Iraq Situation is Bullshit
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 10 of 17
To answer these one at a time:
""The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" So- the employess of a bowling-ball factory own all of the bowling balls because they created them. Right?"
No. The owner of the factory either bought the factory, or had it constructed. He assumed the risks in running the busines, as well as the risk of payroll. He contracts out to his employees for their labor, offering a fixed return for their labor, despite the market, for as long as the business is viable. It is the owner of the factory that assembles the workers, the machinery, purchases the raw material, etc. to create bowling balls.
The employees own their labortheir skill, which they rent out to their employer for the bowling balls. The owner owns the factory, the machinery and the raw materials, which he does not sell to the employee. The employee gets money, in exchange for coming to work on a project that the owner wants done.
--------------------
"So, if the laws governing "ownership" changes, is that theft?"
In a moral sense, its still theft, even if the legal sense changes. It still has a negative effect on the economy for everyone.
Just because something is a mental construct does not mean that it is bad or easily tossed aside. Again traffic lights. Here, red means stop. Why not green? or blue? It does not matter which light you use, as long as all agree. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if everyone disregarded traffic lights, or thought it was okay to dismiss them simply because they were a mental construct.
The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society, along with prohibitions against force or fraud.
-------------------------------
That's a little like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
I disagree strongly. First of all, I see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. First, as it provides flypaper for jihadis that would be fighting here in the states (or elsewhere) otherwise. And second it comes down to the real root causes, the failure of Arab civilization at providing for the lives and happiness of its population. They need a successful Arab country, to show them that modernity is not incompatable with Islam.
You are assuming that since no WMDs have been reported found yet, that none exist. I note a recent news report of 6 Chinese farmers uncovering several barrels of mustard gas, secluded by the Japanese back in 1945 and not discovered till earlier this year. Also the fully armed Nazi bombers recently found under the Berlin Airport. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially in cases like this.
From a legal standpoint, this is a bit of a red herring. Saddam was required by UN resolution to prove he no longer had WMDs or their programs. He failed to do this, to comply with the UN and the armistice he signed in 1991. His failure to comply with the UN is the legal reason for the war. If you accept the UN as a legal authority, its authority does not mean much if one can disregard its resolutions with impunity.
It should also be noted that Czech intelligence is still standing behind their report of a meeting between Atta and Iraqi intelligence.
And besides, the Iraqi people are far better off without Saddam and his sons. So is the rest of the world.
--------------------------
"Actually, money (or other tangible reward) is an extremely poor motivator."
I find this difficult to believe. While it is obviously better to do something you love instead of something you don't, you still need to eat. Which means either growing your own food, or paying someone else to do it for you. You can't pay if you ain't got no money, you cannot access the property of others unless you can pay them for if.
Whether you see money as a measure of value, or simply a marker in a game, its still a great motivator.
------------------------
"No, they don't."
Again from what I have seen, that is not true. I do note that Ashcroft is attempting to get "administrative subpena powers" but so far that is not in the law to date.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First, my apologies to the other folks here for WAAAAY off-topic thread. If there was somewhere else to discuss with equally intelligent, thoughtful and forward-looking people then we could move over there. 
So, Drakon, to make sure I got this straight, when you say "The fundamental basic idea behind capitalism is that you own what you create" it's not really the people who create that get to keep, it's the owner of the tools that gets to keep.
There're a lot of different thoughts to pursue on this concept, and I'm just going to mention two b4 I get to the most important question.
1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work.
2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)
Here's the important question:
What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?
-----------------------------
"The concept of ownership is pretty valuable to society..."
I can give you an example of how the concept of ownership has become a destructive juggernaut and that is the concept of intellectual property and its effect on research and development. I have a lot of specifics on hand, examples of both how intellectual property stifled development and how shared ideas enhanced progress, but I'm going to sum it all up with this example- If we had to pay the software engineer, creator of the transistor, the developer of plastics, all the way back to the inventor of the alphabet and the discoverer of fire every time we wrote on a PC... or worse, were stymied from using these tools because of patent and copyright restrictions- we porobably would have never gotten to the disovery of agriculture.
--------------------------------------
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on Iraq. I sense serious "mission creep" and I think it's all being pushed by the neocons' grandiose schemes to remake the world. But we'll each have to just reserve the right to say "I told you so". Or better yet, let's make a bet: If by March they have not YET found even one WMD (not a "program"- I mean a real, honest-to-god weapon) then you can say "You were right and I was wrong". With a smile. 
The inverse goes for me. Deal? 
----------------------
I read an interesting and true story about three environmental activtists found GPS trackers under their bumpers. I would have blown it off as a black helicopter story, except (1) it appeared in a credible newspaper and (2) it was followed within a month by THIS RULING
"Satellite Tracking of Suspects Requires a Warrant, Court Rules
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
OLYMPIA, Wash., Sept. 11 (AP) — The police cannot attach a Global Positioning System tracker to a suspect's vehicle without a warrant, the Washington Supreme Court said today in the first such ruling in the nation"
Obviously there is more going on than you think.
But as far as the Patriot Act itself is concerned, there is a detailed analysis that appears here:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011031_ef
f_usa_patriot_analysis.php
Exerpts from the analysis are here:
"USAPA expands all four traditional tools of surveillance -- wiretaps, search warrants, pen/trap orders and subpoenas.
Be careful what you put in that Google search
The government may now spy on web surfing of innocent Americans... by merely telling a judge anywhere in the U.S. that the spying could lead to information that is "relevant" to an ongoing criminal investigation. The person spied on DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE TARGET of the investigation
Nationwide roving wiretaps ...The government may now serve a single wiretap, FISA wiretap or pen/trap order on ANY PERSON OR ENTITIY REGARDLESS of whether that person or entity is named in the order.
ISPs hand over more user information"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In most factories, a single worker does a specific job, and adds to the creation of a product, rather than creates the entire product from scratch. He does own his labor, his creation, his effort, which he is selling to his employer, at a profit to himself. Besides which, without those tools and the factory and raw materials, the employees would not be creating anything. And there is the added risk the owner assumes, that the employee does not.
"What happens to the money that the owner gets to keep?" Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be extremely risky as one never knows if a particular project will ever pay off in the long run) buys food, or whatever the onwer does.
"1) If people are motivated by money then the system you describe incentivizes ownership over work."
I don't see this as a problem. People work in order to buy things, to own things. At one level, this is consumables like food which feeds both worker and owner alike. Unless you want to eat someone else's food, this is not a problem.
"2) When ownership itself becomes a commodity (think stock market) then it becomes subject to speculation, divorcing the value of the company from production and distorting the motives of those in power. (think Enron)"
Again, not seeing a problem here. It seems you have a bug about ownership in general. If you own something but cannot sell it to someone else, then in what sense do you really own it? The more restrictions you place on the concept of ownership, the more it becomes even more of a fiction.
Also, the idea behind stock markets and such is to accumulate capital such that larger and larger projects can be completed. That factory does not grow on trees, it has to be built, the tools and raw materials have to be purchased before it sells a single unit of product. Meaning workers have to be paid whether or not the factory owner sees a dime on his investment.
Thomas Sowell discusses how various commodity markets works in his book, "Basic Economics" and how they add value. How commodity markets insure a price, and how speculators are in essence buying risk, assuming the risks of a flucuating market from the producers. And how this helps move commodities and products from whete they are overabundant to places where they are less available and hence more valuable.
The big problem with Enron and other companies (as I remember) is that they were lying on their books and financial reports, lying about the profits they were taking, lying about the value they were adding to the products they were selling. Committing fraud.
---------------------------
On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? Simply for the undefined joy of discovery, or other things a person can't eat? Unless it benefits the inventor, or writer, then there is no incentive for creating, and lets face it, the inventiveness of the human mind is probably the only real unlimited resource there is.
I know it can be a pain having to pay royalties for someone's invention for the 20 years their patent is in effect, but sometimes its a pain not to be able to pick Farmer John's apples growing in his orchard too.
----------------------
No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2.
And like I said before it is a bit of a red herring. We knew Saddam had WMDs, we got the photos of the dead Kurds and dead Irani soldiers to prove it. Saddam was obligated by both the armistice from the first Gulf War and about 17 UN resolutions to prove that he had gotten rid of them. Saddam never complied. The inspections were never intended as a game of hide and seek, but to give Saddam a chance to make good on his promises and obligations. To show the world he no longer had them. Again, Saddam failed to comply.
You talk about the neocons' desire to "remake the world" failing to de
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In more or less reverse order:
"You seem to be missing the point behind the expanded powers of the PATRIOT Act. Which is to prevent another 9-11 attack... even the observance of a right comes at a cost, and if that cost is the deaths of thousands more, or perhaps millions more lives, then the cost is too high."
You seem to be missing the point of the Revolutionary War and the Bill of Rights.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"- Benjamin Franklin.
In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism.
------------------------------------
"No deal. Like I pointed out, the Chinese had just discovered earlier this year several barrels of mustard gas left behind by the Japanese during WW2."
You know, if those barrels were the ONLY evidence of WWII that had JUST been discovered, then I would smack my forehead and say "I'll be gob-smackered, you're right!!!" But in fact there was evidence of WWII laying all the place: tons of unexploded ordnance, shells, mines, barbed wire, emplacements and so forth. The point is that if WMD existed in the numbers that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Powell were ranting about, ready to be deployed "in 45 minutes" (yeah, right) SOMETHING would show up. I mean, where's your common sense?
You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah! 
--------------------------------
"We knew Saddam had WMDs..."
Of course we did- we sold them to him and helped him use them...
"To prove that he had gotten rid of them"
According to the inspectors, he was playing games and the UN didn't support them very well. But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them.
--------------------------
"A free and democratic Iraq, without WMDs makes us all safer, and removes the root cause of terrorism, as well as the means for conducting atrocities that would pale next to 9-11. Its going to be a tough job, but swatting the mosquitos is only a short term solution. ya gotta drain the swamp."
What is the difference between "free" and "democratic" I'd like to find out what your vision is for Iraq.
Do you really think we CAN drain the swamp? I have serious doubts. We couldn't do it in Vietnam. If you dimiss Vietnam as irrelvant, look at the Israelis. They have every possible advantage:
1) They surround the Palestinian population centers completely and can (and do) blockade them.
2) Living cheek by jowl for decades and having an effective security they seem to know the who, where, and when of the terrorist groups. (They sure pick out their cars with missiles pretty accurately!)
3) They have been bulldozing relatives' homes, uprooting orchards, bombing administrative centers and pretty much doing everything they can to penalize civilian supporters for decades.
4) They have superiority of arms including (I might add) helicopter gunships and WMD, and billions of dollars of aid from the USA.
And you know what??? It ain't working. My point is, if Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?
--------------------
"On the other hand, if patents and copyrights were not in existence, then what would be the point of inventing new things? "
I got news for you- a lot of inventions occured before there were patents or copyrights, and they would continue at an accelerated pace without them. I don't want to get into a very long discussion, just trust me on this because I know an awful lot about biomedical research.
---------------------------
"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".
"...without those tools and the factory"
Who created the tools and the factory?
"Its the onwer's money, he does with it whatever he likes, upgrades the factory, expands business operations, invests in R&D (which can be ex
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In any case, there is no evidence that the Patriot Act would have prevented another 9-11. It is, however, being used to stifle dissent along lines that have nothing to do with terrorism."
And yet here you are still going on about it. I am hearing a lot of dissent, tons of criticism. At the volume levels that are being raised, I would hate to think how loud it would be if none were being stifled, assuming any is.
Tim Robbins can still go in front of the National Press Club and complain about being silenced. The irony of that one instance seems lost on a lot of folks.
So I have severe doubts that this is the case.
---------------------------------------
"You're just chicken- nyah nyah nyah!"
LOL, like I said, the WMD claims of yours are a red herring. Besides, are you saying the Iraqi people and the world in general is better off with Saddam in power?
The thing about the Chinese find was that it was found 50 years after the war. WMD were hidden, buried in the ground, for 50 years before being found. Saddam has had 12 years to hide his weapons and weapons programs. I don't think the Japanese were in China quite that long.
Also you talk about the "evidence of WW2" and seem to ignore the dead Kurds and dead Iranian troops, dead specifically because Saddam had used chemical weapons on them. As far as I know, the Japanese never used chemical weapons during WW2.
So again. He had them. He was required to prove he had gotten rid of them. He gave us no indication that he had, and every indication that he was hiding them, all in violations of several UN resolutions and his agreement at the armistice. To simply assume he got rid of them on the sly does not make any sense.
---------------------------
"But the inspectors were willing to continue so we should have let them."
Again, you are missing the point here. It was never supposed to be a game of hide and seek. Saddam was playing games, actually that particular game and that was not what the inspections were all about. After 12 years of that nonsense, it was getting pretty silly.
So the inspectors were willing to play. Fortunately not everyone else was.
---------------------------------------
"Israel can't stop suicide bombings under those circumstances, what makes us think we will be successful in Iraq?"
I think it will work out, because freedom is actually better than living under slavery, regardless of whether you call it Ba'athism, Nazism, Islamic Theocracy, Comunism or what have you. People want to be free, to live and be happy. The multitude of governmental systems that have been tried have failed world wide, except for liberal democracy (Majority rule with respect for minority rights)
Our goals and the goals of the Iraqi people are far different that the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians want the Jews dead, and the Jews want to live. We don't want another 9-11, and most Iraqis do not want to give us one either. We want a peaceful and prosperous Iraq, and indications so far are that the Iraqis want the same thing as well.
I don't know if it even can be done. I think it can. I do see what can happen if we don't even try, which are more and more 9-11s. So I am willing to side with those who are willing to try to drain that swamp, rather than sit on the sidelines and tell them it can't be done.
-----------------------------------------
I find it hard to simply take your word for it, concerning patents. Someone produces something of value to you, something that you did not need to produce yourself, they have done something valuable for you. I don't see screwing them over, and not rewarding their efforts as any kind of a good thing.
----------------------------------
"...at a profit to himself." This is a misuse of the word "profit" which is NOT synoynous with "reward" or "paycheck".
Go back and read the whole thing again. It costs so much to run a car, to get to work. To cover the expenses incurred in a job, whether it is the purchase of tools, special clothing, etc. The worker gets paid above and beyond t
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And yet here you are still going on about it."
Actually, I was followed -presumably by the FBI- for a couple of days after my ID was turned in by a webmaster. I worried out loud about biological warfare a couple of days b4 the anthrax letters were mailed. So yeah, here I am.
--------------------------
Everyone knows that Saddam had WMD, nobody better than Rumsfeld since he helped ship production materials.
"But it was Donald Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad which opened of the floodgates during 1985-90... some $1.5 billion worth-- including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons equipment and ... critical components for missile delivery systems. A 1994 GAO Letter Report (GAO/NSIAD-94-98) [said] some 771 weapons export licenses for Iraq were approved during this six year period....by the U.S. Department of Commerce."
The WMD were Sarin, cyclosarin, VX, and mustard gas, liquid anthrax, and botulism. But NOBODY has ever claimed that Iraq continued to manufacture these agents after 1991. ALL of these agents- with the exception of mustard gas- deteriorate over a few years. SO, what's the scenario?
OOps, gotta get back with ya. Time to get my daughter off to bed!
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect
/cmfaff/813/813we26.htm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YOUR BANK CAN BLACKLIST YOU
In the name of homeland security, financial institutions can close accounts and cancel credit cards with little explanation. Complaints are slowly mounting.
Hossam Algabri ripped open his statement from Fleet Bank one day after work last November, and began to read: "We regret to inform you that we have decided that it is not in our best interest to continue your banking relationship with us."
Algabri assumed that a mistake had been made. He hadn't bounced a single check since he opened an account at the institution's predecessor, BayBank, 11 years earlier.
As he dialed customer service, he began to wonder: Did this have anything to do with the war on terrorism?
"You hear about it all the time, but you never think it will happen to you," says the Egyptian native, who came to the United States at age 12 and became a citizen this year.
Algabri sat on hold that day for 20 minutes. Nine months later he is still, in essence, on hold. The bank has told him that his account was flagged for suspicious activity, but says that is all it is at liberty to reveal. He has since opened an account elsewhere.
Banks have long played a role in stopping the flow of money among suspected terrorists, money launderers, and narcotraffickers. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised the bar. More watch lists have been generated, more institutions have become accountable -- and more consumers may feel the heat.
No attention to consumer complaints
And while alleged government violations of civil rights under the USA Patriot Act have received steady attention, consumer complaints in the private sector have fallen largely off the radar.
"No one paid attention to the lists because they primarily affected foreign nationals," says Peter Fitzgerald, an expert on government watch lists at Stetson University in Florida. "Now it affects those who do business with those who do business with those who do business with someone suspected of terrorism."
Financial institutions are under pressure from the government. They face stiff fines -- up to $1 million in some cases -- if they don't stop money flows or freeze accounts.
Some observers worry, however, that financial discrimination has become an unwanted byproduct. Under an article of the Patriot Act, some investigations now are conducted in secret, and American consumers such as Algabri increasingly are finding their accounts closed without explanation -- and with little recourse.
"Blacklisting was set up as a foreign-policy tool," but as the practice creeps into the realm of criminality, there are questions about whether the mechanisms in place protect those who are accused, Fitzgerald says.
Targeted financial sanctions are widely supported, both in and out of the financial community, as a homeland-security measure. They are intended to punish "the bad guys," say sources, instead of an entire nation, such as Iraq.
But are its tentacles reaching too far, gathering up batches of mistaken identities? And are financial institutions too often erring on the side of caution?
A Treasury Department watch list
Algabri's story probably dates back to his former employee, Ptech, of Quincy, Mass. The software company made headlines last winter when it became public that one of its financiers, a Saudi national, showed up on a Treasury Department watch list.
The company was later cleared, but Algabri's account -- as well as those of four Muslim and Arab colleagues -- remains closed. Each received the same letter from Fleet on Nov. 2, about a month before the Ptech story broke, according to sources involved in the case.
Algabri says he believes in the nation's war on terrorism, but not the "overzealous" one that is unfolding today. "I believe they closed my account because I am a Muslim," he says. He plans to file a discrimination complaint against FleetBoston Financial in the coming weeks.
Fleet Bank did not return calls to discuss Algabri's account.
Accounts closed, credit cards cancelled
According to civil rights advoca
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One dentist appointment, one frantic school meeting, and one work emergency later... Where were we??? Oh, yes.
Thank you Anthony for the article. You know, when I read about the United States actions- everyone tracked, people blacklisted, people detained indefinitely- it sounds like the Alliance, doesn't it? It's funny how people like freedom in the abstract, isn't it?
------------------------------
Anyhow, back to Iraq, where our enlisted folks are struggling to make a profit for Haliburton.
Drakon- so, what is your nightmare scenario? That Saddam buried WMD a dozen years ago? That he was making them- and burying them- up to the last minute? That they were "ready to be deployed in 45 minutes"?
Couldn't door #3-if they were ready to be deployed in places Bush was CERTAIN he would find them, they would have already been found, wouldn't they? Couldn't be door #1, 'cause WMD inevitably deteriorate over time. So maybe it was door #2? Let me know.
"And anyway" you say "the world is better off without him". If THAT'S the reason why we went into Iraq, then why did we support him in the first place? Why didn't we go after some other equally reprehensible dictator, or all of them? Again- let me know.
--------------------------
AFA capitaliam is concerned- Ahem. Do you know what the word "aggregate" means? DO this mental experiment- take all of the paychecks in the world and add them up. Is the sum total of Joe and Jane Worker able to buy back- in total- everything that they made? If not, where does the money go?
HINT: I'm trying to point out a problem that was supremely evident during the Great Depression, one that Keynes tried to solve under Rooseveldt.
Internet research is allowed- this is an open book question!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Arrgg! Now the thing is killing my posts. This is take two
I guess to some, freedom should be a one way street. You are free to do business with anyone you want, but the businesses are not free to do with whom they want.
The secret nature of the investigations are troublesome, however, the inconvience of changing banks is nothing compared to the inconvience of another mass terrorist attack.
BTW: CAIR is not, in my opinion a trustworthy source.
-------------------------------
Iraq: I feel like a lawyer continuing to discuss this. I think your facts are wrong, and even if they were right, your argument would still be wrong.
What your whole "Bush lied, there are not WMD" argument is really saying is that Saddam should still be in power. That Uday should still have his special arraignment with various high school principles, and Qusay should still be feeding his plastics shredder people he did not like. That hte mass graves were still filling up, and the prison still held children whose crime was having the wrong parents.
If one of the reasons for the war was wrong, then the war was wrong. If the war was wrong, then any change made by the war should not have occured. That is the logical conclusion of your argument.
I note the Iraqi side of this, I know a lot of folks claim to care deeply about the plight of the Iraqi people. And many of those same folks are making this exact argument you are, that the war was wrong, and Saddam should still be in power. Despite how bad it would be for the very people they claim to care about.
And as concern for the Iraqi people is demostrably false, why should one accept a concern for enlisted folks?
And again, the issue was not for us to prove one way or the other. The burden of proof was Saddam's, not the UN inspectors, not the US, not anyone else's.
And also, if he did not have them, then what exactly was he trying to hide from the inspectors? Why did not the intelligence service of any country on the Security Council stand up for Saddam, say "We don't need inspections or war, because he is clean?" None did, not France, not Russia, not Syria, not anybody. Prior to the war, every nation's intelligence service thought he had them. That is why 1441 passed unanamously.
As to support, again you are wrong on facts (or in this case degrees) and even if you were right, you'd still be wrong. Look at the numbers, you will see that France and Russia gave far more in military aid to Saddam than the US did, by at least an order of magnitude. It was not F-16s he had, but Migs.
We sided with Stalin during WW2, because at the time, Hitler was a worse threat than Stalin. The mullahs in Iran were thought to be worse a worse threat as well. The context gets ignored here alot in these debates.
And even if we did support him to the degree you claim, then it is even more incumbant to clean up our mess is it not?
Why don't we go after all the dictators? We do not have unlimited resources, and look at the flak we get from folks just like you for going after Saddam. We can't do everything, nor help everyone we would like to. So we deal with those who are the biggest potential threats first, and hope to leverage the other regimes into, or rather out of, power. We are already starting to see signs of that, as Syria is discussing multiparty rule, and Iran looks to be headed for a change in government soon. (Its been looking that way for some time, but the mullahs are looking more and more weakened)
We do what we can. We do it first and foremost to keep from getting our own folks killed, and sadly those regimes that don't pose as great a threat are going to have to wait.
--------------------------
Aggregate: From when you used this, it has stuck in the back of my mind, like a code word I had heard before. It took me a while to recognize it for what it was. But once I did, your arguments became a lot clearer. You seem to be a believer in the labor theory of value.
Take two identical blocks of marble. Same tools, same time. One, you get to chisle on. The other we will
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, leave for awhile to take care of things and look at all I miss. 
I think we all need to remember that war, politics, and foreign policy have never really made much sense, and when the government tries to mix all three in one smoldering powderkeg like the Middle East, the potential for it to blow up in your face is high.
I was a Ranger in Desert Shield and Desert Storm the first time around, and I can tell you things that the news can't or won't. The problem is that we as the public try to form an opinion based on what we hear from the media, what the government tells us, and our own judgement. Unfortunately, the government only tells you what it wants to, the media is normally slanted, and without all the information, our judgement can only be so reliable.
I don't trust the government to have everyone's best interests at heart anymore than the rest of you. I know that the government hides a good bit more from us than we suspect, and that there is quite a bit of self serving going on behind closed doors. I do know that at least in the US we have the right to be skeptical openly, in a public forum, and as much as we might wish otherwise, simply discussing it will not make any changes in the way the government deals with us and the world.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME