U.S. politics

[Tomas]

Here is an opinion piece worth reading though it is about U.S. politics, the upcoming presidential election and Elizabeth Edwards: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040107D.shtml#

Do no harm,
clyde

off the pigs

.

[Matt Gregory]

If we all adopted your pacifist attitudes, then malign forces like Nepolean, Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden would have spread unchallenged like a mutating tumor. An intelligent man recognizes a cancer, and isnt afraid to eliminate it if circumstances call for such an action.

Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.

[Tomas]

If we all adopted your pacifist attitudes, then malign forces like Nepolean, Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden would have spread unchallenged like a mutating tumor. An intelligent man recognizes a cancer, and isnt afraid to eliminate it if circumstances call for such an action.

Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.

Matt knows the deal :-)

tomas

.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt;

You wrote,

Well, yeah, I'm sure everyone on a sinking ship would want the wisest possible captain, but a sinking ship is still a sinking ship, and no one in their right mind would want to have that job, so what kind of people want it, do you think?

We are all dying and that is not metaphorical.

That's only what ignorant people think.

Yet we go to doctors to ‘cure’ our ills. Why bother? And what kind of people are doctors?

I don't know, but looking at their $100K+ salaries ought to give you a hint.

[Matt Gregory]

Don't forget that 9-11 happened out of the blue.

This type of argument is totally inane. There's no such thing as an out-of-the-blue event. This is how people cover up the truth, by denying history in order to claim that an attack on them was unprovoked so that politicians can wage war with impunity and collect the auspicious profits that come from war.

War has always been fought for profit. There's never been any other reason for it. To think otherwise would be like saying that people in politics have a totally different, non-monetarily driven, nature than other people, but they don't. They're just like everyone else, who are like this: all about covering their own asses and slightly screwing over lots of people in order to make the most money with the least amount of work and hassle. All it takes is enough pressure from their supporters and a politician will basically do anything.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.

It’s not a figment of my imagination, and there is no worrying going on, I’m simply seeing things as they are. The truth is that there are organizations that have publicly stated their objective, which is to bring down western civilizations such as England and the USA through economic collapse, and then replace the existing political governing system with their own interpretation of the Koran.

but of course, they’ll never achieve their goal, but they can sure kill a ton of people trying, so I think the leaders should take the threat seriously. Moreover, there are societies such as Australia, Canada, USA, Japan, and Britain that are higher quality because the values are more sophisticated, and the people need to defend the values because they are superior. These types of liberal societies are the only ones that have the potential to produce wise individuals.

Moreover, Hitler would have never achieved his goal of global domination, but he sure murdered millions of people trying. My point is that sometimes violent action is the only way to deal with irrational forces.

There has been bombings in London, Spain, Italy, USA, and a plot was foiled in Canada. I would say there is a threat there, especially if these organizations are able to buy biological weapons on the open market that are capable of killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Matt, you believe it is a degradation to think about eliminating irrational forces with violence, but what else can one do? What if Winston Churchill took your stand, and allowed Hitler to conquer Britain? The British people would have probably been enslaved, slaughtered, raped and so on just like he did in other places he conquered.

The point is this: The existence of irrational forces in the world causes one to think dualistically, but it is not a degradation in this case, as long as one knows what the non-dual state is. You’re point is true, but so is mine.

Its almost as if you’re afraid to talk about certain things because you believe an enlightened man doesn’t do it, however both statements are true simultaneously. You can talk about whatever you want, and see things in terms of dualistic oppositions because they do exist to people who think in those terms. There is duality in the mind of a terrorist, and to deal with him, you need to think dualistically.

Have you ever heard of Marcus Aurethius? He was a stoic philosopher who at one time was the emperor of Rome, and his entire civilization was founded on stoicism philosophy, which is quite wise, so his citizens way of life was a more liberal than many other surrounding kingdoms. However, A Christian uprising arose, and they stated openly that they planned to overthrow his rule, and impose hard-line Christian ideals on the civilization. And this change would have been a degradation to the civilization so Marcus had thousands of them slaughtered in the streets, and the rebellion fell.

Now did he take the right action? I would say yes. However, Stocism is a philosophy of non-duality so was Marcus a hypocrite? Was he deluded? I would say no, of course not. He simply defended agaisnt a dualistic force that threatened his way of life. If a dualistic force threatens a set of values that promotes the non-dual state, then a dualistic defense is the most pragmatic option to deal with the problem of dualistic forces.

[brokenhead]

It isn’t just George Bush, it is the failure of an entire administration, the failure of democracy as a whole, think of the thousands of people were involved in giving George Bush reliable advice and council. People blame Bush, but he is just the tail of the donkey

It's important to be precise about the wording here. It is not the failure of democracy as a whole, but rather a failure of a democracy, specifically the U.S. And what failed here is not democracy per se but the Republic, because that's what we are.

And it is the failure of an entire administration, only the administration itself doesn't see it that way. Because the Cheyney and Bush family oil concerns have fared nicely since GW was "elected."

It is questionable whether Bush listened to "thousands" of advisors on Iraq. I get the feeling he listened to far fewer than that, and only accepted the advice of people who told him what they thought he wanted to hear, namely, that a significant military operation was the way to go. Again, he couldn't run the Texas Rangers baseball team, what did we expect? Patton? He got tired of that toy (the Rangers) and he's clearly looking forward to stepping down from office so that he won't have to work those 26 weeks out of the year.

It's the religious right and other special interest factions that are wagging this donkey by the tail. And if GW is the tail, Dick Cheyney is what's just underneath it.

[sschaula]

Matt,

Creating enemies and worrying about eliminating them will never make a person wise. People just like to indulge in this kind of crap for entertainment. And a self-righteous kind of entertainment too, which makes it even worse. This type of us/them, good/evil type of thinking is totally unintelligent.

No one is creating enemies. The enemies are real. Some of them flew planes into the WTC. A lot of them fight the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the rest have either blown themselves up and killed numerous civilians, or are planning on doing something similar to those three things.

I said:

Don't forget that 9-11 happened out of the blue.

You responded:

This type of argument is totally inane. There's no such thing as an out-of-the-blue event. This is how people cover up the truth, by denying history in order to claim that an attack on them was unprovoked so that politicians can wage war with impunity and collect the auspicious profits that come from war.

What I wrote should have been read in context. Ryan was arguing that the US's occupation of Iraq has created terrorists. I simply pointed out that there already were terrorists.

I agree with what you said here.

War has always been fought for profit. There's never been any other reason for it. To think otherwise would be like saying that people in politics have a totally different, non-monetarily driven, nature than other people, but they don't. They're just like everyone else, who are like this: all about covering their own asses and slightly screwing over lots of people in order to make the most money with the least amount of work and hassle. All it takes is enough pressure from their supporters and a politician will basically do anything.

I agree with you to an extent. But if the profit scheme is covered up by good intentions, that doesn't make the good intentions bad.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Hey Scott, check out this clip, it is from the first Iraq war, when the US led an attack supported by the UN to drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait after he begin to murder, rape and plunder the people of the country.

This war was generally well supported by the world due to the atrocities being done to Kuwait at the hands of Saddam's army. And I think it was a necessary military action agaisnt an irrational force.

I wonder what would have happened if the world pretended that there were no enemies like Matt suggests, and took no action at all to intervene in Saddam's invasion, what do you think would have happened to the people of Kuwait?

Another Darfur? Another Halocaust?

Matt wrote:

War has always been fought for profit. There's never been any other reason for it. To think otherwise would be like saying that people in politics have a totally different, non-monetarily driven, nature than other people, but they don't. They're just like everyone else, who are like this: all about covering their own asses and slightly screwing over lots of people in order to make the most money with the least amount of work and hassle. All it takes is enough pressure from their supporters and a politician will basically do anything.

Again, you have a rather oversimplified explanation of military action. Econonic factors always come into question, but that isnt the single motivating factor. For instance: look at the 1991 Iraq war, why did over 30 countries support the US led invasion to drive Saddam out of Kuwait? namely because as humans we are generally disturbed when we observe atrocities happening to innocent people, so we demand action, and our governments act.

This proves that most humans have a rudimentary sense of the basic human rights that should be protected, and there are instances when rich powerful countries can come to the aid of weaker countries, and this is one of the useful functions of the UN.

[sschaula]

The thing is that everyone is struggling to have power over us, and while we have a say, it'd be best if we choose the ones who won't ruin our lives while in power.

The terrorists want to kill us because we are infidels. The government wants money and to hold the positions of power and influence they have. I'd rather support the government and deal with a little bit of bullshit, than the bucket of shit that becoming a pacifist would bring...because in becoming a pacifist we will allow the terrorists to have their way.

Imagine America as an Islamic state. How disgusting. I much prefer it as it is now.

[Unidian]

OK, I now have a much better understanding of why certain people are on the side of 9/11 debate they are on. Mystery resolved.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Overall, Dhodges brought up some valid points regarding the physics of the falling towers, and upon closer analysis, it is difficult to know for certain. However, I will do some more research.

[Dan Rowden]

Hey Scott, check out this clip, it is from the first Iraq war, when the US led an attack supported by the UN to drive out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait after he begin to murder, rape and plunder the people of the country.

Can you provide some historical evidence for this? My understanding is that it was a relatively bloodless invasion. Kuwait had to invent an atrocity in order to ignite popular US moral indignation. Iraq had as much excuse to invade Kuwait as the US and other nations have had in invading others whose behaviour didn't suit them.

I wonder what would have happened if the world pretended that there were no enemies like Matt suggests, and took no action at all to intervene in Saddam's invasion, what do you think would have happened to the people of Kuwait?

Not much, frankly. Iraq had an historical political/geographical claim over Kuwait that was arguably legitimate. It would simply have become a part of Iraq.

Another Darfur? Another Halocaust?

Can you cite some evidence that Iraq had a Kurd-like attitude to the population of Kuwait?

Again, you have a rather oversimplified explanation of military action. Econonic factors always come into question, but that isnt the single motivating factor.

That's true, there are also strategic and political factors. There are almost never humanitarian factors. To think otherwise is to engage in Pollyannaism...

For instance: look at the 1991 Iraq war, why did over 30 countries support the US led invasion to drive Saddam out of Kuwait?

Politics. If you're a member of the UN then you have certain obligations; also, if you assist the US in some military activity you get kickbacks. Everyone knows this. Nations are dropping like flies from the current Iraq debacle for more reasons than just the failure of that nifty little venture.

namely because as humans we are generally disturbed when we observe atrocities happening to innocent people, so we demand action, and our governments act.

I think it would be possible to cite a rather large number of counterexamples to this belief.

This proves that most humans have a rudimentary sense of the basic human rights that should be protected, and there are instances when rich powerful countries can come to the aid of weaker countries, and this is one of the useful functions of the UN.

That's all well and good in theory, but the practice seems to deny said theory. I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...

[Unidian]

I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...

There was a boy who had a dog and BINGO was his name-o...

There it is in a nutshell, all of the right-wing posturing about "human rights" and the like refuted by the well-known liberal bias of reality. Tell it to Rwanda, for starters. A vicious genocide of huge proportions and nobody blinked.

[sschaula]

Nat wrote:

OK, I now have a much better understanding of why certain people are on the side of 9/11 debate they are on. Mystery resolved.

The debate about whether it was done by our own government? I'm on the "debunker" side because I don't jump to conclusions. My political stance, and the fact that I don't support terrorism, has nothing to do with that.

Ryan wrote:

Overall, Dhodges brought up some valid points regarding the physics of the falling towers, and upon closer analysis, it is difficult to know for certain. However, I will do some more research.

I have to disagree. But then again, it's not like I know the physics of falling towers. I only know when there's incomplete evidence, and someone wanting the answer to match their theory.

[sschaula]

It should be obvious that the UN is not the US. The Iraq war wasn't supported by the UN. We're tied up financially with our war and the UN does nothing about Darfur. That has nothing to do with the US, to make things crystal clear for everyone here. As is obvious, it's impossible to police up the world.

Here's a thought: I wonder who was benefitting from the billions of dollars the US gave to Indonesia after the tsunamis...

[Unidian]

The debate about whether it was done by our own government? I'm on the "debunker" side because I don't jump to conclusions. My political stance, and the fact that I don't support terrorism, has nothing to do with that.

Are you sure? That's an easy thing to say and a hard thing to mean. Personally, I know of very few highly political issues (like 9/11) where my own view isn't at least somewhat affected by my ideological stance. Your claim is that of an intellectual superman. Are you one?

Not being facetious here, just asking whether you really think your ideology doesn't factor into it at all. For the record, I respect your position on 9/11 and I think you argue it fairly well.

[sschaula]

Yes I'm sure that my beliefs have nothing to do with my decision to not believe in any of the conspiracy theories out there. I'm not an intellectual superman at all. I just don't like to guess what a puzzle is when there are huge gaps in it. I could get it completely wrong. So I choose to take the stance that makes the most sense, despite a few strange occurances.

But I disagree with you that I argue my points well. I wish I could have time to study this subject so I actually knew what I was talking about.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan wrote:

Can you provide some historical evidence for this? My understanding is that it was a relatively bloodless invasion. Kuwait had to invent an atrocity in order to ignite popular US moral indignation.

Quote from wikipedia:

“Resistance within Kuwait was initially sporadic but became increasingly organized during August. However, the resistance or al Muquwama posed little threat to the Iraqis, consisting in the main of poorly armed civilian-led neighbourhood committees.”

I was under the impression that the Iraqi army easily took the Kuwait forces with little resistance, but citizens started to form resistance groups to fight back, but they were murdered, and there families were murdered and so on, to serve as an example.

Dan wrote:

Not much, frankly. Iraq had an historical political/geographical claim over Kuwait that was arguably legitimate. It would simply have become a part of Iraq.

Not without bloodshed.

Dan wrote:

Can you cite some evidence that Iraq had a Kurd-like attitude to the population of Kuwait?

yes, perhaps I jumped the gun on that statement, not the entire population, but perhaps minority groups would have been abused.

Dan wrote:

There are almost never humanitarian factors. To think otherwise is to engage in Pollyannaism…

I'm not sure about that, why do you think the world acted against Hitler? Yes, I know there were political factors, economic factors and all the rest of it. However, moral indignation over the treatment of the Jews, and how he treated the countries after he conquered them was also a factor.

How about this? Humanitarian motives are in the background if they are present at all, while more selfish motivations are in the foreground?

Dan wrote:

I think it would be possible to cite a rather large number of counterexamples to this belief.

Yes, of course. However, these counterexamples have been the source of much debate in recent years, and global awareness on has increased as a result.

Dan wrote:

That's all well and good in theory, but the practice seems to deny said theory. I guess it depends on how well we culturally, politically or racially identify with the victims of inhumane treatment. Too bad if you're black, impoverished and lacking in plunderable resources...

That is true; it took the world a long time to act against Darfur, but they still eventually acted. In the 1960s, the world would have never come to the aid of Darfur, so there is an increasingly senstivity in our times over acts that violate basic human rights.

[DHodges]

I'm not sure about that, why do you think the world acted against Hitler? Yes, I know there were political factors, economic factors and all the rest of it. However, moral indignation over the treatment of the Jews, and how he treated the countries after he conquered them was also a factor.

Back then, no one gave a flying fuck about the Jews. Anti-semitism was not limited to Germany, and was common in the US.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Back then, no one gave a flying fuck about the Jews. Anti-semitism was not limited to Germany, and was common in the US.

I agree to a point, but here is my interpretation. During the beginning of the war, no one cared about the jews at all, and most countries and peoples simply turned their backs on what was happening in Germany because they didn’t want to know. However, as Germany conquered more of Europe, and more of the world was forced to pay attention to what was going on, attention was focused on how he burned cities to the ground as he conquered, and how he was tortured and murdered the Jews in concentration camps.

So perhaps the world’s hatred of the Jews slowly changed into sympathy as they became of aware of the extent and magnitude of the atrocities happening there.

[DHodges]

So perhaps the world’s hatred of the Jews slowly changed into sympathy as they became of aware of the extent and magnitude of the atrocities happening there.

I believe that this mostly happened after the war was already over, and was not a primary cause of any country getting involved. The extent of the concentration camps - especially the "extermination camps" - was not really known until after the war.

In the case of the U.S., in particular, sympathy for Jews in concentration camps as a motivation is hard to reconcile with the Japanese in the U.S. who were also rounded up into concentration camps (although this was mild compared to the German camps).

It's also hard to say it is strictly humanitarian concern when sympathy is extended to the Jews, but the others who were killed in the camps (Communists, Gypsies and homosexuals) are largely forgotten about, although there were millions of them. You hear about "six million Jews" far more often than you hear about the eleven million killed.

[sschaula]

Comparing the US internment camps with the Nazi concentration camps is kinda...stinky. There's no comparison.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Quote from wikipedia:

“Resistance within Kuwait was initially sporadic but became increasingly organized during August. However, the resistance or al Muquwama posed little threat to the Iraqis, consisting in the main of poorly armed civilian-led neighbourhood committees.”

The resistance movement is misspelled, just like in the source they yanked it from. It should be "“Al-Muqawama", which is just the popular term for the armed struggle (militant implementation of Jihad) all Muslims share against perceived oppression and injustice. Perhaps the hundreds of thousand of Palestinians living in Kuwait contained a few Hamas veterans that quickly organized.

Nowadays this resistance would be 'terrorists' just as the Kurdish militants Saddam was bombing (pleaase spare me the chemical propaganda items).

The big mistake from the West was to ever drop support for Saddam. The world would have been a better place with him owning Kuweit, having the Kurds under control (like Turkey has) and having a counterweight against Islamists around it.

The US troops would have not been needed in Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden would have had to look for another target. Not saying the world would have been a better place but at least 'American' would not have started to become synonymous to many in this world with 'dumb ignorant blabbing dangerous moronic'.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Diebert wrote:

The big mistake from the West was to ever drop support for Saddam. The world would have been a better place with him owning Kuweit, having the Kurds under control (like Turkey has) and having a counterweight against Islamists around it.

Why do the Kurds need to be under control? I was under the impression that northern Iraq is quite calm compared to the rest of the country. Here is an article outlining how Turkey doesn’t really have the Kurds under control.

I guess my biggest curiosity is that I don’t fully understand the Kurd’s conflict with Turkey, care to elaborate Diebert? Or you can provide me with an educational link.

Scott wrote:

Comparing the US internment camps with the Nazi concentration camps is kinda...stinky. There's no comparison.

Although I agree with this, I notice that you usually always side with America, you realize that the nation-state as an identity shouldn’t be integrated with your sense of self right? Moreover, sometimes your patriotism distorts your ability to see things as they are.