Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 12:21 PM) 1943? I'd say our ties with the Aussies were pretty good then. Coral Sea was '42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'd say our relations with Japan were strained at that point, however. I dont think we have ever been at odds with Australia, even when we had a substantial colonial presence in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Were they pissed off in the 80s when we thought they'd overtake us with their educational and economic superiority and auto quotas, a nation at risk type s***? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 03:21 PM) 1943? In the modern/post-industrial era before the Bush administration, sorry I thought that was implied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The Australians? If you're talking about the Japanese there might have been that fear in the 80's but that crash in 1990 and the collapse of the Baht in '97 straightened things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 03:31 PM) The Australians? If you're talking about the Japanese there might have been that fear in the 80's but that crash in 1990 and the collapse of the Baht in '97 straightened things out. I was talking about both at first, Japan that time. To my knowledge, we have always been tight with the Aussies in about any measurable way, and it almost made me laugh out loud that the article suggested that Bush strengthened ties with them somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Im really confused, I could swear I saw a post that is longer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) To my knowledge, we have always been tight with the Aussies in about any measurable way, and it almost made me laugh out loud that the article suggested that Bush strengthened ties with them somehow. Bush has, however, managed to sour our relationship with the Kiwis, for whatever that is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 New head of the OMB today regarding putting out information about the stimulus package and who gets the money. We plan to create a Web site that will contain information about the contracts and include PDFs or contracts themselves, and also financial information about the contracts. Response by a Senator: Define PDFs. Go ahead, guess the Senator. I'll give you a hint, he's also the committee chairperson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 14, 2009 -> 08:04 PM) New head of the OMB today regarding putting out information about the stimulus package and who gets the money. Response by a Senator: Go ahead, guess the Senator. I'll give you a hint, he's also the committee chairperson. Old Senators don't surf the internets, or use pee-dee-effs. They have people to do that for them. I can see Joementum now, barking at his secretary... Hey, do me a favor and print out this internet thing for me so I can read it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 oxbadger: we have a fundemental disagreement here on conflict. I dont believe that wars start for liberal reasons like religion or crazy dictator, I think in the modern era states have gotten past that because they realize how useless it is. All wars after Napoleon are about maintaining a global and regional balance of power, that's the middle east in a nutshell. It's a large group of countries that are experiencing a major power disparity with Israel and they only way restore a good balance is to defeat Israel, the US wont let Israel lose and that's why this stupid thing will never end. Religion isn't part of it at all, they just use that to recruit support from within their countries. Well I agree we have a fundamental disagreement. But it is not about why wars are started. Your argument was that if we let the Israel-Palestine conflict get severe enough that eventually they will lose their blood lust and stop fighting. You cited Europe over the last 60 years and pointed out how brutal the previous 500 years had been. I disagreed on this point. I said that when religious convictions are at the root of a conflict, that no amount of bloodshed can quench that thirst. That was not to argue that all wars are about religion or even most wars are about religion, it was to argue that this one specific conflict is unlike the other conflicts. You seem to like to use the word "all" in your arguments, and that is fine but you have to understand it is your opinion. It is not proven fact, there are many other scholars who would completely disagree with your propositions that: I dont believe that wars start for liberal reasons like religion or crazy dictator, It's a large group of countries that are experiencing a major power disparity with Israel and they only way restore a good balance is to defeat Israel, the US wont let Israel lose and that's why this stupid thing will never end. Religion isn't part of it at all, The first statement is just not historically true. Wars have been started for religion, wars have been started due to dictators. The times do not always make the man, some times the man makes the times. Even more specifically we have to look at the full context of the argument. The only major devastating war you have listed (30 years, Napoleonic, WWI and WWI) that did not involve either religion or a crazy dictator as a precursor to the war was WWI. While Germany was devastated from WWI, it still took Hitler over half a decade of propaganda and lies (plus being arrested) to get the people of Germany ready to fight again. Who knows what the fate of Germany would have been under a different ruler. The treaty of Versailles was rough, but the outbreak of war was not the only solution. Plus Germany and Japan were not fighting to balance the power (Japan was already the preeminent power of SE Asia) they wanted to consolidate the power. One interesting difference of the Palestine-Israel conflict is that unlike other wars, the weaker state is the aggressor. Generally war is started when one group feels that they are powerful enough to impose their will on a weaker group. Germany invades Czechoslovakia, Germany invades Poland, Japan invades China, Japan invades Vietnam. So when you look at war I think you have to look at it as the inverse of trying to keep global and regional balance (that is peace), war is trying to consolidate power and remove balance. When there is balance there is peace, countries do not generally fight unless one country is trying to take something from another. And the only way it makes sense for a country to try and take something from another country is if they are more powerful. Thus the reason why Israel-Palestine will continue to fight is not because the Arabs can not wipe out the Israeli's it is because the Israeli's are the more powerful side but do not act as aggressors. Palestinians and Arabs have gone to war with Israel 3 times since the Israel has been founded. Can you think of another time in history where weaker countries have invaded a stronger country 3 times in less than 50 years and the stronger country still let them exist? The situation is backwards in so many respects, which is why I do not think you can just break down the conflict based on European wars or based on modern states. I think that the conflict is unique for many different reasons, but I really just can not agree with the idea that religion isnt part of it at all. I believe that religion is one of the main reasons for the conflict, at least from the Jewish perspective. To be blunt, the rest of the world has not always been friendly to the Jews. Just because Christians tolerate them today, does not mean that Jews wont be Christ killers tomorrow. All through out history Jews have been persecuted, murdered and thrown out of every home that they have ever known (USA being major exception). I just do not believe you can understand the Jewish perspective unless you understand the history of the Jews. The land of Israel is of significant importance to Jews not just in Israel, but Jews in every country of the world. Every year at Passover it is said "Next year in the land of Israel". It is why wealthy Jews from around the world leave their money to Israel, why they travel to Israel, why they move to Israel. It is a mitzvah, it is something that I believe is unique. While I think some of your statements may generally hold true, that religion is generally not the real cause of war in the modern era, I believe that in this instance religion is a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Glenn Beck's new show on Fox News debuts next Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, the day before Obama's inauguration. His first guest will be Sarah Palin. There's just so much that's wonderful in that statement for a Democrat that I had to put it in this thread. Awesomeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I actually kinda like Glenn Beck, usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 hes so fussy and especially not smart though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 He's better than 90% of the other conservative talking heads though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Lemon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 05:07 PM) Glenn Beck's new show on Fox News debuts next Monday, on Martin Luther King Day, the day before Obama's inauguration. His first guest will be Sarah Palin. There's just so much that's wonderful in that statement for a Democrat that I had to put it in this thread. Awesomeness. A new show on Fox News? Why the hell is anyone other than Sean Hannity hosting it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Chet Lemon @ Jan 15, 2009 -> 08:53 PM) A new show on Fox News? Why the hell is anyone other than Sean Hannity hosting it? Nice. Very nicely played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 This photo will be hanging all over the country for the next 4 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) This photo will be hanging all over the country for the next 4 8 years. I've already had it tattooed to my forehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2009 -> 11:25 AM) This photo will be hanging all over the country for the next 4 8 years. GASP!! A FLAG PIN! He DOES love America!!! And here I thought he was a terrorist sympathizer Muslim. Edited January 16, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 "Assessing the Bush Years" a verbal smack down by The Economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 LIBERAL MEDIA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 17, 2009 -> 04:01 AM) LIBERAL MEDIA! Predictably, the comments I've read so far all say things like that rather than addressing anything said in the article. Edited January 17, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Damn, those 8 years SUCKED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts