Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:


With regard to permits for protesting, not every city has that law.

Really? Tell me ONE major city that doesn't have that law. Sure, it IS up to each individual municipality, but practically all metro areas in this country has a permit system in place.

Further, it is illegal to protest on private land EVERYWHERE. Unless, of course, you're saying that trespassing is alright in case of protest. I can see the signs now:

BEWARE OF DOG

(Unless, of course, you are protesting)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First, Gomez, I used the word 'decay' because it means, when referring to entropy, an increase in disorder or an increase in homogeny, rather than 'deteriorate.' This is not necessarily bad thing, just as an increase in disorder in a system of subatomic particles is not necessarily bad.

Menchise, that's an intruiging point that I never bothered to think about. Perhaps one could consider socialism and modern democracies to be equally as liberal. Now that I think about it, individualism seems more and more to be a logical element of liberalism. Social Democracy probably assumes a more proper place after a purely capitalist democracy as a stage in political entropy than Communism or plain old Socialism. Social Democracy seems to balance the idea of political equality and socioeconomic equality, rather than taking the latter element of equality to extremes at the expense of other liberal concepts (such as individualism).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Not hardly. I think you missed the point completely, so this statement is rather pretentious.

Well, you have rather overdone the period thing. Thought I'd swap it up.

quote:

I'm saying that he must proceed LEGALLY

Of course.

quote:

and in such a way that does NOT infringe on another's rights.

Impossible. If they block the sidewalk they are denying your right to walk there. But they have a permit to do it.

quote:

That isn't THAT hard...

Then why are you making it so difficult? When did I mention residential? Maybe my post made it seem that way or maybe you thought I was stuck on Gomez' riot example. You can shut your "office" window, etc, etc.

quote:

So, protests are only permitted on GOVERNMENT OWNED land to not ALLOW people to to interfere with MY RIGHTS.

Again, impossible. I'm sure the government tries to make it as painless as possible for all involved but someone's "rights" are going to get infringed upon in some way or another be it noise pollution, you don't like the signs, etc. But they have the right to do that because they got the permit to do it.

I'd like to have an example of your rights you don't want interfered with. Sure they can't damage anything of yours but what about the noise etc.?

quote:

I think you missed the point completely

Then feel free to explain again without weilding caps like weapons. They make your posts difficult to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Japan was still fighting, people were still dying. After ALL the death those people

WILLINGLY caused (they had MASSIVE national support), they'd better surrender without condition.

There were approximately 200,000 Japanese casualties in the two days that those bombs were dropped. This amount is equivalent to two thirds of the total casualties suffered by the USA in the entire war (including the European Theatre). In my opinion, the A-bombs were severe overkill just to obtain an unconditional surrender.

quote:

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Please show me some evidence of this, because I can't find a SINGLE SHRED.

What you call a conspiracy theory, I call a different angle on the event. The Americans and the British were distrustful of Russian power even before the war ended. What better way to frighten them than to demonstrate a single weapon that could destroy an entire city. I have no evidence to support this, it's just my belief. Can you give me any evidence that disproves the theory?

quote:

No. Laws PROTECT rights as well as people. Why do you think that it is unlawful for an employer to racially discriminate?

There are laws that protect EVERYONE'S basic rights, such as the right to be free of harm, the right to be free of discrimination, the right to vote, the right to peace, the right to express, etc. It is ILLEGAL for ANYONE to take away these rights.

It depends on your point of view. By making sure that these basic rights are not infringed, the law is protecting people and property from harm.

quote:

people have NO RIGHT to protest the actions of a CITIZEN that is living within THEIR rights.

Is that law too?

BTW, I have been stretching my arguments in some places. Living on the other side of the Atlantic makes it very difficult for me not to make an assumption or two from time to time.

quote:

Resistance of arrest can be anything from refusing police instructions to surrender, to running from the police, to struggling with the police. Seriously, look the laws up.

Point conceded.

quote:

No, I suppose telling someone simply to stand down is not, BUT it IS obstruction of justice - check the laws. So, if someone fails to stand down when ordered, they've committed a crime.

This issue is a bit murky in my opinion. If the police tell me to stop doing something, they had better give me a good explanation before they decide that my hesitation amounts to obstructing justice. The police are not our superiors, they are civil servants. If they expect civilians to obey intrusive orders without question, then they are overstepping their authority.

quote:

One has a right to protest the rights that allows someone to do something that is questionable, even the person - so long as his rights are not infringed. If they are, he can sue for libel and defamation of charactor - and probably a whole host of other things. If one can sue, there is no RIGHT.

Be more specific about what rights of that person could be infringed, because I don't see much of a difference between what I said and what you said.

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Shingen

quote:

That's because Hitler was a megalomaniac who wanted to take over Europe. The slaughtering of the Jews was initiated after the war started, although concentration camps were already in use by that time.

I noticed that you FAILED to mention that WITHOUT DIRECT US INTERVENTION, Europe would have FELL to Hitler, and the Axis Powers! It was AMERICAN CAPITALISM and the production power that was CREATED by it, that allowed the Allies to defeat BOTH Hilter AND Japan!

Both Europe and Asia would have fell without American Capitalism! Europe, for all their high vaunted socialistic ideals, COULD NOT out-produce Hitler, and Asia was in such a state of utter poverty that Japan WOULD HAVE continued to swallow all of China if not for us American Imperialist!

Did we Americans use our SUPERIOR technology and production to sujugate the lesser countries into submission?? Nope, We gave Japan back to the Japanese, and Europe back to the Europeans! with a few minor consessions

It REALLY ticks me off when people start bad-mouthing my country, which happens to be THE BEST DAMN COUNTRY EVER CREATED, and if you don't like it here, then please leave my beautiful country and go live in the squalor of your beloved Socialism.

America is a WORLD POWER because of our IDEALS, our WORK ETHIC, and our FIRM BELIEF IN GOD! ( at least that's what MADE us a world power ), now we're becoming a bunch of crybaby whiners who are too damn lazy to go out a MAKE something, because it takes WORK!

...ok.. I said my peace, now y'all can continue..

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Shingen ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The arms race was initiated by the USA when they dropped the A-bombs on Japan.

The arms race began when the Germans began testing rockets to deploy bombs. Werner von Braun. The Manhattan Project was the USA's attempt to catch up and surpass Germany. We won the race -- we didn't start the race. After the war, the Americans and the Russians raced to see who could get the best German scientists. We got Braun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

I noticed that you FAILED to mention that WITHOUT DIRECT US INTERVENTION, Europe would have FELL to Hitler, and the Axis Powers! It was AMERICAN CAPITALISM and the production power that was CREATED by it, that allowed the Allies to defeat BOTH Hilter AND Japan!

Not true. It was American military strength that assisted in the defeat of Hitler. The economic system used to produce the weaponry is irrelevant.

quote:

Europe, for all their high vaunted socialistic ideals, COULD NOT out-produce Hitler, and Asia was in such a state of utter poverty that Japan WOULD HAVE continued to swallow all of China if not for us American Imperialist!

First of all, where did you get the idea that Europe was socialistic? Britain is very capitalist, and France is much more capitalist than socialist. Secondly, Germany's military strength was so vast that it took a combined force of American, British, and Canadian militaries to defeat Hitler on the western front. The Russians took care of the eastern front all by themselves, even after suffering nearly 20 million casualties. Finally, the Japanese advance south of Manchuria was slowed down to a crawl by the Chinese United Front, and they were fighting for four years before America became involved.

quote:

Did we Americans use our SUPERIOR technology and production to sujugate the lesser countries into submission?? Nope, We gave Japan back to the Japanese, and Europe back to the Europeans! with a few minor consessions

First, America was never in possession of Europe because the US was one part of a combined force on the western front. Secondly, Japan was given back to the Japanese because the Allied powers had learned from the mistakes of the Versailles Treaty.

quote:

It REALLY ticks me off when people start bad-mouthing my country, which happens

to be THE BEST DAMN COUNTRY EVER CREATED, and if you don't like it here, then please leave my beautiful country and go live in the squalor of your beloved Socialism.

It really ticks me off when people start glorifying their country as if it was superior to every other nation, which happens to be arrogant and untrue, and I don't like it, I don't live in your country and you don't have to be Socialist to live outside the US.

quote:

America is a WORLD POWER because of our IDEALS, our WORK ETHIC, and our FIRM

BELIEF IN GOD! ( at least that's what MADE us a world power ), now we're becoming a bunch of crybaby whiners who are too damn lazy to go out a MAKE something, because it takes WORK!

America is a world power because of tons of natural resources and lots of big guns, just like the USSR when it was around. The majority of Australians have the same ideals, work ethic, and belief in God that Americans do, yet we are not a world power. We can't even build a submarine that works properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Our opinions differ. Casualties are a part of war. One side can ill afford to care

about the casualities of the other side.

The Americans were doing enough damage with their incendiary bombs. A nuclear attack was unnecessary. In time, Japan would have surrendered.

quote:

Sure, I could say that there are bright pink dinosaurs on a planet near Alpha

Centauri. I have no evidence of this. Do you have evidence that disproves my theory?

Since you obviously don't believe that, I don't have to disprove it. If you do believe that, I suggest you see a psychiatrist about your Barney fetish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


The Americans were doing enough damage with their incendiary bombs.

No they weren't.

quote:


A nuclear attack was unnecessary.

Yes it was.

quote:


In time, Japan would have surrendered.

And in time, more Americans would have died. Sorry, but in war you worry about your countrymen - not the lives of your enemies.

quote:


Since you obviously don't believe that, I don't have to disprove it. If you do believe that, I suggest you see a psychiatrist about your Barney fetish.

Heh, but you get my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just bluntly dropped in.

quote:


Yes it was.

This is controversial check historical papers on this. The first bomb , maybe , but what about the second bomb?

quote:


And in time, more Americans would have died. Sorry, but in war you worry about your countrymen - not the lives of your enemies.

True for the infantry in combat but can a leadership use a similar argument?

Last thing i read that it would take many American lives to force Japan to surrender. That's why they used the A-bomb.

quote:


Heh, but you get my point.

Check yalta conference. Roosevelt mentioned that they had a very powerful weapon to Stalin i think. Stalin already knew this from his intelligence dept. Don't know about showing off part though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


This is controversial check historical papers on this. The first bomb , maybe , but what about the second bomb?

There was a 3 day differential between the dropping of each bomb. The Japanese had PLENTY of time to unconditionally surrender before the second bomb was dropped. The fact is, they wanted to fight. That was their culture.

Further, the US had little idea about the actual effects of the first bomb, so a second was dropped to ensure effectiveness. Also, the second bomb was made of different materials.

quote:


True for the infantry in combat but can a leadership use a similar argument?

Yes. They must. A combat commander cannot let the effect to the enemy cause possible detriment to his plans and to his soldiers. That is the risk that all nations take when they go to war, or provoke war. They should realize that people will indeed die, and that the other side doesn't care about them. Why should they? Each side is simply trying to kill one another.

quote:


Last thing i read that it would take many American lives to force Japan to surrender. That's why they used the A-bomb.

Correct.

quote:


Check yalta conference. Roosevelt mentioned that they had a very powerful weapon to Stalin i think. Stalin already knew this from his intelligence dept. Don't know about showing off part though.

Uhm, no he didn't. Truman did. He also mentioned it to many others before it was dropped. Russia wasn't an enemy at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Menchise:

For some unknown reason, Americans and conservative Australians seem to be the only people in general who think that Socialism and Communism are somehow related to Liberalism.......


It was confusing when i tried to follow some American discussions. In holland it means in fact the opposite. If one refers to the "liberalen" you are referring to the right. Cultural difference

Interesting read all these messages. Kinda long though. Never use that many words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

WHO CARES when *you* mentioned residential???

*I* do, because *I* never did.

quote:

You are arguing MY point, and you NEVER mentioned ANY stipulations.

So you are allowed to drag the argument into left field. Ok. You change the argument and you wonder why I find it difficult.

What, I'm not allowed to make my point unless each post is pre-approved?

That's sarcasm, Where it came from I don't know. You may argue and I'll argue back.

From another post in response to someone else:

quote:

If all I have to do is get a peace of paper to cordon off a couple sidewalks and streets, that doesn't seem unreasonable. That way, commuters are informed in ADVANCE to take alternate routes to work and business owners are able to take steps to insure that no disruption of business occurs. If disruption is inevitable, business owners have a right to petition the protest request to be denied, and the protestors would have to move to a location that is more suitable for EVERYONE. Petitions are reviewed and more are rejected than not - a truck driver can easily take a different route.

This is where I've been trying to get you. Thank you.

And is what I meant when I said

quote:

Again, impossible. I'm sure the government tries to make it as painless as possible for all involved but someone's "rights" are going to get infringed upon in some way or another be it noise pollution, you don't like the signs, etc. But they have the right to do that because they got the permit to do it.

Yet you told me *I* was wrong. Compare your first two sentences to my statement of gov't tries...painless. Change my noise pollution to your disruption is inevitable and the posts say basically the same thing. The only thing I didn't add was the ability to protest the petition to rally.

If your response to Menchise is correct then that's a reasonable response and I'll accept that. That's all I was saying. Someone will get inconvenienced. I.E. my use of "rights intereferred with."

I don't feel I won. I feel we see this issue basically the same way but expressed it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Uhm, no he didn't. Truman did. He also mentioned it to many others before it was dropped. Russia wasn't an enemy at the time.

Yeah, i guess i'm confusing some things. I'll have to look it up.

They didn't trust the bolsheviks before the war, they didn't trust Stalin then.

[ 06-04-2001: Message edited by: Mano Faber ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, I apologis for any disruptions in communication tonight. The stupid phone rang and knocked me off. Yes I had the call waiting block on but I think companies pay extra to get around that or AOL is just the POC it usually is.

Then when they wouldn't answer I hung up angrily. Well I didn't seat the phone right and it fell off onto the floor losings its cover. I put the cordless back together and then tried to sign on. It wouldn't I thought it was the incoming thunderstorm which always plays havoc with the phone lines. Well it wasn't. The cordless had knocked the corded off the hook and I couldn't get a dial tone.

Sigh. Only me.

Will finish conversation later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Charles Lindsey:

Mike, I apologis for any disruptions in communication tonight. The stupid phone rang and knocked me off. Yes I had the call waiting block on but I think companies pay extra to get around that or AOL is just the POC it usually is.

Then when they wouldn't answer I hung up angrily. Well I didn't seat the phone right and it fell off onto the floor losings its cover. I put the cordless back together and then tried to sign on. It wouldn't I thought it was the incoming thunderstorm which always plays havoc with the phone lines. Well it wasn't. The cordless had knocked the corded off the hook and I couldn't get a dial tone.

Sigh. Only me.

Will finish conversation later.


No problem, good sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Living on the other side of the Atlantic makes it very difficult for me not to make an assumption or two from time to time.

Oops. I meant to say Pacific (It was 04:00 in Brisbane when I wrote that). I need more sleep.

Hmm...It appears that almost every argument I have given has received an appropriate counter-argument, except for my reply to Shingen's post, so I have nothing left to say, except for this.

America did not 'earn' its status, because it was bound to have it eventually. It's a country that has two vast oceans protecting it from eastward and westward invasion, more than enough natural resources to trade in abundance and develop into more valuable trade items, and a huge geographical area, most of it habitable, which allows for a bigger and more sustainable population. The same thing applied to the USSR, except that it had the infamously harsh winter instead of the Atlantic and Pacific buffer zones. That's why no foreign power has successfully captured Moscow and hold it for more than a few months (Napolean and Hitler (twice) tried and failed). If America was a landlocked country with an area the size of Greece, it wouldn't have become a world power. Therefore, America did not necessarily 'earn' its status, it was just lucky to have all that it needed to do so.

Secondly, Castro's leadership provides the people with as much as the Cuban economy can possibly give them, which includes the best education system in the Third World, and one of the best in the entire world. Fact: Cuba has a higher literacy rate than the USA. Fact: Cuban doctors are among the best in the world. Fact: All of the schools are publicly funded and totally free. Fact: University courses don't cost tens of thousands of dollars, or their equivalent in pesos. The health system is also equal to the US, if not better. Here are some statistics (they date back to 1992, but they're still statistics):

Cuba

Life Expectancy at Birth: 74 Male, 79 Female.

Deaths (per 1000): 7.

Hospital Beds: 1 per 141 persons.

Physicians: 1 per 303 persons.

Infant Mortality (per 1000 live births): 12.

National Budget: $15 billion.

USA

Life Expectancy at Birth: 72 Male, 79 Female.

Deaths (per 1000): 9.

Hospital Beds: 1 per 198 persons.

Physicians: 1 per 404 persons.

Infant Mortality (per 1000 live births): 10.

National Budget: 1 Trillion Dollars.

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, technically, you are on the other side of the Atlantic...just reaaaaaaly far

quote:

Did we Americans use our SUPERIOR technology and production to sujugate the lesser countries into submission?? Nope, We gave Japan back to the Japanese, and Europe back to the Europeans! with a few minor consessions


Superior technology? I don't think so... In world war II our technology wasn't up to specs with the Germans at all. And with the Japanese, at the beginning of the war, it was slightly behind. By the end of the war, we had surpassed it, but not till about '44. Japanese aircraft were agile and fast. Americans built heavy aircraft that, while harder to take out, were easily danced around by the Japanese. It wasn't until the P-51 came about that we finally had something that merged power and speed.

Conversely, nothing we built was on par with Germany. No tanks, no aircraft, no bombs, no guns. Nothing. We won both wars through tactics, and the fact that we were OUTSIDE of the war until both Germany and Japan had been fighting for a while. Then we entered (due to Pearl Harbor) with a full fledged army and angry people. Not to mention a fleet of Carriers (since our Battleships were sunk). Carriers were not perceived as a threat like Battleships were. But quickly, the Japanese learned otherwise. I have a theory, that we really only won WWII BECAUSE the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and sunk our Battleships. It forced America to rethink it's tactics, and as a result, we came up with something better.

As to the usage of the A-bomb. It is a widely conceived notion that history is written by the victors. The story we Americans are told, is that by dropping the bomb on two Japanese cities, saved probably 500,000 American soldier's lives. Because that is what it would have cost to launch a full scale invasion of Japan. Whether this is true or not, I cannot say. I was not there. I do not know what the Japanese were thinking at the time. I only know what my history book says. And I KNOW that my history book is baised towards America. Therefore I hold it suspect, until I get facts that tell me for certain one way or the other.

For all we Americans know, Japan could have planned an unconditional surrender or have been discussing it internally. Then the bombs were dropped and the discussion stopped, and the end came.

Now. To those of you who so arrogantly state that it was American superior technology, and American capitalism that won WWII. You are WRONG. The above comments are supported significantly by tons of evidence. Including, discussions with my Grandfather who flew during WWII in the south Pacific. Including about every episode of Discovery Channel's Wings that covered WWII. Including just about every flight simulation, and tactical simulation that covers WWII. Get real. There was nothing superior about America during WWII, other than that our troops were fresh and heavily motivated.

Personally, I think we should drop any discussions about WWII. This is now almost 60 years ago that America entered that war. More than that for most other countries. The world has changed substantially since then. The attitude of America has changed significantly as well. Even the attitude of the government of America has changed since then. Economically, the world has changed drastically since then. We are in a completely different technological age (Atomic vs Industrial) compared to then. In fact, some would say that we've entered a newer one (Information) in the past 10-20 years. There is virtually nothing the same, except which countries are located where.

Back to present day politics....

America still needs to get off it's high horse. It only offends people when we say we are the superior country in the world. This is for two reasons. #1, they are jeolous, #2, they already know that and don't like being reminded of it repeatedly. America may be the last super power. But that does not mean we are superior as a people to anyone else on this planet. It does not mean that our economic or governmental systems are better than everyone else. It just means that we ended up in a circumstance that permitted us to be on top technologically and militarily. As Menchise stated, this is primarily due to large sources of oil and other natural resources that were easily exploitable. Europe has been industrialized since before America was even colonized. This means that their sources of materials are depleted, hidden or non-existant. A state that the USA will be in eventually. Ever look at a population density chart of Europe and compare it with the USA? Or worse yet, Asia? Africa and the Americas are probably the last real sources of exploitable resources in the world, other than those that current technology does not permit access to. Africa unfortunately, was accessed by the industrial europeans before the Americas, so it is worse off. Australia, while being a low population density, and late colonization, unfortunately has proven low in natural resources. Or at least, accessible resources. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if they were also a super power. They have all the same technology and economy that we do. Just lack the means.

So really, the only reason the USA is a super power, is because we had the FORTUNE to be in a location that was rich in resources. It has little to do with government. It has something to do with economics and work ethics, but nothing that Europe and much of the rest of the world don't share with us.

So next time you feel like rubbing it in the face of someone that we are the last super power (although I still consider China to be one *flames ignored, topic closed*), consider yourself officially arrogant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Australia, while being a low population density, and late colonization, unfortunately has proven low in natural resources. Or at least, accessible resources. Otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if they were also a super power. They have all the same technology and economy that we do. Just lack the means.

Actually, Australia is high in natural resources. More than half of our export revenue comes from mining commodities, including coal, copper, iron, lead, tin, zinc, bauxite, and one of the most exclusive of them all, uranium. The problem is that despite Australia's geographical size (roughly the same as the USA), we have a small population (approximately 19 million). This is because most of central Australia is uninhabitable, which explains why all of the major cities are on the coasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...