"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
Sam Adams
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
The king has landed (or will be landing shortly). obama is going to give a speech in Egypt this week, an address to the muslim people. 3,000 united states secret service personal will be working around the clock to protect the president. They will be supported by the CIA and the FBI (question on why the FBI is there, are they not only for domestic crimes?) They will also have at their disposal armored vehicles, white house helicopters, and counter-terror weapons. With the help of 30,000 Egyptian military, they will block sections of the Nile River and streets in Cairo. The secret service is not going to tell any Egyptian officials about the route obama will be taking to the university. all this to protect one man. even just by itself it seems a little over-the-top and overkill for just one man. granted he is the president of the us in a muslim country, but still. a force of over 33,000 troops is a lot, at one point in the war in afgan there weren't that many troops. but you may still think, well he is the president. but what if, the united states was egypt and obama was Putin. Putin was planning a speech to the american People in washington dc. ahead of him he sent 3,000 of his personal guard supported by ex KGB and secret police from russia. He transported armored vehicles and other high-end weapons. In addition he didn't tell the pentagon where he was going, just in case if information leaked. That is what you call an invasion. if i was muslim or even just egyptian i would be wondering why this guy is surrounding himself with weapons, but then he talks about peace. That seems like obama is sending them a mix signal. i know he is the president but the fact that he has so many people all working to make sure no one gets in his way and no one gets close to him, how can he be of the People and for the People? he visited new york this weekend, which the cost of just traveling from dc to ny was 24,000. Streets were blocked off disrupting traffic. (a side note, this was a complaint many french people had about the wealthy leading up to the revolution. it was in fact a very big complaint, and once the revolution began it was one of the first issues on the table) obama went to a play and he told the actors that he wanted to go backstage, but the ss wouldn't let him. how can he be for the People? I'm not poking at obama, bush did the same. bush took vacations when he should have been working, and did that speech on the aircraft carrier, which i'm sure cost some money. the president is so detached from the Public, he can't even get close to them anymore. On of the actors is quoted in saying with much praise, that he felt like the king had arrived to see the play. king? i think that says it all.
i would agree with you that this would be insulting to the egyptian and muslim people if he brought a huge posse, etc, etc. But since he has done that in conjunction with the egyptian military it is not. It would not be insulting if NBA all star team (that is not meant as an arrogant metaphor for america, but for the eliteness of the secret service which i was going to abbreviate SS but for some reason i couldn't do it) asked you to play with them. The vast majority of the troops being used here are egyptian, local troops.
If Putin came, bringing 3,000 of his men along and having a secret itinerary, i think, yes, there would be some serious backlash. But if came and asked for us to aid in his protection with 30,000 troops because coming to america was a political and personal risk, i just can't see the insult in that.
That being said, the muslim world/middle east/rush limbaugh is already pissed at us so they may not even need anything to be insulted by. reason is out the window and passion takes over to evaluate the situation and in that case, sure, they might be insulted. we'll see what happens.
ok, i'm starting a new one! i'm late on the open post monday but here:
is our government so perfect that we need to strong arm other contries into adopting our government? Why is it we feel we need to use adopting democratic principles as a negotiating tool?
I think the theory behind it is, that if someone shares the same style of government or principles it is less likely for you to go to war with them. However, this is a very cold war way of thinking. The soviets wanted more communists, and the americans wanted more democratic style. so when small countries were in the line of fire between them both america wanted each country to be a democratic style government. post-war germany, the idea was to demilitarize, denazify, deindustrialize, and democracy, (democracy was really the only one that the us was able to do) now that the cold war has ended, i see this negotiating tool as a way of expanding the american empire. it has turned into something simular to a religious movement. along with strong arming other countries to adopt our government we also strong arm them into the way we think and reason. in obama's speech in egypt today he said when talking about governments "that (they) reflect the will of the people." And yet, he said, "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." when imperialism started in 16th century there was the idea of the 3 Gs; Gold, God and Glory. america still wants the gold, and america still wants the glory, but in place of god they put democratic prinicples. we're just an imperialistic nation, so i see america acting like a normal imperialistic nation. we're playing the role.
I happy to hear you say that. I think it is very honest and i appreciate that. Most of the time conservatives (and i don't mean to lump you in with all that comes with that moniker) will try to defend our religious zeal for democracy with some smoke and mirrors about protecting the rights of the people of the country or something. I do think that it can be very complicated when we do legitimately want to protect the rights of the people of the world as well as protect against human rights abuses.
What got me fired up about it was an article i read yesterday about the OAS and bringing Cuba back into it. They had some meeting about it to decide if the OAS was going to let Cuba back in but the US said it would not support any motion to bring Cuba back in unless they adopt democratic principles which would seem to be taking a step backwards as far as repairing the diplomatic relationships there go. (Cuba says it doesn't actually want to be back in the OAS which is a whole different issue. I don't understand why they are deciding to let them back in if Cuba doesn't even want to be in the OAS!) Anyways, it frustrates me becuase i feel like there is so much political damage done when we use democracy as a negotiating tool. Its condescending and, like you said, imperialistic. Welp, there's my rant.
that's so imperialistic for the OAS to say, 'oh cuba should join' even if cuba doesn't want to join. they don't even care what cuba says, as if cuba's desires don't matter. on the flip side, the US not allowing cuba in is just stupid. it was less than a decade after WWII when we pushed the germans (even though the germans didn't want to) to rebuild their military, because it benifited us not them. the US is just too hands on, in the world and it gets a little annoying. i think the best government of them all (I asked a talking mirror that question) is a republic. but there are different variations of a republic, in addition a republic may not be the best for everyone. swizterland is a direct democracy, and it works because there is only a few people living there and the land is small. a direct democracy here in the US would be the worse. A monarchy in norway and britian work because they hold on to the traditions of the nation and it helps bring the people of the nation together. I would even say if you had a country of just a few thousand communism would work, but for a few million or a few hundred million, not really. all that to say is, societies should build their own governments, not governments build societies. a government is a product of the People and situtions surrounding those People. but very nice rant and good observation. the US sees cuba as almost a pet, you could almost group all of latin america as the US's pet or kid sister. That's the wrong way to look at it, i think.
The king has landed (or will be landing shortly). obama is going to give a speech in Egypt this week, an address to the muslim people. 3,000 united states secret service personal will be working around the clock to protect the president. They will be supported by the CIA and the FBI (question on why the FBI is there, are they not only for domestic crimes?) They will also have at their disposal armored vehicles, white house helicopters, and counter-terror weapons. With the help of 30,000 Egyptian military, they will block sections of the Nile River and streets in Cairo. The secret service is not going to tell any Egyptian officials about the route obama will be taking to the university. all this to protect one man. even just by itself it seems a little over-the-top and overkill for just one man. granted he is the president of the us in a muslim country, but still. a force of over 33,000 troops is a lot, at one point in the war in afgan there weren't that many troops.
ReplyDeletebut you may still think, well he is the president. but what if, the united states was egypt and obama was Putin. Putin was planning a speech to the american People in washington dc. ahead of him he sent 3,000 of his personal guard supported by ex KGB and secret police from russia. He transported armored vehicles and other high-end weapons. In addition he didn't tell the pentagon where he was going, just in case if information leaked. That is what you call an invasion.
if i was muslim or even just egyptian i would be wondering why this guy is surrounding himself with weapons, but then he talks about peace. That seems like obama is sending them a mix signal.
i know he is the president but the fact that he has so many people all working to make sure no one gets in his way and no one gets close to him, how can he be of the People and for the People? he visited new york this weekend, which the cost of just traveling from dc to ny was 24,000. Streets were blocked off disrupting traffic. (a side note, this was a complaint many french people had about the wealthy leading up to the revolution. it was in fact a very big complaint, and once the revolution began it was one of the first issues on the table) obama went to a play and he told the actors that he wanted to go backstage, but the ss wouldn't let him. how can he be for the People? I'm not poking at obama, bush did the same. bush took vacations when he should have been working, and did that speech on the aircraft carrier, which i'm sure cost some money. the president is so detached from the Public, he can't even get close to them anymore. On of the actors is quoted in saying with much praise, that he felt like the king had arrived to see the play. king? i think that says it all.
i would agree with you that this would be insulting to the egyptian and muslim people if he brought a huge posse, etc, etc. But since he has done that in conjunction with the egyptian military it is not. It would not be insulting if NBA all star team (that is not meant as an arrogant metaphor for america, but for the eliteness of the secret service which i was going to abbreviate SS but for some reason i couldn't do it) asked you to play with them. The vast majority of the troops being used here are egyptian, local troops.
ReplyDeleteIf Putin came, bringing 3,000 of his men along and having a secret itinerary, i think, yes, there would be some serious backlash. But if came and asked for us to aid in his protection with 30,000 troops because coming to america was a political and personal risk, i just can't see the insult in that.
That being said, the muslim world/middle east/rush limbaugh is already pissed at us so they may not even need anything to be insulted by. reason is out the window and passion takes over to evaluate the situation and in that case, sure, they might be insulted. we'll see what happens.
ok, i'm starting a new one! i'm late on the open post monday but here:
ReplyDeleteis our government so perfect that we need to strong arm other contries into adopting our government? Why is it we feel we need to use adopting democratic principles as a negotiating tool?
I think the theory behind it is, that if someone shares the same style of government or principles it is less likely for you to go to war with them. However, this is a very cold war way of thinking. The soviets wanted more communists, and the americans wanted more democratic style. so when small countries were in the line of fire between them both america wanted each country to be a democratic style government. post-war germany, the idea was to demilitarize, denazify, deindustrialize, and democracy, (democracy was really the only one that the us was able to do) now that the cold war has ended, i see this negotiating tool as a way of expanding the american empire. it has turned into something simular to a religious movement. along with strong arming other countries to adopt our government we also strong arm them into the way we think and reason.
ReplyDeletein obama's speech in egypt today he said when talking about governments "that (they) reflect the will of the people." And yet, he said, "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."
when imperialism started in 16th century there was the idea of the 3 Gs; Gold, God and Glory. america still wants the gold, and america still wants the glory, but in place of god they put democratic prinicples. we're just an imperialistic nation, so i see america acting like a normal imperialistic nation. we're playing the role.
I happy to hear you say that. I think it is very honest and i appreciate that. Most of the time conservatives (and i don't mean to lump you in with all that comes with that moniker) will try to defend our religious zeal for democracy with some smoke and mirrors about protecting the rights of the people of the country or something. I do think that it can be very complicated when we do legitimately want to protect the rights of the people of the world as well as protect against human rights abuses.
ReplyDeleteWhat got me fired up about it was an article i read yesterday about the OAS and bringing Cuba back into it. They had some meeting about it to decide if the OAS was going to let Cuba back in but the US said it would not support any motion to bring Cuba back in unless they adopt democratic principles which would seem to be taking a step backwards as far as repairing the diplomatic relationships there go. (Cuba says it doesn't actually want to be back in the OAS which is a whole different issue. I don't understand why they are deciding to let them back in if Cuba doesn't even want to be in the OAS!) Anyways, it frustrates me becuase i feel like there is so much political damage done when we use democracy as a negotiating tool. Its condescending and, like you said, imperialistic. Welp, there's my rant.
that's so imperialistic for the OAS to say, 'oh cuba should join' even if cuba doesn't want to join. they don't even care what cuba says, as if cuba's desires don't matter. on the flip side, the US not allowing cuba in is just stupid. it was less than a decade after WWII when we pushed the germans (even though the germans didn't want to) to rebuild their military, because it benifited us not them. the US is just too hands on, in the world and it gets a little annoying.
ReplyDeletei think the best government of them all (I asked a talking mirror that question) is a republic. but there are different variations of a republic, in addition a republic may not be the best for everyone. swizterland is a direct democracy, and it works because there is only a few people living there and the land is small. a direct democracy here in the US would be the worse. A monarchy in norway and britian work because they hold on to the traditions of the nation and it helps bring the people of the nation together. I would even say if you had a country of just a few thousand communism would work, but for a few million or a few hundred million, not really. all that to say is, societies should build their own governments, not governments build societies. a government is a product of the People and situtions surrounding those People.
but very nice rant and good observation. the US sees cuba as almost a pet, you could almost group all of latin america as the US's pet or kid sister. That's the wrong way to look at it, i think.