Iraq Situation is Bullshit

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28433
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:49 AM (P)

Great headline today, the US has announced long term plans to rotate U.S. troops each year in Iraq. This sucks, whatever happened to a quick operation and the discovery of weapons? The actions of my country are extremely wrong and personally embarassing to me.

U.S. soldiers are now in rotation for a 2 day vacation at a "Rest Camp in Iraq," meanwhile Georgie just left for his "month long vacation." WTF?

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. I have many friends without Dad's and little babies being born without parents and this is bullshit, no one is protecting me from Freedom, this is just meddling bullshit in other countries and inspiring more terrorism and world wide hatred against the United States FOR NO GOD DAMN GOOD REASON.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030813/ap_on_re_mi
_ea/iraq_us_troops&cid=540&ncid=716

KASUO

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:22 AM (P)

If the US moves out of Iraq while things are not in order, it could all go to shit.

"Let's moon 'em!"

SLOWSMURF

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 3:28 AM (P)

Sufficed to say it is shit, it'll only get worse

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 4:58 AM (P)

I don't quite know what to say Tash. I agree with you totally that we shouldn't be in the situation in the first place. But to go over there, decimate their infrastructure and then just leave those people to their own devices, subject to any number of goon squads as bad or worse than Hussein would be cruel in the extreme. I'm as cynical as the next man about the real motives of our leaders and their financiers, but whether we like it or not, we've set ourselves up as THE responsible party for the current mess in Iraq. As to the service men and women suffering through it, I sympathize and feel we should work to get them out as soon as practical, but it's a volunteer force - they new what they were signing up for.
This is an interesting debate, but I won't be commenting further. I've seen these kinds of threads ad nauseum on the GORRAM ___ Firefly site and its part of the reason I don't visit there more often.

SergeantX

"..and here's to all the dreamers, may our open hearts find rest." -- Nanci Griffith

TZEGHA

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:51 AM (P)

Quote:
I've seen these kinds of threads ad nauseum on the GORRAM ___ Firefly site and its part of the reason I don't visit there more often.

That's too bad :(

Why don't you just stay out of the Off-topic folder? I would hate to think that you let the bad vibes of the political threads discourage you from the other Firefly conversation over there -- but then again, I'm one of those naive people who, because of all the threads she has ignored, has avoided all the bad vibes and was unaware that there were any to begin with.

-=ZERO=-

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 10:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Tzegha:
Quote:
I've seen these kinds of threads ad nauseum on the GORRAM ___ Firefly site and its part of the reason I don't visit there more often.

That's too bad :(

Why don't you just stay out of the Off-topic folder? I would hate to think that you let the bad vibes of the political threads discourage you from the other Firefly conversation over there -- but then again, I'm one of those naive people who, because of all the threads she has ignored, has avoided all the bad vibes and was unaware that there were any to begin with.

Hate to burst your bubble, but ANY recent posts show up on the main page no matter what channel they were posted in. So the peeps that only read the recent posts on the main page have to filter out the shit.

As for 'Tash, the American foreign policy of being the world's police force has been going on since the Cold War. Wake up, the gorram government isnt gonna be changing their ways anytime soon. Especially not after some whining in a Firefly forum! Whatever personal reasons you have aside, griping doesnt do anything except bug the hell out of the people here with your off-topic tangent. With all due respect, go whine somewhere else.

As for all the off-Firefly topic channels, can we plz get them severed from the main page. I'm sick and tired of people droning on about Angel and Buffy and Iraq! I dont wanna hear aboot it! I'm here for Firefly!

------------------------------------------
-=ZERO=-
Check me out on WinMX, I have all Firefly episodes in SVCD format including the 3 episodes recently aired on SciFi UK.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:31 PM (P)

I don't think the idea is to change the policy, although that would be nice, so much as to vent at the stupidity. I think one of the stupidest things I ever heard was bush saying, "Bring it on." Since when do we want to encourage people to attack our troops in what is meant to be a peaceful rebuilding effort?

I think we should have gone into Iraq when we said we would during the first Bush’s time, there were rebellions that were crushed because the people rose up when they were asked to but never got the help we promised. Still even if going in was the right idea (I’m not sure if it was, I just think we should have the first time because we said we would and the people who rebelled were counting on us) staying for an extended period isn’t.

JOHNNYREB

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:
...go whine somewhere else.

For shame, Zero. A forum, by definition, is an opportunity for open discussion. This is a forum! Wasn't it Voltaire who stated, "I may not agree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it"? If you don't like what Tash opines, then read another thread.

As for Tash's opinion...I am as big of a war-monger as the next guy, but I have to agree with Tash. We shouldn't be there. There is nothing to be gained. Iraq has existed for, what? Six thousand years? And they have yet to create a democracy for themselves? Why should they start now? Why should a country that has been around for 200 years (us) tell them how to run the show? What makes us better? This is nothing more than unabashed imperialism (not that I'm against that per se, but lets colonize a county that has more to offer than zealots, sand, and a little oil.)

I say yes to "blood for oil." No to pussyfooting around. Bismark wrote that "The most humane way to wage a war is wage an all out one." So lets stop fucking around, take what we need, and go home. C'mon Georgie, we all know how it looks no matter how you try to sugar coat it. You're only wasting lives. Do what you need to, then get out.

Viva Firefly!

JOHNNYREB

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:57 PM (P)

And, what's more! Do you visit a specific friend and say, "I'm only here to discuss Sony Playstation, so let's not stray from topic"? If something doesn't happen with Firefly, we will have discussed everything there is to discuss about Firefly, three times over, then sit at our computers looking at a defunct site because there is nothing more to say.

And what can be said really? We all love Firefly; We all hate fox. Let's try a new topic once in a while until the DVD's come out. Then we will have oodles to talk about, until the movie comes out. For now viva la conversacio'n!

Viva Firefly!

TRAGICSTORY

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 1:53 PM (P)

You know what this situation reminds me of? The play "the mouse that roared." In case you haven't seen it it is about a small country that declares war on the US in order to lose and end up being supported by US aid.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 2:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:

As for 'Tash...With all due respect, go whine somewhere else.

With all due respect, kiss my ass. It is my right to say what I wish.

HAPLO721

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:05 PM (P)

Last I checked, there was no draft in effect, so all the troops in Iraq right now knew they could end up away from home for months or even years at a stretch. Just be glad they're rotating rather than leaving the same people there until the country is back on its feet.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

SUCCATASH

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But to go over there, decimate their infrastructure and then just leave those people to their own devices, subject to any number of goon squads as bad or worse than Hussein would be cruel in the extreme.

I agree, the U.S. is responsible for the big mess. What a tragedy. Here is another article about a plan to get Iraqis shot instead of U.S. troops. I love my country.

U.S. Considers Revising Its Role in Iraq
Thu Aug 7,10:07 PM ET
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - With American troops under constant fire in Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday the U.S.-led military coalition may want to "stand back a little" and rely more on local forces to maintain security in the country....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030808/ap_on_re_mi
_ea/us_iraq_6

JOHNNYREB

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 6:43 PM (P)

Why not let the Iranians go in and clean house? They've been chomping at the bit to do that for decades. Arabs would not be pissed off because America was in the middle east; Americans would not be killed; And, Iranians can't really be called moderate, but they, it seem, are the only ones who aren't detonating themselves to kill others.

Viva Firefly!

TZEGHA

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by -=ZERO=-:
Hate to burst your bubble, but ANY recent posts show up on the main page no matter what channel they were posted in. So the peeps that only read the recent posts on the main page have to filter out the shit.

Hate to burst your bubble *g*, but you (general you) can set the bookmark to just the General Firefly discussion, and you (general you) won't even have to look at the OT. Don't even bother with the Start page.

-T -trying to finagle ways to keep the OT polit threads from souring the whole OB to potential brains that I can pick

HOTFORKAYLEE

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 7:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Tzegha:
That's too bad :(

Why don't you just stay out of the Off-topic folder? I would hate to think that you let the bad vibes of the political threads discourage you from the other Firefly conversation over there -- but then again, I'm one of those naive people who, because of all the threads she has ignored, has avoided all the bad vibes and was unaware that there were any to begin with.

Heres one of my main gripes about the other board, besides the fact that navigation sucks and all the off-topic stuff.

Typical thread on the OB:
Post #1 "Hi, I was thinking about this and.........."

Post #2-52 "Bump"

Post #53 "Ya know, you made a good point but one thing I was thinking..............."

Post #54-66 "Bump"

Post #67 "Bumpity-bump"

Post #68-95 "Bump (hey, my thread is always towards the top!)"

As for the war, like has been said, we are already there and can't just leave now, then anyone who likes us even a little won't anymore. Not to belittle the soldiers over there but they did sign up for the service and it is their job to carry out their duties.

Quote:
"We'll hit them in waves. Try to isolate the ships we need to destroy from the ones who won't fight unless they have to. Then we'll give them a chance to surrender or join up."
"And if they don't?"
"We take them out. Hey, I don't like the idea any more than you do, but either we commit ourselves to this completely or we don't do it. Once we pull the first trigger we can't hesitate to pull the next one, because they sure won't. Now, once we're in, we're in: no surrender, no retreat."

TZEGHA

Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:28 PM (P)

LOL!

And one of the reasons why I don't bother much with posting over here is:

Post 1: hey, I had this idea . . .

*crickets*

1 month later ...Post 2: sure, I can buy that

*crickets*

*looks around warily to see if anyone has a sense of humor over here*

ETA . . . *crickets*

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 12:18 PM (P)

AAACK!!!

How did I MISS this lovely thread???

Firefly is political- or didncha notice that politics/ethics are the base of the stories?

But now that I'm here... HELP!!!! It's 5 ayem and my brain has fallen and it can't get up!!

I'm stuck for a word= got a MAJOR case of brain freeze. What is the name of a person who believes that government should disappear and that we should all just progress through individual efforts? I think Wulf is one. This is going to bug me until I either remember it on my own or someone helps me out.

Either way, I'll probably kick myself around the block a few times.

Thank ye!

JOHNNYREB

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 12:30 PM (P)

Anarchist. Is that the word?

Viva Firefly!

LOTV

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 3:48 PM (P)

I suppose anarchy could fit that definition.. but not quite in the manner its supposed to, I believe...

Anyone ever read "V for Vendetta"? Great novel/comic book. Sets forth the difference between Anarchy and Chaos. Usually when anyone mentions "things are in anarchy" they mean Chaos... Anarchy is a locale with no government that actually works... that didn't exist in the comic book either, but hey.. maybe after another 2000 years of evolution and several nuclear winters, we might decide to all get along...

As for the current war... I know who I'm NOT voting for next year... We're in the shit, and we gotta deal the dice till the end. But this had better be the last of it... If suddenly we're dropping bombs on others (N. Korea, Iran, etc) that's when something needs to stop, seriously... Because otherwise, we're going to start setting ourselves up for the axe. Remember why we rebelled to begin with? What the Brits did was nothin compared to how we're pissing the rest of the world off...

ack.. its bedtime...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 4, 2003 1:22 AM (P)

NOW I remember! It's "libertarian". DUH!

But you don't want to know what I think about THAT!

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, September 4, 2003 1:51 AM (P)

I noticed a mention of Tribalism in another thread, and consider that many "tribes" were in effect Anarchist in form.

A good example of an Anarchistic Tribe would be the Renshai, from Mickey Zucker Reichart's "Last of the Renshai" series.
(A damned good read, btw)

Government generally is best when it governs least, people are like a handful of sand, hold them gently and you hold most of em, but the harder you squeeze... the more slips right through your fingers.

Come to think of it tho, I don't think I would really want the Renshai hanging in my neighborhood, but their form (or lack) of government worked for them.

-frem
diefuxdie

DRAKON

Thursday, September 4, 2003 11:22 AM (P)

"We're in the shit, and we gotta deal the dice till the end. But this had better be the last of it... If suddenly we're dropping bombs on others (N. Korea, Iran, etc) that's when something needs to stop, seriously... "

Look, the war in Iraq cannot be understood isolated all by itself. It has to be understood from the perspective of a war against terrorism. You know, keeping another 9-11 from ever happening again.

This is a war of survival. They hate us. And they think that they can kill us, or rob us or whatever, and we will do nothing to stop them. If we lose, we die. (Or worse, lose our freedoms) We are a walking, talking refutation of their worldview, a blasphemy. No amounts of calm, cool considered discussion is going to change that fact.

We fight, or we die. We fight them in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, or wherever they are now, or wait for them to come here, and kill us at home.

"my kind of stupid"

LOTV

Thursday, September 4, 2003 4:23 PM (P)

"This is a war of survival. They hate us. "

Class, any opinions as to why they might hate us?

Timmy?

Timmy: "Because over the past century the west has treated them like Shit"

Good job Timmy! You get a cookie!

Seriously, though, the US has had its hand in the cookie jar for way too long in the Middle East. If we were worried about our own safety and of human rights violations, we would have stopped it when it started. But no, we were the ones setting up regimes, and then tearing them apart when the people we set up said they didn't like us. We were the ones who gave people like Saddam and Bin Laden training to kill others. We were the ones who could have said Saddam did bad things in the 80's. We could have stopped Saddam after the first Gulf War, and told him to get his ass outta there.

But we didn't? Why? Because we wanted oil, in whatever means we could. Now, the manipulation of the people has caused resentment to no end of the West and its meddling, and its coming back to bite us. Should we let it happen? No, of course not, but currently our actions of pre-emptive strikes on asprin factories and whatnot are just giving the enemy more fighters to their armies. The US is not invincible. Rome did fall in time. We need to grow up, and let others police the world, rather than putting our name on everything on the planet.

Perhaps using the United Nations as its intended purpose rather than as a US puppet might help things, you think?

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

DRAKON

Friday, September 5, 2003 12:35 PM (P)

I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.

No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.

Nor is it the truth. bin Laden made a big deal about the Crusades, long before the US was even a pipe dream. The Soviets, French, British, and Germans were all more involved in the middle east than we were. They get a pass while we are the "Great Satan"

No, I ain't buying it. Nor should you.

The real root cause is Levis. And Barbie, and MTV. We are changing their culture and they don't like it. They have a growing population of young folks who find the old ways stifling, repressive, and just not much fun. They look at us and see a land of milk and honey, with DVDs and computers and digital watches, all the stuff that they cannot make, and they want them. Not because we force them to buy, but because they want the products.

Those products are things they do not produce themselves, despite having ample money from their oil sales to build factories and make investments.

But they are Allah's people (or so they claim) How can the West be so superior in terms of military might, technological advancement, political power, economic wealth and cultural attractiveness than these chosen people. We do all that despite the fact that we are a "Godless nation" who does not even have a Sharia based legal system. Muslims here are forced to treat Jews and pagans (like myself) just like other folks. No dhimmitude here.

We are a walking, talking blasphemy to what they have been taught. We are a constant reminder that they are comparitively, a failure on the world stage. At one time the Muslim Empire ruled from China to Europe and Morocco. No more.

That and we support those pesky Jews who have a per capita GDP of about twice what any other Muslim country does, (including and especially Saudi Arabia) despite having NO oil, and only a sliver of land.

No, the things you have cited are merely the excuse, and a pitable one at that. The reason for their hatred is not as nice as you would like to think it is.

LOTV

Friday, September 5, 2003 1:58 PM (P)

First off: No body ever said a bloody word saying "terrorism and 9-11 are justified" and for you to dare say that is an offense to everyone in this world who suffered on that day. Nothing can ever justify that day, or any other terrorist action.

And if their hatred was based on their economy, then why isn't China, Japan, and every other East Asian culture which wants to throw away its past for "the American God" attacking and trying to blow the US up?

You could say "Its the Muslims" but thats bullshit too. If you hadn't noticed, the majority of the people are quite pacificst. Islam condems killing. Islam is tolerant of other religions. To group "Muslims" as a whole as "violent savages" is a racist comment, because those are the extremists, those who are tired of being manipulated by everyone around them. Not just the US and Europe, but their own rulers and the like. The Arab nations get plenty of money from the oil they sell, but their leaders do not give it to the people. That is where they should focus their anger on.

But they don't. Why? Because foreign invaders keep screwing things up! We are the ones dropping bombs! We are the ones limiting their economies by buying only oil, and no other products! We are the ones placing economic sanctions that limit things like MEDICINE!!!

Venting their anger at us is not the right place, but regardless of it, they are. That does not mean that we are the gods of the world and deserve to blow up who we want to. If you hadn't noticied, we went against the will of the world in attacking Iraq. The rest of the world said give the inspectors more time, and we said "Fuck You."

And you wonder why everyone is turning a blind eye to us when we say "We need help in Iraq, please send your troops and money to support us." Because we started it, and if we don't stop this crap, eventually even our own allies will begin to hate us.

The Muslim Empire once spanned across all of Eurasia. So did Rome, Britain, and the empire of Alexander.

Notice where they are today? If we want to protect our people, we need to stop trying to rule the world, because if we don't, the only people that will care about the US will be the history books after we are gone.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

DRAKON

Friday, September 5, 2003 2:24 PM (P)

You are trying to explain their actions in a form that is to render them sympathic. You are correct, in that nothing justifies or excuses their actions on that day. You found my response offensive. Good. I was attempting to show you exactly how just 'excuses' make me feel.

in other words, that explaination that "America brought it on itself" is, in my opinion far more offense than me pointing out that you were doing just that. It is the equivalent of telling a rape victim they should not have worn such a short skirt.

It is not just economics. It is primarily cultural, of which economics is a reflection. japan and China have shown themselves that they can adapt to modern capitalism (Heck the Chinese Communist Party is even inviting capitalists into its ranks.) Their cultures, as rigid as they have been in the past, are adapting to the changing times.

You are quite right in that most Muslims are not terrorists in any way shape or form. But that is not the issue. The terrorists themselves are claiming to be Muslims. It is the cultural ideology of, in particular, Wahabi Islam that is problematic here.

BTW: Muslim is not a race. Even if I were decrying all Muslims in the bigoted sense you accuse me of, since Islam is not a race, it is not a racist comment.

It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.

But the "foreign invader" is a useful scapegoat. It detracts the populace from the real source of their problem, and toward the US or some othe outside entity. If people are protesting Israel, they are not protesting against the Saud family. If they are rushing off to martyr themselves in Checnya, they are not trying to kill the royal family.

They have NO other products beside oil. There is nothing to buy from them except oil. They have an aggragate GDP, excluding oil, of Portugal. This despite the fact they get billions every year in oil sales. They are the ones not building factories, not starting new businesses, not educating a growing population, not making things other than oil.

Besides which, someone not buying what you are offering to sell is hardly an excuse for mass murder.

(And even the oil is brought out of the ground and transported by foreign labor. We have to go drill the oil, build the pipelines and get it ready to ship.)

You point out that we are the ones dropping bombs, ignoring the context in which those bombs are dropped and the fact that they have no airplanes to even attach bombs to. You are forgetting that 9-11 is what brought about the present campaign in Iraq, as well as Afghanistan. We are not blowing up stuff simply because we don't like it. We are blowing up stuff to keep them from killing us. There is a reason and a purpose for choosing this course of action.

Our allies, as well as the rest of the world, can love us or not. Personally I don't care. As long as they don't try to kill us, or help those who would. This is not about empire building, or any other such stuff. We are not Europe. The closest we ever had to an empire was after the Spanish American war when we got the Phillipines, which we gave back to the people, (the process was interrupted by WW2, but as it was already ongoing when the war broke out, we got a lot of help from the Phillipine people.)

Let me say it again. We are not Europe. We are not Great Britian of old, we do not have nor want colonies all over the globe. We don't want to rule the world. We just don't want people to kill us. We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, September 5, 2003 3:43 PM (P)

Quote:
We don't care if you love us, hate us, or ignore us. Just don't kill us.

Found that statement interesting,

Quote:
It is not "foreign invaders" that keep screwing things up and prevent changes in those countries. This is false. We do business with the people in power. If the people in power, who have the oil, do not use their wealth for their people, that is their doing not our. What do you recommend? We overthrow those governments who are wasting their oil wealth on something other than their people? Think hard about this for a second.

I would suggest buying oil ( as well as other products ) acceptable, but the question of Military Aid, as well as providing arms involves the US to a degree which limits the peoples ability to rise up and overthrow their own governments.

While one can argue arms may be supplied from other sources, this is like saying why shouldn't I sell drugs, they can buy them somewhere else.

As for providing Military support for Israel, while international law is a joke, it did state that providing arms to one side of a civil war ( that is what I would call the situation ) constitutes an act of war.

Perhaps a complete disengagement from the Middle East, and its political messes is the approach. At least a slashing of Military / Foriegn aid and cutting the sales / giving away of arms.
American credibility is any peace process is next to non existant due to your constantly changing foriegn policy ( General Anthony Zinni )

Why not stay out of it for a while, encourage other to as well. Maybe the internal problems of these countrys are better left to the people living there.

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

DRAKON

Saturday, September 6, 2003 8:32 AM (P)

First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)

The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.

In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)

I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law. I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.

As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.

Perhaps you are right in that internal problems should be handled without our interference. Unfortunately, its really too late for that. The consequences of withdrawl are pretty severe especially if we want to form alliances with anyone else anywhere at any time in the future. Who would trust us to keep our word if we cut and run now?

"my kind of stupid"

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, September 6, 2003 3:41 PM (P)

Some very good points, but I still think some of the principles are flawed,

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
First off, one has to recognize that for a great deal of the post World War 2 period, we were at war. World War 3 was what is commonly called the Cold War, against communism. The Soviets were trying to expand their role in the world, with a ideology dyametrically opposed to ours, (not unlike the present war on terrorism, or World War 4 as it is being called in some circles)

The opposite could also be said, that the U.S. was also trying to expand their influence, against the other. Just a matter of perspective, nothing wrong with it, but I think a point which has to be reconized.

Quote:

The Soviets wanted us to change to their way of doing things. To give up our freedoms and such. We, a capitalist nation, with free markets and freedom to think, posed a threat, simply by existing to their world view. Marx says we should whither and die out. But we didn't, thus proving Marx wrong and their entire ideology at best erronous.

Once again, the opposite also applies. Different areas and countrys have responded quite differently to both systems, Marx envisioned his system for Great Britian, and didn't project it in a country as vast as Russia. Other countrys such as the former Yugoslavia under Tito found a balance with that system. Keeping the peace between ethnic group who despised each other and building an economy which had a higher GNP than any on the Mediterranean including Italy. Look at the chaos once that system was changed

http://www.princeton.edu/~mlane/

Another interesting example is Poland, where after two years of Solidarity, the people re-elected the communists so their social infrastructure would function again.

http://csf.colorado.edu/pen-l/2001III/msg03233.html

Quote:

In the process of containing the Soviets, we had to make arm deals with other regimes. We had to pick sides, and generally, it was a choice between two evils. Totalitarianism of the right, or totalitarianism of the left. (Make no mistake about it, the Soviet system was a totalitarian dictatorship. Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not.)

But if by supporting Batista, or Somozsa, or Pinochet , or Peron, or Suharto, or Diem, etc in harsh regimes does it make the U.S. any better than the Soviets ? particularly in the eyes of the people in those countries ?

Quote:

Again it comes down to either you make your own decisions, or someone else does for you, whether you like it or not

or you fight...

Quote:

I don't think that you are correct as to the point of law.

Cannot find an online reference, found it in a book on Eisenhower's reaction to the revolution in Cuba, may be wrong there.

Quote:

I recall we were neutral before Pearl Harbor, yet still supplying arms and material to Britain.

But is that really neutrality ? there was quite a debate at the time

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/49thparallel/backissues/issue7/aj.HTM

If for example, Syria was sending war material into Iraq during the conflict, would the U.S. have considered them neutral ?

As for Pearl Harbor that raises other questions

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/RD-PEARL.html

Quote:

As for Israel, this is not a civil war, at least in the traditional sense. It is a bit complex to go into in a brief post, but you essentially have two sides with mutually incompatable goals. Israel wants to exist. The Palestinians want them not to. There is no middle ground between existence and non-existence.

This debate has been on for a long time. Does one group have the right to exist at the expense of the other ? By picking a side here, do you not make yourself the enemy of the other ? Israel has had the upper hand compared to its neighbors, does that give them the right to act however they like ?

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/CBC/2002/09/27/water020927

Neither side is right

DRAKON

Saturday, September 6, 2003 5:02 PM (P)

I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.

And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.

How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)

As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.

I think I did not explain myself well enough concerning "either you make your own decisions, or someone else does." There are really only two ways to order an individual's life. Fighting those who run your life for you, is a choice, and your decision.

It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further use of voilence against civilians to promote political change is distressing to say the least.

But you bring up a good point. Even prior to our support, or the Soviet support for the state of Israel, that nation had to endure a war on its first day of existence. And they won that war, as well as 4(?) others since, always against numerically superior odds. Considering that the majority of early Israelis were survivors of WW2, this is quite amazing in and of itself.

In combat, the side with the better intelligence on their opponent, a better understanding of their capabilities, logistics, positions, etc, as well as the better understanding of one's own abilities and distribution of forces, generally wins the battle, as well as the war. The old saw is backwards, Right makes Might. The side that has the most accurate model of themselves as well as their opponent, wins. I think the Israeli conflict illustrates this point profusely.

Israel has for at least several years now, shown a willingness to accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have shown no such acceptance. It is not a matter of two sides that can't

GINOBIFFARONI

Saturday, September 6, 2003 6:46 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.

Good points, but political systems everywhere have major differences, for reasons due to geography, cultural diversity, etc
Would you also fault semi socialistic systems in say Sweden, Canada, or France as inferior to the one in the U.S. or just different ?

Quote:

And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.

Some situations require extreme solutions, as I think the American occupation in Iraq will prove out. Keeping Sunni / Shia / Kurdish groups from open hostilities will not be easy. It may only result in by providing them a common enemy ( the occupation forces )

Other countries which have used extreme policys to hold things together are Saudi Arabia and Egypt... while these are more aligned to the U.S. are they not deserving of the same criticism

Quote:

How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)

What attempts to undermine ? Not quite sure what you mean.

Quote:

As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.

And when elected governments are undermined for dictators which would obey ?

Thinking of Allende in Chile, The 1953 revolution in Iran, East Timor, or with your Cambodia example didn't U.S. action also contribute to the rise of the Khmer Rouge ?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kh0033)

Quote:

It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.

But should using force to protect yourself, extend to protecting your economic interests in other countrys ? And if so how far can the other side go in order the fight that ?

Quote:

As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further u

SIGNYM

Saturday, September 6, 2003 7:55 PM (P)

Drakon, do you read history or do you just make it up as you go along?

Who do you suppose set up the Shah of Iran? (Hint: it wasn't the Iranians!) The Shah's Savak learned torture techniques from the CIA, and then expanded on them in ways that shocked even their teachers. The Shah's repression and corruption eventually brought us the Ayatollah.

Do you happen to remember who supported Saddam in his fight against Iran? Do you happen to know who shipped biowarfare cultures, stainless steel fermenters, chemical weapons raw materials, reactors, "CROP SPRAYING" helicopters, sophisticated computers and software, laser targeting devices, and so forth and so on....

Got a clue as to provided strategic information on troop movements and "ground truth" kill rates for chemical weapons use on Iranian troops and civilians?

OK, how about this- WHO do you suppose provided the Stinger missiles for the Taliban?

Got any idea who set up the Saudi royal family? (Same hint- it wasn't the Saudis!)

So, you seem to think this is all cultural and economic? Nothing to do at all with foreign invaders?

YUH.

I could go on and on with specific examples from countries literally all around the world: Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Congo, Peru... Our "interventions" have ranged from assasination to mass murder using traditional weapons to biowarfare.

I'm going to collapse this argument into something you should think about: The United States has a habit of destroying democracies and setting up dictatorships around the world. (If you want, I'll give you a list of countries we've really scrwed up, you can pick one at random and I'll provide the details. But I'll bet you don't take me up on this offer! )

The corporations get cheap labor or cheap raw materials. The dictators get a cut of the action. "We" hold the puppet's strings because they require our military assistance. How convenient all around!!

----------------------------
I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.

No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.
-----------------------

We could do so much good simply by not doing so much bad.

SUCCATASH

Saturday, September 6, 2003 9:01 PM (P)

Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.

"UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately"
March 17, 2003
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=1701

SIGNYM

Saturday, September 6, 2003 9:24 PM (P)

"It's all about the oil" Been saying it since whenever.

But everyone INSISTED it was about WMD. I'll take them at their word. There are now no WMD. Mission accomplished- let's go home.

I'LL SUPPLY THE BEER IF WULF WILL SUPPLY THE TEQUILA!

KAYTHRYN

Saturday, September 6, 2003 10:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Succatash: Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.

I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 7, 2003 2:37 AM (P)

Hmmm... let's see. We've killed approximately 10,000 Iraqis. Bechtel and Haliburton are making out like bandits. (tsk tsk what am I saying... they ARE bandits!) Aside from losing over 200 soldiers, we're being sucked dry by billions of dollars. The folks in Iraq still don't have water, electricity, medical care, or fuel. That's the downside.

Despite Cheney's and Rumsfeld's best efforts, we still don't have control of Iraqi oil. Bad for our corporations, but good for the people of Iraq.

The upside? Saddam is out of power.

I'm not sure that we can pull off a happy ending. The situation is really weird. The forces of destruction and construction are pretty closely balanced.

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, September 7, 2003 2:52 AM (P)

Quote:

I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.

But I think the real question is, are those people living in Iraq. If the people their feel it has done good, or the new regime the U.S. is building is a good thing, then things will stand a chance to work. On the other hand, if the people there respond to the U.S. as a foreign interloper or invader then the process is doomed from the start. Did you check out the General Zinni article a few posts back ?

Maybe I'm a pestimist, but I see bad times ahead

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

SUCCATASH

Sunday, September 7, 2003 9:56 PM (P)

Well, all the soldiers who signed up for a free college degree got screwed. If they don't fight, they go to jail.

"Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail"
Sun Sep 7, 2:27 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=11&u=/n
m/20030907/ts_nm/crime_marine_dc_5

A military jury found an anti-war U.S. Marine reservist guilty of unauthorized absence and sentenced him to six months in jail for refusing to report to his unit during the Iraq war.

The verdict was less than the desertion charge the U.S. military had sought, which could have put Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk behind bars for a year...

LOTV

Monday, September 8, 2003 12:32 PM (P)

Ahh!! How did I ever forget this animation!!!

And now for more political commentary from Mittens and Snowdrop:

http://www.matazone.co.uk/kitty7.html

Enjoy.

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

SIGNYM

Monday, September 8, 2003 1:24 PM (P)

GIno- I guess what you're asking is: Is the presence of the USA military a stablizing or a destabilizing force? If it's a destabilizing force, then the harder we try to "fix" things, the worse things will get.

Sure won't hear bad news from USA media! But lack of good news is just as informative.

DRAKON

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:40 PM (P)

Interesting animation. Sometimes it makes me wonder just what planet some folks are living on these days.

The first and most fundamental civil right there is, is the right not to get blown up. It appears that a lot of folks don't get that. We are still debating whether we are at war or not, even after 2 years since the towers fell.

I don't know about you, but if someone tries to kill you, you got the right to kill them right back. And I see no reason to suspect that the jihadis and Saddam dead enders make any distinction between people who ain't them. Heck New York city and state voted heavily for Gore. It did not stop them from being attacked.

DRAKON

Monday, September 8, 2003 2:45 PM (P)

The deal was that you sign up for miltary service, meaning going to war if necessary, and then the military fulfills its agreement to fund college.

You break your side of the agreement, then yes, the military will put you in jail. I don't see how the military is doing anything wrong in this case. It was the guy who decided to break his agreement first.

Making voluntary contractual obligation legally binding is a bad idea?

DRAKON

Monday, September 8, 2003 3:52 PM (P)

"Would you also fault semi socialistic systems in say Sweden, Canada, or France as inferior to the one in the U.S. or just different ?"

I have to say yes. None of these countries seem to be doing as well as the US economically, and that has a large part to do with the socialist systems they have employed. Technically, militarily, or politically, none of these countries are doing as well as the US, despite in the case of France, being far older, Sweden, of having a more culturally homogenous population, and Canada, being so much like America in geography.

Once you control the economy of a population, you control almost every other aspect of the life of the individual. Some ideas work in the real world better than others, and some simply don't work. Centralized economic control does not work nearly as well as individual freedom. It is different, but is not working nearly as good as the US system.

"Other countries which have used extreme policys to hold things together are Saudi Arabia and Egypt... while these are more aligned to the U.S. are they not deserving of the same criticism"

This is more tactical than anything else. We know that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were Sauds. But attacking Sauds directly would have turned this into a war on Islam, with all the attendent problems that would cause. Which is why Saddam had to go first. In the case of Saudi Arabia, they, or at least a large portion of the ruling family, are far more deserving of criticism.

"What attempts to undermine ?"

It is not generally considered politically correct to note this, but from the 30's on, Soviets were trying to infiltrate US government, unions and Hollywood, in an attempt to undermine the American political structure and bring about one that more closely resembles the one they had. This has been born out by the release of KGB archives, and the Verona transcripts (of coded messages from the Soviets)

"But should using force to protect yourself, extend to protecting your economic interests in other countrys ? And if so how far can the other side go in order the fight that ?"

Okay, I need to object to the word "should". It refers to some standard to base a judgement on, and not knowing what that standard is, I am not sure what you are getting at here.

In an ideal world, one "should" never have to defend themselves, using force or not. 9-11 "should" never happen, nor dictators like Saddam or the Taliban should never arrise. But they do, and you have to deal with the situation as it is, rather than how you wish it were.

In these cases, like I said before, it comes down to a choice between two evils, and one has to go to the lesser one. Its a catch-22, damned if we protect our economic interests and that means some rather nasty regimes, and damned if we replace those governments. Well, there are none so free as the damned....

As for how far the other side "should" go, well, again, ideally, we should not even be having a war at all. But we are, so should does not play into it. I will say that deliberately targeting civilians is a bad idea. Blowing up the UN mission, who was there only to help the Iraqi people, they "should" not have done that.

It looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree on the Israeli-Palistinian problem. It is difficult to find out just how much real support Hamas has in the territories, as Arafat's is running a thugocracy and diversity of opinions will get one lynched in the streets. It is the suicide bombers who are in power there, and until they are removed, peace is not going to happen.

For the betterment of both sides, the jihadis are going to have to go away. There has to be a mutually satisfactory solution, which means a two state solution where neither state is blowing up the other one. As long as one side sees their goal as annilating the other, such a solution will not happen.

I will also note that again you have a democracy in a war against a totalitarian regime. And in that case, at first cut, I have to side with the Israelis. More brains on the job and all that.

DRAKON

Monday, September 8, 2003 4:16 PM (P)

I do read history, just not the Chomskyite version of it. The half truths and some quite big lies about the past.

There are two central problems with this thesis. First off, that this was different in nature from things that were done by any other nation, such as the Soviets. Or was worse than things any other nation did.

The second is the concept of "group guilt". That the actions of the government of a democracy justifies attacks on the civilians of that government, even if those civilians did not vote for the administration. That the sins of any past administration 'roll over' to the present population. If you have no control over the events, then you cannot be held accountable for the outcome. And if the events happened before you were born, and even if you try to rectify them, too bad.

So even if you were right in your historical analysis, the fundamental structure of your argument is troublesome.

Lets cut through the all the bull and follow your argument out to its logical conclusion. What you are essentially saying is that Al-Qaeda was justified in mudering innocent civilians on 9-11 and the US has no right to self defense. Because of things that were done in the past, in some cases the long distant past, we should simply go off somewhere and die. Sorry, you want to kill me, if you think you have the right to kill me, then I am assuming the right to kill you right back.

And when one looks at what the Taliban did to Afghanistan, it is hard to see these guys as "freedom fighters" That they would do things different, let alone better.

Look, we can go around and around on historical debates till the end of the world. Some will always see the glass as half empty, some will ignore any and all good the US has done. And in the end, none of it means a thing.

Whether we like it or not, we are in a war for survival. And to be frank, none of these excuses really amount to a hill of beans. Bin Ladan does not like the Saud family and thinks he'd make a better defender of Mecca and Medina. Saddam wants to unite first the entire Arab world and then the rest of us, under his thumb. We would prefer things were different, that we were not the scapegoat of all those failed thugocracies. But we are, and that is what we have to deal with.

DRAKON

Monday, September 8, 2003 4:31 PM (P)

"Maybe I'm a pestimist, but I see bad times ahead"

Its hard not to be, and even tougher to see whom to believe. I have been reading e-mail from our troops on the front lines, (see Sragent Stryker's blog as one example) and they are reporting about 95 percent approval by the Iraqi people. But then an armed guy with a gun is not a good poll taker, especially considering Iraq's recent past.

But I have faith in the selfish desires of human beings. Once the Iraqis see the (selfish) advantages of freedom and liberal democracy (defined by me as majority rule with respect for minority rights, essentially everybody plays by the same rules) see how much happier they can be, how much wealthier they can be without a thugocracy, then things will work out.

I did check out Zinni's article, and he does note the possiblity for disaster. He makes a good point that this could end up a mess. But then again, we could end up with a free, democratic Iraq that leads to democracy throughout the region. A graveyard for all the jihadis in the rest of the world, which would make all of us, American and European, Israeli and Arab, better off.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 8, 2003 6:18 PM (P)

"We would prefer things were different, that we were not the scapegoat of all those failed thugocracies. But we are, and that is what we have to deal with"

I'm not trying to justify al Qaida's terrorism, I'm trying to UNjustify ours! (Help! Find me a better word! )

It seems that every time we mess someone up, we always have a good reason, or at least a good rationalization- it's for peace, or democracy, or anti-communism, or something. Of course, it would never do for our leaders to say that we supported Pinochet because he'd give us "our" copper mines back. So I think many people believe that our motives are purer than al Qaida's, but then why do we almost always wind up on the side of oligarchs and tyrants? Did you know, for instance, that Kissinger vowed to support Suharto just before he (Suharto) massacred 100,000 East Timorese- with American weapons, I might add? Kissinger's only proviso was "Just wait until I leave before you start".

http://www.etan.org/et2002a/february/01-09/09ksngr.htm

There are times it is necessary to go to war. This was not one of those times. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He did NOT pose an imminent threat to either us or his immediate neighbors. He was NOT involved in terrorist acts against the USA. We were NOT "fighting for our survival" when we invaded Iraq, and you can be sure that our fearless leaders really didn't give a cr*p about internal repression- after all, we've set up some of the worst dictaroships in the world!

The big rush to inavde was because France, Germany, and Russia had just signed big contracts with Saddam. Iraq sits on the second-largest oil reserve in the WORLD. The neocons slavered over that, hoping to get a hold of the oil as a springboard to "remake" the Middle East and at the same time displace Saudi Arabia as a driving force in OPEC.

If we were really concerned about Iraqi stabilization, we'd declare victory and go home. Our mere presence seems to be inciting the very actions that we wanted to eliminate. But all of that oil.... sigh.... that's why we're there.

SCOTTI

Monday, September 8, 2003 7:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Great headline today, the US has announced long term plans to rotate U.S. troops each year in Iraq. This sucks, whatever happened to a quick operation and the discovery of weapons? The actions of my country are extremely wrong and personally embarassing to me.

U.S. soldiers are now in rotation for a 2 day vacation at a "Rest Camp in Iraq," meanwhile Georgie just left for his "month long vacation." WTF?

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and bring our soldiers home. I have many friends without Dad's and little babies being born without parents and this is bullshit, no one is protecting me from Freedom, this is just meddling bullshit in other countries and inspiring more terrorism and world wide hatred against the United States FOR NO GOD DAMN GOOD REASON.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030813/ap_on_re_mi
_ea/iraq_us_troops&cid=540&ncid=716

'tash, I've been mostly lurking on here for a while, and only occasionally do I throw my .02 into the pot, but I've just got to respond to this post, especially now that I'm over here.

For those of you that don't know me, I'm a civilian contractor for the military, currently in Kuwait (just down the road from Iraq). I work with soldier every day, and it goes without saying that they would rather be home than here.

But I can also tell you without a doubt that EVERYONE here believes in why they're here. It may have started out as a way to pay for college, or just a way to "see the world", but now that they're here, and they see the way this part of the world lives, they are all doing their jobs, and proud of the jobs they're doing.

In addition to the soldiers, I also deal with the locals. They are still recovering from Saddam's occupation, and are thankful of the job the US is doing for them. You may hear other accounts, and as always: opinions are like assholes...

The topic of whether or not we SHOULD be here is no longer "beating a dead horse"... it's jumping up and down on the greasy spot that USED to be a horse... fact of the matter is we're here, and there's a job to do. There is NO one else in the world that is able and willing to make some changes ... and believe me, the changes needed to be made. I have no doubts that Saddam was perfectly capable of using the biggest weapon he could get his hands on against any target he wanted. Would you have wanted it to get to that point?

==============================================
Mal: You are very much lacking in imagination.
Zoe: I imagine that's so, sir.

SUCCATASH

Monday, September 8, 2003 7:46 PM (P)

"...and they see the way this part of the world lives..."

We didn't bomb Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we went to remove weapons that don't exist.

You say every soldier supports the invasion of Iraq? I don't believe you.

Now Bush is asking for $87 billion because of the "unexpectedly violent Iraq occupation." What a dick!

Bush to Double Iraq Spending
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20030908/ts_wa
shpost/a39838_2003sep7

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, September 8, 2003 8:21 PM (P)

Alright kids, if I have to pull over this car to separate you, I'm sure as hell not buying anyone ice cream at MCdonalds!
Some of you are making some blanket statements about soldiers reasons for being in the military, and thus the war. I am certain that their reasons are various, and that they support what they are doing to varying degrees. It seems foolish to think otherwise. (I know a little bit. My brother is an AF doctor in Turkey, and I hear from him daily.)
It looks like most of ya have been watching the news. So, I can say some things here, and confidently believe that you know the issues. Regardless of why we got into Iraq, we are there now, let's look to the future instead of the past. What would be the best thing for us to do for them now? Would it be better to leave the Iraqi's in the middle of the disarray, or help them sort it out? I think it's better to help them sort it out. Even though blah blah this and blah blah that happened in the past. They are a screwed country now. It would be like genocide to leave them to their incomplete devices just yet.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

KAYTHRYN

Monday, September 8, 2003 8:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Maniacnumberone:
Regardless of why we got into Iraq, we are there now, let's look to the future instead of the past. What would be the best thing for us to do for them now? Would it be better to leave the Iraqi's in the middle of the disarray, or help them sort it out? I think it's better to help them sort it out. Even though blah blah this and blah blah that happened in the past.

Ditto. Oh, I could kiss you for saying that.

In my VERY generalized and personal opinion, those who are not supporting our current actions in Iraq (not on this board but everywhere) have just been negative, and unproductive. I've never heard anyone come up with a different, logical course of action, just lots of whining about why we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing, and I don’t see how that helps at all.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

SUCCATASH

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:13 PM (P)

According to Maniac and Kaythryn, there is no reason to accept responsibility. The past is past.

Well, here's some future for you. Let's turn over things to the UN, let's APOLOGIZE for the big mistake the U.S. has made.

Call me a whiner, but an $87 billion dollar invasion started on false pretenses is something to bitch about. So is all the people DYING.

Why don't you people wake up and use your brains instead of sit around and say, "Oh well, what happened, happened." Good hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:19 PM (P)

Hmmm... that's exactly what thye said about Vietnam. You're probably too young to remember, tho.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Monday, September 8, 2003 9:43 PM (P)

I never said people weren't responsible, but how likely is it that they are going to take responsibility? As evidenced by Bush's remarks on television last night, not very likely. We can wait for them to apologize, or to plead on bended knee to the U.N. for help, and it would be great if they did, but in reality they won't. I doubt if what we should be trying to do is to force the President or his administration into admitting their mistakes. Like Kayt says, not productive to the Iraqi situation, but like Succatash says, a needed vent for built up rage at You-Know-Who. In the end, I guess venting anger is needed for the sanity of the browncoat populous.

-------------------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

SUCCATASH

Monday, September 8, 2003 11:09 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
I doubt if what we should be trying to do is to force the President or his administration into admitting their mistakes. Like Kayt says, not productive to the Iraqi situation...

So, not complaining is being productive to the Iraq situation? It's better to just give up and let Bush do what he wants, because he won't change? What the hell are you saying?

This thread isn't just about venting, it's also hopefully educational and maybe somebody reading this might realize that Saddam is not responsible for 9/11 and George Bush is a big fat liar. If my bitching keeps just one person from voting for Bush in 2004 than I say it's productive as hell.

KAYTHRYN

Monday, September 8, 2003 11:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Succatash:
According to Maniac and Kaythryn, there is no reason to accept responsibility. The past is past.

Not what I said. But talking about going back in the past and changing events that have already taken place doesn’t help with what’s going on now. “If only we had done blah blah a few years ago then everything would be fine.” Well, the fact is, we didn’t do that, and unless one of you doesn’t mind lending out his or her time machine, we can’t change it, only try to fix it, work around it, or live with it.

Quote:
So, not complaining is being productive to the Iraq situation?

I don’t think that's what he was saying, and certainly not what I meant. I’m trying to say that if you don’t have anything new, helpful or productive to say towards what we should do, then don’t speak up just to whine. The only reason I'm not complaining about what’s going on is because I agree with the action we are taking, and I do plan on voting for Bush in 04.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 12:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
I’m trying to say that if you don’t have anything new, helpful or productive to say towards what we should do, then don’t speak up just to whine.

Oh, okay Kaythryn. Thanks for the lesson on how to talk. Is that Jesus Christ I see standing behind you?

KAYTHRYN

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 12:36 AM (P)

Quote:
Posted by Succatash:
Thanks for the lesson on how to talk. Is that Jesus Christ I see standing behind you?

Hey, anytime Tash. If you need anymore lessons just ask, I don’t mind a bit for a friend. And yeah, that was Jesus, he couldn’t stay but he wanted me to tell you he said “hi”. If you wanna hang around for a bit Buddha was planning on stopping by, I could even give you a short lesson on sarcasm while we wait.

-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 12:47 AM (P)

Quote:
What would be the best thing for us to do for them now? Would it be better to leave the Iraqi's in the middle of the disarray, or help them sort it out?

I've never heard anyone come up with a different, logical course of action, just lots of whining about why we shouldn’t be doing what we are doing, and I don’t see how that helps at all.

I'll take a shot here, how about instead of putting together a government there of people picked and chosen by the U.S., you start off with local area elections. Mayors and such. No interference in who gets to pitch their hat in, ex Baath party, Sunni, Shia, Kurd whoever. On a small scale have an internationally motinored fair election. Then this will be the point organization to help restore order, infrastructure, police , etc in that area. Police services can be restored in that area under this government, city services, etc.

The U.S. will provide resonable support, ie if it is something you can and want to help with fine. If not they say so and why and attempt a compromise. At any point, if that government says " you Americans are causing too much trouble, get out of my city " you do, until such time you are invited back in.

These administrative areas eventually elect repersentives for an Iraqi parliment, and they amongst theirselves elect a spokesman / leader.

The same rules apply, if they want to deal with you, cool. If they want you to go home, cool.

The only way out, is to let the reins go back to the people who live there. Just think how well recieved a force stepping in to punt Bush from power would be recieved.

In addition, I think any deals for reconstrution or oil should require approval from a independant Iraqi government before they are anyway close to binding.

" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 1:28 AM (P)

"Well, the fact is, we didn’t do that, and unless one of you doesn’t mind lending out his or her time machine, we can’t change it, only try to fix it, work around it, or live with it"

Hey Kathryn, you forgot one important thing- we can LEARN FROM IT. I'm sure I don't need to quote Santayana? Doomed to reliving the past, and all that?

I have a brain damaged daughter, who for various reason has a hard time learning from the past. She refuses to acknowldge her part in how things turned out. It's frustrating and a little firghtening to see someone repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Translate that to the most powerful nation on earth. We're like babies waving a semi-automatic.

The FIRST thing I would suggest is that we stop supporting dictators. It just winds up being a blast from the past- like the Taliban and Saddam- ya know what I mean? We (you) have to ackowledge our role in creating those monsters:

"According to information obtained by the American Gulf War Veteran's Association, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the United States government provided ,...Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum" to Saddam.

"Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski"

OK, got that in place?

The NEXT thing we need to do is stop panicking over every move towards economic justice and local control. We meet every land reform movement with bullets. Honestly! You'd think that we were tryin' to make the world safe for capitalism instead of safe for freedom!

The sad part about this is, you really think that dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al really care a fig about you, me, or freedom. These people would gladly send thousands of troops to their death for an extra couple of dollars on a barrel of oil.

SUCCATASH

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 1:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kaythryn:
If you need anymore lessons just ask...

Hey Kaythryn, can you teach me the lesson you just learned from Signym?

LOTV

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 6:26 AM (P)

*stretch...* Don't mind me.. just plotting down a little bit of random, but slightly related info...

From the "Nuremberg Diary", a few thoughts from Nazi leader, Hermann Goering:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

...did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?

-Nope-

But the newspaper says "War In Iraq"... uh-oh... looks like a president overlooked his powers again
... tsk tsk tsk...

LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?

Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 6:52 AM (P)

"There are times it is necessary to go to war. This was not one of those times. Saddam did NOT have WMD. He did NOT pose an imminent threat to either us or his immediate neighbors. He was NOT involved in terrorist acts against the USA. We were NOT "fighting for our survival" when we invaded Iraq,"

This is the crux of the debate right here. Whether Saddam was a threat or not. The problem is, well, its the problem of smoking guns. They only smoke after they've been fired. And when you are talking about WMDs, thats a lot of peoples lives you are betting on here.

If Saddam did not have WMDs, why did he continue to jerk around the UN inspectors? Why did not a single foreign intelligence agency call the Bush administration on it, tell us that he had none? 1441 passed unanimously. The French, the Russians, the Chinese, all of them voted for the continuing of the inspections, which would be pointless if he had none. Hans Blix and Elbarade (? Head of the IAEA) reported that Saddam had not adequetly explained what happened to his arsenal after the first gulf war. No one gave him a clean bill of health.

We have not found them, and that is troubling. But then not long ago, several Chinese farmers uncovered some drums of mustard gas, that the Japanese had buried during WW2. That was 50 years ago, and they were simply buried in the dirt all this time. I hope that is all that is going on with them.

As to the oil, that does not make sense. Why not just deal with Saddam, like the French and the Russians did? A lot simpler, easier, heck of a lot less risk, both militarily and politically.

With the situation still fluid in Iraq, abandoning to the Saddam dead enders and terrorists from other nations is not an option. It is easy to see what would happen then, Saddam would come back to power, and we would end up with another 9-11.

You don't believe there were any WMD. You are betting a hell of a lot on your faith in Saddam. If it was just your life in the pot, I would not care one way or the other. But it ain't.

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 7:02 AM (P)

"We didn't bomb Iraq for humanitarian reasons, we went to remove weapons that don't exist."

Again, you are betting a ton of lives on your faith in Saddam.

But getting to the first point, they do go hand in hand. Was it humane to remove Saddam? I think it was, and something that should have happened after the invasion of Kuwait. A lot of Iraqis seem to think the same way. The stories of mass graves, children's prisons, plastics shredders used as execution devises, all that is gone.

It is not the intentions that make an action moral, its the consequences. In this case, our intention was to remove a potential threat to the US. As part of removing that threat, we need to stablize Iraq, help them make the transition from tyranny to democracy. In the end, the Iraqi people are better off, and so are we.

Whether the intention was humanitarian or not, the consequences will end up being just that. And ain't that what matters? Good intentions are called asphalt in Hell.

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 7:17 AM (P)

"Why don't you people wake up and use your brains instead of sit around and say, "Oh well, what happened, happened." Good hell."

The assumption is that simply disagreeing with your views indicates a lack of brain usage. That comes across as a bit arrogant.

We have a fundamental disagreement of fact here. You are in essense claiming as a fact that as of March 2003, Saddam had no WMDs, nor programs for developing any. Considering Saddam's past actions with the UN inspectors, this does not seem reasonable. This is at odds with the opinion of almost every intelligence agency in the UN, especially the Permenent Security Council. This is at odds with Blix and El-Baradae's reports prior to the campaign in Iraq.

I don't know. I am not in the CIA, I am not part of Saddam's inner circle. Those are the only folks who would know for certain one way or the other. I do know he had them, he had used them, and had not explained what happened to them as required by the armistice following the First Gulf War.

To conclude that Saddam simply did not have them, well, that does not seem reasonable, or logical. Just because we have not found them yet, after only 5 months? 12 years to hide, and you expect him to hide them where they can be easily found?

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 7:29 AM (P)

"Honestly! You'd think that we were tryin' to make the world safe for capitalism instead of safe for freedom!"

You seem to see these as unconnected. The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.

What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors.

And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?

I don't know what you mean by economic justice, but it sounds a bit like stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Its something to do if you are Robin Hood, but you really want the sheriff deciding who is too rich and who ain't?

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 7:32 AM (P)

I think it's pretty logical to assume that if Saddam had WMD, than he would have used them on us. The reciprocal is prolly true too. Since he didn't use them on us, he prolly didn't have them. Why didn't he use them Drakon? Cause he's so nice?
I have to say too that our methods for gathering intelligence are far superior to those of Saddam. Unless the WMD are buried about 2 miles below ground, than we would have found them by now, with satellite imaging, which can easily penetrate buildings, bunkers, and even the ground itself to a certain depth.
Those weapons just ain't there folks.

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 7:38 AM (P)

"did I miss something? Only Congress can declare wars... umm Congress... Did you declare any war?"

This is a legal/semantic problem. Congress authorized both the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. For Iraq it happened back prior to the elections in Nov 2002. The authorization of military force in Iraq is the equivalent of a declaration of war.

The War Powers Act gives the President 90 days from the commencement of military operations before asking Congress's approval. Sometimes things happen so fast that immediate response is required. But that does not apply when the president gets approval beforehand, like happened here.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:49 AM (P)

Drakon and all others in this thread, let me start out by saying this has been one of the most enjoyable discussions I've ever had on this hot-button topic! I think we deserve an award for being logical, staying on-point, and responding to each others viewpoints with a minimum of as hominen arguments.

YAAAAY!!!

Why did Saddam jerk the UN inspectors around? There are a couple of possible answers. I heard- but haven't looked it up- that USA troops destroyed several football-fields worth during the Gulf War. Exact amounts and types were not recorded because too much of the materials had "made in America" stamped on it. Saddam destroyed the rest, but also didn't record the destruction. It wasn't that there was evidence of an ongoing program, it was more of an accounting issue. But that was years ago. Most of the WMD have finite lifetime- Sarin, liquid anthrax, etc would have all deteriorated by now.

So why didn't he just open his country for inspection? I think that he may have been trying to keep his restive population and Iran guessing. As long as he MIGHT have weapons he believed that attack/ insurrection would be avoided. From what everything I've heard about Saddam, it would tempting to call him a paranoid schizo but his actions pretty accurately reflected Baathist Party politics. They took the art of backstabbing quite literally!

---------------------------
"The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create. It is your right to sell it, keep it, throw it away, scribble on it, whatever you want.

What you call land reform quite often was little more than theft. The government confiscates, or steals your land that you had been working on for years, and hands it over to someone else. You no longer own the fruits of your own labors."

Oddly, I think that people SHOULD own the fruits of their labors! It is one of my passionate and abiding beliefs! So if we're starting out with the same premise- how in h*ll did we get 180 deg out??

Perhaps we have different definitions? What do you define as "labor" and what do you define as "own"? I know it sounds trivial but would you humor me and let me know?

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 1:56 PM (P)

"And if they can do it to him, what prevents them from coming around in a couple years and do it to you?"

This is what I think bothers the world about current US policy.

Who will be safe? Where will it stop? Are you next?

These are questions that can be asked by other nations, or even by the citizens of this very country. National Security is a broad sword. So is Terrorism. So is Suspected Activity. So is Temporary.

You know... like Temporarily suspend civil liberties in the face of this Terrorist threat to National Security, based on your Suspected Terrorist Activities.

It is not un-American to wonder how broad these swords are, or when they will stop swinging.

It certainly isn't inappropriate for other nations to wonder the same thing.

--Anthony

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 2:06 PM (P)

"If my bitching keeps just one person from voting for Bush in 2004 than I say it's productive as hell."

Is there a better candidate? I don't want to horse-trade my freedoms.

Is there a non-republican candidate who will respect my right to keep and bear arms?

--Anthony

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 4:54 PM (P)

Howard Dean was against the Iraq invasion but is also against gun control.

MANIACNUMBERONE

Tuesday, September 9, 2003 6:29 PM (P)

I'd love to find a good candidate for president. Nathan Fillion maybe?

Does anybody else rememeber Rumsfeld coming on tv a month or two ago giving a pathetic excuse for why they hadn't found any wmd? - because they were most likely in mobile transport labs? That's sad. If those ever existed, they are long destroyed by now too.

DRAKON

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:07 AM (P)

I have heard many theories about the WMD issue since the end of active hostilities.

1) Sardinar: A person claiming to be KGB station chief in Romania states that the Soviets had a program called Sardinar to clean up chemical, biological and other illegal weapons programs that the Soviets had helped with. It was to dispose of the weapons, but leave the technical stuff, so that the programs could be quickly reconstituted.

2) Saddam's scientists lied, telling him that they had weapons when they didn't, because they were afraid of being killed.

While both and other theories sound reasonable, I just don't know. We are assuming that he never had them, since the first gulf war. We do know he had them beforehand, because of the dead Kurds and Iranians. It bothers me that they have not been found yet, (it makes me hope the Sardinar story is true) for different reasons than you. I think they were there, based on the fact that no one in the UN stood up and said he did not.

And at this stage of the political game, it no longer matters. If we do find them, and announce it, a large majority of those who believe there never was any will simply assume we planted the evidence.

Saddam was a nasty piece of work, and even if we went in for the wrong reasons, we still did a good thing by ousting him.

Okay, these definition are off the top of my head so bear with me. Labor: any action essentially, usually refers to actions which produce some material object. Mental labor never gets the respect it deserves, because you can't see it. All you can see is the outcome of the physical actions.

"Onwership" is a concept, one of those things like traffic lights which work because so many people buy into it. When you own something, it gives you the right to utilize that thing any way you desire or see fit. You own you, therefore you can do with yourself whatever you want, utilize your eyeballs for for watching Firefly, as an example. The only caveat I will place is that you do not use what you own to harm others. Hope this helps.

I think I understand where the difference is with the land reform issue. Usually, wealthy land owners of huge tracts of land subcontract the actual field work out to laborers. Pay them a wage for working land they own. The field laborer does not own the land he works, but instead exchanges his labor for wages, or a cut of the crop (sharecropping). Generally, this leaves the field hands less wealthy than if they owned their own land. That is problematic, and can slow economic growth as well as perpetuate a near aristocratic or semi-feudal type of system.

Which I think we can both agree is bad.

As with a lot of these debates, the goals are the same, its the means we differ over. How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency.

DRAKON

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:13 AM (P)

Good. So all we have to do is make it clear why we went after the Taliban and why we are fighting in Iraq. Its the "not getting blowed up" civil liberty that Dennis Miller talked about.

You are safe as long as you mean us no harm, or do not interfere with us going after those guys who want to kill us. This is as close as I can get right now, but it obviously needs to be clarified. Economic competition is not harmful, even if you are eating my lunch (selling to my clients)

The concerns about civil liberties are overblown I think, from my readings of the Patriot act and such. BUT, I really don't want to dissuade you from your concern, nor really taking action against it, (as long as you are not too successful) It is that concern that prevents the government from going too far.

Some changes in the law are necessary, especially in light of changing technology. And on the intel side, some of the Church commitee stuff has to go by the wayside, as we cannot afford to be that blinded anymore. But you are right to be concerned about it going too far.

DRAKON

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:26 AM (P)

I am not sure the Democratic party in general is trustworthy on the gun control issue. They have spent a great deal of the last decade slamming the NRA and other pro gun lobbies, and have shown no distain for gun control laws. (Sadly neither does Arnold here in California)

As for his (Dean's) position on Iraq, I am unclear what he would have done. Would he have stopped at Afghanistan? Would he have gone after Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria?

Its always easy to slam a guy for what he does, its a lot harder to come up with viable alternatives.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:25 PM (P)

"I think I understand where the difference is with the land reform issue. Usually, wealthy land owners of huge tracts of land subcontract the actual field work out to laborers. Pay them a wage for working land they own. The field laborer does not own the land he works, but instead exchanges his labor for wages, or a cut of the crop (sharecropping). Generally, this leaves the field hands less wealthy than if they owned their own land. That is problematic, and can slow economic growth as well as perpetuate a near aristocratic or semi-feudal type of system.

Which I think we can both agree is bad.

As with a lot of these debates, the goals are the same, its the means we differ over. How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency."

*****

I was intrigued by this tidbit. If we get all the lower rung people up the ladder, then who will clean the toilets? And what exactly will be their incentive for doing so? Who will stand out in the hot sun and cut sugarcane? Who will become sewage workers and telemarketers?

Why would they become these things? Because they dreamed of processing excrement ever since they were children? Their highest ambition was to bother people at dinnertime with attempts to peddle Long Distance bundles?

Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?

Only if you can find some better, more universal motivation than earning money to buy goods and services.

If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task.

--Anthony

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:42 PM (P)

"Some changes in the law are necessary, especially in light of changing technology. And on the intel side, some of the Church commitee stuff has to go by the wayside, as we cannot afford to be that blinded anymore. But you are right to be concerned about it going too far."

I have to admit that I liked it better when some of these actions fell under the category 'Black Ops' and 'illegal surveilance' rather than being sanctioned by the force of law.

Once upon a time, the government did all sorts of bad things. They did these things because they believed they were right. They did them with the full understanding that if they were caught, it was someone's ass.

Now they can do many of these things legally. With little evidence. There may be repercussions if they are wrong, but it's no one's ass. It's completely within the law.

That's a somewhat frightening prospect.

--Anthony

DRAKON

Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:20 AM (P)

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?"

Generally speaking, the answer to your first question is yes, and the second is no. What wealth is, is capability, how easy it becomes to accomplish a greater and greater variety of tasks. A rich man can construct a factory, pay workers to build it for him. A rich man can start his own independent space agency, and get off this rock. Poor folks can't do that.

You worry about grunt labor, as in who will clean the latrines and cut sugarcane. As history has shown, when labor becomes too expensive for a given task, using automation or mechanical means to do the same job become more attractive. Automatic cane harvesting or self cleaning toilets. They may be more expensive, but if they become competitive with labor, people will start buying them.

Which means that those laborers can then do other jobs, like designing spaceships as one example. Granted it required more education to design a spacecraft than clean a toilet, but I am not one that sees education as a bad thing.

There is a down side however that should be noted. Called the Fermi plague. The direction of technology is to do more and more with less and less. That includes less people to decide whether something is to be done or not. The risk is that a single person could be capable of destroying the entire population. This is one proposed solution to the Fermi Paradox.

"If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task."

I think we have different views of the "goodness of man" as well as economics. I don't see the point of a gun, or keeping folks intentionally poor to be good motivators, however they have been tried in the past. Economic self interest, or greed, has proven itself time and time again to benefit mankind.

DRAKON

Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:35 AM (P)

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?"

Two other points I wanted to make.
1) With more rich folks, and more wealth available, being created, this will tend to raise the wages of the poor laborers. It may not be in terms of dollars, but in availablity of affordable goods. Such that even though a poor person makes say 18,000 dollars a year, he still has a car, a house, a microwave oven, telephone service etc.

It is important to remember that rich and poor are relative terms, relative to each other. Rich folks have more money than poor folks, while the poor have less. What that money can do, that changes from year to year and new products and technologies come online. A thousand years ago, not even the King of England could buy a vial of penicillin.

2) There will always be "the poor" People have different desires, some folks can stick with 4 years in college, some of us will try to duck school and join the Navy. Some folks are highly motivated and self diciplined to run multi-national corporations, and some of us simply don't want the hassle and would rather spend time at home with our wives and children. So, some folks will do better than others.

The only way to prevent that, is to fix the rules such that the successful are penalized specifically for their success. This has a proven track record of not making more folks richer, but making everyone poorer. Why try if all you are gonna get is punished?

DRAKON

Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:43 AM (P)

I would need a specific example of what you mean. From what I am seeing, the Fed still need a warrent, which means going in front of a judge. The new laws don't change the requirement for warrents and probable cause. And almost all of these powers were applicable before, in other areas of law enforcement.

There is an interesting debate over on the Reason magazine website. What I see as the most significant change is that the FBI can talk to itself about various aspects of terrorists investigations. As well as with other intelligence agencies. They can now go to public meetings for survellence, instead of being specifically excluded from such public meetings.

It is important to remember that everything costs. My respect for your rights comes at a cost to me. As long as the corresponding benefit is greater than my cost, I will continue. You pull a gun on me, my respect for your right to life goes out the window, since you are asking me to pay for your right, with my own life.

When the cost gets too high, people won't buy.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:36 AM (P)

"Generally speaking, the answer to your first question is yes, and the second is no. What wealth is, is capability, how easy it becomes to accomplish a greater and greater variety of tasks. A rich man can construct a factory, pay workers to build it for him. A rich man can start his own independent space agency, and get off this rock. Poor folks can't do that.

You worry about grunt labor, as in who will clean the latrines and cut sugarcane. As history has shown, when labor becomes too expensive for a given task, using automation or mechanical means to do the same job become more attractive. Automatic cane harvesting or self cleaning toilets. They may be more expensive, but if they become competitive with labor, people will start buying them.

Which means that those laborers can then do other jobs, like designing spaceships as one example. Granted it required more education to design a spacecraft than clean a toilet, but I am not one that sees education as a bad thing."

Drakon, you seem to be confusing 'individual wealth' with 'standard of living.' These are two very different concepts. Perhaps when you discuss 'wealth' you mean the wealth of a society as a whole.

In this case, you are not moving people up the economic ladder at all. You are merely gilding the ladder. Adding gold filigree and engraved scrollwork. I may have twenty vials of penecillin in my refrigerator, and the 15th century King of England may have no vials and no refrigerators, but it can't be logically argued that I am as wealthy as he.

Rather, some aspects of my standard of living have improved to be superior to his. I do not own thousands of acres of land. I do not have the ability to launch a hundred ships in a Naval campaign. I can not even fund a single exploratory expedition to the New World. But I can survive an infection.

That's standard of living, not wealth.

Essentially, it's technology.

At the inception of this country, poor people typically had several acres of land, a pony, and a cabin they built with their own two hands. They had wood burning stoves and chamber pots and windows. For entertainment they had the occasional fair and the local ho-down.

I have a used car, a rented parcel and house, and a microwave. I have a toilet and an air conditioner. For entertainment, I have Satellite TV, this computer, and the occasional movie.

My standard of living has increased, but my rung on the ladder hasn't moved an inch. Wealth is not standard of living. It is a concept in relativity. It is where YOU are relative to EVERYONE ELSE.

If we were all owners of spaceship companies, we wouldn't be able to get anything accomplished. Not without 'grunt labor.' The definition of 'grunt labor' may change with the times. It may be the farmer peasant of yesteryear or the tractor operator of today. It may be the toilet cleaner of today or the automatic toilet cleaner repairman of tomorrow. It may involve the 'less educated folks' of yesterday, or the 'less educated folks' of today. It's still the same rung. The same grunt. The standard of living changes, the position on the ladder stays the same.

I also think this is the only way a human society can work. I agree that human greed is the factor that makes society work. I don't believe that the economic ladder can be pushed over, to lay flat atop the ground. Too much motivation is lost when everyone shares the same standard of living, and no acquisition of wealth is possible or desirable.

If we lived in a socialist economy, I'd be quite content to go back to my job as a security guard, babysitting a room of goods for eight hours while daydreaming of what I'd like to do when I get off of work. Man, to do that and get the same buying power as a physician? An engineer? A pilot? That would be sweet.

And that is why I think we agree that capitalism works WITH the human psyche, and not against it. Our only sticking point is the definition of wealth.

--Anthony

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:45 AM (P)

Sorry, that posted twice. Is there a way to delete a message?

On the issue of National Security...

I can now be arrested, and held, not be told why I have been arrested and held.

It is also, curiously, becoming more common to be tried in a private trial. It's happening right now. What is happening inside these private trials? I don't know. They're private for reasons of national security.

--Anthony

DRAKON

Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:32 PM (P)

I would have to see actual reports of this going on. Are we talking banning reporters or jsut cameras in the court room? However, I do understand the national security concerns here.

In intelligence, the highest classified material is that related to "sources and methods". Sources are essentially spies that work for us. Methods are means by which we listen in or observe the bad guys. These have to be protected, because otherwise we lose that source (i.e. our spy gets killed) or we lose that method, the bad guys find a way around it. Either way, we get blinded to the bad guys actions and that makes it harder to prevent another attack. Meaning a lot of folks die.

Like I said before, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If the choice is a private trial or another 9-11, sorry the cost is too great for an open trial. It is worrisome, I will agree, and its a bitch of a choice. But again, freedom don't mean a thing if you are dead.

DRAKON

Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:43 PM (P)

I see where you are coming from, but I don't agree it is gilding the ladder. The entire ladder is moving up.

You may not have the individual wealth, (and hence the capabilities) of say Bill Gates. You may not be able to fund an expedition to the New World, like our 15th century king. But the king can be felled with a sneeze. You, thanks to medical technology, are a lot tougher than that, have a longer life expectancy, and can still do a lot more than he could.

His options for entertainment were plays and music, all preformed live. You have 200 cable channels, the internet loaded with songs, and even entire television programs. DVDs and music CDs are sheer fantasy to that king.

Yes, the definition of an entry level job, or 'grunt labor', has and will change. There will always be rich folks and poor folks, just as their will always be engineers and actors. But that same grunt has more personal wealth today, than dreamed of by those 15th century kings. It might not apply to chartering privateers against the spainish crown, but then it does not need to. In other areas, and other capabilities, it exceeds those modest dreams.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:56 PM (P)

"Freedom don't mean a thing if you are dead."

I understand where you are coming from, Drakon. I do. This is the very philosophy that keeps society running smoothly.

And we both agree that there is a line. The line may differ from person to person. But it's there. (At least, I hope it is.)

This country was, after all, won by people who honestly did believe that Freedom is worth Dying for.

--Anthony

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:09 PM (P)

On the other hand, it might be argued they felt Freedom was worth Killing for.

--Ant

SIGNYM

Thursday, September 11, 2003 6:51 PM (P)

Hmmm, Anthony- do you every play chess against yourself? If you do, who wins? It's just that I noticed you on both sides of an argument several times. You must have a very flexible mind!

And now I'm going to have to jump in here real quick on my lunch half-hour!
------------------
"The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" So- the employess of a bowling-ball factory own all of the bowling balls because they created them. Right?
-------------------------------
"How do you get the field hands up the economic ladder. I don't see theft as a viable solution, whether it is by the State or some other agency."

As you said, ownership works only because it's a concept we all buy into. Basically, it's an artificial construct that is defined and defended by the State. The clearest example of the artificiality of ownership is the concept of "intellectual property"- owning an idea. This "thing" which can not be felt, smelled, or tasted can somehow be bought and sold -usually, I might add, by corporations who make you sign your rights away if you do any sort of research or development whatsoever. (I have horror stories on the abuse of this, but I'll have to get into that later.)

So, if the laws governing "ownership" changes, is that theft?
-----------------------------
"As for his (Dean's) position on Iraq, I am unclear what he would have done. Would he have stopped at Afghanistan? Would he have gone after Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria? "

That's a little like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?". That pre-supposes *something* had to be done with Hussein. If we had just let the UN do it's work, I'm sure that we would have reached the conclusion by now that no WMD existed.

OTOH, something clearly needs to be done about terrorism.

----------------------

"Is it bad to have people who are lower on the economic ladder? Is it bad to have people higher on the economic ladder?

Only if you can find some better, more universal motivation than earning money to buy goods and services.

If everyone owned a castle and 1000 acres of land, something BESIDES economic well being would have to be found to motivate them. The intrinsic goodness of mankind isn't sufficient to the task"

You obviously have not tapped into the Free Software movement. Right now, people have to perform stupid back-breaking danagerous work because that's what's available. But if all that was automated away, people would still be getting up in the ayem because they need to feel that they have some control over their lives and their environment, and one way to do that is to work.

------------------------------
"The only way to prevent that, is to fix the rules such that the successful are penalized specifically for their success. This has a proven track record of not making more folks richer, but making everyone poorer. Why try if all you are gonna get is punished?"

Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator. The astounding discoveries, the important breakthroughs, even the most successful businesses were not created due to tangible reward. To give you an example- a study of the extremely wealthy businessmen- the robber barons (including Bill Gates)- found that these men had certain persoanlity traits in common- they lacked empathy to a pathological degree, they were highly focused, and they played their markets as if it were a GAME. Money was only a marker. Similalry, the scientists who make the greatest breakthroughs are doing it because they have a deep desire to know.
--------------------------------
"I would need a specific example of what you mean. From what I am seeing, the Fed still need a warrent, which means going in front of a judge"

No, they don't. The Patriot Act eliminated the need for warrants for all kinds of searches, including electronic and "sneak and peek".

---------------------------

ANTHONYT

Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:29 PM (P)

"Hmmm, Anthony- do you every play chess against yourself? If you do, who wins? It's just that I noticed you on both sides of an argument several times. You must have a very flexible mind!"

LOL! I suppose I argue as often with the purpose of understanding a topic, as to defend a viewpoint. There are many things in my life that I've only been able to fully comprehend after a good argument. Sometimes arguing from both sides can be doubly enlightening. :-)

"Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator. The astounding discoveries, the important breakthroughs, even the most successful businesses were not created due to tangible reward. To give you an example- a study of the extremely wealthy businessmen- the robber barons (including Bill Gates)- found that these men had certain persoanlity traits in common- they lacked empathy to a pathological degree, they were highly focused, and they played their markets as if it were a GAME. Money was only a marker. Similalry, the scientists who make the greatest breakthroughs are doing it because they have a deep desire to know."

It may be that scientists and engineers invent because that's what they enjoy doing. However, it is usually through financial contributions that these inventions are facilitated. To say that the pursuit of money plays no part in work seems erroneous to me.

I would love to have a job doing what I enjoy. However, unless there is money involved that can support me in my endeavor, I won't be doing it.

Thus, I do a job I don't enjoy. Why? Because of money. Not necessarily the lust for money itself, but because I need money to get the things I require and desire.

If I could have all the things I require and desire without working at a job I dislike... then I wouldn't do that job.

I would only have hobbies. Or sleeping in the shade.

Bill Gates probably isn't motivated by money, I agree. But money is the thing that gets him what he really wants. Be it power, or merely the sense that he is winning at life.

--Anthony

DRAKON

Friday, September 12, 2003 9:29 AM (P)

"On the other hand, it might be argued they felt Freedom was worth Killing for."

I have to admit I wince every time someone talks about sacrificing their lives to help others, the whole 'greater love' stuff bothers me. There is a difference between risking death, and committing suicide, and the latter cases are pretty rare. There is also a difference between dying at the hands of others, and choosing one's own manner of death.

Flight 93. Need I say more.

DRAKON

Friday, September 12, 2003 10:15 AM (P)

To answer these one at a time:

""The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" So- the employess of a bowling-ball factory own all of the bowling balls because they created them. Right?"

No. The owner of the factory either bought the factory, or had it constructed. He assumed the risks in running the busines, as well as the risk of payroll. He contracts out to his employees for their labor, offering a fixed return for their labor, despite the market, for as long as the business is viable. It is the owner of the factory that assembles the workers, the machinery, purchases the raw material, etc. to create bowling balls.

The employees own their labortheir skill, which they rent out to their employer for the bowling balls. The owner owns the factory, the machinery and the raw materials, which he does not sell to the employee. The employee gets money, in exchange for coming to work on a project that the owner wants done.
--------------------
"So, if the laws governing "ownership" changes, is that theft?"

In a moral sense, its still theft, even if the legal sense changes. It still has a negative effect on the economy for everyone.

Just because something is a mental construct does not mean that it is bad or easily tossed aside. Again traffic lights. Here, red means stop. Why not green? or blue? It does not matter which light you use, as long as all agree. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone disregarded traffic lights, or thought it was okay to dismiss them simply because they were a mental construct.

The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society, along with prohibitions against force or fraud.
-------------------------------
That's a little like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?".

I disagree strongly. First of all, I see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. First, as it provides flypaper for jihadis that would be fighting here in the states (or elsewhere) otherwise. And second it comes down to the real root causes, the failure of Arab civilization at providing for the lives and happiness of its population. They need a successful Arab country, to show them that modernity is not incompatable with Islam.

You are assuming that since no WMDs have been reported found yet, that none exist. I note a recent news report of 6 Chinese farmers uncovering several barrels of mustard gas, secluded by the Japanese back in 1945 and not discovered till earlier this year. Also the fully armed Nazi bombers recently found under the Berlin Airport. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in cases like this.

From a legal standpoint, this is a bit of a red herring. Saddam was required by UN resolution to prove he no longer had WMDs or their programs. He failed to do this, to comply with the UN and the armistice he signed in 1991. His failure to comply with the UN is the legal reason for the war. If you accept the UN as a legal authority, its authority does not mean much if one can disregard its resolutions with impunity.

It should also be noted that Czech intelligence is still standing behind their report of a meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence.

And besides, the Iraqi people are far better off without Saddam and his sons. So is the rest of the world.
--------------------------
"Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator."

I find this difficult to believe. While it is obviously better to do something you love instead of something you don't, you still need to eat. Which means either growing your own food, or paying someone else to do it for you. You can't pay if you ain't got no money, you cannot access the property of others unless you can pay them for if.

Whether you see money as a measure of value, or simply a marker in a game, its still a great motivator.
------------------------
"No, they don't."

Again from what I have seen, that is not true. I do note that Ashcroft is attempting to get "administrative subpena powers" but so far that is not in the law to date.

SIGNYM

Friday, September 12, 2003 7:23 PM (P)

First, my apologies to the other folks here for WAAAAY off-topic thread. If there was somewhere else to discuss with equally intelligent, thoughtful and forward-looking people then we could move over there.

So, Drakon, to make sure I got this straight, when you say "The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" it's not really the people who create that get to keep, it's the owner of the tools that gets to keep.

There're a lot of different thoughts to pursue on this concept, and I'm just going to mention two b4 I get to the most important question.

1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work.

2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)

Here's the important question:

What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?

-----------------------------
"The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society..."

I can give you an example of how the concept of ownership has become a destructive juggernaut and that is the concept of intellectual property and its effect on research and development. I have a lot of specifics on hand, examples of both how intellectual property stifled development and how shared ideas enhanced progress, but I'm going to sum it all up with this example- If we had to pay the software engineer, creator of the transistor, the developer of plastics, all the way back to the inventor of the alphabet and the discoverer of fire every time we wrote on a PC... or worse, were stymied from using these tools because of patent and copyright restrictions- we porobably would have never gotten to the disovery of agriculture.
--------------------------------------

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Iraq. I sense serious "mission creep" and I think it's all being pushed by the neocons' grandiose schemes to remake the world. But we'll each have to just reserve the right to say "I told you so". Or better yet, let's make a bet: If by March they have not YET found even one WMD (not a "program"- I mean a real, honest-to-god weapon) then you can say "You were right and I was wrong". With a smile. The inverse goes for me. Deal?

----------------------
I read an interesting and true story about three environmental activtists found GPS trackers under their bumpers. I would have blown it off as a black helicopter story, except (1) it appeared in a credible newspaper and (2) it was followed within a month by THIS RULING

"Satellite Tracking of Suspects Requires a Warrant, Court Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

OLYMPIA, Wash., Sept. 11 (AP) — The police cannot attach a Global Positioning System tracker to a suspect's vehicle without a warrant, the Washington Supreme Court said today in the first such ruling in the nation"

Obviously there is more going on than you think.

But as far as the Patriot Act itself is concerned, there is a detailed analysis that appears here:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_ef
f_usa_patriot_analysis.php

Exerpts from the analysis are here:

"USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas.

Be careful what you put in that Google search
The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans... by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE TARGET of the investigation

Nationwide roving wiretaps ...The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on ANY PERSON OR ENTITIY REGARDLESS of whether that person or entity is named in the order.

ISPs hand over more user information"

DRAKON

Saturday, September 13, 2003 4:45 AM (P)

In most factories, a single worker does a specific job, and adds to the creation of a product, rather than creates the entire product from scratch. He does own his labor, his creation, his effort, which he is selling to his employer, at a profit to himself. Besides which, without those tools and the factory and raw materials, the employees would not be creating anything. And there is the added risk the owner assumes, that the employee does not.

"What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?" Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be extremely risky as one never knows if a particular project will ever pay off in the long run) buys food, or whatever the onwer does.

"1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work."

I don't see this as a problem. People work in order to buy things, to own things. At one level, this is consumables like food which feeds both worker and owner alike. Unless you want to eat someone else's food, this is not a problem.

"2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)"

Again, not seeing a problem here. It seems you have a bug about ownership in general. If you own something but cannot sell it to someone else, then in what sense do you really own it? The more restrictions you place on the concept of ownership, the more it becomes even more of a fiction.

Also, the idea behind stock markets and such is to accumulate capital such that larger and larger projects can be completed. That factory does not grow on trees, it has to be built, the tools and raw materials have to be purchased before it sells a single unit of product. Meaning workers have to be paid whether or not the factory owner sees a dime on his investment.

Thomas Sowell discusses how various commodity markets works in his book, "Basic Economics" and how they add value. How commodity markets insure a price, and how speculators are in essence buying risk, assuming the risks of a flucuating market from the producers. And how this helps move commodities and products from whete they are overabundant to places where they are less available and hence more valuable.

The big problem with Enron and other companies (as I remember) is that they were lying on their books and financial reports, lying about the profits they were taking, lying about the value they were adding to the products they were selling. Committing fraud.
---------------------------
On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? Simply for the undefined joy of discovery, or other things a person can't eat? Unless it benefits the inventor, or writer, then there is no incentive for creating, and lets face it, the inventiveness of the human mind is probably the only real unlimited resource there is.

I know it can be a pain having to pay royalties for someone's invention for the 20 years their patent is in effect, but sometimes its a pain not to be able to pick Farmer John's apples growing in his orchard too.
----------------------
No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2.

And like I said before it is a bit of a red herring. We knew Saddam had WMDs, we got the photos of the dead Kurds and dead Irani soldiers to prove it. Saddam was obligated by both the armistice from the first Gulf War and about 17 UN resolutions to prove that he had gotten rid of them. Saddam never complied. The inspections were never intended as a game of hide and seek, but to give Saddam a chance to make good on his promises and obligations. To show the world he no longer had them. Again, Saddam failed to comply.

You talk about the neocons' desire to "remake the world" failing to de

SIGNYM

Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:02 AM (P)

In more or less reverse order:

"You seem to be missing the point behind the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act. Which is to prevent another 9-11 attack... even the observance of a right comes at a cost, and if that cost is the deaths of thousands more, or perhaps millions more lives, then the cost is too high."

You seem to be missing the point of the Revolutionary War and the Bill of Rights.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"- Benjamin Franklin.

In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism.
------------------------------------

"No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2."

You know, if those barrels were the ONLY evidence of WWII that had JUST been discovered, then I would smack my forehead and say "I'll be gob-smackered, you're right!!!" But in fact there was evidence of WWII laying all the place: tons of unexploded ordnance, shells, mines, barbed wire, emplacements and so forth. The point is that if WMD existed in the numbers that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell were ranting about, ready to be deployed "in 45 minutes" (yeah, right) SOMETHING would show up. I mean, where's your common sense?

You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah!
--------------------------------

"We knew Saddam had WMDs..."

Of course we did- we sold them to him and helped him use them...

"To prove that he had gotten rid of them"

According to the inspectors, he was playing games and the UN didn't support them very well. But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them.

--------------------------
"A free and democratic Iraq, without WMDs makes us all safer, and removes the root cause of terrorism, as well as the means for conducting atrocities that would pale next to 9-11. Its going to be a tough job, but swatting the mosquitos is only a short term solution. ya gotta drain the swamp."

What is the difference between "free" and "democratic" I'd like to find out what your vision is for Iraq.

Do you really think we CAN drain the swamp? I have serious doubts. We couldn't do it in Vietnam. If you dimiss Vietnam as irrelvant, look at the Israelis. They have every possible advantage:

1) They surround the Palestinian population centers completely and can (and do) blockade them.

2) Living cheek by jowl for decades and having an effective security they seem to know the who, where, and when of the terrorist groups. (They sure pick out their cars with missiles pretty accurately!)

3) They have been bulldozing relatives' homes, uprooting orchards, bombing administrative centers and pretty much doing everything they can to penalize civilian supporters for decades.

4) They have superiority of arms including (I might add) helicopter gunships and WMD, and billions of dollars of aid from the USA.

And you know what??? It ain't working. My point is, if Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?

--------------------

"On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? "

I got news for you- a lot of inventions occured before there were patents or copyrights, and they would continue at an accelerated pace without them. I don't want to get into a very long discussion, just trust me on this because I know an awful lot about biomedical research.
---------------------------

"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".

"...without those tools and the factory"

Who created the tools and the factory?

"Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be ex

DRAKON

Saturday, September 13, 2003 12:54 PM (P)

"In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism."

And yet here you are still going on about it. I am hearing a lot of dissent, tons of criticism. At the volume levels that are being raised, I would hate to think how loud it would be if none were being stifled, assuming any is.

Tim Robbins can still go in front of the National Press Club and complain about being silenced. The irony of that one instance seems lost on a lot of folks.

So I have severe doubts that this is the case.
---------------------------------------
"You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah!"

LOL, like I said, the WMD claims of yours are a red herring. Besides, are you saying the Iraqi people and the world in general is better off with Saddam in power?

The thing about the Chinese find was that it was found 50 years after the war. WMD were hidden, buried in the ground, for 50 years before being found. Saddam has had 12 years to hide his weapons and weapons programs. I don't think the Japanese were in China quite that long.

Also you talk about the "evidence of WW2" and seem to ignore the dead Kurds and dead Iranian troops, dead specifically because Saddam had used chemical weapons on them. As far as I know, the Japanese never used chemical weapons during WW2.

So again. He had them. He was required to prove he had gotten rid of them. He gave us no indication that he had, and every indication that he was hiding them, all in violations of several UN resolutions and his agreement at the armistice. To simply assume he got rid of them on the sly does not make any sense.
---------------------------
"But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them."

Again, you are missing the point here. It was never supposed to be a game of hide and seek. Saddam was playing games, actually that particular game and that was not what the inspections were all about. After 12 years of that nonsense, it was getting pretty silly.

So the inspectors were willing to play. Fortunately not everyone else was.
---------------------------------------
"Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?"

I think it will work out, because freedom is actually better than living under slavery, regardless of whether you call it Ba'athism, Nazism, Islamic Theocracy, Comunism or what have you. People want to be free, to live and be happy. The multitude of governmental systems that have been tried have failed world wide, except for liberal democracy (Majority rule with respect for minority rights)

Our goals and the goals of the Iraqi people are far different that the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians want the Jews dead, and the Jews want to live. We don't want another 9-11, and most Iraqis do not want to give us one either. We want a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, and indications so far are that the Iraqis want the same thing as well.

I don't know if it even can be done. I think it can. I do see what can happen if we don't even try, which are more and more 9-11s. So I am willing to side with those who are willing to try to drain that swamp, rather than sit on the sidelines and tell them it can't be done.
-----------------------------------------
I find it hard to simply take your word for it, concerning patents. Someone produces something of value to you, something that you did not need to produce yourself, they have done something valuable for you. I don't see screwing them over, and not rewarding their efforts as any kind of a good thing.
----------------------------------
"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".

Go back and read the whole thing again. It costs so much to run a car, to get to work. To cover the expenses incurred in a job, whether it is the purchase of tools, special clothing, etc. The worker gets paid above and beyond t

SIGNYM

Sunday, September 14, 2003 5:33 AM (P)

"And yet here you are still going on about it."

Actually, I was followed -presumably by the FBI- for a couple of days after my ID was turned in by a webmaster. I worried out loud about biological warfare a couple of days b4 the anthrax letters were mailed. So yeah, here I am.

--------------------------
Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD, nobody better than Rumsfeld since he helped ship production materials.

"But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90... some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons equipment and ... critical components for missile delivery systems. A 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) [said] some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....by the U.S. Department of Commerce."

The WMD were Sarin, cyclosarin, VX, and mustard gas, liquid anthrax, and botulism. But NOBODY has ever claimed that Iraq continued to manufacture these agents after 1991. ALL of these agents- with the exception of mustard gas- deteriorate over a few years. SO, what's the scenario?

OOps, gotta get back with ya. Time to get my daughter off to bed!

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect
/cmfaff/813/813we26.htm

ANTHONYT

Monday, September 15, 2003 1:53 PM (P)

YOUR BANK CAN BLACKLIST YOU

In the name of homeland security, financial institutions can close accounts and cancel credit cards with little explanation. Complaints are slowly mounting.

Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue your banking relationship with us."

Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a single check since he opened an account at the institution's predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier.

As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have anything to do with the war on terrorism?

"You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at age 12 and became a citizen this year.

Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere.

Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists have been generated, more institutions have become accountable -- and more consumers may feel the heat.

No attention to consumer complaints
And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in the private sector have fallen largely off the radar.

"No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those who do business with those who do business with those who do business with someone suspected of terrorism."

Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They face stiff fines -- up to $1 million in some cases -- if they don't stop money flows or freeze accounts.

Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act, some investigations now are conducted in secret, and American consumers such as Algabri increasingly are finding their accounts closed without explanation -- and with little recourse.

"Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions about whether the mechanisms in place protect those who are accused, Fitzgerald says.

Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire nation, such as Iraq.

But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring on the side of caution?

A Treasury Department watch list
Algabri's story probably dates back to his former employee, Ptech, of Quincy, Mass. The software company made headlines last winter when it became public that one of its financiers, a Saudi national, showed up on a Treasury Department watch list.

The company was later cleared, but Algabri's account -- as well as those of four Muslim and Arab colleagues -- remains closed. Each received the same letter from Fleet on Nov. 2, about a month before the Ptech story broke, according to sources involved in the case.

Algabri says he believes in the nation's war on terrorism, but not the "overzealous" one that is unfolding today. "I believe they closed my account because I am a Muslim," he says. He plans to file a discrimination complaint against FleetBoston Financial in the coming weeks.

Fleet Bank did not return calls to discuss Algabri's account.

Accounts closed, credit cards cancelled
According to civil rights advoca

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:15 AM (P)

One dentist appointment, one frantic school meeting, and one work emergency later... Where were we??? Oh, yes.

Thank you Anthony for the article. You know, when I read about the United States actions- everyone tracked, people blacklisted, people detained indefinitely- it sounds like the Alliance, doesn't it? It's funny how people like freedom in the abstract, isn't it?

------------------------------
Anyhow, back to Iraq, where our enlisted folks are struggling to make a profit for Haliburton.

Drakon- so, what is your nightmare scenario? That Saddam buried WMD a dozen years ago? That he was making them- and burying them- up to the last minute? That they were "ready to be deployed in 45 minutes"?

Couldn't door #3-if they were ready to be deployed in places Bush was CERTAIN he would find them, they would have already been found, wouldn't they? Couldn't be door #1, 'cause WMD inevitably deteriorate over time. So maybe it was door #2? Let me know.

"And anyway" you say "the world is better off without him". If THAT'S the reason why we went into Iraq, then why did we support him in the first place? Why didn't we go after some other equally reprehensible dictator, or all of them? Again- let me know.

--------------------------
AFA capitaliam is concerned- Ahem. Do you know what the word "aggregate" means? DO this mental experiment- take all of the paychecks in the world and add them up. Is the sum total of Joe and Jane Worker able to buy back- in total- everything that they made? If not, where does the money go?

HINT: I'm trying to point out a problem that was supremely evident during the Great Depression, one that Keynes tried to solve under Rooseveldt.

Internet research is allowed- this is an open book question!

DRAKON

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:14 AM (P)

Arrgg! Now the thing is killing my posts. This is take two

I guess to some, freedom should be a one way street. You are free to do business with anyone you want, but the businesses are not free to do with whom they want.

The secret nature of the investigations are troublesome, however, the inconvience of changing banks is nothing compared to the inconvience of another mass terrorist attack.

BTW: CAIR is not, in my opinion a trustworthy source.
-------------------------------
Iraq: I feel like a lawyer continuing to discuss this. I think your facts are wrong, and even if they were right, your argument would still be wrong.

What your whole "Bush lied, there are not WMD" argument is really saying is that Saddam should still be in power. That Uday should still have his special arraignment with various high school principles, and Qusay should still be feeding his plastics shredder people he did not like. That hte mass graves were still filling up, and the prison still held children whose crime was having the wrong parents.

If one of the reasons for the war was wrong, then the war was wrong. If the war was wrong, then any change made by the war should not have occured. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

I note the Iraqi side of this, I know a lot of folks claim to care deeply about the plight of the Iraqi people. And many of those same folks are making this exact argument you are, that the war was wrong, and Saddam should still be in power. Despite how bad it would be for the very people they claim to care about.

And as concern for the Iraqi people is demostrably false, why should one accept a concern for enlisted folks?

And again, the issue was not for us to prove one way or the other. The burden of proof was Saddam's, not the UN inspectors, not the US, not anyone else's.

And also, if he did not have them, then what exactly was he trying to hide from the inspectors? Why did not the intelligence service of any country on the Security Council stand up for Saddam, say "We don't need inspections or war, because he is clean?" None did, not France, not Russia, not Syria, not anybody. Prior to the war, every nation's intelligence service thought he had them. That is why 1441 passed unanamously.

As to support, again you are wrong on facts (or in this case degrees) and even if you were right, you'd still be wrong. Look at the numbers, you will see that France and Russia gave far more in military aid to Saddam than the US did, by at least an order of magnitude. It was not F-16s he had, but Migs.

We sided with Stalin during WW2, because at the time, Hitler was a worse threat than Stalin. The mullahs in Iran were thought to be worse a worse threat as well. The context gets ignored here alot in these debates.

And even if we did support him to the degree you claim, then it is even more incumbant to clean up our mess is it not?

Why don't we go after all the dictators? We do not have unlimited resources, and look at the flak we get from folks just like you for going after Saddam. We can't do everything, nor help everyone we would like to. So we deal with those who are the biggest potential threats first, and hope to leverage the other regimes into, or rather out of, power. We are already starting to see signs of that, as Syria is discussing multiparty rule, and Iran looks to be headed for a change in government soon. (Its been looking that way for some time, but the mullahs are looking more and more weakened)

We do what we can. We do it first and foremost to keep from getting our own folks killed, and sadly those regimes that don't pose as great a threat are going to have to wait.
--------------------------
Aggregate: From when you used this, it has stuck in the back of my mind, like a code word I had heard before. It took me a while to recognize it for what it was. But once I did, your arguments became a lot clearer. You seem to be a believer in the labor theory of value.

Take two identical blocks of marble. Same tools, same time. One, you get to chisle on. The other we will

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:32 PM (P)

Wow, leave for awhile to take care of things and look at all I miss.

I think we all need to remember that war, politics, and foreign policy have never really made much sense, and when the government tries to mix all three in one smoldering powderkeg like the Middle East, the potential for it to blow up in your face is high.

I was a Ranger in Desert Shield and Desert Storm the first time around, and I can tell you things that the news can't or won't. The problem is that we as the public try to form an opinion based on what we hear from the media, what the government tells us, and our own judgement. Unfortunately, the government only tells you what it wants to, the media is normally slanted, and without all the information, our judgement can only be so reliable.

I don't trust the government to have everyone's best interests at heart anymore than the rest of you. I know that the government hides a good bit more from us than we suspect, and that there is quite a bit of self serving going on behind closed doors. I do know that at least in the US we have the right to be skeptical openly, in a public forum, and as much as we might wish otherwise, simply discussing it will not make any changes in the way the government deals with us and the world.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE