U.S. politics

[sschaula]

Thought about. I side with America as a nation most of the time because I truly believe America is right and good, most of the time. I'm not pessimistic when it isn't right to be, as many here are, and I don't blame the current administration for any of the mistakes of past administrations.

Okay, for instance, if the issue was Nagasaki and Hiroshima, you'd be hearing a different tone from me regarding our country. But the issue was comparing internment camps to concentration camps....you have to admit what went on in both were completely different, and that they shouldn't be compared. That's like comparing elementary school to prison.

You should know that I put my values above my country's values, because the country may be run by people who have no values. That also explains why I vote the way I do...less federal government interference, but have the federal government serve the local.

It just happens that my values highly reflect the declaration of independence and the bill of rights and also how the current administration has run itself, for the most part. I think the two are in line, for the most part.

EDIT: I see that you changed your post as I was typing my reply up, Ryan. Oh well, although it may not make so much sense, the main idea is intact.

[Philosophaster]

That also explains why I vote the way I do...less federal government interference...

And you think that Republicans are in favor of less federal government interference?

[DHodges]

But the issue was comparing internment camps to concentration camps....you have to admit what went on in both were completely different, and that they shouldn't be compared. That's like comparing elementary school to prison.

No, we obviously can compare them. We can say German concentration camps were a lot worse than American ones, just like we can say that being in a prison is a lot worse than being in an elementary school.

The Nazis had various types of camps, some of which were concentration (work) camps and some of which were death (extermination) camps. Again, you can compare them and say a death camp is much worse than a concentration camp.

That doesn't mean a concentration camp doesn't suck.

[Tomas]

.

That also explains why I vote the way I do...less federal government interference...


-tomas-
Pass me some of those anti-depressants you're on! Hahahah.



-philo-

And you think that Republicans are in favor of less federal government interference?

-tomas-
Oh yeah, the average Iraqi needs less 'federal interference' from the American Tax Dollar.

Lordy lordy, some dolts still think it is right vs. left...tell that to Adam and Eve when Satan (titan-teuton) was patrolling the 'no-fly-zone' above the Garden of Eden.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

[sschaula]

Philo,

And you think that Republicans are in favor of less federal government interference?

Generally yes.

Dave,

No, we obviously can compare them. We can say German concentration camps were a lot worse than American ones, just like we can say that being in a prison is a lot worse than being in an elementary school.

This isn't a very good point. There's a vast difference between elementary school and prison. We can compare them, but should we?

The Nazis had various types of camps, some of which were concentration (work) camps and some of which were death (extermination) camps. Again, you can compare them and say a death camp is much worse than a concentration camp.

That doesn't mean a concentration camp doesn't suck.

I know little of the difference between Nazi camps. All I know is a little bit about the atrocities that we've all heard about. That those atrocities didn't occur in the American concentration camps.

There really isn't a point to argue about this topic specifically...

[sschaula]

Tomas,

Oh yeah, the average Iraqi needs less 'federal interference' from the American Tax Dollar.

Iraqis have nothing to do with American citizenship, therefore federal interference is a non-issue. But if this is about Iraqis wanting the US out, then I welcome it. I'd much rather stay home, than go and get shitty pay for a shitty job with shitty gear.

But if this is about a small portion of the Iraqi citizens wanting the US out, then fuck them. There are Iraqis who want the US to stay and defend their neighborhoods from the extremists.

So fuck this non-interference propaganda. If we said "no sorry, you deal with it yourself" to every oppressed population, a lot of the world would be in a worse condition than it is today. Insanity like Islam would fester and eventually overrun anything decent.

Lordy lordy, some dolts still think it is right vs. left...tell that to Adam and Eve when Satan (titan-teuton) was patrolling the 'no-fly-zone' above the Garden of Eden.

Huh?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

if this is about Iraqis wanting the US out, then I welcome it. I'd much rather stay home, than go and get shitty pay for a shitty job with shitty gear.

But if this is about a small portion of the Iraqi citizens wanting the US out, then fuck them. There are Iraqis who want the US to stay and defend their neighborhoods from the extremists.

Show me something other than American propaganda that says this. Meanwhile I'll link an Iraqi article from today's paper calling this the Anglo-Saxon invasion:
here this one says the US invasion is the reason for increasing terrorism

*************
edit:
and here's another - this one says the US rebuilding isn't any better than the regime by Saddam Hussein.
.

[sschaula]

Wait...you think that article you posted isn't propaganda, and that the news we hear is? What the hell are you on?!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

No, there's no way to tell what the Iraqi people want without taking a poll ourselves. It just seems funny to me that the politicians want us there, but I can't find any sources saying that the people want us there.

The closest thing I can find is this one from 2004 saying that the Kurds were happy that Bush got re-elected, but even this article says:

"The people in Iraq preferred Bush even though he may have fallen behind in his commitments to bring peace and stability to the country together with democracy and undiminished sovereignty. The Iraqis expect under the second term of Bush to amend their relations with America to achieve the interests of this country, first and foremost. Bush should leave them alone to stabilize their security and the safety of their country. And that he will genuinely help to put an end to terrorism."

Funny how the only things that clearly state that the Iraqis want us there comes directly from the Bush administration, and not even all American sources say that the Iraqis want us there. Actually lately, I have not seen any American civilian sources saying that...
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

This is interesting, too. First, some background on Halliburton and then from Monday's article on the American money trail in Iraq.
.

[sschaula]

E,

Funny how the only things that clearly state that the Iraqis want us there comes directly from the Bush administration, and not even all American sources say that the Iraqis want us there. Actually lately, I have not seen any American civilian sources saying that...

About your last sentence: exactly. So your idea about American propaganda was absurd. If anything is American propaganda, it's the media trying to make the war seem like a worthless effort.

It just seems funny to me that the politicians want us there, but I can't find any sources saying that the people want us there.

I hear a lot about it in the military, but I'm sure that's not as newsworthy to you as a journalist is.

I should mention that how I'm so cocksure that Iraqis want us there is because I saw it on CNN, of all things. Iraqi citizens stating clearly that if the US were to leave, the place would go to shit. Sorry I can't link it, since it was on TV.

[sschaula]

World Socialist Website. Okay right there that tells me something...

Yes, it's funny that Haliburton and Cheney are connected. What does that have to do with anything?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I hear a lot about it in the military, but I'm sure that's not as newsworthy to you as a journalist is.

Although I don't have faith in the accuracy of journalists, I can see why the military would tell the service personnel all kinds of pep-rally stuff in support of what the Commander in Chief wants. BTW, what kind of soap do they use to brainwash the troops? It seems to be working very well on you.
.

[sschaula]

Although I don't have faith in the accuracy of journalists, I can see why the military would tell the service personnel all kinds of pep-rally stuff in support of what the Commander in Chief wants.

You have no grasp of how the military works or what I was talking about. INDIVIDUALS have told me. Low ranking shits. There's no pep rally stuff. The Army works like this: "Okay troops, we have a mission to do, lets do it hooah!" That's about as peppy as it gets. Politics are, outside of discussions between individuals, left out of it altogether. Most members don't want to deal with it cuz it's just a big shit storm anyway.

BTW, what kind of soap do they use to brainwash the troops? It seems to be working very well on you.

Funny coming from you, who reads these propaganda websites and links them up as if they're truth.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

INDIVIDUALS have told me. Low ranking shits.

Sarge may yell at you not to call him a sir, but he still earned his stripes. Even if you're talking buck privates, I can't imagine they'd send anyone with horror stories to mix with the new recruits. You may get a good assignment - some people do. Or you may not. We'll see what you say if you come back. Meanwhile you do need all the hooah you can get. I try not to shake that too much in you, but I don't know why you keep coming back here. You know this environment isn't supportive of the kind of herdliness that the military cultivates. I do feel sorry for you; you may have gotten yourself in one heck of a mess by signing up, and there isn't anything you can do about it now. You may get lucky - who knows.
.

[sschaula]

Sarge may yell at you not to call him a sir, but he still earned his stripes.

There's no "Sarge" and there aren't "stripes".

Even if you're talking buck privates, I can't imagine they'd send anyone with horror stories to mix with the new recruits.

A pathetic excuse for your argument. Can you really imagine low ranking people working in a shitty organisation thinking, "I'm going to make up lies about what I've seen so that this kid will go into Iraq knowing nothing about the truth"?

I've heard horror stories from them. They don't hold back, and they certainly don't lie about the state of things there to their teammates. What a joke.

You may get a good assignment - some people do. Or you may not. We'll see what you say if you come back.

I've already got a shitty assignment, but we aren't going to discuss this...

Meanwhile you do need all the hooah you can get. I try not to shake that too much in you, but I don't know why you keep coming back here. You know this environment isn't supportive of the kind of herdliness that the military cultivates.

So I should simply go wherever people agree with me? Wouldn't that be kind of...herdly?

People that come here should only share your beliefs?

The military doesn't cultivate herdliness. That's a lie. If I acted in a herdly way, I would be agreeing with everyone here. But in fact, I'm the lone soul who stays and disagrees. No one else supports my point of view here. How can that kind of action possibly be considered herdly?

You should wipe that stain out of your mind for good, Elizabeth.

I do feel sorry for you; you may have gotten yourself in one heck of a mess by signing up, and there isn't anything you can do about it now. You may get lucky - who knows.

Yes, I'm well aware of the heck of a mess I'm in. I could lose my life easily. Even easier, I could lose a limb or eyesight. So what? Do you think I wasn't aware of that when I signed up, after 9-11 and the declaration of war against terrorism?

Yeah, it would suck. But it would suck worse if America was overrun by Muslim extremists, and it started to look like Baghdad, with suicide bombings killing innocents nearly every day. I'm glad I play the small role that I do, in preventing this. Yes, it is worth my life...despite however much I hate that, and selfishly want to keep it.

Maybe I will get lucky and come back unharmed. Maybe I won't. Either way, I'd hope that people see the threat (how can you not when it's in the news EVERY day) and recognize that most soldiers are there to keep it at bay, because they care about freedom and the people back at home.

Let that last line sink in, please...

[Unidian]

Scott, you are in the military? I wasn't aware of that. If so, what branch of service?

[Tharan]

Scott's Republicanism is mostly a function of masculinity and assertion as opposed to economic or social philosophies. It is NeoCon at its root.

Traditional Goldwater conservatism, or even Regan Republicanism, is in almost polar opposition to the current adminstration. NeoCon Republicanism is not about small government or libetarian-ish personal perspectives, but rather about muscular reactions to perceived threats and slights. And in order to express these muscular expressions, any and all roads are traveled to achieve goals relative to the threatened mindset; civil liberty suppression, government expansion especially in the security services, fearmongering, consolidations and expansions of executive power, and the intentional circumvention and disrespect of tradition behaviors, ethical standards, and laws. In the NeoCon mindset, dishonesty is purely an attitudinal function toward actionable goals, rather than an unstated abiding to traditional conservative American idealism and Christian morality.

*edit*
As an analogy, traditional conservatism is a like a white Christmas with local carolers going door to door singing Silent Night on Christmas Eve. NeoCon republicanism reads like a Tom Clancy novel with patriotic war music playing in the background and missiles launching from a destroyer.

[Jamesh]

Yeah, it would suck. But it would suck worse if America was overrun by Muslim extremists, and it started to look like Baghdad, with suicide bombings killing innocents nearly every day. I'm glad I play the small role that I do, in preventing this. Yes, it is worth my life...despite however much I hate that, and selfishly want to keep it.

An intelligent person like you should see that

a) no face to face military fighting action is reasonable in relation to dangers that clearly WILL NOT exist in the short term (up to five years). The long term future is not that predictable. Bombing nuclear facilities and militrary factories, storehouses is completely acceptable. I take the view that the Islamic religion is already at war agaisnt the west, so I'd bomb any such facilities in Iran now, well actually I'd be planning to bomb Pakistans nuclear facilities first in a single preemptive hit (if i could be sure intelligence had found all the locations), then Iran. Without face-to-face wars there would be plenty of money for intelligence services to find out this info.

b) in relation to the long term, far more success will be achieved by taking actions that limit a countries economic
progress and prevent a rogue country from expanding militarily.

If Western politicians were really serious about Muslim terrorism, they would simply meet and agree to stop virtually all Muslim international travel for any country that was known to have bred terrorists and was not actively making all attempts to weed out this fundamentalism. Immigration would cease.

This is actually the best answer to this dilemma. Sure it would cause Muslims to react agressively at first, but after a while their leaders would find they are losing out on too much and would steer the people towards more peaceful goals.

[sschaula]

Tharan,

Scott's Republicanism is mostly a function of masculinity and assertion as opposed to economic or social philosophies. It is NeoCon at its root.

I disagree. You only say this because I support the war. Supporting the war doesn't necessarily make someone a neocon.

Traditional Goldwater conservatism, or even Regan Republicanism, is in almost polar opposition to the current adminstration. NeoCon Republicanism is not about small government or libetarian-ish personal perspectives, but rather about muscular reactions to perceived threats and slights.

While that may be the case, my political beliefs have to do mostly with the ideal of freedom, not with being reactionary. I truly believe smaller government interference is better. If the world were perfect, I'd prefer it that there'd be no government. Does that sound neo-conservative to you?

My true political beliefs are that all men are truly created equally and free. That we all have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes our rights are taken away and we have to fight for them.

That happens more often with an uncontrollable government, which is why I favor less federal interference and more power to the local government. The federal government should only function as a check to the local government, in my opinion.

And in order to express these muscular expressions, any and all roads are traveled to achieve goals relative to the threatened mindset; civil liberty suppression

The one place you've got me there is being a supporter of the Patriot Act. While I hate to say that it is civil liberty suppression and that I believe in it, I do think it's necessary in this day. I think it can prevent a lot of damage.

I don't see how it's used for bad. Like spying on romantic conversations or something....I really don't see what the problem is. But then again, I don't have anything to hide from the government so that factors in.

If I was hiding something, it would be kind of a pain.

government expansion especially in the security services,

You mean military and intelligence expansion? Yeah, I support those things. Homeland security? Yeah, I support that. Private agencies being hired by the government? No, I don't support that.

fearmongering,

...what does this mean? Is there not an enemy?

consolidations and expansions of executive power,

I definitely don't support that. Why would I? I am not in power. I would have nothing to gain from pushing that agenda.

and the intentional circumvention and disrespect of tradition behaviors, ethical standards, and laws.

How is that?

In the NeoCon mindset, dishonesty is purely an attitudinal function toward actionable goals, rather than an unstated abiding to traditional conservative American idealism and Christian morality.

Do you think I'm dishonest, Tharan? Maybe I come off a little weird online, but I'm the most honest person I know of. Too honest, perhaps.

I really can't see how I fit into this neocon box.

*edit*
As an analogy, traditional conservatism is a like a white Christmas with local carolers going door to door singing Silent Night on Christmas Eve. NeoCon republicanism reads like a Tom Clancy novel with patriotic war music playing in the background and missiles launching from a destroyer.

This doesn't make sense.

[Unidian]

Well, maybe you don't want to discuss it. But I give you credit for practicing what you preach and taking action to support the values you hold. I disagree with those beliefs and values, but I respect your willingness to put them on the line. I think you are in danger of killing people or being killed for what I see as misled reasons, but it's your choice to make and you deserve more credit than those who talk a big game and do nothing. I don't think there is any serious threat to America, but in the event I am wrong and there is, it's good to have people out there willing to fight against it.

[sschaula]

Jamesh,

An intelligent person like you should see that

Haha, nice touch...

a) no face to face military fighting action is reasonable in relation to dangers that clearly WILL NOT exist in the short term (up to five years).

Fighting isn't the only thing going on in Iraq. It's mostly providing security. This isn't a "war", as "war" is conventionally thought...although battles do take place.

I think the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has prevented a lot from happening. But to be honest, I'm suprised more hasn't happened here. All too quiet on the western...rear.

The long term future is not that predictable. Bombing nuclear facilities and militrary factories, storehouses is completely acceptable.

I agree with you, but I'm not in the know. If I were, maybe my opinion would change due to more information.

I take the view that the Islamic religion is already at war agaisnt the west, so I'd bomb any such facilities in Iran now, well actually I'd be planning to bomb Pakistans nuclear facilities first in a single preemptive hit (if i could be sure intelligence had found all the locations), then Iran. Without face-to-face wars there would be plenty of money for intelligence services to find out this info.

Good thinking. But bombings don't get rid of important individuals unless you have TIGHT TIGHT intel. For that you need people on the ground.

b) in relation to the long term, far more success will be achieved by taking actions that limit a countries economic
progress and prevent a rogue country from expanding militarily.

True, but we are trying to rebuild Iraq. As for Iran, I think that monkey president has done enough in the past couple of months for anyone to not take him seriously. Denying the holocaust happened, capturing British sailors in international waters and lying about it and also about how they were kept, not to mention how Quds Force has been fighting the US troops in Iraq...and the whole world sees it. I don't know what that dude is thinking...perhaps he isn't at all...

If Western politicians were really serious about Muslim terrorism, they would simply meet and agree to stop virtually all Muslim international travel for any country that was known to have bred terrorists and was not actively making all attempts to weed out this fundamentalism. Immigration would cease.

People don't want to take the next step and blame Islam. There is a huge majority of the world that is Muslim.

This is actually the best answer to this dilemma. Sure it would cause Muslims to react agressively at first, but after a while their leaders would find they are losing out on too much and would steer the people towards more peaceful goals.

No. The puppy wasn't trained in the first place, so when you try to train it now it will bite you.

[sschaula]

Nat,

"I hope next time when we meet, we won't be fighting each other. Instead we will be drinking tea together."
- Jackie Chan, Rumble in the Bronx

[Tomas]

Nat,

"I hope next time when we meet, we won't be fighting each other. Instead we will be drinking tea together."
- Jackie Chan, Rumble in the Bronx

-tomas-
More fantasy movie and tv quips...

On the before post to this, there was somethig about the British sailors being captured in 'international waters'...

not really! There is no definitive sea-border in the Shatat-al-Arab Straits (differing dialects aside). Never a maritime boundary, if you will. Check it out for yourself.

I was there...back in the early-to-mid-80s when neo-con Ronald Reagan was cozy with Saddam & Company aka (Bush Zapata Drilling)


More later,

Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[sschaula]

Tomas,

On the before post to this, there was somethig about the British sailors being captured in 'international waters'...

not really! There is no definitive sea-border in the Shatat-al-Arab Straits (differing dialects aside). Never a maritime boundary, if you will. Check it out for yourself.

No definitive sea border...doesn't that mean "not Iranian waters"?