# Do you value your privacy? (political)



## Tina (Nov 9, 2005)

Warning, if you don't want to read anything with any political implications, move to another thread.

Well, we've pretty much lost most of it, but do you value what's left, if anything? Do you feel the loss of that privacy is an issue, or do you think it's worth some sort of amorphous promise of security as a fair exchange?

Was just reading this, and I thought I'd get your opinions on it, and how you feel about this issue.

*FBI may be checking on you, but you have no way to know*

Wed Nov 9, 7:03 AM ET

These days, Americans suspected of no wrongdoing can suddenly find themselves caught up in
FBI surveillance operations.

It's as easy as saying "national security letter."

Using this little-noticed but potent tool, the FBI can demand, for example, that an Internet provider, bank or phone company turn over records of who you call and e-mail, which websites you visit, how much you spend, where you work, fly and vacation, and much more. No judge has to approve the demand, a common check required on more typical subpoenas.

You'd never learn about the secret intrusion, either. It's all classified.

The public got a rare and troubling glimpse behind this curtain when The Washington Post reported Sunday that the FBI now issues thousands of National Security Letters a year. Each can seek many records on many people.

According to The Post and government documents, the Bush administration has quietly rewritten Justice Department rules so it can keep records indefinitely, even when they prove irrelevant to an investigation. The government can also share the records broadly, enabling the FBI to build what amounts to electronic dossiers on untold numbers of Americans.

The report added to a growing bipartisan backlash against several intrusive tools in the USA Patriot Act, which was rushed into law shortly after 9/11 to help combat terrorism. Because the process is largely hidden from the public, Congress and the judiciary, there is no broad assessment of how the tools are applied. But the few cases that have struggled into the light suggest extensive, secret intrusion into the lives of law-abiding people:

 Last summer, the FBI demanded records of everybody who used a specific computer at a Connecticut library. The FBI's letter, delivered by agents, warned the recipient not to disclose the demand "to any person" - seeming to cut him off even from a lawyer. Instead of complying, the Library Connection Inc., which provides computer services, filed suit, seeking to at least protest the FBI demand in public. Months later, the case is in a federal appeals court. Most of it remains sealed, and everyone involved is gagged.

 In December 2003, after intelligence reports hinted at a New Year's Eve attack in Las Vegas, the government launched a digital manhunt there using several tools, including National Security Letters. Investigators sought to capture the names of every tourist in Las Vegas and everyone who rented a car or truck or flew into the airport over several days. Today, long after the hunt proved fruitless, the record of each visitor's hotel stay is in government data banks, The Post reported.

 Last year, after an Internet provider challenged an FBI request for records, a federal judge in New York ruled that the letter violated the Constitution by giving the FBI unchecked powers to get private information. The claim of perpetual secrecy, the judge wrote, has "no place in our open society." The case is on appeal.

No one argues with the need for far-reaching investigative tools to disrupt a terrorist plot. But such tools can become political weapons without scrutiny from judges and the public. Both are absent here.

The National Security Letters don't tell people they can challenge the demands in court. In fact, they direct people to tell no one that the FBI has sought the records. The Justice Department won't even reveal the number of letters it has issued, though it says the volume is substantially less than the 30,000 a year cited in The Post report.

Law enforcement's history of abusing some of its broad powers calls for caution. In the past, the FBI has used the Cold War or protests as excuses to spy on pacifist and civil rights groups. Today's war on terror can easily spawn new abuses.

Parts of the Patriot Act are up for renewal this fall. Congress has an opportunity - and certainly good reason - to place new limits on the FBI's powers. The war on terror doesn't have to become a war on the privacy and free speech of ordinary Americans.

Article found Here.


----------



## Webmaster (Nov 9, 2005)

Tina said:


> Well, we've pretty much lost most of it, but do you value what's left, if anything? Do you feel the loss of that privacy is an issue, or do you think it's worth some sort of amorphous promise of security as a fair exchange?


 
Apart from the political aspects highlighted in that article, there is another aspect that often baffles me.... Did ANY of us have any idea in the early days of the web that anything we put up there would stay there and be available to the whole word for ever after? Was anyone prescient enough to foresee how the web would become truly worldwide and that every page, every statement, every post would become indexed and available? Heck, they used to need expensive investigations to get the scoop on a person; today whatever anyone has ever done or said is a minute or two of googling away, and there truly isn't anything you can do about it. 

The second thing that frosts me is the absolutely hideous onslaught of gross, appalling, slimy spam that is literally destroying the email/net experience and can do you harm in the process. Spammers steal your identity by making it appear as if their spam came from individuals, steal your ability to do business by making email unreliable via the necessary spam filters, and are costing the global economy probably many billions a year. You can no longer receive emails from your bank, eBay, PayPal, etc., because 99% of it is fakes by crooks and scammers. Yet, we're collectively still more interested in whatever the latest topic/gossip-du-jour is than this colossal travesty, and I assume the authorities in charge are so grossly outmatched by the spammers, scammers and net criminals that it's not even a fight.


----------



## eljay (Nov 9, 2005)

Incoming rant...

I think this is part of a wider issue of corruption leading governing bodies astray (almost exactly like in Animal Farm... ). Not deliberate Badness as such, but over time lobbiests and such do gradually steer law making....

... I find myself worrying about our rights being eaten away by technology companies any in order to combat "terror"...

... DRM: Do you know you know longer own any music you "buy", you pretty much rent it? 

Only today Tony Blair tried to pass a law allowing terror suspects to be held for 90 days. Thank fuck* it wasn't passed. Police state incoming?

* - i think use of norty words is justified here!

The likes of spam i just see as an obvious way for bad people to exploit others , just like spyware etc. This is something which new law is required to tackle... ironically the opposite of the above 

</rant>

On a side note, it is a good thing that there is room on these boards to express such rants


----------



## rainyday (Nov 9, 2005)

> Law enforcement's history of abusing some of its broad powers calls for caution. In the past, the FBI has used the Cold War or protests as excuses to spy on pacifist and civil rights groups. Today's war on terror can easily spawn new abuses.
> 
> Parts of the Patriot Act are up for renewal this fall. Congress has an opportunity - and certainly good reason - to place new limits on the FBI's powers. The war on terror doesn't have to become a war on the privacy and free speech of ordinary Americans.



I think powers are probably being abused, but my old journalism professors would have said the last two paragraphs make this an editorial, not an article.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 9, 2005)

I really can't decide which way I feel about this. Some people have called me "wishy-washy" because I aways try to see all sides of an issue. Sometimes I am successful, sometimes not. Please bear with me.

I recognize a lot of openings here for abuse of power, especially without checks by the courts. After all, how many people just might be intimidated by such a letter from the FBI and do exactly as "requested?" I'm sure more than one of you see similarities to McCarthy's secret lists and ensuing witch-hunts here.

On the other hand, I also think we need some heavy-handed protection from terrorists. Hopefully, in an ideal world (hah!), those of us who haven't done anything wrong would have nothing to worry about. 

Can anyone see a way to reconcile and guarantee both safety and personal freedoms? I wish I knew the answer.


----------



## Tina (Nov 9, 2005)

So true, Conrad. I've tried to get Tripod to remove my original webpage, the one I created in 1998, for goodness' sakes, to no avail. It will probably still be there, along with roaches and margerine, after the world has ended. If the gov't would use their powers against spammers instead of the average Joe, we'd all be better off. 

I'm of the camp that believes, as Ben Franklin did, that "People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." Problem is, those of us who care end up in the same bin with those who don't (well, many do care, but they think that it's worth it to give up every bit of privacy we have in order to 'stop terror,' and in the end, that loss of freedom will *be* at least part of the terror). 

Part of the problem I see with this is that no matter how much data they gather on us, if they don't know how to use it properly to sift through to find the *real* criminals, then all it becomes is Big Brother. And, fact is, we've seen that they aren't very good at orchestrating these things, when we look at the pre 9/11 info that was ignored and then the mess that was the Hurricane Katrina rescue effort (and that's just this admin, and not the ones before, who aren't blameless in this mess, either). They still don't have it together on cleaning up and giving the bodies back to families. What makes us think:

1) They actually want that info just to catch terrorists and not just to have info on all of us as a means of control.

2) This info won't be disseminated to people who just shouldn't see it.

3) They actually even know what to do with it to make whatever info they have on *real* criminals useful in any real, timely way.

If freedom is one of the founding principles, and if without privacy one cannot have any sort of real freedom, and if they are supposedly working for us and not against us, just what is happening to America? I'm a private person and this just really appalls me.

And true, Rainy, although two little paragraphs out of the entire article might taint it, but don't change whatever facts are thererin. It seems that, by degree, real journalism is going the way of the dodo, and what we have been moving towards is infotainment.


----------



## Zandoz (Nov 9, 2005)

It seems to me that the same judge approval process as a subpoena, on gathering information on citizens would be the first step. And possibly the same kind of approval process for long term retention/accumulation information on a citizen.
As far as non-citizens goes, I think they are fair game.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Nov 9, 2005)

Well - I am extremely angry about the things this administration is doing. But (man I'm gonna get flamed for this) anyone who really believes this is, or ever was, a free country is living in a dream world created by the powers that be. 

But - I'm a cynic at heart and I don't believe anything our government wants us to swallow. It's all about propaganda to control the masses.


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 9, 2005)

The world is quite a remarkably changing world, I am afraid.

Makes me think of global social problems and how it has steadily impacted us..... so I discovered some links on the world wide web for any of you who like to surf, read, browse, and possibly share something interesting from the links I am about to post, or elsewhere:

http://gsociology.icaap.org/
http://gsociology.icaap.org/reports.html
http://www.sdsmt.edu/online-courses/is/soc100/Glob_Strat.htm
http://research2.csci.educ.ubc.ca/soc100/conceptmap/terms/global_stratification.php


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

Tina said:


> I'm of the camp that believes, as Ben Franklin did, that "People who are willing to give up freedom for the sake of short term security, deserve neither freedom nor security." Problem is, those of us who care end up in the same bin with those who don't (well, many do care, but they think that it's worth it to give up every bit of privacy we have in order to 'stop terror,' and in the end, that loss of freedom will *be* at least part of the terror).
> 
> Part of the problem I see with this is that no matter how much data they gather on us, if they don't know how to use it properly to sift through to find the *real* criminals, then all it becomes is Big Brother. And, fact is, we've seen that they aren't very good at orchestrating these things, when we look at the pre 9/11 info that was ignored and then the mess that was the Hurricane Katrina rescue effort (and that's just this admin, and not the ones before, who aren't blameless in this mess, either). They still don't have it together on cleaning up and giving the bodies back to families. What makes us think:
> 
> ...



Tina, I agree with you 100 percent. The government has an established history of abusing these kinds of powers - look at the FBI's harassment of Martin Luther King, Jr., or the witch hunts conducted by Joe McCarthy in the 1950's. I think any information gathered by the government will be used far more against dissenters, and with far greater effect, than it will be used against actual terrorists. 

If we surrender our freedoms, we will simply become fodder for the corporate/military/political machine. If that happens, the terrorists will be the least of our worries.

Given its current direction, our government scares me more than the terrorists. I find myself leaning more and more toward the libertarian view.


----------



## Jes (Nov 9, 2005)

I will say that as a librarian, things like the Patriot Act are new, and chilling, and very, very real. This isn't some 'out there' idea for people in my field ('out there' meaning 'I know it's happening and I have an opinion but it doesn't really touch me on a daily basis') but a reality. I've done a lot of reading about it over the years, but I'm not in the mood to lay it all out. Just know that the gov't now can, and does, know more about you than it used to and it doesn't have to go through the same channels it set up to be...fair (not the right word). Appropriate? Reasonable? Something. I"m starving and not thinking well anymore.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 9, 2005)

As someone who is constantly delayed at airports, I HATE the intrusions made by the government into my life. I know I am under at least passive surveilance. I know I'm on a list of people to hassle in airports. I know my communications are potentially monitored.

That being said, I have decided I don't care. I will continue to publish my political views and rip into the plutocratic heirarchy which controls the political processes of the United States.

We do NOT need protection from terrorists beyond what benefits we get from no longer supporting repressive regimes. To withdraw support for the totalitarian governments we prop up would eliminate all foreign-based terrorism. Cutting Puerto Rico free and making more national parks where loggers couldn't go would essentially wipe out domestic terrorism. But because someone, somewhere is hoping for increased illicit profits at taxpayer expense, and has the power to influence the decision-making process, our blood and treasure are being wasted on the excessive profits of the oligarchies of America - and THAT is why we are targets for terrorists.

(For the record, the State Department *was* shot through with Russian spies in the 40's and 50's, as a result of liberal hiring policies in the FDR administration. The _Venona_ documents confirm this. The same Soviet spies were able to shut down McCarthy's investigation and attack him personally to end the investigations into their activities.)

I vote Libertarian because both the Democrats and Republicans are owned by the big money-men. Both will support the Khmer Rouges of the world, if the bloodthirsty tyrants in question will give special access to their oil and natural gas supplies to US corporations. I spit on those parties and the whole power structure built up around them.

I live in a totalitarian state. It is a soft state, where I am more likely to be ignored and discredited than disappeared and killed, but it is a totalitarian state.


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Nov 9, 2005)

Comes down to trust, and it's because we too often can't trust our government that we have privacy laws in place.

They're now doing random bag checks upon entering the subways here in NYC, which is wholly stupid, wildly offensive, and completely ineffective. They say they're not violating anyone's rights because everyone's free to not use the subway if they don't like having their stuff rifled through. They also say that possession of non-terroristic contraband will not be prosecuted. But you've gotta have huevos grande to wave a baggie full of ganj under the noses of the NYPD and expect to saunter off afterward.

Whenever I see their little science experiment table set up, I get the White Girl Wave-Through. Haven't had to open my bag to 'em yet. I certainly want to be safe on the subways, and if there was a point to this exercise, it might be worth discussion. But there isn't. 

The Patriot Act is the biggest misnomer since [insert your own really big misnomer here, please -- I have a headache].


----------



## MissToodles (Nov 9, 2005)

I think there are more pressing matters in the world that tend to get ignored. 

It's strange, I get on the subway at its terminus and not once have I've seen any cops check anyone. Some search!


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

fatlane said:


> (For the record, the State Department *was* shot through with Russian spies in the 40's and 50's, as a result of liberal hiring policies in the FDR administration. The _Venona_ documents confirm this. The same Soviet spies were able to shut down McCarthy's investigation and attack him personally to end the investigations into their activities.)



I agree with just about everything you said except the above quote. (Okay, maybe I'm not into spitting on anyone, but I can relate to the sentiment.)

McCarthy's "investigation" largely focused on a bunch of poor liberal mooks in the entertainment industry, along with anyone, anywhere, who disagreed with him. He primarily succeeded in ruining the lives of several people who were harmless, at worst. His effect on the State Department was nearly nonexistent, as was the "threat" posed by whatever spies might have been in there. Although vicious, the Soviet Union's spy apparatus generally was as ineffective as ours was (and is), which is saying alot.


----------



## Michelle (Nov 9, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> The second thing that frosts me is the absolutely hideous onslaught of gross, appalling, slimy spam that is literally destroying the email/net experience and can do you harm in the process. Spammers steal your identity by making it appear as if their spam came from individuals, steal your ability to do business by making email unreliable via the necessary spam filters, and are costing the global economy probably many billions a year. You can no longer receive emails from your bank, eBay, PayPal, etc., because 99% of it is fakes by crooks and scammers. Yet, we're collectively still more interested in whatever the latest topic/gossip-du-jour is than this colossal travesty, and I assume the authorities in charge are so grossly outmatched by the spammers, scammers and net criminals that it's not even a fight.


 
Man, this gets to me too. My Yahoo account receives over a 100 spams a day and that's the reason I sign up for nothing with any email address but that one. I never, ever used my comcast address to sign up for anything and was lucky enough to have it totally clean and without spam. My luck ran out sometime in June of this year, though, and that email address now receives up to 20 spams a day. I've only given that address out to a handful of people. How does that happen?

Lately the thing has been receving an email with no sender and no subject. You want to know what the heck it is but you don't want to click on it. I took one of those C-Net online courses regarding computer security and it said that things can be embedded in email now that you can't even see and that use only one pixel, that will compromise your security and/or privacy. How awful.

As far as the internet goes, it's prudent now to take nothing for granted. The fact is that if you put something out there, it's not impossible for it to show up somewhere you don't want it to show up. That makes it really stupid of me to shop online, but I still do. So when I start having to deal with identify theft, I guess I won't be able to grouse too much. 

With regards to government surveillance, as cynical as this may sound, I think if they wanted to dig into your "stuff" in the past, they always could and would. Now they just have the law behind them. It'd be nice to believe the bottom line is that if you act in accordance with the law, you have nothing to worry about. But that's naive, isn't it?


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 9, 2005)

I hate this too, because we can't be sure what the government is going to do with it! 

Yes, they can sell it to marketing company for a profit. 

Or worse they could bring back McCarthyism, and go after some group that they don't like! 

McCarthy proved one thing, in his life. It is not if you have anything to hide, it how they feel like interpreting the evidence.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 9, 2005)

> As someone who is constantly delayed at airports


So if someone hijacks and aeroplane or blows it up in the air for whatever reason, all because you couldn't wait a little while, that makes it alright? As long as your fine self does not get interupted in the daily scheme of things for possibly the better good of others, its fine? 


> They're now doing random bag checks upon entering the subways here in NYC, which is wholly stupid, wildly offensive


How so? Bags have to be searched at airports, sports stadiums and many other places, so why not on the subway? 


> We do NOT need protection from terrorists beyond what benefits we get from no longer supporting repressive regimes. To withdraw support for the totalitarian governments we prop up would eliminate all foreign-based terrorism. Cutting Puerto Rico free and making more national parks where loggers couldn't go would essentially wipe out domestic terrorism. But because someone, somewhere is hoping for increased illicit profits at taxpayer expense, and has the power to influence the decision-making process, our blood and treasure are being wasted on the excessive profits of the oligarchies of America - and THAT is why we are targets for terrorists.


This seems to completely ignore reality within international politics? Do you want a return to isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s? If you withdraw support for "totalitarian" governments, it wont stop foreign based terrorism, it will probably increase it as those governments in the hotspots, after loosing military aid, can no longer supress the terrorosit networks. That is why the United States has made friends with less democratic nations in the middle east and Centeral asia because they need them to support anti terror moves. Domestic terrorism is essentially down to the extremists and nuts, such as the various neo nazi groups "Christian Patriots", the likes of Timothy McVea in Oklahoma and other nuts. 

I am not suggesting that the patriot act is good by any means (it goes way overbaord), but _some_ personal privacy must be given up in this time. Its unfortunate that it is, but well it has.


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Nov 9, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> How so? Bags have to be searched at airports, sports stadiums and many other places, so why not on the subway?



Because this is not a screening, as is done at airports and stadiums. It is a random bag check. For the average Joe, it means delays and loss of privacy. For the terrorist, it means they simply enter the subway at a different spot, where there is no bag check table set up.

The difference is perhaps 30 minutes, which won't stop a terrorist attack, but it will get weary workers fired when they're repeatedly made late for work.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> This seems to completely ignore reality within international politics? Do you want a return to isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s? If you withdraw support for "totalitarian" governments, it wont stop foreign based terrorism, it will probably increase it as those governments in the hotspots, after loosing military aid, can no longer supress the terrorosit networks. That is why the United States has made friends with less democratic nations in the middle east and Centeral asia because they need them to support anti terror moves. Domestic terrorism is essentially down to the extremists and nuts, such as the various neo nazi groups "Christian Patriots", the likes of Timothy McVea in Oklahoma and other nuts.



Our support for totalitarian governments has always gotten us into trouble, and it weakens our moral authority to boot. Look at our support of the military rulers in Vietnam. Look at our support for the Shah of Iran. Look at our support of Saddam back when he was fighting Iran. Look at the Iran-Contra mess. We need to stop supporting dictators and thugs and maybe even refrain from invading countries that pose no threat to us. Such activities create and energize terrorists. We could use a good dose of (selective) isolationism.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 9, 2005)

Yep, and then countries become breeding grounds for terrorists that will seek to break your isolation, to say subtly. So you are suggesting that the United States pull out of Pakistan and withdraw support of friendly governments in the middle east and central asia? But it is not in the national interest to stop supporting "less democratic" governments, for then it becomes impossible for American interests and citizens abroad to be secure, or indeed from domestically if terrorism is allowed to breed unchecked overseas, it will slowly spread like a cancer back to the continential US. 



> Because this is not a screening, as is done at airports and stadiums. It is a random bag check. For the average Joe, it means delays and loss of privacy. For the terrorist, it means they simply enter the subway at a different spot, where there is no bag check table set up.
> 
> The difference is perhaps 30 minutes, which won't stop a terrorist attack, but it will get weary workers fired when they're repeatedly made late for work.


Oh please, you have only to loose out if you have something to hide from the police or authorities. Also, the "us and them" game has always been trotted out. Also, the way that you have structured this is that "its a government war against the working class", the "us and them" argument, so bedloved and bedraggled. It may be an inconvennce for some, but it is a neccessary aspect to combating terrorism, or other crime. Then when it does happen, it will be "oh, maybe if we had of checked bags it might not have happened".


----------



## fatlane (Nov 9, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> So if someone hijacks and aeroplane or blows it up in the air for whatever reason, all because you couldn't wait a little while, that makes it alright? As long as your fine self does not get interupted in the daily scheme of things for possibly the better good of others, its fine?
> 
> How so? Bags have to be searched at airports, sports stadiums and many other places, so why not on the subway?
> 
> ...




Had the US practiced isolationism in 1916-1917, there wouldn't have been a need to not practice it in the 1940's. 

The US does not support undemocratic governments because we need help fighting bad guys. The US supports undemocratic governments so as to exploit economic advantages in those nations. The Taliban weren't bad guys until they nixed the trans-Afghanistan pipeline deal. Saddam Hussein was a former CIA assassin who didn't become a bad guy until the US maneuvered him into attacking Kuwait by encouraging Kuwait to slant-drill into Iraq fields. Mossadeq in Iran was a leftist populist who planned to nationalize oil operations in Iran - for that, the US brought down his government. International terrorism is crows coming home to roost.

And random searches are one thing. I get searched EVERY time, including special searches at the boarding gate. I write magazine articles that are very critical of US government policy. I know Palestinians with sympathies for Hamas. I have written articles critical of Israeli conduct as a nation. I advocate peaceful mechanisms of change, but report on worldwide mayhem in the name of various concepts of freedom. I'm on a list because I criticize the government. COINTELPRO, all over again, I reckon...

Sure, they're looking for bad guys, but in the course of looking for the bad guys, they're also corralling the loyal opposition, as a precaution. That's not freedom.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 9, 2005)

Why not just become a conspiricy nut and be done with it?


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Nov 9, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Oh please, you have only to loose out if you have something to hide from the police or authorities. Also, the "us and them" game has always been trotted out. Also, the way that you have structured this is that "its a government war against the working class", the "us and them" argument, so bedloved and bedraggled. It may be an inconvennce for some, but it is a neccessary aspect to combating terrorism, or other crime. Then when it does happen, it will be "oh, maybe if we had of checked bags it might not have happened".



Hmmm... I'm not sure how else to convey my point. What they're doing in the NYC subways is setting up a card table, propping up a poster board on an easel, and stopping brown people with bags and backpacks. If a terrorist would rather not have his explosives pilfered, he exits the station and walks down to the next one, where there is likely no search detail. 

This is not a screening. Not a means of combating terrorism. It is a joke. Even the Keystone Cops of terrorism wouldn't be hindered by what they're doing. 

And your statement that only those with something to hide should object to unlawful searches is very, I dunno, Fox News? Rights are being violated, and we are no safer for it.

Trying to stop terrorism at the tail end is never going to work, and the way I see it, happily and uselessly forfeiting your hard-won rights is about the most unpatriotic thing an American can do.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 9, 2005)

"Anyone in the United States today who isn't paranoid must be crazy." - Robert Anton Wilson

I'll take a good-natured exception to the "conspiracy nut" label. History is not a series of random, disconnected events. It's the product of plans carefully laid by people in positions of power. Conspiracies, if you like to style them so, but be that as it may, that's what we have. 

For crying out loud, Country Joe (of the "Fixin' to Die Rag" fame) got investigated by the FBI. When he requested his file under the Freedom of Information Act, he got it - almost 100% blacked out.

There are some interesting documents in and among the flotsam of normal correspondence at http://www.thememoryhole.org/espionage_den/ from recovered files from the US Embassy in Tehran. I would also direct you to http://www.pavelicpapers.com/ for a very well-researched study of how the Vatican assisted in the transport of Nazi and Fascist war criminals out of Europe at the end of WW2 - with CIC knowledge and involvement. Although the US Atty. General's investigation into Klaus Barbie concluded that it was an isolated case, it names Fr. Draganovic as the Vatican contact who could get Barbie out of Europe and into South America.

Why, even Australia fell victim to a US scheme. In 1975, the CIA brought down the Whitlam government.

Moreover, I refer you to the excellent book by Professor Alfred W. McCoy, "The Politics of Heroin", detailing an extensive history of how governments, the US being latest in that chain, used heroin as part of their means of attaining foreign policy objectives.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 9, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Yep, and then countries become breeding grounds for terrorists that will seek to break your isolation, to say subtly. So you are suggesting that the United States pull out of Pakistan and withdraw support of friendly governments in the middle east and central asia? But it is not in the national interest to stop supporting "less democratic" governments, for then it becomes impossible for American interests and citizens abroad to be secure, or indeed from domestically if terrorism is allowed to breed unchecked overseas, it will slowly spread like a cancer back to the continential US.
> 
> 
> Oh please, you have only to loose out if you have something to hide from the police or authorities. Also, the "us and them" game has always been trotted out. Also, the way that you have structured this is that "its a government war against the working class", the "us and them" argument, so bedloved and bedraggled. It may be an inconvennce for some, but it is a neccessary aspect to combating terrorism, or other crime. Then when it does happen, it will be "oh, maybe if we had of checked bags it might not have happened".



In response to the first quote: The terrorists attack us because we support corrupt and oppressive regimes within their countries, and/or because our corporations exploit their countries, and/or because we are less than even-handed in our support of Israel. (I'm not saying that makes their methods right, or their personnel and sympathizers any less evil, so don't bother going there.) But the fact remains that they have no interest in coming over here beyond trying to make us stop interfering over there. 

In response to the second quote: You're talking nonsense. The point made was that the searches are ineffective and therefore accomplish nothing beyond inconveniencing the passengers. Any terrorist dumb enough to be caught by this system will have accidently blown himself up before leaving his garage. Nobody's saying it's "us against them," or class warfare, although I can give you plenty of examples of the latter in other aspects of our lives. These searches are nothing more than tawdry political theatre.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Nov 9, 2005)

This administration has been the most secretive once since Nixon's. I don't trust anything they do, and it's not because I'm a Democrat - it's because I've seen too many basic rights swept away in the name of "fighting terrorism".

I may be repeating what someone else posted, but Ben Franklin once said that those who are willing to give up some freedom in exchange for security deserve neither.

I think the Patriot Act should be repealed. Completely. And immediately.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 10, 2005)

Well, you have said your bit, I have said mine, nobody is going to change any others views, so well thats that. 


> Why, even Australia fell victim to a US scheme. In 1975, the CIA brought down the Whitlam government.


Well, that certainly takes the biscuit for the biggest load of bilge ever written. And I suppose the moon landings were faked (There is a possibility, one must keep an open mind ), and the Soviet Union won the cold war, and MacDonalds is secretly testing DoD weapons, to fatten a population beyond any fighting capability, whilst simultaneously the RAND corporation is sponsoring Robert Mugabe, who in turn is in talks with George Bush, who inturn is part of an international drug cartel run by the British royal family, with tacet support of the Commonwealth and the Chinese government? 

So, should america stop supporting democracy abroad? As even freindly democratic governments are viewed by these terrorists, such as AQ, as being secular and corrupt, so if the US supports these democratic governments abroad, even tacitly, then the terrorists will try and strike at the heartland of America. 


> Trying to stop terrorism at the tail end is never going to work, and the way I see it, happily and uselessly forfeiting your hard-won rights is about the most unpatriotic thing an American can do.


So you have to do it abroad then at the source.

Well, if everyone is so against what Mr Bush is doing, how come he is still in the whitehouse? Or shall I just assume that the Micheal Moore will be brought out from under the covers once more, or that perhaps Mr Bush has been given a mandate by the people of the US to carry out his policies.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 10, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> In response to the first quote: The terrorists attack us because we support corrupt and oppressive regimes within their countries, and/or because our corporations exploit their countries, and/or because we are less than even-handed in our support of Israel. (I'm not saying that makes their methods right, or their personnel and sympathizers any less evil, so don't bother going there.) But the fact remains that they have no interest in coming over here beyond trying to make us stop interfering over there.



I agree somewhat, but also feel there are other reasons the US is a popular target. Groups such as Al Qaeda need an enemy to keep their own support going, and what better enemy than a nation that provides religious freedoms to their citizens? That makes us the "infidel." 

If it wasn't the US, they'd find someone else. It's past time the extreme liberals quit automatically blaming this country or the status quo (which is sometimes at fault, sometimes not) for the actions of others. There are truly problems here, but the media, looking for readers and ratings, push the idea of class and race warfare farther than is accurate. It's easier for them to exploit conflicts than to help fix the problems. 

It's one thing to recognize your own weaknesses and try to fix them. It's completely another to be an apologist every time someone wants to play the victim card (for any reason; race, religion, gender, socio-economic status, sexual orientation, etc.) You do not cause change with that, but rather invoke scorn from others who have escaped that cycle.

Over the last few posts, I'd have to mostly agree with Australlian Lord.


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 10, 2005)

SORRY!!! RANT BELOW

So, our policies have nothing to do with the terrorist threats? We are the poor victims of lunatics who are attacking our interests without any reason? That is what I am sensing from some people in this thread. Also, have the policies put in place by our leaders reduced the threat at all? Please do not say that no attacks have occurred in the US for the past four years. There have been more threats to our country's interests abroad that for us to say the current administration's policies are working would be a farce. We are not safer as a result. We have created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and given the whole world a reason to hate us because of Iraq and our foreign policy. We no longer have a moral high ground or any type of authority. If we were truly interested in democracy, then we would let the Iraqi's determine their own fate instead of having our hands in every step of the process there. We would encourage all the Middle East countries to hold democratic and fair elections. Then we would get religious leaders running countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Yet that is not what we want. Which is why we can not claim that we are seeking the spread of democracy in all truth. We want puppets in power who would take steps only after consulting us all the time. 

Here, in the US, we are not safer. The loss of civil liberties is a big concern. As the start of this post mentioned, the national security letters has been an abuse of power. As Bob Barr, a republican said recently, the government must have an articulable suspicion before seeking information on any person in this country. Yet these national security letters sent to thousands of people does not seem to meet that standard. Also, this administration like its predecessor has a file on at least 10,000 of its critics or people that they deem to be detractors.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 10, 2005)

That isn't what I meant, or even quite what I said. I'm actually trying to take a moderate view, acknowledging that our system is flawed, but also that some others simply will use any excuse to make trouble or create an enemy. It's extremism I try to avoid.

Those letters are a true abuse of power. No argument there. 

I sometimes wonder if isolationism wouldn't be to our advantage. The US should be the most self-sufficient country possible, with the space and resources we have. But I also know that progress doesn't happen in a vaccuum. 

I really just meant that we should question other nations' motives as much as our own "leadership's" motives. Everything is not relative, and every nation jockeys for advantage however they can. We are an easy target because of our freedoms (which the terrorists take advantage of). I'm glad we have them, and I don't want to lose them. It is those freedoms that allow a thread like this one to go on.

Just my musings. Don't mean for them to be so disjointed.


----------



## Jes (Nov 10, 2005)

ssbbwlover2 said:


> SORRY!!! RANT BELOW
> 
> .




You talk purdy, Jay.


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thank you Jes. I try.


----------



## Jes (Nov 10, 2005)

ssbbwlover2 said:


> Thank you Jes. I try.



it's rare that someone says something (types something) exactly as I would have done, if I'd been motivated to do so. you can probably speak for me from now on. that'll give me more time to eat, which is all I want to do lately.


----------



## Tina (Nov 10, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> I sometimes wonder if isolationism wouldn't be to our advantage. The US should be the most self-sufficient country possible, with the space and resources we have. But I also know that progress doesn't happen in a vaccuum.



We are far less capable of that than ever. We used to have the world's largest manufacturing base, but no longer. We used to have the world's largest military, but do no longer. We used to be the world's largest supplier of oil products and gasoline, but are no longer. And we didn't used to be owned by other countries, but we are now. We've been the world's biggest superpower, but will likely be surpassed by China, and if we value our country and situation, we'll look back to those years when we were more self-sufficient and aim for that again, if it isn't too late. As it is, were our debts to be called in, we'd be in dire trouble.

Isolationism doesn't work, common sense does.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 10, 2005)

Jes said:


> You talk purdy, Jay.



Gotta second that. Thanks for saying the same things I was about to say.

Betty: I'm more of a libertarian than a liberal. And sure, most other nations warrant as much criticism as ours, or more. But we live here, and what our country does reflects on us as well as affecting us directly. When the government restricts our liberties at home and behaves badly abroad, it's a cop-out to say, "Well, most of the other guys are worse." If you're going to fight an evil enemy by becoming more like them, why bother fighting them? 

Also, the terrorists don't care if we have religious freedom here. They just don't want it where they are. And neither do most of the "official" governments we are supporting that they are fighting to overthrow.

Tina, just read your latest post, and I think you're right on - again.


----------



## Tina (Nov 10, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> If you're going to fight an evil enemy by becoming more like them, why bother fighting them?



This is totally quotable, ods. So quotable I'm thinking of putting it in my sig line -- do ya mind?


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 10, 2005)

Thanks Old. Just typing like I see it. 

Jes: I just love to put my 2 cents about things also. Great minds think a like.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 10, 2005)

Tina said:


> This is totally quotable, ods. So quotable I'm thinking of putting it in my sig line -- do ya mind?



Of course I wouldn't mind. I'd be honored.


----------



## Tina (Nov 10, 2005)

Ods, you're in good company.


----------



## Tina (Nov 10, 2005)

A couple of things I've meant to say but forgot.

First, I detest the ill-named Patriot Act, but I do feel that steps should be taken to protect national security. Problem is, historically, we've often gone about it the wrong way (just one example, the Japanese Internment camps). I think that some powers should be expanded, because the devices that terrorists use are more sophisticated, so the gov't should be allowed, within certain parameters, to look in on that.

Problem is, what is done with the information -- the *real* information they gather? Our government is, and has long been, inefficient and frought with corruption and areas of incompetence. I have no real answers, but I can see when something isn't working and this isn't.

Secondly, Rainy, I've been meaning to ask you: were you a journalism major? I took journalism at the college here and really liked it. Unfortuantely, they did away with that department, along with the school newspaper. And again, yes, you're right about those last two paragraphs. I didn't choose the article for it's lack of bias, but it was more an instance of reading it and being fed up and wanting to discuss the issue. I've been reading about the PA from the start and it has always bothered and frustrated me. There just has to be a better way to do it.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 10, 2005)

Tina said:


> ... but I do feel that steps should be taken to protect national security. Problem is, historically, we've often gone about it the wrong way (just one example, the Japanese Internment camps). I think that some powers should be expanded, because the devices that terrorists use are more sophisticated, so the gov't should be allowed, within certain parameters, to look in on that.
> 
> Problem is, what is done with the information -- the *real* information they gather? Our government is, and has long been, inefficient and frought with corruption and areas of incompetence. I have no real answers, but I can see when something isn't working and this isn't.



Thanks, Tina. This is some of what I've been trying to express.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 10, 2005)

If you want to look into the heart of this administration, look at the debate now being waged over whether we should be allowed to torture people. This is not an issue of Republican vs. Democrat. We have John McCain, a man with whom I disagree on many policies but respect immensely, trying to pass an anti-torture resolution. Then we have George Bush, a man with whom I disagree on many policies and respect not at all, fighting tooth and nail to make torture permissible. Is this what we want for America?

Bush and Cheney were elected partly because of their so-called religious "values." So educate this benighted unbeliever: who would Jesus torture?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Nov 10, 2005)

ssbbwlover2 said:


> SORRY!!! RANT BELOW
> 
> So, our policies have nothing to do with the terrorist threats? We are the poor victims of lunatics who are attacking our interests without any reason?



Oh hey, didn't you hear? They attack us because they hate our freedom. Yeah, right. They comandeer airplanes and fly them into buildings because women can go out uncovered and we have the right to vote. Well guess what? If they wait long enough, we won't have any freedom left, so they won't have to hate us anymore.  Besides, ask the women of Iraq and Afghanistan how much freedom we've given them. They STILL can't go out uncovered and in fact in some cases it's worse now in Iraq because in some places, given the lack of firm governmental order, the religious fundamentals are running the show.



> Also, have the policies put in place by our leaders reduced the threat at all? Please do not say that no attacks have occurred in the US for the past four years. There have been more threats to our country's interests abroad that for us to say the current administration's policies are working would be a farce. We are not safer as a result.



They had a graphic on the news the other day that showed that there are nearly twice as many terrorist attacks SINCE 9/11 as there were before. Sure they haven't happened here in the good ol' US of A. But they have happened against Americans in other countries. (Does anyone honestly believe that the most recent hotel bombings in Jordan -- at American hotels, mind you -- was anything but an attack on America?)



> We have created a breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq and given the whole world a reason to hate us because of Iraq and our foreign policy.



Absolutely. If there's one thing that terrorists love is an unstable government with lots of discontented, disaffected people. We've provided them with both. (Yay, us!)



> We no longer have a moral high ground or any type of authority. If we were truly interested in democracy, then we would let the Iraqi's determine their own fate instead of having our hands in every step of the process there. We would encourage all the Middle East countries to hold democratic and fair elections. Then we would get religious leaders running countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Yet that is not what we want. Which is why we can not claim that we are seeking the spread of democracy in all truth. We want puppets in power who would take steps only after consulting us all the time.



I couldn't possibly agree more. We lost the moral high ground when we started torturing Iraqi prisoners, and now we're finding out even MORE about prisoners being tortured. There's even a news story being circulated in Italy (our allies in this) about using white phosophorus weapons on the Iraqi people. Aw, how nice. Kinda makes Agent Orange look like Play Doh. Here's a linkie dink if anyone's interested. Notice how it hasn't made it to our media? (That damn liberal bias...) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4417024.stm

As for the whole loss of Civil Liberties issue, it's comforting to know that our government has the right to keep all kinds of secrets from us. And yet where we visit on the web, what books we check out, who we call must be made available to them. Doesn't that make you sleep better at night? I'm just glad posts like this can't be used against me. 

Oh wait.... shit. Now they're going to have my name on a list somewhere.


----------



## JMNYC (Nov 10, 2005)

I don't have to wonder---I KNOW there are files opened on both myself and my wife. We went to (this country, bordering China) as guests of the council to the President to play a show at the Sports Arena. All four band members had files opened and, as we are each lambs with halos over our heads, we were allowed into the country. Got about 20 feet away from the President at a party when two goons moved me a good distance away with their bodies.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 10, 2005)

Well, Australian_Lord is right, no way are we going to change the other's mind. I'll be happy for him to say, "Fatlane, you ignorant slut!" (I have this *thing* about Jane Curtin...) when next we cross words, with the hope we will continue to not use cross words.

I have a friend who fled Nigeria in 1995 when Sani Abacha swept his part of the country for "traitors" who drove off Shell in 1993. He got away, but Ken Saro-Wiwa stayed. Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed as a traitor on this day, ten years ago, by the Nigerian government. His memory lives on in the hearts of the Ogoni people he sought to save from tyranny.

The freedom to tell the truth is vital. The freedom to have justice is vital. This is what I learned from Ken Saro-Wiwa.


----------



## Aliena (Nov 11, 2005)

I'm just curious when Americans will say, "Enough is enough, and I want my freedoms back!"
I hate to say this, but I can't help but feel we are on the edge of a civil war. The politics in D.C. are very superficial, not even touching a tenth of the issues each and every one of you bring up here. 
Personally, I find it frightening that my name could be on a list somewhere, with everything I've ever done or haven't done, all for the sake of homeland security. If they (select private government) can create dossiers on any given American and keep them so private that not even the person in question can look at them, then wouldn't it be just as easy for them to make anything up? 

We live in a country now where the Federal government can come into your home and seize it, for private development. 
We live in a land where children are being taught sex before God, or any Higher Power for that matter. 
We live in a country where criminals are given more rights than the victims, while at the same time; innocent people are sitting in prisons fighting for their rights that have been taken away. 
We live in a country where illegal immigrants can cross the border, commit crimes, cross back over the border and then do the same again the next day.
We live in a country where, at any given time, your house can be searched without a warrant. 
We live in a country where there are Americans fighting for the rights of terrorists, to use our courts to sue our government for ill-treatment; the same courts they do not respect, let alone acknowledge. 
We live in a country that is now being run by elite-rich-companies, by buying our politicians, without any concern to our well being as a nation. 
We live in a country that soon, you will not be able to go across ANY border without a passport. 
We live in a country that doesn't respect your Constitutional Rights.
We live in a country that if you don't have enough money, don't have enough media popularity, don't have any education, don't have good credit, or fit in the mold that's strictly an illusion of the American Dream; that when your rights are violated, no one will care. 
We live in a world where if it's not convenient, in style, feels good, and pleasing to the eye; serves no purpose. 
We live in dangerous times. 

Speaking for myself, I'm scared. It's not if, it's when! 
Thank you for letting me rant!!!!


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 11, 2005)

So, do we have any political science, psychology, civics, sociology, social global problem, (anything other subject possibly related) teachers or professors among us? Or even previous students?

This discussion has made us all want to ponder the past, present, and future of America: Which a lot us have already done so just by simply reading and writing down the thread.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 11, 2005)

For all those advocating "isolationism for America now", let me say this? How will the average american get petrol for their cars? How will they feel the effects of super inflation, lack of everyday goods, food rationing even, shortage of the essentials? Its a funny old thing globalisation, no nation is an island any more, no nation is self sufficient any more, you cannot simpley cut yourself off from the outside world with your hands on ears saying "nanananana cannot hear you" If you think all because America will withdraw from the world outside the continential US and that will stop terrorism, you have got another thing coming. Terrorism will not simpley blip out of existance because America says "we are not there anymore", or "we dont support them", it will continue until their goals are achieved. 

All University Course are from the University of Queensland. 
Political science - currently studing, just completed first year. 
Civics - final two years at high school with an A rating. 
Social global problem - did one course on that this year. 
International Relations - Studied under the Political Science area. 
History (not classics) - Doing a major in it (with Int Rel)
Economics, domestic and global - Last two years of high school with a B rating. 
Law - Last two years of high school with a B rating. 
Going to do a course in Modern American history next semester


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 11, 2005)

My main teaching license is in Social Studies. I usually try to present a balanced, unbiased view of events, encouraging my students to make up their own minds, as long as they can back up their opinions with examples and facts. I have never felt it was okay to make them see things "my way." But here goes....

I consider myself socially liberal but morally conservative, which is a difficult combination to maintain. Both political parties are incosistent with their application of their touted "values." To the republicans, religious values seem to include making sure the wealthy stay wealthy. Don't know where they got it, but they sure do their best. The democrats used to be the spokesmen for those who discriminated against or marginalized, but now they seem to promote strife in order to politically profit from it. There are individuals are both sides who are exceptions, but there is my big picture.

As for the war in Iraq...at times I think the U.N. gave Saddam plenty of time to hide the "weapons of mass destruction." But I am sure the "W" went after him specifically because of Operation Desert Storm in the 90s. Now that we are in the thick of it, and Saddam is gone, I believe it is our responsibility to help stabilize the resulting power vacuum. I'd love to bring our troops home, but even though we made a mistake going in, we need to clean up the mess.

There is a lot more I'd llike to add, but I'm running late for work. I look forward to hearing what everyone thinks of this so far.

Betty


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord: It is not about isolationism. It is about co-existing with the rest of the world. We should not be dictating to others how they should live and interfering with their right to live and govern. We also need to remember that we supported these same terrorists and their ideology. In the 1980's we supported Osama Bin Laden and his ilk in the Russian-Afghan War. Now they are after us and our way of life. So, when you play games for political expediency, you get hurt. That is what is happening now. 

Jay


----------



## Jes (Nov 11, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> If you want to look into the heart of this administration, look at the debate now being waged over whether we should be allowed to torture people. This is not an issue of Republican vs. Democrat. We have John McCain, a man with whom I disagree on many policies but respect immensely, trying to pass an anti-torture resolution. Then we have George Bush, a man with whom I disagree on many policies and respect not at all, fighting tooth and nail to make torture permissible. Is this what we want for America?
> 
> Bush and Cheney were elected partly because of their so-called religious "values." So educate this benighted unbeliever: who would Jesus torture?



Remember when Bush threatened to attack the Netherlands? THE NETHERLANDS? Now I'm biased of course, but that one still sticks out in my mind.


----------



## Tina (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> For all those advocating "isolationism for America now"...



Only one person has mentioned it, and she was not advocating it, but out of frustration, questioned if it might not be better. No one here has mentioned it at any length but you, really. I don't think anyone here thinks it's a good idea.


----------



## moonvine (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> I am not suggesting that the patriot act is good by any means (it goes way overbaord), but _some_ personal privacy must be given up in this time. Its unfortunate that it is, but well it has.




Benjamin Franklin said it better than I can:



> They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 11, 2005)

Jes said:


> Remember when Bush threatened to attack the Netherlands? THE NETHERLANDS? Now I'm biased of course, but that one still sticks out in my mind.



I think he only did that because he had it confused with France. You know how all them Yurroppeen countries look alike.


----------



## Jes (Nov 11, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I think he only did that because he had it confused with France. You know how all them Yurroppeen countries look alike.



funny, but wrong. It had to do with the Int'l court of justice.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 11, 2005)

swamptoad said:


> So, do we have any political science, psychology, civics, sociology, social global problem, (anything other subject possibly related) teachers or professors among us? Or even previous students?
> 
> This discussion has made us all want to ponder the past, present, and future of America: Which a lot us have already done so just by simply reading and writing down the thread.



Degree in History - UT Austin 1989. Specialized in Latin American History
Writer for military history magazines - 1988-1995.
Writer for online news/editorial magazine (just about to go print) - 2002 to present.

I've had other jobs, but those are the ones in the relevant CV areas. I've been researching history and politics independently on a college level for the last 20 years. I just don't bother to take the courses.

I make it my business to know what's going on.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> For all those advocating "isolationism for America now", let me say this? How will the average american get petrol for their cars? How will they feel the effects of super inflation, lack of everyday goods, food rationing even, shortage of the essentials? Its a funny old thing globalisation, no nation is an island any more, no nation is self sufficient any more, you cannot simpley cut yourself off from the outside world with your hands on ears saying "nanananana cannot hear you" If you think all because America will withdraw from the world outside the continential US and that will stop terrorism, you have got another thing coming. Terrorism will not simpley blip out of existance because America says "we are not there anymore", or "we dont support them", it will continue until their goals are achieved.



First answer: trade. We don't have to beat it out of other nations and if said other nations charge too much, it doesn't move - they don't get paid. 

Second answer: with the property bubble beginning to burst, the US economy is heading for a rough patch. Hopefully, it'll have a smooth landing, but there's a risk something slips and there's a crash.

Third answer: You've dismissed my statement that the US brought down an Australian government in 1975 - yet it happened, and I invite you to google it up. The US has done far worse to other nations, and, yes, they're still mad about things. That terrorism won't go away quickly. It will decline over time as the US disengages from supporting brutal regimes and pursues a foreign policy that does not involve invading other nations to provide profit opportunities for its plutocracy. That will not happen, so the US will remain a target for terrorists, but not because they hate our freedoms. They hate our imperialism.

The UK did not leave India because of Gandhi. It left because of the terrorist campaign in Maharashtra coupled with the nonviolent campaign of Gandhi, and, frankly, the terror campaign is what pushed them over the edge of wanting to remain. Terror works at breaking up empires, and the terrorists know this.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 11, 2005)

Jes said:


> funny, but wrong. It had to do with the Int'l court of justice.



Jes, I just made that up. If I didn't make stuff up, I wouldn't be able to post anything.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 11, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> As for the war in Iraq...at times I think the U.N. gave Saddam plenty of time to hide the "weapons of mass destruction." But I am sure the "W" went after him specifically because of Operation Desert Storm in the 90s. Now that we are in the thick of it, and Saddam is gone, I believe it is our responsibility to help stabilize the resulting power vacuum. I'd love to bring our troops home, but even though we made a mistake going in, we need to clean up the mess.



The US invaded to install a government that would provide a stream of oil to the US. Hitler claimed Poland attacked first, and that's as much a lie as Bush's claim of WMD. The US will not leave until there's a friendly gov't that can run things the US way, but that's not going to happen democratically - the Shi'a are ready to take over, but they'll do it Iran-style.

It's just like the movie, "The Battle of Algiers", but in color.


----------



## Jes (Nov 11, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> Jes, I just made that up. If I didn't make stuff up, I wouldn't be able to post anything.



sure. say that NOW.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 11, 2005)

Jes said:


> sure. say that NOW.



You mean I _didn't_ make it up? Now I'm _really_ scared.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 11, 2005)

> You've dismissed my statement that the US brought down an Australian government in 1975 - yet it happened, and I invite you to google it up.



Yeah, and all that I get is a load of meaningless and cleary quite stupid conspiricy theories that any rank amatuer could have turned out over a drunken weekend. And yes I do dismiss it because in my opinion its a load of old cobblers. Oh, and all because something is on the internet, does not make it true, any tom, dick or harry can post their rantings and raving on the net, and even places such as wikipedia is useless as an acidemic source. I totally reject that "claim" that the American government brought down Mr Whitlams government. IF you believe that, you are clearly quite warped. 



> We also need to remember that we supported these same terrorists and their ideology. In the 1980's we supported Osama Bin Laden and his ilk in the Russian-Afghan War. Now they are after us and our way of life. So, when you play games for political expediency, you get hurt. That is what is happening now.


Yep, its called Realpolitik, every nation plays it for its national interest and always has. Its not going to stop any time soon, because national interest will always be there, whether it be political, economic of in reaction to an event. 



> We should not be dictating to others how they should live and interfering with their right to live and govern.


So, purely for arguement, should america stop supporting the growth of democracy abroad, let dictatorships spring up and theocrtic power mongers rule the world? Or is freedom and Democracy listed as having to be an American as prerequisit?


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> So, purely for arguement, should america stop supporting the growth of democracy abroad, let dictatorships spring up and theocrtic power mongers rule the world? Or is freedom and Democracy listed as having to be an American as prerequisit?



So let me get this straight. When we supported the military dictatorship in Vietnam, the Shah of Iran, Noriega in Panama (before he converted to being a bad guy), the Contra death squads in Nicaragua, Saddam Hussein in Iraq (before he converted to being a bad guy), Osama bin Laden (before he converted to being a bad guy), our great buddies the Saudis, and any number of tin-pot dictators, we were supporting the growth of democracy, _preventing_ dictatorships, and thwarting theocratic power mongers? Obviously the power of your reasoning is beyond my meager capabilities.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 11, 2005)

The US supports the growth of Democracy abroad? If *you* believe that, you are clearly quite warped, to paraphrase... 

As you said, it's called Realpolitik, and the US has been playing hardball around the world since 1898. From the annexation of Hawaii to the invasion of Iraq, it's been about national interests. I'll be perfectly willing to agree the US is Hobbesian, not Lockean, in its foreign affairs. Life is nasty, brutish, and short for those in third-world nations in the path of the US empire.

Let the Australia '75 slide - there's plenty of other material I've set out which serves to condemn US foreign policy as anything but pro-democracy. It's pro-US-plutocracy, using the poor of the US as a blunt instrument to apply against the resource-rich parts of the world that are not forthcoming with their wealth.

Were the US to behave in the interests of the *rest* of its population, it wouldn't be engaging in the Realpolitik of empire.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 11, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> I am not suggesting that the patriot act is good by any means (it goes way overbaord), but _some_ personal privacy must be given up in this time. Its unfortunate that it is, but well it has.



And As Padme Amidala said in Star Wars III, "So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause?


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 12, 2005)

As far as I am concerned, you can believe in all the conspiricy rubbush if you want, however in my opinion, the US had fluffy all to do with the removal of Mr Whitlam. I never said the US exclusively supported and promulgated democracy, however it has been on the cards a number of times. And the reason why the US gets away with it? Because the system allows it, because the people allow it, there has never been a US government that has been in power that has not had a mandate by the people (much to the dissapointment of Micheal Moore), and hence US foreign policy has been given the mandate required. 

And yes, America blunders around the world thwarting anything that gets in its way, well that is the price that is paid for all that power that has acculated within the realms of the US in the aftermath of a bi-polar world, the US can get its way, however with the emergence of China and the EU as a force for competition, it can only improve the things in the world, a system of checks and balances. I am not saying America has had a perfectly clean slate over the years, but at the moment, current policy suggests that encouraging democracy, as can be demonstrated by the support for democratic processes in Eastern Europe, Georgia, and the encouragment of its growth in other parts of the world.


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 12, 2005)

So exactly how is the US supporting democracy when it is not allowing countries like Iraq to form its own constitution without US's input. Did you follow the discussions? It is totally undemocratic for an occupying force, which we have become in Iraq, to continue to put ourselves in the middle of everything. Even in the choice of the interim prime minister needed to get the US's approval. Is that democratic? As you suggest, this is body politic. So, it is not about spreading democracy rather it is about US interests in affairs of other how others govern their own countries. Spread of democracy is a farce as a reason. It is all about what our leaders deem to be necessary and spin things for their own justified ends.


Jay


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 12, 2005)

All because a nation provides input into the formation of a constitution, which would have otherwise bogged down into sectarian feuding or religious dominance. Helping to form a stable government in a region of the world that is less than stable has indeed been difficult and of course there are views on both sides of the fence, however after the democratic elections were held, the Iraqi government were free to say "Right, hop it, we dont need you", but they elected to let the various armed forces and support groups stay to stabilise and propigate a stable government. 


> It is all about what our leaders deem to be necessary and spin things for their own justified ends.


Well, since these leaders were given a mandate to carry out their policies by the people and by the representitive democratic structures in the system of government. The defacto role of the US as the last superpower (perhaps joined by someone in the coming years), is to be apart of the international community, and if that entails a mixing of national interest and mandated policies, well then its all part of the great game.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 12, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> .... And the reason why the US gets away with it? Because the system allows it, because the people allow it, there has never been a US government that has been in power that has not had a mandate by the people (much to the dissapointment of Micheal Moore), and hence US foreign policy has been given the mandate required.



Isn't it the guy who win the popular vote the one who gets the mandate?


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 12, 2005)

ssbbwlover2 said:


> So exactly how is the US supporting democracy when it is not allowing countries like Iraq to form its own constitution without US's input. Did you follow the discussions? It is totally undemocratic for an occupying force, which we have become in Iraq, to continue to put ourselves in the middle of everything. Even in the choice of the interim prime minister needed to get the US's approval. Is that democratic? As you suggest, this is body politic. So, it is not about spreading democracy rather it is about US interests in affairs of other how others govern their own countries. Spread of democracy is a farce as a reason. It is all about what our leaders deem to be necessary and spin things for their own justified ends.
> 
> 
> Jay



Well, the US government considers this hand holding, not interference!


----------



## fatlane (Nov 12, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> As far as I am concerned, you can believe in all the conspiricy rubbush if you want, however in my opinion, the US had fluffy all to do with the removal of Mr Whitlam. I never said the US exclusively supported and promulgated democracy, however it has been on the cards a number of times. And the reason why the US gets away with it? Because the system allows it, because the people allow it, there has never been a US government that has been in power that has not had a mandate by the people (much to the dissapointment of Micheal Moore), and hence US foreign policy has been given the mandate required.
> 
> And yes, America blunders around the world thwarting anything that gets in its way, well that is the price that is paid for all that power that has acculated within the realms of the US in the aftermath of a bi-polar world, the US can get its way, however with the emergence of China and the EU as a force for competition, it can only improve the things in the world, a system of checks and balances. I am not saying America has had a perfectly clean slate over the years, but at the moment, current policy suggests that encouraging democracy, as can be demonstrated by the support for democratic processes in Eastern Europe, Georgia, and the encouragment of its growth in other parts of the world.




Eastern Europe took the US by surprise. They went democratic pretty much on their own. I question the US' support for Poland and Romania, as it involves CIA torture prisons in those nations. And Georgia? No. There is much, much more happening there than mainstream outlets report. I've got friends there at ground zero, and it's pretty much a proxy war there between Saakashvili''s US-backed government and the Russian-backed Abkhazian breakaway republic. There are no al-Qaeda in Panskii Gorge. The US needs Georgia as an alternate pipeline route for Azeri oil, which we don't want pumped through Russia or Iran, and which they don't want pumped through Armenia. 

Liberia, as well, is taking a turn in the US-influenced direction. Weah should have won that election. His opponent is a US-backed pawn. Johnson-Sirleaf was the former Liberian finance minister who ran up huge debts. She's also advocating blanket amnesty, something Weah is not willing to grant. She trailed Weah, so her sudden turnaround in the last week is suspicious not only to me, but Weah's supporters, as well. 

And of the nations screwing up democracy on their own? Nothing, if they don't have oil. Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and, now, Ethiopia can slide into Somali-hood for all the US cares. They don't got no gas, so they can Saddam-ize their populations without much more than a stern word from the White House. 

Ahh, I'm in the same rut as before... time to put a conclusion on this essay.

There's absolutely no need to surrender my freedoms so that the US can continue to pursue an imperialist foreign policy that goes contrary to the notions of freedom and human dignity we are supposed to enjoy as citizens of this nation. If my freedoms are gone, then I'm living in the Roman Empire, Part II, with a slave base to support my high standard of living. If my freedoms remain, but are incompatible with the empire, then it is the empire, not the freedoms, which should be given up if there is to be justice.


----------



## Tina (Nov 12, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Liberia, as well, is taking a turn in the US-influenced direction. Weah should have won that election. His opponent is a US-backed pawn. Johnson-Sirleaf was the former Liberian finance minister who ran up huge debts. She's also advocating blanket amnesty, something Weah is not willing to grant. She trailed Weah, so her sudden turnaround in the last week is suspicious not only to me, but Weah's supporters, as well.



They using Diebold voting machines?  

What he said.


----------



## ssbbwlover2 (Nov 12, 2005)

Is it really hand holding when our country has the final vote on who becomes the Iraqi interim prime minister and when the Iraqi constitution needs to meet the approval of our leaders before it can be voted on? Is it hand holding when we have installed people into places in the Iraqi government who were supportive of our initial invasion, i.e. Ahmed Chalabi, Ibrahim Jalabi, and others of that ilk? I am not sure that it is hand holding. It is more the use of our military might to assure that we have a say. No right minded Iraqi government official who is currently in power would want to tell us to leave and create a vacuum because they know that their power only exists until our troops are there.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 12, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Well, the US government considers this hand holding, not interference!



And that is what is at the heart of America's foreign policy problems. Our government all too often interferes in other nations. The morons we call leaders often seek short-term advantages at the expense of what is good for the long term. A classic example is this Iraq quagmire. Bush invaded this country with no plan for what he wanted to do once he got rid of Hussein and hoodwinked red America into re-electing him.

Americans often think we mean well by trying to impose our culture and our will on other nations. But American-style democracy is not universally compatible with the cultures of all nations. We have this racist complex that our culture is the best and we fail to respect those of other nations. And that is one reason why so many people in the world hate America. It's not because we have freedom and democracy. It's because the American people are arrogant, spoiled and lazy.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Nov 12, 2005)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> And that is what is at the heart of America's foreign policy problems. Our government all too often interferes in other nations. The morons we call leaders often seek short-term advantages at the expense of what is good for the long term. A classic example is this Iraq quagmire. Bush invaded this country with no plan for what he wanted to do once he got rid of Hussein and hoodwinked red America into re-electing him.
> 
> Americans often think we mean well by trying to impose our culture and our will on other nations. But American-style democracy is not universally compatible with the cultures of all nations. We have this racist complex that our culture is the best and we fail to respect those of other nations. And that is one reason why so many people in the world hate America. It's not because we have freedom and democracy. It's because the American people are arrogant, spoiled and lazy.


People like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity keep saying that people in other countries hate America because of our freedom. I think people in other countries hate America because of the arrogance of the current adminstration. This will change with time - if we can survive the next few years.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 12, 2005)

> And of the nations screwing up democracy on their own? Nothing, if they don't have oil. Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe,


Commonwealth countries or at least former commonwealth countries, who are run by black governments. The reason why nothign can be said or done is (unless by another african government) is because it will be interpretted as a racist act by any western government. All that old anti-colonial rehoric that Mugabe has is still a very powerful tool, and although it maybe out of date, it still holds much sway in Africa. That is why they haven't done anythign about Zimbabwe, because it would viewed as a racist act, even thought it isnt. That holds true for any western government trying to support the growth of democracy in Africa, and the stopping of dictators and corrupt military junta's because the africa leaders at the other end, whose futures will end when democracy and stability are introduced, they will play the racism/neo white colonialism card to listening ears. It maybe awfully cyncially, but that is what has been happening. 

Iraq is a true "bastard" country, in that unlike many others, it had no historical, cultural or any other linkage apart from being the formation or Imperial balance after the end of the Great War. The Iraqi government is at the moment incapable of maintaining centeral authority to a high degree, and hence requires the continued presence of outisde forces. 

And if so many people are against "The morons we call leaders", then why were they given a mandate to carry out their policies in the last election then, ya know back in old November 2004?If I am not mistaken, that is democracy in action, the result given that the elected officials have been given a mandate by the people.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Nov 12, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> And if so many people are against "The morons we call leaders", then why were they given a mandate to carry out their policies in the last election then, ya know back in old November 2004?If I am not mistaken, that is democracy in action, the result given that the elected officials have been given a mandate by the people.


Many instances of voter fraud were reported, with thoussands of minority voters left unable to vote, and erlectronic voting machines recording votes for Kerry as votes for Bush. Even disregarding the voter irregularities, the margin was extremely small - the USA was roughly dvided right down the middle. There WAS no mandate.

And based on the reactions people have had lately to the Bush Administration's responses to the hurricanes and the ongoing quagmire in Iraq, Bush's popularity is sinking - he's within a few percentage points right now of Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 12, 2005)

Well, if that is the case, it YP.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Nov 12, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Well, if that is the case, it YP.


"YP"???????


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 13, 2005)

Your Problem.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 13, 2005)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Many instances of voter fraud were reported, with thoussands of minority voters left unable to vote, and erlectronic voting machines recording votes for Kerry as votes for Bush. Even disregarding the voter irregularities, the margin was extremely small - the USA was roughly dvided right down the middle. There WAS no mandate.
> 
> And based on the reactions people have had lately to the Bush Administration's responses to the hurricanes and the ongoing quagmire in Iraq, Bush's popularity is sinking - he's within a few percentage points right now of Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal.



The people of California recalled their governor, you guys should have a way to recall you president.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 13, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Commonwealth countries or at least former commonwealth countries, who are run by black governments. The reason why nothign can be said or done is (unless by another african government) is because it will be interpretted as a racist act by any western government.
> 
> And if so many people are against "The morons we call leaders", then why were they given a mandate to carry out their policies in the last election then, ya know back in old November 2004?If I am not mistaken, that is democracy in action, the result given that the elected officials have been given a mandate by the people.



I'm sorry, your Lordship, but I think your theory about why we don't interfere in Africa is a load of old cobblers. (I have no idea what old cobblers are, unless they're old shoemakers, which I doubt. I think someone may have dumped a load of them on my lawn once. If I'm right, they're a bitch to clean up.) We'd be shipping out for Africa tomorrow if some country over there suddenly turned out to be sitting on a major oil reserve, and we'd be calling anyone who _questioned_ us a racist.

The "mandate" given to Bush was by a bare majority of the voters. The rest of us were horrified. The majority that did vote for him either were

1. Honestly misled by the fact that what Bush says he believes and does rarely bears any relationship to what he actually believes and does; or
2. Religious right-wingers, who really ought to be given a small part of the country to form into their own damn country, but who listens to me? or
3. Good ol' morons who weren't about to vote for no goddamn latte drinkin' liberal; or
4. Members of Bush and Cheney's real peer group, i.e., the rich corporate plutocrats who really run things around here. 

To quote H.L. Mencken, "No one in this world, as far as I know - and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me - has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people."

And I _am_ a plain person. (For that matter, so was Mencken.)


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Nov 13, 2005)

We can't do anything as long as Bush's party controls both houses of Congress - he's protected by the people in his party. But if the Democrats re-take both houses next year (and it looks like they might), look for impeachment procedings to start in Early 2007.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 13, 2005)

Wayne_Zitkus said:


> Many instances of voter fraud were reported, with thoussands of minority voters left unable to vote, and erlectronic voting machines recording votes for Kerry as votes for Bush. Even disregarding the voter irregularities, the margin was extremely small - the USA was roughly dvided right down the middle. There WAS no mandate.




*This is exactly why Mr. Austrailian Lord is wrong. Bush won by a paper-thin majority, if he won at all. But what is more likely, according to published reports, is that he stole the election once again. There was no mandate for this quagmire that Bush and his cronies have put the country into. *


----------



## fatlane (Nov 13, 2005)

_Well, there are communists peeping out of my cupboard! And Brezhnev and Kosygin are eating my wife's JAM! Won't Mr. Maudsley DO something about this?_

-- Monty Python


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 13, 2005)

> Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE &#177; 3 (for all adults).
> . http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
> 
> "We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
> ...



So, when it first started there were between 69% and 51% in favour of this little scheme, however like all wars, the intial boom subsides when things start getting messy, and all wars do. 



> I'm sorry, your Lordship, but I think your theory about why we don't interfere in Africa is a load of old cobblers. (I have no idea what old cobblers are, unless they're old shoemakers, which I doubt. I think someone may have dumped a load of them on my lawn once. If I'm right, they're a bitch to clean up.) We'd be shipping out for Africa tomorrow if some country over there suddenly turned out to be sitting on a major oil reserve, and we'd be calling anyone who questioned us a racist.



Wrong. 
1) American credibility is already shot on issues, particulary reasons for venturing to war. 
2) UN approval would be hard to get without substantial human rights abuses and even then, most people would see through it. 
3) Then there will be people saying "Western involvement in Africa is waht caused the problems now"
4) The old anti colonialism arguement still has alot of ears, and would only gather strength should nakes agression take place. 
5) It would create a racist sentiment throughout Sub Saharan africa because it is viewed (should it take place) as a white western nation launching an attack against a poor black african one, even though it can be argued that it is not, it would still hold very powerful arguements.
6) Dissent at home from the decision. 

There is oil in Africa, and so far the US has furthered its oil interests through petroleum companies, rather than through the force of the federal government. (And if anyone complains about high oil prices, the Americans have it easy, since their gas prices at the pump are 30% cheaper than in Australia and something like 70% cheaper than in the UK).


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 13, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> 1) American credibility is already shot on issues, particulary reasons for venturing to war.
> 2) UN approval would be hard to get without substantial human rights abuses and even then, most people would see through it.
> 3) Then there will be people saying "Western involvement in Africa is waht caused the problems now"
> 4) The old anti colonialism arguement still has alot of ears, and would only gather strength should nakes agression take place.
> ...



I can't really argue with any of the six reasons you expressed in the first paragraph. However, I think our present administration might find an excuse to invade anyway, if the oil strike were rich enough.

As to the second paragraph: there may be oil in Africa, but so far not enough to engage our serious interest. As for the U.S. not furthering its oil interests through force, might I remind you of an obscure Middle Eastern country called Iraq? You are, however, right about Americans having it comparatively easy at the gas pump. That probably won't last too much longer.


----------



## DDP (Nov 13, 2005)

Well I guess getting back to the subject of the thread before it was hi-jacked....

I do value my freedoms and I believe that the government should be able to have ways to protect itself. Paranoia has been the root of the trampling of many freedoms. I won't go into govn't incompentence bashing but they are pretty good at passifing the American public. The big corporations (who pull the strings) have conditioned the public that life should consist of work, shopping and tv/movies. Patriot Act? Who's Patriot? Definately not of the founding fathers. Try doing any hobby or activity outdoors...

Problem is- some people don't want to be unplugged from the matrix.
DDP


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 14, 2005)

Well if they did further their oil interests by stepping into Iraq, its backfired on them because supplies are having difficulty getting out. Well Prices are slowly returning to their pre-spike highes, so the pressure is off for the meantime.


----------



## GregW (Nov 14, 2005)

O...n...e w...o...r...l...d g...o...v...e...r...n...m...e...n...t


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 14, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Well if they did further their oil interests by stepping into Iraq, its backfired on them because supplies are having difficulty getting out.



True. This administration couldn't even do the wrong thing right.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 14, 2005)

GregW said:


> O...n...e w...o...r...l...d g...o...v...e...r...n...m...e...n...t




You know, Americans should love this concept. Supposedly we think we should show the world how to incorporate numerous cultures into one system. (Yeah, right. If only.....)

However, I hear a lot of people complain about this idea. And you do have to wonder, out of all the types of government out there, which one would "win out." It would be too big for straight democracy. Would some kind of republic work, or could a dictatorship emerge? Would all the countries fight so hard for so long to dominate with their leadership style that the whole idea would fall apart?

Hate to be a pessimist, but I don't really see it being actualized any time soon.


----------



## eljay (Nov 14, 2005)

... funny you should mention the issue of one world government, there is currently a big debate on about the future of the Internet which of course is world wide... and needs world wide co-operation and agreement. Of course nobody agrees...

Currently there is a big meet up to fight over it... and finally it looks like there is some progress: http://www.theregister.com/2005/11/14/masood_khan_wsis/

Soooooo much respect for this chappy!


----------



## Jane (Nov 14, 2005)

Webmaster said:


> Apart from the political aspects highlighted in that article, there is another aspect that often baffles me.... Did ANY of us have any idea in the early days of the web that anything we put up there would stay there and be available to the whole word for ever after? Was anyone prescient enough to foresee how the web would become truly worldwide and that every page, every statement, every post would become indexed and available? Heck, they used to need expensive investigations to get the scoop on a person; today whatever anyone has ever done or said is a minute or two of googling away, and there truly isn't anything you can do about it.
> 
> The second thing that frosts me is the absolutely hideous onslaught of gross, appalling, slimy spam that is literally destroying the email/net experience and can do you harm in the process. Spammers steal your identity by making it appear as if their spam came from individuals, steal your ability to do business by making email unreliable via the necessary spam filters, and are costing the global economy probably many billions a year. You can no longer receive emails from your bank, eBay, PayPal, etc., because 99% of it is fakes by crooks and scammers. Yet, we're collectively still more interested in whatever the latest topic/gossip-du-jour is than this colossal travesty, and I assume the authorities in charge are so grossly outmatched by the spammers, scammers and net criminals that it's not even a fight.


Too darn late for me. I post on a political bulletin board, and about once a week I run my name on that board through Google. Nearly 9000 hits this weekend. GEEZ!!!!!


----------



## Aliena (Nov 14, 2005)

DDP said:


> Well I guess getting back to the subject of the thread before it was hi-jacked....
> 
> I do value my freedoms and I believe that the government should be able to have ways to protect itself. Paranoia has been the root of the trampling of many freedoms. I won't go into govn't incompentence bashing but they are pretty good at passifing the American public. The big corporations (who pull the strings) have conditioned the public that life should consist of work, shopping and tv/movies. Patriot Act? Who's Patriot? Definately not of the founding fathers. Try doing any hobby or activity outdoors...
> 
> ...



Not just some; most. You're right about the big corporations pulling the strings, not just with running the government, but with putting American's *asleep* with the goodies of spoil. 
Do you really think anyone would be willing to give up their American lifestyle, regardless of current politics, to stop the injustices that are happening on all levels of national and global politics?
Nah, we rather shake our heads, thank God it's not us, and return back to our current episode of 'Survivor', while munching on the Big Mac that is loaded with fat causing preservatives; being no more political than pushing a button on our remotes for the boob-toob. 

Sorry guys, the problems we have with America isn't with Bush alone, it's with us; each and everyone of us. The BigEliteCorps have wanted to make you an out of shape, lazy nation; not only without energy to fight, but without any desire to fight too. We are an addicted society, spolied rotten to the core of our national souls by the cancer's of superficial things. 

Look in the mirror if you want to lay blame on someone.:shocked:


----------



## fatlane (Nov 14, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> There is oil in Africa, and so far the US has furthered its oil interests through petroleum companies, rather than through the force of the federal government. (And if anyone complains about high oil prices, the Americans have it easy, since their gas prices at the pump are 30% cheaper than in Australia and something like 70% cheaper than in the UK).



To be sure, Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Congo-Brazzaville, and Gabon are all the biggest current producers. Chad, Cameroon, and Sudan are all areas with recent discoveries.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 14, 2005)

Dont forget all that oil under Tripoli.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 14, 2005)

Quite.

(Now I feel like Bernard...)


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 17, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> If you want to look into the heart of this administration, look at the debate now being waged over whether we should be allowed to torture people. This is not an issue of Republican vs. Democrat. We have John McCain, a man with whom I disagree on many policies but respect immensely, trying to pass an anti-torture resolution. Then we have George Bush, a man with whom I disagree on many policies and respect not at all, fighting tooth and nail to make torture permissible. Is this what we want for America?
> 
> Bush and Cheney were elected partly because of their so-called religious "values." So educate this benighted unbeliever: who would Jesus torture?



RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 17, 2005)

Miss Vickie said:


> Oh hey, didn't you hear? They attack us because they hate our freedom. Yeah, right. They comandeer airplanes and fly them into buildings because women can go out uncovered and we have the right to vote. Well guess what? If they wait long enough, we won't have any freedom left, so they won't have to hate us anymore.  Besides, ask the women of Iraq and Afghanistan how much freedom we've given them. They STILL can't go out uncovered and in fact in some cases it's worse now in Iraq because in some places, given the lack of firm governmental order, the religious fundamentals are running the show.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And as our president, the conservative evangelicals, the simple-minded redneck nuts, and the average joe who has no concept of the world around him have all failed to realize: you can't stop terrorism with bullets and bombs.
Bullets and bombs destroy lives and are compounding America's problems. The best way to fight terrorism is to protect our airplanes, our refineries, nuclear plants, national landmarks, military installations, political centers, and any other area the terrorists might want to attack. 

Bullets and bombs are simply reinforcing a worldwide perception of Americans as being culturally arrogant. If we think we can end terrorism by conquering smaller non-white countries (eg Iraq) because it's convenient, we've got another thing coming!

The second best way is to make some radical changes in the foreign policy establishment's methods of dealing with the Muslim nations of the world. We had better learn to get along with these people and stop supporting the oppression of the Palestinians! 

And what about the terrorists at home? We currently have approximately 760 hate groups that were active in 2004. Do you remember Timothy McVeigh, who had ties to hate groups and committed the worst domestic attack on American soil back in 1995? It's scary when you think about all these crazy white supremacists running around unchecked with automatic weapons, bombs and training camps. As it always does when implementing its short-sighted policies,the government has failed to remember that terrorists can have blond hair and blue eyes.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 17, 2005)

swamptoad said:


> So, do we have any political science, psychology, civics, sociology, social global problem, (anything other subject possibly related) teachers or professors among us? Or even previous students?
> 
> This discussion has made us all want to ponder the past, present, and future of America: Which a lot us have already done so just by simply reading and writing down the thread.



Well you do have a graduate educated egghead who is always happy to share his insights with the group members.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 17, 2005)

fatlane said:


> The US supports the growth of Democracy abroad? If *you* believe that, you are clearly quite warped, to paraphrase...
> 
> As you said, it's called Realpolitik, and the US has been playing hardball around the world since 1898. From the annexation of Hawaii to the invasion of Iraq, it's been about national interests. I'll be perfectly willing to agree the US is Hobbesian, not Lockean, in its foreign affairs. Life is nasty, brutish, and short for those in third-world nations in the path of the US empire.
> 
> ...




And this Hobbesian approach to world politics is the cause of many of America's foreign policy problems. Realpolitik was what caused the 2 world wars. The Europeans were smart enough to catch on. We weren't.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 17, 2005)

Europe is still playing real politik, everyone is. You have to, its a neccessity in this modern world.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 17, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Europe is still playing real politik, everyone is. You have to, its a neccessity in this modern world.



I recognize that America and Europe are still playing realpolitik, although the versions change with different administrations. Everyone assumes it's a necessity because nobody has ever had the guts to try anything else, such as behaving according to principles of honor and decency. 

So how's it working out for us? We're shaking in our boots about the terrorists, we're bogged down in a pointless quagmire of a war, our president is fighting for the right to torture people, we're revoking the rights of our own people, our average citizens are growing poorer, and the country is deeper in debt than it ever has been. Realpolitik? More like dumbpolitik.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 17, 2005)

Well no one ever said it worked (especially not I), but its how things get done I suppose, whether you agree with them or not. Well I was talking more in the geo political sense, not really in domestic policy, which is related indirectly, but not directly to the needs of foreign policy. 



> Everyone assumes it's a necessity because nobody has ever had the guts to try anything else, such as behaving according to principles of honor and decency.


They tried that, the League of Nations, but it only works if everyone plays by the rules and not everyone does, and then its gets into a whole moral and ethical paradox and the word hypocracy srpings to mind, if you try and keep everyone honest, but break the rules in the process.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 18, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> They tried that, the League of Nations, but it only works if everyone plays by the rules and not everyone does, and then its gets into a whole moral and ethical paradox and the word hypocracy srpings to mind, if you try and keep everyone honest, but break the rules in the process.



True. A wise man once said, "Trust everyone, but cut the cards." We can't expect to keep everyone else honest, but we do have control over our own actions. I would love to see my country make a sincere attempt to behave honorably, at home and abroad. That obviously ain't gonna happen, but I'll be damned if I'll pretend to believe we're doing the right thing, no matter how much the politicians and their sycophants rationalize and posture.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 18, 2005)

Yes, but there is no honour in domestic affairs, as some group or faction will always be upset with the policies. There is no fame or glory in domestic affairs because there is no honour in it. Yes I would love to see Honour and justice take part on a global scale, but well it will just not happen, which is a shame, and at the moment, it is the only way things get done, for better or for worse, depending on your point of view.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 19, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Yes, but there is no honour in domestic affairs, as some group or faction will always be upset with the policies. There is no fame or glory in domestic affairs because there is no honour in it. Yes I would love to see Honour and justice take part on a global scale, but well it will just not happen, which is a shame, and at the moment, it is the only way things get done, for better or for worse, depending on your point of view.



Honor isn't a difficult concept. You just:

1. Treat everyone fairly, without deception or manipulation;
2. Refrain from making promises lightly, and when you do make promises, keep them;
3. Admit your mistakes, and correct them to the extent possible;
4. Support and protect your own;
5. Do what you know is right, no matter how hard it might be;
6. Do not interfere with another's freedom or rights, and do not allow anyone to interfere with your own.

This kind of honor is possible in foreign or domestic affairs, as well as in interpersonal relationships. It isn't done because it isn't easy and it won't make one rich.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 19, 2005)

And hence not in national interest, drawn from the needs of domestic opinion and foreign cicumstances. 

1. Possible at an domestic level, however once again the concept of national interest invalidates this. 
2. Possible again, however should we seperate them into "public promises" and "real pormises"?
3. Political suicide, however it can work for you if you play it right. Its all about Media Image, politians live or die by it. 
4. Once again only when its in the national interest, or will gather more public/media support for the government. 
5. Thats perceptive. To take America for example, a certain policy may be welcomed by republicans/conservatives but be despised and hated by democrats/liberals with a passion. 
6. At a domestic or international level? In terms of legislation, law or simply social custom and responsibility?


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 20, 2005)

Your Lordship, you have a true gift for complicating things. All I was suggesting was that each person (even politicians) switch to behaving honorably, according to a simple (if difficult) set of criteria, and let the chips fall where they may. 

I do recognize that this is an extremist philosophy that only a very few individuals will ever try to embrace.


----------



## Tina (Nov 20, 2005)

Heh. Yeah, unfortunately that's all too true, ods.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 20, 2005)

Unfortunately, "honor" seems to have fallen by the wayside as a rewardable virtue. For too many people, selfishness now rules.

I have mentioned before that I taught in a residential treatment center for troubled teens for seven years. What I saw from many of my students can be applied to society in general (not everyone does this, but it's out there):

Each kid knew what rights he had, but could not conceive the idea that others had those same rights. Their freedoms should not be restricted, even though they had trampled on the rights of others to be safe (many of these kids were sex offenders). 

It's a shame, but there is a real lack of empathy in the U.S. today. If you don't look out for Number One, you get trampled on because no one else will look out for you. I'm kind of an idealist, and I loved your list of honor criteria, ODS. It saddens me to have to admit that individuals can't do it, so how can we expect our government to do it?

It also means we should respect others' rights to disagree with us, and not call them dumb or put them down for not agreeing or refering to the same information we do. We have quite a variety of backgrounds and points of view here, and it's important that we listen and learn from each other, vs. insisting that the world can only be looked at from our view. Even with my students, I was able to admit not knowing something. I'd use it as an opportunity to model how to do research and make a decision or judgment call.

One of my pet peeves is people who are--and know--they are very intelligent, and so believe they are always right.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 20, 2005)

Yes, but there is difference between acting honourble between people and acting honourably between states. 


> you have a true gift for complicating things.


Thanks, a nice little skill to have these days, but along with the rewards, comes it curse.... 


> according to a simple (if difficult) set of criteria,


But international relations and geopolitcs and even domestic policy cannot be reduced to simple terms and inflexible policy. If you reduce it to simple set of criteria, you risk gross generalistions and over simplifications of complex problems. I am not saying it cannot be done, but it may lead to decisions that are not full rounded or that the implications are not acceptable. (If anyone rubbishes me, then I challange you to a duel at dawn.  


> and let the chips fall where they may.


But that leads to inflexible policy, which is paramount to political suicide, the two extreme examples are some of Mr Bushs current policies, and at the other end Mr Kerry, who took it to the extreme and lead to the "flip flopping about".


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 20, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> If you don't look out for Number One, you get trampled on because no one else will look out for you. I'm kind of an idealist, and I loved your list of honor criteria, ODS. It saddens me to have to admit that individuals can't do it, so how can we expect our government to do it?
> 
> It also means we should respect others' rights to disagree with us, and not call them dumb or put them down for not agreeing or refering to the same information we do. We have quite a variety of backgrounds and points of view here, and it's important that we listen and learn from each other, vs. insisting that the world can only be looked at from our view.
> 
> One of my pet peeves is people who are--and know--they are very intelligent, and so believe they are always right.



Thank you, Betty. I agree with you on all points, except I think people _can _ live honorably if they work at it, at least most of the time. We all screw up sometimes, but the important thing is to learn from it and keep trying to do better. (If I could live long enough to straighten out all of my screw-ups, I'd have to make it past my 150th birthday, and that's just the screw-ups to date.)

_Nobody's_ smart enough to be right anywhere near all of the time. Anyone who's right more than half the time is doing better than most. Still, we have to keep working at it, or we're doing nothing but taking up space.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 21, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Yes, but there is difference between acting honourble between people and acting honourably between states.



I disagree. One is merely the logical extension of the other.



Australian Lord said:


> But international relations and geopolitcs and even domestic policy cannot be reduced to simple terms and inflexible policy. If you reduce it to simple set of criteria, you risk gross generalistions and over simplifications of complex problems. I am not saying it cannot be done, but it may lead to decisions that are not full rounded or that the implications are not acceptable. (If anyone rubbishes me, then I challange you to a duel at dawn.



Rubbish. (As the party challenged, my weapon of choice is Thai pan-fried noodles. And dawn is too damn early. How about 4:00 p.m.?) The principles are general, and should be applied with reason and foresight. If it becomes apparent that the outcome will be undesirable, you adjust and modify as needed - but still within the constraints of honor.



Australian Lord said:


> But that leads to inflexible policy, which is paramount to political suicide, the two extreme examples are some of Mr Bushs current policies, and at the other end Mr Kerry, who took it to the extreme and lead to the "flip flopping about".



As I've said before, I don't believe Bush has behaved honorably. Kerry's "flip flopping" was largely a fictional perception created by the Bush machine. (Bush seems to believe that anyone who admits to a mistake - ever - is flip-flopping.) Kerry did make some stupid mistakes, including his initial support of the Iraq invasion. I have no idea whether he did that because he allowed himself to be misled or because he was simply afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic."


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 21, 2005)

I will say I didn't think either Bush or Kerry was honorable. Bush is very Republican in the Old Boys' Club school of thought, and Kerry is just smooth in a slimy kind of way, telling people what he thinks they want to hear, IMO. I keep hoping next time we have a better choice. I know I could vote for one of many other candidates, but I just don't see how it would make much difference. We never hear enough about any of them to make any kind of informed decision. 

Otherwise, I also look at it as continuing the cycle of history. Has the U.S. had its time in the sun, and now will fall, as did many other great civilizations before us? I hope not, as I think there are still some great things this country can and should do. But it is likely to collapse from within, primarily due to corruption of what could be a good system. Government officials in particular have forgotten they are supposed to be the servants of the people, and NOT above the law.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 21, 2005)

BBW Betty said:


> Otherwise, I also look at it as continuing the cycle of history. Has the U.S. had its time in the sun, and now will fall, as did many other great civilizations before us? I hope not, as I think there are still some great things this country can and should do. But it is likely to collapse from within, primarily due to corruption of what could be a good system. Government officials in particular have forgotten they are supposed to be the servants of the people, and NOT above the law.



Here I go again, agreeing with you completely. Our country is behaving more and more like the Roman Empire in its last stages. Corruption is rampant in both political parties, although I do feel the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils. We're going down the tubes morally (e.g., lies, torture, greed, and general corruption), intellectually (e.g., declining support and respect for rigorous education), and economically (e.g., producing less and less of everything except debt). I hate this, but I believe we will be eclipsed by China and India within the next few decades.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 21, 2005)

Therefore, learn how to use chopsticks and how to sit through a three-hour movie.


I can do both. Learning Hindi doesn't hurt, either. Aap kaise hai?


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 21, 2005)

fatlane said:


> Therefore, learn how to use chopsticks and how to sit through a three-hour movie.



Can we combine the two? It takes me about three hours to get through a meal when I use chopsticks, and it would be nice to see a movie while I'm doing it.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 21, 2005)

Well, folks in India like to eat with their hands, so you could ditch the sticks and enjoy the film. I recommend "Paheli" and "Veer-Zaara" of late, although one should also take in Shahrukh Khan's performance in "Devdas" before dying.


----------



## GregW (Nov 21, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> Here I go again, agreeing with you completely. Our country is behaving more and more like the Roman Empire in its last stages. Corruption is rampant in both political parties, although I do feel the Democrats are the lesser of the two evils. We're going down the tubes morally (e.g., lies, torture, greed, and general corruption), intellectually (e.g., declining support and respect for rigorous education), and economically (e.g., producing less and less of everything except debt). I hate this, but I believe we will be eclipsed by China and India within the next few decades.



Eclipsed by China? Quite possibly. Free-market reforms in what is perhaps the ultimate multinational corporation. 
Eclipsed by India? Doubt it. I'm thinking of a description of India as "anarchy in action".
And I can't help but agree with most of the Ancient Rome references that I've heard over my lifetime. _Though other countries have problems, too._

The chopsticks-3 hr. movie comment was pretty funny. Reminds me of a Jewish comedian who said "What do I think of a reunified Germany? Every night, when I step into the shower, I practice holding my breath as long as I can..."


----------

