U.S. politics

[clyde]

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

[sschaula]

Why was that worth reading?

[clyde]

The article speaks of our mortality, our impermanence as human beings in a realistic way and shows how are actions are a measure of our vision and understanding. Frank Rich, the author, concluded his article this way:

Indeed, of all the reasons to applaud Elizabeth Edwards's decision to stay in politics, the most important may be her insistence, by her very action, that we not compartmentalize the harsh reality of death and the imperatives of public policy, both at home and at war. Let the real conversation begin.

[Matt Gregory]

All her continuance means is that she's a workaholic who has no concept of the value of life. If she understood her position in any deep way, why would she stay in politics, which is little more than show business? It's a contest to see who can be the phoniest, it has no merit whatsoever.

[clyde]

Politics is one way, among other ways, that human beings have organized themselves. Why shouldn’t a human being participate? And wouldn’t we all benefit from wise and compassionate human beings participating in politics and other human endeavors?

clyde

[Matt Gregory]

What is an example of a good that was achieved through politics?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

What is an example of a good that was achieved through politics?

Winston Churchill’s leadership over Britain during WWII, when Hitler was trying to invade.

“A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.”
Winston Churchill.

Having good leadership is definitely a benefit to the country as a whole. Who would you rather have as a leader? Stephen Harper (Current Canadian Prime Minister) or a lead member of the Taliban? (Group that rules with Extreme Islamic Law)

If you look at any western democracy, part of the stability is due to the quality of the leadership managing the countries economic activities.

A leader that shares values like an open market economy, universal human rights, a democratic system, a sophisticated legal system, and so on is a 'better' person than a dictator that rules the entire country by refering to his religious scripture for every decision that needs to be made.

Moreover, part of the problem with the phenomenon of the ‘lying politician’ is that the public demands economic promises before they even enter office, which is rather idiotic in a certain sense; obviously a politician is unable to keep every economic promise, as they are unable to predict how complicated future causal circumstances can be.

The general public is idiotic this regard because they believe that all momentary promises should be kept, but this type of thinking is simply unrealistic because it lacks in any true understanding of how unpredictable the future can be, how limited economic spending is, and how quickly priorities can change.

[Matt Gregory]

Matt wrote:

What is an example of a good that was achieved through politics?

Winston Churchill’s leadership over Britain during WWII, when Hitler was trying to invade.

Is that the best you can do? A bunch of people killing each other?

Having good leadership is definitely a benefit to the country as a whole.

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?

[Matt Gregory]

The city was under seige. Everyone was busy fortifying the walls - some were carrying stones, others were patching the walls, yet others were building battlements. Diogenes, not wanting to appear idle while everyone around him was working so frantically, diligently rolled his barrel back and forth along the battlements. The city fell.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt,

For the survival of wisdom to occur, strong-willed individuals are necessary. Violence is okay in the right circumstances. Individuals like Winston Churchill were detrimental to the survival of the strongest values, and strongest aspects of civilization. Matt, you seem to have this passive, pacifist nature way about you, but violence is indeed necessary in unique circumstances, even if 'you' arent able to carry out the action.

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.

Here are some other Churchill quotes, he was an intelligent man, but also a man that knew when violence was necessary to ensure the survival of the greater whole:

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

Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter.
Winston Churchill

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
Winston Churchill

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
Winston Churchill

I am certainly not one of those who need to be prodded. In fact, if anything, I am the prod.
Winston Churchill

I am easily satisfied with the very best.
Winston Churchill

If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack.
Winston Churchill

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill

The British nation is unique in this respect. They are the only people who like to be told how bad things are, who like to be told the worst.
Winston Churchill

The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see.
Winston Churchill

The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Winston Churchill

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

The city was under seige. Everyone was busy fortifying the walls - some were carrying stones, others were patching the walls, yet others were building battlements. Diogenes, not wanting to appear idle while everyone around him was working so frantically, diligently rolled his barrel back and forth along the battlements. The city fell.

This situation depends on quality of the invader’s values, and the quality of the defender’s values. If the invaders plan to enslave the defenders, and the defenders are at a higher maturity because they don’t believe in taking slaves at all, then it would be in Diogene’s best interest to fight back against the enemies, as his quality of life and the life of the others would drastically change if the city fell.

Perhaps Diogenes couldn’t bring himself to violence because of his maturity, but individuals that are willing to kill as a means to protect superior ways of thinking and life are necessary.

One cannot simply condemn all violent acts because to do so is a failure to see the complexity of the situation.

We all can’t decide to lay around in a barrel all day, while sarcastically mouthing off at very people that are working to ensure our survival by giving us money. The present society is complicated, and it needs many functions in order to thrive. And the soldier is one function that is needed to eradicate irrational forces when they arise.

Just as the body needs an immune system to fight off disease, a superior civilization with superior values needs a large military force to fight off or intimidate vermin.

Given the current maturity of humanity, the functions that we see in society such as military, police, and so on are all absolutely necessary.

[sschaula]

Clyde,

The article speaks of our mortality, our impermanence as human beings in a realistic way and shows how are actions are a measure of our vision and understanding. Frank Rich, the author, concluded his article this way:
Quote:
Indeed, of all the reasons to applaud Elizabeth Edwards's decision to stay in politics, the most important may be her insistence, by her very action, that we not compartmentalize the harsh reality of death and the imperatives of public policy, both at home and at war. Let the real conversation begin.

I thought it was just a political piece giving cheap reasons for voting for democrats.

[clyde]

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

clyde

[brokenhead]

Since the topic is U.S. politics:
George W. Bush is a war criminal. He is a terrible president as well, but he does illustrate the adage that people will tolerate a bad president before they tolerate a weak or ineffectual one. In this case, Bush is hardly a President at all - he would be monumentally ineffectual if it weren't for Cheyney. As it is, Americans managed to re-elect someone they never elected in the first place. I don't think we as a nation fully realize the disaster this Administration truly has been. History will not be kind to it, but that is the least of our worries. How many of us recall the budget surplus Bush inherited? And the strong economy? And is our international image better or worse than before he came to office? How about the environment? Is anything better? Maybe you can't blame 9/11 on Bush personally, but among the thousands of deaths (over 3,000 US military deaths alone) the war in Iraq has produced, how many of those were fit retribution for the 9/11 toll? And maybe he didn't cause hurricane Katrina, but at least he could have made sure his dopey wife knew its name wasn't "Corrina" before she went on TV.
Complaining about GWB isn't easy. You don't know where to start, and once you do, how the hell do you stop?

[sschaula]

War criminal? The stance of this forum is a joke.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Brokenhead wrote:

Bush is hardly a President at all - he would be monumentally ineffectual if it weren't for Cheyney. As it is, Americans managed to re-elect someone they never elected in the first place.

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, and by condemning the tail, one fails to see the entire ass, and the myriad of factors that were necessary to create that ass.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Americans managed to re-elect someone they never elected in the first place.

I'm not convinced that we did. It would be pretty easy for the right person in the right position to manipulate the data from the electronic voting system, and no way to prove it. Before the last election, it did not look like there was any way that Bush could win, and of the people that I spoke with, overheard, or read on the internet, it didn't look like hardly anyone was voting Bush.
.

[sschaula]

E,

It would be pretty easy for the right person in the right position to manipulate the data from the electronic voting system, and no way to prove it.

...And you know this how? Guessing?

[sschaula]

Ryan,

It isn’t just George Bush, it is the failure of an entire administration, the failure of democracy as a whole...

What failure?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Scott wrote:

What failure?

Iraq. Invading Iraq was a mistake because you cannot forcefully impose a democracy on a country that has only known dictatorships for its entire history; the US didn’t fully understand the suppressed hatred that existed between Sunnis and Shias.

Notice the length of time needed for countries such as England and the US to evolve into democracies, there was centuries of civil war before a stable political system emerged.

The US was very naïve in this regard, but it serves a lesson of what not to do.

In my view, eliminating terrorists groups should be done with covert operations by bombing training camps and safe havens with smart bomb technology. A modern military should rely on intelligence, and not large numbers of troops on the ground.

Invading a country and trying to change the political system is a futile effort in my view. It is much more effective to simply pay off corrupt governments to find selected targets where terrorist groups are training and use smart bomb technology to eliminate them.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the US almost had Al-queda completely destroyed by simply using smart bomb strikes in Afghanistan.

However, the invasion of Iraq made it very easy for the existing members to find new recruits to fight against the US because the invasion was clearly immoral, and young males were easily convinced that they were fighting an immoral foe because the US presence in that country was immoral.

Now there are twenty times the number of Al-queda fighters as before September 11, 2001. Invading Iraq was a very stupid move for the United States, and its casual ramifications will probably be felt for dozens of decades to come.

So the US should give up trying to transform the governments of these countries, and stick to smart-bomb strikes. Terrorists will always be a minority operation anyway, so there is no reason to invade countries with large numbers of troops.

[brokenhead]

Ryan R just nailed it.
Iraq had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11. The Bush administration needed to punish somebody. Bush wanted the job, he barely got it, and what does he do with it? He attacks a sovereign nation without a reason. Or at least no reason he cares to share with anyone else. There hasn't been much stone-throwing on Capital Hill because they all live in glass houses there. Bush is a dim-witted bully who can't admit he fucked up. While he's busy NOT biting the bullet and coming up with some excuse for a US pullout, people's brave young sons and daughters are getting killed.
Okay, Georgie. You got re-elected. Very nice. You proved to your Dad what a man you can be by finally ousting Saddam Hussein. See, Daddy? You couldn't do it, but I sure could.
How is it in the U.S. interests to occupy Iraq?

Yikes! Brokenhead needs to stop somewhere.

[sschaula]

Ryan,

Iraq.

Not a failure in my opinion. A work in progress. That is, until the media and democrats halt the progress. Then it will be a failure. And when that shit storm comes here to the US, it will doubly be a failure.

Don't forget that 9-11 happened out of the blue. Don't blame the creation of terrorism on the ones who attempt to try and stop it.

Invading Iraq was a mistake because you cannot forcefully impose a democracy on a country that has only known dictatorships for its entire history; the US didn’t fully understand the suppressed hatred that existed between Sunnis and Shias.

It wasn't forcing democracy upon them. It was removing their dictator because he and others were a threat to our country.

You're right that the US didn't fully understand the suppressed hatred between the two sects, but I don't see what that has to do with it.

Notice the length of time needed for countries such as England and the US to evolve into democracies, there was centuries of civil war before a stable political system emerged.

America's civil war had nothing to do with democracy. The revolutionary war did.

The US was very naïve in this regard, but it serves a lesson of what not to do.

Actually, what not to do is listen to detractors. But sadly that's where this administration failed. This whole war has been fought with our hands tied behind our backs because we need to tip toe around the media. Our society is way too hypocritical and falsely ethical. Why is it that way? Because the media trains people to be that way.

In my view, eliminating terrorists groups should be done with covert operations by bombing training camps and safe havens with smart bomb technology. A modern military should rely on intelligence, and not large numbers of troops on the ground.

Obviously you don't understand how the military works. This isn't some game. There are numerous factors of why the large number of troops are there.

Lets do an experiment. Walk outside to your street with an object in hand, lets say a basketball or something that size. Now pretend that it's a bomb, and that the next car which comes down your street is a supply truck for the covert unit stationed down the road that's been spying on your village. So you detonate the basketball...there is a need for more troops right there. Security for the supply trucks, which requires troops (and also more supply trucks). Lets say a couple of people are wounded from the blast. For that you need a makeshift hospital...more troops. You need to keep all of these troops clean and feed them. More troops. Need more security for where they are staying...more troops. And for all of these extra troops, you need more troops to support them, and vice versa.

It would make for a great movie to send in a group of 12 guys, all bearded up, into a village to gain favor of the local population and sway them in the right direction. It's not so easy in real life.

Here's another experiment. Look at how much space you take up in your state. Not very much. It's quite easy to sneak around. The cities are so huge! Lets say you're a terrorist, and you have a group of friends who are like minded. Think about how easy it would be for you to find some explosives or other weapons, hide them, transport them, etc...without soldiers patrolling.

Lets say in your city you have 150 soldiers patrolling the streets, some walking, some driving. There are 3 or 4 soldiers per vehicle...we'll say 3 to make the number of vehicles seem small. That's only 50 vehicles in your entire city. If you act inconspicuous and never tell anyone what you're up to, think how easy it would be to sneak around and do your terrorist acts.

There's a reason for more troops being called up. With that much area to cover, we need that much more security.

You mentioned smart bombing...very interesting idea. Like a comic book. But look at the media response to Israel's attack on Lebanon. "THEY KILLED CIVILIANS! WAH WAH WAH!" That's because the hezbollah were hiding admist the civilians. That's how they (the terrorists) function, now that we've occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Without the occupation? Yes, there were distinct terrorist training camps. Remember the bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan shortly after 9-11? That's what that was all about.

You say a modern military should rely on intelligence, and not troops on ground. I agree with you, but I don't see how it hasn't relied on intelligence. Also, this isn't that huge of a war. Yeah, a lot of troops are gone but it's not like unnecessary numbers are going over there. There's no draft anymore. This isn't a Vietnam. Everyone has a job to do, and they do it quite professionally.

Invading a country and trying to change the political system is a futile effort in my view. It is much more effective to simply pay off corrupt governments to find selected targets where terrorist groups are training and use smart bomb technology to eliminate them.

Haha, okay. I dare you to take a position of power and try your amazing techniques. Yeah, it sounds great but would it ever work??? Things don't always go according to plan.

Before the invasion of Iraq, the US almost had Al-queda completely destroyed by simply using smart bomb strikes in Afghanistan.

However, the invasion of Iraq made it very easy for the existing members to find new recruits to fight against the US because the invasion was clearly immoral, and young males were easily convinced that they were fighting an immoral foe because the US presence in that country was immoral.

Now there are twenty times the number of Al-queda fighters as before September 11, 2001. Invading Iraq was a very stupid move for the United States, and its casual ramifications will probably be felt for dozens of decades to come.

Actually it's false that America fighting the terrorists has created more terrorists.

So the US should give up trying to transform the governments of these countries, and stick to smart-bomb strikes. Terrorists will always be a minority operation anyway, so there is no reason to invade countries with large numbers of troops.

Like you said, corrupt governments can be bought...Hussein!!!...ahem, excuse me. What would stop Al Qaeda from working with him? There WERE "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq prior to the occupation, and while the UN was fiddling their thumbs those weapons were transported into Syria, or elsewhere, or destroyed. The fact that there were actually completely empty facilities kind of um...proves this! Also, that higher ups in Saddam's military came out with the truth...one of them wrote a book about it. So this terrorism isn't really a minority operation, when it involves so much money.

I mean look, now Iran is in on it. It can't possibly be thought of as minority anymore.

We didn't go into Iraq with the goal of creating democracy there. The goal was to prevent another 9-11. Mission accomplished, so far. I definitely don't see a failure. Now comes the second mission...to clean up and hopefully make Iraq a decent place.

Yeah, I'm not very optimistic about that one either.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Scott, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the Iraq issue.

[Unidian]

Wow, an apparent Republican at Genius Forum. How did that happen?

[Dan Rowden]

Scott has long been our resident Repuke.