Fred Thompson calls it like it is...

[SUBMAN1]

This guy better run. If he doesn't I'm voting independent.

-S

Here is an example of his logic that no other idiot running seems to have:

On the Palestinian crisis: "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."

[Camaero]

Out of all the candidates, he is the only one I would consider voting for, outside of dems/repubs at least.

I am pretty sick of both parties but that guy seems pretty good.

[Tchocky]

Nice analogy. If Israel and Palestine were two sovereign states existing along an internationally recognised border then it might come within an ass's roar of being useful.

[SUBMAN1]

Out of all the candidates, he is the only one I would consider voting for, outside of dems/repubs at least.

I am pretty sick of both parties but that guy seems pretty good.

He's a repub

[SUBMAN1]

Nice analogy. If Israel and Palestine were two sovereign states existing along an internationally recognised border then it might come within an ass's roar of being useful.

Whoshh! Right over your head I see... :D

[Tchocky]

Wouldn't have it any other way ;)

Still, it displays a level of um...reductionism, that doesn't help matters. I remember finding this before, lost him the respect of this non-voter

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25833/pub_detail.asp

I hope he's not this flippant about everything, only trivial issues like the Middle East and climate change

[waste gate]

I think I'd be more interested in Fred Thompson if he would declare his candidacy. Until then he is only saying the correct things for conservatives without any consequense.

EDIT:

I can and have said much the same things that Fred Thompson has said. Believe me when I tell you I will not be a candidate for president in 2008.

[SUBMAN1]

Wouldn't have it any other way ;)

Still, it displays a level of um...reductionism, that doesn't help matters. I remember finding this before, lost him the respect of this non-voter

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25833/pub_detail.asp

I hope he's not this flippant about everything, only trivial issues like the Middle East and climate change
Not at all, which is good. He does have some ammusing comments though, grounded in in clear thought. Here is one on our stupid immigration bill:

On the failed immigration bill in Congress: "No matter how much lipstick Washington tries to slap onto this legislative pig, it's not going to win any beauty contests. We should scrap this 'comprehensive' immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."

[TteFAboB]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BA15A518D-368B-40C2-9945-D2717DAA508C%7D.gif
Nice analogy. If the Wampanoag and the Pilgrims were two sovereign states existing along an internationally recognised border then it might come within an ass's roar of being useful.

Still, it displays a level of um...reductionism, that doesn't help matters. I hope he's not this flippant about everything, only trivial issues like the above.

[Chock]

On the Palestinian crisis: "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."

Or to pose another hypothetical and pertinent question, considering the mess that is Iraq, and his stance on what to do there is likely to sway most voters:

What does he think America would do, if a large military superpower flew a large number of troops several thousand miles to a country just across its border and then proceeded to trash the living crap out of it, claiming that it was trying to set up a democracy, on the premise of looking for fictional weapons of mass destruction. And then claiming that America was interfering in its business, when it assisted that neighbour, then getting annoyed when they wanted to develop real weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent such a thing from happening to them too?

:D Chock

[Tchocky]

Until then he is only saying the correct things for conservatives without any consequense.
Yeah, never mind what he's worked for before :-? Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?ex=1342497600&en=bfcf0d1eb77a1205&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

It looks a bit strange where his PAC's money went, too. Paying his son's law firm for work that doesn't seem to exist. Click (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/07/4971_dick_morris_bre.html)

His answer here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvMWGNX7HlI) isn't very convincing. (ignore protester being dragged away)

TteFaBob - If the Israel/Palestine comment was made from inside a clown suit we might strike oil. If not..

[waste gate]

That is an interesting hypothetical Chock. Are you saying that Ahmadinejad's statements that nuclear R&D for power generation is untrue?

[Chock]

That is an interesting hypothetical Chock. Are you saying that Ahmadinejad's statements that nuclear R&D for power generation is untrue?

A politician, saying something untrue? Surely you jest? Actually I thought that you could generally tell if most politicians were lying by the telltale sign of their lips moving. Seriously though, I'm not saying anything other than just playing Devil's advocate, like this...

All I really mean is that voters are far more likely to be swayed by how he feels with regard to his stance on either keeping troops in Iraq or bringing them home, as is the case in the UK. When a soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan these days, it isn't even the top item on the news anymore in the UK, I'm sure the troops really appreciate that. It's only natural that people are more likely to be swayed by stuff that affects them and their family and friends in the service, than it is to expect them to vote on issues involving Israel, most people in the US (and UK for that matter) don't look that politically far. Lots of people cannot even be arsed to vote, but you can be damn sure that some grunt looking at another fourteen month tour in the steets of Iraq will be voting, and so will all the friends and family that care about him/her.

:D Chock

[Camaero]

Out of all the candidates, he is the only one I would consider voting for, outside of dems/repubs at least.

I am pretty sick of both parties but that guy seems pretty good.

He's a repub

Yeah, I meant hes the only one I would consider voting for inside of dems/repubs. :)

[waste gate]

That is an interesting hypothetical Chock. Are you saying that Ahmadinejad's statements that nuclear R&D for power generation is untrue?

A politician, saying something untrue? Surely you jest? Actually I thought that you could generally tell if most politicians were lying by the telltale sign of their lips moving. Seriously though, I'm not saying anything other than just playing Devil's advocate, like this...

All I really mean is that voters are far more likely to be swayed by how he feels with regard to his stance on either keeping troops in Iraq or bringing them home, as is the case in the UK. It's only natural that people are more likely to be swayed by stuff that affects them and their family and friends in the service, than it is to expect them to vote on issues involving Israel, most people in the US (and UK for that matter) don't look that politically far. Lots of people cannot even be arsed to vote, but you can be damn sure that some grunt looking at another fourteen month tour in the steets of Iraq will be voting, and so will all the friends and family that care about him/her.

:D Chock

I didn't read any of that into your hypothetical question. If that is what you meant it is an entirely different issue (voters thoughts). I was expecting a yes or no answer. If I can extrapulate from your answer I will give it a yes, Ahmadinejad is not telling the truth when he says the the nuclear R&D is for power generation.

[Chock]

The point of my original comment, was that there is more than one way of looking at things, and who is more likely to want to stay in a war - actually on the ground being shot at - out of the forces opposing one another in Iraq (or Afghanistan for that matter)?

Someone fighting for their homeland, someone concerned about what's going on across the border from them and looking very much like it's heading their way too, or someone who has been sent thousands of miles to 'defend' people who couldn't really give a toss about him (nor him about them), for one of several possible reasons, either oil, political manouevering, or whatever, take your pick, and the one person out of all of them who could actually vote for you?

This being more relevant to things which will affect voters and more likely to sway them than a bit of sabre-rattling over what the US would do if they were getting hypothetical rockets popped onto their soil from a neighbour. Although clearly the comment was with regard to foriegn policy regarding Israel, it's my guess that if he wants to be in a position to carry out that policy, he'd be better off addressing the issues that would actually get him votes from the masses.

And yes, clearly Iran are not just making stuff to power light bulbs.

:D Chock

[waste gate]

I see you peddaling as fast as you can Chock. But the hypothetical was;

"What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."

It regarded Israel and what resposne to attacks are appropriate visa vis the US response to the same actions by a neighbor, state sponsored or not.

[Tchocky]

It's not much of a hypothtical situation, seeing as it doesn't illuminate anything about the situation it purports to describe.

argh, bad sentence.

Simply put, US/Canada != Israel/Palestine

And that goes for any number of rockets across the border.
Again, I hope that's not how he formulates policy.

[waste gate]

It's not much of a hypothtical situation, seeing as it doesn't illuminate anything about the situation it purports to describe.

argh, bad sentence.

Simply put, US/Canada != Israel/Palestine

And that goes for any number of rockets across the border.
Again, I hope that's not how he formulates policy.

I hope it is how he formulates policy. Attack the US or any of it's agents, including military forces enforcing a no-fly zone, and there is a consequence.

[Tchocky]

As long as he doesnt start his Iran policy with " Awright folks, we're in Texas. But they're enriching yoo-ray-nium in Albuquerque!"

[waste gate]

As long as he doesnt start his Iran policy with " Awright folks, we're in Texas. But they're enriching yoo-ray-nium in Albuquerque!"

?? I'm not sure what you are getting at here Tchocky. ??

Can you be more specific?

[fatty]

Nice analogy. If Israel and Palestine were two sovereign states existing along an internationally recognised border then it might come within an ass's roar of being useful.
Well put Tchocky.

[Safe-Keeper]

On the Palestinian crisis: "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if [the USA was illegally occupying most of Canada and] Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."Terrorism is horrible, and there are far better ways of settling problems [cough, Gandi, cough]. Illegally occupying someone else's land is as bad or worse, though. Get the Turks out of Kurdistan, the Russians out of Chechnya, and give the Palestines some breahting room, and I swear I'll be the first to scream murder when atrocities are committed by the Kurds, Chechens, or Intifada.

clickie (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_hypocrisy/mt07_03.html)

PS: I thought this was Jack Thompson, and couldn't understand what he was departing from video game loathing for:p.

[Chock]

The problem is, that a response to an act of terror needs to be aimed at those who carried out the act of terror, and since there is no country called Al-Quaeda, the Coalition chose to attack Iraq under the false claim that it was a hotbed of terrorist activities, which has been subsequently proved to have not been the case at all at the time they went in. Although following the invasion, ironically it is now turning out to be just that, because the destabilisation of the power base there has opened up the way for everyone with an AK-47 or an RPG to have a shot at being a local warlord, bending the populace to their will courtesy of the galvanising catalyst that is foreign troops on their streets. And now Iran are indeed looking at building themselves weapons of mass destruction, because of the perceived threat. So it's hardly any wonder that the troops there are about as popular as a fart in a spacecraft. And it fully illustrates the short-sightedness of such a brainless policy.

Back in Israel, if a rocket gets launched by some splinter group at downtown Tel Aviv or wherever, that is obviously a terrible thing. But that does not mean popping a few back in the general direction of where they came from is an smart response, as it is only likely to kill or injure people who were more than likely nothing whatsoever to do with the attack (but you can be sure their relatives will be involved in the next one), in the same way as you or I are nothing whatsoever to do with whether George Bush's foreign policy is good or bad at any particular time, five minutes after he is voted in. The real perpetrators will have buggered off hours ago, having fired the rockets courtesy of a cheap Timex and a battery.

And so what does it achieve? Yup, the same thing it achieved in Iraq, a population that is going to end up supporting whoever the hell gets in power whether good or bad, simply because they see themselves as all collectively under threat, instead of just the perpetrators of such terrorist attrocities being dealt with as they deserve, none of whom were apparently there in the first place, but most certainly are now, courtesy of bloody stupid foreign policies that completely ignore lessons from history.

You need look no further than the population of Germany in WW2 to see that; they were under massive bombardment by the USAAF and the RAF for years, and all it made them do was want to build fighter planes to help shoot down the bombers that were attacking them, despite the fact that the vast majority knew Hitler was no use to them. Check the production figures for the Messerschmitt bf109 point defense fighter in the years 1939 through to 1945 if you don't believe me, all the factories bombed to hell, but production goes up and up and up, right until VE Day. By which time, 70 million people were dead.

This is exactly what can happen to any country which witnesses a threat from outside, and is probably at the heart of much of the US knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 which saw it off on a 'let's invade a few countries that might possibly just have a tiny proportion of the populace that have maybe something vaguely to do with it, erm, possibly' trip.

I live in the UK, which spent a large percentage of the previous century having bombs set off all over it by the IRA, much of the funding for that coming from the US via NORAID. But be that as it may, the (hypothetical) appropriate response would not have been to cluster bomb the general area of their headquarters in downtown New York on the vague unlikely offchance that we'd get who was responsible, or send an occupation force there either. And if the UK had done so, it's extremely likely that any troops in that force would not exactly have been thrilled about being there, as the NY populace would probably have ended up coming over to support the views of NORAID too. The chances are that in such circumstances, anyone in a position to do so, would take the opportunity to vote out (or not vote in) any politician who advocated such a thing. And all this originally because of a stupid policy from a Government years before.

All the people that died in the World Trade Center, and all the troops that have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the civilians in those countries all around the world that have also died as result of such short-sightedness, and all the families that must have cried enough tears to float a battleship, ought to be enough evidence that such preposterous sabre-rattling is not exactly political genius. The perpetrators of terrorist acts need to be caught, and the motivation that makes them do such things needs to be addressed, and whacking a few rockets into a town somewhere in the Middle East from an AH-64 Apache is not going to achieve either. We need smarter solutions than that.

In any such circumstances, troops on the ground can see which way the wind is blowing, and if this guy thinks that suggesting even more military action abroad is going to win him their votes, he's going to be in for a shock.

:D Chock

[Subnuts]

On the Palestinian crisis: "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, the average Palestinian doesn't take a dump without a plan, son."
Fixed.

[Enigma]

It's a pretty bad analogy.....

[Heibges]

I suppose I might support Fred Thompson, if he hadn't choses a career in acting, with makes him both a both liar and whore.

Why do I love Sideways?

Because the scummy writer is at heart a good guy, and the rich actor is at heart a scumbag!:D

[Enigma]

It always cracks me up that the right is always lambasting the "hollywood left" and the "Hollywood elite" blah blah, yet they seem to have a niche for backing actors....:lol:

[P_Funk]

I see you peddaling as fast as you can Chock. But the hypothetical was;

"What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."

It regarded Israel and what resposne to attacks are appropriate visa vis the US response to the same actions by a neighbor, state sponsored or not. Its not the same situation. For one it supposes that the first move in this whole affair was Palestinian rockets hitting Israel... I mean Canadian rockets hitting Buffalo.:roll:

Thats not a correct comparison. Thats a simple typically reactive conservative American attitude to just be pragmatic about everything in the moment without any regard for history of the roots of conflict. That of coures makes sense given the basic entitlement issues that abound with American foreign policy where America breaks its own rules about conduct with neighbours because apprently there is a double standard that applies to noble nations enacting the will of god or some other moral imperative. The history of Israel and Palestine is one that goes back to the forced creation of Israel and the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians. However you want to judge right and wrong in that context, by comparing the situation there with anything in the West you're just pandering to simple minded people that don't want nor have the sophistication to understand the Middle East.

Simply put, you can't with any accuracy describe the Middle East in simple metaphorical terms. I don't understand you guys and why you buy this tosh. On one hand you all warn that the broader Islamic states and cultures in the middle east are so different from ours that the threat they offer is one that is not about what we did to them and that we can't appreciate it with a Western point of view. On the other hand apparently we're supposed to analyse the Isreali-Palestinian conflict as if it were on our own borders with our neighbours, neighbours of the same race whom we have no great hatred for.

Its a bunch of fancy tap dancin' with them words that people like to hear but its full a more holes than a Fatah fighter on a cold gaza night.

[Konovalov]

I suppose I might support Fred Thompson, if he hadn't choses a career in acting, with makes him both a both liar and whore.

Why do I love Sideways?

Because the scummy writer is at heart a good guy, and the rich actor is at heart a scumbag!:D

OT: Great film. :up:

[August]

On the Palestinian crisis: "Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."
Or to pose another hypothetical and pertinent question, considering the mess that is Iraq, and his stance on what to do there is likely to sway most voters:

What does he think America would do, if a large military superpower flew a large number of troops several thousand miles to a country just across its border and then proceeded to trash the living crap out of it, claiming that it was trying to set up a democracy, on the premise of looking for fictional weapons of mass destruction. And then claiming that America was interfering in its business, when it assisted that neighbour, then getting annoyed when they wanted to develop real weapons of mass destruction in order to prevent such a thing from happening to them too?

:D Chock

Well to keep the analogy honest this fictional neighbor of which you speak would have be one who had recently attacked with real weapons of mass destruction many times over the course of a very bloody 10 year long war, then after that went and attacked two other neighbors deliberately setting enormous amounts of highly toxic and polluting oil fires causing untold damage to the environment.

[waste gate]

I see you peddaling as fast as you can Chock. But the hypothetical was;

"What do you think America would do if Canadian soldiers were firing dozens of missiles every day into Buffalo, N.Y.? What do you think our response would be if Mexican troops for two years had launched daily rocket attacks on San Diego ? and bragged about it? I can tell you, our response would look nothing like Israel's restrained and pinpoint reactions to daily missile attacks from Gaza."

It regarded Israel and what resposne to attacks are appropriate visa vis the US response to the same actions by a neighbor, state sponsored or not.
Thats not a correct comparison. Thats a simple typically reactive conservative American attitude to just be pragmatic about everything in the moment without any regard for history of the roots of conflict.

How many US citizens is a Canadian citizen willing to sacrifice while we think about history? Pragmatism is the only way to proceed. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only activities any government should be engaged in is the protection of its citizens and delivering the mail.

[bradclark1]

the only activities any government should be engaged in is the protection of its citizens and delivering the mail.
I guess you'd feel at home in just about any third world country then.

[waste gate]

the only activities any government should be engaged in is the protection of its citizens and delivering the mail.
I guess you'd feel at home in just about any third world country then.

Yes, if you can point to one that does those two things.

I will of course defend myself as well. And use the internet for mail.

[August]

I guess you'd feel at home in just about any third world country then.

Ya think so? Can you name a third world country that protects its citizens and delivers the mail with any great degree of reliability?

[P_Funk]

How many US citizens is a Canadian citizen willing to sacrifice while we think about history? Pragmatism is the only way to proceed.
You know that is exactly what Moussolini said. Action before thought was at the heart of fascism philosophically. Apparently you preach ignorance of history when dealing with ongoing conflicts. That would explain America's track record with its foreign policy.

[waste gate]

How many US citizens is a Canadian citizen willing to sacrifice while we think about history? Pragmatism is the only way to proceed.
You know that is exactly what Moussolini said. Action before thought was at the heart of fascism philosophically. Apparently you preach ignorance of history when dealing with ongoing conflicts. That would explain America's track record with its foreign policy.

I'd like to see the link which shows what El Duce said. I like the way you try to paint everyone who may have a conservative leaning into a facist corner. Not likely but telling. I certainly don't preach ignorance of history, but on a smaller scale would you ask the fellow threatening your life about his/her background before he killed your family or friends, or you?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between legitimate self defence and........

[bradclark1]

Yes, if you can point to one that does those two things.

Try about half of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Keep away from the ones
that have been in the news.


Ya think so? Can you name a third world country that protects its citizens and delivers the mail with any great degree of reliability?
If you want to live in a country that just protects it's citizens and delivers the mail you shouldn't expect reliability but if you look you can probably find one.

[waste gate]

Yes, if you can point to one that does those two things.

Try about half of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Keep away from the ones
that have been in the news.


Ya think so? Can you name a third world country that protects its citizens and delivers the mail with any great degree of reliability?
If you want to live in a country that just protects it's citizens and delivers the mail you shouldn't expect reliability but if you look you can probably find one.

Individual Country names please. Otherwise I will assume your answer is BS to support your previous post, however poorly.

Name one!

[bradclark1]

Individual Country names please. Otherwise I will assume your answer is BS to support your previous post, however lamely.
Assume whatever you want. Try about half of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Keep away from the ones that have been in the news.

[waste gate]

Individual Country names please. Otherwise I will assume your answer is BS to support your previous post, however lamely.
Assume whatever you want. Try about half of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Keep away from the ones that have been in the news.


Hell the US can't even do it. It was an easy answer if you had thought about it, instead of trying to 'feel' it.

[P_Funk]

I certainly don't preach ignorance of history, but on a smaller scale would you ask the fellow threatening your life about his/her background before he killed your family or friends, or you?

Where do you, personally, draw the line between legitimate self defence and........ So you mean to compare the personal defense of my body and family from an armed man to the conflicts between nation states? Another false comparison.

And yes fascism preaches pragmatism, that word specifically.

Try googling "fascism pragmatism". You get alot of hits.

In one find there is this line.

There was some precedence in Fascism's appropriation of pragmatism: after all Mussolini cited not only Georges Sorel - who had himself written a book on pragmatism - but also William James as important sources for his own ideas.
Thats from Pragmatism and Social Theory by Hans Joas. Link (http://books.google.com/books?id=s-kVRAEytd0C&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=fascism+pragmatism&source=web&ots=DxTjBnHHfG&sig=oxgPJfib744oQBI7EqG12Q1zo2M)

[bradclark1]

Hell the US can't even do it. It was an easy answer if you had thought about it, instead of trying to 'feel' it.
Depends on what you mean by defence. There is reality then there is wishful thinking. I have no idea what 'feel' means.

[August]

Hell the US can't even do it. It was an easy answer if you had thought about it, instead of trying to 'feel' it. Depends on what you mean by defence. There is reality then there is wishful thinking. I have no idea what 'feel' means.

The original question was protect it's citizens and deliver the mail with a degree of reliability.

Personally i don't know of any which do that. Now you mentioned several south american countries but afaik nearly all of of them have guerilla movements of one sort or another.

[bradclark1]

The original question was protect it's citizens and deliver the mail with a degree of reliability.

Personally i don't know of any which do that. Now you mentioned several south american countries but afaik nearly all of of them have guerilla movements of one sort or another.

Actually most are stable according to the CIA Factbook. You are thinking in the 70's and 80's probably. Not much money should give you the high life.
None of them are noted for having postal problems so you should be set there. These are just a few of the little ones.

Nicaragua
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nu.html

Paraguay
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pa.html

Uruguay
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uy.html

[KLARCH]

Uruguay

U are gay

:rotfl:

[samniTe]

Thankfully fred thompson won't win.

and thankfully there are morons who support him, so I can feel even better about myself.

[August]

Actually most are stable according to the CIA Factbook. You are thinking in the 70's and 80's probably.

I would suggest that even 20-30 years is no great test of a governments ability to protect its people against threats either external or internal so your examples remain largely unproven.

This does not say anything bad about those three nations however. All three, Uruguay in particular, have managed fairly well by South American standards so far.

[P_Funk]

The original question was protect it's citizens and deliver the mail with a degree of reliability.

Personally i don't know of any which do that. Now you mentioned several south american countries but afaik nearly all of of them have guerilla movements of one sort or another.
Actually most are stable according to the CIA Factbook. You are thinking in the 70's and 80's probably. Not much money should give you the high life.
None of them are noted for having postal problems so you should be set there. These are just a few of the little ones.

Nicaragua
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/nu.html

Paraguay
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pa.html

Uruguay
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uy.html
Oh god thats so ironic... getting the CIA factbook to inform us on the stability of Central American nations...

http://boldt.us/4556-2/ROFL_MAO

[bradclark1]

Oh god thats so ironic... getting the CIA factbook to inform us on the stability of Central American nations...

P_Funk you really have that much of a problem with anything American or do you think the CIA is down there trying to stir up some good 'ole civil wars?

[bradclark1]

I would suggest that even 20-30 years is no great test of a governments ability to protect its people against threats either external or internal so your examples remain largely unproven.

You have got to be kidding me! In your estimation how long does this 'test' take then?
I have a nephew that's a missionary who worked in Nicaragua for a while and is getting set to go back with his bride because he loves it there. Nobody has yet stuck an AK in his face.

[August]

You have got to be kidding me! In your estimation how long does this 'test' take then?
I have a nephew that's a missionary who worked in Nicaragua for a while and is getting set to go back with his bride because he loves it there. Nobody has yet stuck an AK in his face.

I'd say a proper test should be at least 5-10 generations long and just as importantly include at least one major threat to it's stability that is successfully overcome.

[bradclark1]

I'd say a proper test should be at least 5-10 generations long and just as importantly include at least one major threat to it's stability that is successfully overcome.
For what we are discussing, 20 to 30 years free of slaughter is good enough. Maybe you can get a warranty for another hundred years or so.:)

[P_Funk]

Oh god thats so ironic... getting the CIA factbook to inform us on the stability of Central American nations...
P_Funk you really have that much of a problem with anything American or do you think the CIA is down there trying to stir up some good 'ole civil wars? Are you that ignorant? Or do you see American anti-democratic policies in that region to be something necessary?

It is very well documented how the CIA funded and trained the Contras in Nicaragua and undid much of the good created by a popular democratic revolution against a horrible dictator family that had been ruling Nicaragua since FDR's day and with American support the whole time. That you talk about peace in that country and don't seem to acknowlege your own country's involvement in the savage deeds of its ally in that affair is simply typical. Something like 70 thousand people died in the 10 years of Contra activity and the tactics used by the Contras were proven to be at the direction of the CIA. Basically the CIA supported terrorism against a democratic people for 10 years simply because they represented a kind of sovereignty that could be dangerous to America's control of the region. And thats just Nicaragua.

So uhhhh, yea I got a problem with America's foreign policy. I just wish you guys would A. own up to what your country does in the name of your well being and B. recognize that me hating American foreign policy is not the same as hating America.

[bradclark1]

Are you that ignorant? Or do you see American anti-democratic policies in that region to be something necessary?

The Contra affair was bad allright but it's also history as in the 1980's. That was two decades ago. Kind of hanging on aren't you? I would suggest you get with the reality of today or at least this decade.

Just a tidbit of information: Every year about 60,000 U.S. citizens visit Nicaragua, primarily business people, tourists, and those visiting relatives. They seem to have gotten past what you seem to be hung on.

[P_Funk]

Are you that ignorant? Or do you see American anti-democratic policies in that region to be something necessary?
The Contra affair was bad allright but it's also history as in the 1980's. That was two decades ago. Kind of hanging on aren't you? I would suggest you get with the reality of today or at least this decade.

Just a tidbit of information: Every year about 60,000 U.S. citizens visit Nicaragua, primarily business people, tourists, and those visiting relatives. They seem to have gotten past what you seem to be hung on.If you honestly think that the machinations of the current American administration and its invisible cohorts are any less sinister than they were in the 80s then you muist have forgotten the President's last name.

And I might add that its awful convinient that you should say that a mere 17 years later we should be ignorant of past transgressions. The 80s aren't so long ago. Nicaragua is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere and all the great advances made by the Sandinistas for the people have been undone for the most part. For them I doubt very much its all just some speed bump in their distant memories. How impassively American a response it is for you to say that.

[bradclark1]

If you honestly think that the machinations of the current American administration and its invisible cohorts are any less sinister than they were in the 80s then you muist have forgotten the President's last name.

And I might add that its awful convinient that you should say that a mere 17 years later we should be ignorant of past transgressions. The 80s aren't so long ago. Nicaragua is one of the poorest nations in the Western Hemisphere and all the great advances made by the Sandinistas for the people have been undone for the most part. For them I doubt very much its all just some speed bump in their distant memories. How impassively American a response it is for you to say that.
Now I understand you. The American bogey man right. Can't see the CIA but they are obviously working at undermining the entire region.:hmm:
What advances has the US destroyed? I would think that if they harbored some grudge against the US they wouldn't allow some 60,000 Americans a year into their country bankrolling their what, number two industry which is tourism.
I dislike George Bush but I don't see him as a bogeyman everywhere trying to secretly destroy or undermine huge numbers of nations. Seeing as you are so in the know give me a rundown so I can get educated.

[hoagiedriver]

I too concure with everyone's findings that his work on Law and Order is great, and therefore he will be a good president.

[P_Funk]

The American bogey man right. Can't see the CIA but they are obviously working at undermining the entire region.:hmm: I thought you said that Nicaragua was bad but that it was ancient history. You either admitted that the USA was more than just complicit in a terrorist campaign against a democratic society or you didn't. Now you sound as if you're doubting the history of the CIA.

But I won't bother. This is another argument that won't be won. If you need me to hold your hand through the well known actions of the CIA and other American foreign policy entities then I already know this is just a fruitless affair. Though I will put it simply that the US continues its anti democratic behavior in Central America to this day. Say what you will of Hugo Chavez but he was elected by his people more than once and the US has tried to have him deposed and have the Venezuelan system turned into a military dictatorship during the reign of this president. That is blatantly anti-democratic and exactly what was being done 20+ years ago going back to the start of the 20th Century. Oh and why would the Nicaraguans let the US trade with them? Because the entire Contra war against them was a result of Nicaragua becoming sovereign and breaking away from its vassal role to the US. They lost the war. So what are they going to do? Starve to death out of protest?

The American bogeyman is real. Somehow you think that because you have great liberty (and that is completly true) within your borders it means that your country is righteous wherever it steps around the world. I've said it once and I'll say it again: I don't hate America, just her foreign policy.

[SUBMAN1]

Damn - where is the popcorn? I think I need a big bucket this time! I haven't been paying attention to this thread, but I see it has become quite heated! All - Please vent all frustration with America here! It is quite entertaining! :D You all have your pathetic little lives simply because simply because the US is feared as a nation. It may not be that for the forseeable future, but for now, you get to carry on your pathetic lives simply because we exist.

I'd love to see the world yearning in the aftermath of Europes creation. I personally don't think it will be pretty, but it will probably be in my lifetime - that is if I survive the nukes (trust me - they are coming one day very soon - less than 10 years if I had to guess). The Arctic is the latest flashpoint.

-S

PS. Almost forgot my big bucket of popcorn! http://www.wdisneyw.com/forums/images/smilies05/popcorn.gif

[bradclark1]

I thought you said that Nicaragua was bad but that it was ancient history. You either admitted that the USA was more than just complicit in a terrorist campaign against a democratic society or you didn't. Now you sound as if you're doubting the history of the CIA.
What I'm saying is 20 years ago is 20 years ago yet you are still of the assumption that the CIA is alive and well in Nicaragua.

Say what you will of Hugo Chavez but he was elected by his people more than once and the US has tried to have him deposed and have the Venezuelan system turned into a military dictatorship during the reign of this president. That is blatantly anti-democratic and exactly what was being done 20+ years ago going back to the start of the 20th Century.
How has the U.S. tried to depose Chavez? Because he says so? Not what I would call proof. If there is proof how come it has never surfaced? Between 2001 and 2004 the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela twice warned Chavez of assassination attempts. I guess those were really smoke jobs huh.

Oh and why would the Nicaraguans let the US trade with them? Because the entire Contra war against them was a result of Nicaragua becoming sovereign and breaking away from its vassal role to the US. They lost the war. So what are they going to do? Starve to death out of protest?
According to you we are still trying to take them out. Wouldn't that be kind of letting the wolf in?

The American bogeyman is real. Somehow you think that because you have great liberty (and that is completly true) within your borders it means that your country is righteous wherever it steps around the world. I've said it once and I'll say it again: I don't hate America, just her foreign policy.
The American bogeyman is real to you. The only fact you have brought up is the CIA backed civil war twenty years ago. Everything else you have no backup whatsoever to your claims.
It is fact that Chavez has strong ties with Iran. It is fact that Chavez is anti-Israel. It is fact that the Bush administration has a severe dislike of Chavez. It is fact that Bush turned his back on Latin America and cut development aid for failure to support the invasion of Iraq. It is fact that Chavez is filling that roll.
I can't find one fact or piece of evidence that the CIA is running rampant in South America. I am not saying the CIA has no interests in Latin America but I am saying they aren't running around secretly destabilizing countries.

[SUBMAN1]

bradclark1 - I can share some of my popcorn if you want! http://www.wdisneyw.com/forums/images/smilies05/popcorn.gif

I have more than enough.

-S

PS. Some people will never get it - so remember that in your replies.

[P_Funk]

What I'm saying is 20 years ago is 20 years ago yet you are still of the assumption that the CIA is alive and well in Nicaragua. Of course they're there. The CIA is probably everywhere. Of course I can't prove it right now but thats cause it'll take a few years for someone to leak this document or for that regime to be deposed and for the story to come out. Its like that moment when the news reporters were invited in to see Noriega's mansion I guess so that the victors could show off what a goldbricking piece of crap he was living like a king, only when they walked into his dining room (or something like that) they saw all the certificates and commendations he'd received from the CIA in his training and such.


How has the U.S. tried to depose Chavez? Because he says so? Not what I would call proof. If there is proof how come it has never surfaced? Between 2001 and 2004 the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela twice warned Chavez of assassination attempts. I guess those were really smoke jobs huh. I dunno you can start with this article,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
deny its credibility and then move on to where we were before I guess.

Oh and why would the Nicaraguans let the US trade with them? Because the entire Contra war against them was a result of Nicaragua becoming sovereign and breaking away from its vassal role to the US. They lost the war. So what are they going to do? Starve to death out of protest? According to you we are still trying to take them out. Wouldn't that be kind of letting the wolf in? They are? Where did I say that? I believe that I used past tense when speaking of the Contras. But even though its 17 years ago doesn't mean that the reverberations aren't still felt, or that if things go back to the way they were in 79 that something might happen again.

The American bogeyman is real to you. The only fact you have brought up is the CIA backed civil war twenty years ago. Everything else you have no backup whatsoever to your claims.
It is fact that Chavez has strong ties with Iran. It is fact that Chavez is anti-Israel. It is fact that the Bush administration has a severe dislike of Chavez. It is fact that Bush turned his back on Latin America and cut development aid for failure to support the invasion of Iraq. It is fact that Chavez is filling that roll.
I can't find one fact or piece of evidence that the CIA is running rampant in South America. I am not saying the CIA has no interests in Latin America but I am saying they aren't running around secretly destabilizing countries. Well you say that the CIA must not be doing anything in Venezuela and I guess Cuba doesn't count as a target. It doesn't matter if the mess the CIA was making 20 years ago was bigger than it is today. Just because there isn't a violent bloody geurilla war somewhere between Panama and Mexico doesn't mean that there isn't a presense or plans or plans in reserve. The CIA doesn't do this stuff just for the hell of it. There are serious foreign policy interests. At the moment the real problem for the US in that region is Chavez. Cuba they're just sitting on waiting for Castro to die. I'm sure in 20 years some guy will write a book and our kids will be arguing about whether the next round of activity is really happening.

But I think we're both disagreeing on something we kind of agree on. We both admit that the CIA is there. In fact this whole argument is really just my sardonic joke turned into somethign serious. I mean honestly isn't it a tad funny to be reading a history of the stability of Nicaragua written by the CIA? Its hilarious! That and relative stability as defined by the CIA is hardly what you'd want to judge any nation by, I mean thats some serious slanted interest there in representing their position on it. But I don't think we need to argue that much, or at least I think we've gone far enough with this train of thought. What do you think?

@Subman. You're right you know... sorta. The US does gurentee much of our stability in the Western world but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be critical of them. Just because the Police protect us in our own countries doens't mean that we ignore their evil deeds out of gratitude. And I hardly think that Iran/Contra is associated with the liberty of you or me. I am greateful in many ways that I live next door to the US because the good things in that relationship are VERY good. But then there are the negative things that threaten the sovereignty of my country and thats when I say "wait a second. Thanks for the whole keepingus safe from evil thing but do you mind not doing that?"

I'm not hot on absolutes so I say 'thank you' to the US but also 'watch yourself'.

[bradclark1]

I dunno you can start with this article,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...688071,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html)
deny its credibility and then move on to where we were before I guess.

On this article: To me it is trying to confuse what happened in Nicaragua with what was supposedly happening in Venezuela. Or I'm just not getting it. The article does say the Bush administration knew about the coup but did not support it. It may very well be, but they took no part in it.
The second to the last paragraph sums it up more or less best.
Chavez's chief ideologue - Guillermo Garcia Ponce, director of the Revolutionary Political Command - said dissident generals, local media and anti-Chavez groups in the US had plotted the president's removal.

In fact this whole argument is really just my sardonic joke turned into something serious.
When every comment you make in reference to the U.S. is a pot shot it is difficult to impossible to tell what is humor and what is not. Maybe a smiley should have been used.:)

[samniTe]

I **** on all of you republicans

[waste gate]

I **** on all of you republicans

I just wanted to thank you samniTe for contributing to the debate. I'm not sure how we ever got along without your high level thought.

Thanx again
waste gate

[P_Funk]

When every comment you make in reference to the U.S. is a pot shot it is difficult to impossible to tell what is humor and what is not. Maybe a smiley should have been used.:)
I was referring to the bit about the CIA bein used to describe stability in nations. Though I wouldn't say EVERYTHING I say about the US is critical. I say alot of nice stuff too. Its just foreign policy that gets me all steamed... and then some of the more weird domestic crap that usually has to do with supporting that foreign policy. I'd say some nasty crap about Canada too if any of the threads about my country lasted half as long as this one.:p

[samniTe]

I **** on all of you republicans
I just wanted to thank you samniTe for contributing to the debate. I'm not sure how we ever got along without your high level thought.

Thanx again
waste gate


i like turtles

[waste gate]

What's a turtle? Your best bet on this forum is to speak in the clearest english possible. Just a suggestion.

[samniTe]

What's a turtle? Your best bet on this forum is to speak in the clearest english possible. Just a suggestion.


tur·tle1 (tûr'tl) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif
n.
Any of various aquatic or terrestrial reptiles of the order Testudines (or Chelonia), having horny toothless jaws and a bony or leathery shell into which the head, limbs, and tail can be withdrawn in most species.