Slashdot Mirror

It never ceases to amuse me when occupants of yet another historically and socially insignificant country look down their noses and sniff at the USA. Statements such as "any system is better than the West's out-dated plurality voting system" really should produce stomach-cramping guffaws from those with even the most rudimentary understanding of global history. The framers of the constitution of the United States were arguably the most brilliant men of their time, and for a great deal of time afterwards. The system they created produced the most economically, socially, and militarily powerful country in history. All attempts at the vaunted theories of Marx have crumbled when put to the test against the USA. Even the mighty Soviet Union is just a memory, and without a single shot fired. Anyone who argues otherwise is simply incapable of being objective.

On the surface, their system seems to reduce voter choice and eliminate any chance for new ideas. But in truth it builds in something other systems do not - decisiveness. Nothing is more important in leadership or any other form of conflict resolution. (For those ignorant of the theory - see here and learn about the "decision loop" - http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000172.html). Everything else is just leadership by committee, a complete oxymoron.

Of course, one can argue that it's not perfect, but in a way it is - because the system has built in mechanisms for self-correction. No form of government can survive unless it can adapt, and the USA has proven the most adaptable. Frankly, there is no end in sight for the success of the USA, because they are capable of both change and decisiveness. The rest of the world has only a few choices - join, mimic, oppose, die or be relegated to the trash heap of history.

And before you start up the flame throwers you should know that I'm not an American, just someone can put his petty pride aside and recognize a superior system.

Now Slashdot has been invaded! Is there nowhere I can go to escape these conspiracist nutbags? I will make a feeble attempt to counteract this inane review of an inane book, with a list of various debunking links:

September 11th
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://www.911myths.com/
http://wtc.nist.gov/

Income Tax and the Federal Reserve
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/IncomeTax.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Other
http://www.debunker.com/conspiracy.html
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000140.html

General
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

Thanks. I've thought long and hard on how to make a government that is free, agile, and durable. It's a hard task, and clearly describing the causes and effects is the hardest part. I think it's going to eventually explode Bill Whittle style in a series of political essays.

Draw your own conclusions.

I am arguing against an asinine four word bumper sticker. It's a supremely inane bumper sticker. But every once in a while I run across someone who really believes it. Damn.

Here's a rebutting link for you. Scroll down to the "No Blood for Oil!" section. http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000136.htm l

p.s. Your petro-stock when up during the last six years, so you think it's proof. But wait! My WHOLE mutual fund portfolio when up during the last six years too. Maybe this whole thing is being run by mutual fund managers! Every think of that? No conspiracy theory is so complex you cannot add to the complexity to make it even more insidious.

but certainly, a true warrior would go through all of toughest moments of their respective career without wanting to be thanked for it each step of the way.

It's illegal according to at least one of the universally adopted Geneva conventions to use weapons that will injure, but are not capable of killing.

Oh, fair enough. In that case, just upping the power to make it lethal would suffice.

However, violating these conventions does not seem to stop the U.S.

You do realize, I hope, that the convention only applies to armed conflict between soldiers in uniform, whose countries are both signatories to the convention?

Read and learn.

-jcr

The fourth Geneva Convention governs treatment of civilian personnel.

True, I stand corrected. They do, however, set forth that a soldier must be in uniform to be treated as a legal combatant. This is not an arbitrary distinction: Bill Whittle wrote an excellent essay on the subject of the covenant of sanctuary.

This would be true had the US not proceeded unilaterally,

I'm sure that the 32 other countries who sent troops to Iraq three years ago would be quite surprised to hear that the US acted unilaterally, as you've just stated. Try telling it to a Brit, for a start.

but obtained a second resolution from the UN.

A second resolution? Try counting them up.

the US was lying.

Nope, the US was fooled by Saddam's posturing. His own officers were stunned to learn shortly before the attack that Saddam didn't have the WMD's anymore.

BTW, it is a matter of record that 1) he had them in the past, 2) he'd used them, both against Iranian soldiers and his own civilians, and that 3) he was stonewalling the weapons inspectors. There was no way to know that he'd gotten rid of them, because he insisted on jerking the weapons inspectors around. With hindsight, you can claim otherwise, but every member of congress who voted to authorize the attack saw the very same information that the white house did.

Hence, illegal invasion.

Nope. Resumption of combat operations in a war that Saddam started with an unprovoked invasion of a neighboring country in 1991.

If you want to argue legalities, then you're missing the biggest one of all, which is an American constitutional issue: the last war that the US congress actually declared was World War II. Every war the USA has fought since then has been not merely illegal, but unconstitutional, but that's a violation of US law, not international law. There's a reason why the constitution reserves the power to declare war to the congress: it's supposed to be difficult to do.

-jcr

It doesn't matter what they hate or why they hate it. All that matters is they kill indiscriminately. Their actions ARE irrational; there is no reasoning with people like this. Terrorists are a cancer on civilization and they need to be cut out with the same ruthlessness and calculation as you would a tumor.

The war on terror could have prevented something like this if it was being taken seriously. Instead, "Old Europe" still approaches this like a law enforcement problem. It's not. This IS a war, and the enemy doesn't give a shit about the Geneva Convention. It's an international knife fight and if you worry about the rights of your opponent, then you are likely to get dead.

And by the way, if you seriously think there is even a little bit of validity that the assertion that the American Revolutionary Army could be terrorists, you are either profoundly ignorant of the principals of warfare or you are truly a MotherFucker..I suggest you read this: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000125.htm l to gain a ture understanding of the difference.

An essay on why this is bad, written by someone much more eloquent than I shall ever be.

If you haven't read this... you should. Very interesting, and there are many good points about the idea of Sanctuary during wartime, and how it is violated (thus forfeited).

As for me...I'll continue to muse on Tom Hanks' line at the end of Apollo 13:

"I look up at the moon, and I wonder: When will we be going back? And who will that be?"

Yeah I have to agree, Fact Check is pretty good.

MensNewsDaily.com collects pretty good commentary from a number of contributers on a number of issues that aren't forefront on the MSM. Their articles are short and poigniant. They have a forum you can discuss the articles in, so I would call that a blog.

Powerlineblog.com is pretty reasonable for commentary and was one of the big players in Rathergate. INDCJournal might be less reasonable but they have the quickest footwork in the business. They'll be the ones to call the sources, call experts, etc... Footwork that is a lost art in journalism. But their commentary is a bit off-balance and can often trip themselves up.

Little Green Footballs is often misunderstood, but I like them. They do their job very well. Even better though is Watch which is devoid of the sophmoric commentary.

But then there is an upper eschelon, which FactCheck belongs to, as does Belmont Club. When Belmont treats an issue, you've got gold.

But the absolute MOAB of the blogosphere is Bill Whittle. He posts seldomly, and when he does it is incredibly long. But there is no better writer on the Internet that I've found. As it says on his website: If Steven den Best is Spock, he is the Captain Kirk. Seriously there is no finer work on the internet than his "Strength" series, followed closely by "Empire".

For humor, Scrappleface and CoxandForkum are great. They not only give you the humor but they give you the stories that inspired it.

• Daily Kos
• Democratic Underground
• Talking Points Memo

• Instapundit
• Eject! Eject! Eject!
• Little Green Footballs

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000066.htm l

...military action is not the pre-emptive opening of hostilities against a sovereign nation, but rather the continuation of hostilities began by Iraq in 1990 with their invasion of Kuwait; said resumption being a direct result of repeated and flagrant violations of the ceasefire signed by Iraq in 1991.

Quoted from here

Hmmm. I still think I'd take odd-even days and stag-flation over imperialism.

I'm no historian, but I remember the coup in Peru, the invasions of [Panama] and Grenada, and the U.S.-sponsored civil war in Nicaragua.

• In Peru, the CIA had Allende assassinated, and Pinochet took power. The interesting part is, although he committed many human rights abuses, he paved the way for democracy, and was forgiven by the Peruvian people. It was the Europeans who arrested him and attempted to try him.
  
• In Panama, Noriega was initially supported by the CIA, but when he ran afoul and started trafficking drugs, they tried to reign him in. It took a small invasion to arrest him.
  
• Grenada was an entirely legitimate operation. Communist backed guerillas had taken many American medical students hostage, so we liberated them.
  
• We didn't start the Nicaraguan civil war, we just supported the side opposite the communists.
  

I'm no rabid anti-American. I'm even willing to acknowledge the good that was done by the British Empire. (As a Canadian, I'd be a hypocrite not to). However, denying that the US is an imperial power is, um, "delusional nonsense" of another sort.

The US shrewdly realized that imperialism need not occur via direct warfare but instead was easier to accomplish via economic means. American imperialism has not occurred via direct military action but instead through the long arm of the American corporate enterprise. I don't particularly need to argue this point; American companies dominate the global economic landscape, and where they don't, the dominant company generally stems from a place where America rebuilt using its own ideology, such as Japan or Germany.

If you think that North Korea (or Iraq) as aspirations to take over the world, then I think you are mistaking them with the most power / money-hungry country on Earth - the US. Everyone else (except for Israel) is quite happy left to their own devices, and only has weapons to protect themselves from the inevidable invasion from the US military / economy.

If you want to get upset about who has weapons of mass destruction, then have a look at 'our' side. The US has more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons than every other country on earth combined. And they have proved on numerous occasions that they are willing to use them to assert their economic 'rights' (while pretending that they are fighting the 'good fight' for decomcracy).

When will we see UN, or Iraqi, or North Korean inspectors checking out the US's weapons of mass destruction and shaking their heads and saying 'This is not good enough. These are clear signs or your intent to invade us. We will therefore make a pre-emptive strike!'. Until the US disarms itself (and all countries should), then it has no right to demand other countries disarm themself. If the US insists on hunting down every last terrorist and every last weapon on the 'other side', then it is going to produce more terrorists and more weapons in the act.

In all seriousness, here's an excellent essay on this topic written recently.