Governmenet By the People For The People?

Or is it?

from JoeUser Forums
Since the end of WWII, our foriegn policy seems to be jumping from one hole into a crater then out again only to look for another hole to jump into and from there to the next crater. In every case, be it Korea, the Middle East, Vietnam or Iraq we seem to be following in the foot steps of the old and now defunct British and French Empires.

The Suez War, the one sealed the fate of the two old Empires was supposed to also end the era of Empires. Apparently not.

You would think this futile effort in building an empire is in the interest of the people, since it is their democratically elected governments who are trying desperately to build that illusive Empire. But in every case the people were and today they are against that.

The question then becomes, are the people foolish and don't know what are their interests, or those Governments are bunch of idiots who didn't and still don't know how to achieve the interests of the people who elected them with sane, well-thought and honestly- debated policies. The more surprising question is when the people are clearly against a certain policy why those governments just keep pursuing the same misguided objective? of course there will always be a minority who support that mistaken policies. But isn't the government job to follow the opinion of the majority? Why isn't that happening?

Looking at some of the opinions that supports our current (and obviously past) policies in the Middle East i wonder, if these statements have any validity, to what end are we heading?

here is a sample:

"you can't be ignorant enough to overlook the foothold situation we can achieve in the region"

"a superpower willing to make them (the Kurds) a budding Israel, at least I hope so"

"If Richard had hung out another year he probably would have taken Jerusalem, but he left, and when Saladin died and the Arab world splintered there was no one there to take advantage of it "

"when Sadat was assasinated, egypt got a little more radical. when Arrafat died, we got hamas and hezbollah grabbing power. we put in the shah, they forced him out and gave the keys to kohmenni. there seems to be a pattern that after a leader who would "deal with us" we get ones who won't as easily and lead the anti-us rhetoric."
Are we really looking for a foot-hold and to create another Israel in the Middle East? The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies, the ones made us a target not only to "anti-us rhetoric" but to terrorism and its violent hate. Why aren't they listening to the majority of the people?. We all suffering from these misguided policies.
11,262 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
"when Sadat was assasinated, egypt got a little more radical. when Arrafat died, we got hamas and hezbollah grabbing power. we put in the shah, they forced him out and gave the keys to kohmenni. there seems to be a pattern that after a leader who would "deal with us" we get ones who won't as easily and lead the anti-us rhetoric."



hey,,,i appreciate you using my words...but next time give the people you quote the credit, ok? it's responsible journalism to reference your quotes. plus i'm scratching my head trying to figure out how my words are supportive of present and past policy...my point was that the more we meddle, the worse things get



other than that...fine article:)





Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another Israel-type nation in the Middle East would be a bad thing? How?
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
it's responsible journalism to reference your quotes


of course, but i didnt want to make it a personal thing so no one would be offended one way or another.

my words are supportive of present and past policy...my point was that the more we meddle, the worse things get


I think i identified your comment as a refutation of those policies. i said "The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies".may be i should have been more clear.

I was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another Israel-type nation in the Middle East would be a bad thing? How


another flash-point in the middle east is not a dangerous thing, not just bad?

The region is already burning, and it is "not bad" to add another flaming spot there? and get Turkey involved too?

and even if the region was not burning as it is, we just have the right to devide nations, create or intensify existing problems and control their resources? Then we say, they are waaaay behind the world in development?

and then wonder why they hate us and target us?

And to what end is that? is that the best (or the only) way to pursue our interests there?

If that is not AGAINST our economic interests i dont know what is. Unless of course, we have other unidentified and never declared interests.



Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
The region is already burning, it is "not bad" to add another flaming spot there?


Heck no if the "falsh point" ends up as a island of progress in an ocean of regression around it. Israel is a stunning success compared to it's very backward neighbors. Add in the fact that it has only been up and runnign for 50 years compared to literally thousands of years for it's neighbor nations and their progress is even more stunning.

We need more Israel-type stets in th middle East in a desperate way. Or we could just abandon the region to the 7th century in the interests of avoiding more problesm. As though the removal of Israel would do a damn thing to "stop the region from burning".

The area will be a cesspit without intervention ergo it is in our interest to see it develop and not regress. Cesspits make poor trade partners.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Israel is a stunning success compared to it's very backward neighbors.


50 years at war, tens of thousands killed and injured, perpetual citizen's insecurity, unknown future, total dependance on others for EXISTENCE/Viability, and a foreign culture in the middle of a totally different one. This is what you call "stunning success"?

I would hate to see your definition of failure.

It all depends on what you want to achieve really. If that is what we are looking for, then all is good and fine. and let's do more.

But my whole point is this: The majority of the American people dont see it that way. not just now, but always. American majority in general never supported this kind of thinking. so why is their elected government pursuing these policies?

That is the main question.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
of course, but i didnt want to make it a personal thing so no one would be offended one way or another.


i understand, but it's not offensive, it's proper.

I think i identified your comment as a refutation of those policies. i said "The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies".may be i should have been more clear.


no, you were clear enough...i missed that and am big enough to admit it.

I was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing.


thank you very much:)

take care:)

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
was just trying to get all the ideas that are floating around together so i can see the whole pic. and yours stands out as an honest assessment of the whole thing


of course, if ya do footnote my quote and identify me as saying it, you can assure yourself an attack from the neoconservative elements here who have been trying to play "gotcha" games with me and "lawyer" everything i say here for the past 3 years. they are under some impression that if they can chip off 1% of something i say, it somehow "proves" something...instead of having a robust civil debate like the rest of us have.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
see...(look above)

Show some statistics from reputable sources proving your claim, or don't presume to speak for 'the majority' of Americans


this is how it starts,,,then expect every piece of evidence to be "lawyered" as if we were in criminal court.

and of course, the quote pulled by the neocon is an "off to the side" comment you made, not the crux of the article which was about how we deal with the mid east arabs and seem to always get it wrong.

You sound like Col Gene when you do that, and he has no credibility at all.


the col, next to me, is probably the most "ganged up on" brave soul who dares speak against the administration on this blog site. the col's credibility is fine with everyone else,,,not to say he's rigt about everything, but his efforts and views are obviously sincere and he does as much, if not more research than most before opening his mouth.





Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is how it starts,,,then expect every piece of evidence to be "lawyered" as if we were in criminal court.


When you say "most of Americans" it isn't unreasonable to ask for a bit of supporting evidence (even jus a shitty newspaper poll). Of course if you have no evidence it seems like a much bigger deal.

Colgene is a hack who can't be bothered with even the most modest of research or backing. Call him on one of his "everyone knows x" claims and ask for proof, he runs away. Just mousing over and seeing his name is enough for me to know that it isn't worth the bits to click on.

Jesus asking for a friggin hyperlink isn't "lawyering" it's called "blogging".
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The majority of the American public has always been extremely supportive of Israel


The Point was not regarding a particular issue, it was about the policies in general. And i think you know how americans feel about all these foreign policies that i mentioned, specially the military ones.

and by the way, support for Israel doesn't mean support for the policies. You can support Israel and still do it in a fair way so not to offend a whole region or create new enemies.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course if you have no evidence it seems like a much bigger deal.


I thought we assume honesty in expressing our opinions. asking for proof each time you read something you dont agree with sure sounds like what they do in a court room.

We are supposed to be writing our opinions, anyone could be wrong or right.

I usually answer the point , not ask for a proof for the point. the reason i do that is this: suppose the point is valid and i got the proof and i still dont like the point, would the proof prevent me from saying my opinion about it? many of us don't like things that are true. and we still have the right to oppose it. don't we?

that is the whole idea. Argueing about proofs and injecting other side issues really inhibits useful debates.

hope we all concentrate on the ideas not personality or character of each other.

We all Citizens of JU in the cyber space universe. lets not bring the troubles of the real universe to this silent one.  
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
if ya do footnote my quote and identify me as saying it, you can assure yourself an attack from the neoconservative elements here who have been trying to play "gotcha" games with me


now you know why i didn't -.

But i hope it is all in fun and good humer.

as they say, we can disagree and still be not disagreable.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
You went off the beam as soon as you went into the "empire building" arena.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Show some statistics from reputable sources proving your claim, or don't presume to speak for 'the majority' of Americans. You sound like Col Gene when you do that, and he has no credibility at all.


Where did you get the idea that i speak for anyone, let alone the majority? i, and i suppose everyone else, is speaking MY opinion. only elected officials are supposed to speak for the majority. not everyone who speaks his/her mind.

I also think, judging any opinion should be based on the opinion itself not on who is saying it. and that is my opinion -.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
You went off the beam as soon as you went into the "empire building" arena.


how is that? please explain. may be i am missing something.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
WaHH WAHH WAHHH! Poor widdle baby feewing picked on these days?


keep provin me right lil girl,,,you are doin a GREAT job!

and sorry, no cryin, no whinin,,,just facts. facts that you just confirmed.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
this is how it starts,,,then expect every piece of evidence to be "lawyered" as if we were in criminal court.


Yeah, folks. Let's not confuse the issues with the FACTS.

I have proven John Kerry to be a puppy mutilator, and Fred Harteis to be a superhero using this incredible reach of logic!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
the col, next to me, is probably the most "ganged up on" brave soul who dares speak against the administration on this blog site. the col's credibility is fine with everyone else,,,not to say he's rigt about everything, but his efforts and views are obviously sincere and he does as much, if not more research than most before opening his mouth.


Please...virtually everyone here has criticized the administration at one time or another. When you lionize Col. Gene, you lose all credibility.

Assuming what you say that the Col's credibility is fine with everyone else, please show me a link to anyone in the DNC who uses Col. Gene as source material. Can't find it? Ok, then, how about a prominent member of the Green Party? No, how about Cindy Sheehan? Does even a pathetic hack like her use Col. Gene for source material? Nope, and you know why? Because they'd get flamed like a cheap marshmallow over molten lava in open debate.

Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are many, many of us who wholly support our foreign policies, especially in regards to Israel.


I could ask you to provide a proof for that too. and i am sure you would. and it will be some poll or study from a think tank or a group from the "many many " you mentioned. of course that counts as a proof for you. However this would be what is called circular proof. it doesn't lead to any thing.

Instead, i am going to answer your point: i am aware that 10 or 20 million people are many many of course. but that is not a majority if you consider that there are roughly about 110 million who have an opinion ( that is voters in last general election).

Why don't you just admit that you pulled the statement straight out of your ass, that you have no 'proof,' and that you just like to assume you speak for 'the majority of Americans' whether you really do or not?


well, do you have a proof of that too?

u see what i mean? all that doesnt lead to any thing. just debates about nothing. you can call it Seinfeld debate.

don't tell me that there was a study about the location from which i pull my statements and about the accuracy of these statements. that would be very scary for me, because i am not aware of such study or survey . Comon LW, just answer the argument. it is more effecient that way.

but getting to the main point, from what you say i understand that the majority of the american people were supporting the wars in Korea, Vietnam and now in Iraq? or our policy toward South Africa for many decades? or our policy of being the world's Policeman? or our dependence on foreign oil?or our support of dictators and backward regimes in the middle east?
if that is the case, then i believe that there is nothing in this world that would convince you otherwise. and that is fine by me too. it is just your opinion and so was my statement.

Then by all means, express your opinion. That doesn't mean a 'majority' of Americans share it.


isn't that an opinion? and it was based on all the information that i read and watched. right or wrong, still it is my opinion about how "the majority of americans" feel about the policies.

I think the fact that the "proof" issue took over the discussion here is a proof in itself of how "asking for a proof" deflected the direction away from the main point which was " why our elected governments generally pursue foreign policies, specially the military policies, that are not supported by the majority of americans". There was only two or three relevant responses and the rest are regarding the "proof".
in meaningful debates you generally assume the other side is honest, you answer the point and prove it wrong if you can logically or by supporting data. it is not the otherway around. you dont ask for a proof every time you hear something you disagree with. This is exactly like asking the accused to provide proof of his innocense. and asking for a proof for an opinion or a claim implies that you assume that the speaker/writer is lieing. isn't it? that is not debating. if you think "it" is wrong, just argue against it. it is that simple. no need for going to side issue.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
may be i am missing something.


There's an understatement.

Firstly, the United States isn't an empire. Secondly, at no time has the U.S. undertaken "empire building". That's just so much meaningless hyperbole that does little more than detract from an already sadly mistaken article.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
There, do your own research next time. And learn what the word "majority" means, while you're at it.


Good, that you finally concentrated on the issue. And i will look up th meaning of the word "Majority".

The issue was not just Israel. Even if it was. I answered that by saying: We can still support Israel without creating new enemies.
The main issue was and still is the foreign policy in general. and like i said before polls and studies can and usually do mislead if you looking for a general assessment. polls are an "instant" measure not a long term indicators.

I just heared on the news 10 mint ago, that 75% of the people do not support the current Iraq Policy. also it says , only 26% support GWB's policies (it was NBC poll, if u need a proof). Now, which one is correct? but in general the last election and all the news from congress indicate that the Majority are not happy with our current policy.

anyway. it was my opinion, and i still believe that. that doesnt mean we start fighting about that, does it?

I can see that you dont agree with me, and isn't that what debates are all about?
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Firstly, the United States isn't an empire. Secondly, at no time has the U.S. undertaken "empire building". That's just so much meaningless hyperbole that does little more than detract from an already sadly mistaken article.


If what you saying is true, why then are we spreading ourselves allover the world as we been doing for almost 60 yrs now?

other countries, protect their interests and achieve their objectives and actually progress as much if not more than us without spreading troops and armies allover the world. Why can't we do the same?

How much china progressed? how much india? let alone, Germany, France and Britain. What exactly are we achieving by all that spreading?

Of Course we are not an Empire, and i dont think we are an empire-building type of people, so what is that all about? why do we jump from one confrontation to another? and what did we achieve for that?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue was not just Israel. Even if it was. I answered that by saying: We can still support Israel without creating new enemies.


I am curious why you believe that it is possible to do this but you avoided saying how to do it? How exactly do you avoid making new enemies if you make friends with a group of people who have their own enemies? Iran has declared that they want nothing less than the complete annihilation of Israel, explain to me how the US can support Israel without making Iran our enemy? If you can answer this question I will change my stance and agree with you, Col gene and Sean all the way. keep in mind that I am looking for a real answer and not an opinion.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of Course we are not an Empire, and i dont think we are an empire-building type of people, so what is that all about?


Are you serious? Honestly, you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of history at all.