|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I agree with what crashfrog just said.
However, I do agree with you on one point: Moore may be counting his chickens before they hatch. Let's see what the Democrats actually have up their sleeve. Edited by Chiroptera, : Too many actualy's. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, I find Moore to be too timid in his wit. Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky are my favorite "flame warriors". If you don't like them, then don't read them. Problem solved. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: That's a possibility, but not a very likely one. -
quote: Even less likely. -
quote: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! No. -
quote: Huh? Is this a thread that I missed? -
quote: Hell, I'm a communist. I learned long ago not to expect any respect for my opinions. I'm also not a Christian, so I'm under no obligation to "turn the other cheek". Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: And the US did. The US crushed the Taliban and similar religious nutjobs. And they were replaced by people who are now doing exactly the same thing. The US managed to liberate...Kabul. Kind of. And now people in the US government involved in Aghanistan are admitting (in whispers right now) that military force isn't working out too well, and eventually we are going to have to accept and make deals with...the Taliban. So what did Bush accomplish exactly? -
quote: And now we have both! We have dead murderers and more victims. Some of these victims were killed by US forces. And the dead murders are being replaced by more murderers. What is being accomplished? -
quote: The war was a loser from the start then. There is no way this kind of war is going to prevent stoning rape victims or hanging 14 year old gay boys. The way we lose our souls is when we constantly advocate for policies that are known from the beginning to ineffectual, show through practice to be counter-productive, and advocate continuing the same policies that are themselves killing lots of innocent people. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: She also has the right to have intercourse, and to alleviate any undesired complications that might result from it. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: The Karzai government is irrelevant. They have control of Kabul, and that is about it. The rest of the country is under the control of the warlords -- the people who were "in charge" before the Taliban, and the reason that the Afghanis accepted Taliban rule. The Taliban were theocratic dictators, but they at least kept the peace. The warlords are dictators and they kill people in their squabbles with other warlords. Under the Taliban, people were murdered, often for sectarian religious reasons. Women had little to no rights. Under the current situation, people are murdered, often for sectarian reasons. Women have little to no rights. And people are being killed in the endemic warfare between rival warlords, and the warfare is interfering with the building of any kind of infrastructure. This is the definition of "things are worse." The same problems as before still exist, and there are additional problems that were not here before. When more problems are added to the previous problems and the previous problems have not been alleviated, people usually say that things are worse off. Okay, so things in Kabul itself may be a little better in the sense that women are only under threat by individual terrorists rather than organized social structures. I recognize that there is a possible moral calculus that will say that it is worth the rest of the country going up in flames as long as a small piece of territory, Kabul, has some relative freedom. This is not a moral calculus to which I subscribe. As much as I am glad that people in Kabul may have this temporary respite, it is not worth the death and destruction that is occurring in the rest of the country. -
quote: Yes, like in Vietnam. A peace was arrange between the North Vietnamese and the US. Part of the deal was the independence of South Vietnam would be respected. Two years later, the North Vietnamese took Saigon. I wonder if the US is going to allow the Karzai regime (or its successor) to fall, or whether it will guarantee the existence of a pro-West Kabul even while the rest of the country falls into Taliban/warlord rule. -
quote: I guess I don't know what is so hard to understand here. It is a part of growing up that one realizes that sometimes there is just nothing someone can do about a problem. Or that the only things that can be done are seemingly small, minor steps that might (or might not) lead to a better situation in the far future. I like action movies as much as anyone else, but at some point one must realize that rushing in with guns blazing and taking out the bad guys just doesn't work in real life. It's tough. It's infuriating. But sometimes there is nothing that one can do without making the situation worse. -
quote: Except that there isn't anyone who "would" destroy us, and there hasn't been a significant threat to the US since the US signed that treaty with Great Britain setting the boundary with Canada. The only "threats" since then were an attempt by the Southern states to secede, and an attempt by the Japanese to grab the American colonies in Asia and the Pacific. There are people who would make it very, very painful for the US to continue interfering in what they believe to be their territory. But that is a far cry from being a threat to the US itself. -
quote: Because that is what this has been. I honestly can't see what is so hard to believe about it. It has been part of US policy since WWII to have the major control of the Mideast oil fields. What is more, before the Iraq war, Hussein was signing contracts with Russian and French companies to drill the oil fields when the sanctions were finally lifted. And the coalition against Iraq was weakening -- even the Kuwaitis were saying that the sanctions regime was too tough. It was clear that the Administration intended to remove Hussein, install their own dictator (probably legimized by some sort of "elections") who would then cancel the contracts with the French and Russians, and then sign contracts with American companies. In fact, it was clear to me that the intention was to have American companies get paid to "rebuild" the country after being devastated by the sanctions and by warfare. And that is what happened. The interim government cancelled the contracts with the French and the Russians. contracts were signed with American companies to rebuild the country. State enterprises, which were run by Iraqis and, before the first Gulf war, brought the economy of Iraq up near First World levels, were sold off to foreign companies, run by foreigners, and Iraqis were then reduced to the typical laborer relationships found in any other Third World country. - I still can't believe that anyone believed that the war in Afghanistan was going to result in democracy and women's rights. It was being fought by people who have no interest in democracy or women's rights. The US is allies with Saudi Arabia, a theocratic state that supports the Wahabbi movement. The US has waged war against regimes that were either democratic or popular: Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatamala, Allende in Chile, the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, now Chavez in Venezuela. Meanwhile the US has supported the vilest of dictators -- the Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile; the US supported the religious fundamentalists against the secular Soviet vassal regime of Afghanistan, and the US removed the Hussein government which was at least secular. The US supports dictators and religious fanatics when it suits it purposes, and supports democracy only when it suits its own self interest. - It is amusing (in a dark sort of way) to hear people talk about "women's rights" in regard to the war in Afghanistan. Women's advocacy groups who were familiar with Afghanistan were opposed to the war. This is exactly the sort of "useful idiot" type of thinking that leads to a lessening of freedom and democracy. Sure, the Taliban were horrible. Sure, the Serbs were abusing the Kosovar Albanians terribly. But advocating war in these instances served mainly to give the war mongers political capital and emboldened them to then wage war to destroy what little stability existed in other countries. This is why I was against the war in Kosovo, and why I was against the war in Afghanistan. Because I knew that success in these wars, even if they managed to put into place a superficial veneer of "peace" and "freedom", would then lead to the mess we see in Iraq, to the imminent mess that may occur in Iran (if the nutcases have their way), to an anti-democratic interference in the affairs of Venezuela. Wars rarely solve the problems that you think they do; instead, they merely allow the powers that be an excuse to use war to solve their problems. - It is also interesting to hear how people insist that we are trying to install "freedom and democracy" on these areas when it is the people themselves in these areas who were so vocal against these wars. People did not want to live under the Taliban, but they did not want the US to go to war to remove them. Women were oppressed in Afghanistan, but women's advocacy groups were opposed to using war to bring them "freedom". People were glad to have Hussein removed from power, but they did not want the US to use warfare to do it. Americans claim that they want to spread freedom and democracy around the world, but they do not want to listen to the people who are actually working on the ground in these countries for freedom and democracy; instead, they listen to the "exile groups" sponsored by the US government and composed of elites who will want to grab power for their own ends. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi schrafinator.
I haven't forgotten the Soviet Union; just that the Soviet Union is irrelevant to my point. The foreign and military policy of the Soviet Union was devoted to prevent encirclement and isolation by the West. Despite some official sloganeering to rally the masses to the cause, the Soviet Union was neither capable of nor really interested in destroying the United States (although I'm sure they would have been very happy if it had been the US that collapsed instead of them in 1991). To this end, the Soviets interest in its client states were to have military bases and friendly votes in the UN; Soviet client states were much freer in regards to their internal policies than the US client states. The main danger to the US was that the people in its client states realizing that they had alternatives to having their resources sucked out by Western businesses, with only the ruling elites benefiting from it. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, records made public pretty much show that, rather than being bent on "global domination", the Soviet leadership really was paranoid about the West and the West's intentions; the Soviet military really was more about defense than that of the West. The main threat the Soviet missiles posed was that an overly aggressive maneuver in the West would provoke a paranoid Soviet Union into launching a preemptive strike. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Heh. And I had you pegged for a.... Never mind. My apologies. I'll try to be a bit more respectful from here on out. Just don't use the word "Islamofascist" with a straight face.
Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Why wouldn't it be?
Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
As has been pointed out, this has gotten off topic. I will, though point out another placed where we agree:
quote: Although we may still disagree over the Administration's motives. - One other thing I agree with you: I didn't think Moore's piece was all that funny. A few of the points were a bit humorous in their wording, but overall it was pretty much a gloat-fest (and somewhat premature, too). Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
There are a couple of other points on which we disagree, but we haven't (yet) been involved on the threads for those topics at the same time. I will let you know that I find most of your posts well written and well reasoned, so I do pay attention when you express a point of view with which I disagree.
I also realized last night that this was getting way, way off topic. I will clarify, though, that I am not extolling the virtues of the Taliban in any way shape or form; a world without people like the Taliban would, in my opinion, be a better world. I'm also not extolling the virtues of pacifism. Although I respect pacifism, I am not myself a pacifist. I recognize that sometimes there are situations where the violence is the best option out of a choice of bad options. Edited by Chiroptera, : clarity Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Just read it. Slow start, in my opinion, but good reading once it got up to speed. (I liked his reference to people who "live in real countries.") Oddly, I found two versions which differ in the final paragraphs. One written before the State of the Union address, and one written afterwards. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I am generally opposed to a flat tax (in part because the main argument I have seen advanced for it is so stupid); however, a high flat tax rate with a high floor would end up being more or less progressive anyway.
Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Sounds fair to me. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Which concept? That social stability depends on the rightful heir assuming his position as hereditary monarch? Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024