An amusing analogy for America

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. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Now we are getting even more "nutz""/"misguided" than Ms. Lina....

Yes, so long as there is a demand/need for soldiers, the military will advertise any attractive benefit they can -- much like any other advertiser -- and clearly employment is a good thing to have.....

But if you really think there is some grand conspiracy to prolong the war for fear of what may happen to returning soldiers, doesn't it at least make sense to not enlarge the problem by recruiting for more soldiers you have to bring home?

L -you typically are pretty logical...you really buy the argument that our leaders/Obama won't leave because of soldier reentry problems???? I'll prehaps give credence to political concerns, but not reentry concerns.

BTW, the military has long been billed as an avenue for gainful employment for a young person with few (no) other options...the overtness of the advertising may have changed but not the substance...but then again all of our advertising is more overt...so it really isn't that surprising

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!"


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. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Ok let me get this straight. We are hiring more and more folks to go to war to lower unemployment numbers in this country, just waiting for the jobs picture to become better before we bring them back? Gotcha.

Did you and Lina take L Summers place on Obama's economic team?

Bad countries are like children.....they will push the boundries until someone smacks them. EU countries are like modern day parents that think corporal punishment is unnecessary and that love and tolerance tempered with guilt will make a bad child good. Never has worked since the beginning of time.

The US stays strong partly because of the economy at times being fueled by the military might of this country. I had much rather build a tank than give it away as welfare. At least someone worked to get the money and I can sell a used tank to someone in 40 years. I don't get shit in return for welfare.

Someone has to do it. Someone has to remain strong in this world of bullies and problem "children". Every bully has an arch rival that they are scared of. Without it the bully becomes a tyrant. Check your history. Always been wars.....especially religious wars....always will be till the end of time. Turf wars, economic wars, philosophical wars....those are the easy ones. Religious wars are near impossible to win.

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. Originally Posted by Camille

well as an ambassador you are still allowed to have an own personal opinion, as long as it's private and off record. If more than one person is present does not matter.

Also she as a (former) ME diplomat, said something out of severe frustration / fear / hopelessness / resignation.

Lauren liked the puppy analogy of it, and finds it funny and posts it here on this board.

Avatars on this board get the impression US and EU have a diplomatic spat over Iran.
(Something that is actually absurd, as you have correctly pointed out in an earlier posting.)

(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.) Originally Posted by ..

Since I was asked in PMs to clarify -- all I say is here I'm avatar .. and as such my comments are per se opinionated bullshit.

Now however since many seem not to know it, so plain facts:

a) The UK does have an embassy in Tehran. (Hence is in a much better position than the US.) And the British are realistic: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-...th-africa/iran

b) The US is formally represented via the Swiss
http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/...rn/fosteh.html

c) When the going gets tough like in the recent case of "Roxana Saberi", the Swiss rely on the Austrians. (Just ask Roxana who actually bailed her out, certainly not Hillary and US relations.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_203851.html

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. Originally Posted by Laurentius

I think we ought to bring the troops home and post them along the Mexican border. Mexico has lots of oil. (So do we, but that is another rant.)

a) The UK does have an embassy in Tehran. (Hence is in a much better position than the US.) And the British are realistic: Originally Posted by ..

Speaking of realistic...When the two countries have something in common they had no trouble working together off the record. Russia and Iran were our covert allies when invading Afganastan. Iran especially did not care for the Taliban and had no problem working with us on that invasion.

well as an ambassador you are still allowed to have an own personal opinion, as long as it's private and off record. If more than one person is present does not matter.

Also she as a (former) ME diplomat, said something out of severe frustration / fear / hopelessness / resignation.

Originally Posted by ..

Two things....if Lauren was privy to a off the record comment it should have not wound up on this forum. Also I question any ambassador judgment that would say such a thing in Lauren presence because of the very fact that it wound up on a internet message board......unless of course you subscribe to the theory that a diplomat should not regulate their stream of thought. In which case he should get another job title!

Lauren liked the puppy analogy of it, and finds it funny and posts it here on this board.
Originally Posted by ..

Now if Lauren thinks it funny enough to come on here and post in a manner, -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- she might be able to see the irony and take into account, -The enthusiasm makes everyone nervous, as they think decisions should be carefully thought over, and action taken in increments.-

Might I add -Whether true or not, I thought it pretty funny-

There that ought to complete the circle!

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

I think we ought to bring the troops home and post them along the Mexican border. Mexico has lots of oil. (So do we, but that is another rant.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

I emphatically agree.

Sorry you missed this repartee. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I didn't miss it Charles. I just saw no reason to intrude.

I think we ought to bring the troops home and post them along the Mexican border. Mexico has lots of oil. (So do we, but that is another rant.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Word!!

I think we ought to bring the troops home and post them along the Mexican border. Mexico has lots of oil. (So do we, but that is another rant.) Originally Posted by pjorourke

Can you explain that? Is it to keep Mexicans out or preparation for an invasion to take their oil?

The US stays strong partly because of the economy at times being fueled by the military might of this country. I had much rather build a tank than give it away as welfare. At least someone worked to get the money and I can sell a used tank to someone in 40 years. I don't get shit in return for welfare. Originally Posted by Introuble

Which welfare programme involves handing out tanks?

Could you really sell a used tank? Do you mean a victorious used one as opposed to deployed-as-a-deterrent-but-unused one, because you surely can't mean a used-but-bust-by-my-enemies one.

Indeed, it could easily be argued that tanks represent the ultimate job creation welfare programme. A tank deployed to deter (the success of which is an unproveable proposition) but which was never fired in anger is, from some perspectives, less 'useful' than other direct welfare payments. It costs lots to service, has no alternative use (they don't make good ornaments) and requires lots of servicing thorugh its life.

Expensive military assets often represent dreadful RoI when measured by their actual utility under attack. We learned that in Ulster, you did likewise on 9/11. The best military in Europe couldn't contain, what, 500 dedicated Republican terrorists (not the Tea Party) over a thirty year struggle. The best radar, combat planes and intelligence systems couldn't stop determined men with box cutters.

Expensive military assets often represent dreadful RoI when measured by their actual utility under attack. . Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Agreed but it is hard to measure the value of peace. In other words without a tanks presence, how would one protect a nations assets?
What value would a bank be if it did not protect itself from robbers?
On the flip side why would anyone rob a bank if the robbery cost more to plan than the bank had funds?
There is something to be said for mutual destruction and its deterrence.
The last twenty years have seen shifts by the rest of the world to balance our singular dominance. Probably a good thing in the end but no suprising that there would be a little China broken along the way.

Two things....if Lauren was privy to a off the record comment it should have not wound up on this forum. Also I question any ambassador judgment that would say such a thing in Lauren presence because of the very fact that it wound up on a internet message board......unless of course you subscribe to the theory that a diplomat should not regulate their stream of thought. In which case he should get another job title!
Originally Posted by WTF

I was not there but have a decent idea of the venue for the talk and it would have been an invited lecture but certainly would not qualify as off-the-record.

Former ambassadors have the leeway to say many things; current ambassadors should be toeing the administration's line when they make comments.

I was not there but have a decent idea of the venue for the talk and it would have been an invited lecture but certainly would not qualify as off-the-record.
Originally Posted by discreetgent

Well it seemed to have been presented in a different light.
Private and the US Ambassador were empathized, if inadvertently , had they not been so, I am sure this point of contention would be moot.
Lauren may need to be a bit more careful in her presentation of events next time, before personally starting WWIII.

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

The person making this comment was a US ambassador. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Former ambassadors have the leeway to say many things; current ambassadors should be toeing the administration's line when they make comments. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yes agreed...and knowing an Ambassadors credentials that is commenting is also critical. What with some being career diplomats and others being figure head political favors to large donors it is important to know who said what about matters. So far it appears, if what you say is true, that Lauren inadvertently has presented things in a misleading light and and left out any info that could help us better understand just where this former Ambassador stands on the political spectrum. I can get that same spin on MSNBC and at least know who said what! LOL