General discussion



By jardinier ·
I can't think of anything meaningful to say about this topic, but perhaps there are others who have thoughts, feelings or personal experiences which they would like to share.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

well squared

by jkaras In reply to Okay. . . . .

1. It's nice to know that you give in times of need, seriously. If you want to give more then do because you want to or feel the need guided by your heart, dont do it on my behalf. Whether you give this or that it is a noble gesture, but not a badge of honor as a pr move to make you look good like many celebrities or politians do. Does it matter? As long as aid is given is all a matter of personal principle, but it will always do good so I give people a pass on the lesser evil. I too have donated major time or money to various charities like Easter Seals, Make a Wish foundation, Mc Donalds House (hospital that helps needy children),charity runs, what have you. Does it make me a better person? Only to myself for choosing to do good and each time I was a changed person. It mattered to the people I helped not to others that viewed me in this light or that light. If you are involved in your community, kudos to you, but like I said nothing special, we are all supposed to help one another.

I am impressed that this is the first post I have ever seen you critique Bush in a negitive light. AS far as my experience, you jump to his aid displaying only the positive not the negative. I too agree with most of your objections to Bush. I am though on the fence when it comes to Death penalty, but that's not what we are talking about here and both sides to that argument has its faults and truths. But I dont think less of you or anyone for a differenting (is this a word? lol) opinion.

AS for the *** comment I was offended by your flame of my opinion and think it was uncalled for so I gave it back at you. I took your response as an arrogant nose in the air like I am anti-American. That is farthest from the truth. As an American it is my responsibility to voice my concern on how I want my leaders or any leaders for that matter to do the job that they signed on for. They choose the liability for the good or the bad, they except the critisim and live a privledged life that in my opinion dont respect or reciprocate that blessing.

You didnt though respond to whether you felt our administration reacted to the situation not only properly, but with forsight to stimulate a better opinion of our way showing to those in need that we are not just a war mongering nation that most people think of us. You only posted it as a non issue to comment on. Why? Other people that supported your opinion also claimed why include politics? Well its all politics and that's their job. If we can criticize other countries or other leaders, why not ours? To me that's arrogant. To me it was show time to prove what we claim, and I think we fell short. I know moneys tight in our budget and it doesnt exactly grow on trees, but I have seen better contributions for extremely lesser issues, not the worst natural disaster in decades. My uncle is a top exec. for Lockheed Martin, and they spend more on wooing the government on parties than what was offered to the tsunami victims. It my opinion plain and simple.

I did hear reports on other news stations about the 2 hour delay/ warning to some areas, why wasnt their any attempts for saftey? Comments? Each city has some sort of evac plan, no matter how destitute or wealthy they are, so what happened? Maybe someone decided not to issue a warning to save face that it might not happen that it could ruin the tourism, sounds logical? Hopefully we will know after all is said and done.

Not to be a jerk or open a debate on the dealth penalty, but since you are a parent hearing the stories of people masquerading as the orphaned children's parents absconding with these children for obvious horrific intentions, what would you penalize for those caught? Just curious on how you would react, not sarcastic. Till we joust again, Max.

Collapse -

The administration's initial reaction to the situation:

by maxwell edison In reply to well squared

If there's one thing that's very obvious about the Bush administration, at least it's obvious to me, and how it differs from the previous Clinton administration, it is how they handle public relations -- or better said, public perception. President Clinton was a master at relaying the impression that he "cared" and was "involved", and "public relations" was a priority. But where President Clinton would rush to the camera to put on the appearance of doing something (whether or not he really was), President Bush quietly works behind the scenes. President Clinton wanted credit for everything, while President Bush doesn't seek credit, nor does he care who gets it. President Clinton constantly tooted his own horn, while President Bush doesn't play to the public. This is not intended to either slam President Clinton or excuse President Bush, or anything in-between, but to rather show a difference in style. Just because President Bush doesn't rush to the cameras to give the public appearance of doing something, it doesn't mean he's not doing it.

It was three days before President Bush made a public statement, or so goes one of the usual criticisms. Well so what? Who cares? Secretary Powell was the very first person in all the world to call the president of Thailand, on President Bush's behalf, to offer USA assistance -- "whatever you need", he said, "the USA will provide". The US sent the USS Abraham Lincoln and its entire strike group to the region immediately, and they were off the shores of Indonesia in a mere 3 days. 10 additional Navy ships, including water tankers and hospital ships, were immediately dispatched from Diego Garcia, and they arrived as fast as they could possibly get there -- you know, full steam ahead. A fleet of C-130 cargo aircraft were diverted from Japan to Thailand on the very first day to be part of the first wave of aid along with some help from other nations including Japan and Australia. More than 3,000 US Marines (or maybe 6,000, I don't recall exactly) arrived in the area only a few days after the disaster to provide relief help. Dozens of medical specialists from the Navy, Marines, Air Force and Army had arrived by December 30, only 3 days after the disaster, to help with efforts to prevent outbreaks of disease in crowded refugee centers. And whose helicopters were used, for the most part, in the early days of the disaster to transport relief workers from many places? I would suggest that the majority of them had USA on the side.

And as I said in my previous message, I believe it was a brilliant move to ask President Clinton to partner with the former President Bush to raise as much private money as possible. After all, nobody can raise money like President Clinton, and if he gets all the credit himself for raising such huge amounts for the relief effort, President Bush couldn't care less. President Bush doesn't seek public credit; instead he seeks private solutions.

I give the administration an A++++++ on this deal. Just because President Bush isn't in front of the cameras grading himself for all to see doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the credit when it's due. And it is indeed due.

On the heads up orifices comments, yea, we did do a little "flaming", but no harm, no foul.

Collapse -

I agree but see another possible explanation

by Oz_Media In reply to The administration's init ...

Max, first and foremost I agree that just because someone isn't infront of a camera, it doesn't mean they aren't acting behind the scenes.

On the other hand, it is possible that Clinton felt it was his duty to speak to 'the people' on such matters and inform them of America's concern toward others or even to explain where tax dollars are being spent. Yes I know it is a real generalization but in many cases I am sure it rings true.

Bush has never really been a person who seems too private or wishes to stay out of the media. Based on any summits etc that were televised, including his embarrassing visit to Canada, he is in a constant game of oneupmanship to gain the camera's view. So it seems out of character for him to not quickly address the nation in such horrible times as this.

I think if anything it would have been a courtesy.

Perhaps he was looking for mroe details or plannign what he would do from his position, hopefully not a hasty decision. Perhaps it is the same as when he took all that time to finish th egrade school kids story on 9/11 in which he may not be able to act properly in such situations and needs time togather himself.

Either way, no shot at Bush form me (SURPRISE!!)but also I wouldn't see it fit to compare his actions to Clinton's (although you did so as an example due to the preceding post).

One thing I didn't mind about it, HE WASN'T ALL OVER MY TV ABOUT AGAIN!!! I certainly am not complaining about his inability to quickly address the nation, but think that perhaps they are just two diferet people with different ways of reacting to such issues, I wouldn't say one was better than the other though.

Collapse -


by jkaras In reply to The administration's init ...

I never said anything about our military contribution in any of my posts except that they are doing quite well and doing great things. My criticism was concerning he pr on the situation. His business is politics and maintaining a positive image for our country. He wanted that job, he knew what comes with the territory. someone who is actively aware politically like yourself, I was interested in what your criticism was on no pledging a sufficient amount initially or since then. Yes I dont feel its a pissing match, but politically he looked bad on the world stage. Its all politics, unfortunately but that's life. I am curious though on your take by not having Carter involved, like many reported are reporting that he got snubbed. Yes I agree that old slick willie was a good choice to drum up major moola. I dont care if a democrat or republican takes the mantle, just gets the results. Then again its politics.

Collapse -

On your "stimulate a better opinion" of us question

by maxwell edison In reply to well squared

If we make a mistake, the USA will be criticized.

If we make that occasional misstep, the USA will be criticized.

If we get involved in the affairs of others, we are told to mind our own business, and we get criticized.

If we don't get involved in the affairs of others, we are told we're stingy and selfish, and we get criticized.

If we are proactive, we get criticized.

If we are neutral, we get criticized.

If we help a little bit, we are told that it's not enough, and we get criticized.

If we help a lot, we are still told that it's not enough, and we get criticized.

If we save thousands (or millions) of lives, we are told too little too late, and we get criticized.

If we.......

Do you see a pattern here?

You saw how much the USA provided in the early days of the disaster, as I outlined in my previous message. (And that was only part of it.) But did one person on the "world stage" acknowledge it? Absolutely not. Instead, they found some reason to yet again, criticize the USA. All we can do is forge ahead and do what we think is the right thing, and just let the chips fall where they may. If we start acting in a way to merely sway people's opinion of us, especially if it means compromising that "right thing", then we'll get criticized for pandering. Personally speaking, I see all this world criticism of the USA, and it happens time and time again, as their problem, not ours.

Collapse -

Same thing different name though

by Oz_Media In reply to On your "stimulate a bett ...

Just replace Canada or England in any of those statements and they have the same effect, Max.

I have heard it towadr Canada not joining in Iraq, then it was Canada takes from the US and just survives on handouts, then it was England didn't do this and France didn't do that. But in all honesty, ALL of these countries participate where and when they feel it's best, just as America does. Sometimes being credited but usually not, just like America.

Your not the only ones, I guess that's my point. You may notice it more because you see it as other countries being against you, just like we do in Canada. Same sh*t different pile.

Collapse -

On your 2 hour delay/warning comment

by maxwell edison In reply to well squared

I've not heard too much about the "alleged" warning delay, but I suspect it's yet again another attempt to find some reason to criticize the USA.

But wait a minute here. We're talking about sovereign nations, separate from the USA, located a half-a-world away from our shores. And you think it was the responsibility of the USA to ensure those sovereign nations had adequate warning systems? Why is it that you think the USA deserves criticism for any early warning snafu, and the nations for which the systems were needed are being exonerated? Why isn't the government of Indonesia, for example, on the hot-seat for the failure?

You speculated, "Maybe someone decided not to issue a warning to save face that it might not happen that it could ruin the tourism."

And whom might that be? Sure, President Bush decided to delay the warning to save the tourism industry of Thailand. Yea, right. (Yes, sarcasm -- but to make a point.)

If anyone "failed" in this regard, it was anyone BUT the USA. And to suggest otherwise is utter nonsense.

Collapse -


by jkaras In reply to On your 2 hour delay/warn ...

I never said any criticism on the USA for the warning, merley the areas that got reports from the initial wave in those areas. If there was a two hour delay between disasters what did those areas hit last do to protect their people? I find it hard to believe that no-one in any form of govenment in these areas effected didnt get a emergency report, watch or monitor any form of news. Every country has some sort of emergency branch. Was everyone just living it up? Was there no emergency branch? No computers, radios, tvs? i can understand certain areas where there is no electricity, but not a major metropolis that has a huge tourism. That's my point, they messed up, not USA. I honestly dont understand how you are putting USA in connection with the resposibility? News happens in all countries and from what I understand many other agencies independant of the countries effected issued a warning, according to initial reports on two different news stations that interviewed so called tsunami experts. Whether they were serving their own agendas or not it still begs the question, was anything done to minimize the loss of life? Seeing this catasrophe makes me wonder if this were ever to happen to me or anyone else that there is some sort of plan especially when I live on a sandbar like Florida.

Collapse -

jkaras -

by maxwell edison In reply to On your 2 hour delay/warn ...

The reason I'm "putting (the) USA in connection with the responsibility", as you said, is because you mentioned this as one point in your overall criticism of the Bush administration for not doing enough, acting fast enough, etc. The tone of your initial message was extremely critical of the Bush administration for many things, you went on to name those things, and this was one of them.

Collapse -

On the death penalty

by maxwell edison In reply to well squared

(Yea, I know. It's "off-topic". But in my tsunami of messages, I thought I'd include it. It's one of those tangents that just happens.)

Whether or not a person is in favor of the death penalty, there is no compromise. Whether or not a person is in favor of legalized abortion, there is no compromise. (These two issues are somewhat connected in my reasoning. That's why I added abortion.)

When an irreconcilable difference exists, in order to reconcile the difference, one should back-up and consider the premise of the arguments. For example, on both issues of the death penalty and abortion, an irreconcilable difference exists, since there really can't be a compromise. After all, a person is either put to death or not. A pregnancy is either aborted or not. So when we back-up and consider the premise, mine would fall into the camp of respecting the sanctity of life.

In my opinion, there's only ONE justification for taking the life of another -- and that reason is to protect the life of one's self or another person. So my self-defense exception would include soldiers in battle or in defense of their country, abortion if the life of the mother is at risk (see note), the literal self-defense scenario if threatened by another, etc. (Note: On the abortion issue, this presumes that life begins at conception. If you disagree, back-up some more and consider that premise. Moreover, concerning abortion, I would make an additional exception of rape, since that violates the choice a woman is indeed entitled to make.)

Therefore, I am against both abortion when performed as a form of birth or population control, as the majority are, and the death penalty. Both of those practices are not only barbaric, but they both violate my principle of protecting the sanctity of life. This especially holds true when there are viable alternatives to both practices.

So there ya' go.

Related Discussions

Related Forums