The biggest threat to the "free world".

[IRONxMortlock]

With western democracies now openly supporting the use of tyranny to feel safer from terrorism I think it's becoming more and more apparent that the real threat doesn't come from terrorists, it is from ourselves.

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence?

It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle.

Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of ALL men, in ALL lands, EVERYWHERE.

Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you are preparing your own limbs to wear them.

Accustomed to trample on the rights of those around you, you have lost the genius of your own independence, and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises."

These words still ring very true today and I think it's wise to keep this in mind when considering the kinds of actions you are willing to allow your governments to undertake in the name of keeping you secure from an unknown and unseen "terrorist" enemy.

[Hepcat]

That is what I don't get. WHAT IS FREEDOM. The only truly free society is one without laws, freedom is only relative not an absolute. What is the point when a country becomes "totalitarian" and when it is "free". Both states have laws and both enforce them. Both the "free" and the "totalitarian" state can ignore human rights. There is no free nation in the world, only "free" nations.

[doc_bean]

Actually, with the new American Crusade (TM) the west seems to want to spread democracy everywhere and is less willing to cooperate with dictators (which we've always done).

[Watchman]

You must have been watching very different news than me then, doc.

[Major Robert Dump]

that guy is dead, theres no way he's a member of the org.

fake.

[yesdachi]

His words do ring true however America is a very different place then it was seven score and two years ago, Lincoln’s head would probably spin off if he saw what nancies we are to those who threaten us. He would have probably given a forced military commission to half the bleeding harts of today and sure as heck wouldn’t be extending US citizens rights to prisoners of war. He did after all also write this…

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A PROCLAMATION.
By the President of the United States of America:

Whereas, It has become necessary to call into service, not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection. Now, therefore, be it ordered, that during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their alders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice affording aid and comfort to the rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial and punishment by courts-martial or military commission.

Second: That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prisons, or other place of confinement, by any military authority, or by the sentence of any court-martial or military commission.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. By the President.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

He clearly didn’t like war or making difficult decisions but he made them decisively and without crying about the enemies rights. Lincoln would punch Iran in the throat and anyone crying about “war for oil” would be bitch slapped into a military commission, a less macho version would probably see him using the US’s clout to diplomatically pin them into a position where they would eat an American poo sandwich and ask for seconds. Either way his sissy meter hovers around nil while about half of Americans is off the scale in comparison. Different time, different attitude and a different level of acceptance/understanding of what a free world is.

[Tribesman]

Actually, with the new American Crusade (TM) the west seems to want to spread democracy everywhere and is less willing to cooperate with dictators (which we've always done).

Bollox .
Now I could expand on that and say absolute bollox , but I expect that perhaps reality might set in and make Doc reconsider his statement .

If not then it might be neccesary (sp ? I is slightly inebriated since 5.30 and the party starts in 20 minutes) to point you in the direction of a long list of very anti-democratic actions and a number of rather nasty dictatorships that have had increased levels of backing and cooperation since this present fiasco started .

[Vladimir]

With western democracies now openly supporting the use of tyranny to feel safer from terrorism I think it's becoming more and more apparent that the real threat doesn't come from terrorists, it is from ourselves.



These words still ring very true today and I think it's wise to keep this in mind when considering the kinds of actions you are willing to allow your governments to undertake in the name of keeping you secure from an unknown and unseen "terrorist" enemy.

You're late to the game (again). The "West" has for decades supported tyrants abroad to feel safer at home. Of course, the civilized, enlightened nations of the East would never impose tyrannical rule in their or other nations.

So you're saying that Lincoln would be shocked by the "tyranny" imposed upon the US by Bush and the evil neocons? Isn't he the guy that had a warship fire on New York City during a riot?

[Strike For The South]

Why do you hate freedom?

[Watchman]

Well duh. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

With western democracies now openly supporting the use of tyranny to feel safer from terrorism I think it's becoming more and more apparent that the real threat doesn't come from terrorists, it is from ourselves.

So how is the US supporting 'the use of tyranny'?

These words still ring very true today and I think it's wise to keep this in mind when considering the kinds of actions you are willing to allow your governments to undertake in the name of keeping you secure from an unknown and unseen "terrorist" enemy.

Unseen and unknown in Japan perhaps, but in the US we have been under attack for over 20 years.

Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of ALL men, in ALL lands, EVERYWHERE.

Bah. You seem like you would support the democrat party; they are no lovers of liberty. They want to control what people can say, how people can do business between themselves, and take away our rights for 'safety'.

Crazed Rabbit

[Watchman]

So how is the US supporting 'the use of tyranny'?

Pakistan for one ? When was the last time Washington protested about Musfarrah not exactly being a democratically elected ruler...?

They want to control what people can say, how people can do business between themselves, and take away our rights for 'safety'.

...which is the exact purpose of laws to begin with; further, in the modern view on the matter, to ensure a certain minimum degree of "fair game" and prevent exploitative developements.

It never ceases to amaze me I have to point this out to people.

[Goofball]

Bah. You seem like you would support the democrat party; they are no lovers of liberty. They want to control what people can say, how people can do business between themselves, and take away our rights for 'safety'.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

The Republicans have become masters at everything you just mentioned over the last decade. They have been doing it ever since they came to power.

Good Lord man! Try to have a little perspective beyond ingrained dogma.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pakistan for one ? When was the last time Washington protested about Musfarrah not exactly being a democratically elected ruler...?

That's not what I'm asking about, Washington has supported certain dictators for a long time (not that that makes it right). He seems to be suggesting the USA is becoming more tyrannical.

which is the exact purpose of laws to begin with;

To limit free speech?

further, in the modern view on the matter, to ensure a certain minimum degree of "fair game" and prevent exploitative developements.

Why? Are people too stupid or not mature enough that the government must set guidelines for them? Note the quote I was responding to- it was from Abraham Lincoln, and the poster was using that quote to bolster his argument.

He cannot both quote a man from 150 years ago and then resort to the modern socialist view to explain why you don't agree with that man regardig liberty. It's especially ironic considering the quote and how ready you are to trample o the right of people to do business freely.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

The Republicans have become masters at everything you just mentioned over the last decade. They have been doing it ever since they came to power.

Good Lord man! Try to have a little perspective beyond ingrained dogma.

So, how have the Republicans (besides RINO McCain) made free speech illegal? How are they limiting the right to trade and property? Are they calling for banning guns?

Crazed Rabbit

[doc_bean]

Bollox .
Now I could expand on that and say absolute bollox , but I expect that perhaps reality might set in and make Doc reconsider his statement .

If not then it might be neccesary (sp ? I is slightly inebriated since 5.30 and the party starts in 20 minutes) to point you in the direction of a long list of very anti-democratic actions and a number of rather nasty dictatorships that have had increased levels of backing and cooperation since this present fiasco started .

Please, how is today worse than the good old days when the US had puppet governments all over South America ? Things have roughly stayed the same.

[Goofball]

So, how have the Republicans (besides RINO McCain) made free speech illegal? How are they limiting the right to trade and property? Are they calling for banning guns?

Those weren't the points I was originally responding to. What I was responding to was:

They want to control what people can say, how people can do business between themselves, and take away our rights for 'safety'.

Freedom of speech/press?

The Bush admin has been involved in a relentless assault on both. Locking up journalists, making gov't less and less transparent, hitting broadcasters with huge fines for one misplaced tit or mistakenly dropped F-bomb.

Business?

I recall recently the Bush admin actually forced a hotel in Mexico to throw out paying customers just because they were Cuban. They won't even limit their interferance to their own country. Or how about the softwood lumber issue?

Taking away rights for safety?

Hmmm. Patriot Act, anyone? No fly lists?

I'm not saying the Dems don't (or won't) do these things. But to say that they are the only ones doing it is utter nonsense.

[Prince of the Poodles]

Lol. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. I wouldnt be using him as an example against tyranny.

[Watchman]

Please, how is today worse than the good old days when the US had puppet governments all over South America ? Things have roughly stayed the same.

You mean, they still suck ?

The thing is, now the Western-backed unpopular puppet governements and/or tyrants in the Muslim world are generating enough ire that the quota used to hate them is full, and the excess is vented at their foreign backers. Not that the tyrants and suchlike that aren't backed by some Western state or another didn't generate similar ire, but then irate folks from those countries don't seem to feature very heavily in the gun-toting bomb-throwing throat-slitting crowd giving us trouble now do they...?

Plus, of course, claiming "we support democracy and freedom" and doing the exact opposite for convenience tends to be a pretty good way to lose what might be called "street cred" - which happens to be one of the major issues fought over at the moment...

To limit free speech?

If by "free speech" you mean what might be described pronouncing negro with two g's...

[Sjakihata]

WHAT IS FREEDOM

Generally you distinguish between positive freedom and negative freedom.

Positive freedom is freedom to do things, which the law will make sure you can do, this will work within a totalitarian regime.

Negative freedom is freedom from things, this will not work under a totalitarian regime.

For me freedom is positive.

[BigTex]

I wouldnt use Lincoln as an example against totalitarianism or as a way of attacking the bush administration. Bush is a bleeding heart liberal pinko comie skum compared to Lincoln.

As for support for tyrannical rullers increasing. No, it's majorly decreased since the cold war. Most of the rullers in south america are no longer puppets. Infact quite a few have rebelled and created some stable democracies. As for pakistan, we've supported him for awhile. There's been nothing but a decrease for support of dictator's since the cold war.

[doc_bean]

You mean, they still suck ?

Well, yes.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

The public has a short memory. The US are in Iraq to "bring democracy" but how many people remember that Churchill and Eisenhower engineered the Iranian coup of 1953 where an alected democratic goverment was toppled because it threatened western economic interests?

Exchanging liberty with security is the real danger to the west. It is not the limited power of terrorist activity.

[yesdachi]

The public has a short memory. The US are in Iraq to "bring democracy" but how many people remember that Churchill and Eisenhower engineered the Iranian coup of 1953 where an alected democratic goverment was toppled because it threatened western economic interests?

Exchanging liberty with security is the real danger to the west. It is not the limited power of terrorist activity.

Without a strong economy the west will fall like a ton of bricks. Who cares if an enemy is democratically elected, they are still an enemy and should be dealt with. I like the idea of bringing friendly (to us) democracy to places that have unfriendly (to us) dictators, but I don’t mind coup’ing unfriendly (to us) democracies and replacing them with friendly (to us) democracies. Yes, it is all about my best interests, why should I care about the liberty of my enemies. If you think about it, supporting a coup to replace an unfriendly government with one that is friendly is a pretty nice alternative compared to bombing the crap out of them or invading them ala Iraq. In hindsight do you think the Iraq people would choose an Iraq invasion or a Saddam coup? Coup isn’t so bad if it means that the US isn’t wrecking your country.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

that guy is dead, theres no way he's a member of the org.

fake.

You sure about that?

Gotta love cryonics.

[Pannonian]

Without a strong economy the west will fall like a ton of bricks. Who cares if an enemy is democratically elected, they are still an enemy and should be dealt with. I like the idea of bringing friendly (to us) democracy to places that have unfriendly (to us) dictators, but I don’t mind coup’ing unfriendly (to us) democracies and replacing them with friendly (to us) democracies.

Isn't this a contradiction in terms? If the electorate has chosen a government whose policies run counter to the current US regime, why would a replacement government who acts in the opposite way, counter to the electorate's wishes, be "democratic"? Isn't the essence of democracy government by the people in the interests of the people?

Yes, it is all about my best interests, why should I care about the liberty of my enemies. If you think about it, supporting a coup to replace an unfriendly government with one that is friendly is a pretty nice alternative compared to bombing the crap out of them or invading them ala Iraq. In hindsight do you think the Iraq people would choose an Iraq invasion or a Saddam coup? Coup isn’t so bad if it means that the US isn’t wrecking your country.

Perhaps, but you're no longer talking about democracy, but installing puppet governments. I have no problems with that in principle, but stop deluding yourself that you're pursuing democracy and freedom. That's what I can't stand about US-style liberalism - they pursue the same old Tory goals, but somehow manage to fool themselves that "it's for the good of the people", and are offended when others point out the hypocrisy in their position. Some Indians remarked that the most offensive stage of British imperialism was when they stopped being a nakedly imperial power, and started self-righteously bringing civilisation to the benighted place. The exploitation of the natives didn't stop of course, but spreading civilisation played better in politics at home. I prefer Churchill to Bush any day - at least Winston was honest about his imperialism.

[Spino]

With western democracies now openly supporting the use of tyranny to feel safer from terrorism I think it's becoming more and more apparent that the real threat doesn't come from terrorists, it is from ourselves.

These words still ring very true today and I think it's wise to keep this in mind when considering the kinds of actions you are willing to allow your governments to undertake in the name of keeping you secure from an unknown and unseen "terrorist" enemy.

Not that I don't agree with old Abe's speech but I find it odd that you are quoting a President who relentlessly pursued an 'ends justify the means' policy in order to secure victory during the bloodiest and most important conflict in US history.

I'm not looking to open up a Civil War discussion in this thread but under Lincoln's leadership the general strategy and conduct of the US government during the Civil War covered everything from the suspension of Habeus Corpus, censorship of newspapers and suppression of free speech, kangaroo military courts involving civilians and the brutish unpleasantness caused by Lincoln's approval of Grant's waging of 'total war' on the Confederacy's population and its infrastructure (Sherman's March being the most infamous example of this strategy). The Patriot Act may seem awfully oppressive in this day and age of chat rooms, blogs, free internet pr0n and Desperate Housewives hogging up the prime time airwaves but it is positively mild in comparison to the internal security and intelligence measures taken by the US government in every conflict since the Civil War. If the Civil War seems too distant for you crack open a book on the US government's internal security and intelligence policies implemented during WW2 to read about some major civil rights violations. I daresay any of the measures taken by the US government since the Civil War would fit right in with Lincoln's wartime policies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an 'ends justify the means' man myself but I believe you would have been better off quoting Washington or Franklin; men whose speech and rhetoric generally did not run contrary to their actions.

[Tribesman]

Without a strong economy the west will fall like a ton of bricks. Who cares if an enemy is democratically elected, they are still an enemy and should be dealt with. I like the idea of bringing friendly (to us) democracy to places that have unfriendly (to us) dictators, but I don’t mind coup’ing unfriendly (to us) democracies and replacing them with friendly (to us) democracies. Yes, it is all about my best interests, why should I care about the liberty of my enemies. If you think about it, supporting a coup to replace an unfriendly government with one that is friendly is a pretty nice alternative compared to bombing the crap out of them or invading them ala Iraq. In hindsight do you think the Iraq people would choose an Iraq invasion or a Saddam coup? Coup isn’t so bad if it means that the US isn’t wrecking your country.

What a pile of badly thought out excrement .

It is in your best interests to not have too many enemies .
If you could manage to put any thought into it at all you might be able to see that your "ideas" make you more enemies not less .
You might also notice that friendly countries are more friendly when you don't act like a complete complete bloody fool in your foriegn policies , because ....I don't suppose you will have noticed .... they are also interested in their economies and silly ventures screw their economy as well as your own .

[yesdachi]

Isn't this a contradiction in terms? If the electorate has chosen a government whose policies run counter to the current US regime, why would a replacement government who acts in the opposite way, counter to the electorate's wishes, be "democratic"? Isn't the essence of democracy government by the people in the interests of the people?

Perhaps, but you're no longer talking about democracy, but installing puppet governments.

Sure it is, but I am of the opinion that the people of most countries the US (in this case you could probably replace the US with any powerful country, China, Russia, GB, etc. everyone that can does it) and friends have supported government change in don’t know what they really want and are tricked into supporting the bad leader (btw, bad = anyone who doesn’t like the US). What is better, a leader/government that opposes the US or is friendly to the US, I think the countries that are friendly to the US are more prosperous, why ever oppose the US other than to promote ones own ambitions rather than their countries welfare. So if we have to help a countries “mislead” people be friendly to the US via a switch up in their government, so be it. Basically they are free to democratically elect whoever we want.

I don’t like the idea of spreading “civilization” or religion or imposing our culture on anyone but I do like the idea of protecting our investments by supporting a government that is friendly to me, and a puppet government is more than fine with me as long as the people are not being terribly oppressed.

What a pile of badly thought out excrement .

What part?

• Without a strong economy the west will fall like a ton of bricks.
• Who cares if an enemy is democratically elected, they are still an enemy and should be dealt with.
• I like the idea of bringing friendly (to us) democracy to places that have unfriendly (to us) dictators, but I don’t mind coup’ing unfriendly (to us) democracies and replacing them with friendly (to us) democracies.
• If you think about it, supporting a coup to replace an unfriendly government with one that is friendly is a pretty nice alternative compared to bombing the crap out of them or invading them ala Iraq
• In hindsight do you think the Iraq people would choose an Iraq invasion or a Saddam coup?
• Coup isn’t so bad if it means that the US isn’t wrecking your country.

None of those seem like “excrement” to me.

[Pannonian]

Sure it is, but I am of the opinion that the people of most countries the US (in this case you could probably replace the US with any powerful country, China, Russia, GB, etc. everyone that can does it) and friends have supported government change in don’t know what they really want and are tricked into supporting the bad leader (btw, bad = anyone who doesn’t like the US). What is better, a leader/government that opposes the US or is friendly to the US, I think the countries that are friendly to the US are more prosperous, why ever oppose the US other than to promote ones own ambitions rather than their countries welfare. So if we have to help a countries “mislead” people be friendly to the US via a switch up in their government, so be it. Basically they are free to democratically elect whoever we want.

I don’t like the idea of spreading “civilization” or religion or imposing our culture on anyone but I do like the idea of protecting our investments by supporting a government that is friendly to me, and a puppet government is more than fine with me as long as the people are not being terribly oppressed.

As I said, I don't argue with that in principle. Just stop talking about freedom and democracy if you're going to indulge in these powerplays. Some people actually believe you when you spout that BS, and ruin their country when they follow your prescriptions. Russia under Yeltsin was a signal example (which warned off other Communist countries from listening to American advice). The Chinese model is becoming increasingly popular because it attends to the most desired aspects of westernism (freedom to buy and sell and do whatever you want with what you buy and sell) while avoiding the obvious pitfalls of US-exported liberalism. It's also less hypocritical.

[KukriKhan]

Let's go easy on the feces similies & metaphors, lest someone accidentally steps in a pile and needs Moderator "help".

Thanks in advance.