Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Shrain on September 11, 2008, 10:48:51 PM
-
Seven years later, even writing down the date "9/11" triggers a ripple of sadness in me. :(
This past July, I was in NY for an interview. I stayed at a hotel right across from Ground Zero. Yep, the construction was loud. But it kind of made me glad to hear evidence of rebuilding. I peered down at the site from the fourteenth floor of my room. Hard to capture how I felt. I have no idea how I would have reacted to the horrific events that day if I had been there.
Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I have not forgotten nor ever will.
(http://clifflamere.com/Graphics/Img-Flags/firemen-flag-9-11-2001-b.jpg)
-
Well done. That was a driving factor in why I joined the armed forces and I'm still proud of it today. My heart goes out to all of those who lost family and friends on this day seven years ago and to all of those who are supporting a service man or woman over seas. Stay strong, in my eyes we still stand united even though its less evident as time passes.
-
Seven years later . . .
Something should have already been built and we should move on. I may seem like a jerk to some people, but the United States has caused much worse travesties and yet we don't morn those. It's been seven years, we need to stop living off the past.
-
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm sorry Miyabi, but this mentality drives me insane. 3,000 people died, including hundreds of firefighters and police who willingly entered those buildings despite knowing they would very likely not come back out. This type of self-sacrifice and should never, ever be forgotten. I have many more reasons to remember that day, but to prevent this from degenerating into a political battle, I'll leave it alone for now.
-
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. I'm sorry Miyabi, but this mentality drives me insane. 3,000 people died, including hundreds of firefighters and police who willingly entered those buildings despite knowing they would very likely not come back out. This type of self-sacrifice and should never, ever be forgotten. I have many more reasons to remember that day, but to prevent this from degenerating into a political battle, I'll leave it alone for now.
I didn't say we should 'forget' the past. I said we should move on and stop living in it. If we live in it we will never move on and learn from it. We will hold ourselves within a state of non-moving and we will be stuck, never advancing or learning. I admire all those who sacrificed themselves to save others, I mourned those who died, but it's time to move on.
-
The question is, then, what exactly you mean by "moving on" or "not living it," Miyabi. It's not like we've all stopped working and living since 9/11/01. I see nothing at all wrong with everyone sparing at least ONE day out of 365 to focus on remembering and honoring the victims and those whom they left behind. On the contrary, it would be very, very wrong not to do so.
We *have* moved on. But we will never forget and I pray that we don't get so apathetic as to *not* hold a remembrance ceremony on that day. Sure, I admit that I expected the memorial to be completed a few years ago. Yet with an event so unprecedented and horrid, it was bound to prove a difficult memorial to plan. Heck, I remember when there was talk of rebuilding the towers themselves.
Consider this: the world at large has "moved on" from WWII and the Holocaust. But most of us have not forgotten and I rue the day when that is not the case. Perhaps even more saddening are all those tragedies in other countries (Darfur, etc.) which are *not* quite as widely known and therefore never enter our consciousnesses at all.
Lastly, technically speaking, there is no way for us to "live" in these historical moments. Yet imo, re-living them (i.e., remembering them) and thus renewing our dedication to the future, is a necessary step in affirming ourselves ethical beings. So, really, I think maybe you might want to consider what would happen or what it would mean if no one ever said anything ever again about 9/11 and those who died or lost loved ones. I don't want to live in that kind of America.
-
I was just in NY again a few weeks ago and we walked down to the site (My second time since it happened). It truly is frightful. The hole in the sky where it used to be is mind boggling. I remember as a kid my parents walked us down there between the two buildings and we just looked up and up and up.
The saddest part is not the loss of the buildings, but the enormous loss of life that those two towers represent. It is staggering. I felt the blow from 3000+ miles away as I was serving as a missionary in Mexico at the time.
I agree, we cannot forget. But I also agree we need to work and make sure we learn from it.
-
The thing that bothers me is that we get extremely angry when we get attacked and three thousand people die. Why do we apparently not care when WE KILL 94,000 people. WHO HAD a perfect right to retaliate against us completely cutting them off from the rest of the world.
-
The thing that bothers me is that we get extremely angry when we get attacked and three thousand people die. Why do we apparently not care when WE KILL 94,000 people. WHO HAD a perfect right to retaliate against us completely cutting them off from the rest of the world.
Hmmmm....I'll just assume those 94,000 you mention are casualties in a WAR America is in. That's the key word there, WAR. Killing enemy combatants is a whole gigantic world of difference. I do realize that in a war that sometimes innocent civilians are tragically killed. However, don't compare the COWARDS who attacked a non-military target on purpose to the American military. The American military goes to great lengths to ensure minimal civilian casualties.
-
Who are you referring to? What 94,000 people? Do you mean Al Qaeda? The Taliban (who we actually helped when the Soviets invaded - what a way to say thanks)? Also, were these 94,000 people soldiers in a nation we were at war with? Please be specific. I can't believe people who are so adamantly opposed to any type of restriction of civil liberties somehow end up justifying the actions of a group whose lack of respect for life and civil rights beliefs are beyond horrific. It is totally mystifying to me. When Rosie O'Donnell made her "hug a terrorist" rant I couldn't help but laugh at the irony of an openly gay women asking to show love to a group of people who firmly believe homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, and women in general are little more than the property of their husbands. I guess civil rights only apply to Americans, unless of course your an illegal immigrant or a captured terrorist.
-
See, you are all focused on this ONE incident and this ONE fight. That is part of what I mean. We are SO into this one thing currently that we don't see other things that are MORE important on a globular scale. I am referring to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
-
See, you are all focused on this ONE incident and this ONE fight. That is part of what I mean. We are SO into this one thing currently that we don't see other things that are MORE important on a globular scale. I am referring to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I read once that the US contemplated not using the atomic bombs and drew up a plan for a full scale invasion. They estimated that just Alliance casualties would be at over 1million. Besides that once again this was during a war. Also, the WAR with Japan has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
-
See, you are all focused on this ONE incident and this ONE fight. That is part of what I mean. We are SO into this one thing currently that we don't see other things that are MORE important on a globular scale. I am referring to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I read once that the US contemplated not using the atomic bombs and drew up a plan for a full scale invasion. They estimated that over just Alliance casualties at over 1million. Besides that once again this was during a war. Also, the WAR with Japan has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
I've read that same report. Do you know WHY we were fighting them in the first place? That seems to get lost in U.S. history, or is only vaguely referenced too, but seems to be talked about in many other countries.
I know it has nothing to do with 9/11 BUT I'm explaining that we have done SO much worse and yet we act like it's some kind of utterly inhuman atrocity that something "bad" happened to us. Now I will agree it was probably sad, but do you know WHY THEY attacked us?
People should REALLY do research on these things, they'd find out a lot.
-
I'm sorry, are you referring to Pearl Harbor? Or maybe it was the U.S. blockade imposed upon Japan? After, they had massacred --30 million-- Chinese. No hears about that either. Most don't know that the Japanese had reintroduced the Bubonic Plague, and through experiments "on human subjects" making it air-borne. This is not the "Normal" Black Death, this was something new, and kept quiet so as to not cause panic, even now.
The thing is, if you really do your research, you find all sorts of things. Many things have been done in the past, and by people, we hold in high regard now. However, when everything has a first cause, how long can anyone hold a grudge? If we judge by history, well, forever. Nevertheless, to assume that most of us don't know, hmmm, well I cannot speak for anyone else but... I am proud to be an American.
-
Miyabi, I think part of the problem is that you're reading things in to my post that weren't ever there. First of all, I wasn't saying that 9/11 is somehow *more* important than any other tragedy. I wasn't claiming that 9/11 is the only reason why we're in a war with Iraq. NOWHERE did I say or imply, "I'm feeling kinda bummed out because it's been seven years since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which of course were waaaay more important and outrageous than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Nope. Not at all. All I was trying to convey was that this event is closer to some of us simply because it happened *here* within *my* lifetime.
That is not to diminish the importance--or impact--of the bomb-dropping on Japan in WWII. Personally, I believe that the decision to bomb those cities was fundamentally wrong. It was evil. Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor was; just as the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were. BUT, again, yesterday wasn't the anniversary of those attacks now, was it?
What's more, I really don't think there is no easy answer to *why* those men planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. But here's the difficulty I have with caring WHY they did it. The WHY, whatever it may be, really cannot justify the WHAT, in my opinion.
...on a globular scale. I am referring to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um, "globular scale"? You mean "global," right?
-
Miyabi, I think part of the problem is that you're reading things in to my post that weren't ever there. First of all, I wasn't saying that 9/11 is somehow *more* important than any other tragedy. I wasn't claiming that 9/11 is the only reason why we're in a war with Iraq. NOWHERE did I say or imply, "I'm feeling kinda bummed out because it's been seven years since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, which of course were waaaay more important and outrageous than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Nope. Not at all. All I was trying to convey was that this event is closer to some of us simply because it happened *here* within *my* lifetime.
That is not to diminish the importance--or impact--of the bomb-dropping on Japan in WWII. Personally, I believe that the decision to bomb those cities was fundamentally wrong. It was evil. Just as the attack on Pearl Harbor was; just as the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were. BUT, again, yesterday wasn't the anniversary of those attacks now, was it?
What's more, I really don't think there is no easy answer to *why* those men planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. But here's the difficulty I have with caring WHY they did it. The WHY, whatever it may be, really cannot justify the WHAT, in my opinion.
...on a globular scale. I am referring to the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Um, "globular scale"? You mean "global," right?
Globular - worldwide; global.
I was just saying that we take a day to mourn something that relatively is a minuscule event in world history.
As pertaining to why : Imagine someone a hundred times more powerful than you comes and takes what has been yours for over a thousand years. They then give it to someone else and tell you if you try to take it back they will kill you. No matter what the people who have that thing do they are right. So now they are taking more of your stuff and killing your friends and family. Now you see an opening to maybe try and get the larger power to listen to you. . . . you take the opportunity right?
-
Globular - worldwide; global.
I was just saying that we take a day to mourn something that relatively is a minuscule event in world history.
As pertaining to why : Imagine someone a hundred times more powerful than you comes and takes what has been yours for over a thousand years. They then give it to someone else and tell you if you try to take it back they will kill you. No matter what the people who have that thing do they are right. So now they are taking more of your stuff and killing your friends and family. Now you see an opening to maybe try and get the larger power to listen to you. . . . you take the opportunity right?
Are you saying that the creation of the state of Israel caused 9/11? If so, this has to be one of the biggest stretches I've seen so far. If not, please clarify the event you're referencing. That area has been fought over almost continually for as long as we have recorded history.
-
That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Read the history on it, and I'm not talking U.S. history or British history or Israeli history. Read the rest of the Arabian nation's view on the matter. Britain and the U.S. TOOK that land from the Arabians and gave it to the Jewish people THEN told the Arabians that if they tried to take it back we'd basically nuke the hell out of them. Read their history, their news, their blogs, their feeling and you'll find that they hated the U.S. for it and wanted us to pay, considering we supported Israel no matter what they did to the people in that area and told them if they retaliated we'd retaliate with a hundred thousand times the force, if they wanted justice they basically had to attack the U.S.
-
Read their history, their news, their blogs, their feeling and you'll find that they hated the U.S. for it and wanted us to pay, considering we supported Israel no matter what they did to the people in that area and told them if they retaliated we'd retaliate with a hundred thousand times the force, if they wanted justice they basically had to attack the U.S.
The thing is, while we supported Israel's founding, Israel has defended herself. Most conflicts have been settled rather decisively by Israel. There has been little or no outside interference in these few conflicts. The thing that gets me though is: Did they get justice for their actions? Are there people/nations rallying around feeling sorry for them? And most anti-Americanism started when we stopped sending them money. So is it that as long as we pay out, everythings alright, but stop, and now they hate us? I find it very hard to pity extortionists.
While it seems that their motivations are political, these extremists then compound the issue by mixing religion into the whole conflagration. Arabia has been a hot spot for ages as "schneb" said. The people as a whole don't seem to know or even care whats going on.
-
It DID make their problems worse, but they did it in a last ditch effort to try and gain some kind of honor back. You have to also understand their religion as well as the sociopolitical situation that goes on there from day to day.
EDIT: As a side note, I can't stand extremists. Also, I'm not saying it isn't BAD that 9/11 happened. I'm just saying we need to break away from this tunnel vision we all have that makes us hypocrites. By supporting Israel in the way we did we caused hundreds of thousands of Arabians to die and think nothing of it, then when a few thousand people at home die we get all pissy. (Also note: I had distant relatives who died in the towers, so I DO feel for them, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.) Our society has been built upon us only seeing things in one way from one perspective. We need to break away from that and become better than our forebears. This will cause us to understand other people and decrease the amount of violence in the world.
-
By supporting Israel in the way we did we caused hundreds of thousands of Arabians to die and think nothing of it,
Bullshit. The wars Israel has been in, from its inception as a country, have all been started by the surrounding Arab states. Israel kicked their asses with our help on every occasion, thank heavens. You want to talk about people harming Arabs? Look at those same surrounding states and how they treat the Palestinian refugees not to mention their own citizens.
I am by no means saying that Israel has lily-white hands. They do not. However, until the jihadists get over the idea that blowing up women and children on purpose is acceptable behavior they can negotiate with a rifle round.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were humanitarian acts. They killed fewer people by an order of magnitude than would have died had we had to invade the home island in our efforts to end the war.
*************************
I remember 9/11. The thing that bothers me today is the language a lot of people use in their remembrances. It is important that we remember the day and the events. But most people say we should 'honor' the dead and their sacrifice. For what? The dead from the towers did nothing but show up to work that day they sacrificed nothing. We should be remembering who did it, so that we can attempt to ensure that it never happens again.
7 years of success on that front so far.
-
I am by no means saying that Israel has lily-white hands. They do not. However, until the jihadists get over the idea that blowing up women and children on purpose is acceptable behavior they can negotiate with a rifle round.
I strongly agree on the point of the whole concept of Jihad being extremist and I don't agree with it at all. I think is probably one of the worst concepts to have ever been brought about. I do however feel that a MAJOR part of why the attack the U.S. was BECAUSE we supported Israel who they were fighting in their Jihad. I'm not saying that they were right I'm just saying that our support of Israel is what caused them to want to attack us in the manner they did.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were humanitarian acts. They killed fewer people by an order of magnitude than would have died had we had to invade the home island in our efforts to end the war.
But if we hadn't stuck our nose in the middle of their issues with China and completely blockaded any trade going in and out of Japan they wouldn't have attacked us, then we wouldn't have had to retaliate against their retaliation. You have to think. We would have done the same thing if someone blocked all trade from entering the U.S. I personally am just not a fan of the whole "big brother" policy. We need to back off of other people's problems and worry about our own. If we hadn't been so adamant about supporting Israel then they Arabian nations wouldn't have hated us as badly, if we had left Japan and China alone to finish their feuding that had been going on since WELL BEFORE the inception of the U.S. then they wouldn't have attacked Perl Harbor and we wouldn't have had to attack using Nukes.
I remember 9/11. The thing that bothers me today is the language a lot of people use in their remembrances. It is important that we remember the day and the events. But most people say we should 'honor' the dead and their sacrifice. For what? The dead from the towers did nothing but show up to work that day they sacrificed nothing.
Agreed
EDIT: I have put more than my two cents in on this topic. I don't think anyone will agree with me no matter how much I argue with them on it. We may not agree on this particular topic, but we may on others. So I hope this doesn't cause issues with anyone. I will withdraw from the topic for now. I don't want to be hated over one issue I don't agree upon with people. I'll still read and post if I feel there is a significant point to be made. Thanks for listening.
-
Um, that's a really odd way to look at the reason for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted to take over the entire world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakko_ichiu
Yes, they didn't want to call their 1937 invasion of China a war because they liked the U.S.'s steel exports, but it was a war. Japan had been taking over territory for decades before that, starting with the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894 when Japan took over Taiwan and Korea. Japan wanted to rule the world, plain and simple.
-
They did, but at that point in time the reason they attacked us was because we blockaded them and they had no resources. They would have eventually moved to us, but not at that time. Did you ever see Tora Tora Tora Ook? I loved that movie.
AGH, I really am done posting here now as to avoid being hated.
-
The U.S. stopped selling Japan oil in July 1941 after their invasion of French Indochina, but they weren't blockaded. Though apparently Roosevelt wanted to blockade Japan in January 1941 and Admiral Richardson refused, leading to his resignation. Japan may have been pushed into attacking the U.S., but to say that if we left Japan alone they would have finished their feuding with China and left us alone is really stretching things. Japan would have finished their feuding by taking over any land that touched the western shore of the Pacific, and then would have moved east. Once they'd taken over enough land they would have had all the resources they wanted; Indonesia, for instance, was a big petroleum producer.
It is interesting to think about how the war would have turned out differently if the U.S. had not gotten involved in the Pacific at this time. Does anyone know if an alternate history using that idea has been written? The U.S. didn't get into the European war until they declared war on Japan. Would that start have been greatly delayed as well? We also know now that the Nazi nuclear program was nowhere close to completion and they did not throw nearly enough resources behind it like the U.S. did with the Manhattan project. There are so many other ways WWII could have turned out—but I don't think it's practical to say that any other scenario would not have also ended with enormous numbers of dead. In both theaters the enemy was a country that didn't know where to stop but would have just kept conquering forever. Or maybe the Soviets would have been able to win the war on their own—and then where would we have ended up, with the Soviets having taken over all of Europe? There are no easy answers.
-
Miyabi, you should never be afraid to say what you think because you're afraid it will affect how people think of you. You think what you think, and you have every right to express it. I don't think anybody here will dislike you just because you disagree with them or they disagree with you. And if they do, in all honesty, you probably don't need a person like that to like you, anyway. People of differing views should be able to consult each other MORE frequently and fervently than people who share the same view--it leads t0 more enlightenment and a farther expansion of you base set of ideas. I mean, if you look at the thread "Question", it's blatantly obvious Ookla and I completely disagree. I don't dislike Ookla any more for it, and I don't get the impression Ookla dislikes me any more because of it (and we were talking about a VERY touchy subject).
That being said, you've essentially said in this thread the US had no right to get go into war with Japan because they weren't invading us. The Nazis weren't invading us. I think it's a pretty good thing that we went to war with them.
As for the issues with Israel and the Arabian Sub-Continent, whatever you might think the US has done to any of those countries, the fact is that the organizations and nations that get involved in actions like the attack on the Pentagon, and the attack on the Towers are headed by devious individuals. When we were providing weapons to Afghanistan so they could repel the USSR, they weren't complaining. The people in charge need an enemy to gain power, and the west matches the requirements for an enemy religiously, culturally and historically. That doesn't mean it is historically justified, it just means that they have enough to move the masses.
Also, I find it somewhat amusing that you basically said, "We as a nation should act selfishly for self-preservation" in saying we shouldn't have gone to war with Japan because they weren't bugging us, and then you complain about things we do which are geared towards self-preservation, like creating a US-friendly state in the Middle East. :-P.
-
Another point to the Israel piece is that Israel had some of their homeland returned to them, not given to them. I understand the allure with Isolationism, especially when those you help turn their back on you when you need them. However, the world has become too small to pull back into our borders and let the world take care of itself. We will be affected either way, and will have enemies either way. I appreciate your opinion Miyabi, like Gorgon has said, disagreement and debate is vital for progress. However, what is also vital is to learn from the disagreement.
-
Thanks Gorg, Darx, it just seemed like everyone was telling me to shut up and go away so I was just doing that. ha ha. :)
-
No worries, Miyabi. I hope what we wrote about made sense to you. Pearl Harbor and the A-Bombs should also never be forgotten. We should regret the loss of life from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we should not regret the use of the two bombs, for they did save lives in the long run, not just in America and Japan, but in the world. Pearl Harbor occurred because we felt invincible, no one would dare attack the great USA! We should remember the cost of our hubris. 9/11 is a little different. It showed us that we had become complacent with terrorism to the point where the smaller attacks (embassy in Africa, USS Cole, first World Trade Center bombing) were no longer affecting us. We weren't fighting back, so our enemy got bolder and bolder. We must never forget 9/11 because it reminds us that we do not live in a safe world, and if we walk around ignorant of that, the next attack could make 9/11 look like nothing.
-
No worries, Miyabi. I hope what we wrote about made sense to you. Pearl Harbor and the A-Bombs should also never be forgotten. We should regret the loss of life from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we should not regret the use of the two bombs, for they did save lives in the long run, not just in America and Japan, but in the world. Pearl Harbor occurred because we felt invincible, no one would dare attack the great USA! We should remember the cost of our hubris. 9/11 is a little different. It showed us that we had become complacent with terrorism to the point where the smaller attacks (embassy in Africa, USS Cole, first World Trade Center bombing) were no longer affecting us. We weren't fighting back, so our enemy got bolder and bolder. We must never forget 9/11 because it reminds us that we do not live in a safe world, and if we walk around ignorant of that, the next attack could make 9/11 look like nothing.
I also think we need to learn to back off of other people's issues. Like supporting the creation of Israel was one thing, but when we say we support them no matter what they do is overstretching our bounds.
-
First, about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, well, I hate to burst the golden image of our glorious country, but our government knew that Japan was already considering surrender and made overtures to the Soviets as early as July 13 of that year. The US wanted an unconditional surrender to the US and not the Russians. They had already started to divide up the post-war world in preparations for their cold war against those evil and vile commies. The dropping of the bombs were the opening moves to the cold war that had already begun. Anyway, back to my point. The US did not need to drop either bomb. Japan was cut off from the rest of the world. Their military was shot, their infrastructure was shot, their resources were quickly drying up and they would not have lasted much longer. Truman and the rest of the military structure wanted to scare the Russians, to announce to the world that We, the US were the new world power to be dealt with, that is why they dropped the bomb. All the other reasons, we are saving American lives, they would not surrender prior to dropping the bomb, and the umpteen other fairy tales told to students to maintain their faith in a brutal system are just after the fact rationalization for taking the human race one step closer to its own destruction all in the name of greed and hunger to rule the world.
Second, as for 9/11 and the tragic events of that day. They were tragic, it was frightening, but it has been whitewashed from the start. We have taken the lessons to be learned from that day and thrown them out and left only the fear and hatred. There was, and still is little to no talk of how the US government, through the CIA and other governmental agencies, provided funding, arms and supplies to the mujahideen(sp?) in Afghanistan, of which Bin Laden was a part, in the 80's when they were fighting the Russians. How after the Russians left we left that country to starve and suffer under the Taliban's brutal thumb, much like what we did to Central and South America during that same period. See Pinochet for starters. Irony of Ironies, the US-backed coup that put Pinochet in power happened on Sept. 11, 1973.
The fact that 9/11 was blowback from US dealings in the middle east for the past 50 odd years is rarely discussed, and not even mentioned on the ministry of truth voice box. We were not to blame, we were innocent victims, blah, blah, blah. The people who died, the people who risked their lives were mostly innocent, and my heart goes out to all those who lost someone that day. We instituted brutal dictatorships like the Shah, we paid rabid dogs like Bin Laden to fight the Russians, and we got burned, but that is all lost, glossed over like some insignificant detail. Orwell said it best, "he who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past."
-
Blah Blah Blah. OK i get it I missed most of this thread due to being away since the 11th. I've read it so far and agree with alot of what most of you have to say. First we as a country are not infallible, we make moves and choices that have very real goals. Supporting Arabs to fight commies fighting Vietnam to stop the "domino effect" ext ext. Every world power has done so since the beginning of time. It happens. Would you says that those 30,000 people who died on Sep11 had a direct effect on how we were acting in other countries before the attacks? Did they decide to bomb other countries and support countries with weapons and money? Nope, they were working in a financial area in a non-military setting. Those atrocities that this county committed are more commonly than not involved in some military action against another military. Did we bomb Japan just to watch them burn and then glorify ourselves for doing it? I don't remember that. No we acted against another country we were at war with. I don't care if it was to scare the commies or not WE WERE AT WAR. The reality is we ARE AT WAR. Are you saying that attempting to destroy the Taliban's infrastructure of taking Saddam out of office weren't good things. Oh right mind our own business. So if you were born in Iraq and Saddam's a-hole son decided to kill you and your extended family and friends on a whim (they did this on a regular basis) that you wouldn't want someone with the ability to help stop what was happening? So we are wrong. Ok we went under false pretenses, I don't even care if we went because Bush wanted to finish daddy's business. All I care about is a tyrant who committed genocide is dead and we are at least attempting to help. Maybe we shouldn't force democracy on them, again I don't care. Saddam is dead. 9/11 happened, don't forget they wanted to kill working people to have the best effect. Well they succeeded and we got pissed and rightfully so. So forget about moving on. We are still at war with both Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you saying to forget about our friends and family who are there right now fighting because of 9/11. What about the fact that some of the posters here have either been there or will be putting their lives on the line to go to this country who attacked us and maybe we should move on. Why don't you go to the nearest military bast I don't care what branch and tell them to move on. See what they say. Dint forget this forum is about discussion so if you were to tell us you were pro whatever we don't care. That's why were here, to discuss. I may sound all pissed here but don't ever stop posting because of it. Also I haven't re-0read my post so it may jump around because I was a little worked up when I wrote it so sorry if it doesn't make sense. Don't tell me to move on while our friends are dying for it. You might be able to move on but I cant.
-
Wow. The recon teams that were sent to the beacheads in Japan in preparation for our ground assault there would disagree with you quite a bit. A country that ready to surrender does not dig in like that. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I just checked your facts, and it appears Japan was trying to convince the Soviets to switch sides, not surrender. In fact, Stalin encouraged the use of the atomic bomb (which in no way surprises me, that man was horrible). There was even a final ultimatum of surrender given after the Potsdam meeting that was ignored by Japan. They were hoping to hurt us so bad that we would give up and leave them be, and if it weren't for the A-bombs that may have been what happened. Thank you for playing, though. I am less inclined to dispute parts of the second half of your post, as I know America became a little irrational about fighting Communism. Unfortunately, mistakes were made, and some US backed leaders were bad. Everyone picks the wrong side sometimes. Would you have preferred these countries become communist states?
-
You have to ask yourself if those "real goals" are for our benefit. In my opinion they are not. They are so the top 5 or 10% can maintain dominion and control over the rest of us unwashed masses. They are so companies like British-Petroleom, Dutch-Shell and other US friendly companies can have no-bid contracts to siphon off billions of dollars of another country's resources. Like they did in southeast Asia, and Central and South America. So that companies like KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, and Bechtel, to name a few, can have cost-plus contracts to fleece the American people out of billions of dollars. Money better spent perhaps on say the abysmal education system in this country. For example, they rent out 5-star hotel compounds in Kuwait or elsewhere and lease, LEASE mind you, fully loaded S.U.V.'s for each and every employee over there at $7,500/month to sit in said compound parking lot because most of those employees do not have to leave the grounds to do their jobs. This so that the companies can charge the US taxpayer more money and make more profits. They have little or no oversight by any governmental body. Apparently, a few million dollars a year for the CEO's were not enough to fill the umpteen swimming pools at there umpteen multi-million dollar mansions across the globe.
I am truly grateful for the service that the men and women of the armed services do, but I, for one minute do not believe they are fighting for my freedom, my safety, or their country. Before anyone blows up at this and gives me the usual diatribe about protecting us from some unknown\known threat let me explain. I am just as likely to get shot by some random criminal as I am to die in a "terrorist" attack. If the so-called leaders of this country were truly worried about Nuclear attack or WMD we would be more concerned with N. Korea, Pakistan, India, or any other country that posses such weapons, not Iraq. Iraq was the straw man, the paper tiger, easily pushed aside with little actual danger to anyone other than the men and women they sent over there to be targets. I do not doubt for a minute that most over there and around this country believe they are fighting for Mom, baseball, and apple pie, but the truth is that they have been lied too, just like everyone else. The main goal for policy-makers, both liberal and conservative, is to maintain control over the worlds most valuable finite resource, Oil. They made this clear when they first called the Iraq Invasion, Operation Iraqi Liberation, O.I.L. Talk about the Freudian slip of the century.
Suddam was an evil SOB, yes, and he was our evil SOB for nearly two decades. The gassing of the Kurds in the 80's Bush and the like were so quick to point to as evidence for invasion, had made in the USA on the canisters. (Not literally). When the UN and international community wanted to condemn Suddam for his actions, the US, along with Israel, ran blocker in the Security Counsel to prevent that from happening.
As for the whole atrocities being just military versus military, what about places like Nicaragua, where many of the same people in charge now directed forces to attack "soft targets" like food collectives and health clinics. Those were definitely not military targets. This is after a UN Security Counsel resolution was vetoed by the US which would have called attention to the atrocities going on at the behest of US handlers.
I guess the long and short of it is just this. I am so sick and tired of most American's thinking this country can do no wrong. That it is only torture if it is done by someone we don't like. It is only aggression when it is done without our approval. It is amazing the amount of things the government does in our name and for our protection.
"If the Nuremberg laws were applied today, then every Post-War American
president would have to be hanged."
- Noam Chomsky
-
That would have made a lot of sense, Japan surrendering to a country they were not even at war with. And also not surrendering after the first bomb was dropped, if surrender was what they intended all along.
Well, maybe they did want to surrender in some way that would save as much face as possible. Maybe they really had wanted to surrender as early as 1944 as some sources say. If so, they sure took their sweet time about it.
-
But the Japanese cultural view on honor wouldn't let them surrender until the for 100% sure they KNEW they couldn't win. After the first bomb was dropped they assumed that there was NO WAY the U.S. had another. So they assumed that after that they could win.
-
Wow. The recon teams that were sent to the beacheads in Japan in preparation for our ground assault there would disagree with you quite a bit. A country that ready to surrender does not dig in like that. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I just checked your facts, and it appears Japan was trying to convince the Soviets to switch sides, not surrender. In fact, Stalin encouraged the use of the atomic bomb (which in no way surprises me, that man was horrible). There was even a final ultimatum of surrender given after the Potsdam meeting that was ignored by Japan. They were hoping to hurt us so bad that we would give up and leave them be, and if it weren't for the A-bombs that may have been what happened. Thank you for playing, though. I am less inclined to dispute parts of the second half of your post, as I know America became a little irrational about fighting Communism. Unfortunately, mistakes were made, and some US backed leaders were bad. Everyone picks the wrong side sometimes. Would you have preferred these countries become communist states?
I think you need to check your sources. The US had broken the Japanese codes very early in the war. They intercepted Tojo's communique that asked the Russians to intercede and speak with the US about a potential peace. The unconditional surrender was the only hang up apparently. Plus look at the US Strategic Bombing Survey from 1946 that discusses the effects of the bomb. Japan would have had to surrender as early as November or December even if the US did not invade and the USSR did not declare war against Japan in early August. I am not saying that the bomb didn't influence the timing of the surrender, but the writing was on the wall, everyone knew it and they still dropped it. It did give the Japanese leadership the opportunity to save face but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/index.php?documentdate=1946-06-30&documentid=7-1&studycollectionid=&pagenumber=1
-
Ok listen, I for one know that our country can do wrong. Every country can. What does it matter if these conflicts are started to keep the top 5-10% in power? What do you mean you don't think this benefits us? You don't think securing a steady supply of oil is in our best interest. Right, does every thing you own and use run on bio-fuel? The thing is the way our social and economic structure is the top 5-10% don't really matter in these events. Only in the respect that they would be relaced by someone else. I may not agree with you on some things but I can find that the idea behind this is the same. This country isn't imperfect and yes we make mistakes with peoples lives. I think people feel and talk about the America they want, they defend this thing they were thought about. About a country that stands for something. Freedom is the most popular word used in American propaganda. I for one am aware that this county isn't perfect in any definition of the word yet I am proud to be a citizen with more opportunities than most countries. I am glad to be a soldier who fights in this military not to "Protect mommy and daddy" but because if there weren't soldiers to be in the military then we wouldn't have this country at all. Oh and just to let you know most of the soldiers I know don't join to "protect mommy and daddy" they join to protect the others fighting. The other soldiers and their families because as long as were fighting all families are at risk of loosing someone. Any why should my brother go and die? Why am I better than him. He doesn't believe in this war but he believes in this country and military. Why shouldn't I be there too? That's what a lot of soldiers feel.
-
GM,
First, I am truly sorry about your loss, and I by no means want to disparage the sacrifice of your family or any of the families who have lost someone, but I think it is atrocious that the talking heads, and the leaders of this country try to sell this war as anything but a war of aggression. Something that the soldiers have no control over, I understand that. My beef is with those in charge, not those on the ground. My beef is that we are sitting in the mother of all Orwellian nightmares and few seem to notice or care.
No, everything I own does not run on bio-fuel, yes, securing oil is for our benefit, but that benefit is secondary to the real goals. Maybe if we spent the billions of dollars on education and R and D for alternate power sources than we do on an invasion or occupation that serves the Masters your brother doesn't have to go die in someone else's war.
-
First dont say sorry. Its not my family or my brother that I lost. I was speaking in the whole my meaning everyone type thing. Tell me you dont know someone whos served. I know you know someone. Its closed to home when you serve in the military because everyone is like you so you feel connected with them. I get what your saying though. Yes we might have wanted to think about invading Iraq. Ok I cant justify that I can only defend staying there, pulling out would be stupid. Should we have hit Afghanistan? Do you think that was wrong?
-
miyabi, I would like to add my apologies if I sounded harsh. It was not meant to be. While we may not agree I would never fault you or anyone else simply for disagreement. Once again my apologies.
-
miyabi, I would like to add my apologies if I sounded harsh. It was not meant to be. While we may not agree I would never fault you or anyone else simply for disagreement. Once again my apologies.
No problem. I think I was getting a bit over-fervent anyway. ha ha.
-
Renkar, we are hardly in the mother of all Orwellian nightmares. Trust me, it's gonna get worse.
Secondly, the argument that the ends justified the means as far as the invasion of Iraq, it's simply flawed. For multiple reasons. First, but not necessarily foremost, taking the regime out of power was just a benefit, not the goal. Securing oil is only useful if we maintain a staggering need for oil, which could be circumnavigated if it wasn't in the best interest of the international corporate entity to continue to sell us a product which needlessly sucks ridiculous amounts of funds out of our population. You don't think R&D could have made and mass distributed another form of energy. Hydrogen cells? Hell, ever heard of the electric car? That thing worked fine--so fine that people begged and pleaded to be able to keep theirs during the recall.
However, the fact is 9/11 needs to be seen in a different light. It's been used as propaganda since day one. I don't know about you, but if I been a civilian casualty like those who were lost, I wouldn't want my death to be maliciously twisted and tongued until it is a symbol of deception--for ANY cause.
People go into the military for many reasons, but the fact of the matter is it is a socio-economic brainwashing that makes people feel the way they feel about the military. That's why about 60% of the military comes from the bottom two quarters of the socio-economic ladder, why more than a quarter of our enlisted army was raised by a single mother. It doesn't cheapen their sacrifices, but a large portion of our military is in the military because they have been raised for it, practically bred for it. They might decide to go into the military for any umpteeth of reasons and a salty uncle who likes it when you pull his finger, but the fact of the matter is they're going into it because the military is needed to keep the war machine running, and the war machine is profit, and the profit benefits everybody in power.
The chances of our country ever being invaded are pretty slim. We're on a continent set with a bunch of poor countries and a pacifist. We are too big to take over in a timely manner, and we are very, very wealthy. We don't need a huge military to keep us safe, like somebody implied. Also, we have a ton of advanced allies who would be in a very sticky situation if we went under, AND we're (most likely) the number one consuming force in the world. It doesn't do ANY nation good to watch us go down in flames, despite the fact that many smaller nations say they would like to see just that. A bare minimum military would be adequate for continental defense against terrorism, and if we put more money into defensive R&D and less into paying ground troops to die to keep the top 10% with 90% of the wealth, we could probably have a pretty strong homeland defense system that was mostly automated.
War in Iraq was not justified. We got rid of a bad guy. Great. Does it do a family better to be killed by their government or a car bomb? It's a good thing Husein is not in power anymore. Still doesn't justify what took place to get him out of power. There are a ton of bad guys we could be stopping. We aren't. That being said, the 9/11 attacks were important, the people who were killed should be given our thoughts. We shouldn't forget it, but we need to think about it differently--as a people.
-
While this topic is being discussed I would like to mention that I fully supported us going into Afghanistan. I DID NOT however support going into Iraq. I will probably move out of the country if we try to go into Iran.
-
People still miss the point. We didn't go into Iraq without diplomacy, we went because diplomacy failed 17 times. How many times do you draw a line in the sand, only to have it crossed without consequence? 9/11 happened because we did not respond to lesser attacks, and because, like most of Europe still does, we were no longer following through on our threats. We tried the UN way, but France and Russia were both bought by the Oil for Food scandal (we also found Russian military equipment that was sold to Iraq after the embargo), and Germany had no shame in continuing to provide Saddam with bunkers. Has anyone stopped to wonder why, besides all the apparent hostility against America by the German and French populace, both countries selected Pro-America leaders in their most recent elections? Hmmm, maybe we don't hear the whole story about things? Almost everyone I know admits that the media leans left, and European media is much worse than the US. When people say this war is about oil, they are right. It was about stopping a dictator from using his oil reserves to bribe the UN into removing the sanctions against him so he could return to full strength. Taking over Iraq obviously hasn't done anything to curb oil prices, has it? I wonder if any of you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, or the Moon landings were faked.
-
well said Gorgon, and i agree that it is going to get worse, power never gives away its control freely.
GM,
I get you about the brother thing, my misunderstanding. I wish that we as a human race felt the same way about each other as you feel about your fellow soldiers, the world would be a much better place.
I think we should have worked with the entire international community to hunt down and destroy everyone involved in the 9/11 attack. We, as a nation, had a grand opportunity to unite the world, to truly make a change in how people perceive the United States and everyone's role on the world stage. Instead, we played the role of the typical American Cowboy. It was like watching a twisted version of Dr. Stangelove and Kelly's Heroes, only without Slim Pickens, Clint Eastwood or the humor. Oh, I laughed but only to keep myself from crying. They, meaning the government and their mouthpiece, beat the drum of war so loud and so hard that they started believing the stuff they were shoveling.
As for staying in Iraq, I believe we should pull out immediately. Our history of puppet regimes is well known throughout the rest of the world, and the New Iraq government is no different, although they are starting to show a little backbone when standing up to Bush and his fellow war criminals. We should go back to international community and tell them, we screwed up. That Bush and Co. should stand trial for War Crimes, that the Iraqi people need to work out their own issues and that we as a global community will help in anyway possible to correct the mistakes. I know that this is a really simplified answer and I don't have a complete grasp of the international politics involved, but I think genuine democracy set up by the people, is hundreds of times better than the current "gun barrel" democracy. You can't force a people's movement, you can't invade a country set up a new government with strong ties to American Companies, and create an occupation that is just as oppressive, if not more so, than the previous one then expect those people to sit by and watch and accept it. Did anyone every hear George Carlin's Big Dick Theory. "Pull out?! Well that doesn't sound manly to me Bob, I say we leave it in there awhile." That stuff gets me every time. ;D
The powers that be have taken the Vietnam playbook and ran with it. That didn't end well for any involved, but for some reason they think that this one will work out better. Perhaps they truly don't care how it ends up, again much like Vietnam. It really won't effect them. They will still have their billions of dollars with little to no skin off their noses. The men and women of the services will pay the butchers bill, not W or any of the architects of this fiasco. They will retire to the countryside bathed in the blood of the innocent, but they won't notice because of all the shiny new crap they can buy.
-
Ok, I've taken all I can stand in this thread:
I don't have a complete grasp of the international politics involved,
You can say that again. You complain that we didn't use diplomacy after 10 years of UN sanctions, weapons inspectors and oil for food programs? What the hell would you call it if not diplomacy? It didn't work and then 9/11 changed the playing field forever.
You can't force a people's movement, you can't invade a country set up a new government with strong ties to American Companies, and create an occupation that is just as oppressive, if not more so, than the previous one then expect those people to sit by and watch and accept it.
Are you insane or are you really calling the Coalition presence in Iraq an occupation that's worse than Saddam's regime? Step away from the Daily Kos and do a little research into what's actually happening over there. I can tell you from personal, on the ground, eyeball experience that the people in Iraq desperately want to live in a Democracy and are willing to fight and die for that chance. So take your, "you can't force a people's movement" and shove it up your ass.
The powers that be have taken the Vietnam playbook and ran with it. That didn't end well for any involved, but for some reason they think that this one will work out better. Perhaps they truly don't care how it ends up, again much like Vietnam.
The only way the war in Iraq will end up like Vietnam is if we suddenly back out on our promises and commitments to the people on the ground and abandon them to the murderous terrorists they're fighting, with our help, right now. That's obviously what you want so spare me your crocodile tears for the innocents you're so anxious to abandon to the tender mercies of Jihad.
As for the whole "Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda, Iraq was an unnecessary war" crowd. I respectfully disagree.
The Middle East is a vast teeming throng of people who have a storied and proud history. Considering the wealth that has been pouring into that area for the last 50 years they should be lounging about swimming pools or washing their SUVs while they think about how to get the next promotion or put Janny through college. Instead, they live in chicken coops, are barely literate and have no hope for their children beyond, usually, an early death from some trivial disease, long conquered in the west. This, understandably, pisses them off no end. It pisses me off and I don't even live there. "So what went wrong?" they ask themselves. "Damnit, where is the money for roads and hospitals and schools? " The obvious answer, of course, is it's sitting in bank accounts belonging to their rulers, despotic dictators all.
This poses a problem for the dictators. If the people they rule are allowed to draw and act on these conclusions, they stand to lose their power and privilege through bloody revolution. This is, of course, unacceptable, so a suitable target must be found. America is the obvious answer considering our involvement in the region over oil, but more importantly, the high visibility of our cultural exports. The fact that we advocate a lifestyle that is anathema to the religious zealots of the region is simply a bonus, since it automatically legitimizes anti-american rhetoric by striking that vast religious gong.
There is not a snowball's chance in hell that we could peacefully influence most Middle-Eastern regimes to liberalize in less than many decades. Those regimes know very well that the reason their people haven't twigged to their blame-shifting, "It's America not me!" is because they have the kind of iron control of the media and everything else that allows them to dictate what their people hear and believe. Even the most vanilla liberalization would undermine that control enough for their own people to turn on them. Not acceptable.
So let's take several decades dang it! Just let them stew and allow toothless sanctions to gum away at the dictators' will to power. It'll work eventually, right? Unfortunately, that stopped being an option on 9/11. Suddenly the fruits of that Middle Eastern Dictator's power hungry rhetoric turned into a direct threat to civilians in our country. I was not surprised on 9/11. I saw it or something like it coming. If anything, I was surprised it had taken so long. Next time it could be a nuke, or sarin gas, or a weaponized biological. With those kinds of threats on the horizon, we no longer had decades to sweetly wait for the dictators to see reason.
The benefits of democracy and capitalism can be summarized by the phrase: "We have never been attacked by a country with a McDonalds." (I don't know who made that observation or I'd give them credit) So how do you spread McDonalds in the Middle-East? Well, since the Jihadists would resist the McDonalds campaign with guns, you have to lead with your own guns, and while you're at it, why not pick a country with a history of secularism, like Iraq? (Just to clarify I'm listing Iraq's history of secularism as a reason TO invade that country instead of somewhere else) Iraq was the most likely source of WMDs for the terrorists at the time, they were still in non-compliance with a UN resolution calling for military action in response to non-compliance, we felt bad about abandoning the revolutionaries in '92, we had basing rights on their southern border, their official military was a known and pathetic quantity, etc...
Given the threat and the need for steps to prevent further action on our own soil, Iraq was an excellent choice of venue.
-
Ach! I took too long to type again! Anwyay, now that the word war criminal has been spewed, we can confirm your true nature. You just trapped yourself, because in order for Bush to be tried as a war criminal, you would also need to try every member of his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs, the Generals in the field, not to mention anyone in the House and Senate who voted for the war. In addition, Tony Blair and his Generals would also need to be tried. You see, in Iraq, the Geneva Convention was followed to the letter by the U.S., even when the Insurgents were using civilians as human shields, so the only "war crime" even thought to be committed was to enter Iraq illegally. Unfortunately for you, the 17 resolutions, along with the repeated attacks on our planes in the no fly zone (he shot at us all the time), gave us the right to go in, and Bush got the approval from Congress. Now I know what your thinking, he lied. I am amazed at the number of people who condemn Bush as a moron and in the same breath believe he is capable of duping the entire world into going to war just because he felt like it. I am sorry Renkar, but you are obviously incapable of seeing anything but a conspiracy theory, and have drunk the Ward Churchill Kool-aid. The top 5-10% is entirely corrupt and greedy, huh? Then we are all doomed. You should move to Canada as soon as possible. You obviously have it all figured out. And yet, I would bet that you have not had a single idea on how to improve things that hasn't already been tried, nor would you wish to. You would rather just complain and hope the world changes to fit your beliefs. That's fine. You just keep complaining and villifying the very country that gives you the right to do so. There are people out there who will fight to keep that freedom, even if you don't deserve it.
-
People still miss the point. We didn't go into Iraq without diplomacy, we went because diplomacy failed 17 times.
Diplomacy didn't fail. The U.S. failed to listen to what U.N. intelligence found. If that's what you call diplomacy failing, then I guess you're right.
-
Skar knows what he's talking about more than anyone here. He's the only one here with any credentials. Anyone else is just a casual onlooker picking and choosing facts.
-
The benefits of democracy and capitalism can be summarized by the phrase: "We have never been attacked by a country with a McDonalds." (I don't know who made that observation or I'd give them credit) So how do you spread McDonalds in the Middle-East? Well, since the Jihadists would resist the McDonalds campaign with guns,...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Mcdonalds_World_locations_map.PNG
I didn't catch the news flash of mass jihadist bombings of McDonalds in the middle east. Seems to me like McDonalds managed to get in there just fine without guns a blazing. :-D.
The reason a nation with a McDonalds never attacked us is because the brutal elite is an economic elite instead of a military elite. I mean, Wal Mart and its entities also are a great way to make friends with nations (like China). Because it gives plenty of money to those making decisions, even if it demolishes the lives of the poor. But the poor don't make the decisions, so that country wont attack us. There are definite benefits to capitalism, especially from OUR point of view. But that doesn't make it less of a destructive force to the bottom of the barrel. You spoke of a man living in a hut with no hope for him or his children. Well, when do we hear about the man who works fifteen hour shifts destroying his fingers on an assembly line for a few bucks, with no hope for his children to escape the cycle?
I was not surprised on 9/11. I saw it or something like it coming.
At least somebody did. Oh, wait. The CIA saw it coming, too. Hmmmm...
Iraq was the most likely source of WMDs for the terrorists at the time
Except for our national and international intelligence sources that said Iraq had no nuclear power.
and create an occupation that is just as oppressive
That's simply ridiculous. Our occupation of Iraq is not anywhere near as oppressive as the previous regime. Perhaps the extremist civil war reaction to the collapse of their previous social structure is what you mean. Our occupation in and of itself is not something I would describe as "oppressive".
Also, considering we have had hundreds of military scholars study the Vietnam war and write up rules of engagement for similar situations, rules which we are using (to a moderate amount of success), this isn't just like Vietnam. Our military had a good idea of what they were getting into, and how to handle it, beforehand. Unfortunately, a "good idea" is not "a foolproof plan". Nobody can expect that.
It would be silly to say that the sole reason we went into Iraq is capitalistic gain for the top X%. It was a major reason, because those are the people calling the shots (or the people controlling the people calling the shots through funding, bribes and/or lobbying), but there were other reasons, too. Doesn't make it justified. There are PLENTY of nations with sectarian violence, PLENTY of states with brutal dictators or completely collapsing government (look at mid-Africa and the Congo for goodness sake), and PLENTY of nations who could endorse an attack or plot an attack as simple as the 9/11 attacks (something Iraq didn't even do). We didn't handle the situation gracefully, we didn't get the end result we expected, and we didn't do anything to "help those poor people". We did everything we did for us and ours, and if we happened to help those poor folks over there, we'll take credit for it. End of story. The fact that we alienated the world community while doing it certainly didn't make it any better of an endeavor.
Skar knows what he's talking about more than anyone here. He's the only one here with any credentials. Anyone else is just a casual onlooker picking and choosing facts.
Credentials mean that a person is more educated on a subject. Which means they have more facts to share (or pick and choose from, in some cases). NEVER do credentials imply that a person is correct (not that I disagree with many of the things Skar said), nor should they imply that you should "take his word for it". Credentials should mean to you that he can defend his point of view WITHOUT sharing he has credentials, because he is an expert in the subject. Which means it shouldn't matter if I know he has credentials, it should be apparent that he knows what he is talking about (which it is). The fact that he has credentials really shouldn't even have to be brought up, and if it DOES need to be brought up, it pretty much shows that a person doesn't have faith in the credentials they boast.
Fortunately, Skar never brought up his credentials. :-D.
-
No I don't have it all figured out and never claimed I did. I am fine with bringing everyone up on war crimes charges if it fits, and I believe that it does if you look at the evidence. There are several nice books laying out the crimes of this administration. Hell just look at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, you can go down the list and tick off almost all of them.
Conspiracy theorists are a bunch of wingnuts that add to the spectacle of the system. There is not some cabal of CEO's or jews or whatever ruling this country.
There is a lot of inbreeding between the Government and the economic sector. Why do you think all those corporations give large donations to both parties? How is it that the CEO's and large donors get private meetings with the president, but me or you who may have some grievance must talk to our representative, to wit: we get some bullshit form letter about how our concerns are noted and we are shuffled along the bureaucratic assembly line with nothing truly done about it and the hopes that we will eventually let it go. Are our interests truly a concern? When there was a huge outcry against this invasion and yet no discussion was held, the only people who questioned the evidence were labeled unamerican, accused of being unpatriotic and then the news media moved onto stoking the fear of the people with the drum beat of war.
9/11 was not an inside job, it was perpetrated by some very evil people who have perverted a religion to dupe the people of that area into committing atrocious acts. Of course, we did not help the situation by our actions.
It was not just Bush, it was the entire system.
As for how to change things, here is how. Lets spend 400 billion dollars a year on Education, Housing, and food in this country, not on new ways to kill people. We spend more on "Defense" in this country than most of the world combined. You want to get rid of crime then get rid of poverty. As Martin Luther King Jr. said we have the means we simply lack the will. What would this country look like if the necessities of life were provided for all , if we did not have to degrade ourselves by selling our lives away one hour at a time to eek out a meager existence. Let's work to create understanding, let's work toward actual social justice, not some myth. We must organize on a local level to reclaim our say in how our lives are lived, and how this country is governed. Let's wake from this stupor of wage-slavery and do something glorious. Let us make our own social contracts, let us be free to explore the depth and breadth of this world without the worry of how we are to afford food, health care etc.
I do not simply complain and whine as you suggest, I talk to people, point out the bullshit shoveled by authority. It is so ingrained in people to adhere to what authority tells them, and authority takes advantage of that fact.
I work to keep the so-called justice system from running away with our rights as human beings in this country. I am not just sitting around like some ape playing with my shirt, hoping that the world will someday just become better. Not going to happen. If we want a better world we have to make it ourselves, we cannot rely on government or the power structure to look after us or anyone else, because at the base of it, all those in power will only work hard enough to remain in power. Make sure that just enough people think they are happy and blame their problems on foreign countries, on some undefined future threat as they take more steps to strengthen their control. Initially it was the natives of this land, then the british, the mexicans, the africans, the communists, the terrorists, the immigrants, it is all the same just with different names and colors.
The amazing thing about capitalism is the ignorance of its victims, don't remember who said it, but it is true. We need to shift the paradigm in this country and around the world. It should not be about competition but about mutual aid. It should not be about who believes in God, and if they believe in the right God. And before you start spouting about jihadists etc. remember Bush called it a Crusade at one point. Very poor choice of words. Palin said that the Iraq war was God's work. Really? The all-knowing, all-loving God of the New Testament is a big fan of War huh? For that matter the Old testament god wasn't very fond of it either. Something about thou shalt not kill i think is how it goes. We need to re-evaluate how we see the world. It is not us and them, it should be we.
Skar-
I don't for a minute believe that the Iraqi people do not want to be free to decide their own fate. That is what all people want on some level. I agree that they are willing to fight and die for that chance, and that they should be given that opportunity. I just don't believe you can teach someone about democracy, true democracy at the point of a gun and the dropping of bombs.
-
What would this country look like if the necessities of life were provided for all , if we did not have to degrade ourselves by selling our lives away one hour at a time to eek out a meager existence.
Are you really proposing that no one work anymore? Who exactly would provide the necessities of life for all? I'm not quite clear on what you're suggesting.
-
Gorgon:
Well, when do we hear about the man who works fifteen hour shifts destroying his fingers on an assembly line for a few bucks, with no hope for his children to escape the cycle?
Point out a man who lives like that and I can probably point out a man who lives in a country under a brutal dictatorship. You speak about the destructive effects of capitalism on the bottom of the barrel. Agreed, there are people at the bottom of the barrel, even here, and it sucks down there. Are you arguing that capitalism produces worse conditions at the bottom of the barrel, than say socialism, fascism, or any form of authoritarianism? Surely not. So if the bottom of the barrel sucks in all cases, what's the difference with free-market capitalism? The ability to leave the bottom of the barrel if you're smarter, faster, more hard-working, or luckier than the next guy. Still pretty grim, right? Dog-eat-dog and all that. Throw in the rule-of-law and democracy though and suddenly it's not so bad, the ruthless and the unscrupulous are reigned in by the majority. Combine those two things and suddenly you've got the potential for everyone to make it out of "the cycle" no matter who they are. Even the bottom of our barrel looks like paradise to the bottom of the barrel in Nicaragua.
Except for our national and international intelligence sources that said Iraq had no nuclear power.
Actually, they said the opposite, not to mention the other WMDs. And it convinced EVERYBODY. I was in Kuwait for the 6 months leading up to the invasion. I know where some of the intelligence Powell produced when making the case for war came from and it was good intelligence. Saying otherwise is referencing 20/20 hindsight as though it were relevant.
We didn't handle the situation gracefully, we didn't get the end result we expected, and we didn't do anything to "help those poor people". We did everything we did for us and ours, and if we happened to help those poor folks over there, we'll take credit for it.
War is never graceful, nor does it ever proceed according to plan. When things go off the rails you don't throw up your hands and quit (unless a loss would help you politically apparently), you learn, change tactics, and adapt. Exactly what we've been doing under Bush and the military leadership, and it's working.
Of course we did it for us and ours. If the situation in the Middle-East didn't change we could expect terrorist bombings ad nauseum, or at least until they achieved a global caliphate and instituted Sharia. Our actions were and are very well tailored to producing a state that provides a lifestyle for its people that makes blowing yourself up look stupid when you could be making money, sipping tchai with your wives, or enjoying a halal Big Mac. It's a long-term goal that involves spreading that dream to the rest of the world. 9/11 made it more urgent that we do it in the Middle East. Purely self-serving. What of it?
Renkar:
As for how to change things, here is ... it should be we.
I agree that the picture you paint is an ideal one. It should, in fact, be "we" rather than us and them. My problem with your statements is with some of the underlying assumptions.
First, the idea that there is some method by which everyone can be provided for without anyone having to work, "What would this country look like if the necessities of life were provided for all , if we did not have to degrade ourselves by selling our lives away one hour at a time to eek out a meager existence."
I just don't see how that could work.
Second, the idea that if we all just loved each other and helped each other life would be better is absolutely correct.
The problem arises when someone, anyone, decides not to play your game. Then we're back to reality and if we're not prepared to deal with those who don't want to play well with others, they automatically win.
You want to get rid of crime then get rid of poverty.
This is an interesting idea. We certainly have not conquered poverty in this country, though being poor here is a much better prospect than being poor in, say, India. However, we have produced the best system the world has ever seen for lessening the amount and consequences of poverty. Yet you're arguing that we should not be spreading this system elsewhere? That's a little suspicious.
I just don't believe you can teach someone about democracy, true democracy at the point of a gun and the dropping of bombs.
You don't have to teach it. The idea is viral. What you have to do with the point of a gun and the dropping of bombs is keep the bad guys from preventing its establishment.
-
What the UN intelligence found? There is no UN intelligence agency. All they had were weapons inspectors who could hardly get into the country, and were only shown what Saddam wanted them to see. Hell he hid more than 200 missiles that could reach Israel until 2002, which were in direct violation of the surrender agreement! That was what really started the ball rolling. The UN weapons inspectors could not say with certainty that there were no WMD's. They once again wanted more time to look. How much time do you allow? How many times can you warn somebody, without acting, before they begin to believe your threats are toothless? It was quite apparent that both Saddam and Osama believed that we would not respond. The UN has become a corrupt organization that performs half-assed humanitarian efforts and doesn't follow its own rules. Moreover, since the US, Great Britain, Australia, and Russia (yes Russia too) all had intelligence leaning towards WMD's in Iraq, isn't it more likely that four full time intelligence agencies have more credence than one weapons inspector? In any case, Hussein had the money and equipment to get started quickly, which made him very dangerous if left alone too long. Don't think for a second that he wouldn't have helped with a future attack once he got the UN off his back.
I need to type faster, Skar keeps stealing my thunder.
-
When i say provided for, i don't mean they just appear out of thin air, though that would be cool if it did. I mean that the "work" we do is simply a maze set for the masses to run. Some win, most lose, and in the end though, I feel that we all lose. We are so focused on running that maze, so focused on making a living we have no time to live.
I don't know about you, but if someone came to me and said come help us build your house, it is yours not the banks, not the governments, it is yours and all you have to do is take time out of your life to help build other homes for a month out of the year. I would do that without hesitation. I am just using this as a general example of course, but that is a communal agreement I could live with.
What about the slacker or the one who doesn't want to go along, well he doesn't have to. He can go find somewhere else to live, but I think simply helping another human being would be preferable than struggling to survive. Yet we still do not live this way? hmmm, perhaps we are conditioned to go against this instinct? I think we can agree that the human is a social animal and as such if someone is provided these things they would work toward repaying that debt to the community not because they have to, but because they want too.
Ask people on the bus or in your office or where ever you meet them, if things like food, clothing and shelter were provided would you simply sit on your ass all day, or would you do something that benefited society that you found rewarding in its own right. Many people enjoy working outside, gardening, building things etc. Of course, they are going to say yes. Just like when you label things like the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, people will line up to pass it without reading the fine print. We don't want to be the one who poo-poos all over children do we. Of course we have cut heath benefits for children who, by no fault of their own lost the genetic lottery and cannot afford it. We have been so focused on making money and the like we never really ask ourselves if there is a better way. There is a better way.
The whole of human history one could argue is a study in the evolution of human freedom. Humans at their core desire to be free and work toward that end. We, the United States, are not that end and are in some respects a barrier to that end. We want to maintain the status quo, because enough people in this country are satisfied with the status quo that the problems are glossed over and swept under rugs until they come crashing into skyscrapers in the form of a plane. The problems and the issues of other countries and other peoples truly don't inflict themselves on the majority of Americans on a daily basis. Oh sure, when the sweatshop workers that make the cloths we wear go on strike to get a raise and the price of that nifty t-shirt with the cool saying goes up in price we are inconvenienced, but I don't think many Americans truly think about where and how the things that appear on the shelves got there. What that Made in Taiwan\China\Indonesia label really means. Do you? Do you really think about it when you go into starbucks and order a coffee how some dirt poor bean farmer in Africa is paid pennies a day to provide the coffee beans, and how the foreign policies of this country made it so that Starbucks can exploit that person. Having the right logo\brand is all that matters to some maybe even most. It is all a spectacle to keep us occupied. I am not without blame or shame about this. I grew up in middle-class american, went through the public school system, went through college, go to Target and Wal-mart etc. I am not a blue collar worker who has to struggled to make a living. I am just as guilty as the next fellow, but I realize this now and wish to change this.
Production for production sake is not the way to organize society. We are bombarded with advertisements about this new version or that newer model with more bells and whistles. Creating this collective desire to purchase\consume simply to consume. I would bet that building a car that is very reliable, very gas efficient or uses an alternative renewable fuel source that could last for decades is well within our technological reach, but it won't be done because if you make such a product you would kill demand for the same product after everyone owns that product. Is this a bad-thing? No more filling garbage dumps with the convenient accessories of life. No more continually having to sell yourself by the hour to provide yourself with new ways to cope with an unfulfilled life. Sorry this got so of track. Flame away.
Quite the lively discussion though.
-
No flame.
You've obviously read a great deal on why communism is a good idea. Now go read some works on what happens when people try and put it into practice.
Return and report.
-
Seven years later, even writing down the date "9/11" triggers a ripple of sadness in me. :(
This past July, I was in NY for an interview. I stayed at a hotel right across from Ground Zero. Yep, the construction was loud. But it kind of made me glad to hear evidence of rebuilding. I peered down at the site from the fourteenth floor of my room. Hard to capture how I felt. I have no idea how I would have reacted to the horrific events that day if I had been there.
Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I have not forgotten nor ever will.
(http://clifflamere.com/Graphics/Img-Flags/firemen-flag-9-11-2001-b.jpg)
I wasn't sure if i should reply to this post but i have been looking at it for awhile--i decided to.
That day, i remember being in my foriegn language class in the sixth grade. My teacher picked up her phone, and seconds later she dropped it and proceeded to cry--i found out later her brother worked in the building when they told her it was attacked--i also found out he didn't make it.
Any time somebody is killed, it is a tragedy, so 9/11 is a 3,000+ toll tragedy. It has changed me and my life forever.
I'm an arab-american, i'm also so muslim.
I hate, more then you can believe, that 9/11 happened. Since then my people have been the focus of ignorant racial hatred. Sometimes people see me and see what fox news tells them what we are. They see the few extremsists--who aren't muslim at all--and see me.
I HATE Ossama Bin Laden. He is not a muslim. Face it, every religion has people who used skewed passages in its holy book to do what he wanted. Christians and the lynching of innocent blacks--why don't we call them Crusadists? i can tell you--because the news isn't painting it in your head.
And, though i do feel remorse and sorrow for the families who lost loved ones that day, i can't feel as bad as you. Not because i don't love america but becuase such disasterous and horrible death is something im used to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKQqItZu4Is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VOMrjWs6-c&feature=related
We should mourn for those who died and lost in 9/11 but also realize and be thankful that we live in such a powerful country that is able to protect itself....for some countries and families 9/11 happens every morning.
-
I wasn't sure if i should reply to this post but i have been looking at it for awhile--i decided to.
I'm glad you did.
-
I wasn't sure if i should reply to this post but i have been looking at it for awhile--i decided to.
I'm glad you did.
I'm glad you didn't go defensive--lets pray that the world will realize that one day we will all be dead....theres no need to kill each other.
Alhemd Lilallah.(All blessing to Allah(God))
-
Don't hold back. Sometimes people need to hear things from another perspective to help them understand.
-
Don't hold back. Sometimes people need to hear things from another perspective to help them understand.
I wouldn't...Its not that im afraid, i just didn't know if you guys would be ready to discuss it.
-
I wasn't sure if i should reply to this post but i have been looking at it for awhile--i decided to.
I'm glad you did.
I'm glad you didn't go defensive--lets pray that the world will realize that one day we will all be dead....theres no need to kill each other.
Alhemd Lilallah.(All blessing to Allah(God))
Oh if they put up with what I say I'm pretty sure anything you have to say will be just fine. xD
I also hope for the same you do, but the odds of it happening are very low.
-
No flame.
You've obviously read a great deal on why communism is a good idea. Now go read some works on what happens when people try and put it into practice.
Return and report.
True statement. Communism hasn't worked in the past. Hasn't had enough capitalism in it. There's a balance to it, and however much I'm also inclined to daydream about the ideal setting, the fact is we just aren't ready for it--it's unlikely we ever will be. Real world scenarios require a lot more compromise. When it comes down to it, we can't save everybody--nor can we provide everybody with what they need. But we could try a lot harder.
There are a lot of superfluous programs (like upkeep for nuclear weapons we don't need--I'm not necessarily saying get rid of all of them, but we certainly don't need the number we have) that could be used to fund social programs. And if we didn't waste money on exclusive bid contracts for services the government needs to help "Mr. Big Campaign Donor" we'd have a lot more cash, too. If we had a 1% tax on political advertisements for this year alone, it would estimate at over $20 million (if I remember correctly over $2 billion are estimated to be spent on political ads in the 2008 campaign). I'm not saying that's a program we should implement--there are definitely ways to raise funds to help, though. I don't think anybody has explicitly said otherwise, I just wanted to point it out on the record.
Yeah, Skar, here it is better than most other places. It's because we take advantage of other places, but it is better here. Also, you're right that a brutal dictator or regime is in control of countries with the factories I was describing. But they're factories that belong to our companies. They're factories that make products for us to buy. Seems to me like that makes it our faults, no matter who is in control of the country.
Also, too often I hear people talk about spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq, or taking Suddam out of power and say it justifies the actions, and talk about the great benefit to the Iraqi people. That kind of talk leads me to believe those people don't think we invaded for ourselves. You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject and I think when it comes down to it, it's an opinion of whether you think the outcome was worth the cost. This will differ from person to person depending on how valuable they see the outcome and how costly they see the price--just like any bill. I can happily agree to disagree on that point.
And I wont look it up right now, nor will I pretend to know the actual number, but I will if you want the full statistic (it's in a text I have locked away SOMEWHERE). There is an unacceptable percentage of Americans who are considered "locked poor", which means social scientists say from the moment they are born to the day they die, they are considered to have had a negligible chance of moving up in the social strata. That being said, there is (slightly) more upward movement than downward movement for most areas of the economic spectrum in this country. However, this is coupled with the fact that most people live their entire lives in the social area they are born into, despite hard work. Also, since the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer (and the middle class disappearing), I find it hard to swallow that capitalism is as great as we are often inclined to claim. No, communism isn't a strong answer, either. It sure wouldn't hurt to throw a little socialism into our thought processes, though, and try to spend more time stirring the bottom of the barrel (be it here or elsewhere), and a little less time tasting off the top.
Also, the new feature (I don't know how new, but it is new to me) that warns you before you post that somebody else has posted since you started writing is amazing, and whoever thought of it should be given some sort of a giraffe made out of cheese. Should it be cheddar? Should it be mozzarella? I don't know, I'm not an expert, damnit!
-
We already have some Socialist in this country. Welfare, Medicaid, Affirmative Actions. These are wealth redistribution and equality-based programs, and are all necessary to a degree. The problem with them comes about when they are open-ended. Why are many poor people have such difficulty moving up? Because human beings tend to stick with what they know. That, and some of these social programs (especially welfare) actually discourage those on it to succeed. Why work 80 hours a week for just a few dollars more than what I can get for free? Next thing you know, three generations go by and they know of no other way to live, so they must support those willing to keep giving them their livelihood. Throw in the blame everybody else for your situation card, and you have a supplicant group of people who will continue to vote for the very people who are keeping them down. These programs should be temporary, and much more specifically designed to increase job skills and education. There is a similar problem with Affirmative action. Sure, discrimination should be abolished, but do you really believe giving someone a job just to fill a quota is the answer? It certainly helped at first, but now all it does is make people question whether they really earned the job or just got it because of their race. Remember how much easier it was to spend your parents' money than your own? Why do you think that is true? You don't truly appreciate what you have unless you earn it yourself.
-
No flame.
You've obviously read a great deal on why communism is a good idea. Now go read some works on what happens when people try and put it into practice.
Return and report.
I have read quite a bit on a lot of political theories. Communism, in the Marxist\Leninist sense, will never work and is a bad idea. Please do not confuse communism and socialism. The whole vanguard party bull that Marx spouted off about could never truly by benign or benevolent. For similar reasons those that espouse benevolent dictatorships are wrong. When placed in positions of authority people go all wonky( term of art ;D).
The Russian Revolution was originally a workers revolt in the early stages and there was much in-fighting about how to proceed. You had a lot of soviets, workers counsels that had claimed the factory floor as their own, that were starting very democratic processes shortly after the October Revolution. They were setting up worker owned collectives and communes through out the Russian realm. Look at the Kronstadt Revolt which occurred in 1921 after the consolidation of power by Lenin and his cronies for one example. The Bolsheviks began losing elections in most if not all of these worker owned soviets. Lenin and his party did not like this, that is why they brutally put down dissent and consolidated power into a very dictatorial party structure.
Yes, communism has never worked in the real world. The reasons beside the one above, however, are that it was not a true communist nation. Neither is China nor any other country that has or still does claim that title. Remember they also called the Soviet Union a republic and that is definitely not the case. The system of government is one of capitalism in the hands of a ruling elite party. Where instead of corporations and private citizens, you have the Party and all the trappings that come with that. Secondly, when you have a system based on the private ownership, be that by the government or by a private citizenry, you will end up with exploitation an some level of poverty. With the USSR, as in China, Cuba and other supposed communist countries you have massive poverty because that ownership is so narrowly confined.
Within the US today you have less poverty, but that is changing because the gap between the haves and the have nots is getting larger. The cost of things are raising faster than salaries are and the Middle class, which is a goodly majority of America is slowly getting sucked closer to the bottom. Yes, there are some that make it to the top etc. but most don't. Mortgaged to the hilt, starting out in the hole if you had to get student loans to pay for college tuition, which is also rising out of control, and more and more people have to work longer harder hours for less and less pay. This country and its economic policies are based on cheap oil, and since were are quickly approaching world peak oil, cheap oil is not going to be available. Food costs are rising, transportation costs are rising, services fees are rising, eventually it will come to a head. I for one have had to raise my rates because of gas prices and the costs incurred from me having to drive through the urban sprawl that is Kansas City. Few people look at long term issues in my opinion (a result of our fast-food culture) and this may not happen in my life time or my children's life time, but eventually you will end up with basically the super-rich and the poor in this country. Of course there will probably be a revolt before that becomes reality, history has shown that. (the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the 60's the list goes on, and on.)
-
Gorgon:
But they're factories that ... is in control of the country.
True enough. Companies from our country take advantage of the dictator's policies that produce cheap labor. I don't buy, really, that it's therefore our fault, but for the sake of the discussion lets postulate that it is or at least that we/the companies are responsible for it.
What do the companies do about it? The thing that immediately springs to mind, and which is the only real option for a commercial entity, is 'pay the workers more.' This, however, is not a good solution because of the immediate pay differential between the workers employed by Nike and the rest of the people in the country. You can see, I'm sure, the problems that will arise when the Nike workers are making ten dollars a day and the other people are making 10 dollars a month. It's called inflation. So, whatever the companies do it has to be something that benefits people in that country across the board. Well, what is the root cause of the state of things there? The dictator. Unless you get rid of him, the disease will remain no matter how much you fight the symptoms. Which brings us right back around to military action by our government to dump the dictator.
Also, I suspect that if you ask the actual workers in the Nike factory, they'd say they are very pleased to have the job. Fact is, those factories are already improving the quality of life for the people working in them. It looks like shite compared to what we have but looks like fuzzy bunnies compared to what they would otherwise have.
Also, too often I hear ... agree to disagree on that point.
Agreed.
Often I think that the debate is framed in a way that obscures the self-interest on our part. When someone complains bitterly about the cost to the Iraqi people, the natural response is to focus on the good that's actually coming to them. And the cost to the Iraqi people or to our own soldiers is what the objections usually come down to; the cost in human life. If we could have dumped Saddam Hussein and started Iraq on the road to democracy without bloodshed I don't think anyone at all would have objected or be objecting now.
Also, since the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer (and the middle class disappearing), I find it hard to swallow that capitalism is as great as we are often inclined to claim.
I too have seen statistics that indicate that the middle class is disappearing. When the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer you're moving towards a more 'stratified' system. The root cause of stratification is, essentially, the inability to move from one economic level to another. Over the last many decades our government has been making that movement harder and harder through regulation and taxation. The regulation is always emplaced in the name of 'making it better for the common man' and usually involves higher taxes and/or higher regulatory burdens on businesses and the rich to 'even the playing field.' Unfortunately, those taxes and regulatory burdens also make it harder to start and run a business and harder to hold onto your own money once you've started to make a lot of it. The actual result is that only those people who already have the powerful business in place or who already have the money to invest in avoiding the regulatory burden and the taxes can do so. Thus it gets harder for the little guy to pierce the barrier, to move up from one economic situation to the next. Result? More pronounced stratification.
I am by no means advocating a complete absence of regulation, as I said earlier, you need laws that prevent predatory and unfair practices on the part of the haves. IMO, we've already gone too far down the regulatory road and it's causing alot of the problems we're seeing today. Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac are perfect examples. The federal government under Clinton implemented regulation that forced mortgage companies to relax their loan standards so that 'more people could own their own homes.' It sound very nice, who doesn't want to own their own home? But in order to swing the deal the government had to guarantee those loans. So, the mortgage companies were making loans to people who couldn't afford them, comfortable in the knowledge that when they defaulted the government would cover the loss. Thus the risk was transferred, by regulation, from the people conducting the loan business onto the taxpayer in the name of 'helping poor people own their own homes.' And there was no monetary motivation for the business people to behave responsibly, there was in fact pressure to behave otherwise. We see very clearly how that has turned out.
Another good example are universities. The cost of a university education has skyrocketed in recent decades. Every time the government provided any sort of grant or student loan the cost of tuition rose, magically, to exactly meet what the government would provide. In response the government would provide bigger loans, with the same result.
You really can't stir the bottom of the barrel and expect anything good to come up. The bottom of the barrel has to stir itself. My view of government's role in that endeavor is to make it possible for the bottom of the barrel to stir itself by providing basic education and removing barriers like over-regulation or dishonest competition practices. Or, in other words, the government should be in the business of leading the horse to water, not jamming its head down and screaming at it to drink.
Edit:
Renkar:
By happy coincidence, I already responded to the salient points in your post in my response to Gorgon. Have at.
-
Skar,
You forgot to mention that the reason these jobs are sent away is because we do not force other countries' imports to meet our standards, so it allows companies to save money on overhead by avoiding environmental regulations. The payroll tax also makes it more difficult for companies to remain competitive with foreign rivals. NAFTA was a complete disaster for these reasons. We can't hamstring our own companies and expect them to survive against the rest of the world. Look at the lead scare in China. Why was there so little uproar? Because we can't compete. Higher taxes on the rich, and on big companies is a sham. Who do you think invests the money in new companies? Provides the grants to education and medical research? Funds non-profit and charitable organizations? So the answer is to give the government, which has the fiscal responsibility of a 6 year-old, when the ones with this money already use it in a more helpful manner than Congress ever would. Great idea.
-
Don't hold back. Sometimes people need to hear things from another perspective to help them understand.
I wouldn't...Its not that im afraid, i just didn't know if you guys would be ready to discuss it.
I don't think anyone on this forum is the type to get hate-filled (or at least not against Muslims). The blame for extremists' actions falls on the extremists, not on normal people or religion. And many dictators are just in it for the power rather than using a religious excuse.
There are other (non-Islamic, tribal) cultural practices in (not exclusively) some Muslim areas though that are quite repulsive. Such as honor killings.
What do you think of traditional Muslim cultural treatment of women? Mormons are not uncommonly (though we would say undeservedly) accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Our response is often that men and women were endowed by God with different roles but that one is not more important than the other and that men should not exercise "unrighteous dominion." The Muslim explanation I have heard is simliar, yet from an outside perspective the Muslim treatment of women seems to measure much further along the scale.
-
Don't hold back. Sometimes people need to hear things from another perspective to help them understand.
I wouldn't...Its not that im afraid, i just didn't know if you guys would be ready to discuss it.
I agree, although what you said seemed right on par with the other posts. Putting the blame on FoxNews for perpetuating Muslim discrimination is a little out there. Many people I know watch FoxNews all the time and not one of them has suddenly developed a Muslim prejudice because of it.
-
"Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top."
-- Edward Abbey
I love that quote.
Skar-
It might not be the companies fault or our fault entirely, but we were much more part of the problem than the solution. A lot of those dictatorships that companies are taking advantage of were or are US backed dictators. Look at Pinochet, United Fruit, Dole and most of the history of South and Central America since the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine. The US government in the 80's even started to attack (both verbal and physical through paramilitary groups) the Catholic Priests that were preaching liberation theology to the fruit workers and locals. No we are not fully to blame, but there is a lot more blame on our part than the mainstream media\culture would want you to believe. If you look at the track record of our foreign policy since WWII and what grew from that policy, i.e. cheap labor to produce cheap products to sell to the American people for very large profits, you can see the intertwining of foreign policy and economic policy. I would argue and many would agree that both political parties have had the same foreign policy but have gone about it in different ways. It was the Dems that invaded Vietnam so maybe not too different. The mainstream media would like us to believe that there is some difference in the major parties but there is very little once you actually scratch the surface.
Yes, they maybe happy with the job they have in that sweatshop, but what other options do they have? Starve to death. Just because something seems like it is better than the alternative still doesn't make that right. Much the same could be and was said of the slaves of the south. If not for slavery they would still be in the bush, etc. I know you are in no way saying that, just wanted to point out the similarity.
I agree with your analysis of taxes and the stratification of society, but you do not take it far enough. The reason that the government's attempts to "even the playing field" have not worked is because they are never truly meant to work. When you pass a law that requires someone with 7 years of higher education and will charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars per hour to decipher and advise you on , there are going to be loop holes, some intentional some not so. Take it from me a legislator has a hard time writing coherent criminal statutes. When the regulations for an area of the economy is being constructed by lawmakers who are constantly being bribed through lobbyists and campaign contributions from the major players in that field do you truly think they are being impartial? There is no check to prevent that. You can argue about people voting to remove these people, but when those same lobbyists and contributors latch on to the newbie you get the same thing. Now, I don't think that all government officials are this way, but they are human and when that little extra will help you win your next election and keep you from having to get a real job how do you think they are going to vote\construct that bill? When you look at the contributions of the major companies of this country they donate to both parties almost equally. Some will hedge one way or the other, but they cover both sides. Look at the credit card legislation, the mob wishes they were able to charge the rates that credit card companies get away with legally. Those payday loan places that mark the poorer neighborhoods and military installations charge ungodly interest. So much so that you go there once and you have to continue to go back. If you have not seen the Documentary "In Debt we Trust" do so, it will open your eyes. The credit card business is the classic example of usury.
More regulation, no regulation it really doesn't matter when the system does not work. More regulation just means more power for the big boys, while the small business person and the mom and pops are pushed to the side for large box stores. What needs to happen is a focus on local economies. Buy local products, produce local products. It is very hard to do in this day an age, but the only way to reach any kind of sustainable, stable economy is to focus on the local economy. When Wal-mart or Target, starbucks or applebee's open up their stores and offer cheaper, lower quality products, that in the long run will cost you more both monetarily and ecologically they are taking money out of the local economy. Yes they are moving it to another local economy, but not truly. Why do you think every credit card co. has their home office in Delaware. Because that state has the least regulation in the US. How did it get that way? Heavy lobbying on a state level of course. They seek the best possible location, so it is basically a race to the bottom for state governments. You may say, yes but the local economy gets the tax revenue from the business. Do they really. They opened up a brand new speedway, an arena, and an entertainment district around here. They lured these multi-million\billion dollar companies here by offering Tax increment financing(TIF), where their tax burden is near zero, if not zero for quite some time, like decades almost. All so that they can distract people and make them spend their money on over priced drinks and sub-par food. Does any of this really make sense to the common man, to the unwashed masses? Does it really make sense for the unwashed masses?
-
So what are you suggesting? What other form of government could be any less vulnerable to this corruption? Being one of the so-called "unwashed masses" myself, I see the only true way to fix things is for us to stop blaming others for our failures, stop playing "football" politics where you just want your "team" to win, no matter how good an idea the other side has, and start thinking for ourselves. Why does the media ask movie stars what their political views are? Is there a group of people on this earth who are more out of touch with reality? Everyone wants change, but expects someone else to stand up and actually make it happen. How do we defeat lobbyists? Tell your Senator or Congressmen you want ethics reforms even stronger than what was recently passed. Tell them you want term limits for Senators and Representatives. If they don't do it, keep voting them out until you vote someone in who will. As difficult as this may seem, it is a lot easier than trying to completely retool the Government into some Confederate-Socialist hybrid. This is even more important at the state level, where I agree with your statement about Maryland. I live in a state of less than 1 million people, but we still manage budget shortfalls that rival states 5 times our size. Why? because one party has held 80% of the Congressional seats for decades, and are completely corrupted by their power. The rep in my district had to die for someone new to be elected, and his nickname was the Absentee Congressman. The Federal Senators and Congressmen have a 17% approval rating, yet every Incumbent up for election in Mass and RI is projected to win with little resistance.
-
Don't hold back. Sometimes people need to hear things from another perspective to help them understand.
I wouldn't...Its not that im afraid, i just didn't know if you guys would be ready to discuss it.
I don't think anyone on this forum is the type to get hate-filled (or at least not against Muslims). The blame for extremists' actions falls on the extremists, not on normal people or religion. And many dictators are just in it for the power rather than using a religious excuse.
There are other (non-Islamic, tribal) cultural practices in (not exclusively) some Muslim areas though that are quite repulsive. Such as honor killings.
What do you think of traditional Muslim cultural treatment of women? Mormons are not uncommonly (though we would say undeservedly) accused of wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Our response is often that men and women were endowed by God with different roles but that one is not more important than the other and that men should not exercise "unrighteous dominion." The Muslim explanation I have heard is simliar, yet from an outside perspective the Muslim treatment of women seems to measure much further along the scale.
Tell me those who hate the extremists for the things they do, are they able to distinct between the extremist and the TRUE muslim? Do you think that people even try? No. And why would they, it is much easier to hate then to understand.
Anyways...
First let it be said that, Honor killings are not apart of Islam. I realize that you noted this but it never hurts to emphasize such a thing. The Quran does not give the men or family of the women any right to kill them--in any sense. Whether it be for honor, or dignity, or whatever these nut jobs CNN and NBC are trying so hard to find and put on national TV to represent the Islamic and Arabic culture.
It is true that honor killings were a part of arabic culture but that was many, many years ago. Every region of the world was doing things at that time that they can't be proud of. Be it, slavery, or territorial invasion and genocide of a people. I'd like to think we have changed.
These cases of "honor killings" are not only extremely rare but completely wrong islamically.
In Islam, to answer you question, Women and Men are seen as different but equal. Each have their own particular responsibilties to themselves--i don't mean be a house wife--but a women must keep herself covered from any men beyond her direct family and husband. when i say covered, a long sleeve shirt with an ankle long skirt and a head scarf is fine--that whole nicab is completely voluntary--similar to how monks make vow of silence--to achieve more deeds if they so wish it.
Similar to the mormons sure.
I should say, if people want to how muslim women feel--if people want to be fair to themselves and the true to the information they seek, the should ask a muslim woman.
Ask a muslim woman who has a relationship with her creator, and see what she tells you.
FACT: Islam it the fastest growing religion and the most types of people coming into Islam are educated, middle-class, women.
Turn your TV off and read. Everyone. Even me.
The Quran does not shun or deem women as sinners, witches, and lessers to men. infact women are often mentioned as the heart of a family. The Quran says things like; Heaven is under the heel of the mother. This is telling sons and daughters to respect her, and love her for that is the key paradise.
The Prophet Mohamed(peace be upon him), when approached by a young man who asked what are they secrets to enter heaven. The Prophet(pbuh) replied, your mother, then your mother, then your father.
Twice as much as the man.
Ok, im getting carried away. yeah, honor killings are stupid medieval cultural thing, that happens very rarely when an arabic family struggles to adjust to the western world.
Or if a dad is, in my opinion proud and embarrased enough about what people think(WTF?) to kill his own daughter, wife or sister. CRAZY PEOPLE do these things, and crazy people come from everywhere.
My sister is a very devout muslim--she is studying chemical engineering in UofM.(university of Michigan).
I really hope you understand that honor killings aren't common or accepted.
Promise me you'll stop watching GOVERNMENT FUNDED news.
-
As difficult as this may seem, it is a lot easier than trying to completely retool the Government into some Confederate-Socialist hybrid.
More importantly, it's a lot easier than trying to retool an entrenched dictatorial, communist, or socialist government.
Democracy and the rule of law don't provide easy living happiness and light for everyone. What it provides is the ability and opportunity to change how things work without beheading everyone involved with the current system.
Renkar:
Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you get a lot of scum on top.
That quote from Edward Abbey is a good one and the principal is true. I'd never heard it before so thanks!
The trick is to let the pot stir itself. And, of course, the only system that has ever made that possible without bloodshed is democracy and the rule of law. We've seen how communism and socialism work, which is to say they don't.
Yes, they maybe happy with the job they have in that sweatshop, but what other options do they have? Starve to death.
Sorry but no. There are plenty of people living in the countries in question who are neither working for an American owned sweatshop nor starving to death.
As for your points claiming that government is largely corrupt and inefficient, you bet. I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I think putting government in charge of even more things as socialism calls for, or all things as communism calls for is a really bad idea.
-
Promise me you'll stop watching GOVERNMENT FUNDED news.
Which government funded news would that be?
Tell me those who hate the extremists for the things they do, are they able to distinct between the extremist and the TRUE muslim? Do you think that people even try? No. And why would they, it is much easier to hate then to understand.
This is kind of a broad brush with which to condemn everyone but your own culture, don't you think?
I don't need to distinguish between anyone and a TRUE Muslim. I don't care if you or anyone else is a TRUE Muslim anymore than you care whether I'm a TRUE Mormon. All I care about is being able to distinguish between people who want to kill me and those who don't. When the streets of Palestine (along with a lot of other places) filled with happy cheering people on 9/11 it was a little eye-opening. When I was walking in the souk in Kuwait city, our ally in the Middle East, and refrained from purchasing little statuettes of the World Trade Center with a lighter built into the top and a bust of Osama Bin laden affixed to the base, it was a little eye-opening too.
Before anyone gets all foamy, let me say I don't hate Muslims. I don't even hate the extremists. I just hope the extremists die before they get a chance to kill my family or friends. I've helped a few along in this regard, no hate involved.
-
Darx-
What system do I suggest? Well, No system. The only way for society to truly be free is through libertarian socialism, anarchism, anarcho-syndyclism, anarcho-communism, whatever you want to call it. Please do not believe all the mainstream media, or historical accounts of "bomb-throwing" anarchists. I assure you most of us are not bomb- throwers. Check out Infoshop.org, or the Anarchist FAQ which does a lot better job at explaining things than I.
Of course, most everyone is an anarchist at some level, they just don't put that name to it. It is true democracy, both in the political realm and the economic realm. The people deserve to own the means of production not bosses or politicians, the people deserve to determine their course through life. When you place anyone in authority, eventually that authority will warp their perceptions. Look at the Stanford Prison experiment for a perfect example.
-
Darx-
What system do I suggest? Well, No system. The only way for society to truly be free is through libertarian socialism, anarchism, anarcho-syndyclism, anarcho-communism, whatever you want to call it. Please do not believe all the mainstream media, or historical accounts of "bomb-throwing" anarchists. I assure you most of us are not bomb- throwers. Check out Infoshop.org, or the Anarchist FAQ which does a lot better job at explaining things than I.
Of course, most everyone is an anarchist at some level, they just don't put that name to it. It is true democracy, both in the political realm and the economic realm. The people deserve to own the means of production not bosses or politicians, the people deserve to determine their course through life. When you place anyone in authority, eventually that authority will warp their perceptions. Look at the Stanford Prison experiment for a perfect example.
I totally agree with this statement. Sadly the libertarian socialist party is still very small. We ARE growing though. :D
-
Stanford Prison experiment shows about role-playing causing a shift in personality to match the role. Not authority. Both the prisoners and guards showed significant changes in their traits and behaviors, the prisoners probably more so than the guards, since some of them even became physically ill due to a conversion effect. The fact that the guards were given authority therefor was not the cause of their "warp in perceptions", which is a terrible way of wording it, since they did not warp perceptions but temporarily alter their personalities to fit the situation--it was the fact that they were given a role to play.
Uh, Skar, I read your response to me earlier today at the library instead of doing research. But I don't remember most of it, nor do I have the time to reread it. I may or may not come back to reread it and make a specific post based on what you said, but I believe the idea behind what I wanted to say is, "we have some socialism, that doesn't mean we couldn't have more or do more to help out those in need."
Also, I don't think it was you, but somebody was complaining that there were freeloaders on socialist programs like welfare. Yeah. I'd rather have some people freeload off of me than know that I was condemning other, hard working people (and their kids) to a life of misery. Also, no matter what kind of a system you have, even one with NO socialist-brand programs at all, there will be those who find a way to freeload. It happens.
I've seen quite a few interviews of people who work in factories in China complaining about the conditions. I'm sure many are grateful. I'm also sure that many are not grateful for the fact that often these factories will move in and make it their specific goal to reduce an area to a level where there are no other potential job markets so they have guaranteed labor.
I'm against affirmative action--somebody brought it up, I'm against it. I'm for aid based on economic position.
No, you don't get anything good from the bottom of the barrel when you mix it, but that's only because you haven't mixed it in so long. If we were in the regular habit of stirring the barrel, then the bottom wouldn't accumulate so much gunk. Also, I haven't read anybody else's posts since Skar's last post (I don't think).
-
Gorgon-
I have to disagree with your comments on the Stanford Prison Project. I will admit that my choice of words were not the best, but I was in a hurry. I think you are dismissing a very potent theme of that experiment. If you haven't read The Lucifer Effect by Dr Zimbardo, who conducted the experiment, you should it will open your eyes.
Even taking your basic premise that the guards in that experiment acted that way because they were simply role-playing and it shifted there personality, then what does it say about that position that they were assuming? The position of authority as a guard, the de-humanizing effect that it has on both guard and inmate, the entire relationship that is created, and the dynamic in general will turn ordinary people into monsters. The prisoners were given numbers instead of names, they were made to where a hospital gown type outfit, stockings on their heads simulated the shaving of their hair, they were de-loused and cleaned before entering the facility all to disorient, de-humanize and remove any trace of individuality. When one inmate misbehaved they punished the others in order to discourage anyone else from acting up and to cause disunity among the inmates. It was the combination of all these factors that led to normal, well-balanced and behaved people to commit extraordinarily cruel acts.
It is the same process that militaries use to dehumanize the enemy. That is why the enemy is called charlie, haji, jerry, krout, gook, sand nigger, or what ever other term the person uses. It is a lot harder to kill someone you view as human with a true name I think than some nameless, featureless face. I am not saying all soldiers do this, I would not know, perhaps those who have been through it can better explain it, or perhaps I am all wet on this and they don't use such names. The higher ups used it in Vietnam to dehumanize the enemy and to desensitize the American people to the brutality of it all. People are much more likely to go along if the victim is nameless, has no other qualities other than some unquenchable hate for America The German's needed to do it in the concentration camps. That is why they developed the showers\gas chambers because simply shooting Jews, like they did in the East, was to expensive both in the cost of bullets and the psychological damage to the shooters.
I think to simply state that the Guards were just fulfilling the role of the guard and that it was the fact that they were given a role to play is why they acted that way is an understatement of the results of that experiment. But then again I could be wrong, and we all know it would not be the first time.
Miyabi-
Your post reminded me of the following quote:
"There is one thing you have got to learn about our movement. Three people are better than no people."
-- Fannie Lou Hamer
-
Gorgon, you misinterpreted what I said. I was not complaining about freeloaders, I was complaining about the system creating people who have known no other way of life than that in which they are taken care of. Generational welfare causes people to lose the ability to take care of themselves. As sad as it is to say, people will take the easy way out whenever possible, it is in our nature. Therefore, any style of government that allows this to happen will eventually fail, which is why every Socialist society has eventually morphed into a State-run Government that subjugates its people, controls information, and makes it nearly impossible to change your way of life, as you will get the same stipend as everyone else, no matter what you do to improve yourself.
Anarchy is a farce. It is a paradox to think that there canbe no rules because that in itself is a rule. Besides that, it means that, as long as I am stronger, more well equipped, or a better shot than you, I can take what I want because there are no consequences. An Anarchist society will quickly devolve into a Despotic or Tyrannical dictatorship.
Miyabi - Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. How can you have a society with minimalist government involvement, and at the same time have a society where everyone is ensured total equality, without oversight from a governmental body? Libertarian philosophy points more towards a pure Democracy than Socialism.
Renkar - If you got your wish, what would you do for a living? After all, drunk driving would no longer be a crime in an Anarchy, so there would be no need for you to get them out of the charge. Oh, that's right, there would be no need for money, so you wouldn't have to work anymore. You could do whatever you wanted, and somehow it would all work out. If people were this capable of getting along and being honest, there would be no need for lawyers now. And as for the one experiment you keep mentioning; if you had ever worked in a prison, or known those who have (as I know several) you would realize that most people in prison are not usually the nicest people. Cleaning and delousing them prevents the spread of disease and parasites. When you are outnumbered a 100 to 1, you need to win the psychological war in order to stay alive. If you are suggesting that there shouldn't be prisons, then build a huge fence around your house and let them all live with you. I'm sure they'll all be model citizens. After all, criminals are all misunderstood, right?
-
It is the same process that militaries use to dehumanize the enemy. That is why the enemy is called charlie, haji, jerry, krout, gook, sand nigger, or what ever other term the person uses. ... People are much more likely to go along if the victim is nameless, has no other qualities other than some unquenchable hate for America
I've been in the military for 11 years and I've served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't say I I've ever seen any organized campaign to dehumanize the enemy through the use of the sort of words you listed. There was, in fact, the opposite going on most of the time. Leadership all the way down to the buck sergeants emphasized and encouraged thinking about the enemy as an actual person for two main reasons. First, nobody wants brutality or unnecessary killing and it's not just because you might be put on trial for it. It's simply because nobody wants brutality or unnecessary killing period. Second, the only way to effectively fight an enemy is to have as accurate a picture as possible of them in your head so you can better predict their actions. Thinking about them as one-dimensional America haters will get you outflanked and killed.
That's not to say that we didn't use shorthand terms to refer to the enemy. But that's essentially what they were, shorthand. Soldiers think and talk about the enemy all the time and nobody wants to have to say "Taliban Fighter" or "Al Quaeda Operative" or "North Vietnamese Irregular" every time, so it gets shortened to "Terry" or "Charlie" or whatever.
And, again, that's not to say that there isn't hatred directed at the enemy on the battlefield. It's a natural response to someone trying to kill you. But there is no institutionalized promulgation of hatred for the enemy. There is actually the exact opposite.
I've run into the idea that you have to hate a person in order to be able to kill them a lot here in the civilian world. That simply isn't so from the soldier's point of view.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=84518&title=philip-zimbardo
"No, people are not much more evil than they appear on the inside."
"We see how quickly the good boys become brutal guards and the nice boys became pathological prisoners."
"It really is the situation that leads us down the path towards evil."
I have to tell you, it's easy to say power corrupts because of these results. But that doesn't change the fact that the prisoners simply filled their roles as well. I also have to tell you that in modern psychology texts and classes, this is taught as a way of showing the power of assumed role. If you assume the role of a guard (who were told to delouse, etc. the prisoners, although it got out of hand), you will act how you believe a guard is supposed to act. That leads, of course, to corruption--but it wasn't like the power "went to their heads" or anything. It was the fact that they were not themselves, they were prisoner 10239 or Prison Guard James, or whatever they may be. If you watch some interviews with those persons involved in the experiment, I'm practically quoting one of the guards when I say that he wasn't being himself, he was playing a role--and that role required him to act the way he did. It wasn't the power he was given, it was the role he was filling.
No time to talk to anybody else, that was just a blatant mistake I had to fix. In fact, I'm late to my personality psychology class (irony, anyone?)
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=84518&title=philip-zimbardo
"No, people are not much more evil than they appear on the inside."
"We see how quickly the good boys become brutal guards and the nice boys became pathological prisoners."
"It really is the situation that leads us down the path towards evil."
I have to tell you, it's easy to say power corrupts because of these results. But that doesn't change the fact that the prisoners simply filled their roles as well. I also have to tell you that in modern psychology texts and classes, this is taught as a way of showing the power of assumed role. If you assume the role of a guard (who were told to delouse, etc. the prisoners, although it got out of hand), you will act how you believe a guard is supposed to act. That leads, of course, to corruption--but it wasn't like the power "went to their heads" or anything. It was the fact that they were not themselves, they were prisoner 10239 or Prison Guard James, or whatever they may be. If you watch some interviews with those persons involved in the experiment, I'm practically quoting one of the guards when I say that he wasn't being himself, he was playing a role--and that role required him to act the way he did. It wasn't the power he was given, it was the role he was filling.
No time to talk to anybody else, that was just a blatant mistake I had to fix. In fact, I'm late to my personality psychology class (irony, anyone?)
Power doesn't curropt--it just reveals it.
Like you can't tell the color of a shirt in the dark...the light(power)only shows you.
-
Darx-
If I got my wish what would I do? Well, it depends on what I felt like I wanted to do. The idea that we can just snap our fingers and tomorrow we can have an Anarchistic society is just not plausible. We as a species are far too caught up in childish thoughts and ideas and it would all descend into chaos. But why would it? Because some people will feel the need to control and rule over other people. The blood shed that occurs when governments fall are from rival groups of people that wish to dominate the general public, and to deepen their own pockets. Plus I never said it would be easy, you need to change the paradigms of today's society. Need to unplug people from the madison ave. induced coma of consumerism, need to show people that democracy is not something that occurs every 4 years. That supposed democracy of the political is not enough. We live in a Republic not a democracy. The system itself is the problem. Anarchy does not mean chaos and no rules, it does not mean rule of the strongest like some twisted form of Darwinism. It means the co-operation of humanity to better the lot in life of all humanity. It means an organized and ordered life determined at the bottom, by the people who must live under those conditions. It means mutual aid, that by helping my neighbor I am helping myself.
Please do not just parrot back all the propaganda about Anarchy not working, that the human race would simply stop working and people would be just sit around flinging poop at each other, until someone with a gun came around to take over. It does not mean that suddenly everyday people like me and you would go on some sort of killing spree because it is not longer against the law. I don't keep myself from killing people just because there is a law against it. Laws are pointless, the good people do not need them and the bad ones don't follow them. I am not saying that we should not do anything about people who do kill or assault or molest others. I am just saying that the general idea that without laws we will all descend into some dark age murder and rape festival is a little far fetched. Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no government, no RULERS, not no rules. It means that my freedom as a human being on this planet is only as expansive as the freedom you possess and the freedom that everyone else possesses. It means that I do not wish to be ruled , nor do I wish to rule. I will paraphrase Edward Abbey here, Anarchism is not some romantic ideal, it is the hard headed realization after 5000 years of human history that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to politicians, kings, priests, generals, or county commissioners. That hierarchical forms of society are not beneficial to the human species. that only through non-hierarchical, non-coercive decentralized forms of society, based on the federation of voluntary associations can humanity truly be free. No, it wont happen over night, it wont happen in our lifetime, or even the lifetime of our children, but should we not strive toward that goal. Should that not be the target at which we aim?
I know it is hard to imagine a world not based on authority and hierarchy, we haven't had an example of it since the Spanish Civil War in the thirties.
I do know many corrections officers, and have been through several prisons in the course of my career, and yes there are definitely some very mean people held within those walls. There should not be prisons however and a lot of those people have been turned into monsters because of the conditions that they have experienced. I deal with people that have been in prison, some that have been in prison for some pretty violent things, and the majority of them come from poor backgrounds, from single parent households where education is not a priority, there is a whole host of reasons. It always pisses me off when I hear politicians say they are tough on crime. Being tough on crime in today's society means more prisons, more police, more advanced technologies to intrude into peoples lives, more laws with longer terms of prison. They are treating the symptoms not the causes, and the treatment just makes more criminals and worsens the crimes. It is all about justifying positions of authority and making money. It is always more profitable to treat a disease than it is to cure it. Prisons are not about rehabilitation, they are about simply removing undesirables from the public eye, about punishment and creating more monsters by treating them as sub-humans. Prisons are like the university of criminal action. If you truly want to prevent crime, to be hard on crime, educate the people, work to remove poverty, make sure that the children are raised by a village not by a single mom who never complete much more than an elementary education, has seven or eight kids so that she can be a leech on society, and has no time to truly raise those kids and lets the likes of television and pop culture do it for her. The answers are not in more prisons, more authority. We have seen where that leads. Why is it that over half of young black men in this country have criminal records and will have spent at least sometime in jail or prison? Is it because they are lawless heathens? Why do we have more people in prison today per capita than any other first world country?
Skar-
Thanks for providing a different point of view. I agree that as accurate a picture of the enemy as possible is the best way to fight that enemy. I also agree that when someone is trying to kill you it is a natural response to direct hatred that way. I don't think that there is an overt organized campaign to dehumanize the enemy, I think it is ingrained very well into the system, like the man behind the curtain. It may not be as necessary for the soldier on the ground as it once was with the advent of better ways to kill people from greater distances. I do believe that it is required though for the population at large and when you draw your soldiers from that field there is some subconscious strand floating around that brain. Did you ever see that MASH episode with the bomber pilot who finally sees the consequences of his actions while at the 4077? One of my favorites.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on your boot camp experiences, if you are willing to discuss them. If you feel it may have changed the way you think in anyway, not in an overt brainwashing sense of course. Don't think they are putting people through some Clockwork Orange experiments or anything like that. What about being immersed in the military culture itself? I know this is far afield, but I am curious. I believe people's experiences color their perceptions and that to truly understand something we need to learn to remove the blinders that those experiences have placed over our eyes. That is the historian in me I guess.
Gorgon-
I think we are trying to argue the same thing. I agree that it was the role they were trying to fulfill that made them act that way. That the actions of the guards were that of the role the guards thought they must play. It was the position, not the power that corrupted. They were only role-playing, yet the experiment got out of hand in under a week. What about the actual guards in actual prisons.
-
People have been trying to go that route for centuries, Renkar. I think your hope of Utopia is noble, but I don't think Anarchy is the right word for it. A Confederate Democracy sounds more accurate to me, where every individual votes on every single measure in order to decide a course of action. People could be rotated through a presiding counsel to oversee and certify these votes, and would not be allowed to interpret or amend these votes. They would also be unable to preside over votes for ideas they themselves bring forward, but would need to wait until the next group came in (I think a 1 month rotation amongst all citizens would be good). You would also need some way for arbitration to occur. Even the most generous and forgiving people will have differences every now and again, and won't always be able to resolve it themselves. Finally, you would need to keep these communes small, so that informational spin and anonymity would be minimized. Each group's only responsibility to the other groups would be to respect the other groups completely. It would most likely eliminate diversity, as like people would stick together, but it could work, I suppose. This sounds a lot like the way the Amish already run their community. They even let their children leave to experience the outside world before becoming permanant members of the group. They help each other with all construction projects, shun technology, and are complete pacifists.
I think the point Gorgon is trying to make is that the people playing the guards had pre-conceived notions of what guards should do (with no formal training), and because they weren't actually hurting anyone, began to over-dramatize their roles. Besides that, it is hardly prudent to guage an entire system on one study. Their should be several corraborating studies in order to find a more definitive conclusion.
-
Renkar,
I am a little nervous that a defense attorney and criminal justice instructor in a city near mine is such an ardent anarchist. How do you reconcile your belief that there should be no law with your oath to uphold the Constitution?
-
Darx-
Anarchy is the word for it, but the connotations of the word that have been tied to the word have made it a misunderstood definition. I don't think you need to have small communities, just a re-organization of the communities from the bottom-up. People could be parts of many different counsels. The workers counsel that covers the aspect of work, the neighborhood counsels that covers the local community etc. Yes people have been trying to go that route for centuries, again I would argue for the whole of human history. I also am not advocating that technology is a bad thing. When funneled into creative endeavors technology can be a liberating vehicle for advancement. The removal of some of the more monotonous jobs from the work load. For a really good look at technology and how society is already set up look at Murray Bookchin's work.
SarahG
How do i reconcile my views with an oath to uphold the constitution being an anarchist is a valid question. I know it is kinda like an atheist becoming a priest. One reason why I am not a prosecutor. Well, I really wasn't much of an anarchist when I first joined the legal world, so it really wasn't much of an issue then. I was very liberal socially of course, but thought change could come from within the belly of the beast. In the present however, it has caused me no end of paradoxes and quandaries but, I look at it like this. The constitution is supposed to be by the people, for the people. The Declaration of Independence claims all men are created equal, yet we know that in this country we are no where near that standard. Yes, you can argue that when born the opportunities are the same for everyone in this country, but I feel the reality falls far short of that statement. I have to have a longer view of things. The Constitution is much like the Magna Carta, or Hammurabi's code or any other historical document that lays out rights of a group of people or the organization of a government. The Declaration said it best, that when the chains of government become too overbearing it is the right of the people to cast off that government. The long and short of it is that by representing people charged with a crime I can make sure that at least there is a minimum amount of protection for the rights of that individual as laid out in the Constitution. Although I believe that people do not need a piece of paper to grant them rights that they already posses because of simply being born. Anyway, if they do it the undesirable portion of society now, who is to say that someday in the future you or I may fall under that heading because things have eroded to far and no one is left to voice opposition when they come for me or you. The idea behind the Constitution is a good one, but has been warped by centuries of special interests and the disconnect of the passage of time. Many of those ideas I still hold dear and are in line with my philosophies. The idea that were are equal, that people should have the right to be heard, have the right to speak freely, even if I disagree to my core what they have to say, etc. etc. are all noble ideas that were once thought utopian, much like an America with out the institution of Slavery. Yet they exist today in various states of embattlement by the establishment. The Constitution is just a road sign on the road to freedom, so I can accept the ideals behind it to some extent and delude myself on the rest. The fact that it is assumed that these rights are granted us by the government is a very dangerous notion. It implies that if it is granted it can be taken away.
As for teaching criminal justice, who better than someone who believes as I. The majority of those I teach will go on to be police officers, corrections officers etc. and if I can get just one person to stop and think that perhaps my position is coloring my perspective or that hey I cannot do this search because it is a violation of this individuals rights than I have made a change for the better. If that student walks away from my class with the idea that perhaps treating everyone like a human being and not a suspect is a better way to go about it then I think I have done my job. I by no means pontificate about my views to a class. I save that for message boards ;D
-
Renkar:
I appreciate your taking the time to explain your ideal plan in detail. It's a lot less loony than I was afraid it was, especially since you explicitly take the long, multi-generational view.
In the end, I'd love to live in a society like you describe. My faith, or lack thereof, in the ability of human nature to exercise pragmatism, discipline, and altruism over extended periods is such that I can't ever see it happening though. The answer to that, as you've already said though, is to change human nature. Human nature changes most readily when people are free from worry over the lower levels of Maslows hierachy of needs. Currently, the vast majority of people in the world live at the bottom level. The best system we have for bringing prosperity to large numbers of people is capitalism governed by democracy and the rule of law, which is what we're trying to spread, for largely selfish reasons (nods to Gorgon) in a couple of countries in the Middle East right now and elsewhere through less violent manipulations. When the opposition has guns, you'd better have guns too, no matter who you are.
Thanks for providing a different point ... blinders that those experiences have placed over our eyes. That is the
historian in me I guess.
My experiences in training and overseas, have in fact changed me; for the better in my opinion. But I'll get to that in a minute.
I have never liked MASH. It was a ridiculously unrealistic portrayal of a military unit designed to make a political statement about the Vietnam war. (Yes I know it was set in Korea) To portray a bomber as being surprised and shocked at the havoc his bombs wreak is dishonest and offensive. They know exactly what they're doing and carry on anyway. Fortunately, they're not asked to knowingly bomb civilians anymore. From where I stood on the ground they were often annoyingly careful and picky about where/when they would drop precisely because of that knowledge.
As for being willing to talk about my experiences in the military, you bet. I'll answer any specific questions you care to ask, or pontificate at length if you wish.
The role of experience. You chose some interesting words in that last paragraph. I would not have used the word "blinders" to describe the effect of experience. In my life, experience has been the single greatest cause of mind expansion and eye-opening. You can only come to understand the reality of the world through experience, first hand or vicarious. Colored perceptions is part of that real world, of course, and must be factored in. Thinking and drawing conclusions in the absence of experience, either first hand or vicarious, though, is pure navel gazing and not terribly useful.
-
On the experience as blinders thing, I think it comes more as we need to understand our experiences are like a sketch of the world. We can ink our sketch through the experiences of others, and color the picture using our ability to think (often called "rational thought", but I have little faith in how rational it is...).
I know I've been dropping in and out rather sporadically and without time to say anything of meaning, but I'm sure there are those of you who are grateful not to hear much of my ranting right now, anyway. Gotta go.
-
My only big issue with your statements, Renkar, is the hidden hippocrisy in them. You say your job helps grant rights to people accused of crimes. Are all of them innocent? I doubt it highly. Yet you neglect to speak about the rights of those who were impacted by the illegal actions of some of those you defend. You make it sound like everyone accused of a crime is a victim. You also don't speak very highly of law enforcement officials. Of course, you feel they are victims also. I definitely understand your reasoning. By blaming the establishment so completely, you remove yourself from the reality that someone you may defend was guilty, and more importantly, mitigate any guilt you may feel if someone you did successfully defend goes back out and commits another crime. I don't fault you for what you do, your job is absolutely essential, but aren't you playing a bit of a role yourself? You have so thoroughly convinced yourself that our government and societal structure are the cause of all problems that you remove individual responsibility, yet individual responsibility is the lynchpin that would make or break the type of society you envision. I have a different view. I believe everyone needs to take a little more responsibility for their actions.
-
Renkar,
Your idea of an ancharist society that works is an absoulute fairy tale. The "hierarchical forms of society" are not beneficial but they are absolutely necessary. This is as sad as it is true. You're blaming the the system for creating monsters. Human beings are naturally monsters and need no outside assitance to act accordingly. Ah yes it's great to dream of a world where anarchy could be peaceful but it is only a DREAM. Taking away personal responsibility and laying it on the "system" only adds to the problem. Yes the jails are overcrowded and that is because there are simply too many people incapable of living peacefully. That is not a problem of the "system" it is a problem of humanity.
-
The point of anarchism isn't a unified peace. It's a unified understanding that you don't have the right to take away the rights of any other individual. Which governments do every single day.
-
Yes but with anarchy who defines the rights? Wouldn't there be a lack there of rights? I mean there wouldn't be a centralized government to outline these rights.
-
Agreed. There would also be no way to prevent people from deciding their rights superceded the rights of others. Should we have the right to take something we want from someone else, just because we want it? What about the right to live wherever we want, even if it means destroying ecosystems? What about the right to keep what you have earned, even if it is more than other people think you need? Here's the best one: What if a group of people feel it is their right to have a government to ensure they're freedoms are protected? Who makes that choice? Who weighs the consequences of actions? Most importantly, who enforces the one law that your interpretation of Anarchy suggests? I see no way to have a community where the good of the one always outweighs the good of the many.
-
Darx-
No not all my clients are innocent, very few of them are. In some sense they are victims. Victims of losing the genetic lottery, victims of a system that has forgotten and used them. Used them in the sense that they are a metaphorical stick for the rest of society. I think victims of crimes are made doubly so by the system. The studies on restorative justice out there are really eye opening. Instead of just throwing people in jail\prison, which requires little responsibility be taken by the criminal, they require that person to talk with the victims of their actions, to work toward making that person whole. It creates understanding about the consequences of their actions etc. If you want I can put together a few things to pass along, but it may take some time, might be quicker to do a google search. I don't think that society is the cause of all of our problems. I just think that the society\culture that we are creating is the wrong exit ramp in human development. That society as it is now is more hinderance, then helpful in most senses. The more anarchistic qualities and values a society possesses the more free those societies are.
I do not speak highly of law enforcement solely because I disagree with the position they hold in society. The whole thin blue line idea. Whenever you take a group of people and set them apart as enforcers it will create an air of superiority, of entitlement. I see this everyday when speaking with officers. I have a fairly decent relationship with most officers that I deal with, but they still hold positions of authority and hierarchy which as an anarchist I don't agree with.
I to believe that people need to take more responsibility for their actions. Everyone, from the President of this country all the way down to the bum on the street, but if you think that everyone is where they are is the result of only their doing is flawed also. I don't think you think this judging from the entirety of our conversion. This is the whole nature v. nurture debate that has been going on for centuries. I think nature definitely has a major factor in the development of a person. I think that that nature is becoming more intrusive and more destructive as human society develops. It may not be a conscious decision or it may not, but we are constantly bombarded with image to consume to perpetuate the economic system. Like I have said production and consumption solely for their own sake is not a good thing. We need to take responsibility about the fact that our actions on this planet do have consequences, that dumping chemicals into the rivers and streams of this world are not good things. That CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest it have ever been in the long history of this planet is not a good thing. That all the things we throw away just don't disappear. We need to take responsibility for the fact that we are selling our futures for the convenience of today. The whole save the planet campaign is misguided to some extent. It should be save the humans, the planet will be fine, it has been fine for 100,000's of years, and will continue for billions of years more, unless cleared for an intergalactic superspace highway or blown up.
A lot of the problems we face are interconnected, but people refuse to connect the dots in most instances. They will connect one or two, but the whole picture is rarely viewed. The whole can't see the forest for the trees mentality. Society has evolved to help and keep people from connecting to many dots. Whether that is by conscious effort or simply by dumb luck is up to your own beliefs. Read Guy Debord's The Society of Spectacle.
Skar-
I will IM you with my questions about your service once I piece them together. Take your time, when you get to them you get to them.
Thank you for seeing through my ramblings to the core of what I am saying. I too battled long and hard with that lack of faith. Humanity as a whole being to primitive, human nature being to violent etc. Looking at it not as a movement but an evolution of humanity as a whole of the course of this existence on the planet helps a little. Realizing that I will likely never see the world I believe in also helped. I must just work to bring humanity closer to that ideal, one begrudging step at a time. I think human nature is not as horrid as the picture of the world at this time suggests. Again looking at it with a longer eye, humanity has constantly moved toward a freer society and i think that is the biggest part of human nature. We live under very coercive elements that can warp the view of human nature. Again it comes down to changing paradigms, and the only way that is going to happen, other than some tragic man-made event that offs a great majority of human kind, is through education and as Kropotkin said propaganda of deed.
I think that capitalism is one of the great evils of the world. It is a system of great exploitation. I think that capitalism and democracy are not synonymous and that with capitalism you can not have democracy. I can go on ad nausem about it, but this is long enough, and I will just say we can agree to disagree on this point right now, and save that debate for a later day.
Yea, I know MASH was about Vietnam even though set in Korea
As for experience, yes experience is the greatest eye-opening, mind expanding thing at work in the world. My point, however bad I butchered it, is that Experiences color perception, it can work to narrow views. Experience can cause prejudice. The key is to strike a balance. The realization that your experiences may cause your perception to be skewed, I believe leads to greater understanding and more mind expansion. Does that make sense? I hate navel gazing, but yet i watch far too much t.v. and get the same feeling.
-
Darx-
No not all my clients are innocent, very few of them are. In some sense they are victims. Victims of losing the genetic lottery, victims of a system that has forgotten and used them. Used them in the sense that they are a metaphorical stick for the rest of society. I think victims of crimes are made doubly so by the system. The studies on restorative justice out there are really eye opening. Instead of just throwing people in jail\prison, which requires little responsibility be taken by the criminal, they require that person to talk with the victims of their actions, to work toward making that person whole. It creates understanding about the consequences of their actions etc. If you want I can put together a few things to pass along, but it may take some time, might be quicker to do a google search. I don't think that society is the cause of all of our problems. I just think that the society\culture that we are creating is the wrong exit ramp in human development. That society as it is now is more hinderance, then helpful in most senses. The more anarchistic qualities and values a society possesses the more free those societies are.
I do not speak highly of law enforcement solely because I disagree with the position they hold in society. The whole thin blue line idea. Whenever you take a group of people and set them apart as enforcers it will create an air of superiority, of entitlement. I see this everyday when speaking with officers. I have a fairly decent relationship with most officers that I deal with, but they still hold positions of authority and hierarchy which as an anarchist I don't agree with.
I to believe that people need to take more responsibility for their actions. Everyone, from the President of this country all the way down to the bum on the street, but if you think that everyone is where they are is the result of only their doing is flawed also. I don't think you think this judging from the entirety of our conversion. This is the whole nature v. nurture debate that has been going on for centuries. I think nature definitely has a major factor in the development of a person. I think that that nature is becoming more intrusive and more destructive as human society develops. It may not be a conscious decision or it may not, but we are constantly bombarded with image to consume to perpetuate the economic system. Like I have said production and consumption solely for their own sake is not a good thing. We need to take responsibility about the fact that our actions on this planet do have consequences, that dumping chemicals into the rivers and streams of this world are not good things. That CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest it have ever been in the long history of this planet is not a good thing. That all the things we throw away just don't disappear. We need to take responsibility for the fact that we are selling our futures for the convenience of today. The whole save the planet campaign is misguided to some extent. It should be save the humans, the planet will be fine, it has been fine for 100,000's of years, and will continue for billions of years more, unless cleared for an intergalactic superspace highway or blown up.
Seriously? They are the victims? Each and every human being is born with a moral compass. Everyone instinctively knows what is right and what is wrong. I don't care what genes you get. If you can't control yourself or your genes you don't deserve to live with the rest of humanity.
-
Agreed. There would also be no way to prevent people from deciding their rights superceded the rights of others. Should we have the right to take something we want from someone else, just because we want it? What about the right to live wherever we want, even if it means destroying ecosystems? What about the right to keep what you have earned, even if it is more than other people think you need? Here's the best one: What if a group of people feel it is their right to have a government to ensure they're freedoms are protected? Who makes that choice? Who weighs the consequences of actions? Most importantly, who enforces the one law that your interpretation of Anarchy suggests? I see no way to have a community where the good of the one always outweighs the good of the many.
First sorry about the double post, but had to expand.
No we should not have the right to take away something from someone else simply because we want it. As for who decided the rights of the people. well, the people do. Anarchism is about voluntary federations, where the people have control of their daily lives, and they are the ones who order their society, not governments or corporations. Governments do not protect people's freedoms, the people do. Governments do not grant rights, like I said to grant means that it can be withdrawn. Government only posses the power we are willing to cede to them, nothing more. The good of the one does not outweigh the good of the many, because the good of the one is the good of the many. My freedom is only as expansive as my neighbors, if they are restricted and I act in anyway to restrict that freedom, i am restricting my own freedom. I'll be back with more, got to get some things done before the weekend.
I did not say they are the only victims, and I did not say they were not at fault for their actions, I am saying that it is not 100% their fault, that at some level we are all responsible
-
Agreed. There would also be no way to prevent people from deciding their rights superceded the rights of others. Should we have the right to take something we want from someone else, just because we want it? What about the right to live wherever we want, even if it means destroying ecosystems? What about the right to keep what you have earned, even if it is more than other people think you need? Here's the best one: What if a group of people feel it is their right to have a government to ensure they're freedoms are protected? Who makes that choice? Who weighs the consequences of actions? Most importantly, who enforces the one law that your interpretation of Anarchy suggests? I see no way to have a community where the good of the one always outweighs the good of the many.
No we should not have the right to take away something from someone else simply because we want it. As for who decided the rights of the people. well, the people do. Anarchism is about voluntary federations, where the people have control of their daily lives, and they are the ones who order their society, not governments or corporations. Governments do not protect people's freedoms, the people do. Governments do not grant rights, like I said to grant means that it can be withdrawn. Government only posses the power we are willing to cede to them, nothing more. The good of the one does not outweigh the good of the many, because the good of the one is the good of the many. My freedom is only as expansive as my neighbors, if they are restricted and I act in anyway to restrict that freedom, i am restricting my own freedom. I'll be back with more, got to get some things done before the weekend
Just changing the word government to voluntary federations does not change the fact that it is still a form of government. Even you realize the need for some form of governing body.
-
Right on, Madness. There needs to be someone with some amount of impartiality who can make a decision when others are at an impasse. This also applies to the need of a leader. Working for a good sized Corporation myself, I see how projects and goals go nowhere because everyone in the meeting is on equal footing, and don't all agree on a specific course of action. They either refuse to accept another idea, or refuse to accept any ideas without coming up with a plan themselves. In the end, someone needs the authority to make a decision so that the plan can move forward. Every crisis management expert you can find will all agree that a command structure is required in a crisis situation. Everyone must know their role, and one person must take the lead to make sure all roles are used properly. A question: How do you restrict your own freedom by restricting your neighbors? Are you saying they are allowed to reciprocate, so everyone lives in a state of forced respect? How do the others prove it was you who did what you did? Would they even need proof?
-
The point of anarchism isn't a unified peace. It's a unified understanding that you don't have the right to take away the rights of any other individual. Which governments do every single day.
-
A) Not all human beings are born with a moral compass. Fact. Read a little about the hitman known as "Iceman" if you don't believe me. A moral compass is something we learn. End of story. You can not believe this due to whatever reasons you wish, but I just had to disagree. If all humans were born with a moral compass, then right and wrong would be universally defined inter culturally. There are plenty of cultures who had no moral issues with sex, nudity, or even violence (outside of assault). Most societies disagree with murder, assault, theft, etc. because they disrupt the social order and cause problems. That doesn't mean that we're born knowing not do it--if we were, mother and father wouldn't have had to tell us so.
B) It might be wrong to steal, for example, but I don't fault the person who steals because his entire life he's had no choice but to life on the edge of existence, since he lives in a system which has forgotten about him and locked him into a ridiculously low stature.
C) Most blue-collar criminals are victims in a sense. They weren't born criminals, they were made criminals--just as they weren't born moral or immoral, they just were. If the society they lived in cared more about them and less about the season finale of American Idol, maybe they wouldn't have grown up to believe it's okay to kill, steal, trespass, etc. because it's all they've been exposed to. That doesn't mean it is okay, but it doesn't change the fact that they are victims of how they were raised and the situation they were raised in.
Yeah, okay, the idea behind anarchism is great. Wonderful. Impossible to move into from here. How about instead of daydreaming about an ideal system, we work more on improving the system we have. A complete overhaul of our, or any established power, would likely cause a major collapse of society (even a loose society like your ideal one). Even over generations, it works better if we have ideas in mind for changing this system, in the hopes that maybe someday it will be changed enough that an overhaul isn't impossible--and in hopes that we'll have worked out bugs in this and any "ideal" system over the time that we're making small changes.
There does not need to be one person in charge. Ever hear of an Oligarchy? There may need to be something in charge, but it does not need to be a person.
-
A) Not all human beings are born with a moral compass. Fact. Read a little about the hitman known as "Iceman" if you don't believe me. A moral compass is something we learn. End of story. You can not believe this due to whatever reasons you wish, but I just had to disagree. If all humans were born with a moral compass, then right and wrong would be universally defined inter culturally. There are plenty of cultures who had no moral issues with sex, nudity, or even violence (outside of assault). Most societies disagree with murder, assault, theft, etc. because they disrupt the social order and cause problems. That doesn't mean that we're born knowing not do it--if we were, mother and father wouldn't have had to tell us so.
B) It might be wrong to steal, for example, but I don't fault the person who steals because his entire life he's had no choice but to life on the edge of existence, since he lives in a system which has forgotten about him and locked him into a ridiculously low stature.
C) Most blue-collar criminals are victims in a sense. They weren't born criminals, they were made criminals--just as they weren't born moral or immoral, they just were. If the society they lived in cared more about them and less about the season finale of American Idol, maybe they wouldn't have grown up to believe it's okay to kill, steal, trespass, etc. because it's all they've been exposed to. That doesn't mean it is okay, but it doesn't change the fact that they are victims of how they were raised and the situation they were raised in.
Yeah, okay, the idea behind anarchism is great. Wonderful. Impossible to move into from here. How about instead of daydreaming about an ideal system, we work more on improving the system we have. A complete overhaul of our, or any established power, would likely cause a major collapse of society (even a loose society like your ideal one). Even over generations, it works better if we have ideas in mind for changing this system, in the hopes that maybe someday it will be changed enough that an overhaul isn't impossible--and in hopes that we'll have worked out bugs in this and any "ideal" system over the time that we're making small changes.
There does not need to be one person in charge. Ever hear of an Oligarchy? There may need to be something in charge, but it does not need to be a person.
Ummmm actually not a fact. Go read some Kant. According to him all knowledge of good is a priori knowledge. The compass is there people just choose not to follow it. Oh and just because you have a certain belief about something doesn't make it a fact. End of story.
-
whoops. sorry. i clicked quote instead of modify :-\
-
Ummmm actually not a fact. Go read some Kant. According to him all knowledge of good is a priori knowledge. The compass is there people just choose not to follow it. Oh and just because you have a certain belief about something doesn't make it a fact. End of story.
Philosophy and science are different. There was a philosopher who believed that the dark spots on the moon were made out of lemonade (true story). However, psychology is a science, and it studies things like criminal mindsets in multiple types of studies (including, but not limited to laboratory and case studies). The science behind the stance agrees with what I said. I know, I know--science isn't always right. And you're welcome to believe what you want. But the evidence I've seen in my exposure has pointed towards both not all humans having the capacity for a moral compass (due to genetic and chemical abnormalities) and morality being a learned status.
I guess we could go ahead and say there are no such things as facts, if evidence towards something doesn't make it a fact. I'm okay with that. In that case, I'll word it a different way. The probability of humans not being born with a moral compass as a race is, according to the evidence currently know, extraordinarily low--to the point of being null.
-
I guess we could go ahead and say there are no such things as facts, if evidence towards something doesn't make it a fact. I'm okay with that. In that case, I'll word it a different way. The probability of humans not being born with a moral compass as a race is, according to the evidence currently know, extraordinarily low--to the point of being null.
And while I would agree with the morality issue, to a point. Every thing we do or don't, is always a choice. Good or bad, that individual made a choice to commit a crime or do a good deed, inspite or because of the consequences. All to often there is more attention/pity attributed to the victimizer rather than the victim. How many remember the names of those murdered by serial killers?
-
We don't remember the names of those killed by serial killers because they aren't remarkable in any way. Unfortunately, people dying is not uncommon. Serial killers, on the other hand, are remembered because they are disturbing, not because they are sympathetic. They aren't remembered because people feel bad for them, they are remembered because people are horrified by them.
Yes, everybody makes choices, and they are ultimately responsible for the results of their actions. However, as previously mentioned, not everybody has the same conception of morality. If you ask most people, they will say that stealing is wrong. However, if you ask people if it is wrong to steal when that is the only way you can provide food for your family, then the answers aren't so clear. That's when people start to realize that if they were in the same situation, they might not do any different than the people they judge.
Kant had some interesting beliefs on morality. He believed, for instance, that if something was wrong in one instance, then it was wrong in all instances, i.e. if killing is wrong in one instance, then it is wrong in all instances. I think that we can prove that that, in and of itself, does not fit most people's moral compasses. For example...
Situation A: I decide, for one reason or another, that I don't like one of my acquaintances. So, I go out and kill them.
Situation B: I am walking home one night, when I see that an old lady is being attacked by someone with a knife. I rush to defend them, and the attacker and I struggle over the knife. In the struggle, I stab the assailant and he dies. Now, I have just saved this presumably innocent person's life. I was also in grave personal danger when I killed the assailant. However, I did kill someone.
Now, according to Kant, these two situations both should be immoral, because killing is wrong. But how many people would say that it would be more moral for me to stand by and watch as the old lady was killed?
-
Yeah, okay, the idea behind anarchism is great. Wonderful. Impossible to move into from here. How about instead of daydreaming about an ideal system, we work more on improving the system we have. A complete overhaul of our, or any established power, would likely cause a major collapse of society (even a loose society like your ideal one). Even over generations, it works better if we have ideas in mind for changing this system, in the hopes that maybe someday it will be changed enough that an overhaul isn't impossible--and in hopes that we'll have worked out bugs in this and any "ideal" system over the time that we're making small changes.
I agree completely that we must have ideas as to how we would like to change the way society is organized. I agree that we must work to improve the world we live in. We are not talking simply about a political revolution we are talking about a complete social revolution, and for that we can only lay the groundwork. By designing better ways to organize society and being prepared to put that theory into effect lays that groundwork. Social revolutions are organic and can not be planned or architects. You just never know when or what the spark will be that will start it. The Paris Commune of the 60's, or the CNT in Catalonia during the Spanish Revolution. If you want to learn about a close approximation of an Anarchist society look at the CNT. Of course, the Fascists and the Republicans destroyed it before resuming their war. But there is alot of things you can do now that work well. Things like community gardens, which get people out of their houses and away from the t.v. People build stronger ties to their neighbors and the community through activities like that.
There needs to be someone with some amount of impartiality who can make a decision when others are at an impasse.
A group is more than welcome to set up along the lines of having a team leader, if they are trying to achieve a common goal. Some form of authority is needed, but it must be justified. No matter the justification, but that it is justified in the mind of the one that falls under that authority. Of course, the person has the right to terminate that authority at any time. When a mother stops their child from running into the street. That is a form of authority, but it is justified. If I want a house designed I will defer authority to an architect. Obviously, I would or could have imput as to what I want, but what I want may not be possible. And I could terminate that relationship at my discretion.
And while I would agree with the morality issue, to a point. Every thing we do or don't, is always a choice. Good or bad, that individual made a choice to commit a crime or do a good deed, inspite or because of the consequences. All to often there is more attention/pity attributed to the victimizer rather than the victim. How many remember the names of those murdered by serial killers?
The reason the serial killer's name is remembered is because violence is almost worshiped. It is big news. What is the first thing you see on your local news? It is always some violent crime. They glorify it to some extent. Serial Killer's have become celebrities, they have freaking trading cards. So, because that person made a bad choice we are going to lock him up, in which he is treated like a sub-human and will continue to alienate\harden the person to where he can be potentially more of a threat. Instead of perhaps taking the opportunity to teach the person the effects of those choices. Making the person have to sit down and listen to what the victim went through. Make the person have to associate a person, someones mother, or father, son or daughter. Make some common ground, create understanding between the victim and the victimizer. I know it sounds all hugs and kisses but it works. The victims of the crime get just as much out of it as the victimizer most of the time. They get a better sense of closure in most cases. Lets work on true justice, lets look toward rehabilitation. Don't just throw them away. The recidivism rate from people that go through restorative justice programs are amazingly better than just sending someone to a small cell for a length of time. Fyodor Dostoevsky once said, "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."
The moral compass is something that is a learned behavior, in my opinion. You do not see a lot of college grads carjacking people, or robbing a 7/11. The thing a college degree shows is a level of intelligence, the height of that intelligence is debatable. Of course, it could also show that they are better at standardized tests. The causes of crime are not that hard to identify. Little or no parental guidance while growing up, lack of positive role-models, poverty, and poor education. It is unbelievable, and atrocious that something close to 50% of the students that enter the Kansas City School district do not graduate, and of those graduates some can not even read. That is not only an indictment of the edcational system in this city but of the lack of support and importance placed on education in the home. When i say lack of support, I don't just mean welfare moms, but single parent mom's who have to work two jobs to provide the necessities and therefore not around to provide the guidance needed. I have been catching slack for saying that society is all to blame, which was not the message i was trying to send, but simply placing the blame on the person is putting your head in the sand to the problems of this society.
-
I never said that people don't have a choice. Some people don't have a moral compass to aid in making that choice, though.
-
Yeah, I agree that bad news sells. Nevertheless, we as consumers buy the news they sell us. We as a society have glorified death and murder to the extent of saying its o.k.
That being said, I don't have pity for those who break the law. Nor do I see the need to coddle them. If someone does not have a moral compass, or more simply, know right from wrong, get rid of them. Jailing them does not seem to work... so step up the rate of executions. It could be seen as cruel and unusually but if it's done more often, it won’t be so unusual.
While my opinions may seem cruel, there are countries with a much lower crime rate and higher poverty ratio than ours. Point blank, eye-for-an-eye works.
-
Renkar, do you really believe you can teach a Serial Killer right from wrong? That is not the best example, by far. Psycopaths and Sociopaths are sick people. They are mentally ill, and until a cure for whatever causes it can be found, they can not be allowed back into society. There are people who will deify anyone or anything, so it is not surprising they have fans. It is ironic that there would be no way to stop this behavior from happening in an Anarchist society, as it would be their "right" to know everything about serial killers and accept them as role models. That poses an interesting question: How would you deal with those who are unable or unwilling to control themselves, and are a clear danger to others?
Miyabi - Your posts sound a little sef-serving to me. The essence of laws is to protect people, sometimes even from themselves. Exactly what "Rights" do we have that you feel have been wrongly taken from us? Should we wait until someone violates another's rights before we remove that person's rights? How long are they restricted? Do you really have a right to do or say whatever you want? Laws also prevent people from using ignorance as an excuse. If you don't define what is right and wrong, how can you then hold someone accountable? Being anti-government is a cheap way out, in my opinion. Anything that involves human beings is going to be flawed. The trick is to be aware of those flaws, and determine ways to change or improve leadership and government, not just villify it and wash your hands of it. Nobody is totally free. If you believe it is possible, you are fooling yourself. We are all bound by limitations.
-
Yeah, I agree that bad news sells. Nevertheless, we as consumers buy the news they sell us. We as a society have glorified death and murder to the extent of saying its o.k.
That being said, I don't have pity for those who break the law. Nor do I see the need to coddle them. If someone does not have a moral compass, or more simply, know right from wrong, get rid of them. Jailing them does not seem to work... so step up the rate of executions. It could be seen as cruel and unusually but if it's done more often, it won’t be so unusual.
While my opinions may seem cruel, there are countries with a much lower crime rate and higher poverty ratio than ours. Point blank, eye-for-an-eye works.
what about all those in jail for white collar crimes? what about all those in prison on ramped up drug charges? Do we want to chop off the hand of the thief, perhaps take the tongue if they perjure themselves. How about an ear for things like slander or libel? We can stick people in solitary for their entire term of incarceration, they will only go crazy at some point. we could go back to drawing and quartering in the public square. It would be fun to go to your local bar and see someone's arm hanging above the door because some criminal was known to hang out there. Perhaps instead of Monday Night Football, we can have Monday Night Execution, that would make everyone in world afraid. Making things more draconian will not prevent crime, when the root causes of crime are still prevalent in our society. Those countries with more poverty and lower crime rates, would you want to live under that regime? Without knowing of which countries you speak, I can only guess that most of those are more openly oppressive than this country. I am sure there are exceptions that you can cherry pick from.
The use of the death penalty is antiquated and does not work. It works to kill the poor, because if you can afford Johnny Cochrane and F. Lee Bailey you can beat a murder charge, or at the least keep the death penalty off the table. There is a reason that we are the only "civilized" country that still permits the death penalty, and it is not because we are better than everyone else.
Yes, we as a society have made murder okay through a whole host of ways. State sanctioned killing is one way that we justify murder. The glorification of the serial killer, the constant bombardment of violent imagery, are just a few other ways. Eye for an eye doesn't work, oh it may work on that individual, but as a chilling effect on the community at large, not so much. The Death Penalty has been in effect for a little over three decades since the Supremes re-instated it. The murder rate in this country is just as high, but the Death penalty works. I used to think that the more frequent use of the DP would work to prevent people from committing crimes like murder etc. but the thought that hey, if I do this I could be put to death doesn't truly play in the minds of most. They don't plan on getting caught, they may not truly care if they live or die, they may not be that intelligent to form the thought are some reasons. The DP is disproportionally used on the poor and non-whites. The government should beheld to a higher standard than its citizenry. The whole do as I say not as I do reasoning is flawed.
If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the law, I hope for your sake someone will take pity on you. Remember they are making new crimes daily, and this is one of the few growth industries in this country. People make mistakes, people screw up, to err is human as they say.
Darx-
There are a lot of people out there that need psychiatric help. Perhaps instead of just sending them to the chair or the chamber we can learn somethings from them. They are sick people, like you said, and we need to find the cure for such illness. We must also define the causes of such illnesses. I don't believe that anyone is a natural born killer, they may be predisposed to such behavior, but environment also plays its role. As to how those people are dealt with, it would be up to the community to determine that. I would argue though that in a society as I propose that many of the current ills of society would be removed. That when raised in a society where mutual aid is the focus, where the necessities of survival are provided through the organization of the community simply for being part of the community that a lot of the thought processes that lead to criminal activity would cease to exist. It is hard to imagine such a society, I know, that is why it would not work if tomorrow the government said alright we are out of the business figure it out for yourself. Not enough people think along anarchist lines, or do not bring those thoughts far enough. Things would collapse because some people would need to be in charge, it is what has been taught, they need to be rule. I do not want to be ruled, therefore I do not want to rule.
-
I agree they should be studied, but I think the death penalty is warranted for certain individuals. There are those select few out there who are so dangerous to society that the chance of them even interacting with others can't be chanced.
As much as you have admitted many of your clients are guilty, you still seem to hold to the fact that so many people are wrongfully accused. As much as it sucks that people are sometimes framed or poorly defended, or are folly for an overzealous DA looking for re-election, most criminals are guilty, and consequences should be metered out. Like it or not, consequences for actions mitigate those actions. I think the bigger problem is a culture that encourages not being educated, not taking responsibility for your own actions, and putting yourself first. What you call results of our societal issues I call causes.
You mentioned Fascists and Republicans, what about liberals? Isn't the current Democratic philosophy in direct odds with everything you believe in?
It is the people's fault that violence is sensationalized. It is the people's fault that the economy is in shambles right now. It is our fault. In fact, the current banking situation is another glaring issue with unified thought and mutual understanding running the country instead of a government. Regulations were decreased to encourage profit and allow more people to own a home, and what happened? GREED. People knew they couldn't afford that 400,000 home, no matter what the mortgage company approved them for. Yet they bought it, because they just couldn't wait. They were too blinded by the shine to see the crap under the thin coat of paint. On the other side, these companies knew they were playing with fire, but just couldn't stop giving out those loans. Now sure, you can argue that we are brought up to overvalue money and possessions, and you may be right about that. You don't want to see it, but the lengths even your version of society would go to in the name of preservation would be no better than any other governmental structure. As new generations came, they would not have the same faith, and would naturally look to separate themselves from the herd. We are part of nature, and what separates us from animals rests on the point of a pin. You will always, always, always have people who are willing to buck the system, to separate themselves from the herd. The strongest and most dominant keep the species going. It will take a lot more than a few untested ideals and even 100 generations to remove that base instinct from humanity.
-
If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the law, I hope for your sake someone will take pity on you. Remember they are making new crimes daily, and this is one of the few growth industries in this country. People make mistakes, people screw up, to err is human as they say.
Actions are choices. If I'm on the wrong side of the law, I deserve what I get. In the wrong place at the wrong time? I don't go there. It's all my choice. I agree that executions should not be televised. Catering to the Mob helped Rome fall from within by encouraging depravity and lawlessness. Nevertheless, any time you get three or more people together your going to have crime of one sort or another. It's the way humans are unfortunately.