Objective Standards

One thing that I think is sorely lacking in all of these debates is a set of objective standards. Can we have our regular posters come on and list what their major concerns are and how they believe that they should be addressed? This will ensure that a barometer exists to measure the fairness of poster views so we do not get one person criticizing Clinton for something that they give Bush a pass for and vice versa.

  1. I generally oppose missions for only humanitarian concerns. Therefore I am not keen to see nation-building in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia or Kosovo which are not in the United States’ strategic interests and in my opinion such actions only allow Europe to get off the hook yet again for something it should be dealing with in its own backyard (kosovo/bosnia). If we can jump in and out of Haiti fine. If not, forget it. We are not responsible.

  2. I do not give the UN any veto over US defense interests. We can work with the UN when it is in our best interests but it should never supercede or have a veto over US sovereignty.

  3. Ditto for NATO. We can work together when convenient but the US should act similar to the other members of NATO and get involved only when it is in our interests. Hence, Bosnia and Kosovo should not have been NATO actions and the US should have said to Germany and France where is the threat? we cannot act against a sovereign nation, it does not have UN approval. Therefore while we do not agree, and we will not get involved, you can go ahead and deal with the situation and we will not try to oppose you. We need to loosen the US involvement in NATO to force nations to spend more on their own defense. When they do not, we resent them and resent their demanding a role in actions that they contribute nothing to. When we adopt this attitude we create resentment among our allies and their citizenry. This dependence is unhealthy and the US must remove itself from the equation unilaterally if necessary.

  4. I support actions in Afghanistan and Iraq because they are important to America’s strategic interests. While humanitarian concerns can also be addressed, the primary aims are strategic in nature and every effort should be made to turn over as much day-to-day operations to the Iraqi people while attempting to leave a large force in Iraq so that as in South Korea, Japan and Germany, its neighbors will feel no cause to destabilize Iraq while perhaps others will not need to develop wmds (Saudi Arabia) because of the US security footprint in the region. Naturally, such actions will engender positive humanitarian results and this is a positive side effect but should not be the main reason for such efforts.

  5. Economically, I support free trade. I am against US protection of the steel industry or US agriculture or textiles. Outsourcing is natural and should be encourage. No limitations should be placed on it.

  6. I am for devovling as much power to the States as possible. The federal government should focus only on defense, justice, treasury and state. All other departments should be closed with all such power and responsiblities being devolved to the States to deal with transport, welfare, etc. This will also water down greatly lobbyist power since these decisions will be made in 50 capitals rather than one and the local press and interest groups will have more control over forumulating these decisions and in monitoring how they are done.

  7. Privatize everything. Post office, power, distribution, ports, roads, anything and everything that can be sold and privately managed including federal and state employee jobs and functions should be encouraged.

  8. Reduce taxes whenever possible.

  9. I am against quotas, affirmative action, hate crimes or any other legislation that sets up separate categories of citizens.

  10. I do not believe in global warming or that its causes can be traced to human activity and therefore do not support the Kyoto protocol. I find the Kyoto protocol too expensive for the measly results that it delivers. I trust in mankind to come up with new technology to deal with the problem faster and more efficiently if in fact it is a serious problem.

On historical notes,

I do not believe that the US anticommunist efforts were bad nor do I believe that we must apologize for them. This includes involvement in nations such as Vietnam, those in Central and South America, the Caribbean, etc. I support the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953 given the variables and Soviet expansion at the time. I recognize that the morality of the overthrow is cloudy but take responsiblity for the action as a US citizen. While we are criticized for supporting dictators such as the shah, those in Azerbaidzhan and Uzbekistan today and previously in East Asia, I believe that the overall trends were positive and we were dealing with a bad situation the best we could. Ultimately, our choices were wise compared with what has followed.

Forgot a big one:

I believe that Islamofascism has been a serious threat for three decades and that dialogue has not helped. I believe that we must fight this threat as we fought communism and fascism and that it will take 30 years to win. But dialogue and negotiations have failed and the actors are not truly interested in peace but in raising the bar even higher to being new negotiations from an even stronger vantage point. Enough is enough. We are at war.

This can be put far more simply.

Look after number one, USA, and f*ck the rest of the world.

Bloody typical Americanism.


Thanks very much for your positive response to my post. Can you explain to me why the US should be obligated to continue to act in ways that Germany, France, and others like Russia, China, et al would never dream of considering. I mean you are probably one of those who praise the French for their selfish protection of their interests to punch above their weight.

I think that your comments are unfair but seeing the ones you posted earlier, I would question whether you have even the most basic understanding of security policy, political and economic interests of nations and how these are to be balanced by humanitarian concerns. So I guess I will sink to your level and tell you to fuck off. Continue to remain a simpleton about international relations or choose to engage yourself and realize that the US is often a force for good in the world and that you do not have to agree with everything that it does for that to remain true.

As to anyone who wants to respond intelligently to this, please do post. I think that later comments on other threads can be gauged against where we claim we stand ourselves.

Let me post using a reply to your original.

I am generally in favour - though i realise there are practical limits and one must pick and choose. In my younger, wilder days I might have blindly supported “enlightened” colonialism as a tool of economic development. Now I recognise that there are limits…

Same for any country

They are important to global interests in my view. nevertheless, I have qualms about the way the Iraq war was pursued.

Same here.

As for 6, I don’t have a view, not being American.

Privatise where appropriate. This means a high degree of privatisation - but accepting that some functions are best performed by the state.

Sensible budget policy - tax reductions only when it does not endanger essential public spending.


As for 10 - I have no clear idea how dangerous or real global warming is. I keep an open mind.

Would agree… but it is still too early to say whether head on confrontation has helped either. (I do remember everyone being terrified when Ronnie took on the soviets in a missile race. And now, he seems to have been right. I only hope for everyone’s sake that the future is as kind to Bush II)

I believe in allowing as much economic and political freedom to the individual as possible. Always recognising that this places responsibility with the individual, too. You cannot have personal liberty and at the same time expect others to take responsibility for your actions. (“Do unto others, etc.”)

Strangely, perhaps, given that I have quoted from the Bible a few times on these forums, I am an atheist and believe that religion should be as separate from the state as it often appears to be from the church! (Favourite movie - Life of Brian.) My reason sfor this are less to do with atheism, rather to do with the fact thatcountries that have developed tend to achieve some separation of the two.

I believe the US gets a raw deal. “American values” of enterprise and individual liberty have transformed it into the richest country on earth and the place where many immigrants want to move and that many governments would like to emulate. For this reason, I would rather have the US “running the world” than almost any other administration I can think of.

Of course, the US is not perfect.

Finally, the most important question that faces the world is sustainable economic growth - not just the “environmentalist” sort but sustainable institutions that can put poor countries in the Middle east and Africa on the right track.

If poor governance is a major reason for a country’s terrible growth performance, then the world is justified in removing that government and replacing it with something better. (This does not necessarily mean invasion, but does not preclude this option.) Just to clarify this last point - this would include (and obviously encourage) non-military coercion. I think it is reasonable for organisations like the IMF or World bank to impose conditions on loans that severley restrict recipient countries use of funds and which shape the recipients’ economic policy. (though i admit right royal screw ups have happen in the past.)

If any posters feel that underlying my post is the idea that some countries have “basically got it right” and that they have a responsibility to see that others “learn the same lessons” and “get their own house in order,” then, yes, i think that’s a reasonable simplification.

FS, i have no intention of getting drawn into a long verbal battle with a boy from the boondocks, it does not have a serious enough objective.

As for your character assassination of me i would not expect anything more from a person that is so patriotic to their country, that they turn a blind eye to all its wrongs, and even manage to find a justification for everything it does.

By all means go on deluding yourself, just dont expect the rest of us to agree with you. I only hope that the idiots in DC dont manage to destroy the world before they finally come to their senses.

Just for kicks I’m going to randomly select from my belief system list:

#378: The only legitimate taxation is for goods and services people actively use or contract to use. Anything beyond that is theft.

#12: Natural resources necessary for living are a birthright of every individual. No individual has the right the own a greater share of the necessary natural resources than they personally need. No strong individual has the right to make weaker individuals pay for access to natural resources neccesary for survival.

#4: Representative democracy in the age of instant global communications is nothing more than an anachronistic scheme.

72: Microscopia – the realm of the microscopic – is the last great frontier. Most of the processes that bedevil humanity – disease, catatrosphic physical failures (plane crashes), genetics, growth and degeneration – take place essentially at the microscopic level and until we can ‘go there’ and observe and manipulate those processes directly we’ll be little more than alchemists and witch doctors as far as control over our ultimate fate goes.

  1. A rising tide of bullshit lifts all boats

  2. Power melts in the barrel of a gun

  3. Do unto others before they do unto you

  4. Freedom without taxation is like representation without discrimination

  5. I am for evolving power of referendum through constituent assemblies without regards to egalitarianism and macro-statist interests, because bureaucratism is the friend of meddling privatization schemes that directly contradict post-libertarianist dreams of socially & environmentally conscious legislative maximalization measures necessary to ensure survival of a minimum of collective equalities

  6. I believe we have to adjust structurally as a society to adjust to the ramifications of Unified Field Theory

  7. I am against know-nothings, ninnerboobs, nimwits, solicitors, Jehosophatites, Quackers, Wobblies, Reformed bearers of the stalwart Whig Party, Facists, Moros, syndilacist anarchists, right-wing Trotskyites, Manichaean revivalists, fortune fibbers, nattering nabobs of negativity, overeducated Oxford S.O.B.'s, hentai porn fetishists, and the ambidextrous

  8. Reduce the money supply whenever possible. Have government slowing phase out bills as a means of payment for services and goods rendered

  9. Free love for anyone who can afford it

  10. The North by Northwest shall rise again!

[quote=“Traveller”]This can be put far more simply.

Look after number one, USA, and f*ck the rest of the world.

Bloody typical Americanism.[/quote]

please show me 3 instances in the history of europe when a government has done something that went against their own self-interest. if looking out for number one is so bad, surely you can find some examples in the thousands of years europe’s existed to show us how countries should act, right? :unamused:

bloody ignorant european hypocrite.

[quote=“Traveller”]This can be put far more simply.

Look after number one, USA, and f*ck the rest of the world.

Bloody typical Americanism.[/quote]

Aw…why don’t you pay your WWI and WWII debts to the US and just fuck off. OK? Then why don’t you pop on off to the classroom and teach the kiddies? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

*BTW, you’re repeating yourself…all this “boondocks” silliness. :unamused: Guess what? There is NO British Empire anymore. Get over it! :laughing: No get your ass back to teaching those kiddies!

And what’s more:

#2784: Fred Smith is proof that compassionate conservatism is a dangerous combination.

#2104: Taiwan is best understood as if it were a place where dad is in charge rather than mom. It’s a lot more fun and you can pretty much do anything you want so long as you don’t poke an eye out or start the house on fire.

Blueface, wondered when the other true face of Americanism would appear.

As usual, your assumptions are not necessarily correct. Who says i am European, and what makes you think i am an english teacher ? Your stereotyping is about as pathetic as your attempts to make everyone see the world through the great american light.

Suggest you go join your pal FS where you both belong. Communicating with people like you two makes me realise why i left in the first place.


Sorry we will miss your fascinating insight and deep commitment to these discussions. Bye now and enjoy teaching those kindergarten students. A: Apple. B: Ball. C: Cat. You know the drill. I know you do… Maybe you’d better stick to the other forum where they find out about their political and religious beliefs based on what kind of pizza they eat or what their favorite color is…

Now, as to the others who have treated my effort with sarcasm, well, what can I say? Seems sad that no one can come up with a bunch of yardsticks for their political beliefs. Should not be so hard to do, but then maybe there aren’t any political beliefs or our little “activists” merely criticize without supplying anything constructive. Gosh. That would be new.


My views on this subject are quite deliberately as focused as yours.

My last post was unclear, it should have read, why i left the US of A, rather than the assumed meaning of having left this forum site.

As for further debating of the issue, what is the point debating a topic with a person whose view is so set - judging by a number of your more recent posts - that changing that opinion is not an option.

The US of A only does what it believes is in the best interest of the US of A. If anyone else benefits from it then that is a side benefit, not part of the original calculations.

As for somebody that is overly hostile towards the french - presumably because they had the temerity to disagree with your beliefs - perhaps you should remember, that if not for the French during the WOI, then the US of A might well not be the country it is today. Heavens forbid, could even still belong to the United Kingdom. :astonished:

As to your still incorrect assumptions as to my reason for being in Taiwan, then please do not judge everyone by your own standards.

But then of course, i had forgotten, you being a citizen of the US of A makes you so much better than everyone on this poor planet.

ALL HAIL :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Haha Traveller:

D is for dog, E is for elephant, F is for frog get it FROG haha G is for garden, H is for Hoe

Do you get extra crowns when you take them to Burger King for a field trip? hahaha

Look out Fred, i might split might sides with laughter, you are so funny.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Given that there is a significant portion of Forumosans who are English teachers, and kindie ones at that, you guys may want to temper some of the ridicule. English teaching, including a year of kindie, paid for a whole lot of traveling and one year of law school in my case so I don’t see how poking fun at Traveler’s profession (assuming he/she is an English teacher) adds to the objective standards for debating.

On another note, I must say thank you to Mr. Smith for posting his objective standards. This will save me from wasting a lot of time debating any issues with you since I can simply revert back to the original post of this thread to get your take on any issue whenever I feel the need to question foreign policy actions of the US. That’s a great help, especially since my job keeps me pretty busy during the workday. :smiley:

i have to say that IYBF’s list seems more balanced. At least he keeps an open mind about the environmental issue.

To say that human activity can have no effect on global climate/nature is absurd.

And the Iraq war, notions of saving iraqis from saddam aside, still has its questionable aspects.

AA: not a big fan, i don’t think it addresses the problem headon.


Depends. Is being balanced more important than being right, get it RIGHT?

[quote=“fred smith”]JB:

Depends. Is being balanced more important than being right, get it RIGHT?[/quote]

Wow. I think this is one of those rare times I see FS make a pun. :smiley:

to answer you question, I think it’s important to keep an open mind while still believing in something.