Just a second, that sounds like mission creep rather than true underfunding. The Coast Guard shouldn’t be in the South China Sea, that’s where the Navy should be. Perhaps the Navy is actually the underfunded one if they have to outsource critical missions to the Coast Guard?
And what about the Army’s reliance on the National Guard for foreign missions? That would also seem to indicate that the active military needs more manpower and funding.
I suppose it might suggest a person’s brain isn’t getting enough food stamps.
To the contrary, from Vice article from my previous post:
Can you cite to support that, considering such a conclusion can’t be drawn from what I just posted?
I’d prefer to see a cite on the Army suffering any cuts specifically in relation to the National Guard’s foreign missions.
Just because it’s less provocative doesn’t mean the Coast Guard should be patrolling the South China Sea.
No, there isn’t.
What King is calling for is a version of the old KKK line, that considers some Americans (oddly enough, the European ones) to be real Americans, and other Americans already here not to be. That’s from the same place as, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian,” and, “Whites Only,” and “He wasn’t even born in this Country!” And now you’re doing it too.
Not quite. There are such things are real Americans. They are known as American citizens. Then there are “aspiring Americans”, those who are legal residents and not yet US citizens. Others are known as “not Americans”, and whether they can become Americans is up to us, not them.
Whoa. I think there are legitimate grievances of white persons in some contexts.
That said, most white people *in the U.S.A. today *should direct their grievances at the moneyed class, not at Somali refugees or somesuch.
Thanks but I’ll go with commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet Captain David Adam’s assessment of the situation over yours.
Sending in the Navy in certain regions can be easily seen as inflamitory and confrontational. Sending the CG in means you can maintain order without looking like your using gunboat diplomacy.
I don’t in the least deny or “go easy on” anti-US hate among radical Islamist extremists, but I know better than to believe that it accounts for American Islamophobia all by itself. As your own next remarks clearly illustrate.
[QUOTE=adaher]
We are at war. In historical context, we’re doing better at not being racist towards Muslims than we ever did at not being racist against Japanese, Spanish, Brits, Germans, or even people from a different state.
[/quote]
You seem completely blinded to the fact that we are not at war with any entity that officially or realistically represents Muslims in general, as opposed to being at war with Japan, Spain, Britain, Germany, etc.: entities that did officially and in real-world terms represent Japanese, Spanish, British, German, etc., people in general.
That’s the Islamophobia at work. It’s got relatively little to do with the fact that some Muslims hate us and want to destroy us, but a great deal to do with the fact that Western warmongers have been carefully fostering the myth that most Muslims hate us and want to destroy us.
We are at war with an ideology within Islam that has some state support. Expecting that to not cause blowback against Muslims in general is like expecting us to be at war with one communist nation and not have Americans dislike Communists in general.
What’s remarkable isn’t that hate against Muslims has gotten worse, but that it isn’t a LOT worse. By historical standards, this is mild stuff. You also have to account for the government’s intentional deception and bumbling of the messaging. Their motivation is to protect average Muslims, which is good, but it is also to protect relations with some rather unsavory allies of ours, which is not good. If Americans figure out that there is little difference between Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia and elements of other Muslim nations like the Pakistani ISI, which actively aids our enemies, then that’s going to make diplomacy a bit… awkward.
Excellent post overall, adaher. I’d just amend it a bit to something like “ISIS,” “Saudi Arabia,” etc. are (arguably, but I feel you) all “bad” – maybe even “equally bad” (or at least unsavory) – but in rather * different ways*. They’re not “all the same,” as you implied.
Something you and most liberals can agree on: the US has gotten in bed with some bad folks over the years; most notably during the Cold War, but certainly these days as well. Many hegemonic powers would just say “eh, realpolitik” and not worry about it, but we Americans have this impossible ideal of ourselves as the world’s do-gooder forever and always.
Their ideology is the same. That’s part of the problem. The US government wants us to focus on very specific people as the enemy: members of terrorist organizations. But the contagion’s roots are in Wahabism, the offiical state religion of Saudi Arabia.
And they hate America because …
Rep. Dan Seum, a rotting sac of pus and rat turds, felt that a bill that was intended to make it mandatory for detained, felony offenders to have DNA samples taken would be an unwarranted “intrusion.”
And when a government office holder told a non-white American citizen who was born in the United States that she’s lucky to be allowed to stay in the United States, he was treating her like a real American…how exactly?
Bad analogy, because Americans have always made a big deal out of disliking Communists in general on ideological grounds, irrespective of which particular Communist regime we might have been actually fighting at any given time.
What you are suggesting about Muslims is more akin to claiming that if America were at war with France, then it would be ridiculous to expect Americans not to hate French speakers in general, including Haitians and Quebecois and Cameroonians.
But in fact, it would not be ridiculous—it would just be basic humanity and common sense—to expect Americans not to hate Quebecois, Haitians, and French speakers in general just because we’re at war with France.
Likewise, it’s just basic humanity and common sense to expect Americans not to hate Muslims in general just because we’re in conflict with a certain subset of Islamist extremists. Of course, it’s an unrealistic expectation at present, but that’s because the neocons and their ideological allies have already poisoned that well so thoroughly. Not because the Islamist terrorist extremists are somehow “making” us hate Muslims in general against our will and better judgement.
[QUOTE=adaher]
You also have to account for the government’s intentional deception and bumbling of the messaging.
[/quote]
Oh believe me, I’m accounting for it. But I may not mean what you mean by “intentional deception”.
Adaher, you’d get further with your own thread. Now start one. It’s allowed.