I have always wondered why there isn't open debate about the inadequacy of the United States government and how dangerous it has become to everyone in the world. I have come to a conclusion:
Democracy has evolved into the greatest weapon against free thought known to mankind. It is currently the status quo on all things fair and equal all over the planet, and yet now its truest weakness is beginning to show. The United States, the self proclaimed nearest-to-perfect democracy, has REelected officials who act to the detriment of society.
This fact alone threatens not only the idea of 'democracy,' but also of the human race's confidence in their judgment and minds. Because of this, we must continue to reinforce the idea that whoever we vote into office can do no absolute wrong, and in that, we've established a totalitarian control on our own ability to think.
Any 'thoughts'?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 3:27
the frustration with democracy informed fascist and communist thought nearly a century ago. Thinking strictly about political systems, I'm at a loss for what system could perform better. (pre-empt: 'good socialist' states have democratic characteristics, and even the US, a republic in strict terms, operates on democratic principles. a political word or concept is not coterminous with how things are done in any one country. Everybody already knows that. Don't any of you even bother pointing it out.)
But this is to compare political systems with political systems. What really has to happen is a comparison between political systems and other components of culture-technology, religion, etc. YES, democracy is better than the following: fascism, communism, absolute monarchy, etc. YES, the principal danger of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. Formulate a better polity that can be implemented, and we'll talk.
I would say that America inherited an excellent political system. To answer your question, it's more comfortable to repair to the good than to weigh the bad. That said, I propose to LEARN FROM HISTORY: to wit: do not be scared off from democracy just because apeface is in. That way lies damnation.
As for the rest of your post, I think all you're doing is inserting Bush and unyielding Bush supporters as a greater cultural problem.
>>1
There actually is open discussion, though not in the mainstream media conglomerates, obviously.
What the elite intellectual classes, the media and the politicans do is to sculpt the acceptable limits of the debate. They'll tolerate controlled dissent -- this far and no further. On the Iraq war, you can criticize how the home team's doing, but point out the fact that the war is illegal and de facto a war crime, that's not allowed. Never mention the White House connected companies like Bechtel and Halliburton that are profitting from this war. Military-industrial complex, anyone?
If you want to understand propaganda, read up on Edward Bernays, called "the father of the Public Relations" and influenced by Freud and Pavlov. Read Chomsky/Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" (or watch the documentary). Read Orwell's "1984."
*sigh* It's not a war crime. The UN had passed a charter that gave many states authority to go in and take out saddam. Even sarajevo had that authority if they wanted to do it.
It's not illegal, at least not by UN definitions.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-20 22:09
>>9
You need to learn more about leftist thought. If someone takes out a dictator they don't like, it's a justified police action. If someone takes out a dictator they like, it's a war crime. If a left-leaning president authorizes an intelligence program, it's necessary to protect Americans' freedoms. If a right-leaning president authorizes an intelligence program, it's grounds for impeachment.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 3:03
>>9 I think you're talking about Resolution 1441, which required a second resolution to authorize military action. The US decided to ignore this requirement and acted unilaterally with a so-called "coalition of the willing." It didn't give any state authority to "take out Saddam." There's no provision anywhere in international law for removing another country's head of state via military force. "Regime change" is in fact a crime of aggression and punishable under the US War Crimes Act of 1996 by the death penalty.
According to international law experts, the Secretary General of the UN, and even White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, the war IS illegal.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 3:18
>>10 Many "leftists" (whatever that means) condemn so-called "left-leaning" presidents equally. Clinton, for instance, is a war criminal, no ifs ands or buts about it. The point is not the petty politics of the two wings of the same business party. The point is that war crimes aren't applied to powerful people (like US presidents).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 3:47
>>11
The 1991 Gulf War was ended with a cease-fire that stipulated a number of conditions for the Saddam regime. Since the regime violated the cease-fire numerous times, the other parties to the cease-fire had the authority to remove the government.
How exactly does Resolution 1441 require a second resolution to authorize military action? Nowhere does it state so explicitly, and it does state that Iraq "will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." Iraq was also in violation of other resolutions, such as 687. And with veto-wielding France and Russia in Saddam's back pocket, the matter would probably still be tied up in the U.N. if an explicit second resolution was sought, with millions of Iraqis still suffering and Saddam and his cronies still supporting terror and concealing a weapons program.
Let's see...the War Crimes Act of 1996 basically reaffirms the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Since the Geneva Convention deals with prisoners and other personell issues, can you cite the part of the Hague Convention that prohibits the removal of a government in violation of treaties and agreements with foreign powers?
I'm curious as to where Albero Gonzales called an invasion of Iraq illegal. As for the "international law experts," I could care less, especially since they're properly "internationalist" and all that. And Kofi Annan's opinion means little, since we know of his conflicts of interest.
I find it sort of sad that we're arguing over whether or not it's "legal" to depose a dictator and replace him with a democratic government, but I suppose such are the fruits of a generation that was raised on a steady diet of defeatism and war always, unequivocally, being a Bad Thing to be avoided at all costs, even if it meant making concessions to facistic regimes.
>>12
That's great. I suppose it's my fault for invoking the admittedly limited left-right spectrum, although it is useful in many cases. I probably should have used "presidents they do/don't like," which would apply regardless of left-right ideological characteristics, since the more devoted anti-war crowd tend to view all politics (and, by extension, the politicans who participate in it) as corrupt, since it doesn't reinforce their minority opinions and simplistic view of the world. Then they invent excuses, or latch on to old ones, such as the incessantly peddled Marxist insanity about class conflict. But I'll stop here and leave the psychology for another thread.
Anyway, what war crimes, exactly, did Clinton commit? And, just as a hypothetical question to whet my curiosity, if you were the chief executive of a state (U.S. President, British Prime Minister, etc.) under what, if any circumstances, would you authorize the use of military force?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 11:23
>>13
1441 does not authorize military action. Only the US and the UK said they thought so, but the rest of the member states were not convinced. So, instead of proceeding with the proper step of tabling another resolution, which they knew they wouldn't get, they went ahead unilaterally, bombarding the world with their PR blitz (which included Bush's famous false assertions about WMD) and creating a laughable "coalition of the willing." Laughable not in the sense of military might, but in credibility.
"In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences," which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers," no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council [21]. Such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, argued in November 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but still justified [22], [23]. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion.
The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations, and military preparations."
It's telling that you dismiss Kofi Annan, who represents the majority opinion of member states, while embracing Bush's lawyer buddy. We could make the same point about the Halliburtons, Bechtels and other companies connected with the Bush regime, and would have a much stronger case. Anyway, here's the article about Gonzales' war crimes warnings.
I find it ironic that you trot out the word democratic as if its legitimacy wasn't the very thing being debated on this thread. What you call democracy is a pretext to attack other countries and an excuse for the thousands of deaths that inevitably follow (and are quietly brushed aside).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-21 11:31
>>14
Leaving aside your frothing about Marxists, Clinton's most obvious war crime was the bombing of Yugoslavia. Look it up, there's plenty of information available. Also look up the sanctions regime and bombing runs in Iraq. (Who can forget Madeleine Albright's statement that it was "worth it," when asked about the estimated 500,000 Iraqi children dead as a consequence of her administration's policies.)
If planes carrying bombs were flying towards national territory, I would authorize the use of force to take out those planes before they got here. That's it. Not "I suspect they gots eeeevil intentions," not "I don't like the guy with the mustache (even though I liked him very much a few years ago)," not "Hey, we don't not know that we don't know that we not know if he's got WMDs, depending on whether the unknown knowns can be known." Let's get real -- all these are excuses for the real reason behind this -- control of Iraq's oil.
Name:
TWH!k/N8jJ05A22005-12-22 15:13
I think the UN is a great forum for all the nations in the world to come together as equals and do anything we tell them to.
~George W. Bush, President of the United States
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 16:23 (sage)
>>1
Somehow I don't think shooting people who disagree with you does much for liberty.
>>16
The boy who cried "war crime." It is also, of course, the United States' fault that Saddam and his friends in the UN misappropriated those funds for kickbacks and funding suicide bombers in Palestine instead of giving it to those children. They obviously should have given Saddam free reign to buy weapons of mass destruction and use them, to fund terrorist organizations and to strengthen his army.
I love these "No blood for oil; Give Saddam his country back" liberals. Sorry, it seems the facts have a conservative bias.
Saddam is now out of power, Iraq is a mess, and Iran's moderate government is gone, replaced by a fanatic nutcase; the whole region is destabilizing. The US government has dug itself even further into debt, the economy has tanked, and international opinion is at an all-time low. North Korea decided it was a good time to act up, and China is taking advantage of the situation.
Sometimes you need to choose between the lesser of two evils. This outcome was foreseeable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 22:42
>>23
That's why despots try to make their deposition as uncomfortable to as many people as possible. Does this mean we should capitulate?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 22:47
Does this mean we should capitulate?
The lesser of two evils.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-22 23:19
>>25
So you don't care about being cowardly, selfish and immoral? You must be a liberal!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 0:22
An interesting interpretation of a neutral statement.
Do you allow emotions to cloud all your judgement?
Funny that, with the 72% voter turnout in the recent election and all.
| Iran's moderate government is gone, replaced by a fanatic nutcase
I don't really see any evidence he isn't just another Chavez, saber-rattling and playing to the people to distract them from his government's failings.
| the whole region is destabilizing.
Not really.
| The US government has dug itself even further into debt
Business as usual. Nothing really remarkable about that.
| the economy has tanked
Hardly.
| and international opinion is at an all-time low
Utterly irrelevant really.
| North Korea decided it was a good time to act up
They can't even feed their own people; the pinnacle of communism.
| and China is taking advantage of the situation
The "yellow menance" has long since seen that good trade relations with the Unites States are more profitable than anything else. That doesn't stop you from hedging your bets though.
| Sometimes you need to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Which would mean staying the course in Iraq as realistically the enemy has no chance of winning other than by destroying the political will to do so.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 0:47
No. You're an idiot.
I asked a rhetorical question. The answer was no, we shouldn't be intimidated by despots even if retalitation is more costly to us than capitulation. Doing otherwise would be cowardly selfish and immoral.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 1:40
we shouldn't be intimidated by despots even if retalitation is more costly to us than capitulation.
Why?
Doing otherwise would be cowardly selfish and immoral.
It may take some effort on your part, but read some books. They are a little more representative of the facts than talk shows.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 2:21
Funny that, with the 72% voter turnout in the recent election and all.
The infrastructure has been heavily damaged, there are fights going on many places, and old animosities are now resurfacing. The fundamentalists are doing a good job of digging their claws into the political landscape. The winner of the election wants closer ties to Iran. Not desirable.
I don't really see any evidence he isn't just another Chavez, saber-rattling and playing to the people to distract them from his government's failings.
Oh, you're probably right, but that's causing problems. He has destroyed most reforms that moderates put in place, and is attempting to fast-track the nuclear program. Considering the region, this isn't good news.
Not really [destabilizing].
Egypt will be happy to hear that. Israel too, considering Iran's new-found fanaticism. The Jordanian king will be delighted. So will the Saudi Arabian autocracy (although how they manage to both fund, and be threatened by, terrorist movements is beyond me).
Business as usual. Nothing really remarkable about that.
Except that it's several times the rate it normally is. Remarkable or not, the growing debt sacrifies part of the country's future prosperity. Not desirable.
They can't even feed their own people; the pinnacle of communism.
Except that they're developing the bomb, and also selling that tech to Iran. How hungry the people are has little to do with the international stage, although it's unfortunate, but nuclear bombs most certainly do.
The "yellow menance" has long since seen that good trade relations with the Unites States are more profitable than anything else.
But they'd expand their sphere of power if possible. Some recent rhetoric has hardly been comforting.
Which would mean staying the course in Iraq as realistically the enemy has no chance of winning other than by destroying the political will to do so.
The same could be said of Vietnam, although the two situations are still significantly different. The question is how much they might harm the US in the process. Not directly, of course, but the terrorists are not going anywhere, and they'll keep the military tied up in Iraq, possibly indefinitely.
Is it worth it? I don't know.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 13:22
| Funny that, with the 72% voter turnout in the recent election and all.
LOL MOM LOOK I CAN REPEAT LIES I HEARD ON TV FUN. Turnout was as low as 2%, 10%, 15% in some areas through boycotting (a democractic tool) in protest to the occupation.
I ask you: China invades the US through California, they overwhelm our military and take over the country completely. Two years later they declare that we are stable enough to have elections, and run them. In China, it is declared that 72% of Americans love democracy and are waving their blue fingers in the air.
Which part of the percent are you? The American "capitulators" or the American patriots, never accepting defeat from a foreign power and most certainly not partaking in their sham democracy with censored candidates? Think your cause is up there on the ballot, fighting for American independence, fair use of our resources, and a fix for the widespread unemployment? Dream on, capitulating liberal.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 13:35
>>30
Because I'm not a selfish coward? Because I care about human beings and I want to ensure the lives of the millions of people who will live in Iraq in the future are free from despotism and everything that goes with it?
Holy fuck you're stupid, you're like a child. Do you think it's ok to wipe out a family to intimidate their neighbours so they will continue to hand over their wealth to you?
This was a problem even under Saddam and more there's problem of increasing demand as well, especially in the areas of electricity and internet access. The fact also works against the idea of withdrawl as it doesn't make much sense to left insurgents hellbent on sabotaging the infastructure run unchecked.
| there are fights going on many places
Another reason to stay there.
| old animosities are now resurfacing
Though hardly to the extent that Zarqawi and others would hope for. This supposed "civil war" isn't getting far.
| The fundamentalists are doing a good job of digging their claws into the political landscape.
You have to be realistic. Despite the years of imposed quasi-secularism, it's still the Middle East.
|
The winner of the election wants closer ties to Iran.
That doesn't seem to square with the supposed "destabilization" when two recent enemies want closer ties. Though, like I said, that's the Iraqis' choice to make.
--
| LOL MOM LOOK I CAN REPEAT LIES I HEARD ON TV FUN.
Oh, the vaunted liberal "fact checking." I can hardly wait to hear this.
| Turnout was as low as 2%, 10%, 15% in some areas
Care to explain how a low voter turnout in a few individual areas refutes a high overall voter turnout? A hint: It doesn't. Also, a cite please.
| through boycotting (a democractic tool) in protest to the occupation.
Bewildering you wouldn't want representation in the body that has pretty much the only real means and possibility of achieving your objective.
| I ask you: China invades the US through California,
Better question: Is the only way you can debate through false analogies?
Wonderful rhetoric. It has no place on the world stage.
Because I care about human beings and I want to ensure the lives of the millions of people who will live in Iraq in the future are free from despotism and everything that goes with it?
By killing people? The uprising and voted party indicates people there are not happy with the military presence. Who are you to decide what is best for them? And how do you explain the US propping up so many despots in the past, in favour of the democracies they replaced, often bloodily?
Do you think it's ok to wipe out a family to intimidate their neighbours so they will continue to hand over their wealth to you?
How do you get from "lesser of two evils" to "wiping out families so they'll send you their wealth"?
Holy fuck you're stupid, you're like a child.
Given the source, I'm not too concerned.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 20:17
>>36
"Wonderful rhetoric. It has no place on the world stage."
Great speech Neville Chamberlain, but this isn't the league of nations.
Your state of mind has no place in the modern world. When people say freedom was sacrificed for, it isn't just propoganda, when you remain alive after criticising the government in an open manner, it isn't because it is the natural order of things. This all had to be fought for and it is something special that has to be preserved.
We abstained from an offensive even after Saddam broke the ceasefire 20 times, if anything I should be the one criticising the government for not going to war earlier and you should be attempting to stand up for the Bush administration!
So that excuses stupidity, sound-bites, and gut reactions?
This all had to be fought for and it is something special that has to be preserved.
Yes, from within.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-23 23:17
>>38
What in the fuck are you talking about?? Look up the league of nations and Neville Chamberlain on wikipedia again and think about how they allowed world war 2 to happen. Only Britain and France declared war when Hitler invaded Poland and for a while there was a phony war when the British and the French had a good chance of taking the war to Germany as their forces were in Poland busy killing jew babies. You will find that liberals are responsible for the nationa SOCIALISM and attempted to stifle the allies progress against despotism. How many people have died at the hands of your stupid illogical ideals?
It's kind of hard to fight for democracy if every time someone tries they get their brains blown out. And how long do we have to wait exactly whilst a rogue dictator bombs his own people, develops weapons of mass destruction and invades every neighbouring country he doesn't like before it magically turns into a democracy?
I still don't understand how you get from "lesser of two evils" to cowardism. Now you are ranting about Hitler, liberals, socialism, and the cat next door. The meaning is neutral; everything else is interpretation.
Read what your wrote. How is someone supposed to analyze a situation when they're ruled by emotion?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-24 0:24
>>40
You don't understand because you are stupid or a troll.
Hello dere,
It has become evident that the United States of America has become the United States of Oil in recent years. The democracy you speak of does not apply nowadays since both the elections involving George W. were fixed (I do not believe Americans are that stupid). Since America is in fact running out of oil, the war in the middle east including all it's "hostile takeover" undertones was actually beneficial to the US of O.
Knowing that NONE of you actually brought these people to power, does democracy really mean anything anymore? Somebody out there knows what's best for you people and knows that you WILL comply.
Dude, I don't know why you've be posing as me: But keep up the good work.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-25 6:32
>>21
Kickbacks to mostly American corporations. The contracts were reviewed by mostly the US and the UK. Look deeper into the scandal. The facts only have a conservative bias, when you get them from biased conservative media.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-25 11:23
>>53
lol @ deus ex
Spoiler: Even if you do everything you are orderred to please your masters you still end up fighting them.
>>55
People in the government do have stock in coorporations.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-25 23:42
American corporations != American government
It's true!
But the relationship between the two is growing increasingly close. If money is power, and power brings money, what do you think the inevitable conclusion is?
Name:
anti-chan2005-12-26 7:39 (sage)
Lemme guess, The answer involves me saging this thread, right?
What's the point of all of this "discussion" when you've got jackasses like >>49 running around with Bill O'Rielly's sperm swimming inside of his ass cheeks?
I wouldn't be surprised. He seems to be the kind that can't write a sentence without flaming anyone. Discussing something with anti-chan is the power of reason vs. the power of witty homosexual insults.
why does someone ALWAYS have to be "a repressed gay" to weave an obviously bullshit insult?
Now see...this I don't like. How come straight guys always gotta be "In the closet"? Even if I HYPOTHETICALLY was... what do you think you running up and yelling "UR N D CLOSET" is going to do?
I'm not going to go: "You know what? You're RIGHT" and then Bruce Lee kick the fucking door down. what are you? the gay police?
That's like if I was secretly Spiderman and people were all: "UR SPIDER MAN!!" - Look: I hide the fact that I'm spiderman so people don't rudely interupt me being stoned with "HAAAY SPIDER MAN" every 15 fucking seconds. I'm still trying to adjust to sticking on walls and webslinging and shit. Wanna know what's even worse?
Accusing a guy of being Spiderman because of that time he called Spiderman a faggot. ---This is common fucking sense.
Name:
FuckHeadTodd2005-12-26 12:18 (sage)
>>61
What a fucktarded holster throat you be. Ever think of seeking professional help, or at least cutting back on the meth?
>>63
Yeah, yeah, now I'm... trapped in the closet! I'm R. Kelley, and I'm trapped in the closet!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-26 17:22
haha shut the fuck up stupid asshole liberals!!!
You'd make shite police officers
Actual victim: hay that guy just raped me, oh god how could this happen to me??
Liberal police: hu hu huhuhu it didn't happen to me so why should i care
ACtual victim: You sick son of a bitch oh god *noises of intense loss and despair*
Liberal police: No you see, I'm doing the right thing, I will be better off not botherring to go after that rapist becuase that takes time and money, we are all better off if we simply forget this ever happenned and let him go. Do you see?
ACtual victim: *more crying* but that's immoral, he will rape again, how can you leave me in the dirt like this?
Liberal police: IMMORAL? WHAT ABOUT THE EVIL COORPORATIONS THROWING ORPHANS INTO THE SNOW YOU EVIL CONSERVATIVE *kick kick kick*
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-26 17:40
>>65
Delusional people like this are why George W. Bush and the craven neocons get into power.
>>61
Hey, I usually think the whole "in the closet" angle is stupid, but you seriously have issues. How many insults have you written that don't have something to do with homosexuality?
Normal people aren't that obsessed about the issue.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-26 19:02
>>68
Maybe he figures it's a sensitive point for conservative types and therefore an effective insult. You guys do seem upset enough.
Normal people aren't that obsessed about the issue.
"Normal people" are properly repressed. According to empirical studies by Kinsey, most people are bi to some extent. Sexuality is better thought of in shades of grey than in black and white. Conservatives, informed by their religious superstitions, don't like this, therefore the homosexual insult works on them particularly well.
This kind of black and white thinking is also the subject of this thread. It's what's leading the US and the West in general down a path of destruction.
Seriously, the irony here is that I have no problem with anyone thinking I'm gay. That's like saying: You have impeccable style, a "fierce" wit and you're good with money. And yes: These are all true things.
The whole "fudge packing" thing is a mere side-effect, I can assure you of THAT, JACK.
For the record though, I have used incest and pedophilia as a subject in my verbal rapes.
HOW COME NO ONE HAS SAID ANYHING ABOUT THAT?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-26 20:02
>>69
Yeah, but all you have to do is get rid of the black. You see liberals are all homosexual and hate democract and think the only purpose in life is to become a despot like Stalin or the national SOCIALIST hitler by any means necessary and conservatives are like angels on earth want to do good for all sentient life and allow them to pursue life liberty and happiness, but put a little effort aside so humanity can progress and justice can be done apon liberals.
Once you get rid of the black, wash off the dirt and poo coloured things, then you are left only with whites and things will get better as "white" civilisation always exceeds all others in morality and civilised achievement. As is proven by logic, science and history.