The Political Discussion Thread

[Womble]

Yeah! It was great when the Soviet Union still existed. Tell me, does the Soviet Union still exist? Or, better yet, is Germany still divided into an East and West? I'm arguing against the case for the US in Germany right now, not in 1988.

I suppose there's no harm in relocating US troops to the outer borders of the current EU... which is already being done. Quite a few German municipalities will go bankrupt overnight in the process, of course.

I know. It was sarcasm. Just like a bunch of it was. However, the US did not station their military in Japan to protect Japan, they put the military in Japan to ensure others that Japanese aggression would not arise again.

That's hilariously untrue in light of the fact that Japan's post-war army was created on explicit orders from the US.

US forces are stationed in Japan because Japan is a convenient spot to place communications and storage facilities for the US Pacific Fleet.

Note: The Russians threatened to nuke Poland if the US went ahead with the missile defense program. Russia has little to gain from nuking Poland in practical terms. This was international politics.

It's always international politics. Nuking someone is international politics, not nuking someone is also international politics

Japan did had the upper hand for a while, until the Battle of Midway. And Japan knew that they had to overwhelm the US quickly, otherwise they would lose. And if Japan had known that the US had the capability of killing hundreds of thousands with a single bomb, they never would have attacked.

The US didn't have that capability when the war began. But the Japanese did know that their industrial capacity, particularly with regards to warship manufacture, were no match for the American industry. They attacked anyway, despite that knowledge, and it isn't the only example of an aggression against a superior power by a country that gambles on other factors, such as shock from a quick victory or attrition and war-weariness from a long sequence of inconclusive conflicts.

[Seastallion]

I know it is still largely considered to be in the realm of conspiracy theory, but there is in fact, legitimate historical data that strongly suggests that the U.S. did indeed know about the coming attack on Pearl Harbor, but simply allowed it to happen. Even so, the idea isn't widely accepted, I think largely because no one wants to believe our government would allow such a thing to happen. On the other hand, Winston Churchill could have saved several towns from bombing, because the Allies had cracked the Nazi communications codes, but he allowed them to be bombed for the greater good of the overall war, so as not to tip off the Nazi's that their codes had been cracked. This eventually led to the success of D-Day.

The primary speculation on why the Pearl Harbor attack was allowed to happen, was so that the event could be used to motivate the U.S. public into action. A sort of 'remember the Alamo' moment. The U.S. government didn't plan the attack, but they could've taken steps to prepare for it and attempt to repel it. The U.S. public at that time really didn't want to get involved in any wars anywhere in the world, including against Germany and Japan. None the less, when the U.S. finally did decide to move, it marked a significant turning point in the entire WWII timeline, for both Europe and the Pacific.

There are some that think that the 9-11-01 attack on the World Trade Center towers was a repeat of similar history. To date, this theory is even more rejected by the mainstream accepted perception, than the Pearl Harbor theory is. I remain undecided, until I can get enough 'proof' to go beyond a reasonable doubt.

[fems]

Animal Rights activist would be aghast if people applied the standared of 'person' to an animal's right to live.

Yet a similar argument is used by people pro-euthanasia; when a pet is seriously ill, suffering or terminal the humane thing to do is to euthanize it to prevent further suffering. Yet in many countries the same doesn't apply to human beings...

so just because an unborn baby is dependent upon a biological feeding and oxygen tube (i.e., the umbilical cord) to sustain himself he has no right to live....guess that means people on artificial breathing and oxygen tubes don't have the right to live either then do they?

The umbilical cord is not an oxygen tube in the way a respirator is; a fetus' longs aren't developed up until about the 30th week of gestation and even then medical assistance is required if a premature birth follows, because they cannot survive on their own as their longs aren't working properly yet.

This is part of the reason why 24 weeks of gestation is almost often maintained as a maximum for legal abortion.

An unborn baby generally has good odds of survival outside the womb safely, after about 28 weeks, or 7 months. Unborn children have been known to survive as early 21 weeks (just over 5 months), but it is less common.

Yes, thank you, I can count. And yes, I too have heard the wonderful news articles about extremely premature and underdeveloped babies surviving. What they often fail to mention is that the baby needs to remain in the hospital for months if not the first year of their life or longer, because they weren't fully developed (or "finished") yet. Or that being born so early causes many medical problems and complications, like damaged/unfinished organs, brain damage, physical and mental disabilities and developmental disorders.

These preemies would never survive without medical assistance/interference. To use your earlier words, that would be nature's version of spontaneous abortion.

Again, this is one of the reasons why the legal limitation on abortion is often 24 weeks of gestation maximum.

The baby is generally capable of surviving for about 2 months before births generally take place. It is true that sometimes not all pregnancies are successful, and end in miscarriages. It is very sad, but nature was the deciding factor.

Again, not without medical interference. There's a reason they are called premature deliveries/babies.

It is true, that the U.S. does have more teen pregnancies that come to birth, however the Abortion rates in the U.S. are FAR lower than in Europe as well. Abortion rates in Europe and around the World are MUCH greater than in the U.S. In addition, the fewer abortions that the U.S. does have, are by FAR, the safest in the world. The U.S. has the smallest percentage of unsafe abortions of any nation on Earth, including any European country. The U.S. has promoted a strong policy of making abortions relatively rare (compared to the rest of the world), but also the safest in the world.

Perhaps, but like Goose already explained you can't compare the US to the whole of Europe, since the US is one country whereas there are vast differences between health care, laws and policies in all of the European countries. That's why the comparisons I made earlier about abortions and pregnancies were all looked at per country (otherwise it would have been either 3 or 5 times, not 3-5 times).

There has been a study done, that shows that population density has no effect on pregnancy rates, as higher and lesser populated areas have virtually equal rates. However, the population density DOES have a very visible effect on the abortion rates. Areas with higher population density have FAR more abortions than lower population density areas. I'm sure many things could be attributed to this, but I do find it an interesting 'coincidence' that higher population density centers also tend to trend more strongly with liberal political attitudes, than do less population density areas. In the U.S., one need look no further than the Electoral Map, county by county, to see that is definitely true.

Perhaps this is true for the US, but it certainly isn't worldwide. Goose's link already established that the US' abortion rate (22.2%) is higher than for example the Netherlands (12.6%). Yet, the population density for the US is 33.7/km2 (87.4/sq mi) vs 404.9/km2 (1,048.7/sq mi) for the Netherlands. So, that basically blows your one study out of the water.

Just because something is 'law' doesn't make it 'moral'. There are many laws that get overturned in this country because they are eventually found to be unconstitutional, or just down right wrong.

Yes, I'm aware of this. I just find it ironic that things like abortion and euthanasia are considered immoral by so many Americans (and illegal in certain states) while the death penalty still exists in certain states. But apparently that's okay because that person did something against the law. Well, hopefully, considering how many times people are actually innocently convicted

Abortions in many parts of the world are VERY dangerous for the woman. There are specific parts of the world where the safety (for the woman) has been brought up to a point where the percentage of unsafe abortions is negligable, but that isn't true for most of the world at all. Most of the world has an alarmingly high percentage of unsafe abortions. Fortunately, the U.S. has the highest percentage of safe abortions, bar none.
[...]
As a matter of worldwide statistics... According to the WHO, unsafe abortions are tied in 2nd place (along with infections) for the highest reason for Maternal Deaths. So just how safe are abortions really? Between 1995-2000, some 700,000 women died from unintended pregnancies, but 64% of them died because of abortions. Certainly, incompetence of those providing the abortions is a major factor, however, there are studies which indicate even so-called 'safe' abortions are not nearly so safe as advertised. Often abortions have been found to complicate later 'planned' pregnancies. In addition, there are multiple studies that show that childbirth is in fact safer than abortions, particularly when proper prenatal care is provided.

Did you know the maternal mortality is 99 per 100.000 women in America? For comparison it's 27 in Europe (as a whole this time), 82 in Western Pacific region, 420 in Eastern Mediterranean region, 450 in South East Asia and Africa is naturally the highest at 900. On average it's 9 per 100.000 women in developed countries and 450 in developing countries.

In Europe the child mortality (those who die before their 5th birthday) is 15 in 1.000 live births, 19 for America. For Africa it's 145. It's 5 for the Netherlands, 6 for the UK and Malta in specific, while 17 out of 22 Western European countries have an even lower rate than 5.

Another interesting overview for abortion rates per 1,000 fertile women in Europe:

abortion rate in europe vs 19 in US.JPG

Compared to 19 in 1,000 fertile women in the US.

I've already stated I'm not opposed to abortions in every single case. Not at all. I'm just opposed to it being promoted as the preferred method for wiping out an inconvenience, resulting from poor personal choices. Rape, incest, and health-related issues are all potentially reasonable circumstances where abortion might be seen as a preferable option. In general, I'm all for contraception. I think that if people are going to engage in risky behavior they should do what they can to reduce those risks. Pregnancy is one of those risks (obviously), but at that point you have the life of another human being to consider as well as the mothers, regardless of the ultimate decision.

Interestingly enough abortion rates are still very high in the USA compared to other Western European countries, which only have a slightly better percentage of people using contraceptives.

It's just like we were taught in school... Remember the Six P's..! Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance...

Um, no. In case it wasn't clear yet I'm not from the USA so I have no idea what you're talking about. It sounds more like a case of not getting it up (if one fails these 6 P's) rather than safe sex, though.

I just had the normal safe sex ed, like use contraceptives or you'll end up with a baby and possibly STDs...

Let me reiterate. Life is always the preferable option. That said, there MAY be situations where death is preferable, but definitely should NOT be common. That is the real struggle here. To decide if allowing death should be easy, or difficult. It should always be difficult, but not completely impossible. Not for abortion, euthanasia, suicide, or the death penalty. That is where I stand. Allowed in specific circumstances, but never as a first or preferred option.

This is where I must disagree; life is not always the preferable option, especially not when talking about euthanasia and suicide considering most people contemplating that actually suffer very much and have a poor if any quality of life.

And as for abortion not being the first or preferred option it only seems to be the case in the USA (and a growing trend of it in the UK), while other countries don't share these problems. So, really, is it the possibility and availability of contraceptives and/or abortion that is the real issue or is it the culture, attitude, education etc?

Nope. The USA actually has quite a high rate of abortion (linky linky). True, there are a number of European countries that have higher abortion rates than the US, but looking at the list I linked, Sweden is the only Western European country with a higher abortion rates. Note, if you will, that the Netherlands, which has one of the absolute lowest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe, also has a very low abortion rate.

Interestingly enough the teen pregnancy rate in the Netherlands was 14.3 (in 1,000) in 2007, with Sweden having about double that. About 80% of the pregnant teen Swedes chose for abortion and 60% of the Dutch pregnant girls. That is high compared to the USA (34%), Belgium (45%) England (41%) and
Germany (37%) but the percentage of girls using contraceptives in the first place is much higher. In Europe contraceptives are widely used by (15-year-old) girls who are having sex (the highest in France 92%, Austria 92%, and the Netherlands 97% and the lowest being Estonia 78% and Poland at 73%), which is probably why their overall pregnancy rates are 3-6 times lower than the USA.

Overview of live births in teenage pregnancy (per 1,000 'women') in Europe:

teen pregnancy rates europe.JPG

Compared to 61 per 1,000 'women' in the USA.

[Seastallion]

Honestly, I'm too tired to continue the abortion debate right now. However, fems, I will say that you completely missed the point of what the "Six P's" are all about. It has LITTLE to do with preparation for sex per se, it has EVERYTHING to do with preparation for ANYTHING in life, generally speaking. If you properly prepare for things you do, before you go do them, than you will have a much greater chance of succeeding in whatever you do. The "Six P's" are supposed to be a recipe for success regarding anything you set out to do. It is an idea that was advocated when I was in the Naval JROTC program in school.

Proper Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance...

[Seastallion]

I figured out some interesting things in the past hour or so... I was checking out Real Clear Politics, and discovered that their result with Obama in the lead by 0.1% is actually WRONG. Here is why...

What RCP is doing is only adding the individual results of each poll, WITHOUT taking into account the actual numbers of those polled. The tally given comes from 3 tied polls, 4 with Obama ahead, and 3 with Romney ahead. Ignoring the tied polls, because their percentages equal out anyway, I did a bit of math.

The 3 polls with Romney ahead, actually have more than 2,000 voters polled combined, than the 4 Obama polls combined. Knowing that, I figured up the numbers of voters based on the individual percentages for each candidate per poll and then added them together. Using the total number of those polled, I then used the numbers polled for each candidate to come up with actual results based on combined total votes for each.

The results showed that Romney came out ahead by 48%, to Obama's 47%, leaving about 5% undecided. So, to put it another way, Romney is in the lead with 1% rather than Obama being in the lead with 0.1%.

Just adding the individual results, without respect to the actual numbers polled, can make a significant difference to the true averaged results. Just something to keep in mind for the future when you see the number at the top of poll list on RCP.

Shame on you RCP, you ought to know better... Using a simplistic method of averaging the polls doesn't give a truly meaningful result. ...and I'm not even a math wiz...

[mad_gater]

the umbilical cord in this case is providing the exact same function an artificial respirator does.....an artificial respirator is in essence an oxygen delivery vehicle, delivering oxygen in a form that can be utilized by the person who needs it......the umbilical cord is doing the same thing with the unborn child...delivering oxygen to the unborn child in a way that can be utilized by the child's still underdeveloped body...the only 2 differences are that one is natural and the other artificial and the difference in mechanism of action (artificial respirator works through the lungs whereas the umbilical cord introduces the oxygen directly to the child's bloodstream)

and the fact remains that people on artificial respirators are on them because their lungs aren't working properly either......so do we dehumanize them and cut them off their artificial respirator and let them die or even euthanize them (which is really just the same philosophies pro-abortionists use as applied to the elderly and sick/disabled) as certain people are wont to do with the unborn child whose need is much similar (lungs not working properly thus needs an apparatus, one that is in this instance biological rather than mechanical, to get oxygen into his body)

[lordofseas]

Okay, obviously the history I learned is different from what you've learned. I learned about the Marshal Plan, where the U.S. had the policy of trying to help almost everyone rebuild after WWII, in order to prevent the very reasons that WWII developed from the aftermath of WWI. What exactly did the U.S. do to hinder Germany? I'd like to know.

War Reparations. In economic terms, yes it did hinder them. The Marshall Plan was American Imperialism at its most blatant, to influence Western style ideology in a Communist leaning Europe. Don't necessarily disagree with that intention, I'm just saying that in economic terms, that's not what rebuilt Europe.

As to China and N. Korea... China has had a long standing stated intention of invading Taiwan, for the past 50 years. Taiwanese officials have continuously voiced their concerns that they would be overwhelmed within days of an attack, and their only hope of preventing an invasion is the presence of the U.S. Military in the region. China has been getting more and more aggressive with their military expansion in recent years. They are currently in a dispute with Japan over an island they both claim.

If Taiwan wants the US Military, they can have the US Military.

South Korean officials have voiced similar concerns about N. Korea. The N. Korean military is more than twice the size of S. Korea's military, although S. Korea has access to more advanced weapon platforms. N. Korea does have the backing of China, which uses it as a point of leverage in regional politics. It would only take a single nuke from N. Korea to take out Seoul, which is only a few miles away from the border.

And if South Korea wants them, South Korea can have them.

If you have netflix streaming, check out the documentary, World without US. It is very educational about why the U.S. bothers to be engaged with the world at all. It is divided into 3 parts, Europe, The Middle East, and Asia. I definitely recommend it as food for thought, if nothing else.

The US doesn't have the capacity nor the desire to become an isolationist nation.

I suppose there's no harm in relocating US troops to the outer borders of the current EU... which is already being done. Quite a few German municipalities will go bankrupt overnight in the process, of course.

Well, they'll have to go through bankruptcy anyway, so might as well be now.

That's hilariously untrue in light of the fact that Japan's post-war army was created on explicit orders from the US.

Except that it's not an army. Check your facts. It's technically a police force, which was originally made to protect Japan during the Korean War, when most of the troops were transferred to the Korean peninsula. It has evolved since its creation as a response force for natural disasters and protection from outside aggression.

US forces are stationed in Japan because Japan is a convenient spot to place communications and storage facilities for the US Pacific Fleet.

Well, as long as it's convenient for the US Pacific Fleet. Go talk to the people in Okinawa. They don't want the US there. South Korea can work, or Taiwan. They want the US there, so let them be there.

The US didn't have that capability when the war began. But the Japanese did know that their industrial capacity, particularly with regards to warship manufacture, were no match for the American industry. They attacked anyway, despite that knowledge, and it isn't the only example of an aggression against a superior power by a country that gambles on other factors, such as shock from a quick victory or attrition and war-weariness from a long sequence of inconclusive conflicts.

What's your point? Japan thought they could overwhelm the US Forces. They were wrong. North Korea would be moronic to think they can overwhelm South Korean forces right now.

[Gatefan1976]

the umbilical cord in this case is providing the exact same function an artificial respirator does.....an artificial respirator is in essence an oxygen delivery vehicle, delivering oxygen in a form that can be utilized by the person who needs it......the umbilical cord is doing the same thing with the unborn child...delivering oxygen to the unborn child in a way that can be utilized by the child's still underdeveloped body...the only 2 differences are that one is natural and the other artificial and the difference in mechanism of action (artificial respirator works through the lungs whereas the umbilical cord introduces the oxygen directly to the child's bloodstream)

Not exactly. Yes it provides a usable form of oxygen, but it also cleans the blood and removes waste products as well. If you want a comparable "mechanical solution", try a person in a vegatative state that requires 24/7 palative care AND an artificial respirator, and even still that is not a direct comparison.

and the fact remains that people on artificial respirators are on them because their lungs aren't working properly either......so do we dehumanize them and cut them off their artificial respirator and let them die or even euthanize them.

No, we don't do either. Try making an argument, not a "sky is falling/ slippery slope line of dross. What we sometimes do is give the family of the poor bugger in such a state the option to "let them go". Will that option sometimes be abused, for sure, but ALL options can be abused sometimes.

(which is really just the same philosophies pro-abortionists use as applied to the elderly and sick/disabled) as certain people are wont to do with the unborn child whose need is much similar (lungs not working properly thus needs an apparatus, one that is in this instance biological rather than mechanical, to get oxygen into his body)

Sigh.
A 10 week old feotus' lungs are working "as intended" at that point in thier development, a person who needs an artificial lung or whatever have problems with them NOT working as intended at that point in thier development. They are NOT the same thing at all, so stop trying to compare the two.

[Seastallion]

War Reparations. In economic terms, yes it did hinder them. The Marshall Plan was American Imperialism at its most blatant, to influence Western style ideology in a Communist leaning Europe. Don't necessarily disagree with that intention, I'm just saying that in economic terms, that's not what rebuilt Europe.

Did some reading on it. Your correct that reparations were indeed demanded from Germany after WWII, and the early plans were to bring Germany back down to a peak Depression era economic level. However, those early plans were finally trumped by the Marshall Plan, which cut short the more strenuous earlier plans for Germany. Had they continued with them, Germany would've been in a state just as bad as after WWI. So in reality, the Marshall Plan was a blessing for Germany compared to what they had originally intended to have happen. After Germany was gutted of its manufacturing capability (the hardware was sent to other countries), the Marshall Plan gave aid to Germany to help them rebuild, instead of becoming a strictly Agricultural nation as was previously considered. The Marshall plan didn't hinder Germany, it saved it's butt from much worse plans.

If Taiwan wants the US Military, they can have the US Military.

And if South Korea wants them, South Korea can have them.

*shrug*

The US doesn't have the capacity nor the desire to become an isolationist nation.

Well, the U.S. could, but it won't. In some ways the U.S. has always been somewhat isolationist. Even from our early days, the founding Fathers warned of diplomatic entanglements with other nations. Too bad we didn't listen. Still, the attitude has survived after a fashion. The game of Soccer (Football), is a good example. Most Americans don't really care about the game (at least not to the level found in other countries), or over which nations win or loose international soccer games. The citizens of many nations go nuts over their Soccer games, and it is a matter of intense national pride for them. The majority of U.S. citizens barely notice the soccer games at all, much less have riots over them. Now American Football, or other American Sports such as Baseball or Basketball, you might see riots and passion. But not so much over Soccer. Americans are very much focused inwards generally speaking, and only pay attention to International matters when hit over the head with them, for the most part. American's have a great deal of national pride, but rarely feel the need to have to prove it to other nations, through such mediums as Soccer. Americans are well aware that our nation is the richest in the world, most technologically advanced (aerospace industry for certain), and the strongest military on Earth. Knowing that, Americans feel fairly secure about their country's standing.

Well, as long as it's convenient for the US Pacific Fleet. Go talk to the people in Okinawa. They don't want the US there. South Korea can work, or Taiwan. They want the US there, so let them be there.

It is true that many citizens of Okinawa aren't thrilled about the presence of the U.S. Military, but it isn't at all clear that ALL of Japan wants the U.S. to leave. There are many Japanese who actually DO want the U.S. military presence, they just don't want them in their own backyard. The U.S. might reduce its presence in Japan, but I doubt it will go away completely. At least not for a good while yet.

North Korea would be moronic to think they can overwhelm South Korean forces right now.

Unfortunately, the leaders of N. Korea ARE a bit moronic. Hopefully, their condition won't get any worse.

[Seastallion]

There are at least two recent removals of Officers from their Commands almost immediately after the Benghazi attack. The timing is VERY suspect.

The first, is the removal of Gen. Ham, the Commander of AFRICOM (African Command). There is a rumor that he was relieved of Command by his Executive Officer after ignoring a stand down order in response to the Benghazi attack. Supposedly he attempted to organize a rescue mission for Benghazi.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...over-benghazi/

The other is the VERY unusual removal of Navy Rear Admiral in Command of a Carrier Mideast Strike Group. He was removed for “inappropriate leadership judgment” and was NOT related to personal conduct. The rumor is that he also attempted to help during the attack on Benghazi, perhaps in support of Gen. Ham of Africom.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...investigation/

The real reasons are still unclear, and at this moment I wouldn't trust anything coming from the White House or the Pentagon about it. There WILL be Hearings by Congress over Benghazi, and hopefully this issue will also be resolved at that time.

The following link contains the rumors floating around, but as yet unconfirmed... http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/20...s-2466106.html

We DO know for a FACT, that they DID ask for help during the attack in Benghazi, and they were denied each time. We know for a FACT, that former SEAL Tyrone Woods disobeyed orders to stand down, and attempted a rescue of those at the Consulate. We also know for a FACT that Tyrone Woods requested military aid when the CIA annex came under attack itself, and was DENIED.

We also know for a FACT there WERE assets in the area that could have been used to one degree or another to at least TRY and assist those in Benghazi. We know for a FACT, those assets were never sent, while at least two Predator Drones flew overhead and watched the attack that was still going on when they arrived.

The Obama Administration has a LOT to answer for.

[lordofseas]

Did some reading on it. Your correct that reparations were indeed demanded from Germany after WWII, and the early plans were to bring Germany back down to a peak Depression era economic level. However, those early plans were finally trumped by the Marshall Plan, which cut short the more strenuous earlier plans for Germany. Had they continued with them, Germany would've been in a state just as bad as after WWI. So in reality, the Marshall Plan was a blessing for Germany compared to what they had originally intended to have happen. After Germany was gutted of its manufacturing capability (the hardware was sent to other countries), the Marshall Plan gave aid to Germany to help them rebuild, instead of becoming a strictly Agricultural nation as was previously considered. The Marshall plan didn't hinder Germany, it saved it's butt from much worse plans.

Economists are not so certain about what you are saying. Yes, the Marshall Plan did help, because of the lessening of European regulations, but in Germany itself, it was Ludwig Erhard acting as Economics Minister in the early 50s that allowed Germany to grow. Also, the US forced the dismantlement of German industry, if you recall, as part of the Marshall Plan.

Well, the U.S. could, but it won't. In some ways the U.S. has always been somewhat isolationist. Even from our early days, the founding Fathers warned of diplomatic entanglements with other nations. Too bad we didn't listen. Still, the attitude has survived after a fashion. The game of Soccer (Football), is a good example. Most Americans don't really care about the game (at least not to the level found in other countries), or over which nations win or loose international soccer games. The citizens of many nations go nuts over their Soccer games, and it is a matter of intense national pride for them. The majority of U.S. citizens barely notice the soccer games at all, much less have riots over them. Now American Football, or other American Sports such as Baseball or Basketball, you might see riots and passion. But not so much over Soccer. Americans are very much focused inwards generally speaking, and only pay attention to International matters when hit over the head with them, for the most part. American's have a great deal of national pride, but rarely feel the need to have to prove it to other nations, through such mediums as Soccer. Americans are well aware that our nation is the richest in the world, most technologically advanced (aerospace industry for certain), and the strongest military on Earth. Knowing that, Americans feel fairly secure about their country's standing.

The Founding Fathers were not particularly isolationist themselves. Recall the Monroe Doctrine: They were prepared to fight European nations so that the US could act like Big Brother in the Latin American states.

But yes, I do agree that Americans think they are the best in the world and that they so often don't pay attention to others. Military? Yes. Technologically advanced? Debatable. As for richest? Arguable. If we were to go from GDP alone? Yes. GDP per capita? No.

It is true that many citizens of Okinawa aren't thrilled about the presence of the U.S. Military, but it isn't at all clear that ALL of Japan wants the U.S. to leave. There are many Japanese who actually DO want the U.S. military presence, they just don't want them in their own backyard. The U.S. might reduce its presence in Japan, but I doubt it will go away completely. At least not for a good while yet.

Well, of course they like having another country's military protect them. It's the same with Canada: we have a weak military, because the US Navy does it all for us. We're certainly grateful, yes, but if we had American troops stationed in Toronto or Vancouver, everyone would hate them being there.

Unfortunately, the leaders of N. Korea ARE a bit moronic. Hopefully, their condition won't get any worse.

They are fanatical, which makes them dangerous. But they are not stupid.

[Seastallion]

Economists are not so certain about what you are saying. Yes, the Marshall Plan did help, because of the lessening of European regulations, but in Germany itself, it was Ludwig Erhard acting as Economics Minister in the early 50s that allowed Germany to grow. Also, the US forced the dismantlement of German industry, if you recall, as part of the Marshall Plan.

I don't doubt at all, that wise leaders in Germany helped to grow the industrial and economic capacities. However, the dismantlement of German industry actually came before the implementation of the Marshall Plan, under the guidance of an earlier plan that wanted to make Germany a strictly agrarian society. The Marshall Plan was designed with the idea that economically stable countries would be less likely to attempt to wage further wars, as Germany DID do after WWI.

The Founding Fathers were not particularly isolationist themselves. Recall the Monroe Doctrine: They were prepared to fight European nations so that the US could act like Big Brother in the Latin American states.

Monroe wasn't one of the Founding Fathers. He came later, implementing his doctrine in 1823, nearly 50 years after the Founding of the U.S. During Washington's time, Americans wanted little to do with other nations, and even during Monroe's time the American public's focus was on their own continent primarily. The Monroe Doctrine's main focus was on expanding U.S. territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This had already been expedited by the Louisiana Purchase, which by itself expanded the U.S. 2/3rd's of the way across the Continent. The induction of Texas and the American/Mexican War more or less completed the continental territorial expansion. At least until Alaska was bought from the Russians, in the purchase called at the time "Steward's Folly". Still, Alaska was bought for less than a penny an acre if I recall correctly, and it turned out to be a good deal.

But yes, I do agree that Americans think they are the best in the world and that they so often don't pay attention to others. Military? Yes. Technologically advanced? Debatable. As for richest? Arguable. If we were to go from GDP alone? Yes. GDP per capita? No.

I can agree with your response, generally. Many Americans DO think we are the best in the world. I personally believe that America IS exceptional, but not because of any inherent human quality that others don't have. I believe that our founding principles are what has made this country great, and we badly need to return to those principles. That means a smaller Federal Gov't, Fiscal responsibility, and a more Free Market friendly environment.

Militarily, there is NO question that the U.S. has the strongest overall forces in the world. The U.S. has certainly poured enough resources into them to make it so. Just our R&D budget is more than most countries entire Defense Budgets. Technologically, we are certainly advanced, but it isn't like other countries don't have their own advancements in certain areas that may in some cases be better, or at least on par. Except for the Aerospace Industry. The U.S. has unquestioned superiority when it comes to Air Power, both in technological advancements and in force capability. The U.S. is already working on its 3rd generation of Stealth technologies, and no other nation has even begun their 1st generation of development in that regard. The technologies still kept secret would blow people's minds I think, but the Military is far from ready to let those things become public knowledge. Area 51 is real, and just sitting around there in a lawn chair on some nights provides a very interesting show. The Military has no comment. As to America being rich, I do agree with you. There are many countries where the citizens have at least as good a quality of life in general, if not a better one. Kuwaiti citizens seem to have it really nice, from what I've heard. Certainly NOT the norm for Arab nations, or the norm for nearly any other country either. They have virtually no military at all, relying on the U.S. and its Allies to protect them. They spend most of their oil wealth on their quality of life.

Well, of course they like having another country's military protect them. It's the same with Canada: we have a weak military, because the US Navy does it all for us. We're certainly grateful, yes, but if we had American troops stationed in Toronto or Vancouver, everyone would hate them being there.

Well, it is nice to actually have someone SAY it is appreciated. I don't think most people in the world truly appreciate just how much the U.S. does do to keep peace in the world. They only focus on the military conflicts the U.S. has participated in, but not on the overall role the U.S. Military has played. There are quite a few nations that rely on the U.S. to defend them, and it does so without much complaint. Americans aren't perfect, not even remotely close. Still, America does play a necessary part in keeping another World War from occurring. If American influence were to suddenly vanish, there WOULD be another World War. Of that, there is no doubt. It is one of the big reasons we MUST get Obama out of office. Nations like Iran sense the weakness in U.S. leadership, and that can only spell disaster. They've even said as much.

They are fanatical, which makes them dangerous. But they are not stupid.

(Sorry, I realize I go off on a tangent... but oh well... )

Fanaticism IS a form of stupidity. However, you are correct, they're fanaticism is grounded in Atheism, much as the Soviet Union's was, which does keep their fanatical aspirations in check. Their fear of death keeps them in check. Iran, however, is another story altogether. They do NOT fear death, and in a rather disturbing way many of them even welcome it. Theirs is a religious fanaticism which promises reward after death. They have openly stated they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They are also allied with Jihadist that want to create a caliphate that will control the entire Middle East, and eventually, the entire world. They don't hide those ideas at all. Scary stuff, that is very reminiscent of the Nazi's aspirations.

Even more scary when you know that the Muslim Brotherhood currently in control of Egypt (which is the largest Arab nation), and they ALSO openly have the goal (since the 20's I think...) of creating a caliphate that will control the entire Mideast, under Sharia Law. Essentially a Theocracy. Then there is the civil war in Syria which threatens to spill out into the rest of the Mideast, and the growing number of jihadist fighting there. There is already uprisings in Lebanon, and shots traded between Syria and Turkey, which is a member of NATO. Being a member of NATO, if they ask for the help (and they've already called NATO to council), then by treaty all of NATO is obligated to help. Including the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. Ugh. No one wants war in that part of the world, AGAIN, but it seems all but inevitable at this point.

No, it's not all Obama's fault, but he certainly hasn't helped the situation. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood before they came into power and also pulled the rug out from beneath Mubarak (which no one will miss), and he also contributed to the fall of Quadaffi (another, no one will miss), which has led to the current chaos in Libya. Iran recognizes his weakness of "leading from behind", and is laughing all the way to a Nuke, despite sanctions. The Arab Spring hasn't been so rosy.

[lordofseas]

I don't doubt at all, that wise leaders in Germany helped to grow the industrial and economic capacities. However, the dismantlement of German industry actually came before the implementation of the Marshall Plan, under the guidance of an earlier plan that wanted to make Germany a strictly agrarian society. The Marshall Plan was designed with the idea that economically stable countries would be less likely to attempt to wage further wars, as Germany DID do after WWI.

One of the causes of WWII, if you'll recall, was the more or less forced compliance to the Treaty of Versailles. The German people are too proud and vigilant: they never would have fully complied with the demands of the Americans. And it would not have been good for the world if they were forced to against their will.

Monroe wasn't one of the Founding Fathers. He came later, implementing his doctrine in 1823, nearly 50 years after the Founding of the U.S. During Washington's time, Americans wanted little to do with other nations, and even during Monroe's time the American public's focus was on their own continent primarily. The Monroe Doctrine's main focus was on expanding U.S. territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This had already been expedited by the Louisiana Purchase, which by itself expanded the U.S. 2/3rd's of the way across the Continent. The induction of Texas and the American/Mexican War more or less completed the continental territorial expansion. At least until Alaska was bought from the Russians, in the purchase called at the time "Steward's Folly". Still, Alaska was bought for less than a penny an acre if I recall correctly, and it turned out to be a good deal.

Monroe is considered to be one of the Founding Fathers, because of his body of works. Most notably, being President, as well as a delegate to the Continental Congress. A couple of other things as well. Louisiana Purchase, etc.

I can agree with your response, generally. Many Americans DO think we are the best in the world. I personally believe that America IS exceptional, but not because of any inherent human quality that others don't have. I believe that our founding principles are what has made this country great, and we badly need to return to those principles. That means a smaller Federal Gov't, Fiscal responsibility, and a more Free Market friendly environment.

Not any more exceptional than Ancient Athenian democracy, or the UK during the Industrial Revolution, or the creation of the South American states by Simon Bolivar, or the Code of Hammurabi. Yes, the creation of the US was a very exceptional moment in history. But it doesn't make American any more brilliant than those other countries that had those exceptional moments as well. In terms of relevance today, the US is exceptionally powerful. I don't consider the US to be exceptional in the way that it was originally intended though, as a beacon of...blah blah blah.

Well, it is nice to actually have someone SAY it is appreciated. I don't think most people in the world truly appreciate just how much the U.S. does do to keep peace in the world. They only focus on the military conflicts the U.S. has participated in, but not on the overall role the U.S. Military has played. There are quite a few nations that rely on the U.S. to defend them, and it does so without much complaint. Americans aren't perfect, not even remotely close. Still, America does play a necessary part in keeping another World War from occurring. If American influence were to suddenly vanish, there WOULD be another World War. Of that, there is no doubt. It is one of the big reasons we MUST get Obama out of office. Nations like Iran sense the weakness in U.S. leadership, and that can only spell disaster. They've even said as much.

Of course the sudden vanishing of the US presence would precipitate a War. But that's because America has needled themselves into the affairs of other nations so often that nations must adjust to that presence.

Where has Obama been "weak" on Iran, and how would Romney be any different? Because, basically, if you watched the debates, all that Romney said that he would do on Iran was exactly what Obama did, except that Romney would have done it earlier. And that's the beauty of hindsight.

Fanaticism IS a form of stupidity. However, you are correct, they're fanaticism is grounded in Atheism, much as the Soviet Union's was, which does keep their fanatical aspirations in check. Their fear of death keeps them in check. Iran, however, is another story altogether. They do NOT fear death, and in a rather disturbing way many of them even welcome it. Theirs is a religious fanaticism which promises reward after death. They have openly stated they want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. They are also allied with Jihadist that want to create a caliphate that will control the entire Middle East, and eventually, the entire world. They don't hide those ideas at all. Scary stuff, that is very reminiscent of the Nazi's aspirations.

When you can show a correlation between the statement of "there is no god", and the horrific actions of North Korea, then you can say they are motivated by atheism. Same with the Soviet Union. Until then, there is a more logical cause. If you talk to those that are raised in ardent Communist families, Communism is a secular religion to those families. They believe they are absolutely right, that they are willing to kill those that disagree. Communism, and their specific iterations in each of the countries (not pure communism in either) is the motivation behind the atrocities of the Soviets and the North Koreans, not atheism.

As for Iran: You're talking about their government. Not the people.

Even more scary when you know that the Muslim Brotherhood currently in control of Egypt (which is the largest Arab nation), and they ALSO openly have the goal (since the 20's I think...) of creating a caliphate that will control the entire Mideast, under Sharia Law. Essentially a Theocracy. Then there is the civil war in Syria which threatens to spill out into the rest of the Mideast, and the growing number of jihadist fighting there. There is already uprisings in Lebanon, and shots traded between Syria and Turkey, which is a member of NATO. Being a member of NATO, if they ask for the help (and they've already called NATO to council), then by treaty all of NATO is obligated to help. Including the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. Ugh. No one wants war in that part of the world, AGAIN, but it seems all but inevitable at this point.

You cannot complain when Egypt has democratic elections, and they choose someone you don't like. Get over it. NATO will only step into Turkey if it falls under the prerogative of Article 5, which would be decided at the time. Considering it's not an active move against the Government of Turkey, and more spilling over from the borders, I think Article 4 applies, which Turkey has already applied.

No, it's not all Obama's fault, but he certainly hasn't helped the situation. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood before they came into power and also pulled the rug out from beneath Mubarak (which no one will miss), and he also contributed to the fall of Quadaffi (another, no one will miss), which has led to the current chaos in Libya. Iran recognizes his weakness of "leading from behind", and is laughing all the way to a Nuke, despite sanctions. The Arab Spring hasn't been so rosy.

What would you prefer he to do? Invade Libya, Egypt, and Syria? Impose American democracy? The idea's laughable.

[Goose]

Well, the U.S. could, but it won't. In some ways the U.S. has always been somewhat isolationist. Even from our early days, the founding Fathers warned of diplomatic entanglements with other nations. Too bad we didn't listen. Still, the attitude has survived after a fashion. The game of Soccer (Football), is a good example. Most Americans don't really care about the game (at least not to the level found in other countries), or over which nations win or loose international soccer games. The citizens of many nations go nuts over their Soccer games, and it is a matter of intense national pride for them. The majority of U.S. citizens barely notice the soccer games at all, much less have riots over them. Now American Football, or other American Sports such as Baseball or Basketball, you might see riots and passion. But not so much over Soccer. Americans are very much focused inwards generally speaking, and only pay attention to International matters when hit over the head with them, for the most part. American's have a great deal of national pride, but rarely feel the need to have to prove it to other nations, through such mediums as Soccer. Americans are well aware that our nation is the richest in the world, most technologically advanced (aerospace industry for certain), and the strongest military on Earth. Knowing that, Americans feel fairly secure about their country's standing.

The funny thing is, America is actually quite good at soccer, especially women's soccer.

[SGalisa]

A YouGov poll shows 91% of Brits would vote for Obama in the presidential election. Similar numbers in Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland.

Spoiler:

suggestion -- Since the European Community seems sooooooooooo very supportive of President Obama, here's an IDEA!!

If Obama gets re-elected none of this next bit of info will matter.

If Romney wins, the rest of the world can VOTE Obama in as United President of EARTH. That way, life will be a WIN-WIN for both Obama and Romney. Romney will still be an underling under Obama's rule(s & regs), and Obama will still be at the top, as he seems to *want* to be.
---hey, WHY NOT??--- the OWG is almost completely operational now, so why don't these people go thru with the NEXT step -- put Obama in place as WORLD PRESIDENT.


Problem solved and no need for anyone to riot or vandalize (due to anger issues) anywhere.
Obama will still be passing his healthcare plan -- but now to the entire planet, of course, and still be able to continue with whatever his previous agenda plans were, but more on an international scale instead, if elected as President of EARTH.