Bush Administration's latest excuse...

[Whaleboy]

"You are almost saying it as fact and forcing it down my throat"

Ahem. About the reason? Nonetheless, anything expressed in these posts is the views of the author and does not represent the views of his employer, the state, or anyone besides the author. By definition, one purports ones opinions as facts, by default, it is interpreted as an opinion. My opinions are based on things I see in history, like the cultures moving towards more liberty, or politics etc.

That's why theyre called views, in the sense that they are observations.

[Giancarlo]

Fine then leave them away from me! My opinions are based on that of strength. The more powerful governments prevail. Leftism must be knocked out where it stands so economic prosperity can prevail.

[Whaleboy]

"If there is a problem send in soldiers. But to prevent the army from getting involved, there must be a secret police foundation to counter any underground thing"

Someones been reading Orwell!! jk

Again, this is in itself a form of oppression IMO, and thus would provide another reason for the rigidity of that society, and the pressure among the populus to change it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... elijah... you do know you are dealing with a Fascist? Why would he care if it was oppressive?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
Someones been reading Orwell!! jk

I said authoritarian, not totalitarian. I am no Hitler.

Again, this is in itself a form of oppression IMO, and thus would provide another reason for the rigidity of that society, and the pressure among the populus to change it.

Well then.. to calm the people.. the leader must make nice speeches of denouncing how bad leftism is. To distract the population.

[Whaleboy]

"The more powerful governments prevail. Leftism must be knocked out where it stands so economic prosperity can prevail"

I do like to think that we as humans have moved somewhat beyond the almost non-existent sensibility of pure darwinism, as a basis for the running of a society. Nonetheless, are you aware of a process called eutrophication?

It is where an ecosystem becomes so chocked with life, in otherwords, the balance of the food web becomes an inbalance, that repercussions occur, and the entire ecosystem collapses, and most or all life in that ecosystem dies out.

It is commonly found in small water-based ecosystems, where an inwash of fertiliser from farming can stimulate too much plant growth, which messes about with the oxygen balance, the light, and eventually, the whole thing silts up.

This is a good analogy for an economy left unchecked. Given finite resources and an entity desiring infinite resources (for all intents and purposes), and the ability to take more than what one can maximally offer, as is the case with unfettered capitalism when it gets really big, then the whole thing ends up collapsing in on itself. This is a danger in capitalist societies without checks and balances, as one becomes too based on what can best be described as "shaky foundations", which is that of corporations.

Of course, I'll spare you my usual argument about the fallacy of corporate ethics, because I'm guessing that such a society as the one you are advocating is not based on much of a separate philosophical or moral code, except that of corporations? Nonetheless, feel free to correct me if that is a straw man, it is merely my interpretation of what you have been saying.

[Whaleboy]

" I said authoritarian, not totalitarian. I am no Hitler"

Fine line.

" Well then.. to calm the people.. the leader must make nice speeches of denouncing how bad leftism is. To distract the population."

Not much good if the population have rebelled against a right-wing government, and are comprised of many leftists.

Nonetheless, it would be most interesting to hear your actual arguments against "the left" (which is an enormous political spectrum as it is), instead of merely propaganda.

[Giancarlo]

Then send soldiers out and declare martial law.

If that is what must be done then let it be done.

Also I am always stressing a good economy so the people are supportive of the government. Capitalism will never collapse. Only communism does that.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by elijah
Not much good if the population have rebelled against a right-wing government, and are comprised of many leftists.

Then let the bullets fly.

Nonetheless, it would be most interesting to hear your actual arguments against "the left" (which is an enormous political spectrum as it is), instead of merely propaganda.

[Whaleboy]

" If that is what must be done then let it be done"

But must it be done? What is so bad about people protesting and expressing their opinions that warrants sending in the army?

" Also I am always stressing a good economy so the people are supportive of the government."

Tis one facet of a more complex concept for how the people support the government. One may well find that it is best described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and that the best way to get more people higher on that pyramid would be to impose certainly limits on capitalism, and increase liberty so people can find their own paths.

"Capitalism will never collapse."

Hopefully my analogy has shown how that is not the case. Of course, it wont ever truly collapse, but large-scale megacorps certainly can and probably will.

"Only communism does that"

I believe you are referring to Stalinism, which, after reading much of Marx's work, is entirely different from true communism. Communism can and does work, and can do better than capitalism, for example, look at products created under psuedo-communist philosophies, for example, open source software. Regardless of the OS war, one cannot deny that it is successful, long lived, and vibrant today.

[Whaleboy]

awww come on Fez, you know you want to show us the error of our ways and how we should all comply with capitalism. Show us the light!!!!

[Giancarlo]

You know I am not talking with you anymore. You are full of it. You are painting the wrong picture of me and I have had it discussing with you. You are a brick wall.

COMMUNISM IS NEVER SUCCESSFUL.. NEVER! NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

[Giancarlo]

You idiot.. how dare you say that communism is better than capitalism? Go move to a cave. There is communism. It does not work better. It is an unproductive, retarded belief that must be thrown out the window.

[Whaleboy]

"COMMUNISM IS NEVER SUCCESSFUL.. NEVER! NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM."

Show me how? Show me how the example I have provided is in fact not working and is collapsing. I can show you in turn how stalinism is not communism. More precisely, I can show you how totalitarian communism is a) similar to the corporate communism you are proposing and b) totally dissimilar from Marx and Engels.

"You are a brick wall"

Knock me down!!

"You are painting the wrong picture of me"

Explain

"I have had it discussing with you"

awww just when we were starting to have fun!

[Giancarlo]

Forget it. You are too arrogant to see the wrongs in your beliefs.

[Whaleboy]

"You idiot.. how dare you say that communism is better than capitalism?"

How dare I?? Its really not that hard, believe me.

"Go move to a cave"

Dont knock it! The accoustics are brilliant!

"There is communism"

There are dozens of varieties of communism, probably more!

"It does not work better. It is an unproductive, retarded belief that must be thrown out the window"

Why? Show me how?

[Whaleboy]

"Forget it. You are too arrogant to see the wrongs in your beliefs"

Really I'm laughing my socks off!!! You'll wake up my cat!

[Giancarlo]

I am not responding to your nonsensical crap.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by elijah
"Forget it. You are too arrogant to see the wrongs in your beliefs"

Really I'm laughing my socks off!!! You'll wake up my cat!

That is the second time I've seen you use that, either your cat sleeps a lot, or you go through a lot of socks......



ACK!

[Whaleboy]

"I am not responding to your nonsensical crap"

That looked like a response. Nonetheless, if you insist on throwing ad hominems at me, I shall go to bed, as I do not want Ming to block this otherwise interesting and productive thread.

I am seriously though in that I am interested in seeing your argument against communism, so we can debate it at a later date. In the meantime, I bid you good night! (its 2.30 AM here )

[Whaleboy]

"That is the second time I've seen you use that, either your cat sleeps a lot, or you go through a lot of socks"

Have I said that before? :S I could be laughing other parts off, but then that would be rude!

[Giancarlo]

I am not debating anything with you. If you want to act arrogant, I will have nothing to do with you. You want to throw around your little leftist beliefs claiming this is communism and that is... I will have no part in talking with you. Good night.

I got a relationship to attend to...

[Tuberski]

And pretty obscene!



ACK!

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

I'm a devout follower of Macchiavelli. I admit it. I revel in it. If the ends are "unjustifiable" that means that he's failed to deliver results. If the ends aren't worth the cost of the means, it means he's failed to deliver results. Ends are a return on investment, means are the investment.

What "damage done to democracy?" Name a single foreign leader who hasn't lied at some point to sell a policy? Ghandhi and Nehru are the only ones who spring to mind, and Nehru skated close to the edge several times. And look at the net results they got, when you consider the long term India-Pakistan-Bangladesh mess.

The damage isn't in Bush lying, the damage is in Bush not having to pay a price for it, especially considering how blatant the lies are. More worrying is if it is true that 50 % of Americans believe in Iraq's Al Kaida links, and 40 % believe WMDs have been found in Iraq anyway, and whatever majority just feels better. Every people gets the leaders it deserves - and you (unless you're wearing your mexican hat today) have a bunch of pretty psychotic ones.

The bigger damage is in foreign relations anyway. The Bush admin had little credibility before, it has zero now. But at least you have to love Rumsie - I think he's telling Blair again that he wants the US to go to war without that annoying poodle up his arse.

[Giancarlo]

Shut up, Hersh. The lies are bigger out of the European leaders who were against the war. Now those were lies and those were the psychotic ones. Bush in my opinion is not psychotic and is actually quite honest for a politican.

The biggest damage done right now is by those socialist governments in Europe that opposed the war in Iraq. They are doing the most damage for their own blatant arrogance.

You are so arrogant.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yep - now let all the Apolyton Conservatives repeat after me.

"Bush was full of ****".

"Bush lied and we fell for it"

"The Lefties told us he was lying, but we were too dumb to believe them"

"We won't believe what Bush tells us again."

How many times were you told that this war was about power politics? Do you know what power politics is? It doesn't mean powerful politics...

And there could have easily been weapons there, and they still might be there if they weren't dismantled at the last minute. And you know it. It was a worthwhile threat to pursue.

Al Capone shot up half of Chicago, but what did he go to jail for? Tax evasion. Same principle here.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Fez

You are so arrogant.

Do you mean his attitude is haughty and despising ? As I cant see that in his post, could you explain your point ?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Do you mean his attitude is haughty and despising ? As I cant see that in his post, could you explain your point ?

Perhaps then you should look up the words haughty and despising.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Perhaps then you should look up the words haughty and despising.

I did, after reading that arrogance means morgue, which is a haughty and despising attitude.

Hence my question to Fez.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


The damage isn't in Bush lying, the damage is in Bush not having to pay a price for it, especially considering how blatant the lies are. More worrying is if it is true that 50 % of Americans believe in Iraq's Al Kaida links, and 40 % believe WMDs have been found in Iraq anyway, and whatever majority just feels better. Every people gets the leaders it deserves - and you (unless you're wearing your mexican hat today) have a bunch of pretty psychotic ones.

The bigger damage is in foreign relations anyway. The Bush admin had little credibility before, it has zero now. But at least you have to love Rumsie - I think he's telling Blair again that he wants the US to go to war without that annoying poodle up his arse.

If I'm wearing my sombrero today, I've got a Presidente who's an ineffectual bootlicker to the psychotic gringo leader.

As far as paying a price for it goes, give it time. Nobody gave a **** about Watergate initially either, but 26 months later, Nixon was gone. Hussein was an ******* in the first degree, so it's a bit of a tough sell to say the world would be better off if he was still there, and the UN continued on the sanctions course forever.

There's still a year and a half until the election, (which is the earlier time Bush could pay), and if Iraq is still a FUBAR, we get reports of our people getting ambushed in Afghanistan, al Qaeda is still blowing **** up, with the occasional audio from OBL or AAZ, the economy is still dragging, etc., you can bet Bush will pay just like his daddy did.

The McCarthy era dragged on for a while too, because in the American political scene, you can always milk a perceived threat for a period of time, but eventually, people see through it.

As far as damage to foreign relations, honestly, from the Official Imperialist Hegemon perspective, who cares? Like the saying from the Vietnam war - "if you grab 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" - most of the rest of the world is too dependent on the US economy, and too ineffective in organized opposition (Chirac? UN? ) for the US to care. Enough countries will go along with the US, or look the other way, due to their own dependency, perceived interest, or bribes. Most people outside the US didn't like US leadership or the US before, so it's not like that worries people much if they don't like it now. If the outside world reduced it's collective economic dependence on the US and got some collective balls, (like I'd like to see a pan-Latinamerican trade and treaty organization), then there'd be a problem. Under the present situation, the only real problem (from the Macchiavellian imperialist perspective) is that some other countries are impotently uncomfortable. (and from that perspective, it ain't a problem.)