posted
Maybe, but if it was a going-away gift from a former command, ex-military folks ALWAYS keep such presentos in their successive offices. I should think it fairly understandable, esp. if the reporter in question didn't snoop enough to see a plaque attached to the thing with a joke and a "Thanks for your great work, from the men and women of the blah blah blah organization"
Edited to add: And I don't know how much time he had between the announcement of his nomination and the descent of the press on his office, so he may not have had time to "hide" thingys that might not be well-construed in his arguably new circumstances. And if the press then found out he hid the thing or took it home he would have been labeled "dishonest" to boot. I lost all faith in so-called journalism the day some CNN talking noggin called an aircraft's afterburner a "thruster-booster" during Desert Storm.
quote:Completely disbanding the U.S. military?!?!?! That’s madness. What kind of freedom and for how long do you think it would last?
You know, not every country is straining at the hilt to control all the others.
America, seperated from threats by water, is not exactly imminently in danger. It's not like Iran or North Korea is going to hop on a ship and send troops over. If Iran or North Korea have nuclear weapons, the U.S. is going to be unable to stop them anyway and its sole plan of action would be to blast their assailant to kingdom come in return while the other surrounding countries on both sides look on in despair.
I sincerely doubt Canada or Mexico is going to invade the U.S. Even without an army, the populous is so heavily armed and trained that it would be a difficult fight with or without an army (what are Canadians going to fight with? We have nothing). Anywhere Europe is not likely to suddenly decide to send over troops. No, the major risk to U.S. soil is nuclear.
Biological risks do not demand an ground army, they demand trained professionals and contingency plans.
Terrorists on U.S. soil are easier to apprehend through intelligence (if they can be detected at all). Most terrorists exist largely overseas (see below).
Face it: America's army is useful not for saving America itself but for promoting external peace or freedom and whatnot. But that's not unusual. Armies nowadays rarely defend the country they belong to, they defend another country in danger or in crisis.
Basically, it's a highly aggressive peacekeeping force.
posted
Hence the attempts to build a ballistic missile "shield".
Although I cheerfully agree we need to stop playing the role of peacekeeper and let the nations of the world decide how badly they want to get involved and foot the bill in bodies and resources.
posted
I'm not saying that the American army should cease from all external intervention. If they did that, having a large army would be somewhat irrevelent, except for practice.
I'm saying that if the U.S. hypothetically disbanded its army, the likelyhood of the country suddenly being overrun would be extremely slim. Except perhaps by angry ex-military members out of a job.
What the U.S. has is nor for the U.S. itself, it is for others. It is a force do promote America's cause in countries that it feels are in danger or need its help.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I'm in favor of down-sizing the standing military and moving towards a more specialized force.
Occupying a country and strong-arming it towards democracy is well beyond the scope of anything the US military should be pressed into doing.
Granted, in my humble opinion.
-Trevor
Edit: However, I will also point out that having a good offense as a defense does deter some of the more rational nations from following courses of action contrary to the United States.
So: some sort of well-trained army corps is necessary for disasters. But perhaps a force that specializes in such areas is seperate from the major body of the army?
However, I think my general argument still stands. Saying that freedom would implode in the absence of the American Army or its significant reduction is a very unfounded thing to say, despite my own shortcomings as a military theorist/general.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, he did it again. *sigh* He's put up Wolfowitz to head the World Bank.
Wolfowitz.
*beats head against wall*
It's like Bush is giving a giant middle finger to everyone in the country with a brain. I mean, it's almost like he selects these people for their ironic value.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wolfowitz has more development experience than most people in Washington. He's extremely well-qualified for the position.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Wolfowitz has more development experience than most people in Washington."
What has Wolfowitz ever successfully developed? Isn't everything he ever touched still -- in some cases, decades later -- considered a "work in progress?"
That he's been able to keep himself employed by blowing things up in order to rebuild them is hardly a qualification.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both of these nominations show a lack of consideration and diplomacy for anyone outside President Bush's "Yes Sir" circle.
Bolton has UN experience because he's been bashing the UN for years. You may argue that such bashing is right, but not for the person you want to go into that position. Imagine you work for a company. A manager has been stating for years that your department is over sized, over budget, and mostly useless. Would you want the CEO to let that person manage your dept? Another manager can make the same cuts, and clean up the same problems, with out going in against an antagonized team.
Wolfowitz has one "Developmental" experience that I know of. He was ambassador to one of the poorer countries that has since made strides in economic recovery.
However, he is one of the hawks in the administration who pushed the WMD argument farther than it should have gone, and has not admitted that was a mistake. It is feared that he will try and use the cash of the world bank not to fulfill its mandate of decreasing poverty, but to push for pro-American Democratic reform around the world.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Luckily, we aren't restricted to people in Washington to head the world bank. Any person with state or corporate experience could be qualified.
Heck, we aren't limited to people in the US. I'm certain there are people in Mexico the US worked with on saving it from debt that would be far more qualified than Wolfowitz.
That this President insists on nominating someone loyal to him to major posts is not always a strength.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To elaborate on my last post, I am disturbed that one of this President's readily apparent primary criteria for jobs not under him is loyalty to him rather than ability, willingness to at least work with the principles behind the post, and perhaps loyalty to or support of the United States (depending).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's like Bush is giving a giant middle finger to everyone in the country with a brain
Come on Tom. You make statements like this and then get upset when people (newbies in particular) think you are a raving liberal? If a conservative made a similar sweeping statement "Anybody who doesn't agree with Bush is a moron." for example they would be virtually lynched.
Yes, yes I know you lean towards the conservative side on the abortion issue. Just like Bill O'Reily is concerned about the environment. It doesn't make him or you any less of a partisan.
I don't mean this as a personal attack. I just don't think you should get away with some of the broad generilazations you make. Just because an issue is obvious to you doesn't mean other opinions aren't inteligent or valid.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but as a Conservative, a Republican, and someone who voted for Bush. I have to say this last nomination of Wolfowitz just makes me want to bang my head off my desk here. I put up with Gonzalez, I said ok to Bolton, but enough is enough. Seriously, I think he is just doing it out of some sense of humor that I don't quite find funny. I just don't understand, these nominations could have been made as jokes on the daily show in January, and yet here we are in March and they are reality? Incredible.
posted
Okay, Holden, is it your opinion -- as someone who is presumably not a raving liberal -- that only a raving liberal might find Bush's nominations so baffling in their seemingly deliberate thumb-biting that they would be forced to conclude that he's doing it to deliberately infuriate people smart enough to see the irony (or for considerably more insidious reasons, which is MY personal theory; I think he's filling these seats with people who are personally loyal and dedicated to destroying these institutions.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would certainly match his habit of never appointing anyone to a regulatory board who didn't previously lobby or work against those exact regulations.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would certainly match his habit of never appointing anyone to a regulatory board who didn't previously lobby or work against those exact regulations.
Where did Wolfowitz "lobby or work" against the World Bank?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was responding to TomD's theory, not offering specifics on Wolfowitz. I haven't read up on him enough to be properly outaged.
However, I'd be happy to start pulling up exhaustive lists of anti-regulatory lobbyists appointed to regulatory boards if you like.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion, based on what I've seen from Wolfowitz so far, is that he opposes the goals and ideals behind the World Bank, and views it merely as another tool of American hegemony. The man is neither an economist nor a constructionist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*rolls eyes* Dag, when have you ever seen me link to something to make a point, beyond initially calling it to someone's attention? It's not my bag; it's just not something I do.
But, then, when have you ever seen me voice a completely uninformed opinion?
You are of course entitled to your own opinion of Wolfowitz; I'm too lazy to link to things in an attempt to change your mind. But if you honestly have no formed opinion of Wolfowitz's suitability for the post, I strongly advise that you google the guy; it doesn't take much research. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm missing the part where he's a major proponent of international development. A brief ambassadorship to Indonesia, for example, isn't exactly a leading-edge redevelopment post. And note that the editorial, in trying to recommend Wolfowitz for the position, can't come up with anything better than that -- and the somewhat half-hearted "Oh, he's a bureaucrat and the World Bank is a bureaucracy" line.
posted
Hm. I look at Wolfowitz's policies and membership in PNAC and do not see someone overly obsessed with improving the lot of Third-World countries through generous debt relief. Do you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Sidenote, not worthy of another thread: I have to write about corruption in America, and I've discovered two of the books I have are by Arianna Huffington.
Is she generally a good source (in terms of truth) or am I going to end up with massive bias? I've tried to find this this out myself but to no real avail, only that she is an ex-right wing something or another who ran against Arnold Schwartzenegger.)
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Somehow I misread that. *rubs eyes* Sorry. Got a sick kid, and spent the day letting her lick my face. Probably impaired my higher brain functions a bit.
But, yeah, Huffington's also as biased as they come. She was a conservative dress-up doll for years until another conservative ragged on a gay friend of hers for being gay, and she was so shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- that she switched sides immediately and started making kissy faces at Al Franken.
But when you're talking about American pundits, you're not going to find anyone who isn't sensationalist or remarkably biased until you start picking up books without photos of the author. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: But when you're talking about American pundits, you're not going to find anyone who isn't sensationalist or remarkably biased until you start picking up books without photos of the author.
Pssst. That's a bit cruel and accusatory.
Truth is, they are blank covers on the two books- editions from my library. There aren't many books out there that dealt with the issue of corruption that I found- most were corporate, and I needed political. Dangerous subject, I know- which is why I asked.
But yeah. Don't make assumptions, even with young people like myself.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Wolfowitz's biggest problem is likely to be one that article glosses over, Dag -- from the use of aid to support American aims (as Wolfowitz is a very strident advocate of) to the use of aid to combat poverty.
Wolfowitz's place in the incredibly flawed case for atomic development by Iraq lends me little hope for that transition being easy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But yeah. Don't make assumptions, even with young people like myself."
The assumption wasn't meant to reflect the reader. It was meant to reflect the vanity of our pundits -- and the cults of personality they use to sell their books.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I mistook you, I apologise, but it seemed to me that you were accusing me of being so naive to pick a book plastered with a grinning and waving Lockhart-type perfect-teeth bearing author.
I assure you, this is not the case. I may be naive, but I'm not that naive.
posted
Nope. I'm saying that the vast majority of books written by pundits -- especially in this country -- are of that sort, and the valuable ones, in general, are not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I realize this is waaaaay upthread, and off-topic, and slightly inflammatory, but I want to point out that the US military does things besides defense.
And my husband has models of dumptrucks and graders on his desk. *grin*
He has personally been involved (on assignment with the Army) in building a community center/health center in Kosrae (Micronesia), a road system on the remote (but populated) Annette Islands in Alaska, and improving the ecology (can't remember exactly how, it was many years ago) of an endangered species of toad in Arizona.
So there.
On topic: I agree that the nominations are both bewildering AND ironic.
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:is it your opinion -- as someone who is presumably not a raving liberal -- that only a raving liberal might find Bush's nominations so baffling in their seemingly deliberate thumb-biting that they would be forced to conclude that he's doing it to deliberately infuriate people smart enough to see the irony
You got it Tom. What is ironic about Bush appointing people to important posts that agree with him on the issues? I suppose if you were president you would seek to appoint those that would undermine you and work against administration policies?
I understand you are saying it is ironic that Bush would appoint people to head organizations that they have been critical of. This would only be ironic if Bush himself didn't see major problems with these same organizations. TAke the UN for example. Bush isn't a huge fan of the UN in its current state and he would like to change things so he appointed someone that feels the same way. Not at all ironic unless you are looking at the world with your liberal glasses on.
By the way, I am not a huge Bush fan. I voted for Harry Brown (the Libertarian candidate) 4 years ago. I did reluctantly vote for Bush in the past election because of my dissatisfaction with the libertarian stance on terrorism issues.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jexx, the prime function of the military is to (in their own words...hell, Rush L. said it daily when Clinton used the military on peace misions) kill people and break things. The fact that the US spends gobs of money fixing them back up afterwards is just a bonus. I think a national Corp. of Engineers can be kept without having them kill people and break things first.
Maybe it should be a separate topic but in todays world, I honestly can't think of a reason to have a giant standing Army. We have nukes, tons of them. Who would want to upset someone with gobs of nukes? How does the miliary help us against terrorists? Hmmm...I honestly think our lives wouldn't change a tiny bit...and just think of the tax cuts! Or freed up money for more important purposes! All we need is a security force to protect things within this nation (like those nukes, for example) but beyond that, what else is there? Who would honestly try to invade? And why would they? I mean, I love "Red Dawn" as much as the next guy but I don't see the Cuban arm of the Soviets really dropping from the sky...nor their 21st century stand-ins. And if they did, the NRA would kill them dead. Posts: 896 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't cut the American military. Where would those people go? It has, I suspect, reached a critical mass where it's only options are growth or implosion. Although, I suppose implosion is a cut of sorts
I don't know about Wolfowitz's appointment. But I do know that I don't like the man. Nor, I suspect, do many of the people that he's going to be working with. It's a curious appointment, in that he has no real experience with what the world bank is supposed to be doing. By which I mean he's neither a banker or a specialist on the effects of poverty. And no, I don't think being the ambassador to Indonesia when it was taking heavy loans counts as real experience. Maybe he gained familiarity, but that's hardly hands on.
And, to be perfectly frank, I don't trust for a second that he does/will view this as a multilateral organisation responsible for decreasing global poverty and increasing economic development. Increase America's economic development, sure. But he strikes me as the kind of man who will always put America first, something that isn't appropriate in this organisation.
Of course, his appointment isn't a sure thing. While it's supposed to rubber stamped the US did veto Caio Koch-Weser for the IMF, something that's theoretically also rubber stamped. I wonder if that'll play a part in his approval? The world of politics is nothing if not petty.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You got it Tom. What is ironic about Bush appointing people to important posts that agree with him on the issues?"
It depends entirely on your worldview, holden. Bush has this intriguing habit of appointing people to posts to specifically prevent the organizations to which they've been appointed from doing anything useful. If you agree that those organizations should not do anything useful -- for a given value of useful -- perhaps you might find this constructive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
