Action Against a War

[MtnGoat]

"Do we really expect to be a part of a global community, and yet avoid the blowback from those that don't agree with our cultural monopoly perspective?"

 

We are part of a global community no matter how anybody gets along. Community has never implied that everyone thinks the same ways and does the same things and works for the same goals, only that they are all scrunched into contact with each other.

 

Any nation that doesn't like the culture they are purchasing is entirely free to try and internally ban such culture as they are not comfortable with, or try and create an alternate that will be chosen to a higher degree than that of the culture they do not care for.

 

[j_b]

until you make a logical case for Iraq being an immediat threat, there is no need to threaten military action. The rest is .... obfuscation, as usual.

[Fairweather]

Sexual Choad,

 

Re: Hogo Chavez. How about the fact that his guardsmen shot 18 peaceful protesters DEAD in the streets last year, and many more since. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Hugo is operating within the framework of the Venezuelan constitution? Does it allow him to shoot citizens in the street w/o due process? How about his siezure of the Coca Cola plant and several other private sector business interests and the distribution of their assets to his loyal guards?

 

Funny, but I don't remember ANY protesters SHOT DEAD by GW's "elite guard" the other day.

 

[sexual_chocolate]

MtnGoat said:

"Do we really expect to be a part of a global community, and yet avoid the blowback from those that don't agree with our cultural monopoly perspective?"

 

We are part of a global community no matter how anybody gets along. Community has never implied that everyone thinks the same ways and does the same things and works for the same goals, only that they are all scrunched into contact with each other.

 

 

com·mu·ni·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-myn-t)

n. pl. com·mu·ni·ties

 

A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government.

The district or locality in which such a group lives.

 

A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community.

A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color.

 

Similarity or identity: a community of interests.

Sharing, participation, and fellowship.

 

Actually, as we see above, the word "community" DOES denote some of the implications intended in the post you were replying to. Just trying to keep our semantics clear. Anything else I can help you with?

 

Oh, there was one more thing: In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed. This still goes on, in many countries that call themselves progressive and egalitarian.

Sharing means caring, even if I have to hold a gun to your head, you greedy bastard! Have a nice day! (Meant towards no one in particular....)

[sexual_chocolate]

Fairweather said:

Sexual Choad,

 

Re: Hogo Chavez. How about the fact that his guardsmen shot 18 peaceful protesters DEAD in the streets last year, and many more since. Are you seriously trying to tell us that Hugo is operating within the framework of the Venezuelan constitution? Does it allow him to shoot citizens in the street w/o due process? How about his siezure of the Coca Cola plant and several other private sector business interests and the distribution of their assets to his loyal guards?

 

Funny, but I don't remember ANY protesters SHOT DEAD by GW's "elite guard" the other day.

 

That's fucked up. Really. I think the people who shot should be tried and prosecuted, all the way up the chain of complicity, if evidence indicates the need for such. I also have to say I don't know the particulars of the case either.

 

What do you think about this matter, and the entire presidency of Chavez?

 

 

[JayB]

Oh, there was one more thing: In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed.

 

The only problem is that what has happened in practice is that the poor and oppressed became both more impoverished and more intensely subjugated after the implementation of these policies.

 

Good intentions are nice, but the true measure of any political philosophy are the results it produces. No other political philosophy in history has century has produced a more impressive catalogue of misery, suffering, and repression (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc) than the "sharing" at gunpoint that you seem to be in favor of. It is one thing to have supported such policies prior to the 80-100 million odd deaths that are a direct consequence of their implementation, but to do so now suggests a startling willingess to disregard facts that run counter to one's ideological fantasies.

 

In Venezuela now, as with the examples cited above, the folks in charge seize control of the capital and the productive resources in the name of helping the poor, when what is really happening, of course, is that they are merely consolidating their power. Once the new regime has assumed power over the economy, they have all of the power that they need to effectively control every aspect of political life in that country, as any citizen who opposes them is likely to lose his livelihood, and any corporation that resists state domination can be overtaken by decree. Once this happens you can set your watch and observe the new regime squander what's left of the nation's hard currency reserves and industrial capital, missallocate the state's productive resources, and the population begin their slow death spiral into abject subjugation and poverty.

 

For Venezuelans, unlike the ideological voyeurs cheering on Chavez in this country, these are not mere abstractions but concrete realities that they are staring in the face, and that is what they were striking to prevent. If you were really concerned with the well-being of the poor and downtrodden in that country, you'd be on their side.

[Fairweather]

SC,

 

You asked if I would ever consider the humanity of those I consider our enemies. Indeed I have; and do.

 

In my opinion, this is the saddest aspect of war: The fact that almost any two individuals on opposite sides of a battle line could, in all likelyhood, carry on a friendly conversation (language barriers aside) about their views, dreams, families...probably even exchange photos of their children, maybe even sit down to a meal together. Maybe even become friends.

 

Individuals generally like eachother. Add a few more individuals to either side though, and the dynamic starts to change. More suspicion, more probing, challenging. Add thousands, millions more, and the enemy becomes irrelevant; faceless.

 

This is very sad, but at this point in human evolution the sociology is so complex, national disagreements so clear, that the differences are insurmountable. Indeed, I'm not sure I would want to live in a world where everyone agreed to the point that some weren't willing to die for their beliefs.

 

Tough issues of which I never intended to make light of or deny.

 

Ever seen a movie called "A Midnight Clear"?

 

 

 

Seperate issue: I don't like Hugo because I believe he is a communist. I believe that while communism does look good on paper, in practice it is murderous...and even worse, it dampens (maybe even kills?) the human spirit as it is expressed through hard work, entrepreneurism, and the rewards thereof.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB said:

Oh, there was one more thing: In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed.

 

The only problem is that what has happened in practice is that the poor and oppressed became both more impoverished and more intensely subjugated after the implementation of these policies.

 

Good intentions are nice, but the true measure of any political philosophy are the results it produces. No other political philosophy in history has century has produced a more impressive catalogue of misery, suffering, and repression (China, Russia, North Vietnam, North Korea, Cambodia, etc, etc) than the "sharing" at gunpoint that you seem to be in favor of. It is one thing to have supported such policies prior to the 80-100 million odd deaths that are a direct consequence of their implementation, but to do so now suggests a startling willingess to disregard facts that run counter to one's ideological fantasies.

 

In Venezuela now, as with the examples cited above, the folks in charge seize control of the capital and the productive resources in the name of helping the poor, when what is really happening, of course, is that they are merely consolidating their power. Once the new regime has assumed power over the economy, they have all of the power that they need to effectively control every aspect of political life in that country, as any citizen who opposes them is likely to lose his livelihood, and any corporation that resists state domination can be overtaken by decree. Once this happens you can set your watch and observe the new regime squander what's left of the nation's hard currency reserves and industrial capital, missallocate the state's productive resources, and the population begin their slow death spiral into abject subjugation and poverty.

 

For Venezuelans, unlike the ideological voyeurs cheering on Chavez in this country, these are not mere abstractions but concrete realities that they are staring in the face, and that is what they were striking to prevent. If you were really concerned with the well-being of the poor and downtrodden in that country, you'd be on their side.

 

Actually, I think we have to disagree on this one. You mentioned totalitarian regimes, and Hugo was democratically elected. I think the opposition should simply wait 'til the legally mandated recall election in August.

And you seem to keep forgetting he was elected?

 

I believe around %70 of the people live below the poverty line. Sheesh. Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries. And one more thing, most governments, including ours, are a blend of free-market capitalism and socialism. I really don't think it could be anything else, even though some staunch ideologues are pushing harder and harder.

I believe that mindless free-market capitalism is just as dangerous and destructive as totalitarian socialism.

 

Oh, and did I mention Hugo was democratically elected?

[JayB]

"Sheesh. Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries."

 

Cough, cough. Chile. Cough, cough. Care to address that one?

 

The key difference is that economic programs of the sort that Comrade Chavez wants to foist on Venezuela have failed calamitously in every single instance when they've been implemented, while the neo-liberal capitalism that you deplore has succeeded in dramatically improving the condition of the societies that have implemented them with anything even vauguely resembling competence, such as, ohh, I don't know...Chile.

 

And why did the Latin American countries that you are alluding to wish to make these reforms? Because the command economies that they had implemented had effectively reduced them to paupery.

 

The problem with the Argentina and other countries of their ilk is that they paid lip service to pro-market reform while adhering to the same disastrous economic policies hatched during the Peronist Era, including a bloated state sector, expenditures far in excess of the tax revenues that their economy could support, all of which resulted in an ever worsening financial situation for the state that eventually - surprise - led to the largest bond default by a sovereign nation in history. People saw that was coming and knew that the peso was about to take a massive dive, and started exchanging pesos for dollars in droves. This burned through what was left of Argetinas dollar reserves and voila - all of a sudden the peso is no longer worth a dollar, the currency implodes, and economic reality reasserts itself - you can only spend more than you earn for so long.

 

Since you are an expert on economics, I encourage you to compare the "Asian Tigers" with virtually any economy that has attempted lift its population out of penury using state control (plenty of examples in both Africa and Latin America) and compare the two.

[JayB]

S.C.

 

I should also add that despite the fact that I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on just about every conceivable question involving politics (or so it seems), I respect that fact that you have the gumption and the integrity necessary to stick your neck out there and stand up for the things that you believe in.

 

.

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB said:

"Sheesh. Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries."

 

Cough, cough. Chile. Cough, cough. Care to address that one?

 

The key difference is that economic programs of the sort that Comrade Chavez wants to foist on Venezuela have failed calamitously in every single instance when they've been implemented, while the neo-liberal capitalism that you deplore has succeeded in dramatically improving the condition of the societies that have implemented them with anything even vauguely resembling competence, such as, ohh, I don't know...Chile.

 

And why did the Latin American countries that you are alluding to wish to make these reforms? Because the command economies that they had implemented had effectively reduced them to paupery.

 

The problem with the Argentina and other countries of their ilk is that they paid lip service to pro-market reform while adhering to the same disastrous economic policies hatched during the Peronist Era, including a bloated state sector, expenditures far in excess of the tax revenues that their economy could support, etc - and surprise - you've got the largest bond default by a sovereign nation in history. People saw that was coming and knew that the peso was about to take a massive dive, and started exchanging pesos for dollars in droves. This burned through what was left of Argetinas dollar reserves and voila - all of a sudden the peso is no longer worth a dollar, the currency implodes, and economic reality reasserts itself - you can only spend more than you earn for so long.

 

Since you are an expert on economics, I encourage you to compare the "Asian Tigers" with virtually any economy that has attempted lift its population out of penury using state control (plenty of examples in both Africa and Latin America) and compare the two.

 

Certain economic indicators that are trumpeted by neo-liberals as signs of great success are often, upon closer inspection, nothing but smoke-screens, hiding continuing disparities behind such terms as "GNP", "GDP", etc.. Many of the indicators used have very little to do with the actual living conditions of the majority of the people, as was the case in S. America when it was a favorite pet of the IMF and World Bank during the last decade.

Even in the US, the last decade was heralded as a period of incredible growth, and that it was, for a few. We saw an unbelievably large movement of wealth into the hands of a few, with most people seeing a DECLINE in general standard of living indicators. If I remember correctly, never since such stats have been kept, has such a small percentage of people controlled such a large percentage of total wealth in the US. Of course this can be seen not as a failure of our system, but as a necessary consequence during a time of incredible technological growth, but when free-market capitalism has a history of repeating this cycle over and over again (putting most of the wealth into the hands of very few), it seems we have a problem. (And now some push for tax cuts, further exacerbating the problem! "More growth, more growth!" they yell, as if economic growth can be infinite within a finite time-frame....

 

I'm not terribly familiar with the "asian tiger" phenomenon. I remember a massive amount of wealth being generated in southeast asia, but I really don't know how that wealth spread itself throughout the population, something that I would expect to be a major component when analyzing the success of any economic system.

 

When any economic structure fails to deliver for the "people", then calls for its replacement will be heard. Capitalism hears this call, rightfully and understandably so, as communistic state-run economies hear this call. This will continue to be the case, even in successful examples of both systems, such as Sweden (socialistic), or the US (more free-market driven).

 

Oh, and I'm not familiar with Chile either. What kind of turn-around did they experience with the institution of neo-liberal fiscal policy? My understanding was that they had followed an economic path with similarities to our own, under the close tutelage of US economic support....? Cuz they had been an ally for quite a while, enjoying liberal trade priveledges....? Ever since Pinochet....? Again, I'm not very familiar.

[sexual_chocolate]

JayB said:

S.C.

 

I should also add that despite the fact that I couldn't possibly disagree with you more on just about every conceivable question involving politics (or so it seems), I respect that fact that you have the gumption and the integrity necessary to stick your neck out there and stand up for the things that you believe in.

 

.

 

Hey, likewise.

[JayB]

Since you and I are willing to keep boring the bejezus out of everyone with this stuff....

 

Certain economic indicators that are trumpeted by neo-liberals as signs of great success are often, upon closer inspection, nothing but smoke-screens, hiding continuing disparities behind such terms as "GNP", "GDP", etc.. Many of the indicators used have very little to do with the actual living conditions of the majority of the people, as was the case in S. America when it was a favorite pet of the IMF and World Bank during the last decade.

 

True, there's not a 100% causal relationship between any of these stats and the well being of the average person, but there is a mighty strong correlation there that shouldn't surprise anyone which is - the higher the GDP per capita (in general) the better everyone in the nation lives, and the lower the GDP per capita the more miserable everyone will be. The citizens of Canada might outperform the US on several standardized measurements of well-being even though the GDP per capita is a bit less than our own, but you could hardly make the same claim on behalf of some nation where everyone gets by on a few hundred bucks a year. And Canda and the rest of the modern world have largely abandoned the planned economy in favor of the markets anyhow. Show me a first world nation where they still think it'd be a good idea to nationalize industry, eliminate competition, stifle innovation, etc, etc. Even the Scandanavians, the socialist poster children that everyone likes to point to have never been under the delusion that it's anything but private industry that pays the bills for their social programs, which they've had to moderate in response to the same demographic trends which are keeping actuaries awake at night all over Europe - a declining ratio of working age adults to retirees.

 

I like social programs, a sound infrastructure, etc. etc. and don't mind paying the taxes necessary to support them, but the bottom line is that if you want these programs to continue you've got to manage the economy in a manner that will keep the economy healthy and growing and in so doing continue to generate the tax revenues necessary to pay for them.

 

I'd type more but I've gotta go Choco - but if you're hard up for reading material look into the development experience of Singapore, Taiwan, Hong-Kong, South Korea et al and contrast it with Ghana, the Ivory Coast, and other African nations that gained independence in the same generation as the Asian countries I mentioned. Most of them endured colonial rule every bit as brutal as their African conterparts but the paths they chose to develop with, and the outcomes that those paths generated have been very different.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Actually, as we see above, the word "community" DOES denote some of the implications intended in the post you were replying to. Just trying to keep our semantics clear. Anything else I can help you with?"

 

Surely. You can note that the first instance mirrors my comments, for one thing. And that none of the latter indicate common interests means everyone agrees on what those interests are.

 

"In your zeal to label socialism an intrusive politics of oppression, you conveniently forgot to mention the conditions it has often tried to correct-a condition supremely indifferent to the rights of certain individuals, often the poor and oppressed."

 

Since socialists view those "rights" as placing the obligation for labor on others, this is not an oversight, merely a further example of the socialist view that people are to be used to further specific social goals by their use as means rather than as ends in themselves.

 

I suspect the rights you speak of, are in and of themselves direct requirements that other people supply them with goods, labor, services, or cash. This is exactly the usage of others I am speaking of. Can you give me a short list of the rights you speak of?

 

"Sharing means caring, even if I have to hold a gun to your head, you greedy bastard!"

 

Yup, no oppression there! Few things are as easy as sharing someone elses labor at gunpoint.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"Neo-liberal capitalist reform didn't do much to solve their problems, did it? Nor has it done anything to solve the problems of most Latin countries. "

 

Of course not, because they never actually did reform of the entire system in any of these places. You must also reform contract law, property rights, title law, banking, taxation, and how budgeting is carried out. You don't get working capital in nations where title to land is impossible to get for the average joe, where banks are still run by rules based on socialist systems, where legislators still base law on socialist models.

 

In Eastern Europe where they had their fill of enforced socialism and totally redrew their system of property rights, law, banking, and all the rest, the story is quite different. There are quite a few formerly socialist nations kicking some free market butt these days, but only because they reformed *everything*.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"We saw an unbelievably large movement of wealth into the hands of a few, with most people seeing a DECLINE in general standard of living indicators."

 

Most people? Really? What indicators?

 

"If I remember correctly, never since such stats have been kept, has such a small percentage of people controlled such a large percentage of total wealth in the US. "

 

Why don't these stats take into account the value of all the goods and services delivered for this to occur?

 

Economics is not a one way street, for money to go one way, received value must go the other. The only way for trillions of dollars in cash to go one way is for the equivalent amount of value in goods and services to go the other way. The other percentage of people must have received the goods and services worth all that money residing in the other fraction's hands. That's why it's called *trade*.

 

"Of course this can be seen not as a failure of our system, but as a necessary consequence during a time of incredible technological growth, "

 

I don't see it as a failure at all. Every penny has meant someone has gotten something they wanted.

 

"More growth, more growth!" they yell, as if economic growth can be infinite within a finite time-frame...."

 

It may not be possible to have infinite growth in a finite time frame (depending on it's length), but it is entirely possible to have growth be non bounded. Market economics *creates* wealth, it just doesn't move it around and then stay put at one end.

 

 

[allthumbs]

You two fools have done it again. You've taken a good thread and slaughtered it. No one but you knows or cares what you're babbling about. Why don't you two butt buddies get a room.

[AlpineK]

trask said:

You two fools have done it again. No one but you knows or cares what you're babbling about. Why don't you two butt buddies get a room.

 

Exactly. I was interested in this thread, but now I just click scroll and then click on something else.

[Off_White]

trask said:

You two fools have done it again. No one but you knows or cares what you're babbling about. Why don't you two butt buddies get a room.

 

Trask, I count four major proponents, which would make it an orgy. However, I just read through a bunch of it (well, a page or two) and thought the level of discourse was pretty damn good.

[allthumbs]

The last page wanders off into the sunset.

[vegetablebelay]

A group of protestors blocked Eastbound traffic on 520 this morning.

 

Fuckers.

 

 

Edited February 18, 2003 by vegetablebelay

[Rodchester]

Just a note to S.C. and some others here.

 

"Actually, I think we have to disagree on this one. You mentioned totalitarian regimes, and Hugo was democratically elected. I think the opposition should simply wait 'til the legally mandated recall election in August.

And you seem to keep forgetting he was elected?"

 

You seem to place great emphasis on the fact that he was elected. Remember: democracy has given the world many wrongs.

 

In the USA we were given slavery...democratic elections kept it in place for nearly 100 years after the crown was removed. War on a democracy erased slavery, not an election.

 

Adolph Hitler was democratically elected and took all steps within the frame work of the German constitution, and only through the constitution and democratic elections did he gain full military/authoritarian dictatorship, founded securely on socialist principals.

 

Chavez also tried to overthrow the government in coup some ten years ago.

 

While I do agree in the tyranny of the majority is better than the tyranny of the minority...it isn't always right just because the masses say it is right.

 

We do not draw our rights or powers from the constitution, we draw them from our creator (to each his/her own creator).

 

 

Just a note to consider.....

 

Many have also expressed concern over the US trying to push itself onto others...

 

Well in looking at Europe I couldn't disagree more. The US is doing its thing. It has many, in fact most in Europe agreeing wioth it. France ont he other hand is using dirty tactics and a heavy hand to bully new Europe into to line behind old Europe.

 

"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

 

Chriac is quoted as saying about the eastern Euros that agree with the US and supplied letters of support:

 

"I felt they acted frivolously because entry into the European Union implies a minimum of understanding for the others," Chirac said.

 

Chirac called the letters "infantile" and "dangerous," adding: "They missed a great opportunity to shut up."

 

Not exactly a one time slip of the lip:

 

"It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

 

Strikes me as France is trying to bully Europe into submission?

 

 

Edited February 18, 2003 by Rodchester

[iain]

what's going on on that freeway?

[sk]

I thought I heard that france gets much of it's oil from Iraq. I was listening to the news this am and France is standing so firmly in the "we must have peace, nothing else will do" camp that it is starting to sound neffarious. I am wondering if there is any thing Iraq could do that would change the minds of the french. What is the french government getting out of all of this?

 

Okay I admit it, I am cynical I just can't see that all of this would be out of the kindness of their hearts.

Edited February 18, 2003 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer

[sexual_chocolate]

God muffy, you are so pro-war. What's up with that?