What we do with despots
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 19:33
VIEWED: 7760
PAGE 2 of 9
@MacBaker:
The problem is that the US "news" that you've clearly been listening to mixes a dash of truth in with a pound of spin. If you look to other sources (read: outside of the US) you'd be aware of this.
I made a comment that is common knowledge.
I'm tired of every political discussion turning into "retorts" of this kind. So, if you re-phrase your reply in a civil manner, I will reply to it.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I made a comment that is common knowledge.
I'm tired of every political discussion turning into "retorts" of this kind. So, if you re-phrase your reply in a civil manner, I will reply to it.
Where was I uncivil? Was it when I dared to disagree with you? Or was it uncivil that I asked for a source for this supposed "comment that is common knowledge". Name a reliable source for this quote! What's uncivil about asking for proof?
As far as what news I follow, I avoid broadcast news, which is far too concerned with ratings to be reliable. I choose to read about news from several sources, and balance my opinions with reasearch and reports from several sources both left, moderate and right.
BTW: your response is also a RETORT! Political discussions always lead to debate. Always have in a democracy! Deal with it! If you can't take what you obviously relish dishing out, I suggest you find something else to do with your time, like take up knitting! That's pretty safe from retorts!
Since you obviously can't handle debate of any kind, I'll avoid this thread from now on, and leave it to you and your followers! Have a nice day!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you think we should just ignore them? A part from the strategic advantage to having a base of operations, there is also the concern that they might become a problem. Do you suppose they are just going to patiently wait until we get around to toppling their government? What if they decide to side with Syria or Iran, while we are “leaving well enough alone?” It makes far more strategic sense to have them as an alley then making waves while we are trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you say?
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@Finn:
There is a difference between saying/doing things that would incurr the wrath of a nation and just leaving well enough alone. Why does the US have to do anything there? Why can't you guys just put things in the queue and deal with them as time/money permitts?
No, of course not! That'd just be darn right sensible! You have to do something, even if it is completely hypocritical.
Quote:That’s not my fault. I was warning people about this in 1998. People chose to ignore me; mostly Postmodern Liberal types like you. Instead of paying attention to what was really going on, they were prattling on about the evil empire of Wal-Mart. Or maybe the Fascist regime of K-Mart with their Blitzkrieg of reasonably priced merchandise. Get a grip on reality, Karl. It has nothing to do with corporations. It has to do with something called export controls, which are laws restricting the export of defense sensitive technology. After getting a big chunk of money from the Chinese government, Clinton started relaxing or bypassing entirely export controls to China. He may have even given them classified information about our missile systems. If corporations sold us out, it was only because Clinton made it possible.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Seems a little late for the warning.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I was warning people about this in 1998. People chose to ignore me... export controls, which are laws restricting the export of defense sensitive technology. After getting a big chunk of money from the Chinese..."
People chose to ignore you because you have nothing rational to say.
If you think that the only, or even the major, threat from China is military, then you clearly have not been paying attmtion to either the price of oil, the value of the dollar, the relative size of national economies, or the amount of debt that we have outstanding to foreigners. What do you propose to do if the Chinese decide they don't want to hold our T-bills anymore? Or the oil producing states figure out that the Euro is more stable, and decide to dump the dollar? Or nations avoid the one bright spot in our export picture- weapons- because they don't like our politics? Or our corporations desert our nation in droves, leaving us looking pretty much like Argentina? I know this may be hard to imagine, but think REAL HARD about this... you can't solve every single problem with a gun, or even an arsenal of nukes. You can't solve the CHINESE problem with guns, or even nukes. And even in the military realm, they're getting most of their weapons from Russia, and the remainder from the EU- including Britain.
Can you please for once come up with something insightful, or at least not so single-mindedly bloody stupid?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
@MacBaker:
I made a comment. Your reply was just a "justification" for the war, which is off topic given the thread and context of the comment that you where replying to. Thus you spouted off.
And as for naming my source, can you remember what date an interview/press conference/etc was on years ago on demand?
What I demand, by the way, is that you stay on topic (which you haven't done) and to not have such an aggressive tone in your post (which you are doing).
Until you can abid by these rules, I will not reply to you further.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A bit off the topic of despots (except for the China connection), but here are two items from the front page of AsiaTimes online:
Quote:The US can't beat China militarily. Economically, China is pulling away.
China, Greenspan rub salt on dollar wound
Adding to the US dollar's woes, no less than Alan Greenspan now warns that the party may be over for the greenback as foreign investors tire of paying for the United States' uncontrollable fiscal deficit and want to shift to other currencies at some point. ...
... US dollars accounted for 63.8% of the world's currency reserves at the end of 2003, down from 66.9% two years earlier, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) figures released last April. Almost 70% of the 56 central European banks surveyed said they had increased exposure to the euro.
(in) a more recent finding ... Asian central banks have been quietly switching their dollar holdings to regional currencies for at least three years now. A study by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) shows that the ratio of dollar deposits held in Asian offshore reserves declined to 67% in September, down from 81% in the third quarter of 2001. India was the biggest seller, reducing its dollar assets from 68% of total reserves to just 43%. China, which directly links the yuan to the dollar and is under US pressure to allow a freer movement of its currency, trimmed the dollar share from 83% to 68% over the same period. ... (Mar 11, '05) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GC12Dj01.html catching Asian flu
SYDNEY - They may be telling a different story to money markets, but Asian central banks have been quietly switching their dollar holdings to regional currencies for at least three years, confirm global banking data. In a further, and so far the biggest, setback for the greenback's status as the undisputed reserve currency, Japan on Thursday said it might diversify its holdings, though monetary chiefs later sought to play down the prospect. South Korea rattled currency traders with a similar announcement late last month, followed by a similar backtrack.
China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines and Hong Kong have already started a sell-off ... http://atimes01.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/GC11Dk01.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
So you think we should just ignore them? A part from the strategic advantage to having a base of operations, there is also the concern that they might become a problem. Do you suppose they are just going to patiently wait until we get around to toppling their government? What if they decide to side with Syria or Iran, while we are “leaving well enough alone?” It makes far more strategic sense to have them as an alley then making waves while we are trying to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, wouldn’t you say?
Why do you attempt to put words in my mouth? Why do you always have to make such wild assumptions? Why are you always going to extremes for "solutions"?
Leave well enough alone, does not mean don't watch. It just means, don't poke the bear.
I'm not even sure that you aware that someone can not be with you, but still not your enemy.
Why do you think that you must topple there government? Are you not aware that such things can be done without violence?
ie You've gone around dropping bombs all over the world. As a nation, how's that working for you? B/c, from where I site, not so much.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Holy shit , do SignyM and SigmaNunki even know what the hell is being discussed? When the two of you deal with the chips on your shoulders, then we’ll see about carrying on a discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FINN... DEEP BREATH... Yes, we know what's being discussed. We're just tired of the same old same old. Yer a real gun-totin' capitalist, ain't ya? Except that (1) you're not a capitalist, you're a droid, just like everyone else and (2) "nuking 'em all" isn't a real solution.. not even for China. In other words, your fundamental world view is at odds with reality. That's why you keep reaching the same irrelevant conclusions over and over again.
So tell me, why do we support despots? Trace that out for me step by step, listing all the despots that we supported, and show me what advatnage it has gained us in the long run (within a 30-year time frame.)
As far as China is concerned... I wasn't to happy about trading with them in the first place. You see, they don't need our military secrets because they can BUY all the weaponry they need with their nice hard currency reserves. And WHERE did they get those currency resrves, hmmmmm???
In order to have meaningful, or even semi-interesting discussion, we must both be prepared to examine our fundamental assumptions. So far, you have said nothing that would cause me to examine mine. Look at your views on Social Security as an exemplar. Everything that you think is a problem is not, and everything that you think is a solution is a problem. How do I know??? Because Bush's "reforms" have been tried in other countries, notably Britain and Chile- with resounding failure.
So how did you get in such an intellectual pickle? It's because, as you've said, you've been told something all your life - and you BELIEVE it. You like to think of yourself as a real independent cuss, but the one place where it truly counts- in your brain- you're shackled by what you've been told. Stop believing. Start thinking.
I'm serious about the above question about despots. Please list for me the despots that we've supported, and show me how it's worked out for us in the long run (30 year timeline). I may ask a LOT of questions; I promise to keep them sincere and meaningful.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@MacBaker:
I made a comment. Your reply was just a "justification" for the war, which is off topic given the thread and context of the comment that you where replying to. Thus you spouted off.
And as for naming my source, can you remember what date an interview/press conference/etc was on years ago on demand?
What I demand, by the way, is that you stay on topic (which you haven't done) and to not have such an aggressive tone in your post (which you are doing).
Until you can abid by these rules, I will not reply to you further.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
Everytime I try to leave, they pull me back in!!! Another retort from SigmaNunki! What a surprise!
You made an attack on the Bush Administration's motivations for the war in Iraq, I questioned that over simplictic view. You made it on topic with your initial comments! Deal with it, and deal with the fact that people are going to respond, and not always in support of your views.
You've said the this Bush quote is common knowledge! If that is true, it should be easy to find ONE source for it!
You can demand what ever you want, but until you follow your own rules, why should anyone else? As soon as you made your first comments, you made any retort to them fair game and on topic!
BTW, the original topic was "What we do with despots". How is any comment about Saddam and the war in Iraq, not on topic when talking about what we do with despots?
Amazing! I defend my view, and I'm accused of being aggressive and off topic. You defend your views, you are somehow claiming the high ground here? You sound like a child having a tantrum because someone is daring to question your opinion, and is expecting facts to back up your claims. WOW, if that is the way you expect things to work, maybe this should be a facist nation, with us all living by YOUR rules!
I'd given some thought to movin' off the edge -- not an ideal location -- thinkin' a place in the middle.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME