PDA

View Full Version : Pelosi: "Staying the Course Not an Option"



avsrule
20 Sep 04,, 00:14
Link (http://conservativeeyes.blogspot.com/2004/09/nancy-pelosi-staying-course-is-not.html)

What are we to do? Leave? :confused:

redstar2000
21 Sep 04,, 19:28
Link (http://conservativeeyes.blogspot.com/2004/09/nancy-pelosi-staying-course-is-not.html)

What are we to do? Leave? :confused:

Yes.

Remove your imperialist buttocks from Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti and Kuwait and (long list on request) NOW!

Ok?

Confed999
22 Sep 04,, 01:36
imperialist
I bet you say "neo-con" alot.

redstar2000
22 Sep 04,, 02:20
I bet you say "neo-con" alot.

It's not a term that comes up that often...unless you hang out a lot with bourgeois liberals (which I don't).

But unless I'm completely mistaken, neo-conservatives also use it...with pride.

But perhaps there's a more "acceptable" term and you will instruct me accordingly.

From a communist standpoint, nearly all Democrats are conservatives and nearly all Republicans are semi-fascist or just plain fascist.

We live in "hard times".

Confed999
22 Sep 04,, 02:36
It's not a term that comes up that often
It's just that when you read a liberal saying that, it's allmost allways followed by some wonderful conspiracy theory. In this case you started with the theory.

redstar2000
22 Sep 04,, 15:44
It's just that when you read a liberal saying that, it's almost always followed by some wonderful conspiracy theory. In this case you started with the theory.

There are certainly people for whom "grand conspiracy theories" exert an irresistible appeal...I refer to them as the "tinfoil hat brigade".

But in my opinion, conspiracies are usually of marginal interest. There are lots of "small" ones...almost all of which never come to fruition.

Imperialism is not a conscious "conspiracy" in the usual meaning of the word; what you have instead is a class for whom imperialism "instinctively" makes sense.

The Bush regime did not have to "hold a meeting" of oil company executives to discuss the "question" of "should we conquer that oil-rich and defenseless country and plunder its resources for our own benefit?".

The desirability of imperial conquest is as "natural" a feeling on the part of major capitalists as the desire to continue breathing. The only thing that might be disputable is "can we get away with it?".

In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. could not "get away with it". In Iraq, "the jury is still out".

My "take" on conspiracy theories...

The "Tinfoil Hat" Brigade (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095784638&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 01:18
There are certainly people for whom "grand conspiracy theories" exert an irresistible appeal...I refer to them as the "tinfoil hat brigade".

But in my opinion, conspiracies are usually of marginal interest. There are lots of "small" ones...almost all of which never come to fruition.

Imperialism is not a conscious "conspiracy" in the usual meaning of the word; what you have instead is a class for whom imperialism "instinctively" makes sense.

The Bush regime did not have to "hold a meeting" of oil company executives to discuss the "question" of "should we conquer that oil-rich and defenseless country and plunder its resources for our own benefit?".

The desirability of imperial conquest is as "natural" a feeling on the part of major capitalists as the desire to continue breathing. The only thing that might be disputable is "can we get away with it?".

In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. could not "get away with it". In Iraq, "the jury is still out".

My "take" on conspiracy theories...

The "Tinfoil Hat" Brigade (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1095784638&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)
There is something to be gained, and lost, with every decision. Without proof that "imperialism", something I do not see, is the primary reason for doing something, then it's just another conspiracy theory. I'm not going to a site that has "fightcapitalism" in the address, sorry, too much for me.

redstar2000
23 Sep 04,, 06:15
Without proof that "imperialism", something I do not see, is the primary reason for doing something, then it's just another conspiracy theory.

I take it then that you adhere to the "shit happens" school of bourgeois historians; events are the outcome of an enormous number of "micro-causes" and no order is to be found in them, no "big causes" exist.

Fair enough...it's a perfectly "respectable" view, though watery soup for my tastes.


I'm not going to a site that has "fightcapitalism" in the address, sorry, too much for me.

Is that the secular version of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"? :biggrin:

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 06:21
I take it then that you adhere to the "shit happens" school of bourgeois historians; events are the outcome of an enormous number of "micro-causes" and no order is to be found in them, no "big causes" exist.
No, I need actual physical proof, not "just 'cuz you said so".

watery soup for my tastes.
Seems proof has more substance than theory.

Is that the secular version of "Get thee behind me, Satan!"? :biggrin:
Nope, but you don't actually want to know what that means.

redstar2000
23 Sep 04,, 09:32
No, I need actual physical proof, not "just 'cuz you said so".

What would constitute "physical proof" of the existence of U.S. imperialism in your eyes?

What's your "standard of evidence"?

ChrisF202
23 Sep 04,, 22:11
What would constitute "physical proof" of the existence of U.S. imperialism in your eyes?

What's your "standard of evidence"?
we dont have an empire ....

redstar2000
24 Sep 04,, 00:43
we dont have an empire ....

Do I understand you correctly?

If the American Empire is not called that, if it's not "officially" an empire..."then" it's "not really" an empire and U.S. imperialism "doesn't exist".

Things are "only" what they are "called", is that what you're saying?

Do you extend this dubious privilege to others? Do you take the claims of politicians "at face value"? How about the media? Advertising??

I truly did not expect such innocence on this board...which may be a critical comment on my own.

Praxus
24 Sep 04,, 01:12
What would constitute "physical proof" of the existence of U.S. imperialism in your eyes?

What's your "standard of evidence"?

You called the United States an Empire. Now you prove it. Confed should neither have to define it or prove you wrong.



The Bush regime did not have to "hold a meeting" of oil company executives to discuss the "question" of "should we conquer that oil-rich and defenseless country and plunder its resources for our own benefit?".

The Iraqi's no more own the oil in Iraq then I own the oil in Texas. The people who found the wells, drilled the wells, etc own the wells. That is to say Western Oil companies own the wells.


The desirability of imperial conquest is as "natural" a feeling on the part of major capitalists as the desire to continue breathing.

By capitalists do you mean thoose who hold capital or thoose who support the system of Capitalism?

Just because you have capital does not mean you support the system of Capitalism. And in fact if you engage in cronyism you are going against the system of Capitalism. Because capitalism is the complete seperation of economics.


Yes.

Remove your imperialist buttocks from Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti and Kuwait and (long list on request) NOW!

Ok?

How about you step off my rights before you find yourself at the muzzle of a gun.

Confed999
24 Sep 04,, 01:26
Nice one Praxus.

redstar2000
24 Sep 04,, 21:02
You called the United States an Empire. Now you prove it. Confed should neither have to define it or prove you wrong

You mean he can just assert that "America doesn't have an empire"...and that's good enough for you?

The fact that Native Americans were first expelled from their homelands east of the Mississippi and then confined to reservations throughout North America was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1812 with the expressed intent to conquer what is now Canada was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1847 to rob Mexico of its northwest territories (now the southwestern U.S.) was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war with Spain in 1898 to rob Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines was "not imperialistic"? And when the Philippinos resisted their new masters, they were massacred in substantial numbers...that too was "not imperialistic"?

And the military interventions to impose puppet regimes in Central America in the 1920s...that wasn't "imperialistic"?

And...and...and...

Well, the list is not infinite, but it's a very long one...certainly longer than that of imperial Rome.

What is an empire? Is it not the control of territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there?

Certainly you can't reasonably limit it to "formal annexation", can you? If you effectively control a particular country's government and resources, then it's a province of your empire.

The proof of that is your willingness to militarily defend your authority against either aggression from another imperial power or against the people who live in that country.

The presence, for example, of U.S. troops in Colombia to defend American-owned oil pipelines against local insurgents means that Colombia is considered by Washington to be "part of our empire"...even if they don't use "the dirty word".

Make a list in your own mind of countries where the United States will not permit an "unfriendly" government to come to power and will use military force to stop that from happening...and you have outlined the boundaries of the American Empire.

The sun never sets, etc.


The Iraqi's no more own the oil in Iraq then I own the oil in Texas. The people who found the wells, drilled the wells, etc own the wells. That is to say Western Oil companies own the wells.

So if I show up where you live (with a few dozen armed thugs), take over your back yard, dig a well and strike oil, then "I own it", right?

And if you don't like that, then I can kill you, right?


By capitalists do you mean thoose who hold capital or thoose who support the system of Capitalism?

Those who hold capital...especially those who hold big chunks of capital.


And in fact if you engage in cronyism you are going against the system of Capitalism.

Perhaps that's true in a "technical" sense. However, "cronyism" seems to be endemic in all capitalist countries...when it comes to making serious money, few capitalists seem to think much about the "technical definitions".


How about you step off my rights before you find yourself at the muzzle of a gun.

Oooooo! Another keyboard kommando!

They are always so "brave" when their mouths can write checks that their asses don't have to cash.


Nice one Praxus.

Yes, in places it approached literacy.

Not much there of substantive argument though.

Praxus
24 Sep 04,, 21:46
You mean he can just assert that "America doesn't have an empire"...and that's good enough for you?

The fact that Native Americans were first expelled from their homelands east of the Mississippi and then confined to reservations throughout North America was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1812 with the expressed intent to conquer what is now Canada was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war in 1847 to rob Mexico of its northwest territories (now the southwestern U.S.) was "not imperialistic"?

The fact that the U.S. went to war with Spain in 1898 to rob Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines was "not imperialistic"? And when the Philippinos resisted their new masters, they were massacred in substantial numbers...that too was "not imperialistic"?

And the military interventions to impose puppet regimes in Central America in the 1920s...that wasn't "imperialistic"?

And...and...and...

Well, the list is not infinite, but it's a very long one...certainly longer than that of imperial Rome.

What is an empire? Is it not the control of territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there?

By that definition of Empire every Government on the planet is an empire.

What right did the Indians have to that land? What right did the Mexicans have to their land? What right did spain have to it's land?

If you can not answer these questions then you can not even pretend to call us an Empire.


So if I show up where you live (with a few dozen armed thugs), take over your back yard, dig a well and strike oil, then "I own it", right?

And if you don't like that, then I can kill you, right?


You are just proving my point. The western oil companies owned the wells. Then the Iraqi Government did to the western oil companies exactly what you are suggesting.

The Iraqi's as a collective do not own anything. Where as my family does own the property we live on because we bought it from a legitiment owner, that is to say people who claimed it and turned worthless land into something that has value (a house, livable land, etc).


Perhaps that's true in a "technical" sense. However, "cronyism" seems to be endemic in all capitalist countries...when it comes to making serious money, few capitalists seem to think much about the "technical definitions".

I don't think you understand. If you are a capitalists you are against cronyism. The vast majority of buisness leaders are not anything close to Capitalists. In fact the vast majority of them support Government intervention, that is to say a mixed economy in some form or another.



Not much there of substantive argument though.

Ok you have now stated a premise. Now PROVE IT. This discussion will not continue until you do so.

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 02:01
Again, nice one Praxus.

Not much there of substantive argument though.
Far more substantial than your argument.

barrowaj
25 Sep 04,, 07:11
You mean he can just assert that "America doesn't have an empire"...and that's good enough for you?Hey Redstar, I'm not going to critisize your ideas (not that I really agree with them either), but your rhetoric is way over the top.

Praxus and Confed can say that the US is not an imperialist state because proof lies in the positive. Therefore by making the statement that the US is imperialist, you have the burden of proof.

From what you have said it seems that you beleive that the US is imperialist because it military and political force to serve its economic interests abroad. However that definition could be applied to any number of countries. While the Iraq war was overtly about WMD, securing oil reserves was certainly a factor.

While I would agree that US actions can be construed as imperialism, they differ greatly from the historical context of imperialism. British colonies had appointed, not elected governments. Economic development depended on the UK for any goods besides raw materials. The situation in Iraq is different because Iraq will have a democracy and the Iraqis are involved in the reconstruction of their country. Furthermore, they will be compensated for oil that US companies help drill. So, I think the situation is mutually beneficial.

Finally, you have to recognize that your ideas are pretty radical. Revolutionary marxism is an extreme ideology supported by fanatical language, and fragmented into even smaller groups by arguments over details.

Ray
25 Sep 04,, 10:30
Remove your imperialist buttocks from Iraq and Afghanistan and Haiti and Kuwait and (long list on request) NOW!

Ok?

I am with you ;).

Imperialist buttocks? That would be easy to remove or even tickle to remove, though I am yet to see a buttock with a Crown studded with jewels on it!
:eek:

Glad you saw it. Got a photo that you can scan and post?

I thought it was the Imperialistic BOOT! Now, to remove a boot that has been stamped over anyone would surely be difficult to remove. ;) :tongue: :biggrin:

Patience my Red tavarish, all will fall in place.

Stars will surely fly wherever you want. Sadly, not red ones, but ones with the Stripes too with a Spangled Banner!

It's no good telling us where you want the Imeprialist Boot to be planted.

Just picl up the phone and ask for Bush (they all know him in U$A which your Avarar reads). Just request him. A wee request and he will march on.

You want him to sing a hymn too as he chugs his way?

Which one?

"Onward, American Soldiers, Marching onto War, With the Cross of the World, On his shoulder tall!"

redstar2000
25 Sep 04,, 16:44
By that definition of Empire every Government on the planet is an empire.

What? You mean "every government" on the planet "controls territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there"???

Where is Iceland's "empire"? Or Norway's? New Zealand's?


What right did the Indians have to that land? What right did the Mexicans have to their land? What right did Spain have to its land?

Only the right of occupancy...which, I'll admit, is not much of a "right", then or now.

But your "defense" is a weak one. What you seem to be saying is that "everyone is imperialist if they get the opportunity"...so it's perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to do as others have done (and are doing).

You can't really deny that the U.S. is an imperialist power...you just try to spread the "guilt" around so broadly that the word no longer carries a reprehensible "odor".


Whereas my family does own the property we live on because we bought it from a legitimate owner...

Who, if you go back far enough, stole it from someone at gunpoint.

The fact that the thief "improved" his stolen property is irrelevant.


I don't think you understand. If you are a capitalist you are against cronyism. The vast majority of buisness leaders are not anything close to Capitalists.

If you're saying that their ideology is not "pure enough" for your tastes...well, you'd know that better than I.

What I see is that they function in the way that capitalists do...taking any measures that they can to maximize profit.

Some pro-capitalist ideologues are indeed against "government" as such.

But real-world capitalists have never been against government intervention in the economy...provided they benefit from it.

Indeed, from a capitalist stand-point, the "ideal" is a government-chartered monopoly allowing the capitalist to charge as much as he likes...with no recourse at all for the consumer.


From what you have said, it seems that you believe that the US is imperialist because it [uses] military and political force to serve its economic interests abroad. However that definition could be applied to any number of countries. While the Iraq war was overtly about WMD, securing oil reserves was certainly a factor.

I did not say that the U.S. was the "only" imperialist power in the world today...just the biggest and most aggressive.

And consequently the main enemy of the whole world.


While I would agree that US actions can be construed as imperialism, they differ greatly from the historical context of imperialism. British colonies had appointed, not elected governments. Economic development depended on the UK for any goods besides raw materials. The situation in Iraq is different because Iraq will have a democracy and the Iraqis are involved in the reconstruction of their country. Furthermore, they will be compensated for oil that US companies help drill. So, I think the situation is mutually beneficial.

The Iraqis, aside from our appointed quislings, seem to rather violently "disagree" with all of your views.

The Iraqis are quite correct to do so...being part of the American Empire has generally been a recipe for utter wretchedness.


Finally, you have to recognize that your ideas are pretty radical.

No kidding. :biggrin:

Seriously, I'm well aware of the effect I have on people who've never heard a real communist...it "shocks" some of them quite a bit. (You should see some of the emails I get.)

But that's not unexpected. Anyone who suddenly finds all of their "traditional values" (that they've never questioned) under attack will be "shocked" and will often respond with angry threats, verbal abuse, etc.

Only later (if at all) will they begin to actually think about what I've said.

Shifting one's entire "world view" is not something that happens overnight; it's a long process with lots of parts.

If I am able to arouse some genuine curiosity about what communist ideas really are (as opposed to fragments of bourgeois cliches)...then I will have "done well".

Praxus
25 Sep 04,, 17:30
What? You mean "every government" on the planet "controls territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there"???

Where is Iceland's "empire"? Or Norway's? New Zealand's?

You can not honestly beleive that 100% of the people agree with the Government 100% of the time?

If they don't agree 100% of the time and universily then according to your definition of Empire then Norway, Iceland, and New Zealand are Empires.


Only the right of occupancy...which, I'll admit, is not much of a "right", then or now.

But your "defense" is a weak one. What you seem to be saying is that "everyone is imperialist if they get the opportunity"...so it's perfectly legitimate for the U.S. to do as others have done (and are doing)


You can't really deny that the U.S. is an imperialist power...you just try to spread the "guilt" around so broadly that the word no longer carries a reprehensible "odor".


Please don't quote something I never said. By the way it is not up to me to prove that we are not an Empire. In fact I never said I thought it was or not. You made an aqcusation now you refuse to back it up with something more then a made up definition of empire.


Who, if you go back far enough, stole it from someone at gunpoint.

The fact that the thief "improved" his stolen property is irrelevant.

If one does not have the right to said property they can not by the nature of this fact claim that it is their property. The US was not perfect and there were in fact some peaceful tribes who possed no threat to us or our interest. But this was not the case in the vast majority of instances. Most of these tribes were brutal and barbaric, lacking any protection of individual rights, and as such they had no right to whatever land they claimed as their own.


If you're saying that their ideology is not "pure enough" for your tastes...well, you'd know that better than I.

A Capitalists is one who supports the system of Laiseiz Faire . If you do not, then you are not a capitalists. Plain and simple.


What I see is that they function in the way that capitalists do...taking any measures that they can to maximize profit.

Some pro-capitalist ideologues are indeed against "government" as such.

But real-world capitalists have never been against government intervention in the economy...provided they benefit from it.

What is so complicated. If you support government intervention you can not by the nature of the word be a capitalist. It is a fact, an undisputable self-evident one.


Indeed, from a capitalist stand-point, the "ideal" is a government-chartered monopoly allowing the capitalist to charge as much as he likes...with no recourse at all for the consumer.

But that's not what capitalism is and neither is what you say in the interest of buisness owners.

What you are speaking of is totalitarian socialism, not capitalism.

redstar2000
25 Sep 04,, 18:08
You can not honestly beleive that 100% of the people agree with the Government 100% of the time?

If they don't agree 100% of the time and universally then according to your definition of Empire then Norway, Iceland, and New Zealand are Empires.


By the way it is not up to me to prove that we are not an Empire. In fact I never said I thought it was or not. You made an accusation now you refuse to back it up with something more then a made up definition of empire.


A Capitalists is one who supports the system of Laiseiz Faire . If you do not, then you are not a capitalist. Plain and simple.


If you support government intervention you can not by the nature of the word be a capitalist. It is a fact, an undisputable self-evident one.

Is that the "best" you can do? You want to play silly word games instead of discuss the matter seriously?

Believe what you wish. :rolleyes:

Now here's your only substantive response...


If one does not have the right to said property they can not by the nature of this fact claim that it is their property. The US was not perfect and there were in fact some peaceful tribes who posed no threat to us or our interest. But this was not the case in the vast majority of instances. Most of these tribes were brutal and barbaric, lacking any protection of individual rights, and as such they had no right to whatever land they claimed as their own.

Let's look at this "logic"...

1. If one does not have a "right" to a certain property, then one's claim to own it is illigimate and anyone else may "rightfully" claim it for their own.

2. "Most" Indian tribes were "brutal and barbaric".

3. They "lacked protection of individual rights".

4. "Therefore" they "had no right" to the land they were living on.

Actually, this can be condensed even further...

It's "perfectly ok" to steal the land from any group which has no conception of individual ownership of property.

And you call them "brutal and barbaric".

They're not good enough to play in your league!

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 21:38
What? You mean "every government" on the planet "controls territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there"???
You said Puerto Rico before, but don't they vote freely on their future?

Where is Iceland's "empire"? Or Norway's? New Zealand's?
There were "natives" on those lands as well, actually I'm not sure about Iceland, but there probably were. Do these countries not import resources, hence controlling them, without care for the general population's feelings about it?

Believe what you wish.
Believe what you wish, but America is not capitalist, anymore than Russia is communist.

Praxus
25 Sep 04,, 23:00
What? You mean "every government" on the planet "controls territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there"???

Yes, absolutely. By the fact that it is impossible for every person in a country to agree on every little subject in every peice of the land.

For example, all Governments have the so called "right" to eminent domain. Now most of the time people want to keep their property. So is that not "controling territory and resources without regard for the wishes of the people that live there".


Is that the "best" you can do? You want to play silly word games instead of discuss the matter seriously?

Believe what you wish.

Now here's your only substantive response...

I am discussing the matter seriously, so let's look at it shall we.

You said and I quote, " What I see is that they function in the way that capitalists do...taking any measures that they can to maximize profit.

Some pro-capitalist ideologues are indeed against "government" as such.

But real-world capitalists have never been against government intervention in the economy...provided they benefit from it."

It is not a word game at all, you are creating arguments on the basis of a fallacy.

If Capitalism is the system of Laissiez Faire (which it is) then your argument makes no sense what so ever.

Now, are you going to actually respond now?


Actually, this can be condensed even further...

It's "perfectly ok" to steal the land from any group which has no conception of individual ownership of property.

And you call them "brutal and barbaric".

They're not good enough to play in your league!

If they do not protect the rights of their citizens then it is not steeling to deprive a tyrant of the land he claims.

What your saying is tantamount to saying the Fascist Dictatorship of Musilini had the same right to Italy as the modern Republic does today.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 00:07
Even though I agree with you on the economics Praxus, I think a more apt comparison to what he is saying would be if the modern Republic of Italy took all the property the fascists had not taken, parcelled it up among the founders of the republic, and shoved everybody else into little reserves accross the country. Praxus, your ideas on property are sort of inconsistent, and always seem to work out in whichever way the US would benifit from most. Take the USSR for example. The people obviously could not own property under communism. But does that mean if a pro-rights, constitutionalist country took control of it that the ex-Soviet citizens have no claim to the land and the buildings they were living on and in, and that the invader has the right to seize whatever they want because they protect THEIR citizen's rights? Dictatorships have no right to exist. But if one country takes over another, do they not have to extend the same rights in order to be just? If the answer is no, how are they not dictatorial towards the people in those other countries? Lets assume that this country did not attack the pro-rights invader, because you say a democracy (the semantics game is tiring and its annoying to keep saying pro-rights, constituitionalist and pro-freedom, so lets just call it democracy even though it isn't) has the right to invade any dictatorship. Which I sort of agree with, but only if the democracy is going to replace it with a democracy (or if the dictatorship strikes first).

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 01:07
Praxus, your ideas on property are sort of inconsistent, and always seem to work out in whichever way the US would benifit from most.

People gain their right to property by claiming the land, building on it, etc. If one initiates force (which brutal tribes by their nature due) they loose the right to that land.

There were quite a few bad things we did to the Indians, I'll give you that. But most of it was justified.


But does that mean if a pro-rights, constitutionalist country took control of it that the ex-Soviet citizens have no claim to the land and the buildings they were living on and in, and that the invader has the right to seize whatever they want because they protect THEIR citizen's rights?

Where did this come from? Because I don't remember saying anything to the contrary.

This being said if said ex-Soviet citizens activly supported their Government then they have a right to exactly nothing.


Dictatorships have no right to exist. But if one country takes over another, do they not have to extend the same rights in order to be just? If the answer is no, how are they not dictatorial towards the people in those other countries?

If you mean the people in the former dictators country become citizens of the free country after the conquest, then of course they would have to have their rights protected.


Lets assume that this country did not attack the pro-rights invader, because you say a democracy (the semantics game is tiring and its annoying to keep saying pro-rights, constituitionalist and pro-freedom, so lets just call it democracy even though it isn't) has the right to invade any dictatorship. Which I sort of agree with, but only if the democracy is going to replace it with a democracy (or if the dictatorship strikes first).

The soul purpose of a free nations military is to destroy the threat as quickly as possible with as few as casulties on the free nations side as humanly possible. If in the long run that means setting up a "democracy", then that is completly justified IMHO.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 02:02
People gain their right to property by claiming the land, building on it, etc. If one initiates force (which brutal tribes by their nature due) they loose the right to that land.

But were they initiating force against the colonists?


This being said if said ex-Soviet citizens activly supported their Government then they have a right to exactly nothing.

On the one hand, you do not support majority rule, but you support majority punishment? Like if the government was popular, then the ex-Soviet citizens lose everything? What about the individuals...(I don't mean to sound like a whining liberal, but its hard to argue in favour of the principle of individual rights while at the same time arguing in favour of collective theft and punishment of an occupied, beaten, people).



If you mean the people in the former dictators country become citizens of the free country after the conquest, then of course they would have to have their rights protected.

So if the conquering nation decides not to make the occupied people citizens, anything goes from robbing to massacring them? Not granting citizenship should not be a license to do anything to an occupied population.


The soul purpose of a free nations military is to destroy the threat as quickly as possible with as few as casulties on the free nations side as humanly possible. If in the long run that means setting up a "democracy", then that is completly justified IMHO.

I said in my first line that this occupied country had never attack the free one. But the territory is strategic or they have some valuable resource without which the free country would be in serious trouble. So an invasion is in the free country's interest. It would be more cost effective and less risky to establish an oppressive dictatorship to prevent popular opinion (which would probably be pretty hostile to the invader, after all, most people don't like having their country invaded, even if its for the best). So because its in the interest of the free country to establish a dictatorship, thats what they should do? Despite this country having never attacked anybody? I am not saying that the US has done or will do this. I'm just going on certain points that you make every so often on this forum. I think your principles only work if the country being invaded struck first, and/or if the free country establishes a "democracy" there. Otherwise the invasion is immoral. Yes, a government's duties is to its own citizens, but when a country becomes in charge of a large number of non-citizens, then the duties start to change. A free country in charge of unfree people is no longer that free. It becomes more of an aristocratic republic. The occupied people must have rights or the free country can no longer be truly free.

EDIT: This is why I support Israeli disengagement from the Palestinians; I want Israel to remain a free country (or as close to one as the world has).

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 02:45
But were they initiating force against the colonists?

Some did, others didn't. But the moral question is do they protect individual rights better then the US did. The answer is no for almost every tribe.


On the one hand, you do not support majority rule, but you support majority punishment? Like if the government was popular, then the ex-Soviet citizens lose everything? What about the individuals...(I don't mean to sound like a whining liberal, but its hard to argue in favour of the principle of individual rights while at the same time arguing in favour of collective theft and punishment of an occupied, beaten, people).

I might have miscommunicated but all I was saying is that the individuals who activly supported the Government have no rights.


So if the conquering nation decides not to make the occupied people citizens, anything goes from robbing to massacring them? Not granting citizenship should not be a license to do anything to an occupied population.


If the enemy country is in armed insurection and still posses a threat to the rights of Americans then anything goes. If they are no longer a threat and it is not in our interest to leave a military presence, we should leave because extending forces to stay their would be immoral because it would force Americans to sacrifice their happiness and lives for something not in their interest.


I said in my first line that this occupied country had never attack the free one. But the territory is strategic or they have some valuable resource without which the free country would be in serious trouble. So an invasion is in the free country's interest.

Wether they attacked or not is irrelivent, what matters is if they are a threat to my rights or interests.


So because its in the interest of the free country to establish a dictatorship, thats what they should do? Despite this country having never attacked anybody? I am not saying that the US has done or will do this.

If that is the only way to elliminate the threat to the rights of the citizens of the free country then absolutely. I don't see this really fitting in with reality. Once the threat is destroyed, we simply leave under the pretext that if they create a hostile Government again we will destroy it again.


I think your principles only work if the country being invaded struck first, and/or if the free country establishes a "democracy" there. Otherwise the invasion is immoral. Yes, a government's duties is to its own citizens, but when a country becomes in charge of a large number of non-citizens, then the duties start to change. A free country in charge of unfree people is no longer that free. It becomes more of an aristocratic republic. The occupied people must have rights or the free country can no longer be truly free.

If you force American soldiers to fight and die for the rights and interests of others then their own you are sacrificing them. You might as well offer them to cannibles.

I believe this to be a moral crime.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 03:24
Some did, others didn't. But the moral question is do they protect individual rights better then the US did. The answer is no for almost every tribe.

In the case of the natives, from my understanding, they went from having no property rights before the colonists, to not being alive or being allowed to live where they always had after the colonists showed up. People lacking rights shouldn't be punished for being oppressed by people who aren't being opressed (or who are less oppressed).


I might have miscommunicated but all I was saying is that the individuals who activly supported the Government have no rights.

Okay, agreement there.


If the enemy country is in armed insurection and still posses a threat to the rights of Americans then anything goes. If they are no longer a threat and it is not in our interest to leave a military presence, we should leave because extending forces to stay their would be immoral because it would force Americans to sacrifice their happiness and lives for something not in their interest.

So doesn't matter what state you leave the country in? When you occupy a country you take certain responsibilities, to brush them off with self-interest claims will set a precedent throughout the world that getting invaded by the US is not liberation, which will make any future campaigns more difficult.


Wether they attacked or not is irrelivent, what matters is if they are a threat to my rights or interests.

If they don't attack you or rob you, how can they be a threat your rights, unless you believe it is your right to take from others?



If that is the only way to elliminate the threat to the rights of the citizens of the free country then absolutely. I don't see this really fitting in with reality. Once the threat is destroyed, we simply leave under the pretext that if they create a hostile Government again we will destroy it again.


Kind of Roman like. Thats all well and good (sort of) until new centres of power reach superpowerdom. Once a country can walk back and forth between enemy camps (oh say, American and the China once it becomes a superpower militarily), they have no need to fear military might as they can respond to threats by joining the enemy camp. Although...since you are keen on the interests of American soldiers, isn't it more in their interests to establish a lasting, fair peace, as that will prevent the need to risk their lives from occuring again?


If you force American soldiers to fight and die for the rights and interests of others then their own you are sacrificing them. You might as well offer them to cannibles.

This is a hard point to answer. It really depends on whether the invasion was in response to an attack. If not, then I would argue that the invading army has forfeted the right to ignore the occupied people's rights, even if it means putting their own soldiers in harms way (more I should say, as any invasion is going to put them in harms way)

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 03:57
So doesn't matter what state you leave the country in? When you occupy a country you take certain responsibilities, to brush them off with self-interest claims will set a precedent throughout the world that getting invaded by the US is not liberation, which will make any future campaigns more difficult.

Our Government is not responsible for other peoples, ever.


If they don't attack you or rob you, how can they be a threat your rights, unless you believe it is your right to take from others?


Someone saying "Give me your money or I'll kill you" is threatening the use of force against you. Should I have to wait until they actually innitiate force against me and either A. Take my money, or B. Kill Me and Take my money?


Kind of Roman like. Thats all well and good (sort of) until new centres of power reach superpowerdom. Once a country can walk back and forth between enemy camps (oh say, American and the China once it becomes a superpower militarily), they have no need to fear military might as they can respond to threats by joining the enemy camp. Although...since you are keen on the interests of American soldiers, isn't it more in their interests to establish a lasting, fair peace, as that will prevent the need to risk their lives from occuring again?

Yes.


This is a hard point to answer. It really depends on whether the invasion was in response to an attack. If not, then I would argue that the invading army has forfeted the right to ignore the occupied people's rights, even if it means putting their own soldiers in harms way (more I should say, as any invasion is going to put them in harms way)

How is the initiation of force any different then the threat there of. The response by our military should be the same. Do whatever is nessecary to destroy the threat.

If you mean if they havn't even threatened force (the non-free country) then we would still have the right to attack them, if we should or not is a practicle matter.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 04:03
If you mean if they havn't even threatened force (the non-free country) then we would still have the right to attack them, if we should or not is a practicle matter.

That is indeed what I meant. If you think that after such an invasion occurs, the invading free country is under no obligation to the invaded people, then we just have to agree to disagree.

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 04:10
The fact that the enemy government hasn't initiated force against us does not change the nature of what that government is. If a government massacres their own people instead of securing their rights, the Government has initiated force against their own populace and therefor no longer has a right to exsist. The only thing more required to make the war moral is for the war to be in our interest.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 04:18
Where do I argue with that? I am not saying a free country does not have the right to eliminate a dictatorship, I'm saying that a free country does not have the right to eliminate one and just leave or treat them like shit, if the free country is the initiator of force (if there is no threat of force from the non-free country). I was not talking about the "rights" of a dictatorship as they have none, but the obligations of a victorious army of a free nation towards an occupied former dictatorship. After all, people living under a dictatorship are not a different species, they have the potential to be free.

EDIT: Response your edit: It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. A government loses its legitamcy by using force against its own people, yes, but if you don't care to replace it with something better, then how is that a legitamate case against that government (in terms of going to war)?

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 04:38
Where do I argue with that? I am not saying a free country does not have the right to eliminate a dictatorship, I'm saying that a free country does not have the right to eliminate one and just leave or treat them like shit, if the free country is the initiator of force (if there is no threat of force from the non-free country)

But the enemy Government has already initiated force, it now has no rights. So it is impossible to initiate force against a dictatorship.


EDIT: Response your edit: It seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. A government loses its legitamcy by using force against its own people, yes, but if you don't care to replace it with something better, then how is that a legitamate case against that government (in terms of going to war)?

How so? Just because we don't put in a free government doesn't change the nature of their former Government.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 05:02
But the enemy Government has already initiated force, it now has no rights. So it is impossible to initiate force against a dictatorship.

I'm not sticking up for the dictatorship, I'm sticking up for the people inhabiting it when the country in question has not committed agression against us (so their factories are not turning out weapons to kill us, their people are not being conscripted into an army trying to kill us, etc).



How so? Just because we don't put in a free government doesn't change the nature of their former Government.

But its like you're killing a rapist for his crimes, and then going ahead and raping his victim again yourself. If you treat a country as badly or more badly than the way they were treated before...well, then the war can still be justifiable (there could have been good reasons) but the country being an oppressive dictatorship can no longer be one of those justifications.

turnagainarm
26 Sep 04,, 06:07
There were quite a few bad things we did to the Indians, I'll give you that. But most of it was justified.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do we follow any moderation on this board? Why is a hate statement like above allowed?

Genocide and slavery of Native Americans was justified?

redstar2000
26 Sep 04,, 07:02
Praxus is a real "piece of work" as the saying goes.

He even makes other conservatives nervous. :biggrin:

And they should be nervous...seeing where his views lead.

Ray
26 Sep 04,, 08:37
Redstar,

Praxus is the extreme end of the rainbow.

One may not agree with this type of extremism, but isn't it worth knowing what's at the end of the rainbow? It may not be the proverbian pot of gold, but still it is worth knowing.

:biggrin:

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 14:57
Praxus is a real "piece of work" as the saying goes.

He even makes other conservatives nervous.

And they should be nervous...seeing where his views lead.

Wow, how about you respond to my post, that you conveniantly just ignored, once you realized another person was attacking my argument.

According to you, where my view leads is irrelivent because afterall morality is subjective or so goes your opinion:rolleyes:


Do we follow any moderation on this board? Why is a hate statement like above allowed?

Genocide and slavery of Native Americans was justified?


Oh get off your high horse...

How is that a hate statement? Some of our actions against Indians were in fact evil, most of our actions were in fact retaliation against the Indians.

Unless your naive enough to believe that the indians were all perfect peace loving people then I don't know how you can disagree with my statement.


I'm not sticking up for the dictatorship, I'm sticking up for the people inhabiting it when the country in question has not committed agression against us (so their factories are not turning out weapons to kill us, their people are not being conscripted into an army trying to kill us, etc).

Thoose people are the moral responsibility of their Government. All deaths incurred are the result of the nature of their Government.

As for firebombing "innocents" and such. If there be "innocents" they should of course flee if they can. But if we can not identify them without sacrifing American lives and treasury then we are fully justified in killing them. Their death lies on the hands of the initiator of force which is of course the dictatorship (which is an initiator of force almost by it's nature even if they didn't directly attack us).

According to the modern line, we shouldn't have firebombed the German and Japanese cities because that would kill innocent civilians. If we fought WW2 like we fought this war, we would have had millions dead, not just 450,000. According to modern day thinking it would be a moral crime to attack a factory because of "colatoral damage".

But some people might say "well it's a nessecary evil". Well that's non-sense, no evil is nessecary, that's exactly why something is evil, that is to say you shouldn't do it.


But its like you're killing a rapist for his crimes, and then going ahead and raping his victim again yourself. If you treat a country as badly or more badly than the way they were treated before...well, then the war can still be justifiable (there could have been good reasons) but the country being an oppressive dictatorship can no longer be one of those justifications.

Look once the threat is gone we should leave. We shouldn't set anything up. If we want to secure oil then we can keep a force there for that purpose, but that does not make it a Government. A Government has a monopoly on the use of force in a given region, obviously if their ownly protecting a pipeline they can not be considered the Government of the fourign peoples.

ZFBoxcar
26 Sep 04,, 15:47
Thoose people are the moral responsibility of their Government. All deaths incurred are the result of the nature of their Government.

As for firebombing "innocents" and such. If there be "innocents" they should of course flee if they can. But if we can not identify them without sacrifing American lives and treasury then we are fully justified in killing them. Their death lies on the hands of the initiator of force which is of course the dictatorship (which is an initiator of force almost by it's nature even if they didn't directly attack us).

According to the modern line, we shouldn't have firebombed the German and Japanese cities because that would kill innocent civilians. If we fought WW2 like we fought this war, we would have had millions dead, not just 450,000. According to modern day thinking it would be a moral crime to attack a factory because of "colatoral damage".

But some people might say "well it's a nessecary evil". Well that's non-sense, no evil is nessecary, that's exactly why something is evil, that is to say you shouldn't do it.

I am not talking about the proper way to wage a war or whether a defensive war is justifiable (obviously it is, and WWII was the most obviously defensive war ever IMO). Once you are at war, assuming it is defensive (or defensive against threats of force) then you do whatever it takes to win because the enemy government is responsible. I am talking about once that government no longer exists and you are in military control of the country. You can't blame a non-existant government for your treatment of an occupied people, or for abandoning them to fate.



Look once the threat is gone we should leave. We shouldn't set anything up. If we want to secure oil then we can keep a force there for that purpose, but that does not make it a Government. A Government has a monopoly on the use of force in a given region, obviously if their ownly protecting a pipeline they can not be considered the Government of the fourign peoples.

If you leave troops to protect a resource while letting the rest of the country do its own thing you are leaving the protecting troops in a huge amount of danger. Do you want to have to keep fighting the same war over and over again? Most people in that country are not going to say "oh well, that Western oil company found the oil first, its theirs fair and square and we should get no revenue from them and just be greatful they respect their own private property while leaving us in a shit hole". Thus you WILL inevitably have a new government, or numerous factions, that will try to drive out the Westerners or use the threat of force. You can go in and beat them again and again, but then you are disregarding the welfare of the soldiers. The occupied have to have some reason not to fight. Fear probably won't be one of them, as people have been having revolutions and wars for most of recorded history. When things are obviously getting better, people are probably gonna put that revolution on hold. When things get worse post-war, you get communist scum (no offense red star), islamofascists (assuming its a Muslim country, if not, then just fascists/terrorists), out and out anarchists, warlords, etc. And guess what they all will have in common? They want the Western property owners and their protecting soldiers out. Rome gave benifits to a conquered nation. Britain gave structure and certain benifits to conquered nations. The US has done that, and gone one step further in giving them back complete sovreignty. What you seem to want is to go back to the Viking style of dealing with other countries.

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 17:33
I am talking about once that government no longer exists and you are in military control of the country. You can't blame a non-existant government for your treatment of an occupied people, or for abandoning them to fate.

But we shouldn't be occupying a country in the first place unless it is realisticly possible to turn it into a republic and that's the point I am trying to make.


If you leave troops to protect a resource while letting the rest of the country do its own thing you are leaving the protecting troops in a huge amount of danger. Do you want to have to keep fighting the same war over and over again? Most people in that country are not going to say "oh well, that Western oil company found the oil first, its theirs fair and square and we should get no revenue from them and just be greatful they respect their own private property while leaving us in a shit hole". Thus you WILL inevitably have a new government, or numerous factions, that will try to drive out the Westerners or use the threat of force.

Then we destroy them, again like I said before we leave for the most part under the pretext that if they attack us again they will be met with force again.


The occupied have to have some reason not to fight. Fear probably won't be one of them, as people have been having revolutions and wars for most of recorded history. When things are obviously getting better, people are probably gonna put that revolution on hold. When things get worse post-war, you get communist scum (no offense red star), islamofascists (assuming its a Muslim country, if not, then just fascists/terrorists), out and out anarchists, warlords, etc. And guess what they all will have in common? They want the Western property owners and their protecting soldiers out. Rome gave benifits to a conquered nation. Britain gave structure and certain benifits to conquered nations. The US has done that, and gone one step further in giving them back complete sovreignty. What you seem to want is to go back to the Viking style of dealing with other countries.

I'm not argueing against creating constitutional republics that protect the rights of their citizens better then their former Government. All I am saying is that we shouldn't do this unless it's realisticly possible. But when you got a bunch of Islamofascist running around just asking to die I don't see how setting up a free Government could be possible in such a country.


What you seem to want is to go back to the Viking style of dealing with other countries.

Their is a fundamental difference, the Vikings were the bad guys, and we are the good guys.

redstar2000
26 Sep 04,, 17:59
Redstar,

Praxus is the extreme end of the rainbow.

One may not agree with this type of extremism, but isn't it worth knowing what's at the end of the rainbow? It may not be the proverbial pot of gold, but still it is worth knowing.

:biggrin:

No argument from me.

When German capitalists brought Hitler to power in January 1933, they knew what they were doing.

Praxus knows where he wants to "take us".

Want to go there? :eek:

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 18:23
Ok you can stop insulting me and actually respond to my post. The one you choose to ignore AGAIN.

The one posted Yesterday 05:59 PM PST.

redstar2000
26 Sep 04,, 18:59
Ok you can stop insulting me and actually respond to my post. The one you choose to ignore AGAIN.

The one posted Yesterday 05:59 PM PST.

Have you forgotten? You said you were not going to discuss anything with me.

I took you at your word.

Besides, I understand you now: you really believe that the American Empire should now behave towards the rest of the world in the same fashion and for the same reasons as 19th century America behaved towards native American tribes.

You think that's "justified" and even "moral".

In fact, "forward to the 19th century" should be in your signature. I'm sure your ambitions include (at least!) no progressive income tax, no minimum wage, no limitations on the length of the working day, no prohibition of child labor, no rights for workers to organize unions, no free public education, no food & drug regulations, no public health services, certainly no unemployment or welfare benefits...and, for all I know, the restoration of slavery for the "lazy, criminal, and unfit".

Curiously, the age for which you yearn may indeed be returning. But before you break out the champagne, you may want to consider another characteristic of your favorite era.

It was also known as "the age of revolutions".

Praxus
26 Sep 04,, 19:01
Holy shit, what is so complicated about responding to the post?

Your willing to post a page of marxist bull shit but not counter the points I posted.

Look, you claimed Capitalism meant something it doesn't and your basing your entire argument on it. I can see why you refuse to respond.

Ray
26 Sep 04,, 20:52
Folks,

Easy easy.

Let's calmly put our views across.

I find each one has something to contribute. Each one, excepting me, that is.

Confed999
28 Sep 04,, 00:03
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do we follow any moderation on this board? Why is a hate statement like above allowed?

Genocide and slavery of Native Americans was justified?
The word "most" means not all. If little things like that got people banned, you would be long gone for insulting a moderator.