Puzzle Pieces and the Big Picture

Hi f0uloli,

you wrote "all actions are biased in the eyes of the person making them." That is so true. It reminds me of something my dad did to me several times when I was in high school and college, all full of my certainty that I knew everything (how do parents ever survive their teenagers' B.S. ???) He'd pull out from his wallet 4 little pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle, and give me three pieces while he kept one. Then he'd say "these pieces of the puzzle are like your view and knowledge of the world and what goes on in it. You can know with exacting precision all there is to know about your three pieces, as I know all about my one piece, based upon my experience and observation. And while I will happily concede that your knowledge of the overall picture may be 3 times the knowledge I have, you still don't have any more of an idea what the overall picture or truth is than I do, or anyone else." It made me nuts when he'd do that, but how can you argue with it? And I must admit I have carried 4 pieces of a 1000 piece puzzle in my wallet with which I've tormented my daughter and her friends from time to time with the same message. And it makes them nuts, too!

Iraq is a mess with the US there, it was a mess before the US was there, and bookies in Vegas are laying big odds that it'll keep being a mess after the US is gone. At the end of the day, we've just changed it from one type of mess to another type of mess, and it's impossible to say if it's a better mess now, or worse. Like you say, we probably won't know that for 30 years, if ever.

On the other hand, I absolutely can't wait for the KTM Super Duke to hit the States in early 2007. From the pics and articles I've read, it looks like a homerun from anyone's viewpoint.

Bush Can't Swim

Hi f0uloli,

Is there a 'world's favorite country'? Maybe we could agree on Switzerland?

you ask a good question - "who defines peaceful people?"

wikipedia says : The concept of peace ranks among the most controversial in our time. Peace undoubtedly carries a positive connotation; almost nobody admits to opposing peace; world peace is widely seen as one of the most noble goals of humanity. Various groups, however, differ sharply about what peace entails, how best to achieve it, and even if peace is truly possible.

How would you define it?

For me, off the cuff, I would define a 'peaceful people' as a people who exhibit a 'live and let live' philosophy regarding their treatment of other nations, following the lead of the other party (but for me, that doesn't mean to give other countries carte blanche to export violence to other countries that endangers mine).

Your obviously biased interpretation of all actions/motives American (and you are completely entitled to those opinions. I respect one's right to have any opinion one chooses, up until that opinion creates actions that endanger my people or my allies) reminds me of a joke. It seems the President Bush and the Pope were fishing at Camp David, and during their time in the boat a big gust of wind whipped the Pontiff's hat right off his head, about 20 feet away on the lake surface. The Pope began to get to his feet to jump in and swim for his hat, but President Bush motioned him down and said "Don't worry about it, I'll go get it for you." With that, Bush stepped out of the boat, walked on the water the 20 feet, retrieved the hat, and walked back to the boat to a grateful Pope. The next day the headlines in the Washington Post read "Bush can't swim."
The point, by the way, concerns biased interpretation of the facts.

I agree that you and I have very different views of America, and probably the world in general. That's perfectly ok with me, and I'm sure with you, too. Not being a mullah, no one need worry that disagreement will be followed with a suicide vest. I would hope that you would be a peaceful enough personality to extend me the same courtesy

I truly do not wish to fight or argue. I'll be happy to let this thread rest where it is. It's a stressful world out there, and motorcycles are supposed to be a tool to relieve stress, not add to it. Can we shake hands and agree to disagree?

Who is America's friend?

Hi Mav and Vimesy,

"changing views for votes" ... I think this is the common denominator among almost all politicians worldwide! Being in power must be a pretty good way to spend one's day, considering how most of the politicians will sacrifice everything, including their soul, to stay in power. Maybe if we, the people, made it an unpleasant lifestyle - low paying, low perks, long hours, hard effort, etc - there would be more people involved who wished to serve their country and fewer people who wished only to serve themselves and their cronies.

America is the 'big man on campus', so we're a natural target for dislike and vilification - much like the New York Yankees, dominance so easily breeds contempt. But we are, regrettably, also a very self-involved people, running around - many of us - like we are individually the centers of the universe, oblivious to anything except our own tiny lives. It makes me nuts. But my point is that there is probably much more coverage of America by British media than there is British coverage by America media (the American media is by and large lazy, and it's much easier and cheaper to talk about American woes over martinis in a New York or D.C. bar than it is to actually go out and interview people around the world about issues, finding, learning, and presenting both sides in order for the reader to decide where the bigger truth lies (an oxymoron, that!).
Having said all that, my observation of the general opinion of England is this: The majority of Americans truly greatly admire the British people, we identify with you, we think of you like we do our first cousins - as family once removed. Regarding Blair, I see him in the same light as I see Bush - my litmus test for politicians is a two-stage test - 1) to try and discern the man's (or woman's) motives, and 2) then judge the results of his actions. I believe Blair to have honorable motives, I think he is trying to do what is best for his country - not just today, but what will turn out to be best for Britain 20 years from now, too. I'm not clued in on many details about how he has performed day in and day out in achieving that motive.
And I believe almost all of the Americans I know would agree with that viewpoint. We are big fans of England. And I can promise you that no matter who is the President of the U.S., the American people will always be fiercely protective (not in a condescending way, but in a steadfast friendship/kinship way) of England. I cannot envision ever a time when the American people would not immediately answer a call or need of help from the British people - that's the truth.

Our (me and the vast majority of the people I know) opinion of France is very different. I do not believe the French are motivated by the same principles of philosophy and conduct as are some of our other allies (England, Australia, Denmark, etc). I consider them a former ally who is off on their own path, which is diverging significantly from the path of the US and England. And Germany I consider to be a mildly committed friend, but a friend nonetheless.

The bottomline in my message is this - the US is not the enemy of peaceful peoples. Our actions have consistently proved that. We will be for the other guy anything he wants us to be - his friend and business partner; his business partner only; exist totally separate from him and have nothing to do with him if he wishes (as long as he don't try to hurt us or our friends); or his enemy. It's always the other party's call to define the relationship. I think our viewpoint has always been 'live and let live' ... but always in that order, too.

At least that's the American philosophy as I see and know it. Lord knows I don't set policy, and don't represent all 300 millions Americans. But I do think that the above viewpoint is an accurate general viewpoint of the majority of Americans (at least among those that aren't so dim as to be incapable of cogent thought ... and I don't like THAT trendline!

America gets the Red Grading Pen

Vimesy,

I truly appreciate your post, as well.

My personal belief is that President Bush is a good man in a very tough situation, and is sometimes a little overmatched by the situation. You know, I've had some friends and acquantances over the years who were good people, but something about their style or delivery or mannerisms would begin to irritate me if I was around them for more than 15 minutes or so. I 'liked' them, I just wasn't comfortable being around them for very long. I think Bush has that effect on many. I don't know why that is, but I believe it. And his Public Relations marketing instincts and team are clumsy and amateurish.

Also, the vast majority of the media intensely dislikes Bush, as they do any leader in power with a clear and active Judeo-Christian religious underpinning in their philosophy. The mainstream media (to the tune of almost 80%) is secular progressive in their philosophy, is liberal in their politics, and cannot stand that this plain-spoken, not-glib Christian is so focused (they call it simple-minded) and stubborn to follow his policies in the face of tremendous criticism (much of it deserved, but much of it definitely not deserved). The media as a group craves power probably more than any, and it makes them crazy to not be able to visibly influence this man very much. Also, Bush has made big errors by not recognizing that his faith in the Iraqi populace - to embrace democracy and the law-abiding conduct and strong defense of the laws that govern that conduct - has been misplaced. He has been unforgivably slow to change strategies when events have screamed at him to do so.

Bush is not Teddy Roosevelt or Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, for sure - - if he was a baseball player, he wouldn't be a Hall of Famer like Babe Ruth or Willie Mays, just a solid major league player who played hard and had an 'ok' career. But it boggles my mind that people could attribute to him dark motives and actions that go beyond the depths of horror of Adolf Hitler. Do some people truly think that, if they got past bumper-sticker political ideology? Do they truly think that this man and his wife (and the thousands of others who would have to be 'in' on the plot) could just breezily set in motion the murder of thousands of their countrymen - men, women and children? I can't conceive of Western civilizations doing that to their own.

By the way, does anyone really want to see Iran have nuclear weapons? A government whose leader has said publicly that he wants to wipe Israel and Jews off the face of the Earth?

Regarding America's image as greedy and commercial and rude ... I completely understand that impression, and in so much of the case guiltily earned. I'm apalled at the rudeness of many many many Americans. I'm apalled at the lack of principled behaviour and integrity displayed by many many Americans - it makes me worry so much about the country and world that we are leaving to our children. But, if only you could see the goodness and the kindness of the great silent majority of Americans, that they act on throughout each day of their lives. As I'm getting ready almost nightly to throw my boot through the TV set at the craziness I see there, I have to remind myself of how lovely most of the people are whom I come in contact with each day.

Regarding American Corporations - no one is more distressed than I am over much of the pattern of behavior of these huge companies. I believe that the leadership of many of these huge corporations no longer considers themselves to be 'American' companies, but rather 'global' companies who have allegiance only to their bottom line, and not to any one country. It borders on treason, in my mind. But what to do about it? If I could do something about it, I would (I own a small, 12 person company in Oklahoma, so I guess I always favor the 'small company' view, even while I understand that you can't have a real economy only with small companies).

There is something going on with many nation-states right now, and nowhere is it more evident than in the unwillingness of the political elected leaders to police the borders and stop illegal immigration. How can a government - responsible to its citizens - not protect its borders? The fact that neither political party in America has taken real action to do so - even when the vast majority of Americans are outraged that they don't - indicates to me an agenda that the politicians are hiding from its citizens, and I believe that it takes on two camps ... 1) the Republicans are being influenced by Big Business that wants cheap labor, and 2) the Democrats' political views are losing ground with the majority of Americans (who see more and more clearly that the best road to achieving liberal goals is through conservative means), and they see illegal immigrants as a 'new voting meat' and that the Dems can get the majority of those votes. In both circumstances, the politicians are failing to serve its citizens.

Regarding religious zealots ... I am a Christian. But I am not a religious zealot, and I'm terrified of religious zealots who think that its their 'right' or 'mission' as a Christian to try to impose their views through the political process on everyone. I think that good leadership has nothing to do with being a Christian or non-Christian, but much to do with the values that result from a Judeo-Christian heritage ... respect for law, and taking responsibility for one's own actions.
The 'Christian Right' as a political movement is a reaction to years and decades of assault on some religious and basic freedoms that have been whittled away at by secular progressives (read 'atheists, agnostics, and relativists). Many of the 'Christian Right' are idiots, or at least too lazy to think through things on their own, and so become just another shrill mob trying to shout down those who don't agree with them. I'm as embarrassed by them as I am by the American image export of Paris Hilton and BIll Clinton's shameful personal conduct when he was President. How ironic that President Bush - a decent, loyal man, husband, and father - is vilified by so many, and ex-President Clinton - a very likable and charming, but deeply flawed man, driven by avarice, sexual urgency, jealousy and ambition - is warmly celebrated by so many. Something about that is upside down. Is it just a sign of the times? I can't really get my mind around the scale of it to know.

Conspiracy theories - entertaining, but not for serious people. The bottom line is that most of us see the world not the way 'it is', but we see the world the way 'we are' ... not very rational, but very human. By the way, go to Popular Mechanics website http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html if anyone wants his/her opinion informed by more than a bumper-sticker of arguments.

America has many many flaws, as do all countries. But we also have many many positive attributes. On balance, we are a decent, hard working, generous people - stalwart friends and fierce enemies, slow to rouse into anger and action, devastating in our retribution, and afterwards quick to forgive, rebuild, move forward. We share a common language, ancestry, and fundamental life view with our English soulmates. I'm happy that is so.

Brit redux

KhalH - and everyone else,

Having made my previous post - it's 1a.m. my time - I couldn't go off to bed without adding the following ...

I am coming to visit London for the first time in May (but just so you know, in case you want to have a go at me, I don't fight fair ) because I've always wanted to see London and because I want to do what I can to show my support for our stalwart English brothers. I have always loved the British people. I am going to visit Australia in 2008 - I have always loved the Aussies, too, for many of the same reasons. And I love the United States. I have a teenage daughter who I have hopes and dreams and fears for, just like any parent. I cried at the beauty and the romance of the scene of The Titanic when the young couple is on the front of the Titanic. I have a cat who I have convinced over the years that my sole job in life is to scratch her ears and rub her belly (I haven't yet convinced my wife of the same, though!) . I have cried for the innocents lost in all conflicts I see (Blood Diamond, btw, is a superb and horrific rendering of man's propensity to cause violence to their own), and I have said prayers for strangers.

My point is that I am trying to be a decent person who has a positive and benign impact on those with whom I'm in contact. Most of my countrymen are, too, as I know are most of your countrymen. It's devastating to see evidence that people whose grandfathers fought side-by-side with my grandfathers to defeat the Nazis in hot wars, and the communists in cold wars, would think so ill of the American people and leaders and of our motives and natures. Our countries are not perfect, but I believe we are noble countries, yours and mine - that we strive to walk the walk, that we strive to do the right thing (even when that means choosing between two shades of gray, as it almost always does in the world of international affairs), that we strive to give helping hands to those who need them and are willing to take that hand in friendship.

If I've offended anyone, it has not been my intent. But neither will I apologize for coming to the defense of my country - I would do no less for yours.

A letter to a Brit

f0uloli,
The US was already in the Middle East (can you say Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait).

By the way, December 7th, 1941 is the calendar date that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (or, maybe after the previous poster I should insinuate that the US painted a bunch of its planes with red zeros on the wings and attacked our own men on those ships in the harbor).

KhalH,
I hesitate to even address your off-the-cuff comment about thinking the US is more a threat to you and your lifestyle than Al-Quida, but I will ... next time your country or some part of it gets attacked (WWI, WWII), who do you think you'll have the urge to call for help - the US or Al-Quida?

How is it possible for any reasonable person to think that a society such as Brits or Danes or Italians or Spaniards or Australians or Americans would murder innocent people en masse for money? Who are the peoples who kill and rape and maim their own countrymen every chance they get? (hint - it's not Americans, it's not Brits, it's not French, it's not Danes, it's not Australians ... well, surely you get the idea.) Oh, and there's a huge amount of oil in Canada and Mexico - if it's oil we're after, do you think it would have occured to us that it might be easier to just drive across the northern and southern US borders to get it? The Western world doens't annihilate people for "stuff" - it either invents or pays for the things that it wants and needs. And by the way, it's hysterical to me that it's on the BIKE (motorcycle enthusiasts) forum that you'd choose to sneer at the very idea that 'oil' is an important factor and motive in world affairs - what does your bike run on - air? We wouldn't be on this forum, from about a hundred different angles, if it wasn't for oil. Here's a rhetorical question - if oil (the life blood of the civilized world) isn't a proper reason to go to war, what is? ... poetry?

Iraq violated the 1991 cease fire, violated 17 UN resolutions, shot at American planes repeatedly for years. We went into Iraq (and your troops were right there, too, bro) for noble reasons. It's not worked out the way we'd hoped primarily for two reasons - 1) we've used a timid strategy against the terrorists (which have come from the disaffected Bathists and outside Iraq from Iran, Hezbollah and Al-Quida), which is always a recipe for prolonged grief , and 2) the Iraqi people, by and large, have proven themselves not up to the task of standing up for their own lives and families. Some peoples will fight for their freedom and safety, and some won't. The Kurds will, the Afghans will, the Brits will, the Americans will, the Germans will, the Russians will, the South Vietnamese didn't, and the Iraqis aren't. They could help end the vast majority of bloodshed of innocents in Iraq at no risk to themselves by calling in anonymous tips on the whereabouts of the terrorists and bombers, but they don't .. why? Is it because they're more concerned about helping their tribe or sect or kin settle ancient scores against rival tribes or sects or families? Is it because they don't understand the principle of self government and the responsibilities that go with it? Whatever the reasons, the fact is that they 'could' make a huge contribution to their own safety and future, but they aren't doing it.
Israel gave back all the settlements on the West Bank -did that stop the killing? Did it satisfy the Palestinians or Hezbollah? Do you really think it's gonna be ice cream and cake for everyone when the US leaves Iraq? And who would you rather be influencing oil supply - your allies, or Iran and its henchmen? Try to envision your way of life - that is totally dependent on an uninterrupted supply of oil at reasonable costs - if the world's oil supply is completely in the control of Iran, Venzuela, and Russia? But you're more worried about Houston?