Male 51%
Female 48%
Female 48%
Votes: 86
We’re a very balanced group. You got a problem with that?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
26 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Any resemblance on my part to that state of being is purely coincidental.
As I just finished posting on the poll page, these results are just a wee bit too close to the results of the 2004 presidential election.
Was Diebold involved?
Best news I’ve had all day..can’t really have a democratic site if one gender if heavily favored…so this bodes extemely well for this site. Color me happy.
Is this a “fair and balanced” representation of the current 400+ members? Should there be a recount? 🙂
Should I probably shut up and go to bed? (That was rhetorical)
Now you need to do a poll for political affiliation/ideology.
For example, how many of you were aware that there’s a neocon walking among you?
welcome. What does it mean to you when you describe yourself as a neo-con?
Very little, actually.
I am a Chrisian conservative, whose religion has some overlap—but very little—with his politics.
I’m generally moderate socially (though not on everything), hawkish on foreign policy (I support a strong foreign policy, but not unnecessarily aggressive).
read this brief statement of principles and tell me whether you agree with it, or how you feel about it?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I agree with it, overall. Which, I guess, is why I classify myself as a neocon.
The only thing I might add is an appeal to our allies to shoulder a bit more of their own defensive load. If France, Germany, etc. aren’t going to stand behind us when we ask them to, then they need to up the ante on their own protection.
welcome to the site.
I’ll be interested to hear your take on things. I hope you enjoy our effort to cover world events and other news items that are falling between the cracks of our corporate media.
I’m glad to be here, and I do appreciate your attempts to cover the things missed by the MSM.
More than that, I appreciate your openness. I was invited to Booman by diane101 because of the abuse I’ve received at the hands of Kossacks.
I appreciate that there is a group of liberals out there who are at least curious to hear some opposition, and I’m glad to be the one provided. I hope to learn a lot from each of you.
I have a policy in the FAQ about “If I don’t consider myself a Democrat, am I welcome at the site?”
If you’re curious you can check it out.
I’ve always been a Democrat, but I would describe myself as more interested in open, effective, honest government than I am in partisanship.
I’m a frog-stalker of anyone who fails to live up to that ideal.
But on issues of policy between friends, debate is the order of the day.
If France, Germany, etc. aren’t going to stand behind us when we ask them to, then they need to up the ante on their own protection.
Does that include illegal wars of aggression?
of an “illegal war,” I suppose. The only thing I know for certain is that there is no clear international legal definition.
If you’re trying a thinly veiled reference to the Iraq War, then yes—that is precisely what I was referring to.
So, you think Germany and France should have committed troops even though they were against the war, as was their population? That they should, in their democracy, go against their people’s wishes in order to follow the insanity of another country just because we say so? There were no WMDs, if you remember. Also, no connection to the September 11 attacks. So, how would they reason this to their citizens?
I’ll let him answer for himself.
But for myself, I would say that the French and German governments should respect the views of the people they were elected to represent. They should be quite careful about acting in ways that their people don’t support. Fisrt of all, it is never a good idea to go to war against the will of the people. You can get away with it if you are sure to win (Grenada, Panama) but it is a terrible risk.
However, Germany and France should rebuild their militaries and act like sovereign nations.
If they want to buck our foreign policy (which they should when they don’t agree with it) then they should pay for their own defense.
I’m not sure the Bush administration has any interest in that happening though.
Don’t they have militaries of their own? Aren’t they participating in the Balkans and Afghanistan, in support of our actions there?
If they want to buck our foreign policy (which they should when they don’t agree with it) then they should pay for their own defense.
Explain. In what ways do we pay for their defense? I’m not an expert, obviously, on this matter. Also, it seems to me our bases positioned in Germany after WWII and during the cold war was not only to defend Germany, but in the big picture, ourselves. This country does not do anything that is without self-interest.
Please educate me.
I’m not an expert on European militaries, so I’ll just give you my general opinion.
Basically, Europe has very few infrantry divisions. They have almost no military cargo aircraft. They cannot mobilize, move, and supply an Army anywhere other than in Europe.
And I admire that in a lot of ways. But if they want to go their own way on foreign policy then they need to put their fair share of investment into supplying the kind of armed forces that can be useful when the UN/NATO thinks intervention is the right thing to do.
It’s perfectly fine for them to choose to spend less money on the military than we do, or to oppose our foreign policy, but they should have the tools to act on their convictions, or act in our stead.
Isn’t the French military in the Ivory Coast or someplace like that? Unless the continental plates have shifted since I last checked, that’s not in Europe.
but a peacekeeping force is quite different from an army division.
It’s very expensive to maintain the equipment to mobilize and supply even one division. That is the kind of stuff Europe just relies on us to pay for.
So what’s in it for us? We wouldn’t do it if we didn’t get something out of it for ourselves. What was the trade off? Bases in Europe so we could mobilize forces quickly if needed? We’re not providing defenses out of the goodness of our big warm hearts.
I’ve got to get back to work. Thanks for the food for thought.
No, I leave it up to them how to handle it. And Germany I can’t really fault, since they have a policy of not prosecuting aggressive wars, which given their history is a good idea.
But committing troops and actively opposing us are not the only two options. There’s a lot that could have been done inbetween. And if they expect us to keep shouldering the burden of their national defenses, then they need to step up to the plate a bit more with their soft power.
They don’t, so we should start leaving them to their own devices a bit, I think.
See my questions to BooMan above.
Although I’m in no position to represent this site, (other than being a member who’s interested in the site’s success and big tent attitude) I welcome your contributions to this community. Thank you for checking in, and I hope to see you around.
just for showing up.