POLITICAL THREAD (PF) ENTER AT YOUR RISK

[Flick James]

A couple of interesting articles about the U.S.'s ever expanding fronts of war. Are they 100% on the money? That's debatable, but illuminating in any case, and a sober warning about what our great country is busy getting itself into.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts298.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts299.html

[Allhallowsday]

Have a drink.     

[RCMerchant]

Have a drink.     

Ill drink to that!

[Doggett]

Have a drink.     

Ill drink to that!

I don't drink, but I'll hand out the pizzas !

 

[indianasmith]

"The AL Qaeda threat, apparently a hoax . . ."

Those six words robbed this article of ALL credibility it might have had.
What drivel.

[Mofo Rising]

Okay, I'll bite. Mostly because I think the people here are mature enough to be able to argue without it devolving into a flame war.

The editorials you posted, Flick James, I can't garner much respect for. I am in complete agreement with indianasmith that the idea that Al-Qaeda is a hoax is inflammatory drivel. I see cars driving around with the bumper sticker "9-11 was an Inside Job" and I just picture the driver's as self-deluded fools looking for an excuse to be angry. That idea I think is just nonsense.

That being said, I do believe that the events of 9-11 were very quickly adopted as an excuse by the people in power to put through some extremely horrifying legislation. While we have to be vigilant against terrorism, the proclaimed "War on Terror" has been an unmitigated disaster. Compare the response of the bombing of London in WWII to the response to the destruction of the WTC. The "stand firm in the face of destruction" stance put forth by Winston Churchill during that time is admirable. Compare that to the clusterf**k response to the 9-11 events in America. "Panic, citizens! Run out and buy duct tape and tarp in preparation of an imminent attack! Don't trust your neighbors, especially if they are foreign!"

Embarrassing tactics that showed a complete disrespect for the solidarity of Americans and their ability to cope with crisis. It makes me sad that opportunistic politicians are still trading on the idea that America should be afraid of the world.

I think the worst thing that came out of those attacks was the extremely ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. There you should ask yourself the very reasonable question of why we were there at all. The best I can come up is with we wanted to garner economic control of a region which had a highly valuable resource, oil. Unfortunately the people in charge seemed to have had no good idea on how to actually control the region.  The only thing I can see that was accomplished was destabilizing an already volatile region and inducing a vehement hatred towards America in a region that was already prone to religious extremism.

As for China, they are now communist in name only. A region rapidly entering into the benefits of capitalism that only we Americans had previously enjoyed. Picture a country with a billion people who now want to explore the unsustainable lifestyle Americans have enjoyed for most of the 20th Century and beyond. That is something to worry about. If China wants oil, they have the power and resources to go after it, and they aren't too concerned with human rights that would stand in their way.

America became a superpower because they had the will and technological ingenuity to make that a reality. Today, we've outsourced most of our manufacturing base to other countries because it is cheaper for industrial heads. What does America produce now? Wall Street hotshots who only make money by manipulating abstract approximations of wealth. We can't even claim the scientific edge, because our schools have been co-opted by fundamentalists who would rather teach religion than the bare basics of science because it offends their beliefs.

Anyway, folks, run wild with that. I'm hoping we find our way to the current economic meltdown, which I think goes beyond partisan politics and runs right up against abuse by the wealthy against everybody else.

[RCMerchant]

well said ^. 

[Trevor]

The only political thread around me is:

1. My undies were made in South Africa and
2. They are very fast running out of thread. 

[Olivia Bauer]

The only political thread around me is:

1. My undies were made in South Africa and
2. They are very fast running out of thread. 

NEW THREAT IN SOUTH AFRICA

The worst bio-hazard since the nuclear melt down in Japan.
A pair of underwear so filthy the fumes are toxic. The toxins
are spreading everywhere. If you live anywhere near a man
names "Trevor" our best suggestion is to leave town and get
yourself examined at the nearest hospital.

[Flick James]

You know, Indy, I like you, but it really bothers me when people misquote an article in an effort to invalidate the entire thing.

The line was "The al-Qaeda threat, a hoax as likely as not, has become Washington's best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties." It was not "apparently a hoax." Why does it bother me? Because you have taken a statement that does not make a position of hoax either way, assumed there was one, and changed it to "apparently a hoax." Thanks for the spin, doctor. I don't know if it was intentional or not, and I'm not sure which is worse. Besides it doesn't invalidate that Washington routinely DOES use the Al-Queda threat as it's best excuse for interventionist policies, hoax or not. I mean, the threat of WMDs was used as an excuse to garner Congressional and public support for the war, was it not? Were we not lied to by somebody? So how is it not valid to suspect that the Al-Queda threat may be used in the same way?

I don't know the misquote was intentional or not, Indy, but in either case, it was very bad form.

[lester1/2jr]

besides why would someone thnking it was a hoax make other things it said less accurate? The guy isn't running for president or something.

[Flick James]

My problem is simply in the idea that a single portion of a sentence, misquoted at that, is ammunition enough in some minds to invalidate an entire string of premises. It's a single tree in the forest. If he took the time to evaluate the articles, he would probably find a few premises that he actually agrees with. That's the problem with hardline partisan loyalty, it fits the mind with a rather long set of blinders. Once a single disagreeable piece of scenery is in view, it becomes the entire picture. In this case, however, he is trying to set the forest on fire by setting that one tree ablaze. The sad thing is that it usually succeeds in burning down the forest.

I realize I'm giving Indy a rather hard time, and my interactions with him are typically quite respectful, but I simply can't abide that last post. It was irresponsible. Disagreeing with the premise in question is one thing, misquoting a portion of it in an effort to invalidate the entire article is something else.

But he's a big boy and I'm confident he can take it.

[Flick James]

Okay, I'll bite. Mostly because I think the people here are mature enough to be able to argue without it devolving into a flame war.

The editorials you posted, Flick James, I can't garner much respect for. I am in complete agreement with indianasmith that the idea that Al-Qaeda is a hoax is inflammatory drivel. I see cars driving around with the bumper sticker "9-11 was an Inside Job" and I just picture the driver's as self-deluded fools looking for an excuse to be angry. That idea I think is just nonsense.

That being said, I do believe that the events of 9-11 were very quickly adopted as an excuse by the people in power to put through some extremely horrifying legislation. While we have to be vigilant against terrorism, the proclaimed "War on Terror" has been an unmitigated disaster. Compare the response of the bombing of London in WWII to the response to the destruction of the WTC. The "stand firm in the face of destruction" stance put forth by Winston Churchill during that time is admirable. Compare that to the clusterf**k response to the 9-11 events in America. "Panic, citizens! Run out and buy duct tape and tarp in preparation of an imminent attack! Don't trust your neighbors, especially if they are foreign!"

Embarrassing tactics that showed a complete disrespect for the solidarity of Americans and their ability to cope with crisis. It makes me sad that opportunistic politicians are still trading on the idea that America should be afraid of the world.

I think the worst thing that came out of those attacks was the extremely ill-conceived invasion of Iraq. There you should ask yourself the very reasonable question of why we were there at all. The best I can come up is with we wanted to garner economic control of a region which had a highly valuable resource, oil. Unfortunately the people in charge seemed to have had no good idea on how to actually control the region.  The only thing I can see that was accomplished was destabilizing an already volatile region and inducing a vehement hatred towards America in a region that was already prone to religious extremism.

As for China, they are now communist in name only. A region rapidly entering into the benefits of capitalism that only we Americans had previously enjoyed. Picture a country with a billion people who now want to explore the unsustainable lifestyle Americans have enjoyed for most of the 20th Century and beyond. That is something to worry about. If China wants oil, they have the power and resources to go after it, and they aren't too concerned with human rights that would stand in their way.

America became a superpower because they had the will and technological ingenuity to make that a reality. Today, we've outsourced most of our manufacturing base to other countries because it is cheaper for industrial heads. What does America produce now? Wall Street hotshots who only make money by manipulating abstract approximations of wealth. We can't even claim the scientific edge, because our schools have been co-opted by fundamentalists who would rather teach religion than the bare basics of science because it offends their beliefs.

Anyway, folks, run wild with that. I'm hoping we find our way to the current economic meltdown, which I think goes beyond partisan politics and runs right up against abuse by the wealthy against everybody else.

I am surprised that you would let the entire articles get invalidated, because some of your post is supported by them. I'll admit I am confused.

Incidentally, isn't it more than a little sad that China has become better at capitalism than we? We're not capitalist anymore anyway, we are a fullblown corporatist economy now.

[Mofo Rising]

I am surprised that you would let the entire articles get invalidated, because some of your post is supported by them. I'll admit I am confused.

Incidentally, isn't it more than a little sad that China has become better at capitalism than we? We're not capitalist anymore anyway, we are a fullblown corporatist economy now.

I didn't say everything in the articles was invalid, I said I didn't have much respect for them. Lines like the Al-Qaeda hoax bring down what could be good points. You can see from my above post which points I agree and disagree with, not all one way or the other.

Actually, the thing that brought down the articles for me was the comparison to colonialism, which is an unsuitable comparison. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about American foreign policy, but it's not the colonialism the articles claim.

I'd argue about the bugaboo of non-existent laissez-faire capitalism here, but it will have to wait until I have a bit more wind in my sails.

[Flick James]

I am surprised that you would let the entire articles get invalidated, because some of your post is supported by them. I'll admit I am confused.

Incidentally, isn't it more than a little sad that China has become better at capitalism than we? We're not capitalist anymore anyway, we are a fullblown corporatist economy now.

I didn't say everything in the articles was invalid, I said I didn't have much respect for them. Lines like the Al-Qaeda hoax bring down what could be good points. You can see from my above post which points I agree and disagree with, not all one way or the other.

Actually, the thing that brought down the articles for me was the comparison to colonialism, which is an unsuitable comparison. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot not to like about American foreign policy, but it's not the colonialism the articles claim.

I'd argue about the bugaboo of non-existent laissez-faire capitalism here, but it will have to wait until I have a bit more wind in my sails.

That's a fair rebuttal, very fair. When I read the article I looked at the comparison as more metaphorical, and as such it makes it more readily open to comparison. What was one of the things that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire? Expansion of the empire. Here the similarity is only different because of the terms used. Any way you cut it, we are intervening militarily in order to protect our interests. That's one way of doing it, sure, but there are other, cheaper ways. We're not doing it by encouraging free trade. Instead, we're applying our military muscle to punish countries for not dealing with the USA and it's allies exclusively, and employing our public relations media to demonize those same countries. However noble the intent, it remains intervention, and it attracts aggression. Call it colonialism, imperialism, spreading democracy, whatever, it's intervention. The question is, does it truly protect U.S. interests, or is the expense of our ever shrinking civil liberties and expanding government intervention into our own lives and freedom to move about too great. I'll lean to the latter every time.

The U.S. has been engaging in "divide and conquer" tactics in the middle east for decades. Now that the middle east is developing a bit more solidarity, they're not falling for it as readily as they once did. All of our meddling is simply coming home to roost, that's all. I was shocked at Bush's arrogance and contempt of the democratic process in his tactics to get us into war, but Obama is going even a step further.  

As for laissez-faire capitalism, it's virtually non-existent. I think if you do a conceptual comparison of the fundamental differences between laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, or crony capitalism, you will find our economic system leans far more to the latter, but I look forward to you providing some instances where I am mistaken.