As advertised,

I think that the real danger in this “war against terrorism”. is that it becomes a blank check for whoever is in power. All of the stripping away of privacy (rights or not), the lack of any meaningful oversight, the secrecy allowed under the blanket of “national security” all points to the establishment of a government within a government - one that acts with impunity. Regardless the original intent, it evolves into power for power’s sake.

It doesn’t make any difference whether this power is wielded by the left or right. Power could care less about ideology, only in maintaining power.

Chicken Little almost got control of the barnyard…

That’s my point, tentative. I think this time it’s “almost”, where in the past. it has often been accomplished.

faust: Peter - everybody plays politics.

F: To say that the first Gulf War wasn’t our “creation” is to bend the facts. Our participation was our creation. We don’t intervene every time one country attacks another. Certainly not with a full-scale assault. That the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor does not by itself justify the jailing of any American citizens without charges or convictions - I smell a double standard.

K: not at all. It is a matter of degree. In the gulf war, saddam invaded
Kuwait. We did not invade anybody until he invaded Kuwait.
In WW 1 and WW 2, we faced far greater and far more dangerous
enemy then saddam and the terrorist. You cannot equate
Saddam with Hitler and the terrorist with anybody in WW 2.
Along with japan and Italy, both were a far greater danger
then saddam and the terrorist. No double standard at all.
WW 2 was a real actually war, instead of this pretend
war. Want prove, who many terrorist are out there,
maybe at most 10,000, In WW 2 over 20 million Russians
died and over 100 million people died. The simple fact
is you cannot equate this current nonsense with WW 2 or
WW 1.

F: I also don’t see how we can ever know how long a war will last.

K: but there were plans in WW 2 and WW 1, no plans in
Vietnam, see the connection. We have no plans (that are
out in public) and we got a permanent war status.
This war is now longer then the civil war, THE FUCKING
CIVIL WAR. What is wrong with this picture?

Kropotkin

Terrorism

The intent is not to kill, but to cause fear so to influence politics. Have they succeded?

ahh, the much debated and controversial habeas corpus suspension. i apologize for forgetting this clause. this covers imprisonment without having to have just cause. this is the only article in the constitution that allows any such violation of the bill of rights. and taken literally, this only violates the 6th amendment of a speedy and public trial.

related to wiretaps, loss of freedom of speech/press/assembling, loss of privacy, etc, are not authorized. if they want to arrest someone and not give a reason, then that is one thing (martial law and yes, constitutionally granted). but to start invading privacy in every other way, that is delving into the unconstitutional.

as for making some sacrifices, i agree, wartime and other tension-filled years should call for some sort of civilian-led attempt to ease the strife. middle east trouble would obviously be a good time to call for a sacrifice on oil based goods. in previous wars it was steel. in future ones it may be other goods and services.

however, rights (those in the bill of rights) do not stand in the same category as goods and services, do they? is it unreasonable to draw the line with these most basic of human rights? take away privaleges, raise prices, conserve goods, live more simply, but don’t take away the reasons that the united states became such a great nation in the first place.

also, quick sidenote, the constitutional provision for suspending the writ of habeas corpus (the right to a trial) is given to the legislative branch of gov’t, not the executive. it is in Article I, which deals solely with congress. Article II deals solely with the executive branch. so regardless of how it has been used in the past, constitutionally, Bush has no authorization to suspend anyone’s right to a trial.

Apology accepted for your “forgetting” :wink: about that part of the Constitution. It slips everyone’s mind.

The executive branch executes the laws, so Congress’s constitutional suspension of Habeas Corpus means nothing unless the executive branch acts upon it. Bush (or Gonzalez under the authority granted to him by Bush) would ultimately be the one deciding whether the right was suspended as to each individual. In other words, that Congress has suspended habeas corpus doesn’t mean that people will be thrown in jail without a showing of just cause, it is merely a grant of authority to the executive branch to do so if it chooses.

Peter - that’s simply not true - when we entered the World Wars the defeat of our enemy was a forgone conclusion, because our enemy had already overplayed its hand and we could devote a great many more resources to those wars - it was politically possible, in other words.

But I agree that this war is a strategic blunder. Your thesis seems to be that it is also evil, because the Republicans started it. Well, the Democrats started the Vietnam war, which was even more of a fiasco than this one. And the rhetoric (about the Domino Theory) was designed to serve the same pupose (fear). Can you tell me the difference between Johnson and Bush here? Vietnam was a civil war, as well.

Don’t hold your breath.

-Thirst

It’s bated, Thirst, but not held.

:laughing:

Excellent.

-Thirst

faust: Peter - that’s simply not true - when we entered the World Wars the defeat of our enemy was a forgone conclusion, because our enemy had already overplayed its hand and we could devote a great many more resources to those wars - it was politically possible, in other words.

K: We enter WW 2 in 1941 and the defeat of GERMANY and Japan
was hardly a “Forgone conclusion” Not until 1944 after
D-DAY might we consider WW 2 a “forgone conclusion”
In 1917 we entered WW 1, and at the end of the war, we
still had not invaded Germany, I am not sure you can consider
1917 entrance “forgone conclusion”. I think you need to reconsider
that statement.

F: But I agree that this war is a strategic blunder. Your thesis seems to be that it is also evil, because the Republicans started it. Well, the Democrats started the Vietnam war, which was even more of a fiasco than this one. And the rhetoric (about the Domino Theory) was designed to serve the same pupose (fear). Can you tell me the difference between Johnson and Bush here? Vietnam was a civil war, as well.

K: My thesis is this war was started under false pretense,
see any WMD’S anybody, had no plan outside of taking down
saddam for personal reasons, and there is no exit plan of any kind.
This administration has been wrong about every step of the
way in this way, recall it was suppose to pay for itself
with the Iraqi oil revenue, Yeh, and by 2008, the next presidency,
this war will us COST MORE THEN WORLD WAR 2 even with
inflation. More then WORLD WAR 2, a real war.
I did not bring up Vietnam, you did, but faust, we are one
of the few around here to actually remember watching
the evening news and watching Cronkite, showing us the
troops coming home in body bags. And Vietnam was evil,
and I have said so before, it was evil and wrong. It is not
about which party is being stupid at the moment, it is
about stopping the stupidity before more lives get wasted,
more money gets spent. We must end this “stay and pray”
“hope to god” type of philosophy.

Kropotkin

ASnd do what, Peter? Just pack up and get out? Wouldn’t that truly be wasting the lives and money we have spent? What companies currently pump the oil in Iraq? I know that Haliburton was doing so at one time, but aren’t other countries doing so now? I couldn’t seem to Google this properly. I wouldn’t be shocked top find out it was Exxon-Mobil and BP. In fact, I kinda hope it is. If it’s not, shouldn’t we stay until it is? Shouldn’t we get something out of all this?

faust: ASnd do what, Peter? Just pack up and get out? Wouldn’t that truly be wasting the lives and money we have spent? What companies currently pump the oil in Iraq? I know that Haliburton was doing so at one time, but aren’t other countries doing so now? I couldn’t seem to Google this properly. I wouldn’t be shocked top find out it was Exxon-Mobil and BP. In fact, I kinda hope it is. If it’s not, shouldn’t we stay until it is? Shouldn’t we get “something” out of all this?"

K: quite frankly, what should we get out of this?
If our motives are as “pure” as bringing democracy into
the middle east, we have failed. If our motive is to make
the world safe for democracy, we have failed. If our motive is
to make the world safe from terrorists, we have failed.
By every standard, you can put on this, we have failed.

So now what? Iraq is in a civil war, (over 100 people
a day die from this civil war in Baghdad alone)
and what other options do we have? “Stay and pray”
while costing more american lives from a failed
policy? IF the war is truly about terrorism, then we
need to regroup and fight terrorism where it is, not
where we pray it is. The rise of terrorism is quite clear
from the state dept own records. Last year there was over
11,000 terrorist attacks up several hundred from 2004.
So let us regroup and fight the battle in a smarter way.
Iraq is lost and afghanistan is getting close.
In poker when you are taking loses, do you stay there
and take even heavier losses, or do you get the hell out
and cut your losses?

I know what I would do.

Kropotking

Peter, I understand your sentiments. I don’t think the bases there are particularly valuable - not as dear as the cost, anyway. But we may as well get the oil. This war was a mistake - and even those who won’t admit it publicly know this, for the most part. Look at the polls. It was a mistake.

But the next president may be able to parlay this into a gain, at least in part. George Bush has failed to do that, I agree. But getting rid of Saddam and leaving the country in turmoil serves no purpose. Look - the american people are not buying this anymore - your rhetorical purpose here has been accomplished. As a people, we want out.

And I also think the fear factor is way, way way overplayed. We still bitch about TSA security measures, as if we are no longer afraid. We do not avoid public places. Most of us are not too concerned about the curtailment of rights, because it has affected almost no one - but if it did, there would be an outcry - and it would work. But I think we are a rabble that won’t be roused about that, not right now, anyway.

The american people simply are not afraid of their government - Johnson declined to run, because he knew he’d be defeated. Nixon was run out of town. Carter was not re-elected, nor was the supposedly Illuminati Lizardman George H. W. Bush. It’s not them - it’s us - it’s always us.

Have a little faith in your countrymen. We’re stupid, but brave. I don’t mean to be critical of the body politic - I just want to make the point that we shouldn’t be looking at W as a master, but as an employee.

The fact is that conventional forces aren’t very good at counter-terrorism. And, despite what are high numbers of casualties to us, terrorists aren’t very good against a force the size and ability of ours. We’re wasting time, I agree. But we have no real use for these troops. Except to pick off a few more nasty terrorists. But it’s a weird sort of stalemate, in the end. Let’s just get a friendly Iraqi government, and the oil, out of the whole thing. At least the Kurds like us now - a missed opportunity, so far.

I agree with your conclusions to a degree, but not with your argument. We should get out, but not until we can do so without having left all those dead bodies on the field in vain. I follow, as best I can, you ever-evolving points, but they always seem to get back to the view that we are somehow victims. That’s the part that bothers me. We are victims only of ourselves - of our own ambivalence. But the cure is not, it seems to me, party politics or the adoption of one extreme or it’s opposite.

faust:
I agree with your conclusions to a degree, but not with your argument. We should get out, but not until we can do so without having left all those dead bodies on the field in vain. I follow, as best I can, you ever-evolving points, but they always seem to get back to the view that we are somehow victims. That’s the part that bothers me. We are victims only of ourselves - of our own ambivalence. But the cure is not, it seems to me, party politics or the adoption of one extreme or it’s opposite."

K: I must respectively disagree with your analysis that somehow
we are victims in this. As a handicap person, I can play the victim,
its easy for me. When I was a kid and wanting something, I played
the victim card, and my mom sometimes gave it to me. But today
I am in a different place, a victim is one who sits back, does nothing,
and says “who unto me”. And my messages is quite clearly not
that. I am saying “let take charge of this situation” Marching in
the streets among other active measures to protest this
vile situation. I am advocating action, and that is surely not
a victim “woe is to me”. I want people to take charge of their
lives and demand a voice in the actions of “the worst president
in American history”

A couple of other points. My views change because the
situation changes on the ground. Unlike the right wing or the
GOP and/or village idiot, my views evolve to adapt to the
ever changing situations we face. I don’t take a viewpoint at
age 18 and then no matter what else happens insist that view
at 18 is the right view from now until death. Situations change
and viewpoints must change to adapt to the new situation.
We are not fix entities, but flexible ones, we evolve, adapt,
change to changing situations. Those who do not or can
not change to evolving situations do not belong in
leadership positions. Thus argument 2584 why the village
idiot should not be president.

Kropotkin

Peter - I would suggest that a well-reasoned argument against specific policies would serve you better than hyperbolic vitriol against George Bush. Maybe that’s juts a style preference. But presidents can serve only two terms. Arguing that George Bush should not be president doesn’t seem useful.

I don’t get it: up til five years ago in Iraq the Government was doing all the killing. Now the People of Iraq are doing the killing! How can you say there hasn’t been progress?

With all due respect, you are over reacting. This president is not the worst president. He is the most honest, and careless president. Most of the things we know about what the govt. is doing right now would have been behind-the-scenes with most other presidents. This president is being a little more open.

That is the historic milestone of social progress, n’est-ce pas?

It would seem so, sadly.