Independent Runner? Cancel The title field is required!

1. Bedford Mike P

   
   6/10/2016 5:06 PM

   To anyone confused about what I consider "minimum moral standards", I'll elaborate (it's a fairly short list, what I think falls below the standard, but you may disagree):
   1) Genocide
   2) Systematic rape, torture and mass execution of a defeated enemy
   Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me. Although China's child quota, and the forced abortions and sterilizations of non-compliant comrades might make the expanded list. But who am I to judge?
   

   Larry Allan said: You guys took a decades and decades to eventually realize slavery was not democratic but you eventually got there without some outside army coming in to force you. I have always believed that if we all lived by the Star Trek Prime Directive, prohibiting Starfleet personnel (insert US, Russia, China etc here) from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations, the world would be a better place

   
   I'll bypass the "you guys" comment as too potentially explosive. I will address the prime directive, though.
   America has borne the lions share of making the world a better place. We feed the hungry, clothe and feed the poor, treat the sick and shelter the displaced. Protected the weak.
   Are you suggesting our legacy is for naught? Would the world be better off if we had stood aside and fed the lambs to the lions?
   

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: What you're suggesting is that the U.S should be judge, jury, and executioner of every other country on the planet.
   How is Israel an "ally"? We give them 3 billion in military aid and they give us what? People spying on us?

   
   Israel fits the definition of an ally very nicely. I wont go into it all, but it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. As for spying, all nations spy on each other, Israel happens to share some of their intel with us.
   To answer your first question, yes and no. We don't have the resources to do it all, but we can wield a lot of economic power,
   You would walk away from the slaughter in North Korea?
   How about Nepal, or Syria or Turkey? China? Maybe the current "let the UN handle it" approach appeals to you, but not to me.
   Sorry, I'm just not a fan of mass extermination.
   As a side note, I presume you're in favor of closing our borders to the refugees fleeing these oppressive countries?
   Why would we get involved in that mess?

   
   
   
   
2. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   6/10/2016 6:06 PM

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said:

   Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Currently reading this. The author clearly has an agenda but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Ironically, the author scorns Bush Jr. for going into Iraq and criticizes Bush Sr. for pulling out of Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. Moral of the story is every president dating back to Carter is in a no win game when it comes to the middle east. Damned if you do and damned if you don't...
   
   [url=http://s191.photobucket.com/user/cbputnam/media/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png.html">[img">http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z176/cbputnam/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png[/img">

   
   
   I haven't read the book, though it's one I'm going to find.
   
   Before I read it, I'd like to know what is the author's agenda?
   
   I hope it's the truth.

   
   
   Steve,
   
   First, I am about halfway through the book so my perspective is based on what I have read so far. Bacevich has a grind to pick with Reagan, Bush Jr. and to a lesser extent Bush Sr. It's clear in his word choice, the tone of his words, and he pretty much lays all the middle east woes on America regardless of middle eastern leader's choices. No doubt Reagan and Bush Jr deserve criticism but he fails to express the rationale of the choices they made. Dealing with the middle east is like trying to play chess with a 6 year old in the middle of temper tantrum. The US is expected to be proper while the child swipes his arm across the board knocking all the pieces to the ground. The author is contradictory at times as well. Having said all that, it's a very interesting book and I don't doubt the legitimacy of his facts; he cites many-many sources. It's interesting to recall the events leading up to where we are today beginning with the Carter administration. I look forward to seeing how the story plays out as told by Bacevich.

   
   
   
   
3. Bedford Mike P

   
   6/10/2016 6:06 PM

   I'll have to pick up America's War, thanks for the insight. I like to read opposing (even biased) views on issues.
   Hey, I just finished an Al Franken book. No doubt heavily slanted, but for the most part a good read.

   
   
   
   
4. Stephen Okula

   

   3 posts
   
   6/11/2016 2:06 AM

   Mike P Bedford said: To anyone confused about what I consider "minimum moral standards", I'll elaborate (it's a fairly short list, what I think falls below the standard, but you may disagree):
   1) Genocide
   2) Systematic rape, torture and mass execution of a defeated enemy
   
   Then the systematic rape, torture, and mass execution of an undefeated enemy is tolerable. What if the "enemy" didn't start the war? Could civilians ever be considered "enemy"?
   
   Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me. Although China's child quota, and the forced abortions and sterilizations of non-compliant comrades might make the expanded list. But who am I to judge?
   
   

   Larry Allan said: You guys took a decades and decades to eventually realize slavery was not democratic but you eventually got there without some outside army coming in to force you. I have always believed that if we all lived by the Star Trek Prime Directive, prohibiting Starfleet personnel (insert US, Russia, China etc here) from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations, the world would be a better place

   
   
   I'll bypass the "you guys" comment as too potentially explosive. I will address the prime directive, though.
   America has borne the lions share of making the world a better place. We feed the hungry, clothe and feed the poor, treat the sick and shelter the displaced. Protected the weak.
   Are you suggesting our legacy is for naught? Would the world be better off if we had stood aside and fed the lambs to the lions?
   

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: What you're suggesting is that the U.S should be judge, jury, and executioner of every other country on the planet.
   How is Israel an "ally"? We give them 3 billion in military aid and they give us what? People spying on us?

   
   Israel fits the definition of an ally very nicely. I wont go into it all, but it's a mutually beneficial arrangement. As for spying, all nations spy on each other, Israel happens to share some of their intel with us.
   To answer your first question, yes and no. We don't have the resources to do it all, but we can wield a lot of economic power,
   You would walk away from the slaughter in North Korea?
   How about Nepal, or Syria or Turkey? China? Maybe the current "let the UN handle it" approach appeals to you, but not to me.
   
   Then we should invade all those countries?
   
   Sorry, I'm just not a fan of mass extermination.
   As a side note, I presume you're in favor of closing our borders to the refugees fleeing these oppressive countries?
   Why would we get involved in that mess?
   
   That's an wild, groundless assumption. I think the U.S. is doing a great disservice to the world by refusing entry to Syrian and Iraqi refugees who have legitmate reasons for fleeing their homelands, mainly to escape the systematic rape, torture, and mass execution mentioned above. I live in France, and there is a refugee camp about two hours away. My wife and I have been involved in collecting donated food and clothing and driving it up there at our own expense. I think Trump's idea to to stop letting Muslims into the country and the Americans who support it are a disgrace to humanity. Hearing sthe stories of these people and what they've been through and seeing what they still have to suffer is heartrending.
   

   
   
   
   
5. Bedford Mike P

   
   6/11/2016 2:06 PM

   Amazing how a thread about a third party candidate can devolve.
   I'll go back to the old axiom, never discuss religion, politics, or adding beneficial nematodes to a soil profile .
   
   

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: Then the systematic rape, torture, and mass execution of an undefeated enemy is tolerable. What if the "enemy" didn't start the war? Could civilians ever be considered "enemy"?

   
   Please re-read what I said. That falls well below what I consider tolerable.
   I said: "To anyone confused about what I consider "minimum moral standards", I'll elaborate (it's a fairly short list, what I think falls below the standard, but you may disagree):
   1) Genocide
   2) Systematic rape, torture and mass execution of a defeated enemy
   Yep, that pretty much sums it up for me.
   
   

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: To answer your first question, yes and no. We don't have the resources to do it all, but we can wield a lot of economic power,
   You would walk away from the slaughter in North Korea?
   How about Nepal, or Syria or Turkey? China? Maybe the current "let the UN handle it" approach appeals to you, but not to me.
   Then we should invade all those countries?

   
   Again, that's not what I said. I would prefer to use economic pressure as opposed to military. Sadly, that's not always possible. But sometimes military action becomes the only recourse, and it can be very effective with the proper exit strategy.
   Consider the policies of Germany and Japan pre, during and post WW2, and even into more modern times. An amazing about-face from their past atrocities.
   

   Stephen Okula, CGCS said: That's an wild, groundless assumption. I think the U.S. is doing a great disservice to the world by refusing entry to Syrian and Iraqi refugees who have legitmate reasons for fleeing their homelands, mainly to escape the systematic rape, torture, and mass execution mentioned above. I live in France, and there is a refugee camp about two hours away. My wife and I have been involved in collecting donated food and clothing and driving it up there at our own expense. I think Trump's idea to to stop letting Muslims into the country and the Americans who support it are a disgrace to humanity. Hearing sthe stories of these people and what they've been through and seeing what they still have to suffer is heartrending.

   
   I applaud you and your wife's efforts. I think it's a shame that people are being forced to flee their home countries, and even worse that terrorists are using these mass migrations to infiltrate countries they wish to destroy out of religious intolerance.
   I would prefer to give them back their homelands, and eradicate the cancer of radical extremists.