Results 1 to 20 of 20
Who better to see through the insane rhetoric coming from the Bush administration than a former right-winger?
Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof!
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
It amazes me how blind and ignorant Bush supporters are. All of their arguments are blatantly self serving and
insult the intelligence of anyone who has the slightest inkling of Middle Eastern history. I now break into fits of laughter. There is nothing serious or factual about them.
What an incredible bunch of war mongering liars.
The only people they are deluding are themselves.
Man's dearest possession is life, and since it is given to him to live but once.He must so live that dying he can say, all my life and all my strength have been given to the greatest cause in the world, the liberation of mankind
Ostrovski
Muriel Spark:
If I had my life to live over again I should form the habit of nightly composing myself to thoughts of death. I would practice, as it were, the remembrance of death. There is no other practice which so intensifies life. Death, when it approaches, ought not to take one by surprise. It should be part of the full expectancy of life. Without an ever-present sense of death life is insipid. You might as well live on the whites of eggs.
Lay off, Vox, apparently the US has conceded to the UN to play the rope-a-dope game of letting inspectors back in again.
Oh, just one little thing...
We can't inspect Iraqi military headquarters, republican guard facilities, or 12 square miles of palace compounds.
Hmmm, I wonder why.
Che Guevara wannabe
...That was me, CI
Che Guevara wannabe
The senate act, section 307, stipulates that "the President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the united states".
Of course, by no means should this apply to any nation other than the US. Because they are the richest. Yes.
Double standard anyone? Can you say hypocrisy?
(Edited by canikickit at 2:45 am on Oct. 3, 2002)
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
"Lay off, Vox, apparently the US has conceded to the UN to play the rope-a-dope game of letting inspectors back in again."
It has also got bipartisan support for attacking Iraq regardless of any UN resolution. UN? We don't need no stinkin' UN!
Property Is Theft.
Is that true??? That, in itself, renders the war on Iraq immoral.
<span style=\'font-family:Geneva\'><span style=\'color:red\'>SOUS LES PAVÉS, LA PLAGE!!</span></span>
It was in one of the links Peacce or Vox put up somewhere.
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
Iraq's national security is already threatened, so this is a moot point.
American Sovereignty takes precedence over any other nation's concerns.
Che Guevara wannabe
that was me, CI
Che Guevara wannabe
I don't really see what you are getting at.
Basically what you, and Stormin Norman seem to be saying is that, the US can have the right to deem how they are investigated and how all other nations are investigated.
Why? Because you have the most money? Because you feel like it?
Judge , Jury, and Excecution. The United States, defenders of the free world, we can do what we want because we say so. Only us, the US, can have "weapons of mass destruction", because we are your lords and masters. Bow before us, because we keep you free.
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
not a chance
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
"American Sovereignty takes precedence over any other nation's concerns."
Why?
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
Because we are in a position of power and benevolence, and we need to maintain our own security interest.
There is also the incidental benefit of other nations enjoying the protection of our sphere of influence and the security and direction it provides.
Capitalist Imperial
Che Guevara wannabe
"Because we are in a position of power and benevolence, and we need to maintain our own security interest."
Okay, but you started out saying that US soveriegnty (and I don't think any country is threatening that at all) takes precedence over "any other nation's concerns." This means that, if their is a disagreement, you say that the USA must be right, not because it's morally, legally, or ethically right, but because it is "in a position of power." So you're saying that might makes right, and wish to inflect the rule of the jungle on civilized society. I'm glad you cleared that up, so no one ever, EVER thinks that you're operating with any supposed moral, legal or ethical concern.
"Benevolence" is, of course, debatable and not a given.
Some would say that the US "sphere of influence" is imperialism by any other name, but we already know your position on that: it's good if it benefits the USA. In that regard, you're much like Mazdak, who believes in authoritarian rule for the people he likes, but not for those he doesn't.
Rational people, however, think very little of either of you.
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
Well, from my interpretation of it, what CI's saying is that the US retains the right to protect its antional sovereignty before it begins worrying about any other nations' interests. As would any other nation, had it the power. Self-interest is one of the inherent qualities (I won't say good or bad) of human beings, so why should nations be any different? What the US is doing is not neccessarily right, but you can hardly blame it for wanting to take care of itself and extend its sphere of influence. It's what the overwhelming majority of people would do.
Civilised? What gives us the right to judge who and what is, or is not, civilised? I mean, the societies that have come closest to socialism would be those indigineous communities, which were among the most primitive to exists. Who are we to deem anything or anyone civilised or otherwise?
Despite how much we try to dress ourselves up, certain instincts still rule within us, and the law of the jungle, the survival of the fittest, will always rule.
\"It\'s crazy, it seems it\'ll never let up, but please - you gotta keep ya head up\" - 2pac \"keep ya head up\"
Well, QoD, you asked, so you shall receive.
You say "Self-interest is one of the inherent qualities (I won't say good or bad) of human beings, so why should nations be any different?" Well, for one thing, nations are not people. You may as well say corporations are people, too, when clearly there is a material difference. I am a person. You are a person. Neither of us are nations.
Somehow, you confuse, like any right-winger, a nation "taking care of itself" with extending its "sphere of influence," which I think is simply Newspeak for empire building.
As I stated previously, the USA is not, as far as I can tell, and you, nor any right-winger, did not make a case that it is, in any danger of losing its "sovereignty," which is what CI claimed and which with you seem to agree. So already we see, in light of the statements you are defending, there is no clear threat.
And that makes me wonder why extending a "sphere of influence" is so important. Influence for whom? Certainly not for the working class. For capital? Yes.
You should remember that there was a time when the overwhelming majority of people believed that slavery was a good and just thing. I do not support, and never have, this sort of simplistic "democracy." That would be tantamount to supporting mob rule. And that brings us to the next question.
You claim that the "survival of the fittest" will always rule. I've gone into this so many times it's surprising that anyone even bothers to bring it up.
What does the "survival of the fittest" mean in Darwinian terms, QoD? I'll tell you exactly what it means: those who have the most offspring are deemed the most fit. That is exactly all it means. See, the idea is that natural selection (that's a term not used by Social Darwinists, but one Darwin used) determines the number of offspring various creatures have. That's all it means. People, however, try to take this and apply it to human society, to things that have nothing to do with the number of offspring you have but much to do with the economic system under which you labor. It's a vulgar attempt to root in Natural Law a man-made system. And it just doesn't wash.
Which leads us to the final point. You huffily ask what gives us the right to say what is civilized. Well, since civilization is a man-made thing, then we, as human beings, have the right to judge. You bring up what Marx would call primitive communism, yet you avoid the issue at hand, which is, as I clearly stated, the idea that "might makes right." In these primitive communist societies, was that the idea that held sway? Of course not. You perpetuate the bourgeois myth that "civilized" means "industrialized," and that, of course, is not what I meant at all. Rather, I stated that the "rule of the jungle," that is, that "might makes right," is what CI believes. What stands in opposition to the rule of the jungle? What stands in opposition to mob rule?
The rule of law.
That is what we have to work with. CI discards it, and so do you. More's the pity.
Social Darwinism and fearful muscle flexing do not a civilized society make. If you wish to go with the "might makes right" camp, I suggest you start supporting George W. Bush.
vox
Economists have provided capitalists with a comforting concept called the "free market." It does not describe any part of reality, at any place or time. It's a mantra conveniently invoked when it is proposed that government do something the faithful don't like, and just as conveniently ignored whenever they want government to do something for them.
You're damn right it does, but should it?? Really?? Can you justify that?? Didn't think so...
This acts as yet more proof of American self-interest and selfishness. Why should America give a fuck about anyone else??
It should now seem quite clear to anyone on this forum which case is in the right here, even the factophobic capitalists.
<span style=\'font-family:Geneva\'><span style=\'color:red\'>SOUS LES PAVÉS, LA PLAGE!!</span></span>
Well, QoD, you asked, so you shall receive.
That is generous of you....
You say "Self-interest is one of the inherent qualities (I won't say good or bad) of human beings, so why should nations be any different?" Well, for one thing, nations are not people. You may as well say corporations are people, too, when clearly there is a material difference. I am a person. You are a person. Neither of us are nations.
I'm not attempting to say that we are nations, simply that the actions of nations are determined by the actions of people, and that they would thus follow the same line of logic - or lack therof, as the case may be
Somehow, you confuse, like any right-winger, a nation "taking care of itself" with extending its "sphere of influence," which I think is simply Newspeak for empire building.
I'm sorry, I perhaps should have made myself clearer.....I'm not saying that taking care of itself is the same as extending its sphere of influence (which is very much like empire building, though in theory, slightly more subtle), rather that the first priority of a nation is usually to take care of itself, and once that is done, to build its empire.
As I stated previously, the USA is not, as far as I can tell, and you, nor any right-winger, did not make a case that it is, in any danger of losing its "sovereignty," which is what CI claimed and which with you seem to agree. So already we see, in light of the statements you are defending, there is no clear threat.
Please, enough with the right-wing generalisations!!! The first one was amusing, now it's just boring.
Again, I refer to my previous statement; once the nation has ensured its survival, it will try to move into the "thrive" part of its development. If it is already thriving, it'll simply try to strengthen itself.
And that makes me wonder why extending a "sphere of influence" is so important. Influence for whom? Certainly not for the working class. For capital? Yes.
I think history has proved to us on more than one occasion (the Soviet Union, Mao's China, spring to mind) that when the workers rise up to take care of their own interests, once they've established themselves, they set about trying to extend their own sphere of influence
You should remember that there was a time when the overwhelming majority of people believed that slavery was a good and just thing. I do not support, and never have, this sort of simplistic "democracy." That would be tantamount to supporting mob rule. And that brings us to the next question.
The only problem in supporting mob rule is that mob rule is often based on crude sentiments, and emotion, which most people end up regretting later. The truth is, it's the mob that it's going to affect most of the time. The answer, then, is through education of the mob, not through the appointment of people who think they know what's best.
You claim that the "survival of the fittest" will always rule. I've gone into this so many times it's surprising that anyone even bothers to bring it up.
What does the "survival of the fittest" mean in Darwinian terms, QoD?
I suspect you don't actually want to know.....
I'll tell you exactly what it means: those who have the most offspring are deemed the most fit. That is exactly all it means. See, the idea is that natural selection (that's a term not used by Social Darwinists, but one Darwin used) determines the number of offspring various creatures have. That's all it means.
Partly that, but it's also a case of those with the most power (in Darwin's theory, this translates to strength, intelligence and other such talents) will survive & thrive in order to produce stronger offspring, with a greater chance of survival, then those not so strong or intelligent as them, which leads to the species becoming stronger overall. The idea was not so much that natural selection would determine how many offspring one person had, but rather how many of those offprsing survive. Dogs, for example, have large litters, most abt equally sized, but the advancement of the species is brought about by the fact that only the strongest of those species survive and go on to produce offspring, the strongest of which will survive, and so the cycle goes on. Theoretically, anyway.
People, however, try to take this and apply it to human society, to things that have nothing to do with the number of offspring you have but much to do with the economic system under which you labor. It's a vulgar attempt to root in Natural Law a man-made system. And it just doesn't wash.
I beg to differ, I think it 'washes' well enough. In any industry, the people who are best at it, or who acquire the most bargaining power, will thrive, and thus push the industry onwards.
Which leads us to the final point. You huffily ask what gives us the right to say what is civilized.
Pray, do not attempt to characterise my words, it's impossible to convey a tone across the internet. I was merely asking a question.
Well, since civilization is a man-made thing, then we, as human beings, have the right to judge.
As human beings collectively, yes. I think it says something that the majority of humans seem to have chosen capitalism as their idea of civilisation.
You bring up what Marx would call primitive communism, yet you avoid the issue at hand, which is, as I clearly stated, the idea that "might makes right." In these primitive communist societies, was that the idea that held sway? Of course not.
I'm interested to know upon what this claim is based.... primitive societies are supposed to have exalted the physically stronger sex, the male, and the elders, who supposedly held power through experience, were just about unquestionable. If that isn't a case of 'might makes right', then what, short of a gunman forcing his views upon his victim, is?
You perpetuate the bourgeois myth that "civilized" means "industrialized," and that, of course, is not what I meant at all. Rather, I stated that the "rule of the jungle," that is, that "might makes right," is what CI believes.
The macquarie dictionary defines civilisation as: "An advanced state of human society, in which a high level of art, science, religion and government, has been achieved". The macquarie dictionary is widely respected among english speakers, and it is humans, as you've pointed out, who are qualified to judge what civilisation is. I don't know about you, but I'd say that industrialisation is a part of getting to a high level of science, and though we're not completely civilised, we're definitely more so than cave-dwellers.
What stands in opposition to the rule of the jungle? What stands in opposition to mob rule?
The rule of law.
And if the law ruled that you could not be communist, would you still support it then? The law is little more than an artificial restriction, often for the benefit of the people it rules, sometimes not. It depends entirely upon the people making the laws as to how strong or weak they are, and hence, are governed by people's basic instincts of self-preservation.
That is what we have to work with. CI discards it, and so do you. More's the pity.
Again, it takes someone who agrees the laws to say so. And frankly, any laws which allow people to behave as the Americans did during the communist witch-hunts, the 'Reds under the beds' scare relly need some rethinking.
Social Darwinism and fearful muscle flexing do not a civilized society make. If you wish to go with the "might makes right" camp, I suggest you start supporting George W. Bush.
I believe might does make right, but it's the might of knowledge, not physical or social strength, that makes something right, and George Bush is more than a little lacking in that.
Congratulations, though, you've managed to completely miss my point. I'm not trying to say that this is neccessarily right, just that it's basic human instinct, and it's what any one, or any nation, is going to do.
But, if you're going to bury your head in the sand and pretend that the Americans are the only ones who would flex their muscles, had they any, suit yourself. "For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and prepare for it".
(Edited by queen of diamonds at 9:43 pm on Nov. 15, 2002)
\"It\'s crazy, it seems it\'ll never let up, but please - you gotta keep ya head up\" - 2pac \"keep ya head up\"
