The US: Life Behind the Iron Curtain

[Tachikaze]

This article made some clear points about the Bush Regime's assault on the Bill of Rights.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/nation-of-jonah-goldbergs.html

It's amazing to me that Americans think they are "fighting for freedom" or "defending freedom". Just what freedom are they talking about? They should be alarmed at what Bush is doing. The only true threat to their liberty is coming from within. Fighting for their rights begins at home, not in Iraq.

[Reenk Roink]

Why do you hate Freedom?




:laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Right. We should fight any president who eavesdrops on thousands of americans without warrants, probable cause, FIFSA approval, and even if they are not foreign communications*. We should fight any president who uses the military and federal agencies to kill off a bunch of innocent women and children in a gross display of powerful incompetence and hate of people who don't conform and do what the government says.** We should fight any president that speaks of the rights of Americans as something that is not important***.

Luckily, Clinton is out of office and we have term limits. Ironically, Clinton was supported by the same people demanding (democrats & NYT) Bush's head for his much more limited wiretapping.

I find your title humorously overwrought. The 'Iron Curtain'? Please. It seems dems have an urge to compare Bush to evil things from the past that are orders of magnitude different from what is actually happening.

If you're so concerned about Bush becoming a dictator or what not, why don't you stock up on guns? If he really does start abusing the constitution and becoming another Chavez, then venement little letters to the editor aren't going to bring him down.

Crazed Rabbit

*NSA Echelon Program (and other instances) Here (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BNO/is_2000_Sept/ai_64769667) and here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml).
**Waco (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/waco.massacre.html) and Ruby Ridge (http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/firearms/enforce/rubyridge/siege.html)
***"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" and "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" (http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/clinton.htm)

[Spetulhu]

Luckily, Clinton is out of office and we have term limits. Ironically, Clinton was supported by the same people demanding (democrats & NYT) Bush's head for his much more limited wiretapping.

This is something I find really funny when people discuss US politics. Whenever their own side does something wrong the whole thing is swept away by pointing out how the other side did the same thing. Yet if someone else does something wrong the thing has to be stamped out NOW NOW NOW! :juggle2:

edit: yeah, I know, it's common in politics outside the US too.

[doc_bean]

***"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans" and "The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people" (http://www.museumofleftwinglunacy.com/clinton.htm)

I really don't get what the big deal is about the Clinton/Lewinski affair, so what if he had lied about it, it didn't concern anything even remotely important to the public or the country.

And why does someone always drag in partisan politics ? If people say it's bad now, they don't necessarily mean it great before, just that things have gotten worse, and while Bush happens to be a republican, it certainly doesn't mean that a democrat wouldn't have done exactly the same or worse.

[Devastatin Dave]

Poor Tachi, still having trouble buying a plane ticket out of such a horrible country.
Here you go...
http://tickets.priceline.com/default.asp?rdr=1
Unfortunately it this website is another capitalist tool, but it will save you money that you can put towards weed, tie dye and Che T-shirts, Star Bucks, and Bush effigees. :2thumbsup:

[Reenk Roink]

Noooo! I smell another right/left war...:help:

[Crazed Rabbit]

I really don't get what the big deal is about the Clinton/Lewinski affair, so what if he had lied about it, it didn't concern anything even remotely important to the public or the country.

I wasn't talking about the Lewinsky affair. But, it is ammusing to read what he said about lying Presidents when Nixon was in office, and what he said when he was the lying Pres.


And why does someone always drag in partisan politics ? If people say it's bad now, they don't necessarily mean it great before, just that things have gotten worse, and while Bush happens to be a republican, it certainly doesn't mean that a democrat wouldn't have done exactly the same or worse.

The point is that dems supported a much broader, and without any justification, wiretapping of Americans in domestic surveilence, and are now being what we call hypocrites. Does pointing out another's bad acts mean the bad acts of the first person are better? No. But it does force dems to explain how they cheerfully supported Clinton doing worse things than what Bush is doing.

Importantly to this discussion, it demands to know why Bush is such an oppressive dictator when his predessesor did worse things.

Crazed Rabbit

[Byzantine Prince]

Poor Tachi, still having trouble buying a plane ticket out of such a horrible country.
Here you go...
http://tickets.priceline.com/default.asp?rdr=1
Unfortunately it this website is another capitalist tool, but it will save you money that you can put towards weed, tie dye and Che T-shirts, Star Bucks, and Bush effigees. :2thumbsup:
LMAO! Good job Dev.

BTW, I agree with doc_bean about this. What does Clinton have to do with this, the original poster didn't say anything that would indicate that he is better, not that it is the republicans(not all of them anyways) fault that the country is making mistakes. He is clearly blaming the Bush administration.

And I still don't understand what fighting for freedom and all that crap means, and I am pretty sure it is propaganda to sensationalize war and the spying into people's homes. :inquisitive:

[AntiochusIII]

And I still don't understand what fighting for freedom and all that crap means, and I am pretty sure it is propaganda to sensationalize war and the spying into people's homes. :inquisitive:Don't be so naive, BP. That's exactly what it is. :yes:

I officially designate this thread for future uses of liberal-conservative (American definition only, Canadians not welcomed :shame: ) flame war and posts of dubious, biased links on politically-charged websites.

Contestants, remember the Golden Rule: give them liberty and you are dead.

3..2..1..GO!

[solypsist]

blogs are hardly reputable sources of information. for every blog source used, there are an equal number with totally contradictory information available. that's the problem when a source has no accountability. this applies to pundit* blogs as well as average-joe ones.


*i.e. rush limbaugh, et al

[Roark]

Poor Tachi, still having trouble buying a plane ticket out of such a horrible country.
Here you go...
http://tickets.priceline.com/default.asp?rdr=1
Unfortunately it this website is another capitalist tool, but it will save you money that you can put towards weed, tie dye and Che T-shirts, Star Bucks, and Bush effigees. :2thumbsup:

Is it somehow wrong for him to be concerned about the conduct of the administration that runs his country?

Is it easier to insinuate that he is unpatriotic or anti-American rather than address the issue he has raised?

[Devastatin Dave]

Is it somehow wrong for him to be concerned about the conduct of the administration that runs his country?

Is it easier to insinuate that he is unpatriotic or anti-American rather than address the issue he has raised?
Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.

[Ice]

Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.

Which is funny because the title of the thread is "Life Behind the Iron Curtain".

[solypsist]

i imagine all Tachi wants is simply an administration that doesnt break the law and respects the constitution.


Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.

[Watchman]

Regardless of what party exactly it hails from, presumably. I can dig that.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Rights are overrated ~D

Your argument = pwned.

In all seriousness, though, who cares? All presidents to it. All world leaders do it. It doesn't matter!

[Strike For The South]

Rights are overrated ~D

Your argument = pwned.

In all seriousness, though, who cares? All presidents to it. All world leaders do it. It doesn't matter!

damn yankees and your fedralazation. We died for it once we should be prepeared to do it agian

[Papewaio]

Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.

I thought Tachi likes the right to protest, the right to voice his opinions... and if my poor memory serves me he might also like Nascar racing ...

[Strike For The South]

he might also like Nascar racing ...

dont say that. becuase I will start a thread and piss everyone off:2thumbsup:

[Roark]

Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.

I've been here long enough to see many a thread devolve into ad hominem arguments, and thought to myself "gee that actually could've been good".

I guess I was trying to provoke a better response from you...

If it's a dance that you've done with him many times before though, I can understand if you're over it. Point taken.

[Sartaq]

i imagine all Tachi wants is simply an administration that doesnt break the law and respects the constitution.

Which governement on our planet is completely free from corruption and selfish motives? I would like to know and then we can all go live there.

[Strike For The South]

Which governement on our planet is completely free from corruption and selfish motives? I would like to know and then we can all go live there.

That does not mean we should sit back and take it. If we trully want freedom we must fight tooth and nail for it. Never trust the goverment espacilly big goverment.

[IrishMike]

Which governement on our planet is completely free from corruption and selfish motives? I would like to know and then we can all go live there.

Still doesn't mean we can't try for it. Why become complacent and accept?

As for the government, I'd much rather have the president messing around with a secretary, than living under a fundementalist terror state. Freedom must be preserved at home to spread it abroad.

[solypsist]

the same could be said for police departments. i guess if/when you're on the receiving end of a baton or inflated charges you'll gladly accept the situation since this is the reality you choose to support.


Which governement on our planet is completely free from corruption and selfish motives? I would like to know and then we can all go live there.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

damn yankees and your fedralazation. We died for it once we should be prepeared to do it agian
I like states rights. It's just that individual states don't much exist anymore. We need strong state governemnts more than anything, IMHO. And small, but still relativly powerful, federal governments. States should have the ultimate say in social issues like Gay Marraige, Abortion, Religion in Schools, et cetera; Federal Government should be concerned with national security, and work with States on a State level to improve it. Also, States need to be able to keep their own regulated armed forces, in addition to a federally controlled Armed Force, so we have a backup in case China becomes a major military machine and annahilates what we have under federal control.

Ich gewinnen.

[Sartaq]

Still doesn't mean we can't try for it.

Exactly.

[Strike For The South]

Ich gewinnen.

no you lose. Right now that states are getting it rammed up there respective holes and Im not pleased.

Yo wino

[jayrock]

i imagine all Tachi wants is simply an administration that doesnt break the law and respects the constitution.


unfortuanetely neither you, tachi, or myself will ever get that, they all break rules and laws to a point.. but sadly it goes with the turf, we have such a bureaucratic gov, that to many people do not answer for their abuses..

to subject of article, im suspicous of the articles integrity, i can not find any other credible sources, but i will side with tachi on this one for a simple fact the govt already has to much authority, i want them to have to work to get every little piece of info they get. the less power thats in the hands of fed govt, and the more thats in the hands of local and state the better off we all will be, its much easier to keep tabs on local govt than the fed, especially for me, im about as far away from dc as you can get, and still be in the us.

[Kanamori]

I always find it funny when state's rights people talk about how they hate federalism too.:book:

[Tachikaze]

The point is that the US public is allowing greater and greater powers for our goverment to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the federal laws that protect us. The only time I see the general public complain about their rights is when they are forced to wear seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, or smoke outside. Meanwhile, they let the government detain people without due process and investigate citizens private lives according to their own definition of "terrorism". These are the core rights we need to value and be protective of.

Many of the Americans here are allowing the core rights to be ignored and complaining about me being watchful of the illegal actions of the US government. Shall we just trust them and allow them to do whatever they want?

The first response was "Why do you hate Freedom?" I believe my post is very much about valuing freedom: actual political freedom according to the US Constitiution, which does not give us rights (they were believed by the US founders as naturally bestowed), but restricts the government from infringing on our rights. The Bush Regime is betraying that constitution. It says it's doing it in response to a national emergency, but terrorism is now a permanent fact of our world. It will never be defeated; it will always be present. That means this state of emergency will never end and the government will continue its assault on our rights.

The US public is getting desensitized to government control.

[Strike For The South]

.
The US public is getting desensitized to government control.

thats how it will happen. Everyone talks about how they wouldnt allow that sort of thing but right now it is slowly getting pulled away from us

[Pindar]

...terrorism is now a permanent fact of our world. It will never be defeated; it will always be present.

Replace "terrorism" with "communism" and the rhetoric sounds markedly similar to the stance of certain political sectors from the Cold War.


The US public is getting desensitized to government control.

Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?

[Strike For The South]

Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?

That's two different things. While FDR did use to much executive power and began defecit spending it was the great depresion, desprate times call for desprate measures. This on the other hand is us giving the goverment an inch and them taking a mile. These bills and acts do more to strip indidual rights then fight terrorism.

[Watchman]

"Security" tends to be the usual honey with which the bitter pill of reduced freedom goes down.

[Pindar]

That's two different things. While FDR did use to much executive power and began defecit spending it was the great depresion, desprate times call for desprate measures. This on the other hand is us giving the goverment an inch and them taking a mile. These bills and acts do more to strip indidual rights then fight terrorism.


Government control is government control. Desensitization is desensitization. A economic precursor or one based on war does not change the conclusion merely the penchant for individual justification: your "desperate times call for desperate measures" illustrates the point.

[Xiahou]

That's two different things. While FDR did use to much executive power and began defecit spending it was the great depresion, desprate times call for desprate measures. This on the other hand is us giving the goverment an inch and them taking a mile. These bills and acts do more to strip indidual rights then fight terrorism.Deficit spending is only the tip of the iceberg for FDR. In fact, in a depression I'd say deficit spending is to be expected- if that was all he did, I wouldn't have much bad to say about him.

[Tachikaze]

Replace "terrorism" with "communism" and the rhetoric sounds markedly similar to the stance of certain political sectors from the Cold War.

Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?
You honestly classify communism with terrorism?

Communism is a sociopolitical system. Terrorism is a method of warfare. Modern technology has made terrorism a potent weapon. In the foreseeable future, there's nothing to stop it, just as we can't bring an end to guerrilla warfare.

The US will always be vulnerable to terrorism as long as it asserts its control over other nations and enjoys a high standard of living with high technology. The US government will be able to use this ongoing situation as justification for its desire to monitor and control us at any time we allow them.

[Pindar]

"Security" tends to be the usual honey with which the bitter pill of reduced freedom goes down.

The very notion of government is a reduction of fredom.

[Reenk Roink]

Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?

But what is evil is so relative...:sweatdrop:

[Pindar]

You honestly classify communism with terrorism?

No, I consider communism worse if only because of the tens of millions who died because of it.


Communism is a sociopolitical system. Terrorism is a method of warfare. Modern technology has made terrorism a potent weapon. In the foreseeable future, there's nothing to stop it, just as we can't bring an end to guerrilla warfare.

You confuse ending with impotence. If state sponsored terrorism and large international terrorist bodies can be removed or rendered impotent then much of the threat is similarity removed.

[Watchman]

The very notion of government is a reduction of fredom.Total freedom stops being that very fast anyway. Nature and human society both hate voids, and power vacuums get filled pretty damn quickly whenever they appear - in a very real sense modern governements are the distant evolutionary descendants from the armed strongmen who took control of such voids and did their best to spread and maintain their influence. Dunno about you, but I rather prefer governements that operate on set rules, good organizations, sets of ethical guidelines and electoral responsibility to the armed gangs, mafia bosses, warlords and similar petty tyrants that invariably fill the spaces where there are no governements.

Anarchy, the absence of governement, may sound nice on paper, but it really sucks in practice. Partly because it doesn't stay that way very long, and the things and people that make it go away often aren't the nicest ones around.

[Tachikaze]

Roark, how long have you been here? Tachi has NEVER said ANYTHING positive about the United States. He does not like the system of government nor its economic structure regardless of what administration is in charge. Nothing short of reanimating Lenin and placing him in power would make Tachi happy to be an American citizen.
I'm not here to pat the US on the back. I'm here to fix something that is terribly broken and call people's attention to the damage that this administration is doing to the US and the world.

I have written positive things about the US, but unfortunately, most are historical and less and less are current. I've complimented the US on its inventiveness, both in its technology and in its arts (mostly of the underclass). I also admire US civil rights and consumer rights groups and the legislation they have helped enact.

[Pindar]

But what is evil is so relative...:sweatdrop:

No, it isn't. Relativism is its own refutation: it implodes logically and leads to a paralysis of judgment.

[Tachikaze]

No, I consider communism worse if only because of the tens of millions who died because of it.



You confuse ending with impotence. If state sponsored terrorism and large international terrorist bodies can be removed or rendered impotent then much of the threat is similarity removed.
Timothy McVeigh was not government sponsored. The danger of terrorism is that a single individual can inflict an awfull lot of damage with modern technology and the weapons that can be obtained or made readily.

The flip side is that a society gets completely straitjacketed when it tries to take actions to prevent all possible terrorist attacks. Just look at the grounding of airline travel on September 12 and 13, 2001. Will we someday be strip-searching everyone who boards a plane, enters a sports facility or high-profile theme park, or drives across a large bridge?

[Pindar]

Dunno about you, but I rather prefer governements that operate on set rules, good organizations, sets of ethical guidelines and electoral responsibility to the armed gangs, mafia bosses, warlords and similar petty tyrants that invariably fill the spaces where there are no governements.

I prefer the same.

[Rodion Romanovich]

This article made some clear points about the Bush Regime's assault on the Bill of Rights.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/nation-of-jonah-goldbergs.html

It's amazing to me that Americans think they are "fighting for freedom" or "defending freedom". Just what freedom are they talking about? They should be alarmed at what Bush is doing. The only true threat to their liberty is coming from within. Fighting for their rights begins at home, not in Iraq.

They're obviously talking about defending the freedom of doing as you're told :whip:

[doc_bean]

Replace "terrorism" with "communism" and the rhetoric sounds markedly similar to the stance of certain political sectors from the Cold War.

Yeah, the war on terrorism was a great succes, look at what happened in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China,...

Did you really think the prosecution of suspected communists is the US was a good thing for the US ?

Do you really believe the US would be a communist plca right now if it wasn't for the awareness of people like McCarthy ?



Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?

Depends on how negative you view those changes (I'm don't know the details myself), did he infringe on the Bill of Rights ?

[Watchman]

They're obviously talking about defending the freedom of doing as you're told "The good servant learns to love the lash."
"If you have nothing good to say of your master, be silent!"
"One doubting servant is worse than a thousand blaspheming heretics."
- words of wisdom à la the Imperium of Man, Warhammer 40,000
~;p

[Pindar]

Timothy McVeigh was not government sponsored. The danger of terrorism is that a single individual can inflict an awfull lot of damage with modern technology and the weapons that can be obtained or made readily.

Yes, an individual can do damage. Willy Nelson's voice is another example. This does not mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent it. Nor does it mean one shouldn't address larger extent threats.


The flip side is that a society gets completely straitjacketed when it tries to take actions to prevent all possible terrorist attacks. Just look at the grounding of airline travel on September 12 and 13, 2001. Will we someday be strip-searching everyone who boards a plane, enters a sports facility or high-profile theme park, or drives across a large bridge?

We will not strip search ugly people (at least not publicly).

[Watchman]

We will not strip search ugly people (at least not publicly).It's good to have some standards, isn't it ?

[Pindar]

Yeah, the war on terrorism was a great succes, look at what happened in Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China,...

The War of Terror is not over. Most place the beginning from 9/11. I don't know what terrorism you are referring to with Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China. At present the focus is on Islamo-fascism.


Did you really think the prosecution of suspected communists is the US was a good thing for the US ?

Being a communist was never illegal. Working to undermine the U.S. government is and was. That the U.S. should seek to protect itself against agents of the very real threat of the U.S.S.R. is both natural and obvious.


Do you really believe the US would be a communist plca right now if it wasn't for the awareness of people like McCarthy ?

No.



Depends on how negative you view those changes (I'm don't know the details myself), did he infringe on the Bill of Rights ?

Recall the context of the statement: "The US public is getting desensitized to government control." Reply: "Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?" Illegality is not mentioned.

[Reenk Roink]

No, it isn't. Relativism is its own refutation: it implodes logically and leads to a paralysis of judgment.

So then your conjectures are correct?

[Redleg]

I'm not here to pat the US on the back. I'm here to fix something that is terribly broken and call people's attention to the damage that this administration is doing to the US and the world.

Actually your not fixing anything complaining on the internet on a forum that is not directly linked to the government. If your here to fix a problem that you see - then go to the place that will allow you to fix what you precieve to be a problem. Its not here. All your doing here is discussing the issue with others who have just as much impact on the government as you yourself do.

[Pindar]

It's good to have some standards, isn't it ?

I think so. :kiss2:

[Pindar]

So then your conjectures are correct?

Yes, my conjectures, inferences, deductions and surmises are correct.

[Reenk Roink]

Yes, my conjectures, inferences, deductions and surmises are correct.

Ah, now I see that this will get me nowhere.

[Pindar]

Ah, now I see that this will get me nowhere.

Ask a serious question and you will get a serious answer.

[doc_bean]

The War of Terror is not over. Most place the beginning from 9/11. I don't know what terrorism you are referring to with Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China. At present the focus is on Islamo-fascism.

It should have said communism instead of terrorism, I'm having a bad day it seems.



Recall the context of the statement: "The US public is getting desensitized to government control." Reply: "Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?" Illegality is not mentioned.

Well, in this case the government control is illegal, which makes it quite different imho. But it could indeed be used as an argument against socialism, even a reasonably good one, seeing as how people tend to think about government control in my happy socialist paradise :inquisitive:

[Pindar]

The War of Terror is not over. Most place the beginning from 9/11. I don't know what terrorism you are referring to with Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, China. At present the focus is on Islamo-fascism.

It should have said communism instead of terrorism, I'm having a bad day it seems.

I see. I think the Cold War went quite well given a hot WWIII was avoided and the greatest menace was removed. China is more properly a fascist state now and Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are a matter of time. Hopefully all will transform to fully democratic states without bloodshed.




Recall the context of the statement: "The US public is getting desensitized to government control." Reply: "Would this be an argument against socialism and the evils brought by FDR?" Illegality is not mentioned.

Well, in this case the government control is illegal, which makes it quite different imho. But it could indeed be used as an argument against socialism, even a reasonably good one, seeing as how people tend to think about government control in my happy socialist paradise :inquisitive:


I don't understand the comment "government control is illegal". I do understand and sympathize about living under a socialist umbrella: best escape across the water. We welcome those prepared to do.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Communism is a sociopolitical system. Terrorism is a method of warfare. Modern technology has made terrorism a potent weapon. In the foreseeable future, there's nothing to stop it, just as we can't bring an end to guerrilla warfare.

It's called "Kill then all"

Seriously, just keep killing them. Eventually they'll give up/run out of manpower. I suggest the liberal use of napalm and phosphorus.

[doc_bean]

I see. I think the Cold War went quite well given a hot WWIII was avoided and the greatest menace was removed. China is more properly a fascist state now and Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are a matter of time. Hopefully all will transform to fully democratic states without bloodshed.

But aren't things only getting better after the war on communism ? They seem to sort themsleves out, most interventions were unneeded and just a gigantic waste of money.



I don't understand the comment "government control is illegal".

The expanded government control under FDR (or generally socialism) doesn't infringe on the rights of the people (normally, if excecuted well), a few laws were made so that business could be more 'fair', and overall more productive and efficient (anti monopoly stuff, allowing unions, etc.), and taxes were raised (nothing illegal about that).

The new expansion of government control does infringe on the rights of the people, their right to a fair hearing and trial etc. This is what makes it problematic.



I do understand and sympathize about living under a socialist umbrella: best escape across the water. We welcome those prepared to do.

Thanks, but if I'm ever moving over the water, I'd pick Canada. No offence, but the grip of the religious right on the media and politics seems pretty scary to me. I'd also rather pay taxes for healthcare then for supporting that hugely inefficient, government sponsored, semi-privatized, oligopolic, corrupt and money wasting military industry of yours. :oops:

[Soulforged]

You confuse ending with impotence. If state sponsored terrorism and large international terrorist bodies can be removed or rendered impotent then much of the threat is similarity removed.What's that body? Is it clearly defined and separated from the rest of reality objects? In this war against terror, it seems that the very expression means a fight against an ideal not real concret threat.

[Watchman]

China is more properly a fascist state now...Just to nitpick, but fascism is actually a pretty specific form of totalitarian governement and the PRC definitely isn't it. Fascism is a basically ultra-right ideology that heavily relies on the individual charisma of a "strong leader" type to work; for its other content it tends to fall back on sheer opportunistic populism and cop whatever it thinks will garner power. Mussolini was the original; Hitler his rather worse apprentice; most other European candidates didn't actually quite cut it on their own, and had to be buoyed up by the two whenever it suited them. A fair few SouthAm dictators actually copied the method of fascism and coupled it with a curisously reversed sociopolitical agenda often more reminiscent of light-end socialism - which can probably actually be classified under the opportunistic nature of fascism; if "bread and circuses" win el presidente popular support in SouthAm social conditions, then those are what people get.

China, for its part, has in practice almost entirely shed its communist agenda except in rhetoric, and far as I can tell is now trying to pick the cherries from the capitalist pie - introducing the economic aspects that make that system so good at producing ludicrous amounts of money while retaining the one-party oligarchy aspect. A wannabe capitalist dicatorship, in other words. What the Hell, they might actually succeed - it's a sad fact those two systems aren't incompatible the way genuinely Communist economy and democratic governance are.

Or crash and burn. Wouldn't be the first ones.

[AntiochusIII]

I see. I think the Cold War went quite well given a hot WWIII was avoided and the greatest menace was removed. China is more properly a fascist state now and Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea are a matter of time. Hopefully all will transform to fully democratic states without bloodshed.The USSR imploded on itself, not by American intervention.

Specific groups of terrorists, by some theories, should implode on themselves also, but not as long as America offers such a juicy, perfectly demonized target for idealistic youngsters of the Middle East to rage their anger on, in which terrorism comfortably gathers its new generation. The war does not benefit the people of the United States; it, however, allows the growth of government power, thus "benefiting" the government. Remember the first time Habeas Corpus is removed? It's Civil War.

In my opinion, this is criminal.

On the other point, to get rid of terrorism completely however, is like asking to remove a human nature. You cannot do that unless in a completely-controlled society. Communism, by the context of this argument, is a socio-economic-political system, unlike terrorism, which is a war tactic.

I don't understand the comment "government control is illegal". I do understand and sympathize about living under a socialist umbrella: best escape across the water. We welcome those prepared to do.Government control that the Administration is asserting is illegal in the United States, at least in the views of many legal experts. They are trying to circumvent the Bill of Rights, supposedly the definitive document on government limits, no?

[Byzantine Prince]

The very notion of government is a reduction of fredom.
The very notion of freedom is ridiculous. :shame:

[Pindar]

But aren't things only getting better after the war on communism ? They seem to sort themsleves out, most interventions were unneeded and just a gigantic waste of money.



Yes, after victory over the Red Menace things have generally gotten better. I don't know what you mean by intervention, but if it means an active opposition to the evil of communism then they were needed and were not a waste of money.



The expanded government control under FDR (or generally socialism) doesn't infringe on the rights of the people (normally, if excecuted well), a few laws were made so that business could be more 'fair', and overall more productive and efficient (anti monopoly stuff, allowing unions, etc.), and taxes were raised (nothing illegal about that).

The new expansion of government control does infringe on the rights of the people, their right to a fair hearing and trial etc. This is what makes it problematic.


Anti-monopoly and union protection laws predate FDR. FDR's program was not passing a few laws. It was a massive exercise in creating the nanny state.



Thanks, but if I'm ever moving over the water, I'd pick Canada. No offence, but the grip of the religious right on the media and politics seems pretty scary to me. I'd also rather pay taxes for healthcare then for supporting that hugely inefficient, government sponsored, semi-privatized, oligopolic, corrupt and money wasting military industry of yours. :oops:

That's fine, we need vassals too. :2thumbsup:

[Pindar]

What's that body?

Al-Qaeda

[Pindar]

Just to nitpick, but fascism is actually a pretty specific form of totalitarian governement and the PRC definitely isn't it.

Fascism as a general term is used to refer to any single party totalitarian system or any government with good looking military uniforms.

[Pindar]

The USSR imploded on itself, not by American intervention.

You do not know the history of the Cold War.


Specific groups of terrorists, by some theories, should implode on themselves also, but not as long as America offers such a juicy, perfectly demonized target for idealistic youngsters of the Middle East to rage their anger on, in which terrorism comfortably gathers its new generation. The war does not benefit the people of the United States; it, however, allows the growth of government power, thus "benefiting" the government. Remember the first time Habeas Corpus is removed? It's Civil War.

Is this an argument that the Civil War didn't benefit the United States?

[Pindar]

The very notion of freedom is ridiculous. :shame:

This comment is its own refutation.

[Watchman]

Fascism as a general term is used to refer to any single party totalitarian system or any government with good looking military uniforms.That's still an incorrect usage though. Heck, the Soviets more or less copied the Nazi approach to uniforms, but nobody calls them fascist...

[Tachikaze]

It's called "Kill then all"

Seriously, just keep killing them. Eventually they'll give up/run out of manpower. I suggest the liberal use of napalm and phosphorus.
There is no "them". Terrorism is a type of warfare, not a person. Anyone who wants to attack a nation by killing nonmilitary populace, destroying infrastructure or theatening to execute a captive is practicing terrorism. You don't need to apply for a terrorist license or be a member of a particular cultural group.

Bush was right that it is a new world. He was wrong to think that it started in September, 2001. It bagan a long time ago: before McVeigh, before the IRA, before the 1972 Munich Olympics.

[Pindar]

That's still an incorrect usage though.

It is not precise, but it does fall within the basic parameters of political discourse.


Heck, the Soviets more or less copied the Nazi approach to uniforms, but nobody calls them fascist...

Soviet uniforms were ugly. Color is important. The hats were also far too big.

[AntiochusIII]

You do not know the history of the Cold War.I doubt Gorbachev was an American agent. So what did I miss? As far as I've heard, no mighty American espionage schemes did directly forced the people beneath the Warsaw Pact to rose up against the regimes.

Is this an argument that the Civil War didn't benefit the United States?No, it is an argument why, even in the "most righteous" of wars, our rights can be infringed upon, and we should always be vigilant against such attempts.

Since we're discussing about the issue of this Administration "infringement" upon the rights of US citizens, and you seem to disagree that such "illegal" acts happen based upon, pardon my speculation, the perceived importance of National Security and the power of the Executive branch.

[Papewaio]

Yes, an individual can do damage. Willy Nelson's voice is another example. This does not mean steps shouldn't be taken to prevent it. Nor does it mean one shouldn't address larger extent threats.



Memo to the Right Honourable Minister of Peoples Security:

The terrorists might inflict damage on a portion of the population and hence reduce the rights of those whom are terrorized. So in turn we the government will pre-emptively takeaway some of our citizens rights all the time in the hope of reducing the chance in the future of terrorists potentially taking away our rights some of the time. In addition to definitely reducing the rights of our citizens in the hope of preserving the rights of our citizens, we will create a department that will look to the welfare, sorry Minster, security of our people. This departments primary role will be looking out for terrorists, therefore we will be targeting homeless people, immigrants, farm hands and of course electricians. We will in the future either outsource the department or assign our greatest party benefactors to plumb jobs within the department.

[Byzantine Prince]

This comment is its own refutation.
You are so cute with your own refutations. ~:pat:

[Reenk Roink]

You are so cute with your own refutations. ~:pat:

Touche :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

It is not precise, but it does fall within the basic parameters of political discourse..It's still wrong. However you look at it, it is and remains an incorrect and factually misleading employement of the term.

Soviet uniforms were ugly. Color is important. The hats were also far too big.*shrug* I never found the Nazi ones particularly impressive either. In any case, fixation on uniforms and pompously tasteless architecture that tries to be very imposing (and usually manages only dysfunctional and lurid) isn't a fascist thing; it's a trait all totalitarian regimes share.

[Soulforged]

Al-Qaeda
Insterestingly enough I don't find that to be enough. Are you saying that all the terrorism that the USA and former allies are battling in the middle east are reduced to the self-called Al-Qaeda terrorist organization or one of it's branches? So let's make a suppotion that might be out of place considering that it's remote, but what if Al-Qaeda is effectivelly destroyed to it's roots without leaving any trace and provoquing an species of eternal deception between the enemy lines wich would prevent similar ideologies and motivations to reappear from the same source. Are you saying that if the roots of the problem (wich might be religion or poberty) are not healed, even then the same terrorist won't come back anyway? I think that the only way to stop terrorism is to stop creating it.

[doc_bean]

Yes, after victory over the Red Menace things have generally gotten better. I don't know what you mean by intervention, but if it means an active opposition to the evil of communism then they were needed and were not a waste of money.


Like someone said before, the USSR imploded on its own, China is slowly becoming a capitalist system, possibly despite US policy. But if you really believe in the Red Menace, I don't think there's a point in continuing this argument. :bow:

[Xiahou]

It's still wrong. However you look at it, it is and remains an incorrect and factually misleading employement of the term.
*shrug* I never found the Nazi ones particularly impressive either. In any case, fixation on uniforms and pompously tasteless architecture that tries to be very imposing (and usually manages only dysfunctional and lurid) isn't a fascist thing; it's a trait all totalitarian regimes share.
fascism (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=fascist): a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

That's not too far off of what China is, is it?

[Scurvy]

*shrug* I never found the Nazi ones particularly impressive either. In any case, fixation on uniforms and pompously tasteless architecture that tries to be very imposing (and usually manages only dysfunctional and lurid) isn't a fascist thing; it's a trait all totalitarian regimes share.

I quite like the "nazi" architecture, its much more interesting than these mid century concrete blocks you get all over london, especially as neither of them are functional :furious3:

The soviet uniforms were so much better than the nazi ones, although at least the soviets had a bit of colour, while the nazi's were just grey or black...if your gonna be an evil regime you may aswell give it a more colourful outlook...

[Goofball]

...terrorism is now a permanent fact of our world. It will never be defeated; it will always be present.Replace "terrorism" with "communism" and the rhetoric sounds markedly similar to the stance of certain political sectors from the Cold War.

Not a valid comparison. Communism was a new experiment that didn't work out mainly because man's greed for power ran contrary communism's ideals.

On the other hand, terrorism has been around and enjoying varying degrees of success since the first caveman sharpened a stick and threatened another caveman until he handed over the bone he was chewing on. And terrorism remains in existence not in spite of man's greed for power, but because of it.

[Pindar]

I doubt Gorbachev was an American agent. So what did I miss? As far as I've heard, no mighty American espionage schemes did directly forced the people beneath the Warsaw Pact to rose up against the regimes.

I guess the issue is how you understand intervention. If intervention means some kind of active opposition then there is a 50 odd year period of this on multiple Continents.


No, it is an argument why, even in the "most righteous" of wars, our rights can be infringed upon, and we should always be vigilant against such attempts.

So what do we conclude from this: Lincoln was a bad guy? Lincoln should have allowed the copperheads to run amuck? Do you condemn Lincoln for his clear breach of the Constitution by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?


Since we're discussing about the issue of this Administration "infringement" upon the rights of US citizens, and you seem to disagree that such "illegal" acts happen based upon, pardon my speculation, the perceived importance of National Security and the power of the Executive branch.

Whose rights have been violated?

[Devastatin Dave]

Again, if its so bad "behind the iron curtain" here in the States, the "Iron Curtain" is not closed and anyone can go live in whichever country they want and I encourage them to go live somewhere else. Its a Free Country.:idea2:

[Pindar]

It's still wrong. However you look at it, it is and remains an incorrect and factually misleading employement of the term.

Your nitpick only has force if you are arguing the term should only be used to refer to the Italian moment that gave it a name. That is the only way facticity can really be appealed to. Beyond that scope fascism becomes a larger conceptual rubric.

X has provided one definition on post 82.

Here are a few more:

- "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."

- "noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

-" a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed "

-"1. (often cap.) a system of government characterized by strong, often dictatorial control of political and economic affairs, and often by warlike nationalism and brutal suppression of political dissidents and ethnic minorities.
2. any of the distinctive principles or practices of this system.

The term is not so narrow.



*shrug* I never found the Nazi ones particularly impressive either. In any case, fixation on uniforms and pompously tasteless architecture that tries to be very imposing (and usually manages only dysfunctional and lurid) isn't a fascist thing; it's a trait all totalitarian regimes share.

The uniform reference was supposed to be humorous.

[Pindar]

Yes, after victory over the Red Menace things have generally gotten better. I don't know what you mean by intervention, but if it means an active opposition to the evil of communism then they were needed and were not a waste of money.


Like someone said before, the USSR imploded on its own, China is slowly becoming a capitalist system, possibly despite US policy. But if you really believe in the Red Menace, I don't think there's a point in continuing this argument. :bow:

-The USSR did not implode on its own.
-China's move toward capitalism is directly tied to U.S. policy the U.S. is China's number one export market.
-The Cold War is over. The Red Menace has past. No remaining communist states can threaten the entire globe.

[Xiahou]

On the other hand, terrorism has been around and enjoying varying degrees of success since the first caveman sharpened a stick and threatened another caveman until he handed over the bone he was chewing on. Are you sure you don't mean "diplomacy"? :wink:

[Pindar]

Not a valid comparison. Communism was a new experiment that didn't work out mainly because man's greed for power ran contrary communism's ideals.

On the other hand, terrorism has been around and enjoying varying degrees of success since the first caveman sharpened a stick and threatened another caveman until he handed over the bone he was chewing on. And terrorism remains in existence not in spite of man's greed for power, but because of it.

The attitude expressed in the earlier quote is very reflective of the Detente mentality that was so common on the Left throughout the Cold War.

Communism was based on poorly done philosophy and was practically a disaster in all its various.

Terrorism is not simply an economic outgrowth.

[AntiochusIII]

I guess the issue is how you understand intervention. If intervention means some kind of active opposition then there is a 50 odd year period of this on multiple Continents.Speaking of such, America has, in broad terms, "equal" share of victories and defeats and the USSR in these "active opposition" wars. For every Communist regime down or a possible major Communist expansion thwarted, there is another Vietnam and Cuba. Besides, the United States wasn't so ideologically driven to form true democracies in the world, much like the Soviets, as well, but that's beside the point.

You have to do better than that to convince me America has a major hand in the downfall of the USSR and its various satellite states.

So what do we conclude from this: Lincoln was a bad guy? Lincoln should have allowed the copperheads to run amuck? Do you condemn Lincoln for his clear breach of the Constitution by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?I have not made such conclusions. I have this question for you instead: what legal justification there is for an executive power to overrides the Constitution and various other "founding" documents?

Whose rights have been violated?We can begin with the simplicity that the Bill of Rights is for all American citizens, and that its circumvention by the government infringes -- no matter how light the blow might feel -- upon the rights of all those who enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Again, if its so bad "behind the iron curtain" here in the States, the "Iron Curtain" is not closed and anyone can go live in whichever country they want and I encourage them to go live somewhere else. Its a Free Country.I've said that before, and I'll say this again: Welcome Back, Dave! How's your long vacation? :balloon2: ~D

-The Cold War is over. The Red Menace has past. No remaining communist states can threaten the entire globe.China can realistically threaten the entire globe, and if we wish to speak in technical terms, practically every major nuclear nations out there -- not that anyone of them has to necessarily be "Communist" of course. The Red Menace, however, sounds amazingly like a McCarthy propaganda. ~;)

[Redleg]

Speaking of such, America has, in broad terms, "equal" share of victories and defeats and the USSR in these "active opposition" wars. For every Communist regime down or a possible major Communist expansion thwarted, there is another Vietnam and Cuba. Besides, the United States wasn't so ideologically driven to form true democracies in the world, much like the Soviets, as well, but that's beside the point.

You have to do better than that to convince me America has a major hand in the downfall of the USSR and its various satellite states.

All one has to do is review history, and determine who and what was the USSR major competion. Once you determine that then the follow up question is Did the Soviet Union attempt to compete against that nation and to what extent was that competation? One is fooling themselves if they do not believe that the competition with the United States did not have a part in the downfall of the Soviet Union. You can argue the extent of that impact, but the competition was indeed there.



I have not made such conclusions. I have this question for you instead: what legal justification there is for an executive power to overrides the Constitution and various other "founding" documents?

Refer to the Constitution and the actions of Lincoln, FDR, and some little known actions such as the Wiskey Rebellion and the Soldier March after WW1.



We can begin with the simplicity that the Bill of Rights is for all American citizens, and that its circumvention by the government infringes -- no matter how light the blow might feel -- upon the rights of all those who enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights has been trambled on by several adminstrations. Those administrations come and go - but the Constitution remains.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You honestly classify communism with terrorism?

Communism is a sociopolitical system. Terrorism is a method of warfare. Modern technology has made terrorism a potent weapon. In the foreseeable future, there's nothing to stop it, just as we can't bring an end to guerrilla warfare.

The US will always be vulnerable to terrorism as long as it asserts its control over other nations and enjoys a high standard of living with high technology. The US government will be able to use this ongoing situation as justification for its desire to monitor and control us at any time we allow them.


Communism is an ideal sociopolitical system that has never been enacted successfully beyond the village level. What we label "communism" is, in practice, an oligarchy, with the "ruling class" determined by success in party in-fighting rather than by birth of money.

Terrorism is also a sociopolitical system. Terrorism seeks to diseminate fear and to bring about chaos. It has never been successful.

Guerrilla tactics ARE a method of warfare. Unlike terrorism, their objective is not to spread fear and chaos, but to pick apart the military and economic tools used by some ruling cadre in order to bring about change. In most cases, however, a successful "revolution" had to demonstrate it's ability to move beyond guerilla tactics and engage successfully in "normal" combat.

Guerilla tactics are beatable, but it is expensive to do so. Most of the "force multipliers" used by modern armies are not relevant in a guerilla context. The accepted ratio for the dissapation and eventual dissolution of a guerilla opponent is 10 to 1 -- and that will get costly.

Freedom and Security have always been in tension throughout U.S. history. One of the true strengths of our culture is that we tolerate such restrictions of our rights only so far as is necessary to protect us. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and deported a U.S. citizen. The Alien and Sedition acts were passed by Congress. FDR held people without warrants or court orders for "psychiatric observation" during WW2. When the need for such measures has been concluded we revert back to our norm.

[Soulforged]

Communism is an ideal sociopolitical system that has never been enacted successfully beyond the village level. What we label "communism" is, in practice, an oligarchy, with the "ruling class" determined by success in party in-fighting rather than by birth of money.That's not exactly true. The "oligarchy" is theoretically temporary until the differences between classes are over, thus it's not the ideal form of power that communism looks for.

[Roark]

Uhh, I think that's what he was saying, dude...

[Pindar]

Speaking of such, America has, in broad terms, "equal" share of victories and defeats and the USSR in these "active opposition" wars. For every Communist regime down or a possible major Communist expansion thwarted, there is another Vietnam and Cuba. Besides, the United States wasn't so ideologically driven to form true democracies in the world, much like the Soviets, as well, but that's beside the point.

You have to do better than that to convince me America has a major hand in the downfall of the USSR and its various satellite states.

Redleg's post was apt. There is no way to understand the Cold War outside of a rubric of competition for global dominance. That competition had impact on all aspects of the participants: from economics, to military posture, to R&D, to society and national perceptions. None of the actions or results of the participants occurred in a vacuum.

To argue moral equivalence between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. is untenable.



So what do we conclude from this: Lincoln was a bad guy? Lincoln should have allowed the copperheads to run amuck? Do you condemn Lincoln for his clear breach of the Constitution by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?


I have not made such conclusions. I have this question for you instead: what legal justification there is for an executive power to overrides the Constitution and various other "founding" documents?

If you have made no such conclusions then your example lacks force.

Regarding you question: the President has no power to override the Constitution: other founding documents (Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation etc.) do not have legal force.


Whose rights have been violated?


We can begin with the simplicity that the Bill of Rights is for all American citizens, and that its circumvention by the government infringes -- no matter how light the blow might feel -- upon the rights of all those who enjoy the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

This doesn't answer the question.


China can realistically threaten the entire globe, and if we wish to speak in technical terms, practically every major nuclear nations out there -- not that anyone of them has to necessarily be "Communist" of course. The Red Menace, however, sounds amazingly like a McCarthy propaganda. ~;)

China is not a superpower. They do not have the power projection of the Soviets. Their nuclear arsenal is considered to be a few hundred, not the multiples of thousand that the Superpowers collected over the course of their struggle. Obviously a nuclear launch would be very damaging. That is not the point. The point is whether a state could conceivably dominate the globe as the Soviets threatened.

The Red Menace has passed. This Era has different challenges. If you do not believe there was a Red Menace then you do not understand the politics of the later half of the Twentieth Century.

[Watchman]

The existence of the Red Menace and its factual existence were quite two different things, though.

[Pindar]

The existence of the Red Menace and its factual existence were quite two different things, though.

I'm not sure what this means. If something exists then that very recognition constitutes a base facticity.

[Watchman]

Not if the existence is subjective and not objective. Or, rather, that you *think* something exists does not mean it actually does, or at least the way you think it does.

[Pindar]

Not if the existence is subjective and not objective. Or, rather, that you *think* something exists does not mean it actually does, or at least the way you think it does.


Agreeing on the existence of a thing does constitute a base facticity as existence's core meaning implies that which stands out and is identifiable. If the existence is under question, as you seem to suggest above, then the factual state is also under question.

If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union did not exist that would be wrong.
If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union wasn't Red that would be wrong.
If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union wasn't a menace that would be wrong too.

[Watchman]

I'm really more questioning the nature than the existence as such of the "Red Menace". Aside from opportunistic wars-by-proxy the Soviets seemed pretty content to sit tight and paranoid, after all.

[Tachikaze]

Communism is an ideal sociopolitical system that has never been enacted successfully beyond the village level. What we label "communism" is, in practice, an oligarchy, with the "ruling class" determined by success in party in-fighting rather than by birth of money.

Terrorism is also a sociopolitical system. Terrorism seeks to diseminate fear and to bring about chaos. It has never been successful.

Guerrilla tactics ARE a method of warfare. Unlike terrorism, their objective is not to spread fear and chaos, but to pick apart the military and economic tools used by some ruling cadre in order to bring about change. In most cases, however, a successful "revolution" had to demonstrate it's ability to move beyond guerilla tactics and engage successfully in "normal" combat.

Guerilla tactics are beatable, but it is expensive to do so. Most of the "force multipliers" used by modern armies are not relevant in a guerilla context. The accepted ratio for the dissapation and eventual dissolution of a guerilla opponent is 10 to 1 -- and that will get costly.

Freedom and Security have always been in tension throughout U.S. history. One of the true strengths of our culture is that we tolerate such restrictions of our rights only so far as is necessary to protect us. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus and deported a U.S. citizen. The Alien and Sedition acts were passed by Congress. FDR held people without warrants or court orders for "psychiatric observation" during WW2. When the need for such measures has been concluded we revert back to our norm.
After your well-considered and clearly-worded post, I can only say that we disagree on the meaning of "terrorism". I've already stated my definition, I believe. So I won't repeat that.

One thing I will say in response, though, is that saying terrorism has not been successful is pretty strange. It was extremely successful in NY and Washington in 2001. How could it have been more effective? 19 people and their support organization brought US air travel to a standstill and spread panic and irrational fear all over the nation and even to other nations. The largest city in the US, NY, was in complete turmoil. In Iraq, the US military is in a quagmire and the country inoperable, due largely to terrorist and guerrilla actions against them.

Terrorism is the wave of the near-future. You'd better get used to it. It's not going away.

[Reenk Roink]

If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union did not exist that would be wrong.
If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union wasn't Red that would be wrong.
If this is meant to suggest the Soviet Union wasn't a menace that would be wrong too.

1 is true, 2 is true, 3 is not complete, as the US was a bigger menace...

[Ice]

1 is true, 2 is true, 3 is not complete, as the US was a bigger menace...

How were we a bigger menace? I'd like some backup for such accusations.

[Redleg]

How were we a bigger menace? I'd like some backup for such accusations.



1 is true, 2 is true, 3 is not complete, as the US was a bigger menace...

Its all in the manner of viewpoints and prespective. If you ask someone from Central America some will tell you that the United States is the greater menace.

However to determine if the United States is a bigger menace then the former Soviet Union - one must take a bigger world view.

[Reenk Roink]

We can start with the names of the plans...the Soviets "peaceful coexistance, to the US "massive retaliation."

Redleg's hit the mark, but we were definitely more aggressive than the USSR, perhaps that's why we "won" the Cold War...

[Redleg]

We can start with the names of the plans...the Soviets "peaceful coexistance, to the US "massive retaliation."

Redleg's hit the mark, but we were definitely more aggressive than the USSR, perhaps that's why we "won" the Cold War...

Or we can take the view that the USSR misapplied its aggressive comptetion against the United States.

Berlin Wall
Hungry
Czech

purges of its own citizens

etc. etc.

[Pindar]

One thing I will say in response, though, is that saying terrorism has not been successful is pretty strange. It was extremely successful in NY and Washington in 2001. How could it have been more effective? 19 people and their support organization brought US air travel to a standstill and spread panic and irrational fear all over the nation and even to other nations. The largest city in the US, NY, was in complete turmoil. In Iraq, the US military is in a quagmire and the country inoperable, due largely to terrorist and guerrilla actions against them.


The success of terrorism is measured by its ability to bend political will to its purpose. If the overthrow of the Taliban and defeat of Hussein was that purpose then arguing 9/11 was successful seems plausible. From what I understand of bin Laden's goal I don't they were met.

[Pindar]

I'm really more questioning the nature than the existence as such of the "Red Menace". Aside from opportunistic wars-by-proxy the Soviets seemed pretty content to sit tight and paranoid, after all.


I see. I would argue the nature of the Red Menace was pretty menacing. This would include establishing an expansive totalitarian regime. Killing tens of millions within their own sphere. Actively suppressing democratic movements among satellites. Sponsoring popular front movements in Western Europe to undermine democratic governments. Building and planning the armed conquest of Western Europe. Supporting Marxist forces across the Third World that led to the death of millions etc.

[Pindar]

1 is true, 2 is true, 3 is not complete, as the US was a bigger menace...

The U.S.S.R. was a totalitarian state and is thought to have killed literally in the tens of millions. It would seem any argument the U.S. was actually the "bigger menace" would have to argue the U.S. caused an exceeding amount of suffering and death.

[Watchman]

The names of the plans are meaningless - the Soviets, or at least their flag-waving apologists in the West, really did call the Soviet medium-range nukes (whose American opposite numbers caused quite a stir when they were deployed in European bases) ...peace missiles.
Gah.
If it's any consolation, most of the once-hardcore Stalinist fans (it was pretty popular among irate student youths in the Seventies I think) are nowadays rather ashamed at just how silly they were back then.

Anyways, the amount of people Stalin et co. had killed doesn't say a jack about the hostility of the Soviet Union - but it does say a whole lot on just how excessively competently the thing was run. How paranoid do you need to be to nearly destroy your own state in just a few years of excessive purges ? At least Stalin's level, apparently. By the time he called off the Great Terror - which had lasted barely three years at that point - his secret police had almost crippled not only the entire Soviet society, military and industry, but also the Party and themselves. No wonder really Western observers had a hard time being convinced it actually happened - it really does look like such utter suicidal lunacy it is difficult to comprehend anyone doing it.

Sheer mismanagement and resulting famines - à la what Mao managed with the Great Leap Forward - don't really count either. They're just plain incompetence on an appalling and tragic scale.

I don't really know if the Moscow-steered Communist parties in assorted European countries count for much. Most of them were something of an attempt in general principles rather than any serious plan to take over - all the more so as the vast majortiy were rather small, the voting Left tending to prefer the assorted permutations of Social Democracy and nonrevolutionary Socialism, leaving the radical Communists something of fringe parties with few prospects of even meaningful parliamentary representations.

The revolutionary Communist-inspired movements in the rest of the world are a bit different story, and probably closest the USSR (it's meaningful to discuss it for the simple reason it called the shots for most of the rest and the other major Communist player, the PRC, very much went its own secluded way) ever came to real expansionism after WW2 - and even they can often be viewed more as mutual opportunism than anything else. The Leninist party organization is pretty much designed for underground revolutionary movements, and is quite effective at that. This made revolutionary movements organized along those lines rather resilient and competent actors. It is questionable if most of the Third World ones had particularly great aspirations about World Socialism or other such high-flung goals - most were concerned with the very real injustices, repressions and whatever other issues plagued their countries, which more often than not *were* run more or less undemocratically by rather parasitic elites. Now, Communism is a very populist ideology with its ideas of social equality and just resource distribution, and given the immense gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" in those countries it should come as no surprise such movements tended to have fairly large popular followings (fascism actually works on pretty similar promises - in Weimar Germany the Communists and National Socialists actually competed over the same disgruntled, disenfranchished follower base, and both hated Social Democrats even more than each other...).

Communism is essentially a millenial-revolutionary ideology - it seeks to overthrow the current order of things to usher in a new, better era. These sorts of movements have been popping up since God knows when - many of the peasant revolts around early Reformation had a distinctly millenialistic shade, as did the semi-religious Ikko-Ikki movements of Civil War Japan. And no, not too many of them worked too well in practice even in the case they didn't get squashed along the way. In that sense it's really just the latest link in a very long and old chain. Now, in many of the countries Communist movements were and/or are strong in there was also a very real "social demand" for serious reforms, which in the minds of angry, poor and uneducated people easily turn into flat out revolutionary unrest (particularly if it appears only radical measures will bring about any changes). The Communists were usually the best organized faction around to take up the flag of (at least supposedly) popular revolt against whatever colonial masters or other oppressors were present, and most duly did so. The organization that eventually grew into the Vietminh cut its teeth fighting the Japanese and Tito's Yugoslavians played partisan in the mountains with the Germans and Italians for a few examples.

At which point they developed an immediate need for allies, particularly as especially after WW2 the West was very keen on supporting anyone who looked like he was opposing overly Communist-tainted movements. It is quite likely (and in some cases certain) most of the revolutionary Communist movements weren't actually too hot on the brand of Really Existing Socialism the USSR pushed, but they sure could use the backing paying lip service to Moscow netted them. Conversely, if whoever opposed the Communists hadn't been receiving support from the West (particularly from the US) before, he was almost certain to do so after the USSR started backing his opponents.

This led to a sort of "natural selection" process - Leftist movements nigh invariably turned to the USSR for support (it's not like they were going to get it from anywhere else anyway) while whoever opposed them went to the US; it also happened that either or both merely claimed to be such solely for the sake of gaining that support. And, conversely, the superpowers spread their influence to many backwaters of the world this way, could dump their obsolete military surplus in a sensible fashion, and tested each others' mettle and resolve through their local proxies. One suspects they, too, weren't overly concerned with the factual ideology or motivations involved in these conflicts - if it gained them pawns, the details were secondary. This is particularly obvious in the way the US was perfectly willing to back the worst kinds of bloody-handed tyrants "to protect Freedom and Democracy", but the ideological purity or for that matter sincerity of motivation of many of the factions the USSR was quite willing to support "for the workers' cause and a better world" was more often than not equally questionable.

Nevermind now that Really Existing Socialism for the most part wiped its butt with its original promises even back home nevermind abroad. No wonder really that many of the more succesful Communist movements (ie. those that gained power) promptly took some distance from Moscow the second they thought they could afford it - that many of them actually did a rather better job at running their ends of the woods than the Soviets theirs rather illustrates the wisdom of this approach. Plus it probably galled the often fairly eccentric and self-important local Party heads to dance to Kreml's tune.

It remains a fact, however, that the spread of Soviet influence beyond its WW2 borders was a matter of sheer opportunism. If someone somewhere took up a cause that at least vaguely fit into their designs, they promptly offered assistance in return for influence - but in general all they did was sit tight in their rather encircled empire, stomp on any internal troubles in their block (over the whole Cold War the two sides actually had a sort of unspoken agreement to not directly interfere in each others' domestic issues), and slowly decay due to sheer adminstrational incompetence.

In hindsight the direness of the "Red Menace" would appear rather overrated, although it no doubt seemed rather more pressing to contemporaries. Then again, even in 1989 nobody yet thought the USSR was going away any time soon either.

It should be remembered, however, that in many parts of the Wesy there would also have been (and still be) entirely domestic reasons to play up the threat of the Red Peril - I really don't need to explain why scaremongering rhetoric could be an expedient political move now do I ?

[Tachikaze]

The success of terrorism is measured by its ability to bend political will to its purpose. If the overthrow of the Taliban and defeat of Hussein was that purpose then arguing 9/11 was successful seems plausible. From what I understand of bin Laden's goal I don't they were met.
The success of terrorism, or any military venture, is how well it means the goals of the perpetrator. I feel the goals of Al Qaeda were largely met by the NY/Pentagon attacks. I guess the Pennsylvania crash was one element that was a failure.

I'm sure the overthrow of the Taliban was a calculated sacrifice. They must have known it was inevitable and went ahead with their plans anyway.

Only an idiot would have attacked Iraq as a result of an unrelated attack by Al Qaeda. And an idiot did. I'm sure Bin Laden was as incredulous as the rest of us. But I don't think Al Qaeda was terribly hurt. They didn't seem to be on particularly good terms with Hussein anyway.

[Pindar]

Watchman,

That was a long post. You get an automatic half point just for working Ikko-Ikki into the post. I gave six basic points. I think any one of these makes the argument. I will respond to you various counters.

- You didn't respond to the establishment of an expansive totalitarian regime. The simple existence of an autocratic state of over 200 million with expansive tendencies is a menace.

-I think killing tens of millions does say jack about hostility. It points to the determination of the regime to maintain power and it speaks to the regime's feeling about loss of life to accomplish a goal.

-Popular fronts and communist parties were a danger. Three simple examples would be Greece, Italy and France.

-Communist inspired/supported revolutionary movements are a menace by their very existence if nothing else by their relative continued dependence on Soviet support. They are also a menace to the region they are fostered (Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa as two simple examples) and to their victims which also went into the millions.

-You didn't address the plans for armed conquest of Western Europe. This speaks to intent.

-You didn't address the armed suppression of democratic movements among satellites. This is also a menace to the victims and speaks to the intent of the Kremlin.

Your final and I think major point was the Soviets were opportunistic. This plays into my argument. An opportunistic rival is only kept at bay by vigilance (which includes the threat of retaliation). An opportunistic power is a menace by its very opportunism.

[Pindar]

The success of terrorism, or any military venture, is how well it means the goals of the perpetrator. I feel the goals of Al Qaeda were largely met by the NY/Pentagon attacks.

Do you know that the goals of Al Qaeda are?

[Watchman]

The pretty much only instances of Soviet expansionism that weren't reactive was the partitioning of Easte-Central Europe with Germany - and even then the initiative may well have come from Berlin. Opportunism again. One the Stalin was not was a gambler - he seems to have been seriously adverse to risks. In the final phases of WW2 he pushed his armies as far as they went to secure influence over as large regions as possible, and then dug in. His successors never made attempts to push them further - aquiring clients abroad was the extent of it, although the attempt to base nukes in Cuba was a gamble that very nearly got out of hand.


- You didn't respond to the establishment of an expansive totalitarian regime. The simple existence of an autocratic state of over 200 million with expansive tendencies is a menace.
-I think killing tens of millions does say jack about hostility. It points to the determination of the regime to maintain power and it speaks to the regime's feeling about loss of life to accomplish a goal.Expansionist and expansionist. The Bolsheviks talked big about "world revoltution" and such all the time and from the beginning, but that was very nearly the end of it. Military opportunism and trying to establish client regimes far abroad based on local movements is a bit far cry from their rhetoric. Heck, the very birth of the Soviet Union in the form it came to being was a matter of naked opportunism and political acrobatics - Bolshevik takeover of the Revolution was by no means a given. Once they took it over though they proved incompetent enough to be unable to manage it without resorting to brutality and bloodshed - a trait depressingly common to all totalitarian regimes regardless of their nominal political oriantations.

Ruthless maintenance of domestic order and status quo doesn't yet say anything about real prospects of foreign ventures, anyway.


-Popular fronts and communist parties were a danger. Three simple examples would be Greece, Italy and France.Please be more specific. Greece, I seem to recall, was for a while taken over by a particularly odious right-wing military junta (with the usual US backing) with the usual atrocities, which collapsed more or less to its own incompetence fairly soon. I understand the US intelligence agencies maintained a reserve "shadow army" - the Gladius - in Italy for the occasion the Communists might get into over much power. France... seems to have managed its domestic businesses by itself. First time I ever hear of *them* having problems with their Communists, compared to what other junk they had to deal with. I've read they did quietly develop a fairly impressive paramilitary police force for the occasion they might have to start disputing authority with overly enthusiastic rioters, mind you, but I'm not overly convinced it was the Communists they were concerned with.

I find it somewhat telling that the countries that most thoroughly tried to suppress Communist parties and movements tended to also be the ones that at some point had trouble with ultra-left (and duly Soviet backed) homegrown terrorist movements, whereas those that simply let them sit as a noisy curiosity at the fringe of the political field and did business with their domestic Socialists (who as a rule didn't want anything to do with the Revolution) instead didn't...


-Communist inspired/supported revolutionary movements are a menace by their very existence if nothing else by their relative continued dependence on Soviet support. They are also a menace to the region they are fostered (Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa as two simple examples) and to their victims which also went into the millions. And the US-backed tyrannies weren't ? The only reason the Communist ones ended up with such death tolls are Pol Pot and his nuts (who were deposed by the Vietnamese anyway), Stalin's crazy purges, and the fact the two main Communist countries were very large and very very bad at management. Their sheer proliferation ought to be a telling sign of just what the degree of social problems was, anyway - when the peasants start heading for the hills with guns, odds are their life is pretty shitty.


-You didn't address the plans for armed conquest of Western Europe. This speaks to intent. That speaks of standard contignency planning. Neither side was particularly keen on having the big showdown overall (individual hardcases don't count; thankfully both kept theirs under control), but both made sure they'd be ready for it if it came. This is a silly argument; it's like saying Russia at the moment has an intent and will to invade Finland or Norway just because they have draft plans for it (which they certainly do, just as the two others have their defenses planned), or the same between the US and Russia since the US no doubt has some planning done for the case they have to smack the Russians down for some reason.


-You didn't address the armed suppression of democratic movements among satellites. This is also a menace to the victims and speaks to the intent of the Kremlin. I did - see the mentions of internal policing and similar concepts. This speaks only of their intention to maintain their empire with the usual totalitarian brutality if need be - the Soviets were downright obsessed with having "strategic depth" between the Motherland and potential enemies. Given that the US had a continental bridgehead against them (ie. Western Europe) they could not counter (since the US is conveniently behind two *oceans* - hard to beat that as far as moats go - and the closest Soviet clients in LatAm could not be expected to serve as more than diversions), the least they could do was to try and get the frontline as far from their core regions as possible. It's basic strategy, really.

Arguing that the way totalitarian regimes treat their citizens makes them a "menace" to more than the aforementioned citizens is a bit silly, because it's pretty much a part of the job description - they *all* do it, and it has nothing to do with their readiness and willingness to fight other countries which is a question of resources, motivations and opportunities.

Opportunists may be a potential threat, but the good thing about them is that so long as their decision-making remains rational and calculated they're a measurable threat. They won't try stupid things that get everyone killed pointlessly; if you look like too much trouble and hard to swallow, they won't try that either. They make their decisions based on rational and relatively understandable analyses of risks, gains and losses, and that means you can relate to them at least at some level and vice versa - a sort of rapport of what's done and what isn't can be established. That's one difference between between Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Reich - whatever else the former may have been, it was nonetheless steered with rational (if pathologically paranoid) calculations whereas Hitler was a genuinely megalomanic loon. One reason Barbarossa caught the Soviets pants down was that Stalin simply couldn't comprehend Hitler would seriously try it.

Put this way: if you have a choice between a cynical opportunist and a True Believer, always pick the former. He can be reasoned with if necessary.

[Watchman]

Do you know that the goals of Al Qaeda are?
Do you know what the goals of Bush and the other Neocons are ? Unless you're a psychic you don't. You *can* engage in educated guesswork - and at least some of AQ's goals can be extrapolated from their actions, circumstances, background and the odd official statement (rhetoric can be quite informative, for example it lets you know how the speaker and his motivations would like to be viewed).

[Pindar]

Watchman,

I think you've already ceded the argument. If you admit the Soviets were opportunistic then that admission is an implicit recognition of a menace.

[Pindar]

Do you know what the goals of Bush...are ?

Yes. Protect the U.S. and kill Islamo-fascists.


Neocons

Maintain and expand U.S. power.



You *can* engage in educated guesswork - and at least some of AQ's goals can be extrapolated from their actions, circumstances, background and the odd official statement (rhetoric can be quite informative, for example it lets you know how the speaker and his motivations would like to be viewed).

Al Qaeda has published their goals.

[Watchman]

What their rhetoric claims them to be may not equal what they are in practice, though. All the more so given the very ephemereal and decentralized nature of the movement (it's closer to that than to an organization, AFAIK).


I think you've already ceded the argument. If you admit the Soviets were opportunistic then that admission is an implicit recognition of a menace.I never denied its existence, especially subjective perception of its existence, now did I ? I was all the time talking about the degree of *real* menace as opposed to *perceived* menace which I hold to be severely inflated in some circles, and not entirely unintentionally.

[Redleg]

What their rhetoric claims them to be may not equal what they are in practice, though. All the more so given the very ephemereal and decentralized nature of the movement (it's closer to that than to an organization, AFAIK).

I never denied its existence, especially subjective perception of its existence, now did I ? I was all the time talking about the degree of *real* menace as opposed to *perceived* menace which I hold to be severely inflated in some circles, and not entirely unintentionally.



I would say from reading this debate that Pindar has successful defended his premise - while Watchman has had to clarify his premise, hence his arguement was the weaker of the two, based upon the language used in this last post.

[Watchman]

I'm really more questioning the nature than the existence as such of the "Red Menace".
Well it's really just reiterating what I said a while ago already, you know. But I'll give you I'm not entirely confident of my own case, not that I ever let it keep me down before...

[Pindar]

What their rhetoric claims them to be may not equal what they are in practice, though. All the more so given the very ephemereal and decentralized nature of the movement (it's closer to that than to an organization, AFAIK).

9/11 was performed by bin Laden's forces. They have explained their purpose. It does not mesh with Tachikaze's statement.


I never denied its existence, especially subjective perception of its existence, now did I ? I was all the time talking about the degree of *real* menace as opposed to *perceived* menace which I hold to be severely inflated in some circles, and not entirely unintentionally.

So you admit there was a Red Menace and that it was opportunistic but also severely inflated: What does this mean in real terms as it would have effected policy? Should there have been no response to North Korea's invasion of the South? Should there have been no Berlin air lift? Should NATO never have been formed? Should the U.S. never had deployed forces in Europe? Should the U.S. not have reacted to the Cuban Missile Crises? Should North Vietnam simply have been allowed to overrun South Vietnam? Should Marxist insurrgencies in their various locales not been responded to?

[Pindar]

Well it's really just reiterating what I said a while ago already, you know. But I'll give you I'm not entirely confident of my own case, not that I ever let it keep me down before...

I see. I just saw this. Feel free to respond or not to the the above post.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The success of terrorism, or any military venture, is how well it means the goals of the perpetrator. I feel the goals of Al Qaeda were largely met by the NY/Pentagon attacks. I guess the Pennsylvania crash was one element that was a failure.

I'm sure the overthrow of the Taliban was a calculated sacrifice. They must have known it was inevitable and went ahead with their plans anyway.

Only an idiot would have attacked Iraq as a result of an unrelated attack by Al Qaeda. And an idiot did. I'm sure Bin Laden was as incredulous as the rest of us. But I don't think Al Qaeda was terribly hurt. They didn't seem to be on particularly good terms with Hussein anyway.

You and I may be using different measures of success. The 9-11-01 attacks were TACTICALLLY successful in that they caused enormous financial destruction and killed thousands, resulting in a terrified response by some Americans. However, I would assert that the "mobilization" of America that resulted led to numerous STRATEGIC reverses and that the net value for Al-Queada [sp?] was a loss.

I do not believe the Taliban were sacraficed as some kind of gambit. I believe that they, and Bin-Ladin [sp?] expected airstrikes or missile attacks and did not expect the kind of response they engendered.

It will be quite some time before we know whether the attack on Iraq was directly related to the War on Terror, or if it was a by-product thereof. To date, there has been proof offered of links between Al-Queada and Saddam's Iraq, but no one has been able to show any direct connection to the 9-11 attacks or to definitively link Saddam to Al-Quaeda. Saddam's regime certainly supported terrorism, but the support provided for Al-Queada was limited (at least according to current data).

However, whether the stated reason for our attack upon Saddam's Iraq was correct or not; in the long run, a transformed Iraq may be our best tool for bringing the War on Terror to a successful conclusion. An effective (non-Jewish) democratic state in the Middle East may well provide broad impetus for reform and democratization -- elements that run counter to fundamentalist terror recruiting.

Tachi,

You seem to view terrorism as an effective tool of war, but history does not support this. Yes, defeating insurgents and terrorists is difficult and costly, and they will create far more casualties than they receive (mostly the defenseless), but they have a poor record at affecting policy. Spain and the withdrawal of Korea were successes, but most of the rest, however ghastly, have not achieved their objective.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well it's really just reiterating what I said a while ago already, you know. But I'll give you I'm not entirely confident of my own case, not that I ever let it keep me down before...


Well, the Soviet Union did turn out to be sort of "hollow," but very few people believed that at the time. People really beleived in the myth of the Russian Steamroller, especially after watching them smash the krauts.

We didn't know that their army quality had faded drastically following WW2.

We didn't know that their birth-rate had dropped so preciptously.

We didn't know that their infrastructure would implode (okay, a few folks, inlcuding Reagan did).

We watched the '56 and '67 attacks and assumed they would be ready to roll West if our guard dropped.

As it turned out, however, the Russians were more of a mind to 5ht column things and use espionage than anything else.

Fortunately, Reagan, Thatcher, and Wotjila cranked up the pressure beyond bearing.


However "hollow" the Red Menace turned out to be, however, most of the participants weren't laughing.

[Watchman]

I'm really just trying to say that the whole idea of "menace" in the context is a bit relative. If you look at it from the other side, most of what the USSR did was in order to fortify against the Imperialist Menace they lived in mortal fear of. In a way particularly all their policies after WW2 were just playing catch-up to try to neagate the advantages held by the West - that the West did not have the slightest intention of attacking them is probably something that never occurred to them, and *could* not occur given their situation and history. Revolutionary international Communism, after all, is sort of by definition at a rather troublesome spot in regards to other systems and modes of thought since it loudly proclaims its intent to overthrow and replace them even if it in practice isn't even going to try.

The West *had* meddled in the Russian Civil War against the Bolsheviks, something they probably never forgot, and it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to categorize the Nazi invasion as merely another expression of the same perceived hostility especially if you think from a nationalist-millenial frame.

And then there was the way the idea of conspiracies and saboteurs was used to excuse the failures of the system. When people are for decades told such-and-such doesn't go like it's supposed to because of "counterrevolutionary Imperialist saboteurs" and so on, it's going to affect the way they view the world. All the more so if they themselves are prone to conspiring against others (the messing around with Communist parties in the West can probably be seen as an example) - that sort of thing makes people prone to find similar traits in others even where they don't exist.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the Soviets (and to a greater or lesser degree most other Communist regimes) were in fact scared shitless of the supposedly all-powerful Western Imperialists whose conspiracies and plots seemed to be able to constantly strike into the very heart of the Communist block, and who cheerfully zoomed off ahead making rude gestures to the ideological theories that said they should be decaying and collapsing due to their own greed and short-sightedness. Yet, for those in the know, it must have soon been obvious it was the supposedly superior Communist system that wasn't keeping up. Combine this with the undeniably threatening appareance the US strategy of encircling and containing the USSR with allies must have had to a Kreml bigwig with the paranoid mindset the Soviet system fostered and a Great Russian national trauma over the Nazis, and they must actually have been quite desperate.

It's not like the Soviets actually planned to start a war to bring the light of Communism to Western Europe - their war plans involved taking out WE one way or the other ASAP because they had to do everything in their power to reduce the number of strategic advantages held by the US as quickly as possible if the War ever went hot. They full well knew the campaign would devolve into pale shadows of spent armies wandering in an irradieted wasteland, but what else they could do ?

And, conversely, the West had no reason to believe the empty rhetoric about world revolution was anything but wholly serious, as the steps taken by the Soviets to shore up their defenses against largely imaginary menaces could not but convince them of it. And their countermoves to strenghten their own positions in turn alarmed the Soviets, who in turn took further measures...

That's really the whole point in why I consider the whole Red Menace concept flawed, or at least contextually limited. I don't think the Cold War was all about the West trying to block and contain the ambitions of an expansionist Evil Empire, or the Communists trying to spread, well, something presumably positive, around the world despite the opposition of rotten, selfish imperialists. It was more of a shadow-boxing match between two incompatible systems that could not comprehend each other and could not afford to trust each other because they didn't actually know what the other was *really* after; so they spent half a century in an arms race and jockeying for ever-elusive advantageous positions against an attack that neither planned but both suspected each other of planning, and could not help but suspect was coming based on historical precedence, worldview and rhetoric. That much of the rhetoric was hot air directed at concerned home audiences was, obviously, not something either could dare to count on, all the more so as it'd have made their own grandiose speeches rather ridiculous...

And the most absurd part of the whole thing is that the two sides in fact proved to be perfectly capable of peaceful coexistence - no direct conflict was ever fought between the two, and without the mutual suspicion they'd have had no real need to clash by proxy in the side stages either.

[Tachikaze]

You and I may be using different measures of success. The 9-11-01 attacks were TACTICALLLY successful in that they caused enormous financial destruction and killed thousands, resulting in a terrified response by some Americans. However, I would assert that the "mobilization" of America that resulted led to numerous STRATEGIC reverses and that the net value for Al-Queada [sp?] was a loss.

I do not believe the Taliban were sacraficed as some kind of gambit. I believe that they, and Bin-Ladin [sp?] expected airstrikes or missile attacks and did not expect the kind of response they engendered.

It will be quite some time before we know whether the attack on Iraq was directly related to the War on Terror, or if it was a by-product thereof. To date, there has been proof offered of links between Al-Queada and Saddam's Iraq, but no one has been able to show any direct connection to the 9-11 attacks or to definitively link Saddam to Al-Quaeda. Saddam's regime certainly supported terrorism, but the support provided for Al-Queada was limited (at least according to current data).

However, whether the stated reason for our attack upon Saddam's Iraq was correct or not; in the long run, a transformed Iraq may be our best tool for bringing the War on Terror to a successful conclusion. An effective (non-Jewish) democratic state in the Middle East may well provide broad impetus for reform and democratization -- elements that run counter to fundamentalist terror recruiting.

Tachi,

You seem to view terrorism as an effective tool of war, but history does not support this. Yes, defeating insurgents and terrorists is difficult and costly, and they will create far more casualties than they receive (mostly the defenseless), but they have a poor record at affecting policy. Spain and the withdrawal of Korea were successes, but most of the rest, however ghastly, have not achieved their objective.
I assume the people who planned and executed the NY/Pentagon attacks are/were pretty bright. It was quite an operation to be pulled off with such coordination and longterm preparation and planning. I can't imagine any other reasonable goal other than what transpired, except for the prematurely-downed aircraft. They certainly didn't expect to bring the US to its knees with the event. They may have even achieved more than they had expected.

I knew what the level of success would be before the US invaded Afghanistan, so it was a no-brainer for Al Qaeda. About the only mistake the US could have made that would have prevented an complete defeat of Afghanistan's forces was for Bush Regime to misjudge who did the attacks. They only pretended to be stupid with Iraq so they could attack it according to their desires.

I have seen no substantial evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in Al Qaeda's attacks, nor had an alliance of any kind with them in September, 2001. I haven't even seen strong evidence of Hussein supporting terrorism, though it certainly may have been in his character to do so.

If terrorism were not effective, very few would give their lives for it. It would go the way of line-and-file musket volleys. It will continue to grow as the impacts on powerful military nations increase. Al Qaeda has affected the US in a degree not possible through any other military means by such a small group.

Why don't one of you people who know Al Qaeda's goals post a summary.

[Tachikaze]

Yes. Protect the U.S. and kill Islamo-fascists.
I guess Christian facists are more to his liking.


Maintain and expand U.S. power.
Expand his nation's power is right, like so many other aggressive national leaders of the past. Shall I name a few? I can see visions of millions of patriotic followers being excited to war by massive shows of flag-waving nationalism and the demonization of a bogeyman enemy. Where have I seen that before?:idea2:

[Watchman]

Eh, I think that's uncalled for. Bush and co most likely really do believe in democracy and so on, and honestly think they're doing their best to protect those values. The problem is, they haven't quite thought their measures through... at least not to the degree and with the critical eye required.

[Ice]

I guess Christian facists are more to his liking.


Oh say something new for God's sake... Bush is a nazi, Bush is a fascist.. I do think I've heard them all.

[Pindar]

I guess Christian facists are more to his liking.

Who are you thinking of? Is there a Christian fascist state at work in the world? Is there a Christian fascist terrorist group the Administration has allied with? What is this supposed to mean?


Expand his nation's power is right, like so many other aggressive national leaders of the past. Shall I name a few? I can see visions of millions of patriotic followers being excited to war by massive shows of flag-waving nationalism and the demonization of a bogeyman enemy. Where have I seen that before?:idea2:

Does this mean you don't believe Islamo-fascism is a real threat?
Are you arguing moral equivalence between the U.S. and some specific totalitarian regime?

[Tachikaze]

Who are you thinking of? Is there a Christian fascist state at work in the world? Is there a Christian fascist terrorist group the Administration has allied with? What is this supposed to mean?
Why did you mention Islam as a prerequisite for Bush's bloodlust? You specified Islamofascism, as if the religion is a criterion.


Does this mean you don't believe Islamo-fascism is a real threat?
I believe the US should divest in the Middle East. Terrorists in that region target this country because of US meddling.


Are you arguing moral equivalence between the U.S. and some specific totalitarian regime?
For a start, expanding power is what Japan wanted to do in the 1940s.

[Pindar]

Who are you thinking of? Is there a Christian fascist state at work in the world? Is there a Christian fascist terrorist group the Administration has allied with? What is this supposed to mean?

Why did you mention Islam as a prerequisite for Bush's bloodlust? You specified Islamofascism, as if the religion is a criterion.

You didn't answer the Christian fascist question: should I take it that was not a serious comment?

Religion is not a criterion for action. It is descriptive of the standing of those engaged against the U.S. This includes both Afghanistan and Iraq.



Does this mean you don't believe Islamo-fascism is a real threat?


I believe the US should divest in the Middle East. Terrorists in that region target this country because of US meddling.

What does divest mean here? Does this mean the U.S. should have no contact with the Middle East?
Does the meddling here mean the U.S. should never have attempted to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait?
Does this mean you would like the U.S. to immediately leave Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think that is morally definable?




Are you arguing moral equivalence between the U.S. and some specific totalitarian regime?


For a start, expanding power is what Japan wanted to do in the 1940s.

So your argument is the U.S. is morally equivalent to Imperial Japan? Do you really think this is a sustainable argument?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I assume the people who planned and executed the NY/Pentagon attacks are/were pretty bright. It was quite an operation to be pulled off with such coordination and longterm preparation and planning. I can't imagine any other reasonable goal other than what transpired, except for the prematurely-downed aircraft. They certainly didn't expect to bring the US to its knees with the event. They may have even achieved more than they had expected.

On a tactical level, almost certainly. Nobody believed that the buildings would come down entirely -- though the engineering studies done subsequently showed it was inevitable. The planning and execution were thorough and effective, with the delayed departure of the "PA" plane proving to be the only mis-cue (allowing passengers to learn what was up and counter-attack).


I knew what the level of success would be before the US invaded Afghanistan, so it was a no-brainer for Al Qaeda. About the only mistake the US could have made that would have prevented an complete defeat of Afghanistan's forces was for Bush Regime to misjudge who did the attacks. They only pretended to be stupid with Iraq so they could attack it according to their desires.

I disagree here. From Beirut forward, no U.S. administration had acted definitively following a terrorist strike. Numerous air raids and missile strikes were launched at terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. If anything, the Somali efforts had convinced AQ leadership that the USA had no stomach for casualties and were likely to do little. Couple that with the successful assassination of the only "local" opponent to the Taliban who they believed stood a chance of beating them, and they must have felt reasonably secure. They knew we would strike back, but viewed the strike as "the cost of doing business" and did not perceive the gravity of the threat.
I have seen no substantial evidence that Iraq was in any way involved in Al Qaeda's attacks, nor had an alliance of any kind with them in September, 2001. I haven't even seen strong evidence of Hussein supporting terrorism, though it certainly may have been in his character to do so.


If terrorism were not effective, very few would give their lives for it. It would go the way of line-and-file musket volleys. It will continue to grow as the impacts on powerful military nations increase. Al Qaeda has affected the US in a degree not possible through any other military means by such a small group.

Define effective. If you mean that we can never hope to eradicate all terrorists and that their preference for soft targets and no defenses make it likely that innocents will continue to die, then you might be correct.

However, I reject that definition. I view all political acts as a means to influence policy and decisions. In this context, terrorism has had only a few real successes.

If terrorism is a "success," then by necessity terrorism must become the basic model for political action, just as the Martini-Henry made the Brown Bess an anachronism despite 15 decades of effective service. Thus we should all turn to the use of explosives against the civilians of political entities who oppose us, since this "undefeatable" form of political expression is the most effective tool for achieving your objectives.

Can you see the USA using SEAL teams to Claymore-trap the malls in Riyadh just to make a point with the Saudi princes? Yet that is the direction which you imply when you champion terrorism as a strategy....

Tachi', I suspect you're neither that viscious not that jaded.

[Tachikaze]

So your argument is the U.S. is morally equivalent to Imperial Japan? Do you really think this is a sustainable argument?
You have given the US the same goals as Imperial Japan in your statement that the US seeks to expand its power. Maybe you should direct your question to yourself.

[Tachikaze]

From Beirut forward, no U.S. administration had acted definitively following a terrorist strike. Numerous air raids and missile strikes were launched at terrorist facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere. If anything, the Somali efforts had convinced AQ leadership that the USA had no stomach for casualties and were likely to do little. Couple that with the successful assassination of the only "local" opponent to the Taliban who they believed stood a chance of beating them, and they must have felt reasonably secure. They knew we would strike back, but viewed the strike as "the cost of doing business" and did not perceive the gravity of the threat.
The attacks on September 11, 2001 were unprecedented. I, and other people who post to this forum were fully aware—and many of us fearful—that the US would commit a full invasion of Afghanistan. The results of the invasion were not in doubt. Bush was a cowboy on his high horse, trying to portray himself as the righteous avenger. A search back through this forum's archives would shead light on this issue before it had played out.


Define effective. If you mean that we can never hope to eradicate all terrorists and that their preference for soft targets and no defenses make it likely that innocents will continue to die, then you might be correct.

However, I reject that definition. I view all political acts as a means to influence policy and decisions. In this context, terrorism has had only a few real successes.
I'm speaking of the notion of success in the terrorists' minds, not ours. If the terrorists believe their methods ar effective, then they will continue. I believe that the little group of AQ has asserted great control over the everyday lives of US citizens. It costs us money, manpower, and hugh amounts of extra administration. The effects of their attacks will continue for years, even if they sit on their butts and watch.


Can you see the USA using SEAL teams to Claymore-trap the malls in Riyadh just to make a point with the Saudi princes? Yet that is the direction which you imply when you champion terrorism as a strategy....

Tachi', I suspect you're neither that viscious not that jaded.
I believe what the US has done to Iraq is worse than a few bombs in Riyadh shopping malls. I have been against all violent actions of the US, its allies, and its opponents. I don't champion any violent strategies.

Terrorism, as I've said often, is a method of warfare perpetrated by the weak against the strong. The strong have no use for it. They can do a lot more harm with their expensive tanks, planes, guided bombs, global positioning, and infrared nightgear.

[Pindar]

So your argument is the U.S. is morally equivalent to Imperial Japan? Do you really think this is a sustainable argument?


You have given the US the same goals as Imperial Japan in your statement that the US seeks to expand its power. Maybe you should direct your question to yourself.

Expand power does not necessitate military conquest. It also includes culture, economics, technology, political influence etc. The reference to maintain and expand power was my reading of the most oft quoted neocon position paper: "Project for a New American Century". Recognizing the goals of a think tank does not mean they are the same as any Administration. Now, Japan's goals were the conquest and annexation of Korea. The conquest and annexation of Manchuria. The conquest and annexation of China. Along the way these goals expanded to include the Philippines, Indochina, Indonesia and the entire Pacific rim. If you wish to argue the U.S. has similar goals make that argument. I don't think its is even remotely tenable but I will read your post.

My question was on charges of moral equivalence. Japan was a totalitarian state. It willfully attempted the cultural erasure of annexed lands (i.e. Korea) and enslaved millions. It also killed closing on 20 million in pursuit of its Imperial goals. Now, any moral equivalence between the U.S. and Imperial Japan should show some correspondence both regarding political structure, national goals and implementation. Do you want to seriously make that argument? On its face it appears laughable.

[Papewaio]

Expand power does not necessitate military conquest. It also includes culture, economics, technology, political influence etc. The reference to maintain and expand power was my reading of the most oft quoted neocon position paper: "Project for a New American Century". Recognizing the goals of a think tank does not mean they are the same as any Administration. Now, Japan's goals were the conquest and annexation of Korea.


Surely this would be equivalent to the phase prior to Japan's conquests... the Meji Reforms where all about expanding Japans power Military catchup and in culture, economics, technology and political influence. That this power buildup then lead to conquests in the name of freeing countries from others influence is parallel in outcome if not for the reasons why.

[Redleg]

Surely this would be equivalent to the phase prior to Japan's conquests... the Meji Reforms where all about expanding Japans power Military catchup and in culture, economics, technology and political influence. That this power buildup then lead to conquests in the name of freeing countries from others influence is parallel in outcome if not for the reasons why.

Ah but the United States in not in an equivalent situation that Japan was in prior to rhe Meji Reforms.

The United States could be seen has having a decrease in some areas, but in the scope of the current discussion I don't think that decrease enough to make a comparison to Imperial Japan. Overall the United States is ahead or equal to all nations in the above areas.

[Papewaio]

Japan powered up to counter western nations.

USA powered up to counter communism. (and the same western colonial nations that japan was having issues with initially)

=====

Japan became a nation of equivalent power to the western nations. After a while it decided to flex that power in other nations. And either took over or installed friendly governments.

USA was equivalent to Russia and flexed its muscle in other nations. And installed friendly governments where possible.

Both found these policies to back fire... Japan ended up in WWII. USA ended up with the likes of its US friendly Iran decomposing into the religious fundamentalist stronghold it now is (no gaurantee that neither Iraq or the Ghan will go those ways in the next gen).

USA at the moment is a lone superpower... mind you it is getting in debt rather quickly with the new kid on the superblock of China.

USA is not just gaining power for neutrality... there is no real comparable threat out there for starters, and USA is actively using this power. Both in military setups and unbalanced trade agreements. It is interesting to note that the Meji reforms where started because of unbalanaced trade agreements.

=====

USA is at the moment asserting its dominance and spreading its version of civilisation. That is the same mindset as Imperial Japan. That Imperial Japan ransacked and caused mass murder was something that was hidden from the Japanese people. USA as yet is not likely to set out on any such pogroms. As for land grabs, why bother when your corporations can get the resources?

[Xiahou]

That Imperial Japan ransacked and caused mass murder was something that was hidden from the Japanese people. USA as yet is not likely to set out on any such pogroms. As for land grabs, why bother when your corporations can get the resources?
Even with all else aside, I think that alone is a pretty fundamental difference. Wouldn't you agree?

[Papewaio]

Which is a good thing and why the USA has nicer friends then WWII Imperial Japan.

It is always a good idea to review the use of power and make sure it really is in the best interests of the nation. All power should be accountable and transparent at some point in the process... not necessarily acountable and transparent to all.

[Tachikaze]

Expand power does not necessitate military conquest. It also includes culture, economics, technology, political influence etc. The reference to maintain and expand power was my reading of the most oft quoted neocon position paper: "Project for a New American Century". Recognizing the goals of a think tank does not mean they are the same as any Administration. Now, Japan's goals were the conquest and annexation of Korea. The conquest and annexation of Manchuria. The conquest and annexation of China. Along the way these goals expanded to include the Philippines, Indochina, Indonesia and the entire Pacific rim. If you wish to argue the U.S. has similar goals make that argument. I don't think its is even remotely tenable but I will read your post.

My question was on charges of moral equivalence. Japan was a totalitarian state. It willfully attempted the cultural erasure of annexed lands (i.e. Korea) and enslaved millions. It also killed closing on 20 million in pursuit of its Imperial goals. Now, any moral equivalence between the U.S. and Imperial Japan should show some correspondence both regarding political structure, national goals and implementation. Do you want to seriously make that argument? On its face it appears laughable.
You're expanding beyond what I said. I never mentioned "moral equivalent". You said expansion, and I argue that expansion is wrong, just as it was for the Japanese in the 1940s. As it is, the US is half of a continent in area already and asserts unprecedented influence all over the world, which is highly criticized all over the globe.

I believe it's the expansion of US power in the Middle East (in a large part Israel) that has contributed, or even caused many of the terrorist attacks against the US. You're right: the expansion is (mostly) in culture, economics, technology, political influence. That doesn't mean it's OK. That's cultural imperialism.

But it isn't all cultural. The US is the most militarily active nation on earth. It asserts its military power with little regard for, or even in direct opposition to, international approval.

[Redleg]

You're expanding beyond what I said. I never mentioned "moral equivalent". You said expansion, and I argue that expansion is wrong, just as it was for the Japanese in the 1940s. As it is, the US is half of a continent in area already and asserts unprecedented influence all over the world, which is highly criticized all over the globe.

So are you attempting to equate the size of the nation is the problem.



I believe it's the expansion of US power in the Middle East (in a large part Israel) that has contributed, or even caused many of the terrorist attacks against the US. You're right: the expansion is (mostly) in culture, economics, technology, political influence. That doesn't mean it's OK. That's cultural imperialism.


Cultural imperialism - so again its the size of the nation that seems to be issue.



But it isn't all cultural. The US is the most militarily active nation on earth. It asserts its military power with little regard for, or even in direct opposition to, international approval.

Care to guess how many of the current missions that military is doing are done at the bequest of the host nation?

A nation does not owe its soverignity to the international community. Care to guess how many countries violate the desires of the International community.

Here let me provide a partial list, oh wait no need to - just look at an atlas and start listing countries. The list of nations that do things strictly along the lines of international approval is very small.

[Pindar]

You're expanding beyond what I said. I never mentioned "moral equivalent". You said expansion, and I argue that expansion is wrong, just as it was for the Japanese in the 1940s.

I mentioned expand U.S. power as one of the goals of neocons. You then referenced totalitarian societies. This suggests either a direct correspondence as in the U.S. is a totalitarian regime or it is a moral comparison. I didn't think you were actually arguing the U.S. was in fact a totalitarian state given the absurdity, so I asked if you meant some moral equivalence. Your reply was to cite Imperial Japan. I highlighted what such a comparison entails: slavery, killing 20 million, annexing nations etc. I think you realize the comparison is specious.

Now above you state, "I argue that expansion is wrong" you then state, "You're right: the expansion is (mostly) in culture, economics, technology, political influence. That doesn't mean it's OK. That's cultural imperialism." Is it your idea that this cultural imperialism should be forcibly shut down? The U.S. should have no contact with other nations because if it does peoples in those other nations might like or want to copy what they see? Buying levis, seeing Finding Nemo, getting an ipod should be forcibly stopped?



But it isn't all cultural. The US is the most militarily active nation on earth. It asserts its military power with little regard for, or even in direct opposition to, international approval.

You remove the adjective cultural above. Does that mean you think the U.S. is an Imperial power? Would the removal of the Taliban and Hussein be examples?

[Tachikaze]

I mentioned expand U.S. power as one of the goals of neocons. You then referenced totalitarian societies. This suggests either a direct correspondence as in the U.S. is a totalitarian regime or it is a moral comparison. I didn't think you were actually arguing the U.S. was in fact a totalitarian state given the absurdity, so I asked if you meant some moral equivalence. Your reply was to cite Imperial Japan. I highlighted what such a comparison entails: slavery, killing 20 million, annexing nations etc. I think you realize the comparison is specious.

Now above you state, "I argue that expansion is wrong" you then state, "You're right: the expansion is (mostly) in culture, economics, technology, political influence. That doesn't mean it's OK. That's cultural imperialism." Is it your idea that this cultural imperialism should be forcibly shut down? The U.S. should have no contact with other nations because if it does peoples in those other nations might like or want to copy what they see? Buying levis, seeing Finding Nemo, getting an ipod should be forcibly stopped?

You remove the adjective cultural above. Does that mean you think the U.S. is an Imperial power? Would the removal of the Taliban and Hussein be examples?
Yes, I think the US is an imperial power. It has been since its founding as it spread across North America and continues today through corporate foreign ventures and political influence and control.

The US is not totalitarian, nor a republic; it is a corporate oligarchy.

Back in an earlier post, you wrote that expansion was a goal of the US. That implies active expansion, not cultural spreading through foreign interest in US pop culture.

[Tachikaze]

So are you attempting to equate the size of the nation is the problem.



Cultural imperialism - so again its the size of the nation that seems to be issue.



Care to guess how many of the current missions that military is doing are done at the bequest of the host nation?

A nation does not owe its soverignity to the international community. Care to guess how many countries violate the desires of the International community.

Here let me provide a partial list, oh wait no need to - just look at an atlas and start listing countries. The list of nations that do things strictly along the lines of international approval is very small.
I mentioned size because the US land area encompasses a huge variety of natural resources and open space for production. It does not require expansion. For a nation with the size and wealth of the US to expand is simply greed.

When you say "at the bequest of the host nation". Who in the nation are you referring to? I doubt the Iraqi government invited the US to invade their nation.

Nations may act without international community support, but most are not invading other nations in doing so. The ones that do are widely condemned, and in some cases, punished by the US.

[Pindar]

Yes, I think the US is an imperial power. It has been since its founding as it spread across North America and continues today through corporate foreign ventures and political influence and control.

You consider the Revolutionary War as an imperial act? How does that work?

Do you understand the meaning of imperial? Can a polity be imperial without also being an empire? If you also believe the U.S. is an empire do you understand the meaning of empire?


The US is not totalitarian, nor a republic; it is a corporate oligarchy.

Are you part of the corporate oligarchy? Can you vote?


Back in an earlier post, you wrote that expansion was a goal of the US. That implies active expansion, not cultural spreading through foreign interest in US pop culture.

No, I wrote that the goal of neocons was to maintain and expand U.S. power.

You didn't answer my question(s) about cultural imperialism which you charged the U.S. as guilty of. This is a repost:
"Is it your idea that this cultural imperialism should be forcibly shut down? The U.S. should have no contact with other nations because if it does peoples in those other nations might like or want to copy what they see? Buying levis, seeing Finding Nemo, getting an ipod should be forcibly stopped?"

[Pindar]

Nations may act without international community support, but most are not invading other nations in doing so. The ones that do are widely condemned, and in some cases, punished by the US.

Do consider China's invasion of Tibet or the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as morally equivalent to the U.S. toppling Hussein?

[Redleg]

I mentioned size because the US land area encompasses a huge variety of natural resources and open space for production. It does not require expansion. For a nation with the size and wealth of the US to expand is simply greed.

Not at all. Greed implies that the expansion is done purely to expand wealth at the expense of all else. I don't necessarily see state expansion as a measure of greed.



When you say "at the bequest of the host nation". Who in the nation are you referring to? I doubt the Iraqi government invited the US to invade their nation.

Oh that is simple Tachikaze I am talking about operations outside of Iraq and Pakistan. The Military is active in many places beyond just Iraq.


Philipines
Tailand
Peru
South Korea
Japan - it even made then news because of a joint training exercise that is happening this month.

There are others across the world.



Nations may act without international community support, but most are not invading other nations in doing so. The ones that do are widely condemned, and in some cases, punished by the US.

So your issue is primarily the Invasion of Iraq.

Then, Is the United States: life behind the Iron Curtain is just emotional appeal because of your dissatification with the current government?

[Xiahou]

Then, Is the United States: life behind the Iron Curtain is just emotional appeal because of your dissatification with the current government?Oh surely not! ~D

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What we really need is a Democratic administration to get into office, then you'll see the military deployed A LOT more.

Of course, Dem administrations do have this tendency to deploy them on missions for which they are not suited, but....

Perhaps if they viewed them as professionals rather than over-armed, dull-uniformed bellhops?

...But I digress.

[Tachikaze]

You consider the Revolutionary War as an imperial act? How does that work?

Do you understand the meaning of imperial? Can a polity be imperial without also being an empire? If you also believe the U.S. is an empire do you understand the meaning of empire?



Are you part of the corporate oligarchy? Can you vote?



No, I wrote that the goal of neocons was to maintain and expand U.S. power.

You didn't answer my question(s) about cultural imperialism which you charged the U.S. as guilty of. This is a repost:
"Is it your idea that this cultural imperialism should be forcibly shut down? The U.S. should have no contact with other nations because if it does peoples in those other nations might like or want to copy what they see? Buying levis, seeing Finding Nemo, getting an ipod should be forcibly stopped?"
I'm having to field questions from three conservatives at the same time. That's hard to do when only typing during breaks at work.

[Redleg]

I'm having to field questions from three conservatives at the same time. That's hard to do when only typing during breaks at work.

My points were more rhetorical then anything else. Especially the last question. Feel Free to ignore if you desire to spend more time address Pindar's questions.

[Pindar]

I'm having to field questions from three conservatives at the same time. That's hard to do when only typing during breaks at work.


I understand. Respond when you can. Here is the issue as I see it. I think you have assumed a rather common rhetoric one sees on the left side of things. The problem is the language is so hyperbolic that it really only has resonance with those who have already assumed the same view. In short, its value is only to preach to the choir. This is good for troop rallying perhaps, but when one actually looks at what is being said with any degree of seriousness the house of cards comes down.

[Papewaio]

Are you part of the corporate oligarchy? Can you vote?


In a corporate oligarchy one votes with their consumption.

[Pindar]

In a corporate oligarchy one votes with their consumption.

That doesn't really work though does it. To be a consumer doesn't require being a corporation. Further an oligarchy is necessarily restricted to a minority yet the consumer designate casts as nearly as wide a net possible. Finally there is a base equivocation between voting as political speech and 'voting' as consumption which is economic.

[Papewaio]

In a corporate oligarchy it is the corporations that are in charge. It does not mean that the consumers have to be corporations as well.

As a consumer I vote for my favorite products by buying them. Corporations respond not necessarily directly to my needs but to that of market groups. Just like the baby boomers have had a disproportionate electoral power because they are a large similar segment they have had a huge market power because of the same trends. The corporations will adjust to what the majority of consumers buy. They will tailor products to the desires of their consumer electorate, be it B2C or B2B, in the corporate world a corporation is a person.

Every dollar is a vote. When you spend money on green energy or organic foods the corporations may not take note. When a large enough segment vote for green energy or organic food the corporations take note and act on it.

In some ways corporations are far more responsive to their consumers then regular politicians. And as consumers you get to vote everyday of your life on how you want the world around you to evolve.

[Pindar]

In a corporate oligarchy it is the corporations that are in charge. It does not mean that the consumers have to be corporations as well.


This doesn't answer the original logical strain either in regard to the base meaning of oligarchy, the consumer or the equivocation of voting language.

[Xiahou]

In some ways corporations are far more responsive to their consumers then regular politicians. And as consumers you get to vote everyday of your life on how you want the world around you to evolve.
Sounds like a ringing endorsement of free market capitalism to me.

[Papewaio]

This doesn't answer the original logical strain either in regard to the base meaning of oligarchy, the consumer or the equivocation of voting language.

New word combinations have new meanings, they are not entirely constrained by the base meaning. Logic is not much use if it distains creativity or the ability to think about what could be.

oligarchy

Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.
Those making up such a government.
A state governed by a few persons.

consumer
n : a person who uses goods or services


v. vot·ed, vot·ing, votes
v. intr.
To express one's preference for a candidate or for a proposed resolution of an issue; cast a vote: voting against the measure.
To express a choice or an opinion.

citizen

n : a native or naturalized member of a state or other political community

Main Entry: fran·chise
Pronunciation: 'fran-"chIz
Function: noun
Etymology: Anglo-French, literally, freedom, liberty, from Middle French, from franchir to free, from Old French franc free
1 : a special right or privilege granted by the government to an individual, group, or business entity: as a : a right to conduct a business and esp. to be and to exercise the powers of a corporation b : a right granted to a public utility company to provide services and to use public land for that purpose
2 : a constitutional or statutory right; especially : the right to vote —used with the <restricting them in employment, education, the franchise, legal personality, and public accommodation —W. H. Burns>

corportate oligarchy

Would be the rule of the few with the expressions of choice or opinion being votes cast in the manner of what the citizen consumes. Not much different from the idea of keeping the mob happy with bread and circuses. Except the modern version is fast food and TV.

The interesting thing is that it combines two definitions of franchise together in a free market political economy.

[Tachikaze]

There should be a distinction made between the voting by consumers and the political power of a corporation.

A corporation is usually stronger when it is supported by the sales of its products. Keep in mind, that's only part of how a corporation makes money. There is also investment. Also remember that many of the largest corporations are contracted by the US government. The choices for who wins these contracts are not made by the general public.

Powerful corporations invest in the US government and the government responds by making policies favorable to the corporations. These investments are decided by favoritism. The government must adhere to the will of the corporations to resceive this investment. Government contracts are often rewarded on price.

On the other hand, the general public cannot make such choices with its taxes, another major funding of the US government. Therefore, the funding exists whether the public agrees with the governments policies or not.

Now, which support base will the government favor, the corporations who make case-by-case decisions or the taxpayers who don't?

The public could have greater control over the power of corporations through boycotting. But they rarely practice boycotting. They generally look for the best prices, find them at Walmart, then buy everything there in one place (convenient isn't it?) without knowing, or caring, where the product was made and by whom. The US public is very apathetic. This further reduces any kind of political power they may have had if they really paid attention.

[Tachikaze]

I forgot to mention that many of these corporations count policy makers in government on their boards of directors. Many are stockholders as well.

[Pindar]

This doesn't answer the original logical strain either in regard to the base meaning of oligarchy, the consumer or the equivocation of voting language.


New word combinations have new meanings, they are not entirely constrained by the base meaning. Logic is not much use if it distains creativity or the ability to think about what could be.

The core meaning of a word cannot be compromised if coherence and understanding is important. One cannot say for the sake of "creativety" or "what could be" that when using a new word combination say "pink giraffe" really means something purple and a pig. This statement: "In a corporate oligarchy one votes with their consumption" is logically strained for the reasons already explained.


corportate oligarchy

Would be the rule of the few with the expressions of choice or opinion being votes cast in the manner of what the citizen consumes. Not much different from the idea of keeping the mob happy with bread and circuses. Except the modern version is fast food and TV.

The interesting thing is that it combines two definitions of franchise together in a free market political economy.

This is not what a corporate oligarchy would mean. A corporate oligarchy means political control in the hands of a small group of powerful corporations.

The spoil button is pretty spiffy. I didn't know that one. :2thumbsup:

[Pindar]

There should be a distinction made between the voting by consumers and the political power of a corporation.

A corporation is usually stronger when it is supported by the sales of its products. Keep in mind, that's only part of how a corporation makes money. There is also investment. Also remember that many of the largest corporations are contracted by the US government. The choices for who wins these contracts are not made by the general public.

Powerful corporations invest in the US government and the government responds by making policies favorable to the corporations. These investments are decided by favoritism. The government must adhere to the will of the corporations to resceive this investment. Government contracts are often rewarded on price.

On the other hand, the general public cannot make such choices with its taxes, another major funding of the US government. Therefore, the funding exists whether the public agrees with the governments policies or not.

Now, which support base will the government favor, the corporations who make case-by-case decisions or the taxpayers who don't?

The public could have greater control over the power of corporations through boycotting. But they rarely practice boycotting. They generally look for the best prices, find them at Walmart, then buy everything there in one place (convenient isn't it?) without knowing, or caring, where the product was made and by whom. The US public is very apathetic. This further reduces any kind of political power they may have had if they really paid attention.

Tachikaze,

Part of the above is right and part is wrong. Powerful corporations do influence policy as well they should. A powerful corporation is more important than you as an individual. For example in state X there are plans to pass a new corporate tax (because corporations are nasty buggers and the idea is to use the money to build cheap housing for the poor). You agree with the tax and call your Senator W (you speak with an assistant or get a generic answering service) to tell him it is a good idea. Now, Bill Gates who has a large division in the state walks into Senator W's office (the Senator immediately agrees to the meeting). Bill tells the Senator if the new tax passes he may be forced to move his facility to another more tax friendly state. This gives the Senator pause as well it should. Bill's opinion is more important than yours because his decision effects more people. Do you see? Lobbying is Constitutionally protected, but not all lobbyists are of equal worth.

Corporations do not invest in the government unless you are referring to bonds which anyone including foreign governments can buy.

Corporate contracts awarded by "favoritism" is illegal. This is called cronyism and is prosecutable.

If you are trying to argue corporate taxes are a bad thing then I agree corporate taxes are a generally bad idea and capital gains taxes are a terrible idea.

[Papewaio]

The core meaning of a word cannot be compromised if coherence and understanding is important. One cannot say for the sake of "creativety" or "what could be" that when using a new word combination say "pink giraffe" really means something purple and a pig. This statement: "In a corporate oligarchy one votes with their consumption" is logically strained for the reasons already explained.


Think about what a vote achieves. And then think about what buying a product or service does. A huge chunk of voters are welfare/tax cut orientated... they are voting for products and services. The first order of interest for the majority is the economic policy of the government. Other policy decisions, environment, other country relationships, human rights record unless blatantly violated towards the voter are a secondary consideration.

I do not see a strain, as I am creating a new definition, a synthesis. I am not limiting myself to what is, but what could be.



This is not what a corporate oligarchy would mean. A corporate oligarchy means political control in the hands of a small group of powerful corporations.

The spoil button is pretty spiffy. I didn't know that one. :2thumbsup:

Yeah I like it, it keeps the focus on the idea and you have an accessible appendix or another set of ideas in the spoilers.

[Pindar]

Think about what a vote achieves. And then think about what buying a product or service does.

A vote is a political expression: an act of choosing the course a polity is to make. Buying a product is an economic relation where a price is paid and a product or service rendered. A vote can be about economics, but buying a product does not imply political governance in and of itself.

An oligarchy is a political concept. It is a minority and does relate to governance. A corporation is a legal designation which could refer to an individual, church or company. If you use them together their core meanings will effect what others understand. If you use the words beyond these base meanings no one will understand your point. If you want to make up some new idea then you need to define it so the reader knows what your about.





:kiss2:

[Papewaio]

A vote is a political expression: an act of choosing the course a polity is to make. Buying a product is an economic relation where a price is paid and a product or service rendered. A vote can be about economics, but buying a product does not imply political governance in and of itself.

An oligarchy is a political concept. It is a minority and does relate to governance. A corporation is a legal designation which could refer to an individual, church or company. If you use them together their core meanings will effect what others understand. If you use the words beyond these base meanings no one will understand your point. If you want to make up some new idea then you need to define it so the reader knows what your about.



:kiss2: :laugh4:


Does this count as a defintion:


corportate oligarchy

Would be the rule of the few with the expressions of choice or opinion being votes cast in the manner of what the citizen consumes. Not much different from the idea of keeping the mob happy with bread and circuses. Except the modern version is fast food and TV.

The end effect of buying products probably has a more direct effect on the world then our votes.

[Papewaio]

A vote is a political expression: an act of choosing the course a polity is to make. Buying a product is an economic relation where a price is paid and a product or service rendered. A vote can be about economics, but buying a product does not imply political governance in and of itself.

An oligarchy is a political concept. It is a minority and does relate to governance. A corporation is a legal designation which could refer to an individual, church or company. If you use them together their core meanings will effect what others understand. If you use the words beyond these base meanings no one will understand your point. If you want to make up some new idea then you need to define it so the reader knows what your about.



:kiss2: :laugh4:


Does this count as a definition:


corportate oligarchy

Would be the rule of the few with the expressions of choice or opinion being votes cast in the manner of what the citizen consumes. Not much different from the idea of keeping the mob happy with bread and circuses. Except the modern version is fast food and TV.

The end effect of buying products probably has a more direct effect on the world then our votes.

[Pindar]

Does this count as a definition:

corportate oligarchy

Would be the rule of the few with the expressions of choice or opinion being votes cast in the manner of what the citizen consumes. Not much different from the idea of keeping the mob happy with bread and circuses. Except the modern version is fast food and TV.

The end effect of buying products probably has a more direct effect on the world then our votes.

Yes that's a definition, but I don't know its preferable to the standard meaning of corporate oligarchy. Under the standard meaning, oligarchy is the root noun and corporate is an adjective modifying what kind of oligarchy. Thus, the meaning would be: political control in the hands of a small group of powerful corporations. This is how leftists typically use the word. You are therefore using an established verbiage but applying your own meaning.

Regarding that meaning: your use of "votes" is troubling. It suggests some systemic political power outside of the oligarchs themselves and it also has an equivocal feeling as the base notion is political but you tie it to an economic act: consumption.