McCain Chooses Palin as Running Mate

[Urwumpe]

Bullethead: Looks like you have some memory holes:

Which UN resolution did the USA enforce in 2003? Do you remember it? I would be surprised if you can: The USA acted on their own and against international law. The 1991 war ended when the goals of the coalition had been achieved: Free the tiny US friendly dictatorship of Kuwait. The US tanks had already been close to Bagdad, when the war ended - guess why...

Do you know what US activity destabilized Pakistan? Using military force on the territory of another sovereign country without consent of the country. You weakened Musharaf, instead of making sure he can sustain pressure on the taliban friendly regions. And he was most likely your only ally in Pakistan. With a brain somewhere inside the white house, you could have imagined that the Taliban are not only in Afghanistan. If you don't watch out, the Pashtuns will start a open revolt. With the result that you can forget to bring peace to Afghanistan - you created already a safe haven for the taliban, which will be hard to close without a clear strategy.

Do you remember, which country delivered weapons to the Afghan rebels after the Soviets invaded and then when the Soviets had been gone, decided to leave the Afghans to their fate?

And finally: Do you know which country installed the Shah of Persia as tyrant for making sure Persia does not become a soviet ally? Does Operation Ajax ring a bell? Not France. Not Germany. The UK SIS had been involved in Operation Ajax, but to a lesser extent as the USA. The only thing, you can blame Carter for, in the Iran problem, is the fact, that he allowed the Shah as new political criminal to flea to the USA instead of returning him to the new Iranian government as they demanded after freeing themselves from his terror regime - and most likely saved unpleasant US secrets that way from becoming known in Iran.

You might think Iran today is a prison. But compared to the facist Shah regime, it must appear the Iranian people like a paradise.

So, can I look at myself in the mirror? Sure I can. Germany can be blamed for many things in history, but at least, I don't even have to lie to myself about it. I know my countries history. I know for what I was fighting for. Sure not the imperial Germany or the Nazi regime - and I don't plan to fight for these in the forum.

Can you look into the mirror and say "THIS is what I am fighting for." ?

 

[Bullethead]

Which UN resolution did the USA enforce in 2003? Do you remember it? I would be surprised if you can:

1441. I remember without having to google it because there was a catchy little flash-animated song about it at the time .

The USA acted on their own and against international law.

Go back and read all the paperwork from 1991. Fact of the matter is, we could have invaded them at any time between 1991 and 2003 with the sanction on international law, under existing UN resolutions.

But that's beside the point. Who created Iraq in the 1st place? Who let it become what it was? Who sewed the seeds of its present problems? Euros.

And who was so addicted to the billions in graft via the UN that they preferred to keep that going than help the people of Iraq by getting rid of their dictator? Despite knowing full well how brutal Saddam's regime was, gassing its own people, for example. AND sponsoring terrorism. And who has since then tried to shift the blame from themselves to us? Seems to me that was Euros, too.

Do you know what US activity destabilized Pakistan? Using military force on the territory of another sovereign country without consent of the country.

You think we didn't have Musharef's say-so? Geez. That's something we've been VERY careful about forever.

Musharef was doomed from the start. If he hadn't collapsed from popular unrest, his clone would have couped him. It's the nature of that part of the world.

Face it, Pakistan has had 1 coup, revolution, assassination, and war after another ever since the day it appeared on the map. Not to mention all the ethnic cleansing that went on along both sides of the present border during the Partition. None of which we had anything to do with, BTW.

Do you remember, which country delivered weapons to the Afghan rebels after the Soviets invaded and then when the Soviets had been gone, decided to leave the Afghans to their fate?

I mentioned that. I also mentioned that Europe sure didn't do squat to help the Afghans, either. So at worst, we're only equally culpable with you. OTOH, if we hadn't sent the weapons, the people would have been under Soviet domination instead of anarchy. I'm thinking anarchy was better, but I'm fairly anarchist in outlook. Maybe some of our friends from Eastern Europe, or the old East Germany, could answer that one, though. Anyway, at least we did SOMETHING. Europe didn't do anything, before, during, or after.

And finally: Do you know which country installed the Shah of Persia as tyrant for making sure Persia does not become a soviet ally?

Sure, it was us. Everybody knows that. But again, that was LONG before Bush. You claimed that the present troubles with Iran were Bush's fault. I'm saying they're not. That was all set in motion long before he came along.

It's not our fault that the shah turned out to be a despotic ruler. He did that all by himself.

There's also the fact that the whole shah thing was, as you say, part of the Cold War, which in the end kept Western Europe out from under Soviet domination. No, you don't have to thank us. Oh wait, you haven't. And for that matter, who was it that stirred the Soviets up into becoming a superpower with designs on owning Europe in the first place? I seem to think that guy was a Euro, too.

You might think Iran today is a prison. But compared to the facist Shah regime, it must appear the Iranian people like a paradise.

From what I understand, the average Iranian doesn't much like the mad mullah regime, either. It's at least as repressive as the shah's regime was. Thus, the average Iranian's in no more position to complain about his government now than he was under the shah, so there's no way to know for sure.

So, can I look at myself in the mirror? Sure I can.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. You Euros have had centuries to practice, after all. :dry:

Consider this... I couldn't care less what sort of person, or even what sort of animal or piece of furniture, you all pick for your next leader. That goes for anybody in the world, not just Germans. That's your business. And I sure wouldn't presume to tell you how I wanted you to vote in your own election. I'm sure most Americans feel the same way. Euro politics get exactly ZERO coverage in US media. All we get is a brief notification, SOMETIMES, when there's a change of leadership over there somewhere, and we don't read it. If one of your candidates came over here to make a speech, I doubt anybody would show up.

Yet here are you and other Euros, plus Canadians, telling us how we should vote in our election. Why? Only reason I can see is that the current administration is drawing too much attention to stuff from Europe's past that you all would rather forget about. Granted, you all don't have the means to fix the problems yourselves. But the sickening part is that you all also lack the moral courage to cheer from the sidelines when you all stand to benefit as much as us in the event of success, and suffer as much as us in the event of failure.

 

[to be]

Probably ought to lock this one too. :heat:

 

[Urwumpe]

Sure the tiny Bush had screwed up, what his father did not:

He removed Iraq from the equation in the middle-east. The once most powerful country there... now it is Iran, which also not even has to fear Iraq anymore.

You should learn European history... before a really stupid German emperor triggered WW1, the politicians of all countries worked hard to maintain a very fragile balance of power in Europe... Machiavelli would have been proud... which often traded legal territorial gains after a war for political favors.

So, for what should we cheer from the sidelines? The politics you defend, don't play for us. If you would have finished the war in Afghanistan until today, we would be cheering all together, because THIS is our war. Still. No enemy of the fundamentalist Islam can afford loosing this one. Iraq was completely irrelevant. Bush should have walked into Iraq alone or together with his neo-con hunting party. Would have done the world a favor. The over 3000 soldiers who died in Iraq could have been a great support in Afghanistan. The money that flowed into the Iraq war could have been enough for rebuilding Afghanistan "from your own pocket". Twice. What is the most important industry in Afghanistan today? Like the decades before? Drugs and insurgency.

Can you be proud of it?


-----Posted Added-----

Probably ought to lock this one too. :heat:

There is a tiny triangular sign if you think, you need to telecommand a moderator. Use it or use the keyboard shortcut against unpleasant views:

ALT+F4!
​

 

[fort]

"Go back and read all the paperwork from 1991. Fact of the matter is, we could have invaded them at any time between 1991 and 2003 with the sanction on international law, under existing UN resolutions.

But that's beside the point."

...under existing United Nations resolutions, yes, but without their approbation, at least and finally. What means, by the fact, "under" here ?

And it's not besides the point, it is the point.

They are at least second time that you elude an important question after that of the Iraqi massive weapons of destruction, which would have left for Syria, can be...can be not.

 

[eveningsky339]

Europeans love Obama? Shocker.

That's because Obama basically wants America to be more like Europe... Which isn't a bad thing, as long as you have a population that is willing to work and pay taxes. It's a shame that Europe's white population is being replaced by Arabs at an alarming rate.

 

[simonpro]

That's because Obama basically wants America to be more like Europe... Which isn't a bad thing, as long as you have a population that is willing to work and pay taxes. It's a shame that Europe's white population is being replaced by Arabs at an alarming rate.

We are?
Two points on that:
1) So what? Even if we were then all the Arabs I knew when I lived in England (we don't have any near me in Denmark) were perfectly nice people, most of whom were hard to tell from the rest of the Brits in terms of culture. Europe isn't abuot race, it's about culture.

2) We're not being replaced by Arabs, yeah there are a lot of Arabs in some areas, but there's a lot of Polish people in others, a lot of Chinese in others, people from all over the place. I haven't seen any particular problem with Arabs.


Oh, and a third point actually:

...willing to work and pay taxes. It's a shame that Europe's white population is being replaced by Arabs...

Are you suggesting that Arabs are not willing to work and not willing to pay taxes? That's a very dangerous and also very incorrect suggestion to make.

 

[Urwumpe]

That's because Obama basically wants America to be more like Europe... Which isn't a bad thing, as long as you have a population that is willing to work and pay taxes.

Europe is not China. Europe is more than just work and pay taxes. And if you think, you have a vivid democracy in the USA, you have not seen what France calls a everyday protest. Just give the impression you will lower the profits of French farmers and it only takes seconds before the Champs Elysees is clogged with protesting farmers.

It's a shame that Europe's white population is being replaced by Arabs at an alarming rate.

Alarming rate? Instead of consuming racism, you should look at the statistics about Europe... most immigrants are actually from East Europe, not the Near-East. The closest you can ever get to "Arabs" are Bosnians and Turks.

Which are usually very hard-working people, who also very often used their chances in the society better as many native Europeans. What you summarize by a fictive race, are in fact very often Lawyers, Doctors and CEOs. of course you also have people who are more criminal as native Europeans, mostly because of the fact, that they have less chances to strive for happiness in a legal way as a native European. Not all is good here.

 

[legios]

Bullethead...Wow! I am pretty sure I disagree with your politics as I cannot stand Pres. Bush, but f'n brilliant post.

You forgot to mention that if the European powers hadn't mashed all those arabic and african countries together under arbitrary colonial borders we wouldn't have all this turmoil to begin with

 

[Urwumpe]

You forgot to mention that if the European powers hadn't mashed all those arabic and african countries together under arbitrary colonial borders we wouldn't have all this turmoil to begin with

Yeah. We would have the same turmoil under new geographic names. It is not like the groups fight each other only because they fight for supremacy in the states. They had been fighting each other often already before the borders got drawn.

What Europe has to be blamed is the condition in which they left their former colonies. We literally raped the countries in many cases and installed tyrants as support for our own tyrants. That's pretty much also the reason why imperialism is now considered a political crime here...

 

[GregBurch]

What Europe has to be blamed is the condition in which they left their former colonies. We literally raped the countries in many cases and installed tyrants as support for our own tyrants. That's pretty much also the reason why imperialism is now considered a political crime here...

I'm curious what your definition of the word "imperialism" is.

[BTW, I've been out doing hurricane prep around the exterior of the house and I'm tired as HELL so, while there's plenty of interesting discussion on teh forum this morning, I'm probably too tired to do a decent job of putting my thoughts into words ...]

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm curious what your definition of the word "imperialism" is.

Well, I think this definition hits it good for todays understanding: "In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign people— a chauvinism and comportment relegating foreign people to a lesser social and or political status."

The first definition is the phase in European history, dominated by Empire building and autocratic politics, which deployed the mindset used in the today softer definition.

A good example of the mindset is for example the classic Kissinger quote: "The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

 

[GregBurch]

OK, so I'm too much of a political junkie not to pass on a couple of items about the original subject of this thread, Sarah Palin.

First, the reliably left-leaning Washington Post has a good and surprisingly fair in-depth article about McCain's veep selection process:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002377.html

And then there's this little item from one of the many sites that the mainstream media HATES -- that tracks and documents the overwhelming leftward slant of the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox, of course):

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-...reveals-many-newsrooms-palin-greeted-laughter

This latter item is something our European friends should note well. Much of the reporting on America in the mainstream media in Europe is a reflection of what is seen in the mainstream media in the US. And the people who work in the latter are by and large much closer to elite opinion in Europe than they are to what one could call the large middle ground of American politics and culture.

The item linked above shows that -- again with the exception of Fox -- the people who work in the media enterprise in the US are deeply out of touch with -- and disdainful of -- the viewpoints and values of a huge portion of the American population. They try -- except on MSNBC now -- to mask this attitude, but it's real, and it's one of the reasons that the left wing of American culture and politics keeps being surprised by their political defeats.

... oh, and as for the discussion of "imperialism" -- I'm not sure I have the energy to do the subject justice, so I may leave it for later after lunch and when this old fart's had his well-deserved Sunday afternoon nap.

 

[Eagle]

It looks like its politics as usual. Just check out Digg and there are many many anti-Palin articles (mix of op-ed_as_news, rumors, and damned lies). Just about everything under the sun.

 

[Ghostrider]

Digg: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

 

[GregBurch]

Again returning to the original subject of this thread, and for those who continue to believe that the "right-wing haters" are the source of all the bad manners in US politics (oh how genteel American politics were before Rush Limbaugh! -- better not look into the election of 1800), take a look at this roundup of the criticisms of Palin that have been bubbling up from all across the left:

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=13191

As I predicted, sites like Kos and DU and Huffpo are the weapons development labs for the attack against Palin, and as they are generated, they are passed on to the mainstream commentariat, and finally to the actual Obama campaign.

 

[n0mad23]

One of the MSN stories today was on the Alaska ethics investigation of Palin's influence on firing her ex-brother-in-law.

The attacks didn't take long at all.

 

[eveningsky339]

We are?

The population is in decline, yes.

Two points on that:
1) So what? Even if we were then all the Arabs I knew when I lived in England (we don't have any near me in Denmark) were perfectly nice people, most of whom were hard to tell from the rest of the Brits in terms of culture. Europe isn't abuot race, it's about culture.

Alarming rate? Instead of consuming racism, you should look at the statistics about Europe... most immigrants are actually from East Europe, not the Near-East. The closest you can ever get to "Arabs" are Bosnians and Turks.

Eh, I have no idea how I implied racism in my post... Actually I find such attacks on my character quite preposterous...

2) We're not being replaced by Arabs, yeah there are a lot of Arabs in some areas, but there's a lot of Polish people in others, a lot of Chinese in others, people from all over the place. I haven't seen any particular problem with Arabs.

Should the white population continue declining as it is, and should the Arab population keep rising as it is, then yes, Europeans are being replaced by Arabs. (Unless I am incorrect in terms of the ethnicity of the increasing Muslim population; I've assumed they were Arab.)

Oh, and a third point actually:


Are you suggesting that Arabs are not willing to work and not willing to pay taxes? That's a very dangerous and also very incorrect suggestion to make.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but you really have lost me on this one. There may be cultural and social changes should the European population continue to decrease, but to say that Arabs are not willing to work/pay taxes is a non sequitur.

In many European countries, there is a relatively small work force, but the taxes are quite high; and the revenue is redistributed to the population as a whole. A declining population (as is the trend in Europe) means a declining workforce, and so the revenue from the taxes will decrease.

 

[Urwumpe]

In many European countries, there is a relatively small work force, but the taxes are quite high; and the revenue is redistributed to the population as a whole. A declining population (as is the trend in Europe) means a declining workforce, and so the revenue from the taxes will decrease.

Completely wrong:

1. A declining population could only cause a drop on workforce, when there is no unemployment. But that is a problem we will very likely NEVER face. Unemployment is slightly higher in Europe as in the USA.

2. You assume wrongly, that "Arabs" (Which is in the most favorable definition for your arguments I can find, all immigrants from dominant Muslim countries, including Bosnia or Turkey, though both have no further cultural connection to Arabia, except their faith, which is again not the same. Arabia is Wahhabism, the European Muslims are dominantly Sunni. Turks are not even considered Arabs scientifically) are not contributing to the workforce. In fact, they not only are employees, but also employers.

3. Also, most second and third generation immigrants have usually not more children as native people. That is again a statistical fact.

 

[GregBurch]

Completely wrong:

1. A declining population could only cause a drop on workforce, when there is no unemployment. But that is a problem we will very likely NEVER face. Unemployment is slightly higher in Europe as in the USA.

2. You assume wrongly, that "Arabs" (Which is in the most favorable definition for your arguments I can find, all immigrants from dominant Muslim countries, including Bosnia or Turkey, though both have no further cultural connection to Arabia, except their faith, which is again not the same. Arabia is Wahhabism, the European Muslims are dominantly Sunni. Turks are not even considered Arabs scientifically) are not contributing to the workforce. In fact, they not only are employees, but also employers.

3. Also, most second and third generation immigrants have usually not more children as native people. That is again a statistical fact.

I certainly wouldn't have said things the way Eveningsky did, but I do have some questions and comments about these points:

1. Why do you think unemployment in European countries is higher than in the US? I see there's been a notable drop in German unemployment recently -- down to around 8.5 percent or so, while US unemployment is UP now, to 5.7% as of July. I'm curious what your thoughts are about that.

2. Of course most Muslim immigrants into Europe aren't Arabs. I guess, ironically, most Arabs are either too rich to want to immigrate or too poor to be able to. As for your other comment here, I'm sure you realize that Wahhabism is just one particular flavor of conservative Sunnism. There are other such flavors, such as Deobandi Sunnism in Pakistan (although the distinction between Wahhabism and Deobandism is becoming largely a matter of history, as doctrines in the two groups become nearly indistinquishable). And its difficult these days to be able to distinguih core Wahhabi doctrine from what unerlies many of the fatwas that come from places like Al Azhar in Egypt.

You make the comment that Muslim immigrants are not only employees, but employers. This seems like a good observation, since new immigrants are very often more entrepreneurial than natives -- they have to be, and the same kind of personalities that motivate immigration often motivate entrepreneurialism. But I have a question: Is your perception that this immigrant entrepreneurialism continues on into the second and third generation of Muslim immigrants in Europe?

3. Continuing on about second and third generation Muslim immigrants, I've seen a number of studies indicating that these groups are far more likely to hold Islamist opinions than their parents, and mor likely to become involved in Islamist groups. Is it your prception that this is true? If so, I wonder why. Immigrant experience in the US has been almost uniformly opposite of this, with second and third generation imigrants becoming less interested in the politics and culture of their parents' native land. Is there something in the immigrant experience in Europe that might explain this phenomenon, if its true?

-- Of course, I realize that the major cause of all these things is George Bush -- but beyond that, I'd be curious as to your thoughts.