probably will again. But if my choice was between Guliani and let's say a Dennis Kucinich or a Howard Dean I would have to cross party lines.

And after reading the book by longtime Democratic operator Bob Shrum and seeing/hearing where he is positioning himself on the issues I may have to put John Edwards in that group.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

That's never going to be the choice, Jay, although I personally find Kucinich's idealism refreshing. At least his heart is in the right place.

But Guiliani is really bad news. The President is supposed to understand the world. We've seen twice in recent history (Reagan and now) how dopey presidents are at the whim of the agendas of the people around them. I don't think Guiliani is as dopey as those guys, but he has no idea what he's talking about and that kind of ignorance is very frightening.

Dave, nobody will ignore terrorism. That's not a worry. The question is how they're going to deal with it.

Also, there's a lot more behind the Afghanistan war than "state-sponsored terrorism." Again, it always comes down to resources, in this case oil and natural gas from the Caspian region.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 15 said:


> That's never going to be the choice, Jay, although I personally find Kucinich's idealism refreshing. At least his heart is in the right place.
> 
> But Guiliani is really bad news. The President is supposed to understand the world. We've seen twice in recent history (Reagan and now) how dopey presidents are at the whim of the agendas of the people around them. I don't think Guiliani is as dopey as those guys, but he has no idea what he's talking about and that kind of ignorance is very frightening.
> 
> ...



Oh brother, we are not electing "nice guy of the United States" we are electing a president and presidents have to know when to be SOBs.

I did not vote for Reagan either time but now that i look back on it I have concluded that in the first term he was the right guy at the right time at that stage of history, particularly after the inept performance of Carter. 

Guliani is certainly flawed but he knows how to make things work and he is tough. My guess is that he would be quite competent and I will vote for competency every time over someone whose "heart is in the right place" but whose head is deeply up his rectum like Kucinich.

With the Bush administration I have had my fill of incompetency.


----------



## midphase (Aug 15, 2007)

I think the problem is that the Bush administration gave the impression of competency. The majority of people voted them in the second time because they felt that they were more competent in handling the war and terrorism than Kerry....unfortunately we'll never know.

I think Giuliani is just like Bush....he appears to be competent (although to me he doesn't even do that) but I think it's just a facade. I don't think that he's done anything as spectacular as people think he has (aside from being ridiculously unprepared for 911). People give him all this credit but really and truly he's just an adequate mayor at best. By comparison, Bloomberg seems more competent to me in handling NYC. I don't think either one of them are necessarily any better than Villaraigosa....feel free to disagree with me there!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

> Oh brother, we are not electing "nice guy of the United States" we are electing a president and presidents have to know when to be SOBs.
> 
> I did not vote for Reagan either time but now that i look back on it I have concluded that in the first term he was the right guy at the right time at that stage of history, particularly after the inept performance of Carter.
> 
> Guliani is certainly flawed but he knows how to make things work and he is tough. My guess is that he would be quite competent and I will vote for competency every time over someone whose "heart is in the right place" but whose head is deeply up his rectum like Kucinich.



Well, we disagree about almost all of the above.

Reagan should have been sent to Corsica for the Iran/Contra scandal. It's amazing he not only got away with that but was given credit for the demise of the Soviet Empire, something he had nothing to do with. He was a terrible president, the wrong guy for any time.

I also disagree that Carter's performance was inept. It was his and Zbigniew Brezhinski's policy of backing the Muhadeen so the Soviets would be induced to attack Afghanistan that finally led to their demise. The Iranian hostage crisis wasn't his fault, in fact the accusations of it being staged to defeat him are highly credible.

Kucinich is one of the few candidates who *doesn't* have his head in his rectum. As I said, he's an idealist, and right now we could use a huge dose of that rather than cynical militarism. I'm not going to vote for him, since he can't win and it's a throwaway vote, but I do like pretty much everything he says.

As to voting for an SOB rather than a nice guy, that's got nothing to do with it. What we need - now and always - is someone with a long-range vision who can lead the country toward the future and not just think about the oil we need today and the next terrorist attack. There are lots of important issues, of course, but the main one is that the world is facing ecological collapse, and it's going to take real leadership to avoid that.

Guiliani is far more than flawed, he's absolutely useless. No way is a forward-thinking energy policy even on his radar. All he knows to say is "I saw 9/11." The man is a jackass. So far the only Republican candidate who understands the world is Ron Paul. I don't agree with him about a lot of key things and won't vote for him, and he also doesn't stand a chance, but he isn't just another jackass with a big ego who only wants to be in power. (However he believes that global warming is still being debated, so I give him an F there.)

No offense, Jay, but I get the feeling that your highest priority is that whoever is president should be tough. Well, that's just on the surface. Every one of the candidates is capable of being tough. It's easy to look tough and act like you're in charge of all the behind-the-scenes work being done to thwart terrorism (which will continue under any administration). What's much harder is to lead and put the right policies in place. That takes intelligence, foresight, and the ability to sell policies other than "let's kill the terrorists" and lead the country into perpetual war - as Guiliani would definitely continue to do.

I'd be a "centrist" too if I felt that it's okay to go along with lots of policies that are flat out immoral and also wrong from a practical standpoint. But I don't, so I'm not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

Dave, understood that not everything is blowback. I'd go farther and say that terrorist attacks are like hurricanes: you can't point at an individual one and say it's because of global warming, and you can't say an individual terrorist attack is blowback. It's the frequency that points to a pattern.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

Also, in my opinion the problems with our current administration aren't so much they were inept, it's that their policies were misguided.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 15 said:


> Also, in my opinion the problems with our current administration aren't so much they were inept, it's that their policies were misguided.



Well I guess politically we see things very differently Nick. If I apply what you said in your earlier post neither Lincoln nor FDR would be considered good presidents because neither of them fit your profile.


Bu i will defend to the death your right to be entirely wrong


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

By now you should know that everything I say is right, Jay.

But I don't understand. How did FDR or Lincoln not fit my profile?

And what is my profile? They were both strong leaders with the right policies for the time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 15, 2007)

Another way of putting it: history is full of great leaders who had somewhat suspect policies: Napoleon, of course Hitler and Mussolini, Stalin...

I'll vote for a candidate's policies over his leadership qualities every time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 15 said:


> By now you should know that everything I say is right, Jay.
> 
> But I don't understand. How did FDR or Lincoln not fit my profile?
> 
> And what is my profile? They were both strong leaders with the right policies for the time.



neither on e was an idealist, both were unabashedly pragmatic, particularly FDR. Neither had the long range vision thing you talk about as both were so busy trying to put out fires it was a luxury they could not afford;, in Lincoln's case the possible secession of the South and in FDR's, first the depression and than WW2. The New Deal was in FDR's own admission a marketing tool, not a vision.

And while history has indeed made the judgement that they were as you describe them in Lincoln's case it was not the prevailing opinion at that time.

History also seems to have made that judgement, like it or not, about Reagan.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Aug 15 said:


> Another way of putting it: history is full of great leaders who had somewhat suspect policies: Napoleon, of course Hitler and Mussolini, Stalin...
> 
> I'll vote for a candidate's policies over his leadership qualities every time.



Then you would have probably voted for Neville Chamberlain, who appeased Hitler. And to compare any of the present candidates to Hitler or Stalin is not tenable. Do you really believe i.e. Guliani wants to conquer the world and would kill millions to consolidate his power and achieve his goals? If so i suggest you get togehter with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore and make a "documentary."


----------



## Fernando Warez (Aug 16, 2007)

But how can Gulliani be both president of the United States and president of 911 at the same time? :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 16, 2007)

Jay, that's exactly my point: you're making the choices very simplistic if you say it's either appeasement or getting tough, or either being pragmatic or being idealistic. The world is just not that simple anymore. I've had the same argument with some Israeli friends of ours, who view the world through the eyes of Jews getting attacked by Arabs. But it's not that simple. Just lashing out blindly only makes the situations - plural (an important distinction our Israeli friends don't make; they're not all the same all around the world) - worse.

And of course I'm not comparing any of the current candidates to Stalin or Hitler! Or Napoleon. I'm taking to task your position that leadership qualities are more important than the positions the leader takes. So what if Guiliani is a good administrator; if he doesn't understand the big picture, his "effective leadership" is going to lead us down the wrong path.

Look, the number one issue facing not just America but humanity is how we're going to meet our growing energy needs in the coming decades. The demand is growing like crazy, and whether or not you believe in the reality of man-made climate change, the days of cheap oil are numbered. If we don't start on the right course now, there's no way our civilization is going to survive; we're dependent on cheap energy.

That's why we need forward-thinking leadership. We're not going to stop policing terrorism regardless of who's in power. But some candidates think the way to solve these problems is perpetual war. It isn't, and that's a pragmatic thing to say.

That doesn't mean war never solves issues. Of course it does. But going out and attacking countries is not going to make us safer from terrorism. Nor is it going to buy us "energy security."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 16, 2007)

"History also seems to have made that judgement, like it or not, about Reagan"

Who is History? The reality of the very nasty things Reagan presided over has been sanitized in our press. That's not the wisdom of history, it's PR.

Now, Napoleon's famous quote is that a good leader is a seller of hopes. Reagan was good at that. But you also have to look at the damage he did!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 16, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 16 said:


> Jay, that's exactly my point: you're making the choices very simplistic if you say it's either appeasement or getting tough, or either being pragmatic or being idealistic. The world is just not that simple anymore. I've had the same argument with some Israeli friends of ours, who view the world through the eyes of Jews getting attacked by Arabs. But it's not that simple. Just lashing out blindly only makes the situations - plural (an important distinction our Israeli friends don't make; they're not all the same all around the world) - worse.
> 
> And of course I'm not comparing any of the current candidates to Stalin or Hitler! Or Napoleon. I'm taking to task your position that leadership qualities are more important than the positions the leader takes. So what if Guiliani is a good administrator; if he doesn't understand the big picture, his "effective leadership" is going to lead us down the wrong path.
> 
> ...



We basically agree but its a matter of where you slice the salami. Clinton was accused, and with some justification, of not having bedrock beliefs and being too much of a pragmatist. Well, I voted for him twice and would happily do it again because to me he walked the line between good intentions and political reality very skillfully.

And I think there ARE candidates, like Kucinich and Ron Paul, who would essentially stop policing terrorism because they think that if we just get together and talk to these folks we can work it out. Which is dangerous.

And yes, to a degree I believe the old adage that the best defense is a good offense.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 16, 2007)

Well, Ron Paul's position is purely noninterventionalist, which is a traditionally conservative idea. I like that idea but don't think it's realistic; there's always going to be international competition that you can't ignore. But he has it right when it comes to blowback: intervention begets resentment, which leads to retaliatory violence.

Kucinich believes that countries have a right to defend themselves, but that's the only reason to go to war. I agree with that wholeheartedly - war is a last resort and a total failure.

No matter where the salami is sliced, invading countries is not a good defense in my opinion. Taking out Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1980 if you're Israel, sure - that's defense. So is the occasional bombing of a Libyan hospital by mistake. Oh wait....

And invading Afghanistan? Well, I'm happy to see the Taliban - who we helped put in - out of there, and the justiication that they were allowing Bin Laden to operate is sort of hard to argue with (even though we have other motivations too).

But has it bought us any security? I'm not so sure. What has bought us security is what I said before: intelligence that thwarts attacks.

And pulling back from our overtly aggressive military behavior all over the world is a very good idea. Plus you have to remember that even though the 9/11 people were educated and the people in London were doctors, they have the weight of a hopeless, desperate society behind them.


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 16, 2007)

Dave Connor @ August 15th 2007 said:


> Say what you will about Bush and company but we have not had a single incident in this country since 9/11 which I think is remarkable. The credit however belongs to countless dedicated people about who's politics I couldn't care in the least. If the Democrats gain the white House I would wish them the very best in keeping up the good work.



We've had more than enough incidents against our countrymen. The only reason it hasn't been on our home soil is because they don't need to attack us here to hurt us. We have about 100,000 soldiers over in the middle east they can blow up without hitting us at home. They know it hurts us either way, since they cause grief and strife for the families of the soldiers they kill. Plus, what about the huge monetary loss this war is causing us? It has put us deep into the hole and the terrorists know this as well.

All because Bush and company wanted to take the focus off Afghanistan to Iraq, where the terrorists we were supposed to be fighting were not located. Oh, but they did come later... that they did... and to attack America, all you have to do is strap a bomb to a child zealot's back and detonate it in the middle of a city in Iraq. You'll take out soldiers and local populace, doing harm to both American image, ideals, and American countrymen.

Not very Remarkable at all.


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 16, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ August 16th 2007 said:


> Look, the number one issue facing not just America but humanity is how we're going to meet our growing energy needs in the coming decades. The demand is growing like crazy, and whether or not you believe in the reality of man-made climate change, the days of cheap oil are numbered. If we don't start on the right course now, there's no way our civilization is going to survive; we're dependent on cheap energy.
> 
> That's why we need forward-thinking leadership. We're not going to stop policing terrorism regardless of who's in power. But some candidates think the way to solve these problems is perpetual war. It isn't, and that's a pragmatic thing to say.



You know, even though I don't buy the man-made global warming, an energy crisis is very real. Plus, we as an advanced nation, needs to ditch dirty fuel and start using a cleaner and cost effective alternative. If we could lead the world in clean energy, not only would we have a great supply of fuel, we'd also have a very profitable product to market. Why aren't more leaders thinking this? In 30 more years, China will surpass us at the rate they're going and they'll be competing with us neck to neck for the oil supply. Everyone knows they're already supplying the world it's material products. Its only a matter of time until they jack the prices up for imports and cause our oil prices to rise by competition for consumption.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 23, 2007)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901f ... peace.html

That's precisely why I say Guiliani is really, really bad news no matter how "competent" a leader he is. It's appalling that these people don't see the lessons of the Vietnam war. That someone this uneducated could be his party's frontrunner is incredibly depressing.

And the idea of voting for someone because of their leadership skills without regard for their policies is just plain misguided.


----------



## Moonchilde (Aug 23, 2007)

He chooses idealism over realism. So, if you (figuratively) like guys living in a fantasy world, choose him, but I'd rather take someone who is willing to face reality and wants to deal with our problems realistically instead of ideally.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 23, 2007)

He's an idealogue, but I wouldn't call his view of the world idealistic. To me it's not even a fantasy, it's simply that he's uninformed and has no knowledge of history.

I think a lot of the present problems in Iraq are due to the same problem: lack of education - not in the sense that the people making the decisions didn't go to college, I mean in the sense that they don't expend the effort to become informed about the complexities they're making decisions about.

Guiliani's ideas about foreign policy are hopelessly naive. And mean, of course.


----------



## Dave Connor (Aug 23, 2007)

Iraq is a study in human behavior in every direction. Not a single US casualty in the Kurdish north where they are growing and thriving with a national identity. In the south ancient religious and tribal hatred with killing the order of the day. Of course there are politics involved as well and nations backing both sides but the contrast with the north is truly astonishing.

Whoever the next president is I doubt they will just up and pull out. At least the change in the US leadership should foster a fresh approach and sense in all parties that things can be resolved. Rational thought does not seem to be on the top of the list with the folks over there. Many say that the US policy has been nuts but the Kurds are not among them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 23, 2007)

I should have said a lot of *our* present problems in Iraq are due to a lack of education on the part of our leaders. All you have to do is read a book like The History of God (that's close to the actual title - I may be slightly off) to understand the kind of ideologies that exist in that region.

But Guiliani hadn't even thought about the idea of blowback - never mind that lots has been written about it for years. He's just a dead loss, and it's absolutely ridiculous that out of 300 million Americans we can't come up with better candidates.

The President of the United States should be a totally impressive, wise, learned person, not some jackass with nothing more than a huge ego.


----------

