Why, Fuchs, I didn't know you cared...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.
You may do that. Given the fact that we've been a democracy for over 200 years and you have less than 70 years at it, you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to a concern that is overstated -- and fails to realize that Americans always slam politicians. They may be respected by some in Europe but here they generally are not. They're just fellow citizens who have big egos and enough money to get elected. They are no more endowed with wisdom than are any politicians anywhere. :(
Quote:
Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.
I doubt either has an excess of respect from most Americans. THAT is as it should be. They're people, no more, no less -- some are good and some are not. Over here, for most people, respect is accorded only if earned by a person, not by his or her job (military excluded; 'respect' must be and is proffered by law -- but even in the Armed Forces, true respect is still really given to seniors ONLY if earned).
Quote:
Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.
We don't, we make our own; that's enough without copying any other nation's. Been doing that for those 200 years I mentioned and probably will for another 200 or so. Enjoy. We mostly are enjoying it. :D
Quote:
P.S.: Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.
That's scary. Weird even. Really. Was that not sort of the case there back in the 30s? The Generals were derided, sidelined and the Politicians took over. How did that work out?
Politicians are generally crooked to one extent or another, worldwide, nearly as I can tell. Goes with the job. They bear considerable watching, distrust even. Some Generals are crooks also and bear watching -- in the end both are people and they should be judged as individual people, not as job holders.
Respect is an earned commodity; it does not automatically accrue to any job.
Fuchs, Ken forgot 2 qualifications for Senator
1. US citizen (natural born or naturalized - makes no difference)
2. Not less than 30 years old.
anybody who meets those 2 qualifications can run for Senate - not a very high bar.:wry:
Cheers
JohnT
It is the accountability and meritocracy.
I personally found the exchange between Senator Graham and the three flag officers enlightening and professional and honorable all around. I also found it interesting as to the alleged failings of Germany and Italy regarding their NATO commitments to the ISAF regarding police and judiciary reconstruction. This was something I was not aware of before watching the hearings.
Rather it is a Congressperson or General Officer testifying in the hearing one should respect the position and the individuals merits first and foremost.
Civilian control and oversight while very important to me personally, does not ensure an ethical, component, fiscally responsible, or well trained fighting force. Civilian control does not necessarily mean the aims will always be toward a democratic republic either. Many of the elected leaders use the annual defense authorization bill to line their own pockets, or shore up pet projects for their states every year for example. Should I blindly respect such behavior, should anyone? Some elected officials are little more than bullies, or worse, criminals.
One of the wonderful things about the people of the US, and the institutions that make up the USG is this. Even if one gains office, or appointment or government service position they must continually prove themselves capable of holding such a position for the most part. Now some offices and positions may be about who you know, but that is only good for getting one's foot in the proverbial door. Once a person is in the system they will be judged on their deeds, or lack thereof. One thing that struck me in this thread was the idea of a people who view their political leaders as being superiors deserving of respect based upon their election alone, without regard to merit. That my friend is extremely dangerous thinking. Simply because some one puts on a uniform and wears the rank of General does not assure respect, nor does being elected assure respect. It is more about the merits of the person holding the office and less about the fact that they hold an office.
As I write this there is a congressperson in rehab for second time for abuse of drugs and alcohol. A few more are up on charges ranging from fraud to bribery. Yet these 'distinguished gentlemen and ladies' are allowed to remain in office in spite of being an alcoholic and a pill head. Now, if a General Officer was doing the exact same thing he would most likely be relieved for cause immediately and his career would be over. In fact is anyone holding the rank of Sergeant is found abusing drugs in the US Army, they can kiss their career goodbye. As some one mentioned before, military leaders are held to higher standards of conduct than elected leaders. That may be the reason the military leader gets a bit more respect in some situations.
Interesting. Dozens, huh. My, my...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance...
I think that in view of our mutual history since 1917 I'll forgo any comment on that line of thought. :rolleyes:
On this
Quote:
...An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.
It is probably superfluous to point out that your objections to a culture and priority system reflect merely your opinions. It is not superfluous to say that the ill informed arrogance thus shown does your net credibility on any topic more harm than good.
Heh, now that's what I call selective
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.
memory. I've been here all that time and was not aware we had any disasters -- other than the random hurricane or tornado. :D
Quote:
Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.
I think you're confusing deliberately ignoring -- which we did and do with great regularity; something about considering the validity of the source -- with "inability to grasp."
Quote:
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.
Actually, as you say the financial crisis is a world (actually just a European hearth. Greedy bankers will be greedy bankers where ever located *) phenomenon; Iraq was a mess mostly because the US Army erred, not due to US policy error. You may think the end result is not worth it. I disagree. Too early to tell in totality but indications thus far are that it accomplished what it was supposed to and did the world more good than harm.
Though it admittedly did mess up the EU Constitution and a few cozy commercial arrangements some in Europe had in the area. Both probably good things for many. Sorry about that.. :D
* Except in Canada -- with more lax regulation than in Germany or the US, the Canadian Banks did not let their greed get ahead of their common sense.