[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yesterday on NBC-TV's Meet the Press, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Chairman of the Armed Services Committee put it quite succinctly . . .

Quote:
"If we don't change the world, the world is gonna change us..."

This statement bothers me in SO many ways. It's as if he really sees the world in terms of "us/US vs. them". It's as if the US changing the world can be seen as only good whereas the world changing the US can be seen as only bad. That type of simplistic binary thinking is frightening coming from a member of Congress, especially one sitting on such a powerful and influential Congressional committee.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

This statement bothers me in SO many ways. It's as if he really sees the world in terms of "us/US vs. them". It's as if the US changing the world can be seen as only good whereas the world changing the US can be seen as only bad. That type of simplistic binary thinking is frightening coming from a member of Congress, especially one sitting on such a powerful and influential Congressional committee.

It is interesting to see how people process information differently.

On 9/11 we saw what happened when we left the rest of the world to do pretty much as they saw fit. On 9/11 the world sought to change us and this would have continued unabated unless the US did something to take from the world that option where they have control of our way of life and our relative levels and perception of safety.

Either we change the world or the world will change us.

Either we change the world by making it a safer place and combatting the sources or terrorism head-on, or we allow terrorism to spread to our shores as it exists in many other places in the world, as a 'routine' occurrence and we would have to get used to it.

Nothing frightening about that. I find anyone who feels more frightened by the Representative's comment than the prospect of terrorism itself to have a peculiar set of priorities.

And FYI, Rep. Hunter is the CHAIRMAN of that committee.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Sorry. I do not have TV and I am not American, so I cannot follow this vein argumentation the way you do.

How can you bear life without a TV or being American???
Here's a linky to a full transcript of yesterday's show.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8389296/

NBC News
Updated: 8:47 a.m. ET July 5, 2005
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

Sunday, July 3, 2005

GUESTS: Senator Arlen Specter, (R-Penn.) Chairman, Judiciary Committee; Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee; Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.) Foreign Relations Committee; Senator Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb.) Foreign Relations Committee; Representative Duncan Hunter, (R-Calif.) Chairman, Armed Services Committee; Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio; Pete Williams, NBC News, Justice Correspondent; John Harwood, Wall Street Journal

MODERATOR/PANELIST: Andrea Mitchell - NBC News

[/QUOTE]

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Either we change the world by making it a safer place and combatting the sources or terrorism head-on, or we allow terrorism to spread to our shores as it exists in many other places in the world, as a 'routine' occurrence and we would have to get used to it.

Sadly, this is exactly what I expect to happen.

We can't change the whole world. As long as we are the "haves" and not the "have-nots", people will hate us. As long as Israel and Palestine are at odds, and we openly support Israel (not saying we shouldn't), people will hate us. As long as we are viewed as infidels and morally corrupt (not saying we're either one), people will hate us.

I just don't believe we can win the war on terror, but please, please let me be wrong.

[SimpleLife]

Since you replied to dcmacdaddy who provided very similar reactions to mine, I decided I should reply as well to you with that perspective.

Originally Posted by mojo2

It is interesting to see how people process information differently.

On 9/11 we saw what happened when we left the rest of the world to do pretty much as they saw fit. On 9/11 the world sought to change us

Huh? How? On 9/11, a "freedom fighter" that had been on CIA payroll turned against his masters.

and this would have continued unabated unless the US did something to take from the world

Are you saying Canada was part of conspiracy against the U.S.?

that option where they

Who is "they " again?

have control of our way of life and our relative levels

paranoîa does a lot in that field.

and perception of safety.

Well, for OBL, I understand. To make it a grandiose conspiracy involving the rest of the world is turning pathological!

Either we change the world or the world will change us.

Either we change the world by making it a safer place and combatting the sources or terrorism head-on, or we allow terrorism to spread to our shores as it exists in many other places in the world, as a 'routine' occurrence and we would have to get used to it.

There are other ways to fight terrorism. For instance, not doing commerce with totalitarian regimes like Iraq in the first place. Or sellling weapons to totalitarian regimes like Iraq. Or not creating alliances with totalitarian regimes, like Uzbekhistan, and some other countries like that... Might avoid lots of issues that way...

Nothing frightening about that.

Well, 100 Billion U.S. dollars later, and more than 15 000 (if not more) dead civilian Iraqis, plus around 5 to 6000 wounded U.S. soldiers, without counting the fatalities, and only one tyrant (Hussein) in jail, which was the most important to get, if not the only one (in Iraq at least), one wonders what is not frighthening...

I find anyone who feels more frightened by the Representative's comment than the prospect of terrorism itself to have a peculiar set of priorities.

Of course. The famous "you are with us or against us" thingie... ?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Since you replied to dcmacdaddy who provided very similar reactions to mine, I decided I should reply as well to you with that perspective.


Huh? How? On 9/11, a "freedom fighter" that had been on CIA payroll turned against his masters.

Despite what you may think of our SUCCESSFUL attempts use of the Mujaheddin to prevent the Evil Empire from colonizing Afghanistan, OBL was clearly acting as a radical and as such he is part of 'the world' that sought to change us. No matter that we once employed him to prevent the Soviets from colonizing Afghanistan. He was wrong to commit terrorism against us, against anyone. PERIOD. You make it sound like you think we are wrong to oppose terrorism. Do you want Canada or your neighborhood to be terrorized? No. If you discovered Canada had done some things ("Oh, non! That could never be!!!") you didn't feel were morally justified, would you then feel that YOUR country deserved to be the victim of the worst act of terrorism the world has ever known?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

What's more, when the US is attacked only those who support HIS brand of Islam and only those who approve terrorism will be safe. OBL has killed THOUSANDS of Muslims for wanting a democratic form of government in Egypt, in Algeria all over the world. So, it is not just the "evil" Americans who are targets of OBL. And if he will attack the leader of the free world, who would be safe from his campaign of terror?

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."
- Ayn Rand

REMEMBER?

"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

When OBL comes for the French Canadians who will speak out for you, SimpleLife?

Are you saying Canada was part of conspiracy against the U.S.?

Not at all. How could you derive that possibility from anything I've written in this thread? When I speak of the world it is in that same way the Representative was speaking of the world. All he was saying was that a philosophy of begnign free world leadership (or whatever you might have called our posture pre-9/11) was not sufficient to prevent our being attacked. Since then we have done what we feel is prudent to protect ourselves from future attack.

Who is "they " again?

I'll give you three guesses. (Clue: Anyone who HAS attacked us before and anyone who might attack us in the future.)

You have this obsessive dislike, distrust, hatred??? for the US because we are the biggest, strongest, richest country in the world, don't you?

If Canada were in our position, who knows, our roles might be reversed. I might be complaining and criticising Canada for simply wanting to protect itself, it's people and property and overseas assets and military from attack and trying to neutralize potential launching points for terrorism

"How DARE Canada want to prevent future attacks?!?!?! They are the biggest country in the world and the richest and strongest and they use their power and might in a way the US can't because the US ISN'T as large or wealthy or strong. And because we AREN'T the Canadian's equal we have adopted a mellow foreign policy which does a decent job of defending our assets and we don't get anyone angry at us because we haven't the $$$ to afford enforcing our national will and we haven't as much at stake as the Canadians and because we know Canada will do the 'heavy lifting' for us and for all the western democracies in it's role as the leader of the free world."

And you might be justified in feeling I was unfairly beating you up only because you were doing what was in your best interests just as ANY and EVERYT nation is expected to do.

Well, for OBL, I understand. To make it a grandiose conspiracy involving the rest of the world is turning pathological!

It was a figure of speech. If you insist, then I will submit that the "world" means the people, leaders, countries, movements in the world which could produce or support the terrorism that could harm US, or anyone else, in the future...including Canada. (Oh, that's right, Canada is too mellow to be attacked.)

There are other ways to fight terrorism. For instance, not doing commerce with totalitarian regimes like Iraq in the first place. Or sellling weapons to totalitarian regimes like Iraq. Or not creating alliances with totalitarian regimes, like Uzbekhistan, and some other countries like that... Might avoid lots of issues that way...

Well, 100 Billion U.S. dollars later, and more than 15 000 (if not more) dead civilian Iraqis, plus around 5 to 6000 wounded U.S. soldiers, without counting the fatalities, and only one tyrant (Hussein) in jail, which was the most important to get, if not the only one (in Iraq at least), one wonders what is not frighthening...

Of course. The famous "you are with us or against us" thingie... ?

I posted an article describing the Iran/Iraq war. If you read it you'll know the Iranian Islamic revolution (who was responsible for taking our people hostage in the late 1970's...the revolution you Canadians helped some of our people escape from...see, we remember a good deed!) hated the US and looked like they were going to take over and destablize the entire region. We were lucky that Ayatollah Khomeini hated Saddam and Saddam hated the existence of an Islamic influence so close to Iraq which might destablize Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance so when Saddam started the war with Iran we were happy to back him and they kept each other busy for years.

You seem to think defensively, conservatively and cautiously and that's a fine way of thinking for, let's say, an accountant or a corporate attorney or a safety inspector. But when you are the head of state you can't afford the luxury of only thinking about minimizing your risk. ESPECIALLY if you are the President of the UNITED STATES.

The American people for good or ill, like it or not, see ourselves as winners. We DO think we are the best, that we are good people and smart and generous and slow to anger but like demons when you get us mad and we expect to win in battle. It is the oldest sibling syndrome. We call the shots because we CAN. We're the biggest, strongest, smartest, wealthiest, most beautiful and in any pecking order we're the biggest peckers.

That is a shared American stereotypical perspective, think, John Wayne, BIG BAD MOTOWN MUSCLE CARS, think the broad expanses of highways crossing the majestic US plains and the Grand Canyon, the city with big shoulders, Chicago. Our sports, our favorite sporting teams. Though there are some exceptions, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Yes, we have certain expectations and a way of looking at ourselves as do you Canadians and as people from EVERY country have. No other country occupies the role we do and no one else has the capability to do as much harm or as much good on this earth as we have. And we know it.

But, with all of that, does it mean we should act meekly? Does it mean we should become a pensive giant, afraid to take a step or make a move for fear of what the ramifications MIGHT be 20 years from now? Should we ask the permission of Canada and the French and the Germans before we do what is in OUR best interests? On every issue regarding OUR best interests as WE see it, must we reach a consensus with every banana republic with enough money to sponsor a UN delegation?

In retrospect it's easy to make these morally high minded decisions...[QUOTE] not doing commerce with totalitarian regimes like Iraq...Or sellling weapons to totalitarian regimes like Iraq. Or not creating alliances with totalitarian regimes, like Uzbekhistan, and some other countries like that... Might avoid lots of issues that way...[/QUOTE}

It's like a casual fight fan critiquing a boxing match AFTER the fight. Everything the fan says may be true, but two things should be noted, it's a bit easier to know what to do when you are not the one in the ring and at THAT moment you have to make your best decision with only as much pertinent data as is possible for you to process in the moment.

The fact is that you simply don't know all the things that went into the decisions leading up to todays headlines. So, although you are entitled to an opinion I guess I can't really take your criticism as seriously as I might someone who understood a bit more of the factors surrounding the decisions from waaay back when. I would dare say that given the same circumstances and with the same mandates the US govt. had at that time, you might have even made some of the same decisions that they made.

Of course. The famous "you are with us or against us" thingie... ?

Yeah, that thingy is an important one because in the final analysis it is the USA, with all our faults and flaws, who CAN stand up for the values that drive your frustration and criticism and who WILL (under the right circumstances) be the ones to right the wrongs of the world.

The thing you and many others are feeling is simply disillusionment. We all had/have an idea of what the US of A is and should be and what it stands for. This idea became an ideal in our brains and hearts. When the US was at peace there was nothing to change your perception. We had to come to grips with a changed view of the US during and after the Viet Nam war. And once again during the Iranian hostage era. But, since then we have won our military battles, for the most part and loss of US military lives was relatively small (and might I say this is unreasonable to expect because of the nature of war) so our view of the US as a big, strong, wise, noble (add what other descriptors you choose) was able to become a firmly held belief full of perceptions and misperceptions.

Well, with the events and responses since 9/11 many of us have had to face up to the possibility that our fond notions were flawed from the inception. Others might have seen things clearly all along but in the aftermath of 9/11 have noted a drastic change from the basic modus operandi which governed the US behavior and when the President explained he was no longer going to wait to be attacked, those people said, yeah, that makes sense. I go along with that change. It may not be the best situation but what else can we do? Allow the places where we KNOW terrorism can and will be sponsored in the future (if they aren't already doing so now) just enjoy the peace and tranquility of their normal way of life while they prepare their campaign against the US AND the western democracies and any other non-radicalized muslim nation/peoples???

And some of us have had to go through the terribly poignant ordeal of having held a bright shining image of the US in their heads and hearts and since 9/11 those folks have been unable to release their image. They have clung to it because, childlike and innocent, they were the deepest, most passionate believers in America of us all. And they are the harshest critics and the critics who will fight to the very end to MAKE THE US ONCE AGAIN LIVE UP TO THE BRIGHT SHINING VISION.

To those of you who are in this category, I can only say I'm sorry but we have come to a new paradigm with a new ideal. As beautiful as the old one might have been. It no longer fits.

Services for the old ideal were held in the days immediately following 9/11/01.

[Hawkeye_a]

Red ? ironic....it's the color of blood....

Support troops ? How about Yellow ribbons ?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Red ? ironic....it's the color of blood....

Support troops ? How about Yellow ribbons ?

Every ribbon wearing group wants to co-op a particular color to represent THEIR cause. Someone should do a history of the groups & causes which have made use of a certain color of ribbon to show how the color itself is kinda, sorta irrelevant because there are soooo many groups using ribbons to show solidarity and as a means of bringing attention to the cause.

Perhaps the use of a particular ribbon/color can be allocated by time. Measured in weeks and months or as a constant and perpetual symbol, yellow can signify a welcome home for a particular law breaker who is finally home from imprisonment (the Tony Orlando song's original intent) or to mean a show of support for the Viet Nam POW's who were finally freed.

However, as we are talking about a color of apparel, red is more likely to already be represented in someone's wardrobe than yellow. In a newscast that would be seen by the insurgents on al Jazeera or CNN International, a sea of people wearing red items of clothing would be more impressive and harder to mistake than an equal number of people wearing ribbons no matter the hue.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

(...)Evil Empire from colonizing Afghanistan(...)

Ouch! I hope you were high or drunk when you wrote this... Please confirm.

Seriously, how can you afford to demonize people?

Do you want Canada or your neighborhood to be terrorized? No. If you discovered Canada had done some things ("Oh, non! That could never be!!!") you didn't feel were morally justified, would you then feel that YOUR country deserved to be the victim of the worst act of terrorism the world has ever known?

You know, some of our RCMPs were accused of terrorist acts in the past, and we had some Prime Ministers who were quite quick on calling the Army and arrest randomly innocent by-standers...

What's more, when the US is attacked only those who support HIS brand of Islam and only those who approve terrorism will be safe. OBL has killed THOUSANDS of Muslims for wanting a democratic form of government in Egypt, in Algeria all over the world. So, it is not just the "evil" Americans who are targets of OBL. And if he will attack the leader of the free world, who would be safe from his campaign of terror?

Sorry, I missed something here; who is the leader of the free world, and according to whom?

When OBL comes for the French Canadians who will speak out for you, SimpleLife?

Je parlerai pour moi-même, merci quand même!

Somehow, I have strong doubts that Canada will be victimized by OBL, and it is not because we are on a friendly basis with him or his consorts. You are luding a very vast chapter of what makes people terrorists. Granted, some are extremely dangerous and are beyond the political; they are just plain murderers. But the foot soldiers of terrorism are something else.

Not at all. How could you derive that possibility from anything I've written in this thread? When I speak of the world it is in that same way the Representative was speaking of the world. All he was saying was that a philosophy of begnign free world leadership (or whatever you might have called our posture pre-9/11) was not sufficient to prevent our being attacked. Since then we have done what we feel is prudent to protect ourselves from future attack.

Actually, I am not sure that this "begnign (sic) free world leadership" has been so benign and innofensive. To me, the Iraq invasion is one aspect of globalization.

I'll give you three guesses. (Clue: Anyone who HAS attacked us before and anyone who might attack us in the future.)

You have this obsessive dislike, distrust, hatred??? for the US because we are the biggest, strongest, richest country in the world, don't you?

Geez. Please stop using that stuff! You are losing it! Where did I show hatred towards the U.S.? And please let's make sure we understand there is a difference between the politics of your country and its population. In your case, you are clearly a patriot, but you seem extremely aligned to the politics of your actual government, and I am not too sure they are adequate, as I mentionned before.

FYI, I am not a nationalistic person; I hate patriotism as the source of many of our problems on this world, wheter it is about Israel,m the U.S., or Quebec's will to separate or else. Nevertheless, I respect the right of people to show their color, but I will not go in their wagon.

If you feel being unpatriotic is equivalent to anti-patriotism, well, that is your problem; I personally do not care less about countries and focus instead on individuals; at least, I can have a conversation with them, whilst it is impossible for me to address a country, and would never expect a rational response from one...

If Canada were in our position, who knows, our roles might be reversed. I might be complaining and criticising Canada for simply wanting to protect itself, it's people and property and overseas assets and military from attack and trying to neutralize potential launching points for terrorism

I agree. I think Canada is playing a role ion some troubles around the world. Although I am Canadian, I am not irrealist to believe we are a country of angels healing whatever they touch forever.

And you might be justified in feeling I was unfairly beating you up only because you were doing what was in your best interests just as ANY and EVERYT nation is expected to do.

I see mostly geopolitical and economical control, and that is usually from the strong guys interests. That is usually the speech you are being served vby your presidents anyway, right? "American interests overseas". Note that the French, the English and other countries (to a much lesser extend Canada but it is done differently yet not necessarily better) do the same.

The concern is always the foot print, and the U.S. has the biggest feets.

It was a figure of speech. If you insist, then I will submit that the "world" means the people, leaders, countries, movements in the world which could produce or support the terrorism that could harm US, or anyone else, in the future...including Canada. (Oh, that's right, Canada is too mellow to be attacked.)

Now there is a nice irony: Canada is "mellow". Your stance regarding the world is still one of "neocolonialism", and that is not better than "colonialism", even if done with the best intentions. Sorry!

You seem to think defensively, conservatively and cautiously and that's a fine way of thinking for, let's say, an accountant or a corporate attorney or a safety inspector. But when you are the head of state you can't afford the luxury of only thinking about minimizing your risk. ESPECIALLY if you are the President of the UNITED STATES.

I agree totally witht he opposite.

The American people for good or ill, like it or not, see ourselves as winners. We DO think we are the best, that we are good people and smart and generous

Ok. You are entitled about that. Now, what does reality testing say in the end? One day, that cloud will seem pretty thin.

and slow to anger but like demons when you get us mad and we expect to win in battle. It is the oldest sibling syndrome. We call the shots because we CAN. We're the biggest, strongest, smartest, wealthiest, most beautiful and in any pecking order we're the biggest peckers.

Well, don't ask why we dare criticize you, ok?

The fact is that you simply don't know all the things that went into the decisions leading up to todays headlines. So, although you are entitled to an opinion I guess I can't really take your criticism as seriously as I might someone who understood a bit more of the factors surrounding the decisions from waaay back when. I would dare say that given the same circumstances and with the same mandates the US govt. had at that time, you might have even made some of the same decisions that they made.

Possibly, but that is speculation, and we should not do that, right?

And some of us have had to go through the terribly poignant ordeal of having held a bright shining image of the US in their heads and hearts and since 9/11 those folks have been unable to release their image. They have clung to it because, childlike and innocent, they were the deepest, most passionate believers in America of us all. And they are the harshest critics and the critics who will fight to the very end to MAKE THE US ONCE AGAIN LIVE UP TO THE BRIGHT SHINING VISION.

They say people who die have to go through some light too. Lemmings run for no reason towards the sea, and die en masse. Please remember to looik back once in awhile when running towards the vision!

To those of you who are in this category, I can only say I'm sorry but we have come to a new paradigm with a new ideal. As beautiful as the old one might have been. It no longer fits.

Services for the old ideal were held in the days immediately following 9/11/01.

Sorry, I have not seen any changes so far from before and after, to the exception of a more aggressive foreign policy since the Viet-Nam war, and appropriation of other countries on false pretense.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Every ribbon wearing group wants to co-op a particular color to represent THEIR cause. Someone should do a history of the groups & causes which have made use of a certain color of ribbon to show how the color itself is kinda, sorta irrelevant because there are soooo many groups using ribbons to show solidarity and as a means of bringing attention to the cause.

Perhaps the use of a particular ribbon/color can be allocated by time. Measured in weeks and months or as a constant and perpetual symbol, yellow can signify a welcome home for a particular law breaker who is finally home from imprisonment (the Tony Orlando song's original intent) or to mean a show of support for the Viet Nam POW's who were finally freed.

However, as we are talking about a color of apparel, red is more likely to already be represented in someone's wardrobe than yellow. In a newscast that would be seen by the insurgents on al Jazeera or CNN International, a sea of people wearing red items of clothing would be more impressive and harder to mistake than an equal number of people wearing ribbons no matter the hue.

I didnt mean people wear yellow ribbion. From what i can vaguely remember.....wernt yellow ribbons tied to trees/mailboxes and fences at houses where a member of the household was at war ?