Bookworm on Jan 20 2011 at 7:56 am | Filed under: Barack Obama, China
From Sadie:
The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize recipient gave a state dinner in honor of the leader of China.
The 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Liu Xiaobo, is imprisoned in China.
All conclusions are obvious.
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
SADIE on Explosive new book: Obama administration up to its neck in covert acts that caused Benghazi deaths
Earl on Why the market roars as the economy whimpers and sighs
Mike Devx on Why the market roars as the economy whimpers and sighsMike Devx on A great parable disguised as a joke
b. on Explosive new book: Obama administration up to its neck in covert acts that caused Benghazi deaths
Don Quixote on Why the market roars as the economy whimpers and sighsSADIE on Why the market roars as the economy whimpers and sighsMike Devx on A great parable disguised as a joke
SADIE – that was an absolutely perfect juxtaposition. No more can or needs to be said.
Nice symmetry.
(Note to Don Quixote: It’s called irony.)
No, actually, Zachriel, it’s called brilliant.
THANK YOU SADIE! I am going repeat this all weekend.
It’s an interesting question….How evil does a regime have to be before a US President should refuse to entertain its head at events such as state dinners?
I’d argue that it would have been OK for Woodrow Wilson to have given a state dinner for Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1913, but entirely insane for FDR to have done the same for Adolph Hitler in 1935. The current Chinese regime seems to be, as far as human rights go, somewhere between the Kaiser’s regime and the Hitler regime, through probably somewhat closer to the first.
I actually don’t object to Obama’s state dinner for Hu, but if Obama were the leader he should be, he would have been speaking out strongly against human rights abuses by China and others all along.
I read yesterday (was it in these comments?) that Bush solved the problem by giving the Chinese president lunch rather than an elaborate state dinner. If there’s a difference in degrees of evil (and China is slowly coming along), than there can also be a difference in degrees of entertainment. Drudge did a good thing yesterday when he reminded us that the Dalai Lama (who isn’t the brightest bulb in the box, but who has the virtue of standing up to China), got escorted out of the White House by a back door, past piled up garbage.
David Foster: How evil does a regime have to be before a US President should refuse to entertain its head at events such as state dinners?
The irony is striking, but remember, the President is merely the figurehead. Most Americans want to engage China peacefully. The alternative of constant tension and military confrontation only serves to strengthen the authoritarians in the Chinese government. China is a vitally important nation in the world, and they’ve made remarkable progress towards liberalization. It’s important to engage China, while continuing to press for human rights.
China doesn’t respect weak people, especially weak black people.
China is undergoing an internal debate between authoritarian impulses and free market/individual liberty. It’s a power struggle.
When they see the United States, the icon of free market and individual liberty, bowing to China, the authoritarian faction gets more play and they can then start to crush the dissidents in their wake using that momentum.
You already know this Zach. It’s what many Leftist movements have done in order to benefit authoritarian regimes. Cuba and Iran being only the two most recent examples.
I think that you have it all wrong. Obama was just trying to butter up his banker before the next loan application. Happens all the time.
I think you’re all missing what really happened in Washington, namely an answer at last to the long-asked question:
“Hu, Hu, Hu wrote the book of love.”
Hu, hu, hu…that was pretty funny, Charles M!
It’s called hypocritical mass, and it’s going viral!
”
All conclusions are obvious.”
only to those who do not have cognitive contusions
Zachriel, I agree generally with your comment at #7 (though you’re a little too free to speak of what most Americans want without authority) but, as is often has been the case in these discussions, is definitional. Sure, most American want to engage China peacefully. Few of us want to start lobbing nukes at them. But that is a trivial statement. The key question is how we engage them. I’d be interested in your (and others’) ideas on that.
Friedman wants to engage China by copying their Maoist system in order to grease the wheels of politics held up by democracy.
Don Quixote: you’re a little too free to speak of what most Americans want without authority
World Public Opinion: Despite the public’s cool feelings toward China, a majority generally favors engaging China diplomatically and economically.
My preference is engaging China diplomatically and economically. Certainly don’t want to engage China militarily if we can avoid it. Too messy, that.
Zachary quotes, “World Public Opinion”.
Based on a sample size of (?), a standard deviation of (?) and respondent profile of (?) and respondent knowledge of world events (?). Not to worry though. It is accepted by the Temple of Orthodoxy and thus must be so.
Danny Lemieux: Based on a sample size of (?), a standard deviation of (?) and respondent profile of (?) and respondent knowledge of world events (?). Not to worry though. It is accepted by the Temple of Orthodoxy and thus must be so.
Zachriel makes a reasonable claim. When asked, provides support with footnotes to the specifics. On the other hand, waving.
Anyone watching the Q & A yesterday, soon realized that Hu (tiger in Chinese) and the ‘paper tiger’ were as mismatched as plaids and stripes and … (drum roll) Hu’s on first.
Hu’s on first
You should be whipped with some wet rice noodles for that! I ran across that some years ago. Here it is.
(We take you now to the Oval Office.)
George: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.
Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That’s what I want to know.
Condi: That’s what I’m telling you.
George: That’s what I’m asking you. Who is the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow’s name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!
Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya’ asking me for?
Condi: I’m telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I’m asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That’s the man’s name.
George: That’s who’s name?
Condi: Yes.
George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.
Condi: That’s correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don’t want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.
Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
(Condi picks up the phone.)
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?
http://kottke.org/02/11/hus-on-first
Gringo, I remember it being off a Monty Python skit, but the Bush version is pretty comprehensive and all inclusive on the world leaders.
That was quite a ‘whipping’ Gringo – Thanks, loved it!
Excellent, Sadie. I will repost on FB.
Western intellectuals like Thomas Friedman and James Hanson admire China for the same reasons intellectuals in the last century admired Fascism: they make the trains run on time.
World opinion: NBC, Times, CNN, LA Times – obviously a scientific poll asked of Americans.
Mr. Adrian Allen. He writes: “Another big issue is the different understanding of what a contract actually is. Whilst in the West we tend to see a contract as a final agreement binding both sides to do as agreed and setting out penalties if one side defaults, Chinese see a contract more as a discussion document.
http://laowaiblog.com/going-back-on-ones-words/
Zhombre, they also get rich off of it. Side bonus.
Sadie, that’s basically how international law functions. So maybe the Chinese are just more “reality based” than the Leftist wonks in America?
Zachriel,
Is it possible that WorldPublicOpinion.org has an institutional bias that might affect their research methodology and resulting conclusions? A very brief look at their website shows that their supporters include the Tides Foundation and Ben & Jerry’s Foundation.
Unbiased, authoritative source? Just asking…
Zachriel, thanks for the authority, but (even if unbiased, which is debateable) it shows support declining between 2002 and 2004. If that decline continued, you might not even have your majority support today. I wouldn’t press you for more authority, though. I’d rather ask you to answer the other part of my question, which you ignored. What kind of engagement do you favor?
BobK: Is it possible that WorldPublicOpinion.org has an institutional bias that might affect their research methodology and resulting conclusions?
They mostly aggregate from other, conventional sources.
Don Quixote: What kind of engagement do you favor?
China is advancing rapidly, both economically and politically. They often feel this has yet to be acknowledge in the West. They are becoming increasingly important globally, and can be a positive force for change. However, the U.S. can’t dictate to the Chinese government. The policy since Nixon of engagement is the best that can be done at this juncture in history. That means agreeing where you can. Making clear areas of disagreement. Strengthen trade relations on an equitable basis. Avoid any escalation. Encourage positive changes.
In a way, the concept of “world opinion polls” is quite a lot like the AGW debate. We can’t even handle the “micro” yet presume to have mastery over the “macro”.
We can’t even predict the weather accurately more-than a few months out based on our ability to gather and process data, but there are some who insist we can predict climate change years into the future.
We can’t even figure out how people think in our own country, using polling the latest polling techniques, yet we presume to be able to say what the “world” thinks at large.
The entire concept of “world opinion” is nonsense, anyway. What people perceive of the world in Kenya, for example, is nothing like how people perceive the world in Peoria. I suspect that, even within Kenya, the variability of “opinion” is so great to render any statistical analysis thereof useless. People see each other through distorting lenses and, for the most part, worry more about their day-to-day lives rather than how Americans live their day-to-day lives, not to mention politics.
One of the things that always amazes me when I deal with educated, professional Europeans (even in my own family) is the weird caricatures they have of the U.S. But then, when I see how we are portrayed to them in Europe by their own media (which pretty much regurgitates leftwing commentary from organs like the NYT) and Hollywood, it becomes clear why this is so. Ditto for Americans’ views of what life in Europe is really like, as distinguished from a tourist’s snapshot of life in the European tourist locales. I recently had a delightful Danish scientist exclaim in wonder about American food on her first visit ever to the U.S.: “I had no idea that Americans ate such good food!”. She had, of course, seen “Super Size Me”.
Danny Lemieux: We can’t even predict the weather accurately more-than a few months out based on our ability to gather and process data, but there are some who insist we can predict climate change years into the future.
Typical confusion of weather and climate. Even though the weather is a chaotic system and many aspects can be difficult to predict, in London, the average temperature will usually be higher in July than December.
Yes, climate is a complex system, just like weather. It is a difficult problem that requires complex computer modeling. But there are certain facts that can be ascertained. The majority of scientists have concluded that the Earth is warming, likely due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Danny Lemieux: What people perceive of the world in Kenya, for example, is nothing like how people perceive the world in Peoria. I suspect that, even within Kenya, the variability of “opinion” is so great to render any statistical analysis thereof useless. People see each other through distorting lenses and, for the most part, worry more about their day-to-day lives rather than how Americans live their day-to-day lives, not to mention politics.
Very good point. Do you think that the people in Kenya should have as much say in their future as Americans have about theirs? Should they have say in the affairs of the world, insofar as they affect their own lives?
Danny Lemieux: One of the things that always amazes me when I deal with educated, professional Europeans (even in my own family) is the weird caricatures they have of the U.S. But then, when I see how we are portrayed to them in Europe by their own media (which pretty much regurgitates leftwing commentary from organs like the NYT) and Hollywood, it becomes clear why this is so. Ditto for Americans’ views of what life in Europe is really like, as distinguished from a tourist’s snapshot of life in the European tourist locales.
Another good point. And Europeans and Americans share a great deal of cultural heritage. May as well point out the differences between rural and urban, east and west, rich and poor. Democracy is a rather blunt tool for resolving differences. It’s actually rather arbitrary, but it works as long as everyone agrees to accept the results.
The Chinese want Taiwan back. To avoid escalation, you’d do that, wouldn’t you, Zach.
Danny Lemieux says: Danny Lemieux: We can’t even predict the weather accurately more-than a few months out based on our ability to gather and process data, but there are some who insist we can predict climate change years into the future.
Zach responds with: typical confusion of weather and climate. Even though the weather is a chaotic system and many aspects can be difficult to predict, in London, the average temperature will usually be higher in July than December.
Yes, climate is a complex system, just like weather. It is a difficult problem that requires complex computer modeling. But there are certain facts that can be ascertained. The majority of scientists have concluded that the Earth is warming, likely due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
I think I’ve cracked the code.
Somebody brings up a point, with more-than adequate references (see previous comments), Zach responds by evading the point entirely with a deluge non-sequiturs (avg temperatures in July versus Dec.) and unsubstantiated generalities and false-assumptions (“the majority of scientists have concluded….”, a statement more-than adequately addressed in previous comment) before falling back upon one or more links to accepted orthodoxy emanating from authorities firmly established in Zach’s Temple of Orthodoxy.
Ymarsakar: The Chinese want Taiwan back. To avoid escalation, you’d do that, wouldn’t you,
It’s not ours to give. Most Taiwanese support a more open relationship with the mainland and increasing cross-strait ties. Peaceful solutions are still possible.
Global Views Survey Research Center
http://www.gvm.com.tw/gvsrc/eng/index.asp
Zachriel: ”They mostly aggregate from other, conventional sources.”
That, sir (ma’am?, miss?), was precisely my point. I was suggesting that the sources WPO.org selects to include in their research may be skewed to reach a conclusion that aligns with the ideological stance of their sponsoring organizations. That’s not an indictment of WPO.org – it’s simply the nature of today’s informational landscape. With the vast amount of data (lies, damn lies, statistics…) readily available today, it’s possible to aggregate selected sources in order to support almost any desired conclusion.
I’d be more inclined to trust WPO.org if they also had the Heritage Foundation, or the CATO Institute, among their decidedly statist sponsors.
Personally, I’m taking their conclusion (and your cite) with a grain of salt.
Peaceful solutions are still possible.
That’s what they said about Tibet. Remember reality, Zach? Without military power, you don’t have a horse to stand on talking about “peace”.
BobK: I was suggesting that the sources WPO.org selects to include in their research may be skewed to reach a conclusion that aligns with the ideological stance of their sponsoring organizations.
The polls were based on well-established statistical methods. There may be some systematic bias, but the stated results are not even particularly noteworthy. Most Americans want dialogue, not war, trade, not crisis.
Zachriel, unlike some here, I deeply appreciate your efforts to back up your views with authority. Certainly, we have a right to evaluate and accept or reject the authority, but we should not reject your position out of hand when it is supported. Unfortunately, your authority does not always back up your contentions. For example, you said, ”Most Taiwanese support a more open relationship with the mainland and increasing cross-strait ties.” You then linked to a survey that does not even ask whether people support a more open relationship and increasing ties. Rather, the site asks about whether people are optimistic that tensions with the mainland will ease and concludes that they are. I’m not suggesting you are wrong; I suspect you are right. I’m just saying your authority does not support your thesis.
P.S. What “Peaceful solution” would you suggest? Want to try you hand at a “Peaceful solution” to the Middle East problem that does not compromise the safety of Israel?
Don Quixote: For example, you said, ”Most Taiwanese support a more open relationship with the mainland and increasing cross-strait ties.” You then linked to a survey that does not even ask whether people support a more open relationship and increasing ties.
It wasn’t the best citation. The results had to be teased out of the data. Here’s a poll that more clearly makes the point.
“71.79 percent of the public support the handling of issues arising from cross-strait exchanges through an institutionalized negotiation mechanism between the two sides.”
http://www.mac.gov.tw/public/Data/96301752871.pdf
Don Quixote: What “Peaceful solution” would you suggest?
Talk.
The longer peace lasts, the more the sides talk, the less chance of a serious conflict or war.
>>Talk.>>
Dear Lord.
Zach…do you know what “hudna” is?
Do you _really_ think that all countries are as reluctant to enter war as the US is? Do you think “talk” would have forestalled WWII?
Do you _really_ think that we do _not_ live in a “dog eat dog” world???
Do you _really_ think that if another nation thinks we do not have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in a manner that will cost them dearly that would _talk_???? Talk is something that only the _strong_ can afford – and usually don’t need. Obama is weakening us. He does not think we are an exceptional country, and does not _want_ us to be an exceptional country. He wants us to be _equal_ to other countries – that means, he wants to take from us and give to them. He wants to weaken us so that we are unable to attack them – not realizing apparently that if we _cannot_ attack them, they _will_ be able to attack us.
Talk.
Is that all you blighters can do???
suek: Do you think “talk” would have forestalled WWII?
No, because the fascists were intent on wars of aggression.
suek: Do you _really_ think that if another nation thinks we do not have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in a manner that will cost them dearly that would _talk_????
The U.S. has a right to self-defense. And military power is an important component in stability. But war has evolved considerably over history. Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.
suek: He does not think we are an exceptional country, and does not _want_ us to be an exceptional country.
Sure the U.S. is exceptional. So are all other countries, in their own way. At this juncture in history, the U.S. is in a position of great power and responsibility.
suek: He wants us to be _equal_ to other countries – that means, he wants to take from us and give to them.
All men are created equal, whether a Wall Street tycoon, or a shepherder in Somalia. They all aspire to have a say in matters that will affect them.
suek: {Obama} wants to weaken us so that we are unable to attack them – not realizing apparently
that if we _cannot_ attack them, they _will_ be able to attack us.
What weakened America was becoming bogged down invading wrong country, and running huge deficits even during an economic expansion. Don’t worry. It takes a lot for a great country to be brought down, and there are still many ways for the U.S. to regain its edge.
When it comes to China, a war would be devastating. Both players are rational and forward-looking, so talking in an attempt to resolve their differences is the best solution.
Zachriel, I agree this is a better site. You couldn’t even tease it out of the first site. In describing its methodology it stated the questions asked and the relevant question was not even asked. Anyway, what I conclude from this new site is that the Taiwanese are now attempting to settle things with the mainland diplomatically and have pretty much given up ever taking the mainland over (which I think is a realistic position for them to take). The real question is whether the mainland is ready to give up the idea of taking over Taiwan and I have grave doubts about that. Do you have any useful information on that subject.
Don Quixote: The real question is whether the mainland is ready to give up the idea of taking over Taiwan and I have grave doubts about that.
A war would be disastrous for China. They are far too tightly interwoven with world trade. It would require a major turn towards the worse in their government. Chinese leaders have tried very hard to diffuse power so that no one person will be able to run China amok. In addition, Taiwan is no slouch militarily, and would have some reasonable chance of repelling a sea invasion, or at least making it very costly.
Both sides exhibit irrational pride, but this is tempered, and they can be considered rational actors (short of some unforeseen spark). Though rational actors can certainly misjudge a situation, it’s doubtful either side sees an easy military solution.
>>So are all other countries, in their own way.>>
If all are exceptional, then none are exceptional.
>>All men are created equal.>>
No. All men are _not_ created equal. All men are created equal _under the law_. Massive huge humongus difference.
>>It takes a lot for a great country to be brought down, and there are still many ways for the U.S. to regain its edge.>>
True…but Cloward-Pivens will eventually succeed, if the House does not stop the process.
>>Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.>>
Except it _wasn’t_ the population that was the problem. It was the Al Qaeda terrorists who had the population under their domination. You can’t compare the benefits of a civilized society with the pressure of just simply trying to stay alive and preventing your family/people from being tortured and slaughtered. The terrorists were applying that pressure. It wasn’t until we were able to convince the Iraqis – who had been raised all their lives with the idea that the infidel was the devil – that they could trust the Ameriqis to help them against the terrorists. Once they decided they could trust us enough to work with us, things changed.
>>A war would be disastrous for China. They are far too tightly interwoven with world trade.>>
Hmmmm. That’s a happy thought. I’m not sure you’re right – but it’s worth thinking about. I do _not_ think Taiwan is secure, since they simply do not have the resources to resist a Chinese invasion, or even an action by China to take out their principal leaders, and take over. Taiwan’s protection has been the threat of US action if China were to do so. If O “protects” Taiwan like he “protects” Israel, Taiwan will be under Chinese control within the decade.
Suek, re. Iraq, let’s not forget the Iranian-backed Sadr followers and the former Saddam-supporting Sunni militants. To paraphrase Schwarzenegger in True Lies, “The were all bad!”. It was pretty these people and Al Qaeda that were slaughtering the civilians.
The huge peak in civilian deaths occurred during the Oil for Food sanctions, however, when Saddam starved his population to divert resources to himself.
The Kurds were pretty much totally with us during this period.
After watching Hu effortlessly manipulate The One in D.C., I have no doubt that America’s nancy boy prez will not lift a finger to protect Taiwan from the invasion/takeover China is planning. (Not to mention the leverage over Obama’s re-election prospects exerted by all the Yankee paper that China holds. Imagine if the Chinese decide to make His Nibs look even worse than he does now by engaging in some massive currency manipulation.)
There’s nobody to fill the gap. The Japanese could build deterrent nukes within weeks, but have no means of delivering them. Besides, Taiwan is a Chinese enclave, and the famously racist Japanese ain’t gonna trade their cities to come to the rescue of an inferior ethnic group. South Korea is also nuke-capable, but has its own problems with China. They’re not going to trade punches with Mao’s kids and they have no offensive naval power to speak of.
The Australians have the stones to patrol their own neighborhood and are becoming a regional power that is supplanting the U.S. as Obama continues to degrade America’s global cop role. But they’re too far away from China and too underpopulated to be able to mount the kind of pushback that somebody should give the Chinese asap.
Another factor is the Chinese dictators’ indifference to human life. Mao once said he’d gladly see hundreds of millions of Chinese incinerated if that’s what it would take to destroy the United States and western imperialism. His successors have never budged from that notion.
Little to add to that discourse, Martel, other than a Jeffrey Immelt quote:
“You’re going to have to look people in the eye and say, ‘We’ve got to shut this factory and move it to China,’ … then in the afternoon, go out in the community and connect with people.”
>>let’s not forget the Iranian-backed Sadr followers and the former Saddam-supporting Sunni militants.>>
Vultures. Mostly feeding on the carcasses. Although they undoubtedly cooperated in creating new ones. Al Qaeda was the inspiring force, I think. Enemy of my enemy thing.
Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.
It was always hard to control the population and maintain law and order. You’ve never read Machiavelli, have you. This is not a “new thing”.
A war would be disastrous for China.
China doesn’t need a war to take over Taiwan. If the US backs out of it, because people like you, Zach, talking about mumbo jumbo fantasy diplomacy, Taiwan can be taken over without a fight.
But they’re too far away from China and too underpopulated to be able to mount the kind of pushback that somebody should give the Chinese asap.
They’ve also destroyed the citizen’s guns, so the people now lack the spine to do anything, let alone project power into Asia.
suek: If all are exceptional, then none are exceptional.
Not in a multidimensional space. That is, each country can contribute something different to the whole.
Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God.
Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal.
suek: No. All men are _not_ created equal. All men are created equal _under the law_. Massive huge humongus difference.
So the entire justification for American Independence was based on a faulty premise.
Zachriel: Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.
suek: It was the Al Qaeda terrorists who had the population under their domination.
Al Qaeda in Iraq rose up out of the occupation, not the other way around.
suek: It wasn’t until we were able to convince the Iraqis – who had been raised all their lives with the idea that the infidel was the devil – that they could trust the Ameriqis to help them against the terrorists.
So it wasn’t domination by al Qaeda, but the Iraqis people who resisted. In particular, Arab Sunnis did not trust the majority Shi’ites who would come to dominate the government. Kurds, of course, had already achieved de facto separation.
suek: Once they decided they could trust us enough to work with us, things changed.
What changed is that the process of ethnic cleansing has been largely completed. There are about two million internally displaced refugees in Iraq with another two million or so having left the country entirely.
Danny Lemieux: The huge peak in civilian deaths occurred during the Oil for Food sanctions, however, when Saddam starved his population to divert resources to himself.
Times were far worse during to the Iran-Iraq War. And remember, the same metrics used to determine excess mortality during sanctions also show very high excess mortality in the years following the U.S. invasion. You may discount the one, but then you should discount the other.
Zachriel: Consider how easy it was for the U.S. to destroy the Iraqi military, but how hard it was to control the population.
Ymarsakar: It was always hard to control the population and maintain law and order.
Which is why American ineptness was so classically tragic (drama in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw).
#57 – Zach
Three questions and three straight unlinked answers, please.
1. Are you an American citizen?
2. Has there been any positive influence from the USA to any other part of the world?
3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?
Which is why American ineptness was so classically tragic (drama in which the main character is brought to ruin as a consequence of a tragic flaw).
If you want to call the anti-war movement in America tragic, I can’t disagree with that. Such was indeed a ruinous result of the anti-war and Leftist alliance. Things in Iraq would have progressed faster if people were helping, rather than hindering the effort for their own arrogance and power lust.
Part of what you term “American ineptness” is the inability of people on the Left, I include you Zach, to think outside the box of their preconceived social equality templates. Your world view, as applied to simply Pinochet’s Chile, would have destroyed Chile. And it did, almost, destroy Iraq. And it did destroy Vietnam.
3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?
I’d choose San Francisco. Incredible views and free meds if you get an STD.
SADIE: 1. Are you an American citizen?
Zachriel is Jovian.
SADIE: 2. Has there been any positive influence from the USA to any other part of the world?
Tons. We could list all the usual, the fight against fascism, the struggle to free the slaves, Washington, Lincoln, King. The Blues and Rock ‘n’ Roll. Lightbulbs, microcomputers. Or the difference Americans make every day with their charity work. Or we might mention the many revolutionary movements influenced by Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.
SADIE: 3. Premise: You were offered a job or had the opportunity to live outside of the states, What country would you choose?
Sorry, doesn’t apply.
Notice that not included in “all the usual” is the fight against communism (the liberation of Grenada, the forced implosion of the Soviet Union, the defense of Korea and Europe, the thwarting of the Sandinistas, the acceptance of tens of thousands of Cuban refugees, the protection of Taiwan), the patrolling of the world’s sea lanes against pirates and rogue states, the liberation of Kuwait, the creation of the least racist society in the West (a beacon of hope for people who live in racist countries like Cuba, Brazil, Mexico and China).
The “Jovian” answer just video gameboy talk.
I’d choose San Francisco. Incredible views and free meds if you get an STD.
LOL. And…no passport needed.
Any response, after identifying ‘themselves’ as Jovian are null and void and hold as much weight as helium.
Consider his youth. He’s being cute.
Two guesses how long it takes for Zach to think up an appropriate answer to my 59. It’s already past the first round of comments he made.
The tests are over, Zach. Now we’re unto the real battlefield.
>>So the entire justification for American Independence was based on a faulty premise.>>
Oh sure. Let’s assume your interpretation. All men are created equal. Now…what is your justification for taking from some and giving that which you have taken to others?
>>What changed is that the process of ethnic cleansing has been largely completed.>>
Ethnic cleansing. Terrific. Ok, I’ll bite – which ethnic group? Christians? yup, mostly. Jews? yup…them too. So…who else is on your list? and who was “cleansing” whom?
Suek, Zach went into the Animus and experienced the ancestral memories of the past. That’s probably how he thinks he knows all this stuff about historical ethnic cleansings ; )
Charles Martel: Notice that not included in “all the usual” is the fight against communism
The list clearly wasn’t meant to be complete. The U.S. was instrumental in containing Communism, and providing an alternative vision that competed successfully over the long run.
suek: Now…what is your justification for taking from some and giving that which you have taken to others?
This was answered. Governments must tax to exist. The United States is no exception. Hence, governments take money from some and give to others, whether to build roads, equip an army or keep the lights on in the White House. Please don’t pretend that taxes inherently destructive to freedom.
suek: Ok, I’ll bite – which ethnic group? Christians? yup, mostly. Jews? yup…them too. So…who else is on your list? and who was “cleansing” whom?
This was also answered. There are three primary ethnic groups in Iraq. Arab Sunni, Kurd and Shi’ite.
Z, nice evasion. In the list of good things the United States has done, the defense of the world against the Soviet Union and communism ranks at the top, yet you somehow missed it. So, the U.S. “was instrumental” in defeating Communism? Perhaps the far more accurate words you could have used but are loath to say were “the essential element.”
This isn’t news, by the way.
Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold (2006)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html
Here’s satellite images of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad (2008)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1953066020080919
>>Hence, governments take money from some and give to others, whether to build roads, equip an army or keep the lights on in the White House.>>
Sorry. That doesn’t wash. I grant the point that governments take from some in order to _function_, but that doesn’t explain _giving_ to others. Not “paying to do some job, provide some product or service”, I mean _giving_ – as in “here ya go…we know you’re having a hard time”. The Feds take from some who have ahd give to those who have not. That is _not_ a _function_ of government.
>>There are three primary ethnic groups in Iraq. Arab Sunni, Kurd and Shi’ite.>>
There _were_ and still _are_. So…who cleansed whom?
[...] A perfect parallelism. [...]