(Untitled)

[smokedamage]

it was never about Osama, it was never about WMD's, or Saddam, it wasn't even about Oil. Welcome to the Neo-Crusades.

Fuck religion.

The message from General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, was apocalyptic. "We are at a critical time in the history of this great country and find ourselves challenged in ways we did not

Comments

[smokedamage]

It's own people. Their care, their quality of life.

However, i also believe that it's time we all realized we are on this rock together, and thus have an international responsibility to protect the planet we live on. The consumption levels experienced in the US over the last forty years, aren't sustainable and certainly could not be enjoyed all over the world. The resources on the planet couldn't sustain the populations of Africa and Asia consuming much the same way that the American population has done. So basically, a global level tightening of the belt in a way. More care with waste disposal, more support and education regarding recycling etc etc.

We have a responsibility to each other.

i realise it's because humans are a little retarded and like familiar things, so we still have countries, but sooner or later we are going to have to go with a global government. Instead of managing america's resources, and australia's, and saudi arabia's we are going to have to look at managing all of our resources.

shrug* not going to happen in our lifetimes, but i see no reason to not be working towards it. It would be lovely to not have a religious government calling the shots, but we shall see.

sorry got a bit rambly there, but i guess it's hard to say #1. I mean what would be the number #1 priority for looking after a child? Food? Water? Shelter? I mean you probably need all three...

[drhoz]

*nods* the purpose of a government SHOULD be enlightened self-interest - in that that should be ensuring the long term happiness of its constiency, and by extension, that of the world

alas, the only way to become a government leader appeasr to be by becoming a bigger self-serving son-of-a-bitch then everybody else.

(altho note with interest that the new president of Bolivia? has had his own wages cut in half - and as a result all other civil servant wages are slashed to match)

[smokedamage]

what a delightful idea - paycuts for politicians.

[journalsoup]

"It's own people. Their care, their quality of life."

So, now that we agree on that, I'm not really sure why you're constantly suprised and derisive of america's attempts to do just that in the international realm. The more democratic governments there are in the world, the safer it is for everyone.

For that matter, democracies are more likely to work together in the international sphere in terms of ecological conservation and the like. Plus, if you think there's going to be a one world government, the first step towards that is getting everyone to have the same type of government within their countries. It just seems strange to be bothered by a government logically preparing to deal with obvious threats on the horizon. It's just good policy.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Look a democracy would be very nice, but a democracy where America decides who the electorate get to choose from is not really a fucking democracy is it?

I mean look at the sulking from the US and Israel over Hamas getting mainstream pull in Palestine.

If you are going to have democracy then be prepared to get results you don't like. I'm allowed to whinge about it and not like it, but i'm hardly going to pull humanitarian aid, cut off their supplies or send a bunch of my kids over there to kill people am i?

I just finished reading Generation Kill, a book written by a Rolling Stone journalist who spent the invasion with 1st Recon Battalion. Very good and interesting read, see if you can find it, i hope this link works just so you know which book i mean. There's some real fucking brain damage going on in the armed forces, and at the same time some good people who are wondering just what the hell they are doing.

[journalsoup]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me that they've got one fuck of a lot more democracy now then they had a few years ago. A stable democracy requires a responsible electorate. You can't just knock off the dictator, then step aside and say "Okay, now put who ever you want in power." It doesn't work that way.

"Sulking", eh? Unabashed terrorists becoming the leaders of a country is completely cool with you?

"If you are going to have democracy then be prepared to get results you don't like. I'm allowed to whinge about it and not like it, but i'm hardly going to pull humanitarian aid, cut off their supplies or send a bunch of my kids over there to kill people am i?"

Wait, wait, wait. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. They elect someone I don't like, that's cool. But I've got EVERY right in the world to withhold aid and supplies from them because of it. They can have their democracy, just don't expect me to finance it. And if their government crumbles or is overthrown by their starving citizens, well maybe the next leaders will be more reasonable.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Your founding fathers were terrorists.

What if they decide that invading a neighbour is cool?

[journalsoup]

"Your founding fathers were terrorists."

See now that's just silly. It's just assinine to compare the founding fathers of america to hamas. I dunno, maybe I missed the chapter where Jefferson was dedicated to the complete and total destruction of england or where Adams purposefully killed women and children to make a point. Not to mention the fact that we as humans have an additional 225 years of political and social development under our belts. Besides, quite a few of those founding fathers were alright with slavery too, but that still don't make it okay. It's just a ridiculous analogy all around. I'll give you "insurgents", but terrorists? Hardly.

"What if they decide that invading a neighbour is cool?"

Depends on their reasoning. If they've got a legitimate threat to their national security, then full speed ahead, but if it's just anschluss, then no, that's not cool.

KeL

[smokedamage]

Actually it's asinine to suggest that any nation is a threat to the United States. How exactly was Iraq a threat? They weren't. Unless of course you count the weapons that the US gave them - twenty years ago. Even then it's a stretch. Terrorist - Insurgent - Freedom Fighter, the meanings are roughly the same, it's just a matter of perspective. If you lived under the rule of a foreign government, i suspect a lot of your friends might find themselves in one of those categories. You might call them freedom fighters, a Latvian paper may describe you as Insurgents, and the rulers would suggest you were terrorists. Either way, they are all fighting for what they believe in. And if you want to bring up the killing of innocents we can go there. How many bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq in the last fifteen years killed innocent people? I'm guessing there are a few dead people - maybe it's even. Is it just because the Muslim Extremists were better at it, and shattered the "we're the best, we're untouchable" illusion that America had. For all the paranoid border patrol, nationalism, and anti-non-Christian bullshit that goes on here, they still got through.

is anschluss the same thing as liebershraum (i am not sure of the spelling there)

We've got thousands of year of political and social development beneath our belts and we're still not further along than clubbing each other over the head.

Well it's pretty easy to fabricate evidence - as we have seen - that anyone can be a threat to anyone else. So whose to judge here? The New York Times, The Washington Post, or People magazine?

The Pakistanis that i play cricket with here in Dallas are muslim, they don't really seem all that interested in the destruction of the US. Could it be that the Muslims calling for this jihad, are as much the fuckwit as Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, and whichever dickhead it was that said that the Venezuelan President should be assassinated. And those guys all rate over here.

[journalsoup]

Okay, put the brakes on right there. I'm not trying to, nor have I ever said that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, so don't try to paint me with THAT brush.

"the meanings are roughly the same"

No, they're not. One blows up schoolchildren and one doesn't. They're not even the same sport.

"And if you want to bring up the killing of innocents we can go there. How many bombs and missiles dropped on Iraq in the last fifteen years killed innocent people?"

Again, not justifying invasion of iraq. I talked about killing innocents in regard to the founding fathers. Don't stretch my words and their context.

Yes, lebensraum was the justification for anschluss.

"we're still not further along than clubbing each other over the head"

And I suppose all of that peaceful political discourse that goes on EVERYDAY means nothing at all? We still may have the hammer as a tool, but it's no longer the only thing in the toolbox.

"Well it's pretty easy to fabricate evidence - as we have seen - that anyone can be a threat to anyone else. So whose to judge here?"

The country in question decides. Rule #1 applies, Protect their people. That's why I said "legitimate threat".

"Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, and whichever dickhead"

That's one of the joys of living in a (somewhat) secular society, these people may say things like that, but no one's taking it as a call from the highest reaches of heaven to go out and kill Hugo Chavez.

KeL