Disclaimer: It’s not as if I’m an anti-war fanatic. I wouldn’t know how to find a rally if I tried, and even less likely to attend one. I’d like to say that I back the soldiers over there 100%. It’s an ugly job, they are persevering superhumanly, and they need to remain to prevent a power vacuum in the area (which, ostensibly, we created). It’s not their fault they are there; they have a job, and they are doing it the best they can. They just want to get home from work and hug their kids (some of whom they’ve never met) like the rest of us. If it weren’t for them, I’d never be able to post anything like this without being shot in the head, or worse.
So, this week I’ve been hearing these weird feelers in the media. Like….oh hey, Iran might be “evil,” how would you feel if we (we being the US for me) attacked them….?
Uh…what? Forgive me for the gross generalization I’m about to make which is going to offend everyday Iranians in a huge way, but for cripes sake, Iraq was crazy, but like, “stable oppressive dictatorship crazy,” while Iran is “religious fanatical nuclear capable crazy.” (I’d characterize us as “no one can agree on squat except wasting money” crazy)
What the crap are they thinking? We bogged down in the middle of an unpopular war we don’t have a freaking clue how to get out of, short of, “Here’s your driver’s license, welcome to the 51st state,” and now we’re thinking of seriously offending the entire Middle East. Oh yeah, that sounds awesome.
I haven’t heard anyone bandy about the whole “war stimulates the economy” line lately either. Considering Canada’s dollar just passed ours, um, how’s that working out for us, eh? Iran? Holy hell, that’s just crazy. We’re not even pulled out of flipping Afghanistan! What is it going to take before everyday people just go, “Um, no. You sign whatever documents you like and make t.v. appearances until you are blue in the face, but we’re not f’ing doing anything like that….”
In the US we tend to hold the opinion the UN is powerless (sorry, but that’s how it’s perceived). Time for them to change our opinion by cowboying up and talking war crimes trials for Bush / Cheney?
Have you seen this (especially the last two thirds of the movie)?
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
I'm not sure what I think of the last part of the movie yet... but it may present one set of answers to your concerns. "1984" becoming reality?
Hadn't heard of it before, thanks for the link. From the reviews it looks like someone was tripping on too much Salvia, but I'll see if I can't spare some time to watch it regardless.
As a side comment: it's been "interesting" to see how those nations labelled as the "axis of evil" by your President squabbled to be the first to get their hand on something close to a nuclear weapon. As if it was the only insurance against a militaristic and interventionist America.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the political costs of trying to secure nuclear capability was too high for Iran and Korea in comparison to the military advantage it would have provided them.
I can't blame them for deciding for themselves that the Bomb would be the only protection that would save them from this Administration.
B.
I'd be very surprised to learn they didn't already have those years ago. They are both reasonably developed countries, and establishing a sizable base of weapons grade fissionable materials, while not "monkeys with crayons" easy, isn't spectacularly difficult. The ability to move that material is what ought to be worrying us. Physics package = eh. Sophisticated delivery system = bad.
Well, that post certainly should put my credit / cell phone activity on a watch list. Sad really. I’ll save them time: I buy worthless crap from Ebay and only call my wife. If you want to hear me sing the alphabet song to my 5 month old, by all means, tap me (tacit invitation not implied by the previous statement).
I’d like to think our current administration is really attempting to ensure that my biggest worry is if I can get those last few Doctor Who DVD’s, or if the space shuttle is bringing back killer germs, and not if I’m going to be ‘sploded by people who don’t like me because they’ve heard bad things about my country from their buds. Unfortunately, I get the distinct impression what they really feel is zealotry in defense of safety is no vice.
|
Disclaimer: It’s not as if I’m an anti-war fanatic. I wouldn’t know how to find a rally if I tried, and even less likely to attend one. I’d like to say that I back the soldiers over there 100%. It’s an ugly job, they are persevering superhumanly, and they need to remain to prevent a power vacuum in the area (which, ostensibly, we created). It’s not their fault they are there; they have a job, and they are doing it the best they can. They just want to get home from work and hug their kids (some of whom they’ve never met) like the rest of us. If it weren’t for them, I’d never be able to post anything like this without being shot in the head, or worse.
So, this week I’ve been hearing these weird feelers in the media. Like….oh hey, Iran might be “evil,” how would you feel if we (we being the US for me) attacked them….?
Uh…what? Forgive me for the gross generalization I’m about to make which is going to offend everyday Iranians in a huge way, but for cripes sake, Iraq was crazy, but like, “stable oppressive dictatorship crazy,” while Iran is “religious fanatical nuclear capable crazy.” (I’d characterize us as “no one can agree on squat except wasting money” crazy)
What the crap are they thinking? We bogged down in the middle of an unpopular war we don’t have a freaking clue how to get out of, short of, “Here’s your driver’s license, welcome to the 51st state,” and now we’re thinking of seriously offending the entire Middle East. Oh yeah, that sounds awesome.
I haven’t heard anyone bandy about the whole “war stimulates the economy” line lately either. Considering Canada’s dollar just passed ours, um, how’s that working out for us, eh? Iran? Holy hell, that’s just crazy. We’re not even pulled out of flipping Afghanistan! What is it going to take before everyday people just go, “Um, no. You sign whatever documents you like and make t.v. appearances until you are blue in the face, but we’re not f’ing doing anything like that….”
In the US we tend to hold the opinion the UN is...
No one ever said the Media was independant...about your right not to be shot in the head-it probably wont be long before they bring back the draft...
The last thing I heard about Iran this week was that the oldest civilization in the world was located somewhere in the South-East of that country and everyone else existed in the shadow of their greatness.
As to CANADA: I also see that the USA is refusing to recognise Canadian Sovereignty over the NORTHWEST Passage (that corridor of water through the Arctic Linking, thanks to global warming, Asia to Europe).
So next may well be the evil empire to the North (those evil Kanuks! with their Red leaf Flag) who demand that Ships passing through its waters ask permission to do so.
So tommorrow when Canada screams "RAPE!" George W. will tell them It aint rape if he doesnt recognise their right not to be.
The last thing I heard about Iran this week was that the oldest civilization in the world was located somewhere in the South-East of that country and everyone else existed in the shadow of their greatness.
True (well the first part anyhow, more or less). Many people make the mistake of thinking Iranians are Arabs, they aren't; they are Persian.
Just direct me to whatever bandwagon we are jumping on this week.
|
A bit of a tangent:
WHAT THE F%~*? Our Beloved Chairman has just announced that the V-88 Osprey VTOL heli-plane is combat-ready. If the Osprey is combat-ready, I'm JAMES T. F&&~ING KIRK! This is an unarmed troop ship that crashes in high winds, and tends to explode wihtout warning. If the U.S. government can't win the war with the good equipment, what makes them think they can win the war with the shit!?
Please update your profile accordingly James T. Kirk.
Do you mean (censored) or the (censored)?
I also see that the USA is refusing to recognise Canadian Sovereignty over the NORTHWEST Passage (that corridor of water through the Arctic Linking, thanks to global warming, Asia to Europe).
Actually, Canada's sovereignty over the NWP is recognized. The problem is waters north of Canada's arctic archipelago which should be ice free year round if things go right and global warming accelerates.
As a side comment: it's been "interesting" to see how those nations labelled as the "axis of evil" by your President squabbled to be the first to get their hand on something close to a nuclear weapon. As if it was the only insurance against a militaristic and interventionist America.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the political costs of trying to secure nuclear capability was too high for Iran and Korea in comparison to the military advantage it would have provided them.
I can't blame them for deciding for themselves that the Bomb would be the only protection that would save them from this Administration.
B.
Korea has nuclear weapons, Gets concessions from the US.
Iran no nuclear weapons, gets no concessions.
Conclusion for a third world country, get a nuke and they will talk with you, until then the powers to be will just talk at you.
Sure the presedent of Iran says some stupid stuff regarding the Jewish holocaust in europe, and homosexuality, but he was in this coutry to engage in debate and show respect at the site of the twin towers, because his bossess (the Ayatolla) are smart enough not to want war with the U.S. We already surround that country with US forces. I think there scared.
So am I.
In the US we tend to hold the opinion the UN is powerless (sorry, but that’s how it’s perceived). Time for them to change our opinion by cowboying up and talking war crimes trials for Bush / Cheney?
True dat. Clinton was impeached for wanting a blowjob, but not enough people care that Bush has gotten us into a 100% selfish war to get him impeached. The moral state of humanity is really sad.
One more war would be a huge disaster. Especially when the current president is determined to maintain the status quo as far as our armed conflicts overseas to foist it on the next person in charge. I just hope cooler heads prevail and we avoid biting the bullet on armed conflicts with Iran for the time being. At least North and South Korea are putting an end to the Korean War and it seems like North Korea is putting their own nuclear program to a halt.
It just upsets me that we can't do any more for the folks in Myanmar (people that have taken their own steps toward democracy) or Darfur or even people in our own back yards. But we are where we are and no one in Congress, the Senate or the White House is going to change it.
As to CANADA: I also see that the USA is refusing to recognise Canadian Sovereignty over the NORTHWEST Passage (that corridor of water through the Arctic Linking, thanks to global warming, Asia to Europe).
So next may well be the evil empire to the North (those evil Kanuks! with their Red leaf Flag) who demand that Ships passing through its waters ask permission to do so.
We also have something like 7% to 10% of the freshwater reserve of the whole world, sand full of oil and a couple of tons of raw metals on our side.
Should I be scared and practice the American National Anthem ???
By the way, the US military just created AfricaCom, the war center responsible for coordinating every troops on the African Continent, which is by the way pretty near the Middle East. Just saying...
A «EEEEEEvil» French Canadian (which I heard is worst than just a Canadian)
We also have something like 7% to 10% of the freshwater reserve of the whole world, sand full of oil and a couple of tons of raw metals on our side.Should I be scared and practice the American National Anthem ???
Be scared very scared. Just over a hundred years ago my country was an ally and friend of the US. Now were 50th state with the U.S. national anthem and all.
Also, we're 5000 miles away from the US. coast with no significant resources. Your next door.
Sir Kaikillah
Sovriegn Kingdom of Hawaii
Should I be scared and practice the American National Anthem ???
Nah, don't worry about that. Half of us can't even get the words right, ourselves ;)
In a nutshell, the legal reasons to impeach Bush are there, but politically, to impeach Bush would set a clear legal precedent that US Presidents cannot do such things in the future.
Frankly, I think the bigger legal fear is that bringing such an impeachment case and attempting to challenge these Presidential usurpations/abuses is that doing so would actually set a clear legal precedent that the US President can, in fact, continue to do these things long into the future.
Clinton was not impeached for "wanting a blowjob".
My point is that while Clinton was impeached for lying about essentially insignificant issues, we know that Bush has lied about much more important things and yet we can't bring ourselves to impeach him too.
Whether all of this is a reflection of the moral state of humanity is hard to say. The political elite that made all these decisions don't necessarily reflect the will of the common public. The lower approval ratings of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress suggest they don't, but election laws restrict the voting public to the only feasible candidates being...
This is why I'm in favor of dropping the whole two-party system. Two options just isn't working well enough; we need more.
...Give that kook in North Korea nukes too. Hell--let's give them out as party favors.
Call me in a few years and tell me how it's going. I'll be in my bomb shelter.
He already got them. So our government cuts deals with him. U.S. should learn our lesson with terrorist and follow it's own policy on it, compromising with them only encourges more terrorism. the North Koreans been playing this game for over a decade. Why should the NOrth Koreans reform, they have a nuclear weapon and can hold the rest of the world hostage with them. You don't think the Ayatollas in Iran don't see this. The Iranians are surrounded by US forces. At this point diplomacy for them will not work, it is political folly in the US to support diplomacy with Iran so it won't happen now. What choice do the ayatollas have but to get nukes to even up the bbargaining and get US to the negotiation table. Not having nukes doesn't work.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is why I'm in favor of dropping the whole two-party system. Two options just isn't working well enough; we need more.
The two party system is a function of a winner-take-all electoral process. Short of adopting a parlimentary style system or proportionate electoral system, a multi-party system is not viable.
It's like saying you're in favor of dropping the use of money because there are wealth inequalities in capitalism. Money is a product of capitalism; not vice versa.
|
|
He already got them. So our government cuts deals with him. U.S. should learn our lesson with terrorist and follow it's own policy on it, compromising with them only encourges more terrorism. the North Koreans been playing this game for over a decade. Why should the NOrth Koreans reform, they have a nuclear weapon and can hold the rest of the world hostage with them. You don't think the Ayatollas in Iran don't see this. The Iranians are surrounded by US forces. At this point diplomacy for them will not work, it is political folly in the US to support diplomacy with Iran so it won't happen now. What choice do the ayatollas have but to get nukes to even up the bbargaining and get US to the negotiation table. Not having nukes doesn't work....Give that kook in North Korea nukes too. Hell--let's give them out as party favors.
Call me in a few years and tell me how it's going. I'll be in my bomb shelter.
I was being sarcastic.
Money is a product of capitalism; not vice versa.
Money is a product of trade. Trade is far older than capitalism. the concept of capitalism came much later.
This is why I'm in favor of dropping the whole two-party system. Two options just isn't working well enough; we need more.The two party system is a function of a winner-take-all electoral process. Short of adopting a parlimentary style system or proportionate electoral system, a multi-party system is not viable.
...
a multi party system is not viable because the two parties make the rules that way. It isn't written in the constitution that way. "There shal be only two political parties" It's not that way because of the constitution, but because the powers that be don't want outside competition.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
a multi party system is not viable because the two parties make the rules that way. It isn't written in the constitution that way. "There shal be only two political parties" It's not that way because of the constitution, but because the powers that be don't want outside competition.
Winner take all political systems result in two parties. Period. Just like capitalism (or trade if you prefer a more simplistic term) results in money. The party system is a consequence of the structure of the government. Obviously, there is some feedback because the politicians who structure the government have a vested interest in a two party system, but barring a proportionate system of electing representatives, the two party system will be the consequence of a winner-take-all structure.
Changing the election procedures to allow for proportionate voting would require amending the Constitution. So yes, the two-party system is a product of the Constitution even if it is not literally written in the Constitution.
You can't have a multi-party system and a winner-take-all electoral process at the same time. Pick one.
Winner take all political systems result in two parties. Period. Just like capitalism (or trade if you prefer a more simplistic term) results in money. The party system is a consequence of the structure of the government. Obviously, there is some feedback because the politicians who structure the government have a vested interest in a two party system, but barring a proportionate system of electing representatives, the two party system will be the consequence of a winner-take-all structure. ...
a multi party system is not viable because the two parties make the rules that way. It isn't written in the constitution that way. "There shal be only two political parties" It's not that way because of the constitution, but because the powers that be don't want outside competition.
I believe there is a historical precedent to back your conclusion. I do not rememeber specific names or times. But the issue has to do with a three way split of the electoriate in the nineteenth century (America is such a young culture). to avoid a run off between the two leading candidate, the third candidate gave his electoral votes to the candidate he favored. This head off, a run off, where the third candidate's favored leading candidate would have lost. As I recall it was quite the stir during it's time. The mechanics of the electorial college definitly leads toward a two party system. Or at least only two candidates in any Presidential election in the US.
Please update your profile accordingly James T. Kirk.
Certainly.
As I recall it was quite the stir during it's time.
Indeed. Poor Aaron Burr got screwed over twice, and took out his frustrations with firearms.
The two party system is bad enough, but when you add in the electoral college as a band-aid, things just swirl the drain.
Anyhow, back to not provoking Iran!
|
|
In the US we tend to hold the opinion the UN is powerless (sorry, but that’s how it’s perceived).
In the Commonwealth (all the English Speaking Countries that are not the USA) we see the innefectuallity of the UN as due to the presence of the USA, the french, the Chinese, and the Russians on the Security Council.
What Can I say...Thats how the only Multinational civilization in the World sees it.
Wow that was intersting...parts of your political view are being censored. That whole comment on Warcrimes trials for George W Bush and Dick "Mount a lawyer on a catapult and scream Pull!" doesnt seem to be quoteable.
I Like Peaches
I'm glad you made certain that we knew this was a politacal rant. That is probably the reason why, unlike 'We autta win iraque or whatever the thread was named, you have not had the thread closed. Still, I imagine there is a reason why there are so few politacal threads. They tend to get aggressive, no matter what. By the way, i agree, Iran is another plot for Bush to last longer.
P.S. on the subject of closing threads, my biggest worry is that they'll close 'I am sorry, Heathanson!'.
Look up PNAC, anything by Greg Palast (I've read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"), and check almost any *non-US* news source for US news such as BBC and Al Jazeera.
The US and other Western nations have had a history of upsetting the Middle East for a very long time. It's that there's no sign of the West relenting anytime soon that keeps the Middle Eastern nations irritated.
In Afghanistan, the US had interest in returning the poppy harvests and in eventually constructing the oil pipeline. Every bit of the Middle East has something for the US. Regardless if Iran had potential for nuclear power, the US has an interest in creating another colony. A war with Iran will be tricky at the moment since it has several lucrative trade deals with Russia and China.
I agree, the UN will remain impotent as long as the heavy hitters on the council remain. If the US can ignore and make the UN bend over, what kind of authority can it ever wield to do anything should it go against US interests? The US has the largest concentration of nuclear, chemical, and weapons of mass destructions ranging from cluster bombs to phosphorus, but the UN has yet to initiate global sanctions against the US.
I agree that deceit under oath of any kind deserves impeachment. What I find silly is that one US party tends to be dismissed as "can-do-no-right" while the other as "can-do-no-wrong", where it's expected to lambast openly when one is in charge but considered treasonous when the other is in charge. . . but both parties are controlled by massive corporate entities from oil to telecommunications. I think that perhaps 90 - 99% of all prior US Presidents should have been impeached.
The other irony is when protest against the war transforms into hate for the soldiers. Soldiers obey. Soldiers are family members and friends and are put in harms way. I think it's possible to care for soldiers and wish them a safe return and still protest a war with which they may be ordered to fight in.
The US's warmongering will continue as long as the citizens are solely informed by its spoon-fed media. With the internet, anyone can bypass the bottleneck of information.
Can we not fire this up again? Please?
