Forum Thread

How stupid can you get ( government)

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 9 Posts
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    On the news; in order to prevent another government shutdown they are searching all kind of area's where money can be saved, but of course they are not looking where they can save the most. For instance they want to increase the security cost for security on the airports,which will then drive up ticket cost ( tickets cost include now already just about 40% TSA security cost) The airlines are already protesting this suggestion.
    Instead they refuse to cut the defense idiotic expenditures; no one touched that; they seem to be scared stiff of all the breasts full of junk generals; who actually run the country; they will dictate what they want and no one has the guts to say "no"; enough is enough!!!

    Then we have Biden ( Who was that again? I thought he had died?) he went to Japan to put some more coals on the fire about the small island dispute between China and Japan. Fantastic; first tease the Chineese by flying over a Chineese no-flying zone, then have Kennedy open her mouth, then Mr. Biden. Are we looking for more shit around the world? Did we do not enough damage all over? Killing little kids in Afghanistan and then only giving an "sorry" and continue as usual.

    Then we have the "deal" with Karzai; which is luckily not a deal yet to keep our military there for another 10 years. I hope Karzai sticks to his threat and kicks them all out. But I fear he uses this tactic to bargain for more money in his pocket (we've got plenty of money anyway to throw around, Wow)
    So it will cost us dearly to keep our troops there. In the meantime the "terrorists" will look for other places to operate from and are only expanding worldwide, so the US will runout of bandages to stop the bleeding all over (read terrorist expansion; so we will runout enough fly swappers and drones)

    In the meantime we make a total mess of our foreign policies; read Iran, Syria. North Korea, Mali, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, add China, Germany (NSA happening) etc etc.

    Thus: how stupid can you get?
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Meaning no disrespect to Ms. Kennedy, but do you really want a newly appointed ,first time and inexperienced Ambassador to help resolve this issue, and to make matters worse, you have as a back up, Joe Biden, makes you really think if this administration is taken this new international episode seriously, shouldn't the Sec. of State weigh in on this?
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Good ol Joe - he really is an embarrassment to the country (as are most politians).
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think this issue is far more complex than our media is making it out to be. Disputed territorial waters are always a tricky subject and the fact that this dispute is between China and Japan adds a lot more to the mix. I don't think Ms. Kennedy did anything remotely wrong by expressing her disagreement with China unilaterally claiming seas that Japan claimed for herself. She is the US Ambassador to Japan. That's what she's supposed to do.

    With regards to the overall issue of B-52's and American involvement--it's just not as simple as we want it to be. America has a duty to protect Japan under multiple agreements that we have with them post WWII. We did drop a couple of nuclear bombs on them and it was the least that we could do. Those agreements are still in effect and until they are done away with, we do have an obligation to protect them.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: I think this issue is far more complex than our media is making it out to be. Disputed territorial waters are always a tricky subject and the fact that this dispute is between China and Japan adds a lot more to the mix. I don't think Ms. Kennedy did anything remotely wrong by expressing her disagreement with China unilaterally claiming seas that Japan claimed for herself. She is the US Ambassador to Japan. That's what she's supposed to do.

    With regards to the overall issue of B-52's and American involvement--it's just not as simple as we want it to be. America has a duty to protect Japan under multiple agreements that we have with them post WWII. We did drop a couple of nuclear bombs on them and it was the least that we could do. Those agreements are still in effect and up and until they are done away with, we do have an obligation to protect them.
    No you are absolutely wrong: no one is threatening Japan; China only instituted a no fly zone, which is according to common sense is a dispute only between two countries and none of the bussiness of the US. So let them fight it out and only stick our big noses into it when things get out of hand and Japan asks for our help; which we can refuse, if we do not like to get involved, regardless of deals in the past, which can be re-negotiated etc.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What am I wrong about? I stated that the United States has two separate treaty's with Japan that guarantee US and allied forces protection from hostile countries. The Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan are binding agreements that the United States is obligated to enforce. You can argue about whether that is prudent or not in this day and age, but you can not say that I am wrong in my statement that by law the United States has an outsized role to play in this dispute.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: What am I wrong about? I stated that the United States has two separate treaty's with Japan that guarantee US and allied forces protection from hostile countries. The Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan are binding agreements that the United States is obligated to enforce. You can argue about whether that is prudent or not in this day and age, but you can not say that I am wrong in my statement that by law the United States has an outsized role to play in this dispute.
    Yes you are wrong; why? Because you accept that this country is run by a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists, not by people with any world common sense!!
    Typical example: We did not like communists, so we made an "agreement" with South Korea; what did that get us? We are still defending their border since 1948, at what cost? Then we had an"agreement" with South Vietnam, again what did it solve after thousands of lives and huge cost?
    Then we got many more "agreements" (like Egypt) plenty of which you may not even know they exists with different countries, which eventually may bite us in the butt, so how much more great "agreements", like the one they want now with Karzai? Furthermore Japan does not need our help; they have enough forces of their own, so has China. I doubt if there is anything at all in those agreements which states, that the US can irritate the Chineese, when there is no harm done to either country, let alone the US.

    Agreements which are 65 years or older should have been tossed long ago; most "agreements" which we have are "money" based; such as we give you billions but, do not interfere with our medding within your country.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote: Yes you are wrong; why? Because you accept that this country is run by a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists, not by people with any world common sense!!
    Typical example: We did not like communists, so we made an "agreement" with South Korea; what did that get us? We are still defending their border since 1948, at what cost? Then we had an"agreement" with South Vietnam, again what did it solve after thousands of lives and huge cost?
    Then we got many more "agreements" (like Egypt) plenty of which you may not even know they exists with different countries, which eventually may bite us in the butt, so how much more great "agreements", like the one they want now with Karzai? Furthermore Japan does not need our help; they have enough forces of their own, so has China. I doubt if there is anything at all in those agreements which states, that the US can irritate the Chineese, when there is no harm done to either country, let alone the US.

    Agreements which are 65 years or older should have been tossed long ago; most "agreements" which we have are "money" based; such as we give you billions but, do not interfere with our medding within your country.
    You have yet to explain what I am wrong about. For one, I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for reforming the way our Government works. Just because I disagree with you on a certain topic doesn't mean that I accept the way our country is run. On the other hand, I am a student of history and our nations Government. I follow the laws that we've passed and I pay attention to the rulings of our state and Federal courts. Not just in our current day in age, but throughout our nations history. Politics ebb and flow, but laws and treaties are what bind us and future generations to certain standards. If you don't like them, then use the democratic process to begin a drive to overturn them.

    What exactly is it that you opposed to? Is it America flying over territory that Japan claims for herself and China decided to test her? That is international politics 101. And if you think that Japan is strong enough to defend herself, then I again refer you to the two treaties that we signed with them. They are in no way equipped to defend themselves and it is incorrect to suggest they are.

    I can not disagree with you more regarding your views on the treaties that we have signed. Treaties between nations are vital and just because you may not agree with a given one at this particular time doesn't mean that should be the policy of this country.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote: Yes you are wrong; why? Because you accept that this country is run by a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists, not by people with any world common sense!!
    Typical example: We did not like communists, so we made an "agreement" with South Korea; what did that get us? We are still defending their border since 1948, at what cost? Then we had an"agreement" with South Vietnam, again what did it solve after thousands of lives and huge cost?
    Then we got many more "agreements" (like Egypt) plenty of which you may not even know they exists with different countries, which eventually may bite us in the butt, so how much more great "agreements", like the one they want now with Karzai? Furthermore Japan does not need our help; they have enough forces of their own, so has China. I doubt if there is anything at all in those agreements which states, that the US can irritate the Chineese, when there is no harm done to either country, let alone the US.

    Agreements which are 65 years or older should have been tossed long ago; most "agreements" which we have are "money" based; such as we give you billions but, do not interfere with our medding within your country.
    You have yet to explain what I am wrong about. For one, I am one of the biggest cheerleaders for reforming the way our Government works. Just because I disagree with you on a certain topic doesn't mean that I accept the way our country is run. On the other hand, I am a student of history and our nations Government. I follow the laws that we've passed and I pay attention to the rulings of our state and Federal courts. Not just in our current day in age, but throughout our nations history. Politics ebb and flow, but laws and treaties are what bind us and future generations to certain standards. If you don't like them, then use the democratic process to begin a drive to overturn them.

    What exactly is it that you opposed to? Is it America flying over territory that Japan claims for herself and China decided to test her? That is international politics 101. And if you think that Japan is strong enough to defend herself, then I again refer you to the two treaties that we signed with them. They are in no way equipped to defend themselves and it is incorrect to suggest they are.

    I can not disagree with you more regarding your views on the treaties that we have signed. Treaties between nations are vital and just because you may not agree with a given one at this particular time doesn't mean that should be the policy of this country.
    No you are not wrong about your observation of treaties which we have. However I do not agree that any such treaty should cause our involvement in a dispute between two countries about a couple of rocks in the China Sea. We can always step in when things get out of hand. In this case we did more damage than good. Do not forget since your mentioned agreements were initiated, things have changed drastically in that region. For instance after 1945 China was a poor country, now it borrows money to us. Wow. Therefore you need much more than just an "agreement" to manage a situation which was not foreseen when these "agreements" were signed. This requires more than government lawyers, but real diplomats,which we are lacking now. I must say that with Mrs. Clinton, she did a good job, however I doubt Kerry is able to fill her shoes; he is way too arrogant for such a job