Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Obama A Fibber?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9981
38 Comments
Daveon wrote:
Well as long as he knows where Pakistan is, he'll be an improvement over the old guy.
(http://tinyurl.com/68bpyn)
You know Rand, we're going to have to start identifying ODS as a real complaint if you keep this up...
mikeh963 wrote:
Daveon, please note:
"Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee," .....
He is NOT a member of that committee...what part of that don't you understand? He's a Senator and doesn't even know what committee he may (or may not) be a member of?
Steve wrote:
Were his lips moving?
Bill Maron wrote:
Daveon,
You can call ODS when someone here is calling for his death in cruel ways, using 4 word chants, quoting Kos, uses the words evil and fascist more than once, wears pink, wears silly costumes...and on and on.
Calling BHO on his many, shall we say, distortions of facts in evidence is not ODS.
Carl Pham wrote:
I'm going to credit this one to general space cadet syndrome. The Obamessiah is just tired, and spoke robotically -- perhaps he was once considered for the committee, or meant to look into it, or maybe he was on the Illinois version. It's of a piece with his 57 states gaffe, wholesale silliness that can only come from a tired mind. I'm sure anyone who can get a law degree from Harvard is capable of memorizing his committee assignments.
The troubling aspect of it, for what it's worth, is that he doesn't take especial care to make sure what he's saying when he boasts of something is 100% true or not. That bespeaks a man who feels the pure smooth arc of The Narrative is what counts, and niggly questions like whether each and every statement is factual is the kind of small stuff you leave to graduate students, interns, and other small fry on staff.
Up to a point, I'm cool with the delegation of responsibility, including the responsibility to (cf. Daveon) know where precisely Pakistan is, who the prime minister of Zorkistan is, where the George Washington carrier group is at the moment, and other such operational detail. Any sensible chief of a large operation does that. There's no way, for example, that Bill Gates knows the first five lines of code Microsoft Word executes when it first starts up.
But what's troubling here is it seems to imply the delegation of the entire factual operation of a candidacy (and putative Presidency) so that Obama can stay focussed on the storyline. It's as if (to go back to my analogy) Bill Gates didn't actually know what products Microsoft made, and which were actually profitable, because he spent all his time writing an inspirational book called How I Made Millions In The Software Business And Transformed The World.
You get the feeling, sometimes, that Obama will really relish only two parts of being President: the moment he wins, and being an elder statesman 10 years after he leaves office, basking in the admiration of historians plying him with questions about What It Was Like being the first black President et cetera. Actually doing the job is something he would probably prefer to avoid, or delegate. Too much like real work. Too many chances to spoil the clean arc of The Narrative with grubby compromises, puzzling setbacks, mistakes, and the other messy crap that real life forces on you.
Leland wrote:
Is it more important that Obama knows the President of Pakistan or that Pakistan is an ally. Because last I heard, Obama was threatening to unilaterally attack Pakistan. Thanks for the reminder about that Obama gaffe, which was damn close to a horrendous national incident. It kinda of puts this latest pandering mistake in perspective.
Michael Lonie wrote:
Senator Obama seems to think that not only is he entitled to his own opinion, he is also entitled to his own facts.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
1. Pointing out Obama's gaffes isn't ODS. If you're going to call this ODS then your definition of ODS is so vague and pathetic it's not worth even considering.
2. Obama is incredibly imprecise when not supported by a teleprompter. In a candidate it's deadly, as seen in his speech at AIPAC with the "undivided" Jerusalem. In a President it's catastrophic.
A President's words, or lack of them, all have great meaning and import. A lot of people spend a lot of time carefully parsing those words and the last thing you want is someone tossing out phrases that'll get taken wrong and then, to top it all off, try and pretend that he never said it.
Yet that's Obama!
Liberals and black Americans want him in the White House. I think if they get their wish they're going to get something quite different from the statesman they wishing for.
I know this is a post about Obama, but somehow it seems that this blog is really politically oriented: Do we want to make a comparison of his gaffes against those of Dubya?
A more serious point could be what I noticed, as a non-US citizen, which seems to be that Democrat space cadets kind of gloss over the problems with his statements on space that people like us (space advocates) would have. I think they are real, but if I was US, I would still vote for him, in the name of general interest (if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US).
It is the most disturbing fact in the history of the Space Age that one could say it achieved positive ends by negative means: From the V2 to the Space Race to the VSE, it is clear that all major developments of a humanist and positivist ideal were carried through by the will of quite negative and atavistic motives. This is the Von Braun dilemma. A tough one. So I guess Democrat voters must choose whether they care more about global politics or space policies, but not hide behind confused arguments.
I guess w.r.t. VSE it probably doesn't matter that much anyway, the way things are going it looks like this thing won't pass the decade either way, unfortunately.
A.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US
Yawn - another foreign freeloader.
On the off chance that Arnaud is a Euro, we're still waiting for Europeans to do anything. There's no shortage of problems in the world and yet... (That would even serve his "self interest" as the US tends towards isolationism. If someone else would do the work, sit back and watch. And probably end up having to clean up the mess afterwards, but I digress.)
FWIW, Bush isn't on the ballot. Bush won't be president this time next year. Obama may.
To be fair, Obama does look good to our foreign friends. As lame as he is, he's better than the losers that they've chosen. Which, btw, argues that it's good that they're impotent.
Is America always right? No, but it is almost always better.
Carl Pham wrote:
so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US).
Get a grip. Stop being hysterical. If the "rest of the world" were under physical assault by the United States, in the same sense that, say, Europeans assaulted each other during the Second World War, or the Third World during their extended Age of Colonization, then given modern weaponry the "rest of the world" would be largely a glass parking lot and y'all a billion wisps of greasy smoke.
Sometime you need to thank your lucky stars you live in the era of the most benevolent superpower ever created, so that you can childishly hyperventilate about being "assaulted" without the slightest fear for a hair on your head. Feh.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmm.
@ Arnaud
"if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US"
What total rubbish!
You sir should take a moment and consider what kind of insane world it would be if America chose to tell you all to go f**k yourselves. Who do you think would be in charge then? Europe? Don't make me laugh. We've got 5,000 German soldiers in Afghanistan that won't leave their barracks and won't defend themselves. American soldiers have to do that for them. Politically, socially and militarily Europe is a non-entity.
Without America on the scene the world would be divided between China, India and Russia. With Russia's influence primarily on Eastern and Western Europe via it's energy supplies with the rest of the world divided between China and India. I invite you consider precisely what language the Chinese would use to tell you Europeans to go f**k yourselves should you interfere in their operations.
...
Frankly I would like it if America withdrew from many of our foreign adventures. Withdraw from the UN. Withdraw from NATO. Make mutual defense treaties with specific countries that actually can be relied upon and aren't scumbags that think they can pretend to be a superpower by fighting to the last drop of American blood.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Yikes, both Arnaud and Andy sound as bad or worse than Obama to my ears (a pro-US Norwegian).
Obama wouldn't be better than any politician with half a chance of leading this country. And just for a little bit of silly comparison the only black/African heritage politician here that I'm aware of is a female communist and she makes a hell of a lot more sense than Obama even with that ideology (I'm an anti-communist). Maybe it's because she's 100% black and not 50% Berkley like Obama ^_^
I don't know about German soldiers Memomachine (you do know both Germany and Japan --whom both have participated-- do have a slightly tricky political situation and awkward issues with popular support for historical reasons right?) but I know the Norwegian ones defend themselves (I also know some US commanders preferred Norwegian troops over US ones in Somalia and that a certain Norwegian special forces group has gotten the (US) Navy Presidential Unit Citation). In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs? Of course that makes things more difficult since you're now dealing with the opinions of several different groups of politicians in several different countries. For that matter it's not like the US has been much of a smooth operator in NATO lately (Gates should have known better, it's not always about being right).
Likewise there's a big difference between being the main contributor of utmost importance and believing you're doing it all on your own and always has. Sometimes it seems Americans believe they won WWII and the Cold War all on their own. You won't win this one on your own either nor will you have to.
Reflexive anti-Europeanism isn't any better than reflexive anti-Americanism. Sometimes when I read examples of either I'm left to conclude that we all have better politicians than we deserve both in the US and across Europe --a depressing thought.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> I also know some US commanders preferred Norwegian troops over US ones in Somalia and that a certain Norwegian special forces group has gotten the (US) Navy Presidential Unit Citation).
I've no doubt that there are some Norwegian units that are better than some US units.
That doesn't change the fact that Norway hasn't done much of anything to address any of the problems that the US ends up dealing with. Maybe that's because Norway doesn't have enough units or maybe it's because they don't want to. It doesn't much matter. Norwegian-Americans do more than Norway.
No, I don't expect Norway to go it alone, but I do expect Norway to help make sure that European forces do something. Norway, like the rest of Europe, has failed.
Note, however, that there are Norway-size problems, places where Norway could go it alone, opportunities for Norway to take sole credit/blame for the outcome.
Show us how it's done....
> In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs?
I am - on the folks who select those politicians.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmmm.
@ Habitat Hermit
1. "I don't know about German soldiers Memomachine (you do know both Germany and Japan --whom both have participated-- do have a slightly tricky political situation and awkward issues with popular support for historical reasons right?)"
Tough for them. If you're going to contribute *soldiers* that aren't even going to defend themselves then I'd suggest that they are:
A. Not soldiers per se but rather tourists with matching togs.
B. Useless.
Plus I'll point out it's been 63+ years since the end of WWII. That's enough time for anybody to grow the heck up and deal with it.
2. "but I know the Norwegian ones defend themselves"
That's nice. As per my previous comment we'll make a treaty with them.
3. "In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs?"
I have. I blame the NATO politicians who instruct, the public who elect and the "soldiers" who sit on their fat arse.
That pretty much covers everybody.
4. "Of course that makes things more difficult since you're now dealing with the opinions of several different groups of politicians in several different countries."
Reference where I write about getting out of NATO. Amazingly enough that'll have the bonus effect of eliminating this issue.
5. "For that matter it's not like the US has been much of a smooth operator in NATO lately (Gates should have known better, it's not always about being right)."
Rrrrriiiiggggghhhhhtttttt. 'Cause NATO has really stepped up to the plate and contributed the 10,000 soldiers that are needed in Afghanistan.
America can put 250,000 out of 3.1 million into active rotating duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. 32,500 of which are in Afghanistan but European members of NATO, with 3+ million soldiers, cannot contribute more than the 20,000 they already have. With many of them politically blocked from actually engaging the Taliban.
Let's see:
USA= 250,000 out of 3.1 million
Rest of NATO= 20,000 out of 3+ million
Oh yeah. They're really useful. It's a wonder we haven't won already.
6. "Likewise there's a big difference between being the main contributor of utmost importance and believing you're doing it all on your own and always has."
250,000 vs 20,000
How many months has Gates been pleading with other NATO member nations for additional **combat** troops?
MONTHS!
7. "Sometimes it seems Americans believe they won WWII and the Cold War all on their own."
'Cause we goddamn well pretty much did.
Or would you like to review the nonsense over establishing the Pershing missile? During which time the USA pledged the destruction and death of tens of millions of American citizens to safeguard Europe. While Europeans with bitching that they shouldn't be involved and please don't base any nuclear missiles in Europe because otherwise Europeans might actually be a target?
Something that I've always found to be rather contemptible. Finding safety under America's nuclear shield whilst trying to avoid reciprocating is the very definition of contemptible.
8. "You won't win this one on your own either nor will you have to."
Glad to hear it. Let me know when/if NATO steps on up with the necessary troops.
Or else President Obama will have to send another 10,000 - 20,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan to complete the job.
9. "Reflexive anti-Europeanism isn't any better than reflexive anti-Americanism."
I assure you my anti-Europeanism isn't reflexive. It is extremely well earned by a multitude of examples where Europeans have fought with American blood. And further examples where American lives are merely a coin to be spent.
Shall I include the example set forth by the Italians? Remember the Achille Lauro? Klinghoffer? An American murdered by terrorists? Terrorists later captured by Americans but the Italians demanded their leader to be handed over to them for trial.
Oh he got tried all right. Sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder. Then given a f**king weekend *furlough* from his **30 year prison sentence** and disappeared.
Thank you very much.
10. "Sometimes when I read examples of either I'm left to conclude that we all have better politicians than we deserve both in the US and across Europe --a depressing thought."
I assure you the rot isn't in just the European politicians.
Carl Pham wrote:
Don't take the excess personally, HH. I know Norwegians are tough sons of guns whom I or any reasonable American would be right glad to have on my side in a fight.
Daveon wrote:
He is NOT a member of that committee...what part of that don't you understand? He's a Senator and doesn't even know what committee he may (or may not) be a member of?
Politician going for office in bigging up his part shock! No! Tell me it ain't so!
Seriously. He inflated himself. Gosh wow. I'm shocked.
For the record I don't necessarily like the guy myself, much in the way that Rand doesn't like McCain - he reminds me too much of a certain Anthony Blair Esq formerly of No10 Downing Street, London - another "charasmatic" political type.
However, given the choice between a charasmatic guy who bigs up his part and a guy in his 70s who seems to struggle with basic geography of trouble spots...
Now if he bigged up his part and he also seemed to have a problem with factual data like the location of the Pakistan/Iraq border, OR LACK THEREOF, then I'd be worried.
memomachine wrote:
Hmmmm.
@ Daveon
"Now if he bigged up his part and he also seemed to have a problem with factual data like the location of the Pakistan/Iraq border, OR LACK THEREOF, then I'd be worried."
Bigged? He didn't "bigged" anything. He clearly misrepresented himself and lied.
As for that recurring bit of nonsense over "Pakistan/Iraq border" ... bah. Like I care.
How about Israel is a strong ally of Israel? How about President of 57 states? How about President for 8-10 years?
Gaffes are gaffes. People make them. They're funny and are useful to club people with.
But there's a vast difference between a verbal gaffe and lying about your job, past history *and* your accomplishments. Remember that Obama claimed he was on the Banking committee because he was trying to steal their thunder by claiming their accomplishments as his own.
So no I'm not buying that utter bulls**t you're trying to pass.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:
The scandal about the Banking Committee is not one of inflating your resume to get the President job. The scandal is that the dude let slip that he has so not shown up for work in recent times, largely because of his angling for this big promotion, that he doesn't even know what his assignments are.
Leave it to the Liberal Mind to draw moral equivalence -- Candidate Obama doesn't know what committees he is on, Candidate Bush didn't know the President of Pakistan. So, Candidate Bush was a rube from Texas who didn't know the President of Pakistan, and that is a concern for someone aiming to be President of the U.S.. But I am sure George W Bush showed up for work on a regular basis as Governer of Texas, but there is some question about how many hours Senator Obama is putting into his Senate job, and where people draw these equivalences continually amazes me.
And isn't Mr. Obama running as an improvement on Mr. Bush?
Carl Pham wrote:
Paul, you left out the fact that the name of the President of Pakistan is a fact of zero use to the Governor of Texas, while which committees he inhabits, and what they're doing, is pretty core stuff to the job of U.S. Senator.
The mistake would be more comparable had Governor Bush not known whether the Texas Legislature had sent him any bills to sign in the last month, because he was on a world tour promoting his candidacy for President.
Arnaud wrote:
Oh well,
For a blog about space policy this seems to have gone seriously off-course... I am a bit shocked at the vitriolic and virulent reactions to -one- sentence of my post. Admitedly it was poorly worded and not very clever, but it was really written in jest. It seems people cannot take much gentle proding on this forum. It all sounds very serious!
Being serious then, and for info, I am Euro, and even worse I'm French; Still though, I happen to like the US and obviously I fully recognise its achievements in space exploration. Also, I will indeed forever be grateful to all the hundred of thousands of Americans who died to free my own country in WWII. That doesn't mean I can't question some actions of the present government insofar as they impact me, does it?
In fact, I was striken by the resemblance between those replies and what happens on the BBC foums with blogs about China. Every time any of the journalists says something that can be perceived as even slightly negative towards the country, a flame war rages fueled by either over-nationalists citizens or government trolls, probably both. If Chinese and American citizens are both so touchy, no wonder we should expect a new Space Race...
Nobody commented (or possibly read) on my main point, which was that Obama supporters who are also space cadets will have the dilemma of voting for a candidate of which they support most policies except space-related ones.
As I said, the fact is that very few space programs have been developed for really peaceful and humanist purposes. The only one I know of is India's, and to a much lesser extent, ESA (but the creators of the first Ariane were still parts of the V2 team I think). It's often depressed me, although I suppose one could see the ISS for instance as turning swords into ploughs.
Finally, I noticed some basic factual mistakes present in several of the replies about 20th Century history and the real roots of American power. But I don't feel that those posters are willing to listen to another point of view, so I'll leave it.
A.
Rand Simberg wrote:
For a blog about space policy this seems to have gone seriously off-course...
Who told you that this was a blog about space policy?
This is a blog about anything that I want to write about.
I am a bit shocked at the vitriolic and virulent reactions to -one- sentence of my post. Admitedly it was poorly worded and not very clever, but it was really written in jest.
Sorry, but that wasn't obvious, partly because we hear it said too many times by people who are not in jest. They seriously believe nonsense like that.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Several different things, first Arnaud: neither McCain or Obama have gone into sufficient detail on the topic to make it a big issue (even so Obama is self-contradictory and meandering as usual). It has all been debated to death over at Space Politics (.com).
On the off topic discussion I want to be clear that I'm not trying to play up some kind of stupid viking image nonsense: most Norwegians just like most Americans or French or whatever are a product of a very comfortable lifestyle and wouldn't be worth much in a modern war zone.
However contributions shouldn't receive scorn and ridicule if one wants further (and hopefully better) contributions, and unfortunately scorn and ridicule is the message of some of the sentiments expressed. Get me right here I fully agree with Gates (and the US) on the facts of lacking participation and that it should change but be careful what you ask for and how the request comes across, at least try to avoid huge blunders like public bickering and humiliation unless your aim is to make all NATO countries into Gaullists or want to make the EU into a non-allied military superpower. Likewise what amounts to verbal defecation on the graves of dead allied non-American soldiers isn't helpful (and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers). A little bit of perspective and understanding of why things are like they are hopefully shouldn't be too much to ask for but maybe it is.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> That doesn't mean I can't question some actions of the present government insofar as they impact me, does it?
No one is saying that you can't question, but we also have that right.
Contrary to popular belief, not all questions and suggestions are worthwhile. Worthwhile requires useful, or at the very least intended to be helpful. The standard Euro questions/suggestions are neither.
Euros are fond of lecturing America on matters that Europe has no relevant expertise or experience. (However, if we decide to run a brutal occupation, France's input would be quite valuable.)
Moreover, much of this advice concerns things that Europe should be doing itself, or at least be seriously involved in.
If you want to be treated as a full partner, you've got to carry a reasonable share of the load.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> at least try to avoid huge blunders like public bickering and humiliation unless your aim is to make all NATO countries into Gaullists
For all of de Gaulle's failings, he wanted France to defend France's interests. Today's Europe demands that the US do so.
> or want to make the EU into a non-allied military superpower.
Europe can't become a non-allied military superpower without becoming a military superpower.
Excuse me for not being worried about the possibility.
Before Europe could engage in mischief that would affect the US, it would have to take care of its own problems. In doing so, it would free up significant US resources.
It's more likely that Europe would seek another patron. I'm reminded of the "The Ransom of Red Chief".
Euros seem to think that allies are necessarily worthwhile. They're not. Some allies are basically irrelevant. Other allies, like modern Europe, are dead weight. They add more work than they do. A significant fraction of the US' obligations are actually Europe's obligations. If we weren't allies, we wouldn't concern ourselves with them (or we'd deal with them to our advantage).
To put it another way, Western Europe, specifically "old Europe", are allies, not partners.
> Likewise what amounts to verbal defecation on the graves of dead allied non-American soldiers isn't helpful (and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers).
We're not defecating on them - we appreciate that their sacrifice reduced the cost borne by the US to deal with European problems, to save Europe from itself. (Of course, much of the Soviet deaths were not to defend the USSR but to enslave eastern Europe. It takes a European to find that praise-worthy.)
Thank you for equating our sacrifice on Europe's behalf with Europe's acts in its own self-interest. It demonstrates what I wrote about Europe expecting the US to do its work....
Rand Simberg wrote:
The Ransom Of Red Chief? I haven't read that story since I was a kid. But in rereading it, it strikes me that it must have been the inspiration for this movie.
Daveon wrote:
He clearly misrepresented himself and lied.
Shocking. And this man a politician too?
Gosh.
What interests me about this is how nobody outside of parts of the Blogosphere actually seems to care all that much...
BTW - this wasn't the speach he gave where there were two other senators on the stage who were asked the question whom he invited to speak because it was really aimed at them was it? They showed him deferring to two others with him on the stage there...
Rand Simberg wrote:
Shocking. And this man a politician too?
You miss the point (as is often the case). He was supposed to be different. If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Andy I wasn't just talking about old graves, some of them are very fresh and your reply was yet another stinking pile of shit. Thanks for the "appreciation", it really makes it so much easier to argue the case for supporting and cooperating with the US (sarcasm translated: your kind of attitude is the wet dream of any anti-American).
You seem to think WWII was a European problem which the US could simply have ignored and lived on happily ever after. You might want to crack open a history book and read up on Pearl Harbor. Don't stop there though as your comment on Soviet (military) deaths is bizarre. Perhaps you imagine they brushed the Nazis aside and then suffered the rest of their ten million deaths (all military, no civilians included in those ten million) against Eastern European partisan groups (whom had formerly gotten nearly all their support from the U.S.S.R.). Or perhaps you're just abysmally clueless and think roughly half a million US casualties (if we pretend they were all in Europe) defeated a Wehrmacht that, in your imagination, hadn't been worn down to mostly kids, retirees, and whoever had a respite from the eastern front due to luck, connections, or rotation.
And of course you did it all by yourself in the pacific too. What 3 million Chinese military deaths? No Europeans in sight right? Just a nice Burmese railway. How about those kiwis and kangaroos?
And no you won't get a far more powerful European (likely EU *shudder*) military that is allied, it just isn't on the table. The more powerful any such becomes the less inclined to cooperate with the US it will be due to the simple fact that it will have less and less reason to do so.
Andy Freeman wrote: "Thank you for equating our sacrifice on Europe's behalf with Europe's acts in its own self-interest. It demonstrates what I wrote about Europe expecting the US to do its work...."
So you're saying the U.S. intentionally does things against their own short or long-term self-interest? That's a mighty big crap at an awful lot of US graves as well, what the hell is wrong with you?
Daveon wrote:
You miss the point (as is often the case). He was supposed to be different.
He was?
Gosh.
You mean people thought he would not be a politician despite all the evidence to the contrary.
That says far more about you and American voters than it does about my apparent inability to see points.
Daveon wrote:
If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Actually Jon Stweart summed this up much better many weeks ago on The Daily Show. "How long will he take to break our hearts."
His skit on his reporters having O_boner_mania was amusing too. Nice to see that the "left" in the US can make fun of themselves properly.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> Andy I wasn't just talking about old graves, some of them are very fresh and your reply was yet another stinking pile of shit.
The vast majority are old, as the original claim stated explicitly "(and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers)."
I didn't say that Europe does nothing today, I said that the overall "contribution" was negative.
Excuse me for not being impressed by the minor contributions in the Middle East. A real power would have real accomplishments and wouldn't resort to "but some of our folks died proving that we weren't completely useless".
How about the Sudan? Surely Europe could handle that.
> You seem to think WWII was a European problem which the US could simply have ignored and lived on happily ever after.
No - I think that Nazi Germany was problem because Europe didn't deal with it. And, for the most part, it remained a European problem, as was Bosnia late last century. As far as the Pacific war is concerned, the UK was involved but the rest of Europe didn't show. (Okay, the USSR did make some land grabs at the end.) Since we're talking about what Europeans did ....
> Soviet (military) deaths is bizarre. Perhaps you imagine they brushed the Nazis aside and then suffered the rest of their ten million deaths
What are you babbling about? The USSR fought Germany to do two things (1) get Germany out of the USSR and (2) take Eastern Europe from Germany. Yes, that had a huge cost (which I acknowledged) but that doesn't change the fact that both were direct self-interest.
Yes, the US had an interest in the USSR vs Germany, but nothing like the interest that they had.
> The more powerful any such becomes the less inclined to cooperate with the US it will be due to the simple fact that it will have less and less reason to do so.
Since the cooperation isn't worth much, losing it is no big deal. If a more powerful Europe dealt with problems, the US would have less to do - that's a big win for the US.
> So you're saying the U.S. intentionally does things against their own short or long-term self-interest? That's a mighty big crap at an awful lot of US graves as well, what the hell is wrong with you?
I'm saying that the US ends up picking up the slack because the folks who should can't and/or won't.
It's not crapping on US graves to point that out.
BTW - the US military, let alone the soldiers who die, don't pick the objectives. Politicians do. Pointing out problems with the objectives that got them killed isn't crapping on the folks who died.
> What 3 million Chinese military deaths?
Not European, but again self-interest. Australians, also not European and self-interest.
The UK did fight in the Pacific, which you can put down to either empire or "like the US", but who else showed up from Europe? (Right - they were too busy elsewhere.)
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Andy Freeman wrote: "I said that the overall "contribution" was negative."
Thank you but I noticed, it's louder and clearer than you realize and it shouts out a message received as pure contempt and whining about the awful downsides of being the most powerful nation on Earth. What do you think you'll get in return for that?
There is so much (far too much) that could be said about the rest of your comment but I'm giving up on your deep-rooted ignorance (sorry for using that word but it's the one that fits) except to let you know that you couldn't be any better at pushing people towards despising the US and its citizens. If it's intentional then you don't need to work any harder at it, if it's accidental then it's probably better to give you some feedback and let you chew on it (which I've done).
Daveon wrote:
If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Actually Jon Stweart summed this up much better many weeks ago on The Daily Show. "How long will he take to break our hearts."
His skit on his reporters having O_boner_mania was amusing too. Nice to see that the "left" in the US can make fun of themselves properly.
Habitat Hermit wrote:
Just as a last little tidbit someone told me the KSK got a PUC for Afghanistan as well, they're German for those who don't know.
I was also corrected about a Norwegian unit getting a PUC: there were two PUCs awarded (one Navy and one Army) to two Norwegian units (including the one I was thinking of) for work done in Afghanistan.
Andy Freeman wrote:
> Thank you but I noticed, it's louder and clearer than you realize and it shouts out a message received as pure contempt and whining about the awful downsides of being the most powerful nation on Earth. What do you think you'll get in return for that?
There are two possibilities: (1) The Euros will just take it because they lack the will and/or capability to do anything else. (2) The Euros will do something. They can decide to show up the US. Great!
HH seems to think that European opinion matters. It doesn't. Withdrawing support doesn't matter because the support is insignificant. Telling the US to butt out of Euro-affairs is a huge plus for the US. Dealing with non-Euro problems, again, a net plus.
> ignorance
Note the lack of evidence for the charge. Does HH think that the USSR didn't have self-interest in fighting the Germans? Does HH think that Europe (apart from the UK) had significant involvement in the Pacific theater? (He mentioned both China and Australia. Which one is European?)
Or, does he think that the US Military decides its objectives? How about individual soldiers? Does he really want to argue that pointing out that the politicians reasons for committing troops were something less than wonderful is crapping on their sacrifice?
Andy Freeman wrote:
HH seems to think that European approval and cooperation is useful and that losing them would be bad.
Perhaps he'll be so good as to cite actual actions, their likelyhood, and their effect.
For example, Euros buy signficant US public and private debt. If they stopped, presumably the interest costs would go up. Would they stop? (FWIW, I want govt debt costs to go up. Govt should pay short-term for all spending.)
Euros import US goods and export to the US. Which nose will they cut off to spite their face?
Euros won't show up in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll take the hit.
Euros will take care of Sudan. Great if it happens, but I'm not holding my breath.
Euros will seek closer ties with the USSR and China. Let me know how that works out.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on July 23, 2008 1:27 PM.
Well as long as he knows where Pakistan is, he'll be an improvement over the old guy.
(http://tinyurl.com/68bpyn)
You know Rand, we're going to have to start identifying ODS as a real complaint if you keep this up...
Daveon, please note:
"Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don't have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee," .....
He is NOT a member of that committee...what part of that don't you understand? He's a Senator and doesn't even know what committee he may (or may not) be a member of?
Were his lips moving?
Daveon,
You can call ODS when someone here is calling for his death in cruel ways, using 4 word chants, quoting Kos, uses the words evil and fascist more than once, wears pink, wears silly costumes...and on and on.
Calling BHO on his many, shall we say, distortions of facts in evidence is not ODS.
I'm going to credit this one to general space cadet syndrome. The Obamessiah is just tired, and spoke robotically -- perhaps he was once considered for the committee, or meant to look into it, or maybe he was on the Illinois version. It's of a piece with his 57 states gaffe, wholesale silliness that can only come from a tired mind. I'm sure anyone who can get a law degree from Harvard is capable of memorizing his committee assignments.
The troubling aspect of it, for what it's worth, is that he doesn't take especial care to make sure what he's saying when he boasts of something is 100% true or not. That bespeaks a man who feels the pure smooth arc of The Narrative is what counts, and niggly questions like whether each and every statement is factual is the kind of small stuff you leave to graduate students, interns, and other small fry on staff.
Up to a point, I'm cool with the delegation of responsibility, including the responsibility to (cf. Daveon) know where precisely Pakistan is, who the prime minister of Zorkistan is, where the George Washington carrier group is at the moment, and other such operational detail. Any sensible chief of a large operation does that. There's no way, for example, that Bill Gates knows the first five lines of code Microsoft Word executes when it first starts up.
But what's troubling here is it seems to imply the delegation of the entire factual operation of a candidacy (and putative Presidency) so that Obama can stay focussed on the storyline. It's as if (to go back to my analogy) Bill Gates didn't actually know what products Microsoft made, and which were actually profitable, because he spent all his time writing an inspirational book called How I Made Millions In The Software Business And Transformed The World.
You get the feeling, sometimes, that Obama will really relish only two parts of being President: the moment he wins, and being an elder statesman 10 years after he leaves office, basking in the admiration of historians plying him with questions about What It Was Like being the first black President et cetera. Actually doing the job is something he would probably prefer to avoid, or delegate. Too much like real work. Too many chances to spoil the clean arc of The Narrative with grubby compromises, puzzling setbacks, mistakes, and the other messy crap that real life forces on you.
Is it more important that Obama knows the President of Pakistan or that Pakistan is an ally. Because last I heard, Obama was threatening to unilaterally attack Pakistan. Thanks for the reminder about that Obama gaffe, which was damn close to a horrendous national incident. It kinda of puts this latest pandering mistake in perspective.
Senator Obama seems to think that not only is he entitled to his own opinion, he is also entitled to his own facts.
Hmmmm.
1. Pointing out Obama's gaffes isn't ODS. If you're going to call this ODS then your definition of ODS is so vague and pathetic it's not worth even considering.
2. Obama is incredibly imprecise when not supported by a teleprompter. In a candidate it's deadly, as seen in his speech at AIPAC with the "undivided" Jerusalem. In a President it's catastrophic.
A President's words, or lack of them, all have great meaning and import. A lot of people spend a lot of time carefully parsing those words and the last thing you want is someone tossing out phrases that'll get taken wrong and then, to top it all off, try and pretend that he never said it.
Yet that's Obama!
Liberals and black Americans want him in the White House. I think if they get their wish they're going to get something quite different from the statesman they wishing for.
Pity we'll have to pay the price for it too.
Hmmmm.
http://www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com/
This is interesting.
I know this is a post about Obama, but somehow it seems that this blog is really politically oriented: Do we want to make a comparison of his gaffes against those of Dubya?
A more serious point could be what I noticed, as a non-US citizen, which seems to be that Democrat space cadets kind of gloss over the problems with his statements on space that people like us (space advocates) would have. I think they are real, but if I was US, I would still vote for him, in the name of general interest (if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US).
It is the most disturbing fact in the history of the Space Age that one could say it achieved positive ends by negative means: From the V2 to the Space Race to the VSE, it is clear that all major developments of a humanist and positivist ideal were carried through by the will of quite negative and atavistic motives. This is the Von Braun dilemma. A tough one. So I guess Democrat voters must choose whether they care more about global politics or space policies, but not hide behind confused arguments.
I guess w.r.t. VSE it probably doesn't matter that much anyway, the way things are going it looks like this thing won't pass the decade either way, unfortunately.
A.
> if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US
Yawn - another foreign freeloader.
On the off chance that Arnaud is a Euro, we're still waiting for Europeans to do anything. There's no shortage of problems in the world and yet... (That would even serve his "self interest" as the US tends towards isolationism. If someone else would do the work, sit back and watch. And probably end up having to clean up the mess afterwards, but I digress.)
FWIW, Bush isn't on the ballot. Bush won't be president this time next year. Obama may.
To be fair, Obama does look good to our foreign friends. As lame as he is, he's better than the losers that they've chosen. Which, btw, argues that it's good that they're impotent.
Is America always right? No, but it is almost always better.
so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US).
Get a grip. Stop being hysterical. If the "rest of the world" were under physical assault by the United States, in the same sense that, say, Europeans assaulted each other during the Second World War, or the Third World during their extended Age of Colonization, then given modern weaponry the "rest of the world" would be largely a glass parking lot and y'all a billion wisps of greasy smoke.
Sometime you need to thank your lucky stars you live in the era of the most benevolent superpower ever created, so that you can childishly hyperventilate about being "assaulted" without the slightest fear for a hair on your head. Feh.
Hmmm.
@ Arnaud
"if at least for my own personal interest, so that the rest of the world can get a breather from being assaulted physically or verbally by the US"
What total rubbish!
You sir should take a moment and consider what kind of insane world it would be if America chose to tell you all to go f**k yourselves. Who do you think would be in charge then? Europe? Don't make me laugh. We've got 5,000 German soldiers in Afghanistan that won't leave their barracks and won't defend themselves. American soldiers have to do that for them. Politically, socially and militarily Europe is a non-entity.
Without America on the scene the world would be divided between China, India and Russia. With Russia's influence primarily on Eastern and Western Europe via it's energy supplies with the rest of the world divided between China and India. I invite you consider precisely what language the Chinese would use to tell you Europeans to go f**k yourselves should you interfere in their operations.
...
Frankly I would like it if America withdrew from many of our foreign adventures. Withdraw from the UN. Withdraw from NATO. Make mutual defense treaties with specific countries that actually can be relied upon and aren't scumbags that think they can pretend to be a superpower by fighting to the last drop of American blood.
Yikes, both Arnaud and Andy sound as bad or worse than Obama to my ears (a pro-US Norwegian).
Obama wouldn't be better than any politician with half a chance of leading this country. And just for a little bit of silly comparison the only black/African heritage politician here that I'm aware of is a female communist and she makes a hell of a lot more sense than Obama even with that ideology (I'm an anti-communist). Maybe it's because she's 100% black and not 50% Berkley like Obama ^_^
I don't know about German soldiers Memomachine (you do know both Germany and Japan --whom both have participated-- do have a slightly tricky political situation and awkward issues with popular support for historical reasons right?) but I know the Norwegian ones defend themselves (I also know some US commanders preferred Norwegian troops over US ones in Somalia and that a certain Norwegian special forces group has gotten the (US) Navy Presidential Unit Citation). In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs? Of course that makes things more difficult since you're now dealing with the opinions of several different groups of politicians in several different countries. For that matter it's not like the US has been much of a smooth operator in NATO lately (Gates should have known better, it's not always about being right).
Likewise there's a big difference between being the main contributor of utmost importance and believing you're doing it all on your own and always has. Sometimes it seems Americans believe they won WWII and the Cold War all on their own. You won't win this one on your own either nor will you have to.
Reflexive anti-Europeanism isn't any better than reflexive anti-Americanism. Sometimes when I read examples of either I'm left to conclude that we all have better politicians than we deserve both in the US and across Europe --a depressing thought.
> I also know some US commanders preferred Norwegian troops over US ones in Somalia and that a certain Norwegian special forces group has gotten the (US) Navy Presidential Unit Citation).
I've no doubt that there are some Norwegian units that are better than some US units.
That doesn't change the fact that Norway hasn't done much of anything to address any of the problems that the US ends up dealing with. Maybe that's because Norway doesn't have enough units or maybe it's because they don't want to. It doesn't much matter. Norwegian-Americans do more than Norway.
No, I don't expect Norway to go it alone, but I do expect Norway to help make sure that European forces do something. Norway, like the rest of Europe, has failed.
Note, however, that there are Norway-size problems, places where Norway could go it alone, opportunities for Norway to take sole credit/blame for the outcome.
Show us how it's done....
> In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs?
I am - on the folks who select those politicians.
Hmmmmm.
@ Habitat Hermit
1. "I don't know about German soldiers Memomachine (you do know both Germany and Japan --whom both have participated-- do have a slightly tricky political situation and awkward issues with popular support for historical reasons right?)"
Tough for them. If you're going to contribute *soldiers* that aren't even going to defend themselves then I'd suggest that they are:
A. Not soldiers per se but rather tourists with matching togs.
B. Useless.
Plus I'll point out it's been 63+ years since the end of WWII. That's enough time for anybody to grow the heck up and deal with it.
2. "but I know the Norwegian ones defend themselves"
That's nice. As per my previous comment we'll make a treaty with them.
3. "In any case units from NATO countries do what they're told by their politicians so maybe you should put the blame where it belongs?"
I have. I blame the NATO politicians who instruct, the public who elect and the "soldiers" who sit on their fat arse.
That pretty much covers everybody.
4. "Of course that makes things more difficult since you're now dealing with the opinions of several different groups of politicians in several different countries."
Reference where I write about getting out of NATO. Amazingly enough that'll have the bonus effect of eliminating this issue.
5. "For that matter it's not like the US has been much of a smooth operator in NATO lately (Gates should have known better, it's not always about being right)."
Rrrrriiiiggggghhhhhtttttt. 'Cause NATO has really stepped up to the plate and contributed the 10,000 soldiers that are needed in Afghanistan.
America can put 250,000 out of 3.1 million into active rotating duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. 32,500 of which are in Afghanistan but European members of NATO, with 3+ million soldiers, cannot contribute more than the 20,000 they already have. With many of them politically blocked from actually engaging the Taliban.
Let's see:
USA= 250,000 out of 3.1 million
Rest of NATO= 20,000 out of 3+ million
Oh yeah. They're really useful. It's a wonder we haven't won already.
6. "Likewise there's a big difference between being the main contributor of utmost importance and believing you're doing it all on your own and always has."
250,000 vs 20,000
How many months has Gates been pleading with other NATO member nations for additional **combat** troops?
MONTHS!
7. "Sometimes it seems Americans believe they won WWII and the Cold War all on their own."
'Cause we goddamn well pretty much did.
Or would you like to review the nonsense over establishing the Pershing missile? During which time the USA pledged the destruction and death of tens of millions of American citizens to safeguard Europe. While Europeans with bitching that they shouldn't be involved and please don't base any nuclear missiles in Europe because otherwise Europeans might actually be a target?
Something that I've always found to be rather contemptible. Finding safety under America's nuclear shield whilst trying to avoid reciprocating is the very definition of contemptible.
8. "You won't win this one on your own either nor will you have to."
Glad to hear it. Let me know when/if NATO steps on up with the necessary troops.
Or else President Obama will have to send another 10,000 - 20,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan to complete the job.
9. "Reflexive anti-Europeanism isn't any better than reflexive anti-Americanism."
I assure you my anti-Europeanism isn't reflexive. It is extremely well earned by a multitude of examples where Europeans have fought with American blood. And further examples where American lives are merely a coin to be spent.
Shall I include the example set forth by the Italians? Remember the Achille Lauro? Klinghoffer? An American murdered by terrorists? Terrorists later captured by Americans but the Italians demanded their leader to be handed over to them for trial.
Oh he got tried all right. Sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder. Then given a f**king weekend *furlough* from his **30 year prison sentence** and disappeared.
Thank you very much.
10. "Sometimes when I read examples of either I'm left to conclude that we all have better politicians than we deserve both in the US and across Europe --a depressing thought."
I assure you the rot isn't in just the European politicians.
Don't take the excess personally, HH. I know Norwegians are tough sons of guns whom I or any reasonable American would be right glad to have on my side in a fight.
He is NOT a member of that committee...what part of that don't you understand? He's a Senator and doesn't even know what committee he may (or may not) be a member of?
Politician going for office in bigging up his part shock! No! Tell me it ain't so!
Seriously. He inflated himself. Gosh wow. I'm shocked.
For the record I don't necessarily like the guy myself, much in the way that Rand doesn't like McCain - he reminds me too much of a certain Anthony Blair Esq formerly of No10 Downing Street, London - another "charasmatic" political type.
However, given the choice between a charasmatic guy who bigs up his part and a guy in his 70s who seems to struggle with basic geography of trouble spots...
Now if he bigged up his part and he also seemed to have a problem with factual data like the location of the Pakistan/Iraq border, OR LACK THEREOF, then I'd be worried.
Hmmmm.
@ Daveon
"Now if he bigged up his part and he also seemed to have a problem with factual data like the location of the Pakistan/Iraq border, OR LACK THEREOF, then I'd be worried."
Bigged? He didn't "bigged" anything. He clearly misrepresented himself and lied.
As for that recurring bit of nonsense over "Pakistan/Iraq border" ... bah. Like I care.
How about Israel is a strong ally of Israel? How about President of 57 states? How about President for 8-10 years?
Gaffes are gaffes. People make them. They're funny and are useful to club people with.
But there's a vast difference between a verbal gaffe and lying about your job, past history *and* your accomplishments. Remember that Obama claimed he was on the Banking committee because he was trying to steal their thunder by claiming their accomplishments as his own.
So no I'm not buying that utter bulls**t you're trying to pass.
The scandal about the Banking Committee is not one of inflating your resume to get the President job. The scandal is that the dude let slip that he has so not shown up for work in recent times, largely because of his angling for this big promotion, that he doesn't even know what his assignments are.
Leave it to the Liberal Mind to draw moral equivalence -- Candidate Obama doesn't know what committees he is on, Candidate Bush didn't know the President of Pakistan. So, Candidate Bush was a rube from Texas who didn't know the President of Pakistan, and that is a concern for someone aiming to be President of the U.S.. But I am sure George W Bush showed up for work on a regular basis as Governer of Texas, but there is some question about how many hours Senator Obama is putting into his Senate job, and where people draw these equivalences continually amazes me.
And isn't Mr. Obama running as an improvement on Mr. Bush?
Paul, you left out the fact that the name of the President of Pakistan is a fact of zero use to the Governor of Texas, while which committees he inhabits, and what they're doing, is pretty core stuff to the job of U.S. Senator.
The mistake would be more comparable had Governor Bush not known whether the Texas Legislature had sent him any bills to sign in the last month, because he was on a world tour promoting his candidacy for President.
Oh well,
For a blog about space policy this seems to have gone seriously off-course... I am a bit shocked at the vitriolic and virulent reactions to -one- sentence of my post. Admitedly it was poorly worded and not very clever, but it was really written in jest. It seems people cannot take much gentle proding on this forum. It all sounds very serious!
Being serious then, and for info, I am Euro, and even worse I'm French; Still though, I happen to like the US and obviously I fully recognise its achievements in space exploration. Also, I will indeed forever be grateful to all the hundred of thousands of Americans who died to free my own country in WWII. That doesn't mean I can't question some actions of the present government insofar as they impact me, does it?
In fact, I was striken by the resemblance between those replies and what happens on the BBC foums with blogs about China. Every time any of the journalists says something that can be perceived as even slightly negative towards the country, a flame war rages fueled by either over-nationalists citizens or government trolls, probably both. If Chinese and American citizens are both so touchy, no wonder we should expect a new Space Race...
Nobody commented (or possibly read) on my main point, which was that Obama supporters who are also space cadets will have the dilemma of voting for a candidate of which they support most policies except space-related ones.
As I said, the fact is that very few space programs have been developed for really peaceful and humanist purposes. The only one I know of is India's, and to a much lesser extent, ESA (but the creators of the first Ariane were still parts of the V2 team I think). It's often depressed me, although I suppose one could see the ISS for instance as turning swords into ploughs.
Finally, I noticed some basic factual mistakes present in several of the replies about 20th Century history and the real roots of American power. But I don't feel that those posters are willing to listen to another point of view, so I'll leave it.
A.
For a blog about space policy this seems to have gone seriously off-course...
Who told you that this was a blog about space policy?
This is a blog about anything that I want to write about.
I am a bit shocked at the vitriolic and virulent reactions to -one- sentence of my post. Admitedly it was poorly worded and not very clever, but it was really written in jest.
Sorry, but that wasn't obvious, partly because we hear it said too many times by people who are not in jest. They seriously believe nonsense like that.
Several different things, first Arnaud: neither McCain or Obama have gone into sufficient detail on the topic to make it a big issue (even so Obama is self-contradictory and meandering as usual). It has all been debated to death over at Space Politics (.com).
On the off topic discussion I want to be clear that I'm not trying to play up some kind of stupid viking image nonsense: most Norwegians just like most Americans or French or whatever are a product of a very comfortable lifestyle and wouldn't be worth much in a modern war zone.
However contributions shouldn't receive scorn and ridicule if one wants further (and hopefully better) contributions, and unfortunately scorn and ridicule is the message of some of the sentiments expressed. Get me right here I fully agree with Gates (and the US) on the facts of lacking participation and that it should change but be careful what you ask for and how the request comes across, at least try to avoid huge blunders like public bickering and humiliation unless your aim is to make all NATO countries into Gaullists or want to make the EU into a non-allied military superpower. Likewise what amounts to verbal defecation on the graves of dead allied non-American soldiers isn't helpful (and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers). A little bit of perspective and understanding of why things are like they are hopefully shouldn't be too much to ask for but maybe it is.
> That doesn't mean I can't question some actions of the present government insofar as they impact me, does it?
No one is saying that you can't question, but we also have that right.
Contrary to popular belief, not all questions and suggestions are worthwhile. Worthwhile requires useful, or at the very least intended to be helpful. The standard Euro questions/suggestions are neither.
Euros are fond of lecturing America on matters that Europe has no relevant expertise or experience. (However, if we decide to run a brutal occupation, France's input would be quite valuable.)
Moreover, much of this advice concerns things that Europe should be doing itself, or at least be seriously involved in.
If you want to be treated as a full partner, you've got to carry a reasonable share of the load.
> at least try to avoid huge blunders like public bickering and humiliation unless your aim is to make all NATO countries into Gaullists
For all of de Gaulle's failings, he wanted France to defend France's interests. Today's Europe demands that the US do so.
> or want to make the EU into a non-allied military superpower.
Europe can't become a non-allied military superpower without becoming a military superpower.
Excuse me for not being worried about the possibility.
Before Europe could engage in mischief that would affect the US, it would have to take care of its own problems. In doing so, it would free up significant US resources.
It's more likely that Europe would seek another patron. I'm reminded of the "The Ransom of Red Chief".
Euros seem to think that allies are necessarily worthwhile. They're not. Some allies are basically irrelevant. Other allies, like modern Europe, are dead weight. They add more work than they do. A significant fraction of the US' obligations are actually Europe's obligations. If we weren't allies, we wouldn't concern ourselves with them (or we'd deal with them to our advantage).
To put it another way, Western Europe, specifically "old Europe", are allies, not partners.
> Likewise what amounts to verbal defecation on the graves of dead allied non-American soldiers isn't helpful (and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers).
We're not defecating on them - we appreciate that their sacrifice reduced the cost borne by the US to deal with European problems, to save Europe from itself. (Of course, much of the Soviet deaths were not to defend the USSR but to enslave eastern Europe. It takes a European to find that praise-worthy.)
Thank you for equating our sacrifice on Europe's behalf with Europe's acts in its own self-interest. It demonstrates what I wrote about Europe expecting the US to do its work....
The Ransom Of Red Chief? I haven't read that story since I was a kid. But in rereading it, it strikes me that it must have been the inspiration for this movie.
He clearly misrepresented himself and lied.
Shocking. And this man a politician too?
Gosh.
What interests me about this is how nobody outside of parts of the Blogosphere actually seems to care all that much...
BTW - this wasn't the speach he gave where there were two other senators on the stage who were asked the question whom he invited to speak because it was really aimed at them was it? They showed him deferring to two others with him on the stage there...
Shocking. And this man a politician too?
You miss the point (as is often the case). He was supposed to be different. If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Andy I wasn't just talking about old graves, some of them are very fresh and your reply was yet another stinking pile of shit. Thanks for the "appreciation", it really makes it so much easier to argue the case for supporting and cooperating with the US (sarcasm translated: your kind of attitude is the wet dream of any anti-American).
You seem to think WWII was a European problem which the US could simply have ignored and lived on happily ever after. You might want to crack open a history book and read up on Pearl Harbor. Don't stop there though as your comment on Soviet (military) deaths is bizarre. Perhaps you imagine they brushed the Nazis aside and then suffered the rest of their ten million deaths (all military, no civilians included in those ten million) against Eastern European partisan groups (whom had formerly gotten nearly all their support from the U.S.S.R.). Or perhaps you're just abysmally clueless and think roughly half a million US casualties (if we pretend they were all in Europe) defeated a Wehrmacht that, in your imagination, hadn't been worn down to mostly kids, retirees, and whoever had a respite from the eastern front due to luck, connections, or rotation.
And of course you did it all by yourself in the pacific too. What 3 million Chinese military deaths? No Europeans in sight right? Just a nice Burmese railway. How about those kiwis and kangaroos?
And no you won't get a far more powerful European (likely EU *shudder*) military that is allied, it just isn't on the table. The more powerful any such becomes the less inclined to cooperate with the US it will be due to the simple fact that it will have less and less reason to do so.
Andy Freeman wrote:
"Thank you for equating our sacrifice on Europe's behalf with Europe's acts in its own self-interest. It demonstrates what I wrote about Europe expecting the US to do its work...."
So you're saying the U.S. intentionally does things against their own short or long-term self-interest? That's a mighty big crap at an awful lot of US graves as well, what the hell is wrong with you?
You miss the point (as is often the case). He was supposed to be different.
He was?
Gosh.
You mean people thought he would not be a politician despite all the evidence to the contrary.
That says far more about you and American voters than it does about my apparent inability to see points.
If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Actually Jon Stweart summed this up much better many weeks ago on The Daily Show. "How long will he take to break our hearts."
His skit on his reporters having O_boner_mania was amusing too. Nice to see that the "left" in the US can make fun of themselves properly.
> Andy I wasn't just talking about old graves, some of them are very fresh and your reply was yet another stinking pile of shit.
The vast majority are old, as the original claim stated explicitly "(and while it really shouldn't matter I'll point out that during the last century they vastly outnumber dead US soldiers)."
I didn't say that Europe does nothing today, I said that the overall "contribution" was negative.
Excuse me for not being impressed by the minor contributions in the Middle East. A real power would have real accomplishments and wouldn't resort to "but some of our folks died proving that we weren't completely useless".
How about the Sudan? Surely Europe could handle that.
> You seem to think WWII was a European problem which the US could simply have ignored and lived on happily ever after.
No - I think that Nazi Germany was problem because Europe didn't deal with it. And, for the most part, it remained a European problem, as was Bosnia late last century. As far as the Pacific war is concerned, the UK was involved but the rest of Europe didn't show. (Okay, the USSR did make some land grabs at the end.) Since we're talking about what Europeans did ....
> Soviet (military) deaths is bizarre. Perhaps you imagine they brushed the Nazis aside and then suffered the rest of their ten million deaths
What are you babbling about? The USSR fought Germany to do two things (1) get Germany out of the USSR and (2) take Eastern Europe from Germany. Yes, that had a huge cost (which I acknowledged) but that doesn't change the fact that both were direct self-interest.
Yes, the US had an interest in the USSR vs Germany, but nothing like the interest that they had.
> The more powerful any such becomes the less inclined to cooperate with the US it will be due to the simple fact that it will have less and less reason to do so.
Since the cooperation isn't worth much, losing it is no big deal. If a more powerful Europe dealt with problems, the US would have less to do - that's a big win for the US.
> So you're saying the U.S. intentionally does things against their own short or long-term self-interest? That's a mighty big crap at an awful lot of US graves as well, what the hell is wrong with you?
I'm saying that the US ends up picking up the slack because the folks who should can't and/or won't.
It's not crapping on US graves to point that out.
BTW - the US military, let alone the soldiers who die, don't pick the objectives. Politicians do. Pointing out problems with the objectives that got them killed isn't crapping on the folks who died.
> What 3 million Chinese military deaths?
Not European, but again self-interest. Australians, also not European and self-interest.
The UK did fight in the Pacific, which you can put down to either empire or "like the US", but who else showed up from Europe? (Right - they were too busy elsewhere.)
Andy Freeman wrote:
"I said that the overall "contribution" was negative."
Thank you but I noticed, it's louder and clearer than you realize and it shouts out a message received as pure contempt and whining about the awful downsides of being the most powerful nation on Earth. What do you think you'll get in return for that?
There is so much (far too much) that could be said about the rest of your comment but I'm giving up on your deep-rooted ignorance (sorry for using that word but it's the one that fits) except to let you know that you couldn't be any better at pushing people towards despising the US and its citizens. If it's intentional then you don't need to work any harder at it, if it's accidental then it's probably better to give you some feedback and let you chew on it (which I've done).
If this reality ever penetrates through the fog of the Obama swoon, it will be a major disillusionment for his worshipers.
Actually Jon Stweart summed this up much better many weeks ago on The Daily Show. "How long will he take to break our hearts."
His skit on his reporters having O_boner_mania was amusing too. Nice to see that the "left" in the US can make fun of themselves properly.
Just as a last little tidbit someone told me the KSK got a PUC for Afghanistan as well, they're German for those who don't know.
I was also corrected about a Norwegian unit getting a PUC: there were two PUCs awarded (one Navy and one Army) to two Norwegian units (including the one I was thinking of) for work done in Afghanistan.
> Thank you but I noticed, it's louder and clearer than you realize and it shouts out a message received as pure contempt and whining about the awful downsides of being the most powerful nation on Earth. What do you think you'll get in return for that?
There are two possibilities: (1) The Euros will just take it because they lack the will and/or capability to do anything else. (2) The Euros will do something. They can decide to show up the US. Great!
HH seems to think that European opinion matters. It doesn't. Withdrawing support doesn't matter because the support is insignificant. Telling the US to butt out of Euro-affairs is a huge plus for the US. Dealing with non-Euro problems, again, a net plus.
> ignorance
Note the lack of evidence for the charge. Does HH think that the USSR didn't have self-interest in fighting the Germans? Does HH think that Europe (apart from the UK) had significant involvement in the Pacific theater? (He mentioned both China and Australia. Which one is European?)
Or, does he think that the US Military decides its objectives? How about individual soldiers? Does he really want to argue that pointing out that the politicians reasons for committing troops were something less than wonderful is crapping on their sacrifice?
HH seems to think that European approval and cooperation is useful and that losing them would be bad.
Perhaps he'll be so good as to cite actual actions, their likelyhood, and their effect.
For example, Euros buy signficant US public and private debt. If they stopped, presumably the interest costs would go up. Would they stop? (FWIW, I want govt debt costs to go up. Govt should pay short-term for all spending.)
Euros import US goods and export to the US. Which nose will they cut off to spite their face?
Euros won't show up in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll take the hit.
Euros will take care of Sudan. Great if it happens, but I'm not holding my breath.
Euros will seek closer ties with the USSR and China. Let me know how that works out.