ThinkAloud ThinkAloud

Governmenet By the People For The People?

▼

Governmenet By the People For The People?

Or is it?

from JoeUser Forums
Since the end of WWII, our foriegn policy seems to be jumping from one hole into a crater then out again only to look for another hole to jump into and from there to the next crater. In every case, be it Korea, the Middle East, Vietnam or Iraq we seem to be following in the foot steps of the old and now defunct British and French Empires.

The Suez War, the one sealed the fate of the two old Empires was supposed to also end the era of Empires. Apparently not.

You would think this futile effort in building an empire is in the interest of the people, since it is their democratically elected governments who are trying desperately to build that illusive Empire. But in every case the people were and today they are against that.

The question then becomes, are the people foolish and don't know what are their interests, or those Governments are bunch of idiots who didn't and still don't know how to achieve the interests of the people who elected them with sane, well-thought and honestly- debated policies. The more surprising question is when the people are clearly against a certain policy why those governments just keep pursuing the same misguided objective? of course there will always be a minority who support that mistaken policies. But isn't the government job to follow the opinion of the majority? Why isn't that happening?

Looking at some of the opinions that supports our current (and obviously past) policies in the Middle East i wonder, if these statements have any validity, to what end are we heading?

here is a sample:

"you can't be ignorant enough to overlook the foothold situation we can achieve in the region"

"a superpower willing to make them (the Kurds) a budding Israel, at least I hope so"

"If Richard had hung out another year he probably would have taken Jerusalem, but he left, and when Saladin died and the Arab world splintered there was no one there to take advantage of it "

"when Sadat was assasinated, egypt got a little more radical. when Arrafat died, we got hamas and hezbollah grabbing power. we put in the shah, they forced him out and gave the keys to kohmenni. there seems to be a pattern that after a leader who would "deal with us" we get ones who won't as easily and lead the anti-us rhetoric."
Are we really looking for a foot-hold and to create another Israel in the Middle East? The last of those statements is really telling and confirms that we seem to be always pursuing the wrong policies, the ones made us a target not only to "anti-us rhetoric" but to terrorism and its violent hate. Why aren't they listening to the majority of the people?. We all suffering from these misguided policies.
11,279 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
You main point of the article was this:

The more surprising question is when the people are clearly against a certain policy why those governments just keep pursuing the same misguided objective?


It's simple. The American people vote and chose leaders that can do what they can't do so they can sit home and watch TV during their free time. It can't get more realistic than this. I'm sure you will see this as a ridiculous response, but the truth isn't always pretty.

Once upon a time 2 buildings were hit by 2 airplanes, many people died, the people of that nation wanted retribution. At this point the death of innocent people in Afghanistan was not important because the death of our innocent people in the 4 planes and 3 buildings was being avenged. Now all of a sudden these same people are concerned about harming innocent people in another country where a threat was possible as well. Seems to me like the American people don't really know what they want, therefor they vote for leaders who can decide for them, even if it's not always what they really want. It is a Gov't created by our own laziness, ignorance and careless nature. This sounds like the people who complain about how terrible Walmart is but don't like paying too much for things. A necessary evil?
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am looking for a real answer and not an opinion


I didnt go into the details of how to support israel and not create enemies because it wasnt the main point. But i really have some ideas and i will try to post them shortly.

However, to give you and idea about the possibilities, think of The Camp David Accord. the Israeli/Palestenian problem is more complicated of course. but not impossible to deal with. The US could be a Fair partner not a one-sided one.

you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of history at all.


Mason, thanks for all your input. enlighten me please. if you have more than just insults.

It is a Gov't created by our own laziness, ignorance and careless nature.


If you saying we get what we deserve, i agree completely
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
you don't seem to have the slightest grasp of history at all.


history is subjective. that gets proven here every day.

his perspective is just different.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am looking for a real answer and not an opinion


I didnt go into the details of how to support israel and not create enemies because it wasnt the main point. But i really have some ideas and i will try to post them shortly.

However, to give you and idea about the possibilities, think of The Camp David Accord. the Israeli/Palestenian problem is more complicated of course. but not impossible to deal with. The US could be a Fair partner not a one-sided one.


What more do they need/want? They have done everything but bend Israel over the proverbial barrel. The "only" thing that the Palestenian government wants is for Israel to just disappear/die.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
You insist on 'real' answers from others

yet over and over again you tell us how this article is YOUR opinion


What can i say now !!!!

Please check and see who Posted that. That is ok. Honest mistake. I promised the author of that post (Charles C.) that i will do that in time , soon i hope.

Now to your other points: I never said that my opinion is not subject to fact checking. and i will be the first to admit if iam wrong. All i said is that asking for a proof is not an answer to any arguement.

and your answer to the reference i made to a poll on the news is exactly what i am talking about. The poll that i mentioned was allover all the papers and the news next day. it wasn't "some Tv show". It was as authoritative as any you mentioned in your post.

Doesn't that explain to you my point? i didnt refer to your references as "some think tank", i took your word for it. and i answered it by referreing you to another poll as credible as the one you mentioned. did you consider it the way i considerd yours? obviously not. I said that is what is going to happen from the first post. exchanging proofs doesnt help the arguement.

that doesnt mean you dont check the facts. If you check what i said and you found a contradictory fact, i will consider what you say not discount it as you did even though it was allover the news and was discussed all week long since it was just before the State of the Union Address. and it wasnt just the one i referred to, there were several polls all in the same range. so why did you easily discount it?

it comes down to this: the polls you mention are "real poll numbers" and the one I mention are "some Tv show polls". The facts I mention are not relly facts, the ones you mention are the REAL ones.

i guess you are "Truth Endowed" and me? neaaaah, "just TV show blah blah blah".

well, the REAL facts always have a way of proving themselves beyond anyone's doubt. Just look back and look around you and you will see them. no polls, yours or mine. That of course assuming you are living in the REAL world not in the Virtual one.