Get Off Your Asses You SOB's!!!!

How many times do we need to trod out the old neocon horse about “Munich” and “1938” and “appeasement” and all the other names it goes by?

It’s the neocon raison d’être - who hasn’t heard it by now?

We might as well turn it into a sticky thread so that it might be debated in perpetuity.

Here we go again:
History did not begin in 1938. The neocon argument only works if you ignore everything that led up to WWII.
The bottom line, the fact of the matter, is that WWII was a by-product of American intervention in the first World War. It is absolutely disingenuous to tout the merits of interventionism in the latter case while completely ignoring the former.

The neocon argument completely falls apart as soon as the curtain is pulled back to reveal the entire picture.

American intervention in the first World War made American intervention in the Second World War inevitable. And that, in turn, paved the way for the Cold War and American intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, etc, etc…

One fallacy builds on another. You end up with a house made of cards. Such is the path to empire which the founders warned against.

Once the chain reaction is begun, it is no longer possible to view events in isolation from one another. Every new conquest adds fuel to the fire. Pressure starts to build up, things come to a head…

America lost it’s innocence the day it adopted interventionism as it’s foreign policy. That was many generations ago.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

It’s not an epithet. It’s a completely accurate description of a particular worldview. Think about it’s consequences long and hard before you succumb.

It bears repeating.
History didn’t begin in 1938.
History…did not begin in 1938.

And to bring that analogy into the present:
History did not begin the day after 9/11.

Get it yet? Or do we need another 10 pages?

I think it’s time to retitle Orwell’s masterpiece novel 1984. Perhaps it should have been titled 2014.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
How many times do we need to trod out the old neocon horse about “Munich” and “1938” and “appeasement” and all the other names it goes by?

It’s the neocon raison d’être - who hasn’t heard it by now?

We might as well turn it into a sticky thread so that it might be debated in perpetuity.

Here we go again:
History did not begin in 1938. The neocon argument only works if you ignore everything that led up to WWII.
The bottom line, the fact of the matter, is that WWII was a by-product of American intervention in the first World War. It is absolutely disingenuous to tout the merits of interventionism in the latter case while completely ignoring the former.

The neocon argument completely falls apart as soon as the curtain is pulled back to reveal the entire picture.

American intervention in the first World War made American intervention in the Second World War inevitable. And that, in turn, paved the way for the Cold War and American intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, etc, etc…

One fallacy builds on another. You end up with a house made of cards. Such is the path to empire which the founders warned against.

Once the chain reaction is begun, it is no longer possible to view events in isolation from one another. Every new conquest adds fuel to the fire. Pressure starts to build up, things come to a head…

America lost it’s innocence the day it adopted interventionism as it’s foreign policy. That was many generations ago.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace.

It’s not an epithet. It’s a completely accurate description of a particular worldview. Think about it’s consequences long and hard before you succumb.

It bears repeating.
History didn’t begin in 1938.
History…did not begin in 1938.

And to bring that analogy into the present:
History did not begin the day after 9/11.

Get it yet? Or do we need another 10 pages?[/quote]

In the words of Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes “Hello. I’m from a little place called England. We used to rule the world before you did.”

Good luck with that.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rockscar, one thing to think about, with respect to civil liberties, is that the changes put in place today will be there for our grandchildren.

So, while you may trust the Bush administration with this power, who’s to say someone else won’t come along in a couple of decades and abuse these additional powers at the expense of the citizens.

Aspects of the changes are reasonable and effective, while others are too wide open and easy to abuse. Just as gun owners are paranoid about small changes leading to big results over time, the same stance should be taken with rights.[/quote]

Our country and government has checks and balances, reviews laws, create laws…and with this they evolve. If the aspects truly become an issue, these things can and will be ammended.

If I remember right, this was put into place to avoid future attacks, and yes a few mishaps always happen in life, they get changed. Right now it is totally appropriate.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think it’s time to retitle Orwell’s masterpiece novel 1984. Perhaps it should have been titled 2014.[/quote]

If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.

[quote]kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.[/quote]

WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.

WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?
[/quote]

Well, there is Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia when it comes to economic freedom:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Quite a lot of countries when it comes to freedom of the press:

Number one when it comes to religious freedom! Congratulations!

You share the medal with Estonia, Hungaria and Ireland though.

http://www.alphapatriot.com/home/archives/2007/07/13/country_freedom_ratings.php

That Heritage site is brilliant, Orion. This page, though is the kicker:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?ID=Unitedstates

Ironic that under the two criteria that were central in the founding of the nation, i.e. fiscal freedom and freedom from government, the United States is now below average compared to the rest of the world.

Even more ironic that the most economically free state in the world has remained so even after a decade of rule by “Communist” China.

Low taxes, duty-free trade, no restrictions on foreign investment, highly protected property rights and contracts, low crime, great food, great pubs, magnificent shopping, excellent hotels, and sizzlingly hot Chinese, Filipina and Indian chicks. And they speak English.

But please, don’t let me disturb any of you still dreaming the American Dream. Just go riiiiight back to sleep.

…oh, and the Media Freedom index is pretty funny, too.

Yeah, the American press may not be as free as it is in Chile and Mozambique, but hey, it’s at least as free as in Botswana, Croatia and Tonga, and a bit freer, even, than the press in Uruguay and Fiji.

And Venezuela? Ha! Our press is way freer than theirs.

True, we scored lower than every member state of the EU except Poland and Romania, but damn it, we beat most African dictatorships, the vast majority of Muslim countries, and the ENTIRE Axis of Evil. And THAT, friends, is what really matters.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I don’t understand how that idea is still entertained by some. The US actively supported some of the bloodiest tyrants the 20th century has seen.
/lixy[/quote]

Total BS. Yeah, we supported Stalin during the war, but not after or before by a long shot. If Hitler hadn’t attacked him, we probably would not have been his ally. When they partioned Poland, we were not. We didn’t support Hitler, or any of the Axis powers, the post WWII Communist powers, Mao or Pol Pot. We may have supplied guns to the Cambodians but that was after the military intervention into their country by Vietnam. We didn’t support their regime when they were in power.

I believe any historian would tell you those were the bloodiest regimes of the 20th Century.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:American intervention in the first World War made American intervention in the Second World War inevitable. And that, in turn, paved the way for the Cold War and American intervention in Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, etc, etc…

[/quote]

Come on, look at history. Any new war is a result of the last war.

Awesome video, thank you.

[quote]orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.

WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?

Well, there is Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia when it comes to economic freedom:

[/quote]

Try chewing gum in Singapore.

Oh, I agree the US has problems with economic freedoms. Wealth redistribution and all that. So, yeah, dump corporate/social welfare programs. No welfare for the rich or poor, and dump the present tax system.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.

WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?

Well, there is Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia when it comes to economic freedom:

Try chewing gum in Singapore. [/quote]

Or being gay. And for fuck sake don’t get caught with any illegal drugs at customs.

But is America really the most free country in the world?

[quote]AdamC wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
kroby wrote:
If that would only wake up the fools that think we live in freedom today. It wouldn’t.

WHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU THINK THEY LIVE MORE FREE THAN US?

Well, there is Hong Kong, Singapore and Australia when it comes to economic freedom:

Try chewing gum in Singapore.

Or being gay. And for fuck sake don’t get caught with any illegal drugs at customs.

But is America really the most free country in the world?

[/quote]

Free for who? Free for what?

Afghanistan was free for warlords to do whatever they wanted but their freedom often infringed on those that didn’t have as many guns.

I have no doubt America is more repressive in some ways than many countries and is more free in other ways.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Afghanistan was free for warlords to do whatever they wanted but their freedom often infringed on those that didn’t have as many guns. [/quote]

Actually, there weren’t any warlords and drug tzars under Taliban rule. Not that the Talibans weren’t warlords themselves or anything…

None of you cheerleaders for the war can explain

  1. what “victory” in Iraq is supposed to be.

  2. how our military is going to achieve it.

Oh I’m sure you have explanations like “We kill all the terrorists, that’s how we win” and other juvenile answers that show you haven’t got a clue what’s going on there.

And I’m sure you can come up with long convoluted answers with lots of “ifs ands or buts” that are plainly just vague guessing and speculation.

But none of you can come up with a simple, intelligent answer for both questions. And neither can President Bush. And that’s EXACTLY why this war is becoming more and more unpopular with the America people, every day.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Try chewing gum in Singapore. [/quote]

I have. Many times. And with absolutely no consequences whatsoever. See, chewing the gum is totally legal. It’s selling the gum, or importing a quantity of it above and beyond what would be considered reasonable use, that is restricted.

And yes, you will be fined if you are caught leaving your chewed-up wad of gum on the sidewalk, but I would hardly consider this an infringement on my personal liberty.

[quote]AdamC added:
Or being gay. [/quote]

As far as I know, being homosexual is not against any Singapore law.

Certain homosexual behaviors are prohibited in public places, such as getting a blowjob in the men’s room, but this is illegal for heterosexuals as well. A gay ex-colleague of mine, who often went to Singapore on business, reported that it is one of the “cruisiest” places in the world, including San Francisco. The only difference being that in Singapore he never had to worry about getting harassed by homophobe rednecks.

[quote]AdamC further advised:
And for fuck sake don’t get caught with any illegal drugs at customs.[/quote]

Name me one country on the planet where being caught with illegal drugs at customs would not have negative consequences.

[quote]AdamC next queried:
But is America really the most free country in the world? [/quote]

No, I would say that it probably is not the most free country in the world. But as Socrates (and Zap) pointed out, one must first define one’s terms.

My working definition of freedom is “the capacity to do whatever one pleases, without interference from authority, provided such activity does not infringe the capacity of another to do the same.”

I have yet to find a country where this is completely possible, but the one I’m in now comes close. It may not be a totally accurate assessment, because as a foreigner I get away with a lot more shit than I would be able to as a Japanese.

For most Japanese, whatever is not specifically allowed is assumed to be prohibited. The gaijin take the opposite tack: whatever is not specifically prohibited is assumed to be allowed. And even the prohibited stuff is not so heavily prohibited. Where I live, the cops all know that people grow marijuana and poach abalone and lobster and boar, but by and large they look the other way as long as these activities are kept quiet.

In the nearly two decades I have been here, I have never been harassed–nor even unduly inconvenienced–by a policeman or government agent, and I am not exactly the meekest and most law-abiding person on earth.

The drinking age is 20, the age of consent is between 13 and 17 (depending on prefecture), and it’s the only country I know where you can buy a bottle of beer, a pack of cigarettes, and a six-pack of condoms at practically any hour of the day, from vending machines.

And despite what you hear about perverts on the trains, or high school girls selling their panties (or perhaps even their bodies) to men old enough to be their fathers, Japan is for the most part an extremely moral society, whose morality is achieved not by force of law, but through force of conscience. And in the absence of religion, I might add.

Yes, Japan has silly rules, like if you have a tatoo you will be asked to leave certain gyms, but these are not laws as such, and can nearly always be circumvented without too much trouble (long sleeves).

The only laws I find annoying are the restrictive firearms laws, and the number of legal hoops through which one is required to jump in order to obtain even a hunting shotgun, but in a way it’s good: it keeps the guns out of the hands of the nitwits and nutcases.

On the other hand, in all the years of living here, even when walking down the midnight streets of Shinjuku, I have never had that deep, visceral feeling that I’d really, really like to have a powerful handgun within easy reach, as I had much of the time I was living in South Central LA.

As a foreigner with the Japanese equivalent of a Green Card, I have all the rights of a Japanese national, except that I can’t vote in national or regional elections, I can’t hold public office, and I couldn’t be drafted into the SDF (Self-Defense Force) in time of war or national emergency. Other than that, I can buy land, build a house, start a business, own a gun, fly a plane, hunt deer and wild boar… basically anything I want to do.

So which is the freest country? I have no idea. Only an opinion as to where I, personally, feel the freest.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Afghanistan was free for warlords to do whatever they wanted but their freedom often infringed on those that didn’t have as many guns.

Actually, there weren’t any warlords and drug tzars under Taliban rule. Not that the Talibans weren’t warlords themselves or anything…

[/quote]

Totally wrong. There were plenty of warlords. They either allied themselves with the Taliban or fought against the Taliban and they occassionally switched.

The Taliban was also heavily involved in the drug trade. They only curtailed poppy production to drive up prices of their stockpiles.