Since it sounds like the data is only encrypted between your client and their proxy server, I'd say they'll be making a lot of money from traffic analysis and user-behaviour tracking.
Knowing Google they'll be able to (=they probably will) track every URL every person enters, and tie this to your Google cookie/GMail account, etc.
I'm hardly one of the tinfoil-hat brigade, but this is basically the Google Dialup util idea repackaged for broadband:
Google Dialup: "Slight speed increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
Google WiFi Access: "Slight security increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
I'm no trendy Google-basher, but it's really starting to rankle how every major initiative from Google seems to have these little hooks attached - even Google Talk (while based on Jabber) apparently doesn't support the server-to-server protocol, so you need to specifically have a GMail account and connect to Google's servers to talk to anyone using it. IE, all your chatting is forced to go through their servers... wonder why?
And now this - they're supplying free VPN for an entire city (to begin with), spending (conservatively) thousands or millions on hardware, and we're supposed to believe they're getting nothing in return?
Bullshit - if they aren't invading privacy and tracking user-behaviour I'll eat my hat. And if you don't think they are, then what are they getting out of it?
"I think this only applies to domestic terrorists - and I agree that they are not preventable, and that the judicial system handles that well (Timothy Mcveigh, etc.). The problem, though, it foreign terrorists."
I see what you're saying, but the foreign terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had all gained access to the country perfectly legally. The most "illegal" any of their positions were was overstaying by three weeks on a tourist visa (not unheard-of, even by accident). Frankly, if someone's motivated enough they're going to get access to the country, unless you mandate retina scans on every passenger and accept the 5-hour check-in times this causes.
If the worst comes to the worst they could charter a boat from Mexico, sneak along the coast at night and make landfall in SCUBA gear in a secluded spot. You simply don't have the manpower to patrol every inch of your land borders, let alone every other way into the country.
Finally, as the London bombings show, it's entirely possible for terorist groups to recruit people from within a country, have then visit a foreign country for an intensive course of radicalisation, and return them home to make and detonate bombs themselves.
Again, you simply can't make it impossible to commit a terrorist action without monitoring every citizen every hour or every day, and where's your freedom then? "Securing your country against terrorist actions" is an impossible pipe-dream, albeit a very attractive one.
"We are simply not allowed (short of war) to bring those criminal (terrorist) masterminds to justice. Previously, Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Lebanon were harboring known terrrorists, instead of bringing them to justice."
You'll note that all through this I've been talking about "invasive" or "overt" military action. Send in Delta Force (or, if you want the job done right, borrow the SAS;-p).
Nice, safe, deniable, covert action can surgically take out the precise people responsible for atrocities - in contrast war is a pathetically blunt (and public) weapon. War makes it easy to point to "atrocities" committed by US troops that "justify" terrorism. In contrast a burnt-out car full of Al Qaeda operatives somewhere on a lonely mountain road is a lot less of a casus belli that people can rally round, since while you can try to blame it on the US, it's a much harder sell since it doesn't have:
1) Civilian, muslim, casualties 2) The flavour of an invasive (christian/western) crusade 3) Any real proof whatsoever 4) Public admission of culpability from the USA (you can't really disclaim a public war, can you?)
"As for civil liberties being curtailed, that has always happened as a response to an attack on the US - and the liberties come back and restitution is made after the attack is resolved."
Indeed, but it's much, much easier to pass those laws than to repeal them. And Bush and the neocons have always had civil liberties as a much lower priority than military supremacy, corporate protection and even economic success. I'm nto saying a good president couldn't undo all the damage Bush has done in this area, just that you need a good president, a co-operative congress/senate and people to realise that they don't need to be as paranoid and terrified (of the "terrorist bogeymen") as the administration had them before.
"I remember reading about the public diarmament (wasn't it the third such disarmament?)... And then I think I read a few days ago that "Ireland was burning", protestants and catholics were killing each other, and thought I was right. Was that not really the IRA?"
Heh! Sorry - I didn't mean to laugh, but that's about a million miles from the truth... Right direction, but you overshot by about a thousand times and misattributed the incident;-)
Long story short:
Since the UK government started seeking to "open dialogue" with the IRA (note: not "submit to";-), on condition the
Or, y'know, hypothetically they could give 7.5% to charity... and use the rest to grow their company into a multinational, multimillion-dollar corporation... You know, the way an ongoing 7.5% of the profits of a multimillion dollar corporaton is worth more than 100% of you and your buddy's garage-based "Reely Nice Ice Creem" business.
Of was simply economics too complicated?
Look, it's easy to paint anyone as evil if you try hard enough.
They make ice-cream? They're making our kids fat! Bastards
They give 7.5% of their profits to charity? Why not 100%? Bastards!
(They give 100% of their profits to charity? They're only doing it to make themselves look good and feel good about themselves! Bastards!)
They dropped an entire flavour of ice-cream because making it was giving workers RSI, when they'd make millions more from selling the flavour and just buying off workers' lawsuits as-and-when they occurred? Bastards!
No, wait...
Fight Club, yeah? Multiply the chances of something going wrong by the number of workers, by the average out-of-court settlement. If that number's bigger than the expected revenue the flavour would have got them, they'd be (businessman) fucking stupid or (idealist) extremely ethical to stop making it.
Do you really think a few piddling little workers' lawsuits would be a serious threat to Ben & Jerry's bottom line?
The parent post is either a very persistent and unimaginative troll or a script of some kind - it's been posting the same article nearly character-perfect to any thread remotely connected with Linux.
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls.
Mod down or ignore... for Christ's sake don't reply - it only encourages them;-)
No, it shows that they're happy only blocking access to 95% of the population, and don't bother tackling the 5% who'd be able to decrypt, dewatermark or otherwise circumvent anything they could currently throw at them anyway.
Just wait until Trusted[sic] Computing hardware is the norm in a few years - then you won't be able to play Blu-ray/HDDVD discs, listen to music or watch films on your linux box, and your Mac box will be just as Treacherous as your Windows one.
Not dumb (for once), just not wasting resources... and playing the long game.
"So me arguing that my nation has problems but is not fascist based on facts counts as a demonstration of nationalism to the point of fascism?"
I'm not saying for one second that you personally are a fascist. However, there's no denying America is one of the most nationalist countries on earth - it's obvious even when you compare something (as you offered) as simple as the prevalence of national flags about the place.
In Britain, France or Germany you can go for weeks without seeing the national flag anywhere, and anyone who stuck a flag bumper-sticker on their car, hung a flag on their wall as a kid, or used a varient of the flag's design in the logo or lettering of their political campaign would be considered a bit odd. Patriotism isn't dead, it's just that we don't feel the need to beat people over the head with it. "Nationalism" isn't very often promoted as a good thing, because it isn't - it's an assumption that you're the best country in the world, and that leads to arrogance and cultural isolationism, and those things lead to situations like the USA's current one, or to (extreme case) Nazi germany's expansionist drive to subjugate the "lesser races" that caused WWII.
While many citizens do believe they live in the country they'd like the most, they don't consider "my favourite" to be synonymous with "objective best" - indeed, many people would view that confusion as childish and unempathic. Especially when you're world-famous for not knowing what it's like in other countries.
"The constitution is not perfect, nor were the founding fathers. The fact remains that the constitution does recognize numerous rights, regardless of race, and those rights are enforced by the courts."
Indeed. I didn't intend to indicate that the Founding Fathers didn't give a crap for anyone, more that even they fell a long way short of a commitment to universal human rights.
"Human rights abuses occurr... they become known and the government is held accountable to the people. Courts have handed down many rulings against the administration's practices at Gitmo. Justice has been slow, but will not go lacking."
And if the human rights abuses are perpetrated by your own government? And despite court rulings the overwhelming majority of the prisoners are still illegally detained and tortured? And the population chooses to vote the ones responsible for the abuses back into government?
At what point does it become fair to say "the country lacks a commitment to human rights"?
Nobody these days in the civilised world can get away with standing up and saying "I think Human Rights are bollocks". The best they can get away with is to merely ignore them - to state your public opposition to somethign so fundamental would be to invite international castigation.
As another example, would you say China has a human rights problem? (Most would say yes).
And yet China is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just because they mouthe the words, does that mean they still really believe in them?
"if you both aren't going to read the article properly"
"I am responding to the link given. I make no claims to respond to the article no one here was directed to. "
My apologies - I meant the page I had linked-to. An awful lot of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article properly, or only seem to have skimmed the headlines, and are erecting straw-men arguments. Simply reading the details under the headlines is generally enough to disprove their argument, and it gets frustrating having to type out the same damn rebuttals to several people, which would be unnecessary if they'd just read the article properly.
That said, are we conceding the point that the USA does invest a great deal of time, pride and energy in ensuring it has a superior military? And that the neocons have been kno
"Really? I think you need to read the post again."
I'm not saying you appeared incapable of compassion, but that Christians are supposed to have compassion for all people ("love the sinner, hate the sin"?), and saying "I think gays deserve to burn in hell" shows no compassion for them at all.
"I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him."
As I said, "marriage" can mean one of two things - either a religious or a purely legal ceremony. I understand the objection to a religious ceremony - in fact, I actually have a measure of respect for priests who refuse to conduct a religious gay marriage (at least they're sticking to their beliefs, and not selectively abandoning them because it's trendy) - I just don't agree with their anti-gay position.
That said, would you have a problem with a legal contract (call it "getting blarkled" to avoid emotive terms) between two gay people, providing legal recognition that they formed a partnership and planned to stay together for the rest of their lives?
Basically, is it the word "marriage" you object to, or what you percieve as the government tacitly approving of homosexuality? And if gay marriage is the government approving of it, what's the difference between "approving of" and merely "recognising"?
"They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive."
This is interesting, because it cuts right to the heart of the debate - is homosexuality a choice, or is it innate? While it's clearly not 100% genetic (not all identical twins share the same sexuality) there's some evidence it's actually heavily influenced by genetics (since twins generally do share a sexuality).
If it's determined (or even, overwhelmingly influenced) by genes, what does this mean in the context of a loving god? Is he additionally-damning gays and lesbians before they're even born? In addition, homosexuality (if it's going to happen) is usually already well-developed by puberty - even if the child could "learn" to not be gay, by the time they're even aware of their sexuality it's already too late for them.
I don't mean to be offensive, but if God is choosing to damn people for something that's completely beyond their control (or at least, requiring them live an asexual life, constantly in denial), that's exactly the kind of mentality that glues coins to a joke-shop floor just to fuck with people. Again, how to reconcile this with a loving, caring god?
Lest you suspect otherwise, I should probably point out I'm straight. However, I do have a couple of very good gay friends, and (proof-reading various sociology/psychology papers for student friends) I've read up a lot on the "science" of homosexuality. I've also always wanted to debate someone who was anti-gay, to see how they arrive at such contrary beliefs to my own, especially in the face of the evidence (genetic, sociological, psychological) we're uncovering...
"You're welcome to your opinion. That is the only method I know of in this situation that leaves me alive and free."
The problem is, once you end up in a protracted, unwinnable "war with the terrorists", you then need restrictions on civil liberties, to curtail the terrorists' efforts. Civil liberties are then decreased for the whole population, government monitoring of citizens rises, and you have less freedom.
Terrorism has an extremely low barrier to entry - basically, a little bit of knowledge, some invention and a selection of common household cleaning products. Ultimately, the only way to prevent terrorism totally is to intensively monitor each and every citizen, and to ban all weapons and/or chemicals that could possibly be used to make bombs - with anything less someone somewhere will work out a way to make and place bombs and cause civilian casualties.
If you assume you can ever eradicate terrorism without any form of compromise, the only other solution (if it even works) is the exact opposite to freedom.
Again - look at the current situation for an empirical proof. Since 9/11 you've had an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties - the FBI can now subpoena your ISP, and they aren't allowed to even let you know it's happened. The FBI can peruse your library records without a warrant. "Secret" trials and judgements are now conducted, and it's a criminal offence to publically report them. The US government publically flaunts its Human Rights abuses at Guantanamo, etc, etc.
How much freedom will you give up before you decide you're no longer free? Given to eradicate terrorism your way you'd have to give up nearly 100% of it, is that a trade you're willing to make?
Remember, according to statistics even now you're more likely to be hit by lightning that killed in a terrorist attack. It's shortsighted running your country and freedoms into the ground over something so (statistically) insignificant.
"Can you give me an example? As for as I know, this has never worked. The IRA is still active in Ireland, etc."
Erm, no. They aren't. With the greatest respect, they haven't been active for months, and in fact have recently publically disarmed, destroyed their weapons caches and agreed to end their campaign. We've had no terrorist actions since, apart from the tube/bus suicide bombings, and that was the work of a particular Al-Qaeda offshoot, claimed by them and subsequently proven.
The IRA disarmament was widely reported on the news, and I think you'll have a hard time finding a single news-watching British person who thinks they're still active.
"do you really believe the IRA are not doing terrorist acts now?"
Again, with the greatest respect, I live here. We also have a functioning, impartial news service. The IRA have been inactive for months.
It's known that some individual members have subsequently taken up crime (the "freedom-fighting" of the IRA was always mixed in with a hell of a lot of criminal activity), but a handful of extra armed robbers in the country is a hell of a lot better than a terrorist group blowing up people and buildings.
"Esentially, you recommend a retreat"
A slow, careful, public, staged retreat. And it's debatable if it even counts as a retreat when you're on someone else's land. Many would just view it as "no longer actively trespassing".
I'm not saying drop your pants and bend over for the terrorists, but a public statement that the US intends to wind down its policy of (overt) interference, and is looking at strongly reducing the number of military bases it maintains in other countries would do wonders for your level of terrorism.
Then stage a slow wind-down - if long-term terrorist actions increase, you have plenty of time and resources to ramp back up your efforts before you're defenceless.
However, even if you don't convince the hardcore terrorists, such a move would massively sap their support amongst ordinary p
The search took less than a second, even with/.'s awful search functionality. I'm normally one of the people who tells dupe-whingers to shut up, but even I'm getting bored of it now. How hard is it to search for ["gimp photoshop" sorted by relevance] before clicking "Publish Article" (or whatever)?
Anyway, sorry for joining the ranks of the dupe-whinging old bastards, but it was either that or haul off and smack the monitor. <:-)
"You're not going to get ANYWHERE arguing that individuals who have engaged in covert military action against the US aren't enemy combatants."
No, of course many of them were. However, the correct term for an opposing fighter taken prisoner in a war is "prisoner of war".
Classifying them as "enemy combatants" is a weak legal loophole designed solely to avoid the US's Human Rights obligations under the Geneva Convention.
"The "loophole" you describe has been used by other countries before"
As you said, name one.
You'll also not I'm not automatically assuming you're wrong, merely asking you to prove it. Because I don't know for sure you aren't.
This is careful and rational argument, and not just arrogantly assuming I'm automatically right. We try to do this where I'm from, although I know the US isn't big on it at the moment.
"and quite frankly, the people who are being detained violated the Geneva Conventions themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants. When they did that they forfeited their protections."
I don't recall a passage or clause under the Geneva Accords that says you have to clearly identify yourself as a combatant, but if you show me an excerpt I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, this is what a trial is for - to establish whether or not the person actually is guilty. If they're all denied a trial, how can the innocent ones be freed?
"C. If they're US citizens, then their first protection should be the CONSTITUTION, not some ridiculously weak loosley related aggreements between previously (and sometimes currently) warring countries."
How many of them are actually US citizens? As a member of "the rest of the world" (you guys remember that place, right?) you can do what you like with your own citizens, but as I recall most US-native citizens captured were dealt with quickly, and there were barely any of them. Likewise, citizens of other western powers had an expedited release or repatriation for judging in their own countries.
The remaining prisoners are mostly Afghani (or other nationalities that the US feels safe in upsetting), and they aren't going anywhere, not even to trial.
Oh, and the Geneva Convention rights aren't "weak" - they state explicitely what's allowed and what isn't. Humiliation, torture and unlawful imprisonment aren't allowed.
The only reason you think they're weak is because your government has (illegally and immorally) tried so damn hard to weasel out of them, and nobody else is big enough or brave enough to take on the biggest, most nuked-up, violent and paranoid bully in the world at the moment.
Funny thing - the "thousands of unused busses underwater" claim has since been proven to be an unsubstantiated guess presented as fact.
A report (I've lost the link - Google for it) dated 2003 states there were no more than around 250 schoolbuses in the New Orleans area, nothing like the "more than 2000" being claimed by right-win pundits, and certainly not enough to evacuate everyone too poor to escape under their own steam.
True, the fact that many of these 250 buses were overlooked and not used to evacuate people is tragic (and bloody stupid), but hundreds or thousands would still have been forced to stay, and still would have died thanks to Bush's (and FEMA's) incompetence.
Really? When? I never heard anything about that. Can you explain more, or is it a baseless accusation?
If so it's disgusting, and should damn well have been publicised. However, since it wasn't (and the media was much less in the then-administration's pocket), I find it hard to automatically believe (without any evidence) that it did.
"But many of the people complaining about those abuses now are Clinton ass-kissing sycophants, and refuse to believe that the crap going on today started long before January 20, 2001."
Not at all. I think Clinton was a politician, and hence inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous - witness, for example, his quietly signing up to a whole shitload of environmental initiatives in his last days in office, knowing he wouldn't have to deal with the consequences because he'd be gone by then. Bush then takes office and immediately cans the lot, instantly earning ire from environmental groups.
Now, I had a lot of sympathy for Bush for that specific event, but his ongoing refusal to even acknowledge global warming, his disasterous (and ill-thought-out) policies and his rampant corruption and cronyism have long-since outweighed any cheap departing shots from Clinton.
The problem is that the right wing automatically assumes any criticism of Bush is partisan politics, instead of (as it often is) abject outrage at his corrupt, dangerous and amoral policies and behaviour.
I don't think Clinton was a saint, but he was nearly impeached by the right for lying about a blowjob to save his marriage. Bush has dragged the country through two wars, at least one on trumped-up charges, knowingly lied to congress and the public, massively increased corruption and cronyism in federal agencies and let hundreds or thousands of people die through that corruption (or sheer incompetence).
And what happens to him? He gets voted back in for a second term by people such as yourself.
"Why would you NEED Geneva Convention protections, unless you were a combatant? Wouldn't the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS have jurisdiction otherwise?"
I don't think you've understood the situation here.
They were taken as prisoners of war, which entitles them to Geneva Convention protections.
The US administration used a legally-questionable and morally-disgusting loophole to classify them as "enemy combatants", and used this as a loophole to deny them Geneva Convention protections, since the geneva convention only talks about "prisoners of war" - "enemy combatants" was a superfluous term invented by the US administration solely to circumvent their Geneva Convention obligations, so it's no surprise they Geneva Convention doesn't mention ECs.
Either way they've never had a trial, so it's never been determined if each specific individual was even fighting on the Taliban's side.
There have been documented cases where innocent people in Afghanistan during the invasion were reported to the American forces as Taliban fighters, simply because someone held a grudge against them and wanted them "got rid of".
Since they haven't had a trial, there's been no test of their guilt, so we don't even know whether each one all guilty.
In addition, the legal limbo they're held in has allowed the US government to torture, abuse and humiliate them, in defiance not only of the Geneva Convention, but in defiance of basic Human Rights.
That's the situation - no truth-twisting necessary (or intended).
The trolls are getting lazy. Not even bothering to write new ill-reasoned or inflammatory screeds, several times recently I've seen them just re-post old content verbatim, often not even bothering to update it for added relevence.
The only question is, are they seriously stupid enough that they think anyone will rise to such a pathetic attempt at igniting an argument?
It's the forum equivalent of shouting "you're a fuckwit" in a crowded room, and waiting for a fist-tight to break out.
"Flags have been steadily vanishing in the public square compared to their post-9/11 prominence. They are also largely without power."
Flags != Nationalism
Nationalism == Irrationally claiming your country is better than any other, and refusing to countenance arguments or facts that indicate otherwise.
And you're doing that very well, thanks.
"The US Constitution provides expressly for many human rights. Our legal positivism is not dismissal of the value of human rights, only the acknowledgment that in the real world rights exist because governments grant them, not because of their value."
Indeed, your Founding Fathers had a great deal of respect for human rights... while routinely owning slaves?
Don't make me laugh. "Commitment to Human Rights" means accepting that all people have certain inalienable rights, not just the ones you play golf with or live near.
Stop waving a 200-year-old bit of paper at me and we'll talk again when I can't end the argument with the word "Guantanamo", "Abu Ghraib", or any of the other (numerous, less-publicised) internment camps where inmates are held without trial or even formal charges, and are humiliated and tortured (sorry, stressed) for years.
"We don't scapegoat everything on terrorists, only what they do."
Right, so Iraq was aiding terrorists, right?
Proven to be complete bullshit, admitted by many Republicans, and proven that Bush new it before they even went in.
And that's leaving aside the unprecendented crackdown on civil liberties, blamed on the terrorists, that many analysts have shown don't even plug the holes they used to commit their crimes.
"Ours is a civilian government."
Irrelevant. So was Hitlers. For a complete rebuttal of your mis-reading of the paragraph concerned, see my response to Phrack, who appears to have cut-and-pasted your response on this point. If you both aren't going to read the article properly, can you at least try to be original in your selection of straw-men?
Short version: The Bush administration both demonstrably seeks and glorifies military power. You (supposedly) elected them fairly. Therefore you bear the responsibility for their attitudes and policies. Saying "we're not them" is not an option in a representative democracy, at least when you're arguing for their side.
"First, opposition to abortion is not sexism. It really isn't."
Nope, it isn't. But if you read the article you'll see that
1) It's edited for a magazine format, and so the wording has likely been changed from the original, and 2) Those headlines (which are all the right-wing respondants seem to have read) are "general catch-all" categories, not a complete summary of the details within them.
"Secondly, opposition to abortion isn't that high. A majority think it should be legal, they just don't think it should be legal at all points and in all circumstances."
It isn't. You have a dividing line (before the 3rd trimester, IIRC). Why is it even still an issue?
And if it's only a tiny religious minority pushing for (and sometimes, nearly achieving) a re-evaluation of the law, doesn't that play back into the "Religion and Government are Intertwined" point?
"As for homophobia, it goes both ways. Some states have civil unions, others have marriage bans. Many have some special protections in the form of hate crime laws."
And your president is pushing for a federal ban on it. I don't care what some small sections of the population are doing, if your entire power-apparatus is doing something else.
Was the USSR not communist because there were still free-thinkers in the population? No. Is America automatically not fascist or totalitarian because some small sections of it disagree with the powerful ruling elite? No.
Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.
How many more times do people want to beat this straw man?
Read the freaking article.
Hitler's Germany had a civilian government.
This point is actually about seeking and flaunting military power, and don't try to tell me the US hasn't been on an international cock-waving military rampage since 9/11. Don't try to tell me Bush doesn't unnecessarily hold press conferences on aircraft carriers, and stage a "celebrity" arrival in a military jet. Don't tell me the current administration doesn't have an overwhelming preference for military force over diplomacy or economic sanctions, and don't tell me they don't try to identify themselves with the army at every opportunity, so any attack on them is turned into "hating our boys".
You're trying to imply that leaders != country, but in an (allegedly) democratic nation you don't have that right. You (supposedly) elected them, and they determine what the country does. They glorify the military and espouse fascist policies, "the country" tends towards fascism.
You think Hitler's nazi administration had a 100% approval rating? No, but the people were powerless to do anything about it. You (supposedly) have a choice. You can't hide behind your leaders - either you're part of an undemocratic despotic fascist regime, or you're part of a democratic regime and accept responsibility for their fascist direction.
"Our elections are real. Sure they are flawed in ways that only rarely make a difference, such as in Bush v Gore, but those flaws are not systematically designed to benefit the ruling party, they are often due to human laziness and incompetence."
Sorry? Where did it say your system had to be designed to be corrupt? All it says is that your elections have to be corrupted by one party.
Some news for you: your elections were corrupt, and overwhelmingly so in favour of the Republican party, who then went on to win. People who were voting for the opposition were erroneously disenfranchised by a company with strong ties to the winning party. The most corrupt state was run by the winning candidate's brother, an erroneous result was announced by the news corporation owned by a close friend of (and financial backer of) the future-president, the re-count was stopped moments before the opposition count levelled with the "winner" by a supreme court dominated by judges on the winning candidate's side, and appointed by the winning candidate's father.
Even with all these things in his favour, the winning candidate won by one of the smallest margins is US political history.
Exactly how many "co-incidences" do we have to have before your BS alarm goes off?
"America isn't perfect. Far from it. But it is also not Fascist. Fascism is far more organized than the US Gov. Which is fine... federal government entangled in their own red tape and petty squabbles stays out of my hair."
Not yet, maybe. But it's already well on the way. I haven't seen a single good argument (that stands up to scrutiny), refuting a single point on the list, since I posted the original link.
You disapprove of gay marriage (which a lot of people see as a Right), and think America's better because their reactionary and homophobic president are seeking to ban it?
You admit you're a Christian (and sounding more and more like a fundamentalist, the further down the post you get), but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part. Not to derail the debate, but marriage means two things - it can be a secular state-approved union, or a religious union.
Has any law been passed in Canada that forces priests to marry gay couples? No? Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?
In short, your post seems to boil down to:
"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal. I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law. I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism. Jesus is good! Worship Jesus! Being gay isn't as bad as killing christians."
Are you stoned, or drunk or what? That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher. Seriously, dude - you're your own worst enemy.
The only reason you now know FEMA is corrupt to the point of uselessness is because they were suddenly called-on to do a large, high-profile job and were thrust into the spotlight, where they failed miserably and let additional hundreds or thousands of people unnecessarily die. As a result the (politically-appointed, by Bush) head of FEMA has resigned, and Bush has been forced into a publical apology (immense comfort for the bereaved whose relatives died so Bush could give his mates a sinecure, I'm sure).
No-one watches the Federal watchmen, so graft and corruption go unmonitored and unchecked.
How can you possibly make definitive statements when the best you can prove is "some are known to be corrupt, and the others we just don't know?".
"Which I will counter with, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family Leave Act... need I continue?"
No, it would be fruitless since you've completely missed the point. "Human Rights" is not the same as "treating your citzens fairly".
A "commitment to human rights" is a 100% commitment that all people, irrespecitve of race, colour, religion, nationality or sexuality are owed certain inalienable rights.
You can give black people and the disabled foot-massages and blow-jobs if you like, but if a few thousands miles away your government has hundreds of people imprisoned for years without trial (or even formal charges), subject to humiliation and torture, simply because they're suspected of a crime...then no, your government does not respect human rights.
Human rights apply to all people, not just the ones you play golf with or live next to.
"Then why hasn't the single most serious threat to national security, the largely unguarded borders, been addressed? Why is amnesty for illegal immigrants being considered? Nope, this fails too."
Because it isn't the biggest threat to national security. All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, using their own passports. the biggest irregularity in their presence there was that a few of them had overstayed on their tourists' visas for a couple of weeks.
Why would they need to risk sneaking across the border when they can (still!) waltz through your airports with valid documentation?
"There is NO separation of Church and State outlined in the Constitution. You are quoting an oft repeated misunderstanding of how the Constitution discusses this subject. But I'm not surprised, you didn't bother to research your other points either."
Ignoring the cheap (and hypocritical) jibe, I apologise - I'm not a US native (I'm from the UK), so forgive me if my understanding of the minutae of your civic system is lacking;-p
Regarding the point at hand, I've read up a bit - the Constitution doesn't explicitely mention the separation of church and state, so you were correct, and I was overstating the case.
However, the first Ammendment is generally interpreted to ensure this. Even if you choose to read it differently, the confusion should be cleared up by a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists, in which he writes:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
So I'd say however open to interpretation the 1st Ammendment is, the intention seems pretty clear, no?
I also note that while you pick up on my misunderstanding of american civic details, you don't deny the religious right has enormous power in the US, either. Evolution vs Creationism/ID and the posting of the ten commandments in schools/on Court buildings demonstrates this clearly (do churches have a copy of the Constitution pinned to Jesus' chest?).
"'Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts'... Bull. Stop confusing the Executive branch of our government with America. They're not the same."
First off, it's not the executive branch - it's all three branches of your government that are dominated by neocon-influenced right-wing Republicans.
Secondly, your government sets the laws, your government determines your foreign policy, and your government is a "representative democracy". Either it represents the majority of americans (in which case "the country"), or it doesn't represent the majority of americans (eg, through fiddled elections), in which case you're admitting it's effectively a faux-democratic junta and your country's even c
"The president has always had this power, until he voluntarily gave it up as too dangreous compared to the likelihood of needing to use the power. After the cold war ended, that made sense. It also makes sense to reverse that stance as soon as another cold war starts."
1) Just because I've pulled a gun on someone in the past, doesn't mean pulling a gun in an argument with someone else is going to help the situation. Especially when the first guy was an enormous bloke also with a gun, and the next argument is with a bunch of small kids, one of whom might have a knife.
2) If you're trying to provoke a cold war with the middle east, you're doing brilliantly. In fact, this is one of Osama Bin Laden's stated objectives - ideally he'd like the USA torn down and replaced with an islamic theocratic regime. Failing that he'd like the US to clamp down on civil liberties to the extent it's no more "free" than Iran (or any other repressive regime. Failing that, he's happy to settle for a prolonged war betwee nthe west and the middle east. Either way, as long as the US stops interfering in middle-eastern affairs, he's happy.
Read Al-Jazeera, or any non-US news sources. He has publically stated this, many times. You are giving him exactly what he wants.
The way to get him off your back and irritate him the most is to stop meddling, but remain cordial with the middle east. It's not enough to provoke further terrorism, but it's a long way from his ideal scenario.
"Fair enough. I know the US has done bad things. The further back in our history you go, the worse the atrocities commited are."
Maybe so, but what evidence to you have for this? Generally it takes many, many years for atrocities to be recognised as such - at the time they're always "perfectly justified". I wouldnt' be surprised if in 20, 50, 100 years going back into Iraq was considered an unpardonable invasion.
Even if you're right, when someone's upset enough with you to kill thousands of civilians to make a point "we're not quite as terrible bad as we used to be" just doesn't cut it. "We've stopped doing what upset you", is closer, but that's exactly what you're arguing against.
"I didn't start it (as you point out, I wasn't even born for most of it, and neither was the president), but I will see it finished."
Forgive me, but that's an incredibly immature attitude. You didn't start it, you don't even understand the resons why it started, but you're going to finish it?
This is international politics, not a playground fistfight - you can't decide to "finish it" and it's all over. You aren't fighting another kid, you're righting a swarm of wasps - no one big punch is going to do anything, bar possibly make them angrier.
"If you look at the history of the US, it tends not to do anything except in response to threats from others."
I don't know what history you've been reading (if any), but it ain't the one I've been reading. Sure, sometimes the US does, but not every time, not by a long shot.
"Even Cuba and South America, where we have probably meddled the most - its mainly because Castro was dumb enough to let the Russians put nukes there."
That point took me 2 wikipedia searches and about 5 seconds to refute. Again, not to be offensive, but do you know your own history, or are you simply starting from a position of "we're always right, rah, rah, rah!" and ignoring or forgetting anything that doesnt' fit?
"BTW, you sort of weaken your argument by calling us both isolationists and meddlers."
"I wasn't really refering to favoritism, graft, etc. I was refering to the fact of life that when you need to get something done, you hire those you know and can trust to do a good job."
I agree, this is often a good course. Unfortunately, with Bush's record (well, really the whole administration's record) I have an extremely hard time believing this is the case.
If embarrassments like 9/11 (which the government was pre-warned about by the CIA, among others) and FEMA recently (a completely unqualified political appointee who couldn't do the job directly contributing to the deaths of hundreds/thousands) show us anything, it's that you get ahead in the Bush administration by being part of their "old-boy" network, not by being any good whatsoever at the job.
In addition, how do you know that was why Halliburton (et al) got the contracts? Are you saying they were the very best corporations in the US/the entire world for the specific jobs? Probably not. Were they instead the very best that Bush/Cheney/whoever knew about? Possibly. Would they only have known about them because Cheney had worked on the board and made millions in stock options from them? Almost certainly.
This boils down to "Cheney was on the board, so they got the contracts" - you're assuming they were the very best in the entire country, without enough evidence to make that claim. I'm assuming the decision was motivated (at least in part) by campaign donations, prior association and cronyism, and the Bush administration has been proven to indulge in these things, frequently.
"Yes, if that is what it takes. I know that we ave being forced to sink nearer to the level of the terrorists - but that is the only way forward that I know of."
So what you're saying is this:
Moral dimension: You espouse liberty and self-determination, and pretend to fight tyrants and injustice, and yet you're happy to become the very thing you're fighting? Whatever happened to principles? "Win at any cost" is exactly the attitude that the terrorists have, and if you subscribe to the same ethics you're no better than them - frankly, in this situation you don't deserve to win.
Rational dimension: You've created a terrorist problem with your foreign policies. You now think the solution is to do more of the things that created the terrorist problem, and that'll solve the problem?
Terrorism is a tactic, has no real infrastructure, and can (in a pinch) be conducted by single individulas living and working among your own citizens. I could go home, mix up a batch of plastic explosives from bleach in my bathtub, and blow up a crowded commuter train. How are you ever going to stop terrorism with force? Ban bleach? Ban bathtubs? Force your citizens to endure 1984-style CCTV monitoring 24/7? There is no way.
The only way terrorist problems have ever ended, anywhere in the world is when both sides eventually sit down and discuss their differences, and compromise.
Note I'm not talking about surrendering, or even inviting Al Qaeda to a summit tomorrow. I'm talking about producing an exit strategy for Iraq as quickly as possible (that leaves a stable, government with popular support), ceasing interference in foreign countries, defending your borders like you wouldn't believe, and in a few years (hell, maybe a human lifetime) your terrorist problems will have disappeared. Fanaticism needs fresh atrocities, or it dies out on its own, given time - protect yourselves but deny your enemies fresh ammunition, and time will solve the problem.
Note also that I know what I'm talking about - the IRA (for most of my life) was conducting bombing campaigns in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. We had ceasefires, breakdowns, atrocities and crackdowns, and you know how it ended? When they sat down and compromised, and Northern Ireland got its own Assembly - the IRA could claim victory because it wasn't under English rule, and we could claim vi
"Um, of course the US acts in it's own interests. It would be pretty dumb to try to act otherwise. If you think there is a single country on Earth where that isn't true, then you have been deceived (probably by your government)."
Not at all, I fully expect governments to act in the interests of their own constituents. I know they often don't, but that's something to be rooted out and fought, not accepted and apologised-for.
And until you reduce corruption in your own country, you have no right to hold yourselves up as a shining beacon of democracy, and no excuse at all to start imposing your will on other (often democratically-elected) governments.
"If the citizens of the US had known about giving Saddam gas, they would have stopped it. There is always a problem with "black ops""
Some, maybe. Maybe even the majority. Not all. If the current crop of extreme-right-wing apologists shows us anything, it shows us that.
And you can't on one hand blame "other countries" for supporting terrorism because their leaders support it, and claim "your country" is blameless because the leaders support it, not the people.
And if you're blaming the other countries' (often uneducated, less-free) people for ideologically siding with their government, and suggesting the "little people" are also helping terrorists, how do you think they feel about you (more educated, more free, more able to disagree publically) ideologically siding with your government, which is responsible for so much suffering to them?
You seem to be saying that when your government does something bad it's "not your country", and that the people can't be blamed for supporting them, but when other countries governments do something bad it's "the country", and the people (who often have far less freedom than you do to disagree) can be blamed for siding with them.
Am I misunderstanding, or is this correct?
"We did not attack Iraq for oil. Honestly, that is the litmus test of does someone understand politics or not"
I was being slightly facetious, but you must admit that (for Bush's famous "investor- campaign donors") the war has been a great source of business, and now they have a monopoly on Iraq's oil, which was previously pretty much sewn up by France.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's backers honestly thought they were doing it to promote democracy and help people (and incidentally getting rich too, to be fair), but their colossal arrogance and complete lack of morality has caused the present fuck-up, and for that they need to be punished.
Either way, they didn't go in solely because they wanted to ensure democracy in a pokey little middle-eastern country, or to prevent attacks with WMDs, or any of the other justifications they gave.
"Even the money from the oil has to be very carefully tracked so that we can prove we are not making money from it. It is true that US companies are making hundreds of millions off of billion dollar contracts - but that is somewhat standard operating procedure in the West. It is also true that the president's friends got most of the contracts - but that is true of any contract, government or private"
With respect, I have to call BS on this.
Firstly, IIRC a US company has been given a monopoly on handling all Iraqi oil exports, and the fledgeling Iraqi government was strongarmed into this by their US government representatives there.
Secondly, while there's always a certain level of graft and favouritism going on, under the Bush administration it's increased massively (with political appointees left, right and centre), and it's done much more shamelessly than ever before.
The fact that "it rains sometimes" is not a reason to not get upset when "your neighbourhood floods and your car gets washed away". Since we can never eradicate corruption, degree is important.
"The reason we invaded Iraq was to make a statement. Before we invaded Iraq, Iran felt sa
Slashdot Mirror
Since it sounds like the data is only encrypted between your client and their proxy server, I'd say they'll be making a lot of money from traffic analysis and user-behaviour tracking.
Knowing Google they'll be able to (=they probably will) track every URL every person enters, and tie this to your Google cookie/GMail account, etc.
I'm hardly one of the tinfoil-hat brigade, but this is basically the Google Dialup util idea repackaged for broadband:
Google Dialup: "Slight speed increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
Google WiFi Access: "Slight security increase in exchange for us looking over your shoulder the whole time you're on-line, tracking your behaviour and spotting patterns."
I'm no trendy Google-basher, but it's really starting to rankle how every major initiative from Google seems to have these little hooks attached - even Google Talk (while based on Jabber) apparently doesn't support the server-to-server protocol, so you need to specifically have a GMail account and connect to Google's servers to talk to anyone using it. IE, all your chatting is forced to go through their servers... wonder why?
And now this - they're supplying free VPN for an entire city (to begin with), spending (conservatively) thousands or millions on hardware, and we're supposed to believe they're getting nothing in return?
Bullshit - if they aren't invading privacy and tracking user-behaviour I'll eat my hat. And if you don't think they are, then what are they getting out of it?
"I think this only applies to domestic terrorists - and I agree that they are not preventable, and that the judicial system handles that well (Timothy Mcveigh, etc.). The problem, though, it foreign terrorists."
;-p).
;-)
;-), on condition the
I see what you're saying, but the foreign terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 had all gained access to the country perfectly legally. The most "illegal" any of their positions were was overstaying by three weeks on a tourist visa (not unheard-of, even by accident). Frankly, if someone's motivated enough they're going to get access to the country, unless you mandate retina scans on every passenger and accept the 5-hour check-in times this causes.
If the worst comes to the worst they could charter a boat from Mexico, sneak along the coast at night and make landfall in SCUBA gear in a secluded spot. You simply don't have the manpower to patrol every inch of your land borders, let alone every other way into the country.
Finally, as the London bombings show, it's entirely possible for terorist groups to recruit people from within a country, have then visit a foreign country for an intensive course of radicalisation, and return them home to make and detonate bombs themselves.
Again, you simply can't make it impossible to commit a terrorist action without monitoring every citizen every hour or every day, and where's your freedom then? "Securing your country against terrorist actions" is an impossible pipe-dream, albeit a very attractive one.
"We are simply not allowed (short of war) to bring those criminal (terrorist) masterminds to justice. Previously, Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/Lebanon were harboring known terrrorists, instead of bringing them to justice."
You'll note that all through this I've been talking about "invasive" or "overt" military action. Send in Delta Force (or, if you want the job done right, borrow the SAS
Nice, safe, deniable, covert action can surgically take out the precise people responsible for atrocities - in contrast war is a pathetically blunt (and public) weapon. War makes it easy to point to "atrocities" committed by US troops that "justify" terrorism. In contrast a burnt-out car full of Al Qaeda operatives somewhere on a lonely mountain road is a lot less of a casus belli that people can rally round, since while you can try to blame it on the US, it's a much harder sell since it doesn't have:
1) Civilian, muslim, casualties
2) The flavour of an invasive (christian/western) crusade
3) Any real proof whatsoever
4) Public admission of culpability from the USA (you can't really disclaim a public war, can you?)
"As for civil liberties being curtailed, that has always happened as a response to an attack on the US - and the liberties come back and restitution is made after the attack is resolved."
Indeed, but it's much, much easier to pass those laws than to repeal them. And Bush and the neocons have always had civil liberties as a much lower priority than military supremacy, corporate protection and even economic success. I'm nto saying a good president couldn't undo all the damage Bush has done in this area, just that you need a good president, a co-operative congress/senate and people to realise that they don't need to be as paranoid and terrified (of the "terrorist bogeymen") as the administration had them before.
"I remember reading about the public diarmament (wasn't it the third such disarmament?)... And then I think I read a few days ago that "Ireland was burning", protestants and catholics were killing each other, and thought I was right. Was that not really the IRA?"
Heh! Sorry - I didn't mean to laugh, but that's about a million miles from the truth... Right direction, but you overshot by about a thousand times and misattributed the incident
Long story short:
Since the UK government started seeking to "open dialogue" with the IRA (note: not "submit to"
Or, y'know, hypothetically they could give 7.5% to charity... and use the rest to grow their company into a multinational, multimillion-dollar corporation... You know, the way an ongoing 7.5% of the profits of a multimillion dollar corporaton is worth more than 100% of you and your buddy's garage-based "Reely Nice Ice Creem" business.
Of was simply economics too complicated?
Look, it's easy to paint anyone as evil if you try hard enough.
They make ice-cream? They're making our kids fat! Bastards
They give 7.5% of their profits to charity? Why not 100%? Bastards!
(They give 100% of their profits to charity? They're only doing it to make themselves look good and feel good about themselves! Bastards!)
They dropped an entire flavour of ice-cream because making it was giving workers RSI, when they'd make millions more from selling the flavour and just buying off workers' lawsuits as-and-when they occurred? Bastards!
No, wait...
Fight Club, yeah? Multiply the chances of something going wrong by the number of workers, by the average out-of-court settlement. If that number's bigger than the expected revenue the flavour would have got them, they'd be (businessman) fucking stupid or (idealist) extremely ethical to stop making it.
Do you really think a few piddling little workers' lawsuits would be a serious threat to Ben & Jerry's bottom line?
No, he means that anything on Livejournal is pretty much guaranteed to be neither well-thought-out nor interesting.
The parent post is either a very persistent and unimaginative troll or a script of some kind - it's been posting the same article nearly character-perfect to any thread remotely connected with Linux.
;-)
Please Do Not Feed The Trolls.
Mod down or ignore... for Christ's sake don't reply - it only encourages them
No, it shows that they're happy only blocking access to 95% of the population, and don't bother tackling the 5% who'd be able to decrypt, dewatermark or otherwise circumvent anything they could currently throw at them anyway.
Just wait until Trusted[sic] Computing hardware is the norm in a few years - then you won't be able to play Blu-ray/HDDVD discs, listen to music or watch films on your linux box, and your Mac box will be just as Treacherous as your Windows one.
Not dumb (for once), just not wasting resources... and playing the long game.
Fucking bastards.
"So me arguing that my nation has problems but is not fascist based on facts counts as a demonstration of nationalism to the point of fascism?"
I'm not saying for one second that you personally are a fascist. However, there's no denying America is one of the most nationalist countries on earth - it's obvious even when you compare something (as you offered) as simple as the prevalence of national flags about the place.
In Britain, France or Germany you can go for weeks without seeing the national flag anywhere, and anyone who stuck a flag bumper-sticker on their car, hung a flag on their wall as a kid, or used a varient of the flag's design in the logo or lettering of their political campaign would be considered a bit odd. Patriotism isn't dead, it's just that we don't feel the need to beat people over the head with it. "Nationalism" isn't very often promoted as a good thing, because it isn't - it's an assumption that you're the best country in the world, and that leads to arrogance and cultural isolationism, and those things lead to situations like the USA's current one, or to (extreme case) Nazi germany's expansionist drive to subjugate the "lesser races" that caused WWII.
While many citizens do believe they live in the country they'd like the most, they don't consider "my favourite" to be synonymous with "objective best" - indeed, many people would view that confusion as childish and unempathic. Especially when you're world-famous for not knowing what it's like in other countries.
"The constitution is not perfect, nor were the founding fathers. The fact remains that the constitution does recognize numerous rights, regardless of race, and those rights are enforced by the courts."
Indeed. I didn't intend to indicate that the Founding Fathers didn't give a crap for anyone, more that even they fell a long way short of a commitment to universal human rights.
"Human rights abuses occurr... they become known and the government is held accountable to the people. Courts have handed down many rulings against the administration's practices at Gitmo. Justice has been slow, but will not go lacking."
And if the human rights abuses are perpetrated by your own government? And despite court rulings the overwhelming majority of the prisoners are still illegally detained and tortured? And the population chooses to vote the ones responsible for the abuses back into government?
At what point does it become fair to say "the country lacks a commitment to human rights"?
Nobody these days in the civilised world can get away with standing up and saying "I think Human Rights are bollocks". The best they can get away with is to merely ignore them - to state your public opposition to somethign so fundamental would be to invite international castigation.
As another example, would you say China has a human rights problem? (Most would say yes).
And yet China is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just because they mouthe the words, does that mean they still really believe in them?
"if you both aren't going to read the article properly"
"I am responding to the link given. I make no claims to respond to the article no one here was directed to. "
My apologies - I meant the page I had linked-to. An awful lot of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article properly, or only seem to have skimmed the headlines, and are erecting straw-men arguments. Simply reading the details under the headlines is generally enough to disprove their argument, and it gets frustrating having to type out the same damn rebuttals to several people, which would be unnecessary if they'd just read the article properly.
That said, are we conceding the point that the USA does invest a great deal of time, pride and energy in ensuring it has a superior military? And that the neocons have been kno
Touché
;-p
You're right - I missed the point of the post was the interview, not the product.
Lesson learned - I'll sit down and shut up now
And eventually probably go back to shouting at those people who bitch about dupes all the time... <:-)
"Really? I think you need to read the post again."
I'm not saying you appeared incapable of compassion, but that Christians are supposed to have compassion for all people ("love the sinner, hate the sin"?), and saying "I think gays deserve to burn in hell" shows no compassion for them at all.
"I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him."
As I said, "marriage" can mean one of two things - either a religious or a purely legal ceremony. I understand the objection to a religious ceremony - in fact, I actually have a measure of respect for priests who refuse to conduct a religious gay marriage (at least they're sticking to their beliefs, and not selectively abandoning them because it's trendy) - I just don't agree with their anti-gay position.
That said, would you have a problem with a legal contract (call it "getting blarkled" to avoid emotive terms) between two gay people, providing legal recognition that they formed a partnership and planned to stay together for the rest of their lives?
Basically, is it the word "marriage" you object to, or what you percieve as the government tacitly approving of homosexuality? And if gay marriage is the government approving of it, what's the difference between "approving of" and merely "recognising"?
"They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive."
This is interesting, because it cuts right to the heart of the debate - is homosexuality a choice, or is it innate? While it's clearly not 100% genetic (not all identical twins share the same sexuality) there's some evidence it's actually heavily influenced by genetics (since twins generally do share a sexuality).
If it's determined (or even, overwhelmingly influenced) by genes, what does this mean in the context of a loving god? Is he additionally-damning gays and lesbians before they're even born? In addition, homosexuality (if it's going to happen) is usually already well-developed by puberty - even if the child could "learn" to not be gay, by the time they're even aware of their sexuality it's already too late for them.
I don't mean to be offensive, but if God is choosing to damn people for something that's completely beyond their control (or at least, requiring them live an asexual life, constantly in denial), that's exactly the kind of mentality that glues coins to a joke-shop floor just to fuck with people. Again, how to reconcile this with a loving, caring god?
Lest you suspect otherwise, I should probably point out I'm straight. However, I do have a couple of very good gay friends, and (proof-reading various sociology/psychology papers for student friends) I've read up a lot on the "science" of homosexuality. I've also always wanted to debate someone who was anti-gay, to see how they arrive at such contrary beliefs to my own, especially in the face of the evidence (genetic, sociological, psychological) we're uncovering...
"You're welcome to your opinion. That is the only method I know of in this situation that leaves me alive and free."
The problem is, once you end up in a protracted, unwinnable "war with the terrorists", you then need restrictions on civil liberties, to curtail the terrorists' efforts. Civil liberties are then decreased for the whole population, government monitoring of citizens rises, and you have less freedom.
Terrorism has an extremely low barrier to entry - basically, a little bit of knowledge, some invention and a selection of common household cleaning products. Ultimately, the only way to prevent terrorism totally is to intensively monitor each and every citizen, and to ban all weapons and/or chemicals that could possibly be used to make bombs - with anything less someone somewhere will work out a way to make and place bombs and cause civilian casualties.
If you assume you can ever eradicate terrorism without any form of compromise, the only other solution (if it even works) is the exact opposite to freedom.
Again - look at the current situation for an empirical proof. Since 9/11 you've had an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties - the FBI can now subpoena your ISP, and they aren't allowed to even let you know it's happened. The FBI can peruse your library records without a warrant. "Secret" trials and judgements are now conducted, and it's a criminal offence to publically report them. The US government publically flaunts its Human Rights abuses at Guantanamo, etc, etc.
How much freedom will you give up before you decide you're no longer free? Given to eradicate terrorism your way you'd have to give up nearly 100% of it, is that a trade you're willing to make?
Remember, according to statistics even now you're more likely to be hit by lightning that killed in a terrorist attack. It's shortsighted running your country and freedoms into the ground over something so (statistically) insignificant.
"Can you give me an example? As for as I know, this has never worked. The IRA is still active in Ireland, etc."
Erm, no. They aren't. With the greatest respect, they haven't been active for months, and in fact have recently publically disarmed, destroyed their weapons caches and agreed to end their campaign. We've had no terrorist actions since, apart from the tube/bus suicide bombings, and that was the work of a particular Al-Qaeda offshoot, claimed by them and subsequently proven.
The IRA disarmament was widely reported on the news, and I think you'll have a hard time finding a single news-watching British person who thinks they're still active.
"do you really believe the IRA are not doing terrorist acts now?"
Again, with the greatest respect, I live here. We also have a functioning, impartial news service. The IRA have been inactive for months.
It's known that some individual members have subsequently taken up crime (the "freedom-fighting" of the IRA was always mixed in with a hell of a lot of criminal activity), but a handful of extra armed robbers in the country is a hell of a lot better than a terrorist group blowing up people and buildings.
"Esentially, you recommend a retreat"
A slow, careful, public, staged retreat. And it's debatable if it even counts as a retreat when you're on someone else's land. Many would just view it as "no longer actively trespassing".
I'm not saying drop your pants and bend over for the terrorists, but a public statement that the US intends to wind down its policy of (overt) interference, and is looking at strongly reducing the number of military bases it maintains in other countries would do wonders for your level of terrorism.
Then stage a slow wind-down - if long-term terrorist actions increase, you have plenty of time and resources to ramp back up your efforts before you're defenceless.
However, even if you don't convince the hardcore terrorists, such a move would massively sap their support amongst ordinary p
I hate to be a boring whinger, but wasn't this covered on /. months ago?
/.'s awful search functionality. I'm normally one of the people who tells dupe-whingers to shut up, but even I'm getting bored of it now. How hard is it to search for ["gimp photoshop" sorted by relevance] before clicking "Publish Article" (or whatever)?
<one quick search later>
In fact, yes it was.
The search took less than a second, even with
Anyway, sorry for joining the ranks of the dupe-whinging old bastards, but it was either that or haul off and smack the monitor. <:-)
"Really? Name one. I'll wait.
Still waiting."
Jesus, give me a chance!
Ok, a quick Google srearch turns up:
How we survived jail hell (Observer, respected, non-tabloid British newspaper)
Britain frees all five former Guantanamo detainees (USA Today)
Returning Afghans Talk of Guantanamo (Washington Post)
British Guantanamo Terror Suspects Released Without Charge (ATSNN (?))
Men Held at Guantánamo Months After Deemed Innocent (New Standard News (?))
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Complain of A Year Long Torture by US Military (globalpolicy.org (?))
And that was just on the first page.
Do I get my apology now?
"You're not going to get ANYWHERE arguing that individuals who have engaged in covert military action against the US aren't enemy combatants."
No, of course many of them were. However, the correct term for an opposing fighter taken prisoner in a war is "prisoner of war".
Classifying them as "enemy combatants" is a weak legal loophole designed solely to avoid the US's Human Rights obligations under the Geneva Convention.
"The "loophole" you describe has been used by other countries before"
As you said, name one.
You'll also not I'm not automatically assuming you're wrong, merely asking you to prove it. Because I don't know for sure you aren't.
This is careful and rational argument, and not just arrogantly assuming I'm automatically right. We try to do this where I'm from, although I know the US isn't big on it at the moment.
"and quite frankly, the people who are being detained violated the Geneva Conventions themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants. When they did that they forfeited their protections."
I don't recall a passage or clause under the Geneva Accords that says you have to clearly identify yourself as a combatant, but if you show me an excerpt I'll concede this point.
Nevertheless, this is what a trial is for - to establish whether or not the person actually is guilty. If they're all denied a trial, how can the innocent ones be freed?
"C. If they're US citizens, then their first protection should be the CONSTITUTION, not some ridiculously weak loosley related aggreements between previously (and sometimes currently) warring countries."
How many of them are actually US citizens? As a member of "the rest of the world" (you guys remember that place, right?) you can do what you like with your own citizens, but as I recall most US-native citizens captured were dealt with quickly, and there were barely any of them. Likewise, citizens of other western powers had an expedited release or repatriation for judging in their own countries.
The remaining prisoners are mostly Afghani (or other nationalities that the US feels safe in upsetting), and they aren't going anywhere, not even to trial.
Oh, and the Geneva Convention rights aren't "weak" - they state explicitely what's allowed and what isn't. Humiliation, torture and unlawful imprisonment aren't allowed.
The only reason you think they're weak is because your government has (illegally and immorally) tried so damn hard to weasel out of them, and nobody else is big enough or brave enough to take on the biggest, most nuked-up, violent and paranoid bully in the world at the moment.
"You're a partisan shill. And the worst part
Funny thing - the "thousands of unused busses underwater" claim has since been proven to be an unsubstantiated guess presented as fact.
A report (I've lost the link - Google for it) dated 2003 states there were no more than around 250 schoolbuses in the New Orleans area, nothing like the "more than 2000" being claimed by right-win pundits, and certainly not enough to evacuate everyone too poor to escape under their own steam.
True, the fact that many of these 250 buses were overlooked and not used to evacuate people is tragic (and bloody stupid), but hundreds or thousands would still have been forced to stay, and still would have died thanks to Bush's (and FEMA's) incompetence.
"Yes you could, and it did happen."
Really? When? I never heard anything about that. Can you explain more, or is it a baseless accusation?
If so it's disgusting, and should damn well have been publicised. However, since it wasn't (and the media was much less in the then-administration's pocket), I find it hard to automatically believe (without any evidence) that it did.
"But many of the people complaining about those abuses now are Clinton ass-kissing sycophants, and refuse to believe that the crap going on today started long before January 20, 2001."
Not at all. I think Clinton was a politician, and hence inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous - witness, for example, his quietly signing up to a whole shitload of environmental initiatives in his last days in office, knowing he wouldn't have to deal with the consequences because he'd be gone by then. Bush then takes office and immediately cans the lot, instantly earning ire from environmental groups.
Now, I had a lot of sympathy for Bush for that specific event, but his ongoing refusal to even acknowledge global warming, his disasterous (and ill-thought-out) policies and his rampant corruption and cronyism have long-since outweighed any cheap departing shots from Clinton.
The problem is that the right wing automatically assumes any criticism of Bush is partisan politics, instead of (as it often is) abject outrage at his corrupt, dangerous and amoral policies and behaviour.
I don't think Clinton was a saint, but he was nearly impeached by the right for lying about a blowjob to save his marriage. Bush has dragged the country through two wars, at least one on trumped-up charges, knowingly lied to congress and the public, massively increased corruption and cronyism in federal agencies and let hundreds or thousands of people die through that corruption (or sheer incompetence).
And what happens to him? He gets voted back in for a second term by people such as yourself.
"Why would you NEED Geneva Convention protections, unless you were a combatant? Wouldn't the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS have jurisdiction otherwise?"
I don't think you've understood the situation here.
They were taken as prisoners of war, which entitles them to Geneva Convention protections.
The US administration used a legally-questionable and morally-disgusting loophole to classify them as "enemy combatants", and used this as a loophole to deny them Geneva Convention protections, since the geneva convention only talks about "prisoners of war" - "enemy combatants" was a superfluous term invented by the US administration solely to circumvent their Geneva Convention obligations, so it's no surprise they Geneva Convention doesn't mention ECs.
Either way they've never had a trial, so it's never been determined if each specific individual was even fighting on the Taliban's side.
There have been documented cases where innocent people in Afghanistan during the invasion were reported to the American forces as Taliban fighters, simply because someone held a grudge against them and wanted them "got rid of".
Since they haven't had a trial, there's been no test of their guilt, so we don't even know whether each one all guilty.
In addition, the legal limbo they're held in has allowed the US government to torture, abuse and humiliate them, in defiance not only of the Geneva Convention, but in defiance of basic Human Rights.
That's the situation - no truth-twisting necessary (or intended).
The trolls are getting lazy. Not even bothering to write new ill-reasoned or inflammatory screeds, several times recently I've seen them just re-post old content verbatim, often not even bothering to update it for added relevence.
The only question is, are they seriously stupid enough that they think anyone will rise to such a pathetic attempt at igniting an argument?
It's the forum equivalent of shouting "you're a fuckwit" in a crowded room, and waiting for a fist-tight to break out.
Tragic.
"Flags have been steadily vanishing in the public square compared to their post-9/11 prominence. They are also largely without power."
Flags != Nationalism
Nationalism == Irrationally claiming your country is better than any other, and refusing to countenance arguments or facts that indicate otherwise.
And you're doing that very well, thanks.
"The US Constitution provides expressly for many human rights. Our legal positivism is not dismissal of the value of human rights, only the acknowledgment that in the real world rights exist because governments grant them, not because of their value."
Indeed, your Founding Fathers had a great deal of respect for human rights... while routinely owning slaves?
Don't make me laugh. "Commitment to Human Rights" means accepting that all people have certain inalienable rights, not just the ones you play golf with or live near.
Stop waving a 200-year-old bit of paper at me and we'll talk again when I can't end the argument with the word "Guantanamo", "Abu Ghraib", or any of the other (numerous, less-publicised) internment camps where inmates are held without trial or even formal charges, and are humiliated and tortured (sorry, stressed) for years.
"We don't scapegoat everything on terrorists, only what they do."
Right, so Iraq was aiding terrorists, right?
Proven to be complete bullshit, admitted by many Republicans, and proven that Bush new it before they even went in.
And that's leaving aside the unprecendented crackdown on civil liberties, blamed on the terrorists, that many analysts have shown don't even plug the holes they used to commit their crimes.
"Ours is a civilian government."
Irrelevant. So was Hitlers. For a complete rebuttal of your mis-reading of the paragraph concerned, see my response to Phrack, who appears to have cut-and-pasted your response on this point. If you both aren't going to read the article properly, can you at least try to be original in your selection of straw-men?
Short version: The Bush administration both demonstrably seeks and glorifies military power. You (supposedly) elected them fairly. Therefore you bear the responsibility for their attitudes and policies. Saying "we're not them" is not an option in a representative democracy, at least when you're arguing for their side.
"First, opposition to abortion is not sexism. It really isn't."
Nope, it isn't. But if you read the article you'll see that
1) It's edited for a magazine format, and so the wording has likely been changed from the original, and
2) Those headlines (which are all the right-wing respondants seem to have read) are "general catch-all" categories, not a complete summary of the details within them.
"Secondly, opposition to abortion isn't that high. A majority think it should be legal, they just don't think it should be legal at all points and in all circumstances."
It isn't. You have a dividing line (before the 3rd trimester, IIRC). Why is it even still an issue?
And if it's only a tiny religious minority pushing for (and sometimes, nearly achieving) a re-evaluation of the law, doesn't that play back into the "Religion and Government are Intertwined" point?
"As for homophobia, it goes both ways. Some states have civil unions, others have marriage bans. Many have some special protections in the form of hate crime laws."
And your president is pushing for a federal ban on it. I don't care what some small sections of the population are doing, if your entire power-apparatus is doing something else.
Was the USSR not communist because there were still free-thinkers in the population? No. Is America automatically not fascist or totalitarian because some small sections of it disagree with the powerful ruling elite? No.
"The closest thing we have
Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.
How many more times do people want to beat this straw man?
Read the freaking article.
Hitler's Germany had a civilian government.
This point is actually about seeking and flaunting military power, and don't try to tell me the US hasn't been on an international cock-waving military rampage since 9/11. Don't try to tell me Bush doesn't unnecessarily hold press conferences on aircraft carriers, and stage a "celebrity" arrival in a military jet. Don't tell me the current administration doesn't have an overwhelming preference for military force over diplomacy or economic sanctions, and don't tell me they don't try to identify themselves with the army at every opportunity, so any attack on them is turned into "hating our boys".
You're trying to imply that leaders != country, but in an (allegedly) democratic nation you don't have that right. You (supposedly) elected them, and they determine what the country does. They glorify the military and espouse fascist policies, "the country" tends towards fascism.
You think Hitler's nazi administration had a 100% approval rating? No, but the people were powerless to do anything about it. You (supposedly) have a choice. You can't hide behind your leaders - either you're part of an undemocratic despotic fascist regime, or you're part of a democratic regime and accept responsibility for their fascist direction.
"Our elections are real. Sure they are flawed in ways that only rarely make a difference, such as in Bush v Gore, but those flaws are not systematically designed to benefit the ruling party, they are often due to human laziness and incompetence."
Sorry? Where did it say your system had to be designed to be corrupt? All it says is that your elections have to be corrupted by one party.
Some news for you: your elections were corrupt, and overwhelmingly so in favour of the Republican party, who then went on to win. People who were voting for the opposition were erroneously disenfranchised by a company with strong ties to the winning party. The most corrupt state was run by the winning candidate's brother, an erroneous result was announced by the news corporation owned by a close friend of (and financial backer of) the future-president, the re-count was stopped moments before the opposition count levelled with the "winner" by a supreme court dominated by judges on the winning candidate's side, and appointed by the winning candidate's father.
Even with all these things in his favour, the winning candidate won by one of the smallest margins is US political history.
Exactly how many "co-incidences" do we have to have before your BS alarm goes off?
"America isn't perfect. Far from it. But it is also not Fascist. Fascism is far more organized than the US Gov. Which is fine... federal government entangled in their own red tape and petty squabbles stays out of my hair."
Not yet, maybe. But it's already well on the way. I haven't seen a single good argument (that stands up to scrutiny), refuting a single point on the list, since I posted the original link.
That ought to tell you something.
So your point is... what?
You disapprove of gay marriage (which a lot of people see as a Right), and think America's better because their reactionary and homophobic president are seeking to ban it?
You admit you're a Christian (and sounding more and more like a fundamentalist, the further down the post you get), but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part. Not to derail the debate, but marriage means two things - it can be a secular state-approved union, or a religious union.
Has any law been passed in Canada that forces priests to marry gay couples? No? Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?
In short, your post seems to boil down to:
"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal. I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law. I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism. Jesus is good! Worship Jesus! Being gay isn't as bad as killing christians."
Are you stoned, or drunk or what? That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher. Seriously, dude - you're your own worst enemy.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
One word - FEMA.
The only reason you now know FEMA is corrupt to the point of uselessness is because they were suddenly called-on to do a large, high-profile job and were thrust into the spotlight, where they failed miserably and let additional hundreds or thousands of people unnecessarily die. As a result the (politically-appointed, by Bush) head of FEMA has resigned, and Bush has been forced into a publical apology (immense comfort for the bereaved whose relatives died so Bush could give his mates a sinecure, I'm sure).
No-one watches the Federal watchmen, so graft and corruption go unmonitored and unchecked.
How can you possibly make definitive statements when the best you can prove is "some are known to be corrupt, and the others we just don't know?".
No, it would be fruitless since you've completely missed the point. "Human Rights" is not the same as "treating your citzens fairly".
A "commitment to human rights" is a 100% commitment that all people, irrespecitve of race, colour, religion, nationality or sexuality are owed certain inalienable rights.
You can give black people and the disabled foot-massages and blow-jobs if you like, but if a few thousands miles away your government has hundreds of people imprisoned for years without trial (or even formal charges), subject to humiliation and torture, simply because they're suspected of a crime..
Human rights apply to all people, not just the ones you play golf with or live next to.
"Then why hasn't the single most serious threat to national security, the largely unguarded borders, been addressed? Why is amnesty for illegal immigrants being considered? Nope, this fails too."
Because it isn't the biggest threat to national security. All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, using their own passports. the biggest irregularity in their presence there was that a few of them had overstayed on their tourists' visas for a couple of weeks.
Why would they need to risk sneaking across the border when they can (still!) waltz through your airports with valid documentation?
"There is NO separation of Church and State outlined in the Constitution. You are quoting an oft repeated misunderstanding of how the Constitution discusses this subject. But I'm not surprised, you didn't bother to research your other points either."
Ignoring the cheap (and hypocritical) jibe, I apologise - I'm not a US native (I'm from the UK), so forgive me if my understanding of the minutae of your civic system is lacking
Regarding the point at hand, I've read up a bit - the Constitution doesn't explicitely mention the separation of church and state, so you were correct, and I was overstating the case.
However, the first Ammendment is generally interpreted to ensure this. Even if you choose to read it differently, the confusion should be cleared up by a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists, in which he writes:
So I'd say however open to interpretation the 1st Ammendment is, the intention seems pretty clear, no?
I also note that while you pick up on my misunderstanding of american civic details, you don't deny the religious right has enormous power in the US, either. Evolution vs Creationism/ID and the posting of the ten commandments in schools/on Court buildings demonstrates this clearly (do churches have a copy of the Constitution pinned to Jesus' chest?).
"'Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts'...
Bull. Stop confusing the Executive branch of our government with America. They're not the same."
First off, it's not the executive branch - it's all three branches of your government that are dominated by neocon-influenced right-wing Republicans.
Secondly, your government sets the laws, your government determines your foreign policy, and your government is a "representative democracy". Either it represents the majority of americans (in which case "the country"), or it doesn't represent the majority of americans (eg, through fiddled elections), in which case you're admitting it's effectively a faux-democratic junta and your country's even c
"The president has always had this power, until he voluntarily gave it up as too dangreous compared to the likelihood of needing to use the power. After the cold war ended, that made sense. It also makes sense to reverse that stance as soon as another cold war starts."
1) Just because I've pulled a gun on someone in the past, doesn't mean pulling a gun in an argument with someone else is going to help the situation. Especially when the first guy was an enormous bloke also with a gun, and the next argument is with a bunch of small kids, one of whom might have a knife.
2) If you're trying to provoke a cold war with the middle east, you're doing brilliantly. In fact, this is one of Osama Bin Laden's stated objectives - ideally he'd like the USA torn down and replaced with an islamic theocratic regime. Failing that he'd like the US to clamp down on civil liberties to the extent it's no more "free" than Iran (or any other repressive regime. Failing that, he's happy to settle for a prolonged war betwee nthe west and the middle east. Either way, as long as the US stops interfering in middle-eastern affairs, he's happy.
Read Al-Jazeera, or any non-US news sources. He has publically stated this, many times. You are giving him exactly what he wants.
The way to get him off your back and irritate him the most is to stop meddling, but remain cordial with the middle east. It's not enough to provoke further terrorism, but it's a long way from his ideal scenario.
"Fair enough. I know the US has done bad things. The further back in our history you go, the worse the atrocities commited are."
Maybe so, but what evidence to you have for this? Generally it takes many, many years for atrocities to be recognised as such - at the time they're always "perfectly justified". I wouldnt' be surprised if in 20, 50, 100 years going back into Iraq was considered an unpardonable invasion.
Even if you're right, when someone's upset enough with you to kill thousands of civilians to make a point "we're not quite as terrible bad as we used to be" just doesn't cut it. "We've stopped doing what upset you", is closer, but that's exactly what you're arguing against.
"I didn't start it (as you point out, I wasn't even born for most of it, and neither was the president), but I will see it finished."
Forgive me, but that's an incredibly immature attitude. You didn't start it, you don't even understand the resons why it started, but you're going to finish it?
This is international politics, not a playground fistfight - you can't decide to "finish it" and it's all over. You aren't fighting another kid, you're righting a swarm of wasps - no one big punch is going to do anything, bar possibly make them angrier.
"If you look at the history of the US, it tends not to do anything except in response to threats from others."
I don't know what history you've been reading (if any), but it ain't the one I've been reading. Sure, sometimes the US does, but not every time, not by a long shot.
"Even Cuba and South America, where we have probably meddled the most - its mainly because Castro was dumb enough to let the Russians put nukes there."
And you don't think the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 might have had something to do with the failed US invasion in 1961?
That point took me 2 wikipedia searches and about 5 seconds to refute. Again, not to be offensive, but do you know your own history, or are you simply starting from a position of "we're always right, rah, rah, rah!" and ignoring or forgetting anything that doesnt' fit?
"BTW, you sort of weaken your argument by calling us both isolationists and meddlers."
My apologies - I should have clarified.
I think the US should be militarily more isolat
"I wasn't really refering to favoritism, graft, etc. I was refering to the fact of life that when you need to get something done, you hire those you know and can trust to do a good job."
I agree, this is often a good course. Unfortunately, with Bush's record (well, really the whole administration's record) I have an extremely hard time believing this is the case.
If embarrassments like 9/11 (which the government was pre-warned about by the CIA, among others) and FEMA recently (a completely unqualified political appointee who couldn't do the job directly contributing to the deaths of hundreds/thousands) show us anything, it's that you get ahead in the Bush administration by being part of their "old-boy" network, not by being any good whatsoever at the job.
In addition, how do you know that was why Halliburton (et al) got the contracts? Are you saying they were the very best corporations in the US/the entire world for the specific jobs? Probably not. Were they instead the very best that Bush/Cheney/whoever knew about? Possibly. Would they only have known about them because Cheney had worked on the board and made millions in stock options from them? Almost certainly.
This boils down to "Cheney was on the board, so they got the contracts" - you're assuming they were the very best in the entire country, without enough evidence to make that claim. I'm assuming the decision was motivated (at least in part) by campaign donations, prior association and cronyism, and the Bush administration has been proven to indulge in these things, frequently.
"Yes, if that is what it takes. I know that we ave being forced to sink nearer to the level of the terrorists - but that is the only way forward that I know of."
So what you're saying is this:
Moral dimension: You espouse liberty and self-determination, and pretend to fight tyrants and injustice, and yet you're happy to become the very thing you're fighting? Whatever happened to principles? "Win at any cost" is exactly the attitude that the terrorists have, and if you subscribe to the same ethics you're no better than them - frankly, in this situation you don't deserve to win.
Rational dimension: You've created a terrorist problem with your foreign policies. You now think the solution is to do more of the things that created the terrorist problem, and that'll solve the problem?
Terrorism is a tactic, has no real infrastructure, and can (in a pinch) be conducted by single individulas living and working among your own citizens. I could go home, mix up a batch of plastic explosives from bleach in my bathtub, and blow up a crowded commuter train. How are you ever going to stop terrorism with force? Ban bleach? Ban bathtubs? Force your citizens to endure 1984-style CCTV monitoring 24/7? There is no way.
The only way terrorist problems have ever ended, anywhere in the world is when both sides eventually sit down and discuss their differences, and compromise.
Note I'm not talking about surrendering, or even inviting Al Qaeda to a summit tomorrow. I'm talking about producing an exit strategy for Iraq as quickly as possible (that leaves a stable, government with popular support), ceasing interference in foreign countries, defending your borders like you wouldn't believe, and in a few years (hell, maybe a human lifetime) your terrorist problems will have disappeared. Fanaticism needs fresh atrocities, or it dies out on its own, given time - protect yourselves but deny your enemies fresh ammunition, and time will solve the problem.
Note also that I know what I'm talking about - the IRA (for most of my life) was conducting bombing campaigns in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. We had ceasefires, breakdowns, atrocities and crackdowns, and you know how it ended? When they sat down and compromised, and Northern Ireland got its own Assembly - the IRA could claim victory because it wasn't under English rule, and we could claim vi
Only after eating real red-and-white spotted mushrooms.
Although my whole body didn't grow larger, my hands were huge...
"Um, of course the US acts in it's own interests. It would be pretty dumb to try to act otherwise. If you think there is a single country on Earth where that isn't true, then you have been deceived (probably by your government)."
Not at all, I fully expect governments to act in the interests of their own constituents. I know they often don't, but that's something to be rooted out and fought, not accepted and apologised-for.
And until you reduce corruption in your own country, you have no right to hold yourselves up as a shining beacon of democracy, and no excuse at all to start imposing your will on other (often democratically-elected) governments.
"If the citizens of the US had known about giving Saddam gas, they would have stopped it. There is always a problem with "black ops""
Some, maybe. Maybe even the majority. Not all. If the current crop of extreme-right-wing apologists shows us anything, it shows us that.
And you can't on one hand blame "other countries" for supporting terrorism because their leaders support it, and claim "your country" is blameless because the leaders support it, not the people.
And if you're blaming the other countries' (often uneducated, less-free) people for ideologically siding with their government, and suggesting the "little people" are also helping terrorists, how do you think they feel about you (more educated, more free, more able to disagree publically) ideologically siding with your government, which is responsible for so much suffering to them?
You seem to be saying that when your government does something bad it's "not your country", and that the people can't be blamed for supporting them, but when other countries governments do something bad it's "the country", and the people (who often have far less freedom than you do to disagree) can be blamed for siding with them.
Am I misunderstanding, or is this correct?
"We did not attack Iraq for oil. Honestly, that is the litmus test of does someone understand politics or not"
I was being slightly facetious, but you must admit that (for Bush's famous "investor- campaign donors") the war has been a great source of business, and now they have a monopoly on Iraq's oil, which was previously pretty much sewn up by France.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's backers honestly thought they were doing it to promote democracy and help people (and incidentally getting rich too, to be fair), but their colossal arrogance and complete lack of morality has caused the present fuck-up, and for that they need to be punished.
Either way, they didn't go in solely because they wanted to ensure democracy in a pokey little middle-eastern country, or to prevent attacks with WMDs, or any of the other justifications they gave.
"Even the money from the oil has to be very carefully tracked so that we can prove we are not making money from it. It is true that US companies are making hundreds of millions off of billion dollar contracts - but that is somewhat standard operating procedure in the West. It is also true that the president's friends got most of the contracts - but that is true of any contract, government or private"
With respect, I have to call BS on this.
Firstly, IIRC a US company has been given a monopoly on handling all Iraqi oil exports, and the fledgeling Iraqi government was strongarmed into this by their US government representatives there.
Secondly, while there's always a certain level of graft and favouritism going on, under the Bush administration it's increased massively (with political appointees left, right and centre), and it's done much more shamelessly than ever before.
The fact that "it rains sometimes" is not a reason to not get upset when "your neighbourhood floods and your car gets washed away". Since we can never eradicate corruption, degree is important.
"The reason we invaded Iraq was to make a statement. Before we invaded Iraq, Iran felt sa