Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit

[deadbeater]

How about the freedom not to have a recession and a war simultaneously? He sure took that away for all Americans. Wars usually solve recessions, not trigger them.

[lookout123]

BS. recessions are part of the economic cycle that is constantly in motion. concurrent existence is not evidence of cause and effect.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by lookout123

BS. recessions are part of the economic cycle that is constantly in motion. concurrent existence is not evidence of cause and effect.

Subtract the trillion dollars for the Iraq war and what you get? A surplus.

Remember, Iraq was paying for the hospitality of the inspectors to the tune of $20 million a month.

[DanaC]

I'm beginning to think that if DanaC is a fair example of European leftist opinion on the matter, then Dick Cheney was right about Old Europe: they really are exhausted, vitiated, and quite helpless in this clash, and we ought not to expect much help from that quarter winning the war against a lot of shitheaded antidemocratic bigots.

Fuck you UG, tell that to the many British soldiers who've lost their lives during this war and who continue to fight in Afghanistan. I might add that the action in Afghanistan is something I can genuinely see the point of, since that's where the terrorists who attacked America were/are based.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Fuck you UG, tell that to the many British soldiers who've lost their lives during this war and who continue to fight in Afghanistan. I might add that the action in Afghanistan is something I can genuinely see the point of, since that's where the terrorists who attacked America were/are based.

Hmm, sooooome young Socialist didn't read the phrase "fair example of European leftist opinion" -- at least not as she should have. It was there for a reason, Dana. That reason is hardly obscure. There is a considerable claque over there yammering away at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As you know, I regard that claque as people who don't know their own interest, whose understanding of history reaches no greater depth than their penises, and who are generally moronic fascist-sympathizing vitiated whores for the totalitarians. And boy, how I love them!

Closing my spleen vents for the time being, I'd say you'd understand the war's strategy better if you admitted to yourself and before all of the United Kingdom that these are two theaters of operation in one single war. You want to win? -- then why do the picky-choosie between campaigns? It's this sort of anti-victory thinking I simply am not going to stand. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.

And yes, I view the British Army as more worthy than you are. Not to take anything away from you, it's just that honestly, they are doing more, and working damned hard at doing it. The dead ones have earned their place on the War Memorials.

Vietnam was in part lost because of the failure to go where the enemy was, and empty his home places of him. It is clear certain factions desire this dysfunctional pattern be repeated. Their desire must not be fulfilled, for it is fascist. (I include the communists under the fascist heading, as is easily done.) In other words, anti-democratic. When the fascists lose and the democrats win, you've likely got a better world, and I'm sure you'd rather the world improve, no? You're a political activist, and I know what that means, for I've done some myself.

Make and keep anti-Westernism the province of those who die young and uselessly, without successes. Eventually, the saner folks put a stop to the nonsense, and that's just what we've always wanted.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hmm, sooooome young Socialist didn't read the phrase "fair example of European leftist opinion" -- at least not as she should have. It was there for a reason, Dana. That reason is hardly obscure. There is a considerable claque over there yammering away at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As you know, I regard that claque as people who don't know their own interest, whose understanding of history reaches no greater depth than their penises, and who are generally moronic fascist-sympathizing vitiated whores for the totalitarians. And boy, how I love them!

Closing my spleen vents for the time being, I'd say you'd understand the war's strategy better if you admitted to yourself and before all of the United Kingdom that these are two theaters of operation in one single war. You want to win? -- then why do the picky-choosie between campaigns? It's this sort of anti-victory thinking I simply am not going to stand. Not yesterday, not today, not ever.

And yes, I view the British Army as more worthy than you are. Not to take anything away from you, it's just that honestly, they are doing more, and working damned hard at doing it. The dead ones have earned their place on the War Memorials.

Vietnam was in part lost because of the failure to go where the enemy was, and empty his home places of him. It is clear certain factions desire this dysfunctional pattern be repeated. Their desire must not be fulfilled, for it is fascist. (I include the communists under the fascist heading, as is easily done.) In other words, anti-democratic. When the fascists lose and the democrats win, you've likely got a better world, and I'm sure you'd rather the world improve, no? You're a political activist, and I know what that means, for I've done some myself.

Make and keep anti-Westernism the province of those who die young and uselessly, without successes. Eventually, the saner folks put a stop to the nonsense, and that's just what we've always wanted.

Maybe the US didn't invade North Vietnam because the US government don't want to confront Chinese and Russian troops directly.

[classicman]

Isn't that Mike Savage?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't think so, but it could be.

[piercehawkeye45]

I am anti-imperialistic but cutting military spending can be dangerous. If we are going to go back to a more anti-interventionist foreign policy, which I support, we have to know who is being cut, who is going to take over when America lowers from number one, and where our technology is going to go.

If we cut military spending, we can turn the military against the administration, which can be bad.

If we lower ourselves from number one, we need to know who, if there is going to be one, will take over our spot. Will they be more or less imperialistic, more or less brutal, etc? As of now, I would think that the EU would take over, meaning that not much would change in terms of imperialism.

Right now, some of the most advanced and dangerous technology is in the hands of the United States military and if we cut some funding, those scientist will go elsewhere and spread our technology. I don't like the people in charge of those weapons, but I can think of people that I would much less rather have their hands on it.


I do not like the American military running the world, but I do realize that taking it completely away could easily make the situation worse. I fully support cutting military spending, but we must know what we are cutting and how will that affect the world if we do first.

Originally Posted by aimeecc

We had a very limited presence in the 'holy land' (Saudi Arabia) prior to 9/11. Mostly a small squadron out of Prince Sultan Air Base. Very little interaction with local population. Although there was/is the presence of western businessmen and their families. Even if the US had removed the small military presence in Saudi, that would not have been enough. Furthermore, stated aims of al-Qaeda

I disagree with two parts. First, even though we did have little presence, I think that little presence is still really hated by Saudis and other Muslims.

95% of Saudis agree with al-Qaeda's views. That does not include extremity of those views and actions of al-Qaeda though.

A classified American intelligence report taken from a Saudi intelligence survey in mid-October of educated Saudis between the ages of 25 and 41 concluded that 95 percent of them supported Mr. bin Laden's cause, according to a senior administration official with access to intelligence reports.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Second, if al-Qaeda and other groups loses support of the local population, see al-Qaeda in Iraq, they become very ineffective. If we do take our presence out of Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda may not be satisfied, but the local population might.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If we cut military spending, we can turn the military against the administration, which can be bad.

Bill Clinton tried that, it didn't work. The majority of us were not grand supporters of him.

[deadbeater]

If there is a war going on, have a war economy. The US is not under it yet. That's Bush's biggest mistake, on top of his other ones. Who knows it may solve the housing crisis as well as the deficit.

[DanaC]

Make and keep anti-Westernism the province of those who die young and uselessly, without successes. Eventually, the saner folks put a stop to the nonsense, and that's just what we've always wanted.

And there it is, all boiled down to a handy nutshell size. This is to do with Westernism, not democratisation. What you are talking about is cultural imperialism achieved through gunfire and bombs.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The problem with those middle eastern countries, is they are already filled with foreigners.

[DanaC]

Hmm, sooooome young Socialist didn't read the phrase "fair example of European leftist opinion"

At what point did you come to the conclusion that there are no left wingers serving in our army? In my own local party there are several ex-military people. My own ward colleague ( a solid member of the labour party) served for many years. I am a supporting member of the Royal British Legion and there are several old soldiers there who also proudly count themselves socialists. Socialists who fought the fascist threat in the second world war at that.

The right do not have a monopoly on valour UG. Though they seem intent on achieving a monopoly on pointless and wrong-minded wars.

[Radar]

As usual, UG is talking shit. What could be more democratic than allowing a town to vote to get rid of someone promoting and recruiting for an unconstitutional war of aggression?

The only shame is they backpeddled. They should have stuck to their guns and kept the Marines out.