View Full Version : Americal Politics III
Wellcome to the Land of the Free with Liberty and Justice for All.
I believe that most of the horror stories told by Saint and many others with no potential conflict of interest about property and business here are true.
Ethics are more of a problem than socialism.
Escapee5150
05-19-06, 01:59
Why do you feel more free in AR, than in USA?One thing is the lack of thought police. I can say anything I feel to Argentinians without having to worry about it being politically correct. Heck, usually they not only agree with me, but say "of course". Unbelievable. I love these people. There are many things that are simply off limits for discussion in the USA. There are many things you cannot say no matter how obvious they are. Say something that is not politically correct and the compiled software program in their pre-programmed heads will automatically call you the names they have been pre-programmed to call you. Yet their behavior suggests that they don't at all practice what they preach.
Another reason I feel more free here is that property taxes here are a small fraction of those in my city.
Another reason is that our police in the USA are out to raise money for the state, and not out to protect me. Here, the police are more out to raise money for themselves, but will protect me if I pay a little bit. That works a lot better for me. It saves a lot of time, money, and humiliation too. And I feel protected. And I don't feel like a big money target. I feel like a small money target. That's a lot better.
For example, the other night I was out with a 22 year old law student, and we were in his car. At a red light a security officer pointed to us and suggested we put on our seat belts. He actually seemed to care about our safety. Unbelievable! No fine! Nothing! In the mommy fascist state in Dallas, TX, we would have gotten two tickets and it would have costs $810 pesos. $405 pesos per seat belt. And worse, we would have to listen to a big long speech by the self-righteous asshole cop about how he is helping us. At least a criminal just steals your money. You don't have to be bored with a speech about why he is helping you. We would have also had to do a field sobriety test. It would have taken an hour.
In Dallas, I have gotten 2 seat belt tickets going 20 MPH on a one-way street (impossible to get hurt) each costing $135 U$S per ticket. And then had to listen to a speech each time about how he was helping me. And both times I was given the tickets by a motorcycle cop! WHERE WAS HIS SEATBELT? How can riding a motorcycle possibly be legal if riding in a steel car without a seatbelt is not? Mommy fascist knows no logic. And thinking rationally is not politically correct. You may need sensitivity training. And six months of probation if you argue.:) Friendly fascism is much scarier than gun toting fascists. Friendly fascism is much harder to defeat.
And that is just the seat belt law. Add to that the DUI searches every night. Going out to a bar, my friend and I feel like Navy Seals doing a mission behind enemy lines. They keep lowering the drinking limit from.12, to.1, to.08. Somewhere, I think in Florida, it is.06.
Hell, in Texas they were even going into bars and arresting people for being drunk in the bar, even if they were not driving. Religious fascists. And socialist fascists. The want to control you and steal your money. They can both eat dog pooh pooh.
In Dallas, the only people I ever see getting pulled over for anything is non-poor people. Gee I wonder why? Follow the money. There are 250,000 outstanding arrest warrants in my city of Dallas. That's like 20% of the people. They can't pull over poor people with warrants. They would have to process them and put them in jail. The jails are already full. But moreover, that COSTS them money. They are trying to MAKE money. It has nothing to do with their supposed mission of "protect and serve". Their real mission is protect their power and serve themselves. They want the guy driving a Lexus. A DUI makes the city a ton of money. A derilect costs them money. They have a budget to balance.
I really dislike the politically correct, mindless, Oprah-style, friendly mommy fascist state. I want freedom from extortion. The system here in Argentina has already self-imploded. Now the only law that is followed here is gravity.
That is why I feel more free here than in the USA. Ironic isn't it.
Escapee5150
05-19-06, 02:40
In Colorado you can be charged with "driving while impaired" with a BAC of.05. It's 8 points out of 12 on your license but your insurance company will go crazy. Mostly that is used as a way to plea-bargain DUIs for first offenders but some people I know have been initially charged with it.
And no, I don't know that from personal experience. I've never been convicted of an alcohol-related offense (unlike George W "Holier Than Thou" Bush)WOW. And dittos for me too. I have never been pulled over or charged with a DUI. And I always leave with an open beer in my car. As a matter of principal. That was legal until 1990 in Texas. Then it was, well the passenger can still drink. Now that is gone too. It's not like I drive drunk. And I live in a neighborhood that is 100 years old, with tiny streets. My car never gets above 12 miles per hour. But still I am a criminal. They can now even take your blood by force if you refuse a breath test. And by the way, Holy George's daughters have gotten high with Ashton Kutcher (maybe better put as Demi Moore's husband) Ashton was a republican until he decided he wanted to keep working in Hollywood, so he came out and read a statement before the last election. You could tell by the way he read it, that it was like a coerced reading. The people that control Hollywood (now who might that be? And television, have a lot of power and influence over the minds of the masses. The brainwashing did not work on me. I escaped the mental hospital. L. A. Police Code 5150 - Escapee from a mental hospital. And a Van Halen ablum, in reference to Eddie. I am an escapee from sex prison. The can't tax us for dancing. So dance everybody!
Sorry, we are going to get in trouble. This thread is about apartment hunting.
Yes, so as I was saying, I hope to buy and apartment or at least eventually go crazy trying to decide. Even if I had a ton of money, I still have not found the perfect place. I found a nice one today, but it was $470,000. But it is still not perfect. It was newer and more modern. I prefer the old style ricketey manual elevators. That is more sexy. I don't know what El Aleman was thinking about wanting a modern one.
One thing is the lack of thought police. I can say anything I feel to Argentinians without having to worry about it being politically correct. Heck, usually they not only agree with me, but say "of course". Unbelievable. I love these people. There are many things that are simply off limits for discussion in the USA. There are many things you cannot say no matter how obvious they are. Say something that is not politically correct and the compiled software program in their pre-programmed heads will automatically call you the names they have been pre-programmed to call you. Yet their behavior suggests that they don't at all practice what they preach.
Another reason I feel more free here is that property taxes here are a small fraction of those in my city.
Another reason is that our police in the USA are out to raise money for the state, and not out to protect me. Here, the police are more out to raise money for themselves, but will protect me if I pay a little bit. That works a lot better for me. It saves a lot of time, money, and humiliation too. And I feel protected. And I don't feel like a big money target. I feel like a small money target. That's a lot better.
For example, the other night I was out with a 22 year old law student, and we were in his car. At a red light a security officer pointed to us and suggested we put on our seat belts. He actually seemed to care about our safety. Unbelievable! No fine! Nothing! In the mommy fascist state in Dallas, TX, we would have gotten two tickets and it would have costs $810 pesos. $405 pesos per seat belt. And worse, we would have to listen to a big long speech by the self-righteous asshole cop about how he is helping us. At least a criminal just steals your money. You don't have to be bored with a speech about why he is helping you. We would have also had to do a field sobriety test. It would have taken an hour.
In Dallas, I have gotten 2 seat belt tickets going 20 MPH on a one-way street (impossible to get hurt) each costing $135 U$S per ticket. And then had to listen to a speech each time about how he was helping me. And both times I was given the tickets by a motorcycle cop! WHERE WAS HIS SEATBELT? How can riding a motorcycle possibly be legal if riding in a steel car without a seatbelt is not? Mommy fascist knows no logic. And thinking rationally is not politically correct. You may need sensitivity training. And six months of probation if you argue.:) Friendly fascism is much scarier than gun toting fascists. Friendly fascism is much harder to defeat.
And that is just the seat belt law. Add to that the DUI searches every night. Going out to a bar, my friend and I feel like Navy Seals doing a mission behind enemy lines. They keep lowering the drinking limit from.12, to.1, to.08. Somewhere, I think in Florida, it is.06.
Hell, in Texas they were even going into bars and arresting people for being drunk in the bar, even if they were not driving. Religious fascists. And socialist fascists. The want to control you and steal your money. They can both eat dog pooh pooh.
In Dallas, the only people I ever see getting pulled over for anything is non-poor people. Gee I wonder why? Follow the money. There are 250,000 outstanding arrest warrants in my city of Dallas. That's like 20% of the people. They can't pull over poor people with warrants. They would have to process them and put them in jail. The jails are already full. But moreover, that COSTS them money. They are trying to MAKE money. It has nothing to do with their supposed mission of "protect and serve". Their real mission is protect their power and serve themselves. They want the guy driving a Lexus. A DUI makes the city a ton of money. A derilect costs them money. They have a budget to balance.
I really dislike the politically correct, mindless, Oprah-style, friendly mommy fascist state. I want freedom from extortion. The system here in Argentina has already self-imploded. Now the only law that is followed here is gravity.
That is why I feel more free here than in the USA. Ironic isn't it.Your not alone. I am sick of the direction this country is heading, it truly is going down the toilet, and so I have been looking for a new country to live in. And Argentina is on my Radar. Facist State, I agree with you 100% this GW Bush and other's swore to uphold the constitution, Not butcher it. Don't get me wrong, I am proud to be American, and love my country here, but American has done so many things I am not proud of.
The cops are something else, as I worked in Law enforment for 14 years, I had moral issues with the things I have seen. I know what is right, and what is wrong. I've personally seen charges get trumped up, statements and reports falsified, evidenced tampered with, and even planted, just so it's easier to get a conviction.
The Judical system is so corrupt, I am ashamed of what it has become. Even district attorneys can not do the right thing. DA's havent got a clue, or play along to get that conviction, if the DA does not play along, then the cops turn agiasnt the DA, fuck up paper work and evidence, thus making the DA look back and wind up losing his Job. Its all politics and dollars. Please not, I do not work in LE anymore, I was lucky to find a way out of this line of work. And never looked back. And have never been happier.
With what I know, I could have gotten an entire city force of cops indicted. But, I would also be putting my own life on the line, once you turn your back on them, and stop playing ball, it is you agiasn't the world, and they got the balls to set you up and kill you, and make your life a living hell.
You might say I was one of the cooler cops, I could've busted a lot of people, but I also remembered the times when cops gave me breaks or undertood what it was like to be a teenager doing stupid shit. Or out just having innocent fun.
Anyways enough of my rant about our corrupt system here. Just happy to put it behind me, and move on with a better life now. Looking forward to moving down to BA soon.
Jaimito Cartero
05-19-06, 15:08
I was at a government seizure 4 or 5 years ago, and hearing the US Customs / Treasury folks go through all the valuables was just disgusting. Saying, "Oh yeah, we can seize this piece of jewelry, and this, and this....".
It makes me embarrassed to be an American sometime.
People are moving to Argentina to escape the corruption of the United States? An interesting idea that I'll have to ask my porteño friends about. I'm sure they will find it confounding.
I'm sure that plenty of corruption exists in the USA and the last few years have made it hard to take pride in being an American. However, nobody I know in BA admires either law enforcement or the legal system in BA.
One thing is the lack of thought police. I can say anything I feel to Argentinians without having to worry about it being politically correct. Heck, usually they not only agree with me, but say "of course". Unbelievable. I love these people. There are many things that are simply off limits for discussion in the USA. There are many things you cannot say no matter how obvious they are. I agree with you there, the political correctness factor is absolutely out of control in USA. But I think you're exaggerating with your other US gripes. The system ain't perfect, but oh well nothing is.
The US was all ready a propoganda state and it's citizens the slaves of bombardment saturation consumerism, but then this twink and their cadres came along and made it downright abhorrent and an embarassment to hold a US passport.
When this picture makes top of the fold in the NY Times I'll go home to celebrate.
Isn't AMERICA wonderful were a dog can express freedom of speech.
God bless America
Isn't AMERICA wonderful were a dog can express freedom of speech.
God bless AmericaGood thing that dog doesn't talk on the phone or use the email. He might end up in Gitmo wearing a sock for a hat.
Paranoia strikes deep.
Into your life it will creep.
It starts when you're always afraid.
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
Gonorrhea strikes deep.
Into your shorts it will creep.
It starts when you get a bad lay.
Penicillin could help to take it away.
(Papa Benito pulled his post so now my response makes no sense, or maybe it never did).
My country right or wrong. Love it or leave. More nukes less (insert ethnic slur of your choice here):
Gee, when was the last time we heard that? Oh, I know. The last time we got bogged down in an unwinnable, undeclared war in a geographically bereft area where we had no political understanding and deeply flawed intelligence info, over shit that was none of our fucking business, that ruined the economy, divided families and friends, and got hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. What was the name of that country again?
Vienna? Viagra? Vinny Testaverde? Shit I can't remember but I think it started with a V and had a bunch of people of some other religion and ethnicity who spoke some funny language I couldn't understand.
It's probably different this time, though. Or not.
Gee, when was the last time we heard that? Oh, I know. The last time we got bogged down in an unwinnable, undeclared war in a geographically bereft area where we had no political understanding and deeply flawed intelligence info, over shit that was none of our fucking business, that ruined the economy, divided families and friends, and got hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed. What was the name of that country again?
Vienna? Viagra? Vinny Testaverde? Shit I can't remember but I think it started with a V and had a bunch of people of some other religion and ethnicity who spoke some funny language I couldn't understand.
It's probably different this time, though. Or not.The next V word could be Venezuela. I am sure we would have alot more spooks there now if we weren't force feeding most of them Farsi and what not. Lucky for Hugo that we will be mired in blood and shit in Iraq for years before we can line him up.
Yeah but that's not a funny language I can't understand. Ha ha.
Just in case you've any doubt about how long and how far off the rails we've gone check this out. A synopsis of Ron Suskind's new book "The One Percent Doctrine".
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/books/20kaku.html?ex=1150948800&en=6b2541336b4b3fc3&ei=5087%0A
Made complete sense to me DH, even without an antagonist apparent.
I think we are seeing a cyclical and perhaps even secular shift to the left in Latin America. Although I am an obvious and fairly committed left-winger, I don't think that bodes well for buying property in Latin America if one is a foreigner. I think if the leftist party wins the upcoming election in México, that might be the final harbinger to avoid any long term financial commitments, at least for now.
¡Viva la revolución!
In case anyone still believes that our elected leaders actually call the shots.
http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/specialbush.html
"Company spokeswoman Kabira Hatland said that Coors rolled through a stop sign a block from his home in Golden and that an officer stopped him in his driveway.
In one breath test, he registered a blood alcohol level of 0.073 percent. In a second, 20 minutes later, he registered 0.088. The legal limit in Colorado is 0.05 percent."
I hate the Coors family and their beer is shit. All that notwithstanding, what a fucking police state the US has become. Colorado was a "two tier" state; it had a.05 threshold for "driving while impaired" which was 8 of 12 points against your license, and a .10 threshold for "driving while intoxicated" and you lost your license. Then it became federal law that you had to have a.08 threshold (states' rights advocates, of whom I am not one, took this up the food chain) or all your highway funds got revoked. So, eventually Colorado became one of the last states to adopt the.08 standard.
OK, so fine. He was.007 below the threshold on the first test. Why even give a second test? So then he is .008 over on the second one. Call it a draw? Benefit of the doubt? WTF is up here? Give him a third test? Flip a coin? Note that he is in his fucking driveway at this point.
When I first got my license in the early 70s the standard was .15 which is pretty hammered. It probably needed to be lowered. So they went from .15 to .12 to .10 to .08 and Australia, for example, is now .05. Now there is a lot of research saying that driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as DWI, depending on the BAC. I've never personally driven while talking on a cell phone but I sure see a lot of people breezing through stop signs and red lights while doing so.
Colorado already had the fairly stiff penalty for being over.05, like a stern warning, and if you'd already had a (very) few tickets before or got a (very) few after you'd lose your license anyway.
So let's do the math (MCSE can sit this one out): DUI in the US: $1000 bail plus $500 fine plus $2500 insurance rate hike plus $1250 for alcohol evaluation and alcohol classes plus $2500 for a lawyer who can't help you keep your license or your job plus $who knows how much for losing your job for having a DUI even though you don't even drive on the job plus plus plus plus = I have no motherfucking idea.
Cost of the buses running all night in Buenos Aires = 26 cents US. Cost of knowing you won't get a DUI? Priceless.
Rock Harders
07-16-06, 10:28
DickHead-
When all is said and done, at least in NJ (which also just recently lowered its dwi standard from.10 to.08) a DWI conviction ends up costing the convictee $10,000 USD including attorney fees, fines, surcharges, and intoxicated driver resources programs and the like. My friend blew a .24 and the judge added one year of mandatory AA meetings to go along with all the other state mandated classes. NJ is also one (if not the only state) state that classifies a DWI conviction as a traffic offense and not a criminal act.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
This is what you have when more and more corporations get involved in the post DUI bidness, and also why it will take a miracle to inject any reason into the law. Too much money being made by too many people. The states are a money making hellhole now, IMHO. I still love the sports, music and movies, but the hyper-capitalism is slowly ruining the place.
Thomaso276
07-16-06, 13:25
It is policy to run two breath tests. Note that the suspect is (in Florida) already under arrest for failing a field sobriety test. You run two tests to confirm the initial results because lawyers always attack, in order: the reason for the stop, the officers observations leading to suspicion of DUI, the field sobriety test, the BAC machine, the BAC operator. If the second test had been below the limit he could have been released. Or if his actions were indicative of some chemical influence then there is a process for testing for the presence of drugs. The tests are supportive evidence for officer observations.
Most officers have to be experts to handle DUI arrests which involve about two - three hours of paperwork. The Drug screening process involves training that is similar to a hospital intake system; if a specially trained officer determines the driver is not drunk but under the influence of drugs, there are piss and blood test procedures in place.
In the case of someone passing the breath test and the expert officer determining that the driver is not using, for example, cocaine; then the subject can be un-arrested. I personally supervised a couple of unarrests out of thousands made by officers. Usually the un-arrest situation was because the arresting officer had limited skills and made all sorts of weak cases. Sort of like a bad cook who always screws up. They were not illegal arrests but lacked enough evidence to continue the process. Remember a test showing.07 after the arrest gives the officer the cover of "good faith" because alcohol was present, combined with the other factors, leading to the arrest.
It is all about the DUI defense lawyers. They make the big money.
Why have States dropped the BAC limit over the years? Quite simply becasue of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) They have become a powerful lobbying force and have directly influenced the lower standards. They are concerned with arrests - not convictions. Their mission is to take drunk drivers off the streets BEFORE they kill someone so minimal standard arrests are very acceptable and legal. Convictions are secondary. When lobbyists talks about their dead children it is almost impossible not to pass the law they are proposing.
Many Departments have policies in place that mandate the arrest of someone suspected of DUI. In the 80's in my Department the Chief lost his job because he intervened in a DUI arrest of a powerful local lawyers' son. When it comes to looking the other way DUI arrests are off limits in most places because the taint of special treatment can end a career.
Years ago making it home used to be considered a free pass as well. I worked with a guy (a real jerk) who almost made it home once and was stopped by a neighboring Department. He was given a break and allowed to walk a couple of blocks to his house. About an hour later he was stopped by the same officer driving around again after promising to go home. He got arrested this time and the whole story hit the paper about preferential treatment. Very embarrasing.
Bottom line, it is one of the more difficult and expensive charges an average citizen can face.
Well, I'm from that same fucking state and they took me to de-tox when I was walking home and they sure as hell didn't run two tests. I've never heard of two tests in that state, actually.
Thomaso276
07-16-06, 16:27
First page refers to an "Otis" from the Andy Griffin Show. Simply a night in the tank. It is based on observations only. No crime, no testing, no arrest, no criminal record, no driving issues. Next two pages explain DUI.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0397/Sec675.HTM
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC1934.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0316->Section%201934#0316.1934
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC1932.HTM&Title=->2005->Ch0316->Section%201932#0316.1932
Please note that between .05 and .08 doesn't mean there is no impairment - it is a gray area and can produce an arrest if other factors are present, which they usually are not. Below .05 means no alcohol impairment, over .08 is prima facie evidence of impairment.
This page shows the affadavit wherein there are two tests run from the BAC machine and space for the two results.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/atp/Forms/Form%2015%20Feb%202000.pdf
It is important to note that there have been many revisions to the law over the years as a result of defense challenges on DUI cases. 20 years ago a field sobriety test could involve asking a driver to pick up three quarters from the ground without bending their knees or three dimes. There is a big difference. Now all field sobriety tests are standardized. For exmple all heel-to-toe walking and turns involve 9 steps. Here are pages from a DUI defense lawyer attacking the Nystagmus test, and field sobriety tests (there is also the finger to nose and alphabet test. People fail the test when the do not follow instructions. Or fall flat on their face! Usually the first indication of a problem is when someone is asked for their license and registration and hands over their Mastercard and Social Security Card.
http://www.azduiatty.com/nystagmus-the-eye-test.htm
http://www.azduiatty.com/field-sobriety-tests.htm
There is one test I observed that was pretty neat. After failing all FST's (driver was plastered) the officer asked if the subject would take one more test. He agreed. The officer was very smooth and calm and asked him to stand with his feet together, close his eyes, tilt his head back (puts the subject in a weak position for resisting) He then asked the subject to place his hands behind his back and quickly cuffed him. I asked the officer later why he did that and he said it cut down on the number of arrestees who tried to resist arrest - pretty hard to fight when you are secured.
In addition to running K9, Field Traing Officers, Mounted (horse Patrol) Bike Patrol, Street Narcotics, Hostage Negotiation and midnight patrol shift, I ran a DUI unit for two years. I was not an expert but had supervisory responsibility and relied on the expertise of my team and lots of reading. My 4 guys each averaged over 250 arrests per year and received many awards.
I personally did not do many DUI's over the years. Mostly as a result of accidents - impossible to let someone go when witnesses are yelling that the driver is drunk. By the time society started imposing stricter rules and demanding more arrests (as opposed to the ride home from a friend, or allowing a passenger to drive the car for borderline cases) I had moved out of the operational phase of my career and had others do the grunt work. I supervised the arrest of two fellow officers for DUI as well as a City Department Head. All involved in accidents. It wasn't pleasant but after seeing hundreds of accidents, injuries and deaths from DUI's I never lost any sleep.
Hers an interesting tid bit on arch republican conservitive Beer Mogal Peter Coors.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4046846
Shit this could happen to anyone, I've been living a charmed life.
Exon
This is what you have when more and more corporations get involved in the post DUI bidness, and also why it will take a miracle to inject any reason into the law. Too much money being made by too many people. The states are a money making hellhole now, IMHO. I still love the sports, music and movies, but the hyper-capitalism is slowly ruining the place.Hey Dog,
You have Big Corporations chasing the Big Bucks in a number of ways. Normally involves their "Legal" staff or consultant lobbyists influencing those in government. Elected officials (many, if not mostly former lawyers) create laws and tax policy - which is acted on or administered by Judges (former lawyers) who "continue" the process into perpetuity. Talk about the "Perfect Storm", it is amazing that the USA is still in the game - go buy a step ladder, bet it is an offshore company. The US small aircraft industry had to get special legislation to shield it legally - just to stay in business.
The Founders wanted you to have a jury of your peers - do you think our peers can possibly understand the complexity of today's system. All of this is by design. Non-Legal big corporations are not getting wealthy off of what it costs you to defend yourself. And by the way, what does the cost of the legal system do for the GDP?
I understand your frustration - think we all have it to vary degrees. I do not disagree with the fact that big money drives the world - but do question who the driver it. In my opinion, in the USA overt corruption is at a minimum - but the legal system more than makes up for it. Interestingly, the three areas that you mentioned you like (sports, music, movies) are the best three examples of "hyper-capitalism" that ever existed. $15 million / year for a guy that can't spell basketball, or someone who sings lyrics about killing cops and raping women, and Hollywood speaks for itself.
Sadly you are right, the place is being ruined - but not so slowly and by the very group that is telling us that they are just there to help!
Hey Dog,
I understand your frustration - think we all have it to vary degrees. I do not disagree with the fact that big money drives the world - but do question who the driver it. In my opinion, in the USA overt corruption is at a minimum.
Sadly you are right, the place is being ruined - but not so slowly and by the very group that is telling us that they are just there to help!Alan23,
But the covert corruption is at a maximum! Thanks for feeling my pain.
Dogg
It occurs to me today that the Bushies most likely are hoping that the Lebanon mess blows up into a bigger regional conflagration. What better way to divert attention (as best they can) from the increasingly fucked up situation in Iraq. The benefits will be twofold-
1. A possible military confrontation with Syria and Iran, involving the Israelis (and perhaps the US) This will enable the US to possibly bomb the nuclear "capabilities" of Iran (a possibilty less "palatable" without the excuse of a coincident "war") further isolate Syria, and deal a big blow to the multiple "terrorist" groups operating in the region.
2. By invoking the battle against "terrorists" and "enemies of Israel" the Bushies will hope to turn US public opinion back in their support. They know their is no "political" way out of Iraq. By turning the entire Mideast situation into one that they can frame as "us and Israel" versus the "terrorists and their supporters", the Bushies will hope that US public opinion will turn more positive and supportive. This will help in the mid term elections (which at present look disastrous for the Republicans) AND will put the Democrats in a bind. The Dems are big supporters of Israel, with Hillary and the rest frequently stoking up their support for Israel as a way of further appealing to the jewish vote. Many of the Dems will find it difficult, if not impossible, to argue against further militarism in the Mideast if the ostensible reason is to "protect Israel" and, of course, further stamp out "terrorism".
The Bushies have shown little to no concern in the past regarding the outrage of our "allies" in Europe and elsewhere related to our Iraq "adventure", Gitmo, flaunting of the Geneva Convention, global "detention centers" et al. I would expect they would wait out any further outrage if things got torqued up in the Mideast per our refusal to rein in Israel. The neocons may see the present situation as too "promising" to pass up. Their backs are against the wall and they may say "damn the torpedos", let's give Israel the green light to create more havoc and see what happens.
Of course it may not turn out this way at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did, and you can bet your bottom, debilitated dollar that I ain't the only one who has thought about it.
Dogg
Rock Harders
07-30-06, 20:44
Dogg-
Those greed-driven war criminals (republicans) are going to lose the November elections, there is nothing that can be done to stop it at this point. Realistically, there is no way the US can involve inself in a wider Middle East war because the US Army simply lacks the manpower at this point for ANY sort of new attempt at "regime change". The Air Force and Navy are still at full strength, but anything involving significant numbers of ground troops will not happen.
As for Israel, shame on them. Instead of simply invading southern Lebanon and carving out a buffer zone which would protect their cities against rocket attacks from Hezbollah, they have decided to launch a devastating air assault against civilian targets. Ironically, their chosen method, though less painfull in the short term for Israel (limits exposure of ground troops to fire of well-dug in Hezbollah fighters) will be far more dangerous for Israel in the long-term because it will likely destabilize the pro-western Lebanese government and will breed further hate against the presence of the "Zionist Entity". More irony exists in that Israel is now, and has been for quite some time, one of the biggest murderers and torturers of civilians in the world, this coming from a state that was formed partially as result of torture and murder that the Jewish people suffered during the Nazi era.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
Dirk,.
Well, I hope you are right about the inevitability of a republican meltdown in the midterms, though I would caution that american public sentiment can change on a dime. Be assured that Rove, Cheney and the rest will leave no stone unturned in their drive to secure Congress for the remainder of Bush's time in office. Co opting the Democrats by using Israel as their surrogate is made to order. While the democrats are ordinarily pathetic in their attempts to point out republican hypocrisy, the republicans are masters in that area. In fact, the Bush administration is practically fiendish in their manipulative abilities. Keep your fingers crossed that the American public won't get fooled again.
Dogg
Rock Harders
07-30-06, 22:20
Dogg-
You are correct in that the American public sentiment is variable and I will add that the American voters are dumber than dirt. However, there are several insurmountable factors, none of which has to do with the current Israeli offensive, that will sink the War Criminals.
1. $3/ gallon gas prices.
2. A total and complete quagmire in Iraq.
3. The complete failure to manage the prelude and aftermath of Katrina.
4. Various charges of illegal activity (Delay, Frist, Rove, Bush himself)
These issues are in the news on a daily basis and I would stretch to guess that almost every voter has at least heard of these issues. All the Anti-Republicans need to do is make a series of attack ads, playing on a rotating basis, that remind the voters over and over again how the current administration has failed them on these issues. Its pretty simple, a picture of the price board at a gas station, footage of violence in Iraq, pictures of devastated New Orleans, and Tom Delays mugshot. As long as the democrats keep playing these ads over and over and reminding the voters of the reality, no lies the War Criminals can construct will save them from defeat in November and hopefully a series of investigations and in a perfect world a one way ticket to The Hague to pay for their crimes.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
Dirk,
Keep the faith and savor that absentee ballot.:)
Punter 127
07-31-06, 14:19
Dogg-
You are correct in that the American public sentiment is variable and I will add that the American voters are dumber than dirt. However, there are several insurmountable factors, none of which has to do with the current Israeli offensive, that will sink the War Criminals.
1. $3/ gallon gas prices.
2. A total and complete quagmire in Iraq.
3. The complete failure to manage the prelude and aftermath of Katrina.
4. Various charges of illegal activity (Delay, Frist, Rove, Bush himself)
These issues are in the news on a daily basis and I would stretch to guess that almost every voter has at least heard of these issues. All the Anti-Republicans need to do is make a series of attack ads, playing on a rotating basis, that remind the voters over and over again how the current administration has failed them on these issues. Its pretty simple, a picture of the price board at a gas station, footage of violence in Iraq, pictures of devastated New Orleans, and Tom Delays mugshot. As long as the democrats keep playing these ads over and over and reminding the voters of the reality, no lies the War Criminals can construct will save them from defeat in November and hopefully a series of investigations and in a perfect world a one way ticket to The Hague to pay for their crimes.
Suerte,
Dirk DigglerThat would be the typical Democrat campaign philosophy, they have tried this type of campaign in the past and it hasn't worked. If the Dems want to win they have got to stop pointing fingers, and tell the American people how they are going to solve the problems. How we got to this point is not nearly as important as the direction we will take now. The past is history, the future is what counts!
What are the Dems going to due about "$3/ gallon gas prices."? Add more taxes?
What's the answer to "A total and complete quagmire in Iraq." Cut and run?
You also made some pretty strong comments about Israel, do you thing the Dems will abandon Israel? Not likely. You make it sound like the Hezbollah fighters are the good guys.
You point to "The complete failure to manage the prelude and aftermath of Katrina." Seems you put all the blame on the federal government, the truth is it doesn't matter who was in control, the federal government never has and never will be able to respond well to this kind of emergency. What about local government, the governor is stupid, and the mayor of New Orleans is a total idiot! What did they do to help there own people? What action did they take other than B*tch about the federal government? All of which will have very little effect on the upcoming elections, many of the people who were hurt by Katrina were already in the Democrat camp.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, let me say I am NOT a Republican. I think all politicians are "greed-driven" and I would add power hungry, both of the major parties are made up people who want to control the American people in one way or another.
I'm a swing voter with a libertarian foundation, I can't just blindly go along with everything any party says, like so many people do. I vote for people who I think will be the least invasive on my person rights, along with an eye on the well being of America.
I'm on the ground in the heartland of America and I can tell you the number one concern of the average American is security, they are scared, and it doesn't matter if their fears are justified, they think the Dems are weak in this area. I also know that some people refer to this part of America as "flyover country" and that everybody who lives here is "trailer trash" and should not be allowed to vote. However I do not live in a trailer and I do get to vote, like it or not. Most of the Democrat support comes from the crazies that control California, and the better than everybody else bunch in NYC and the upper east coast, oh lets not forget the lets just pass another stupid law guys in Chicago, you know, the we know what's best for you people, sorry but that's not enough to win.
Dirk, I'm not trying to start a flame war with you, as a matter a fact, I would be happy to buy you a beer next time I'm in BsAs, and debate a few issues. I just think you like so many Dems and Reps have your personal desires :confused: confused with reality.
I'm on the ground in the heartland of America and nobody really is scared of terrorist attacks around here.
If they are afraid, it's the fear losing their business because of the cost of gas. Or of losing their house because of huge interest rate increases on variable rate mortgages. Or of losing their friends when their friends that signed up for one weekend a month and two weeks a year get called up for 18 months to fight in a hopeless war that appears to have nothing do do with us. Or of being in the "Land of Lincoln" where there's no chance a Democrat is going to get elected and therefore no chance that anything is going to change. But mostly I think the biggest fear is that they are starting to lose hope about the future and they know that America is a country built on hope.
The folks here elected George Bush because they believed he was a good man that would be faithful to "log cabin" Republican ideals. They now see he has betrayed those ideals but they don't really know what to do about it. But I don't see any sign that they think the answer is to elect a Democrat.
Easy Go,
Wonderful post IMHO, and your take on the sentiments of much of the voting public is what scares me. They are still looking for a reason to believe in the republicans, and will vote for the democrats holding their noses. AND, if Hillary runs, they would probably vote for the Bin Laden / Fidel ticket.
Rock Harders
07-31-06, 19:06
Punter127-
Although you claim to not be a republican (just like Bill O'Reilly claims) your statements sound just like republican campaign rhetoric.
1. "Cut and Run"
What would you suggest the US do at this moment, keep upwards of 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq to get blown up for absolutely no reason? There is absolutely no way the US or anybody else for that matter can succeed in Iraq, we've been there for almost 3 1/2 years, and the security situation deteriorates on a daily basis, nothing has improved that matters, and the absolute CORRUPTION involved with the midhandling of war funds is truly astounding. There are billions of dollars of taxpayer money unaccounted for that were earmarked for improving Iraq.
2. Gas Prices- "More Taxes"
Bush should never have made that taxcut, which benefited the top 1% of earner much more than anybody else. When Bush initially came into office, there was a very large SURPLUS, look where we are at now, a ridiculously high deficit and a very weak dollar.
The person at fault for $3/ gallon gas prices may never be found, but a few things are for sure. Bush and his administration ARE in bed with the oil companies, and see their family and friend benefit from the sky high oil and gas prices. The oil companies turned a record $6 billion profit last year, and of course Bush did nothing to force the oil companies to provide price relief or at least put a significant amount back in R and D.
3. Katrina mismanagement.
I cannot remember the name of the no talent ass clown / Bush crony that was serving as head of FEMA, but it was clear to all that he was overwhelmed and had no idea what he was doing, clearly incompetent and not qualified for the job by a long shot. If the Bush Administration did not piss all the resources away on the useless Iraq war, there would have been some money in the budget to finish the levies, along with more national guard and army reserve troops to help rescue people, which is there normal job, not deploying in Iraq for years at a time.
4. Israel.
The point about Israel is that they are at least as ruthless and murderous as their enemies (hezbollah and hamas) How would you like it if the Mexican government bombed Washington, DC or New York back to the stone age because members of the "MinuteMen" deployed along the border started firing RPG's and artillery into Ciudad Juarez or Tijuana? Technically, it is the duty of the US to control the entirety of its territory, but do you think the residens of DC or NYC deserved to have their lives destroyed for the actions of the crazed "minutemen".
5. Conclusion.
The key word here is MISMANAGEMENT. Every endeavour the War Criminals have undertaken, they have mismanaged one way or enough either through their own greed, incompetence, neoconservative principles.
Suerte,
Dirk Diggler
I agree with Punter that all politicians in this country are scum, only at this point in time in history the Republicans are more scum. In the 60's / early 70's it was the Democrats.
I am not in heartland and from where I am people are worried about the national debt and the economy and to a lessor extent-global warming. The only time they become fearful about terrorists is when the administration starts using it as a way to drum up fear in the masses, like with the terror alerts around the elections, etc. At that point they become afraid.
Being a recovering Republican and now a democrat, I think the democrats are about the stupidest and most self-centered bunch of losers. The country is possibly in worst shape it has been, ever (the debt doubled since Bush has been in office) the economy good for corporate America but bad for the citizens (salaries have no where near kept up with inflation or corporate profits) It should be easy for the Dems win but they can't get their head out of their ass.
Hilary will run for President even though she has absolutely no chance of winning (Lieberman also) yet they will try just to satisfy their own egos rather than help the party by helping another democrat that may actually have a chance to win (of course that is assuming there is any Demo that is electable)
Perhaps we need a revolution to tear it all down and start over. That would give us about 200 years until we get tired of this crap and do it all again!
JMO.
Suerte,
Stowe
PS. I plan to vote with the feet soon. Of course, my dollars will stay here so from a selfish perspective, I need the economy to continue to be stable (even if it is propped up on ever-growing debt) until I am gone.
Punter 127
08-01-06, 18:16
Stowe got my point, Dirk missed it, both parties suck. I was a registered Democrat for years, until the party moved so far left that I just couldn't take it anymore. I couldn't find what I was looking for in the Republican party either, so I'm a registered Independent, and I don't vote in primary elections because my home state requires you to declare a party.
Dirk's reply was a typical true blue Democrat response, more Bush bashing, but no solutions, other than vote for a Democrat, and the Robin Hood thing, take from the rich and give to the poor, could have been written by Jack Cafferty.
1. Cut and Run:
Is Bush a war monger, sure he is, but war's not limited to Republicans FDR, Truman, and LBJ all got us into wars against countries that didn't directly attack the USA. Truman even used the big bombs to end the war with Japan, later he got us into the Korean War. LBJ got us in a war that was so hated that guys left the country to keep from being drafted. Ike got us out of Korea, and left us with the current situation to deal with. Nixon pulled us out of Viet Nam and let that country fall. So I can point a finger at both parties when it comes to war. I'm not saying we shouldn't have been in some of those wars, just that war is not limited to the Republicans, and in the past cut and run for the most part has left us with bigger problems to deal with. No elect-able Democrat is going to walk away from the mid-east. Why because they have oil and we want it, and like it or not, America will fight for it!
2. Gas Prices- "More Taxes"
Sure Bush is in bed with the oil companies and other big business, no news here, but I remember when OPEC was holding the gun to our heads. Jimmy Carter went on TV and told us the world was running out of oil, and to set our thermostats at 68 and put on a sweater if we were cold. Then he got the windfall profit tax passed, which said to me, it's ok to rape the American people but we want our cut, it didn't do a thing to help the people. Once they got the price up we had plenty of oil. Oil prices were a canard then and they are a canard now, but not limited to one party.
3. Katrina mismanagement.
I've heard FMMA criticized for years for poor response, it's a government agency and I can't think of any government agency that's run efficiently. Katrina was the biggest natural disaster I can remember in this country and FMMA responded poorly, but it would have responded poorly no matter who was in power. If you look for the government to take care of you, you may as well kiss your ass good bye. The Democrat party does seem to have a lot of people who expect the government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. Katrina and FMMA will have little or no effect on the elections.
4. Israel.
Israel has taken a lot of shit from Hezbollah and for a long time. Hezbollah is not a bunch of choir boys, they are supported by Iran which has openly stated they want to destroy Israel, and you can bet when they look at Israel they see America. Hezbollah has wanted war for long time, well they got it. Do you understand that they hate Israel and America, and they want to kill us all? Doesn't matter why they want to kill us, the point is they do! What part of dead don't you understand?
If a Republican stood up and said the things Dirk said about Israel, the Democrats would be calling him bigot, raciest, and Nazi. Dirk, are you anti-Jew? Are you telling us you support Hezbollah? I sure haven't heard you knock Hezbollah at all.
America will back Israel at all cost, no matter who is in power.
5. Conclusion.
I don't see "MISMANAGEMENT" as being limited to any one party. If the Democrats want to win, they better move to the center and come up with some solutions, or at least a plan, Bush bashing will only firm up the base, it won't pull in the swing voters. You can bet your ass the Republican are going to do what ever it takes to bring the fear factor to the surface, I wouldn't put anything past them, they will play it for all it's worth, and that's going to be hard to overcome.
I don't see either party as being god sent, the Religious right, the Patriot Act, Political correctness, trying to change the intent of the constitution, and self-centered egos, all turn my stomach. I hold my nose every time I vote, they all stink, for me it's just a matter of the lesser of the two evils.:(
Hey, if you want to vote for a moderate democrat vote for Hillary! She's tap dancing towards the middle as fast as her little feet can take her. For all my "leftist polemics", I would vote for Chuck Hagel (Republican-Nebraska) if the election were held today. Of course he's probably just staking out ground to the slight left of whoever the right wing evangelicals in the republican party come up with. And then you have McCain, who has over the past year plus, made the transition from populist firebrand to Bush / Falwell ass kissing whoare. "Whatever it takes" is the mantra.
Eisenhower and the Republicans started Vietnam after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, and Japan attacked US territory. Now whether Hawaii ever should have been US territory is another question.
How long could Israel have been taking shit if they aren't even 60 years old as a country? Answer: almost 60 years but then Israel was a spectacularly bad idea in the first place. That conflict is thousands of years old and idiot Bush thinks he has a solution? Please. Just get the fuck out and stay the fuck out and don't start any more wars in the jungle or in the desert. If you're going to start a war, start it some place with better weather, like maybe the Cayman Islands. Or the French Riviera.
I hate this war so much I left the country and I wasn't even in danger of being drafted.
"America will back Israel at all cost." I'm sure you're right, but is that smart? Do we buy pussy no matter what the cost? It's like investing in the stock of a well-run company with a PE ratio of 500, if you ask me.
Do we buy pussy no matter what the cost?Ultimately, yes.
I recommend visiting these two sites every day to really get an education:
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
N. B. There is no pussy on these sites.
While two obviously biased and interconnected Libertarian websites may be an easy read, they certainly don't represent a "real education." A real education involves a balanced presentation and facilitated interactive study of the major thinkers in philosophy, history, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology, and literature (among other worthy disciplines). Granted, it's "expensive" but rule by narrowly educated auto-didacts (such as Hitler, Stroessner, Castro, Bush, etc.) is a lot more expensive. I would quote my friend Tom Sutherland, a Scot who taught in the US for years, but is more famous for having been held hostage in Lebanon for over six fucking years:
"Education doesn't cost; it just pays and pays and pays." But the current US administration wouldn't know fuck-all about that; they would rather put public funds into drilling for oil or creating a system of parochialized primary education than fund higher education.
Most so-called philosophers and great thinkers are tackling the problem of how to get government to work and do good, in spite of its awful track record over the centuries. There's nothing "biased" about love of liberty and free markets. It's the most natural thing in the world, really.
Here's my platform for the next election. It should appeal to the average American voter.
1) The world, clearly, is not round; it is flat. The proof is that if the world were round, all the Chinese would fall off.
2) Evolution is not a fact but a nice bed-time story.
3) Extracting oil and refining it into petroleum products rejuvenates the environment. The proof is all these empty plastic water bottles that we never saw fifteen years ago. Now that's progress.
4) English-only policies will be adopted everywhere. No other languages will be allowed. God only knows what fate would have befallen America had it admitted people who didn't speak English when they arrived, but America certainly would not have won two world wars, the Vietnam war, and the conflict in Iraq if a bunch of foreigners had been mucking about.
5) Anybody who thinks we aren't winning the conflict in Iraq hasn't been there. I haven't either but I know a bunch of tough, well-trained, English speaking troops are no match for a bunch of Muslims with primitive weapons. Or did I mean that the other way around? I forget.
6) Every God fearing American must attend the church of his choice (not his or her choice; it's a MAN'S decision) every week. This in no way conflicts with the disestablishment clause of the Constitution, since any word with more than seven letters should be unconstitutional anyway.
7) Any American who does not fear God is probably a pussy, a Jew, a Communist, or an atheist anyway so they will all be deported to Argentina where they will lose their souls to prostitution.
8) I promise that if oil prices continue to rise, I will give each and every registered voter five gallons of gasoline.
"Most so-called philosophers and great thinkers are tackling the problem of how to get government to work and do good"
So which one of the two web sites did you read that on?
It was either the first, or else it was the second.
Punter 127
08-02-06, 10:20
Eisenhower and the Republicans started Vietnam after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu, and Japan attacked US territory. Now whether Hawaii ever should have been US territory is another question.
How long could Israel have been taking shit if they aren't even 60 years old as a country? Answer: almost 60 years but then Israel was a spectacularly bad idea in the first place. That conflict is thousands of years old and idiot Bush thinks he has a solution? Please. Just get the fuck out and stay the fuck out and don't start any more wars in the jungle or in the desert. If you're going to start a war, start it some place with better weather, like maybe the Cayman Islands. Or the French Riviera.
I hate this war so much I left the country and I wasn't even in danger of being drafted.
"America will back Israel at all cost." I'm sure you're right, but is that smart? Do we buy pussy no matter what the cost? It's like investing in the stock of a well-run company with a PE ratio of 500, if you ask me.Come on DH, the United States sent a few hundred advisors, and was informally allied with South Vietnam under Eisenhower. JFK sent more advisors, but the war started with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, when LBJ intentionally provoked a reaction from the North Vietnamese. The U. S. Senate approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August 1964, that was the start of the war, and LBJ escalated it big time. "On March 8, 1965, 3,500 United States Marines became the first US combat troops to land in South Vietnam."
JFK and LBJ had every opportunity cut and run, before the war started. Saying Eisenhower started the Vietnam war is like saying Clinton started the Iraq war, after all he launched some cruise missile at them in 1998.
On to Japan, I did not mean to imply that Japan did not attack us, of course they did. My only reason for mentioning Japan was to point out that Truman was the first to use shall we say WMD, which by the way saved a lot of American lives. FDR was in power when we declared war against Japan, and under FDR we also declared war on Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, other than Japan, I can't find were these countries directly attack us, but your history book seem to be different than mine. Don't get me wrong this was the right thing to do, and I'm not knocking our involvement in WW II. In my previous post I was trying to point out that going to war is not limited to Republicans, both parties have take us to war, and in my opinion it hasn't always be justifiable.
As far Israel I agree it was a bad idea, but it is what it is. And who said anything about it being smart. 60 years is a long time when you are living under constant threat of terrorist attacks.
BTW: I hate the war also, I'm just not convince that the best course of action at this point is "just get out." It may well be, but I'm concernd about what will happen down the road, will we end up fighting them a 3rd fucking time? And I don't think the US government is going to do that anyway, at least not at this point.
Agree that JFK and LBJ escalated Vietnam and am well aware the US declared WWII on countries that didn't attack the US. I mean, Germany didn't attack the US either. Maybe poison gas in WWI is a better example of the first WMD.
If the US cuts and runs in Iraq why the hell would they end up fighting them a third time? Who even gives a shit about what happens over there? The underlying problem from a US perspective is their dependence on petroleum, so that is the thing to work on, and not by drilling for more of it.
And for HG, I never said there was anything unnatural about bias. Bias is natural so one must work to overcome it, and it can never be totally overcome. But in the process of working to overcome it, one can learn to think critically.
DH,
I'm sure we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I imagine I'm further down the road to realizing how the the very idea of government is bad in of itself, whereas you (like many, many other people) are still clinging to the idea that government can do good things, if only the right people with the right ideas were in charge. And yes, I'm totally reading between the lines of your posts and inferring things and putting words in your mouth, so just correct me if I'm wrong.
For sure, though, you cannot beat me in a game of chess.
HG
I would like to hear more about which road you are further down, how "government is bad in of self" and of course your prowess in chess. I wait expectantly by my keyboard. Please fucking help me.
DH, I'm sure we agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I imagine I'm further down the road to realizing how the the very idea of government is bad in of itself, whereas you (like many, many other people) are still clinging to the idea that government can do good things, if only the right people with the right ideas were in charge. And yes, I'm totally reading between the lines of your posts and inferring things and putting words in your mouth, so just correct me if I'm wrong.
For sure, though, you cannot beat me in a game of chess.
HG
I believe that the government which governs least, governs best. I also believe the true measure of any society is how it treats its weaker members. I further believe that in class-stratified societies, people are born with unequal opportunity sets. And, even in non-stratified societies, intelligence is distributed unequally (bell curve). Intelligence affects talents. That's the root of stratification in the first place; to the victors go the spoils.
So I think that sound government seeks to mitigate some of this, although I don't believe inequality can ever be eliminated. It could be mitigated by other institutions, such as religious or charitable institutions, but it isn't. I'm a capitalist, so I want to eliminate this inequality for purely selfish reasons: reducing it creates a higher percentage of productive citizens in the long run.
Of course as John Maynard Keynes noted, "in the long run everybody is dead."
I haven't played chess in a long time. The last time was in this market in the Andes in Perú where this guy was selling life-size chess pieces. Well, almost life-sized; Peruvians are pretty short. All the people on the tour bus were cheering for me and all the people in the market place were cheering for him. I did beat him. I'd like to start playing chess again but I have to finish teaching Rosie how to play cribbage first. Plus it would cut into my time to play computerized baseball.
I would like to hear more about which road you are further down, how "government is bad in of self"I would refer you to those two sites I mentioned, simply because people who have a lot more time than me (ok, maybe some of them are smarter, too) have graciously written volumes on the subject.
and of course your prowess in chess. I was pretty good when I was young, beat a master in a tournament once, but then hit puberty and got interested in girls instead.
I wait expectantly by my keyboard. Please fucking help me.You know if you haunt this board you are beyond help.
HG,
Let me explain my ire re the Libertarians. Over the years it appears that they have become more cultish and insular, with little real regard for the realities of governing, politics and the like. Libertarians strike me as out to lunch sophists, who revel in their ability to have all the answers to all the tough questions, and will let you know of this with their beatific smiles, patronizing manner, and empty platitudes. They ignore the frailties and imperfections of human nature, and announce,"It doesn't have to be this way". Yes, well unfortunately, it does have to be this way and will continue to be this way. At this point Libertarianism has become more a fashionable "philosopy" than anything else. They have about as much to contribute to a meaningful discussion on how to make progress in the world as scientologists. Maybe they can come up with their own L. Ron Hubbard and at least make some real money while they are whiling away their time in their placid ivory towers.
All IMHO.:)
Why are you people encouraging this clown? Did you learn nothing from our earlier adventures with trolls? Anybody that doesn't believe in government is so far removed from reality that their opinions are completely irrelevant.
As far as chess goes, just take a quick look at the world champions to see the relationship between the real world insight and chess prowess.
He's a troll. Ignore him.
War costs accelerating.
In spite of all the hype about controlling the insurgency, violence is increasing. Iraq can't stand up, so we can't stand down. We're trapped in a no-win, no-exit conflict, policing a civil war. And unfortunately America's domestic partisan politics is creating inflexible strategies that are draining huge resources: The Iraq and Afghan wars are now estimated to top $1.27 trillion amid mounting Middle East tensions and rising domestic terror threats, while a depleted military is unprepared for another major war.What's so hard about packing your shit and getting the fuck out? I've done it many times. It has always worked for me. Whatever problems might get worse because of the departure get settled in the long run. Let the problem become Iran's mess to deal with. The bigger issue for the administration is explaining what was "accomplished" if we get out now. Most of the military realize it's a no win situation at this point. IMHO.
In the words of the immortal Bart Simpson " HA HA "
The US can not and will not ever control the " insurgency ".
It needs to admit defeat, tuck its tail neatly between it's legs, ala vietnam, and leave, something they won't do until another 2000 US marines die, another 100,000 Iraqi's die, and another 1 trillion goes nicely into the coffers of the chinese government. Who do you think is paying those first trillion?
All in all, if the US doesn't stop waving the flag around the world, we are going down hill from here on out. It is the law of the universe everything has a limit, including US empire, and we are reaching that point soon. I believe that if you live by the sword it is only natural that you will one day be finished off by that same sword.
Iraq CAN stand up, it is the US imposed government that can't stand up because we are "propping" it up. You can't have a democratically elected government in a country under military occupation. Can you?
My vote is for peace, an end to war and an end to arrogance, but as long as their is aggression there will allways be a resistance to that aggression, It is a fundamental rule of physics.
War costs accelerating.
In spite of all the hype about controlling the insurgency, violence is increasing. Iraq can't stand up, so we can't stand down. We're trapped in a no-win, no-exit conflict, policing a civil war. And unfortunately America's domestic partisan politics is creating inflexible strategies that are draining huge resources: The Iraq and Afghan wars are now estimated to top $1.27 trillion amid mounting Middle East tensions and rising domestic terror threats, while a depleted military is unprepared for another major war.
Was there ever a national enterprise more Sisyphean than the war in Iraq?As mindnumbingly misdirected and wasteful as it is, this bears remembering:
Vietnam War dead:
USA-58,000
South Vietnamese military-230,000
Vietnamese civilians-2-4 million (McNamera estimated 3.2 million) and,
Reportedly 40,000 civilians killed or wounded since combat ended by unexploded ordnance.
Whatever happened to that "Domino Theory" business?
Dogg
would agree with that comment only in the sense that the task seems to go nowhere, but in the sense that it is meaningless, I would disagree.
There are very good reasons why we are there and don't want to leave just yet. It would be nice to believe that we are staying just because we don't want to admit defeat but the truth is never that simple.
I would refer to the following comments that I didn't write,
Full-spectrum dominance is the proposed ability of United States armed forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations. To achieve this dominance, the U. S. would have to invest in and develop new military capabilities, namely dominant maneuvers, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection.
The term was defined in the Joint Vision 2020 of the Department of Defense.
Harold Pinter referenced the term in his 2005 Nobel Prize Lecture:
"I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources."
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2000/n06022000_20006025.html
So I guess this is the " Project for the new american century", sounds like alot of fun. Iran seems the next target and then Syria and then who knows. I wonder whats up with all the foreplay, why don't we just knuckle up, ball up and go head up with China and Russia?
If the Iraqi resistance is doing this to our "superior" war machine, I can just imagine what a real military could do. I think we should just stick to punking the little guys. Hey I know, why don't we invade Grenada again.
Laughing my ass off because ignorance is bliss,
The Bad One.
Badboy,
Nice links to the Neo-con's grandiose database. Our "good fortune" is that some of the administration's neo con advisors are slightly out of favor, with Condi's star on the rise. Not that she is too far away from their paranoid, meglomaniacal mindset. You know you are in the shit when Condi Rice is your big hope for turning things around a little. Colin Powell was the voice of reason, but he will live in infamy as the "house nigger" that the neo cons sent to the United Nations with a fistful of bogus info detailing Iraq's WMDs. IMHO.
Dogg
StrayLight
08-25-06, 10:50
If the Iraqi resistance is doing this to our "superior" war machine, I can just imagine what a real military could do. Actually, there's not a "real" military on the planet Earth that can even hope to stand up to the American war machine. Not one, and not even several operating as a coalition.
Unfortunately, though, the American war machine is optimized to fight similar war machines on classic battlefields. The events in Iraq have shown its tremendous weakness in dealing with situations that are less than actual war. This lesson has not been lost on countries like Iran, North Korea, China, etc. And we will probably never have the good luck of meeting a classic war machine on a classic battlefield ever again.
Think of the Martians in "War of the Worlds," beating the Earth militarily, but then getting defeated by common cold germs. It's pretty much the same thing.
SL
I respect your opinion Stray, but such a blanket statement like that demands closer inspection.
It depends first what you consider a real military, if by real military you mean only actual real soldiers, China has the worlds largest standing army.
If you include Power Projection (political science term) or Force Projection (military term) then you come up with the same top four, though their order differs: the US, China, UK and Russia. Though at the moment the US is extremely worried about China's increasing force projection in the Pacific. So even though the US is ahead only because of superior military spending, China isn't that far behind.
If you include nuclear capability you have to look at the M. A. D doctrine, I hope you are familiar with it because that is what has kept everyones finger off the nuclear button all these years, and that would make Russia our military equal.
For those that don't know M. A. D stands for Mutual Assured Destruction meaning the russians and americans have an equal amount of nuclear weapons and both use the same nuclear "triad" meaning ICBM's, nuclear subs, and Bombers. So no attack could ever fully destroy the others nuclear capability and as such, in the event of a nuclear confrontation, both would face M. A. D. Both governments know this and that is why we play nice.
If you are talking about the most technologically advanced military because of the highest amount of government spending on defense, an argument could be made that the U. S, at the moment, has that distinction. With that said, the Russians are at this moment starting to increase the amount of money spent on research and development with help and funding from India and China. If they are behind the U. S on anything it is by a few years only, And as I recall wasn't Rumsfeld crying to China a few months ago about their increased military spending. Maybe he isn't quite as sure as you are.
There was a time when the Egyptians held the title and then came the Romans and then the Mongols and then the Ottomans and later the Spanish and then the British, and who beat the british? How did they beat them?
The US colonists did. Did they do it fighting by the " rules "? No, they fought and won using gorilla tactics they learned from the native americans.
That lesson was learned a long time ago, if there are two lines of opposing fighters and they are just shooting at each other point blank, the side with more soldiers alive at the end wins, now what kind of military genius thought that strategy up, well whoever he was, the US colonists didn't listen to that guy. They used age old gorilla tactics and won against " the strongest " real" military on the planet".
Over the ages many governments have told their citizenry they had the worlds most powerful war machine on the planet and no one, save the invading martian hordes, could ever hold a candle to them.
Well Napoleon quickly learned that it's easier said than done, if you attack a comparable opponent on their own ground chances are that crowning yourself the world strongest, most invincible super power means f*** all on the battlefield.
And I think Nazi Germany also made that claim, and most of Europe, that was cowering in fear at the time, believed it, and their actions proved it in most cases. And in the end who defeated the Nazi's? That could be debated, but what is not debated is their greatest military mistake was Operation Barbarossa, Most scholars agree that, if not for that, they would have easily won the war. So in the end it could be said they defeated themselves.
If you include troop moral, home advantage, and ones willingness to give ones life for a cause, I think that changes alot of things.
There is a famous written dialog between Nixon and Ho chi minh that HAS been illustrated in Iraq and Lebanon.
Nixon asks Ho: why? (referring to the continued resistance)
Ho reply's: You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."
This is a Quote from President Kennedy (1963) about why America should continue to fight in Vietnam, now someone tell me if it isn't word for word verbatim what we hear about Iraq.
"we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
My point is two fold. First, the lessons of Iraq aren't lessons at all, well maybe only for those that don't know history. Just to go over a few examples, the British Empire fighting US colonists, the Original Sandinista revolution that expelled US marines during the 1920's and 30's, then you have Vietnam. And of course you can't forget the Soviet Unions' ill fated occupation of Afghanistan. Isn't there a saying about those that don't learn from history are doomed to ****** it.
Second, maybe it helps some to think the US is omnipotent, but history tells a different story. All great powers come to an end. Military planners aren't quite as sure as you are and their scholarship makes that very clear. They know a full scale war against a comparable opponent would only result in severe mutual civilian and structural damage at best, that is why war by proxy was invented. The US knows who they can mess with and who they most certainly can't mess with. It is no silly coincidence the US has never gone to war with China or Russia directly, but they HAVE invaded Cuba, Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, just about every central american nation, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Hawaii, Haiti and so on.
Again, I respect your quote, but I find the reasoning flawed.
Badboy.
Actually, there's not a "real" military on the planet Earth that can even hope to stand up to the American war machine. Not one, and not even several operating as a coalition.
Unfortunately, though, the American war machine is optimized to fight similar war machines on classic battlefields. The events in Iraq have shown its tremendous weakness in dealing with situations that are less than actual war. This lesson has not been lost on countries like Iran, North Korea, China, etc. And we will probably never have the good luck of meeting a classic war machine on a classic battlefield ever again.
Think of the Martians in "War of the Worlds," beating the Earth militarily, but then getting defeated by common cold germs. It's pretty much the same thing.
SL
StrayLight
08-29-06, 14:24
I respect your opinion Stray, but such a blanket statement like that demands closer inspection.
It depends first what you consider a real military, if by real military you mean only actual real soldiers, China has the worlds largest standing army.
If you include Power Projection (political science term) or Force Projection (military term) then you come up with the same top four, though their order differs: the US, China, UK and Russia. Though at the moment the US is extremely worried about China's increasing force projection in the Pacific. So even though the US is ahead only because of superior military spending, China isn't that far behind.
If you include nuclear capability you have to look at the M. A. D doctrine, I hope you are familiar with it because that is what has kept everyones finger off the nuclear button all these years, and that would make Russia our military equal.
For those that don't know M. A. D stands for Mutual Assured Destruction meaning the russians and americans have an equal amount of nuclear weapons and both use the same nuclear "triad" meaning ICBM's, nuclear subs, and Bombers. So no attack could ever fully destroy the others nuclear capability and as such, in the event of a nuclear confrontation, both would face M. A. D. Both governments know this and that is why we play nice.
If you are talking about the most technologically advanced military because of the highest amount of government spending on defense, an argument could be made that the U. S, at the moment, has that distinction. With that said, the Russians are at this moment starting to increase the amount of money spent on research and development with help and funding from India and China. If they are behind the U. S on anything it is by a few years only, And as I recall wasn't Rumsfeld crying to China a few months ago about their increased military spending. Maybe he isn't quite as sure as you are.
There was a time when the Egyptians held the title and then came the Romans and then the Mongols and then the Ottomans and later the Spanish and then the British, and who beat the british? How did they beat them?
The US colonists did. Did they do it fighting by the " rules "? No, they fought and won using gorilla tactics they learned from the native americans.
That lesson was learned a long time ago, if there are two lines of opposing fighters and they are just shooting at each other point blank, the side with more soldiers alive at the end wins, now what kind of military genius thought that strategy up, well whoever he was, the US colonists didn't listen to that guy. They used age old gorilla tactics and won against " the strongest " real" military on the planet".
Over the ages many governments have told their citizenry they had the worlds most powerful war machine on the planet and no one, save the invading martian hordes, could ever hold a candle to them.
Well Napoleon quickly learned that it's easier said than done, if you attack a comparable opponent on their own ground chances are that crowning yourself the world strongest, most invincible super power means f*** all on the battlefield.
And I think Nazi Germany also made that claim, and most of Europe, that was cowering in fear at the time, believed it, and their actions proved it in most cases. And in the end who defeated the Nazi's? That could be debated, but what is not debated is their greatest military mistake was Operation Barbarossa, Most scholars agree that, if not for that, they would have easily won the war. So in the end it could be said they defeated themselves.
If you include troop moral, home advantage, and ones willingness to give ones life for a cause, I think that changes alot of things.
There is a famous written dialog between Nixon and Ho chi minh that HAS been illustrated in Iraq and Lebanon.
Nixon asks Ho: why? (referring to the continued resistance)
Ho reply's: You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win."
This is a Quote from President Kennedy (1963) about why America should continue to fight in Vietnam, now someone tell me if it isn't word for word verbatim what we hear about Iraq.
"we want to see a stable government there, carrying on a struggle to maintain its national independence. We believe strongly in that. We are not going to withdraw from that effort. In my opinion, for us to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam, but Southeast Asia. So we are going to stay there."
My point is two fold. First, the lessons of Iraq aren't lessons at all, well maybe only for those that don't know history. Just to go over a few examples, the British Empire fighting US colonists, the Original Sandinista revolution that expelled US marines during the 1920's and 30's, then you have Vietnam. And of course you can't forget the Soviet Unions' ill fated occupation of Afghanistan. Isn't there a saying about those that don't learn from history are doomed to ****** it.
Second, maybe it helps some to think the US is omnipotent, but history tells a different story. All great powers come to an end. Military planners aren't quite as sure as you are and their scholarship makes that very clear. They know a full scale war against a comparable opponent would only result in severe mutual civilian and structural damage at best, that is why war by proxy was invented. The US knows who they can mess with and who they most certainly can't mess with. It is no silly coincidence the US has never gone to war with China or Russia directly, but they HAVE invaded Cuba, Panama, Granada, Nicaragua, just about every central american nation, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Hawaii, Haiti and so on.
Again, I respect your quote, but I find the reasoning flawed.
Badboy.Noted.
SL
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.