[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Oct 14 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

My own view is that there is still a place in the world for military force in support of worthwhile objectives[].

That's all fine and I actually agree with you. The operative word is "worthwhile". It seems that a large part of Europe cannot imagine objectives that are worthwhile, whereas the people in the USA can.

The vast majority in Europe would consider self defense "worthwhile". The vast majority of the USA would consider "defending the USA's international strategic and economic position" "worthwhile".

There also is one key difference that has very little to do with a country's view on the military. It is a view on sovereignty.

Simply put: For Americans another country's internal political situation maybe enough reason to use military force. These arguments were used for Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua, Haiti, ... .

In the European view other countries are entitled to their own mistakes. Europeans are willing to interfere only if the international community (UN) asks them and even then, Europeans hesitate (think Yugoslavia.)

So, the key question is: Who decides what are "worthwhile objectives"? Clearly the USA and Europe have very different ideas about that. (Oversimplified: USA: the people of the USA. Europe: the UN.)

Rik

P.S. There is a USA, but there is no such thing as the United States of Europe. Europe consists of a large number of small countries with different ideas. Therefore, anything in this discussion that is written as a view of "Europe" should be taken with a scoop of salt.

[PassedOut]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

well seeing as how obama just sent an additional 13,000 (is that figure correct?) to the war, the nobel prize was justified - after all, the additional troops are for peaceful purposes

Could you be more specific to what you mean by "Obama sent" in this particular case? The White House claims this increase was ordered by Bush. Not to admit laziness, but other than what they said I know nothing about it, so maybe someone can clarify.

The 13,000 brings the deployment up to the already authorized 68,000. General McChrystal is asking for an additional 40,000.

[PassedOut]

Trinidad, on Oct 14 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

kenberg, on Oct 14 2009, 05:29 PM, said:

My own view is that there is still a place in the world for military force in support of worthwhile objectives[].

That's all fine and I actually agree with you. The operative word is "worthwhile". It seems that a large part of Europe cannot imagine objectives that are worthwhile, whereas the people in the USA can.

The vast majority in Europe would consider self defense "worthwhile". The vast majority of the USA would consider "defending the USA's international strategic and economic position" "worthwhile".

There also is one key difference that has very little to do with a country's view on the military. It is a view on sovereignty.

Simply put: For Americans another country's internal political situation maybe enough reason to use military force. These arguments were used for Iraq, Afghanistan, Grenada, Nicaragua, Haiti, ... .

In the European view other countries are entitled to their own mistakes. Europeans are willing to interfere only if the international community (UN) asks them and even then, Europeans hesitate (think Yugoslavia.)

So, the key question is: Who decides what are "worthwhile objectives"? Clearly the USA and Europe have very different ideas about that. (Oversimplified: USA: the people of the USA. Europe: the UN.)

Rik

P.S. There is a USA, but there is no such thing as the United States of Europe. Europe consists of a large number of small countries with different ideas. Therefore, anything in this discussion that is written as a view of "Europe" should be taken with a scoop of salt.

I do believe that the US has the right to respond militarily when attacked.

Other than that, I subscribe to what Rik describes here as the European position. My position is the conservative position in the US, and I don't think it is really as rare as Rik suggests.

It is true that some pointy-headed liberals here have supported so-called "nation-building" military efforts conducted unilaterally by the US. They have been joined by a group of republican "neo-cons," so named as to distinguish them from true conservatives. The only other significant group to support US military action for the purposes Rik describes (and it is a sizeable group) consists of the poorly educated and the non-thinkers.

[jdonn]

PassedOut, on Oct 14 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

well seeing as how obama just sent an additional 13,000 (is that figure correct?) to the war, the nobel prize was justified - after all, the additional troops are for peaceful purposes

Could you be more specific to what you mean by "Obama sent" in this particular case? The White House claims this increase was ordered by Bush. Not to admit laziness, but other than what they said I know nothing about it, so maybe someone can clarify.

The 13,000 brings the deployment up to the already authorized 68,000. General McChrystal is asking for an additional 40,000.

So then perhaps Jimmy can explain his comment which to me looks like an inaccurate cheap shot, but again maybe I'm missing something.

[andrei]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

Could you be more specific to what you mean by "Obama sent" in this particular case? The White House claims this increase was ordered by Bush. Not to admit laziness, but other than what they said I know nothing about it, so maybe someone can clarify.

Is Bush still giving orders ? 10 months after leaving the office?

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 01:26 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Oct 14 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 12:13 PM, said:

luke warm, on Oct 14 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

well seeing as how obama just sent an additional 13,000 (is that figure correct?) to the war, the nobel prize was justified - after all, the additional troops are for peaceful purposes

Could you be more specific to what you mean by "Obama sent" in this particular case? The White House claims this increase was ordered by Bush. Not to admit laziness, but other than what they said I know nothing about it, so maybe someone can clarify.

The 13,000 brings the deployment up to the already authorized 68,000. General McChrystal is asking for an additional 40,000.

So then perhaps Jimmy can explain his comment which to me looks like an inaccurate cheap shot, but again maybe I'm missing something.

i don't know how cheap it was, but it wasn't inaccurate... obama didn't have to send more troops... hell, he could send some home if he wanted to... do you agree? evidently bush was correct and the increase was justified, in obama's judgment...

and who knows, maybe another 26,000 *will* lead to peace for someone, somewhere, sometime

[PassedOut]

This just in: Questions for Thorbjorn Jagland

Quote

What do you make of Republicans who view the prize as a repudiation of the policies of George Bush?
No, it is not. This prize is not against anybody.

Here in the United States, “socialism” is one of those words bandied about by Obama’s critics. When people hear “socialist,” they worry you’re going to take away their cars and make them ride bicycles.
Look at the welfare state in Norway that the Labor Party Social Democrats built. Everyone has better cars than most of the Americans.

What do you drive?
I’m driving a Volvo.

What is it like to represent the country that is best known as the home of Edvard Munch’s “Scream”?
I think it’s fantastic. I love paintings, and I don’t think “The Scream” is about the character of Norwegians. It is characterizing human beings in every country. He is trying to tell something about what it is to be a human.

Maybe the figure in the painting is so anguished because no one ever gave Munch a big prize, Nobel or otherwise.
That could be the problem, but then many, many thousands of people are in the same boat, and I think they should salute those who get the prize rather than thinking about themselves.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Look at the welfare state in Norway that the Labor Party Social Democrats built. Everyone has better cars than most of the Americans

Big deal - I own 1/330,000,000 of a $14 Trillion debt - and that makes me Saab without having to buy one.

[Fluffy]

Trinidad, on Oct 10 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 10 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Just as many Americans think 9/11 is Bush's fault......for whatever reason.....(Bush is stupid...Bush loves war....Bush ignored CIA...etc)

That is silly. 9/11 was the fault of those guys who flew the planes and nobody else.

Rik

I agree with most of what Rik has said on all this post. In my opinion he tried to show americans the european's common view of their country, wich is obviously biased and wrong. He never claimed that america is bad nor europe is good.

But in Europe, we get flooded with anti-american propaganda. Videos of really american dumb gusy on tv who can barelly speak. People at tv programs who don't know where mexico/argentina/vietnam is. And a lot of suposedly true pollins where 70+% americans failed to locate japan on a map.

That being said I don't believe that america or europe exists. What do think you are talking about when you name them? There are so many people with so many different ways of thinking to steryotype them on any way. Much less for where they do live or pay their taxes.


Oh and now going a bit philosophical. I disagree with the above post of Rik. 9/11 was not the fault of those who flew the planes, nor Bush, nor Obama. If you carefully think of it, you will realise that you, me, and almost every free citizen on the world was able to alert US about it. Or get into the plane and kill the terrorist before that. Or do something. You could had stopped it, you didn't, you are to blame.

So in fact everyone is to blame. Bush and his govement, with Obama and the terrorists obviously share a big amount of the blame, but not even more than 75% between all of them IMO.

[kenberg]

Beginning with "Now going a bit philosophical" I get confused. I was supposed to do what? Get on the plane and stop them? I usually have trouble with philosophy.

[Fluffy]

yes, you could had done it. that's the point.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on Oct 25 2009, 10:12 AM, said:

This just in: Questions for Thorbjorn Jagland

Quote

What do you make of Republicans who view the prize as a repudiation of the policies of George Bush?
No, it is not. This prize is not against anybody.

Here in the United States, “socialism” is one of those words bandied about by Obama’s critics. When people hear “socialist,” they worry you’re going to take away their cars and make them ride bicycles.
Look at the welfare state in Norway that the Labor Party Social Democrats built. Everyone has better cars than most of the Americans.

What do you drive?
I’m driving a Volvo.

What is it like to represent the country that is best known as the home of Edvard Munch’s “Scream”?
I think it’s fantastic. I love paintings, and I don’t think “The Scream” is about the character of Norwegians. It is characterizing human beings in every country. He is trying to tell something about what it is to be a human.

Maybe the figure in the painting is so anguished because no one ever gave Munch a big prize, Nobel or otherwise.
That could be the problem, but then many, many thousands of people are in the same boat, and I think they should salute those who get the prize rather than thinking about themselves.

One of his comments:

"Obama has reduced tensions in the world to a large extent — namely, the divide between the Muslim world and the Western world, which is very dangerous."

I wish the interviewer (who seemed to be a lightweight) had asked a follow-up here. I don't care what car he drives but I would like to know in what way he feels tensions have been reduced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan or Iran.

The response continues:

"What he did was to go to Cairo and reach out to the Muslims. There must be a starting point, and this was a very important starting point."

OK, got it. Obama was given the prize for making a speech. I confess I didn't hear it but it must have been one hell of a speech.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Oct 25 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

OK, got it. Obama was given the prize for making a speech. I confess I didn't hear it but it must have been one hell of a speech.

Yes, a couple more speeches like that and world peace is assured.

[blackshoe]

You (and I, and apparently everyone in the world) were supposed to know (telepathy? precognition?) that these... terrorists were planning this specific incident, get to wherever the planes took off from (Boston, in two cases, I think, and somewhere West (Pittsburgh? Chicago? It's been a while) in another) simultaneously board all of them, and use our superpowers to stop them from taking over the planes. Or maybe, given superpowers, we were just supposed to teleport ourselves aboard and save the day at the last minute.

As for fault, that lies not only on the terrorists who performed the actions, but also on those who persuaded them and/or bankrolled them. And nobody else.

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on Oct 25 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

Oh and now going a bit philosophical. I disagree with the above post of Rik. 9/11 was not the fault of those who flew the planes, nor Bush, nor Obama. If you carefully think of it, you will realise that you, me, and almost every free citizen on the world was able to alert US about it. Or get into the plane and kill the terrorist before that. Or do something. You could had stopped it, you didn't, you are to blame.

So in fact everyone is to blame. Bush and his govement, with Obama and the terrorists obviously share a big amount of the blame, but not even more than 75% between all of them IMO.

On behalf of every single individual in the world, I sincerely apologize for not preventing the destruction of the World Trade Center, the attack on the Pentagon, and all that has resulted therefrom.

I have always thought that it was my fault, and now I am being told that it was my fault. For that I humbly apologize.

I live only about 90 minutes from Newark International Airport. I could have boarded one of the planes and taken out the terrorists personally. I have long regretted not doing so.

I suspect that Obama, who was an instructor in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago at the time of 9/11, is at least as much to blame for 9/11 as I am.

While I am on this topic, it is clear to me that the posters in this Forum know far more about how the world should be run than those who are actually in power. So I should do whatever is necessary to get the posters in this Forum elected to high public office so that the problems of the world can be fixed.

[Fluffy]

Just out of curiosity, in one of the forums I moderate, where we get flooded with sex-bots and drug-bots spamming (about 7 messages/day), a new bot has come to post this:


--------
Obama wins nobel prize

Obama wins nobel peace prize. Why?
Hard to believe that a U.S. President can win a peace prize while engaged in two wars.
Can some one please inform me as to why Obama has gotten a Nobel Peace Prize when he has yet to do what he has gotten the prize for?
--------

I find it amusing that someone wasted its time to build a bot just for this lol.