Because as it has become apparent, it certainly had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor with 'liberating' the Iraqi people. Or if it did, it was executed so incompetently that claiming an ulterior motive is almost charitable.
So, tell me, what ever happened with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that the entire world knew Saddam once had? We haven't found any, but as far as I know we haven't found any evidence as to their fate either way. Were they destroyed, and if so, where's the evidence? This is a legitimate question.
As far as liberating the Iraqi people, what evidence do you have that it wasn't the case? Iraq is scheduled to have elections, and an interim government is in power and it's calling the shots. Doesn't that count even a little as liberation?
You claim that Iraq's liberation was conducted incompetently, but as far as I remember the war of liberation was extremely effective, and the few "hot spots" that remain are in isolated areas of the country. If you were a general liberating a country, would you allow your entire army to get mired in one hot spot instead of skipping it and continuing on to your main objective? Clearly, you understand far more about strategic planning than those military-experienced dolts that are inadequately in charge of the US forces.
Maybe I'm hoping for too much, but It'd be nice to see a comment modded up that contained actual substance for a change, instead of regurgitated talking points. Here's your chance to provide that substance.
Nope. He declared that major operations (read: the massive military build-up and subsequent invasion) were over, but he also said that we would remained involved there for quite some time.
Yeah, sure they've won. That's why currently in the US we have Islamic rule and anyone that disagrees with Islam is dead, Western culture no longer exists, all the Jews around the world are dead, we have no freedom of press/religion/etc, and our women are repressed to the point of being just property so that we can legally kill them if we chose to.
At first I thought that you were trying to be funny with that post, but upon further analysis I have to conclude that you are, to put it very, very, mildly, confused.
Oh but I do hold America to her high ideals. The world at large does as well. That's why it's criticized about Abu Ghraib and leaked memos severely while possible genocide goes unadressed at the Congo. That's why there are possible Geneva Convention violation trials developing as we speak. That's why we mount investigative commissions, even if sometimes they end-up devolving into partisanship (we need to work on that). The point is that the world, not only the American people, often hold America to her ideals. America is held to higher ideals that other countries in the world, and it is that fact which should inspire confidence, rather than fear.
My question is no trap. It's a perfectly valid one: What country can be better trusted with the power than the US has? I'm not comparing it against mediocrity (unless you consider the entire world to be mediocre). Better stated, I am asking not how the US compares to the world, but how the world does not like to compare itself to the US even when the point of drawing comparisons is to do it against the best.
My question is a litmust test for those comparisons. If I am comparing America against the worse, or against the mediocre, or against any other than the best, then my question should be all too easy to answer.
I will grant you this however: If the allegations of death threats are proven, that could lead to Geneva Convention violation and subsequent convictions. In that case I agree that corresponding punishment should be handed out where appropriate.
Americans are not all saints by any stretch of the imagination, and problems are expected (Abu Ghraib being an unfortunate and glaring example). It has been said before that our officials are beholden to us and historically they get away with very little, but I doubt that torture is the mainstay of how we gather intelligence currently. Seeing how the press is crawling all over every move the US makes, I submit to you that on the whole very little solid evidence has come to light to support the theory of an "institutionalized torture" policy. We disagree on this point precisely because there appears to be no smoking gun either way.
However, the final question still remains whether the US has historically used its power more or less responsibly given how much more powerful the US is than most any other country in the world. The original poster raised concerns of so much power in the hands of a single country. I wonder, then, what other country can be better trusted to wield that kind of power given the history of the world?
It may help if you post the entire paragraph, so that no one can acuse you of taking things out of context:
i. "Prolonged Mental Harm"
(U) As an initial matter, Section 2340(2) requires that the severe mental pain must be evidenced by "prolonged mental harm". To prolong is to "lengthen in time" or to "extend the duration of, to draw out". Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1815 (1988); Webster's New International Dictionary 1980 (2d ed. 1935). Accordingly, "prolong" adds a temporal dimension to the harm to the individual, namely, that the harm must be one that is endured over some period of time. Put another way, the acts giving rise to the harm must cause some lasting, though not necessarily permanent, damage. For example, the mental strain experienced by an individual during a length and intense interrogation such as one that state or local police might conduct upon a criminal suspect, would not violate Section 2340(2). On the other hand, the development of a mental disorder such as posttraumatic stress disorder, which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression, which can also last for a considerable period of time is untreated, might satisfy the prolonged hard requirement. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 426, 439-45 (4th ed. 1994) ("DSM-IV"). See also Craig Haney & Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477, 509 (1977) (noting that posttraumatic stress disorder is frequently found in torture victims); cf Sana Loue, Immigration Law and Health 10:46 (2001) (recommending evaluating for post-traumatic stress disorder immigrant-client
Notice how the examples in the quote are a better illustration of why the convention uses the very specific language "prolongued mental harm" instead of just "mental harm" (interrogating suspects vs. post-traumatic stress disorders). It is written that way so that it is not overbroad and denies the captor the ability interrogate the subject. Laws and conventions are rarely written a specific way without a purpose in mind.
Quoting only portions and then abscribing them interpretations that the author did not intend does not make your point very believable, especially when the author's clear intent is spelled out on the portions that you leave out.
So what does these links amount to short of normal military procedures in a time of war?
Israeli interrogators in Iraq
The US needed someone with experience interrogating Muslims, and the Israelis are the most experienced service that has methods that the US would consider acceptable (i.e. no physical torture, etc.). If you bothered to read your own link, you would have realized that the US is going out of its way to obtain vital intelligence without resorting to barbarism.
Terror defendant: U.S. interrogators threatened life
Since when is threatening someone's life an unacceptable form of military interrogation? What should be said instead? The "We're going to let you live and everything will be OK but please cooperate" approach usually does not work in obtaining information from your enemy.
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
This is a memo, just like the thousands that are written for and in the course of an administration. It is not an executive order and short of what are at this point unfounded rumors there appears to be no evidence that it was put into practice. It would be downright irresponsible for an administration not to explore all avenues in order to discard those that are ureasonable, and accept reasonable ideas. Ditto for your last link.
If anything, these links just prove how transparent the US government workings are in relation to those of the rest of the world, that even a lowly memo among the many that are requested and considered through the course of the administration's decision making process shows up in the news. That good degree of transparency is an asset of the US, not a liability.
That's an interesting poll. I'd be concerned about the date however (1986), and would like to see how that poll breaks along liberal/conservative lines. It would also be interesting to see how other countries would answer a similar poll. I am aware of your comparison issue, but how else can you determine who to measure against?
More recent polls show a concerned for declining morals in America, and a desire to become more centrist because of it. I see this as good news because it indicates that the country is aware of its own faults.
However, I am unsure of your assertion that these were (not "are". Old poll, you know) American voters. Potential voters yes, but I believe that the small percentage that actually votes typically puts more effort into making a worthwile decision that your typical random poll participant.
Again, when it comes to action we tend to hold people responsible, that's why I suggest that you evaluate the US's impact. The really interesting question is: In the final analysis, has the US's power harmed the world or helped it? Does the US wield that power relatively well?
Anyway, the U.S. is far from the most secular. The separation of church and state is a myth. I don't need to google some more on that for you, do I?
And that's my point exactly: Total secularism is what has lead to fascism in the past. I never claimed that the US was the most secular, nor the most democratic, but that it achieves a great compromise between secular democratic ideals, and freedom of religion that have kept it from going off the deep end in either direction. I see no disagreement with most of your post.
However, despite your worldliness and extensive travels you still do not understand the difference between an intolerant ass, and your typical American citizen that would most likely not advocate mass murder when the time came to vote. What I do see is someone that is rabidly biased against religion and America, because only someone with extreme bias would automatically attibute true religious piety to someone shouting or agreeing to killing all Arabs. Pity to have traveled so much and yet have seen so little. I'm sure that during war people in other countries never before have expressed those sentiments towards their enemies.
Again, I invite you to judge based on the US's impact on the world because that's when Americans put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.
Personally, I feel that sex should be possible for anyone who is physically mature (which is about 12 and up these days AFAIK) and mentally mature (which seems to not happen before age 30 for msot people, if it ever does) enough for it.
LOL, great answer! It's the big "and" in your comment that is the source of disagreement in this discussion. Some seem to think that the "and" is not needed and that a period or a wet dream, a few words and a condom are enough of a substitute for that mental maturity. Age-of-consent laws are supposed to be designed to address the second part of the "and", since the first one is a biological given.
For example, there's a popular new American song whose lyrics include, "we'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way."
So are you saying that American values are based on a song's lyrics? I can tell that you are not American and that you really haven't been around the American hearland by the comments that you make. I am an American, and I can tell you that I won't let my country become a despotic, fascist, secular regime (e.g. -WW II Germany, USSR), nor a religious, totalitarian one (e.g.- Taliban). I can also tell you that I am by far not the exception around here.
The American culture is very well-balanced between personal moral values (religious and/or idealistic), and secular governmental structures. No other country that I am aware of is balanced in quite this way (I was born and have lived outside of the US). The first example that you could think of is Abu Ghraib, but from what I've read the incident was quite isolated, and it doesn't reflect American culture very well. I suggest that you give American people a little bit more credit and that you judge our actions on the whole of what we've done for the world, not just on a single incident and a song.
I agree with you that you should compare yourself to the best, but when the eyes of the world are upon you and many consider you the best, who do measure up against when you do falter?
So basically you advocate sex education rather than sexual intercourse at a young age? Good for you. That is a much more easily defensible position than your "devil's advocate" stance.
I agree that what's acceptable sexually is not universal, but at least in our culture I wouldn't consider backrubs sexual. However, unlike you, I don't think that cultures frown upon what feels good, but rather frown upon certain acts because of their potential effects, real or imagined, on that culture and society. For example, in my religion (Roman Catholic), sex among married couples is actually encouraged and it's meant to be enjoyed. However, unmarried sex is frowned upon not because it brings pleasure, but because it can bring consequences such as a pregnancy to a relationship that is ill-equiped to deal with it (no commitment to raise a child).
Pleasure in and of itself is not the problem (we seem to have a point of agreement here, but then I don't think that we've ever disagreed on this). Sex, however, is much more than pleasure. That's where our disagreement lies, and where I believe the weakness of your original argument lies.
The issue should be defined as narrowly as possible for clarity's sake, but not more. You are trying to redefine sex as something without consequence, but the reality is that it does have consequences. Who's being more narrow?
Bycicles? When was the last time someone got pregnant or got AIDS from riding a bycicle? Yes everything has risks, but equating possible physical injury with parenthood and/or life-long diseases is yet another one of your attempts at dodging the question. Still, no answer to the statistical certainties of increased pregnancies, STDs, and possibly even sexual predation. You said that you wanted to play devil's advocate with 9 year-olds and your analogy of backrubs to sex (only a sick mind would consider child-parent backrubs sexual). Here's your chance and debate, that's what playing devil's advocate is.
You said that there's no problem with 12-year olds having sex, so the burden of proof is on you. That's why I asked about the statistically-certain consequences of letting 12 year-olds have sex. Don't give me this "worse case scenario" junk, because the impression of your original post is not about preventing sexual intercourse at a young age at all, so given that interpretation sex cannot be the "worse case scenario."
For the record, I do read liberal sources just as much as conservative ones. (I'm in Slashdot, aren't I?) Only a fool would close his mind to the side he disagree upon.
If you hide the issue of sex from them and don't teach them you're more likely to have them get pregnant. Children explore the forbidden.
Is your misunderstanding deliverate? When did I say that we shouldn't teach children about sex. There is such a thing as intellectual honestly. I suggest that you try it. The issue that you orignally put forth is very specifically about sexually active children, as in intercourse (and yes 12-year olds are children). No one is disagreeing about having proper and honest sex education. But yet you've raised a typical conservative-bashing red-herring. See what I mean about your mindless talking points?
Honestly. If you bothered to read the link, the study is from the Gallup organization, not exactly a conservative beacon. I couldn't find mention of it on your typical left-leaning media so I grabbed the first source I found.
So let me see: You judge books by their cover and dismiss data on superficialities rather than substance, raise stale, tired red-herring arguments, and mischaracterize my comments. I expected more than that, but then after re-reading your original post I now wonder why? If you want to try again and answer with some substance, please do so. Otherwise don't waste my time.
(I'm still waiting for a coherent response on issues such as the very real and possible consequences of intercourse, mental and emotional maturity, possible increased abuse, etc.).
Medicine already has a perfect birth control. It's called abortion. But there are no other methods that make sex 100% safe from pregnancies, and no disease-proof methods whatsoever (except masturbation). In fact, no significant advances have been made in decades. I understand that you are trying to separate consequences from morality but my point is that you can't do that without severly twisting the issue to the point of absurdity, being that the consequences in large part shape the morality of the subject.
You are right in that the basic issue is about sheltering someone from decisions that shouldn't be made yet, guiding someone to what's best for that's person future. You wouldn't let your 5-year old get a credit card, right? Why shelter him from the responsibility of managing finances? Why do we worry about over-eating obese children then, or drug-use, or any other potentially self-destructive activity? They only do what comes naturally right? (seek pleasure). You argue one way, but what you are suggesting is exactly the oposite of responsibility. Responsibility comes after all of the consequences are understood, and the maturity exists to choose a path adequately. You can't get that from a twelve-year old, period. But you can teach that as they grow. In your analogy of getting a job with no experience, there is this thing called "education" that we engage in for years and years before we are expected to stand on our own and get a job. Education is commensurate with age: An 8 year-old has neither the background or the abstract thought ability to succeed at linear algebra. Similarly, a twelve-year old does not have the abstract thought or the background to make good sexual decisions, but that doesn't mean that the twelve-year old can't learn about the subject and grow to make responsible decisions when the time comes, just as children go through years of schooling before deemed ready to take on a job. It's immoral, irresponsible, and idiotic to ask of a 15-year old that's not done with high-school yet to get a job as a surgeon. It's also immoral, irresponsible and idiotic to ask for a 12-year old that is still mentally a child to make sexual decisions that could potentially affect that child for life.
Noticed how I didn't mention religion, but you have. You have some pre-conceived notions about conservatism == restrictive == religious that sound like talking points more than a genuine understanding of the other side (I was up through college quite the liberal by comparison). I suggest that you open your eyes to what's really happening. I submit to you that in average conservatives are happier and more fulfilled, because they take advantage of philosophies thousands of years in the making aimed at accomplishing just that, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel because they think they know better.
Well, at least the polls seem to disagree with you on your last point:
What is it with this pointless "what if" game? First of all, teenagers are much more prone to infection than 20-something year olds (thinner, more delicate tissues, etc). STD "protection" and birth control are just not designed for 12-year-olds, period.
We undestand the reproductive cycle extremely well, and we've had sophisticated birth controls for quite a few decades now, but we just can't get them to be 100% effective. Sex, from nature's point of view, is first and foremost about reproduction, and it always seems to find a way. What if that Islamic 47-virgin thing is true? would you let your 12 year-old blow himself and others up so he can enjoy after-life sex? What if aliens make us all sterile? Stick to reality, please.
Twelve-year olds are not ready to become parents. They cannot provide even for themselves and are by and large not emotionally or intellectually mature for meaninful relationships. My wife tells me that at 15 she still enjoyed playing with Barbies, but she wouldn't admit it to her friends because that's not the typical image of teenagers that the media was (and it still is) selling. Why complicate a teenager's life when it's already quite difficult to begin with?
Twelve year olds will experiment sexually (masturbation, etc), and that's just the way it is. However, going off the deep end at the other extreme and attempting to reduce intercourse to a mere recreational activity is furtile, pointless, and immature, because by definition intercourse is not a purely recreational activity.
What does sex early in life has to do with maturity? "Getting started" early? The most successful, meaninful relationships that I know of are among some of my most conservative friends, and by far the most messed-up divorces I've seen are among some of my most sexually-liberal friends. In the final analysis, previous sexual activity determines nearly nothing when it comes to future happiness. Where do you get the outlandish assumption that it does?
I don't think that twelve-year olds are ready for sex with anyone except themselves.
Why? Simple: Pregnancy and STD's. No birth-control method is 100% effective. If twelve-year olds are having sex with other twelve year olds, statistically we are bound to end-up with some pregnant twelve-year-olds, and even more diseased teenagers, especially since twelve-year olds are unlikely to get married and if sexually active would go through several partners (I remember reading somewhere that STD rates, not even counting AIDS, have actually sky-rocketed).
When we speak of maturity, we speak about the ability to comprehend and face the consequences of our actions. The sexual act, unlike a backrub, can have some very severe consequences. Equating one to the other is asinine.
Money from taxes never flows one way. Money always flows circularly:
taxes->production->income->constumption->taxe s.
Whether that production is military-related or not, is besides the point.
The "flow" of the cycle can be increased or decreased by monetary or fiscal policies. In the case of a budget deficit, the government spends more than it takes in, increasing the "flow" to stimulate the economy. In the case of balance budgets, money is taken out of the flow to prevent inflation. That's why Clinton's balanced budget made sense because it helped keep the dot-com boom from turning into runaway inflation (the economy producing above potential and growing too fast). It's also why the current deficit also makes sense, because the government is trying to bring the economy back up to its normal potential output, and since inflation is extremely low, there is no reason to remove money out of the economy by raising taxes. (monetary policy also works based on this idea of equilibrium potential, which is why the Fed tends to push interest rates up during good times and down during bad times). There is a time for balanced budgets (inflation or equilibrium), but judging by the current state of our economy, this is not the time.
Though IANAE (I'm not an economist), this is what I understand to be a rough gist of Keynesian macroeconomics as they relate to the Federal budget.
Above all, CEOs are greedy. Ergo, richer countries where consumers have deeper pockets and can spend more on your product are more attractive than poor countries where hardly anyone can afford your wares.
You seem to focus on cheap labor, but cheap labor are just small potatoes. Think about what the CEOs would call "the big picture": Who cares if you spend twice as much on labor when you can sell ten times the volume if the world becomes richer?
And then we wonder why ultra-left arguments are often not taken seriously? Here's an example of why. Just listen to yourself. What convincing evidence do you have that compels you to add that otherwise irrelevant comment to your post? Or does that part just betrays your paranoid, superiority-complex, and in all likelyhood bigoted beliefs about the current decision-makers? You pretty much have to believe that the media, the US government, Al Jazeera, and even Al Qaeda are all in cohorts for you to even consider making that statement (since the videos are first aired by Al Jazeera and feature known Al Qaeda members). I think that you've forgotten to take your pills for the day, troll.
I don't have a problem with disagreement, just with blatant intellectual dishonesty such as you've displayed. What ever happened to the JFK left? It used to be a solid, valid philosophy but lately it has become the loony extreme.
A war IS an arm race, except that the arms are actually used! Geez, talk about stating the obvious.
Re:Why not?
on
Linux in Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Likewise, would you like Americans to be called "the morons who try to impose their cultural and economical dominance to the rest of the world"? The problem is that you don't realise that you are probably more violent against the rest of the world than the rest of the world is to you -- even if it's a different form of violence.
Yes, especially since cultural_dominance == car_bombs. Oh, wait, cultural dominace IS more violent than beheadings and car bombs. My bad. Seriously, What kind of moron actually moderates the parent as insightful?
In war, as in everything else, you don't owe respect if respect is not given to you. It's as simple as that.
Slashdot Mirror
So, tell me, what ever happened with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that the entire world knew Saddam once had? We haven't found any, but as far as I know we haven't found any evidence as to their fate either way. Were they destroyed, and if so, where's the evidence? This is a legitimate question.
As far as liberating the Iraqi people, what evidence do you have that it wasn't the case? Iraq is scheduled to have elections, and an interim government is in power and it's calling the shots. Doesn't that count even a little as liberation?
You claim that Iraq's liberation was conducted incompetently, but as far as I remember the war of liberation was extremely effective, and the few "hot spots" that remain are in isolated areas of the country. If you were a general liberating a country, would you allow your entire army to get mired in one hot spot instead of skipping it and continuing on to your main objective? Clearly, you understand far more about strategic planning than those military-experienced dolts that are inadequately in charge of the US forces.
Maybe I'm hoping for too much, but It'd be nice to see a comment modded up that contained actual substance for a change, instead of regurgitated talking points. Here's your chance to provide that substance.
You're right. The orginal works went untranslated. Later, it was printed as "Lupata" instead of Laputa.
Nope. He declared that major operations (read: the massive military build-up and subsequent invasion) were over, but he also said that we would remained involved there for quite some time.
Easy, they renamed the place. In Spanish, it's "Liliput."
At first I thought that you were trying to be funny with that post, but upon further analysis I have to conclude that you are, to put it very, very, mildly, confused.
Wouldn't that in effect accomplish the same thing as as pandering to just a few large population centers such as in direct elections?
My question is no trap. It's a perfectly valid one: What country can be better trusted with the power than the US has? I'm not comparing it against mediocrity (unless you consider the entire world to be mediocre). Better stated, I am asking not how the US compares to the world, but how the world does not like to compare itself to the US even when the point of drawing comparisons is to do it against the best.
My question is a litmust test for those comparisons. If I am comparing America against the worse, or against the mediocre, or against any other than the best, then my question should be all too easy to answer.
Americans are not all saints by any stretch of the imagination, and problems are expected (Abu Ghraib being an unfortunate and glaring example). It has been said before that our officials are beholden to us and historically they get away with very little, but I doubt that torture is the mainstay of how we gather intelligence currently. Seeing how the press is crawling all over every move the US makes, I submit to you that on the whole very little solid evidence has come to light to support the theory of an "institutionalized torture" policy. We disagree on this point precisely because there appears to be no smoking gun either way.
However, the final question still remains whether the US has historically used its power more or less responsibly given how much more powerful the US is than most any other country in the world. The original poster raised concerns of so much power in the hands of a single country. I wonder, then, what other country can be better trusted to wield that kind of power given the history of the world?
Quoting only portions and then abscribing them interpretations that the author did not intend does not make your point very believable, especially when the author's clear intent is spelled out on the portions that you leave out.
Israeli interrogators in Iraq
The US needed someone with experience interrogating Muslims, and the Israelis are the most experienced service that has methods that the US would consider acceptable (i.e. no physical torture, etc.). If you bothered to read your own link, you would have realized that the US is going out of its way to obtain vital intelligence without resorting to barbarism.
Terror defendant: U.S. interrogators threatened life
Since when is threatening someone's life an unacceptable form of military interrogation? What should be said instead? The "We're going to let you live and everything will be OK but please cooperate" approach usually does not work in obtaining information from your enemy.
Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
This is a memo, just like the thousands that are written for and in the course of an administration. It is not an executive order and short of what are at this point unfounded rumors there appears to be no evidence that it was put into practice. It would be downright irresponsible for an administration not to explore all avenues in order to discard those that are ureasonable, and accept reasonable ideas. Ditto for your last link.
If anything, these links just prove how transparent the US government workings are in relation to those of the rest of the world, that even a lowly memo among the many that are requested and considered through the course of the administration's decision making process shows up in the news. That good degree of transparency is an asset of the US, not a liability.
More recent polls show a concerned for declining morals in America, and a desire to become more centrist because of it. I see this as good news because it indicates that the country is aware of its own faults.
However, I am unsure of your assertion that these were (not "are". Old poll, you know) American voters. Potential voters yes, but I believe that the small percentage that actually votes typically puts more effort into making a worthwile decision that your typical random poll participant.
Again, when it comes to action we tend to hold people responsible, that's why I suggest that you evaluate the US's impact. The really interesting question is: In the final analysis, has the US's power harmed the world or helped it? Does the US wield that power relatively well?
And that's my point exactly: Total secularism is what has lead to fascism in the past. I never claimed that the US was the most secular, nor the most democratic, but that it achieves a great compromise between secular democratic ideals, and freedom of religion that have kept it from going off the deep end in either direction. I see no disagreement with most of your post.
However, despite your worldliness and extensive travels you still do not understand the difference between an intolerant ass, and your typical American citizen that would most likely not advocate mass murder when the time came to vote. What I do see is someone that is rabidly biased against religion and America, because only someone with extreme bias would automatically attibute true religious piety to someone shouting or agreeing to killing all Arabs. Pity to have traveled so much and yet have seen so little. I'm sure that during war people in other countries never before have expressed those sentiments towards their enemies.
Again, I invite you to judge based on the US's impact on the world because that's when Americans put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.
LOL, great answer! It's the big "and" in your comment that is the source of disagreement in this discussion. Some seem to think that the "and" is not needed and that a period or a wet dream, a few words and a condom are enough of a substitute for that mental maturity. Age-of-consent laws are supposed to be designed to address the second part of the "and", since the first one is a biological given.
So are you saying that American values are based on a song's lyrics? I can tell that you are not American and that you really haven't been around the American hearland by the comments that you make. I am an American, and I can tell you that I won't let my country become a despotic, fascist, secular regime (e.g. -WW II Germany, USSR), nor a religious, totalitarian one (e.g.- Taliban). I can also tell you that I am by far not the exception around here.
The American culture is very well-balanced between personal moral values (religious and/or idealistic), and secular governmental structures. No other country that I am aware of is balanced in quite this way (I was born and have lived outside of the US). The first example that you could think of is Abu Ghraib, but from what I've read the incident was quite isolated, and it doesn't reflect American culture very well. I suggest that you give American people a little bit more credit and that you judge our actions on the whole of what we've done for the world, not just on a single incident and a song.
I agree with you that you should compare yourself to the best, but when the eyes of the world are upon you and many consider you the best, who do measure up against when you do falter?
I agree that what's acceptable sexually is not universal, but at least in our culture I wouldn't consider backrubs sexual. However, unlike you, I don't think that cultures frown upon what feels good, but rather frown upon certain acts because of their potential effects, real or imagined, on that culture and society. For example, in my religion (Roman Catholic), sex among married couples is actually encouraged and it's meant to be enjoyed. However, unmarried sex is frowned upon not because it brings pleasure, but because it can bring consequences such as a pregnancy to a relationship that is ill-equiped to deal with it (no commitment to raise a child).
Pleasure in and of itself is not the problem (we seem to have a point of agreement here, but then I don't think that we've ever disagreed on this). Sex, however, is much more than pleasure. That's where our disagreement lies, and where I believe the weakness of your original argument lies.
Bycicles? When was the last time someone got pregnant or got AIDS from riding a bycicle? Yes everything has risks, but equating possible physical injury with parenthood and/or life-long diseases is yet another one of your attempts at dodging the question. Still, no answer to the statistical certainties of increased pregnancies, STDs, and possibly even sexual predation. You said that you wanted to play devil's advocate with 9 year-olds and your analogy of backrubs to sex (only a sick mind would consider child-parent backrubs sexual). Here's your chance and debate, that's what playing devil's advocate is.
You said that there's no problem with 12-year olds having sex, so the burden of proof is on you. That's why I asked about the statistically-certain consequences of letting 12 year-olds have sex. Don't give me this "worse case scenario" junk, because the impression of your original post is not about preventing sexual intercourse at a young age at all, so given that interpretation sex cannot be the "worse case scenario."
For the record, I do read liberal sources just as much as conservative ones. (I'm in Slashdot, aren't I?) Only a fool would close his mind to the side he disagree upon.
If you hide the issue of sex from them and don't teach them you're more likely to have them get pregnant. Children explore the forbidden.
Is your misunderstanding deliverate? When did I say that we shouldn't teach children about sex. There is such a thing as intellectual honestly. I suggest that you try it. The issue that you orignally put forth is very specifically about sexually active children, as in intercourse (and yes 12-year olds are children). No one is disagreeing about having proper and honest sex education. But yet you've raised a typical conservative-bashing red-herring. See what I mean about your mindless talking points?
Honestly. If you bothered to read the link, the study is from the Gallup organization, not exactly a conservative beacon. I couldn't find mention of it on your typical left-leaning media so I grabbed the first source I found.
So let me see: You judge books by their cover and dismiss data on superficialities rather than substance, raise stale, tired red-herring arguments, and mischaracterize my comments. I expected more than that, but then after re-reading your original post I now wonder why? If you want to try again and answer with some substance, please do so. Otherwise don't waste my time.
(I'm still waiting for a coherent response on issues such as the very real and possible consequences of intercourse, mental and emotional maturity, possible increased abuse, etc.).
You are right in that the basic issue is about sheltering someone from decisions that shouldn't be made yet, guiding someone to what's best for that's person future. You wouldn't let your 5-year old get a credit card, right? Why shelter him from the responsibility of managing finances? Why do we worry about over-eating obese children then, or drug-use, or any other potentially self-destructive activity? They only do what comes naturally right? (seek pleasure). You argue one way, but what you are suggesting is exactly the oposite of responsibility. Responsibility comes after all of the consequences are understood, and the maturity exists to choose a path adequately. You can't get that from a twelve-year old, period. But you can teach that as they grow. In your analogy of getting a job with no experience, there is this thing called "education" that we engage in for years and years before we are expected to stand on our own and get a job. Education is commensurate with age: An 8 year-old has neither the background or the abstract thought ability to succeed at linear algebra. Similarly, a twelve-year old does not have the abstract thought or the background to make good sexual decisions, but that doesn't mean that the twelve-year old can't learn about the subject and grow to make responsible decisions when the time comes, just as children go through years of schooling before deemed ready to take on a job. It's immoral, irresponsible, and idiotic to ask of a 15-year old that's not done with high-school yet to get a job as a surgeon. It's also immoral, irresponsible and idiotic to ask for a 12-year old that is still mentally a child to make sexual decisions that could potentially affect that child for life.
Noticed how I didn't mention religion, but you have. You have some pre-conceived notions about conservatism == restrictive == religious that sound like talking points more than a genuine understanding of the other side (I was up through college quite the liberal by comparison). I suggest that you open your eyes to what's really happening. I submit to you that in average conservatives are happier and more fulfilled, because they take advantage of philosophies thousands of years in the making aimed at accomplishing just that, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel because they think they know better.
Well, at least the polls seem to disagree with you on your last point:
Conservatives are more fullfilled than liberals
We undestand the reproductive cycle extremely well, and we've had sophisticated birth controls for quite a few decades now, but we just can't get them to be 100% effective. Sex, from nature's point of view, is first and foremost about reproduction, and it always seems to find a way. What if that Islamic 47-virgin thing is true? would you let your 12 year-old blow himself and others up so he can enjoy after-life sex? What if aliens make us all sterile? Stick to reality, please.
Twelve-year olds are not ready to become parents. They cannot provide even for themselves and are by and large not emotionally or intellectually mature for meaninful relationships. My wife tells me that at 15 she still enjoyed playing with Barbies, but she wouldn't admit it to her friends because that's not the typical image of teenagers that the media was (and it still is) selling. Why complicate a teenager's life when it's already quite difficult to begin with?
Twelve year olds will experiment sexually (masturbation, etc), and that's just the way it is. However, going off the deep end at the other extreme and attempting to reduce intercourse to a mere recreational activity is furtile, pointless, and immature, because by definition intercourse is not a purely recreational activity.
What does sex early in life has to do with maturity? "Getting started" early? The most successful, meaninful relationships that I know of are among some of my most conservative friends, and by far the most messed-up divorces I've seen are among some of my most sexually-liberal friends. In the final analysis, previous sexual activity determines nearly nothing when it comes to future happiness. Where do you get the outlandish assumption that it does?
Why? Simple: Pregnancy and STD's. No birth-control method is 100% effective. If twelve-year olds are having sex with other twelve year olds, statistically we are bound to end-up with some pregnant twelve-year-olds, and even more diseased teenagers, especially since twelve-year olds are unlikely to get married and if sexually active would go through several partners (I remember reading somewhere that STD rates, not even counting AIDS, have actually sky-rocketed).
When we speak of maturity, we speak about the ability to comprehend and face the consequences of our actions. The sexual act, unlike a backrub, can have some very severe consequences. Equating one to the other is asinine.
Money from taxes never flows one way. Money always flows circularly:
taxes->production->income->constumption->taxe s.
Whether that production is military-related or not, is besides the point.
The "flow" of the cycle can be increased or decreased by monetary or fiscal policies. In the case of a budget deficit, the government spends more than it takes in, increasing the "flow" to stimulate the economy. In the case of balance budgets, money is taken out of the flow to prevent inflation. That's why Clinton's balanced budget made sense because it helped keep the dot-com boom from turning into runaway inflation (the economy producing above potential and growing too fast). It's also why the current deficit also makes sense, because the government is trying to bring the economy back up to its normal potential output, and since inflation is extremely low, there is no reason to remove money out of the economy by raising taxes. (monetary policy also works based on this idea of equilibrium potential, which is why the Fed tends to push interest rates up during good times and down during bad times). There is a time for balanced budgets (inflation or equilibrium), but judging by the current state of our economy, this is not the time.
Though IANAE (I'm not an economist), this is what I understand to be a rough gist of Keynesian macroeconomics as they relate to the Federal budget.
Above all, CEOs are greedy. Ergo, richer countries where consumers have deeper pockets and can spend more on your product are more attractive than poor countries where hardly anyone can afford your wares. You seem to focus on cheap labor, but cheap labor are just small potatoes. Think about what the CEOs would call "the big picture": Who cares if you spend twice as much on labor when you can sell ten times the volume if the world becomes richer?
And then we wonder why ultra-left arguments are often not taken seriously? Here's an example of why. Just listen to yourself. What convincing evidence do you have that compels you to add that otherwise irrelevant comment to your post? Or does that part just betrays your paranoid, superiority-complex, and in all likelyhood bigoted beliefs about the current decision-makers? You pretty much have to believe that the media, the US government, Al Jazeera, and even Al Qaeda are all in cohorts for you to even consider making that statement (since the videos are first aired by Al Jazeera and feature known Al Qaeda members). I think that you've forgotten to take your pills for the day, troll.
I don't have a problem with disagreement, just with blatant intellectual dishonesty such as you've displayed. What ever happened to the JFK left? It used to be a solid, valid philosophy but lately it has become the loony extreme.
A war IS an arm race, except that the arms are actually used! Geez, talk about stating the obvious.
Yes, especially since cultural_dominance == car_bombs. Oh, wait, cultural dominace IS more violent than beheadings and car bombs. My bad. Seriously, What kind of moron actually moderates the parent as insightful?
In war, as in everything else, you don't owe respect if respect is not given to you. It's as simple as that.