[Winstonm]

Quote

Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment and such are noble goals, they both fail when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation.

Dwayne, you took the words almost from my mouth. Back in my ultra-liberal college days I said often that perfect, or pure socialism was probably the idea but could never occur due to the human factor that always ruins everything.

But I think you should add to your statement: capitalism as well has a fundamnetal flaw, and that is it fails when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation. Power and greed; greed and power; evil twins that corrupt all geat ideals.

[mike777]

"In history class, I asked my teacher if it was really true that before the civil war, the democrats were pro slavery and the republicans against. He asked me "well, who's conservative and who's liberal"? Since the democrats were conservative and consequently pro slavery. I knew that nowadays the democrats are called "liberals" so I wondered if the two parties exchanged ideology, or if it was just a semantic change. Or some combination of both."

Sort of, good point

Ya in the USA there is a pretty vague usage of liberal and conservative but we do seem to use the heck out of those terms.
Republicans hate minorities, only care about the rich, want all woman to die in back room abortion clinics and love war and love fascists. Republicans want to conquer the world or kill anyone who opposes them.

Democrats are a bunch of old age hippies who are against, cops, guns, war and want unlimited government paid abortions in the ninth month and want take all the money from the rich for free health care, education, homes for all. Democrats want love and peace and Justice for all.

As for History you are right on point.

The South before and right after the civil war until about....1930 or so was Jim Crow country and Democratic. Lincoln was a Republican. Jim Crow came about when the Presidential election was stolen with the promise to withdraw Union soldiers from the South.

Keep in mind that blacks in the deep south could not attend the major state universities and even until the early 1970's were not on southern football or basketball teams. Hard to believe but that was our country. It took losing in sports to open up many of the deep southern major universities just a bit.

Roosevelt, a Democratic President changed all of that. Since then the Democrats take the Black and most other minority votes for granted. The Republicans starting around 1930 used the fear of the black vote to take back the South and gained power that they lost during Roosevelt's 4 terms of office and when many Republicans fought aganst the Civil Rights bills of the 1960's to win in the South.

I am generalizing here and the issue for many Republicans is how to reverse the perserved racisim of the party and broaden their appeal to black and Hispanic voters among others. In general they have failed miserably in attracting or retaining the few voters they gain.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Furthermore, I believe the war is being won.

Hi, Dwayne.

I know the water cooler can be an emotional experience, but I feel it is good to hear world views - as you are part of this world I find it good to hear your views as well, and as such hope you continue to express what you believe.

None of us knows for sure if he is right - we each express our views colored by our knowledge and experirence.

The one thing that bothers me about your beliefs is the quote above - and it has nothing to do with winning or losing in Iraq. You seem to support the war cause without question - the only concern being winning or losing.

That's not even the question, is it?

The only question that should be asked is what happened to get us into that conflict. It is imperative we know as a nation our reason for attacking a sovereign state.

Have you seen the latest news, that the Iraqui government has signed a deal to allow U.S. oil companies to repair the Iraqi oil industry and then afterwards U.S. oil companies will take 20% of the profits for the next 30 years? Did you know that Iraq had previously nationalized the oil industry. Did you know that an oil pipeline is being planned to strecth across Afghanistan - something the Taliban would not allow?

If it turned out that the reason to go to war had virtually nothing to do with terrorism and a whole lot to do with a plan to expand U.S. domination and enrich the oil companies, do you think for a minute the U.S. population would allow the war to continue?

Can you tell me now what was our reason and justification for going to war in Iraq?
Does anyone know? The official reasons changed each time the previous claim proved to be false. Did we finally go to war, "Because Saddam tried to kill my daddy."?

Or might there actually be some merit to the idea that a number of the signers of the PNAC manifesto ended up in powerful positions within this administration, and that plan included war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran? Just more coincidence?

So, you see, winning or losing is irrelevant - because either way, if we were led into war by a group of men bent on creating an empire, and then we allow them to get away with it unpunished, we have already lost no matter what happens.

[the hog]

Dwayne, like Winston I am not having a go at you, but I am genuinely curious about some of your statements.

:"...the traitorous New York Times and Washington Post..."
Why do you think these are traitorous? Is it because they are presenting arguments against involvement in Iraq? Surely in a democray we are entitled to express all opinions and why do those opinions have to be those of the current administration?

You mention John Howard of Australia. It might interest you to know that amongst many people Howard is the most laothed Prime Minister in Asutralian History. I certainly feel that way as do most o my friends. Why do we feel this way? Howard's govt has incarcerated many people for years with no trial. What is their crime? They are asylum seekers in my country. Howard with his small minded selfish mentality has changes this country from one of the best places in the world to live to a mean spirited place. Howard has abandoned an Australian citizen, David Hicks, held for 5 years by the US without trial and without being charged. Where is the tenet that everyone desrves a fair trial. Howard blatantly lied to the citizens of Oz about our reasons for backing the US in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? Sure we found a lot of them didn't we? This is the man you hold up as a stalwart?

As I mentioned before, there are some of us here in Oz who seriously believe that Bush, Howard and Blair are war criminals and should be tried as such. It will be interesting to see how history remembers them.

[mike777]

To be fair, a few Ausies I have spoken with seem anti Muslim immigration in the extreme. I point out that a poor Indonesia is just a short boat ride away and the rich Ausies are few and far between in a huge country. The response is one-sided.

Is this very much a minority view? Just asking.

[the hog]

Anti Muslim, or anti muslim immigration?
There is no doubt that the scare tactics employed by certain Western Govts, including my own, have hardened attitudes. Yes, depending to whom you talk you can certainly hear anti muslim comments. There was a nasty riot about 1 year ago between muslims and red necks on one of the beaches in Sydney.

[mike777]

Immigration, they seem to be virulently against an aggressive open immigration policy from Muslim nations. To be fair this seemed deeply ingrained not a result of a few months or years of speeches. When I suggested that it would not take that many generations(40 years?) of immigrants to make Aust. primarily a muslim nation the response was heated.

Just asking

[Winstonm]

From where comes this current tide of anti-muslimism? Is it an extension of anti-terrorism? If so, it is misguided, as terrorist action is not limited to those of Islamic faith.

Has anyone stopped and wondered why President Bush has singled out "Islamic extremists" as the de facto face of terror? Sure makes it easier to find a middle-east country to blame, doesn't it? Hard to imagine the U.S. being up in arms about Iran supporting the IRA.

And it seems al-Qaeda has gone global, which is quite an accomplishment for a non-profit organization run by an old man with liver disease rotting in a cave in Afghanistan - we have basic al-Qaeda, then al-Qaeda Iraq, al-Qaeda Brittain, and now we have just shot up al-Qaeda Somalia - wow, those guys really get around. If we could just get them all to move to al-Qaeda-stan maybe we'd know what country to attack next.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Monday January 08, 2007
By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb


Iraq has world's third-largest oil reserves. Photo / Reuters
BAGHDAD - Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi Parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday.

It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in Iraq since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

Of course, it takes a New Zealand newspaper to carry the story - you wouldn't expect any U.S. coverage.

Iran, anyone? Russia? Venezuela? But the war wasn't about oil, was it?

[mike777]

"Has anyone stopped and wondered why President Bush has singled out "Islamic extremists" as the de facto face of terror?"

Again Winston you hit the nail on the head. If you reject this theme than what Bush and his supporters are doing is insane, I think I said this before?
Even if you agree with this theme, you can agree that what Bush and his supporters are doing is just plain wrong...but not insane
elections matter.

Just asking.

[the hog]

Mike the Aust Govt has made it very difficult for ANY form of immigration to take place UNLESS you are a Wasp with an occupation in a shortage area in Oz. Yes, the anti muslim attitudes you quote have definitely increased in the last few years, especially since 9-11. I suspect a large portion of Australians would be dead against any form of muslim migration.

[mike777]

"...I suspect a large portion of Australians would be dead against any form of muslim migration..."

Any form wow ok...thanks for report.

Tens of millions of muslims live in abject poverty a short boat ride away that makes Mexico look like the promise land and yet you report this is a majority view in Aust? A country that is empty for the most part?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Jan 10 2007, 12:31 AM, said:

"Has anyone stopped and wondered why President Bush has singled out "Islamic extremists" as the de facto face of terror?"

Again Winston you hit the nail on the head. If you reject this theme than what Bush and his supporters are doing is insane, I think I said this before?
Even if you agree with this theme, you can agree that what Bush and his supporters are doing is just plain wrong...but not insane 
elections matter.

Just asking.

I do not think Bush and Cheney insane, so that rules out option 1. The big question is what are the motives behind option #2?

A hypothesis: warning, a little "out there".

Source: Dr. Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University.

"Dr Boyle described the heritage that the neocon elite are carrying on. Basically put they follow the doctrine of Chicago University political stalwart Leo Strauss. Strauss's mentor in Germany, before he emigrated to the United States, was Carl Schmitt. Carl Schmitt went on to become the most notorious Nazi law professor of that era, justifying every hideous atrocity that the Nazis inflicted on anyone.

Boyle continued,

"The Neocons, through Strauss, have been thoroughly schooled in Straussian and Schmittian theory, which is basically Nazi, and these people really are neo-nazis. We have to understand that, and I think people have a difficult time coming to grips with it because it seems so alien to our tradition."

Now, when you put that hypothesis next to these items:

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." -Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Al-Qaeda. War on Terror. Al-Qaeda. War on Terror.

I wonder where this constant repetition of a few simple points came from?

[Winstonm]

The_Hog, on Jan 10 2007, 12:43 AM, said:

Mike the Aust Govt has made it very difficult for ANY form of immigration to take place UNLESS you are a Wasp with an occupation in a shortage area in Oz. Yes, the anti muslim attitudes you quote have definitely increased in the last few years, especially since 9-11. I suspect a large portion of Australians would be dead against any form of muslim migration.

Isn't it rather unnerving that an entire country - in this case, an entire continent can be so mesmerized by a perceived threat as to alter immigration policy? Has the U.S./Brittian propaganda machine worked so well as to affect the entire western world? Or is it simply fear of Australia becoming a Mulsim nation with Muslim laws?

Germany succeeded in vilifying the Jews; has America succeeded in vilifying Muslims?

Seems we are well on our way to a religious polarization that can only culminate in a another world war, only this time much bloodier and costly than all other wars in history combined. It is always so when the war is based on religion.

[the hog]

mike777, on Jan 10 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

"...I suspect a large portion of Australians would be dead against any form of muslim migration..."

Any form wow ok...thanks for report.

Tens of millions of muslims live in abject poverty a short boat ride away that makes Mexico look like the promise land and yet you report this is a majority view in Aust? A country that is empty for the most part?

Mike, I said "a large portion", not the majority. (Mind you, I would not be surprised it it was a majority view).

This comment abut Aust for the large part being empty is a bit of a furphy. Our pop is about 20 mill at the moment and something like 90% of Austs live on the coastal belt. The interior is largely desert. In fact there are many informed views which suggest the max population we can support is no more than 30 million.
You may also be aware that we are currently suffering the worst drought ever recorded. Water storages in Melbourne are down to about 30% of capacity and the Govt has introduced severe water restrictions. All of this impacts on the population we can support.

Anyway, sorry that has dragged this off topic a little.

[mike777]

1) uggg what can I say when Winston quotes a prof from the greatest univ. in the world....no wonder I was on the debate team at 16:)
My Prof brings up Nazis...uggg who can argue against Nazies says AEP frat house.
2) uggggg....30 million.....in all of aust. OK I will bet my house and my family Aust. will find a way to support much more than 30 million in splendid comfort, betting on you tech guys again....

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Jan 10 2007, 02:38 AM, said:

Quote

Communism and liberalism suffer from a fundamental flaw: even tho on paper redistribution of wealth and enlightenment and such are noble goals, they both fail when the reality of human nature is factored into the situation.

Dwayne, you took the words almost from my mouth. Back in my ultra-liberal college days I said often that perfect, or pure socialism was probably the idea but could never occur due to the human factor that always ruins everything.

I used to be ultra-left when I was young. At 18, I went to Israel to work as a kibbutz volunteer. This taught me a lesson.

The kibbutz was an utopian society, closer to communism (everybody shares a common toothbrush) than to socialism (everybody works for the government but has his own house, car and toothbrush). I had learned that the only reason why socialism was not working so well in Eastern Europe was that the ruling class was more bussy sucking commodities out of the economy for their own priviledges than ruling the countries for the good of the "masses". Since there was no such parasit elite in the kibutsim, I expected it to be Paradise on Earth.

For some it was but for most it was not - two-thirds of the young people did not return to the kibbutz after military service and the vast majority of the "ulpanists" (new immigrants who were put temporarily in a kibbutz to learn Hebrew) were certain that they would not stay there.

The explanation is that there's simply no such thing as a one-size-fits-all ideal lifestyle. People are inherently different with respect to ambitions, priorities and taste. It's not so that our evil capitalist/sexist/racist society turn people different - they really are different, and the denial of that fact has cost a lot of missery, not only in Eastern Europe and China but also in the West, where postmodernistic thinking has had a lot of influence on education, child rearing, legal system, psychiatrics and probably other areas.

If you still, somewhere deep inside, have the feeling that communism was a beautiful but unfortunately unrealistic idea, you should read Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate - the modern denial of human nature".

[Winstonm]

Quote

If you still, somewhere deep inside, have the feeling that communism was a beautiful but unfortunately unrealistic idea

Not really. Back when I was young and idealistic and pondering the greater questions of life, it seemed the best form of government in my mind would have been socialism - but thinking back I was even then discounting capitalism due to man's nature of greed so my thinking even then was not accurate.

What I have since learned is that there is no Utopia, and that there are good and bad aspects of each, which is why I so strongly believe in the original U.S. Constitution's doctrine of limited federal government that must compromise to affect change, a method of checks and balances so no one man or group can infuse solely his ideals.

Which is the reason I am so strongly against the changes created by Bush and the Congress with the Patiot Act, the John Werner Defense Act, and the Military Commissions Act, in that these are sweeping changes that affect Constitutional safeguards and the types of powers that history has proven over and over should not be granted to one person or branch of government.

[Al_U_Card]

When did congress declare war on Iraq? That action is still needed in the US is it not?

The US system of government (when not subverted or perverted) is the closest to ideal that humanity has seen or can reasonably expect. It should and must be preserved as an example for all nations to follow.

[helene_t]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 10 2007, 05:09 PM, said:

The US system of government (when not subverted or perverted) is the closest to ideal that humanity has seen or can reasonably expect.  It should and must be preserved as an example for all nations to follow.

Hmmmm .... there are certainly some good things in the US Constitution (the balance between state and federal domain) but personally I think the president has way too much power. I prefer something like the Swiss system. I guess it's just a matter of taste.