Berkeley City Council Doing Its Anti-Democracy Bit
The Berkeley City Council, which has never officially liked the idea that foreign fascism and other obnoxiousism should perish from the Earth -- it seems their shibboleth that it's the Republicans that keep the fascist flame alive domestically, and how willfully ignorant of Republicans and Fascists is that? -- now attempts harassment of the USMC recruiting office on Shattuck Avenue by the petty gesture of reserving a parking space directly in front of the recruiting office for Code Pink to park vehicles in to further their anti-antifascism campaign.
Mala fides is just rampant up there.
Et Semper Mala Fides. This is a petty hit-back at the cause of democracy, and therefore of humanity, for America's cause is humanity's cause. Our opposition is only about oppression, after all is said and done -- and what they do makes people spew.
There is one single councilmember named in one link below who comes out of this wholly without shame -- his was the dissenting vote against the 8 to 1 condemnation measure of the two measures passed against Marine Corps officer recruitment in downtown Berkeley, and I think also against the parking-space reservation, which wasn't as lopsided, passing 6-3. Seems the Marines are particularly looking for UC grads, no doubt from the sciences and engineering. Hardly the dumb high-schoolers of stereotype.
SF Chronicle
Yesterday, on FoxNews.com
Seattle blogger Karl Swenson
Jesse McKinley, for the NYT
The picture this action by the City Council paints has disturbing parallels with the first anti-Jewish law passed by the Nazis, though its scale is far smaller -- the space is reserved for Code Pink parking for four hours, one afternoon each week.
We see a group of persons, Code Pink, who are not sympathetic to the progress of democracy around the globe, or they wouldn't be carrying on the way they do, who have enough influence on an arm of government to cause them to pass a law harassing, well, persons of a different lifestyle choice than theirs. I'll leave it to the reader whether the Marine Corps constitutes a religion, remarking that like most military service, it is intensely formative. But really, where's the difference between what the pinkshirts have done and brownshirts in front of jeweler's shops going "Don't buy from Jews!"?
Whatever problem they have with Republicans breaking Fascists has never been clear to me. I don't think I'll ever understand it, being as I am enlightened these days.
I must say this action by Berkeley's council does strongly offend some deeply held beliefs of mine. How about a little impeachment and regime change in Berkeley? Hey, even a recall election or two would do nicely. So would somebody taking the parking space and fighting the ticket in court, expensively. He could doubtless get at least some
pro bono legal representation. Whether the city could, I am not sure; there may be an ordinance against that.
I have to agree, after weeding out the hyperbole, The Berkeley City Council has no business targeting a legitimate, legal business for officially condoned harassment.
I have to agree, after weeding out the hyperbole, The Berkeley City Council has no business targeting a legitimate, legal business for officially condoned harassment.
That weeding out takes so much effort. Too bad there isn't a Babelfish translator for UG. After parsing what his post says, I agree as well, but boy he makes it hard.
Well, glatt, do you need me to talk to you in baby talk, or would you all things considered prefer adult speech?
Quitcherbitchin; come up to my level. Nice view here.
Well, glatt, do you need me to talk to you in baby talk, or would you all things considered prefer adult speech?
Either one would be an improvement.
This is not outside of what democratic groups do, UG. Use big boy words from here on out. If they are being anti-freedom say so, but don't continue to re-define democracy per ancient talking points used for selling invasions. When we leave Iraq, you'll probably get to see democracy at its jackbooted best.
Either one would be an improvement.
:lol: spot on, HM!
Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass. Say it in English. Or Spanish, or German, or any other language actually in common usage today.
So Berkeley is against the troops because they reserved the parking in front of a recruiter shop to an anti-war group; isn't that what you are trying to say?
A city doesn't have to give comfort to a recruitment shop, if the majority in the city disagree with military policies.
Not giving comfort does not allow harassment.
Until the pro-right courts rule on the new free-speech zone, we'll see. Meanwhile, Berkeley will have its fun.
So Berkeley is against the troops because they reserved the parking in front of a recruiter shop to an anti-war group; isn't that what you are trying to say?
A city doesn't have to give comfort to a recruitment shop, if the majority in the city disagree with military policies.
Cool. I love it when cities think they're better than Federal agencies. If that's true, we need to cut all Federal funding from the area so they will, no longer, be contaminated by organizations that offend them.
Ahh, I love it when a bankrupt state screws with the ones that can help bail them out.....
:lol: spot on, HM!
Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass. Say it in English. Or Spanish, or German, or any other language actually in common usage today.
Zen: no. And I have Spanish, French, and Russian and hey, I can say it in any of these. If I choose to use my admittedly scant store of Latin, look upon it as a chance to enjoy the same broad horizons I do, rather than an excuse to complain at me. I'd say that's beneath your dignity. I'll make this plain: I do not listen to such requests, deeming them both beneath me -- a request to dumb down, which is the request I forever deny -- and beneath the asker also: is he not asking to be dumber? (What???) If you don't feel like rejecting that whole I-wannabe-a-dullard frame of mind yet, I'm not doing my job of making you a better man.
In that vein, I've not often found Happy Monkey to be all that well advised anyway. I did catch him at some good thinking over in Philosophy once, and I'd like to see him at it again, but his ideology does cause him to say absurd things. He's not the only one; this is the usual fate of the posters who wrangle with me on ideological grounds. Leftism keeps you childish and in a condition of dependency -- that's the only way the left retains influence -- and you say things that sound like they're from six-year-olds, not adult humans of free estate. No thank you; I enjoy a better road.
What makes it better? Boy, that would take a long essay. A lot of that work has already been done by writers through history. Orwell inoculated me against leftism in the beginning; Heinlein was a booster shot, and then there is the kind of writing free adults can do when they're conservative: almost every month of the year in
National Review. To remain left of center, you have to carefully avoid the wit and wisdom on display there.
So, reading this thread over, it looks like the usual debate-club mess-up: can't dispute the validity of the argument? See if you can piss on the guy's style. Tsk tsk. That's going to carry the day for the opposition? That's known as a losing battle, people. Make a fight
when you have a case. Don't try covering that lack up with a lot of noise over peripherals or personalities. That may have fooled some... has it fooled me, do you think?
Orwell inoculated me against leftism in the beginning;
What the hell?
The man
was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist. He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain! The only way you could possibly use Orwell as an argument against 'leftism' is if either A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was
what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was
good, and disagreed with him.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.
Hey now, that's not fair.... he could be both.
Cut the Latin, for a start, UG. It just makes you look like a pompous ass.
Zen: no.
...
I am here in part because I can offer you fresh insight. And why would there be refusal to accept it?
I see you're not yet prepared to take the advice I gave you.
So... your advice is golden but when people try to advise you, you tell them in no uncertain terms that you don't accept it.
Is there anyone reading this who'd like to speak up on UG's behalf?
And there wasn't.
There's an important point you're whiffing on here. It goes so far over your head you may need a trampoline to reach it. Ready to leap?
If the people don't like you, they won't listen to you. In fact they often come to a conclusion the opposite of your argument... merely because they take you as a horse's ass.
That's not exactly critical thinking on their behalf. The argument should be separate from the speaker. But it's true. You do your arguments a terrible disservice by serving them up on a plate with dog shit garnish. You might as well take the opposite opinion of your own, because it would lead more people to seek the alternative.
And actually, though it's not critical thinking, there may be a gem of truth in not listening to pomposity. Who is more likely to be right: the person who believes he has never been wrong, or the person who
knows he has been wrong, who has been thoroughly humbled in his wrongness...?
The people find no humility in you and so they find you suspect. I think the people know what they are doing, here.
If the people here are so far beneath you that you must lecture them and not listen to them -- if that's really the case -- if you really believe that --
Then you are playing tennis in a league beneath your skill, and you should find a game that matches your skill... otherwise you are just playing to make yourself feel good, do you see that? Who would stay in a game where they are so far superior? It does your game no good.
What the hell?
A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.
The rule of thumb for Truth is very simple...whoever has the most Money, Power and Force, bears Truth.
Therefore, America espouses Truth in all cases. To say otherwise is to be un-American, and therefore a threat to national security. Once we get rid of that nasty little Free Speech thing, it will be much easier for all of us to realize this.
But we'll be safe.
And yes, what Berkeley did was wrong. Equal parking for all, with special consideration given to the handicapped. Anti war protesters are not handicapped as a group.
I think the fellas at the USMC recruit station should just change their hours. Throw in a 4 hour lunch break during the Code Pink parking time, open up 2 hours earlier and stay open 2 hours later. Case settled. There would never be anyone there when they protest. Turn the time over to them as the council would have it. Code Pink is no more Jackboots than the Corps and military supporters are Fascists.
look upon it as a chance to enjoy the same broad horizons I do
I'm guessing that the shit you use to expand your horizons are illegal in most states.
So Berkeley is against the troops because they reserved the parking in front of a recruiter shop to an anti-war group; isn't that what you are trying to say?
A city doesn't have to give comfort to a recruitment shop, if the majority in the city disagree with military policies.
First, its not the point of giving the parking spot to anti-war protesters and not giving comfort to recruiters. Its beyond that. They actually voted 6-3 to declare that the recruiting station "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders." Wow. Calling recruiters intruders? Un-welcoming a federal office space? That's what a recruiting station is.
Furthermore, on top of giving a parking space to an anti-war movement, they also gave them loudspeaker priveleges - something not given to the recruiters. I'm no lawyer, but I believe this to be unconstitutional. The government cannot give one group favor over another. If they give code pink a parking spot and loudspeaker privileges, they need to give the same privileges to the recruiters, then to the pro-gay-in-the-military movement, then to the pro-recruiter movement, then to the 'I don't know what I'm protesting but I'm here' movement.
Also, as the article points out, the 'don't ask, don't tell' is a federal policy, nothing the Marines control. And furthermore, active duty personnel are not authorized to state political opinions while in uniform, nor are they allowed to insult the president, nor can the campaign (in or out of uniform) for a candidate. Active duty have two choices: support Bush, or keep their mouth shut if they disagree.
The article is dead-on - the proponent of free speech is muzzling the Marines.
I actually knew a USMC Major that went to Berkeley. Great officer. Never would have guessed he went there by looking at him with a high-and-tight haircut, but exceptionally bright and very thorough.
Funnier is the fact DoD funds a lot of research at Berkeley, to include research on eyes and breast cancer.
New York Post
February 4, 2008
Muzzling The Marines
By Dale McFeatters
The city council of Berkeley, Calif., where the Free Speech Movement was born, has decided that some people deserve more free speech than others and the U.S. Marines don't deserve any at all.
For about a year, the Marines have had a recruiting station in Berkeley and the council wants it gone, voting 6-3 to declare that it "is not welcome in the city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
To underline the point, the council voted to support the weekly protests of Code Pink, the group of mostly women whose cringe-inducing war protests have done so much to trivialize the anti-war movement.
To help Code Pink members be even more annoying, the council reserved a parking place for them in front of the recruiting station one day a week and granted a sound permit that lets them use loudspeakers one day a week for four hours.
News accounts say that at one recent demonstration, a sparse group of protesters -- generally, it is said, there are about a dozen, not a great showing for a place like Berkeley -- shouted at the station, "Drive out the Bush regime!" Probably not a lot of thought went into that slogan since they seem to be calling for the Marines to mount a military coup, probably not what they had in mind.
The city council seems to have two objections to the Marines: They are icky militarists, which the Marines would probably not dispute; and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays, which is unfair.
Indeed, the council is exploring ways of enforcing the city's law prohibiting sex discrimination against the Marines. The left and particularly the academic left seems unable to grasp a critical point about "don't ask, don't tell": It is not some policy the military dreamed up, but a matter of federal law, enacted by Congress in 1993 and signed by Berkeley fave Bill Clinton. Take it up with Congress, not some recruiting sergeant.
One final point: The young people of Berkeley, although perhaps less disposed to than people elsewhere, have every right to join the military -- many of them may find it a satisfying experience, even a career -- and the Berkeley city council has no business impeding them.
Berkeley officials want to rescind anti-Marines declaration
By Doug Oakley
Bay Area News Group
Article Launched: 02/05/2008 07:55:19 AM PST
Under the weight of a national uproar, two Berkeley City Council members want to rescind an official statement that the U.S. Marines and their recruiting station are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders."
Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli, however, did not move to rescind three other items the council passed last week: giving the protest group Code Pink a free weekly parking space and sound permit; calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city; and asking the city attorney to investigate whether the Marines violate city laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The item will come before the City Council Feb. 12.
"I would prefer they recruit somewhere else, but they have a constitutional and legal right to be here," Capitelli said today. "If they decide to be here, then there are actions (protesters) can take, and the Marines will have to decide whether that's an acceptable price to pay to be in Berkeley. That's their decision to make, but not the City Council's decision."
The council approved the resolution asking the Marines to abandon their office on Shattuck Avenue by a 6-3 vote last week. Capitelli supported the resolution, while Olds opposed it along with Gordon Wozniak and Kriss Worthington.
The council's action has generated opposition from across the country, and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., threatened last week to try to strip the city of federal funds.
Councilwoman Linda Maio said she will introduce an item of her own next week regarding the Marines. Maio said she welcomes "any member of the military" to be in Berkeley but she does not support the recruiting station.
"That's an important distinction to make," Maio said.
Mayor Tom Bates said last week he would ask the council to modify the resolution because the version passed last week "did not adequately differentiate our respect and support for those serving in the armed forces and our opposition to the Iraq war policy."
It appears to me that the Berkeley City Council is refining their message, with special attention to respect for the law. Good for them.
I'm no lawyer,
good thing...
but I believe this to be unconstitutional. The government cannot give one group favor over another.
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that the government does exactly this All. The. Time?
What if one group is in favor of A and one group opposes A and a third group wants prefers the status quo? Examples of this *abound*. Doesn't the government ****always**** wind up "favoring" one group over another? Come on. I think you misspoke here, you overstated your point. I won't speculate out loud why I think so, but this particular instance is out of character compared to your previous posts, clear and unexaggerated.
When they do, they should be taken to task for it.
Yes, they will be taken to task. Meanwhile, they made their point: that an unneeded, unwanted and economically disastrous war is not conducive to recruiting.
If that's true, why did Berkeley have to do anything, to harass the Marines?
Yes, they will be taken to task. Meanwhile, they made their point: that an unneeded, unwanted and economically disastrous war is not conducive to recruiting.
I call BS.
good thing...
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that the government does exactly this All. The. Time?
What if one group is in favor of A and one group opposes A and a third group wants prefers the status quo? Examples of this *abound*. Doesn't the government ****always**** wind up "favoring" one group over another? Come on. I think you misspoke here, you overstated your point. I won't speculate out loud why I think so, but this particular instance is out of character compared to your previous posts, clear and unexaggerated.
If a city bans a cross on a piece of local government property, they cannot allow menorah's and other religious symbols. If a public school allows a wiccan group, they have to allow a Christian group. If they allow a Malcolm-X-ish group to have a parade, guess what, they have to allow the white supremecists to have a parade. These have been cases before - one group cannot be given preferential treatment by the government - local or otherwise - over another. Am I naive enough to say that certain groups aren't given special treatment through special programs? No. Some are very transparent (affirmitive action) and have approved reasoning, some are not (how is it white men do less time for the same crime than black men? how does one company get a contract over another company?). I also know not every group has the funds or backing of ACLU to fight it when a city does make laws that are contrary to various court rulings in similar circumstances.
"Betty Olds and Laurie Capitelli, however, did not move to rescind three other items the council passed last week: giving the protest group Code Pink a free weekly parking space and sound permit; calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city; and asking the city attorney to investigate whether the Marines violate city laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation."
It's not the Marine's policy. It's a federal law.
@UG illegitimi non carborundum
Hey aimeecc:
You're conflating a number of issues that don't fall under the same category. Nothing in this story, or this thread even, has to do with religious freedom, or the establishment clause, except your introduction of crosses, menorahs, wiccans and Christians. We have well established laws about these specific kinds of expression. None of which apply to the Marines, or their recruiting activities.
You're on somewhat less treacherous ground when you discuss the differences in the city's treatment of different non-religious groups "parade permissions". Even then perfectly equal treatment is not going to happen. Equal opportunity, sure. Equal outcomes? Pretty much never.
I didn't think you were naive about the way the world works and you clarified that. But your original statement did sound naive. Fighting city hall can be tough. And expensive. And it happens all the time, all over.
As to the three standing items, what is your complaint here? That the Marines don't get a parking space and sound permit when another group does?
What is wrong with "calling on residents to impede the work of any military recruiting station in the city"? How is this different from the city calling on residents to take any other lawful action? "Please recycle" or "Conserve water" or "Give generously to charity" or "Return your library books on time"? Really. Governments try to influence the behavior of organizations all the time.
Often this kind of desire to influence behavior takes the form of incentives to draw an organization closer to the city. "If you locate here, we'll offer these bonuses!" Sometimes theses efforts are designed to drive an organization away. Uh, no, don't want a strip club next to the elementary school. Or using zoning laws to restrict certain activities to certain areas. Happens all the time. Most of the time, the overwhelming majority of the time, these actions are legal, though sometimes not.
I don't see why the Berkeley City Council can't strive toward the kind of mix of activities and commerce they want in their city, if they're striving in a legal way.
Third item: calling on the city attorney to investigate. The city attorney works for the city council, so to speak. Being asked to investigate is what they do. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. What's to fear? If there's no illegal activity, so what? If there is, how else could it be discovered and prosecuted if not first investigated?
Bottom line: BCC doesn't want the Marines to recruit in the city. There is not one thing wrong with that desire. And I haven't seen one piece of evidence yet that shows that they're doing anything illegal. Why do you think the Marines want to recruit there? Because there are likely some smart capable people they'd like to have in their organization most likely. Why don't the Marines setup a recruiting office waaaay out in the middle of nowhere? Because, probably, the likelihood of meeting their recruiting targets would be diminished. They pick Berkeley because they think they can do well there. Berkeley's under no obligation to make their life easier.
I call BS.
I think you're serious. I think you're seriously wrong and/or seriously misinformed.
The Army *has* had trouble meeting its recruiting goals for the past few years, and the Iraq war has had a far more negative impact than a positive one.
From here.The Army previously acknowledged that it has not met the 90 percent mark since 2004, and yesterday officials at U.S. Army Recruiting Command disputed the group's numbers but not the trend. They said that 79.1 percent of its active-duty recruits in 2007 had a high school diploma, down from 87 percent in 2005.
"It's really an indication of the difficult recruiting environment we're in, both with the impact of the ongoing wars, an economy competing for high school graduates, and a decline in the percentage of students who graduate from high school," said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the recruiting command. "But we're not putting anyone in the Army that we don't feel is qualified to serve as a soldier."
The independent study's data were based on more than 66,000 new recruits and did not include roughly 14,000 recruits who had prior military service and most of whom would have high school diplomas. It was unclear yesterday if the recruiting command's higher numbers included new recruits only or covered all recruits in 2007.
Both groups agree that the Army has met its high recruitment goals for the past two years by lowering acceptance standards, offering signing bonuses and loosening age restrictions.
The National Priorities Project said that Defense Department studies have shown that a high school diploma is an indicator of future success in the military, with about 80 percent of those with high school diplomas finishing the first term of enlistment and about half of the others making it that far. When recruits are unsuccessful in the Army, the service loses on its investment in training and has to recruit again.
This stupid war has made it hard on the Army in many ways. One big hardship is the increased difficulty in recruiting good people to become soldiers. You call bullshit on that?
Remember when the complaint was that dissent is automatically labeled unpatriotic? I have one question.
Exactly how unpatriotic do they actually have to be, before it's fair to label them?
There is not one thing wrong with that desire.
It's legal -- and immoral.
First, a local government is essentially battling the federal government, but are abusing a Marine recruiting station to attempt to make their point. The recruiters aren't working for a civilian company. The BCC reasoning is seriously flawed. Don't ask don't tell is a federal law, nothing the Marines control. Also, Marines don't "start wars" - its done by the President and Congress. So aiding a group to shout anti-war slogans at recruiters who have nothing to do with the policies they are protesting is stupid. You can't expect a group of protesters called code pink to understand these things, but come on, a city council?
Second, I disagree with you. It doesn't matter whether the group is a religious group or not. They fund a boys baseball team, they have to fund a girls baseball team. All of my examples are real, covered by different laws and different cases, but the overarching principle remains - local governments are not suppossed to give a group preferential treatment over another.
I am not complaining. Someone posted a news article. I expanded on it. I think the BCC is wrong. Everyone has the right to free speech but recruiters?
Does the BCC seriously think kicking out recruiters will end the war?
What do the Marines do to 'detract' from the city? Nothing. In fact, Marines are invited to live there, just not recruit there.
Why do you support the BCC when they state "they have a constitutional and legal right to be here" yet are trying to make working there so difficult in an effort to get them to leave? What city does this to an office? A legitimate federal office? You would never hear of a city council setting aside parking and loud speaker privileges for a group to protest a strip club.
I'd like to see a city government give parking and loudspeaker privileges to operation rescue right in front of planned parenthood. Have the city council tell the people working in the clinic, oh, you can live in our city, just not work here. How long would that last before national outrage?
Its the same thing as what BCC is doing to the Marines, except the recruiting station is a federal office.
Remember when the complaint was that dissent is automatically labeled unpatriotic? I have one question.
Exactly how unpatriotic do they actually have to be, before it's fair to label them?
[Quote=BigV]
There is not one thing wrong with that desire.
It's legal -- and immoral.[/QUOTE]
Yes. I do "remember when" dissent was automatically labeled unpatriotic. I remember it like it was yesterday. Because it was yesterday. And today. And some of those labelers are here in this thread. And that's fine. That's fair. That's what those Marines are fighting for, in part, is it not? Liking it is a different matter altogether.
So, to your other one question. How unpatriotic do they have to be before it's fair to label them? Label them unpatriotic? Label them immoral? That's up to the labeler, of course. And you're welcome to use the most persuasive speech you can muster to convince those in earshot of the worthiness of your position.
I don't think the actions of the BCC are unpatriotic or immoral. I know absolutely nothing about the individuals that make up the council, so I will not hold forth on their individual patriotism and morality.
Come on. You know full well that these kind of subjective evaluations are *all* in the eye of the beholder. And it is one of American's great pastimes to kibitz about other people's politics. No, it's more than a pastime, it's our heritage. Now in the heart of election season, talking about how to govern ourselves is one thing we do well. Or at least loudly.
Fact is, if you think the actions of the BCC are legal but immoral, what can you do about it? Certainly you're doing one thing, same as me, talking about it in a reasoned debate. Good for you, for me for us all. But it's just so much hot air, since we don't get to have a direct influence on the government making these decisions. The citizens of Berkeley do. What are *they* doing? And how would you react if they decided your local city government was screwing things up?
You bring up a good point. Dissent is **not** unpatriotic. How much toeing the line should I be required to do? We don't have politkal officers round here, and I don't want any. Neither do you. Don't like the message? Shun them. Out shout them. Fight city hall. Call them mean names. Whatever. You've the same right to be wrong as they have.
I think you aimed at my point and hit a big water balloon full of molasses that was sitting on somebody's stoop down the road.
T'ain't to me to do anything but label it, and so I have done. You summed it up yourself: the BCC is creating a condition where the US military does not find the very best people. That seems utterly and very obviously unp*tr**t*c.
And hey, also, when the city council is doing it, they aren't dissenting. They are establishing the dominant position. *I* am dissenting. *You* are toeing the line.
If it weren't for the US military, the BCC wouldn't exist.
ORLY?
Fine. I'll try again.
What exactly was your point?
One of the most ridiculous debates I've ever been in: this guy on AG said Bill Maher was un-American, and I said it was un-American to say someone is un-American, and he said I couldn't say that, because then I was calling him un-American when I just said it was un-American to say someone is un-American, and I said I could because I was just using his own words against him (the you-started-it defense). I won, because he went to all-caps.
Well you were focusing in on the label part and I was more focused in on what I think is the immoral behavior part.
You were all like whatre ya gonna do about it? And I'm like I just did it!
So your point is that the actions of the BCC are legal and immoral.
I did get that. I disagree with you.
Moving on...
You're a smart guy. What are you doing, or failing to do to aid the Marines' recruitment effort? What ground do I have to label your actions unpatriotic or immoral?
How about me? I haven't done fuck-all to help the Marines recruit anybody good. Am I unpatriotic? Am I immoral?
I failed to tutor J's boy in math to the point where he could qualify. Too bad, the kid would have made a great Marine.
We are unpatriotic, but not immoral. Our lives don't require national service... because other, better people than you and I volunteered to do the heavy lifting.
It has nothing to do with how they have been used, whether you agree or disagree with it. The Marines themselves have as much say as the BCC as to how they'll get used. Today it's the hard stuff in Iraq, tomorrow maybe it's Afghanistan again or peace-keeping or fuck-knows what-all. But when it comes to how to consider such things, "Provide for the common defense" is one of the only fundamental roles of government that everyone agrees on. They agree on it so well, it went right into the opening of the Constitution.
So you and I, we can say whatever we like on a message board, and you're right, it means dick. But if a city council does it, that's a whole 'nother league there. That's a government working to make the Marines worse. That's fucked up.
We should have the best Marines we can possibly find. And we should use them correctly if they have to be used at all.
So you and I, we can say whatever we like on a message board, and you're right, it means dick. But if a city council does it, that's a whole 'nother league there.
We should have the best Marines we can possibly find. And we should use them correctly if they have to be used at all.
Why is the action of the BCC held to a different standard? Why should the BCC help (or hinder) the Marines at all? Isn't it more unpatriotic that a city council defy the wishes of the electorate?
They're following the law. I haven't heard any dispute as to this point. Beyond that is the very difficult area of legislating moral behavior.
How do you feel about gambling and prostitution? Those are subject that are often associated with highly polarized moral positions? Certainly some feel that the *legal* activities in these areas, in Nevada, for example, is immoral. What to do, besides saying whatever we like on a message board? Vote. That's what.
And I have another question for you: what is the connection you're making between moral and patriotic behavior? How are these two related? What happens to the "moral" stance of support for the Marines/war/administration/etc when the law changes? When the legitimate governing authority makes rules/laws/ordinances that are different from what's in place today? Does the moral action of yesterday become immoral today,
by law?
Geeze, UT.
If you please, would you please give me your answer to your original question? How are actions, whether by citizens or by city councils, judged moral or patriotic?
Actually, I just went and reread your post with my quote. How can *desires* be moral or not or patriotic or not? There can be no freedom of expression if there is no underlying freedom of thought.
The Army *has* had trouble meeting its recruiting goals for the past few years, and the Iraq war has had a far more negative impact than a positive one.
The high potential for getting shot or parts of your body blown off may have a lot to do with the recruiting shortfall. I'm just guessing, but it seems logical.
Why is the action of the BCC held to a different standard? Why should the BCC help (or hinder) the Marines at all? Isn't it more unpatriotic that a city council defy the wishes of the electorate?
If that's the case, the electorate has voted to be unpatriotic.
How do you feel about gambling and prostitution? Those are subject that are often associated with highly polarized moral positions?
They're not specifically called out in the preamble to the Constitution.
And I have another question for you: what is the connection you're making between moral and patriotic behavior? How are these two related?
In your paranoid imagination.
If you please, would you please give me your answer to your original question? How are actions, whether by citizens or by city councils, judged moral or patriotic?
I would use the same definitions I use in other contexts.
They're following the law. I haven't heard any dispute as to this point. Beyond that is the very difficult area of legislating moral behavior.
"I would prefer they recruit somewhere else, but they have a constitutional and legal right to be here," Capitelli said today.
So, BigV, how is it legal for the city council to hinder the recruiters when they admit its legal and constitutional to be there? Normal protesters are not allowed to actually interfere with the a business they are protesting (usually meaning the protesters have to be a certain distance away from the entrance so workers and customers have access to the building). In this case the city council is encouraging a certain protesting group to INTERFER. Its one thing to protect the rights of the protesters to protest, but another to encourage them to interfere.
Its not about morality. Its not even about patriotism. Its about the legality of their decisions. You don't have to be patriotic or moral to be within legal bounds.
More on my analogy. What would the national reaction be if, say, Colorado Springs (hotbed of extreme far right, home of Focus on the Family) gave operation rescue (a somewhat militant pro-life group) their own parking and loudspeaking privileges in front of a Planned Parenthood office? Not one of their clinics where abortions are actually performed, but an office where women could go for information regarding family planning. So once a week during peak business hours, operation rescue with their free reserved parking and their loudspeaking privileges, COURTESY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, arrive and scream at the workers and all the customers outside a legitimate office space (that the local government freely admits have the constitutional right to be there), "YOU'RE KILLING A BABY!!! YOU'RE A MURDERER! BABY KILLER!!!!!" Really, what would the national reaction be? Can you imagine the headlines from NY Times to CNN?
The BCC is helping Code Pink's anti-war protest direct their protest at the wrong office. Screaming at recruiters and possible recruits will not end the war. A few less educated people in the Marine Corps is no big deal. They meet their recruiting goals and haven't lowered their standards much. But helping Code Pink scream at the Marines for no apparent reason is idiotic at best, and probably illegal.
Again, screaming at recruiters does not change the federal law, nor will it end the war. Those are decided by completely different offices, and have absolutely nothing to do with the Marine Corps. All it does is make the recruiters job harder. It doesn't further any cause Code Pink is supposedly fighting for. Maybe one of them dated a Marine and got dumped or killed in Iraq and that's why they protest at the Marine's recruiting spaces? That's about the only logical reason I can think of as to why they would pick a Marine recruiting station, instead of their senators office (which is the logical place to carry on their protest IAW stated goals).
America's cause is humanity's cause
UG I really, really wish you'd stop saying this. If America's cause is humanity's cause then frankly we should get a say in who sits in the White House...we don't? Ok, that's cool, then America's cause is America's cause and the rest of humanity can figure out our own causes according to our own national interests.
And Ibby's right about Orwell. he was a socialist and sometime communist. He eventually fought against communism but retained his socialist beliefs until his death. You claim that the writings/words of the left sound like they've been penned/spoken by infants, yet I find it hard to imagine that such a description could apply to Orwell.
So this is your new point, the BCC and the citizens of Berkeley are unpatriotic. What is patriotism? Is patriotism like obscenity? You know it when you see it?
[Quote=BigV]How do you feel about gambling and prostitution? Those are subject that are often associated with highly polarized moral positions?
They're not specifically called out in the preamble to the Constitution.
Here's the Preamble to the Constitution:
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
[Extracted from The Constitution of the United States of America (May 2006), The Constitution of the United States of America.]
You're right. No mention of gambling or prostitution. Precisely the same amount of ink devoted to moral and patriotic standards of behavior. And of military recruiting.
Actually, the creation of a militia *does* get more ink later, and none of it discusses the role of local governments and their responsibilities to offer up the first fruits to a higher authority, not even the Marines. Perhaps you've confused this issue with another well known text.
Ladies and Gentlemen, behold! Captured for the first time, my paranoid imagination!
Remember when the complaint was that dissent is automatically labeled unpatriotic? I have one question.
Exactly how unpatriotic do they actually have to be, before it's fair to label them?
[Quote=BigV]There is not one thing wrong with that desire.
It's legal -- and immoral.
Oops, sorry. Guess that wasn't *my* paranoid imagination after all.
[Quote=BigV]If you please, would you please give me your answer to your original question? How are actions, whether by citizens or by city councils, judged moral or patriotic?
I would use the same definitions I use in other contexts.[/quote]The same definitions, but different standards? *These* same definitions?
And hey, also, when the city council is doing it, they aren't dissenting. They are establishing the dominant position.
That's not using the same definitions. That's called a double standard.
You're clearly upset about the actions of the BCC. You've called the actions immoral, unpatriotic. You've suggested the same about the citizens of the city. What you haven't done is offer any reason why it should be different than it is. I haven't heard anything from you (or others here) that has given me reason to agree with your opinions as to the morality and patriotism of the BCC. Neither have I heard anything to persuade me that their actions are illegal or even improper.
But I have learned much from you in the past, and I keep an open mind on this subject, in the hopes that I can learn from you again.
Hey, aimeecc. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not disrespecting you. I .. um... just haven't yet set aside enough time to answer you properly. Sorry.
Preview: I think you're on the wrong track, with the comparisons you've made. My longer answer will be better thought out and better supported, I hope.
Can you see how something can be both unpatriotic
and immoral without there being a necessary connection between the two adjectives?
No? Well can you see how a person can be both left-handed and alcoholic without there being a connection between the two adjectives?
What is patriotism?
Take the first dictionary definition you come to. Dictionary.com:
"Feeling, expressing, or inspired by love for one's country"
If one is against the troops, without which the country can't exist... I find that to be
plainly and obviously unpatriotic. That's fine, their choice, and frankly they should be comfortable with their label. It is accurate and it is what they asked for.
I
also find it to be immoral, as a government action, because these United States created a common government in part to provide for the common defense. Says so right up front. It's one of the top six reasons, and even Libertarians agree -- even Libertarians! -- that defense is one of the only acceptable "common goods", to be Federally managed.
If this little sector wants to hold the troops in contempt, that's one thing, but they then become "free riders", because the entire country can't be defensed minus their little sector. They benefit from that defense, whether they care to admit it or not. But they also have an impact of the defense of the entire country, so their will is infringing on you and I as well.
Some R congresspeople have floated the idea that Berkeley should face the loss of a few monetary earmarks in return. Sounds fair to me.
[SIZE=2][COLOR=#000000]One earmark provides $243,000 in taxpayer dollars for the organization Chez Panisse to create gourmet organic school lunches in the Berkeley School District. Chez Panisse is dedicated to "environmental harmony" and their menu features "Comté cheese soufflé with mâche salad," "Meyer lemon éclairs with huckleberry coulis," and "Chicory salad with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast."[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Ah, but we can't let these kids go hungry.
Send them MREs.
My question about this is whether the BCC is doing this to oppose the unpatriotic war in Iraq or the patriots who were conned into fighting it? I've done my part to try to convince kids not to serve and die during this unpatriotic regime. I believe that makes me a patriot.
I also find it to be immoral, as a government action, because these United States created a common government in part to provide for the common defense. Says so right up front. It's one of the top six reasons, and even Libertarians agree -- even Libertarians! -- that defense is one of the only acceptable "common goods", to be Federally managed.
Defense not offense; you know that whole initiation of force thing.
but but but... "
The Best Defense is a Strong Offense"
Recently, several government reports have emphasized the need for increased attention to the defense of the American homeland. The proliferation of technology for creating weapons of mass terror and conducting chemical, biological, nuclear, and information warfare has reawakened interest in protecting the homeland.
A study completed for the U.S. Department of Defense notes that historical data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement in international situations and terrorist attacks against the United States. Attacks by terrorist groups could now be catastrophic for the American homeland. Terrorists can obtain the technology for weapons of mass terror and will have fewer qualms about using them to cause massive casualties. The assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs maintains that such catastrophic attacks are almost certain to occur. It will be extremely difficult to deter, prevent, detect, or mitigate them.
As a result, even the weakest terrorist group can cause massive destruction in the homeland of a superpower. Although the Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, U.S. foreign policy has remained on autopilot. The United States continues to intervene militarily in conflicts all over the globe that are irrelevant to American vital interests. To satisfy what should be the first priority of any security policy--protecting the homeland and its people--the United States should adopt a policy of military restraint. That policy entails intervening only as a last resort when truly vital interests are at stake. To paraphrase Anthony Zinni, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, the United States should avoid making enemies but should not be kind to those that arise.
If one is against the troops, without which the country can't exist... I find that to be plainly and obviously unpatriotic. That's fine, their choice, and frankly they should be comfortable with their label. It is accurate and it is what they asked for.
I don't agree with that, its simplified too much.
If the troops do the job that they are suppose to do, defend the country, yes they should be supported because there is very little doubt that they are doing what is best for the country but once, keep in mind this is opinionated, they start going past their duties and start attacking other countries on reasons that I find immoral, I find it very difficult to support them.
What the army is doing right now is not necessary for America's survival and is blatant imperialism, which I do not support so naturally I cannot support the war or the troops that are fighting this war. Do I want those troops to die, of course not, but I will not support their goal as long as they are out there. If they come back and start doing their job of defending the country, then yes, I will go back to supporting.
Showing love for one's country is very subjective and to put a single stance on what a patriotism is not only wrong, but very threatening. I show my love for for my country by speaking out against what I see are flaws in our policy. Another person may show love by supporting the troops no matter the situation. Neither of us our wrong, we are just patriotic in different ways.
The troops have zero responsibility for any decision about how they are used.
Once a person decides to join the US Armed Forces, that is said to be the last free decision they can make about their future for two years.
If you don't believe that armed forces are the only reason we can have this conversation, then I'm not sure what to say. Don't like the current conflict? Shit, then, just reduce the number and effectiveness of the troops, then just wait. I'm sure you'll find validation for them soon enough. Or maybe, if you don't have that long of a memory, ask why Bush had a 90% approval rating in November 2001 (and the Marines probably 95%). Ask what would happen to the BCC if we had another attack on this soil. Unthinkable, well it certainly was.
But even more unthinkable is giving today's troops the same treatment as the those that returned from Vietnam, to be treated with derision and disrespect after having done the hardest job ever required of them. One big reason there is "support the troops" thinking despite how things turn out, is because people looked back on their own behavior post-Vietnam and blanched. Don't be like that in a few decades, don't look back at your own behavior with shame.
I've done my part to try to convince kids not to serve and die during this unpatriotic regime. I believe that makes me a patriot.
Well if Marines are needed for the next war, not this one, hope you will still feel as proud. Meanwhile you are a "free rider" as well. You got to live a free life without serving your country one iota. And if it turns out you were wrong in some way, no big whoop, right? So what if the country is a little less defended; you did your part, right? Nobody will die from your approach to the whole conflict, although when we last left it you had Kurdish oil that couldn't make it to a secure port without making a deal Turkey would never accept, IIRC.
Don't confuse supporting the troops with supporting the war.... too many people do.
Perhaps the BCC prefers fighting war without the troops. If you really do *need* to fight a war, and you don't have a strong enough Marines, there are other ways to go about it.
And so as NATO weakens from Europe's lack of interest in a military, the top NATO Generals are planning other ways to get the job done, if it should come to that.
Not exactly what the BCC would have intended, one suspects.
Well if Marines are needed for the next war, not this one, hope you will still feel as proud. Meanwhile you are a "free rider" as well. You got to live a free life without serving your country one iota. And if it turns out you were wrong in some way, no big whoop, right? So what if the country is a little less defended; you did your part, right? Nobody will die from your approach to the whole conflict, although when we last left it you had Kurdish oil that couldn't make it to a secure port without making a deal Turkey would never accept, IIRC.
As it stands right now, the bigger our overseas presense is the worse we are defended. These conflicts are counter to our national interest. That untenable Kurdish situation was the result of my following an interventionist's train of thought. If I remember properly, it started with me accepting responsibility for earlier interventionist policies. I'm better now.
If you really do *need* to fight a war, and you don't have a strong enough Marines, there are other ways to go about it.
When was last time we needed to fight a war?
What the hell?
The man was a communist! Well, okay, a socialist.
For a few years, yes he was. Experience of these converted him away; hence, Orwell's work amounts to an inoculation against socialist totalitarianism and to some degree against socialist niceguyism too.
He fought with the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain!
That being a reflection of the above. Young men volunteer for war, Orwell no less than any other.
The only way you could possibly use Orwell as an argument against 'leftism' is if either A.) you thought that the dystopian society he created was what he wanted, which it wasnt, or B.) you thought the society he created was good, and disagreed with him.
A. Some part of him always rather did; there are online essays on Orwell's life and work noting a "well-concealed totalitarian streak" in his makeup.
Animal Farm and
1984 open a couple of windows on hell, hence again the inoculation. Read them and see if I'm not right; I know I've linked you to a
1984 e-book, and I hope you profited by it. Fascism and leftism's totalitarian phase are the same thing; a bird couldn't live on the difference between the two. The Nazis and the Soviets fought as hard as they did not because they were antitheses; far from it: they were competitors. Each one even tried setting up as a sort of atheist religion, with their respective Parties being the objects of worship. This worship can be seen at several points in
1984 -- the cinema scene, the later parts of Smith's time in the Ministry of Love, and the last paragraph in the book.
B. This proposition is illogical. I doubt I could both disagree
and think it good -- not about an overall social order, which seems to be the context you intend. I'm sure on consideration you'll agree.
So either youre an idiot or a fascist, your choice.
I know you'd like to be as unfair to me as possible for as long as possible, but I urge you not to pursue such a mug's game. My choice is actually "smarter than you, and antifascist in ways you likely are not." Figure out what those ways are. It's very difficult for a leftist to really be an antifascist. And remember I still have thirty-three more years in the world than you do. Experience tells. So do apostrophes, btw.
***
DanaC, what you want me to stop doing is precisely what I must keep on doing. Humanity is served by democracy. Humanity is trammeled by anything lesser -- have you noticed our opposition being about
anything but trammeling? You should be downright rabid against them for that sin. I certainly am. You know humanity is very well served by democracy, from your own experience living in a constitutional monarchy and within a tradition of limited government beginning at Runnymede with the Magna Carta -- and the
Charter of Liberties, ref'd and linked here.
Too little government is dangerous, and too much is destructive and impoverishing. These extremes are not bipolar conditions, binary states, but a continuum. In a fluid political order, the balance first tilts one way, then the other.
Don't confuse supporting the troops with supporting the war.... too many people do.
My view, to the surprise of no one, is that the best support of the troops is victory. Pursue that, and your support for our loyal brave soldiers, sailors, zoomies and jarheads, even our Coasties, is unmistakable.
Pretending to claim good feelings for our military while undermining a can't-be-wrong war against antidemocracy simply wraps fascist-symp villainy in a socially acceptable American flag -- and the people in uniform would hawk a lugie up on your shoes. Better not wear sandals for that occasion.
@UG illegitimi non carborundum
Thank you, Serp. I seem to be the Carborundum (tm) that makes 'em sore. UT told me I'm abrasive. He doesn't -- yet -- credit that should the opposition come up with a good idea, I'll listen. Until they do, traction they don't get -- with or without abrasives.
For a few years, yes he was. Experience of these converted him away
Converted him away from communism. He remained, nevertheless, a socialist.
Please, UG, don't start throwing Runnymede at me. Runnymede was not the beginning of limited monarchichal prerogatives. The Charter of Liberties was declared invalid before it ever took hold. It contained a few nice ideas and the beginnings, of a nascent sense amongst the Baronage, of themselves as a seperate set of interests from the King. It also contained a hell of a lot of individual grievances and claims which were entirely in keeping with the times. It was signed as a timebuying measure and failed to prevent the civil war which followed. It was lost and rediscovered centuries later and has become considered great only in retrospect.
America's cause is not Humanity's cause. No more than the British Empire's cause was Humanity's cause. There are many ways to forge democracies and America's democracy is not the only model nor America democracy's only purveyor.
Arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant fool to think you are the One People who can save the world. The One People who have the answer.
Arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant fool to think you are the One Person who can save the world. The One Person who has the answer.
Corrected.
I'm an American too, and UG speaks for me with the same authority as he does when he speaks for Humanity. He's one guy--not America, not Humanity. Quit enabling his delusions of grandeur.
America's cause is democracy's cause, and humanity is best served by democracy -- the more of it the better. DanaC, you cannot show the thesis to be false. Quit living in denial. Where did you ever get the idea that I only believe in America's particular take on democratic social order? I don't; I've seen plenty of workable democracies elsewhere in the world.
It is that which is not democracy against which I set my face. If it takes arrogance to win out against the idiot brutalities of less-than-democracy, by all means pile on the arrogance and make humanity's worst temporal foe extinct. No one on God's green Earth need live any other way, and usually living some other way sucks to a great or a greater degree. I've seen non-democracy, I've seen fake-democracy, and neither are worth more than the powder to blow them up. Once they are blown up, how much misery will have fled the world?
Why tolerate a political order where only one man, the dictator, has any rights? Is or is that not a recipe for maximum misery?
I tell you, arrogance is far better than the supineness you're propounding as a virtue, DanaC. Quit your complaining and devote your energy to breaking fascists so they stay broken, impotent, emasculated, and eviscerated. Fascists in one or more of these conditions are good and beautiful fascists -- for they cannot get in the way of democracy, the enlightened social order.
Orwell is one of the people who made certain the English speaking world understands socialism and totalitarianism are bad ideas, to be rejected.
I'm afraid I must reject your pleas of "please." They are the worst advice I've seen this week. You don't want to turn into the kind of nutter tw is. I hadn't considered before today that you might risk that.
What the Berkeley CC did was absurd.
Hey, the Marines are our guys. We need them and they are accountable to us.
Blackwater..now that I'm not so sure of. As a private contractor, they are beholden only to their stockholders. The less Marines, the more Blackwaters.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/job_fairs/default.aspI'm not too sure if I want anyone from Berkley in my Army.
It's the aging Hippies that are in power. They don't necessarily represent the whole population, older, younger or non-activist.
Arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant fool to think you are the One People who can save the world. The One People who have the answer.
I am with BigV, you don't speak for all Brits, at least we understand that.:cool:
Here's Berkeley's pinkos.
The "Travel to Exotic Lands. Meet Exciting and Unusual People -- And Kill Them" quote is a copy from 1960s anti-Vietnam posters.
Too bad the protesters haven't figured out that Marines aren't the ones that declare war. Their protest has no larger impact than annoying an office of Marines, and pissing a few people off that they are so stupid.
Again, why aren't they protesting at their state representatives office? That's the appropriate forum.
I have no problem with protesters. I do have a problem with protesters that take their frustration out on the wrong people.
Again, why aren't they protesting at their state representatives office? That's the appropriate forum.
I have no problem with protesters. I do have a problem with protesters that take their frustration out on the wrong people.
They seem to be more effective at getting their message heard this way You are on the other side of the country, and you have heard their message. It's working.
They seem to be more effective at getting their message heard this way You are on the other side of the country, and you have heard their message. It's working.
Getting the message heard is not the same thing as bringing someone over to your way of thinking. My guess is that most people who have heard about this who aren't already strongly and resolutely anti-war were turned off by this form of protest.
the method of protest/argument DOES matter. Think it doesn't? Think about some of the points that Radar argues. If he were to drop the "I'm right and you're stupid approach" followed up with repeating the previous point with larger type, would you have such a strong gut reaction of disagreement with his posts?
I'd agree with that.
Phelps and the Westborough Baptist Church are good at getting their message heard too, but are converting no-one. These guys are the flip side of that same coin.
exactly. i grew up attending a baptist church. although it had issues, it was a good church with good people trying to follow new testament teachings. because of the asshatery of phelps and his ilk, "baptist" is a pretty big insult these days.
I am with BigV, you don't speak for all Brits, at least we understand that.
Yeah, I know that. I wasn't accusing 'America' or 'Americans' of arrogance. I was accusing Urbane Guerilla of arrogance in thinking that his Nation is somehow uniquely placed to resolve the world's ills and bring about enlightenment. I fully realise that his view is not shared by the majority of sane Americans and that he, in reality, speaks for nobody but himself. I was meeting him at his model. He keeps telling me America's cause is humanity's cause and I say he is an arrogant fool for believing that.
Yeah, I know that. I wasn't accusing 'America' or 'Americans' of arrogance. I was accusing Urbane Guerilla of arrogance in thinking that his Nation is somehow uniquely placed to resolve the world's ills and bring about enlightenment. I fully realise that his view is not shared by the majority of sane Americans and that he, in reality, speaks for nobody but himself. I was meeting him at his model. He keeps telling me America's cause is humanity's cause and I say he is an arrogant fool for believing that.
Fair enough. I may have over reacted to your comments. My bad.
My guess is that most people who have heard about this who aren't already strongly and resolutely anti-war were turned off by this form of protest.
Thats true from what I've heard. The most anti-war people I know don't protest because they just see it as a way to feel good about yourself and not actually change something.
Thats true from what I've heard. The most anti-war people I know don't protest because they just see it as a way to feel good about yourself and not actually change something.
The anti-war people turn to the Marine base because the president, vice-president and the nominee for the Republican party are not listening.
Protesting to the president wouldn't do anything anyways. It is still going to accomplish nothing besides making one feel good about oneself. There is not enough will to create a mass protest that could do something and these protests aren't going to open anyone's eyes about the issue.
I find it ironic that the marines die to give them the right to bitch err protest, yet they choose to protest the very people that gave them that right to protest.
When was the last time a marine died protecting our rights?
oh yeah, thats right, the 18th century. maaaaaybe 1945, if you count japan as threatening our rights.
that said, while I (for the most part) don't support military action in any situation that doesnt involve specific risk of invasion, and certain humanitarian/peacekeeping missions [COLOR="Silver"][size=1](and since what someone may view as a peacekeeping mission would be an invasion and occupation to someone else...)[/COLOR][/size], I harbor absolutely no animosity to the actual members of the military (the top brass, maybe not so much, but thats just me hating authority), coming from a military family myself and being very familiar with many, many military families and servicemembers.
Hate the organization, not the people... just like you should for any other group, movement, organization you dnt agree with.
Ibby, I have so much to say to that, but I think it will be said and taken much better by Reg Joe or Merc. All I can say is you have absolutely no perspective.
I do not believe, in the slightest, that any of our overseas involvement ever (except, like i said, maybe japan) has been in defense of my or any other american's freedom. Sure, maybe 1812, spanish-american wars... but they were on home soil, not overseas. Thats not to say there weren't good reasons for them - taking on germany in WWII, n. korea in the fifties, both of those were fairly okay - but certainly not lately by any means. Meanwhile, the military is the only organization completely free, legally speaking, to discriminate by gender, sexuality, any prettymuch whatever other factor they wish, as well as the only organization in the united states that completely deprives its members of their rights (effectively turning almost all rights into privileges, and since they can arrest you for disobeying an order and can order you to do anything that isnt illegal)...
but mostly i don't believe the argument that theyre 'defending our freedoms' because every single immediate threat i can see to my freedom is completely within the USA. Theocrats, neocons, right-wing hate groups... all actively trying to take away my rights, or keep me from gaining them. You can't say the same about anyone else in the world. Just cause fundamentalists and extremists and communists want to take away my rights, in a broad eventual sense, theyre not actively doing so. Theyre all a lot more occupied at home, for one thing.
Just cause fundamentalists and extremists and communists want to take away my rights, in a broad eventual sense, theyre not actively doing so.
Gee I wonder why? Lemme think on that a bit.
Its not our military, as anything but a deterrent. Which once more brings us back around to, i'm against the idea of using the military except in cases of actual invasion. Reduce it to a national guard force, not an international police force (or, alternatively, armed gang).
They arent doing it for the same reason we aren't forcibly making china a democracy. Its a pipe dream, a fantasy, not a realistic short-term goal.
and how exactly did our military become a deterrent?
Who was the last nation to invade switzerland?
oh, thats right, nobody.
whos the last person they invaded?
oh, thats right, nobody.
Wow. Classicman do you really believe there's an external threat to your way of life right now? Do you believe your freedoms are under threat from an external enemy?
That's scary. That's really scary.
Who was the last nation to invade switzerland?
oh, thats right, nobody.
whos the last person they invaded?
oh, thats right, nobody.
All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).
Wow. Classicman do you really believe there's an external threat to your way of life right now? Do you believe your freedoms are under threat from an external enemy?
That's scary. That's really scary.
no there aren't any threats to us - 9/11 never really happened - just like we never landed on the moon.
no there aren't any threats to us - 9/11 never really happened - just like we never landed on the moon.
A threat to our
safety is not a threat to our
freedom.
we
should have a national guard to defend our security, like I said... but our military doesn't really help defend our freedom.
Ibby, I have so much to say to that, but I think it will be said and taken much better by Reg Joe or Merc. All I can say is you have absolutely no perspective.
Given the responses up to post #93 it would be a complete waste of time trying to explain it. His mind is made up.
If you can justify militarism and invasion/occupation to me without sounding like UG... have at it. My mind is NEVER as made up as it sounds, trust me. I'm a teenager after all, right?
A threat to our safety is not a threat to our freedom
Further threats to our safety will lead to the full-on demand of further loss of freedoms.
Further threats to our safety will lead to the full-on demand of further loss of freedoms.
You can take that to the bank. Another 9/11 style attack will become the test of our Constitution as we know it. I am not agreeing or disagreeing that changes would have to be made.
You can take that to the bank. Another 9/11 style attack will become the test of our Constitution as we know it. I am not agreeing or disagreeing that changes would have to be made.
We failed the pop quiz we're gonna get rolled on the test.
Regarding the mountains; we had oceans at one point but I guess they dried up. I agree with Ibby's general tone.
i know i may be oversimplifying things a bit, but the gist of Ibram's thoughts are that if we just roll up the military and bring everyone back into our borders, then everyone will quit being mad at us and we'll have nothing to worry about?
Griff, you're old enough to know better. I'm not saying rampant imperialism is desireable, but isolationism is just as impractical.
Griff, you're old enough to know better. I'm not saying rampant imperialism is desireable, but isolationism is just as impractical.
I'm old enough to know that entrenched economic power trumps patriotism, if that's what you mean. I also know that the Republic failed, but I will mourn her.
I also know that the Republic failed, but I will mourn her.
The Republic that you're mourning has been failing since the day she was launched. Just like living is just the slow process of dying.
Every step of the way the republic has been moving closer to failure. A portion of every generation since the first has been certain that the failure was nearly complete. The country is changing but that is nothing new. It swings too far to the right then too far to the left and then...
So what are you going to do? Wall yourself off from the world because it doesn't fit neatly into the box you think it should? I doubt it. You'll keep getting up in the morning and doing your job. You'll raise your kids the best you can. You'll grow old, all the while being convinced that the republic is failing - and you'll be right. and wrong. the republic won't always be the world's largest superpower. that is inevitable. But once upon a time the average person in England couldn't conceive of a time when they wouldn't be at the center of global discussion. Times change and it seems to me that they are still living just fine there.
I, too, agree with the tone of Ibram's posts. But I read them differently. Not as a cry for a return to isolationism, but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.
We **HAVE** awesome military power, and it is powerfully appealing to want to use the biggest hammer in the toolbox. But it is not always the best option. It is not always the most effective means of achieving a result.
Even when a goal is laudable, it may be a poor use of the military as well. They're soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and coasties. As part of their job, they may know how to build a bridge or a school. They may know how to talk to a civilian suspect. They're clearly highly competent in their areas of speciality, and their training is excellent. But they're not nation builders. They're not even peace keepers. They're warriors, right? Isn't that what they train for? For war.
During this administration, they've been used and abused as a blunt heavy instrument. Not all our problems, problems we share with others can be bombed into submission.
i know i may be oversimplifying things a bit, but the gist of Ibram's thoughts are that if we just roll up the military and bring everyone back into our borders, then everyone will quit being mad at us and we'll have nothing to worry about?
Just because the hole will still be there when you stop isn't a reason to keep digging.
Griff, you're old enough to know better. I'm not saying rampant imperialism is desireable, but isolationism is just as impractical.
Not invading countries isn't isolationism. There are all sorts of ways to engage in world affairs without killing.
You'll keep getting up in the morning and doing your job. You'll raise your kids the best you can.
I'll roll out at 5:45 no matter. The big problem for me is that we're destroying the opportunity to be a model of free and productive humanity just as huge science driven innovations create so much opportunity for humanity. Instead of being major players in the future, we muddle around in foreign lands subsidizing the hierarchy of the past with the investment dollars and blood needed for our children's futures. Here we are at the edge of a truly wonderous time for mankind, handing the ball off to totalitarians.
I, too, agree with the tone of Ibram's posts. But I read them differently. Not as a cry for a return to isolationism, but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.
Thank you, V. You got it.
~snip~ but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.
I too agree with that statement, but that is not at all what I took out of his original one. Sorry for any misinterpretation.
Its not our military, as anything but a deterrent. Which once more brings us back around to, i'm against the idea of using the military except in cases of actual invasion. Reduce it to a national guard force, not an international police force (or, alternatively, armed gang).
They arent doing it for the same reason we aren't forcibly making china a democracy. Its a pipe dream, a fantasy, not a realistic short-term goal.
I too agree with that statement, but that is not at all what I took out of his original one. Sorry for any misinterpretation.
Neither did I.
I, too, agree with the tone of Ibram's posts. But I read them differently. Not as a cry for a return to isolationism, but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.
We **HAVE** awesome military power, and it is powerfully appealing to want to use the biggest hammer in the toolbox. But it is not always the best option. It is not always the most effective means of achieving a result.
Even when a goal is laudable, it may be a poor use of the military as well. They're soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and coasties. As part of their job, they may know how to build a bridge or a school. They may know how to talk to a civilian suspect. They're clearly highly competent in their areas of speciality, and their training is excellent. But they're not nation builders. They're not even peace keepers. They're warriors, right? Isn't that what they train for? For war.
During this administration, they've been used and abused as a blunt heavy instrument. Not all our problems, problems we share with others can be bombed into submission.
I can't agree more. I think 2008 marks the year where the US spending on defense will surpass the spending of the rest of the world combined. We buy new billion dollar aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter) against an air threat that does not exist. We maintain bases in overseas regions that no longer require us to be there, and would frankly like us gone (although it would hurt the local economies to leave). I've always thought we should reduce our force and close most overseas bases. Mostly what we need is a few naval ports, and agreements to use a handful of airfields as required.
President Clinton reduced our forces. This alienated the military from the democrats, combined wth anti-military comments from other democrats. To make it worse, during Clinton's terms the military had more deployments as peace-keepers. Smaller force, more deployments, to areas in which the military's skills weren't in tune with what was needed. Military forces are trained to fight - not to keep peace. Sure, miltary have engineers that can dig wells and schools - but that's not the mission of the military. Protect and defend, not dig wells.
The US was never truly isolationist. If you look at the period when we were so called isolationists we were stilling fight small 'wars' in areas we had an economic interest in.
Marines can stay in Berkeley, without an apology from City Council
The Berkeley City Council attempted to make nice with U.S. Marines recruiters Wednesday morning by taking back a letter it planned to send calling the Corps 'uninvited and unwelcome intruders' in the city.
But a motion to formally apologize failed.
Instead the City Council with a 7-2 vote at 1 a.m. sought to clarify one of its Jan. 29 Marines motions with new language that recognizes "the recruiters' right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or support their presence."
The new statement also said the council opposes "the recruitment of our young people into this war."
I also applaud this second refinement of the BCC's position.
I can't agree more. I think 2008 marks the year where the US spending on defense will surpass the spending of the rest of the world combined. We buy new billion dollar aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter) against an air threat that does not exist. We maintain bases in overseas regions that no longer require us to be there, and would frankly like us gone (although it would hurt the local economies to leave). I've always thought we should reduce our force and close most overseas bases. Mostly what we need is a few naval ports, and agreements to use a handful of airfields as required.
President Clinton reduced our forces. This alienated the military from the democrats, combined wth anti-military comments from other democrats. To make it worse, during Clinton's terms the military had more deployments as peace-keepers. Smaller force, more deployments, to areas in which the military's skills weren't in tune with what was needed. Military forces are trained to fight - not to keep peace. Sure, miltary have engineers that can dig wells and schools - but that's not the mission of the military. Protect and defend, not dig wells.
The US was never truly isolationist. If you look at the period when we were so called isolationists we were stilling fight small 'wars' in areas we had an economic interest in.
I would disagree about the comments concerning the JSF or a huge reduction in overseas bases but I would agree about the comments concerning the Clinton administration. Having been on AD during that complete period we were marginalized and degraded. The times we prepared demonstrations and expected to have a chance to make a case for specific unit missions were met by 20-something's Congressional staffers and scorn by the Demoncratic administration of the time. Another reason not to vote for Ms. Clinton IMHO. We don't need to swing that far again. Our need to project military power world wide will not be reduced in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
BigV nailed it, we are warriors not nation builders, but it does not mean that we cannot be compasionate and care for civilians caught in the crossfire of misdirected policy. We can and do that to a much greater degree than the majority of the public knows or understands. The information fed to the public by the press is packaged and sanitized by both the government censors and liberal supporters with agendas and an axe to grind, much of it is off the mark and does not tell the real story.
Even with an all volunteer military, we don't have legions of Rambos, frothing at the mouth, to kill. Well trained and capable, but mostly just decent people with a soft spot for puppies, children, and people that are hurting.
I would disagree about the comments concerning the JSF or a huge reduction in overseas bases but I would agree about the comments concerning the Clinton administration. Having been on AD during that complete period we were marginalized and degraded. The times we prepared demonstrations and expected to have a chance to make a case for specific unit missions were met by 20-something's Congressional staffers and scorn by the Demoncratic administration of the time. Another reason not to vote for Ms. Clinton IMHO. We don't need to swing that far again. Our need to project military power world wide will not be reduced in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
BigV nailed it, we are warriors not nation builders, but it does not mean that we cannot be compasionate and care for civilians caught in the crossfire of misdirected policy. We can and do that to a much greater degree than the majority of the public knows or understands. The information fed to the public by the press is packaged and sanitized by both the government censors and liberal supporters with agendas and an axe to grind, much of it is off the mark and does not tell the real story.
By all accounts, the plan is for 2,000-3,000 JSFs, each costing around $37-$48 million each, depending on the variant. I know our aircraft have to be replaced - we're still flying aircraft that were shot at in Vietnam allmost 40 years ago. However, there has to be a more cost effective way to replace them. Should we upgrade capabilities? Of course. Should we test technology? Of course! But we could buy newer versions of older models at a fraction of the cost to meet most of the need (and threat), and only have a small number of JSFs just to have the ability to push new technology to the limit, get lessons learned, and improve on it even more.
Overseas bases? We have thousands of people in Japan, ostensibly to keep Kim Jong-il in check, as well as China. There is a plan to relocate most of the force to Guam - which is great. The Japanese people don't want us there. Our forces in Germany were there to guard against the Communists. They are no longer a threat, and Germany is just a great place for soldiers and airmen to spend a few years drinking beer and going skiing in the Alps. The Germans would like us gone too, although they don't hate our presence as much as the Japanese. These are just the two largest concentrations. Close most overseas bases, and we can still project our power through long range bombers and Expeditionary Strike Groups. No permanent basing needed. And it would save a lot of money.
Would we appreciate Japan having a base in Hawaii, or the Germans in Colorado, or the Italians in Washington, or the Bahraini's in DC? The answer is no.
The key word in JSF is Joint. The reason it is an important platform is that all three services are going to use it. All the other countries are updating and we are required for security reasons to stay ahead. The JSF is the best way to go.
I agree that we could reduce our overseas presence in some places, but not in others. Germany is more than a place to vacation Europe from and drink beer. We have already closed numerous and redundent posts in Europe, as we should have, but the largest air fields, combined with the Medical Center are and have been extremely important. The ablity to project power from that location is very important. I could see how we could close some more bases in some areas of Europe.
Japan, Germany, and Italians really have no beef with us, Canada, or Mexico so they really would not want to be here any how.
But we could buy newer versions of older models
and hope that others in the world aren't upgrading? Doesn't work that way.
Anyway, you've been in the military long enough to know that those cost projections are fluffed up by billions in BS R&D costs that escalate for no valid reason other than political BS.
Don't believe that? Read
this about
this guy.WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - U.S. and foreign defense contractors are
jockeying for position as the Pentagon moves toward launching a mammoth
competition to replace some 170,000 Humvees in the U.S. military fleet.
Defense analysts and industry sources say the Joint Tactical Light
Vehicles contract is worth well over $10 billion and possibly three to
seven times more, depending on the final cost of the vehicle chosen for
the Army and Marine Corps to use for the next three to four decades.
The replacement vehicles will become the workhorse of the two services and
will be used to carry troops and equipment, with an eye to protecting them
better from roadside bombs than the current fleet of Humvees.
"It is a very lucrative program," said defense consultant Jim McAleese.
"Whoever wins this, they're going to build the light tactical vehicle for
the Army for the next 40 years."
The Pentagon expects to release a formal request for proposals for
technology development of the new trucks by the end of March 2008.
Several of the Pentagon's top contractors are gearing up to bid for the
work, including No. 1 Lockheed Martin Corp which teamed with Britain's BAE
Systems Plc , which acquired Armor Holdings this year. Also expected to
bid are No. 2 Boeing Co with partner Textron Inc , and No. 4 General
Dynamics Corp , which has teamed with Humvee maker AM General.
BAE, which has a big stake in a U.S. project worth more than $20 billion
that is sending armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles to
Iraq, also has a separate bid for the new contract. BAE is teaming up with
rival MRAP maker Navistar International Corp's International Military and
Government LLC.
Specialty truck maker Oshkosh Truck Corp is also participating in the
competition.
The Army and Marine Corps had hoped to begin production of its Humvee
replacements by 2010, but the Pentagon recently decided to return to its
original 2012 target.
That decision followed a move by acting Pentagon arms chief John Young in
September to require development of prototypes before the government moves
into the costly system design and development phase of new programs.
"Competing teams producing prototypes of key system elements will reduce
technical risk, validate designs, validate cost estimates, evaluate
manufacturing processes, and refine requirements," Young wrote in a memo
explaining the policy.
Defense analyst Paul Nisbet with with JSA Research, lauded the move. The
military's failure to test prototypes with the MRAP program resulted in a
range of problems, including equipment that did not work as expected, he
said.
In the MRAP program, which was rushed through by Congress, the Pentagon is
"ending up with half a dozen different vehicles that are going to be a
logistical nightmare," Nisbet said.
He said it made more sense in the case of the Humvee successors, which
were not as urgently needed, to "slow the process down and buy one type of
basic vehicle" to be built by one manufacturer, or possibly two sharing
the same design.
McAleese expected the Pentagon to whittle the field to two or three teams
that would build a prototype and eventually settle on one manufacturer for
the new vehicles.
Teams with experience mass producing vehicles and leading other big
programs would probably have a competitive edge, he said.
Lockheed executives acknowledged their company is better known for
advanced fighter jets, but said its experience integrating communications
and sensors would give it an edge in the truck competition.
In addition, Lockheed's design has a V-shaped hull that offers troops
similar protection to the much heavier -- and far less transportable --
MRAP vehicles, said Steve Ramsey, executive vice president of Lockheed's
Systems Integration.
Huge bucks and these aren't what I'd call serious weapon systems.
no there aren't any threats to us - 9/11 never really happened - just like we never landed on the moon.
a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?
b) Whilst damaging, in what way does such an attack actually threaten your country's survival/way of life/basic freedoms?
I understand that it was a watershed moment, but the stark reality is that in terms of actual loss of life it was very little compared to what many countries deal with on a day-to-day basis. It took what? six or seven years to plan? A major operation, yet managed to do little more than scratch America's surface.
In terms of real threat to your nation there isn't one unless it comes via a nuclear strike and having troops stationed across the Middle East is hardly going to prevent that.
The idea that you are under threat from, at war with, a great and terrible enemy is a lie. It's been sold to you on the back of 9/11 just as surely as you were sold reds under the beds in a previous generation. Duck and cover everyone. Stay vigilant.
And, no this isn't just about Americans. We're being sold the same bullshit over here. A couple of buses get blown up and suddenly that's justifcation for all sorts of changes to our legal system that'd have us shuddering in disgust under 'normal' circumstances.
a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?
By hunting the people who want to make us go away and killing them.
And how is it that the terrorists, al-Qaeda et al, aren't using the war, the Iraq War, as real-world training, like the Chechyans are using the war vs Russia as real-world training?
But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.
But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.
Get back to me on the Wahhabist philosophy and let me know some more about that.
And how is it that the terrorists, al-Qaeda et al, aren't using the war, the Iraq War, as real-world training, like the Chechyans are using the war vs Russia as real-world training?
No one said they were not. Least of all me.
If they are, they're getting a lesson in how to get their ass handed to them and slink away. Recent dispatches have indicated that foreign fighters have had it... without the means or opportunity to off a few dozen infidels, they are going home disgusted.
Philosophy is not action.
Right, action produces results, philosophy produces hot air.
Philosophy is not action.
OHRLY... give us all a friggin break on that one already. 9/11 was philosophy in action and the perps have had their asses handed to them one at a time.
OHRLY... give us all a friggin break on that one already. 9/11 was philosophy in action and the perps have had their asses handed to them one at a time.
You're right, it was philosophy in action...
...and the only freedoms that it threatened were
the freedoms Bush took away when it happened.
You're right, it was philosophy in action...
...and the only freedoms that it threatened were the freedoms Bush took away when it happened.
What about the close to 3,000 people that had their freedom permanently taken away on 9/11 due to philosophy in action?
But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.
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 :
1. To drive Americans and
American influence out of all Muslim nations (especially Saudi Arabia) - the US government cannot control the influence of American media and businessmen in the Middle East;
2. Destroy Israel - were not going to allow that to happen;
3. Topple pro-Western dictatorships around the Middle East - again, not going to allow this.
Osama Bin Laden has also said that he wishes to unite all Muslims and establish, by force if necessary, an Islamic nation adhering to the rule of the first Caliphs. At a minimum, he wants the 'traditional' Islamic nations (those that were under Islamic control in the 8th century) to become one - to include north Africa and portions of southern Europe, such as portions of Spain.
According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa, it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews. Muslims who do not heed this call are declared apostates (people who have forsaken their faith).
I do believe there will be some diminishment of their recruiting if we get the military out of the Middle East. But that still does not solve American influence (political, economic, social) on the region. They attacked us with a handful of faithful believers, causing immense damage, when our military presence was minimal. So how will removing our military presence now change the mindset of the extremists?
But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Why did they repeatedly attack the U.S. again? Did they really think we would let them attack us, especially here on our soil, and not respond?
It is very clear that they want everyone and anyone who is not "like them," dead and gone.
a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?
b) Whilst damaging, in what way does such an attack actually threaten your country's survival/way of life/basic freedoms?
a) It is terribly obvious. Without any disrespect, this is not even worth asking, let alone answering.
b) Dana - You have got to be drunk, high or kidding.
You're right, it was philosophy in action...
...and the only freedoms that it threatened were the freedoms Bush took away when it happened.
In other words, no freedoms removed at all. I've been living right here, in these United States since September 2001, and can you say the same? Not one freedom have I lost, nor am I likely to lose one. Same thing for you, particularly once you come to man's estate. Even Bill Clinton, great friend of the Bill of Rights that
he was, couldn't manage taking freedoms and rights away -- though not for want of effort.
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.
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.
BS. recessions are part of the economic cycle that is constantly in motion. concurrent existence is not evidence of cause and effect.
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.
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.
And I'm beginning to think that the 'Old America' thinking you seem to be promoting is going to get my son killed in the future.
I think it was very nice of the British to help out in Afghanistan and very stupid of them to help us in Iraq. Personally, if our positions were reversed, I would have had no problem with an American president contributing a small portion of the forces in Afghanistan. Heck, we did it in the Balkans. But if Blair had made the arguments that Bush had made and asked us to back a British invasion of Iraq, I'd like to think any US president other than GWB would have been smart enough to decline.
Sometimes I think there should be an IgNobel prize, a kind of anti-Nobel prize similar to the Razzies versus the Oscars. Someplace to recognize the truly worst accomplishments in politics, arts, science, etc.
I have a few suggestions for charter recipients.
Not all of Berkeley agrees with the city council.
Don't think so, but it could be.
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.
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.
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/fullpage.html?res=950CE4DD153AF934A15752C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem with those middle eastern countries, is they are already filled with foreigners.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.
What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.
Anyone who supports the war in Iraq or the violations of civil rights on the part of the Bush administration is a gutless coward, and a scumbag, and is unworthy to call themselves an American.
C'mon Radar, don't beat around the bush, tell us what you really think.
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.
Their shame, of course, was in this pro-fascist move against the Marines in the first place, rather than supporting the destruction of fascism in each and every corner of the world -- which if Berkeley were anything sensible, they would be doing. Instead, Berkeley posts signs at its city limits telling us we really can't bring any W88 nuclear warheads we may happen to have around into town in the car trunk. Or they'll get really really mad.
Anyway, the Republicans are actually doing the advance of democracy, whereas Berkeley isn't, and that's why I'm torqued at the Berkeley City Council.
I used to see a lot of Berkeley when I lived in the Bay Area. I even saw a copy of that dreadful Marxist newspaper some braindead bad example used to print out on one awkwardly-formatted sheet of many foldings. (There were no living ideas present anywhere on the thing. It was like, politics for zombies.)
You, my friend, are the one talking a raft of shit, owing to your absolute and furious determination never to understand either the constitutionality of our war, nor its legality. For that matter, you're not doing very much yourself to remove antilibertarianism from this Earth, are you now?
To call the war on terror unconstitutional and illegal demonstrates in black and white that you aren't a Constitutional scholar, or you would never say such things. You will note that as something of a Constitution reader myself, I for one never have. I think I know more about it than you do, and I also think I understand human nature better, and I apply that understanding when I consider politics.
Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion, for you have never even tried to prove unconstitutionality or illegality in this war, and from those with reason to think they've got it better together than you do, it invites a dose of patronizing. We end up thinking Paul's either not too bright or that his blind spots drop him over a stumbling block four times an afternoon.
It doesn't hurt libertarianism if fascism/communism/noxious-ism or any other subdemocratic social order dies, and you seem blind to this concept. This is odd; I regard it as a basic essential. How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?
How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?
Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?
Shush gal, the battle royale is about to begin
How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?
Or rather, how can it possibly be wrong for the Free to kill the Unfree?
What if we apply the Bobby McGee Principle, IE that freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose?
Or...is it possible that if freedom killing unfreedom is wrong, we don't wanna be right?
Because...it hurts so good?
It's a hard habit to break?
Freedom, I can't quit you.
I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.
What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.
Anyone who supports the war in Iraq or the violations of civil rights on the part of the Bush administration is a gutless coward, and a scumbag, and is unworthy to call themselves an American.
And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. :rattat: HA!
I'd close each and every single American military base outside of the borders of the United States. I'd reduce military spending by 2/3 and still have a military strong enough to provide a DEFENSE rather than having an offensive force spread all over the globe like the Roman Empire ready to get involved in every petty dispute among other nations.
What military remained would be well-armed, well-trained, and well able to defend America from any attacks.
I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.
Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.
Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and
there's nothing wrong with that.
Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.
People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.
No one doubts the presence of any of the overseas bases are to project power for our national interests, including preserving the free flow of oil. The sooner we break the bondage from oil the sooner we can worry less about oil.
I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)
There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...
Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?
A mental midget like you are in no position to judge the intellect of his intellectual superiors like me.
How hilarious that a shitbird like you who has absolutely zero understanding of the Constitution would question someone like me who knows it better than any Supreme Court Justice in the last century.
The war in Iraq is 100% unconstitutional. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, a complete idiot, or an asshole. This includes you.
I have proven many times the unconstitutionality of this war.
1. The U.S. Constitution defines the scope of our military as being a DEFENSIVE one. This means America doesn't start wars or attack first. It means all "pre-emptive" military action is unconstitutional.
2. Only Congress has war making powers and only when it is in the defense of American ships or soil and then only when a formal declaration of war is made and voted upon by Congress.
3. Congress does not have the authority to distribute its powers to other branches of government so it may not "authorize" the president to make war.
4. The invasion of Iraq was not in the defense of America in 1991, in 2002, or at any time in history. Iraq never posed even the slightest threat to America.
5. The war powers act is unconstitutional in its face and the Supreme Court itself said that all laws which contradict the Constitution are automatically null and void without the requirement of judicial review.
6. Each and every single war that the United States has entered into in which America was not defending American soil or ships is unconstitutional. Each and every single war the United States has entered into where a formal declaration of war was not made by CONGRESS, is unconstitutional.
I've stated these indisputable facts many times over. You are just too stupid to read them or too dishonest or morally bankrupt to admit they are true.
Dont' ever try to take the moral or intellectual high ground with me. You will lose every time.
You ask "How could it possibly be wrong for freedom to kill unfreedom?" The question itself proves your ignorance and I'm not just talking about your use of a fictional word.
Freedom doesn't kill anything. Freedom is about living the way you want to live your life without being molested, forced, coerced, or cajoled into doing what others want you to do. Democracy and freedom are not synonymous .
America's authority ends at our own borders. Neither America, nor the UN has any authority whatsoever to tell another country what weapons it may or may not develop or what system of government it will or won't have. America isn't here to "liberate" the people of other nations or to practice nation building. America's military is for the sole use of defending America.
America's military is here to be a DEFENSIVE force to be used when we are attacked and not otherwise. It's not here to be spread out all over the globe like the Roman Empire bullying other nations or sticking our noses into the disputes of other nations. It's not here for humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions. It's not here to overthrow or prop up dictators or to spread democracy. It's not even here to kill "unfreedom".
Anyone who would use the U.S. military for any of these reasons is a traitor and an idiot.
I propose that this execution of an isolationist stance is not relevant to our times, because of the way the economy works. Resources, which represent our interests, aren't geographically located within our borders, so therefore protecting our own interests within our borders means doing some work outside our borders.
Something like "lining our troops up around our borders" would now be more like "lining up our troops around the oil fields in the middle east" which is...what we're doing isn't it? More accurately, establishing a military presence in the region.
Except we would never admit that. Instead we talk about "spreading freedom" and other such nonsense that we really don't give a crap about, or else we'd be doing it in the places where it's really needed most. Instead, we're doing it where our own interests lie, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Except we're too dishonest to admit it, and prefer to lie to ourselves about the reasons for war.
People don't support the war because they don't like being lied to, and they're not stupid.
This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing. We defend ourselves, and we trade freely with other nations. We do not get involved in their political affairs or disputes with other nations.
This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150. It remains neutral in all disputes. It has a very strong defense. It doesn't go around sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. They are very happy and successful for this stance. This was also America's stance until WWI.
And this from some tax doging pussy who couldn't hack it in the military, more than likely you got your ass kicked out anyway.. Good stuff, carry on. :rattat: HA!
I see the candyassed pussy who couldn't hack it in a ring with me for a minute is running his mouth again. I served with honor and I got an honorable discharge when I was done because I realized the military has too many morons and I could make a lot more money outside the military. I'm making more than 80% of Generals currently serving in the military.
I don't appreciate taking orders from idiots so after my term was done, I got out and went to college, and now I'm the one giving orders. Luckily for those who work for me, they don't have to deal with taking orders from an idiot.
This is not an isolationist stance. It's a military non-interventionist stance, and they are not the same thing.
Okay, I used the wrong word. The difference in the two things we're describing is: the specific (stated) reason why the troops are there. Which is highly debatable. We're framing it differently, but as a practical matter the results are the same.
I'm saying there may be a good reason for us to be over there, but, mysteriously we are silent on that point.
As a result, we've barrelled into a war with no hope of sustained political support.
This works in real life. Switzerland has been surrounded by war for hundreds of years and hasn't been in one for 150.
All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation with few natural resources (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).
Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion,
Hee hee.
Repetition, dear fellow, is not persuasion,
True, but you continue to repeat lies. Also, one can hardly expect to persuade those who are intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt and whose minds
(what little they have) are not open to be persuaded.
In other words, you can't persuade a rock, or those who have the intellect and/or stubbornness of one.
All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation with few natural resources (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).
Or...bankroll the Nazis and Fascists.
Or...bankroll the Nazis and Fascists.
Which Switzerland did not do. They were neutral in the disputes surrounding them and allowed the Germans to put the art and valuables they had (from whatever source) to be stored in the bank.
Also, America is harder to attack than Switzerland. They are surrounded by other nations and America has an ocean on either side and only 2 nations bordering ours.
Oh they didn't bankroll, they just stored what the Nazis and Faciscts have stolen, and intend to keep the stuff after the Nazis died off, if it weren't for that pesky guard. I got
it.As I said, they remain neutral. There is no moral ambiguity or wrong in doing this. The reward is in never having to fight a war that you don't belong in....like Iraq.
Switzerland didn't judge the actions of other nations or get involved in their disputes. If someone brought money or art, or something valuable and wants to store it in their bank, they assumed it was gotten legitimately. If it wasn't, the blame is on the person who stole it, not the person who stored it.
Also, banks in America do the same thing. If you die, and nobody comes forward to collect your money, after a certain period of time, the bank gets to keep it. I highly doubt banks leave accounts open that have had no activity for 50 years.
No officer I didn't think anything was wrong with letting some random guy hide a stolen Ferrari in my garage so no one would know. Honest! I didn't steal it, i just helped the guy who did! I'm neutral!
ac·com·plice -noun: a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing
That sure placated the Jews. No, it didn't. They sued for their forebears' things.
Also, America is harder to attack than Switzerland. They are surrounded by other nations and America has an ocean on either side and only 2 nations bordering ours.
America was attacked.
You can't imagine a war where a nation had to cross an ocean to attack and was successful? Cause that's half of them recently, starting with WW2. You can't imagine asymmetric warfare being an issue?
From what I can tell, Switzerland wasn't attacked because
A) its only strategy was defense, which was made possible by geography (a limited number of passable chokepoints) and the enlistment of 20% of its population into the army;
B) its economic concessions to Germany (why concentrate on taking it when it's giving you all you need anyway?), and
C) its basic aversion to nazism and distrust of the Germans made it a harder pill to swallow.
Hitler would have gotten back to Switzerland. He just moved it down the list and then his list got tore up before he could finish it.
No officer I didn't think anything was wrong with letting some random guy hide a stolen Ferrari in my garage so no one would know. Honest! I didn't steal it, i just helped the guy who did! I'm neutral!
ac·com·plice -noun: a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing
No, it's more like this....
ME: "Yes officer, that person stored a Ferrari in my garage. He paid to store it there."
COP: "Didn't you think it might be stolen?"
ME: "I didn't ask. That's none of my business. If he stole it, he is the one who must deal with the authorities, not me."
Sir, these gentlemen are telling me that they did see a sign on your garage that said "Stolen Ferrari Storage" ...
Nice.
That's the only scene in any movie where I'm not completely disgusted by Quentin Tarantino's acting. Still one of my favorite films of all time.
America was attacked.
You can't imagine a war where a nation had to cross an ocean to attack and was successful? Cause that's half of them recently, starting with WW2. You can't imagine asymmetric warfare being an issue?
Switzerland is more open to bombing (WWII) and terrorism (9-11) than the US is. It is within much closer range of many more countries, and has borders (with more countries) that are at least as open.
Their biggest defense is their foreign policy.
If what's not true? Do you think that my narrative is that the Swiss are so good that nothing bad will ever happen to them?
Nothing can prevent all terrorism, but foreign policy is much more important than mountains and military size.
If what's not true? Do you think that my narrative is that the Swiss are so good that nothing bad will ever happen to them?
Nothing can prevent all terrorism, but foreign policy is much more important than mountains and military size.
Exactly. And those who are looking to make attacks in Switzerland, aren't trying to attack the Swiss. They are trying to attack Jews who keep their money or diamonds in Switzerland. Although Jihadists tend to be willing to kill hundreds or even thousands of others as long as they get the few they wanted. They don't hold a high value on human life as a rule.
So Switzerland is getting it from both Muslims and Jews. I almost feel sorry for them. Not.
I'm not talking about established military outposts, I'm talking about having our whole damn military stationed over there...indefinitely (???)
There's been a long list of bullshit reasons to be in Iraq, each one has been thoroughly shot down, only to be replaced by a more ridiculous flim-flam reason. At this point, we're down to pure idealistic fantasies. Yet, a good, valid reason is staring us right in the face...
Why has not one person had the balls to say we're there to be close to the oil our economy depends on?
Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.
I am not lying, and I'm clearly a better Constitutional scholar than you are -- you're wrong on at least five of your six points and you've proved a total of none. Permit me to serve you notice that I am not buying your fantasy, nor your misanalysis. You seem to be confusing your "should-bes" with what is actually written in the Constitution, which is hardly an approach you can sustain.
If I can't persuade a rock, I can make him a laughingstock. Would you like to become a laughingstock with all six of your points destroyed by merely quoting the relevant text of the Constitution at you?
1. The language of Article I, Section 8-11 through 8-16 detail what the legislative branch ought to do in military matters. The only defensive thing even implicit is calling out the militia in the cases of invasion and insurrection. Nowhere in the Section is there any declaration of the military being defensive solely, in the sense you seem to mean. The Constitution isn't trying to restrict us in dealings with foreign powers that may go badly sour, you'll note.
2. Those same sections of Article I specifically mention Congress having the power to declare a state of war, and DO NOT restrict the Executive Branch in the person of the Commander in Chief from sending in troops -- also advisedly, and in considerable measure this was NOT an oversight. Historical precedent as well as legal precedent is firmly against you here, no matter how quixotically you may rail about it: the United States has been in about 150 shooting conflicts of various scopes, with its first not-declared conflict being the Quasi-War of 1798-99, and Congress declared a state of war in but five of these. The proof, I think, all runs to disprove you.
3. Where you're getting this one from I have NO idea, and don't think there's a real idea to have. That is where you run into difficulty trying to explain it. Perhaps you're looking among your should-bes for a rule against doing anything of the sort, and there isn't one.
4. Well, here you're not being Constitutional, but rambling over into foreign-policy desiderata. Reduction of antilibertarian regimes does not, it appears, fit into your notion of libertarianism (which I find inconceivable for reasons I've made clear elsewhere) but here's a hint to something a bit more real, offered gratis: absolutist isolationism works only in the complete absence of foreign states, and is not sustainable in a global economy anyway, but only in a much-reduced feudal one.
5. Here you have the possiblity of being right, and in any case I'd have to table it until I fully understand the Act and judiciary findings on it, as well as other analysis. If you'd like to show me some material you found persuasive, I'd be glad to give it a look.
6. Is as defective as the first four, for the same reasons as the first four.
I take the moral and the intellectual high ground from you: I can defeat you because my moral and intellectual high ground are better than yours. I stand ready to demonstrate this as many times as the Cellar can stand. If you boast, boast sweetly, in case you later need to eat your words.
In spite of some protestations, nobody here's really saying it would be wrong for freedom to defeat unfreedom however comprehensively this needs to be done: all I'm stating is some slavemongers can be converted, while others need to be shot. There really just isn't a way for freedom to be in the wrong killing unfreedom. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you there shouldn't be a limit to bloodthirstiness. You do however have to recognize that slavemongers often start out bloodthirsty and don't improve. A prudent understanding of damage control, at the very least, dictates shooting back at such in preference to running away and taking your promise of liberty with you.
You're telling me, several times in one post and phrased in various ways, that you don't have much of an appetite for global liberty, global libertariansm, or for that matter the global prosperity those two things would facilitate. Well, I recommend you get out of the way, Paul, insofar as you can't lead and won't follow. Let those with my kind of appetite for these things get them done.
Well, before I descend the escalier that is so full of the proverbial esprit -- don't slip on any esprit, it's a bumpy road to the bottom:
The center of our moral argument is whether it is more moral to leave totalitarians anywhere to continue their misrule and abuses unmolested, or whether it is more moral to take up arms against those troubles, "and by opposing, end them." Radar takes the former position, I the latter.
If there ever was a really moral totalitarian, I have yet to hear of him. I have heard of totalitarians or tyrants who weren't motivated to abuse whole population groups, but I'm here to tell you this cannot be trusted and history tells us that. Being carefully evenhanded in the abuses and oppressions one dishes out isn't an improvement over assaulting just one out-group.
Hey, I don't think we should be there either, Iraq that is.
There may be some valid reason for us to be there. I'd like to think that there is, and I can imagine what it might be. But, the stated reasons (various and ever-shanging) weren't capable of sustaining political support. That is why we were doomed to failure from the beginning. Every one of our enemies knows that our lack of political will is the key to defeating us. How come we haven't figured that out yet? We can't afford to rush into stupid wars for half-cocked reasons. People aren't going to support that. It's a waste of resources.
If we have some tangible reason for going to war, then, like it or not, in a Democracy you have to say what that reason is, in order to get people to support you. The drawback to that may be "tipping our hand" to the enemy, but the alternative is starting un-winnable (un-finishable) wars.
I am not lying, and I'm clearly a better Constitutional scholar than you are
You clearly are better at smoking crack. I know more about the U.S. Constitution than you and every member of the Supreme Court combined.
you're wrong on at least five of your six points and you've proved a total of none.
False. I've never been wrong on a single point, and I've proven each and every single thing I've said beyond a speck of doubt.
Permit me to serve you notice that I am not buying your fantasy, nor your misanalysis. You seem to be confusing your "should-bes" with what is actually written in the Constitution, which is hardly an approach you can sustain.
I've never said anything about the Constitution that was opinion or "translation". I've discussed what the Constitution ACTUALLY says in its original context.
If I can't persuade a rock, I can make him a laughingstock.
You do every time you post anything.
Would you like to become a laughingstock with all six of your points destroyed by merely quoting the relevant text of the Constitution at you?
Good luck.
1. The language of Article I, Section 8-11 through 8-16 detail what the legislative branch ought to do in military matters. The only defensive thing even implicit is calling out the militia in the cases of invasion and insurrection. Nowhere in the Section is there any declaration of the military being defensive solely, in the sense you seem to mean. The Constitution isn't trying to restrict us in dealings with foreign powers that may go badly sour, you'll note.
Wrong. Article 1, Section 8 details what congress is allowed to do, not what it "should" do. It describes the duties and responsibilities of Congress. The words "Common Defense" describe the role and intent of our military. These words appear twice in the Constitution. Once right in the preamble describing the purpose of having the American government and again in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, describing why Congress is being granted these limited powers. Notice it doesn't say "Common Offense" or "Common Empire Builiding" or "Common Democracy Spreading".
Strike 1.
2. Those same sections of Article I specifically mention Congress having the power to declare a state of war, and DO NOT restrict the Executive Branch in the person of the Commander in Chief from sending in troops -- also advisedly, and in considerable measure this was NOT an oversight. Historical precedent as well as legal precedent is firmly against you here, no matter how quixotically you may rail about it: the United States has been in about 150 shooting conflicts of various scopes, with its first not-declared conflict being the Quasi-War of 1798-99, and Congress declared a state of war in but five of these. The proof, I think, all runs to disprove you.
Article 1, Section 8 Grants
CONGRESS the power to DECLARE war when fulfilling Clause 1's requirement that it be to provide for the common defense. Congress alone has war making powers, and then only when in America's DEFENSE, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made. The President is
NOT the Commander-In-Chief until he is called upon to be so through a formal declaration of war. Article 2, describes the limited powers of the President and nowhere is the president granted the authority to send a single troop into battle for a single day unless he is called upon to be the commander-in-chief by a formal declaration of war made by Congress.
Any times the president has sent a soldier into war without a formal declaration of war from Congress, he was violating the Constitution.
Strike 2, you're wrong again.
3. Where you're getting this one from I have NO idea, and don't think there's a real idea to have. That is where you run into difficulty trying to explain it. Perhaps you're looking among your should-bes for a rule against doing anything of the sort, and there isn't one.
I don't talk about what "should be". I talk about what the Constitution actually says. The U.S. Constitution defines and limits the role and scope of every branch of the federal government. It also says that the U.S. Government may not do anything that isn't specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Congress has
NO enumerated powers granted it the power to distribute its powers among the other branches, so doing so is unconstitutional.
Strike 3 - You're out. Wrong on all counts. I'll continue though because defeating you is so easy.
4. Well, here you're not being Constitutional, but rambling over into foreign-policy desiderata. Reduction of antilibertarian regimes does not, it appears, fit into your notion of libertarianism (which I find inconceivable for reasons I've made clear elsewhere) but here's a hint to something a bit more real, offered gratis: absolutist isolationism works only in the complete absence of foreign states, and is not sustainable in a global economy anyway, but only in a much-reduced feudal one.
My positions are not isolationist. Non-military interventionism is not isolationism. The U.S. Constitution limits the role of the U.S. military as being used solely to DEFEND American soil or ships and for nothing else. It's not to overthrow "anti-libertarian regimes" or "spread democracy" or to "nation build", etc. My stance works in the real world, with a global economy.
Strike 4 - Wrong again. You can't seem to get anything right.
5. Here you have the possiblity of being right, and in any case I'd have to table it until I fully understand the Act and judiciary findings on it, as well as other analysis. If you'd like to show me some material you found persuasive, I'd be glad to give it a look.
I have more than the possibility of being right, I have always been right when it comes to the Constitution and I'm right on this point too. Feel free to research Marbury vs. Madison. Especially the quote of John Marshall (the 3rd Chief of the Supreme Court) when he says "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution
ARE null and void."
Strike 5 - You still have failed to prove me wrong on anything.
6. Is as defective as the first four, for the same reasons as the first four.
Strike - 6. Once again, you have proven nothing and I've proven that all wars made without a formal declaration of war, which are made by the president, or which are not in the defense of America are unconstitutional and illegal.
I take the moral and the intellectual high ground from you: I can defeat you because my moral and intellectual high ground are better than yours. I stand ready to demonstrate this as many times as the Cellar can stand. If you boast, boast sweetly, in case you later need to eat your words.
I stand ready to eat my words on the day you can prove even one thing I've said to be wrong. Thus far you've failed and you've only proven your ignorance.
In spite of some protestations, nobody here's really saying it would be wrong for freedom to defeat unfreedom however comprehensively this needs to be done: all I'm stating is some slavemongers can be converted, while others need to be shot. There really just isn't a way for freedom to be in the wrong killing unfreedom. But I'm not going to sit here and tell you there shouldn't be a limit to bloodthirstiness. You do however have to recognize that slavemongers often start out bloodthirsty and don't improve. A prudent understanding of damage control, at the very least, dictates shooting back at such in preference to running away and taking your promise of liberty with you.
You're telling me, several times in one post and phrased in various ways, that you don't have much of an appetite for global liberty, global libertariansm, or for that matter the global prosperity those two things would facilitate. Well, I recommend you get out of the way, Paul, insofar as you can't lead and won't follow. Let those with my kind of appetite for these things get them done.
America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
-John Quincy Adams
The American military is here to defend the freedom of Americans. It's not here to overthrow "unfreedom", or tyrants, or slavemongers, or bloodthirsty monsters in other countries. They have a duty and responsibility to do that for themselves.
I will not stand idly by and allow
MY military to be misused to do these things. If you want to personally volunteer to go abroad to defend these people and help them shed the chains of those oppressing them, I say Kudos. Pack your bags and don't forget to take your appetite to kill those people with you. Just don't expect any help from America if you get arrested or killed.
America isn't the leader of the world, or the police of the world, or the defender of the world. America is only 1 country among hundreds and our authority ends at our own borders.
Ok, that does it. Now that UG has joined Ann Coulter among the ranks of "Constitutional scholars" I think it's time for Constitutional scholars to come up with a new name for themselves.
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
So Congress, and not the President declares (and by extension can end) wars. And yes, 'offenses against the Law of Nations' can be applied to half of the countries on the planet, even our own. But also notice that no war appropriation can be made for more than 2 years. Nowhere did they intend for the US to support a war for decades.
For all of you Cellarites with boats, you should lobby your Congressman for a Letter of Marque. This is basically the right to legalized piracy by seizing ships in retaliation for some action.
And now we need a law dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "war".
Ok, that does it. Now that UG has joined Ann Coulter among the ranks of "Constitutional scholars" I think it's time for Constitutional scholars to come up with a new name for themselves.
So Congress, and not the President declares (and by extension can end) wars. And yes, 'offenses against the Law of Nations' can be applied to half of the countries on the planet, even our own. But also notice that no war appropriation can be made for more than 2 years. Nowhere did they intend for the US to support a war for decades.
For all of you Cellarites with boats, you should lobby your Congressman for a Letter of Marque. This is basically the right to legalized piracy by seizing ships in retaliation for some action.
The term "laws of nations" refers to international law or maritime law.
Letters of marque and reprisal were UG's wet dream. It was what would have been the correct and proper response to the 9/11 bombings because it's a way of making war without really making war. It gives immunity to anyone who chooses to kill pirates
(or other private groups who attack Americans or our ships) and allows them to keep any spoils of war they get. They don't use any government money or protection. They put together their own private militia, and invade another country or kill those who were named in the letter, and take whatever possessions or treasure they can get, without any fear of retaliation on the part of America, and as long as they can get back to America, they will be protected by the American government. So in a way, you're right. It's sort of like a green light to be a pirate as long as your victims are named in the letter of marque made by the government.
I also agree that when morons like UG or Ann Coulter refer to themselves as Constitutional scholars, it cheapens the term for those of us who truly are.
And now we need a law dictionary to determine the meaning of the word "war".
War is any government directed use of military personnel to take up arms against people of another nation, especially when it means sending them into another nation. Any time an American soldier is orders to carry a gun into another country or to kill someone, it's war.
That's your definition, but what is the operative definition?
That's the definition that makes any sense so it's the only valid one. Sending soldiers to kill = war.
Do you maybe want to edit your defense of the definition to include some logic or reasoning?
The logic is self-evident and undeniable. Soldiers killing people = war. When government sends soldiers to kill, we are in a war. End of story.
So if they're sent to defend something, and somebody takes a potshot at them and they return fire, it's WAR?
American soldiers are only for defending America. If they are sent elsewhere with guns, especially if they use the guns (even if they were shot at first for being in someone else's country) it is war.
So they can't be sent to defend a US base, in an allied country, without a declaration of war by Congress.
Can they defend an Embassy?
There should be no American military bases in any country but our own. Embassies on the other hand are U.S. property. Having soldiers defend U.S. property is not going to war. It becomes war when U.S. property or those soldiers are attacked.
Without Congressional declaration?
Are the Embassies allowed to be the size of military bases?
It becomes an illegal war without a Congressional declaration. With a congressional declaration, it becomes a legitimate and legal war.
An embassy should only be large enough for a consular office, and an ambassador with staff. No more, no less. But I don't know of any hard or fast rule on the size. There should be no more than a dozen members of the U.S. military defending the facility so people don't "accidentally" confuse it with a military base.
Is there a period of occupation, post-war, during when the defeated country cannot defend itself but must be defended by US troops, yet where the country is not at war?
How long is that period supposed to be? We've been in Korea, Japan, and Germany constantly for the last 6 decades. Also, we don't owe "defense" to any country but our own, especially a country that attacked ours. In the case of Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. they didn't attack America first. In each of those cases, America injected itself into the battles that other nations were having. In these cases, America's involvement was not required and had unfortunate and unintended results.
If a country can't defend itself after starting a war with America, we don't owe them any defense at all. If they didn't start a war with America, we owe them a defense, and an apology for attacking them in the first place.
How long is that period supposed to be? We've been in Korea, Japan, and Germany constantly for the last 6 decades. Also, we don't owe "defense" to any country but our own, especially a country that attacked ours. In the case of Germany, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. they didn't attack America first. In each of those cases, America injected itself into the battles that other nations were having. In these cases, America's involvement was not required and had unfortunate and unintended results.
If a country can't defend itself after starting a war with America, we don't owe them any defense at all. If they didn't start a war with America, we owe them a defense, and an apology for attacking them in the first place.
Germany's U-boats attacked US ships, albeit stored with supplies going to allies. And Japan did attack the Pacific Fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii on 7 December 1941.
Is there a period of occupation, post-war, during when the defeated country cannot defend itself but must be defended by US troops, yet where the country is not at war?
Before December 7th 1941, America blocked shipments of oil and steel from the Netherlands to Japan who were fighting the Chinese. This was an act of war, and America knew Japan would retaliate with Force. In fact, America knew Japan was going to attack on December 7th 1941, and allowed it to happen. Of course America sent all of its carriers, and newer ships out on "maneuvers" the day before.
German U-Boats attacked during World War 1, and that was only after America violated a neutrality agreement by shipping weapons to England in a cruise ship made from a converted war ship that still had several large guns mounted on it.
Leading up to the sinking of the Lucitania, U-Boats would always fire a warning shot across the bow of a boat, search it to see if it had supplies bound for England, and they'd allow people to evacuate from any ship they were going to sink. This stopped when Edward Mandell House
(Woodrow Wilson's Closest Advisor) told American ships to ram any German U-Boat that fired a warning shot. Several U-Boats were lost, so they stopped giving a warning shot.
A single torpedo was shot at the Lusitania and it blew the entire ship in half. This was impossible except for the fact that the entire belly of the ship was loaded with munitions bound for England. Germany had every right to sink the ship.
So in the case of Germany in World War I, Germany was provoked by the United States. In fact America had also sent American ships between American and English ships that were fighting in an effort to give America an excuse to get into the war. Some Americans were losing a lot of money they had invested in England, and they wanted America to get involved even though America had always remained neutral in the disputes of other nations and used our military only when attacked.
Japan was also provoked into attacking America because FDR wanted to get into the war and he knew Hitler was too smart to attack America. He knew if he provoked Hirohito into an attack, we'd go to war with Japan and by extension, we'd go to war with their allies like Germany too.
In fact it was America's illegal involvement in WWI and the following unfair "Treaty of Versailles" which blamed WWI on Germany despite the fact that it was Austria who started the war. France was still angry about losing land to Germany during the Franco-Prussian War and France pressured America into pushing harsh penalties onto for Germany including reparations to the other nations involved in WWI. When the depression hit the world, it hit Germany the hardest because they had their lands and resources stripped away and were forced to pay reparations while they were starving. This made the German people so desperate, they even listed to the Nazi party. They wanted to blame anyone, and they said, "Let's blame the Jews. They've got money".
Without these harsh conditions, it's unlikely Hitler or the Nazi Party would have been taken seriously and Hitler never would have become Chancellor.
http://hubpages.com/hub/World-War-1-The-Sinking-of-Lusitania
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=49Is there a period of occupation, post-war, during when the defeated country cannot defend itself but must be defended by US troops, yet where the country is not at war?
Of course not.
But during those times, the other country can't possibly be said to be at war with us.
Whether or not a country is at war with us is irrelevant. The purpose, role, and scope of the U.S. military is defined and limited by the U.S. Constitution as being solely for the defense of American soil and ships.
It's not here to defend nations we've defeated in battle. It's not here to start battles against nations that don't pose any threat to ours. It's not even here to get involved in the squabbles or disputes of our allies.
So during the after-point we are at war, but the country we are at war with it not at war with us. Fine. At what point are we no longer at war?
I'm not sure I understand what you're attempting to ask.
If a we are at war with a country, they are by definition at war with us. Generally speaking a war is over when either we, or the country we are at war with concedes defeat and surrenders.
Assuming we are in a legitimate and legal war... meaning we were attacked first and the country we are at war with is the country that attacked us...and congress has made a formal declaration of war (not granting "authority" to the president to make war or granting the government to use force because another country violated a UN resolution)...
If they surrender the war is over. We pack up our stuff and go home, or if the war happened here, we send them packing.
They surrender and then there is a negotiation of terms. In some cases the enemy is not permitted to have a standing army after the war. Partly because it is not real terms of surrender if they only mean to call time for a while, reconstitute and re-attack. It is a period during which there can either be terms that will lead to lasting peace, or terms that will lead to continuance of fighting.
There is a period during which the enemy has "given up" and no longer considers itself at war. According to your definition, we are still at war at that point.
At what point are we not at war?
We don't get to decide if a fallen enemy gets to have a standing army before, during, or after a war. Surrender terms do not mean giving up sovereignty unless the losing country is being acquired as part of an empire. Unless this is the case, we do not have the authority to build permanent military bases within their country. In fact we don't have the authority to have a military base there when the war is concluded.
We are not at war when we are at peace. When a country has surrendered and we have accepted their surrender, we are no longer at war.
When is a boxing match over? When someone either gives up, get's knocked out, or time runs out. With war, time is also an issue. The longer you are at war, the fewer resources you have to fight one.
We never had legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991 or at any time since then. Every soldier who went there did so in violation of the Constitution. Every bullet fired, ship prevented from taking in good, no fly zone, or bomb dropped was done so illegally.
Either the defeated country is absorbed or they get to have a standard army back immediately following surrender.
Just checking, is that in the Constitution?
Either the defeated country is absorbed or they get to have a standard army back immediately following surrender.
Just checking, is that in the Constitution?
No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.
America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone.
Actually, unless another country attacks ours and then retreats home, our army should never fight any wars outside the borders of America and we should never have any military bases outside of our own borders unless such an extremely unlikely event actually occurs.
Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone.
They're taken over by the nearest neighbor. Japan 1945 is taken over by China... and slaughtered. It's not really your ideal outcome.
Nobody said it was ideal. Perhaps after torturing and murdering millions of Chinese, that should have been the fate of Japan. Japan killed more Chinese than the Germans killed Jews or Russians.
Although if we minded our own business and didn't provoke Japan the way we did, we probably wouldn't have had to fight them at all and wouldn't have to worry about China taking over Japan. Japan might have a big part of China though.
Er, Radar, the US Gov't eventually would have to fight Japan over Pacific Ocean superiority. They left most of the fighting over China and the Korean Penisula to the USSR and and to the natives.
One of the reasons they hurried the war with Japan in WW2 was because the USSR declared war on Japan a few days before Japan surrendered. Can't have Russia take over the Japanese archipelago.
Hello. Anyone wanting to join the jarheads, I sure after 218 post you can find a place other than the one that started this goat roping!
No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America. That doesn't mean defending defeated enemies. That doesn't mean starting unprovoked wars like the one in Iraq. It doesn't mean provoking others into war either. It doesn't include anything other than defending America.
America was created to escape the tyranny of imperialism, not to practice it. This means the option of absorbing other nations into an empire is out. Therefore the only valid option for a DEFENSIVE military is to leave the defeated country and let them figure out how to defend themselves after we're gone. That's how some countries view America.
An example of how good ideas get fucked up. America may not control a country per se but it does more or less control the country's GDP and the means of production. Imagine a Warren Buffett-type replacing Uncle Sam as the icon.
Er, Radar, the US Gov't eventually would have to fight Japan over Pacific Ocean superiority. They left most of the fighting over China and the Korean Penisula to the USSR and and to the natives.
One of the reasons they hurried the war with Japan in WW2 was because the USSR declared war on Japan a few days before Japan surrendered. Can't have Russia take over the Japanese archipelago.
Hell we could just split the world up between Russia, China, and us. But of course you know that the rest of the world would not really stand for that and sooner or later Russia or China would want what we had.
Or we could mind our own business, take care of our own problems in our own country instead of meddling in the affairs of other nations, and we could live in peace and prosperity. We could trade freely with all nations and make friends with them, and hope that everyone finds their own way to liberty, freedom, and justice.
We can have a smaller, cheaper, and less intrusive government that doesn't get involved in our daily lives and which still provides an adequate defense for America without overspending on the military and becoming an economic burden for Americans.
Our military spending is 10 times higher than any other country on earth, and is being more than all of the next highest spenders including China, Russia, Great Britain, and most other nations with a large military.
Radar: no strikes accrue to me. I read the Constitution too, and draw conclusions, based on its text and upon our history, much the opposite of yours. Narcissistic bellowings on your part cannot constitute proof.
I reject your reading of our Constitution, and your rationalizations of your xenophobic streak, and your antiglobalism. Narcissists are often selfish, and selfishness keeps oozing out of your sentences.
Narcissists are often selfish, and selfishness keeps oozing out of your sentences.
Imagine that...
After reading the flensing you gave Radar, I am imagining indeed.
I don't much complain about our large military budget. That's an inevitable concomitant of our generating the "flow of security" into the Non-Integrating Gap, where security is conspicuous by its absence.
There are four essential "flows" that make up the global economy and related endeavors, all pretty inextricably interrelated, though distinguishable: the flow of people, immi- and emigration; the flow of security; the flow of finances/resources; the flow of energy. All these flows about our economic sphere naturally go from where there is an abundance to where there is a, or some, scarcity. The freer these flows, the more smoothly the global economy functions. Mess with any and trouble follows in short order.
That's an inevitable concomitant of our generating the "flow of security" into the Non-Integrating Gap, where security is conspicuous by its absence.
Wonderful.
If the flow of finances/resources naturally flow from where there is an abundance to where there is a, or some scarcity.....explain why large chunks of the human population are living in poverty and starvation.
No, the Constitution just says the only valid use of the U.S. military is for defending America.
No it doesn't. While the Constitution mentions the common defense, defensive warfighting was not a shibboleth of the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution says essentially nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted -- and a moment's thought will show you it shouldn't.
Lying in the service of antiimperialism, radar, is just plain ridiculous. Especially when we are the premier nonimperialist great power. It becomes ridiculous through lack of necessity.
If the flow of finances/resources naturally flow from where there is an abundance to where there is a, or some scarcity.....explain why large chunks of the human population are living in poverty and starvation.
See my reference to "messing with the flow" -- essentially, it's that in an imperfect world, people fuckin' ruin everything. The natural flows get impeded -- by what? Are the results good or bad? See what I'm driving at? A Socialist economic system has extra, additional chances for people to ruin everything -- an essential reason why I am not a Socialist.
Socialism doesn't explain the third world.
No it doesn't. While the Constitution mentions the common defense, defensive warfighting was not a shibboleth of the Founders. Indeed, the Constitution says essentially nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted -- and a moment's thought will show you it shouldn't.
Lying in the service of antiimperialism, radar, is just plain ridiculous. Especially when we are the premier nonimperialist great power. It becomes ridiculous through lack of necessity.
Yes it does way that and I haven't lied. The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.
This isn't a lie. The liars are those who deny it. Also, your claim that America isn't an imperialist nation is laughable. America's government has saught to control other nations through bribes
(foreign aid), threats, coercion, "nation building"
(aka launching an illegal invasion and propping up leaders or dictators that are friendly toward the goals of the American government), using the U.N. as a tool, etc..
Neither America's military, nor it's wealth were created to "fill in the gaps" in places around the world that are lacking these things. America's military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend America from being attacked or invaded by hostile foreign armies. End of story. Anything else is a lie. Any use of America's military for any other purpose including peace keeping missions, humanitarian aid missions, enforcing UN resolutions, and any pre-emptive actions are 100% unconstitutional and illegal. They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.
Socialism doesn't explain the third world.
Socialism creates the third world. It makes everyone poor. It punishes the hard-working and productive and rewards the lazy and inept. Socialism always collapses on itself, and those nations end up begging for money from capitalists nations.
Ok. And just how much of the third world is communist?
Communist and/or socialist? Probably 80% or more.
Yes it does way that and I haven't lied. The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.
This isn't a lie. The liars are those who deny it. Also, your claim that America isn't an imperialist nation is laughable. America's government has saught to control other nations through bribes (foreign aid), threats, coercion, "nation building" (aka launching an illegal invasion and propping up leaders or dictators that are friendly toward the goals of the American government), using the U.N. as a tool, etc..
Neither America's military, nor it's wealth were created to "fill in the gaps" in places around the world that are lacking these things. America's military has one and only one purpose and that is to defend America from being attacked or invaded by hostile foreign armies. End of story. Anything else is a lie. Any use of America's military for any other purpose including peace keeping missions, humanitarian aid missions, enforcing UN resolutions, and any pre-emptive actions are 100% unconstitutional and illegal. They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.
False Wacko.
:crazy:
Communist and/or socialist? Probably 80% or more.
False Wacko.
:crazy:
{edit: not worth the effort to argue with narcissists}
False Wacko.
:crazy:
{edit: not worth the effort to argue with narcissists}
I am indeed a false wacko. You on the other hand are a true wacko.
It's a waste of time to argue with the retarded, so I'll just add you to my ignore list and from now on I can avoid hearing your mind numbing stupidity.
Communist and/or socialist? Probably 80% or more.
:eek: Cite?!
That's a no win sundae. Radar will point to a bunch of regimes that were at one time rebels with the word 'unite' or 'people' in their name and suggest they are communist.
Cite?!
You are asking the wrong person for citation. TheMercenary has made rediculous claims that require citation. Although I don't agree with some of Radar's conclusions, at least he is willing to put forth supporting facts.
A more accurate question for Radar would better define a boundary between socialism and communism. At what point does a socialist nation differ from a communist? For that matter, the US also could be called a socialist nation. All depends upon where boundary numbers get applied.
France is considered by many to be a socialist nation. The French (what - five years ago?) rose to the top of the list - the world's most productive nation. Others who have been there include Norway. Are they socialist? Some say so.
So where is this numeric definition that defines a difference between a socialist and a communist nation? And where is this citation from TheMercenary for any of his posts? Oh. TheMercenary can post something without citations? Well, Sundae Girl, why the double standard?
Contrary to what you may believe tw, Sundae isn't here as the cite police. It's not double standards, it's just an organically evolving thread in which something somebody said sparked her interest.
Cite? You mean other than Indonesia, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Eastern bloc nations (Ukraine, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania, etc. ) Venezuela, nearly every African nation, etc.?
You are asking the wrong person for citation. TheMercenary has made rediculous claims that require citation. Although I don't agree with some of Radar's conclusions, at least he is willing to put forth supporting facts.
A more accurate question for Radar would better define a boundary between socialism and communism. At what point does a socialist nation differ from a communist? For that matter, the US also could be called a socialist nation. All depends upon where boundary numbers get applied.
France is considered by many to be a socialist nation. The French (what - five years ago?) rose to the top of the list - the world's most productive nation. Others who have been there include Norway. Are they socialist? Some say so.
So where is this numeric definition that defines a difference between a socialist and a communist nation? And where is this citation from TheMercenary for any of his posts? Oh. TheMercenary can post something without citations? Well, Sundae Girl, why the double standard?
Socialism and Communism are just different spots on the same scale. The more a nation embraces socialism, the worse off they will be. European socialist nations like England, France & Germany support socialism in some form, and they suffer in those areas. Germany is still having a lot of trouble because of their socialism and some would claim they are successful. Some people actually claim Sweden is a successful nation. I don't call any nation where the government keeps over half of what you earn to be a successful one.
I consider America to be a partly socialist nation in that it has government programs that steal from those who work and create wealth, the government keeps a huge portion of it, and then gives what's left to those who are too lazy, inept, or incapable of earning their own way. It's false charity and it does more harm than good.
When a nation openly nationalizes the means of production you're talking about communism or full socialism.
You are asking the wrong person for citation. TheMercenary has made rediculous claims that require citation. Although I don't agree with some of Radar's conclusions, at least he is willing to put forth supporting facts.
A more accurate question for Radar would better define a boundary between socialism and communism. At what point does a socialist nation differ from a communist? For that matter, the US also could be called a socialist nation. All depends upon where boundary numbers get applied.
France is considered by many to be a socialist nation. The French (what - five years ago?) rose to the top of the list - the world's most productive nation. Others who have been there include Norway. Are they socialist? Some say so.
So where is this numeric definition that defines a difference between a socialist and a communist nation? And where is this citation from TheMercenary for any of his posts? Oh. TheMercenary can post something without citations? Well, Sundae Girl, why the double standard?
Yea, you and cite your ramblings all the time. Even when they are incorrect. Carry on.
so I'll just add you to my ignore list and from now on I can avoid hearing your mind numbing stupidity.
There is a God!
You are asking the wrong person for citation. TheMercenary has made rediculous claims that require citation. Although I don't agree with some of Radar's conclusions, at least he is willing to put forth supporting facts.
A more accurate question for Radar would better define a boundary between socialism and communism. At what point does a socialist nation differ from a communist? For that matter, the US also could be called a socialist nation. All depends upon where boundary numbers get applied.
France is considered by many to be a socialist nation. The French (what - five years ago?) rose to the top of the list - the world's most productive nation. Others who have been there include Norway. Are they socialist? Some say so.
So where is this numeric definition that defines a difference between a socialist and a communist nation? And where is this citation from TheMercenary for any of his posts? Oh. TheMercenary can post something without citations? Well, Sundae Girl, why the double standard?
Ok big boy which of these are socialist which are communist, which are other? Radar is an idiot because he stated that 80% of the third world is either communist or socialist. That is false.
This article lists forms of government and political systems, according to a series of different ways of categorising them. The systems listed are of course not mutually exclusive, and often have overlapping definitions (for example autocracy, authoritarianism, despotism, totalitarianism, monarchism and tyranny).
Alphabetical list with hierarchy
The following list groups major political systems (recognized by political science) in alphabetical order. The various subtype political systems are listed below the main system of government.
Anarchism
Anarcho-communism
Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-primitivism
Anarcho-socialism
Anarcho-syndicalism
Eco-anarchism
Isocracy
Mobocracy
Tribalism
Authoritarianism (Autocracy or Oligarchy)
Absolutism
Enlightened absolutism
Aristocracy
Communist state
Corporatism
Despotism
Diarchy
Dictatorship
Military dictatorship
Benevolent dictatorship
Gerontocracy
Hagiarchy
Kakistocracy
Kleptocracy
Matriarchy
Meritocracy
Monarchy
Absolute monarchy
Constitutional monarchy
Feudalism
Despotate
Duchy
Grand Duchy
Elective monarchy
Emirate
Hereditary monarchy
Popular monarchy
Principality
New Monarchs
Self-proclaimed monarchy
Viceroyalty
Patriarchy
Patrimonalism
Plutocracy
Timocracy
Police state
Corporate police state
Puppet state
Robocracy (fictional)
Theocracy
Caliphate
Halachic state
Holy See
Islamic republic
Sultanate
Totalitarianism
Fascism
Tyranny
Technocracy (bureaucratic)
Democracy
Deliberative democracy
Democratic republic
Democratic socialism
Direct democracy
Participatory democracy
Representative democracy
Parliamentary system
Westminster system
Consensus government
Presidential system (Congressional system)
Semi-presidential system
Republicanism (Republic)
Presidential republic
Parliamentary republic
Constitutional republic
Totalitarian democracy
By approach to regional autonomy
This list focuses on differing approaches that political systems take to the distribution of sovereignty, and the autonomy of regions within the state.
Sovereignty located exclusively at the centre
Empire
Unitary state
Sovereignty located at the centre and in peripheral areas
Federation and Federal republic
By political franchise
This list shows a division based on differences in political franchise (suffrage).
anarchy - rule by no one
autocracy - rule by one
oligarchy - rule by minority
republic - rule by law
democracy - rule by majority
socialism - rule by all
According to Weber's tripartite classification of authority
Max Weber in his tripartite classification of authority distinguished three ideal types of political leadership, domination and authority:
charismatic domination (familial and religious)
traditional domination (patriarchs, patrimonalism, feudalism)
legal domination (modern law and state, bureaucracy)
Here is a better link.
Some have elements of many forms of government, including socialist and or communist ideology. Few are one or the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government The phrase "Common defense" is repeated twice; once in the preamble describing one of the purposes of creating the Constitution and another in Article 1, section 8 when describing the limited powers of Congress. The phrase "Common Defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military as being solely for the defense of America and for nothing else. It limits the war making powers of congress to being solely for the defense of America.
I thought you'd try this one. But you run aground on the question of what the common defense truly is. Who, being an American and having business in foreign parts, would exclude American business interests from inclusion under the common defense rubric regardless of where those American business interests are? American interest has always been more or less global and globalized. In practice there is no definable endpoint to where the common defense of Americans and of American interests lies. This is particularly true in nations where property rights are not secure from official cupidity -- and these nations are numerous. They do not secure property rights well, which leaves it to our government's protective function to cover for our nationals, on the assumption somebody has to or the economy goes to pot and everyone's poor, because no one can do business if his gains are euchred from him. In the fourteenth century, this happened to the Chinese iron smelting industry -- it was wiped out inside of ten years and it never returned. It took the laissez-faire of Europe to make a success, and a general prosperity, of large scale efficient smelters.
Your approach is only workable in the absence of any other nation over the entire Earth -- and for that matter, the complete absence of foreigners, as well. Is this even clinically sane? The vehemence with which you adhere to this suggests intense xenophobia -- your whole "screw the rest of the planet, they don't get to be free or wealthy as far as I'm concerned -- if I'm concerned at all" attitude, that is. One can scour your posts for any interface with other lands, languages, or cultures, and come up with -- zero. Strategically, this is unconscionable, and that calls for reading between your lines, to diagnose what's behind the screen of words. What I'm seeing isn't pretty.
The clauses containing the term common defense do not limit the role and scope of our military -- as the whole, every last syllable, of historical precedent demonstrates. You pointedly avoid acknowledging this reality. What does that say about you? I say you worship the golden calf of bullheadedness. Fortunately, I do not.
They are a gross misuse of the military and anyone who orders or takes part in such actions is guilty of treason.
A bullheaded eccentric who yells "Treason! Traitor!" at every second opportunity is guilty of ranting each time he does so, and can make no defense -- not even a Constitutional one, particularly if you actually are a strict constructionist, at which point you have to confine your definition of treason to the Constitution's: if I haven't made war upon the United States, I am innocent of treason; if I haven't given aid and comfort to America's enemies, I'm innocent of treason. Since I cannot be sanely imagined to have done either, you do the math. You rant, and your narcissistic personality makes you thoroughly unfit to do politics -- it keeps you from exercising judgement. Really, by your reasoning, every government employee anywhere at any time who ever formed or executed policy from 1776 onwards is "guilty of treason." Hard to credit, putting it mildly.
One can scour your posts for any interface with other lands, languages, or cultures, and come up with -- zero.
Radar has a wife of a different land, language and culture, and a child by that wife.
He's posted about her often for many years.
That's your level of reading comprehension when you "scour". You should hear yourself after you "skim".
I thought you'd try this one. But you run aground on the question of what the common defense truly is. Who, being an American and having business in foreign parts, would exclude American business interests from inclusion under the common defense rubric regardless of where those American business interests are? American interest has always been more or less global and globalized. In practice there is no definable endpoint to where the common defense of Americans and of American interests lies. This is particularly true in nations where property rights are not secure from official cupidity -- and these nations are numerous. They do not secure property rights well, which leaves it to our government's protective function to cover for our nationals, on the assumption somebody has to or the economy goes to pot and everyone's poor, because no one can do business if his gains are euchred from him. In the fourteenth century, this happened to the Chinese iron smelting industry -- it was wiped out inside of ten years and it never returned. It took the laissez-faire of Europe to make a success, and a general prosperity, of large scale efficient smelters.
Your approach is only workable in the absence of any other nation over the entire Earth -- and for that matter, the complete absence of foreigners, as well. Is this even clinically sane? The vehemence with which you adhere to this suggests intense xenophobia -- your whole "screw the rest of the planet, they don't get to be free or wealthy as far as I'm concerned -- if I'm concerned at all" attitude, that is. One can scour your posts for any interface with other lands, languages, or cultures, and come up with -- zero. Strategically, this is unconscionable, and that calls for reading between your lines, to diagnose what's behind the screen of words. What I'm seeing isn't pretty.
The clauses containing the term common defense do not limit the role and scope of our military -- as the whole, every last syllable, of historical precedent demonstrates. You pointedly avoid acknowledging this reality. What does that say about you? I say you worship the golden calf of bullheadedness. Fortunately, I do not.
A bullheaded eccentric who yells "Treason! Traitor!" at every second opportunity is guilty of ranting each time he does so, and can make no defense -- not even a Constitutional one, particularly if you actually are a strict constructionist, at which point you have to confine your definition of treason to the Constitution's: if I haven't made war upon the United States, I am innocent of treason; if I haven't given aid and comfort to America's enemies, I'm innocent of treason. Since I cannot be sanely imagined to have done either, you do the math. You rant, and your narcissistic personality makes you thoroughly unfit to do politics -- it keeps you from exercising judgement. Really, by your reasoning, every government employee anywhere at any time who ever formed or executed policy from 1776 onwards is "guilty of treason." Hard to credit, putting it mildly.
Common defense doesn't mean defending American "interests". It means defending America. No more, no less. The American military is also not here to defend the economy. The furthest America was to go in defending American interests was to defend our ships from pirates. When you choose to do business in other nations, you are gambling. You are taking the chance that you will be able to do business without having your business stolen from you. If they are stolen from you, the American government isn't here to protect your poor investment choices.
My approach works with a planet full of nations and is not isolationist or xenophobic in the slightest. It welcomes trade and friendship with all nations and keeps us from entering into alliances that require the use of our military. These are the same principles that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc. shared.
The phrase "common defense" defines and limits the role and scope of our military to being solely for the defense of America...not America's foreign interests, not the American economy, etc. The truly insane are those who think it has any other legitimate use.
I've traveled the world many times over while serving in the Navy and since then. I speak 4 languages. I have a better understanding of global trade and of the opinion others hold of America than you are likely to ever have.
I consider America to be a partly socialist nation in that it has government programs that steal from those who work and create wealth, the government keeps a huge portion of it, and then gives what's left to those who are too lazy, inept, or incapable of earning their own way. It's false charity and it does more harm than good.
I don't think I'll be seriously pursuing the claim that most 3rd world countries are socialist/ communist. We have a different understanding of the words.
Any time the government takes money from those who have earned it by force or coercion (fear of going to jail) and gives it to those who have not earned it .... it's a textbook example of socialism.
Really, UT? Then why the weird quality of radar's posts? Why his absence of a global libertarian vision? Why his reluctance for us to help remove political obstacles (almost the only kind that seem to have effect) to engendering prosperity worldwide? He ought to remember that prosperity is good for business, and that the business of America is business. His noncomprehension of the value of liberation from the oppressions of too much government, whenever foreign peoples are concerned, strikes me as, well, thoroughly bad. Too much government equals not enough business and not enough wealth or wellbeing. It is hardly unlibertarian to liberate those ground under tyranny's heel, and thus I consider it our responsibility as human beings. Radar definitely won't take this responsibility, leaving him vulnerable to accusations of inhumanity. I don't get hit with these any too often. Which of us, then, is the friendlier to the global body politic?
It does not follow that because he married foreign he's thought foreign policy through. He seems to me not merely uninterested, but actively against thinking about it -- have you noticed his insistence that America retreat within its own borders, becoming this continental cloister? It's all over his writing -- any excuse whatsoever to withdraw from the world, he makes it. There must be a reason for such consistency, and I don't think we can lay this one directly at narcissism's door.
That's never been how these United States have functioned, not long-term, and especially so once we became a world power around the turn of the twentieth century. Sure, many other nations put together don't spend but a fraction on the military we do -- they can afford to do that precisely because of what we spend on it, and what we get for that expenditure is power projection like nobody else can manage. What's more, a century of experience with us has shown us trustworthy; the good actors among nations don't need to arm up against the United States, and this fact is reflected in the size of their military establishments, particularly in their navies, which by comparison with the US Navy look more like the Coast Guard, and have similarly coastal missions and areas of operation.
American interests I believe are not separable from America in general, nor separable from the economy, for the reason that we're too interconnected with the rest of the world.
You will have to show proof, proof mind you, that the "common defense" clauses are limiting clauses. So far, you've only repeated your assertions, not proven them. I do not recall a "common or territorial defense only" anywhere in there, and I say you couldn't find one. I read them as: this is one purpose. It is tacit about others, but does not forbid them. The Constitution doesn't set forth how foreign policy will be conducted, it merely apportions who does what parts of the whole. Except in matters of funding, that is the Executive Branch. It takes the Legislative to ratify foreign aid.
I think, radar, that you're more interested in being radical than in getting it right, or practicing "the art of the possible." You look to an eccentric reading of the Constitution in an effort to pare down the size and scope of the Federal level of government, but I don't think the Constitution supports you in the endeavor -- you're trying to have trade without security, and that is unwise. Better, I think, to concentrate on paring down the Federal welfare-state departments.
I've been around the world with the Navy; I've crossed the longitude of Diego Garcia going both east and west. I've been close to war. I speak four languages myself, English, Spanish, French, and Russian, and can still order lunch in Turkish, and am looking into taking some German. Don't try getting haughty with me.
Libertarians are against the initiation of force against those who pose no threat to you. Those who are being oppressed do have a right to take up arms against those oppressing them. You do not, unless they have hired you as an agent. You also do not have the authority or right to use the U.S. Military to carry out your so-called "liberation".
Who are you to decide who is or isn't oppressed? Who are you to decide what kind of freedom others will have? You are nobody. You are nothing, but a war-mongering loser who hates libertarian principles. And yes, you are far more inhuman than I will ever be accused of being.
The U.S. Military has one and only one role. To provide a common defense for AMERICA. It's not to police the world. It's not to fill in security gaps. It's not to act as a peace keeper between other nations. It's not to enforce UN sanctions. It's not to practice nation building or humanitarian aid. It's not to "liberate" oppressed people. It's not to overthrow or to prop up leaders in other nations. It's not here to defend foreign interests of American investors. It's not here to protect the American economy. It's not here to secure sources of oil. It's not here to prevent other nations from developing nukes or other weapons. It's not here to start unprovoked wars. It's not here to do any kind of "pre-emptive" attacks.
Defense means defending against an attack. Not against a possible attack by someone who might have a weapon some time in the future and who doesn't like us.
The stated purpose for our military is to provide a common DEFENSE for America. The 10th amendment limits the federal government from doing anything that isn't specifically enumerated (listed) in the Constitution. Using the military for non-defensive purposes is not listed. END OF STORY. You lose. Get over it.
You claim to speak English, but you can't seem to read it. You're virtually retarded. My reading of the Constitution isn't eccentric. It's in the exact context that the founders wrote it. If that seems eccentric to you, it's because you have no comprehension of the fact that it was written to limit the government. The founders didn't want us in a constant state of war or to act as the world's police or to liberate others. They wanted us to be the champion of our own freedom and the well-wisher of freedom to others.
The Constitution most certainly does say that the role and purpose of the military is to provide a common defense for America. It limits this role through the 10th amendment. Congress is given the limited ability to make war if and only if it is in the defense of America which means we were attacked first. The president has absolutely zero war making powers and is NOT the commander in chief until called upon to serve as such through a formal declaration of war. He has no legitimate authority to send a single soldier into battle for a single day.
You support wholesale murder in the name of your "vision" of freedom. You think it is up to you, or to the United States to determine how other governments will treat their citizens, or what kind of government they will have, as though democracy were the best form of government. You are no different than any other petty tyrant who tries to justify the use of force. I already know you are a in inhumane scumbag. Just don't pretend to be a libertarian. You aren't fit to stand in the shadow of a real libertarian.
Each and every single time you lie about the federal government having powers that are non-enumerated, I'll set you straight. Every time you try to support an unconstitutional use of the military to carry out illegal actions, I'll set you straight.
Radar has a wife of a different land, language and culture, and a child by that wife.
He's posted about her often for many years.
That's your level of reading comprehension when you "scour". You should hear yourself after you "skim".
That explains everything, she is probably an illegal alien living here an breaking our laws. Figures. Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:
I don't think I'll be seriously pursuing the claim that most 3rd world countries are socialist/ communist. We have a different understanding of the words.
The important thing is that we need to differentiate between ideology and actual labels which describe how governments work. Nothing is so pure. As usual he is talking out of his dogmatic ass.
By Radar's definition I agree that every country in the world is socialist. From the far left to the far right, from laissez faire to oppression, all Governments take money from those that have earned it and give it to those who haven't. Whether that means it goes to the rich or the poor, to starving children or to oligarchs is unimportant.
I bid this thread adieu, I'm off to the Cite Policeman's Third Ball.
By Radar's definition I agree that every country in the world is socialist. From the far left to the far right, from laissez faire to oppression, all Governments take money from those that have earned it and give it to those who haven't. Whether that means it goes to the rich or the poor, to starving children or to oligarchs is unimportant.
I bid this thread adieu, I'm off to the Cite Policeman's Third Ball.
Your policemen have three balls?!?!? is that a requirement for employment? :D
That explains everything, she is probably an illegal alien living here an breaking our laws. Figures. Makes perfect sense.:rolleyes:
Gimme a break. I don't care for Radar either. But fair's fair. His efforts to jump through many many legal hoops to get her into the country are recounted here in a bunch of threads.
Gimme a break. I don't care for Radar either. But fair's fair. His efforts to jump through many many legal hoops to get her into the country are recounted here in a bunch of threads.
I could give a crap about his personal efforts to circumvent our laws. I would love to see ICE find a way to jump through hoops to send her ass back home.
Uh, dude? That's pretty fucked up. I'm a big proponent for fixing the system to stop the illegal immigration problem. Radar may be fucked on a lot of his ideas, but you don't deport his legal immigrant wife just because of his ideas. He actually followed the laws IIRC. That's what we want.
Jeez Merc, that's a deeply shitty thing to say.
Uh, dude? That's pretty fucked up. I'm a big proponent for fixing the system to stop the illegal immigration problem. Radar may be fucked on a lot of his ideas, but you don't deport his legal immigrant wife just because of his ideas. He actually followed the laws IIRC. That's what we want.
Well I apologize then, I never would have thought him to follow the laws, ever, only is own screwed up way of viewing the world in which we all live in. I would have fully expected him to circumvent the laws as we all know them. I have no desire to go back and read any bull shit he has posted in the past explaining himself and his personal shit. I could care less.
Given his extreme positions on a number of issues it really is not a very fucked up view on my part. Karma is a MoFo.
Jeez Merc, that's a deeply shitty thing to say.
:headshake
Given his extreme positions on a number of issues it really is not a very fucked up view on my part.
Except you weren't saying a shitty thing about Radar, you were saying a shitty thing about his wife. Neither you nor I know a damn thing about her views.
Except you weren't saying a shitty thing about Radar, you were saying a shitty thing about his wife. Neither you nor I know a damn thing about her views.
Point taken. :cool:
It doesn't change my veiws.
vir est a baro
res fatur pro ipsum
Due to the response of others, I viewed this idiot's posts concerning my wife. Of course, once again he is talking out of his ass and his Latin, like his English, is poorly written.
res fatur pro ipsum - In legal circles this means "the law speaks for itself". I think this moron was trying to say "It speaks for itself" or "Is fatur pro ipsum"
Also, vir est a baro translates to "Man is a fool". I believe our resident dickhead was trying to say "Sit an fossor" which means "He is a fool" and of course he'd be describing himself.
The fact remains that nothing I've said about the Constitution or our government is false. Each and everything I've said about the strict limitation that our military be used solely for the defense of the United States of America, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress against another nation and that our military is Constitutionally prevented from ever taking part in "pre-emptive" military actions, is an indisputable fact and the absolute truth; not my opinion; but independently verifiable, unbiased, and undeniable truth. I'm also right about the federal government having zero authority over immigration.
As usual, he has nothing to back up his idiotic reading (assuming he actually reads) of the Constitution, or his outlandish and retarded claims that the American government has any authority outside of our own borders, that our military is here to "liberate" others or to police the world or fill in security gaps globally.
Since he has nothing to back up his stupidity and I've got facts, the Constitution, logic, reason, history, and common sense on my side he's got no choice but to make attacks against my wife.
How pathetic. What a fucking pussy.
[QUOTE=Radar;457974]bla, bla, blal,,, bla, bla, bla, I am a supporter of illegal actions against our country supporting the importation of illegal aliens, including my wife... I support breaking the laws and Constitution of the US to my personal gain regardless of the cost to the rest of the United States and to insure that I get what I want out of life regardless of what cost the rest of you sap sucking tax payers have to pay for me to produce spawn. I will make sure that you pay for me and my illegal alien kids to be supported by your tax dollars… NOW PAY UP LOSERS
I believe you.
My pussy hurts.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....
Figures.:D
{I will show him NO mercy}
Uh, dude.. intentionally misquoting somebody ONLINE by simply MAKING UP bullshit for them to have said, then responding with inane comments
possibly intended to be
remotely witty... is juvenile to say the least. I know middle-schoolers who 'argue' better than you do.
This latest bout of merc's putrescence is only
marginally less sickeningly bigoted and disgusting than...
You are bi confused fag who is totally dependant on someone else for your life, your food, the roof over your head, and your 16 years of jerking off to the thoughts of your mommies titties will never trump my years of worldly expericence.
Now wipe that cum off your lips teen slut.
This is a good time to STFU merc. Good luck getting your credibility back.
Ibrey, I don't read your posts, so what ever.
This is a good time to STFU merc. Good luck getting your credibility back.
Double standard much?
wtf Merc? where's the double standard here?
wtf Merc? where's the double standard here?
Giving Radar a pass.
I disagree with 99.9% of Radar's views. Some of them vehemently, some of them with open-mouthed incomprehension that anyone capable of using a keyboard could actually hold them.
That doesn't mean it's okay to make baseless accusations that someone who doesn't even post here is a criminal. And, what is more, is the type of criminal most loathed in your country with the possible exception of paedophiles.
That's like someone saying your wife's a whore and your not the real father of your kids. A hurtful statement with no intention other to belittle the poster in question.
If you enter this country illegally and stay here, that is an illegal act and you have violated the law. That make you a criminal subject to arrest. That was my only point.
No, that wasn't your only point.
If you stick your cock up a little boy's arse you're a criminal too.
Are you going to start claiming other people on this board are doing that?
Ok, you are right, these were the other ones. I think we should send illegal aliens home. I don't think we should pay for them or their children. I think to many of our tax dollars pay for them to have babies and suck off our health and social system. And I could care less what Radar thinks. Happy? You win. :D
If you stick your cock up a little boy's arse you're a criminal too.
Yes, absolutely. And you should be executed.
Are you going to start claiming other people on this board are doing that?
God I would hope not!
Funny, that in America youse say 'could care less ....' whereas over here we say 'couldn't care less'.
The phrase is "couldn't care less" over here too, Dana. Don't take Merc's word for anything. :)
The phrase is "couldn't care less" over here too, Dana. Don't take Merc's word for anything. :)
Yea, ask Radar, he will tell it like it is... :lol2:
I have a better understanding of global trade and of the opinion others hold of America than you are likely to ever have.
If so, why doesn't it sound like it?
Foreign Policy and Liberty: A Manifesto – by way of a rebuttal.
Radar’s trying to claim a primacy he simply doesn’t have, and especially not in foreign policy. He can’t engage and defeat tyranny in foreign parts, what with insisting, in effect, that it’s not our responsibility. How he therefore expects tyranny to depart and libertarian democracy to arrive becomes a question he’ll never answer, bobbing and weaving and assiduously prostituting his integrity to protect his narcissistic self image.
His priorities are thereby backward: they should be his integrity first, then his self image. But a narcissistic personality can’t do that – and this will become clear as radar disputes the point. I’m very glad my mind is not so crippled, so trammeled; to be that way would disgust.
I think I’ve got a better answer.
Much depends on how important you think human liberty is. I regard it as about the supreme secular value, for with a broadranging set of individual rights, secure property rights, and an orderly but fluid social order, such as we find in the United States in particular and England and Europe to rather lesser degrees, a calm and prosperous society is assured. Nothing is absolute, but the record shows doing things this way does things well.
Assigning this supremacy to human liberty, I turn to the question of how liberty is gotten. Very often, the answer is spoken from the cannon’s mouth, by “reeking tube and iron shard.” Slavemongers and tyrants rarely give up without a shooting match, right? There is a human instinct to dominate the environment, and dominance in politics is just one more manifestation of this. It causes people to fight like mad dogs for power and privilege. Some people cannot be satisfied with any power or privilege less than absolute; their personalities range from the ambitious to the sociopathic. These people are intolerable to the rest of us, and require to be denied power by any means necessary or imaginable if the rest of us are to have good and prosperous lives. That same instinct to fight like mad dogs for power lives as strongly in the breast of those without overweening ambition, and can be harnessed to defeat the threat the overambitious and sociopathic present.
So if removing tyranny is somehow, whatever way just not our business, then whose business is it, for all love? Liberty is good for humans, is it not? Are not the nations of the Earth inhabited by humans (as a rule)? If human liberty is so important, and libertarians say it is, does it very much matter what group of humans does the liberation of any group in fetters? I can’t see that it does: you don’t have to be native born to a given patch of land to cause it to become a place of freedom, and legitimately so. Remember how much aid we got from France – an absolutist monarchy at the time – during the Revolution, and remember how decisive that aid was. The French contribution to the success of the American insurgency was enormous – not only a good-sized army, but a fleet to match. That’s a lot of louis d’or. Human liberty gained with aid is not less than human liberty gained without.
With the interconnectivity of today’s world, the idea that entangling alliances should be shunned as you would shun murder simply doesn’t work. It’s not Constitutionally objectionable either, but was a matter of policy. Nor is there only one degree of entanglement, come to that. With trade, however, inevitably comes interdependence and with interdependence a broader notion of the commonweal. I have this broad notion; radar shows he does not – and he doesn’t think I should have it either, that I might be more like him. Ho. (Shouldn’t I be the best me, rather than a secondhand radar?) So furiously does he rage against what he thinks are entangling alliances that it is clear his idea of a solution to the problem is an America that doesn’t interact with other nations. I can’t think of anything worse for business. Bad for business is bad for thee and me. It appears he thinks economics is sufficiently separate from politics and manifestations of politics that you can deal in the former without any doings in the latter. A moment’s reflection will show this is not so, never was so, and hasn’t a likelihood of ever being so.
Even the occasionally dubious practice of foreign aid is not wholly to be eschewed, as evil or even as too expensive. An absolute refusal to do foreign aid would have meant no Marshall Plan, and no Marshall Plan would likely have yielded a Communist Europe, with all the tyranny, poverty, and nastiness that would imply.
Put briefly, you can’t fight tyranny – which is important – if you haven’t got money.
That tyrannous, oligarchic regimes can find ways to siphon off aid money goes without saying, but does not invalidate the above. We can and do still aid the Contras of our time, as we of course should, being human beings after all.
So, assuming as I do that we are the freedom people, where do the troubles of the freedom people come from? Do democracies regularly get in shooting wars with other democracies? Have democracies ever shot at other democracies? Where do our troubles come from? Do they not spring from places of no democracy? Are not terrorist movements engendered in undemocratic failed states? Point out on the globe which states are failed states – you won’t find a democracy among ‘em. You won’t find security of property rights either.
Property rights get messed with generally in the name of organizing scarcity – in this case a scarcity of wealth. Whether this is only perceived or it is actual, it is a view that there is somewhat less wealth to go around than there are people to surround with it. Some political philosophies are based around dividing it up as a sort of ration and distributing it – a scarcity, organized.
And it’s stultifying, stagnating, and without creativeness.
That is where socialism in any of its variants from Stalinism to Swedishism falls right on its face. Socialists get all excited about wealth disparities and how some people are bad off. Trouble is, the solutions Socialism finds for the badly off are all anti-wealth. What?!
Your choices boil down to two: you can create wealth, or you can organize scarcity. In an organized-scarcity system, to rise in the world, to improve your station, one way or another you have to cheat the system, either by defrauding it or by rigging it. Concentrating on a system to create wealth, on the other hand, places no such requirement – the improvement gets spread around in and by mutually beneficial transactions.
Non-democracies have fewer mutually beneficial transactions in their economies, of course.
So there you have it: if you aren’t a capitalist democracy, you ain’t shit. Become a capitalist democracy in full, and you’re both golden and in clover. Look at those Chinese, emerging from the dark night of that narcissist Mao Tse-Tung. How many years does the Communist dynasty have left?
And in the place of proof of his view of whether our military has any role in our foreign policy, radar offers repetition and only repetition of his idée fixe. Noted.
And, what is more, is the type of criminal most loathed in your country with the possible exception of paedophiles.
I think we've let the extremists rant about illegal aliens too much without calling them on it. The hate you see promoted on the net probably doesn't accurately reflect the view of a nation of immigrants.
Actually, being a bit of a grammar nazi, "couldn't care less" implies that one does not care at all, while "could care less" implies some level of caring.
I think we've let the extremists rant about illegal aliens too much without calling them on it. The hate you see promoted on the net probably doesn't accurately reflect the view of a nation of immigrants.
First it is not an extremist view to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. If you think there is no problem you have your head in the sand.
We are a nation of immigrants. Legal immigrants.
I think we've let the extremists rant about illegal aliens too much without calling them on it. The hate you see promoted on the net probably doesn't accurately reflect the view of a nation of immigrants.
Actually my American date-non-date said much the same thing. He was surprised at my perception of the mood of the country and pointed out that America was a nation of immigrants. It was a new perspective for me (and I wasn't basing my opinion wholly on the Cellar).
Actually, being a bit of a grammar nazi, "couldn't care less" implies that one does not care at all, while "could care less" implies some level of caring.
The expression is "couldn't care less" and it means exactly that - ''I do not care at all.''
Given his extreme positions on a number of issues...
Hello, Pot. What were saying about Kettle?
Hello, Pot. What were saying about Kettle?
Dude, you can't take me that seriously.
well...why not? We only know of you what we read, just like radar or any other poster.
Because you only read what I am posting to Radar. (oh, and to tw). Rarely to the rest of you...
you post to us too? I was just bustin on ya.