Saturday, October 31, 2009

Preparedness and Politics: 7 resons why you should care.

Hi FerFal,
I, as many Europeans, wonder why Obama is so heavily critised by Republicans when it comes to his spending of government money.
Didn't George W. Bush spend 1,500 Billion dollars on a war against a country of which he and his sidekicks knew there weren't any WMD?
He threw the US in an all-time record deficit.

Obama spends the same amount trying to save jobs, banks and mortgages, enable poor people to have access to public healthcare, but all of the sudden the Republicans begin to worry about the national deficit and blame Obama for spending too much and being a socialist.

Should Obama also have invented a reason to fight an exterior enemy in order to be allowed to spend money?
Fighting an economic collapse isn't worth the expenses, but fighting a war to find non-existing WMD on the other side of the world is?

I don't cover the entire spectrum of criticism against Obama, but it's clear to a lot of Europeans that a US president who doesn't invent an imaginary outside enemy, is considered a weakling from the Republican's perspective.

In Europe, Obama is really popular. We love the US. We don't like the useless wars that were instilled by the Republican presidents in the last 2 decades. Now there's a president who really cares about healthcare, and he's called a 'socialist'. Shame on him! To quote a Republican congressman, 'You lie boy!'.
Do Republicans prefer foreign wars over free health care for the poor? Don't they see that the Iraq-war was a big, big shame in the eyes of the world?

What do you think of this Ferfal? I know you are not fond of Obama, especially regarding his firearm laws. But the guy is in the social aspects way better than G.W. Bush for a country like the United States.

Ed from Europe.

Hi Ed, I'm afraid you've swallowed a big hook with Obama bait on it.
Obama has changed his views regarding the war so much its hard to keep track.
I only ask you two questions:
1) Who's president of the US?
2) Are troops still in Middle East?

Regarding the war, he even said in 2004:
"There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute."
You see, Obama is no different.
Obama to Send 13,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

I've got nothing against Obama, he seems like a really nice guy. I'd even invite him over for bbq and invite him over to the range for some shooting if I had the guy as a neighbor.
The problem is that he reminds me a bit too much to our own president, Nestor Kirchner, who got so drunk with power that he even set his wife up as a current puppet president, with Nestor pulling the strings planning his next presidency.
Obama has a similar modus operandi. He's been compared to Peron by more than a few journalists, and the similarity is remarkable:
Obssesive about control, totalitarian, promotes an image of himself as savior, something beyond his official position, just like Peron did.
I didnt like Bush much,but I remember vividly that he was mocked several times, caricaturized as a drunkard... but Obama? No one dares. And that's wrong. No one dares to joke about Kirchner here either. Just do that and you'll have hundreds of tax agents doing a long and thorough investigation of your company's assets, always something can be found to ruin your day... or year.
I dont like the fact that Obama reminds me so much of these dark characters of Argentine politics.

A for politics, someone commented that why was I posting these things in a survival and preparedness blog. Here's why:

1) I didn't care about politics either, until a certain politician that got elected president cleaned his butt with our constitution, stealing our retirement funds, raising natural gas and electric power up to 600% all of a sudden with a tax, and recently passing a law that will control our media.

2) I didn't care, until they declared a gun emergency law, and we started losing our rights to defend ourselves little by little, while criminals have more rights than us and hardly ever go to jail anymore.

3) I didn't care until the president I didn't vote for decides what I should be able to afford to eat.

4) How much air conditioner should I use during summer.

5) I didn't care until we ended up with a president that spent all of a sudden and witohut asking anyone 600 million dollars ( of out pension funds) to buy access to the soccer matches on Sundays so as to make them free to view in the public channel, instead of pay per view like before. She takes our money, spends it on soccer, even if I dont give a damn about soccer and even though millions of kids are below the poverty line, a dozen starving to death each day... but hey! They have soccer.

6) I didn't care until our president decided to be best buds with Cuba and Venezuela, while shutting us off from the rest of the world.

7) I didn't care until I realized how many people have died, starving, killed by crime and the lack of security, or by pandemics like Dengue and A flu, all because of a government that chooses to censor the information instead of doing something about it.

It's all very serious, even life or death matters, freedom and personal liberites. And its all got to do with politics and weather we do something aobut it or not.



Anonymous said...

Hey Ed from europe. You left out the fact that we liberated several million people from a brutal Iraqi dictator and gave them freedom. If we applied your logic to europe in World War 2 you would be still be living under nazi tyranny.
I've always found it quite rascist that so many europeans think it ok that the U.S. fought 2 wars for their freedom in the last century but somehow Iraqi's aren't worthy of the same.

Anonymous said...

Also Ed, I value my freedom and despise European style socialism and communism.

Ed said...

I don’t want to pollute your blog with questions about politics, but as you say they really do matter a lot.
But if you have the time, I’ve got a question about your view on extreme right in Europe. Extreme right groups are rising. They feed on the discontentment among Europeans considering mass immigration (partially from the muslim world). In France for example, around 15% of people come from outside Europe. Britain, Germany, Belgium and Holland are around 10%. Personally I don’t care where people come from, as long as they work, respect the laws and learn the language from the country they live in. I can’t dismiss the social problems which come with mass immigration. However, the extreme right breeds an image of “the Immigrant” as
a) a muslim
b) sympathising with terrorism
c) a lazy, not-working usurpator of taxpayers’ money
d) a retard who disrespects and wants to submit women so he can sit on the couch and watch Europeans work.
e) some groups even have the guts to say that black people do this all the same.

Now that’s what I call worrying. It’s not just one guy over here, but a movement throughout several countries in Europe which feed mostly on the same xenophobe sentiments. Luckily, these so called politicians are crooks and idiots who can’t cooperate and can’t organise internationally to get access to real power. As they want to fight the muslim minority out of Europe, they also fight among themselves. But they live on and breed fear out of the excesses of social problems and disturbance in the media.

Have you noticed this European tendency in international media? A lot of people are worried about this. We’ve already seen where these populist movements of hate and fear can bring us in the past century. What I fear is that some of these politicians get to power and build huge prison camps for muslims.

You don’t have to put this in your blog at all, I’m just curious about your point of view in this matter.

Ed from Europe

I haven’t ordered your book yet.
I read the unfinished version you once posted somewhere on the blog, and I found it tremendous. I can’t believe that the finished book will be less than (tremendous)^2.

Ed said...

Hi FerFAL,
Thanks for giving a reaction to my question so quickly!
You’re right Obama is the president, and troops are still in the Middle East. But there are differences to the GW Bush strategy. GW didn’t have any strategy in Iraq concerning the disarming of the Iraqi army. He would have been a bad amateur if he didn’t consider that arms would disappear in the hands of local militia and terrorist groups. More than one military expert criticized the lack of strategy over there. Which makes me (and many other Europeans) think that the war in Iraq was just a way to get GWB’s friends and family in weapon industry and the oil business some good deals paid out of tax money.
Obama on the contrary admits that the US should retreat within a reasonable amount of time, not letting Iraq fall into more trouble than it already is, but not sending US kids into death more than needed.
The real war was to be fought in Afghanistan, since the 911 attacks were planned over there. That’s what O. said several times. That’s why he sends tens of thousands extra troops to Afghanistan, away from the non-existing WMD in Iraq, but into the territory of a big extremist organisation who’s trying to kill and dominate normal people around the world. In this respect, I think O knows way better what he is doing with US tax money and the lives of the servicemen and women than GWB was.

I know that O is not happy with the criticism he receives from the Republicans, for example in the TV Show of Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I think that these TV Shows are amusement only and full of nonsense. The arguments they throw at O are not very strong, rarely surpassing the level of mocking and complaining that they can’t say anything without being called a racist by the Democrats.
O. even received a memo from one of his advisors lately, that he should not bother himself too much with what these people say about him on TV. He seems to have a problem with this issue, which DOES worry me. He should be able to get over mockery and accusements of being a socialist, muslim etc. But did he pass any acts to punish and control national media, like Berlusconi does in Italy or the Kirchners do in Argentina? We have yet to wait for that moment. I will be one of the first to admit his obsessiveness with totalitarian power. I didn’t like what I read about his attitude in this matter.

When it comes to presidents securing their control over the country by installing their wife or son in important positions, I would have worried more about the Clintons or the Bush-families. Obama hasn’t yet advised his wife to get ready for presidential elections.

But you’re right: He does caracterise himself as a savior. Though, isn’t that what he is supposed to be doing in these times? Economic crisis, record deficit, two endless wars on the other side of the world, tens of millions Americans with no access to healthcare. That’s mostly the Republican legacy that he inherited and which he HAS to solve or drastically improve. I wouldn’t go as far as presenting myself as a savior ( I’m not going for presidency either), but the US are in deep ****. They need a savior. I hope O. will stand up to the trial of time, but I don’t think he’s already gone that far to as to compare him to a totalitarian, socialist and corrupt deceiver of the people like the K’s. But I might be mistaking; I’m not very up to date about what he is doing at the moment.

Ed said...

I had to split up my message in order to get them through the max. character limit, so here they come:

BulgarWheat said...

I'm afrain Ed from Europe has consumed too much of the koolaide. No one said "you lie, boy" What was said was "you lie"

You know what? The president was lying.

I hope Ed in Europe enjoys the islamification of Europe. He is certainly free to passively roll over and accept his new master. Me, it's really not my cup of tea.

America's founding fathers wrote a pretty good document in the U.S. Constitution. The present government is simply ignoring that "inconvenient" document and are making things up as they go along.

That is the primary reason average American's are upset. If Ed can't grasp that, then there really isn't anything I can say to get through to him.

Nick-dog said...

Ferfal. I love your blog. It has really opened my eyes to what can happen any time, anywhere.

To Ed from Europe:

"Free health care for the poor," mate? Free?

It's going to cost Americans more than a trillion dollars, we are going to be taxed more than we already are to pay for the so-called "free health care for the poor," and we will be fined egregiously if we don't sign up for this "free health care," a directive that is designed to make us poor.

What this all amounts to is a grand denial of our liberties as Americans to choose how we want to live. Now we will have government bureaucrats in charge of how many procedures we will get, when we will get them, and how often.

No thanks. Obama is a socialist. He is the CEO of GM, of the banks, and now wants to be my doctor. I prefer to keep my liberties intact.

Oh, and BTW, the poor already can get health care here, e.g., no one can be denied emergency medical treatment in our emergency rooms.


Anonymous said...

Ed from Europe,
I'm surprised you have not yet realized that the Republicans and Democrats are the same party (regardless of their leaders). Special interest groups pay and control both sides. ALL politicians are bought and paid for.

BulgarWheat said...

I find it curious that the very people who collapsed our economy are STILL running our economy.

This is not incompetence, this is intentional.

Jack said...

Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. What they say in public and on the campaign trail has nothing to do with how they vote on issues. They are all corrupted by greed and power politics. Most Americans are independents who don't belong to either party because we know the political parties can't be trusted. Independents just try to vote for the best person for the job based on their own personal criteria.

As an independent who is a fiscal conservative/social liberal (libertarian), I have alway thought Bush was an ignorant cowboy, and I have always opposed the war in Iraq. The Bush administration's own evidence was against them from day one, and the vast majority of the politicians and media failed the citizens of this country by failing to oppose Bush/Cheney's war.

However, Obama's presidential win was more of a rejection of Bush's policies by the U.S. voters, and was not a mandate for Obama to further expand the government and spending. Obama made a lot of promises he has not kept (get out of Iraq, close Guantanimo, make government open and transparent, stop congressmen from slipping in pork barrel projects, etc., etc., etc.), and we cannot afford rescuing any more businesses that are "too big to fail" or expanding government services when we already have such monsterous and crippling deficits. And in reference to Bush spending trillions on war vs. Obama spending trillions on saving banks, etc. - my mother used to always say "two wrongs don't make a right". We need to stop spending, and stop now.

About the only current politician I know of who votes according to the Constitution is "Dr. No" - Ron Paul, who runs as a Republican, but votes as a Libertarian.

So, as a non-american, you might not understand that most Americans don't like or trust the media, either political party, congress, or any past or current president, and what most of the politicans blather about is not what the American people want, but is about their own petty party politics and old fashioned greed.

Also, your quote 'You lie boy!' is from Maureen Dowd, not from Repulican Joe Wilson - that is not what he said.

CapnRick said...

Saludos. I use Google Reader to stay up to date with your blog and others. Look what the ad on the Google sidebar to today's contribution was pushing:

Google's founders have a political agenda that includes Congressional and FCC control of the internet. Sounds like the K's agenda to silence Clarin, thereby scaring the cojones off the rest of the press, no?

While I agree there are appropriate forums wherein one may discuss political matters, preppers should be aware of how politics could and should affect their investment levels in prepping activity. Given that a new shipment of ammo at WalMart will sell out completely in 15 minutes now... and, ever since the election... one must trim one's sails to run more efficiently with the political winds. It seems that .22 long rifle bullets may become the new currency. On the other hand, real estate prices are going down. Preppers don't come to this blog for politics... but, special political events that affect security are of tremendous importance to prepping plans. Preppers in California need to be aware that support systems will probably break down in bankrupt areas far more quickly than in non-Mommy state areas.
Political irresponsibility leading to the threat of the loss of personal freedoms and rights IS a prepper issue

Progressives like to say that anyone who criticizes recent government action is an anti-Obama racist... a real discussion stopper. We Independents find that gambit to be cowardly and elitist. Obama is MY president too, and as a CITIZEN I want him to succeed for us all. I also support those bloggers and broadcasters who focus light on things the government has done that quickly disappear once the bloggers and broadcasters provide info on their misdeeds. Watching Glen Beck and Breitbart is like watching a train wreck unfold before your eyes... but, they get the light shining on those things Congress doesn't want us to see. One needs to check out HuffPo, Media Matters and others to reality check the other media sources.

It was amazing to me that the readers of this blog include some people who support the very policies whose results they fear... the policies that make prepping activity worthwhile. One has to hope that, although they vote against their best interests, they take the security of their loved ones seriously... that the reasonable preparations for disaster that appear in Surviving Argentina are important.

It is my sincere wish that all who visit this blog to share wisdom can do so with tolerance and understanding for the beliefs of others. Let us take the ideas that help us and discard without rancor those suggestions with which we disagree.


Mayberry said...

It's refreshing to see that someone from the "outside" happened to notice the "no attack rule" on Lord Obammy. Far too many left wing loons in this country fail to see their own hipocracy, after 8 years of venomous rhetoric against Bush. I didn't care for Bush much, I saw him for the globalist NWO type that he was, and I bashed him as much as I do Obammy. But Obammy bashing is "racist", according to the puppet media, who had no problem whatsoever going after Bush.

Yes, we all should follow and care about politics, like it or not (I despise politics), because it affects us all. Everything those creatons on Crapitol Hill do has tremendous impact on our lives, and the lives of people around the world. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain....

Bones said...

Ed - You don't grasp the situation in the US. We are in the deepest recession since 1929, our two main government run social welfare programs (social security and Medicare) are both severely underfunded, inefficient and widely expected to get far worse. Yet obama and the democrats want the government to take over funding health insurance. Why would anyone rationally expect this program would somehow be different? Nothing in the legislation addresses the two biggest factors inflating health care costs: runaway malpractice litigation expenses and the lack of truly open markets for health insurance companies to encourage competition on a national level.

obama has spent huge amounts of "stimulus" money, which he is funding with ever larger deficits. obama's spending largess makes Bush look like an amateur. The US can not afford these extreme deficits. A large portion of this "stimulus" money is being used to pay off organizations that support the democrats.

His "cap and trade" legislation will increase energy costs across the board.

The combination of crushing high taxes and incredibly irresponsible spending can only bankrupt the country.

Oh by the way Ed, European countries have been able to afford lavish social welfare programs in part because the US military has guaranteed your security for the last half century.

You're welcome.

Shambhala said...

Ed (I have a few choice names for you, but I wont pollute FerFALs site)

Who cares how much you and your idiot friends like Obama?

You've lost Europe. We dont want to lose our homeland.

FerFAL said...

Please, no insults.
I hate rejecting comments.
Debate the idea, not the people.


Anonymous said...

Hey FerFal- Great blog about the connection between politics and prepping/survivalism.I strated out many years ago as a political activist. After years of that, I came to the realization that the course we're on here in the U.S. is, by design, to lower us to the status of a 2nd world nation, to more comfortably fit in with the globalists' plans. At that point, I started become a prepper in earnest, and have been doing so ever since. Nobody else will help you, when the grocery shelves are empty.

Just A Guy said...

There is a very big difference between a European country and the United States and that is the US Constitution. This document and its amendments are the supreme law of the land and guarantee our rights as citizens.
I would ask you to first realize this difference and respect our founding document and the liberties it gives its citizens and the constraints it places on the government.
Second please read the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America by Tocqueville, the writings of Edmund Burke, Milton Friedman and Adam Smith would all be a excellent start.
Our country is not perfect, never can be. It is diverse and large and inefficient. But our liberties and freedoms are found within those inefficiencies.
I am not naive all of the goals of the socialist party of the United States of 1928 have been met. The founding fathers would never recognize this government. The executive branch has amassed an amazing amount of power much more than the founding fathers wanted centralized, the regulations and taxation make it nearly impossible for an average citizen to be sure they are always on the correct side of the law. What is happening now though is scaring many Americans that until the last election cycle were politically ambivalent (at best). They are watching a small group of elected politician and unelected bureaucrats driving America far to the left at a breakneck pace.
Since January 20th the banks have been effectively nationalized, a majority of home mortgages are owned by the government, the automakers are owned by the government and auto unions, college loans are being nationalized and health care is next. Americans are distrustful of government and that is a good thing. Life is not fair, there will always be poor people and disadvantaged. But I should not be forced to give 40-60 percent of my life (money is a function of time and value of a persons labor) because the government says so. Americans are a charitable people who do not need to be told to help their neighbor local or global (remember the tsunami relief?)
Finally, the modern socialist state was created by Bismarck in Germany and that led to the Weimar Republic. The difference Ed between a war and social spending is that War's end eventually social spending never does. That is how it bankrupts a country every time.
cheers and thank you for sparking this passionate debate.

cryingfreeman said...

Ed, I live in Europe too and there is no way your view on Obama is widely shared amongst us Europeans. Just consider the outrage alone over the disgraceful award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a president who is waging 2 illegal wars and is in charge of more than 700 military bases worldwide.

Then there is the nightmare Fabian socialist agenda he is pushing in the USA (and beyond), complete with his drive to disarm the citizenship, set up a civilian paramilitary force, establish various youth corps, butcher what remains of personal privacy and go flat out for a total surveillance locked down society in pursuit of his corporate establishment masters' goal of a one world superstate. He's therefore as much "change" from his predecessor as Pepsi is from Coke.

@ the first anonymous poster: The US-UK coalition "liberated" Iraq??? That's interesting, because the Russians used to say they were in Afghanistan to "liberate" the people there too. That might explain why the natives in Iraq, just as in Afghanistan, often show their appreciation for this generous act of intervention by sending car bombs and bullets in the direction of the liberating forces.

Ed said...

Hi guys,
I made a mistake; no one said 'You lie boy'. Some guy said 'You lie', and the 'boy'-word wasn't there at all.
My mistake!

I see in some comments that people are not happy with what I say. No, I don't enjoy Islamification. No, I don't agree with fools who call Obama-bashers racists.

The thruth of the matter is that the truth doesn't exist. If Obama wants free or affordable healthcare for everyone, it is not because he is a socialist. But it isn't either because he wants people to go to the hospital for free for the rest of their lives.
Probably he has got his pals in farmaceutical industry who sponsor him to say certain things, just like Bush started two wars because he thought he'd and his friends would be gaining from it.

My point was to say that in my eyes, the Republicans are submitting Obama to a harsh criticism that Bush never ever had to endure.
Even though he was the big spender on wars, and Obama the big spender on saving the country by any other means.


There are 350 mln Europeans, so it's evident that not everybody loves Obama. But more Europeans like Obama than Bush. Bush was hated.
You say that Obama wages 2 illegal wars, but who started them in the first place :-)

If Obamas plans are only 25% as bad as you say they are, then the US are really messed up. I hope it isn't going to be as bad as you say.
About the US-protection of Europe, that's a very bold statement. You could also say that we were a good protective barrier against the Soviets and that the US benefited from that. Let's say that we both benefit(ed) from eachother?

Ed from Europe

Ed said...

I find a lot of truth in your words;

"So, as a non-american, you might not understand that most Americans don't like or trust the media, either political party, congress, or any past or current president, and what most of the politicans blather about is not what the American people want, but is about their own petty party politics and old fashioned greed."

I guess that from this part I learned the most in this discussion. Thanks, I knew a bit about this but didn't really take this in consideration. I was more or less thinking in opposites, which is often very far from the truth.

@Just a guy
I am known with the French constitution, which is based on the American constitution. Your suggestion to read the founding papers, the constitution and the writings of Tocqueville is an excellent one. One can never know enough of the context in which a country like the US has been founded. I know that the way elections went in the US reminds a lot of historians of monarchy (and/ or oligarchy) in Europe in the dark ages. Not much of a choice, they're all friend of one another. 'If you can't be president, I'll make you ... '
The Blagojevic-affair was kind of an ugly example of what you meant to say, isn't it?

About the nationalizations of the automotive industry, the banking sector etc, do you think that Obama should just have let them collapse? My guess is that the mess would have been 100 times bigger as what it now is. Millions of people would have lost their jobs in Michigan. How would we explain that? That Obama wants to enslave the American people by taking away their jobs and throwing them in poverty?
Nationalization is a bad thing, but is less bad than banks and complete industries falling to pieces and taking millions of families down with them.

"The difference Ed between a war and social spending is that War's end eventually social spending never does. That is how it bankrupts a country every time."

I prefer a president who invests in social spending than a president who invests in bombing other countries back into the stone age. Good, well-advised social spending leads to happier people with jobs and attainable goals in life. But even the best advised wars always come down to the (un)intentionally killing of loads of innocent people, destroying economies and infrastructures. I can never prefer that over social spending, even if the latter one is not effective. It shows that at least someone is trying to help society get through hard times. And if that someone happens to be the president, that's even better.

Thanks for the keen reactions, I hope that my blind spots will get cleared as much as possible in discussions like these. That's what it's about in my eyes...!

Ed from Europe

The Urban Survivalist said...

Let the free market take care of "social spending". If you're too lazy to get off your ass and get a job then you don't deserve a big screen TV, a house or whatever else these self-serving, egotistical politicians try to convince everyone they're entitled to so that they can buy their vote.

As for the two "illegal wars" our best intelligence told us that Iraq had WMDs. Do you really think that George Bush whispered in Collin Powell's ear and told him what to tell the American people? With Iraq's track record it's hard to say what they would have done if they really did have them. As for Afghanistan, that's where we were told Bin Laden was hiding. Our intelligence is the best in the world but we don't know everything.

I don't agree with either war but at least we got rid of Saddam in Iraq and their government is starting to handle their own problems. Most importantly, we're pulling out. Afghanistan is a cluster and instead of sending in the troops needed to do the job Obama keeps pussyfooting around. Cap and trade, healthcare, the stimulus package...all of these things need to get done RIGHT NOW!!111 Our troops can wait, though. That's a big decision and we need to think about it first.

Ed, quite frankly we don't give a crap what Europe or you thinks of our president. We're the richest nation in the world but at the same time we're also the most charitable. We do more for the rest of the world than any other country. It'll never be enough until we're on the same level as the third world banana republics that can't figure out how to run their own nations, though. One of the things that I hate most about Obama is that he's trying so hard to appease other nations.

oilsfreak said...

I agree with Everything you have said to Ed from Europe. We as americans do not like to have our freedoms taken from us. We don't like BIG government, we don't like big taxes, we don't like a president that is totally pro choice and gives tons of money to other countries for abortions. We don't like gov. ruling our lives and telling us what to do or inject in our bodies. We love capitalism and hate communism. bravo Fer! I'm with you.

cryingfreeman said...

@ The urban survivalist: "our best intelligence told us that Iraq had WMDs. Do you really think that George Bush whispered in Collin Powell's ear and told him what to tell the American people? With Iraq's track record it's hard to say what they would have done if they really did have them."

Come on, mate, that's one of the world's greatest urban legends. The "best intelligence" was based on a now totally discredited dossier crafted by a student in England. It was more like the best fitting fake intelligence to provide a justification to do something they wanted to do anyway. Colin Powell has since admitted that it was bogus and that basically the CIA were scammed. So it wasn't intel at all, and the "best intelligence" services in the world were at the very least scammed themselves or at worst were part of the scam. I'm opting for the latter because the UK Cabinet Office has now admitted that the original document was "sexed up" against the wishes of the British intel services. And why was it "sexed up"? So that Tony B Liar could help out his pals in the White House who were already hell bent on attacking Iraq, and to whom Tony B Liar had apparently already promised military support (to make it look less like a unilateral American operation).

As for Afghanistan, the reason why the US-UK forces are there is part of a longstanding and openly admitted geopolitical strategy to encircle Russia and secure Eurasian resources as per the doctrine set out in Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard". It has zero to do with fighting terror or catching the bogey man Bin Laden. Politicians will say or promise whatever it takes to pursue their agendas, which often if not generally ends up meaning they lie, lie and lie some more. In Afghanistan, the people there don't understand, need or want our "western values" (aka "democracy") and our presence there is as alien and intolerable to them as a Chinese invasion of Europe and the USA would be to us.

Ed said...

@ Cryingfreeman

"In Afghanistan, the people there don't understand, need or want our "western values" (aka "democracy") and our presence there is as alien and intolerable to them as a Chinese invasion of Europe and the USA would be to us."

Amen! I think that this is close to what The Urban Survivalist says. Their society is feodal one on which you can't build this institutional way of organizing societies that we are just too fond of in Europe and the US.
The bad intelligence from Colin Powell was a real shame, just a cheapass way to kick off a war of which the UN said it was not ok at all, since there was no serious threat to the US from Saddams heap of sand.

@ The urban survivalist
"Let the free market take care of "social spending". If you're too lazy to get off your ass and get a job then you don't deserve a big screen TV, a house or whatever else these self-serving, egotistical politicians try to convince everyone they're entitled to so that they can buy their vote."

Will you let me kick the lazy people first, please? That's what I mean with bad social spending. With good social spending, I mean that homeless kids, kids from drugaddicted parents, people with mental illnesses et cetera get properly looked after. In that way they will be less harmful for society then when we would leave them looking after themselves.

Thanks guys for the discussion, see y'all later.

Ed from Europe

Ed said...

BTW, thanks cryingfreeman for Zbigniew Brzezinski. I'm going to find out what his work is about, really curious.

I just read some parts from Thomas More's Eutopia. I found it striking that the guy was very renewing for his time, but that even he included slavery, death sentences and brutal physical punishment in his ideal society.
I guess that everyone is branded by the time and society they live in. We will in this matter never be able to make proper judgements about other cultures and belief systems.
So why the heck do we still encourage discussions :-)

Anonymous said...

Oh, Ed. How have we confused you so much from so far away? First, Rush Limbaugh is a blowhard and speaks for a very narrow fringe element. Most conservatives in America are fiscal conservatives, worrying about how the Bush AND Obama administrations are running up terrifying debt and destroying the Constitution which is the ruling contract of our government's entire existence.

Second, Obama is not a savior. A savior would give fiery speeches about how America has gotten through worse, how we are a united people, capable of turning this crisis into a fresh start, how working hard, pulling together, and sacrificing for the common good will make us stronger when we come out the other side. A savior would inspire entrepreneurs to revive American manufacturing. A savior would ask us to improve energy efficiency for the common good, voluntarily, without government money, and we would.

Americans bought war bonds, suffered rationing, planted Victory Gardens, and helped each other through the shortages of War less than a century ago. We united as a community, patrolled our own streets, volunteered for the war effort, and turned on a dime to revamp production for the war effort. We have it in us to stand together and create miracles.

We sent our children to die in a war that wasn't even on our soil, to save people most of us didn't know and to, we believed, fight pure evil so that Europe could survive. Americans are a generous, resourceful, united people when our leaders inspire us to be so. We collect coats for the homeless and food for disaster victims and tents for tsunami victims. We still send our children to die protecting complete strangers on the other side of the world, and protecting our freedoms here at home.

No one can be properly called a savior if he cannot tap into the enormous power of the American spirit. A man is not a savior if his first months in office, in time of crisis, are spent pushing programs the people don't support instead of bringing us together and firing us up to solve the problems. People scoff at claims that Obama is not an American - but why won't he just produce the proof and put people's minds at ease? I vaguely believe that someone must have checked, that Obama must be qualified for presidency, but I understand the lunatic fringe being upset at not having the question answered. This is a scary time. Reassure people. Proving location of birth is low-hanging fruit.

I don't know if you are religious, but the person many people mean when they say "savior" is Jesus. Whether Jesus was the son of God, a prophet, whatever, he was a uniter. He inspired people to love one another, help one another, and be kind to one another. Obama can't seem to reach past his own supporters, and it's a terrible waste because many Americans who weren't Obama supporters still cheered him on. We want him to succeed, as long as success is measured in doing what is best for America.

Sorry to ramble. Ed, thank you for caring. The reason Obama hasn't taken over the media is because Americans wouldn't stand for it. Freedom of the press is one of our most cherished beliefs, although we don't realize how much the press is untrustworthy.

Just A Guy said...

I want to back this up a little bit. All of the things you say that would be good like expanded social spending can occur in America but they are limited to the States and should not be imposed onto other states. The states have been described as laboratories where new policies are tried out and if they succeed then other states will imitate them. Then if it is a really good idea many states will have (for example health care for all) and it can be tried and improved on a limited scale where if it fails the whole nation is not imperiled by it. If you want government subsidized health care you can move to Massachusetts or Tennessee. If you want expanded social spending move to California or New York, if you want nothing to do with those sort of policies move to Texas or Wyoming. The Tenth Amendment is very important in these issues.
On nationalizing the auto makers yes it would be better to let them fail. Michigan already has (if not the highest) nearly the highest unemployment in America. It is a false assumption that bankruptcy would have led to chaos within our economy we have decades of Bankruptcy laws and precedent to guide us on these issues. Instead GM and Chrysler were taken over and given to the auto unions. Mind you the bond holders got nearly nothing and they should have been the first in line to get paid in a bankruptcy. Instead minority common share holders (UAW) were given the majority of the automakers. Going back to my original points about the states there is a healthy auto industry in the US they are the southern non union factories like Hyundai, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes and Honda.
Also the US automakers have to meet fleet mileage standards, this means they have to build cars that they are not good at or competitive with (who wants a Chrysler Sebring when you can have a Honda Civic). That means that even though Chrysler could be a profitable company making Jeeps, trucks and certain cars they have to make unprofitable cars that Honda or Toyota is much better at making.
Social Spending: It has its place unfortunately it is too easy to spend other peoples money. They it becomes a way to reward voting blocks within the population and it spirals out of control. Look into the origin of the US Social Security Insurance for a glimpse of this. FDR called in insurance when he proposed it to the country and other lawmakers but when it came in front of the Supreme Court FDR's lawyers said it was a tax since mandating insurance would be unconstitutional. FDR knew once people saw it as insurance they paid for it could never be taken away and also Social Security has grown from protecting widows to covering people who it was never intended to cover.
One last piece of history to explain America is the War of 1812. Before it started we had bonds due to England, we knew there was an impending war and many said not to pay them since we were going to war with them shortly. It was finally decided that since those were legal contracts we were bound to pay Britain even though we were mortal enemies at the time. Other countries took note of this and money flowed into America because it was seen as a safer place to do business (for a contrast look at why China has had a hard time getting investment capital). It was our adherence to the laws and contracts that gave America credibility, but recently the Obama administration has ignored contracts, legal precedence and constitutional constraints and that is why people are mad/scared of what is happening.

Anonymous said...

In regards to the cryingfreeman. Did we liberate Iraq? How can you say otherwise. Saddam was a brutal totalitarian dictator who murdered several hundred thousand of his own people. Though not perfect they now have a functioning democracy. So yes I would call that liberation. Maybe you would prefer to see people dipped in vats of acid as before?
As far as resistance to U.S. forces, most are foreign jihadist.