Usa....usa

[m2c1Iw]

Wow, a historical turning point as the commentators are saying.

Who would of thought.

There is no doubt it's not only the American citizens looking forward to positive change.

:usa3: :2tsup:

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Yup. Now that it's over I'm looking forward to turning on the TV or radio not being bombarded by even more political bombast than we get when our own pack of parasites is up for election.

That's a change I'm really looking forward to. :innocent:

[dazzler]

Great day!

:2tsup:

[m2c1Iw]

when our own pack of parasites is up for election.



:no: That is known as a hysterical turning point:rolleyes:

[joe greiner]

Although it's a welcome relief, some of us will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the sudden reduction in BS. And just when we'd refined it to a high art! Almost perfect, and almost total. But wait! The reduction might not be so immediate. Aaaaaaah.:D

Cheers,
Joe

[Big Shed]

Although it's a welcome relief, some of us will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the sudden reduction in BS. And just when we'd refined it to a high art! Almost perfect, and almost total. But wait! The reduction might not be so immediate. Aaaaaaah.:D

Cheers,
Joe

Hi Joe, a question about your political system if I may.

What is the logic/reasoning behind such a long change over period? So Obama gets elected on the 4th of November, but he doesn't get sworn in until Jan 20.

So for about 2 1/2 months you have the old president that basically can't do anything because he is on the way out, and a new president who can't do anything because he isn't "in" yet.

[Honorary Bloke]

Hi Joe, a question about your political system if I may.

What is the logic/reasoning behind such a long change over period? So Obama gets elected on the 4th of November, but he doesn't get sworn in until Jan 20.

So for about 2 1/2 months you have the old president that basically can't do anything because he is on the way out, and a new president who can't do anything because he isn't "in" yet.

Not to steal Joe's thunder, but the long transition period used to be even longer. It is a throw back to the time when it took days and weeks to tally the ballots, then to convene the Electoral College to confirm the election, then for everyone to travel to the east coast by stagecoach and later slow trains for the inauguration, and so on. It used to take a very long time to sort it. No reason now to take much more than, say, 30 days, but tradition dies hard over here.

OTOH, it does take time, under our system, to get the transition going. The incumbent must vacate the White House. Cabinet picks have to be sorted. Some Congressional offices have to be vacated and many of them will be relocated based on the new pecking order. We are hard upon the holiday season, so that slows everything down. The President-elect must be briefed on domestic and foreign affairs as they currently stand so there will be no surprises.

Not to mention the elaborate planning needed for the Inaugural Ball. :rolleyes::D

[Waldo]

Yup. Now that it's over I'm looking forward to turning on the TV or radio not being bombarded by even more political bombast than we get when our own pack of parasites is up for election.

That's a change I'm really looking forward to. :innocent:

Exactly my sentiments. Nothing more needs to be said.

[underfoot]

politics aside,

it seems that obama assumed his audience were reasonably intelligent,
palin on the otherhand....... well she'd be more fun than obama to take pig shootin out at collarenabri :rolleyes:
yeee ha

[wheelinround]

politics aside,

it seems that obama assumed his audience were reasonably intelligent,
palin on the otherhand....... well she'd be more fun than obama to take pig shootin out at collarenabri :rolleyes:
yeee ha


You sure about that underfoot isn't that part of shooting sport in the South still :p

Like Skew I was over it after 2 days of waffle years ago.

Is that what we will have to put up with here in Australia 4 years of BS to elect them then further 4 years of BS while they are in there plus the 4 years of BS for the next election :doh:


Murdoch must be rubbing his hands together all his media will be deep in US $$$$$$ trouble is Australia get nothing out of it.

[jerryc]

There could be some change in America's attitude to the rest of the world because this guy has at least lived outside of Fortress America for a few years. While politically he had to backtrack fast, his comment about guns and religion was spot on.
Personally I think America has acted like a brat teeenager throughout the 20th century, acting as a know all, swaggering bully with an ego out of control ( and that's the nice part). Perhaps now it might exhibit signs that it is growing up..

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

[Sebastiaan56]

Personally I think America has acted like a brat teeenager throughout the 20th century, acting as a know all, swaggering bully with an ego out of control ( and that's the nice part). Perhaps now it might exhibit signs that it is growing up..

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

Well said Jerry! A lot of the comentary was related to the expurgation of USA's "Original Sin" - Slavery. I think like the apology that there is a long, long way to go but there has been a start. If Obama survives (there must be thousands of right wingers plotting and polishing guns right now) he has a bit of a job ahead of him.

As for the bully strutting the world stage giving black eyes wherever it felt like it, China is growing quickly and must be the next to assume the mantle of world leadership. Unlike USA it has 3500 years of civilisation to draw upon, but then, that didnt stop Mao did it? When i did history I learned that those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it. Im not sure that humans have the smarts to learn from history.

[jerryc]

Sebastian,

You touch on what is my greatest fear about the president elect and that is assassination. Four American presidents have been assassinated. It was only forty five years ago that negroes were lynched for even looking wrongly at a white woman. If Obama were to be assassinated I think there could be an outbreak of race war in the USA.

Every country has an embedded element of culture. Louis Hartz' "fragment theory" maintained that newly settled countries contained fragments of the original culture of the parent country at the time of settlement. I go further and say that the original country maintains a core of it's culture. China has always held to a view of harmony in all things and Mao's outbreak quickly died . China is not perfect but it is not so imperialistic as America.
America has always fought on the pattern of the Indian Wars. Create a fort into which you retreat each night (Green Zone) and come out during the day to pacify the natives. Everyone who disgrees with you must be punished. Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Iran have all defeated America in some way however much McCain might like to re write history and each has been punished if it was in America's power to do so. Chief Joseph and the Nez Pierce indians wanted to retreat to Canada because they objected to being pushed off their reservation. He fought a long running fight with the army through the depths of an American winter, never leaving behind women and children. He and his tribe were mercilessly hounded to death. It took the entire American army to achieve this aim when all the indian wanted was to leave in peace.
China's culture is different. It is by nature a trading nation. Most of it's strife has been internal or on it's borders. It has had a history of war lords controlling areas but in general the Empire (that is China itself) is what matters most.

It is that unity of purpose as much as the vast number of people that will make the dragon such a force to be reckoned with.
There is a great deal of Chinese money propping up the USA at present. But for how long?
We live in interesting times.

Jerry

[masoth]

Well said, Jerry.

[joe greiner]

Steal away, Bob. Very well said.

Aside from the White House occupants, other folks will be moving in and out of the capital city area, need to find homes, etc. We don't have a shadow government as in some parliamentary systems, ready to take over after the elections.

The mud-slinging is more theatrical than real. The candidates themselves usually have great respect for each other, although the party faithful get completely wired. By applying our "freedom of speech" to every level of inanity, the amount of BS has practically achieved critical mass. The internet has fomented this, giving credence to bloggers, who don't have the benefit of any editorial "adult supervision." In past times, campaign staffs had Truth Squads; we may need to re-establish this institution.

Since as far back as the 1950s, a popular poem was
The election is over, so
Let peace come to pass.
I'll hug your elephant
If you'll kiss my ass.
The last sentence is now available on T-shirts and bumper stickers.
(The Republican party symbol is the elephant; the Democrats use the donkey.)

Here's an Aussie version: http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=52227

Jerry, I think the brat teenager was only the last half of the 20th century. In WW2, America (with all our faults) was regarded as the Arsenal of Democracy. I'm pretty much fed up with the 21st so far. I guess you know the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

America's melting pot is still an experiment. The latest cultural transformation took two generations, most of my lifetime. IMHO, the human race is God's Science Fair Project.

Joe the Laboratory Rat

[Big Shed]

Thanks for those explanations Bob and Joe. So, perhaps there is something to be said for the British parliamentary system after all, sort of an apprentice system.

What I do like about the US system is that Ministers, or Secretaries, don't have to be members of parliament, ie that raises the average IQ of the cabinet immediately.:rolleyes:

[jerryc]

Jerry, I think the brat teenager was only the last half of the 20th century. In WW2, America (with all our faults) was regarded as the Arsenal of Democracy. I'm pretty much fed up with the 21st so far. I guess you know the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

Joe the Laboratory Rat

Joe, One of the reasons I sited the treatment of the Nez Pierce Indians was to show this inbuilt urge to punish anyone stands against "America" extended well back into the past. Australia and England, my previous homeland are historically guilty of atrocities too but not in the same way.

Was McCarthyism part of American democracy? Who gave America that title and what did it actually mean? Ambassador Kennedy was no friend of the UK when it stood alone against Nazi Germany. London, Coventry and Plymouth were being bombed constantly, I know because I was in London during that time. Kennedy urged America not to become involved in the conflict. Rooseveldt had great trouble in giving any aid to the British war effort at a critical juncture of the Second World War. Six antiquated destroyers, known scathingly to the British Navy as "The Four Funnelled Flivvers" were traded in return for American bases in Britain. Beggars could not be choosers. America was an arsenal during the Second World War which was good for the American economy.
Yes I know the Chinese curse. Refer to my previous entry.
Jerry

[Master Splinter]

Did I hear guns, god and America? Try election night at the Hoffman household...

"http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=24&t=330731"

[Honorary Bloke]

Every country has an embedded element of culture. Louis Hartz' "fragment theory" maintained that newly settled countries contained fragments of the original culture of the parent country at the time of settlement. I go further and say that the original country maintains a core of it's culture. China has always held to a view of harmony in all things and Mao's outbreak quickly died . China is not perfect but it is not so imperialistic as America.
America has always fought on the pattern of the Indian Wars. Create a fort into which you retreat each night (Green Zone) and come out during the day to pacify the natives. Everyone who disagrees with you must be punished. Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Iran have all defeated America in some way however much McCain might like to re write history and each has been punished if it was in America's power to do so.
It is that unity of purpose as much as the vast number of people that will make the dragon such a force to be reckoned with.
There is a great deal of Chinese money propping up the USA at present. But for how long?
We live in interesting times.

Jerry

Oh dear. And I know better than to get into this. Sigh.

A couple of points:

Even if you accept Hartz's theory, your further statement that "the original country maintains a core of it's culture" seems to me to be a non-sequitur. Are you then saying that The United States is the "original" country? But we are not--that was Great Britain. So perhaps the fragment we are holding is the legacy of our British origins. If so, then the primal urge to be imperialists, which you assert we are, must be an inherited trait honestly come by. Certainly Great Britain led the way in imperialist conquest, including the founding of the 13 American colonies.

When you assert that "America has always fought on the pattern of the Indian Wars" you are confusing military theory with the social fabric. When your troops must be protected from guerrillas, you enclose them in a fortress and use sorties as your primary tactic, whether it is the old western frontier or Vietnam, or Iraq. If the enemy is well-defined ethnically and geographically, the fighting is able to be conducted more along the lines of WWII, with general advances and retreats along fluid fronts. We built no forts in WWII or Korea and there were no defined fronts in Vietnam.

I agree that Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea and Iran have all defeated America in some way. We have normalised relations with Vietnam. North Korea punishes itself worse than anyone else. Iran is a product of our own bungling when the Shah was in power. And Cuba is an anomaly with which I believe we are dealing poorly. But they are all different, not, as you imply, all the same.

As for an earlier post regarding Ambassador Kennedy and the difficulty with early Lend-Lease efforts, the context (which was omitted) was that it occurred within a strong American political climate of isolationism. We had intervened in WW I and it seemed to many that "tired old Europe," as it was often characterised, simply could not stop squabbling. Perhaps we believed Neville Chamberlain when he trumpeted "peace in our time."

I know that Neil will only tolerate so much political debate, but I simply wanted to make it clear that there are two (or more) sides to the issues.

[jerryc]

Bob,
You place me in a dilemma. You have raised several points that I would dearly love to discuss for, as you say, there are always two side to any issue.
The dilemma is twofold. Will Neil or his moderator allow the discussion to continue.?Equally important is will the membership allow it or think it too self indulgent?

As I have said in a previous thread, discussion, providing it doesn't get personal and is approached with an open mind, can help with understanding.

So I ask members and Neil can we continue?

By the way I like the Adams quote.

Jerry

[JMB]

Well, I am finding this thread very interesting, and am relieved that the discussion has not become heated and divisive [so far].

[m2c1Iw]

Well, I am finding this thread very interesting, and am relieved that the discussion has not become heated and divisive [so far].

I started this thread to congtratulate our American friends on demonstrating to the world that the democratic process is alive and well.

I too have found the dicussion interesting and hope it continues without denigrating the American social fabric or becoming personal.

Regards
Mike

[masoth]

"By the way I like the Adams quote." as stated by Jerry, and I'd like to support this thread too. Understandiing the system of any other country is of interest to me - there are, no doubt, some that will complain but, surely, they can simply ignore this thread - can't they?
I'm away for two days and look forward in anticipation of more contributions . Please let it continue Mods.

[pugwash]

Lighten up guys.
I always knew there would be a black president one day.
But somehow I thought it would be Morgan Freeman. :)

[Honorary Bloke]

Bob,
You place me in a dilemma. You have raised several points that I would dearly love to discuss for, as you say, there are always two side to any issue.
The dilemma is twofold. Will Neil or his moderator allow the discussion to continue.?Equally important is will the membership allow it or think it too self indulgent?


I am of the same mind. But of course it is now late over here, so i shall look in in the (my) morning and see how it goes. Meanwhile, Jerry, give it a go. The worst that can happen is not so bad. :)

[BTW, I will not and do not intend for this to be anything but civil. Jerry has been, as will I. Any who want to post otherwise should open their own thread. ] :wink:

[jerryc]

Thanks for the support. Now we can continue to thunder righteously against each other's point of view.

Pugwash. You ask us to lighten up. My tongue in cheek response is Roger, the cabin boy.

Jerry

[RETIRED]

The Admins have no problem with political debate providing that it:

Does not get personal and heated between 2 parties. Play the idea not the man.

Does not denigrate a leader, government or country for their political, religious or legal system. E.g. XYZ is a lying thieving rock spider is not acceptable.:D

If any of the above happens it will be dealt with swiftly.

In other words go for it but keep it nice.:wink:

[AlexS]

Thanks . This is an interesting debate, being conducted in a gentlemanly manner.

[joe greiner]

Thanks . This is an interesting debate, being conducted in a gentlemanly manner.

And more politely than our own political campaigns, which reached a crescendo of BS masquerading as "facts.":((

Joe

[Honorary Bloke]

OK Jerry (and any others) go for your life. :D

[dazzler]

What has given me hope is the fact that the current superpower will be headed by someone who shows tolerance, rather than the intolerance that has soured the previous one.

Obama lead with his desire to meet with the leaders of the USA enemies and that can only be a good thing. Thankfully the new leadership does not appear to have a belief that the muslim world is out to get them.

Iraq will be the problem though, if Obama is content to pull the troops out and let Iraq destroy itself, then it will be easy. If he wants to pull the troops out and make Iraq a stable (ish) country then he will need to increase troop numbers substantially, so it can be stabilised before leaving, and this will not be popular.

Good on ya America for the change!

[cellist]

Although it's a welcome relief, some of us will suffer withdrawal symptoms from the sudden reduction in BS. And just when we'd refined it to a high art! Almost perfect, and almost total. But wait! The reduction might not be so immediate. Aaaaaaah.:D

Cheers,
Joe

Yes, Joe. I know what you mean. However, as an American who has been living in Oz, an unexpected effect occurred for me. I realised when I was in a shop yesterday that, for the first time since the Vietnam war, I was not embarrassed about my accent or my country.

There were many great aspects to this election. In the blink of an eye, and entire population of people came to believe not just in the rhetorical, but in the real. We all grew up being told that, rich or poor, if you really wanted to achieve something in America, you could. It was just words for many until Tuesday. That reality is something that people in other parts of the world can't ignore or disclaim. In that instant, even the most aggressive anti-Americans had to stop and consider that this is a country that not only could but DID elect a black man, and the country is overwhelmingly white in colour.

I am so proud that my other country did this. Of course it will be a difficult road ahead. But I am more than optimistic. My reason is this: If there was a single aspect to Obama's ascent, it was his dogged persistence and his ability to generate and sustain MOMENTUM. Once the world's people calm down, the turn-around will be the product of a sustained confidence-building machine. As people regain their faith, they will buy. They will invest. They will borrow. And once that process starts, helped along by an intellectually capacious individual like Mr Obama, the recovery will be swift and unstoppable.

I'm proud to have voted for him, and finally, after 40 years, proud to be an American.

[cellist]

There could be some change in America's attitude to the rest of the world because this guy has at least lived outside of Fortress America for a few years. While politically he had to backtrack fast, his comment about guns and religion was spot on.
Personally I think America has acted like a brat teeenager throughout the 20th century, acting as a know all, swaggering bully with an ego out of control ( and that's the nice part). Perhaps now it might exhibit signs that it is growing up..

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

Jerry, as a born-again Americanopthile :p, I agree with you! The 'guns and religion' slip was just his tongue speaking his mind. It was not "politically" correct, but I'm so glad that he sees things that way. The arrogance that was partially knocked out of my beloved USA on Sept 11, 2001 has been further bled by recent events. Now, if humility can flood in, it will hopefully become a wonderfully potent world citizen, rather than an empire unto itself. Don't believe for a second that America is going to whither and die, or suffer an ignominious decline. "Yes We Can" is actually in the American's genes, if not mentality, and as Henry Ford once wrote: "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right."

[m2c1Iw]

. The arrogance that was partially knocked out of my beloved USA on Sept 11, 2001 has been further bled by recent events. Now, if humility can flood in, it will hopefully become a wonderfully potent world citizen, rather than an empire unto itself. Don't believe for a second that America is going to whither and die, or suffer an ignominious decline. "Yes We Can" is actually in the American's genes, if not mentality, and as Henry Ford once wrote: "Whether you think you can or whether you think you can't, you're right."

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea:rolleyes:

Mike

[Honorary Bloke]

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea:rolleyes:

Mike

Perhaps it will. But the UN needs to be re-organised before it can be a more effective force. So long as any one of a number of countries can veto UN actions, it will be lip service only. :(

[Manuka Jock]

Jerry, I think the brat teenager was only the last half of the 20th century. In WW2, America (with all our faults) was regarded as the Arsenal of Democracy. I'm pretty much fed up with the 21st so far. I guess you know the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."


" " American Empire in the Pacific explores the empire that emerged from the Oregon Treaty of 1846 with Great Britain and the outcome of the Mexican War in 1848. Together, they signalled the mastery of the United States over the continent of North America; the Pacific Ocean and the ancient civilizations of Asia at last lay within reach. England's East India Company in the 17th and 18th centuries had introduced Asian wares including tea to the American colonists, but wars against France and then the struggle for American independence held back expansion by Yankee entrepreneurs until 1783. Thereafter, from the Atlantic seaboard, American ships began regularly to reach China. Merchants, sailors and missionaries, motivated toward trade and redemption like the Europeans they met along the way, encountered the exotic peoples and cultures of the Pacific. Would-be empire builders projected a manifest destiny without limits. Russian Alaska, the native kingdom of Hawai'i, Japan, Korea, Samoa, and Spain's Philippine Islands, as well as a transcontinental railroad and an isthmian canal, acquired strategic significance in American minds, in time to outweigh both commerce and conversion. " "

"American Empire in the Pacific. From Trade to Strategic Balance, 1700-1922 " (http://www.ecobook.com/L978-0-7546-3049-4_american-empire-in-the-pacific-from-trade-to-strategic-balance-1700-1922.html)

Joe , your time frame falls a tad short .

The 'brat teenager' phase may have been since WW2 , but the troublesome child has been so since before birth .

[Honorary Bloke]

What did you think of the author's viewpoint when you read that book? Was he correct to hold America up as an imperialist power? :?

[Manuka Jock]

I haven't read the book .
I do , and have done for many years , recognize the existence of the American Empire , and it's beginnings in the Pacific .

The quote sums it up rather neatly , in fact it takes the beginnings back further than I had considered .

[STAR]

This is an interesting debate. But it is this informal debate between our American friends that help us to understand their point of view and ours.

I have been to the US three times. My daughter lived in Omaha Nebraska for eight years. My other daughter and her husband work for an International Airline and are there regularly.

When we are there, I cannot believe the warmth and friendship the Americans have for us from Oz. When I was there it made me re evaluate my thinking and realize, that for the average person how close we all are.

[Honorary Bloke]

The quote sums it up rather neatly , in fact it takes the beginnings back further than I had considered .

With all due respect, the quote may indeed sum up your beliefs rather neatly, but it does not sum up the book at all, which is always the danger of taking something out of context.

The words "trade" and "strategic balance" are the keys to this work, which was not written by the author but edited by him to include a number of papers on the subject. One paper addresses the colonisation attempts in the Philippines, but the primary focus is to help us understand how what began as an urge to compete for Pacific trade routes evolved into a strategic decision to expand our presence in the Pacific.

When the US was primarily on the eastern seaboard, direct trade with Asia was cumbersome and uneconomic. But when the US expanded to the western seaboard, more direct trade was possible and attractive. The Panama Canal made that trade much more economical, not just for the US but for many parts of the world.

But along with trade came the slow realisation that we now had two coastlines to defend, not just one (the "strategic balance" mentioned in the title). That meant finding ways to protect the west coast, such as annexing the Hawaiian Islands. I'm not claiming it was right, I am only explaining the rationale in the context of what was common national behaviour at the time. We had the examples of the British, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Dutch as guides.

In fact, at the root of this "brat" business is that we were only doing what everyone else seemed to be doing. And yet I have not read in any post yet a reference to those other countries as brats or bullies.

[Manuka Jock]

With all due respect, the quote may indeed sum up your beliefs rather neatly, but it does not sum up the book at all, which is always the danger of taking something out of context.

The words "trade" and "strategic balance" are the keys to this work, which was not written by the author but edited by him to include a number of papers on the subject. One paper addresses the colonisation attempts in the Philippines, but the primary focus is to help us understand how what began as an urge to compete for Pacific trade routes evolved into a strategic decision to expand our presence in the Pacific.

When the US was primarily on the eastern seaboard, direct trade with Asia was cumbersome and uneconomic. But when the US expanded to the western seaboard, more direct trade was possible and attractive. The Panama Canal made that trade much more economical, not just for the US but for many parts of the world.

But along with trade came the slow realisation that we now had two coastlines to defend, not just one (the "strategic balance" mentioned in the title). That meant finding ways to protect the west coast, such as annexing the Hawaiian Islands. I'm not claiming it was right, I am only explaining the rationale in the context of what was common national behaviour at the time. We had the examples of the British, French, Portuguese, Belgians, and Dutch as guides.

In fact, at the root of this "brat" business is that we were only doing what everyone else seemed to be doing. And yet I have not read in any post yet a reference to those other countries as brats or bullies.

What 'out of context' is that.
I did not recommend the book or the author .
Joe was wrong in his belief that the USA only started it's empire building after WW2 .
I posted something that pointed that out .
Out of politeness , I posted the source of the quote I cut and pasted .
I could have cut and pasted from another source , I chose that one .


This thread is not about Britain , France , Portugal, Belgian, or the Netherlands , and their nastiness .
Nor is it about the justification of evil .
It is about the self appointed 'world policeman' .

[Honorary Bloke]

What 'out of context' is that.
I did not recommend the book or the author .
Joe was wrong in his belief that the USA only started it's empire building after WW2 .
I posted something that pointed that out .
Out of politeness , I posted the source of the quote I cut and pasted .
I could have cut and pasted from another source , I chose that one .


This thread is not about Britain , France , Portugal, Belgian, or the Netherlands , and their nastiness .
Nor is it about the justification of evil .
It is about the self appointed 'world policeman' .

I am not seeking an adversarial position, but I am having difficulty following your argument. Joe never said we started empire building after WW II, he said he thought the "brat teenager" part started then. But to stay on track, we won't quibble over it. You can have the point. Even if it started in the 19th Century, it did not start in a vacuum.

So, if the discussion must focus only on the actions of the US without regard to the actions of other countries at the same time, we won't get anywhere and may as well stop now. The US did not do whatever it did or didn't do while everyone else sat around and watched passively.

The out of context simply referred to the fact that you used a book description as a "source" to make your point. A book description, typically written by the bookseller, is not a source, it is a marketing effort. I daresay the editor of the actual book would strongly disagree with your interpretation of his intent.

[jerryc]

Bob,
I'm not too bright on multiple quotes so bear with me in having to refer back to the four major points you made.
Firstly I did not expand my comment enough on the Hartz Theory. The US is a combo of cultures over a period of years. The point I should have made is the New England states were settled by Puritans and settled before England's "Imperial" expansion. They developed the culture of punishment, inherant in their religion and also the pattern of creating a stockade, using it to sally forth and deal with the natives.
Much of England's imperialism stemmed from a desire to trade, sometimes carried to extremes it is true, and from it's wish to dump it's social problems. An example of trade imperialism was India. England did not bring India into the Empire until forced to do so after the Indian Mutiny.
You say I confuse military theory and social fabric. Not so. The military is part of the social fabric. England's Civil War produced an army that was never to be under the control of a single man, a Commander in Chief. It is anwserable to Parliament, not the Prime Minister. It was society's response to the Civil war that shaped the army.
You argue that in guerrilla warfare the troops must be protected from the guerrilla. Here we see a response that is socially different.England developed a system of control by first divide and rule and then use the native forces to keep the country quiet. England was reasonably successful in winning hearts and minds. The English military forces tried to advise America to leave the Iraqi army in place when they invaded. The idea was you had a force that had organisation and knowledge and it was a good idea to use that. America knew better. In Malaysia,during the communist guerrilla war, the English made sure their troops were permanently stationed among the villagers. In this way they denied the communists two vital weapons. They could not intimidate the villagers or draw supplies and info from them. Look how Basra compared with Bahgdad. So there are different ways of handling a guerrilla war. Just look at the latest news from Afghanistan. Another wedding party massacre. Afghans fire guns into the air when celebrating. If the troops had considered themselves to be under fire, and note there were no US casualities, then surely a quiet retreat would have been the best policy. Socially the gun culture pervades the military.

You say no forts were built in WW11 or Korea. These were both wars unique to the 20th century. Highly mobile and technical. Even military mindsets can grasp that fact when it's thrust at them.

Then you raised the issue of lend lease and linked it to isolationism, and told me I had omitted the context. You claimed it was a 20th century phenomenon that grew out of US perception that Europe could not stop squabbling after WW1.
Non intervention or isolationism was first raised by America's founding fathers It was enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine that America would never get involved in European affairs. It was effecive until 1917. The American economy depended on foreign trade, supplying food and arms to the allied forces and so became involved in European affairs. After WW1 isolationism returned with the Fordney-McCumber tarriff system that blocked Europe trading on a level playing field with America and indirectly this exacerbated economic strife in Europe leading to war. America also strengthened its immigration laws.

Now we come to "Jittery Joe" Kennedy. You say perhaps the US believed Chamberlain.
Goes a bit deeper than that. Kennedy was a friend of Lady Astor and a part of the Cliveden Set that hated Jews and Communists. They saw Hitler as a solution to such "World Problems". The Nazi ambassador von Dirksen told Hitler that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend." scarcely the situation that you claim of a simple man "believing" Chamberlain.
Why "Jittery Joe"?
Kennedy was living at Windsor, a long way from the epicentre of the Blitz, but was judged a coward by the Brits because of the speed with which he leaded for the air raid shelter at the first sound of a siren.

Dazzler,
I have to disagree with you that more troops are the answer. As I explained above, it is not numbers, but how they are used..

Jerry

[jerryc]

Before screams of rage from Americophiles overwhelm my point, I should say that history shows many instances of countries that were not good at handling power responsibly. It's just that in my long life I have had to live through that century of America's rise.

Jerry

Bob,
Could this be what you said you had not seen? Sorry, my style of writing is not given to overstatement.

Jerry

[m2c1Iw]

Yes, Joe. I know what you mean. However, as an American who has been living in Oz, an unexpected effect occurred for me. I realised when I was in a shop yesterday that, for the first time since the Vietnam war, I was not embarrassed about my accent or my country.

There were many great aspects to this election. In the blink of an eye, and entire population of people came to believe not just in the rhetorical, but in the real. We all grew up being told that, rich or poor, if you really wanted to achieve something in America, you could. It was just words for many until Tuesday. That reality is something that people in other parts of the world can't ignore or disclaim. In that instant, even the most aggressive anti-Americans had to stop and consider that this is a country that not only could but DID elect a black man, and the country is overwhelmingly white in colour.

I am so proud that my other country did this. Of course it will be a difficult road ahead. But I am more than optimistic. My reason is this: If there was a single aspect to Obama's ascent, it was his dogged persistence and his ability to generate and sustain MOMENTUM. Once the world's people calm down, the turn-around will be the product of a sustained confidence-building machine. As people regain their faith, they will buy. They will invest. They will borrow. And once that process starts, helped along by an intellectually capacious individual like Mr Obama, the recovery will be swift and unstoppable.

I'm proud to have voted for him, and finally, after 40 years, proud to be an American.

A student of history I am not, to this day I fail to understand
the pervasive strategy behind the Vietnam War for both the US and Oz. Was the threat of the evil communist expansion in Asia really so powerful to drive our leaders of the time to the decisions they made.
Then to go into Iraq without any apparent strategy for lasting control given the experience in Vietnam is beyond belief.
Whats the saying: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I found a comment about the Obama campaign made by a US TV host interesting. His view is that without the support of Oprah Obama was nowhere makes you wonder if todays democracy is more about the spin doctors than the candidates.

Yeah I know a somewhat cynical view born out of the recent Australian federal election but not to take anything away from the Obama win.

It will remain an event that Americans can indeed point to with pride.

Mike

[Manuka Jock]

I am not seeking an adversarial position, but I am having difficulty following your argument. Joe never said we started empire building after WW II, he said he thought the "brat teenager" part started then. But to stay on track, we won't quibble over it. You can have the point. Even if it started in the 19th Century, it did not start in a vacuum.

So, if the discussion must focus only on the actions of the US without regard to the actions of other countries at the same time, we won't get anywhere and may as well stop now. The US did not do whatever it did or didn't do while everyone else sat around and watched passively.

The out of context simply referred to the fact that you used a book description as a "source" to make your point. A book description, typically written by the bookseller, is not a source, it is a marketing effort. I daresay the editor of the actual book would strongly disagree with your interpretation of his intent.

What argument is that ?
I posted some information , correcting the 'Brat after WW2 ' comment , to point out that the brattiness started long before that .
As I said , I could have used any quote to do that , even my own , but I used that one .
I was not recommending or otherwise , the book itself .

Try as anyone can , to deny that the USA a brat , bully etc ,and has been for over a century , the truth is there for all to see , especially those of us who have American military bases polluting our country

[cellist]

The world still need a policeman the question is does the US have the will or financial capacity to continue in the role.
Perhaps this election may lead to a stronger more effective United Nations.......now there's an idea:rolleyes:

Mike

Mike, as long as the United Nations is armed only with good intentions and blue helmets, it will be a toothless tiger. United in intention does not mean united in deed. The so-called "coalition of the willing" came to be because there is no bona-fide armed deterrent force available to the United Nations.

I would love to see what you have suggested.

Michael

[jerryc]

The world still need a policeman .

Mike

I have a problem with this train of thought that I have not fully resolved. If the world's policeman is one country then it follows inevitably that that country imposes it's values and morals on the world. Any form of dicatorship, and such an idea does constitute a dictatorship, leads to abuse of power.
We are discussing the US at present so I will use it as an example of what I mean.
The International court of the Hague has clearly defined rules as to what constitutes a war crime. America, the self proclaimed champion of democracy, is not a signatory and no American has been brought before it. However America has has been instrumental in bringing other countries before it but considers itself above such laws.
The Mei Li massacre of unarmed civilians both women and children wa stopped by a courageous helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson.. On his return to America he feared court martial. He was subjected to many death threats while Lieutenant Calley, the instigator of the war crime, was pardoned by Nixon.
An interesting by play in the affair was that although Thompson reported the massacre, it was not investigated for several months. The man involved was Major General Colin Powell who reported that relations between the US soldiers and the Vietnamese people was "excellent"

If we elect leaders in every country who are politicians and statesmen, as they claim. We should not need a policeman. Disputes should be settled by rational discussion. The other way, which is fanciful, wishful thinking, is to make the politicians do the fighting. Has anyone seen the shelters they built for themselves when it looked as if atomic war was a possibility. "Jittery Joe would have loved them.

Jerry

[joe greiner]

I don't think we can settle all the world's "issues" in this one thread. I'll note, however, that America's "Manifest Destiny" dates to around 1840, not WW2 as I first implied. In this regard, almost all of the major powers at one time or another used the phrase, "The sun never sets on the XXXXX empire."

I see some excellent scholars of history here, far better than I. Human nature being what it is, we'll find saints and scoundrels among all our statesmen, and usually one man's Saint is another man's Scoundrel. Put another way, "One man's fish is another man's poisson." (bad linguistic pun)

STAR mentioned his pleasure with American attitudes. I think it can be documented that American citizens, not just the government, have one of the highest levels of charitable contributions in the world.

I hope and pray that more of the future is conducted with eyes wide open, and less provincialism, and less BS. There's a saying among poker players, "If, after 15 minutes, you don't know who the patsy is, it's you." Let's not be patsies, but let's not be bullies either.

I've been somewhat pre-occupied of late, in addition to woodturning and a local political campaign. I'm the old goat in the gray shirt, third from foreground, here: http://www.vva96.org/images1.htm We placed the foundation last Tuesday, and erected the panels on Thursday. Dis-assembly is scheduled for next Wednesday. Please don't use any email addresses you may find via that link; they're very limited.

Joe

[jerryc]

Joe,
One of the problems with history is that often it is not fact. I know it's a cliche to say history is written by the victors but it is true. No country can bear the full light of research and come out clean. I was born and educated in England but gained my degrees here in Oz. It has given me a clear insight into the strengths and weaknesses of both countries. I believe that a knowledge of a country's history, especially the dark side is necessary. I may offend some people here when I say I am not a patriot in the normal sense of the word.. Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scroundrel" There is a better quote and one I try to adhere to. "True patriotism hates injustice in it's own land more than anywhere else." To believe in ones's country or religion, right or wrong is to surrender ones self to manipulation.
While I would appear to have been harsh on America it is because America and her place in the world that was under scrutiny, not individual people. At the risk of continuing to be seen as critical of America, I believe one great problem is that too many Americans have no understanding of the world outside of America. For instance it was reported that Sarah Palin thought Africa was a country. We know that Geo W often confused Australia and Austria.
One of my early statements regarding the hope embodied in Barak Obama is that he has lived as a child in countries other than America. That it is possible he has a better world view than many American politicians.
Whether you have a better or worse grasp of history is not the point. The point is to stand square on the issues you believe in and fight for them. But popular patriotism is cosy and blinds you to faults in your country. Hitler was a master at using this technique to his advantage and if you look at what he said you quickly find he had contempt for the German people he led.
Recently I read a book called "Sagitarius Rising" Written by a young pilot in WW1. When he came home on leave his parents begged him to wear his uniform and he refused. This was a time of intense "patriotism " in England. Because he was not wearing a uniform a woman stuck a white feather in his lapel. He said "I just smiled at her and thanked her.." He was a true patriot. He hated the senselessness of the slaughter in France and was prepared to make a gesture against it.

Jerry.

[joe greiner]

Really got a can o' worms opened, haven't we? Let's agree to disagree for a while; I have a trailer full of timber to unload, and the fourteen-hour time offset isn't helping today's schedule.:wink::D

Joe

[Honorary Bloke]

Firstly I did not expand my comment enough on the Hartz Theory. The US is a combo of cultures over a period of years. The point I should have made is the New England states were settled by Puritans and settled before England's "Imperial" expansion. They developed the culture of punishment, inherant in their religion and also the pattern of creating a stockade, using it to sally forth and deal with the natives.

I can accept that argument. Fair call.

Much of England's imperialism stemmed from a desire to trade,

And, of course, ours as well. Although there was indeed a culture of hubris associated with Manifest Destiny, it was aimed at the American mainland, not world domination. It hadn't yet occurred to us to police the world, that came much later.

You say I confuse military theory and social fabric. Not so. The military is part of the social fabric.

Quite right. The organisation of the military and its role in the nation and its perception of itself is all a part of the social fabric. In the US that has resulted in the concepts of "citizen soldiers" (as opposed to mercenaries), the subordination of the military to civilian authority, and the acceptance of a single civilian Commander in Chief.

I was, at the time, meaning to refer to what I should perhaps have called military tactics, about which there can be disagreement. There is no question that there have been both tactical and political blunders in Iraq (as in other wars). The election results were inpart a referendum on those tactics and a rejection of them by the American people.


You argue that in guerrilla warfare the troops must be protected from the guerrilla. Here we see a response that is socially different.

You say potato, I say potahto. :) I call those tactics.

So there are different ways of handling a guerrilla war.

Exactly so.


Socially the gun culture pervades the military.

Can't agree with that statement. There are Rules of Engagement which are developed by tacticians. I do not subscribe to your conclusion that our military is pervaded by a gun culture which is part of the social fabric. That is not to argue that America as a whole is not, to a certain extent, a gun culture--it is.

You say no forts were built in WW11 or Korea. These were both wars unique to the 20th century. Highly mobile and technical. Even military mindsets can grasp that fact when it's thrust at them.

Not so unique, though admittedly more mobile. The concept of a fluid but definable front was present when Napoleon marched on Moscow. There are numerous other examples even older.

Then you raised the issue of lend lease and linked it to isolationism, and told me I had omitted the context. You claimed it was a 20th century phenomenon that grew out of US perception that Europe could not stop squabbling after WW1.
Non intervention or isolationism was first raised by America's founding fathers It was enshrined in the Monroe Doctrine that America would never get involved in European affairs. It was effecive until 1917.

Quite right. I should have said the "resurgence" of American isolationism, which had seemed to stand us in fair stead since 1776. We were slow to grasp that technology was making isolationism obsolete. It was comforting to have those vast oceans between the US and Europe and Asia.

The American economy depended on foreign trade, supplying food and arms to the allied forces and so became involved in European affairs. After WW1 isolationism returned with the Fordney-McCumber tarriff system that blocked Europe trading on a level playing field with America and indirectly this exacerbated economic strife in Europe leading to war. America also strengthened its immigration laws.

See above. However, the American economy at the time did not depend on foreign trade. But the war whetted the appetite for it as we made the transition from a debtor nation to a creditor nation.

Now we come to "Jittery Joe" Kennedy. You say perhaps the US believed Chamberlain.
Goes a bit deeper than that. Kennedy was a friend of Lady Astor and a part of the Cliveden Set that hated Jews and Communists. They saw Hitler as a solution to such "World Problems". The Nazi ambassador von Dirksen told Hitler that Kennedy was "Germany's best friend." scarcely the situation that you claim of a simple man "believing" Chamberlain.

Sorry. I was being flippant. Kennedy was a lousy Ambassador. And I was not referring specifically to his beliefs, which you have outlined very well.





One of the problems with history is that often it is not fact. I know it's a cliche to say history is written by the victors but it is true. No country can bear the full light of research and come out clean.

Right you are. In addition, history gets re-written in the light of future developments or changes in national consciousness. For example, the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was hailed at the time as saving many American lives. Later on, during the Vietnam war, other historians began revising that view and asserting that Truman did it more to intimidate the USSR than to end the war with Japan.

[NB: The job of the historian is to gather facts and from them draw conclusions regarding cause and effect.. As we know, many times the entire set of facts is not available and anyway historians are human like everyone else and their conclusions are influenced by their own perception of the world and their personal value system. It is not perfect. ]

I was born and educated in England but gained my degrees here in Oz.


Full disclosure: I was born in the US and received my degrees from US universities. I have lived in many parts of this country and have travelled widely, particularly in Europe. I like to think I have a global view, but I am no doubt a product of my environment as well.

It has given me a clear insight into the strengths and weaknesses of both countries. I believe that a knowledge of a country's history, especially the dark side is necessary. I may offend some people here when I say I am not a patriot in the normal sense of the word.. Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scroundrel" There is a better quote and one I try to adhere to. "True patriotism hates injustice in it's own land more than anywhere else." To believe in ones's country or religion, right or wrong is to surrender ones self to manipulation.

I prefer Ambrose Bierce's definition of Patriotism as "Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name." Blind pariotism is reprehensible. That said, there are beliefs and values worth fighting for, as you rightly point out in another post.

At the risk of continuing to be seen as critical of America, I believe one great problem is that too many Americans have no understanding of the world outside of America.

Unfortunately very true. A cultural by-product of that same isolationism previously discussed. Many Americans are xenophobic which strikes me as odd considering how many immigrants we have assimilated. I think it is a deeply-rooted national characteristic that somehow gets inculcated into even the most recent arrivals.



As must be clear by now, Jerry and I agree on many points, although our interpretations may be different. I am quite prepared to accept other conclusions than my own, and keep in mind that it is perfectly possible that Jerry and I are both wrong. :rolleyes::D

[jerryc]

Joe,
I hope you don't leave the thread. I read what I had written last night, and whilst I stand by my statements, my language was a bit pompous and I think a bit condescending. Your imput has real value because it represents a view point that at imes differs from my own and helps me and others to a better understanding.
By the way I'd like to know more about the ideas behind the wall.

Jerry

[jerryc]

Bob,

There is a problem, distractions keep leaping out of the shrubbery and attempt to lure us away on another trail. The march on Moscow is a case in point. I have studied the psychology of Wellington and Napoleon among many other interests, and would dearly like to debate that comment. It takes an iron will to avoid being sidetracked.
I hope others will throw their logs of wisdom and comment into the fire of this thread and watch the sparks fly. Discussion, as I repeat ad nauseam, aids understanding.
I can't remember who said it, I think it was Oscar Wilde, who said power should never be given to those who seek it. Unfortunately most politicians cannot discuss an issue. The shed blood of the ordinary people is used to nourish the overwhelming egoes of politicians.
I enjoy our discussions and wish that distance did not stop us enjoying a glass of wine together (Oz wine of course. I am not a biased person but stand for what I believe:D)
You seem a good bloke-- for a Seppo that is.


Jerry

[Honorary Bloke]

I enjoy our discussions and wish that distance did not stop us enjoying a glass of wine together (Oz wine of course. I am not a biased person but stand for what I believe:D)
You seem a good bloke-- for a Seppo that is.


Jerry

Likewise, I admit. For an Ozzie. Perhaps a nice Shiraz or maybe just a slab of four-x. :rolleyes::D:D

[jerryc]

Bob,

Not 4x. You should try Coopers sparkling ale if you can get it. It's unusual but has real hop taste. Your taste in wine I'll go along with. Matched with a eye fillet roasted on a very low heat for four hours it is a great combination. That's if you like your meat still red and moist but tender enough for a blunt blade to slip through it like silk. My wife happens to be a superb cook.
Jerry

[witch1]

I am very confused by all these long sentences and big words but if you want my opinion on mr o'bamas victory all I can say is IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR THE IRISH.
love to all,
witch1

[jerryc]

Witch1,

You think you're confused? Think what it was like for the poor bleeders who had to think them up.
But it's nice to see a new point of view. O' Bummer (that's to separate him from that bloke O Sammy bin laden the Ayrab garbage man.).

Jerry

[Rocker]

As someone who habitually spends two or three hours a day on an internet chat channel talking to Americans, I want to say that the contrast between the friendly, civilized, and even learned character of the discussion in this thread, compared to what passes for debate in the channel that I frequent is startling. I think the point that someone raised about the average American being blinkered through never having left the shores of North America is an important one. In internet chat channels, which are overwhelmingly dominated by American participants, there are always a number of rednecks who put forward the point of view that Americans should not care what the rest of the world thinks of America, because, as far as they are concerned, the rest of the world's opinion does not matter.

Like most other Australians, I was delighted at Obama's election. My only worry is that he may succumb to the isolationist tendencies of some Democrats.

Rocker

[m2c1Iw]

I have a problem with this train of thought that I have not fully resolved. If the world's policeman is one country then it follows inevitably that that country imposes it's values and morals on the world. Any form of dicatorship, and such an idea does constitute a dictatorship, leads to abuse of power.

If we elect leaders in every country who are politicians and statesmen, as they claim. We should not need a policeman. Disputes should be settled by rational discussion. The other way, which is fanciful, wishful thinking, is to make the politicians do the fighting. Has anyone seen the shelters they built for themselves when it looked as if atomic war was a possibility. "Jittery Joe would have loved them.

Jerry

Jerry,
A good policeman brings offenders before justice so as the judge and jury (the UN) can decide punishment . I was going to add and keep the peace but that just doesn't seem appropriate.

Why is it that most of the wars since WW2 have been called police actions.

Seems to me the US has had reasonable support for its actions from developed countries or at least their governments and I can't think of an instance when the justification for intervention did not include support for or introduction of democracy.

Another justification for action is homeland security but again I am unable to point to an example when either the US or Australias security was directly threatened except 9/11. September 11 was a direct threat and triggered support for action against states supporting terrorism but the original justification to go in to Iraq was WOMD. When this was found to be false it was quickly moulded into the Iraqis desire for democracy something that can be relied on for support.

We are often critical of the US military actions but hasn't Australia provided support in a lot of cases. I wonder if Australia had 300 million people and the military power if our goverment would act and react in the same manner as the US. I also believe having the power will always lead to being the policeman it is a natural progression what we hope for is that a democracy prevents the abuse of that power.

You say if we have statesman for politicians we will not need a policeman well that assumes free elections something we are along way from. Take a peek at Zimbabwe for an example of how not to do it.

The point I am attempting to make is a true democracy can be relied on to get it right.......eventually:rolleyes:

BTW a Benevolent Dictatorship can work very well too just ask Neil :D

Mike

[Honorary Bloke]

I am very confused by all these long sentences and big words but if you want my opinion on mr o'bamas victory all I can say is IT'S A GREAT DAY FOR THE IRISH.
love to all,
witch1

:D:D

Just remember witch1, if you scratch me you will uncover a wharfie. Ask anyone. :cool::D

[joe greiner]

No way would I bail out on such a promising thread. I really did have a trailer full of timber to unload; now I have only half a trailer to unload. The timber came from a bunch of campaign sign supports I made for a neighbour's political effort. Her husband and I erected them over three weekends before the election. Florida law (widely ignored, alas) requires removal within a week after the election, so he and I did so the day after. "Unloading" includes de-nailing, de-stapling, and de-screwing, so it doesn't go very fast, but it provides a heap of re-usable 2x4 framing timber of only a few weeks' exposure, and about 60 sheets of Coroplast extruded poly-something 3ft x 5ft with no immediate need; that's just the way of the pack rat. BTW, she won the election, and will become our new representative in the Florida legislature.

The "excellent scholars" I referred to are Jerry and Bob, of course. History must be revised as new facts are discovered. The tricky part is to verify the "facts." One theory of WW2 suggests that America was all too ready to assume its role as the Arsenal of Democracy, even though isolationism was the official order of the day. The current situation with respect to Iran deserves careful examination, before rushing into "negotiations."

The Vietnam war was a particularly low point. The declaration of war was based on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which assumed an attack on a US Navy ship; turns out to be somewhat fuzzy logic, and precipitated strong anti-war sentiment, as well as (only, it seemed at the time) a half-hearted effort. Similar logic attends the current activity in Iraq. I served in the US Army 1966-1968, stateside. I was never spat upon, but I appreciate the feelings of my comrades in arms. At a Veteran's Day parade in 2001, I remarked to another veteran. "I guess it's not 1968 anymore." The Vietnam Memorial Wall was constructed in Washington DC, with engraved names of all those who died there, or from such injuries. Casualties from later wars are being added too. Because America is so big, and more reliant on personal vehicles for travel, several scale-model Traveling Walls have been built; about 14 altogether I think. There are also some web sites which can be visited.

In February (or so) 2003, when the Iraq invasion was only the gleam in W's eye, the office hawks shouted enthusiasm. I thought that winning a war in Iraq could be the worst thing that ever happened to America. I reasoned that although Saddam might be an a**hole, he was THEIR a**hole, and many Iraqis loved him. I hoped that it was a diversionary ploy, with a sudden shift into Afghanistan; such a shift would likely have worldwide support, and would secure W's place in history in the same category as Alexander the Great. To my eternal shame, I didn't communicate my sentiments to the White House, because they would probably just be piled into for-and-against lists. I get the same impression in my emails to Governor Crist; an improved response would be something along the lines of "Thank you; now please go to Hell." My younger brother tells me I should stop tilting at windmills.:-

Gun control is a thorny issue here. The "Right to Bear Arms" is enshrined in our Constitution. Almost all attempts at registration are fought strenuously by the gun lobby, as a direct attack. I suspect this contributes to outside perceptions of a bunch of cowboys and unregulated militias. It occurs to me, that we have no qualms about registering motor vehicles, which have in fact been used in homicides and suicides. Someday, common sense may prevail.

On a few occasions, I've observed that this very forum is a mini-UN, and I've also suggested (half tongue-in-cheek) that UN ambassadors be required to take up the hobby of woodworking. Hasn't happened yet.

This is enough for one chomp. I admit I could be wrong about everything. I've been accused of being smart. However, there's a large body of conflicting evidence, sufficient to raise Reasonable Doubt, so I don't fear the hangman. But I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express.:D

[Wall and salvage. The plastic tubs facilitate parking before impact with the trailer.]

Joe

[Honorary Bloke]

This is enough for one chomp. I admit I could be wrong about everything. I've been accused of being smart. However, there's a large body of conflicting evidence, sufficient to raise Reasonable Doubt, so I don't fear the hangman. But I have stayed at Holiday Inn Express.:D

Joe

It's a Seppo joke. :p:p:p

Well said, Joe. I was in the Air Force from 1965-1969, so I can appreciate the references. :)

[joe greiner]

It's a Seppo joke. :p:p:p

Well said, Joe. I was in the Air Force from 1965-1969, so I can appreciate the references. :)
Not necessarily, Bob. I think they (HIX) use it everywhere.

Joe

[Manuka Jock]

Jerry,
Why is it that most of the wars since WW2 have been called police actions.


Some of the wars since WW2

Abkhazian Rebellion
Albanian Civil War
Algerian Civil War
Angola war of National Liberation
Bangladeshi Independence War
Bosnian Civil War
Cambodian Civil War
Chechen Uprising
Chinese conflicts in Quemoy and Matsu
Chinese Invasion of Tibet
Congo post independance war
Djibouti Civil War
Enitrea War of Independence
Ethiopia Civil War
Ethiopia Revolution
Ethiopian-Somalia War
Falklands War
Fijian Military Coup
First Indochina War
Greece Civil War
Gulf War
Hmong Guerrilla War: Loas
India-Pakistan War
Intifada
Iran-Iraq War
Israel War of Independence
Jordan Civil War
Khmer Rouge Insurgency
Korean War
Kosovo War
Lebanon's Civil War
Liberia's Civil War
Libya's war with Chad
Libyan-Egyptian War
Moldovan Civil War
Mozambique War of Independence
Nambia's War of National Liberation
Nigeria Civil War
Saharan War
Sierra Leone Civil Conflict
Sinai War
Six Days War
Somalian Civil War
Sudan Civil Wars
Togolese Civil War
Ugandan Civil War
Vietnam: Second Indochina War
Yom Kippur War
Yugoslavian Civil War




Which ones were 'police actions' ?

[Honorary Bloke]

I give up. Which ones? :?

[Manuka Jock]

None of them .

[m2c1Iw]

None of them .

Hi Jock,
I refer to Wikipedia not exactly the authoritive source but generally accepted as reasonably accurate. I guess it depends on who is describing the conflict, politically it's a police action militarily it's a war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action

Mike

[Manuka Jock]

Wikipedia will change its tune when it gets invaded by a bunch of armed thugs .

[jerryc]

Jerry,
A good policeman brings offenders before justice so as the judge and jury (the UN) can decide punishment .

Why is it that most of the wars since WW2 have been called police actions.

Seems to me the US has had reasonable support for its actions from developed countries or at least their governments and I can't think of an instance when the justification for intervention did not include support for or introduction of democracy.
.

We are often critical of the US military actions but hasn't Australia provided support in a lot of cases. I wonder if Australia had 300 million people and the military power if our goverment would act and react in the same manner as the US. I also believe having the power will always lead to being the policeman it is a natural progression what we hope for is that a democracy prevents the abuse of that power.

You say if we have statesman for politicians we will not need a policeman well that assumes free elections something we are along way from. Take a peek at Zimbabwe for an example of how not to do it.

The point I am attempting to make is a true democracy can be relied on to get it right.......eventually:rolleyes:


Mike

The US does not act as a policeman. A policeman is subject to the law (International law) and hands over the culprit to a higher jusice for trial by that court. The US acts as a vigilante. Applies it's own law with disregard for the international law and metes out it's own form of "justice" and holds itself above the law.

I rarely counter question with question but -Why are most armies called defence forces when they are attack forces?

The reason for Australia supporting the US is a deep and complex issue. It really goes back to Australia seeing itself as a Western enclave perched on the rim of Asia. Back to the Yellow Peril . Being off the present subject I will leave it for the moment. As to supporting the US, that is a complex point to discuss. Countries often link by treaties . They may not want to be involved but are drawn into a conflict by treaty obligations.

. However your statement that you can't think of an instance when the justification for intervention did not include support for or introduction of democracy does need to be challenged. Chile had a democratically elected government that was overthrown with the aid of the CIA. Argentina's "dirty war" was a civil war but the president Peron had been electedwith 61percent of the vote. The US was complicit in the reign of terror instigated by the generals. Cuba had a corrupt dictatorship supported by the US. Perhaps I should throw in Hamas. It was democratically elected by the Palistinians of the Gaza Strip but because it does not suit America's view of democracy it has been declared a terrorist organisation. I asked in a previous thread "What is a terrorist organisation?" Oddly enough America never raised a voice in condemnation of the IRA.

This is the first time in history that a single nation has had such absolute power as the US possesses now. What you "wonder" and "believe" I cannot answer.

You take me to task on my stating that if we had statesmen for politians we would not need a policeman and then go on to confuse it with free elections. George W was freely elected.

A true democracy can be relied on to get it right -eventually. An infinity of monkeys with typewriters could write the complete works of Shakespeare--eventually

Jerry

[m2c1Iw]

The US does not act as a policeman. A policeman is subject to the law (International law) and hands over the culprit to a higher jusice for trial by that court. The US acts as a vigilante. Applies it's own law with disregard for the international law and metes out it's own form of "justice" and holds itself above the law.
Jerry I do not accept that as a universal statement.



I rarely counter question with question but -Why are most armies called defence forces when they are attack forces?

Yep same reason as for police actions tends to be politically acceptable.



The reason for Australia supporting the US is a deep and complex issue. It really goes back to Australia seeing itself as a Western enclave perched on the rim of Asia. Back to the Yellow Peril . Being off the present subject I will leave it for the moment. As to supporting the US, that is a complex point to discuss. Countries often link by treaties . They may not want to be involved but are drawn into a conflict by treaty obligations.

Has Australia ever suspended or terminated a treaty with the US or any other country?




. However your statement that you can't think of an instance when the justification for intervention did not include support for or introduction of democracy does need to be challenged. Chile had a democratically elected government that was overthrown with the aid of the CIA. Argentina's "dirty war" was a civil war but the president Peron had been electedwith 61percent of the vote. The US was complicit in the reign of terror instigated by the generals. Cuba had a corrupt dictatorship supported by the US. Perhaps I should throw in Hamas. It was democratically elected by the Palistinians of the Gaza Strip but because it does not suit America's view of democracy it has been declared a terrorist organisation. I asked in a previous thread "What is a terrorist organisation?" Oddly enough America never raised a voice in condemnation of the IRA.

Well you have got me there I need to retire to the history books:q



This is the first time in history that a single nation has had such absolute power as the US possesses now. What you "wonder" and "believe" I cannot answer.

China?



You take me to task on my stating that if we had statesmen for politians we would not need a policeman and then go on to confuse it with free elections. George W was freely elected.

Poor wording on my part. What I was suggesting is that until all countries elect statesman conflict will remain.



A true democracy can be relied on to get it right -eventually. An infinity of monkeys with typewriters could write the complete works of Shakespeare--eventually


Monkeys :oo: was that Bill turning over in his grave:U

Regards
Mike

[joe greiner]

The original post referred to Americans looking forward to positive change. I thought either candidate would be an improvement over the present situation. One of them had a better agreement with the majority of voters.

I hope no-one tries to justify the actions cited by MJ, or to tar everyone with the same stick. There will always be partisans on every side of every issue. And coalitions to boot. A popular pocket billiards game in America is/was "cut-throat pool"; IIRC: a three-person game, in which players take turns of two ganging up on the third.

Democracy works best when it's home-made, difficult to impose on others. And still it's an experiment. As I said earlier, the human race seems to be God's Science Fair Project. Can we cite some positive results too?

Joe

[jerryc]

Jerry I do not accept that as a universal statement.

ans 1I made clear my reasoning as to why I considered America to be a vigilante, I don't expext people to agree with everything I say. If you don't then please support your reason for disagreeing with example. It makes it easier to discuss.

Has Australia ever suspended or terminated a treaty with the US or any other country?

ans2Sorry. What point are you making. At no time did I talk about suspension or termination of treaties. In fact my statement was the complete opposite. I said that countries are often drawn into conflicts against their will. .

China?

ans3My statement was clear that it was the first time a country had been in this position. I cannot make a comment on how China would react because China has not yet been in the same position

Jerry

[jerryc]

The original post referred to Americans looking forward to positive change. Can we cite some positive results too?

Joe

I'm not so hooked into America and it's problems as you would be Joe. I did say that the fact that Barak Obama had experience of being brought up, in his formative years in countries other than America could be a positive. What I might see as possible change for good would be influenced by my culture and might be seen as criticism of your country.
There are many things that a majority of Americans see as good, but which outsiders might dispute. I won't go too deep here because the purpose of this discussion is , or should be understanding and not mud slinging. However I'll use one example that was used constantly in the election, that terrible word SOCIALIST. The Scandinavian countries have what I perceive to be a very good socialist system. To Americans it appears to be the work of the Devil . So Joe, how can we cite positive change as you ask? It would be best if you, or other Americans take up the cudgels in support of America.

Jerry

[jerryc]

A popular pocket billiards game in America

Joe
Joe in my previous post I said how difficult it is to understand fully the culture of another country. Here we have a case in point. Forgive my warped sense of humour and don't take offence but in the area of London where I was brought up it had a very different meaning

Jerry

[Honorary Bloke]

It would be best if you, or other Americans take up the cudgels in support of America.

Jerry

No. Perhaps someone else. I will not provide further input to a thread in which certain posters copy and paste vitriolic "manifestos" and un-researched "quotes" instead of making their own arguments.

This thread was interesting and the debate for the most part civil. But at least one participant seems to have his own agenda. Perhaps we can start a fresh thread when the noise level is reduced. :(

[masoth]

You're right Bob!
A pity, because I have been enjoying the reasoning and logic, eventhough from different perspectives.

soth

[Honorary Bloke]

You're right Bob!
A pity, because I have been enjoying the reasoning and logic, eventhough from different perspectives.

soth

I think this is what you lot call spitting the dummy. :rolleyes::D:D

[masoth]

True mate, but one can't blunder through life accepting all accusation as fact.

soth

[jerryc]

Bob,

As I have said, statement without informed support of that statement is no argument. Grabbing bits of information and regurgitating them without thought or understanding helps no one. While what is happening is an irritation, it can be ignored. In fact should be ignored. Why should one allow such comments to have the power to interfere?


Jerry

[joe greiner]

Joe in my previous post I said how difficult it is to understand fully the culture of another country. Here we have a case in point. Forgive my warped sense of humour and don't take offence but in the area of London where I was brought up it had a very different meaning

Jerry
As George Bernard Shaw said, "England and America are two countries separated by a common language."

According to my imperfect understanding, the terms "billiards" and "pool" may be restricted to different forms of the game in different countries, with and without pockets; hence my distinction. I suspect "pocket pool" has a more universal meaning.

That said, my mission is not to defend America's sins, real or imagined, nor to attack the sins of others. My professional specialty is construction, not demolition.

Joe

[Honorary Bloke]

Bob,

Why should one allow such comments to have the power to interfere?


Jerry

Because it was early morning and it struck me wrong and I decided to throw a tantrum (spit the dummy). :D:D:D

Never mind. :wink:

As for citing positive change in American culture or politics it is a difficult challenge partly because a number of the changes are almost entirely internal and would make little sense to non-Americans. But, of course, the recent election results are a significant milepost marking a great deal of progress on our racial issues in a short time. That's one that everyone can appreciate.

How short a time is a short time? Well, I can distinctly remember as a child growing up in the southern US seeing public drinking fountains labelled "colored" and "white." Likewise, restaurants open only to the white race, and signs in public transportation saying "Colored please seat from the rear" and a white line drawn near the rear door of the bus to demarcate the allotted space. This would have been the late 1950s and early 1960s.

So in what, not quite 50 years, we come from that to an elected President of colour. Not too bad really, in my estimation. But possible only because the vast majority of Americans recognised that it was counter-productive and just plain wrong.

Political change comes more slowly, partly because there is no consensus among Americans what that politics should be. One should bear in mind that although Obama won the election rather handily, millions of people voted for the other candidate. It remains to be seen if a broad consensus can be achieved.

Turning now to your example citing the pejorative use of socialism in the election. Socialism was a significant political force in the US in the early part of the 20th Century. A number of Socialist Party candidates won local offices, and two served in the US Congress. But their strong opposition to entering WW I and later the splintering caused by the success of the Bolsheviks sent them into rapid decline.

Regardless of how well socialism may work in other countries, most Americans are still steeped in the concept of "rugged individualism" as the proper means to survival and success. And because of that early failure, socialism is still regarded by many as a euphemism for communism (my my, what a lot of "isms" in one short space).

[RETIRED]

Manuka Jock.
The Admins have no problem with political debate providing that it:

Does not get personal and heated between 2 parties. Play the idea not the man.

Does not denigrate a leader, government or country for their political, religious or legal system. E.g. XYZ is a lying thieving rock spider is not acceptable.:D

If any of the above happens it will be dealt with swiftly.

In other words go for it but keep it nice.:wink:From post 27.

[Manuka Jock]

Could the Administrator explain to these Forum why the posts by Manuka Jock were interfered with ?


The Admins have no problem with political debate providing that it:



Does not get personal and heated between 2 parties. Play the idea not the man.



Does not denigrate a leader, government or country for their political, religious or legal system. E.g. XYZ is a lying thieving rock spider is not acceptable.



If any of the above happens it will be dealt with swiftly.



In other words go for it but keep it nice.




Manuka Jock.
Quote:
The Admins have no problem with political debate providing that it:

Does not get personal and heated between 2 parties. Play the idea not the man.

Does not denigrate a leader, government or country for their political, religious or legal system. E.g. XYZ is a lying thieving rock spider is not acceptable.

If any of the above happens it will be dealt with swiftly.

In other words go for it but keep it nice.

From post 27.
__________________
Ian () Robertson
"We do good turns every day


===========================================================
Why were these two posts were deleted , and substituted with these messages ?

This thread is about the government of the USA.

Some mention has been made of the USA's fitness or otherwise in being the 'world policeman' .

My posts are in reply to that .

Does the Administrator have issues with the International War Crimes Tribunal ?

Manuka Jock

[Honorary Bloke]

Could the Administrator explain to these Forum why the posts by Manuka Jock were interfered with ?





===========================================================
Why were these two posts were deleted , and substituted with these messages ?

This thread is about the government of the USA.

Some mention has been made of the USA's fitness or otherwise in being the 'world policeman' .

My posts are in reply to that .

Does the Administrator have issues with the International War Crimes Tribunal ?

Manuka Jock

The International War Crimes Tribunal, even if it exists, has nothing to do with what you posted. In fact, that was a made-up manifesto that someone posted to look "official."

[RETIRED]

Could the Administrator explain to these Forum why the posts by Manuka Jock were interfered with ?





===========================================================
Why were these two posts were deleted , and substituted with these messages ?

This thread is about the government of the USA.

Some mention has been made of the USA's fitness or otherwise in being the 'world policeman' .

My posts are in reply to that .

Does the Administrator have issues with the International War Crimes Tribunal ?

Manuka JockCompletely off at a tangent.
You started stirring the pot with your first post and have been trying to shift the thread to your view ever since.
Barrow pushing is frowned upon here. It is a debate with sane views being put forward and either agreed with or argued against.
No more discussion on this topic.

[jerryc]

Bob,
I could be wrong on this point but war crimes tribunals are set up to deal with specific incidents or wars. An example being the Nurenburg Trials after WW11. Because there might be no sharp line here, you and M J might be at cross purposes.
There is the International Court of Justice which the US withdrew from and there is the International Criminal Court.

As someone who choses not to live in the USA I have to say there is a great deal about the country I find disturbing. As I have said I also am unhappy about things that happen and have happened in the UK and OZ. I am loath to criticize because it would open the thread to just the actions that has to adjudicate on. For example on the issue of "rugged individualism" and minimum government control I would be in conflict with such views. Britain tried minimum control "laissez faire" in the nineteenth century and it failed. Britain and Oz believe it is a moral obligation to help the weak and underpriviledged with good health and education.

It is odd that this "rugged individualism" concept flourishes in America. When the wagons pushed West, how long would an individual last? The wagon trains were a good example of team work and protecting the weakest among the group
.
Can we continue to discuss what are controversial issues?

Joe,

I can see you want to change some issues in America and would be glad to know what they are? Love of one's country should never blind one to it's faults. Who better to outline those faults and suggest cures. Oliver Cromwell when asked to sit for his portrait said it should "Be warts and all."

,
XYZ IS a lying thieving rock spider but I can't prove it --yet.

Jerry

[m2c1Iw]

I apologise if I appear to be laboring the point however I interpret the term vigilante as being one who acts independently when taking the law into their own hand. This term originanted according to some references during the era of the wild west of the USA when law and order were absent.
Taking the Iraq War as an example to determine how the term may apply to recent US action I submit that the President and others in the US administration spent considerable time persuading, argueing, cajolling or perhaps pressuring other countries to support the proposed action. Thereby forming the Coalition of the Willing.
While I don't know whether this coalition satisfied International Laws it does appears to me the US collected an acceptable level of support to avoid being accused of acting independently which by the way militarily they could have.

Anyway to the point of positive change that those outside the US are looking forward to one high on my priority list is foreign policy and a moderate and inclusive position with the Muslim world.

One of the interesting aspects of the Obama campaign was the ability to galvanise not only support but active campaigning from the party faithful. I saw it quoted that in serveral states over half of the population received personal visits from campaigners, extaordinary.
Makes you wonder what outcome a compulsory vote would bring.

I like this quote:
A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.

Mike:2tsup:

[silentC]

As far as I can tell this International War Crimes Tribunal is a powerless group of anti-war protesters. I can't find any reference to anyone actually taking them seriously.

Not that I have any reason to doubt their findings, I'm sure a lot of this stuff happens. But it's not as if posting links to their publications, which by the way seem to be hosted on some other third party's web site not their own, actually proves anything.

[m2c1Iw]

You had best take that up with the International War Crimes Tribunal ,
it is their website .

Would you be so kind as to explain to us the composition of the tribunal how the members are appointed on what authority does it act.

BTW I've been annoyed by experts you'll have to better than this. :D

[jerryc]

I apologise if I appear to be laboring the point however I interpret the term vigilante as being one who acts independently when taking the law into their own hand. This term originanted according to some references during the era of the wild west of the USA when law and order were absent.
Taking the Iraq War as an example to determine how the term may apply to recent US action I submit that the President and others in the US administration spent considerable time persuading, argueing, cajolling or perhaps pressuring other countries to support the proposed action. Thereby forming the Coalition of the Willing.
While I don't know whether this coalition satisfied International Laws it does appears to me the US collected an acceptable level of support to avoid being accused of acting independently which by the way militarily they could have.

Anyway to the point of positive change that those outside the US are looking forward to one high on my priority list is foreign policy and a moderate and inclusive position with the Muslim world.


Mike:2tsup:

Mike,

I stand by my "vigilante" statement. You cite Iraq. Here was a case of rounding up support by lying to the people as well. When the Iraq war started it was reported that 80% of Americans supported the action. As the truth was revealed and the body bags started to come home the percentage changed. (Now they are ringing the bells. Soon they'll be wringing their hands--Sir Robt Walpole.) I have had close contact with war and that quotation was one I used the first day of conflict. The British people were so opposed to the Iraq War that the Prime Minister was ousted. Here in Oz the people opposing the war were in the majority. The "Coalition of the Willing " was not as willing as you imply..
However I also included in my examples of lawless action, Chile, Argentina and Cuba. Have you an argument in support of your viewpoint here?
In the Vietnam conflict the US dropped thousands of bombs on Laos and Cambodia who were not in the war and the terrible legacy of cluster bombs remains. The indiscriminate use of "agent orange" also still leaves a ghastly stain. American veterans receive compensation for being subjected to chemical warfare but the US denies agent orange had adverse effects on Vietnamese people. Was bombing neutral countries and in no way helping to clean up the mess justified? I have seen footage of Loatians trying to dispose of these terror weapons with the most primitive "equipment". Wouldn't the US gain more world respect if at the very least it gave these heroes some decent means of disposing of this lurking death? There are two ex Viet War Aussie soldiers who work alongside the Laotians. Think how it would be received if the US sent in something similar.

I totally agree with you that Obama has indicated a willingness to negotiate with the Muslim world. In that there is hope.

Jerry

[m2c1Iw]

However I also included in my examples of lawless action, Chile, Argentina and Cuba. Have you an argument in support of your viewpoint here?

Can't argue with you on these still havn't studied up on the circumstances, I'm only a young wipper snapper:U



Wouldn't the US gain more world respect if at the very least it gave these heroes some decent means of disposing of this lurking death? There are two ex Viet War Aussie soldiers who work alongside the Laotians. Think how it would be received if the US sent in something similar.

Absolutely what a platform to have. Rebuilding and securing, should keep the military busy for years might even assist as part of solution to the financial crisis.

Mike

[jerryc]

Jock,

You may have viewpoints to express that you consider pertinant to the discussion, but taking undigested slabs of "information" and presenting it agressively means such points as you wish to make are not going to be treated seriously by most people on this thread. Hope you take this as advice and not condescension.. Everyone has a right to be heard but equally everyone has a right to respect even if you strongly oppose their views.

Jerry

[RETIRED]

The axe swingeth. The next swipe may be someones head.:((

[Manuka Jock]

Jock,

You may have viewpoints to express that you consider pertinant to the discussion, but taking undigested slabs of "information" and presenting it agressively means such points as you wish to make are not going to be treated seriously by most people on this thread. Hope you take this as advice and not condescension.. Everyone has a right to be heard but equally everyone has a right to respect even if you strongly oppose their views.

Jerry
What undigested slabs of information ?
Do the research . Digest it yourself .

As to aggression , that would be the attack on me by some posters on this thread .
Aside from that mentioned on the posted website that is .

[Manuka Jock]

The axe swingeth. The next swipe may be someones head.:((

Oh good , so you are going to do something about the attacks on me , for posting valid information pertaining to a point raised on this thread

Then , you can reinstall my posts eh Administrator .
thanks ,
Jock

[jerryc]

What undigested slabs of information ?
Do the research . Digest it yourself ..

How can I answer such considered logic? :respect:

Jerry

[Manuka Jock]

How can I answer such considered logic? :respect:

Jerry

Seeing as the administrator , in following his own personal agenda , as he has admitted to me in a Personal Message ,
has deleted the Posts ,
I give the link , for the main page .
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrime.htm
The other pages that I posted , the Preface , and the 19 point indictment , follow from there .

As to the credence of the tribunal ,
the first page has this to say .

"Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, "

[DavidG]

Manuka Jock
1. It is NOT administrator but Administrators. Plural.
2. It is Not personal Agenda but Forum rules.

Some people never learn. :no:

[Manuka Jock]

Manuka Jock
1. It is NOT administrator but Administrators. Plural.
2. It is Not personal Agenda but Forum rules.

Some people never learn. :no:

Oh , did the Administrator send you the same personal message ?

Point out to me , where in the Forum rules , this rule is ;
" Because I have had a gutful of truth by radicals "

Rather an odd rule eh , or rather it would be , if it did exist .
It doesn't , the Administrator is following a personal agenda ,

and is way out of order.