conspiracy theory or stoopid terrorists?

[350HP930]

Originally posted by dmoolenaar
Simply pulling out of the Middle East is not going to work. We have a responsibility to our allies (Israel is one of them) to maintain a presence there. Pulling out and abandoning our interests there would serve a catastrophic blow to our credibility around the world.

I guess you missed the part where the US lost its credibility by unilaterally going to war on false pretenses.

I would wager the US would gain a lot of credibility by engaging in less warmongering and trying to work WITH the other governments and peoples of the world to make it a safer and freer place.

While it looks like the current British regime is going down in flames thanks to backing Bush's debacle I suspect that Bush will possibly get his ass saved by some 'last minute discoveries' in Bagdad or Afganistan.

Just imagine how bad our current regime will look if he sqeaks by another election thanks to evidence that later turns out to be fishy or fake AFTER the election.

Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a 1984ish future where the main difference is that instead of 'big brother' we have big business.

[ronin]

Originally posted by nostatic
You order the chips from the Trilateral comissions. Satan programs them, and the jewish germans collect royalties.

Please try to keep up...

any aftermarket versions available for my car???

you guys have waaaay too much time on your hands

[singpilot]

WOW... is all I can say.

It's like we need an "Off Topic, Off Topic" board.

Great stuff here. Did not have to read any newspaper blab this morning.

Keep it up guys!

[RickC]

Rick, you have a very positive outlook. I don't share it. Niether does my editor, who is from India. And isn't Cork suffering from fairly serious unemployment? I don't see how the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" is going to resolve itself. Seems it's been running the opposite direction for all this time...

I'll admit it: it's possible my positive outlook is misguided - after all I just got back from a few days of hiking in Yosemite, and how can you feel negative after seeing such wonders?

But I think that even when I come back down to reality, and see that the 1st world and the 3rd world are growing both closer and farther apart - closer in a real working sense (corporate ties, travel, interconnectedness) and farther apart in a financial sense (we keep getting richer while they are either moving slower, keeping still, or actually losing ground), I think of this as proof - not of the fact that we will keep diverging forever, but instead that only so much pain can be inflicted before a day of reckoning must occur.

This has always been so. I cannot think of a problem that has existed from day 1 and remained unaddressed. The reason is that people can put up with annoyances, but always there comes a time when a problem becomes too great.

Many times these great problems have been fixed peacefully (or semi-peacefully). The Gracchi of Rome noticed inequality and began land reforms. The House of Commons in England voted away slavery and noticed electoral and financial iniquity and so enfranchised voters to greater and greater degrees during the 1800's. American men voted to allow women to vote, and then forced the enforcement of many existing laws prohibiting discrimination. South Africa, the Soviet Union.... All of these improvements were imperfect - and some remain tarnished to this day - but they were still improvements.

Some other great problems have been addressed by violence: The severe inequalities in France, Russia and China were overthrown by the people. The violent end of American slavery came, and at great cost. Franz Fanon wrote a book, and bam! within a short time the Europeans are out of Africa. I can think of no time when great problems persisted without end.

But still, doesn't today's world kind of....suck? Yes. We are living through a near repeat of the late 1800's; when old laws could not keep up with the power of the new corporations; when Robber Baron's increased their fortunes on the backs of overworked serfs and children. Because of this I believe our generation and the next are in for some tough times. But what happens then? After all the factories are overseas? After all the mid level computer managers live in Bangalore? Will they sit still and be content with pay measured in peanuts forever? Not likely. And after the corporations employ across the whole world, where else do they have to go? In 50 years, there will be no cheap labor - cheaper maybe, but not cheap. Even prefessionals will band together if CEO's keep it up. Today doctors are uniting against insurance companies (usually illegal today - as was collective bargaining of workers in the distant past).

If this is 1890, then 2040 seems a good bet for the increasing power of the people. Down the road from there? One world currency? One world government? Not in our lifetime maybe, but these too are now inevitible because of technology - why should someone make a profit off of currency fluctuations? or be able to flout Civilized (in the best sense) norms because he employs across an invisible border?

Think of the changes in our own nation. When I was in Yosemite, my grandfather was much on my mind as he had hiked the same area 80 years ago. He passed away this past summer just short of his 101st birthday. When I thought about the changes he saw in his life - from an agrarian California on the edge of nowhere to one of the largest economies in the world; the right of women to vote, the enforcement of racial equality before the law - I felt hopeful.

Maybe it was just the thin air.....But I hope - and on a good day I actually believe - that things will improve if we all do what we can....

[350HP930]

Wow RickC, great post and my thoughts exactly.

If you look at the totality of history, things have been getting generally better but only due to the difficult strugle of an activist citizenry to correct problems.

Just look at how much the civil rights movement was able to achieve in only 20 - 50 years.

Change is never peaceful or easy.

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by 350HP930
Oh yeah, god forbid that people at one time had the freedom of thought and action to believe in anything they wanted, especially if it was communism.

So, you want the "freedom" to change this country from representative democracy to a communist state. Are you under the impression that these two ideologies arer different but equal? This is the kind of thinking that alllowed the Soviets to envelop most of eastern Europe and beyond. You thrive in the freedoms that you take for granted and have apparently no appreciation for. Just in case you missed, communism is bad....

Thank god our government stomped on the rights of american citizens and killed millions of people around the world for their polical beliefs by labelling anti-capitalist ideas the 'enemy of democracy'.

It's a shame that this is the view you have of our government. You apparently can't differentiate between the oppression that takes place around the world and what happens here. There are places that even today writing either side of this argument would get you imprisoned or killed. That is worth fighting to destroy. And we haven't killed "millions of people for their political beliefs". I don't even know where to start on that one........

If McCarthy's witchhunts were allowed to take their full course just imagine how much better of a country we would have today.


Yes, just imagine. We might have been able to stop the flow of communism around the world decades earlier. How many lives would have been saved by that? How many people would have been able to live with the freedoms that you and I can only take for granted? Am I being "jingoistic" again? Probably, but I happen to think that freedom IS important, and not just for me. I think it's important for others too.


With beliefs like Petes so prevailent today I can see how there are so many dupes that believe that self determinism is a right not deserved by arabs and other people who are not open to taking it up the a$$ by the US.


Huh? So, that's not what we are giving to the people of Iraq? Or do you honestly believe that Saddam was "elected" by 99%. Right. They were very happy, and much better off I would imagine. Now they are on track to self rule and potential "freedom", oh, the horror. Those poor misguided people, hospitals, food, education and the ability to actually make a better life for themselves. Shameful. Nah, on second thought, let's just pull out of there and let the Baath party regain power and slaughter everybody who dares try to stop them. Mass graves are easy to dig...............


As we all know only the US has the right to be guided by selfish motives and tell the rest of the world to take a flying leap if they don't like it.

Right, France is dedicated to international peace and well being. That's why they along with Russia "assured" Saddam that they would block the US at every turn within the UN and he had nothing to fear from us. So, how much money do you think thay think they lost in this deal now that they lost the potential oil contract with Saddam? (didn't mean to single France out)

Sorry it took so long to get back, the cable company cut my phone line the other night..................

[Pete Pranger]

Originally posted by BillyPilgrim

As bad as the communist’s economic ideologies are, their eagerness to trample on the rights of the individual in the name of “the common good” is as bad or worse. Fighting communism with totalitarianism? No thanks. Communism continues to eat away at itself. The only thing that keeps communism afloat is the ability of communist governments to control the masses with fear, misinformation, and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.

Now, you're not implying that we have totalitarianism here are you? If you are please elaborate. We had an "inquiry" into the possiblity of communist infiltration and just look at how it was percieved. I don't have a problem with that (the perception) because at the time we just didn't know. Now we do now. McCarthy was right, and it would have been better if we found out then. BTW don't forget that the key to the survival of a communist government is also brutality, imprisonment and murder. Don't try to blur the distinction with what is going on here.


I’m also a big proponent of individual freedoms. I don’t think any kind of gun should be illegal (even though I don’t own a gun). Assault riffles hurt far fewer people than alcohol, and I certainly wouldn’t support banning alcohol (even though I don’t drink; if alcohol ceased to exist tomorrow it wouldn’t bother me one bit). Besides, the US tried that already, and it didn’t work so well. And banning something doesn’t make it go away. Gee, drugs are real hard to get right? Speaking of drugs, legalize them too (never used any kind of recreational drug, either… see a pattern?). I also don’t like my money going to fund art. Though I like art, I don’t want to have my money going into a government-controlled pool to support it. If I want to support art, I’ll buy an artist’s work.

Agreed.


I don’t want to pay for anybody’s college education, illegal immigrant or otherwise. (But let the illegals in, nothing wrong with competition. Hmmm. The government restricting competition in the marketplace sounds a little like communism to me…)

Okay, you just lost me. I don't have a problem with IMMIGRATION, it's the illegal part that gets me. If you want to open the borders, I can't say I agree, but right now they aren't. It's not to restrict competition, but about security at least that's the way I see it. And restricting competition is not what communism sounds like. That was Clinton, remember Bill Gates?

It’s hard for me to understand why so many people who share a lot of these views, who value individual rights so highly, would want the government to take their money and spend it on the “war on terrorism” (even less worthwhile than the “war on drugs”), and give up their individual rights in the name of patriotism. Why are people who don’t trust the government to spend their money on art and welfare (which I agree they shouldn’t be spending money on) so willing to let the government spend their money on bombs and planes and to send individuals halfway around the world to kill and be killed by other individuals.

The largest responsibilty of our government is national security. The president is the commander in chief for a reason. We put him in office and then we rely on him to do the right thing, it's not an autocracy, with total power given to one man, but a lot of the decisions must be made by him. I didn't trust Clinton, as he never gave me reason to, but I do trust Bush (at least for the time being.....) Just out of curiosity, what freedoms have you given up in the name of "patriotism"? How is your life affected right now?

Some argue legalizing guns and drugs might actually make the country safer. I think that’s a possibility, but I also think there’s a good chance it would make life a little more dangerous. I’ll take my chances, in exchange for not having The Man breathing down my neck. I don’t worry about terrorism at all. As visible and terrible as the 9/11 attacks were, the odds of me or anyone else here dying in a terrorist attack are extremely low. I’ll take the low odds of a terrorist attack over the high odds of the government making my life harder and pissing me off.

I am not too worried about terrorism right now, but have you ever considered that the reason you feel so safe is because the government has worked so hard to protect you? What may or may not have happened post 9/11 if the government took a passive role is purely speculation, but with the number of "alleged" terrorists captured since, I think they are doing the right thing. I may be wrong......

The government should answer to the individual, not the other way around. The number one priority of the government should be to protect the safety and freedom of individual Americans. This is what they claim to be doing with “the war on terrorism,” but is this really the best way to protect individuals? What if the best way for the government to prevent terrorism was to keep their hands to themselves? Many US nationalists (many of whom call themselves patriots and like calling non-nationalists “anti-American”) believe that any scaling back of US presence in the Middle East as a way to avoid future attacks means “the terrorists have won.” If that is their only reason for not reducing US military presence overseas, then they are basically saying this strategy would have worked, but since the 9/11 attacks we can’t go back now without “losing face.” Is pride more important than life? For me it isn’t, not even close. And whose face would be lost? Not mine, I didn’t send troops overseas in the first place. Maybe the US would lose face, the US as a country and as a government, but there would be no reason for citizens to feel ashamed. So again the pride of a country and a government are being put before the safety and freedom of individuals. It’s not a matter of saying “ok Osama, you rascal, you win.” It’s saying, “we thought an aggressive foreign policy would protect Americans, but we were wrong, it causes more problems, we will adjust our policies to best protect American citizens.”


We aren't staying in Iraq to "save face". We are there to allow them the security to become self sufficient. If we left now, there would be chaos like we can only imagine. Some might argue that that is what SHOULD take place and it would be like "natural selection" survival of the fittest if you will. I argue it would be a bloodbath. The mass graves most recently uncovered were the result of our pulling out of Iraq the first time. I can't image that's what you want. This is not a "pride" issue, it's an issue of doing the right thing (which is what we did).


Maybe I am a spineless wimp (a very real possibility) but I’ve never placed much importance on bravery, heroism, and pride. I’m into self-preservation, and screw “saving face.”

It's odd, those are the things that I feel are very important. Those are the things that have allowed us to take this thing called freedom for granted. Those are the values that have allowed us to defeat the likes of Nazi Germany, Japan and Communism. And now, they will allow us to defeat our new enemies. Sometimes you have to look beyond yourself and see that there are things worth fighting for. I am glad that the soldiers in the Revolutionary war were more concerned with forging a new government than "self-preservation". I am grateful for those who gave their lives an an attempt to preserve our union in our own civil war. I can't image what it was like to land on Normandy beach knowing that the casualty rate was predicted to be 70-80%. Bravery, Heroism, Patriotism are not just words to me, they are values and important ones. These words apply to our soldiers in Iraq as well as the men and women who fought to save what they could of California from wildfires. You can ridicule me for this as I am sure some of you will, but I don't care this is important.