An amusing analogy for America

Yes but Lauren, I think you are missing the point.
Of course nations rib one another about stupid stuff like that BUT the BIG difference in this instance is that it was a US Ambassador that said it.. Originally Posted by Camille

well the US Ambassador said that clearly in a personal, private, off-record comment. in so far she acted correctly.

WHY she said that is also understandable given the current situation in Central Asia.

As for the US Ambassador that hopes on EU diplomacy or Lauren's hope on the Israeli, I just can say good luck.

(The Austrians and Swiss are the ones who actually try to negotiate with the Iran on behalf of the US / EU. To be honest one can not even call it negotiations, it's just a disaster.)

well the US Ambassador said that clearly in a personal, private, off-record comment Originally Posted by ..

Lauren said that she was "at" a private talk...not having a private talk with the US Amb. That suggests multiple people were present. In such a situation an Ambassador should have the gravitas to realize that when they are not dealing with diplomats etc they need to be VERY careful what they say. We're not talking about a sports and social club ambassador discussing failed strategy..this is a (former)US Ambassador talking about Iran. Does the delicacy of someone needing to be very careful in that situation REALLY need pointing out? The role this woman played as former ambassador is obviously of some importance to this meeting otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned. If it was such a private off the record conversation as you suggest I highly doubt Lauren would have posted it on an internet board. The talk might have been private for whatever reasons but the content obviously isn't. Regardless, my thoughts on what this woman said still stand.

C

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?" Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

What you said :-). Of course there are 100s of reasons why we are still maintaining our presence in various war zones.

But we cannot completely disregard the fact that as of today USA does not have any idea how to deal with sudden influx of unemployed men that will happen should we bring these guys back.

By the way, one of most prized accomplishments of usa is freedom of speech. Freedom to express one's opinions without being called crazy or nutz or labeled as anti-establishement.


Lina

By the way, one of most prized accomplishments of usa is freedom of speech. Freedom to express one's opinions without being called crazy or nutz or labeled as anti-establishement.


Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

Freedom of speech is a two way street Lina. If I say something crazy then I would expect someone to call me out on it. THat is how it works in this country. Saying that we keep troops in harms way overseas because there may not be jobs for them when they return is not a rational thought. I highly doubt that is a conversation that occurs in the top tier level of our government.

Lauren said that she was "at" a private talk...not having a private talk with the US Amb. That suggests multiple people were present. In such a situation an Ambassador should have the gravitas to realize that when they are not dealing with diplomats etc they need to be VERY careful what they say. We're not talking about a sports and social club ambassador discussing failed strategy..this is a (former)US Ambassador talking about Iran. Does the delicacy of someone needing to be very careful in that situation REALLY need pointing out? The role this woman played as former ambassador is obviously of some importance to this meeting otherwise it wouldn't have been mentioned. If it was such a private off the record conversation as you suggest I highly doubt Lauren would have posted it on an internet board. The talk might have been private for whatever reasons but the content obviously isn't. Regardless, my thoughts on what this woman said still stand.

C Originally Posted by Camille

I too do not know the context of this "private" conversation/talk/meeting, but if it truly was private can I suggest posting its contents on an internet message board may not be prudent.

I hear a lot of funny/provocative things, as I'm sure most of us do, but discretion doesn't permit me sharing here with all my friends.

In this case I don't think discretion is warranted because candidly I've heard the same reference/analogy about US Foreign Policy and a baby lab more than once. I have no idea who the real originator is of the line but I doubt it was the Ambassador.

What you said :-). Of course there are 100s of reasons why we are still maintaining our presence in various war zones.

But we cannot completely disregard the fact that as of today USA does not have any idea how to deal with sudden influx of unemployed men that will happen should we bring these guys back.

By the way, one of most prized accomplishments of usa is freedom of speech. Freedom to express one's opinions without being called crazy or nutz or labeled as anti-establishement.


Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

No, it is freedom of speech that allows me to read your POV and then respond by calling it nutz (which it is).

You got to express yourself...I get to express myself...that's how it works...

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you get to spew garbage and not have anyone critique it, it just protects your right to spew it...

No, it is freedom of speech that allows me to read your POV and then respond by calling it nutz (which it is).

You got to express yourself...I get to express myself...that's how it works...

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you get to spew garbage and not have anyone critique it, it just protects your right to spew it... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Precisely what I was going to say. The First Amendment protects you from being imprisoned, but not from being criticized on an internet escort forum.

It amused me when that California beauty queen Carrie Prejean tried to make arguments about the First Amendment and how she still should have won Miss USA even though she gave a homophobic (not to mention horribly inarticulate) answer to the pageant's "final question." Beauty pageants are, incidentally, another thing not mentioned in the First Amendment.

Beauty pageants are, incidentally, another thing not mentioned in the First Amendment. Originally Posted by Natalie

Obviously an oversight.

I hope the Donald doesn't read that.

Is the Internet causing us to read more and know less? Boys and girls, facts are important. From them we can cobble together information, with hard work we can sometimes get to real knowledge, and from knowledge we can perhaps acquire a little wisdom. Uninformed opinion is nothing more than guesswork.

My suggestion to all of you, except Lauren and PJ, is to actually read The Ugly American (who was so called because of his physical appearance), take a look at the stream of now famous NY Times letters discussing the limits of common sense, look at the ocean of material in Political Science Quarterly and any other PS journal on the development of US foreign policy at the end of WW I and the Wilson era, and even some recent historical potboilers like Franklin and Winston. Read things based on scholarly research, based in scientific methodology. Skip reading opinions, just for a while.

PJ is always excused from criticism because he is genuinely funny. Lauren is excused by me for anything because she is a ravishing, thoughtful autodidact and I want her to post forever, even when she is as old as I.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you get to spew garbage and not have anyone critique it, it just protects your right to spew it... Originally Posted by atlcomedy

There is fundamental difference between disagreeing with someone's opinion and calling them "nutz".

We may disagree on various subject without resorting to personal attacks.

Lina

No one called you nutz...I said the idea that America is prolonging a war because they don't know what to do with returning soldiers is nutz....

What would you have preferred me call your idea? stupid, idiotic, misguided, clueless, moronic????? I could go on and on.....

[to the supermod...to be clear I am attacking her idea...not her....]

No one called you nutz...I said the idea that America is prolonging a war because they don't know what to do with returning soldiers is nutz....

What would you have preferred me call your idea? stupid, idiotic, misguided, clueless, moronic????? I could go on and on.....

[to the supermod...to be clear I am attacking her idea...not her....] Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Do I get to vote? In that case I'll take "misguided"


Lina

Sorry you missed this repartee.

Is the Internet causing us to read more and know less? Originally Posted by jdean208

Maybe but is also a useful source for one to counter bogus or misleading claims such as yours below:

My suggestion to all of you, except Lauren and PJ, is to actually read The Ugly American (who was so called because of his physical appearance), . Originally Posted by jdean208

''The title is actually a double entendre, referring both to the physically unattractive hero, Homer Atkins, and to the ugly behavior of the American government employees.''

''The book describes the United States's losing struggle against Communism - what was later to be called the battle for hearts and minds in Southeast Asia, because of innate arrogance and the failure to understand the local culture.

Read things based on scholarly research, based in scientific methodology. Skip reading opinions, just for a while. Originally Posted by jdean208

You ask us to skip reading opinions...Yet close your post with the opinion below. Intresting.

. Lauren is excused by me for anything because she is a ravishing, thoughtful autodidact and I want her to post forever, even when she is as old as I. Originally Posted by jdean208

I guess an Ugly American just like a Beautiful Canadian is truly in the eye of the beholder.

Do I get to vote? In that case I'll take "misguided"


Lina Originally Posted by Sensual Lina

LOL, now that was funny!

See Lina we are ALL a little nutz, funny, dramatic, sexy... all rolled into one at different points in time!

For what it is worth, I saw a sign today beside the road. It was an advertisement for the National Guard. It said: "Unemployed? We're hiring!"

When the advertisements for military service presume the applicant may be unemployed; while I am quite certain it is far from the only or even a primary consideration, I don't believe Lina's idea is at all far-fetched. After all, it is clear that at least in terms of recruiting, unemployment is considered.

Furthermore, our wars are run by politicians. And if there is one thing that the Administration is watching like a hawk because it spells the difference between a second term and a one-term presidency ... it is the unemployment rate. If bringing our troops home would substantively affect our unemployment rate, it might not be politically feasible until after the next election.

Do I think that is the primary reason we are there? No. I think there are many reasons. Safeguarding of oil supply just prior to Peak Oil is a likely reason. "Remaking the middle east" to make it more friendly to U.S. companies -- especially agribusiness -- is likely another. After all, one of the first laws passed in the New Iraq pertained to respecting U.S. intellectual property such as patents. And, of course, we have an ally in that region, so it would be crazy to believe we would be there if we thought it would hurt Israel -- so we likely believe our policies in the region will aid our ally.

But along with this, I don't think Lina's idea is crazy -- simply because I see military recruiting signs advertising employment. So it is an aspect of military service of which the upper echelons are aware.