US has an image problem

My gut reactions to the 12-step plan:

Yes, but not our troops. At this stage, the US would look foolish to pull out of Iraq altogether, but in order for other countries to be willing to put their soldiers on the line, we may need to make some concessions about how the new Iraq is shaped.

Um, mandatory? Doesn't that conflict with your "get the government out of our lives" motto below?

As someone who has family and friends in two branches of the military and also in the AmeriCorps program, I can say that those things are better left for those who choose to do them, rather than for those who might be forced to do them.

I don't see how this will reinforce our image abroad. And it's one thing for people to want to limit abortion in a country where we have infrastructure in place tohelp people raise children... but to export this policy abroad? Again with the "government in people's lives business."

I attended a Catholic high school, and I appreciate the sacrificies my parents made to send me there. I'm all for charter schools as alternatives. But I'm for separation of church and state as well.

Besides, many private schools actively solicit donations from well-heeled alumni - a lot of these can go to scholarships for those who cannot afford tuition.

I agree with Demosthenes. A smart idea, this.

Programs like these do exist, but they are not well-publicized. Part of the loan that paid for my brother's M.Ed from Stanford and California teaching credential will be forgiven by one of these programs, because he is currently teaching at a low-performing school in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Would this aid be for security purposes only? I'd have to think about this one.

Subvert local authorities' jurisdictions? This will do our image wonders abroad.

I generally agree, but we should tread lightly as far as India is concerned. We can't marginalize Pakistan.

Just wondering, how long ago was it that the House of Saud were are allies and that they were the ones keeping populist Islamic fundamentalist movements at bay? We could be looking at an even worse Saudi regime and the entire Islamic world turned dead against us if word of such a "covert operation" were to get out.

I'm a little queasy about the nuke power, and very queasy about the ANWR drilling.

More, separate lanes for trucks? I think that would reduce accidents but not a significant amount.

Isn't a lot of the pot smoked here grown domestically? I'm not sure. And the fake IDs scenario is BS. Terrorists will finds ways to get not only IDs but other forms of documentation just because older teenagers don't need them anymore.

 

I should point out that my post is somewhat off-topic since I'm not so concerned with improving our image abroad (altho that would be nice), rather with ensuring our survival as a nation.

Yes, it does conflict with getting government out of our lives. And I agree that with the military in particular, it's better to have people who want to be there. But at the same time I think that all Americans should have some sort of common experience, something to unify us as a nation, as well as a sense of accomplishment and servitude. Whether the individual wants to accomplish this by serving in the military, joining the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps or something along those lines, being a social worker, being an orderly in a hospital, or being a firefighter, is up to them (again, in times of war--which I would amend to include times when Congress gives specific permission on a year-by-year basis to do so, since the definition of "war" these days is a bit hazy--able-bodied males could be required to complete their service in the military). This would serve the added benefit of letting children from rich families see how the other half lives.

The "government in people's lives business" doesn't apply here IMO, since I believe abortion is a form of murder, and even the most libertarian of us won't say that the government shouldn't outlaw murder.

My voucher plan would be to give all parents a voucher for the amount of their school taxes and charge tuition of this amount at public schools (this woudl go on a state-by-state or county-by-county basis). So the parents could either use the voucher to essentially get a public school education (whether in their district or in a better nearby district) for free, or they could apply it to a private or parochial school tuition. Regulatory bodies would be created to ensure that private schools don't price-gouge by simply jacking up their tuition the price of the voucher.

Glad that even the lefties found something they can agree with. Most high-school kids know about ROTC because it is a well-run, fairly well-funded, and fairly well-publicized program; these programs should be expanded and publicized so that everyone knows about them as well (altho I suppose they would be aimed at college students as opposed to HS students).

Hadn't really thought about that. Mostly for security, I guess, altho I would be willing to give them favorable deals on other kinds of aid as well. You scratch our back, we'll scratch yours.

Again, improving our image abroad is nice, but if Osama bin Laden is taking a stroll in, say, downtown Jakarta and the Indonesian cops refuse to arrest him, then Delta Force will be taking a trip to Southeast Asia.

If the Pakistani government was toppled, it would be disastrous for India, since Musharraf would likely be replaced by Islamic fundamentalists. Neither side will admit it, but the Indians need Musharraf to stay in power. And our "Pakistani ally" is not so much the country as the Musharraf government--the civilian population and intelligence service in that country is rife with Islamic fundamentalists. Musharraf and the military are really the only ones we can trust. And Musharraf knows that a US-Indian alliance wouldn't be a threat to him, but if Musharraf is toppled Pakistan will become one of our worst enemies very, very quickly.

I believed that until 9/11 (more accurately, the aftermath of 9/11 when Saudi government involvement in the plot became clear). I was wrong.

I don't think so, since we'd be working with locals.

As long as we establish democracy in Saudi Arabia, we're fine. An openly Islamic fundamentalist Saudi state, so long as its government is democratically-elected, poses far less danger to the US than a covertly Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship.

Why? The drilling fields in ANWR would take up a tiny percentage of the actual wildlife preserve, yet would pay off in bounds security-wise.

Maybe they're not as bad out west, but truck drivers out here are the most dangerous drivers on the road by far. I was in a 9-car pileup a little over a year ago, which would've been a 3-car pileup if a MAC truck hadn't been going 70 mph in the pissing rain.

Probably, but not all of it is. And we'd still save assloads of money by not going after it and make assloads of money by taxing it.

If the drinking age was lowered to 18, you could legitimately make the penalty for making a fake ID much, much tougher, since the only people who would really need them would be illegal immigrants and terrorists (and under-18 kids who wanted to drink, I suppose, but I know it's a lot easier for kids under 18 to get tobacco than it is for people under 21 to get alcohol, and there's no real reason I think alcohol would be any different if the drinking age was lowered). In this situation, not only would fake IDs cost tens of thousands of dollars instead of $100 or so, but anyone who would take that kind of risk in the first place would likely be an AQ operative themselves.

 

I'm all for this. As a liberal, I'd prefer we cut military spending, but if we reallocate resources, there's no problem, imo. One thing though, I'd change "occupation forces" to "liberating forces." The word "occupation" is very out of fashion this year.

Again I say, not unreasonable. Military service will not change anyone's ideals (as a vet I know this), and could do some good for our overweight, television and Play Station-addicted youth. But Alex, I would change the phrase "In times of war able-bodied males can be forced to do their national service in the military, but those who prove themselves to be conscientious objectors can be medics, cooks, translators working stateside, etc" to "In times of war able-bodied males can be given the option to do their national service in the military, but those who prove themselves to be conscientious objectors can be medics, cooks, translators working stateside, etc" It sounds a lot better that way.

NO!

I agree, but I need to hear more.

Kind of like Kennedy's and Clinton's plans when they came up with the Peace Corps and the Freedom Corps (or whatever that was called.)

So basically give filthy lucre to money grubbing ho countries that have no problem with double-dealing in the name of the allmighty dollar (or Riyal)? I'm not with you on that one.

So we'll be a rogue nation that disregards international law? OK.

No problem with this one. You're spot on here.

Right on.

To be replaced with what?

You almost sound like a tree-hugger, Alex. I'm worried about you.

I'd have to give this one some thought, but it doesn't sound too shabby.

HEAR, HEAR! If there ever was anything that you posted that I agree with more, I don't know

 

Come on guys, I'm as liberal as anyone but Alex did make some good points in his post. It's not all a bunch of nonsense. Give credit where credit is due. If only the "conservatives" in our government were as open minded as the "conservatives" on BigSoccer, the world would be a better place...Give the guy some credit for rethinking some of his positions, yet not being brainwashed by Liberal rhetoric. Some of us BS posters on the left hand side of the fence can learn a lot by following his example.

 

Re: Re: US has an image problem

Donated to large corporations, you mean, through our extensive use of tied aid.
"One other significant obstacle to the effective delivery of development aid is tying aid to U.S. products and services. The United States leads all other donor countries in its high proportion of tied aid. Other donor countries have gradually reduced the amount of tied aid, and the United Kingdom intends to eliminate this requirement in 2001. Tied aid is problematic because it may not take into account the policy's impact on the markets of developing countries. The tied aid policy should be reviewed to ensure that it does not greatly increase costs or create an artificial market for U.S. products and services."


http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/ftesap01.htm

We use foreign aid for two things, primarily - to advance our foreign policy agenda and to enrich our own businesses. It has practically nothing to do with altruism.


Economic and humanitarian assistance abroad makes up less than ½ of 1 percent of the federal budget. Of that measly amount, much (I'm not sure of the exact amount) goes to two countries - Egypt and Israel.

There is at least an argument to be made that foreign aid actually hinders development and we shouldn't donate anything (you can refute that argument as well). There is no way to argue that the US is at the top of the table when it comes to giving aid; measured proportionally against other developed countries, we're actually pretty pathetic at it.

 

Exactly.

Just as we as US Soccer fans shouldn't be concerned with how were perceived by the EuroSnobs so long as we beat them down in competition.

He does make a very good point here. Me, a liberal yankee (and half-black) raised in New York and California, shared a kinship with (white) rednecks raised in Alabama and Tenessee because of our mutual experience in the military. We used to hang out together and crash at each others' places after we'd had too much to drink. Why? Because when it came down to it, we were brothers serving our nation - We had a common experience (bootcamp and general military service) - and as Americans serving our country, we knew we had each other's back in the end, that's why.

You're on your own here, shipmate.

Alex does have some good ideas otherwise though, just open your minds a bit.

 

Re: Re: US has an image problem

1) The Crusader program is a huge outdated pork boondoggle. The military needs to get away from cold-war hardware and mindsets. Remember Rumsfeld's reinventing the military? There needs to be a switch to a focus on infantry and a focus on urban and counter insurgency warfare.

2) Why pull out of the UN? Why? If it's the criticism that comes from some of the member nations, grow some thicker skin. The Constitution vs. UN is baseless. Did you even read the UN charter? The UN doesn't pass laws; it can't compell anyone to do anything. And the US has veto power. If the US weren't in the UN, who would protect Israel?

3) You know the joke? Trilingual means you can speak three langauges, bilingual means you can speak two...

Don't forget the benefits, of which one is underestimated: the UN is on US soil. The UN and it's related organizations (WHO, ITU, UNICEF, etc.) do a lot of neccessary, important work. If something is anti-American, well, see UNESCO. President Reagan pulled out (along with 25% of the funding). Several years later, with reforms, President G.W. Bush restores US membership and funding.

5) I'd rather they find Hussein and Bin Laden alive, if it was without too much risk. Imagine the questions and interviews. Imagine the war crimes trials.

6, 7, 10, 11) There's too many vested interests to reform our transportation system. They can't even build a bullet train from Washington, D.C. to Philly, NYC, and Boston. And funding all this (including the alternative fuel/high efficiency research)? No one is going to go for the gasoline tax increase, unless someone can tell me a better way of funding it.

9, 12) Ironically, Iran is a less oppressive place than Saudi Arabia is. Especially if you're a woman.

 

That would be disarming the US. Why in their bloody minds would want to join a military when their isn't the money to fund it?

And you wonder why we have such problems up here. We listen to way too many morons like you.

 

Heh, well I'm not suggesting anyone use this platform word for word, it's just a rough draft.

Well they'd be given the option to do their national service in the military regardless of whether or not we're at war. Actually we already have a draft, it just hasn't been used since Vietnam--I'm simply integrating it into this system (and opponents of the draft could even be happy about this since I believe the term of service if you are drafted is 2 years and under my plan it would be 18 months).

Is that what the Freedom Corps does? Either way, you never hear anything about it. I'm saying that "recruiters" for this program should be at every job fair, even setting up tables in college student unions during regular days, saying "if you apply to the program and are accepted, and if you agree to work for X number of years in a low-income school, a low-income hospital, or as a public defender, then the gov't will pay for your education, medical, or law degree." For the medical and law degrees you could go a step further and say that after X number of years you can go and work for whoever you please, but for a few more years you still have to spend, say, 2 weeks a year working in a low-income hospital, or work 5 cases a year as a public defender (again, modeled on the ROTC program which, at least for the Navy, requires you to spend 4 years on active duty after graduation and another 4 years in the reserves (unless you go to flight school which requires 9-10 years active duty)).

The programs I'm talking about may already be in place, but if they are I don't konw about them, which is part of the problem.

Well, we'd make sure that they're not double-dealing.

If that's what it takes to ensure our safety, yes. Like I said, if Osama bin Laden is taking a stroll in downtown Jakarta and the Indonesian cops refuse to do anything about it, international law goes out the window (hell, I think we should've sent a special operations team into France to get Ira Einhorn).

Democracy. Yeah, a Saudi democracy would likely be anti-American and borderline fundamentalist. But, simply by being a democracy, they'd be forced to be openly anti-American. A Saudi democracy would likely spout more Islamicist rhetoric than the current regime, but it wouldn't actually back it up.

Or a Frenchman, what with advocating nuke power...I'm worried about myself too!

Thanks for the props.

 

Yep. 3-2 against Portugal, would've beaten Poland if it wasn't for the crappiest call in World Cup history (which negated Donovan's first goal and directly led to Poland's second off the free-kick--would've been 2-2, but would Poland have scored their last goal if we hadn't been throwing everyone into the attack?), and thoroughly outplayed Germany.

Excellent point, and the main reason why I'd institute this national service (even those who picked something else as opposed to military service would form some sort of unifying bond, even if not as much as those under arms).

Well I think the abortion debate comes down to whether or not you believe the fetus is a human life--if you don't, there's no reason to ban abortion (at least not in the early term--after about halfway thru the pregnancy, it is scientifically considered a human life); if you do, then you can't justify NOT banning abortion. I believe that a human life starts at conception, and so I think abortion should be illegal, but I understand the position of those who don't (at least until it can be scientifically considered a human life, which is about the 4th or 5th month).

Well, that would require people like verybdog and Superdave to actually admit they might be wrong sometimes...

 

Well, #4 would definitely be getting the government out of people's lives, and #5 and #6 wouldn't really be doing one or the other. Only #2 and #3 would be increasing government influence on people's lives, and they're in areas where I feel it is neccesary (and I believe abortion is murder, so it wouldn't be creating new laws, merely extending existing ones).

Yeah, I have a drug habit, I started taking drugs right when I first started getting random drug tests on a regular basis.

Legalizing marijuana is a simple cost-benefits analysis. The economic and social benefits of legalizing weed far outweigh the costs:

Economic benefits - No more money spent going after and prosecuting marijuana users and growers (I read somewhere that with the money we spend going after weed in ONE YEAR, we could rebuild the Twin Towers, build a new aircraft carrier with full complement of aircraft, and still have enough money left over to re-inforce every cockpit door on every airliner in the country); taxing marijuana would bring lots of money into the government--in fact with the money we save by legalizing marijuana and make by taxing it, we could probably fund the other government programs I outlined and still have enough left over for some across-the-board income tax cuts

Social benefits - Prison overcrowding no longer a problem; if weed was legal for people over 18 to go to any conveinence store and buy, it'd actually be harder for people under 18 to get than it is now (I'm 19, and trust me when I tell you that if I wanted to get weed I would have a much, much, MUCH easier time of it than I do getting alcohol); cops now free to go after people for real crimes instead of smoking weed

Economic costs - None

Social costs - Marijuana use would be more widespread among adults, but is weed really any worse than alcohol? I don't think so

 

You're not really advocating this, are you? If we can say 'whatever it takes to ensure our safety', including the breaking of international law, then so can anyone. Does that make any of us any safer?

 

the parallel there though would be if the US team was hated by a large number of other countries because of its ability to win through brute force, coupled with an ability to disregard any match rule they see fit as they pay all the refs.

 

Bearing in mind that China could pose a serious threat, don't you think it would be better all round to try and make them an ally rather than an ememy?

you don't think the the under 21s seeking fake IDs will just be replaced by under 18s seeking fake IDs then?

as such claims are becoming more common here now, that is a fine idea, but I'd also say that the amount of damages claimed should be linked to the damage caused, not the first rollover lottery jackpot figure they think of, just because they burnt their finger on a hot apple pie.

 

Could've said the same thing about Nazi Germany in 1935. Would I love to have a free, democratic China as an American ally? Of course. But China is neither free nor democratic, their government is truly evil (not as bad as North Korea or the deposed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but probably as bad as Iran and Syria). Not the type of people we want to ally ourselves with if we have a choice, and we do have choices in Moscow and Dehli, both of which are democratic and free (Russia could use some work on that point but they're getting better) societies and both of whose primary and secondary security threats are Islamic terrorism and China, respectively.

Some under-18s will seek fake IDs, sure, but nowhere near the number of 18-20-year-olds that seek them today. For one thing, there's nowhere near as much of a drinking culture in high school as there is in college, and when high schoolers do drink it's usually at a party in someone's basement when their parents are out of town, not at a bar or club. For another, most high schoolers have a friend or older sibling who is over 18 and would be able to get alcohol for them, whereas a lot of college kids are reliant on their fake IDs to get booze most of the time.

Yep.

 

No, I'm saying that sometimes it is neccesary to ally yourself with a less-than-perfect government in order to ensure your survival (see Soviet Union, US/UK alliance with during WW2).

Only a pro-Beijing sycophant like yourself would characterize the Dalai Lama as "weak".

 

Maybe he wants to grope some women.

 

so what you are saying is that America should make up for being late for the last two world wars by being really punctual this time.

well I'll bow to your greater knowlegde of U-18 drinking culture over there, but with reference to that making it harder for terrorists to get fake IDs, do you really think they get their fake IDs from the same places that under-age college kids do? You don't think a terrorist network capable of organising something like 9/11 is going to be slightly more sophisticated than that?