VisorCentral.com - America's leaders are hypocrites.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- America's leaders are hypocrites. (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=17643)

Posted by VTL on 08-21-2001 06:48 AM:

The reason Japan and Switzerland and other states are able to flourish economically (at one time or another) without being a "superpower" is because the good old US of A is carrying the load. Same for the Europeans.

Indeed, most commentators chocked up Japan's early economic success to the fact that they did not need to maintain as robust a defense establishment because the US acted as a guarantor for regional stability. If the US went bye-bye, or downgraded their military significantly, Japan would have had to spend far more to prepare for possible threats from China (today) or the old USSR say 10 years ago. The presence of U.S. troops and its nuclear umbrella spared Japan that burden - not to mention the fact that McArthur rammed a pacifist constitution down their throat after the war.

I guess what I'm saying is you don't have to be a superpower to have a vibrant economy, but it sure helps to have a more-or-less friendly one as your ally.

Posted by Toby on 08-21-2001 02:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Your focusing on specifics.

No, I'm focusing on foundations. It's really impossible to say how well or how poorly somewhere is doing unless you're living there. Quite honestly, I think even trying to say how well a country of the size of the US is doing is a bit specious considering the number of subentities that are encompassed (but then I live in America's Banana Republic, so...).

quote:
My point - which still holds - is that being a superpower is not a necessity for economic security.

That's a strawman. Who ever said that it was?

quote:
You misread my post. I never said it wasn't hypocritical. I said that we shouldn't ignore criticism, regardless of hypocrisy.

Your points are getting as clear as mud then.

quote:
In your example, the hypocrisy is obvious. That doesn't invalidate their criticism. It only put into question their motivation.

Their hypocrisy doesn't necessarily invalidate the criticism, but it doesn't necessarily stand that the criticism is valid. Ultimately, we live in a country where the people decide what is right or wrong through their representatives. Currently, those representatives (and by implication, the people) have decided that in certain cases, being convicted of certain crimes carries the penalty of death. This is quite allowable under our system of government as long as the provisions of the fifth amendment are not violated. If you think that should be changed, then make a case for changing it. Don't try to back into it by calling 'hypocrisy'. Make a case for why it's wrong. I don't recall seeing that yet.

quote:
Part and parcel? Maybe. But it is possible to understand the passage w/o considering magnitude - and that's the idea I was trying to get across.

By 'part and parcel', I mean that magnitude is integral to the meaning. If it wasn't, it would say something more along the lines of "why do you point out the mote of dust in your brother's eye, when you've got a mote in your own?" The whole point of the passage is that one shouldn't point out the problems of others when one's own problems are so much more significant.

Posted by Toby on 08-21-2001 02:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by VTL
I guess what I'm saying is you don't have to be a superpower to have a vibrant economy, but it sure helps to have a more-or-less friendly one as your ally.

Not only an ally, but one which apparently had no problems with a trade balance tipped strongly in favor of the non-'superpower'. Everybody seems to want to ***** about how much the US consumes. Maybe we should stop consuming all those foreign goods and see what happens to the world economy?

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-21-2001 03:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
That's a strawman. Who ever said that it was?

I did. In response to the comment that without a large military budget, we wouldn't be a superpower.

quote:
Your points are getting as clear as mud then.

To you.

quote:
Their hypocrisy doesn't necessarily invalidate the criticism, but it doesn't necessarily stand that the criticism is valid. Ultimately, we live in a country where the people decide what is right or wrong through their representatives. Currently, those representatives (and by implication, the people) have decided that in certain cases, being convicted of certain crimes carries the penalty of death. This is quite allowable under our system of government as long as the provisions of the fifth amendment are not violated. If you think that should be changed, then make a case for changing it. Don't try to back into it by calling 'hypocrisy'. Make a case for why it's wrong. I don't recall seeing that yet.

I agree that the criticism may not be valid. Hence the comment about 'considering their criticism.' That may also explain your confusion regarding measuring ourselves by another's yardstick. My point to this thread was to point out hypocrisy by America's leaders, not start a debate on the merits of the death penalty, abortions, teen pregnancy, or military spending. It was a general complaint that voters have no idea what their electors are doing.

quote:
By 'part and parcel', I mean that magnitude is integral to the meaning. If it wasn't, it would say something more along the lines of "why do you point out the mote of dust in your brother's eye, when you've got a mote in your own?" The whole point of the passage is that one shouldn't point out the problems of others when one's own problems are so much more significant.

I entirely understand the intent of the passage. As I mentioned (and thought I had clarified), magnitude wasn't a factor in the idea I was trying to get across. I suppose I should've just made up my own in the interest of clarity.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 08-21-2001 03:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
To you.

*sigh* And if your goal is not to communicate your point clearly, then there's obviously no point in my continuing this.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-21-2001 03:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
*sigh* And if your goal is not to communicate your point clearly, then there's obviously no point in my continuing this.

Were that not my goal, I wouldn't bother posting. I apologize it wasn't clear to you, but after re-reading the posts in question I saw no way to change them without also compromising the the ideas I was trying to convey. I still don't.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 08-21-2001 03:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Were that not my goal, I wouldn't bother posting.

Posting 'to you' works out as roughly the same.

quote:
I apologize it wasn't clear to you,

Don't apologize. Make your point clearer.

quote:
but after re-reading the posts in question I saw no way to change them without also compromising the the ideas I was trying to convey. I still don't.

OK, ignore the posts in question. Ultimately, the question is this: 'what's your point?'. Your subject seemed to suggest that the point was "America's leaders are hypocrites". Your initial post then justified this by ranting about leaders taking a trip to China and chastizing the Chinese about human rights violations, and then misinformedly criticizing Bush's missle defense ideas. You then hauled out the old 'yellow dog' card. Seems like a rather disjointed rant to me. Nothing wrong with that per se, but I really don't get a coherent point out of it. If it was supposed to be that the American public has no idea what their representatives are doing, it was overshadowed by the rest, and really didn't have much support inherent in the rest of the statement.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-21-2001 04:16 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
B]OK, ignore the posts in question. Ultimately, the question is this: 'what's your point?'.

My point to this thread was to point out hypocrisy by America's leaders, not start a debate on the merits of the death penalty, abortions, teen pregnancy, or military spending. It was a general complaint that voters have no idea what their electors are doing.

quote:
Your subject seemed to suggest that the point was "America's leaders are hypocrites". Your initial post then justified this by ranting about leaders taking a trip to China and chastizing the Chinese about human rights violations, and then misinformedly criticizing Bush's missle defense ideas.

China's human rights violations seem to be blown way out of proportion by people who, as you say, have never been there and as such can't accurately judge the extent of the violations in question. America looks very brutal in the eyes of many other countries as well, due to our implementation of the death penalty.
My 'misinformed' criticisms against missle defense have not been answered to my satisfaction. I figured arguing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again was ridiculous, so I quit. Offensive missles can be launched. Claiming that the leaders of other countries are complaining because we won't let them kick our ass fairly doesn't cut it for me. Granted, I don't have all the information - but that's 'part and parcel' of discussion. To garner new information and insight. For example, I didn't know the test was rigged. So we still have a very expensive military expenditure that remains unproven and will lead to an arms race. I'm against it. And I find it very hypocritical (not to mention just plain stupid) to criticize other countries for building and stocking arms in light of Bush's missle defense ideas.

quote:
You then hauled out the old 'yellow dog' card.

Not familiar with your reference.

quote:
Seems like a rather disjointed rant to me.

Because I get very tired with people focusing on anything but the intent of my argument. Usually, I keep going. This time, I decided to let it go.

quote:
Nothing wrong with that per se, but I really don't get a coherent point out of it. If it was supposed to be that the American public has no idea what their representatives are doing, it was overshadowed by the rest, and really didn't have much support inherent in the rest of the statement.

It didn't because I got tired of backing it up. I guess it's possible that few have caught my intent due to a lack of clarity on my part (which is bolstered by the fact that you didn't either - when 9 times out of 10 you seem to understand exactly where I'm coming from).

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Burns on 08-21-2001 04:43 PM:

What's with these people? The test was not "rigged" despite what ever offshoot news you read (pardon the intentional pun). The test did exactly what it was meant to do, in the manner it was supposed to. No, the purpose was not to boost support for Bush's plan. If you look at it, this all started BEFORE Bush ever got into office. I've been working with this type project for several years. The project started back in the Reagan years with "Star Wars" (not the movie). The test used the GPS tracker because that was the stage of testing that was needed at the time of the test. Neither Bush nor the leaders of the US had anything to do with the GPS tracker in the test.

There is also a misconception about the GPS tracker. The supposed news article said something about it being similar to a satelite beacon. The reason for this is that the intercepting missile will be in contact with satellites that tell it where the target is.

Nuff said for now.

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by Toby on 08-21-2001 07:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
China's human rights violations seem to be blown way out of proportion by people who, as you say, have never been there and as such can't accurately judge the extent of the violations in question.

The problem is, by that same token, you have no basis to judge whether they're being blown out of proportion.

quote:
America looks very brutal in the eyes of many other countries as well, due to our implementation of the death penalty.

I would say more because we have a death penalty rather than our implementation of it. OTOH, I'd bet dollars to donuts that many citizens of England would've gladly taken our death penalty stance (adult punishments for adult crimes in certain heinous cases) for a day in the Bulger case.

quote:
My 'misinformed' criticisms against missle defense have not been answered to my satisfaction.

What would answer them to your satisfaction? The fact is that the missles designed to shoot down nuclear missles do not and cannot have the capabilities of the missles they are designed to shoot down. We already have weapons with nuclear payload capacity far greater than anything they could handle. Another country has no worries from them other than one potential scenario already advanced: the creation of a false sense of security leading to a first strike worry.

quote:
Claiming that the leaders of other countries are complaining because we won't let them kick our ass fairly doesn't cut it for me.

Ultimately, that's the issue, though. Believe it or not, still it moves.

quote:
For example, I didn't know the test was rigged.

Actually, you still don't know the test was rigged. I'd have to see a report from a source a bit more impartial than Salon to take that as gospel.

quote:
Not familiar with your reference.

Old 'joke' in the sense that many Democrats would vote for anything the Democratic party put on the ballot, even a yellow dog.

Posted by bagelche on 08-22-2001 05:33 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
What's with these people? The test was not "rigged" despite what ever offshoot news you read (pardon the intentional pun). The test did exactly what it was meant to do, in the manner it was supposed to. No, the purpose was not to boost support for Bush's plan.

What is it with these people, huh? You're absolutely right that the test did what it was supposed to do, namely make it appear that the project is more successful and possible than actual results would have achieved. These wacky ideas come from such fringe news sources as "Defense Week"... doesn't seem so offshoot to me. However, yes the purpose was to provide support for the project, which at this point is a heavy point of the "Bush plan". So yes, that was a significant purpose of the test.

quote:
If you look at it, this all started BEFORE Bush ever got into office. I've been working with this type project for several years. The project started back in the Reagan years with "Star Wars" (not the movie). The test used the GPS tracker because that was the stage of testing that was needed at the time of the test. Neither Bush nor the leaders of the US had anything to do with the GPS tracker in the test.

No one is disagreeing that this started before Bush came into office. That's not the point at all. The plan was ill-conceived politically, economically, and scientificly since it started, however the Bush administration is pushing forward with it HEAVILY, at the expense of more diplomatic, economical, and strategicly sensible alternatives.
I would question exactly how you define "the leaders of the US", but whilst it may not have been Bush's or his administration's plan to put the GPS in the missile, they certainly are working the PR spin on the story in favor of a "successful" test which the media has been accepting at face value.

quote:
There is also a misconception about the GPS tracker. The supposed news article said something about it being similar to a satelite beacon. The reason for this is that the intercepting missile will be in contact with satellites that tell it where the target is.

That rather seems to be the whole point of this. As I understand your explanation, the incoming missile had a GPS installed in it in order that it could be tracked by a satellite whose data would allow us to lock an intercepting missile on the target. In other words, it was rigged. These "rogue states" they keep talking about are NOT going to be putting GPS systems in their missiles for us to lock onto. That is the whole point of why the test was a ruse.

Quoting from the author of the Salon story:
The Defense Week article revealed that "a prototype interceptor was able to find a target warhead partly because the target signaled its location to the interceptor for much of the flight and the transmission formed the basis of the targeting orders, according to officials and documents."

And, Five days after the test, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Philip Coyle stated before Congress that the missile-deflecting umbrella envisioned in Pentagon briefings to promote NMD "is a practical impossibility."

-bagelche

Posted by Thunderbird291 on 08-22-2001 05:41 AM:

I just gotta comment here:

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reference to the dealth penalty: What would you rather happen to a convicted murderer: 1) Punishment for the crime he/she has commited in direct proportion to the crime; 2) Confined leisure living with much of the same niceties of life that you and I enjoy like cable TV, internet, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for bringing that up. Instead of biasedly killing our criminals, they should be put to work for society. Our road construction workers make $10-$15 an hour. Our garbage men make close to the same. The government could afford Bush's tax cut if they weren't paying those wages. Most of them are seasonal jobs, so the people doing that work now aren't able to count that income as stable anyway.

Bottom line is, most people (not referencing to anyone in specfic) are in favor of the death penalty, Pro-life, etc. until it happens to them or someone they love. This is evident on a much lower level in say, schools. Parents say kids who break rules should be punished, until it happens to their kids. Then, they just "need to be reminded" and "won't do it again"

As for the talk about kids rights/responsibility, well, let's just say age doesn't matter as much as intelligence, ignorance (or lack thereof), etc.

Posted by Burns on 08-22-2001 03:18 PM:

quote:
That rather seems to be the whole point of this. As I understand your explanation, the incoming missile had a GPS installed in it in order that it could be tracked by a satellite whose data would allow us to lock an intercepting missile on the target. In other words, it was rigged. These "rogue states" they keep talking about are NOT going to be putting GPS systems in their missiles for us to lock onto. That is the whole point of why the test was a ruse.

Quoting from the author of the Salon story:
The Defense Week article revealed that "a prototype interceptor was able to find a target warhead partly because the target signaled its location to the interceptor for much of the flight and the transmission formed the basis of the targeting orders, according to officials and documents."

Ok, I'll try to make it simpler this time. When this project is finished, complete, done, the interceptor will be using satelites to track the incoming missiles. That means that when the shield is in place, if we are attacked by some terrorist or nation with a ballistic missile, it will be tracked by satellites, which in turn will send the missile's position to the interceptor/s in the same way that the test missile sent it's position directly to the interceptor in the test.

This test sounds like a proof of concept test. Most of the time, a government contractor doesn't get all the money it is paid for doing a project at the beginning of the project. It is shelled out a little bit at a time as the project progresses and proof is shown of that progression. Basically this is what this test was all about. The government contractor could probably care less about all the politics involved with the test. The just want the money, so they do their job. If the test was rigged, believe me, they'd be in deep kaka!

Any other questions about this? I'm totally willing to dispell all ignorance about this NMD thing (that's unclassified).

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by K. Cannon on 08-22-2001 06:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird291
Bottom line is, most people (not referencing to anyone in specfic) are in favor of the death penalty, Pro-life, etc. until it happens to them or someone they love.

Most of the news articles I have read support the converse: That people who are against the death penalty change their minds when someone they love gets murdered.

Posted by Yorick on 08-22-2001 08:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
When this project is finished, complete, done, the interceptor will be using satelites to track the incoming missiles. That means that when the shield is in place, if we are attacked by some terrorist or nation with a ballistic missile, it will be tracked by satellites, which in turn will send the missile's position to the interceptor/s in the same way that the test missile sent it's position directly to the interceptor in the test.

ergo, all an enemy has to do is identify the tracking satellite(s) and destroy or disable them, and we're S.O.L.
Pretty short-sighted.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by Burns on 08-22-2001 08:29 PM:

Sorry but you're wrong. There is an incredible amount of satellites in orbit. The positions of the military ones are classified which tells me that only the country that owns them know where they are. So it aint so easy now is it?

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-22-2001 09:52 PM:

Sorry for taking a while to respond. Been putting fence up all morning. Just a suggestion to anyone here: if you're not putting chain link up, hire a professional.

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
The problem is, by that same token, you have no basis to judge whether they're being blown out of proportion.

Granted. However, I can't imagine millions upon millions of people accepting the treatment that the Chinese gov't is intimated using like so much cattle.

quote:
I would say more because we have a death penalty rather than our implementation of it. OTOH, I'd bet dollars to donuts that many citizens of England would've gladly taken our death penalty stance (adult punishments for adult crimes in certain heinous cases) for a day in the Bulger case.

Good point. It all relative.

quote:
What would answer them to your satisfaction? The fact is that the missles designed to shoot down nuclear missles do not and cannot have the capabilities of the missles they are designed to shoot down.

True. How hard would it be to make them capable of such? Burns? I'd like links, if possible.

quote:
We already have weapons with nuclear payload capacity far greater than anything they could handle. Another country has no worries from them other than one potential scenario already advanced: the creation of a false sense of security leading to a first strike worry.

Okay then.

quote:
Ultimately, that's the issue, though. Believe it or not, still it moves.

I don't, not entirely anyway.

quote:
Actually, you still don't know the test was rigged. I'd have to see a report from a source a bit more impartial than Salon to take that as gospel.

Salon can put quite the slant on things, but they've been right a time or two.

quote:
Old 'joke' in the sense that many Democrats would vote for anything the Democratic party put on the ballot, even a yellow dog.

That's a problem. I hate being called a democrat. Or a republican. My views aren't nearly so simplistic.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 08-22-2001 10:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Granted. However, I can't imagine millions upon millions of people accepting the treatment that the Chinese gov't is intimated using like so much cattle.

Why not? You obviously have no problem considering most of the 270 million or so people in the US like so much cattle where their elected officials are concerned. And that's under an elective system of government. Why should a people who allow a system of government like China's be more independently minded?

Posted by Yorick on 08-22-2001 10:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
Sorry but you're wrong. There is an incredible amount of satellites in orbit. The positions of the military ones are classified which tells me that only the country that owns them know where they are. So it aint so easy now is it?

I didn't say it was easy. Just that it's possible.
"Classified" doesn't mean as much as you appear to think it does.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-23-2001 07:30 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Why not?

Because there is a big difference between voting along party lines and having your children slaughtered in their sleep.

A bit melodramatic, but do you think Americans would bend over if the atrocities China is accused of were done by our gov't? Why do we expect Chinese citizens would do so?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:18 PM.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page