Sorry it took so long to reply but I wanted to do a little research and get my ducks all in one sock first. I appreciate you engaging me in debate Orn, I need the practice and it forces me to study.
Yes, I mean the United States when I say 'we.' I do the same thing when talking about one of my local sports teams. Like I'm the fifth or tenth man or something. Poor habit I suppose but most people understand my meaning from context just as you did. You are correct about the Cuban embargo being ineffective. American products are common in Cuba. As in most communist countries, the black market keeps capitalism alive in spite of a repressive government. Bribes grease the skids. When there is money to be made people will find a way to get the product and Florida is nice and close. We(the U.S.) look the other way as long as nobody tries to build nuclear missile silos. What I mean by legitimizing is sitting down at table with them, forming agreements and generally giving a rubber stamp of approval to their actions against their citizens and to their neighbors. What I would really, really be against is giving aid to Cuba, like we did with the Norks. A good example of legitimizing a country is allowing it into the G7. Or G8 or G20 or whatever it is that they're calling it now. I'm not familiar with Tibet. They aren't really that close to us; we don't have any troops there and I guess I'm missing the importance of that kerfuffle to our country's safety and way of life. China is a very important business partner. We have various agreements in place with them and it has worked very well for the both of us(the U.S. and China) for quite some time now. Yes, we have a trade deficit. This due more to our oppressive domestic rules and regulations then to anything China has done to us.(I know this sentence will disturb you. I'm talking about the minimum wage, 'green' regs and crippling corporate taxes. China doesn't have to follow these self-imposed economic sliced hamstrings.) I remember our leader's response to the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989. It was loud and prolonged and forceful. It was a huge political black mark for China. China was and is an important trading partner with the U.S. so it was imperative we remain in contact with their leaders. The National Security Achieves explain what happened and detail our response. The documents can be found here - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/ Here's an excerpt: "In the days immediately following the crackdown, U.S. and Chinese officials were already sensitive to how recent events would impact the bilateral relationship. On June 5, President Bush had announced the imposition of a package of sanctions on China, to include "suspension of all government-to-government sales and commercial exports of weapons," and the "suspension of visits between U.S. and Chinese military leaders." Document 32, an embassy cable sent three weeks later, notes that a military official had lodged a formal complaint that "strongly protested recent U.S. military sanctions," and had canceled the planned visits of U.S. military officials. Embassy officials felt this to be a "measured response to U.S. sanctions," indicating that the official "did not adopt a confrontational attitude and emphasized that both sides should take a long-term view of the military relationship." Two days later, on June 29, the State Department prepared "Themes," (Document 33), in support of Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who were to leave the next day on a secret trip to China to meet with Deng Xiaoping. "Themes" provided the framework for the discussions the two emissaries would have with Deng. It focused on the global strategic benefits of the U.S.-PRC relationship for both sides, the impact Chinese "internal affairs" could have on the relationship (characterizing the American people as being "shocked and repelled by much of what they have seen and read about recent events in China"), Bush's view of the importance of the long-term relationship between the US and PRC, and the impact that further repression could have on US relations with China. As Scowcroft later remembered, "The purpose of my trip ... was not negotiations--there was nothing yet to negotiate--but an effort to keep open the lines of communication."6" We have no such ongoing relationship with Iran. In fact there is ample evidence their government is acting against the United States deliberately and systematically through support of terrorism. (link - http://www.cfr.org/publication/9362/ ) The constant rhetoric from their leaders is hardly conductive to constructive diplomatic efforts. We do have relationships with Saudi Arabia and other M.E. countries that do not treat us they way Iran does. Saudi Arabia isn't trying to build nuclear weapons. That will change, of course, after Iran has some. Egypt and Syria will become much more interested in gaining nuclear capability after the Mad Mullahs get them. Is that what we want? A nuclear arms race in the Middle East? *shudder* (yes, I'm aware the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Saudi's. This has no bearing on the agreements we have with the Royal Family. -IMO.) I had read his comments the day Obama made them. Two weeks late and 14 dollars short. Obama is a very good speaker. He said all the right things in his comments except for the part where he plainly states he's not going to do anything about it. While we hid Chinese dissidents in the American Embassy after Tiananmen Square Obama canceled the Iran/American Fourth of July hot dog eating contest. Bad, bad Iran.(shaking finger at them) As usual, we will rely on Israel to provide the necessary chutzpa to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. I hope they do it in time. Obama does seem to be following the Bush Doctrine and plan of troop withdrawals from Iraq set in motion before Bush left office. It's going rather well all things considered. We will, of course, maintain a military presence there for the foreseeable future. I always thought of Empire as moving into the country and establishing colonies and what not. Securing the area for the protection of our steady supply of resources which we BUY at the price THEY set should hardly be considered imperialistic. IMO. dj On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:00 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > “…I have some genuine concern we will be legitimatizing whatever rogue > government survives. Sets a bad example to the rest of the world and > whatever hopes some might have for freedom in their countries when the > president's response is not specifically condemning to an obvious > brutal theocracy. Our media is more concerned with the death of a > pop star then the death of fetal freedom. IMO.….” – dj > > Don, while in general I agree with you, I see a few built in > assumptions that I’m not quite on board with now. First, the notion > that ‘we’ (the US government?...clearly not you nor I.) can legitimize > anything when it comes to a different sovereign nation in many ways is > absurd. Just how effective has the Cuban embargo been? How did we help > the overthrow of Tibet? What have we done for them over the more than > a half century since? What is our relationship with China? How is our > relationship with numerous dictatorships? (do include OPEC members > here) > > Mostly rhetorical questions clearly. Yet, they do need to be addressed > if one cares at all about both reality and how it fits into idealism. > Also, it is important to address both the clear limitations of any > nation, even the nation that spends more on their military than all > the rest combined and 7 times that of China. (I’m not sure about these > figures, however they do point to the hierarchy of military-industrial > complexes. ) Now that we ‘conquered’ a nation that we already occupied > more than 2/3s of (Iraq), we found, yet again, that we do not have the > resources to occupy even such a relatively small country, keeping it > ‘in order’ (democratic???!!!). We will have to ‘re-deploy’ the troops > elsewhere…where ever we want, now that the ‘Bush Doctrine’ has become > de facto law. Many of us here at Mind’s Eye can remember when the > notion of Empire was anathema. It still is for the majority of humans > on the planet. So, when it comes to ‘bad examples to the rest of the > world’, while it may appear to be hyperbole, I believe that IF the US > did absolutely NOTHING ‘we’ would be held in higher esteem than we > have been for the last 8 years or so. > > Oh, since you apparently missed any of Bos statements about Iran, see: > http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m6d23-President-Obama-press-conference-on-Iran-transcript-and-video > > When it comes to ‘media’, isn’t it apparent to us all that what is > seen on TV, most newspapers and magazines, radio stations and many web > sites has little to do with ‘news’ these days? It is only a medium to > sell things…including keeping the populous ‘in line’ and satiated. IF > one takes the trouble to check some non-corporate sources, one will > find much more real news. Infotainment <> News!!!! > Oh, as an obvious political comment, when you used the phrase ‘brutal > theocracy’, when W talked to god and no one else then as a result of > further occupying Iraq killing untold innocent civilians, the term can > easily be turned around. This is one reason I like the notion of > universality. . . a notion I learned to a large extent from Noam > Chomsky. It is something that I innately feel is ‘correct’, but nice > to have a clear standard. > > > > On Jul 10, 4:57 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> Excellent debate rules, I'll follow them in a GENERAL manner. ;-) >> >> I'll try to use IMO more often. I'm used to stating opinion bluntly >> in rolling chat rooms where replies and subsequent clearing of >> misunderstandings is immediate. I can see in this bulletin board >> format it is useful to use debate rules. >> >> Although Obama may be doing something about Iran to the world he seems >> to be doing nothing. If you have news to the contrary I'd be happy to >> know about it. I have some genuine concern we will be legitimatizing >> whatever rogue government survives. Sets a bad example to the rest of >> the world and whatever hopes some might have for freedom in their >> countries when the president's response is not specifically condemning >> to an obvious brutal theocracy. Our media is more concerned with the >> death of a pop star then the death of fetal freedom. IMO. >> >> dj >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:22 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Don, I seldom limit my responses to specific argument/debate rules. I >> > do my best to be honest, clear, use an emoticon when using irony or >> > humor, etc. >> > However, since you so nicely asked, while the information online is >> > almost endless, here is a simple list of a few methods we all could >> > use to keep our discussions going with less misunderstanding and/or >> > strife. >> >> >http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html >> >> > I must admit that when very sloppy thinking, such as making >> > unconscious assumptions that may not hold water, is used, I become a >> > bit rattled. I see it a lot. For some reason, I decided to go to your >> > most recent post ...even though I didn't expand and in effect used >> > 'you are wrong' comments rather than an expanded reasoning in most >> > cases. >> >> > No, I didn't google obama concerned. I have enough humor in other >> > realms in my life! ;-) >> >> > When he was a legislator, I did look up his entire voting record and >> > then compared the 'present' votes with what others did. I found he >> > merely adapted to his environment and used that vote like the others >> > do/did. So, in this way I couldn't fault him more than the entire >> > group. In other ways, overall, I find him no more deceptive nor >> > lacking in integrity than his colleagues so don’t hold him up to >> > ridicule as I do and have done with other leaders who stood out in >> > these areas. I know this is a sad commentary on our current day >> > political processes…and, that is the way it is. >> >> > On Jul 6, 1:47 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yeah, I can be bombastic. Nice word by the way, I'd heard it before >> >> but had to look it up anyway. I generally try to be heavy on the >> >> humor and don't spare myself in the self-depreciation department, I'm >> >> well aware I'm a poor writer. Poor spelling and an unfortunate habit >> >> of ending sentences in prepositions not the least of my problems. The >> >> quotes you've provided are indeed a nice representation of my 'style.' >> >> I also tend to use sarcasm, by the way, another weak argument tactic. >> >> >> The 'voting present' comment was well used. It's a tactic used by >> >> politicians to show opposition without the political fallout of >> >> actually opposing a measure. As a leader, one generally doesn't have >> >> this luxury. Obama is apparently still trying to employ it. >> >> Doesn't seem to be working as well for him as it did when he was in >> >> the legislature. Now people expect him to DO something. As I've said >> >> before, he's a smart guy and hopefully he'll figure this out soon and >> >> I really hope what he does isn't along the lines of genuflecting to >> >> whatever despot ends up in control of Iran. >> >> >> Not being completely void of vanity I am gratified that you felt the >> >> need to copy so much of my 'work' in your post. I'd greatly >> >> appreciated it if you would give me some fine examples of what you >> >> consider good argument skills in reply rather then brief two or three >> >> word denials. Did you try the 'Obama concerned' google? It really is >> >> kinda funny seeing all that together on one page. Then try to see >> >> what he's actually doing about it. Not a whole lot of info available. >> >> I tend to hold my leaders accountable. I did it with Bush and I'll >> >> do the same with Obama. >> >> >> dj >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Don, I’m learning about your hyperbolic and somewhat bombastic writing >> >> > style. And, in particular, the gratuitous use of innuendo. >> >> > Examples: “I was lamenting the fact that we are hearing and seeing >> >> > something >> >> > truly extraordinary and yet we are apparently doing nothing about >> >> > it.” (not true) >> >> > “This makes Gitmo and Abu Graib(anybody remember that?) look like a >> >> > sweet 16 party.” (entirely dissimilar analogy) >> >> > “. It's like page 6 somewhere near the bottom news, if >> >> > that.” (not true) >> >> > “where is the leader of the free world on this?” (well known) >> >> > “Try this, google 'Obama concerned' and check out all the hits. It'd >> >> > be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing. He's the most concerned >> >> > president in history and yet he's so nuanced he doesn't do anything >> >> > but say how concerned he is” – (entirely untrue) >> >> > “He's still voting 'present.'” (where? When he did it in congress, it >> >> > was absolutely no more than the rest of those in congress did. Check >> >> > it out.) “Amazing.” (not so much) >> >> > “And no, I'm not all right, I think I've managed to rupture my spleen >> >> > thinking about this.” (while I care about those who are ill, hurting >> >> > ones self seems less sympathetic. For sure it makes for a poor >> >> > argument.) >> >> >> > On Jul 5, 1:47 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I was lamenting the fact that we are hearing and seeing something >> >> >> truly extraordinary and yet we are apparently doing nothing about it. >> >> >> This makes Gitmo and Abu Graib(anybody remember that?) look like a >> >> >> sweet 16 party. It's like page 6 somewhere near the bottom news, if >> >> >> that. WTF? While this is encouraging... >> >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&r... >> >> >> >> where is the leader of the free world on this? Try this, google >> >> >> 'Obama concerned' and check out all the hits. It'd be hilarious if it >> >> >> wasn't so depressing. He's the most concerned president in history >> >> >> and yet he's so nuanced he doesn't do anything but say how concerned >> >> >> he is. He's still voting 'present.' Amazing. And no, I'm not all >> >> >> right, I think I've managed to rupture my spleen thinking about this. >> >> >> >> Oh, and just who is it that are pulling the >> >> >> >> > puppet strings of our leaders? -gruff >> >> >> >> The Illuminati of course. In league with visitors from outer space. I >> >> >> just hope they're not here to eat us. >> >> >> >> The day we send our ex-politicians off to the UN to be tried is the >> >> >> day we are officially dead as a world leader. That doesn't happen to >> >> >> super powers. We may be winding down as a super power but we aren't >> >> >> finished yet. No sir, not yet. >> >> >> >> dj >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:18 PM, gruff<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > If anyone is offended or put off by an all-in-one reply to a number >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > posts, please let me know. >> >> >> >> > Don, I don't want to rain on your 4th but there is rejoicing to be >> >> >> > had >> >> >> > hiding in the midst of the slaughter. What is the news is that it is >> >> >> > received from hidden cell phone videos and twitter. And that news >> >> >> > celebrates freedom. The freedom that happens when a government can >> >> >> > no >> >> >> > longer keep the voice of it's people locked up and shut away. That >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > the freedom that moves me the most this 4th of July. It's a new >> >> >> > freedom that most people don't realize has emerged as yet. >> >> >> >> > And yeah. It was an apology. Gee, George, we're real sorry but >> >> >> > we're >> >> >> > taking our leave of you and shake the dust off our sleeves in the >> >> >> > process. The iconic phrase 'dear john' should really be a 'dear >> >> >> > george'. However, I do think the signers went a little overboard with >> >> >> > the details. A few cursory acknowledgments should have been >> >> >> > sufficient given that we merely did what we could as soon as it >> >> >> > became >> >> >> > financially feasible. We were lucky we didn't have to face off all >> >> >> > of Europe with what we were trying to pull off. A fully elected >> >> >> > government? My god, man. What were we thinking? >> >> >> >> > iam, we are completely and securely sheltered under the rule of law. >> >> >> > It never went anywhere. It just got stronger. And eliminate the >> >> >> > corporations? Because that's what would happen if you took away >> >> >> > their >> >> >> > status as persons. That would be as bad a jolt as the elimination of >> >> >> > all the banks. Everything would come to a screeching halt. Riots >> >> >> > would erupt like instant cancers across the land. Why would you wish >> >> >> > something like that? I don't think you really meant that, did you? >> >> >> >> > And Jackson? I was just beginning to think we as a species may be >> >> >> > behaving rationally when along comes this circus with half the world >> >> >> > drooling over the center ring and who's that in the box office >> >> >> > twirling his mustache and counting the lucre? That and letting some >> >> >> > sports event preempt the Nightly World News. They both ring of >> >> >> > idiocy. >> >> >> >> > Tinker, think about it. The rule of law is not supposed to be in the >> >> >> > hands of the people. It's supposed to be in the hands of government. >> >> >> > That is one of the reasons people create governments. Otherwise we'd >> >> >> > have pretty much ad hoc chaos. Rules are necessary on several >> >> >> > levels, >> >> >> > but I >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
