PDA

View Full Version : OT: the evils of socialism vs. the evils of capitalism



MonkeySlap Too
10-18-2005, 03:25 PM
Why is it when the Socialists are called on thier crimes, the thread gets locked, yet we can have hundreds of pages of poorly supported bush-bashing go unnoticed?

Or is it because I singled out the PRC - is the site pro-PRC/anti-American?

Just wondering...

Juan Alvarez
10-18-2005, 03:28 PM
Because it's a lot funnier to bash on Bush! ;)

Mortal1
10-18-2005, 03:32 PM
This is a known liberal website. They defend freedom of speech as long as its not something they don't like. What a joke.

Design Sifu
10-18-2005, 03:43 PM
maybe it's the lack of connection to the thred's topic...

or it was the men in black :rolleyes:

heheh "bur"

MonkeySlap Too
10-18-2005, 03:53 PM
Don't make me bring up typos from the latest issue! ;)

And they don't wear black - usually it's olive green..

Design Sifu
10-18-2005, 03:58 PM
want a job as a spell cheker?

CaptinPickAxe
10-18-2005, 05:46 PM
This is a known liberal website. They defend freedom of speech as long as its not something they don't like. What a joke.

you are a moron...

First Amendment in action.

rogue
10-18-2005, 08:33 PM
Because Gene has a thing going with Barbara Boxer.:D

Yum Cha
10-18-2005, 08:36 PM
Yea, pretty off topic I suppose. But rather civilised nevertheless, concerning the topic.

And Thanks Christopher, I did some reading up, and learned something. I'd make the same points, but I'd frame them differently. :p

Hard Fists
10-19-2005, 04:58 AM
He's an easy target...I'm guessing that you're part of the 12 percent that's still behind old W....it's a free country:D

Mr Punch
10-19-2005, 05:14 AM
Yeah, that was a nice civilized discussion despite that Yin Yang showing up again. But LOL at Monkeyslap claiming that the reason it was locked was because of some socialist-defending... Only Simon M was claiming China and Cuba were lovely lovely places and nobody else was supporting him, and I don't see the mods choosing to lock because they're socialist sympathisers! Paranoia anyone?:p :D

But I can't see any threads where Bush-bashing is continuing either...?

Mortal, you're hilarious. 'Liberal' is such a BS scapegoat blanket term now in the US and you don't really have very many over there. You'd sh!t it if you ever came to Europe... this board is right wing for most Europeans!

Mr Punch
10-19-2005, 05:15 AM
He's an easy target...I'm guessing that you're part of the 12 percent that's still behind old W....it's a free country:DIs it only 12 now? Where does that stat come from?

Royal Dragon
10-19-2005, 05:16 AM
Because Gene is sleeping with the PRC to bring us Shaolin!!!

We should applaud him for his sacrafice!!

That and it is the American way to bash our own president, so it must be allowed.

Besides Socialists and Liberals are very sensitive, and it's too easy to make them cry. So we must protect thier feelings by not letting them see what people think of them.














*Run away to hide* :D

Mr Punch
10-19-2005, 05:26 AM
Besides Socialists and Liberals are very sensitive, Funny... so now socialists and liberals are the same? Like the Republicans and the Nazis I suppose? :p :D

Hard Fists
10-19-2005, 05:37 AM
Is it only 12 now?

Oops. I guess that you'd never know I used to work in government relations...I've been over a year out of the profession, so bear with me. His current approval rating is 39 percent...numbers taken from the most recent Gallup poll. I think I may have been thinking about the war approval rating or something, maybe I was thinking abount how much we're going to take it in the @$$ for the next three years...sorry that sounds a bit liberal:D


We should applaud him for his sacrafice!!

RD, before we applaud Gene for his sacrafice, we should probably see which member of the party he's been comforting, it may not have been too much of a hardship.

MonkeySlap Too
10-19-2005, 06:29 AM
Mat, not locked for defending socialism - for the concise and well argued :) case against it.

For months now I've seen long threads bashing America, bashing Bush - most of them passed upon fallacies of Chomskyian magnitude - and they are tolerated. But when China was brought in as an example of the horrors of socialism (and I didn't even get to the forced late term abortions performed by injecting poison into the womb) - presto we were locked out. Now there is a lot of good things going on in China as it seeks to modernize without collapsing into chaos - but the results of creating a 'workers paradise' are pretty clear - and it has only been the introduction of market influences that have started to make things significantly better.

It just seemed funny to me, seeing as we are all CMA nuts. Are we selling our souls to a government that refers to the U.S. in internal documents as 'enemy number one'?

David Jamieson
10-19-2005, 06:56 AM
Wow, you have access to internal PRC documentation in regards to their position on their relationship with the USA? You must be like james bond or something! lol

Yep, Mao killed millions in the war to grasp control of China.

Seems to be a trend regardless of the model that the leader in order to get or maintain power will kill people in some way shape or form. Be it now or be it a hundred years ago. No ruling power is without it's mortal sins or it's pecadillos.

As for Bush, it is quite possible he is the least educated, least wordly, most myopic president the states have ever blessed themselves with.

Now try To speak out against that government and see how fast you wind up in the protestors fenced area. If you dissent, you will have no outlet for that dissent, you will be ostracized, ridiculed and marginalized. How is this different anywhere?

Freedom my ass mateys, you are losing civil liberties daily. I guess you won't notice until it directly affects you personally, but that's another issue.

MasterKiller
10-19-2005, 07:04 AM
Maybe Gene should 'leak' the name of the undercover admin who locked the thread in order to scare the admins into leaving political threads alone...

Radhnoti
10-19-2005, 09:13 AM
Something from the other thread that irritated me:

Yum Cha - "I think the general contention is that Bush is becoming more facist, as the countervalence from the socialist philosophy becomes weaker. And that he uses misinformation to generate personal fear and xenophobia to further his ends....That is the Adolf Hitler patented formula for the propogation of power. That and the promise of world domination."

Anyone who looks at this administration should see that Bush has yet to veto a spending bill sent to him. Republican house, republican senate and republican president has led to even MORE social programs and government give-aways then when Clinton was in office. I think it may be fair to say Bush is sliding toward facism...as long as you understand what Christopher is saying about it (in the end) being the same as socialism.


Yum Cha -"...Just remember, it was the "Whiny Liberals" that made America great. Crack open a history book and you'll find your founding fathers were the great liberals of their Century, building a new nation across to the banks of the Mississippi with a freedom and egalitarianism unheard of."

Liberals of THEN are different from liberals of NOW. They intentionally set up a MINIMALIST federal government, with limited power to effect the everyday lives of the people. Compare that to todays nanny state pushing liberals and you'll have to agree there's a difference.


Yum Cha -"And the abolition of slavery was hardly a conservative issue..."

Hardly a conservative issue? Wasn't the real base of that movement northern CHURCHES? I'm not even vaguely religious and even I recognize this to be something you've got to credit "the church" with.

Ok, off my chest now. Thanks.

I'm disappointed in the results of this Presidential administration...actually with Republicans in general. Proponents of smaller government were better off without one party in near complete power. I didn't agree with a single thing about Kerry, but he wouldn't have ok'ed as much spending sent to him by the Republican house and congress...
I'm voting Libertarian next time, and if my vote is "wasted" and is "in effect a vote for a Democrat"...well, fine. As long as they don't take complete control, I've come to believe it's good for them to be "the adversary" and have enough power to gum things up for Republican spending schemes.

Nick Forrer
10-19-2005, 09:18 AM
MS2 wrote on the locked thread:

'The Chinese destroyed Tibet, crushed the culture, and sought to shatter their national identity. Show me one modern example of the US doing this. If the US behaved like the PRC, it really would be a different world. '

enjoy the read (http://etan.org/news/kissinger/default.htm)

Mortal1
10-19-2005, 09:24 AM
captainpickax

Did I personally attack you?

Keep up the name throwing. The best part is you would NEVER say that to my face. Liberal a$$hole.

They locked a thread because it has bashing. But when Bush is bashed its ok.

Juan Alvarez
10-19-2005, 09:44 AM
MS2 wrote on the locked thread:

'The Chinese destroyed Tibet, crushed the culture, and sought to shatter their national identity. Show me one modern example of the US doing this. If the US behaved like the PRC, it really would be a different world. '

enjoy the read (http://etan.org/news/kissinger/default.htm)

The thing is Nick, since the US involment in those was covert operations, everybody in the US will look the other way as if it never happened... At the end, for them, it will all be Liberal or Socialist fantasy...

Juan

Ou Ji
10-19-2005, 10:57 AM
Proponents of smaller government were better off without one party in near complete power.

Whatever happened to the guy coming in second being the Vice President?

I'll have to research this but I seem to recall that it was initially that way.

Design Sifu
10-19-2005, 11:11 AM
after looking into it a bit I found out that this is a KUNGFU FORUM... believe it or not but it seems that discussion on kungfu take precedence over discussions of non kungfu topics.
Those topics seem to be generally tolerated so long as they remain relatively civil and on topic... and aren't construed as spam. That said, moderators, administrators etc. have discretion to merge, lock or remove treads (and or posts) as deemed needed.

From all indications a thread titled "TERROR ALERTS WERE FAKED" spent several pages discussing matters not at all related to that topic. Some of that discussion was not quite civil and some of it even drifted into the realm of creative writing. Is it a wonder it might be locked?

everyone seems to love getting worked up over discussions of politics, however this is not quite the place for it. It's tolerated, in so much as it's civil, on topic and does not absorb too much server space. This is also the case for discussions of someones love life, career and legal status.

No body seems to complain when a 4 page tread discussing weather a person should have an extramarital affair is locked. All of these other conspiracy theories are in a word ridiculous. Now go here (http://www.martialartsmart.net/) and prove your capitalist loyalties... or this venue for free speech will also be loc . . . er I mean taxed!!!

:rolleyes:

Christopher M
10-19-2005, 02:32 PM
Anyone who looks at this administration should see that Bush has yet to veto a spending bill sent to him. Republican house, republican senate and republican president has led to even MORE social programs and government give-aways then when Clinton was in office.

And more protectionism and more deficit spending...

... but I'm pretty sure they're still 'right-wing extremists' (I read it in Mother Jones).

Ben Gash
10-19-2005, 03:11 PM
I complain about the socialist government in this country all the time :cool:
As for American support for attrocities, Contras, Iraq for 20 years, sending terror suspects to Egypt and Uzbekistan for "interrogation"......

Ben Gash
10-19-2005, 03:12 PM
Oh, and did you know America invented concentration camps?

Royal Dragon
10-19-2005, 04:07 PM
I'm voting Libertarian next time, and if my vote is "wasted" and is "in effect a vote for a Democrat"...well, fine. As long as they don't take complete control, I've come to believe it's good for them to be "the adversary" and have enough power to gum things up for Republican spending schemes

Reply]
I allways vote Libertarian. I Vote Republican for any spot the Libertarian's don't have a canidate. If everyone did that, instead of worrying about the "Wasted vote" senario then the system would work more like it is supposed to.

I think the whole "Wasted Vote" thing is just a mind game to prevent smaller parties from forming and growing enough to be a legit challenge to the two big ones.

The big two have duped the masses with the whole "Wasted Vote" concept, and you now have too many people voting against thier belifes out of fear.

MonkeySlap Too
10-19-2005, 06:44 PM
My only break from the Libertarians was the last election - because if John Kerry had been elected, HE would have been the least educated, quickest to surrender, most foolish president. So you can't win them all... Sometimes the lesser of two evils is required as the worst one is SO bad, it's unimaginable. Kerry makes Bush look like the smartest guy on Earth. (Heck, his scores at Yale were LOWER than Bush's.) And his wife... Just more rich folks trying to impose rules on us, but not for themselves. Typical democrats.

It is common knowledge in intelligence circles that America is labeled 'public enemy no.1". Since 9/11 I've done quite a few CQC sessions for different organizations - usually gratis as I'm a patriot.

DS - I'm just looking for clarification. This is more of a bar than a kung fu forum at times, and it is fun to engage the foolish.

Christopher M
10-19-2005, 07:23 PM
MST -- if I had to self-identify as anything, it would be 'classical liberal' too. Do you know the Austrian economic writers? (Hayek, Von Mises) They're the best modern example of classical liberalism, IMHO; much better than Chicago school/Monetarism.

American Libertarianism seems to be mostly reactionary nuts, unfortunately. Maybe I've had unrepresentative experiences with them though.

Real political change is going to require fundamental changes to the democratic system, rather than the election of any particular person or party. For example, emphasizing more proportional representation rather than first-past-the-post style voting would get rid alot of that "wasted vote" mentality and produce a >2 party system.

PangQuan
10-19-2005, 07:42 PM
as americans its easy to make fun of our country.

we know how it is...well some do. Id like to think most of the people here have their eyes open.

bush is the president. hes a target. for EVERYTHING. even jokes and smack talk.

Its part of the job to take all the flack that goes with it.

Its almost a tradition in america to produce the funniest **** we can about our presidents and keep it in circulation until the next person is in office.

And well, frankly, good ol' George W. Bush is a very easy target. He pretty much writes all the material for us.

Oh, and also, lifes not fair. Things are not split 50/50, one side will have more.

Merryprankster
10-19-2005, 10:11 PM
Chomskyian magnitude

Funny you should mention this. When I bring up the general flaws in Chomsky's arguments his supporters go ape****. His general flaw being that he begs the question in nearly every argument he makes....He views everything the U.S. does in a negative light, then says "see, it's negative!" Not my cup of tea. Preaching to the choir has its place, as the rabid Chomskyites demonstrate, but it's not especially convincing to more discerning readers.

Nick, East Timor is a rotten example. What you've got there is a not terribly well verified account of "U.S. involvement," in covert operations, etc. Even if the accusation(s) turns out to be true, it is a far cry from the systematic destruction of a language, culture and social/ethnic identity, which the PRC has tried to do/is doing to Tibet. A plain on its face fact of the PRC is that if you are not Han Chinese, you will surrender your identity or suffer the (discriminatory, and often violent) consequences. The Hakka, Uigher and Tibetans are three examples that come to mind immediately...

IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Just because a policy is something you or I consider ill-advised does not make it de facto capitalist/imperialist. The moniker imperialism is thrown about with a sort of cavalier aplomb I find ridiculous. It's a favorite term of people who don't think very hard about what they are saying - like "liberal" being a dirty word. An empire has a specific meaning - a vast swath of extra-territorial political units governed by a central power, usually with little representative input from the governed units themselves.

When anybody can point to the permanent U.S. governors-general installed in places around the world, or serious steps in that direction, I'll be the first to denounce the policy/practice as imperial. Until then, policies are merely ill-advised, or perhaps abuses of U.S. power.

However, at the core of many disagreements, especially with European types, is, IMO, a difference in the view of human history between them. Europeans have a much longer history, and the view of human history (including that unwritten) and human nature is, quite frankly, cynical. They are forever searching for the basest of human motives behind every action. It's as if they shoot low so they won't be disappointed.

De Tocqueville (sp?) I believe was the first to note "American Exceptionalism," in the form of inherent optimism about human history. You can see it is Reagan's "Shining City on the Hill," Kennedy's Camelot (the idealized version), etc. As a whole, Americans genuinely believe in the power of man to make the world a better place, and we genuinely believe that the things we stand for will help that happen, even if we muddle along to get there. We trust to time, and to the nature of man even if we **** up on the way.

Paraphrasing Churchill, we Americans do usually make the right decision in the end, right after we've made all the wrong ones. We persevere not because we believe the bad times will end, but because good ones are coming. There is a distinct difference in mindset there. Americans have faith in the future and in our collective ability to create a great one - and most importantly, we tend to believe this WITHOUT an enemy referent. We don't need or desire a diametrically opposed ideology/opponent to create it. Naive - perhaps. But cynicism and blame-spreading never built anything positive.

Yeah, I'm an unapologetic patriot - but not a blind one. I do believe that the United States is a reliable, consistent force for goodness and decency in the world - but not always and not everywhere. But you don't judge a person by the individual events - rather by the totality of their actions. On the whole, history reflects positively on the United States - as opposed to, say, the PRC, or the USSR.

Unfortunately, I think the concept has grown beyond that and some - especially the neo-con movement, would argue that it is our job to aggressively spread and enforce! peculiarly U.S. notions of right and wrong, rather than promote freedom and human rights using all aspects of U.S. power and influence (a decidedly different doctrine than the neo-con agenda).

The pendulum here is swinging again though, and competence is all of a sudden in vogue as a political necessity. The current scandals in the Republican party have hurt the Neo-con faction and there is dissent among the moral and fiscal conservatives. They will be weakened in 2008, barring a major event of some kind to offset that.

KC Elbows
10-20-2005, 04:48 AM
Mery, you really believe that we haven't required a diametrically opposed enemy?

cam
10-20-2005, 05:45 AM
I don't know why you even bother to mention Chomsky. I doubt 10% of the U.S. population even knows who he is.
That's the shame!

David Jamieson
10-20-2005, 06:03 AM
YOu know DS, back in the day when my finger was on the button, all these types of threads were generally tossed straight to the waist basket.

It's always the same guys one side of the issue and the same guys on the other and most of it is venting and then it degrades into name calling and what not as observed here.

Perhaps it would be good policy to just delete it before it grows. For instance, delete this thread now. Of course you'll have some making noise about their freedom of speech and you may have to rebut with 'this forum is not a democracy' etc etc. and so on. Eventually, as these guys realize their political threads go nowhere, they will stop posting them.

And don't feel bad about it. It's not like any of them are your personal buddies and it's not like losing an irrelevant thread is going to have any meaning in teh grand scheme of things.

Just saying.;)

Hard Fists
10-20-2005, 06:06 AM
I don't know why you even bother to mention Chomsky. I doubt 10% of the U.S. population even knows who he is.
That's the shame!

Rocky and Bullwinkle right? The bad guy, right?

Nick Forrer
10-20-2005, 06:11 AM
'Nick, East Timor is a rotten example……...IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges.'

I don’t agree. While there may not be exact parallels between the case of that and Tibet it is certainly not ‘rotten’ in the context of mS2s prior arguments i.e. that atrocities committed by nominally communist governments discredits once and for all socialism as a viable means of social and economic organisation whereas atrocities committed by nominally capitalist governments don’t do the same for capitalism (in fact as the text I quoted reveals he wont even admit that there are any atrocities - even the obvious ones such as the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki he glosses over)

'What you've got there is a not terribly well verified account of "U.S. involvement," in covert operations, etc. '

Its un-contentious that ford and Kissinger met with Suharto in Jakarta right before the invasion. It is also now clear from declassified documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act that they green lighted it.
From the transcript:

Suharto: We want your understanding (on the East Timor issue) if we deem it necessary to take rapid or drastic action.
Ford: We will understand and will not press you on the issue. We understand the problem and the intentions you have.
Kissinger: It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly. We would be able to influence the reaction if whatever happens, happens after we return.... If you have made plans, we will do our best to keep everyone quiet until the President returns home……….the President will be back on Monday at 2 PM Jakarta time. We understand your problem and the need to move quickly but I am only saying that it would be better if it were done after we returned.

'Even if the accusation(s) turns out to be true, it is a far cry from the systematic destruction of a language, culture and social/ethnic identity, which the PRC has tried to do/is doing to Tibet.'

Suhrato’s regime killed around a third of the population of East Timor. I wouldn’t describe that as a far cry (unless you take 'far cry' literally of course)….........

David Jamieson
10-20-2005, 06:20 AM
ok, seeing as this stuff is going to go on, i would like to highlight:


'Even if the accusation(s) turns out to be true, it is a far cry from the systematic destruction of a language, culture and social/ethnic identity, which the PRC has tried to do/is doing to Tibet.'

seeing as maos dead, and this is an over 50 years old issue, lets talk about this in a 'sins of the father' type setting.

IE: Don't be a hypocrite.

The USA and Canada systematically destroyed many cultures and have oppressed the remaining people and sent them into what is tantamount to exile in the reservation system that is still used.

Britain and it's imperialism and expansionism has done the same to a great many peoples and countries.

Australia has done it to it's aborigines.

Why do people insist on dwelling on China's hand in the game when the countries we all come from are just as guilty of expansionism, cultural destruction etc etc.

Hypocricy in it's highest form. what a load of bunk.

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 06:25 AM
Nick,
My point is very simple:

A. The U.S. makes mistakes (although we don't all agree on what they are), but the overall tendancy is towards the positive.

B. Socialism has proven - if every case where it establishes it's dictatorship to be a melevolant, murderous, and incompetent form of governance.

Even where it is just a strong 'influence' - it fails to fulfill the needs of the populace.

No one has produced one example to the contrary. You just do the Chomsky thing and take something not even on the same scale and go see! See! America s@cks too.

But you don't see people risking thier lives to flee here.

You know we have a state-run economy right here in America that gives people free housing, free food, and free medical care. And just like socialist countries you can have only minimal personal property, and can only leave when you are allowed by the dear leader. And the people are desperate to escape and risk their lives to do so.

What do we call this 'workers paradise?' We call them prisons.


Nikita Kruschev fought hard to establish a socialist dictatorship in the USSR. But being a smart man, he was horrified to discover workers were worse off with communism than before! This really bothered him, but he dared not utter a peep or else his patron Stalin would have him killed. I know, I know... at least they had free healthcare!! :p

David Jamieson
10-20-2005, 06:37 AM
MS2- it is clear from your posts that a wall of bias exists in your mind regarding the actions of the USA. That's cool, go with what you know.

I am guessing you've been reading some books that validate how you feel about stuff and get mad and frustrated that your country and your countries leaders are not regarded in teh same light that you cast upon them from your viewpoint.

You actually believe that the motivations of a capitalist hegemony towards the rest of the world are positive.

I am wondering if you have ever sat in on a business meeting regarding dealings with competitors or how to get stock proces to rise.

Anyway, just saying that it is unlikely that you will gain any support from anyone except those who share your bias. And in the meantime, the popularity of your countries leader will continue to drop, or who knows, maybe he'll luck out and do something right and it will rise.

I waste my time typing to point out that you are wasting yours doing same in regards to this subject. :D

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 07:36 AM
David,
Since you are unable to defeat with reason or example, you apply the typical technique of belittling your opponent. Typical.

Ironically, I have a great deal of experience at the highest levels of business. I'm probably the most 'senior' guy here when it comes to this (I am currently in negotiations to take the CEO job at another company out here, and have sat in the boardrooms of some of the largest financial institutions in the world). I'm not *rich*, but I've done okay, and did it without any help from family (we were rather poor), patrons, or the government. Instead of whining or crying, I developed strategies and worked hard to implement them. Anyone can do this America.

I hate to break it to you, but not all businessmen are maniacal dark lords of the sith. Not all corporations exist suck out your soul. There certainly are some examples of this, but my overall - direct experience - has been much the opposite. What I find really funny is the close correlation between the *sins* of corporations and the downright evil perpetrated by socialists. I'l deal with corporations. At least if I want to influence them I have means to do that. With the socialists all I get is dead for daring to question them.

It's not so much a bias as a reasoned opinion. Many hours have been spent reading and studying these issues, and only after removing my bias (I am a former liberal after all - something that ended as soon as I was smart enough to think for mysef) I've reached my conclusion.

You see, you are willing to accept any atrocity, any lie, just so it supports a 'utopian' POV.

I accept that nothing is perfect, and as we trundle along, we have stumbled upon a better way. Not perfect, but better. One that works against the common sins of mankinds past. That better way involves personal responsibility and initiative. Not the life sucking effects of a murderous government. And honestly, the US has probably done more good than bad in this world. If we acted like everybody else (including our wonderful European allies), this world would be a much poorer place. (Here's a hint; empires exact tribute, they don't supply humanitarian aid.)

I'm afraid my support for Bush is limited (I'm a libertarian, not a neo-con), but the stupidity I see thrown at him just makes me shake my head. There are real issues he could be engaged on, but no one but his own party seems to do it.

David Jamieson
10-20-2005, 07:40 AM
Since you are unable to defeat with reason or example, you apply the typical technique of belittling your opponent. Typical.


not sure how you're be bilittled there guy, but again, that's a perception thing I guess. I could say you are doing the same, but it doesn't matter to me really, my assessment of your posts on the subject is only that.

You don't want to see the badness that your people do, but you're all to willing to shout out about that which is done by others.

Now that dear MS2 is what is typical in these types of long drawn out go nowhere threads.

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 07:44 AM
David,
I view the late 1800's/early 1900's when liberal (read todays conservative) thinking finally took action. The Brits were forced to start behaving better - by thier own people. Americans woke up to helping the outside world with the genocide against thr Armenians performed by the Turks. These various events created a landslide towards tolerance, personal freedom, and positive engagement that is still occuring.

Yes, the U.S. certainly committed some questionable acts. Acts that in todays world (but not then) are considered unacceptable. And the PRC is doing this in spades -- TODAY.

There is a fundamental lack of human rights in the PRC. From forced late term abortions where they poison the baby in the womb, and the mother can feel the baby's death throes, to the systematic eradication of Tibet.

You can play moral equivalancy games all you want, but it does not change the evil being done today. I can't tell you how personally disapointing that is to me. So many Westerners are caught up in self-hate, that they not only won't stand up for what is right, they can't even recognize it anymore. Shame on you.

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 07:46 AM
You are making asumptions on where I draw my conclusions from. This derision is a typical approach to belittle the opponent and draw attention away from the argument.

David Jamieson
10-20-2005, 08:15 AM
ms2- well you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree with quite a lot of your politic views, but then, that's all politic. It means nothing really coming from either of us or anyone here. We are all essentially venting our frustrations concerning our perceptions and ideas not being seen as what we think they stand for.

THat's normal in my opinion.

Secondly, I would hardly say that the US is on the up and up with the rest of the world even in recent history. Iraq and the lies of the leaders of america that led to what it is now is a great example of wtf is the us thinking?

Then the potential for the deconstruction of the UN because it's member states didn't give a green light on that aggression. It is going backwards in my opinion and I can't think of a time in my life when the bad behaviour of the worlds leaders has been so ugly and transparent as to show us all what douchebags they really are.

All the sane people seem to have to fight harder to prevent more needless death and destruction. It seems that when someone points out what is wrong, there is a vocal group that says it's ok to kill to meet and agenda.

I think the polls show how much the USA is waking up to the sham that the bush admin is.

I mean, how much more do you think you're going to have to endure from these guys on the hill before you decide to at the very least speak out? It would seem a great deal of americans have hit that flashpoint and more everyday are getting to it.

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 10:49 AM
Note - I'm not a big supporter of the wr in Iraq - but what lies? The rationale used by the Bush admin was the common conclusions by the world's intel associations for a good decade. Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Chirac... all said the same things.

The UN was extra reluctant because so many of it's leaders were lining thier pockets from the suffering of the Iraqi people. Shameful. France & Germany especially. You can expect this from the Russians and the French, but the Germans?

The UN is a massive corrupt dictators club that was built on the best of intentions. We know how the human rights commision chaired by the worst abusers in the world. Decisions are made based on who gets paid off.

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to force some accountability.

Ice cream is good. You mix it with sh!t, and you get sh!t. Unfortunately, the UN as it is today is sh!t. There needs to be some acountability. Many Americans have felt this for a long time. It's about time someone is standing up to the lies, deception, and thievery.

Or maybe you have other explanations for the oil for food or other scandals?

Design Sifu
10-20-2005, 11:54 AM
YOu know DS, back in the day when my finger was on the button, all these types of threads were generally tossed straight to the waist basket.

It's always the same guys one side of the issue and the same guys on the other and most of it is venting and then it degrades into name calling and what not as observed here.

Perhaps it would be good policy to just delete it before it grows. For instance, delete this thread now. Of course you'll have some making noise about their freedom of speech and you may have to rebut with 'this forum is not a democracy' etc etc. and so on. Eventually, as these guys realize their political threads go nowhere, they will stop posting them.

And don't feel bad about it. It's not like any of them are your personal buddies and it's not like losing an irrelevant thread is going to have any meaning in teh grand scheme of things.

Just saying.;)


Yeah, but you know, I try and indulge our guests.... especailly those who DO THE RIGHT THING. (http://www.martialartsmart.net/index.html) Beyond that my interest is prettymuch keeping threds on topic (relatively) and Civil. I tend to avoid deleting threds unless indicated by the powers above or if it's SPAM. However even the "political" threds have something to offer... info wise, or a glimpse into who thinks like what.

I'm often amazed and amused by who gets worked up by what. BUT yah all your points are still prettymuch there; just don't raise your voice at the dinner table and chew with your mouth closed.

GLW
10-20-2005, 02:53 PM
"but what lies?

The top 10 and there are more....but...


"The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons."
-- George Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati.

LIE #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

LIE #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

LIE #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

LIE #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

LIE #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

LIE #9: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

LIE #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Now, the source IS below. It IS a site that would be known for being anti-Bush...but the information is verifiable. You can spin it anyway you wish.

You could, for example, say that the person making each quote did NOT know it was untrue at the time. Then you have things like Wilson/Plame, the Downing Street memos that tend to imply that they DID know they were untrue....

But you can't really argue with the idea that the statements were not, in the long run, true.

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

MonkeySlap Too
10-20-2005, 04:57 PM
The problem here is that EVERYONE - left/right/Europe - beleived these things to be true. We had no idea that Saddam feared Iran more than the U.S.

Being wrong is not the same as lieing. And if the Bush Admin was wrong, so was the Clinton Admin, so was John Kerry, and so was almost every European spy agency.

FWIW - it took us so long to actually take action - whatever was there is long gone.

More fun reading:

Army Deserter Recalls Abuse in N. Korea
By Associated Press

1 hour ago

RALEIGH, N.C. - A U.S. Army deserter who spent decades in North Korea says his communist keepers abused him and controlled every aspect of his life, down to telling him how often to have sex.

"It was the worst mistake anyone ever made," Charles Jenkins said. "In words, I cannot express the feelings I have towards North Korea, the harassment I got, the hard life."

In an interview airing Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes, Jenkins said he was given no painkillers when a tattoo on his forearm that read "U.S. Army" was cut off with a scalpel and scissors.

"They told me the anesthetic was for the battlefield," said Jenkins, a North Carolina native. "It was hell."

Jenkins was a 24-year-old sergeant when he crossed the border into North Korea. He stayed for 39 years, appearing in propaganda films and teaching English.

In 1980, he married a Japanese woman who had been kidnapped and taken to North Korea to train spies in Japanese language and culture. She was released in 2002 and Jenkins followed two years later, surrendering to U.S. authorities and serving a month in jail for desertion.

The couple now live in Japan.

Jenkins told "60 Minutes" that his government handlers assigned him a Korean woman with whom he was supposed to have sex twice a month, and they beat him severely when he balked.

David Jamieson
10-21-2005, 06:55 AM
The problem here is that EVERYONE - left/right/Europe - beleived these things to be true. We had no idea that Saddam feared Iran more than the U.S.

Not everyone believed it MS2 as is indicated by the lack of support for the aggression against Iraq by pretty much every member nation there with the exception of the players who did the aggression IE: USA/Britain/Australia.

Russia, Canada, France, Germany...Other industrialized and so called 'first world nations' did not believe the spiel coming out of the white house and did not extend their support for Bush's attack on Iraq. NOt to mention the millions and millions of people in the US and around the world that rallied against the war.

Italy and Spain came on board after back room deals with who knows what sort of conditions attached, as well as poland. Many in Bush's so called "coallition of the willing" have since seen the error in their actions and have in fact withdrawn their troops from that cluster f*ck.

you can't expect a people who have been steamrolled by such a transparently gluttoness, greedy and self serving group as is the Bush admin to even consider the thought of continued nonsense from the neo cons.

The support grows less and less. Bush has once again demonstrated his inability to properly be a man of the people, which he never was and as far as being a statesman goes, well as soon as he can grasp how to read a map and how to answer queries unscripted and unstaged, maybe he can progress forward with his political career which is mostly a taint stain to anyone with a breadcrumbs worth of intelligence.

But you go ahead and support that stuff if you want. I mean, it's a free country right? Isn't it? Is it?

GLW
10-21-2005, 02:12 PM
Actually, outside of the US, not that many believed that those things were true.

Personally, I was in Singapore when some of these things were being said and the drumbeats to war were getting kicked into gear. I dealt with people from Asia Europe, and the UK while there.

The common question and disbelief I encountered :

(1) How could the people in the US have elected Bush...and SURELY they will vote him out of office.

(2) SURELY the people in the US don't believe all of this rubbish about WMDs, the Al Qaeda link, the 9/11 link...etc...

(3) SURELY the people in the US realize that OIL is the bottom line reason for this...

(4) SURELY the UN inspections will complete and the UN will prevent this from being a war with Iraq.

They were ALL incredulous when I said that the people in the US, for the most part, believed all of it.

I was in China in 2002 as well. I dealt with nationals as well as some people from places other than China then. None of them could fathom how Bush could have been elected in 2000.

So... the world does NOT listen to Fox news nor did they believe much of what has since been proven to be a lie.

Of course, the US media painted them all as cowards, money motivated, US Haters, and so on.... While SOME of that may be true....it doesn't explain how the US and GB were the only ones of size going in....

Nope...the rest of the world does NOT believe this stuff.

Nick Forrer
10-21-2005, 03:54 PM
I refer you to the testimony of Scott Ritter (a republican and gulf war veteran) who as a member of the UN weapons inspection team said that they had verifiably destroyed 90-95% of Iraqs WMD's.

To try and discredit his testimony prior to the invasion there was a smear campaign alledging that he was a peadophile. The Sun (murdoch paper in UK - biggest selling tabloid) had the headline 'a traitor and now a peadophile' regarding this. Of course its much the same story with David Kelly (the weapons inspector who committed suicide ater a government smear campaign) and George Galloway (who sued the telegraph newspaper and won over allegations that he took payments from the Iraq regime- he was also re-elected despite being expelled from the labour party).

BAI HE
10-21-2005, 05:07 PM
Capitalism leads to dole queues, the scramble for markets, and war. Collectivism leads to concentration camps, leader worship, and war. There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.
- George Orwell

BAI HE
10-21-2005, 05:11 PM
I detest murder, but didn't the PRC show the world how
the viral like spread of white collar crime could be curbed?

FuXnDajenariht
10-21-2005, 11:13 PM
lol by what? murder?

BAI HE
10-22-2005, 05:12 AM
Yep. Lined 'em Up And Shot 'em Down.

Christopher M
10-22-2005, 11:07 AM
There is no way out of this unless a planned economy can somehow be combined with the freedom of the intellect, which can only happen if the concept of right and wrong is restored to politics.

I don't think "a planned economy" can be combined with "the freedom of the intellect." Whatever the benefits of a planned structure may be, it's directly opposed , by definition, to free structures. However, I do not think that collective markets are necessarily planned markets, and it's in this distinction that we may be able to pursue the integration Orwell is talking about. There are communal structures, like co-operatives, which are nonethless based on the principles of (classical) liberalism, most notably, the use of coercive force. Unfortunately, while they may be an ideal solution to our economic problems, a largescale use of them any time in the near future is highly unlikely: the mainstream 'capitalist' (which is to say, the corporatist in disguise) opposes them for being communal while the mainstream 'socialist' opposes them for being (classically) liberal.

Restoring "right and wrong" to politics sounds like an excellent idea though.