state of the address

[blackreichswehr]

gpres. Bush , i voted for this goofball - only because he seamed to be or only choice. But after hearing his STUA, i've come to realize how we as Americans are viewed by our elected. Lots of key words were used to describe the citizenry-ie. us, them, they, dictators use words like that speaking about the populace. He goes on to say, illegal immigration is hard to define, illegal workers are supporting our economy- holly (Try a different word.) George, you just said the word illegal twice. At this time far to late, he fills the need to double the border guards-guess that means the illegals that are here will get to stay- and he called this a pressing challenge. More free trade agreements,that amounts to lost jobs here and business moves to those locations. He said, 1/2 the worlds food aid comes from the U.S.-- well America should realize the power of our Ag. superiority, and let the oil giants of the gulf region drink oil for awhile, after all thats the only reason the U.S. has expanded there.Bush said , the Iraqi people like it that tens of thousands of Americans are coming to ther country, what the hell is this about- first i've heard of this, sounds like a vested interest by large business takes the front seat to this so called War, this must be the hopeful region he is referring to. G.W. says we need to expand nuclear plants , then to only tell some other speck of s--t country no to nuclear power - come on big brother. Wow- Kathleen Sebelius , governor Kanas, what a SOCIALIST she turned out to be. Did you notice her hop 2" off her ass to express herself about health care.

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

I liked your commentary on the State of the Union address, but have one comment myself regarding your stance on the US not allowing Iran to build nuclear plants. Nuclear power technology allows for two products: cheap and emission-free electrical power, and nuclear bomb production. You're saying that a country's leadership (Iran) which has vocally and repeatedly stated it's intention to destroy another country (Israel) should be allowed nuclear technology based on its claims that it only wants that capability to generate electricity should be trusted not to use that same technology to make bombs? Based on what? Fairness? Which statement is safer for you to believe, "Israel must be destroyed" or "Our nation must be allowed to improve its infrastructure"? Do you think a leader that issues BOTH statements is being responsible with regard to the welfare of the citizens of that country? Do you also want to give guns to convicted burglers in addition to law abiding citizens? The logic appears similar. A distinction HAS TO BE MADE between the leaderships seeking conquest and those seeking improvement of their own countries without violating the sovereignty of other countries, FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL TRUE PEACEFUL COUNTRIES. Just so you understand the background of my viewpoint, I am a nuclear inspector in the power industry.

[Bil]

DA said " A distinction HAS TO BE MADE between the leaderships seeking conquest and those seeking improvement of their own countries without violating the sovereignty of other countries, FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL TRUE PEACEFUL COUNTRIES. "While I agree with you in the context of Iran,N korea,and the other countries wanting the technology for nefarious reasons,the world view of our actions over the last 100 years or so might put us in the same category. ---bil

[DARIVS ARCHITECTVS]

Really, Bil? Can you honestly say that we are a nation of conquerers? Do we have vast colonies like say, all of East Africa? Do we retain COMPLETE governmental control of countries we defeat in war (Japan, Germany, Italy, and more recently Panama, Afghanistan & Iraq) against the will of their peoples? IN other words, do you cubscribe the "world view" as you stated it?

[flemgunner]

Well it may be true that we gave all those places back we still have, and always will have, at the very least, a small military presence in those areas.
If you think about it A joint military environment is very important to these areas as we cut them a deal on there military arms. We Equip and train most of those militaries. Also alot of FID stuff that goes behind the scenes is just as important to them as us.
That having been said we dont really "occupy" them but we do have a pretty firm hand in what goes on. After all it takes alot of $$ to hold an area. But if you can make them dependent on you AND get them to pay for future upgrades to the weapons systems they really on you are in there. It was one of the main ideas behind the cold war and giving all those weapons away.
Now think of this. The russians basically lost because they couldnt afford to keep up with our expenditures. They had Afghanistan and other republics to deal with while throwing hugh amounts of money into the arms trade (scenario sound familiar? Afghan, Iraq, china????)
But to get back on the point. The world is way more an unfriendly place towards us than it used to be (all the military traveling Ive done world wide taught me that). Right or wrong thats how it is.
Glenn

[Bil]

Glad to hear from someone that has just come back from the region of operations.While we don't 'occupy' the countries,we do maintain a real presence.There is a real good,very short,book by General Smedley Butler,Past Comandant of the USMC<during the 30s.After rising through the ranks,and fighting in alost every conflict and 'Banana War' of the period,finally realized that he had all along been used as a tool of the big corporations,such as United Fruit and others.It seems strange today that we would send in the Marines to defend the interests of a banana importer ,but many incursions were begun on such minor incidents as workers thinking about how their countries were being controlled from afar.We started a revolution in Columbia so that Panama could break off,and we got the canal in return.I am not saying we should not defend our national interests,just that by doing so we gain the animosity of the people of these countries.Even if we feel it is also in their best interest,there is still animosity.No good deed goes unpunished.The British tried for many years to control and 'civilize' the Afghans.The Russians tried also.If the Russians couldn't succeed using the most brutal methods,how do we think we can do it,using methods where our troops are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs,and every move they make is subject to scrutiny and punishment for perceived misdeeds.War is too serious and dangerous to be used as a tool for corporate advancement.It will become trivialized ,and when it becomes really nessesary,we will be too wary to get involved until too late.I feel that is the real danger of these little 'missions' we keep getting into.National interest-yes.Corporate interest-no.Iraqi freedom is not worth one drop of American blood.As usual,just my opinion. ---bil PS-I never answered the question-No,I do not feel we are a nation of conquerers,but to ignore the opinion of many in the world would be dangerous,it has proven so in the past.I do agree that action should be taken to protect against rogue nations that threaten world security. ---bil