American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 6 of 12
Quote:You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show.
Quote:Not those "in charge". In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
That sounds to me like those in charge, perhaps not.
Not necessarily.
You said
Quote:But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Poor people with simple jobs don’t do much, do they?
Quote:They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Quote:This is an assertion. I'll have to get back to this later.
Capitalism encourages free market, free enterprise, free thinking. Communism encourages a subsistence level of poverty and easily controlled masses.
"IP?"
Intellectual property.
Quote:You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Quote:Gotta get to work. I'll edit this later. TTUL
That’s true. In any free society, there must be limitations to what one can do in order to maximize everyone’s freedom. But in the hypothetical society you seem to be describing, the only one allowed to own land is the government; everyone else must be poor farmers, fisherman etc. No on is allowed to gain any degree of independence from the government. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Quote:Who else would be in charge?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not necessarily.
Quote:You said it yourself. “what do they DO- besides owning thgins(sic)”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Quote:Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Quote:Really? How?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Quote:Yes, you did. Remember this:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Quote:In other words the land they owned.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it.[Emphasis Added.]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
------------------------------------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
-----------------------------------------
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.
--------------------------------------------------
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?
-------------------------
Finn:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Signy: You should know- that's what you've been advocating!
Finn: Really? How?
Signy: By supporting/ excusing/ rationalizing every military junta and dictatorship that we put into power with the concommitant death of millions of (usually) peasants and slum-dwellers.
------------------------------
SignyM:
You're right, I DID say landowners. But I didn't say that the peasants would become landowners.
Finn: Yes, you did. Remember this:
"Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it."
In other words the land they owned.
Signy: That's not what I meant, so let me clarify that statement- "...on the land they would have had been able to use, had someone not stolen it."
Well, lunch break's over ! TTUL!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn:
He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
Quote:In other words, the government is the only one in charge.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
Quote:Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?
Originally posted by SignyM:
SignyM:
But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscom-munication here- I can't figure out your answer.
Quote:No. What I am saying is that if you exclude power from the private sector then the Government is the sole proprietor of authority. Competition, not just between the wealthy, but also between anyone willing to compete.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state is allowed to have power? Which sort of means the state has absolute authority.
Signy: What you seem to be saying is "Getting rid of individuals in power means we have more power." You seem to be relying on competition between the powerful to more or less distribute or equalize power. Am I understanding you correctly?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn:Exactly, that’sNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to my original contention:
Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.
The US installs, and/or supports, and/or occasionally deposes dictators. The CIA did the job before it was reined in and forbidden to assassinate, foment, advise, supply etc. And before the CIA, the army, navy and marines were pressed into service to install, support and topple foreign governments. In some cases it dates back to the early 1900's - before the Russian Revolution, before the Cold War, and before anti-Communism became a convenient rhetorical bludgeon.
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. And you'll conveniently gloss over that fact that in Central and South America US-supported death squads killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, coincidentally supporting regimes of various kinds. And that, like Korea, South American democracy emerged after US influence diminished. Now maybe you'll paint a happy picture of how pleasant Russia is, and keep silent about life expectancy in the new Capitalist Paradise.
I know to much for that.
I provide references which are of necessity incomplete. I'm not about to publish a book here. But anyone with an interest can use my references to HISTORICAL events to learn more. And Google will list many, many resources which are balanced in the aggregate.
On the other hand, while I see a lot of rhetoric and what looks like disinformation, I see nothing in the way of substantiation for opposing claims. It appears that my position prevails.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RE: Jayne
The more or less entire xchng goes-
Signy: Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Finn: That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show
SignyM: You seem to be equating greed, disloyalty, and deception with honesty. How?
Finn: He’s a crook. They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it.
Signy: They're all petty thieves, I suppose. But are they ALL greedy, disloyal, and deceptive? Simon seems pretty loyal to River, Zoe is loyal to Mal, Mal is loyal to his crew. River, by nature, can't be dishonest and the remainder of the characters aren't consistently deceptive. None of them seem to be real greedy, they're just looking to get by. In fact, they seem to disapprove of people who overeach their needs. But I think that's not your point. Trying to make your point more explicit, would it be fair to say that you think that humans are by nature greedy and individualistic, and that those who don't act that way are just covering up their true nature?
Finn: Jayne is loyal to mal. And crime by its nature is deceptive. But no I don’t think, nor am I implying that human nature is, in general, greedy. But Jayne is, and that is obvious in the character.
Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?
---------------
Finn:In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Signy: Not necessarily.
Finn: Who else would be in charge?
Signy: I hate to get all wormy about this, but it depends on what you mean by "in charge" and "of what".
Finn: In other words, the government is the only one in charge.
Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?
-------------------
Signy: But why do you assume that the people are poor with simple jobs? Is medical research simple? Is practicing law simple? Is coordinating international deliveries simple? How is this inconsistent with communism?
Finn:“What do they DO- besides owning things”. Apparently not owning land. But what do they do? I guess in your hypothetical Communist world, medical research is fine, until it becomes more then just owning things, although not land. And that’s generally the way communist governments work. Everyone is fine, as long as they are poor and simple and easy to control. If medical research develops into a business, for instance, then it becomes incorporated by the government.
Signy: What??? Seems to be a major miscommunication here- I can't figure out your answer.
Finn: Once again, you’re the one who said they didn’t do anything but own things (except not land), and that is what made them acceptable for your support, yet not the “big guys,” meaning landowners, generals and corporations. The conclusion is obvious. So in your moral system, doing nothing but owning things (except not land) is okay, but being a landowner, a general or a corporation is not acceptable. Landowners, generals and corporations “own things.” How are they different? And why do you believe that it’s okay to do nothing but own things(except not land), yet not okay to be a landowner (which by definition is doing nothing but owning something), generals and corporation?
Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"
-----------------
Finn: They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control.
Signy: They don't have much INDIVIDUAL power, but together they can control the government.
Finn: Maybe, but then what is wrong with individual power? Only the collective state
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly as it was said.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: But you said "They’re all crooks. They’re all greedy, disloyal and deceptive. Jayne’s character is just more transparent, more honest about it. So, how am I supposed to interpret that?
Quote:No, and they shouldn't be in charge of whether or not I buy land or whether or not I run a corporation.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Is the government in charge of which side you sleep on? Whether you drink coffee or tea? Where you work or whether you work?
Quote:This is your story. You tell me.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: OK, there really is a major miscommunication! What I meant was "What do owners (generals, oligarchs, landowners, and international corporations) do besides owning things?"
Quote:More or less.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: So what you're saying is that competition keeps things in check.
Quote:That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Signy: Where's the exaggeration? Hmmm.. let's see. A civil war that pits an elected president and the majority of a population on one side, and an army and the CIA on the other side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."
That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.
Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All of which the US played or plays a crucial role in the emergence of democracy.
Originally posted by rue:
Whether or not a foreign government was *originally* a dictatorship, a junta, OR a democracy, the US has its preferences for specific (compliant) dictators. Noriega, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein should have kept this in mind before they went and PO'd their master.
Quote:I don’t agree, because I think the facts clearly state otherwise.
Originally posted by rue:
This is my point, which I will continue to reference as time permits - the US has a history of NORMALLY being on the side of dictators it prefers for business reasons.
Democratic institution rating (10 most democratic, -10 most autocratic.) [3]
Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade deficits. [1]
China. . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: -7.0
Japan. . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Canada. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Germany. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Mexico. . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 6.0
Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Venezuela. . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
South Korea. . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 8.0
Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 4.0
Top ten countries with which the US holds the largest trade Surplus[2]
Netherlands. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Singapore. . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 4.0(Malaysia) *
Hong Kong. . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -7.0, 10(China, UK)**
Australia. . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Belgium. . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: 10.0
Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Democratic institution rating: -6.0
United Arab Emirates. . Democratic institution rating: -8.0
Panama. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Democratic institution rating: 7.0
Netherlands Antilles. . . .Democratic institution rating: 10.0 (Netherlands)***
*No independent rating was found for Singapore. Singapore is an independent City-State on the southern tip of Malaysia. Its form of government is described as a parliamentary republic.
** No independent rating was found for Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a city-state that for most of last century was a British territory, but now has been handed over to China as a special administrative region of China. Its form of government is described as a limited democracy.
*** Netherlands Antilles is a group of Caribbean Islands, most of which are territories of the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a Liberal Democracy, described as a Constitutional Monarchy. Aruba is the only independent nation in the Netherlands Antilles. Aruba’s form of government is described as a parliamentary democracy.
[1] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html
[2] http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/surplus.html
[3] Polity IV Project, University of Maryland, at http://www.bsos.umd.edu/cidcm/inscr/index.htm#polity via ciesin.org
Quote:Waned? Yes, US influence is really down the tubes, isn’t it? No actually it occurred because of something called the Korean War, in which the US fought off the Stalinist dictatorial regime that now presides over North Korea, and helped to produce the now Democratic South Korea. There is no more blatant and obvious example of US support for Democracy.
Originally posted by rue:
Now I know you'll point to Korea, assuming that most people don't know that for decades it was a brutal dictatorship supported by the US. Or that Korean democracy is a recent event that happened only as US influence waned. .
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And you'll conveniently glosNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That's the exaggeration right there, if not a complete fallacy."
That's an unsupported assertion there, not to be mistaken for reality.
Finn, for someone who pretends to be in the know, you have no referenced facts to cite. And when someone does bring out bona fide facts, you run like hell.
It is supported. It is supported by the fact that the comment it is in response to, fails to produce any evidence for an outrageous claim. The burden is not on my to find support for your point of view. I’m sorry, but that is something that you’ll have to come up with on your own.
I hate to break it to you, rue, but making a list of, largely, democratic nations as evidence that the US prefers dictators is hardly what one might call “bona fide facts.”
And I think I’ve responded to every point you’ve made so far. It’s hardly fair to say I’ve run from any of your comments.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME