• 📚 Admin Project Update: Added a new feature to PictureBooks.io called Story Worlds. It lets your child become the hero of beloved classic tales! Choose from worlds like Alice in Wonderland, Wizard of Oz, Peter Pan, The Jungle Book, Treasure Island, Arabian Nights, or Robin Hood. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Why does Obama need a 'civilian national security force'?

Maybe Biden will just send a check for $200 million dollars to Iran. Should work, right? Remember that? For starters anyways!

It's not about bribing them, or else I'd recommend just giving them cash.

Now that we've established your own illiteracy, let's move on.

For the rest of you: obviously everybody understands poverty breeds radicalism, that is a well known fact. Undebatable. The problem with your ideological ideas is bringing the world's poor out of poverty....now just how the hell will you do that? Somebody tell me??? If you know the answer to that....you really need a spot on Larry King. Heck, get T. Boone Pickens to bankroll your new idea.

You seem to be under the conviction that reducing poverty is some mystical art, beyond the ken of we mortals. I think it's plain that it's not. Yeah, everyone searches for the magic bullet that will end poverty quickly, permanently and cheaply, and maybe they'll find it. For the here, this kind of work is expensive. So why aren't we just bombing them back into the stone age? Because going to war costs even more. War is expensive, and in the long term, it doesn't solve problems. Short term, yeah, but personally, I like to look at the big picture. When we're talking about geo-politics, it's the only one that matters.
 
I would not be too sure, and yes if he does try this he is a freakin idiot for sure. Americans won't put up with that crap.

The bill was already passed and signed with huge bipartisan support. :confused:
 
The bill was already passed and signed with huge bipartisan support. :confused:

Peple, we have been betraid by the poiltcians and the bureaucraps and the Wishy-Washington. The Federal Reserve and the Whit3 Hose have alied agenst the comon man!!!!! Wake up sheeple, theirs a cu gong on! Every1 disagres with me, so that proves Im riaght! :goodjob:The Great Satan:satan: is awakining, and he conspering with the Hore of Babylon:thumbsdown:, the Po(o)pe! Think about it??? When Ted Kenedy died!! (after seling us out to the Rusians), their was a Catholic preist at his funarel. Why would that be unless he was their to conspare with the Preisdnt? He were a papist muslim when he was born in Kenya to Malcom X!!!:nuke:
 
While the Great Depression did generally make some of the people who suffered through it a bit more liberal-minded than they were before, it did just the opposite for the German Nazis, the Italian Fascists, and the Japanese. So, no, I think your position is basically untenable.

Not really. The Great Depression pretty much led everyone to up and to the left on the political compass. In addition to moving left the US became significantly more authoritarian under FDR, just not quite so much as elsewhere since we started out more libertarian. Fascists weren't especially right-leaning economically, but rather centrist.


------



I'm not a fan of how the word radical tends to be used. Radical means pertaining to the root, and can be good or bad depending on what the root is and what it proposes be done about it. Trying to fix the cause of societal problems rather than ignoring them or treating the systems is definitely radical. Focusing on becoming wealthy is radical, as the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Ideologies like Nazism don't really seem radial to me, as they seek to blame all problems on minorities rather than addressing the root of the people's problems (like poverty, being punished for pass aggressive wars, etc.). Radical Christianity would be very pacifistic, emphasizing the beatitudes and charity. Calling Islomofascist terrorists radial is claiming that they are the ones being true to the teachings of Mohammad and that the moderates are the ones corrupting them.
 
Geopolitics is not a giant kindergarden playground.

I would argue that the "they attacked us, we have to bomb them, we can't let them see we're weak, if we stop fighting it's 'defeat'" is the overly simplistic schoolyard foreign policy (not saying you support it, but some do). A plan to go after the bad guys while also trying to change the conditions that result in so much support for them, to me, is much more mature and rational.

Cleo
 
Geopolitics is not a giant kindergarden playground. And your analogy doesn't make any sense in any way, by the way.

Maybe Biden will just send a check for $200 million dollars to Iran. Should work, right? Remember that? For starters anyways!

For the rest of you: obviously everybody understands poverty breeds radicalism, that is a well known fact. Undebatable. The problem with your ideological ideas is bringing the world's poor out of poverty....now just how the hell will you do that? Somebody tell me??? If you know the answer to that....you really need a spot on Larry King. Heck, get T. Boone Pickens to bankroll your new idea.

~Chris

It's not about how much one spends. It is about a few different things: 1) having the right people in the right agencies; 2) developing grassroots/ground-up plans to aid in development of key projects, such as medical training, that do not require a prolonged presence but instead help countries help themselves; 3) encouraging NGOs and other charitable organizations that actually make up the majority of people implementing and working on development projects around the world; 4) discouraging foreign policies that foster disorder, poverty, violence, human rights abuses, environmental abuse, and "1st world" corporate dominance and corruption abroad.

In general we need to work towards changing the current system that continues the one way stream of wealth and resources out of the third world and into the first. We need to stop being hypocritical about Human Rights and Environmental change. Of course real, fundamental change requires at we, the general populace of the 1st world, change our consumption habits by either changing how much we consume, what we consume, how much we spend, or a little bit of all of those, so fundamental change will be a tall order.

A good start is branding whatever projects you do or encourage with the good 'ol US flag. One bag of food with our name on it accomplishes more than a spent shell casing that says "Made in the USA."

/end pie in the sky rant.
 
I would argue that the "they attacked us, we have to bomb them, we can't let them see we're weak, if we stop fighting it's 'defeat'" is the overly simplistic schoolyard foreign policy

It's often worse than that. Many rather popular positions based on a rhetorical show of strength and/or denying weakness are essentially the same strategies commonly used by apes and monkeys. (Though without any *literal* scat-flinging.)

Not that they can't work - there's many the time I've gotten away with a dalliance with my boss's wife by avoiding eye contact and engaging in obsequious grooming behavior...

... um, anyway, not that they can't work, but they make certain assumptions about the relative balance of power, plus the consequences and odds of a "bluff" being called. Adult humans, being a sort of simian armed with somewhat better brains and vastly better weapons than apes, are generally poor subjects for such strategies.

OTOH, what I consider the nadir of the Bush years diplomacy - "Give me what I want and THEN we'll discuss what you want." strikes me as purely homo-sap toddler behavior.
 
What is the point of this? We're not being invaded nor under threat of invasion and we already have police.

Sounds like an angle to just make more useless bureaucrats.
 
I would argue that the "they attacked us, we have to bomb them, we can't let them see we're weak, if we stop fighting it's 'defeat'" is the overly simplistic schoolyard foreign policy (not saying you support it, but some do). A plan to go after the bad guys while also trying to change the conditions that result in so much support for them, to me, is much more mature and rational.

Cleo

That's kind of been our plans for the past few years though, which is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so difficult. We can't just let them be and not intervene militarily, and we can't just let our military go in and destroy everything (which is what a military is really for).

It's very hard to fight a war where you cannot destroy and are trying to rebuild. But, simply going in and giving them money and helping them build schools and teaching them to farm and showing them how to vote and skipping down the hill holding hands won't accomplish the goal we have, which is to root out and eliminate the terrorists.

It's tough. This is a new kind of warfare that nobody has really ever fought before, where the goal isn't to occupy or subdue or cripple an enemy military. The military is neither equipped nor trained for the military/police/diplomat role it's been thrust into (exceptions being certain special forces like Green Berets).

At the same time, just because they're not trained for it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring the fight to the terrorists. Even Obama knows that, now, after the presidential briefings.

Describe your experience with ACORN "in action," and how it shows that poor people can be radicalized. More interestingly, describe your experience with the Black Panthers! I don't think I've ever seen a Black Panther in person.

Cleo

You mean the Black Panthers standing in front of polling places with night sticks, intimidating people? (or as they said, "“We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people”)

You mean the ACORN that bussed protesters to executives' houses, who also asked police to remove protesters at a rally who were against their point of view? The ACORN involved in voter fraud? And not just one isolated incident? The ACORN that claimed in TV ads that McCain and the Republicans were trying to intimidate black people into not voting?


Link to video.

(and I won't get into the corruption and political webs)

BTW, I'm done being so off-topic in this thread. None of this has anything to do with a civilian national security force, whatever that's supposed to be (I thought border patrol and minutemen-type organizations personally)
 
Geopolitics is not a giant kindergarden playground.

I completely disagree. Geopolitics is precisely a giant kindergarden playground, just with nuclear weapons.

For the rest of you: obviously everybody understands poverty breeds radicalism, that is a well known fact. Undebatable. The problem with your ideological ideas is bringing the world's poor out of poverty....now just how the hell will you do that? Somebody tell me??? If you know the answer to that....you really need a spot on Larry King. Heck, get T. Boone Pickens to bankroll your new idea.

Since I doubt you read the link I posted earlier, here is the entire section on how to reduce terrorism:

Spoiler :

How to Reduce Terrorism

To overcome the terrorism that is rooted in the Middle East, we must do these things:

We need to make a comprehensive, concerted and sustained global effort to seek out and capture terrorists that have attacked the United States. Enlisting other nations of the world in this effort is critical.

We must provide domestic protection against terrorist acts, including gathering effective intelligence regarding potential attacks. We must know the location and status of nuclear materials around the world. At present, these safeguards are not receiving the funding or priority required because of the cost and distraction of the Iraqi war.

Achieving these goals will only serve to reduce the negative. The infinitely more important and effective work requires building up the positive.

In cases where the cause of the extremists has gained currency among a larger constituency, and where these extremists are carrying out acts of terrorism, the population will only rescind its support if occupation or oppression is addressed. The evidence that this has occurred will be a withdrawal or acceptable compromise with the occupier, or, to replace the oppression, the implementation of government that truly fulfills its basic obligations: providing the affected population with a genuine voice in government, enforcement of property rights, broad opportunity for economic advancement, and personal freedom and safety—along with the absence of large-scale public corruption and suppression of dissenting voices. We cannot reform terrorists, but we can eliminate their appeal. We do not need to appease terrorists, rather we must study closely the plight of the population of those countries that have supported them and use our influence to ease their plight. If we succeed, we deprive terrorists of their sympathizers and their prospective recruits.

The current administration is correct in its belief that bona fide democracy is a key in defusing terrorism. Its mistake was implementing this strategy first in Iraq for reasons we will discuss.

Merely moving a government toward democracy is not enough. There must be an equally vigorous effort to develop economic opportunity—a modern day Marshall Plan. Political power cannot become orremain broadly distributed unless economic power and opportunity and assets are also broadly distributed. Progress on either the political or economic front can accomplish much, yet only progress on both together can bring change that is truly enduring.

There are many ways to assist a country in distributing economic opportunity and wealth. Direct aid has its place, yet cannot achieve the job of broadly and sustainably sowing opportunity when it is poorly conceived, coordinated or managed—which is all-too frequently the case. Such aid often breeds corruption and benefits only the few. Micro lending programs have shown promise, as have special economic zones. Some of the most successful efforts have been built on trade and land reform and distribution.

Consider briefly the example of Peru, a country of great poverty, which in the 1980s was emerging from a military dictatorship and undergoing rapid change with a concentration of wealth and land ownership among the elite. A terrorist organization known as the Shining Path bombed government buildings and attacked citizens. They were terrorists in every modern sense of the word, but in this case they advocated communism as a solution to the despair of Peruvians. Hernando de Soto writes of the choices facing government leaders:

“As early as 1984, I became convinced that the Shining Path (Sendero) would never be eliminated as a political option without first being defeated in the world of ideas. Like many, I felt that Sendero’s major strength stemmed from its intellectual appeal to those excluded by the system and its ability to generate a political cause for natural leaders, whether in universities or shantytowns…Research told us that one of the primary functions of terrorists in the Third World—what buys them acceptance—is protecting the possessions of the poor, which are typically outside the law. In other words, if government does not protect the assets of the poor, it surrenders this function to the terrorists, who can then use it to win the allegiance of the excluded.” (Hernando de Soto, The Other Path, Basic Books, 1989, pp. xiv-xxxix)

The Peruvian government continued moving toward a more representative form of governance, established and enforced property rights, decentralized decision-making to include citizen input, and transferred public land to private ownership among the disenfranchised.

This unlocked a large reservoir of wealth and entrepreneurship within that country. After undertaking these efforts, the Shining Path faded in size and relevance until little remained. Not because the government had attacked its members, but because the government had attacked the root causes of their support. A surprising way to fight terrorism? The weapon is the spirit and power of the individual, not guns.


It is economic injustice that fuels global terrorism, writes De Soto, not cultural heritage. As a powerful example, De Soto reports that despite the world’s poor having accumulated over $9 trillion of real estate, it is their lack of property rights—clear title and a legal system to support it—that prohibits them from leveraging these assets into new capital, and thus retards their progress.

Democracy is a powerful instrument. The current Administration is correct in this regard. But merely the ability to vote is not sufficient. The effectiveness of America’s government rests on three principles of limit, each of which acknowledges the corrupting influence of power:

• Explicit limitation of government,
as embodied in our constitution, especially such keys as habeas corpus and property rights

• Checks and balances created by a true separation of powers, including powers over the military

• Decentralization of government so that many decisions can truly be made at the local level.

Representative government by its very nature is not exclusionary. But we should not be misled by false indicators of open government, staged by some countries to create the impression that they are advancing in the proper direction. These are charades; voters are given no bona fide choices; opposition is suppressed.

Government reform, while important, is not sufficient on its own. Broad economic progress must also occur. Sustained, across the-board economic prosperity cannot occur in a country unless property rights are assured and power is distributed and decentralized.

The United States, in conjunction with the community of nations, should use its economic support, its trade policy, and every other non-military means of positive influence it possesses to encourage countries to migrate in this direction. The path to democracy is complex, and while change will not happen overnight, incremental steps can be taken.

An important additional note must be made. Recent terrorist attacks have occurred in countries like Spain and Britain, where occupation and oppression do not exist in the manner that we have described above. Rather, this terrorism reflects the migration of violence from countries where it does. Palestine is cited more than any other cause. Close behind is the support of countries like Britain for perceived occupiers and oppressors. These acts of terrorism also reflect the scars that result from the colonial legacy and the stark economic disparities in these countries relative to the West. Muslim immigrants from the Middle East residing in London, as one example, have relatives and friends in Palestine, Iraq and elsewhere and often deeply share their concerns. It follows that extremism will not significantly abate in a place like London unless occupation and oppression in the Middle East abate as well.

The extremism in counties like Britain and Spain reflects the plight and alienation of any excluded minority in any society—and in this sense is at least partially akin to the black civil rights movements and race riots in the United States in the 1960s. As America has learned, progressive policies of inclusion—and policies that leave room for the customs and traditions of these immigrants— are a necessary part of addressing the plight of an excluded minority. Properly conceived, these policies will convey a sense of welcome that will bring psychological integration — identification with, and loyalty to that immigrant’s new country. Contrast, for example, the vitriol to be found in America’s newspapers and political speeches in the 1890s regarding Jewish, Italian and other immigrants with the contributions they provide to American society today.

http://www.newamerica.net/files/AmericanRespectTerrorismReport.pdf
 
Not really. The Great Depression pretty much led everyone to up and to the left on the political compass.
Only if you define 'right' as being in favor of limited government with little or no governmental controls, and 'left' as being in favor of large government which attempts to stabilize and control the economy by governmental intervention. By that definition, the Nazis, the Fascists, and even the current Republican Party are mainly 'leftists' in this regard. And this is why trying to classify right-left ideology solely in terms of economics is tenuous at best. It also leads to a complete misuse of the terms by the far-right while ignoring their own obvious 'socialist leanings'.

I think a much better approach is to view it in terms of extremes. Both far-left and far-right ideologies want authoritarian governments which control the will of the population. The far-left wants to do so to drive change while the far-right wants to do so to resist change.

Calling Islomofascist terrorists radial is claiming that they are the ones being true to the teachings of Mohammad and that the moderates are the ones corrupting them.
Actually, I think it would be the other way around. The fundamentalists are reactionary and resistant to change by definition. The Muslims and Christians who are not fundamentalists are the ones being 'radical' by changing with the times instead of remaining the same as they were in the past.

What is the point of this? We're not being invaded nor under threat of invasion and we already have police.

Sounds like an angle to just make more useless bureaucrats.
You didn't see the part where this absurd notion has been completely debunked? That his quote was deliberately taken out of context, as usual?

You mean the Black Panthers standing in front of polling places with night sticks, intimidating people?
ironically, the "people" they were trying to "intimidate" were the rednecks who were coming to black neighborhoods to try to scare blacks from casting their votes. No Black Panther ever went into a whilte neighborhood to try to stop white from voting, which is what you are apparently trying to allege here.

(or as they said, "“We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people”))
Exactly. See what I mean?

You mean the ACORN that bussed protesters to executives' houses, who also asked police to remove protesters at a rally who were against their point of view? The ACORN involved in voter fraud? And not just one isolated incident? The ACORN that claimed in TV ads that McCain and the Republicans were trying to intimidate black people into not voting?
You really shouldn't believe all the tripe you apparently picked up on far-right websites...

And ironically, the ACORN video you posted clearly shows their main concern was registering and getting minorities to vote, despite efforts from the Republican Party to do just the opposite, and which actually reversed the proper winner of the 2000 election. Is that a crime in your world? Trying to assure minorities and others their Constitutional right to vote?
 
For the rest of you: obviously everybody understands poverty breeds radicalism, that is a well known fact. Undebatable. The problem with your ideological ideas is bringing the world's poor out of poverty....now just how the hell will you do that? Somebody tell me??? If you know the answer to that....you really need a spot on Larry King. Heck, get T. Boone Pickens to bankroll your new idea.

~Chris

Responsible and regulated investments by corporations and governments can create an inflow of capital and opportunity whilst generating profit for both parties. It can be as simple as a microloan system.
 
That's kind of been our plans for the past few years though, which is why the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so difficult. We can't just let them be and not intervene militarily, and we can't just let our military go in and destroy everything (which is what a military is really for).

It's very hard to fight a war where you cannot destroy and are trying to rebuild. But, simply going in and giving them money and helping them build schools and teaching them to farm and showing them how to vote and skipping down the hill holding hands won't accomplish the goal we have, which is to root out and eliminate the terrorists.

Well, I guess it's good that nobody's suggested that we do that. :confused:

It's tough. This is a new kind of warfare that nobody has really ever fought before, where the goal isn't to occupy or subdue or cripple an enemy military. The military is neither equipped nor trained for the military/police/diplomat role it's been thrust into (exceptions being certain special forces like Green Berets).

At the same time, just because they're not trained for it doesn't mean we shouldn't bring the fight to the terrorists. Even Obama knows that, now, after the presidential briefings.

As I said, I guess it's good that no one has suggested that we not bring the fight to terrorist groups.

You mean the Black Panthers standing in front of polling places with night sticks, intimidating people? (or as they said, "“We will be at the polls in the cities and counties in many states to ensure that the enemy does not sabotage the black vote, which was won through the blood of the martyrs of our people”)

You mean the ACORN that bussed protesters to executives' houses, who also asked police to remove protesters at a rally who were against their point of view? The ACORN involved in voter fraud? And not just one isolated incident? The ACORN that claimed in TV ads that McCain and the Republicans were trying to intimidate black people into not voting?

(and I won't get into the corruption and political webs)

So . . . you haven't actually seen them in action.

Cleo
 
ironically, the "people" they were trying to "intimidate" were the rednecks who were coming to black neighborhoods to try to scare blacks from casting their votes. No Black Panther ever went into a whilte neighborhood to try to stop white from voting, which is what you are apparently trying to allege here.

When did that happen in Philadelphia? When did rednecks go to a black neighborhood to intimidate those blacks into not voting? The Black Panthers were in Philadelphia doing that. I never alleged that Black Panthers were in white neighborhoods trying to stop whites from voting? Where'd you get that?

Exactly. See what I mean?

What I see is a militant group making the vote a racial issue. What I see is a militant group potentially scaring away any non-minority voters who won't be voting for Obama, even if that's just a welcome side-effect to their presence and not the main reason.

You really shouldn't believe all the tripe you apparently picked up on far-right websites...

I'd say the same about you and your far-left websites and TV networks, who are still talking about Palin and Bush.

And ironically, the ACORN video you posted clearly shows their main concern was registering and getting minorities to vote, despite efforts from the Republican Party to do just the opposite, and which actually reversed the proper winner of the 2000 election. Is that a crime in your world? Trying to assure minorities and others their Constitutional right to vote?

Oh you mean they didn't say McCain and the Republicans are trying to stop minorities from voting, because I swore I heard that? That wasn't mentioned in that video? That wasn't possibly the whole point of the video? To motivate people to get out there and vote despite the "intimidation" which did not exist?

What efforts from the Republican party to get minorities to not vote were there? When did this occur? Where are you getting this weird info from?

(the proper winner of the 2000 election was Bush btw with the needed electoral votes. Or is that some conspiracy?)

Shall I get into the corruption and underhanded tactics surrounding ACORN?


Link to video.

Yeah they're a great organization standing for democracy and the right to vote /sarcasm. But keep on defending them!
 
Back
Top Bottom