Raven

Oh dear, to RANDOM earth first, and let all the people on Galcom know that they're next, or to blow up Galcom and let all the people on earth know that they're next... I never knew that being in diplomacy fleet would involve so many hard decisions...

Lotharr darling, even assuming that your view of our economy is remotely accurate, a point I'm not willing to concede, your assumption that people will somehow become away of what's going on is laughable. Despite the communist ranting to the contrary, people don't just figure things out like this, and as a whole they are rather stupid. The average person is complacent, bovine, and, lacking an inspiring leader, they will take just about anything lying down. And I have no fear that some inspired leader is going to convince the people that they should cast off our current system in favor of god only knows what, we have been hearing this type of communist garbage for years, and had wonderful examples of what happens to countries where people actually listen to it.

Yep, pretty crude. I'm on the neutral right, 5.12/-0.10

quote: Does the constitution prohibit such programs? What about problems that weren't known back then like pollution? IIRC the founding fathers had an isolationist agrarian country in mind when they framed the constitution and I don't think you want to go back to that. Well yes, in a way. The constitution gives a number of very explicit powers to the federal government, as well as the general welfare clause which is usually distended in a truly awful way to justify a lot of social programs. But it isn't permitted to give money to the poor, or any other type of social program. While I admit that the constitution is in need of some maintenance and updating, this should be done through the nicely outlined procedures in the constitution itself, not by simply ignoring it. As Jag will no doubt be delighted to tell you (repeatedly if necessary) such social programs are the responsibility of the states and should be left that way. quote: I've seen you using the term "mob rule" several times now. Where would you draw the line between democracy and mob rule? Would you consider a democracy where people can vote on policies/issues, and can call for a vote by collecting a certain amount of signatures a mob rule? I'm not sure it's something hard and fast, and I haven't really sat down and decided what exactly constitutes mob rule, but I would say one of the lines is drawn when people can directly vote on policy, so yes, that is at least the beginnings of mob rule. Another beginning is the changing of election methods that allow our country to be more democratic, such as voting for senators, or, as people have been discussing for as long as I have been alive but thankfully has yet to happen, dismantling the electoral college. My problem with mob rule is twofold, first we have the problem of the people voting money out of the treasury and into there pockets. This is both dangerous in what it could become and rather unpleasant at the moment. The second, and truly core, issue is that most people are quite simply not qualified to have anything to do with our government at all. In all honesty, I believe that there should be some basic requirements to be able to vote above and beyond citizenship, nothing that would deter someone who wanted to, but enough that only people who have any business voting do so. Perhaps some type of yearly written exam, something anyone who follows politics could easily handle, and some type of requirement pertaining to who can vote based off of there wealth (something like the old policy of only allowing land owners to vote, but more comprehensive). Having people who don't know what the there doing voting for candidates is bad enough, but having them able to vote on policy as well is more then a little scary.

quote: So this current reccession thingy that was at first supposed to recover like magic....hasn't....and the curret desire to liberate vast quantities of oil...er....poeple doesn't ring a bell? And I suppose a growing collection of personel from all over world ready to put their personal satey on line by showing up at WTO and G-8 meetings to face a hostile police force doesn't mean a thing eh? Well, as for the recession, I'm not worried, no one ever promised that our economy would be all peaches and cream all the time, and I, for one, am willing to ride it out. As for objections to the WTO and such not, just because some people protest doesn't mean they are backed by the rest of the population, again, I'm not worried. The most they can accomplish is a riot, which will simply further discredit them. quote: Well perhaps not to you but I don't count that as much of a loss.... Hey, I'm sorry, I don't speak leftist code jargon, my apologies. quote: Yup...I'm against super concentrations of wealth....it corrupts people, institutions, and reality....just look at media, politics, and notions of corporate governance...if we could get them to stop subverting government and mocking a free press I suppose I would be happy. Ok, so some people will succeed and end up with lots of wealth (at least assuming a system which is conducive to success, the alternative being one in which there is no point to success), what do you suggest we do? Take it from them simply because they are successful? That seams more then a little unjust. quote: But we most definitely have got to comprehensively remove money from politics to restore legitimacy to this system?..and to get the politicians to focus on their job and not making money for the next election. How about get politicians to focus on the constitution. Oh yea, the constitution doesn't allow for nonsensical social programs so we absolutely can't support it. quote: We then have to move to insure real checks on political corruption by creating effective agencies to police these criminals who walk around in nice suits and have little American flags pined to their lapels handing out bribes and jobs.... This has been done before, with rather limited success, so I doubt there is going to be any astoundingly successful watchdog organization appearing any time soon. quote: We have to decentralize power and enforce ecological common sense over short term profit motives. With this I agree, at least to some extent, destroying our environment isn't an option. quote: Obviously this is against everything you believe in so I won't be put out when you poo poo these ideas. But if we want to revitalize this country and seek to protect the world I think these would be good places to start. Well, remind me again why we are supposed to protect the world? quote: These idea are an effort to put government back in the hands of people?..the people government is supposed to be about in the first place?.we can have the republic, a better and more responsible economy, and keep our individualism in the workplace and at home?.but people have to start thinking realistically about where the real threats are?and what kinds of changes are meaningful and inclusive. And how, exactly, are we supposed to do this? Besides, I don't like the idea of placing much political power in the hands of the people, mob rule simply isn't on my list of things to experience.

quote: The inevitable collapse or implosion by a system that can't really go any other way....currently I believe that the idea of a forever expanding economy is not possible in the reality of a finite biosphere and limited resources. I disagree darling, both because advancing technology will always be opening new markets and revolutionizing old ones, and because while we may be currently limited biosphere, we eventually will expand into space. quote: It would be ironic because all those "enfranchised" that are high on the crack of the "free market" may end up getting their heads chopped off (figuratively...hopefully) or wrecking the planet....but I'm sure they?ll sing....scream...then whimper...the praises of freedom and democracy until the end..... Um... sure... I believe you..., honest... I keep hearing about how unstable things are and how we will inevitably be cast down, but I don't see any sign of this happening. Seams more like wishful thinking then anything else. quote: I believe Americans via corporate mass media are taught to equate "democracy" with various toiletry options....not politics. Not to decry the importance of toiletry options, but you're not making much sense. quote: Alternatives are starting to come out and I hope this trend will continue....but they face the enormous task of dismantling two entrenched political institutions that represent so many different ideologies that it clear why today it comes down to ....good, bad, all, or nothing type thinking...a political climate of emotions and symbols that truly bring out the ?best? in people...and in the end do not serve anyone but those who perpetuate this false notion of "choice". Alternatives? You mean like socialism or communism? Or perhaps you just want a more democratic government, which is ultimately mob rule; again it's rather hard to follow what you're saying because you don't really say much of anything. You really have the makings of a grade A loony you know, you mumble and rant without really making any sense for those of us who don't know whatever secret leftist code you're couching everything you say in. quote: Well I guess we gotta part ways on this....I think we should be rigorously strengthening international institutions that promote democracy, justice, and peace....not hunker down...send out the legion every ten years or so, and have the best damn black op network on the market and hope for the best. Well, I honestly think we should be more willing to use military force then we are, but then that's just my evil militaristic warmongering conservative view. And what's wrong with a good black op network? Would you rather we had a bad one? quote: Call it what you will but I believe wealth hording is ultimately destructive....but you keep the lingo changing and the average citizen ignorant and maybe it can work.... Wealth hording? You mean like going to some remote cave and piling all of your wealth up and sleeping on it? Seriously though, what good is wealth if you "hoard" it? Generally money is used either to make more money, to gain other types of power (namely political), or to improve quality of life. All of these things require using money, not hoarding it. Oh, I'm sorry, you're not talking about hoarding wealth at all, it's another weird leftist code for having money. Or perhaps it's hording because people shouldn't be able to acquire large sums of money, after all it needs to be redistributed to those noble working class types?

quote: Also I i'd like to thank the folks who generalize and oversimplify issues they don't understand like social welfare , by referring to poor americans as trash and human filfth. Clearly this is the compassionate conservatism we have heard so much about but heretofore have seen so little of. Who me? I never said human filth, it was either human waste or human trash As for compassionate conservatism, I haven't a clue, I'm not a compassionate person and I don't really see why anyone would want to be, compassion is a liability. quote: I happen to work with poor people. I wouldn't wan to pry, but what do you do with them exactly? quote: Most believe it or not do not wish to be poor. Some are poor out of circumstance and work hard to make up the difference. There are also some who have no intention of finding a job and I agree that is reprehensible. However; most want to work. They lack the skill and education but not the willingness. Wanting to have a job is not sufficient; to succeed one must be competent and driven as well. While I admit that it's not easy, nor is it something everyone can do, there is an old saying: where there's a will there's a way. If someone wants it bad enough, is willing to work hard enough, then yes, they can be successful despite starting off poor. There are very few people who are willing to work that hard or who want it that badly however, and thus most people who are born poor die poor, that's the way of things. quote: 20 years ago there would have been entry level manufactoring jobs but they are gone to Mexico and Taiwan and any where else American business can pay someone substandard wages. A side effect of having a minimum wage. If companies could pay workers whatever the liked then they wouldn't have to export work to other countries, it's as simple as that. quote: Just as all rich people aren't pricks all poor people aren't trash. Of course not, but anyone who is in effect taking my money without my consent is contemptible in the worst way. Perhaps I should replace trash with thieves; it's probably more accurate anyway. quote: It galls me to see someone who through a biological lottery is born to family that cares for them and can take care of them talk about the poor mooching off them. Dragon Lady , you should feel fortuante that you weren't poor to a Puerto Rican family of 7 in the Red Hook section of the Brooklyn. Nonsense, I'm fully aware of how fortunate I am (and perhaps a bit jealous of people who are more fortunate), but that's no reason to dwell on it either way. It's just the way things are, and we can feel lucky or miserable or jealous until we're blue in the face, but I rather just get on with life. quote: These programs that as you say you don't even know about make real differences in peoples lives and more often than any of you would like to beleive these people grow up to productive adults. Perhaps, but they do so at my expense. I have no problem with kids growing up to be productive adults, my problem is having to bankroll it. quote: I have a "wall of fame" in my office of all the kids I've worked with who have gone on to college , grad school or in some cases just a steady nine to five. Is getting a stable job such a great accomplishment for these people even after god only knows how much money has been wasted on them? It seams a lot like throwing money out the door, which is even worse as some of it is mine. quote: I am very proud of that and if not for of these "evil" programs that could not and would not have occurred. Again, the problem isn't the result of these programs, but rather the source of funding. If people want to give up large sums of money (and get a tax break in the process) they are welcome to, but my money is mine, and I'd rather like it to stay that way.

quote: btw i kno how ta spell, iz jus modify wurds to be understandable and easy ta type. and ta help ur old eyes out i made dis post user friendly. Old eyes? I don?t have old eyes darling, but thank you for using conventional spelling; it was getting pretty painful to read that stuff. quote: Jaguar and Dragonlady, you both need to learn to read. I wasnt playing the race card, and I never said Jaguar was a racist or wanted slavery back, but if you had enough sense to understand what I said, you would have seen I merely stated that the government of the pre-Civil War era was know to allow slaves, and only part of the population would have been 'rich' as Jaguar so beautifully put it. And thus it has no place in todays society. Well now darling, I'm not trying to disagree with you or anything of the sort, but you're dead wrong Seriously though, you say that you don't want to play the race card, but that seams to be exactly what you're doing. If you're trying to say that the government was amoral or any similar nonsense (and I can only guess if that's what you're trying to say as you haven't really said) then perhaps you should consider that Jag is only advocating the government of that time, the people who actually get elected would be modern individuals, and things like blatant racism are frowned upon. quote: im not even gonna post here anymore, cause its not longer a debate, its an argument. we both arent gonna change our veiws and its a waste of time and effort that can be spent enjoying life. What? You mean this isn't your favorite way to spend (waste) time? Well you simply don't know how to have fun then

quote: If we want to discuss the modus of taxation I think we have to say why we think one or the other is fair and based on what values and not just say "flat taxes are stupid" Lotharr or "progressive taxes are unfair because they are progressive". That's you oh female lizard. LMAO, call me a lizard will you As far as it goes, I don't support progressive taxes simply because they are inherently unfair, they punish success and generally make life miserable. After all, what's the point of being wealthy if not to avoid having to carry a heavy burden? I would like to advocate lumpsum taxes as requiring being the fairest, requiring the same from everyone, but truth be told if the government was limited by how much it could get off of the poor it would come to a grinding halt. Besides, flat rate taxes also have the advantage of encouraging the government to promote a strong and stable economy. quote: Same fraction of income is best and most fair if applied equally. Close all loopholes and credits so everyone is taxed the same. Deductions (what you erroneously call loopholes) are there for the specific reason of giving tax breaks to people and businesses for various things, they are a desired part of the system and they serve a purpose. quote: No one has really explained progressive tax yet. I'm suppossing it means if you make more money you pay more taxes. There is a case for that too. If you are smart enough to make that much money than you can afford to pay it and be smart enough to maintain your income. Progressive taxes are those that use all that nonsense about tax brackets, ultimately resulting in people who make more money paying a considerably larger percent of there money. As for being fair because wealthy individuals are able to make more money, how would you like it if you showed up for work one day and your boss said that you had to work longer hours then everyone else because you're so good at your job?

Well, serious mad leet skills and lots of manual dexterity.

quote: Don't think I'd like to live under a pre-Civil war government..that whole slavery thing is a little off-putting. I mean it's great if you were the one benefiting from free labor, but not so good if you're the one getting your foot chopped off. Again, it wasn't slavery that Jag was interested in reinstating and trying to claim otherwise is rather foolish. quote: My problem with conservsatism as a whole is it's veiled references to a return of a Post-WWII existence in which women , blacks and gays were marginalized and the dominant culture was not reflective of the people who did'nt fit that profile. (male , white , protestant). Nonsense, I can assure you that I, for one, am neither male nor protestant and (at least on the majority of issues) I'm conservative. quote: Regarding references made to programs tha liberals created that don't work , I think conservatives say that over and over again without any facts. For example Head Start, a simple breakfast program saves the Govt. three dollars for every dollar spent on each child in the program. I don't know enough about some breakfast program, but I doubt that's much of a complaint anyway. In moderation that kind of thing makes sense, especially if there is actually a clear benefit, what I object to is giving money to human waste. quote: Another fallacy is the percentage of your tax dollar that goes to welfare. Truth , according to ADC figures and the GAO (circa 1996) it takes up less than 3% of the USA's total budget. And that's a complete waste of 3% of our government's budget. Perhaps not much of the while, but how much money exactly do you think 3% of our budget represents? quote: It seems conservatives only have a problem with taxes being spent when it goes in a poor persons mouth , but have no such compuntion when lining the pocket of the military-industrial complex. Ok, let's take a look at this. Money given to the poor is exactly that, money given away with no return. Money paid to corporations for developing "some exotic weapon system" or some such not only provides an immediate return, said weapon system (or whatever), but it also supports our economy as well as encouraging technological innovation. So, give money away to some human trash so they can buy cheap bear and worse food, or pay it to corporations for a product and subsequently benefiting our economy and encouraging R&D. Oh dear, what a choice? quote: Lastly , we all pay taxes. We all pay too much. I am for reasonable tax cuts that offer real relief not a bonanza for corporate america who really rake in the benefits. No one is hold ing a gun to my head , it is the cost of doing business. The cost of doing business? Perhaps, but that's no excuse to try to lower said cost, and getting rid of unnecessary aspects of the federal government, as well as reducing money that is wasted on the poor are wonderful ways of doing so. quote: US Public health has all but eliminated certain killer diseases that crippled thousands only 30 or 40 years ago. Vaccinations in public scholls did that. The rate of literacy in this country has increased exponentially in the past 50 years. Yes, I noticed you like to bring up successful programs, but what about things like welfare, or Medicaid and Medicare? What are we getting out of those? A longer life expectancy and higher rate of reproduction for the poor perhaps? I believe that's something we can do without. quote: But we work on solving them not by retreating into some faulty memory of revistionist history that some of you seem to cling so closely to. No, you have your own fallacies which I shan't get into. quote: The real difference is that liberals are optimists. We always hope for things to get better we don't pertend to know all the answers and that gets us into trouble. Yea, you're optimists, and thus you overlook a number of rather gloomy facts. You can't get rid of poverty, and paying money to those who are too incompetent or otherwise incapable is pouring it down a bottomless hole.

quote: ur just sad man. thats statement has racism written all over it. and no im not calling u a racist or playing the race card. our govt, before the Civil War allow ed slaves and went off THIER hard work and (free)labor to build this nation and make the white plantation owners rich. yeah i really wanna have that govt back. Bah, that's nonsense. First of all, Jaguar wasn't talking about slavery or anything of the sort; rather he was talking about the original governmental structure. I'll let him defend this position as I'm not well enough versed in early American government to do so sufficiently. quote: also u said Lotharr's post was BS, y is it cause he was right? truth seems to be painful dont it Writing complete words seams to be painful don't it? quote: Q: who got us into the last 5 or so military conflicts? A: republicans, ecomonmies can be resurrected, lives cant Darling, our economy is important, and if a few military casualties are the result of defending that economy, well, I'm all for it. That is what they're paid for isn't it? quote: and dragonlady, i never expressed or implied that u mentioned it. i just stated that since u said know vets who thought we benifited, just askin how is further corruption and untrustworthyness worth protecting And I neither expressed nor implied that I knew any vets who thought we benefited from those wars (or are we talking about drugs now, not that it matters, don't know any of those either). As for corruption and untrustworthiness, you're being dreadfully vague and it's rather hard to follow you.

LMAO! That's rich darling, truly

quote: The idea of representation of the people by the people is moving farther and farther away from....."the people".....I suppose once upon a time that was ok....but today I think we could see a serious problem from those "undesirables" (props to DL) who want a say in government....they really should have just left it to the white land owners.....why can?t people realize property is more important then ethics?like duh!?!? Well darling, what can I say, our country was never meant to be a true democracy, and if anything is the case we are moving towards mob rule rather then away from it (I mean, look what happened with the senate way back when, and there's always talk of dismantling the electoral college). As for voting, it is my opinion that someone should have a certain amount of money before they can vote, thus promoting a certain amount of responsibility (obviously people with money aren?t necessarily responsible, but if they're too irresponsible they wont have much money long anyway). Race and sex aren?t valid criteria, I'm not racists (though I do have some other prejudices) and I'm obviously not sexists, and as such realize perfectly well that neither makes any difference in responsibility or intellectual capability. quote: Consent of the governed....on a global scale....I don't think God will bless ?fortress America.? Bah, god has nothing to do with it. quote: Yup?this is the best part of a whole screwed up ideology....it's tragic in consequence but revolutionary in effect.....stupidity and greed go hand in hand....what I can say?. power corrupts.... So I would guess that this means you're for progressive taxes? I admit that a certain level of that kind of nonsense is necessary, but excessive progressive taxing is fundamentally unfair as it requires some people to pay considerably more then others. quote: Did you ever watch T2? Did you ever read David Weber's Honor Harrington series? quote: Why can't that be at the hands of scientific / human advancement rather then?..? look dear, they some how managed to reinvent that shiny thing for the twenty fifth time WOW!!! Lets buy a new one!!!??only realize the their credit is maxed out?. Well, what can I say, if someone is willing to waste there money on every new little technological gizmo out there, they deserve what they get.

quote: neither party is what our founding fathers wanted! Our founding fathers did not want political parties in the first place. So if you really think about it our entire political system is against what our founding fathers wanted. Perhaps so, but it's what we have so we might as well make the best of it. quote: does anyone know what Communism REALLY is? not the Stalin BS weve been tought? Communism is a good govt style, but man and woman makes it corrupt and ruins it for the population. and if u know ur history, ud know the US had a communist party that was close to bring communism to the US. so dont try to act like our own country never wanted it Actually, I do know what communism is, and I know for a fact that the idea of communism is very appealing to the mob, but that neither makes it best for our country nor even a valid system should it be free of corruption. quote: Dragonlady, ask those same vets would they rather die from an enemy bullet while serving the US or die from drugs, chemicals and untested poisons, err um i mean vaccinations from our own govt? they were given numerous injections, a lot of which they had no idea what they did. the reports are slowly being release stating how our own govt (the ppl we elected to PROTECT us) has done testing on the military and civilians. if u like it so damn much, go volunteer urself so i dont have to be an unwilling particapant. so yeah lets run around rooting for our own killers. GO USA! GO USA! I WANNA DIE TODAY! GIMME MY DEADLY SHOT! That's rude darling, I never even mentioned the government doing testing on the military and suggesting that I did is something of an insult. There are a number of obvious reasons not to test drugs on military personnel like that, and while I don't have any moral objection to the process, it doesn't really seam the thing to do.

Oh you beast, just because of that I had to go back and play again (though thankfully only once more). My high score is now 272, and it was blurry vision and a sweaty mouse that did me in. And the music of course, I was just starting to be able to enjoy ride of the valkeries again too.

quote: so its ok for us to threaten or do other evils to them first and they are just responding to that? COOL!, ill havta remeber that. uv helped me understand how REALLY f****d up the US is. "'Dont do unto us, but we can do unto you.' author USA" new quote by me Darling, if they're threatening us then yes, we can do whatever we bloody well please to them so long as we can justify it as an aspect of self defense (well, actually I would say that we could do whatever we please to them anyway, but that?s a different argument entirely). quote: i havent seen any benefit, maybe im too young to know. but i know the last few 'wars' havent been worth squat, gulf, vietnam, korea. iv got friends/family whos served in each and have all said they were BS Yea, so you're saying that vets know best about whether a war was effective or BS as you put it? That's nonsense. quote: seeking as how i dont have a rocker, most likley i am. so is murder of arabics or other nations that so call 'support' terrorism more to the liking of ur plalette? murder isnt candy coated cause the US does it I couldn't care less about murder, so no, the deaths of enemy military personnel (or civilians for that matter) doesn't bother me in the least. It's called expediency, ruthlessness, and, ultimately, success. quote: ppl are all quick to cry we got hit and americans died. what about their familes getting killed by us? huh, u all get mad at me cause im not like kill them all now. hey jaguar u say i dont have brains or a heart, i have 2 things u dont have. its called common sense and compassion (my brain has the former and my heart has the latter) I, for one, am not mad, and if I sound otherwise it's because this debate is fairly heated. I do, however, think you are more then a little foolish to advocate the position you do. As for common sense and compassion, well, I have plenty of common sense and one thing it tells me is I don't need much in the way of compassion, it's a liability.

quote: much better? last trend i saw Republicans(thats a foul word) have was they get us into a conflict and our economy drops. i hate democrats just as much but they at least dont piss off half the world. Right, and this is just before you start gabbing about tolerance? quote: yeah taxes will go down, but they are doing it for themselves not us unrich ppl. it means they pay less. also how we gonna fund all of our stupid expences? america already cant budget worth a damn. Well, I for one can think of a number of ways to reduce spending. quote: and if the terrorist make a sucessful attack they obviously arent dumb, we are the dumb ones for not stoping it or leaving them alone in the first place. and how many will die in america before we retaliate? the US wants to rule the world, and terrorist wont sit down and take it so we kill them. Well darling, if they attack us, or even threten to attack us, then they forfit any right to live, end of story. quote: sounds a lot like Israel, Germany, Somalia, and every other country that killed another cause they didnt like them. they say america is the land of the free, free what @$$ beating? semms alot like America is the Germany of the new millenium. with our we want it all mentality. Hardly, we're powerful and our government uses that power for our benefit, as it should, this is a lot different from raw conquest. Besides, in matters of life and death there is no room for half measures. quote: theres a thing called tolerance, u HAVE to tolerate the different cultures, beliefs, ideas, and people. im not saying u havta like them, but respect and tolerate them. Tolerance? TOLERANCE??? Are you completely off your rocker? We are suppose to tolerate countries that pose direct threats to us, that support terrorism which results in thousands of American deaths, that would wipe us from the face of the earth if they could? It's not there belief, or there culture, or even there bad sense of fashion, we can tolerate all of that just fine, but murder of American citizens is absolutely unacceptable, end of story. quote: I still believe in the old saying, if you are not a liberal between 18 and 30, you have no heart, if you are not conservative between 30 and your death, you have no brains. I rather disagree, I have a heart, it's just rather cold and perhaps a bit black, but I do have one

Oh dear, Mark Stein doesn't seam so bad, but that Dinesh D'Souza article is some of the worst right wing propaganda I have seen posted here. Oh, it's nice enough to read (except for the bits I don't agree with), but it's so horribly blatant that I can't imagine anyone paying it that much heed. On the bright side, it isn't as long as the FAQ.

quote: To only read one side is to be ignorant. True, though in I take both sides with a grain of salt. Besides, I do read quite a bit of the leftist propaganda you post, I simply didn't feel like reading that entire bloody FAQ. quote: If the opinion of the populace is that they're not being liberated, then it's far from secondary. That's the relevance. But the point isn't to liberate the country, that's a side advantage that, while nice, is not all that important. Rather the point is to protect American interests in that country (in the case of Iraq that mean oil and not getting nuked). Secondary objectives are exactly that, secondary. quote: If the US government's role is to look out for the interests of America's population, then it wouldn't hide so much of what it does from the population, especially when that information indicates significant danger to the population. You might say that they do that because "the people are morons" or some such lame excuse, but remember that government officials come from the population, and it's a basic requirement that representative governments are accountable to the people they represent. You can't possible be referring to that unproven rumor about Bush having evidence can you? That aside, there are always times that informing the population of something because of national security, or because, yes, the people are morons. quote: You said it yourself, the role of the government is to work in the interests of its people. A puppet government works in the interests of another government, often in a brutal manner against its own people. Guess what happens to the level of terrorism. Guess what the US government says about it. Guess whose interests are not being upheld. Yes darling, but the truth of the matter is that there is a conflict between what is good for our population and what is good for there population. I could say that might makes right, or that the good of the many outweigh the good of the one or the few (we have a larger population after all), but that's not going to convince you of anything. As for the level of terrorism, I'll address that in a bit. quote: The problem is that by benefiting the economic elite in this way, the rest of the American population is put at risk. This truly indicates whose interests the US government really work for. First of all, it's pretty hard to just benefit the economic elites, after all what is good for the economy in general is good for everyone. This aside, however, giving in even slightly to any form of terrorism is completely counterproductive because it will encourage more terrorism on the basis that it's an effective strategy to deal with us. However, there is another issue, we are a powerful country and smaller countries (and some members of there populace) are jealous of that power. It's like if I were to go somewhere wearing my mink there is a chance I could be mugged, that kind of thing happens, but I'll be damned if that means I'm going to wear rags. quote: The problem is that decisive military action has been counter-productive to reducing terrorism. I doubt that can be demonstrated conclusively either way (whatever the propaganda might say), and at least with military action cannot be seen as giving into terrorism. quote: Support the demand for weapons inspections rather than curtailing it; tighten the military sanctions, which includes keeping its own allied smugglers in check (e.g. Turkey); lift the economic sanctions; provide food, medicine, and arms where possible to popular resistance groups; provide international aid for rebuilding the country once Saddam is overthrown. Seams like a rather indirect way of solving the problem, not to mention a rather ineffectual one. Besides, what's the point of supporting a resistance group when it's a hell of a lot easier (and much more assured) to simply go in there ourselves. While all of this may work, it seams like going to a lot of trouble simply to avoid a war. quote: I'm not going to go off on a tangent here, except to say that U.S. imperialism has lead to the rise of anti-U.S. terrorism. Do you see anything wrong with that? Like I said before, the fact that we're powerful may have lead to terrorism, but that's no excuse to surrender that power because of terrorists. That simply would be to close to giving in. Rather, we need to be strong so that no terrorist in his right mind (well, ok, the ones not in there right mind as well) would avoid attacking the US, and so that supporting ant-US terrorism is tantamount to suicide.

LOL, some people just aren't that bright.

quote: Then don't post about it. Bah! You're just no fun. quote: Any medium that advocates a political allegiance is propaganda, whether it's true or not. Therefore, Bush's speeches are propaganda, and so is the FAQ. As people in political debate, we choose which propaganda to believe. To refuse to read leftist material because it's "propaganda" is to fail to recognize that right-wing material (and everything in between) is also propaganda. Yes darling, I know, but if I'm going to read propaganda it might as well be propaganda that I agree with. Besides, I don't pay much mind to propaganda from either side. quote: The problem that anti-war people face all the time is the assumption from pro-war people that we're for inaction. It's annoying to say the least, especially when it's just one of a dozen other assumptions about the anti-war left. Well, I happen not to hold that particular misconception, though I rather think that war is the best option. quote: That's why the FAQ is so long: much of it is merely countering mainstream prejudice toward leftists. For example, no one questions whether a right-wing person cares about what happened on 9/11, but leftists are required to restate their sentiments over and over again or else they're regarded as uncaring scum. It's very insulting. I've noticed some of that going around myself, and I agree, that would be rather insulting. Besides, if anyone here can be considered uncaring it's me. quote: Not. See FAQ sections B14 and C12. I'm not entirely sure I see the relevance here, it seams to me that the opinion of the populace being liberated is of secondary importance. quote: "What's wrong with having allies?" Depends on who the ally is. To ally oneself with oppressive regimes is wrong because it legitimizes the oppression of the people there. Generally, if you're a corrupt and brutal dictator, you will have no worries about oppressing the people when a superpower is arming your soldiers (e.g. US support for Indonesia). So? America's roll is to look out for the interests of America's population, and if this means allying with a dictatorship, then I simply don't see a problem with that. Besides, there are only a dozen or so countries that political scientists consider true democracies (or maybe it's a half dozen, I forget), so it's not like we have a lot of options. quote: "What's wrong with having puppets?" To make puppets out of regimes is to deny self-determination to the people there, hence they have no freedom to run their own affairs. Ha, like the people have any self determination as far as the government goes anyway, that's rich darling. quote: Even in the long term, an invasion of Iraq would benefit the economic elite, but the American people would be worse off, because the imposition of another puppet regime as an example of full-scale American hooliganism would precipitate more terrorism, and American civilians will be the targets. Well, I see nothing wrong with benefiting the economic elite, just as I'm sure a lot of poor people have no problem with policies that benefit the poor. As for this American hooliganism (great word choice by the way) striking off more terrorism, I rather think that strong and decisive action against countries harboring terrorists (like Afghanistan) will reduce the terrorist problem rather then enhance it. And before I do something like assume you're advocating inaction, what do you suggest America does? quote: "Not at all. During the Cold War, Soviet imperialism in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan was as much a reality as U.S. imperialism in Latin America or Vietnam. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States is far and away the world's most powerful nation and, therefore, its imperialism is far more dangerous than that of lesser powers. But lesser powers can still be imperialist and we condemn all these imperialisms: among them Iraq (in Iran and Kuwait), Israel (in Lebanon and the Occupied Palestinian Territories), Serbia (in Bosnia), Russia (in Chechnya), and China (in Tibet). Opposing U.S. imperialism doesn't mean one has to be blind to the imperialism of others. But war supporters ought to be careful that their opposition to Iraqi or Serbian imperialism doesn't lead them to ignore U.S. imperialism." So remind me, will you, what exactly is wrong with imperialism?

Menchise, darling, there is no way I'm going to read through that FAQ; it's extremely long and rather bland. It seams as if your primary argumentative strategy involves demanding that everyone spend an inordinate amount of time reading propaganda (and please, that is propaganda, don't bother trying to argue otherwise). quote: These and more quotes from the speech that Jaguar contributes to the debate are examples of one of the most common fallacies of critical thinking: the false dilemma. Bush is trying to spread the lie that people who oppose an invasion of Iraq believe in doing nothing. The false dilemma: support Bush's plan, or support inaction. It's illogical and misleading. Of course those aren't the only two options, but ultimately you either support Bush's plan, or you oppose it (perhaps in favor of another plan, perhaps not). quote: You mean, when he wasn't a threat to Americans. The fact that the US government liked him when he was slaughtering human beings who happened to be Arabs says a lot about America's image as a "beacon of freedom". Darling, either we are suppose to be interventionists and try to change all of this nonsense, or we're not, make up your mind. quote: I think you need to clarify this question. I detect two possible interpretations here: 1. What's wrong with having allies? 2. What's wrong with having puppets? What's wrong with either? quote: No it wouldn't. First of all, Iraqi oil is already being exported through the Oil for Food Program, so the increase in supply would be relatively marginal. Secondly, an increase in supply does not reduce demand, and oil is always in demand, regardless of how much there is or where it comes from. Thirdly, American oil companies would gain tons of money from a US-led invasion because it would give them a bigger slice of the pie in an oligopoly. And this is bad because why? The American governments responsible for the American people, it exists because of us and it exists for us. This means that the government should do what benefits us the most (speaking in the long term, of course).

Oh dear, my poor eyes. I have to go with Jag on this one; I spent about 12 minutes reading the first part of it myself, and gag me with a spoon! It's an extended bit of leftist wining about the US doing "contemptible" things, as if it really mattered. It's our governments responsibility to do what's in our (the citizens) best interest, nothing more and nothing less. If that means a little foreign suffering, well, I'm hardly one to complain (hell, if it means domestic suffering I probably would complain either).

A pie darling? I didn't know I had a pie. Good question though, I would like to know where it is myself... [ 11-07-2002, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]