DUBAI, United Arab Emirates The tone of respect was set from the opening lines of President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world.
"Assalamu Aleikum" Arabic for "peace be upon you" he said, triggering applause from the crowd at Cairo University and bringing nods of approval in places like a coffee shop in the West Bank town of Ramallah, where some began calling him "Abu Hussein" using his Muslim middle name as a sign of honor.
Obama's ambitious speech which sought to define a new relationship between Washington and the Islamic world also represented an opportunity to shape his own image in the eyes of Muslims. He quoted from the Quran, paid homage to the cultural and intellectual achievements of Muslims and noted his middle name and his father's ties to the faith.
"As the Holy Quran tells us, `Be conscious of God and speak always the truth,'" Obama said. "That is what I will try to do today, to speak the truth as best I can."
Whether political stagecraft or sincerity, his gestures resonated strongly among many Muslims who often complain their traditions and culture are devalued in the West and have become overshadowed by Islamic radicals.
"He came across as sincere and credible," said Sheik Muhammad al-Nujaimi, a member of committee in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that tries to moderate the radical views of jailed militants. He said he plans to give a copy of Obama's address to the inmates with a message: "Muslims should offer help to the new American administration and reciprocate its overtures."
Obama also sprinkled his address with Arabic words that are well-known to all Muslims: "hijab" for the Islamic coverings for women, "zakat" for alms giving, which is one of the Five Pillars of Islam.
Even these few references carry powerful significance in the Arab world, where the language is cherished as an important ethnic bond, revered for its connection to the Prophet Muhammad, and filled with elaborate greetings and finely crafted formalities that display respect.
Obama's closing line "And may God's peace be upon you" rings with authenticity and cultural sensitivity to Arabic ears.
It's not clear whether Obama's address will have a lasting glow. A Jordanian jeweler, Ibrahim Hreish, described its effect as a "drug" that will eventually wear off.
But there were obvious comparisons to Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, whose use of language such as calling for a "crusade" against terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks, a term that brought to mind the Christian Crusades against Islam in the Holy Land helped stir anti-American anger in the Muslim world.
Obama "was fair on basics, soft on tone," said Labib Kamhawi, a political analyst in Amman, Jordan. "He avoided using provocative terms of the previous administration like `war on terrorism.'"
Obama said he was "proud to carry with me the good will of the American people and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country."
Even some extremist Web sites, which have carried statements from al-Qaida and other groups in the past, added some rare hints of praise amid the scorn for Obama.
One posting on a chat room noted admiration for U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton "wearing a head scarf ... and she and Obama taking off their shoes" during a visit to a Cairo mosque. The contributor also praised Obama's quotation of verses from the Quran, "while many of our leaders don't memorize these verses."
In response, another writer said Obama "is manipulating the emotions of the people the same as a lute player does. ... He is undoubtedly a wise enemy compared with George Bush, the enemy known for his stupidity."
In his speech, Obama cited an account from the Quran in pleading for peace in Jerusalem among "all the children of Abraham" Muslims, Christians and Jews. The president referred to a miracle called al-Isra, or the Night Journey, in which an angel took Muhammad to the heavens, where Muhammad prayed with Moses and Jesus.
In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a 27-year-old computer engineer, Yasmine Bennami, said of the president's address: "It's the first time ever that I see an American president quoting verses from the Quran."
In Saudi Arabia home of Islam's holiest sites Rabah al-Mutawa said Obama, by quoting from the Quran, "touched people." "I challenge any Arab leader to go to the U.S. or the West and quote the Bible like Obama quoted the Quran," she said at her home in Riyadh.
Muhsin Karim, 45, an engineer at Iraq's Ministry of Electricity, said the speech was carefully crafted to reach Muslims: "As if he was trying to tell us, `Trust me, I'm like a cousin for you.'"
When Obama opened with his Arabic greeting, Mahmoud Ramahi smiled.
"This is good," said Ramahi, a lawmaker with the anti-Israel militant group Hamas in the West Bank. "This is the first good signal. We'll start counting."
posted
Im honestly proud to have a President that won't embarass our country in front of the Arab world...and speaks from the heart, and cares about the words that come from his mouth...
Bush...he was nothing but a clown....and the Muslim world knew it!!!
IP: Logged |
posted
I am embarassed by Obama. He is supposed to be prez of USA but he diminishes this country while uplifting the Muslim world.
He is not my prez. I feel for this country. I doubt he will be re-elected. I have faith that most Americans eventually will see he has a problem with the USA. Seems, his true colors come out, criticizes this country but uplifts Muslims.
Has stated USA is not a Christina nation and yet has called Turkey, Indonesia muslim nations. Both are secular and have mostly Muslims. USA is secular and mostly christians. This country is a christian nation - 80% or so are Christians.
Has stated USA has one of the largest MUslim folks but diminishes Christianity. That is not true - we have about 1.5 million Muslims not 7 million and we rank 50th in the world --
He apoligizes for America but tells the Muslims how gran they are, etc...
Is he our prez? He is not a proud american as I am. I am tired of an elected prez bashing this country but praising Islam. I found his speech offensive but he was very careful not to offend Muslims. He offended me and many americans by diminishing Christinity,etc. I am offended sadly that we in this country do not have a prez who can speak proudly of this country.
I also want peace and tensions to ease but not at the expense of Americans. Obama's speeches have harmed americans, etc...
It was foolhardy to see Clinton in the muslim headpiece. How many Muslims come to america and respect our culture? Obama thinks they should dress as they want in this country and their religious dress allowed in USA public schools while his sec of state parades around in muslim garb???
IP: Logged |
posted
I do not support his policies and I feel he diminishes america and uplifts the muslims. Why would a USA prez be so careful not to offend Islam while at the same time diminishing christianity? His speech was very offensive to me as an American. He has been elected prez but as an american I am free still to choose not to support his policies - I dont think he has the best interests of americans at heart - We are not a ditatorship - he should lead and not dictate -
I think he is doing further damage to this country. And, listen to his speech, two errors - no colonialism in Mideast - he should get the facts straight before using a lie to criticize america and the west.
And, as I read there are only 1.5 million muslims in america not the 7 million he quoted. And, we do not have one of the largest muslim population in the world i namerica. I think we rank 50th ---
He offends and diminishes america by 1. apologizing for policies - 2. diminshes christianity and uplifts Islam and says how great it is - 3. Says USA is not a christina nation when it is 4. Why is he talking to only the muslims in mideast and subjugates all other folks living there? But, when referring to america it is by name and not religion but by religion when referring to address the muslims - Double standard - refers to the muslims not mid easternerns or by country - 3. Permits a sec of state to wear the garb while he pranced around in his western clothes - Maybe, if the muslims are offended ,next time he will wear the tradional male muslim dress - 4. Saying USA is a torture nation - as i understand only 3 were tortured- and it is debatable if that is torture- I would prefer to be water boarded then beheaded - 5. And, his policies are eroding our liberty - we are free economically and politically - he unilaterally uses the excuse only the govt can fix - and folks like you bought in - 6. Wrong to use terrorists and terrorism on those that want to kill us and innocent civilians -no longer war on terrroeism but his BS...
I dont get it - he is supposed to be a leader and not a dictator - why is he not being impeached?
IP: Logged |
settled law says waterboarding is torture.. we've prosecuted others for it before, trying to say it wasn't doesn't make it true...
And, his policies are eroding our liberty - we are free economically and politically - he unilaterally uses the excuse only the govt can fix - and folks like you bought in -
uh, as of th e reports filed today? unemployment numbers stopped dropping this month, economists are predicting the recession will end as soon as this year and while i don't agree with that? ido think it will be over before the end of next year.
had Bush and Obama not taken the actions they did? we'd be facing total collapse,we'da paid alot more if the banks had to be taken over and garanteed by the FDIC, which would have happened...
Bush admitted as much himself when he began the bailouts...
the "feemarket" people that have opposed all of this are being proved wrong by the market itself...
i also thingk GM coulda been bought out by China if we hadn't stepped in.. you want that??
China was the only country with cash... they could have bought what ever they wanted if the govt had not stepped in. that's why the Govt had to.
the last time that the country faced a situation like this? the Govt did nothing, and we had the Great Depression.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I did not view much of the speech just what I have seen and read in the NEWS.
The general perception is that he was a little soft. Assuming that what I have heard is true....it is very disappointing.
Forget about the politics....forget about the party. When dealing in the middle east he should know that while they may be a minority; there is a very powerful and determined, extreme islamic contingent. Completely on the same par as the types that bomb abortion clinics......in short super-charged, zealot, *******s!
It is a disservice to America to placate or appear to appease such types...plain and simple. one should never appease a bully....(and America is not nor has it ever been the bully)....enforcer maybe, but since the U.N. is a panty waist someone has to step up.
I will not pass a judgement on Obama just yet; but, I definately hope that in his next trip to the middle east he learns a thing or two for Churchhill.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
posted
Three incidents of water boarding on terrorists doesnt make USA a torture nation. Just like many incidents of murder dont make us a murderous nation. Or a minority of atheists doesnt make us an athesit nation. A majority constitutes to use that phrase.
I do think we will have a short term bottomining but I dont think the worst is over - you think this govt spending aND HUGE defcits will be ok? Deficts cause bankruptcy ... And, at the rate Obama and team are going, china may own the country due to high deficits and chinese buying of securities.
And, unemplyment at 9.4 % and climbing is not good news. I do agree at least it is stabilizing but what is necessary is growth.
IP: Logged |
posted
Three incidents of water boarding on terrorists doesnt make USA a torture nation.
the fact is? it was written policy, Bush asked for a legal opinion to justify it, and found lawyers to be brought into the White House to write him one. don't tell me you think Abu-graib was an isolated incident or that only a few bad enlisted caused and executed it? that's what made the Iraq war get so bad.
I do think we will have a short term bottomining but I dont think the worst is over - you think this govt spending aND HUGE defcits will be ok? Deficts cause bankruptcy ... And, at the rate Obama and team are going, china may own the country due to high deficits and chinese buying of securities
comeon TM, i've been raising heck right since i started posting here about deficts and Chinese trading policies...
you KNOW i don't like it.
what i know now is that without the bailouts? we'd be in bankruptcy already, and i beleive i posted we were headed for bankruptcy long before last summer.
however, how you deal with bankruptcy is what you and i are discussing now, not when it happened or if it happened. our economic system collapsed already, if you think the middle class workers (of which i assume you are one) of this nation deserve to lose everything they have and any hope of a decent future for the next decade because of the policies of the bankers and the White House? then yeah, the Govt should do nothing,
i don't think that badly of the average American worker.
sure, i'd like to see a whole lotta people go to jail, starting with Cheney and Rumsfeld for running no-bid contracts at minimum, and going right on down the line....
i do not beleive that we should have just allowed another Great depression to happen, it serves no purpose.
and i do agree with you that we are in for something similar to a "lost decade" however, that was inevitable, the real question is how bad it will be, and how long it will last.
Bush, by starting the bailouts, admitted that his whole economic stimulus plan was a complete failure.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by T e x: And, at the rate Obama and team are going, china may own the country due to high deficits and chinese buying of securities.
Good, Lord, that's *another* problem Obama inherited.
Who--or what--are you reading, TM?
That's true Obama inherited this crisis....not only that...but the bailouts started before he even got into office, if you were refering to the bailouts adding to the defficit.
IP: Logged |
posted
It is no longer a Bush problem Obama has so far quadrupled the deficit in his 6 months of office. There was a deficit under BUSh but team Obama has quadrupled it and continue to print and beg China to buy.
Glass -you were concerned GM might of been bought by china - I doubt it but GOVT could off denied purchase - that is so funny , the bigger concern for me - China is owning the USA. Not only are we selling this country but denying our kids ands theirs, etc.. a USA.
Who in their right mind would spend spend , and spend? And, under Obama i rather get than work - why work when so many collect ? Obama is responssible for the mess he is accelerating. Yo see, under Obama govt is the solution -
Istead of addressing the deficit and being fiscally responsible, team ObaMA IS ACCLERATING IT. And, Obama loves to live lavishly at taxpayer expense whil country is suffering.
Obama inherited a crisis but is accelerating the crisis --- His policies are harmful to this country and tragic for our kids/grandkids.
IP: Logged |
posted
It is no longer a Bush problem Obama has so far quadrupled the deficit in his 6 months of office.
TM, it's simple economics.
the Govt could step in and provide the country with THIS relif plan in response to the failed stimulus plans of the Bush admin (whcih Bush himself also CHOSE to do becuase he had no real choice when the Wall St banks began collpsing) or the Govt could have sat back an done nothing which ultimately would have led to much higher liabilities to the taxpayer, and a collpse of our country much sooner than may or may not happen. (may or may not is important, the longer we can keep the thing afloat, the more chance we have of getting it fixed)
i'v explained this before, and i think i might have explained it to you, we have this FDIC problem in the US,
there was a contract with the banks by the Govt to insure the bank deposits up to 100 grand, now it's 250 grand.
the banks didn't have the money to cover a collpase, the collpase happened and the US Govt was on the hook for some unGodly figure that i cannot find even tho i have looked for along time. the Govt did not have it either..
where did the money go? now that's a question i am interested in. i bet it went right in the bankers pockets, but it will be hard to find it.
it really does come down to pay one way or pay the other. the Govt pays in the end no matter how they go about trying to solve the problems.
Bush is not 100% to blamed for this mess either, the peices were put into place under Clinton. He and the Congress deregulated (removed Glass-Stegal) or refused to regulate new "derivitive products" in the finacial world, all of that is the source root of the actual collpse, and it was a complete failure of Wall St, there are no banks left like Lehman and Merryl for a reason, they were rotten to the bone.
it's the same with GM, you can allow GM and Chrysler to fold at the same time last year and go into BK Court. if they had done so? the job losses would have extended well beyond the jobs at the cars co's and the unemployment insurances would have had to cover as many 20 million MORE jobs lost.
economics is always a game of best guess estimation.
the facts are not in dispute tho, our economy collpsed and this fix is the least painful to the Govt and the people.
now, i am more than willing ot hear you say that people deserved the pain, that our way of life was unsustinable, and that fools get what they deserve.
however, i would disagree about whethet people that are 60 to 70 deserved to lose their retirements thru absolutley no fault of thier own.
it's like the price of oil TM, do you think it's "fair" for oil producing nations to artificially set the price of oil by TURNING a valve and shorting supply levels?
it costs everybody more money at every level of the consumer cycle.
i understand that you don't agree with Obama's democrat philosophy. i tended to not agree with most Democrat policies in th past,
however,
the GOP policies of Bush and Cheney find NO resonance in my philosphies either, so i have been forced to choose a party that i do not agree with LESS than the GOP now...
i find no serious fualts in Obama right now, simply because we have been subjected to incedibly assinnine management for the last ten years.
the reason i am interested in discussing this with you is because in some ways you are corect, we have alot of work to do if we are going to remaina first world nation, i do not argue that our deficits are really really bad,
i am at aloss to see a better way to have dealt with the issue than Obama has. but the problems were created long before he came to office.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
Historically, I have been more affiliated with the GOP. Voted for Bush twice...the first time I was proud to cast that vote...the second time; I just thought that Kerry was a bigger idiot.
The problem that we are experiencing has not one damn thing to do with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, or Obama......
Unfortunately....people do not understand the power of their votes. Yes the President appears to be the most powerful person in the world....he has a nuclear trigger.
Our battles are fought and lost in the halls of Congress(please do not bring up executive privilage).....and we are the idiots that elect bigger idiots to represent us.....
Yes our elected officials are, for the most part, fools. However, they draw their power from us and that makes us the bigger fools....
If you wanna *****.....stand in front of the mirror when you do it.....Oh, you did not vote for him.....tough, you did not do enough to secure the outcome that you really believed in....your just one person......so was einstein; so was oppenheimer.
I watched the "D-Day" ceremony today.....I was struck by differences in mentality only two generations apart.
where did all of this apathy come from????????
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
Nothing like a little hardship (The Great Depression) to make people realize the necessity of self reliance.
I am absolutely sick of party politics....there is no such thing as a pure motive anymore....everything is agenda driven.
I can't help but think that it is due to all the money involved in "public service." If that is the case....lets do away with the money. Make the presidency a 50k/year job.
Give congress 45k and some term limits.
Quit allowing the greatest fund raiser to walk into whatever office they desire simply cause they can buy the publicity to secure it.
The real "change" is yet to come....but come it will. People will not allow but so much B.S. before it comes to a head.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
posted
you have to keep in mind that Hitler was "anti-communist" and Russia was not a real ally.
the general attitude in the US otwards teh war in Europe was "it's not our problem" before the Japanese bombed Pearl. then everything changed very fast.
9-11 was intended to change everything too.. and it did.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
I interpret your post to mean that the U.S. will rise to the occaision when it has to.
Such has been the case with instances of overt aggression....however, I feel that the new form of war is going to be financial domination....
I am not sure that America at large realizes this just yet.....We are a kick ass country no doubt; but, here is my issue:
Historically,.....Americans, like most; have thought that our soldiers were the best, brightest, and bravest in all the world.....we tend to herald them as just that.
Very important>>>I am an eternal patriot and nobody appreciates our "guys and girls" serving any more than I do.....I am in love with their committment.
But ask yourself this....Is our military harder on cadets than that of opposing countries....I think not. If anything, due to the necessity to feminize the military our troops are probably trained much softer (please see note at bottom of post).
Rather it has been our economy and industry that has made us able to wage war so effectively...
We entered WWII late. Our last conflict of any signifigance was WW1.....25 years earlier. We entered the war at a time when our combatants were very battle hardened, seasoned.
The U.S. prevails due to economy....simple as that.
Here is the real danger....we are hell bent on giving our economy away. American companies, in an effort to cut operating expense, are educating potential combatents in the finer points of industrialization....( the art of waging war)....that is where the power is....and that is the greatest tragedy of our current delimna.
I refer to industrialization as the art of waging war for this reason:
Industry is the instument of supply.
Note: By feminizaion i do not mean gender....I mean the need to cater to emotions that should have been forfeited by those signing up for service at the time they made the committment.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the real danger....we are hell bent on giving our economy away. American companies, in an effort to cut operating expense, are educating potential combatents in the finer points of industrialization....( the art of waging war)....that is where the power is....and that is the greatest tragedy of our current delimna.
i agree 100%. i don't understand how people in this country have failed to understand this simple concept.
Americans somehow convinced themselves we could be a nation of merchants and merchants alone.
they called their vision a "service economy" and they began to measure GDP in a new way that failed to measure actual productivity and only measures money exchanges...
the Chinese are Communists for crying out loud, and i don't care if they do adopt the parts of Capitalism that they like. It does not make them "like US" at all. When was the last ELECTION their? when are they ever going to have one? never. they sure aren't going to have one because we ask nicely, and we are in less of position now to ask them to than we ever were.
They are capable of and quite likely to simply take anything in their country they want, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop them from nationalising every American Co's property that's ever gone there.why not? what wil we do? stop buying their goods? so what? our trade deficit with them is only going to keep hurting US and helping them anyway, so stopping buying from them would be a good thing for US. don't try to explain to me how much money we save buying junk from them either, saving a dollar today to lose your job next year is not saving ANYTHING!
people like to point to the cold war, beat their chest and claim we won. I dunno what they thunk we winned. Not only are we not safer today? We blew out all the bearings on our economy because we acted like we won something when we didn't win anything. The USSR lost it's own economy and broke apart.We didn't have to do anything, they did it to themselves. China is winning this next phase of the cold war and we are helping them.
I have no idea why people think we should trade the way we do with China. The "hope" is that the Chinese will open their economy to US and we'll get a billion new consumer customers *someday*.
Well they are no more going to do that then we were going to win the Iraq war in 6 months. the idea that we would win Iraq in 6 months was proved to be a fools dream. And so is the hope that the Chinese will deliver US a billion new customers.. and what do they think we'll sell them exackkly? Financial services? LOL, i have heard people actually say that, in the same breath that they were trying to explain how "unsophisticated" the Chinese were at investments. They were complaining because the Chinese wouldn't invest in derivatives of all things (CDSes are one form of derivative)
you are dead on about what it takes to win a war, whether it's a hot war or a cold war, you have to have real productivity of real things. Reagan may not have been the sharpest knife ever in the White House cutlery drawer, but he sure was right about one thing, the best way to win a war is to never have to actually fight it, and the best way to do that is make sure you are capable of winning it easily.
the nuclear arsenal is only good for one thing, and that's doomsday so the new 21 century form of warfare is economic and terroristic.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Some time ago.....I was in college and I had recently taken an economics course. Like most fools; after the I got an "A" in the course, I thought that I understood how economies worked and nobody knew as much as I did.
Fast forward 3 years....I was working in a factory. I was speaking to a foreman of a department when the concept of "free trade" came up. I launched into how "free trade" was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I went further and challenged him about how much he enjoys WalMarts low prices....berrated him with the knowledge that traditional tariffs would not afford him such buying power.
His reply was very simple and I will never forget it...."if you do not have a job; it does not matter what it costs....it is more than you can afford."
Is "free trade" right.....I am not sure.....
I am sure that I believe that the U.S. should take care of its own first.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: Some time ago.....I was in college and I had recently taken an economics course. Like most fools; after the I got an "A" in the course, I thought that I understood how economies worked and nobody knew as much as I did.
Fast forward 3 years....I was working in a factory. I was speaking to a foreman of a department when the concept of "free trade" came up. I launched into how "free trade" was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
I went further and challenged him about how much he enjoys WalMarts low prices....berrated him with the knowledge that traditional tariffs would not afford him such buying power.
His reply was very simple and I will never forget it...."if you do not have a job; it does not matter what it costs....it is more than you can afford."
Is "free trade" right.....I am not sure.....
I am sure that I believe that the U.S. should take care of its own first.
good post--I hope others reading along recognize this as a good post, no matter your politics
-------------------- Nashoba Holba Chepulechi Adventures in microcapitalism...
IP: Logged |
posted
The challenge would be charging tariffs high enough to bring the cost of foreign goods up to par without going so far that American companies could undercut foreign prices. Leveling the playing field is fine. It would feed the Government and likely bring up the quality of imports at the same time, but taking it too far will suppress trade which would cause many problems.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
To most of our politians free trade is just a way to perfume up sending capital and jobs over seas and getting a break on taxes bringing the merchandise back hear to push down our throats
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
Member Rated: 4 Icon 1 posted 2009-06-07 04:12 Profile for rounder1 Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote i am missing the connection I think....
I interpret your post to mean that the U.S. will rise to the occaision when it has to.
Such has been the case with instances of overt aggression....however, I feel that the new form of war is going to be financial domination....
I am not sure that America at large realizes this just yet.....We are a kick ass country no doubt; but, here is my issue:
Historically,.....Americans, like most; have thought that our soldiers were the best, brightest, and bravest in all the world.....we tend to herald them as just that.
Very important>>>I am an eternal patriot and nobody appreciates our "guys and girls" serving any more than I do.....I am in love with their committment.
But ask yourself this....Is our military harder on cadets than that of opposing countries....I think not. If anything, due to the necessity to feminize the military our troops are probably trained much softer (please see note at bottom of post).
Rather it has been our economy and industry that has made us able to wage war so effectively...
We entered WWII late. Our last conflict of any signifigance was WW1.....25 years earlier. We entered the war at a time when our combatants were very battle hardened, seasoned.
The U.S. prevails due to economy....simple as that.
Here is the real danger....we are hell bent on giving our economy away. American companies, in an effort to cut operating expense, are educating potential combatents in the finer points of industrialization....( the art of waging war)....that is where the power is....and that is the greatest tragedy of our current delimna.
I refer to industrialization as the art of waging war for this reason:
Industry is the instument of supply.
Note: By feminizaion i do not mean gender....I mean the need to cater to emotions that should have been forfeited by those signing up for service at the time they made the committment.
Rounder,
I want to begin by saying I have appreciated you posts in this thread, excluding the one above.
I just want to contend two points. First, it was not our economy that made us able to wage war so effectively, but rather the opposite. Our nation's economy goes through a cycle that has repeated itself since our independence:
1. we become domestically focused 2. our economy goes into a depression/recession 3. America enters a war 4. our economy mobilizes to support said war 5. war ends, America enjoys a period of growth 6. period of growth leads toward domestic issues 7. repeat
It is, unfortunately, war that "fixes" our economy not the other way around, just look at History
Point number two.
While I can see how it may seem that America's armed forces are "feminizing" due to the representation we get in the media, the truth is far from that. Today's service member engaged in modern combat is not facing the same enemy as our previous generations. The rules have changed. We have to be able to fight to the death with combatants but at the same time win the "hearts and minds" of the local non-combatants. The enemy isn't wearing a uniform. The is not a clear "bad guy". The challenge is daunting. Imagine wearing a target on your head in the middle of a crowded market, taking fire from multiple directions, and you are surrounded by innocent pedestrians. If you return fire and kill a non-combatant, it is not a simple "casualty of war", you can be tried for murder.
Today's service member must under-go EXTENSIVE training in order to meet this challenge. The cavalier fighting of our "manly" predecessors is a thing of the past, and the overall performance of our newest generation of Soldiers, Sailors, MARINES, and Airmen has emphatically proved that.
I think you may have been making a simple comparison to the "quality of life" afforded US forces vice that of other Nations, and to some extent you are correct. We do live better than Chinese forces for example, and the overall image of the Military has "softened". I will assure you though, we are far from feminized, emotionally or otherwise.
I will not quote your post because you quoted me and I was long winded.....you get it.
First let me say that your post is very much "quality" in my mind.....I almost missed it as other items came to the board and pushed it lower.
First, let me say that I have never served. I hold the utmost respect for any man or woman that has had the courage, conviction, or both to put on the uniform. I get a sense that you may have served and if that is the case I would like to say "Thank You."
With regard to your post.....I will not argue the point that "War" has brought us out of some tought economic times. In fact, I agree.
My post was intended to highlight the fact that at the time of previous wars; the U.S. had the industrial capacity to support the war and our troop's needs. My concern is that, in light of the new global market, we have given away our capacity to support future wars and our troops.
I hope that I have clarified my position somewhat.
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC)
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by taters1977: Our nation's economy goes through a cycle that has repeated itself since our independence:
1. we become domestically focused 2. our economy goes into a depression/recession 3. America enters a war 4. our economy mobilizes to support said war 5. war ends, America enjoys a period of growth 6. period of growth leads toward domestic issues 7. repeat
It is, unfortunately, war that "fixes" our economy not the other way around, just look at History
Taters....our cycle was quite different this time around...
1. We became globally focused 2. America enters a war 3. Our economy goes into a depression/recession 4. Our economy goes deeper into a recession/depression to support said war 5. War continues even though new President promises to end it 6. Complete financial collapse 7. Years of unsustainable debt to pay for war and financial collapse 7. Middle class reduced to third world status
Unfortunately, war is NOT "fixing" our economy this time around...
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
