War-Losing Faction

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Note that when the usual suspects decry our prisoners and our homeless, the usual suspects have no program to offer that isn't packed full of socialism, a highly inefficient, bureaucratic, and expensive form of sociopolitical order. This is why we reject these programs. The socialists, delusional in their sense of entitlement and of humane benevolence -- but organized poverty of whatever degree is neither benevolent nor in itself entitling -- then take opportunity to complain of meanness of spirit on the part of those who know an economic order takes one of two choices: either create wealth or organize scarcity. There are no socialist economies not to one degree or another plagued with scarcity. The capitalist ones tend to fix scarcities by the natural, human law of supply and demand: if there's a demand, somebody is going to make a living in its supply. Pleas for additional socialism do not move the capitalist zeitgeist. What's more, they amount to an unscrupulous scam by persons out to write themselves into positions as bureaucrats -- not part of the production, but part of the overhead.

When, moved by socialist impulses, a government starts voting a portion of the treasury to pay out dollars to people who've done nothing to earn dollars, what is created is not social betterment (allegedly what is desired, yet the record shows this simply never occurs) but instead a market for idleness -- and the market for idleness is wholly artificial. For an example of this in full cry, take a long look at downtown Amsterdam -- in the mid Eighties, the place was full of shabby hippies, mainly doing nothing at all. You could smell the spiritual miasma of this rolling in through the tour bus windows. I don't know if it's been cleaned up since, but I declare, that place was a spiritual energy sink.

Shut down the market for idleness and the people will enter the market of that which creates wealth. Then everybody lives better.

[Ibby]

You know, for someone who quotes Heinlein like the word of god, you sure dont agree with him at all. Haven't you read FU,tL?

[DanaC]

Oh please. You believe it was for humanitarian reasons and not trying to be the primary superpower in the world (as opposed to the USSR)? I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.

hahahahaha. \I like that. That made me giggle.

Urbane, sometimes you really amaze me. You are clearly a very intelligent, well educated and astute individual. Yet, you persist in wilfully misunderstanding realpolitik and ascribing humanitarian motives to the least humanitarian actions, whilst simultanously ascribing anti-human motives to the most humanitarian actions. Your creed has failed and it has failed abysmally. The people youo support have caused misery and grief to millions of your own citizens and dragged you into an illegal war which has fundamentally altered the way your country is viewed by the rest of the world; destroyed the infrastructure of another sovereign nation and chained them to America's will. For someone who claims a love of freedom you seem pitifully willing to enslave a country. For someone who claims to love humanity you seem woefully willing to support inhumane actions.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Having seen what else is out there, here's what I have to say: my entire life shows me America's cause is humanity's cause. You'll come to this view too, Ibram. It might take you 'til you're forty, but it's that way with many. I just had something of a head start, it appears.

i cant believe what i've just read.
you think the earth is 12,000 yrs old too?

[xoxoxoBruce]

What? You don't believe he locked into his perception of the world when he was 10 and hasn't changed his position since?

I find his claim totally believable, considering he has the world view of a 10 year old.

[DanaC]

lol bruce

[Urbane Guerrilla]

DanaC, at this point you amaze me. There is a bit of difficulty with those outside our borders being willing to believe the most remarkable tripe about the United States -- it's been true for decades. Remember what's been said about the CIA over the years? -- quite a... well, heap of trash talk and bizarrerie. There's really nothing to be done about this, though, as these opinions are based on inexperience. Ignorance, in a word: not a slam on you, just that you're not here on the ground.

I should think if "millions of your own citizens" were suffering "misery and grief" I should have noticed it. I haven't, and I am no Punxatawny Phil, hibernating. (America has more fun with marmots than any society I know.)

The war is not illegal. Not only has our Congress, both houses, authorized the Executive Branch to prosecute the Global War On Terror, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters, but we're backed up by sixteen UN Resolutions anent Iraq. We were polite enough to seek a seventeenth, committing the UN to supporting the US to fix the Iraq problem, though this one Resolution out of seventeen did not pass -- to the UN's shame, but not atypical of the UN when it comes to dealing with "the argument of kings."

The infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed by three decades of Ba'ath Party neglect, not by US artillery nor planes. Had Saddam Hussein been absent from 1991, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq could have been ongoing since that time; unhappily, it was delayed eleven years. You will also recall that since 1991, British forces were a part of the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones over Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shi'ite provinces.

For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers: Lenin was power-crazy, Stalin a sociopath, and Mao, under more ordinary circumstances, would have been beheaded as a felon -- but to our sorrow, he was too lucky for justice. We went to South Vietnam because we didn't want to see this sort of thing continue its march. That's humanitarianism, and something the previously great colonial powers were incapable of doing.

DanaC, I am afraid you have been duped by the frenetic anti-Americans on every single point you've raised. It is a shame to be led around by a nose-ring in this humiliating manner. Your understanding of the world's doings doesn't exactly qualify you as a commentator.

I'm not here to steer you wrong.

Turning to Phil: Ronald Reagan described your kind of thinking rather well when he commented that liberals sure know a lot, but it's too bad that what they know ain't so. I can't be as ignorant as you need me to be, and it happens geology is rather a hobby of mine. The tale told in the rocks runs 4.5 thousand million years long, and rocks have no agenda; they just lie there. Something mighty cool to read, by the brilliant John McPhee, is his pentalogy Annals Of The Former World -- five books about rocks, and he makes the rocks sing. I recommend it, with raves, and am rereading it as we speak.

I'm not here to steer you wrong, either.

Bruce, actually I have evolved in understanding and sophistication since age ten -- I just haven't fallen for pseudosophistication. I recommend this happy course to you, out of esteem for your intelligence. Hell, I recommend such things to stupid people, too, but it's a mark of their stupidity how seldom they take me up. Dullards tend not to get me.

Now then, Ibram, in what particulars do you figure I disagree with Mr. Heinlein? I can't follow your reasoning yet.

The UN never approved of the invasion in any way.
I would be interested in which resolution accepted an invasion as acceptable. I read them.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2003/sc2003.htm

[Urbane Guerrilla]

That being the matter of the seventeenth Resolution, just off the top of my head, Rk. Look for text in the UN Resolutions about consequences to Iraq should it stay in violation -- there, no?

I direct your particular attention to Resolution 1441: it is hard to imagine what if anything might have been done about the problems set forth therein short of an invasion. While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't." Typical UN, really -- its perennial dysfunction (designed into the institution from the beginning, some have said) compromises its international authority to a severe degree. Nations will not cede that authority to the UN, and that has the happy feature of being a check and balance.

No, there was nothing giving a go for an invasion... there were some conditions setting up discussions for possible actions.
I'll double check, but I'm fairly sure of my facts.
The UN never OK'd the invasion & has not to this day.
He did open all access at the 11th hour anyway, it was at the last min. but he complied, regardless.

[DanaC]

For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers:

Explain to me then Guantanamo Bay. Explain to me how a state which supposedly values freedom and justice would seek to remove habeas corpus and the basics of a free trial? Don't get me wrong UG, this isn't just a slam against America: the UK now has several citizens under house arrest, their choice of where to live removed; their homes subject to summarary search; their right to use telephones, internet and other telecoms removed; their movements scrutinised and checked through the wearing of tags.......and all with no trial and no right to see the evidence against them.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't."

"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".

[Phil]

interesting UG, but i'm not persuaded, as aren't most others who have replied to your posts.
the invasion was illegal : one of the few facts that are black and white in this whole sorry mess. could you give an example of one "war" where America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?
i agree with Dana C : you are an incredibly intelligent person who seems to fall for the bullshit on the spoon they feed you with.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Phil

America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?

Actually, we made out like bandits from the Spanish-American War, which may have been started by a boiler explosion on the Maine.

The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America that took place from April to August 1898. The war ended in victory for the United States and the end of the Spanish Empire in the Caribbean and Pacific. Only 113 days after the outbreak of war, the Treaty of Paris, which ended the conflict, gave the United States control over the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, and control over the process of independence of Cuba, which was completed in 1902.

Not to mention that it gave us an excuse to annex Hawaii. Now one could argue that the Philippines is costing us more than it's contributing, but we definitely made out with Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Philippines and Guam do have strategic value.

Those were the grand old days when you could wave the flag with one hand to distract the suckers while grabbing up real estate with the other.

[deadbeater]

They're some mighty big hands to grab real estate with.