An amusing analogy for America

Nor the USA since Liberace. He was a Marine, right? Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

You were a fan obviously. That British sexual ambiguity and British soft handedness. Come to Texas, we'll show you how to man up.

And by the way, pick a font and stick with it. Originally Posted by Doove

Well...... FONT YOU!

There is some serious denial at work in that statement. Originally Posted by Doove

Originally Posted by Doove

I did not agree with the war. That said there is a huge difference in saying that Bush was not calculating in his approach in leading the public to support the invasion then saying he or America were like a puppy. That is rhetorical hindsight. Academia BS. If you do not think that Saddam decision to switch from Petro dollars to the Euro sealed his fate then you are not capable of following a money trail. Were there many other factors? Yes of course but we had been after this guy for years. We were way past the puppy stage.
Me questioning some two bit ( and I say two bit because no diplomat with any standing would have said in Lauren's presence what he alleged said) ambassador analysis of this country is not denial.

Me questioning some two bit ( and I say two bit because no diplomat with any standing would have said in Lauren's presence what he alleged said) ambassador analysis of this country is not denial. Originally Posted by WTF

Suggesting we lie ourselves into wars while claiming we don't act like a bull in a china shop may not fit the classic definition of denial, but it surely fits the definition of something not very good.

? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Relax. I'm not sure how the US is supporting Canada - we do just fine. . Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Military spending:

United States663,255,000,000Canada20,564,000,000

If you do not understand how you folks have piggybacked us for your own national security since the Cold War then I would expect you to laugh some silly anology concerning the US.

Bush Jr had burning desire to prove to his old man that he is just as tough. Well, turns out he was not. Obama got elected on promises to end this senseless war. Instead we are increasing troops. Why? Because to bring them home will pose very real problem of having 100s of thousands of young men with combat experience and no jobs.

Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Bush went to war to prove to his Daddy that he was a tough guy and Obama won't bring troops home because he doesn't have jobs for them here in this country?

Have you lost your mind?

First of all, WTF, I disagree that Lauren despises the US. I think she enjoys the US
. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

We can agree to disagree, I think she does and she can both enjoy the fruits of this nation and despise it at the same time.

. . But, as with most non-US citizens in the world she has definite opinions about the appropriate and non-appropriate conduct in which the US engages. Certainly, you wouldn't take the position the US is always right in everything the US does?

. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I questioned the wisdom of coming on an American dominated forum and posting what she did. She most certainly can have her opinion as can I.

I sure as hell do not think we do right all the time.

Second, I think you glossed over the fact that the ambassador was a female, so it's questionable whether or not getting in Lauren's pants was an issue. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I questioned why on the world anyone in their right mind in that position would say something like that out loud in the presence of virtual strangers. If it wasn't for sexual reason then there is no good excuse!

Without knowing who it was it is difficult to say. However, I would never find myself defending the US as NEVER being a bull in a china shop. I think, more often than not, it is. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

There is a difference between a Bull in a China cabinet randomly breaking shit and a Bull in a China cabinet breaking things they deem dangerous. So to the untrained Canadian and ME Ambassador eyes all they see is a Bull in a China cabinet. Some know better. I was not arguing that there was not a Bull in the China cabinet but that he was not as 'childish' as Lauren was making him out to be via her Ambassador story.

You were a fan obviously. That British sexual ambiguity and British soft handedness. Come to Texas, we'll show you how to man up. Originally Posted by Sa_artman

Ok, you got me. A British bum-boy.

I'm up for it so long as it's a threesome with WTF.

We can agree to disagree, Yep!!! I think she does and she can both enjoy the fruits of this nation and despise it at the same time.

There is a difference between a Bull in a China cabinet randomly breaking shit and a Bull in a China cabinet breaking things they deem dangerous. So to the untrained Canadian and ME Ambassador eyes all they see is a Bull in a China cabinet. Some know better. I was not arguing that there was not a Bull in the China cabinet but that he was not as 'childish' as Lauren was making him out to be via her Ambassador story. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, the phrase is "a bull in a china shop." A "bull in a china cabinet" is as much an impossibility as any defense of your position. To contend that a nation as big and lumbering as the US doesn't occasionally break some china is ludicrous.

I was at a private talk discussing the problem of a nuclear armed Iran, and the delicacies surrounding it's prevention.

She explained that Europe was terrified of how America would handle this. Europe looks at America like a Lab puppy in a crowded room: they get an idea that excites them, wagging their tail, obliviously knocking things over and annoying people around them. The enthusiasm makes everyone nervous, as they think decisions should be carefully thought over, and action taken in increments.

Whether true or not, I thought it was pretty funny. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

re. foreign policy towards Iran there is a pretty good article in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111303666.html

Military spending:

United States663,255,000,000Canada20,564,000,000

If you do not understand how you folks have piggybacked us for your own national security since the Cold War then I would expect you to laugh some silly anology concerning the US.




Bush went to war to prove to his Daddy that he was a tough guy and Obama won't bring troops home because he doesn't have jobs for them here in this country?

Have you lost your mind?


We can agree to disagree, I think she does and she can both enjoy the fruits of this nation and despise it at the same time.


I questioned the wisdom of coming on an American dominated forum and posting what she did. She most certainly can have her opinion as can I.

I sure as hell do not think we do right all the time.





I questioned why on the world anyone in their right mind in that position would say something like that out loud in the presence of virtual strangers. If it wasn't for sexual reason then there is no good excuse!



There is a difference between a Bull in a China cabinet randomly breaking shit and a Bull in a China cabinet breaking things they deem dangerous. So to the untrained Canadian and ME Ambassador eyes all they see is a Bull in a China cabinet. Some know better. I was not arguing that there was not a Bull in the China cabinet but that he was not as 'childish' as Lauren was making him out to be via her Ambassador story. Originally Posted by WTF

What do you suppose 100s of thousands young, able bodied males with both combat experience and PTSD will do when they go back home and face current economic situation?

We went through that experience in russia when afganistan veterans came back to country facing severe financial crisis.

Lina

What do you suppose 100s of thousands young, able bodied males with both combat experience and PTSD will do when they go back home and face current economic situation?
Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Feel sorry for all the providers who will be subject to the resulting violence.

Ok, you got me. A British bum-boy.

I'm up for it so long as it's a threesome with WTF. Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

A new twist to the threesome thread!

Actually, the phrase is "a bull in a china shop." A "bull in a china cabinet" is as much an impossibility as any defense of your position. To contend that a nation as big and lumbering as the US doesn't occasionally break some china is ludicrous. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Of course we break some China, I never said we didn't. I in fact am one of our nations biggest critics on nation building. I said breaking China that we deem in our national interest is different than WTF Lauren and her analogy implied.

Lauren analogy was that we were to impish/childish to know better. Those in power know WTF they are trying to do. To think otherwise is childish. Sometime there are no good options. You make do. Of course Europe/Canada does not like what we do all the time. We do what we think is in our best interest not what is in there's. The reverse holds true. Fuc, you guys are making me out as some stupid ass Sean Hannity.

What do you suppose 100s of thousands young, able bodied males with both combat experience and PTSD will do when they go back home and face current economic situation?

We went through that experience in russia when afganistan veterans came back to country facing severe financial crisis.

Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Is that the reason why you think Obama is amping up in Afgan? Because Russia had trouble with their returning vets from that region. With that kind of thinking a country should never bring home their troops unless the nation economy is rolling! Jesus, you should stop while you are only this far behind. That is crazy reasoning!

Feel sorry for all the providers who will be subject to the resulting violence. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Charles try not to encourage crazy thinking

Actually, Doove, so is Lauren, as are all peoples of the Western Hemisphere. North America...Central America...South America. Get it? It's the main reason that Border Patrol had to switch from asking people "Are you American?" to "Are you a US citizen?" People who were citizens of countries other than the US could honestly answer "yes" to the former question.

It's pretty damn egotistical to think the term "American" refers only to the US.

. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Let's not hide behind semantics. Right or wrong we all knew the reference was to the USA.

Yea but

For those who may not understand how may American Ambassadors “earn” those positions, read the link below. Their credentials on foreign affairs are iffy at best.



http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirl...er_for_fi.html

For those few of you who may not know, around 30 percent of American Ambassadors “earn” those positions through patronage. They buy these usually cushy European, Canadian and Caribbean posts by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a Presidential candidate’s election bid. It used to be that the spare change came out of an individual’s pocket, but more recently the key has been successful campaign fund-raising among the party faithful. George Mascolo’s “Embassies for Sale: Want to Become Bush’s Next Ambassador?” in the June 27 Der Spiegel reminded me once again of the pitfalls of this quaint, largely made-in-the USA custom Originally Posted by WTF

Third, I agree with you about the questionable aspect of "ambassadors'" credentials. Most are appointed as a political "thankyou" for contributing to the president's campaign. Having said that, I not naive enough to think that all ambassadors are ignorant. Some are quite talented (though it may be a definite minority). Without knowing who it was it is difficult to say. However, I would never find myself defending the US as NEVER being a bull in a china shop. I think, more often than not, it is. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

This is not unique to Ambassadors. Nearly every political appointment is the same, whether it is a University or Public Foundation Board. Univerisity Trustees, as an example aren't all experts on higher education. But as Charles points out they are ignorant or idiots. Afterall they have to have some savvy to figure out how to curry favor with the politician or come up with the bucks to do so (and even the ones that inherit their fortune, in my experience aren't complete fools, particularly the ones with an interest in public service, even if I disagree with their views).

But the ambassadorships seem to hold great appeal to some. You get a cool title, a place to live, a personal staff without the rigor of actually being responsible for much.

. Afterall they have to have some savvy to figure out how to curry favor with the politician or come up with the bucks to do so (and even the ones that inherit their fortune, in my experience aren't complete fools, particularly the ones with an interest in public service, even if I disagree with their views).

. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

That is why I limited what I said about them in regard to their foreign affairs views. Some were trying to spotlight that is was an Ambassador that said the puppy dog crap. All I was saying that in this instance it was bunk, especially considering the context.

I wonder if they ever thought it would be being discussed on an national escort board. Now that a funny thought!

For those who may not understand how may American Ambassadors “earn” those positions, read the link below. Their credentials on foreign affairs are iffy at best.

Originally Posted by WTF

Is that the reason why you think Obama is amping up in Afgan? Because Russia had trouble with their returning vets from that region. With that kind of thinking a country should never bring home their troops unless the nation economy is rolling! Jesus, you should stop while you are only this far behind. That is crazy reasoning!

Charles try not to encourage crazy thinking Originally Posted by WTF

Yeah, Lina, that we are prolonging a war because we don't know what to do with our returning soldiers is just plain nutz.

That is why I limited what I said about them in regard to their foreign affairs views. Some were trying to spotlight that is was an Ambassador that said the puppy dog crap. All I was saying that in this instance it was bunk, especially considering the context.

I wonder if they ever thought it would be being discussed on an national escort board. Now that a funny thought! Originally Posted by WTF

I understand. The good news is they aren't the ones creating or for that matter even implementing foreign policy. All they have to do is be reasonably competent at managing an organization (the onsite staff), present a postive image for the home country, and avoid a gaffe (like a comment in poor taste made at a cocktail party). You don't need to be a policy wonk to do this.

I'll contrast this with my earlier example about Higher Education, where Trustees/Regents actually make/approve policy.

Yeah, Lina, that we are prolonging a war because we don't know what to do with our returning soldiers is just plain nutz. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I don't think Lina was saying that, nor did I agree with such a sentiment. I think what Lina was saying was that we'll have a hell of a problem here when all our service men get back, a lot of whom will be disabled vets and some of whom (maybe a great number) will have PTSD. And to be faced with the current economy will be a double-whammy. And my point, stated in an abbreviated manner was: when we have a multitude of unemployed vets, some of whom may be unemployable, who can't find jobs, and are subjected to less than a living wage in benefits, then even trying to get a little nookie might enrage them. Dangerous situation for our beloved providers.

What are we going to do? Tell them to "man up?"