Jim

Tell me this: Who do they perceive is the victim of the Bush policy? Surely not the Iraqi people.

I suppose if we are judged by Rambo movies, we're in trouble although even these movies had their origin - the abysmal treatment by the left and the MSM of our own Vietnam veterans. I don't see where you get the "fat" idea from our movies. The image presented is thinner than the reality in any developed country. I can't think of a single person on the floor of my office building who is obese. I already cited the World Health Organization statement that obesity is now a global problem. My guess is that many in the rest of the world want to believe Americans are obese because obesity is the last great acceptable prejudice. You would have to tell me the source of this irrational characterization. I hadn't even heard that stereotype until I saw Austin Powers and I really assumed it was a slam on the 60s more than the brits. Overall, I think we have a very favorable image of the Brits and I certainly hadn't focused on their girth. Now that I think about it, from the BBC programs I watch, my stereotype may be that Brits are somewhat restrained in showing public emotion but are also incredibly facile with the language. Maybe this stereotype flows from watching a few House of Commons debate. You've got to love a culture who's leaders say things like, "I refer the right honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a few moments ago." We could listen to you guys for hours.

Heh, see. You couldn't keep to the OP either. Prime and fairly isolated. Villains in movies go in and out of style and I do not think cold Europeans are over represented.

Sorry for the digression from the OP but it's inevitable in this kind of thread. It's like saying, "are American Southerners still perceived in the North as racist," without allowing the Southerners in the group to say whether the stereotype is fair. This kind of artificial barrier is not going to hold. Sorry. My point is illustrated by this post. If Americans held this kind of gross simplistic view about other countries, we'd be accused of being self-absorbed and simple-minded. It is the duty of Americans to not accept simple characterizations of other countries and it is the duties of those in other countries to do the same. We cannot allow our foreign policy, for example, to be influenced by lazy perceptions formed by Bruce Willis movies.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Your caveat at the end provides hope that most do not share these simple and gross views of America. If these stereotypes are generally held, it would say far more about the intellectual level of your country than it would mine. I cannot think of a single commonly held inaccurate stereotype of this kind that is held in this country regarding the UK. Please do not shoot the messenger or be offended for me saying so.

The rest of the world is catching up with America's obesity problem. The US is more self-absorbed than, say, Switzerland, because we can be. The only study I could find re global intelligence with a quick Google was this Not having researched this issue at all, I make no guarantees for this kind of study but I certainly did not see any immediate evidence that Americans are less intelligent than Europeans.

IAEA in probe of uranium found in Iran:

Actually' date=' the probe was not "into the NSA." The article neglects to say that the OPR is the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility but does, at least, concede that "the OPR‘s mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules." This was an internal DOJ investigation, not a congressionally requested probe into the NSA. All in all, I would say that the NSA made a good call as evidenced by the DOJ lawyer's obvious bias: This, as do most MSM articles, completely ignores the NSA's legal argument.

I'm sure they are in the same area on occassion and the next in line is in a secure location plugged into the system. My comment wasn't so much directed towards you as wondering if there is any limit that will ever be imposed by the MSM or public in the Dems ability to exploit Katrina. Dems and their allies refer to it almost on a subliminal basis. Chris Mathews: Good evening... Katrina... Secretary Rumsfeld, thank you... Katrina... for joining us... Mike Brown ... today. Excuse me, I have something caught in my throat: *coughingKatrina!Katrina!Katrina!* Sec. Rumsfeld: Er, hello Chris. We were going to talk about Iraq, I thought? Chris Mathews: Yes, WMD liar, I'm sorry I meant Katrina! I did.

Yes, this was a more direct and brief way of getting to the obvious question: What the heck is your point Sunspot?

I'm not certain of your point but not all administrative agencies have emergency functions. Long ago I had some work before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission which, to my knowledge, doesn't have to mobilize for emergencies. The OCC engages in rate making and decides such issues as whether a utility consumer is entitled to a rebate and whether an abandoned oil well should be plugged. The OCC also inspects and permits gasoline tanks, etc., etc, etc. The body answers to three elected commissioners and has various functionaries which operate with varying levels of independence depending on their function. For example, although all administrative decisions can be appealed to to commissioners and then to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, deference is given to the lower level decision makers particularly with respect to ministerial activities or those which call for specialized expertise. I'm not familiar with that many administrative agencies but I suspect all of them have unique complexities.

Sure they are. You can't just consider the gross cost without considering the rationale for the expenditure. In this case, we are going to spend $6.1B over five years to solidify the C3 link in a time of crisis. I'm not saying this means you can spend every dime of the budget on C3 but it is an important element of defense and deterrence.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/050906SpamAttacks.html It's about time they start putting some of these guys in the slammer.

I think asshole gives him too much credit. I was leaning more towards the word "twit."

$6.1B over five years and for a fleet of several aircraft does seem to be more reasonable than the converse. I wasn't saying you didn't understand this. *shrug* Try to get out of attack mode for a minute and let's see if we can't agree on a few things. You would agree that the military should not be allowed to launch a nuclear strike without presidential authority? If so, then you want the president to be in communication with the military in the event of a national crisis simply as a matter of keeping control of the nukes. If a civilian order is necessary to launch nukes and an EMP pulse could sever the US military from civilian command, a first strike in a time of crisis becomes more thinkable for an enemy. Secure command, control and communication makes an attack less likely in the first place. How much money is it worth to you to keep control of nukes and to reduce the risk of a nuclear exchange?

It is a heck of a speech and the dangers Eisenhower discussed are very real. OTOH, I'm not sure what he proposed to do about them other than for the citizenry to stay alert and knowledgeable. The flip side of this dangerous dynamic Eisenhower described is the even greater danger that the next round of major military technological advances will occur from small scale innovations in garages instead of requiring Manhattan style governmental efforts. This is one of the the dangers Bill Joy warned about:

My only point is that the raw numbers tell us nothing. For all I know $500B is not nearly enough. I'm all ears if there is waste or ways to more efficiently spend our military dollar or if we want to debate particular weapons systems. If there is a way to encourage the garage innovator, I'd love to hear it. (However, if you saw the NOVA on the DARPA grand challenge last year, a $2MM prize seemed to be a pretty good way to encourage garage tinkering.). However, the thread was focussed on the gross total of the budget.

We are spending this money because we are the same species that salted Carthage. It would be the ultimate in hubris to assume that American power is so invincible that we could not some day soon be vulnerable to similar aggression. We are spending this money because you never know when some unanticipated set of circumstances will lead to war (see, e.g. the first half of the last century). We are spending this money because as technology ramps upwards along an exponential curve, major shifts in military power are going to occur on a shorter time frame. Instead of measuring major shifts in military power by centuries we are now measuring it by decades and may come to measure such shifts by mere years. You never know where the next destabilizing technology will break out so the United States has to cover its bets. We are a small portion of the world's population and our power is a function of technology which is a function of economics and innovation. The economics are going to change in the next 50 years but hopefully western style democracies will continue to out innovate our potential adversaries. Battles thirty years from now will almost certainly be fought in part with unmanned machines. Last year, DARPA paid $2MM to Stanford's unmanned vehicle which navigated 132 miles of desert terrain. This year Darpa's grand challenge is to build an autonomous vehicle able to complete a 60-mile urban course in less than six hours. Fifty years from how who knows? Will battles be fought with nano-machines? Mech warriors? The honest answer is that no one can predict and DARPA and other defense agencies must spend a lot of money to cover the roulette wheel. Some of this money is being spent to fight two wars. Some of the money is wasted, I'm sure, and we should work to spend every dollar more efficiently.

I do not see what is so novel about this solution. He's basically giving up on a unified Iran and agreeing to three separate countries notwithstanding the face saving term "confederacy." I'm not saying we don't get there eventually, but it's hardly a brainstorm. The devil is in the details of how oil revenues are to be divided. The section of the country that comes out on the short end of that stick, isn't going to support the plan.