What you have forgotten is the thought police. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but for a large part, free speech, free press and free thought have been preserved in the US. To my mind, the freedom to dissent is the most important basic right.
Rep. Barbara Lee may disagree somewhat. She cast the only vote against going to war, and may pay for her dissent with her career. I am not saying that you are wrong, but watching people suddenly fall into line on formerly contested policies like missle defense makes me wonder. Seems like people may be afraid of being labeled traitors if they don't tow the line for Bush.
The US leaders have done exactly the opposite lately, encouraging restraint and not attacking cultures and racial groups.
Maybe so, but they are pushing us to take out our frustrations with a few fanatics on entire nations. This seems to be much the same. They can't do anything about terrorism, so they are making scapegoats out of countries that are affiliated with them (remember, we were once affiliated with bin Laden while he was terrorizing the Soviets. Not quite the same, but you you see my point). So, while they may discourage attacks on US citizens, they are happy to encourage the perception of a foreign "other".
Apologies if I misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that my privacy should be curtailed to elimiate riskes to your life. I don't beleive that giving up freedoms such as privacy in the hope of eliminating risk is a worthy trade.
You say that you would not fight for my survival but not die for my right to privacy. I would fight and die for your right to live in a free society as opposed to just surviving in a police state.
Your life is most definately not worth my privacy or any other freedom. Soldiers and civilians have been dying for generations to protect your freedom. Get a grip and show a little appreciation!
Hatred is unconscious irrational thing that LOOKS FOR RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS to present itself.
I guess you are off the hook then. None of your explanations are rational.
It looks like I'll send you to another reading quest. Read as much as you can find about Ethology - the science of instincts - and you'll understand that we're not that far from monkeys. It tells that racism and national hatred are just an instinctive (read: unconscious) program gone awry.
Thanks, I'll look into it. Frankly, I suspect that your argument is to Ethology what Social Darwinism is to Darwinism. That is, a specious attempt to justify your arguments based on an analogous scientific theory. Basically, an attempt to exuse morally abhorant behavior based on science. Not surprising really. You probably think that Israwli's have better guns because they are genetically superior. Some of us recognize that we have developed the will to overcome our base instincts. Apparently you have not. If (as you insist) this is true of Israel, that hardly lends to the legitimacy of their state.
But even if we take you assertion as fact and apply it to all humanity, one must conclude that Israeli's are no more moral than Palestinians.
Also, do you know the difference between berserk (sp?) and samurai? You can fight without fighting or being hateful or violent.
Actually, I do (and if you thnk that samurai fought without hatred or violence, clearly you do not). I am all for a rational and justifiable fight against terrorists. I am not for nuking the Arabs or carpet bombing Afghanistan, as are many of the reactionaries on your side of this argument. I am not for responding to rocks with bullets and responding to bullets with shells. I am not for using air to ground missles to kill alledged criminals. I am not for suicide bombings. All of this madness is of the same vein. None of it is worthy of a civilised people.
You can do NOTHING with their desperation and resentment because you can't give everyone everything they want.
If removing our troops from their holy land and reliquishing our military influence over their countries is what they want, then yes we can.
As soon as they get something they wanted they are going to demand even more.
I don't recal Arabs asking the US for anything until we showed up on their doorstep looking to protect their interests. The Israeli's however are forever begging for more money and more guns to further their murderous tyranny.
1) Hitler and Czechs.
Israel will soon find itself on the wrong side of this comparison. By your logic it is past time to revoke Israels carte blanche to occupy other peoples lands. There quixotic quest to maintain their state will never suceed until they exterminate all of Palestine, which is what they are trying to do.
This is why I think that peace between Israel and Arabs is possible only after a war where Israel beats the crap out of them
You said it dude. Israel is a warlike state that can only survive by being a perpetual aggressor. If it were big enough to be worth protecting, that would be fine. As it stands, all that war is hardly justifiable.
Even the most ruthless? Are you out of your mind? "Most ruthless" is Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, all of which were able to exterminate any opposition (The only opposition to Hitler appeared towards the end of the War when Germany was losing).
Are you out of your mind? I'll let history speak for itself on all three of these monsterous failures.
Not so sure. Strictly speaking, it is the freedom from the belief in a god. However, you seem to imply that it is therefore the belief in nothing (pardon me if I am misreading). One can hold many beliefs about life and the universe without attributing them to a higher power.
How about producing an impartial source? If this ironic, sanctimonious pap is all you read I can see where your attitude comes from.
It is you who attacks Israel without even trying to understand it a bit because your words about "understanding everyone" are just words. You prefer "trying to understand" Bin Laden.
I can practically see the flecks of foam in the corner of your mouth. The fact that zealots like you are the only ones standing up for Israel is proof enough of its illegitimacy.
Keep dreaming, buddy. ALL wars were won by Israel not because of the military help from the US (USSR provided Arabs with much more help), but because of bravery and military prowess of Israelis.
[Que laugh track]
It is not for humanitarian purposes; it's the same military help as Israel is getting
Like I said. If this is the case, cut them both off.
If you think that aid is provided by the territory size or the population numbers, you're just not that bright. I'll give you a couple of hints about Israel:
I never said that was how aid is calculated. I merely wonder why such a statistically insignificant country deserves any aid at all, let alone more than one that is orders of magnititude larger.
Hints 1-3 boil down to one fact. Israeli's kiss America's ass becuase they know that they are history if they ever lose our favor. Deal with it.
Point four is true, insofar as Israel pays lip service to "liberty" and "democracy" while persecuting its troublesome detractors and
threatening any one who stands in the way of its Imperialistic ambitions. Congradulations.
Regardless, as Israel becomes more and more of a strategic liability, none of these reasons will help them.
Newest Soviet military equipment that the US got helped US not to lose in the arms race.
No one lost the arms race, genius. The cold war was not one by military superiority.
1) I'm not an idiot who believes that everyone thinks like me;
You are an idiot who thinks that everyone who does not think like you is wrong by definition.
2) I'm not an idiot who believes that free speech and free beer is enough to satisfy anyone;
You are an idiot who thinks that only you and your partisans are entitled to either.
3) I believe in personal responsibility.
You are an idiot blindly supports a country that can claim no responsibility for its own survival or even its founding.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/intimidation.ht ml
This is partisan nonsense that glosses over equivalent behavior on the Israeli side. Let's not forget that Iraeli's side has vastly greater and more sympathetic coverage. This is as laughable as the claim that the US media is controlled by a liberal consipracy.
Also, you've forgotten about Chinese who say about "Tibet always being part of China" (but only China you think about is Chyna;-). ..You only think about tiny piece of land where always persecuted and threatened by enemies Jews try to make a living.
For the record, I think that Chyna is rather hideous. Moreover, I think that China needs to leave Tibet and Taiwan alone. In fact your, assumption that I support any of these imperialist actions is baseless. It is you who is making excuses for this behavior on behalf of Israel.
You'll notice that such a support started only after USSR opened unlimited credit to Arabs for weaponry and military training. US had pretty much nothing to do with Israel before; Israelis were buying arms from France.
Well the USSR is gone (maybe you should brush up on recent history). But that is besides the point. Sans foreign military aid on both sides, the Israelis would not have a chance agains the Arabs.
BTW, you speak about welfare. Do you know how much of American welfare Egypt is getting? Not much less than Israel.
If it isn't for humantitarian purposes, I say cut off Egypt too.
BTW:
Egypt = 1,000,000+ sq miles, 67,000,000+ population
Israel = 20,000+ sq miles, 5,800,000+ population
Please explain to me how Israel is entitled to more aid. (Maybe you could brush up on geography as well.)
And with the benefit of hindsight, all that military intelligence proved to be pretty worthless. Thanks anyway though.
Israelis ARE willing to share as long as they are left alone.
Left alone to grab even more land? Left alone to bulldoze Palestinian settlements? As I said, not in any meaningful sense. Israel is the only part of the world where anyone even makes a feeble attempt to rationalize this kind of imperialism.
There were plenty of Native Americans who did not want to share their land with Whites. Are you sure that you are not a Leftist? I mean, talk about liberal propaganda!
Jews would like to share and live peacefully with Arabs.
Sure, as long as they are in control. As long as they can take any land they want, regardless of who is living there. As long as they can cut off resources such as water to Arabs when there is not enough to go around. Funny how now that you are talking about Israel, you think it is okay for the powerful to bully the weak. I say cut of US military support to Israel, and lets see who is really weak. Seems like a great way to leave them alone! Since they are so righteous and powerful, I'm sure they can survive cut off from the US welfare roles. And its good to know that you would support the Arabs, should they manage to win against an Israel without US weapons and money. I was beginning to think that you were a hypocrite.
Land that was taken by force as reparation for crimes commited against Jews by Europeans, not Arabs. Land which the Israeli's are no more willing to share in any meaningful sense than Arabs.
You are right. Than land has changed hands many times. Maybe it is time for it to change hands again. I do question Israels legitimacy. Their has presence destablized an entire region and their conflict is spreading rapidly. As far as I am concerned, no one's seperatist religious ambitions are worth the price the world has paid to prop up Israel.
Do you think that the plight of Native Americans is more similar to that of Israelis, or Palestinians? Mexico was a creation of Spain, which took it and Florida from the same Native Americans that you insult with your specious rhetoric. If you are going to be glib, at least be thorough and get your history straight.
Cold comfort for those who continue to lose loved ones because Israel's reactionary extremism fails to address the root of the vendetta against them.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
The Gulf War is an abberation. Vietnam was not about protecting markets. Cambodia was not about markets. WWII was not about markets. WWI was not about markets. They were all about halting the spread of tolatarianism.
If anything, the World Wars were the abberations. They were two rare instances when our country or its property was attacked. We didn't give a damn about totalitarianism when it was only affecting someone else. It is the same today. China is one of our largest trading partners and they are known to use forced labor to produce goods for export. As for SE Asia, those wars were about halting the spread of communism. Please consider that the antithesis of communism is not democracy, it is capitalism. There are many democratic countries that emply communist and/or socialist principles to the great benefit of their people. (Meanwhile, people in the US actually beleive that socailized medecine is a threat to democracy.) I am not suggesting that most communist regimes are not totalitarian. They are. However, I think that our stance towards totalitarian China now that they have warmed up to capitalism belies our true motives.
Allow me to reiterate that I do not suggest the abolition of corporations or globalism (hence my original suggestion to reign them in), or even more directly Imperialistic endeavors in troubled parts of the world. I simply suggest that their powers need to be tempered. I simply beleive that they need to be bound to humanitarian principles that are not currently inherent to their ideology. As long as we agree that these systems have problems that need fixing, we need not argue.
Allow me also to point out that I presume to be no expert on the conditions of sweatshop labor in the Third World. However, there are sweat shops in the United States where people are held against their will, forced to work without pay, and physically and sexually victimized. I think it is a resonable assumption that conditions are at least as bad in countries with weaker laws and human rights protections.
Finally, bin Laden considers us an enemy because of our military presence in the Holy Lands of Islam and our support of a regime considered corrupt becuase of their allowance of this affront. We are in Saudi Ariabia to protect international trade and in furtherance short sided energy policies that are paid for by multinationals. To ignore this is to invite further retribution, and I consider that to be an offense to the memory of those who have died in NY because of our arrogance and greed.
Nor am I. I was simply drawing an obvious conclusion from your own counter example to your earlier statement.
I presume you to be a leftist based on your conclusion that "Everything is the fault of corporations and globalisation"
Read my comment in its entirety. Then listen to what bin Laden is saying. The longer you fail to understand their motivations, the longer you will fail to stem the hatred that they represent.
When you have an act of war, you deal with it by different laws.
Without an enemy you can identify, declaring 'war' is just rhetoric. It is an attempt to pre-justify indiscriminate mayhem and destruction. It allows us to rain bombs and missles on foreign lands without so much as a shred of proof that the people we are killing are in any way responsible for the crimes committed in this country. We are simply lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorist who declared war on us first. In both cases it is just a an attempt to rationalize violent extremism.
And your post shows that you don't even want to understand my arguments about different values for different cultures (and I know at least something here because I lived in two different countries during the course of my life).
I have lived in two different countries as well. How you could live outside the US and recoginze the cultural differences that exist and fail to understand the animosity towards America is quite puzzling.
There is no deterent to madness. But there is to desperation and resentment, and we should be doing something about it. The only alternative is to ignore the causes and hunt down the perpetrators after they do their damage. As is evident in Israel, even the most ruthless efforts to exterminate our enemies will not eleimiate them all. So next time only one jetliner will be crashed into a skyscraper?
Last of all, keep in mind that I fully support the prosecution of any terrorist or conspirator. I simlpy suggest that in addition to this, we address some of the causes from which these people draw support. Writing them off as madmen will solve nothing.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
the real reason the US has allies and puppets is for fighting wars, not for selling products.
Not to sell products, no. But more often than not to protect markets and economic resources. Take the Gulf War as an example. Follow the money, you will be unpleasantly surprised.
It has been exporting freedom for centuries.
This freedom has always been a trojan horse, masking our self serving desire to aquire new markets and spheres of influence. In short, it is veiled Imperialism. We exported our "freeodom" to Japan (at gunpoint) in the late 19th century and it took less than fifty years for it to evolve into ruthless Imperialism. Co-incidence? Was that part of the solution for the rest of Asia? The fact is that we have a long record of turning a blind eye to anyone that does not contribute to our bottom line. Lets not forget the totalitarian regimes that we prop up whenever it makes economic sense. The fact is that freedom takes a back seat to economic expediency.
In one you come in with guns and enslave the population. In the other you offer them products and offer them money in exchange for products and/or money in exchange for ownership of land and corporations. The difference is choice.
This misconception is at the root of much of your argument. Third world citizens are are given no choice when it comes to globalization. They are sold out by their self-serving ruling classes. They receive none of the benefits of Global trade. Their politicians and bosses trade their labor for cash which they use to line their own pockets. Globalism does nothing for these people other than encourage their further exploitation. It turns their very lives into a commodity on a market over which they have no control. Corporations are not moving in to the Third World out of a desire to bring employment to desperate people. They are there to cash in on desperation.
If you are so blind in your hatred of capitalism that you cannot distinguish between a) invading countries and killing those who oppose you and b) offering them the option of buying and selling things then we don't really have much common ground for discussion.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how invading a nation and killing or subjugating its people for ecomic gain is any different than aiding an abetting this behavior by local allies. That is, other than the fact that the latter offers the opportunity to make repugnant denials of responsibility.
Corporations only delay automation while human labour is cheaper.
Tranlasion: Corporations will exploit people as long as possible. There is a clear incentive here to impede the development of the third world into anything other than a cheap labor pool. If nothing else, it will spare the shareholders the expense of the R&D of alternatives (and god forbid they should be deprived of a single dime made off of someone elses back). You are right, this is Slashdot. This is a place where people seem to understand that the unbridled expansion of corporate hegemony is harmful to competition, inovation, and ultimately consumers. I would think that people who have a problem with Microsoft would be at least suspicious of Nike and its ilk. I sincerely hope that all Slashdot readers are not so myopic in their understanding of the world around them.
I'm looking around my desk. I have a a high-tech Cisco IP phone. That may have been made in the third world but certainly not in a sweatshop. I've got an IBM laptop. Not third-world stuff.
I am so glad that you brought up your high tech gadgets, manufactured in the sweatshops of the new economy. Thanks to the obfuscation of companies like IBM, we are only now discovering the effects of long term exposure to the toxics that went into the construction of that laptop. The cancers and other diseases caused by direct and repeated exposure to dangerous solvents and heavy metals has been hidden for years by high tech manufacturers in the name of saving a dime at the expense of employee health. Of course, these toxics were dumped into the local environment, further magnifying their harful effects. By the way, I am talking about factories here in America, in the middle of Silicon Valley. If corporations can do this in the face of relatively strict employee health and environmental regulations, imagine the damage that they can get away with in nations that are too weak to regulate them at all. Japanese high tech manufaturers are wreaking environmental havoc in the Philipines and other asian countries, exporting toxic industrial processes so they can keep their own environment as prestine as possible.
I'm glad you enjoy books. No-ones life was shortened by having to handle toxic inks, glues, acids or bleaches, right? Of course not. In the free world no-one would be subjeted to harm in the name of economic expediancy.
Now I'm trying to understand what you would advocate. Next time I go to buy shoes, should I say to myself "hmmm. I'd better not send my money to those Chinese people. They'd be better off with it." Should I keep my money in North America to somehow help those elsewhere?
First, realize that you are not sending money to the Chinese people. The vast majority of it is staying in North America. You are sending it it to a North American corporation, who sends the tiniest portion to their Third World partners, who in a sick tribute to Marx pay their workers just enough so that they may survive to work one more day. Second, you should at least try to find companies that do not rely on explotative labor practices. Can't find one? Admit that this is problem and start asking why. Costs of living in the Third World are so low it is all the more a crime that they are not paid a living wage. If shoes cost $2 to make and retail for $100, at least wonder where the rest of the money goes. But don't perpetuate the capitalist, free market dogma that supply and demand sort these things out fairly and that global prosperity is not the manifest destiny of corporate expansion. Corporate ideology has no allegiance to the furtherance of human rights
The US unemployement rate is extremely low by internationals standards. Can you demonstrate that it was even lower before there were automated factories?
Can you demostrate that it was higher? People lose their jobs all the time when they are replaced by advances in technology. I don't assume that they will always be absobed by some new venture. The worlds population is skyrocketing while the demand for labor is diminishing. You connect the dots.
Offering people money for services is not enslavement.
This oversimplified definition is not slavery. Nor is it reality. The process by which people are herded off of their land and into factories to work for pennies an hour for lack of any alternate means of survival is slavery. What is the difference between these people and African slaves brought to the new world? The fact that the pitance they receive for their labor is paid in cash? Face it, we are no different than the societies that promoted slavery in past centuries. We depend on forced labor and rationalize that these savages would be worse off without us.
They started out poor. We all started out poor. The natural state of humanity is poverty. Look at how life spans have changed in the last few centuries. Look at how literacy has improved in the last few centuries. Look at how protection from the elements has improved.
If the natural state of humnity is poverty, why do you assume that global prosperity is a fait accompli? Exporting our industrial toxins to the Third World will not improve their life spans. Sending children to work in factories does nothing to further their education. And where do you think that these people live? Antarctica? People in South-East Asia do not need our help to survive the elements.
At last we agree. I make no assertion that there is a better system. I simply submit that ours is fraught with inequity, and does real harm to many people. I simply suggest that we recognize its failings, and fix them wherever possible.
Your pollyannish assumption that the system will figure itself out for the better of all mankind is part of the problem. It excuses you from feeling any guilt towards the people who suffer in the shackles of the global trade. It allows you to sit back and do nothing, safe in the assumption that Politicians, CEO's and stock holders will make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.
If you haven't, take a look at the writings of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or David Korten. At least hear both sides of the argument beefore you take the free-market capitalist dogma on faith.
Re:US foreign policy, not global trade, the issue
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.
The fact that we are commited does not mean that our position is defensible from a moral standpoint. The land in Saudi Arabia is considered holy by Islam and our military occupation of its lands and influence over its leaders is an affront to their most deeply held values.
Why does the average american cry foul when countries such as China try to buy influence here, but blindly assume some kind of god given right to manipulate the goverments of the rest of the world in pusuance of our economic goals? This kind of arrogance is why we will continue to be a target.
Whatever the cause, do you dispute that Israeli's are far more secure outside of Israel at this point?
It's obvius that you have not botherd to learn anything about these four figures, so I won't attempt to have a rational discussion with you about them.
Based on what do you presume to tar me as a "Leftist?" The fact that I don't support your blood-lust? The fact that I think that terrorists should be brought to justice, and not summarily killed? How is the WTO opposition's fetish for mayhem and desire to shout down their opponents any different from yours? You decry their disrespect for peace and law, and yet you support the circumvention of both to further your own agenda.
Terrorists can not be reasoned with. However, to attempt to destroy them without understanding their cause is like trimming a weed and leaving the roots in tact.
Thanks for the book reccomendation, I'll check it out.
Doesn't the incident in Switzerland disprove your assertion then? Apparently, Mossad is not a deterant.
I am grateful for the groups that do such a good job of protecting my human rights that I can almost take them for granted. If more people on this earth could live their lives free of opression and persecution, there might be fewer desperate enough to resort to terror, or at least fewer willing to support them (there is no deterent for insanity). If that means giving due process to a few criminals, that is a worthy trade off. Terrorism pales in comparison to tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
"Don't try getting it out with a bone. It only makes things worse!
--Sideshow Mel
.CON (get-rich-quick schemes, "free X in your e-mail" sites, miracle cures. . .)
On second thought, we'd run out of those real quick too.
What you have forgotten is the thought police. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but for a large part, free speech, free press and free thought have been preserved in the US. To my mind, the freedom to dissent is the most important basic right.
Rep. Barbara Lee may disagree somewhat. She cast the only vote against going to war, and may pay for her dissent with her career. I am not saying that you are wrong, but watching people suddenly fall into line on formerly contested policies like missle defense makes me wonder. Seems like people may be afraid of being labeled traitors if they don't tow the line for Bush.
The US leaders have done exactly the opposite lately, encouraging restraint and not attacking cultures and racial groups.
Maybe so, but they are pushing us to take out our frustrations with a few fanatics on entire nations. This seems to be much the same. They can't do anything about terrorism, so they are making scapegoats out of countries that are affiliated with them (remember, we were once affiliated with bin Laden while he was terrorizing the Soviets. Not quite the same, but you you see my point). So, while they may discourage attacks on US citizens, they are happy to encourage the perception of a foreign "other".
Apologies if I misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that my privacy should be curtailed to elimiate riskes to your life. I don't beleive that giving up freedoms such as privacy in the hope of eliminating risk is a worthy trade.
You say that you would not fight for my survival but not die for my right to privacy. I would fight and die for your right to live in a free society as opposed to just surviving in a police state.
How very fucking original.
I think you mean Edwin Starr.
Your privacy is not worth mine
Your life is most definately not worth my privacy or any other freedom. Soldiers and civilians have been dying for generations to protect your freedom. Get a grip and show a little appreciation!
The Court often rules along party lines. That's why appointing judges is so important.
FYI: Justice [dictionary.com].
Enjoy.
Mace + Re-Circulated Air = Bad News.
It may not be true by virtue of being famous, but that does not mean that it is not true.
Hatred is unconscious irrational thing that LOOKS FOR RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS to present itself.
I guess you are off the hook then. None of your explanations are rational.
It looks like I'll send you to another reading quest. Read as much as you can find about Ethology - the science of instincts - and you'll understand that we're not that far from monkeys. It tells that racism and national hatred are just an instinctive (read: unconscious) program gone awry.
Thanks, I'll look into it. Frankly, I suspect that your argument is to Ethology what Social Darwinism is to Darwinism. That is, a specious attempt to justify your arguments based on an analogous scientific theory. Basically, an attempt to exuse morally abhorant behavior based on science. Not surprising really. You probably think that Israwli's have better guns because they are genetically superior. Some of us recognize that we have developed the will to overcome our base instincts. Apparently you have not. If (as you insist) this is true of Israel, that hardly lends to the legitimacy of their state.
But even if we take you assertion as fact and apply it to all humanity, one must conclude that Israeli's are no more moral than Palestinians.
Also, do you know the difference between berserk (sp?) and samurai? You can fight without fighting or being hateful or violent.
Actually, I do (and if you thnk that samurai fought without hatred or violence, clearly you do not). I am all for a rational and justifiable fight against terrorists. I am not for nuking the Arabs or carpet bombing Afghanistan, as are many of the reactionaries on your side of this argument. I am not for responding to rocks with bullets and responding to bullets with shells. I am not for using air to ground missles to kill alledged criminals. I am not for suicide bombings. All of this madness is of the same vein. None of it is worthy of a civilised people.
You can do NOTHING with their desperation and resentment because you can't give everyone everything they want.
If removing our troops from their holy land and reliquishing our military influence over their countries is what they want, then yes we can.
As soon as they get something they wanted they are going to demand even more.
I don't recal Arabs asking the US for anything until we showed up on their doorstep looking to protect their interests. The Israeli's however are forever begging for more money and more guns to further their murderous tyranny.
1) Hitler and Czechs.
Israel will soon find itself on the wrong side of this comparison. By your logic it is past time to revoke Israels carte blanche to occupy other peoples lands. There quixotic quest to maintain their state will never suceed until they exterminate all of Palestine, which is what they are trying to do.
This is why I think that peace between Israel and Arabs is possible only after a war where Israel beats the crap out of them
You said it dude. Israel is a warlike state that can only survive by being a perpetual aggressor. If it were big enough to be worth protecting, that would be fine. As it stands, all that war is hardly justifiable.
Even the most ruthless? Are you out of your mind? "Most ruthless" is Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, all of which were able to exterminate any opposition (The only opposition to Hitler appeared towards the end of the War when Germany was losing).
Are you out of your mind? I'll let history speak for itself on all three of these monsterous failures.
Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs. . .
.it's the freedom from religion.
Probably true in most cases.
. .
Not so sure. Strictly speaking, it is the freedom from the belief in a god. However, you seem to imply that it is therefore the belief in nothing (pardon me if I am misreading). One can hold many beliefs about life and the universe without attributing them to a higher power.
As with any laws that must be applied to vastly more people than can be evaluated on an individual basis, this age is just a generalization.
Plus, the law doesn't preclude a gradual development up to the age of 18.
I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of competency test in place of an arbitrary age.
BS again.
How about producing an impartial source? If this ironic, sanctimonious pap is all you read I can see where your attitude comes from.
It is you who attacks Israel without even trying to understand it a bit because your words about "understanding everyone" are just words. You prefer "trying to understand" Bin Laden.
I can practically see the flecks of foam in the corner of your mouth. The fact that zealots like you are the only ones standing up for Israel is proof enough of its illegitimacy.
Keep dreaming, buddy. ALL wars were won by Israel not because of the military help from the US (USSR provided Arabs with much more help), but because of bravery and military prowess of Israelis.
[Que laugh track]
It is not for humanitarian purposes; it's the same military help as Israel is getting
Like I said. If this is the case, cut them both off.
If you think that aid is provided by the territory size or the population numbers, you're just not that bright. I'll give you a couple of hints about Israel:
I never said that was how aid is calculated. I merely wonder why such a statistically insignificant country deserves any aid at all, let alone more than one that is orders of magnititude larger.
Hints 1-3 boil down to one fact. Israeli's kiss America's ass becuase they know that they are history if they ever lose our favor. Deal with it.
Point four is true, insofar as Israel pays lip service to "liberty" and "democracy" while persecuting its troublesome detractors and
threatening any one who stands in the way of its Imperialistic ambitions. Congradulations.
Regardless, as Israel becomes more and more of a strategic liability, none of these reasons will help them.
Newest Soviet military equipment that the US got helped US not to lose in the arms race.
No one lost the arms race, genius. The cold war was not one by military superiority.
1) I'm not an idiot who believes that everyone thinks like me;
You are an idiot who thinks that everyone who does not think like you is wrong by definition.
2) I'm not an idiot who believes that free speech and free beer is enough to satisfy anyone;
You are an idiot who thinks that only you and your partisans are entitled to either.
3) I believe in personal responsibility.
You are an idiot blindly supports a country that can claim no responsibility for its own survival or even its founding.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/intimidation.ht ml
;-). . .You only think about tiny piece of land where always persecuted and threatened by enemies Jews try to make a living.
This is partisan nonsense that glosses over equivalent behavior on the Israeli side. Let's not forget that Iraeli's side has vastly greater and more sympathetic coverage. This is as laughable as the claim that the US media is controlled by a liberal consipracy.
Also, you've forgotten about Chinese who say about "Tibet always being part of China" (but only China you think about is Chyna
For the record, I think that Chyna is rather hideous. Moreover, I think that China needs to leave Tibet and Taiwan alone. In fact your, assumption that I support any of these imperialist actions is baseless. It is you who is making excuses for this behavior on behalf of Israel.
You'll notice that such a support started only after USSR opened unlimited credit to Arabs for weaponry and military training. US had pretty much nothing to do with Israel before; Israelis were buying arms from France.
Well the USSR is gone (maybe you should brush up on recent history). But that is besides the point. Sans foreign military aid on both sides, the Israelis would not have a chance agains the Arabs.
BTW, you speak about welfare. Do you know how much of American welfare Egypt is getting? Not much less than Israel.
If it isn't for humantitarian purposes, I say cut off Egypt too.
BTW:
Egypt = 1,000,000+ sq miles, 67,000,000+ population
Israel = 20,000+ sq miles, 5,800,000+ population
Please explain to me how Israel is entitled to more aid. (Maybe you could brush up on geography as well.)
And with the benefit of hindsight, all that military intelligence proved to be pretty worthless. Thanks anyway though.
Israelis ARE willing to share as long as they are left alone.
Left alone to grab even more land? Left alone to bulldoze Palestinian settlements? As I said, not in any meaningful sense. Israel is the only part of the world where anyone even makes a feeble attempt to rationalize this kind of imperialism.
There were plenty of Native Americans who did not want to share their land with Whites. Are you sure that you are not a Leftist? I mean, talk about liberal propaganda!
Jews would like to share and live peacefully with Arabs.
Sure, as long as they are in control. As long as they can take any land they want, regardless of who is living there. As long as they can cut off resources such as water to Arabs when there is not enough to go around. Funny how now that you are talking about Israel, you think it is okay for the powerful to bully the weak. I say cut of US military support to Israel, and lets see who is really weak. Seems like a great way to leave them alone! Since they are so righteous and powerful, I'm sure they can survive cut off from the US welfare roles. And its good to know that you would support the Arabs, should they manage to win against an Israel without US weapons and money. I was beginning to think that you were a hypocrite.
Land that was taken by force as reparation for crimes commited against Jews by Europeans, not Arabs. Land which the Israeli's are no more willing to share in any meaningful sense than Arabs.
You are right. Than land has changed hands many times. Maybe it is time for it to change hands again. I do question Israels legitimacy. Their has presence destablized an entire region and their conflict is spreading rapidly. As far as I am concerned, no one's seperatist religious ambitions are worth the price the world has paid to prop up Israel.
Do you think that the plight of Native Americans is more similar to that of Israelis, or Palestinians? Mexico was a creation of Spain, which took it and Florida from the same Native Americans that you insult with your specious rhetoric. If you are going to be glib, at least be thorough and get your history straight.
Arabs won't stop unless Jews disappear
From the land they took from Arabs.
Cold comfort for those who continue to lose loved ones because Israel's reactionary extremism fails to address the root of the vendetta against them.
The Gulf War is an abberation. Vietnam was not about protecting markets. Cambodia was not about markets. WWII was not about markets. WWI was not about markets. They were all about halting the spread of tolatarianism.
If anything, the World Wars were the abberations. They were two rare instances when our country or its property was attacked. We didn't give a damn about totalitarianism when it was only affecting someone else. It is the same today. China is one of our largest trading partners and they are known to use forced labor to produce goods for export. As for SE Asia, those wars were about halting the spread of communism. Please consider that the antithesis of communism is not democracy, it is capitalism. There are many democratic countries that emply communist and/or socialist principles to the great benefit of their people. (Meanwhile, people in the US actually beleive that socailized medecine is a threat to democracy.) I am not suggesting that most communist regimes are not totalitarian. They are. However, I think that our stance towards totalitarian China now that they have warmed up to capitalism belies our true motives.
Allow me to reiterate that I do not suggest the abolition of corporations or globalism (hence my original suggestion to reign them in), or even more directly Imperialistic endeavors in troubled parts of the world. I simply suggest that their powers need to be tempered. I simply beleive that they need to be bound to humanitarian principles that are not currently inherent to their ideology. As long as we agree that these systems have problems that need fixing, we need not argue.
Allow me also to point out that I presume to be no expert on the conditions of sweatshop labor in the Third World. However, there are sweat shops in the United States where people are held against their will, forced to work without pay, and physically and sexually victimized. I think it is a resonable assumption that conditions are at least as bad in countries with weaker laws and human rights protections.
Finally, bin Laden considers us an enemy because of our military presence in the Holy Lands of Islam and our support of a regime considered corrupt becuase of their allowance of this affront. We are in Saudi Ariabia to protect international trade and in furtherance short sided energy policies that are paid for by multinationals. To ignore this is to invite further retribution, and I consider that to be an offense to the memory of those who have died in NY because of our arrogance and greed.
I am not disputing the safety of Israelis abroad.
Nor am I. I was simply drawing an obvious conclusion from your own counter example to your earlier statement.
I presume you to be a leftist based on your conclusion that "Everything is the fault of corporations and globalisation"
Read my comment in its entirety. Then listen to what bin Laden is saying. The longer you fail to understand their motivations, the longer you will fail to stem the hatred that they represent.
When you have an act of war, you deal with it by different laws.
Without an enemy you can identify, declaring 'war' is just rhetoric. It is an attempt to pre-justify indiscriminate mayhem and destruction. It allows us to rain bombs and missles on foreign lands without so much as a shred of proof that the people we are killing are in any way responsible for the crimes committed in this country. We are simply lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorist who declared war on us first. In both cases it is just a an attempt to rationalize violent extremism.
And your post shows that you don't even want to understand my arguments about different values for different cultures (and I know at least something here because I lived in two different countries during the course of my life).
I have lived in two different countries as well. How you could live outside the US and recoginze the cultural differences that exist and fail to understand the animosity towards America is quite puzzling.
There is no deterent to madness. But there is to desperation and resentment, and we should be doing something about it. The only alternative is to ignore the causes and hunt down the perpetrators after they do their damage. As is evident in Israel, even the most ruthless efforts to exterminate our enemies will not eleimiate them all. So next time only one jetliner will be crashed into a skyscraper?
Last of all, keep in mind that I fully support the prosecution of any terrorist or conspirator. I simlpy suggest that in addition to this, we address some of the causes from which these people draw support. Writing them off as madmen will solve nothing.
the real reason the US has allies and puppets is for fighting wars, not for selling products.
Not to sell products, no. But more often than not to protect markets and economic resources. Take the Gulf War as an example. Follow the money, you will be unpleasantly surprised.
It has been exporting freedom for centuries.
This freedom has always been a trojan horse, masking our self serving desire to aquire new markets and spheres of influence. In short, it is veiled Imperialism. We exported our "freeodom" to Japan (at gunpoint) in the late 19th century and it took less than fifty years for it to evolve into ruthless Imperialism. Co-incidence? Was that part of the solution for the rest of Asia? The fact is that we have a long record of turning a blind eye to anyone that does not contribute to our bottom line. Lets not forget the totalitarian regimes that we prop up whenever it makes economic sense. The fact is that freedom takes a back seat to economic expediency.
In one you come in with guns and enslave the population. In the other you offer them products and offer them money in exchange for products and/or money in exchange for ownership of land and corporations. The difference is choice.
This misconception is at the root of much of your argument. Third world citizens are are given no choice when it comes to globalization. They are sold out by their self-serving ruling classes. They receive none of the benefits of Global trade. Their politicians and bosses trade their labor for cash which they use to line their own pockets. Globalism does nothing for these people other than encourage their further exploitation. It turns their very lives into a commodity on a market over which they have no control. Corporations are not moving in to the Third World out of a desire to bring employment to desperate people. They are there to cash in on desperation.
If you are so blind in your hatred of capitalism that you cannot distinguish between a) invading countries and killing those who oppose you and b) offering them the option of buying and selling things then we don't really have much common ground for discussion.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how invading a nation and killing or subjugating its people for ecomic gain is any different than aiding an abetting this behavior by local allies. That is, other than the fact that the latter offers the opportunity to make repugnant denials of responsibility.
Corporations only delay automation while human labour is cheaper.
Tranlasion: Corporations will exploit people as long as possible. There is a clear incentive here to impede the development of the third world into anything other than a cheap labor pool. If nothing else, it will spare the shareholders the expense of the R&D of alternatives (and god forbid they should be deprived of a single dime made off of someone elses back). You are right, this is Slashdot. This is a place where people seem to understand that the unbridled expansion of corporate hegemony is harmful to competition, inovation, and ultimately consumers. I would think that people who have a problem with Microsoft would be at least suspicious of Nike and its ilk. I sincerely hope that all Slashdot readers are not so myopic in their understanding of the world around them.
I'm looking around my desk. I have a a high-tech Cisco IP phone. That may have been made in the third world but certainly not in a sweatshop. I've got an IBM laptop. Not third-world stuff.
I am so glad that you brought up your high tech gadgets, manufactured in the sweatshops of the new economy. Thanks to the obfuscation of companies like IBM, we are only now discovering the effects of long term exposure to the toxics that went into the construction of that laptop. The cancers and other diseases caused by direct and repeated exposure to dangerous solvents and heavy metals has been hidden for years by high tech manufacturers in the name of saving a dime at the expense of employee health. Of course, these toxics were dumped into the local environment, further magnifying their harful effects. By the way, I am talking about factories here in America, in the middle of Silicon Valley. If corporations can do this in the face of relatively strict employee health and environmental regulations, imagine the damage that they can get away with in nations that are too weak to regulate them at all. Japanese high tech manufaturers are wreaking environmental havoc in the Philipines and other asian countries, exporting toxic industrial processes so they can keep their own environment as prestine as possible.
I'm glad you enjoy books. No-ones life was shortened by having to handle toxic inks, glues, acids or bleaches, right? Of course not. In the free world no-one would be subjeted to harm in the name of economic expediancy.
Now I'm trying to understand what you would advocate. Next time I go to buy shoes, should I say to myself "hmmm. I'd better not send my money to those Chinese people. They'd be better off with it." Should I keep my money in North America to somehow help those elsewhere?
First, realize that you are not sending money to the Chinese people. The vast majority of it is staying in North America. You are sending it it to a North American corporation, who sends the tiniest portion to their Third World partners, who in a sick tribute to Marx pay their workers just enough so that they may survive to work one more day. Second, you should at least try to find companies that do not rely on explotative labor practices. Can't find one? Admit that this is problem and start asking why. Costs of living in the Third World are so low it is all the more a crime that they are not paid a living wage. If shoes cost $2 to make and retail for $100, at least wonder where the rest of the money goes. But don't perpetuate the capitalist, free market dogma that supply and demand sort these things out fairly and that global prosperity is not the manifest destiny of corporate expansion. Corporate ideology has no allegiance to the furtherance of human rights
The US unemployement rate is extremely low by internationals standards. Can you demonstrate that it was even lower before there were automated factories?
Can you demostrate that it was higher? People lose their jobs all the time when they are replaced by advances in technology. I don't assume that they will always be absobed by some new venture. The worlds population is skyrocketing while the demand for labor is diminishing. You connect the dots.
Offering people money for services is not enslavement.
This oversimplified definition is not slavery. Nor is it reality. The process by which people are herded off of their land and into factories to work for pennies an hour for lack of any alternate means of survival is slavery. What is the difference between these people and African slaves brought to the new world? The fact that the pitance they receive for their labor is paid in cash? Face it, we are no different than the societies that promoted slavery in past centuries. We depend on forced labor and rationalize that these savages would be worse off without us.
They started out poor. We all started out poor. The natural state of humanity is poverty. Look at how life spans have changed in the last few centuries. Look at how literacy has improved in the last few centuries. Look at how protection from the elements has improved.
If the natural state of humnity is poverty, why do you assume that global prosperity is a fait accompli? Exporting our industrial toxins to the Third World will not improve their life spans. Sending children to work in factories does nothing to further their education. And where do you think that these people live? Antarctica? People in South-East Asia do not need our help to survive the elements.
At last we agree. I make no assertion that there is a better system. I simply submit that ours is fraught with inequity, and does real harm to many people. I simply suggest that we recognize its failings, and fix them wherever possible.
Your pollyannish assumption that the system will figure itself out for the better of all mankind is part of the problem. It excuses you from feeling any guilt towards the people who suffer in the shackles of the global trade. It allows you to sit back and do nothing, safe in the assumption that Politicians, CEO's and stock holders will make sure that everyone gets a fair shake.
If you haven't, take a look at the writings of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn or David Korten. At least hear both sides of the argument beefore you take the free-market capitalist dogma on faith.
Although now it is too late to withdraw - we are committed.
The fact that we are commited does not mean that our position is defensible from a moral standpoint. The land in Saudi Arabia is considered holy by Islam and our military occupation of its lands and influence over its leaders is an affront to their most deeply held values.
Why does the average american cry foul when countries such as China try to buy influence here, but blindly assume some kind of god given right to manipulate the goverments of the rest of the world in pusuance of our economic goals? This kind of arrogance is why we will continue to be a target.
Whatever the cause, do you dispute that Israeli's are far more secure outside of Israel at this point?
It's obvius that you have not botherd to learn anything about these four figures, so I won't attempt to have a rational discussion with you about them.
Based on what do you presume to tar me as a "Leftist?" The fact that I don't support your blood-lust? The fact that I think that terrorists should be brought to justice, and not summarily killed? How is the WTO opposition's fetish for mayhem and desire to shout down their opponents any different from yours? You decry their disrespect for peace and law, and yet you support the circumvention of both to further your own agenda.
Terrorists can not be reasoned with. However, to attempt to destroy them without understanding their cause is like trimming a weed and leaving the roots in tact.
Thanks for the book reccomendation, I'll check it out.
Doesn't the incident in Switzerland disprove your assertion then? Apparently, Mossad is not a deterant.
I am grateful for the groups that do such a good job of protecting my human rights that I can almost take them for granted. If more people on this earth could live their lives free of opression and persecution, there might be fewer desperate enough to resort to terror, or at least fewer willing to support them (there is no deterent for insanity). If that means giving due process to a few criminals, that is a worthy trade off. Terrorism pales in comparison to tyranny.