Forces that are Incompatible with Authoritarian Rule...

[IllinoisDave]

Now just where did I hear of the concept of learning about other cultures, but not interfering with their form of government. Oh, yeah that was that corny show that may have had some very bad special effects

Star Trek?

[Dennis143]

 

Keep in mind, no one acted to save the US steel industry in 1957 - the year it died...it's just the carcass did not turn cold for 20 years.

Hmmm....

 

If I recall correctly, instead of investing to upgrade their own aged industry, didn't US Steel (and others) invest their earnings in non-steel diversifies and did their demise result from their non-investment?

 

Anyway, I suspect that our own government is tending to become more centric controlled, as China, than China becoming more Democratic.

Edited August 12, 2008 by Dennis143 (see edit history)

[SheLikesME?]

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police.

 

Back when Reagan outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy on military hardware the US thought it was great... Now we are broke and the INSANE amount of $$$ continuing to be spent on the military goes on and on...

Oh ROG!!!!!!

 

It got results!

 

Coca Cola made millions in Germany after the wall came down, no???

 

 

 

Now for the sermon

Regarding the equipment under Reagan and since... I for one feel safer knowing what I know the money is spent for and just how good some of that equipment is. I will never forget the reaction that a team of highly paid experts/consultants were taken in to McDonald/Douglas by myself and others in St Louis back when F-15, F-18, and a few other things were being built there to talk to some mucky-mucks.

 

They were shown a lot and it was explained to them how important my business was to them and what they needed from us to better assist them. They got to see the capability of the equipment and what threats that equipment can defeat. They saw how MacDac managed their own business as well. One commented in the limo ride away was how impressive it all was and that it almost makes her want to become a Republican. I was surprised at her words and the deep realization she came to. In other words, it isn't frivolous spending. It is for better technology. Most of which winds up in your daily life a few years later as a result of the R&D you could call the military industry and NASA.

 

Over the years I got worried, like not spending to make equipment for sand in the 80s before the first gulf war, and later not spending money on gorilla training of our own forces and the equipment they need, and more espionage.

 

And I have been totally worried for years about no military along our borders and jets not armed and on alert on our soil. 911 changed the latter, now where are the basses?

 

What is done with the equipment, and good training, is another matter and political. Unfortunately I fear some needed training is or has got the ax due to our dependence on good equipment in some military areas, and budget cuts.

Edited August 12, 2008 by SheLikesME? (see edit history)

[rogerluli]

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police.

 

Back when Reagan outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy on military hardware the US thought it was great... Now we are broke and the INSANE amount of $$$ continuing to be spent on the military goes on and on...

 

See Dougie I so totally disagree with you EXCEPT for your one point...

 

 

gorilla training of our own forces and the equipment they need,

 

I think training gorillas to do our fighting is a fantastic idea and I dearly hope you get all the credit you deserve...

[sleepless in Houston&CQ]

 

 

 

gorilla training of our own forces and the equipment they need,

 

I think training gorillas to do our fighting is a fantastic idea and I dearly hope you get all the credit you deserve...

 

 

From takin bout Damn, Dams... to trainin Dam Gorillas for our armed forces..... hmmmm

 

Dam that beats all I ever heard

[IllinoisDave]

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police.

 

Back when Reagan outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy on military hardware the US thought it was great... Now we are broke and the INSANE amount of $$$ continuing to be spent on the military goes on and on...

Oh ROG!!!!!!

 

It got results!

 

Coca Cola made millions in Germany after the wall came down, no???

 

 

 

Now for the sermon

Regarding the equipment under Reagan and since... I for one feel safer knowing what I know the money is spent for and just how good some of that equipment is. I will never forget the reaction that a team of highly paid experts/consultants were taken in to McDonald/Douglas by myself and others in St Louis back when F-15, F-18, and a few other things were being built there to talk to some mucky-mucks.

 

They were shown a lot and it was explained to them how important my business was to them and what they needed from us to better assist them. They got to see the capability of the equipment and what threats that equipment can defeat. They saw how MacDac managed their own business as well. One commented in the limo ride away was how impressive it all was and that it almost makes her want to become a Republican. I was surprised at her words and the deep realization she came to. In other words, it isn't frivolous spending. It is for better technology. Most of which winds up in your daily life a few years later as a result of the R&D you could call the military industry and NASA.

 

Over the years I got worried, like not spending to make equipment for sand in the 80s before the first gulf war, and later not spending money on gorilla training of our own forces and the equipment they need, and more espionage.

 

And I have been totally worried for years about no military along our borders and jets not armed and on alert on our soil. 911 changed the latter, now where are the basses?

 

What is done with the equipment, and good training, is another matter and political. Unfortunately I fear some needed training is or has got the ax due to our dependence on good equipment in some military areas, and budget cuts.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[shushuweiwei]

I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police.

 

Back when Reagan outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy on military hardware the US thought it was great... Now we are broke and the INSANE amount of $$$ continuing to be spent on the military goes on and on...

Oh ROG!!!!!!

 

It got results!

 

Coca Cola made millions in Germany after the wall came down, no???

 

 

 

Now for the sermon

Regarding the equipment under Reagan and since... I for one feel safer knowing what I know the money is spent for and just how good some of that equipment is. I will never forget the reaction that a team of highly paid experts/consultants were taken in to McDonald/Douglas by myself and others in St Louis back when F-15, F-18, and a few other things were being built there to talk to some mucky-mucks.

 

They were shown a lot and it was explained to them how important my business was to them and what they needed from us to better assist them. They got to see the capability of the equipment and what threats that equipment can defeat. They saw how MacDac managed their own business as well. One commented in the limo ride away was how impressive it all was and that it almost makes her want to become a Republican. I was surprised at her words and the deep realization she came to. In other words, it isn't frivolous spending. It is for better technology. Most of which winds up in your daily life a few years later as a result of the R&D you could call the military industry and NASA.

 

Over the years I got worried, like not spending to make equipment for sand in the 80s before the first gulf war, and later not spending money on gorilla training of our own forces and the equipment they need, and more espionage.

 

And I have been totally worried for years about no military along our borders and jets not armed and on alert on our soil. 911 changed the latter, now where are the basses?

 

What is done with the equipment, and good training, is another matter and political. Unfortunately I fear some needed training is or has got the ax due to our dependence on good equipment in some military areas, and budget cuts.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

Yea, and I think that guy was in the army once. Maybe even some kind of big deal!

[shushuweiwei]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't recall seeing any human rights abuses on any of my visits to China. People go about their everyday lives pretty much like they do here. People in Tibet are better off than they were under self government and it's none of our business anyway. I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police. We should leave China alone. They are changing at their own pace in their own way.

 

Whether it's China or the US, I doubt that the human rights abuses are going to be going on out on the street corner for the entertainment of tourists. That one hasn't seen any abuses on their visits seems to be a pretty useless piece of data from which to draw any conclusions about China or our own country.

 

Even under the most oppressive, violent regimes people are generally going to just be going about their business day to day. The real show goes on behind the scenes and all that walks the street with the people who are going about their business is fear. Whether it is the fear that a party official will overhear and you'll be whisked off to re-education camp or the fear that someone is listening to your phone calls and you can be "rendered" to a foreign prison for a few fun filled months or years, the effect is the same. What is noted is the absence and the report of what can happen. The people's behavior is changed by it, gradually and often without them even noticing. If you ask them, all is well, life is just life, we just go about our business.

 

If the abuse was out in the open the people would notice. They would push back. The whole game relies on people saying "I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I've never seen any. It all looks normal to me."

 

Whether the regime is ostensibly communist or democratic, the game is the same. Fear is used for control and demons are created out of cultures we don't understand. The form of government is irrelevant. The whole communist vs capitalist thing is just a tool of control. If we thought rationally, we'd just use socialist techniques where those work best and capitalist where that is stronger. Neither one is perfect. Like any medication, their benefits come with a batch of possible side effects. I don't strive to find one med that will make everyone miraculously better, but to use them judiciously in the proper combination, to the greatest benefit of the patient, with the least adverse effects.

 

It is also hard for me to imagine how one declares a whole culture "better off" when that culture doesn't feel better off. On what basis does one substitute one's own definition of better off for that culture's and then ask who appointed our country to decide for the world? Doesn't that make the whole comment an oxymoron? Hopefully, you can see that the US fancies itself the world's policeman by the same reasoning that you use to insert your judgment for the Tibetan culture's own assessment of its situation. Since we know best, since we know who should feel better off and who shouldn't, why shouldn't we aggressively apply our omniscience?

 

We'll only stop being the world's policeman when people stop thinking in the way you think about Tibet. We don't know who is better off and who isn't. We should stop trying to tell people that they should feel better off...or else. The Tibetan's don't feel better off. Work with that reality.

 

I don't pretend to know what the correct course of action is for Tibet nor do I think the US should intervene in Tibet in some forceful way. I do think that the viewpoint of the Tibetans is more important than ours on whether they are "better off." That comment reminds me of people who think an abused wife shouldn't complain because she's "better off" financially and socially in the marriage so why doesn't she shut up? Why should she care about the abuse when I've declared her better off? If that woman asks for help, do we just explain to her that she appears better off by the standard we've chosen to apply, so her opinion of the situation is not important?

[pkfops]

In China, you can drive and talk on your cell without a hands free device; have a smoke with your coffee in a cafe.

 

Does democracy mean freedom?

[rogerluli]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't recall seeing any human rights abuses on any of my visits to China. People go about their everyday lives pretty much like they do here. People in Tibet are better off than they were under self government and it's none of our business anyway. I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police. We should leave China alone. They are changing at their own pace in their own way.

 

Whether it's China or the US, I doubt that the human rights abuses are going to be going on out on the street corner for the entertainment of tourists. That one hasn't seen any abuses on their visits seems to be a pretty useless piece of data from which to draw any conclusions about China or our own country.

 

Even under the most oppressive, violent regimes people are generally going to just be going about their business day to day. The real show goes on behind the scenes and all that walks the street with the people who are going about their business is fear. Whether it is the fear that a party official will overhear and you'll be whisked off to re-education camp or the fear that someone is listening to your phone calls and you can be "rendered" to a foreign prison for a few fun filled months or years, the effect is the same. What is noted is the absence and the report of what can happen. The people's behavior is changed by it, gradually and often without them even noticing. If you ask them, all is well, life is just life, we just go about our business.

 

If the abuse was out in the open the people would notice. They would push back. The whole game relies on people saying "I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I've never seen any. It all looks normal to me."

 

Whether the regime is ostensibly communist or democratic, the game is the same. Fear is used for control and demons are created out of cultures we don't understand. The form of government is irrelevant. The whole communist vs capitalist thing is just a tool of control. If we thought rationally, we'd just use socialist techniques where those work best and capitalist where that is stronger. Neither one is perfect. Like any medication, their benefits come with a batch of possible side effects. I don't strive to find one med that will make everyone miraculously better, but to use them judiciously in the proper combination, to the greatest benefit of the patient, with the least adverse effects.

 

It is also hard for me to imagine how one declares a whole culture "better off" when that culture doesn't feel better off. On what basis does one substitute one's own definition of better off for that culture's and then ask who appointed our country to decide for the world? Doesn't that make the whole comment an oxymoron? Hopefully, you can see that the US fancies itself the world's policeman by the same reasoning that you use to insert your judgment for the Tibetan culture's own assessment of its situation. Since we know best, since we know who should feel better off and who shouldn't, why shouldn't we aggressively apply our omniscience?

 

We'll only stop being the world's policeman when people stop thinking in the way you think about Tibet. We don't know who is better off and who isn't. We should stop trying to tell people that they should feel better off...or else. The Tibetan's don't feel better off. Work with that reality.

 

I don't pretend to know what the correct course of action is for Tibet nor do I think the US should intervene in Tibet in some forceful way. I do think that the viewpoint of the Tibetans is more important than ours on whether they are "better off." That comment reminds me of people who think an abused wife shouldn't complain because she's "better off" financially and socially in the marriage so why doesn't she shut up? Why should she care about the abuse when I've declared her better off? If that woman asks for help, do we just explain to her that she appears better off by the standard we've chosen to apply, so her opinion of the situation is not important?

 

SSWW this is great stuff...I am so tired of the "I NEVER SAW IT SO IT MUST NOT HAPPEN" mantra that I hear here too often. I never saw lines of men standing to murder each other in our own Civil War. I never saw the prison guards herding Jews into the ovens either...

 

And there must be a line over which any country should say...WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN...Examples like the Holocaust, Rwanda, Kosovo, etc. abound where other nations should have a say when mass murder is taking place...Other than extreme examples like these the US and every other country should just butt out...

[griz326]

 

Keep in mind, no one acted to save the US steel industry in 1957 - the year it died...it's just the carcass did not turn cold for 20 years.

Hmmm....

 

If I recall correctly, instead of investing to upgrade their own aged industry, didn't US Steel (and others) invest their earnings in non-steel diversifies and did their demise result from their non-investment?

 

 

Precisely, Dennis!

 

The great steel strike of 57-58 unified the steel industry against the steel union. My neighbor in those days was the executive secretary to the big dawg at US Steel. She told me years later that steel industry leaders agreed to stop re-investment in aging mills because the union costs were so incredibly high. Consider the graveyard shift at the mill: the union required there be 2 sweepers when there was barely enough work for one. A buddy of mine put himself through college working the graveyard shift and going to classes throughout the day. The two sweepers usually made a deal that one guy sleeps the first 4 hours and the other guy sleeps the second four. In the late 60's he was making $9/hour plus benefits as a sweeper.

 

You could blame a lot of the offshore outsourcing that exports American jobs on the success of the US Steel industry in building new mills in places where people were eager to work for good wages.

Edited August 13, 2008 by griz326 (see edit history)

[Christopher]

Unions are the specific cure to stuff like this:

 

http://ihscslnews.org/view_article.php?id=57

[warpedbored]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I don't recall seeing any human rights abuses on any of my visits to China. People go about their everyday lives pretty much like they do here. People in Tibet are better off than they were under self government and it's none of our business anyway. I'm still trying to figure out just who it was that appointed the USA as the world police. We should leave China alone. They are changing at their own pace in their own way.

 

Whether it's China or the US, I doubt that the human rights abuses are going to be going on out on the street corner for the entertainment of tourists. That one hasn't seen any abuses on their visits seems to be a pretty useless piece of data from which to draw any conclusions about China or our own country.

 

Even under the most oppressive, violent regimes people are generally going to just be going about their business day to day. The real show goes on behind the scenes and all that walks the street with the people who are going about their business is fear. Whether it is the fear that a party official will overhear and you'll be whisked off to re-education camp or the fear that someone is listening to your phone calls and you can be "rendered" to a foreign prison for a few fun filled months or years, the effect is the same. What is noted is the absence and the report of what can happen. The people's behavior is changed by it, gradually and often without them even noticing. If you ask them, all is well, life is just life, we just go about our business.

 

If the abuse was out in the open the people would notice. They would push back. The whole game relies on people saying "I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I've never seen any. It all looks normal to me."

 

Whether the regime is ostensibly communist or democratic, the game is the same. Fear is used for control and demons are created out of cultures we don't understand. The form of government is irrelevant. The whole communist vs capitalist thing is just a tool of control. If we thought rationally, we'd just use socialist techniques where those work best and capitalist where that is stronger. Neither one is perfect. Like any medication, their benefits come with a batch of possible side effects. I don't strive to find one med that will make everyone miraculously better, but to use them judiciously in the proper combination, to the greatest benefit of the patient, with the least adverse effects.

 

It is also hard for me to imagine how one declares a whole culture "better off" when that culture doesn't feel better off. On what basis does one substitute one's own definition of better off for that culture's and then ask who appointed our country to decide for the world? Doesn't that make the whole comment an oxymoron? Hopefully, you can see that the US fancies itself the world's policeman by the same reasoning that you use to insert your judgment for the Tibetan culture's own assessment of its situation. Since we know best, since we know who should feel better off and who shouldn't, why shouldn't we aggressively apply our omniscience?

 

We'll only stop being the world's policeman when people stop thinking in the way you think about Tibet. We don't know who is better off and who isn't. We should stop trying to tell people that they should feel better off...or else. The Tibetan's don't feel better off. Work with that reality.

 

I don't pretend to know what the correct course of action is for Tibet nor do I think the US should intervene in Tibet in some forceful way. I do think that the viewpoint of the Tibetans is more important than ours on whether they are "better off." That comment reminds me of people who think an abused wife shouldn't complain because she's "better off" financially and socially in the marriage so why doesn't she shut up? Why should she care about the abuse when I've declared her better off? If that woman asks for help, do we just explain to her that she appears better off by the standard we've chosen to apply, so her opinion of the situation is not important?

My views on Tibet are my own opinion based on what I have read about improvements to health care, education and the infrastructure the central govt. of China has made. Neither you nor I have any direct evidence that the people of Tibet don't appreciate these things. The main point of my post is I don't believe the US should be meddling in other countries affairs. Especially telling China how they should run their own country. China is changing at it's own pace. Can you tell me with any confidence that the people of China in general are not better off than they were 30 years ago?

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

The main point of my post is I don't believe the US should be meddling in other countries affairs. Especially telling China how they should run their own country. China is changing at it's own pace. Can you tell me with any confidence that the people of China in general are not better off than they were 30 years ago?

 

In my view, this is one of the most important observations and statements in this entire thread.

[IllinoisDave]

The main point of my post is I don't believe the US should be meddling in other countries affairs. Especially telling China how they should run their own country. China is changing at it's own pace. Can you tell me with any confidence that the people of China in general are not better off than they were 30 years ago?

 

In my view, this is one of the most important observations and statements in this entire thread.

It should be. He thought about it for a month and a half.