camp xray

[weemadando]

We’ll “regret it?” Step in and say something about Vympel once in a while. The guy slings more shit at people he doesn’t like behind the Moderator’s shield than anybody I’ve ever encountered.

Wow, have a bitch. Just because you can't construct original or sensible arguments you have to resort to off-topic ad hominem attacks. And not ONCE has Vympel ever hidden behind mod-ship. Wong retains the right to strip it from him the moment he does. Maybe you should stop hiding behind the same rhetoric day after day and try thinking for yourself for once.

[Axis Kast]

No actually, it's just called hair-splitting bullshit. What makes you any different from a white supremacist, you slimy worm? That you think the citizen's of other nation's don't deserve basic human rights instead of just white people?

And, as usual, you attempt to barge your way through the argument with a strawman…

I don’t think anybody deserves anything. While we might whine about what we perceive to be “fair” or “just,” it’s really somebody else’s ultimate decision – in most cases – that lets us savor the desired reward, opportunity, recognition, or what have you. John Locke and his “natural rights” be damned, you’re only free for two reasons: it’s easiest to control you by establishing a seeming vacuum of direct authority, and the most free – or at least those who view themselves to be the most free – are generally the most productive as well.

I argue that I don’t generally care what happens to people of other nations as long as I myself am provided for. But that’s really deceptive, since it’s impossible to neglect others while ensuring one’s own success and security. Why do I support the spread of democratic government? As I’ve said time and again, not only does it usually cut down on “undesirable” forms of expression – i.e. Communism, socialism, or anarchy -, but it almost always means financial liberalization toward a free-market economy over which my country – and the West in general – can exercise some form of power. In essence, both sides achieve the optimal – with, of course, the caveat that mine wins the most or the “biggest,” if you will. So, while in essence I don’t care, I must care. If, of course, you can see through the irony in that statement.

And let’s not kid ourselves, Vympel. The average human being is a self-serving asshole, greedy and glutinous when it comes to anything but himself, his family, and sometimes his country. My point of view, while usually never articulated, is fairly common. Moral protestations aside, most people don’t care as long as they’re doing well. But like I said before, the best time for them usually means the best time for most others, too. It doesn’t seem like it would add up that way – but it does.

[Axis Kast]

Wow, have a bitch. Just because you can't construct original or sensible arguments you have to resort to off-topic ad hominem attacks. And not ONCE has Vympel ever hidden behind mod-ship. Wong retains the right to strip it from him the moment he does. Maybe you should stop hiding behind the same rhetoric day after day and try thinking for yourself for once.

Original or sensible arguments? I do believe my amoral decision-making process was new to this community, thanks. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't render it invalid.

Vympel throws more shit than anybody I've ever met. And I'm not the one who accused him of white supremacy, mind you.

The same rhetoric day after day? Thinking for oneself? Hey - at least I don't look for conspiracy theories involving George W. Bush on the back of every Crackerjack box. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Vympel]

And, as usual, you attempt to barge your way through the argument with a strawman…

I don’t think anybody deserves anything.

What a convenient position for someone in a rich, free, democratic first world country to take. You already have your priveleges, so why should you care eh?

While we might whine about what we perceive to be “fair” or “just,” it’s really somebody else’s ultimate decision – in most cases – that lets us savor the desired reward, opportunity, recognition, or what have you. John Locke and his “natural rights” be damned, you’re only free for two reasons: it’s easiest to control you by establishing a seeming vacuum of direct authority, and the most free – or at least those who view themselves to be the most free – are generally the most productive as well.

I argue that I don’t generally care what happens to people of other nations as long as I myself am provided for. But that’s really deceptive, since it’s impossible to neglect others while ensuring one’s own success and security.

Oh, you've definitely got to 'turn you attention' to others- the question is whether it's good for them, which it is not.

Why do I support the spread of democratic government? As I’ve said time and again, not only does it usually cut down on “undesirable” forms of expression – i.e. Communism, socialism, or anarchy -, but it almost always means financial liberalization toward a free-market economy over which my country – and the West in general – can exercise some form of power. In essence, both sides achieve the optimal – with, of course, the caveat that mine wins the most or the “biggest,” if you will.

I'm sure the people of Chile and Iran to name but two are feeling that they've achieved 'the optimal' right now.

So, while in essence I don’t care, I must care. If, of course, you can see through the irony in that statement.

And let’s not kid ourselves, Vympel. The average human being is a self-serving asshole, greedy and glutinous when it comes to anything but himself, his family, and sometimes his country. My point of view, while usually never articulated, is fairly common. Moral protestations aside, most people don’t care as long as they’re doing well.

Go ahead, proudly place yourself with the lowest common denominator of humanity, it doesn't mean anything.

But like I said before, the best time for them usually means the best time for most others, too. It doesn’t seem like it would add up that way – but it does.

No, it doesn't add up that way. Being morally bankrupt towards other's because they don't have the privelege of being citizen's of the most powerful country on Earth doesn't mean that others have the best time. It's a statement of principle that the moment their rights become inconvenient for you that they can be tossed out the window, and that is reprehensible.

[Vympel]

Vympel throws more shit than anybody I've ever met.

Which is irrelevant to the issue of modship abuse.

And I'm not the one who accused him of white supremacy, mind you.

Strawman. I said your attitude wasn't any different from a white supremacist, it just plugs in a different set of variables.

[Axis Kast]

What a convenient position for someone in a rich, free, democratic first world country to take. You already have your priveleges, so why should you care eh?

But it is my position to take nonetheless. There’s also a world of difference, mind you, between deserving and wanting. I don’t think any higher power guarantees us our lot in life. Nobody pops out of the womb with a free checking account and $2000 just for playing the game of life. All that philosophical crap about humans being “born free and pure” is bullshit. You get whatever cards are dealt you. Nothing in this life is preordained. Some try to change that fact for others. It doesn’t mean everybody’s bound to follow.

Oh, you've definitely got to 'turn you attention' to others- the question is whether it's good for them, which it is not.

That depends on the situation at hand. Take a look at official “state” aid to Africa and Asia, for instance. It’s as much – if not more - to fight the advent of Communism, the dangers of sympathetic public opinion for the suffering, and warlordism than to feed the hungry because it’s right or fill some nebulous moral requirement out of personal guilt. You think most politicians in Washington sit down and shed tears while going over the international assistance budget? It’s all about what the money gets you in the end rather than for whom personally it provides sustenance.

I'm sure the people of Chile and Iran to name but two are feeling that they've achieved 'the optimal' right now.

I didn’t say that we should always spread democracy. Not that I think putting the Shah into power in Iran was a bad move, mind you. It backfired, but if it hadn’t, he’d have been a strong ally until natural death, probably to be succeeded by a military régime no different than Musharrif’s – and therefore no more hostile in and of itself. The so-called “Two Pillars Policy” might have remained standing.

As for Chile, we chose the anti-Communist during the Cold War. Big surprise. And like I said, that’s one case where I support what we did because it furthered our own interests at the time the decision was made.

Go ahead, proudly place yourself with the lowest common denominator of humanity, it doesn't mean anything.

My policies are realistic, Vympel. As I’ve said time and again, the cost-benefit analysis with an eye to personal gain is the optimum choice.

No, it doesn't add up that way. Being morally bankrupt towards other's because they don't have the privelege of being citizen's of the most powerful country on Earth doesn't mean that others have the best time. It's a statement of principle that the moment their rights become inconvenient for you that they can be tossed out the window, and that is reprehensible.

On many levels, it adds up that way. It certainly did for people in Kosovo and people in post-war Germany. Hell, I’ll go so far to say that most Iraqis will at least profit from the American invasion down the road. Now that’s not to say there are many casualties along the way, although the policy does bear unexpected fruit. Reprehensible? Yes. Realistic? Ditto.

[weemadando]

Original or sensible arguments? I do believe my amoral decision-making process was new to this community, thanks. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't render it invalid.

I know, but it would help if you didn't post the same arguement over and over and over for 7 pages. Also, as for your amoral decision making process - its not, it simply subscribes to a different set of moral values to the mainstream.

Vympel throws more shit than anybody I've ever met. And I'm not the one who accused him of white supremacy, mind you.

Who said anything about throwing shit? I don't care if you get covered head-to-toe in stinking dung. I'm used to having it done to me. Get over it, shit-slinging is part and parcel of being here.

The same rhetoric day after day? Thinking for oneself? Hey - at least I don't look for conspiracy theories involving George W. Bush on the back of every Crackerjack box. Pot. Kettle. Black.

I do think for myself. I look for as many viewpoints as I can and then make my own mind up. I don't just pick up the NRA newsletter and paraphrase it. As for conspiracies involving our good friend Monkey-boy, I'm unaware of any such conspiracies, especially those involving Crackerjacks boxes. Indeed, I believe that the only conspiracy I have heard involving a Crackerjacks box also involved JFK being assassinated by Elvis who was getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky at the time.

And what the fuck are Crackerjacks anyway?

[Vympel]

You haven't told me anything about you I don't already know- the concepts of justice and human rights are totally alien to you and that you define everything around whether you get something out of it- terribly convenient for someone in your position- makes me wonder about people developing as a product of their circumstances.

It certainly did for people in Kosovo and people in post-war Germany

Kosovo is hardly a good example, considering that a low-level civil war against those whom the State Department themselves called terrorists was exaggerated to trumped up charges of genocide- and that the Serbs had already accepted the peace treaty stipulations, except one (that NATO, a foreign military alliance, should occupy Kosovo, instead of an international force)- administration officials at the time admit that the bar was set too high for the Serbs to accept. As to post-war Germany, Germany started WW2 and the countries it attack ended it. It got what it deserved, there was no choice in the matter. War is not the engine of human progress, nor is overturning/assisting in the oppression of others because someone with a big stick finds it inconvenient (Chile- oh no, beter install a dictator!) or not profitable (Iran- hey, our oil! Better install a dictator!).

[Axis Kast]

I do think for myself. I look for as many viewpoints as I can and then make my own mind up. I don't just pick up the NRA newsletter and paraphrase it. As for conspiracies involving our good friend Monkey-boy, I'm unaware of any such conspiracies, especially those involving Crackerjacks boxes. Indeed, I believe that the only conspiracy I have heard involving a Crackerjacks box also involved JFK being assassinated by Elvis who was getting a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky at the time.

And what the fuck are Crackerjacks anyway?

Oh, I take into account other people’s viewpoints. It’s just that I disagree with their supposed merit. I find moralistic policy to be both dangerous and presumptuous. There are too many subtly working to bring about their own rise to prominence and prosperity – all at the logical expense of the United States of America, now the world’s sole remaining superpower. To avoid making self-interested moves at this point in time is to sacrifice our preeminence early, an eventuality with which I am not terribly pleased. But then, as I said, my sole allegiance is to my own nation and countrymen rather than anybody else. While it’s good and well to have allies who share a common goal, I’m always looking out for Number One.

And who says I read the NRA newsletter? You might be surprised to know that I believe in gun control. No citizen should be permitted to own weapons (in my opinion) beyond light hunting rifles or small handguns unless they serve in law enforcement or the military. Not that I find it justified by our Constitution however.

Who said anything about throwing shit? I don't care if you get covered head-to-toe in stinking dung. I'm used to having it done to me. Get over it, shit-slinging is part and parcel of being here.

This board is just full of people who use the words “moron,” “idiot,” “asshole,” and “fucker” way too often. I understand I need to expect it, but it’s becomie ridiculous and rather childish.

[weemadando]

And who says I read the NRA newsletter? You might be surprised to know that I believe in gun control. No citizen should be permitted to own weapons (in my opinion) beyond light hunting rifles or small handguns unless they serve in law enforcement or the military. Not that I find it justified by our Constitution however.

Fucking hell, do we actually agree on something?

[Axis Kast]

You haven't told me anything about you I don't already know- the concepts of justice and human rights are totally alien to you and that you define everything around whether you get something out of it- terribly convenient for someone in your position- makes me wonder about people developing as a product of their circumstances.

Not alien. Try “generally an unnecessary hindrance.” International justice has too often been turned into a means of attack by which the weak critics attack stronger adversaries. It’s the same argument with the International Criminal Court. Remember, Vympel: only the winners decide the war crimes. Right and wrong are utterly objective and ultimately arbitrary depending on time and place.

My chosen system of policy-making might be morally repugnant, but it certainly makes sense given that I am looking to maximize and perpetuate my current situation to the best of my own ability. And keep in mind that you and I, we share different opinions of the world. You’re confident in your own safety. I’m not quite so certain. American and Australia have a great deal in common, but not everything. Your outlook on global security is as much a product of your upbringing as my outlook is of mine.

War is not the engine of human progress, nor is overturning/assisting in the oppression of others because someone with a big stick finds it inconvenient (Chile- oh no, beter install a dictator!) or not profitable (Iran- hey, our oil! Better install a dictator!).

I disagree. War is one of the most important engines of human progress. Overturning and assisting in the oppression is from my point of view a necessary evil. My primary objective is not to improve the human race as a whole, but to improve my own country.

[Axis Kast]

Fucking hell, do we actually agree on something?

Release the flying pigs!

[NapoleonGH]

First off whoever gave you, kast, that title is a moron, you are as clearly right wing as they come.

Regardless of that fact, yes you are morally repugnant, and your actions will serve your short term best interest, but peace and world prosperity and freedom for the rest of the world is better in our long term interests. Free, soveriegn nations are alot less likely to go to war than those nations where the government decides what the people do rather than the people. Basically supporting human rights and not installing petty puppet dictators is always a good idea, becuase eventually the dictator will be overthrown, and who put him there will be remembered by the people you are screwing over.

[Axis Kast]

First off whoever gave you, kast, that title is a moron, you are as clearly right wing as they come.

Oh, you’d be surprised. Consider for a moment that a favor gun control, support freedom of choice, and big government. Tax cuts have never been my particular cup of tea; I’d rather see hikes or reorganization when things go wrong. Besides. Bill Clinton’s ability to bullshit was at least a step in the right direction as opposed to George Bush’s ability to bully – even if the Democrats did in fact purchase the wrong policy map while he was in office.

Regardless of that fact, yes you are morally repugnant, and your actions will serve your short term best interest, but peace and world prosperity and freedom for the rest of the world is better in our long term interests. Free, soveriegn nations are alot less likely to go to war than those nations where the government decides what the people do rather than the people. Basically supporting human rights and not installing petty puppet dictators is always a good idea, becuase eventually the dictator will be overthrown, and who put him there will be remembered by the people you are screwing over.

I may be morally repugnant, but you sir, are an unabashed apologist for all that is wrong with the world.

Our long-term interests are virtually identical in writing, Napoleon: freedom, prosperity, and peace for as many as possible. The real difference is when you look at the semantics. We’ve got hugely divergent opinions on just what “possible” really means. And for whom that freedom, prosperity, and peace should work out best.

The people of Chile, Napoleon, cannot strike back at the United States. They never could and they never will in any way that could matter. Any attempt to do so would hurt them more than it hurt us – by huge orders of magnitude. The same is true of South Africa, of the Congo, and even of China. None of those countries would be so brazen as to attempt to “repay” us for what damage we’ve done them in our interests. Even the People’s Republic understands that our ultimate economic and political struggle will have everything to do with necessity and nothing with history. Therefore, “puppet dictators” as you call them are indeed a “good idea.”

[Axis Kast]

Mike Wong gave me that title.

[NapoleonGH]

ohh so axis, all the important trade we get from those countries disapearing because they dont like us and parts of their populations donning bomb vests isnt striking back at us and hurting our interests? american buisniesses and citizens being attacked in those countries isnt hurting our interests? Iran is the perfect example, china would be just as bad, and chile well we do import alot of raw materials from them imagine if it dries up. We then have to expend the money to go in militarily, kill their people and our own, and in the end have them hate us even more.

Ohh and no i fight against all that is wrong in the world, i just happen to also believe in the RULE OF LAW, and that the rule of law and long term interests take precidence over short term interests. You are arguing for what will benefit us short term and may hurt us long term, im arguing for what will benefit us long term and might hurt us short term. ITs a matter of whether or not you want "peace in our time" or to insure that your children and grandchildren live to know peace. And i dont mean peace just in the sense of fewer military actions, since i preach immediate end to most interventionist military action because i see it as causing more problems than it removes especially when directed at nations that pose no military threat to the US or really anyone anymore, like iraq, when all our actions will do is foster hatred, terrorism, unrest and unhappiness in that nation, and once the US backed government falls a massive anti-american outburst probably resulting in an Anti us government.

BTW you didnt mention a single thing in your little discussion of your political beliefs that deals with being Leftist (Beyond support for clinton) being leftist measn you prefer a more socialistic (depends very much on degree could be anywhere from regulating the size of buisniesses and their polution to wanting communal ownership and collectiveization) pracitices economically, whereas being of the right means you prefer more free market politics where you let buisness do what they want with anywhere from less to no government oversight. Liberal vs Conservative from my point of view is more along the lines of civil liberties vs civil safety, which is why im a leftist liberal, but you acn have a rightist liberal (like the libertarian party) leftist conservative (a decent description of stalinists if you think about it) and rightist conservative (facists, american Republican party, and basically most rightists who arent libertarians)

[Axis Kast]

ohh so axis, all the important trade we get from those countries disapearing because they dont like us and parts of their populations donning bomb vests isnt striking back at us and hurting our interests? american buisniesses and citizens being attacked in those countries isnt hurting our interests? Iran is the perfect example, china would be just as bad, and chile well we do import alot of raw materials from them imagine if it dries up. We then have to expend the money to go in militarily, kill their people and our own, and in the end have them hate us even more.

Since when did trade from Chile, China, or the Congo “disappear because they don’t like us?” Did it ever occur to you that aside from having lost its appeal as a destination for American vacationers – which France repaid in full, but on a scale more relevant to its own population, all that hyperbole about the evils of Perrier has done little to hurt the West European economy? Even out-and-out squabbles don’t often result in economic dislocation.

American businesses and citizens are attacked in the Congo because it’s lawless, not because we supported a dictator. American businesses and citizens are attacked in Chile because there’s a high degree of criminal activity oriented around the “ignorant Western traveler,” not because they hate all Americans for Pinochet. American businesses and citizens attacked in China are no different. Yours is just an unrealistic sob story motivated by false expectation in your own argument.

The point, Napoleon, is that you only take things so far while still being overt about it. I’m not saying we should directly stomp on everyone. That gets messy and unnecessarily difficult. My point is that we shouldn’t feel badly about doing it overtly either.

Iran is the best example you’ve come up with so far, but we know that people like Saddam Hussein supported terrorism even before their good relationship with America ended. Iran’s hatred for us is partially motivated by what we did related to the Shah. That was a blunder, yes. A good risk but a bad blunder. It does not however mean that all of the problems we see today would disappear had we only not helped put him in power. Many of the Iranian people no longer care. It’s the governing cabals that perpetuate the hatred. And there we have a marked difference from public hatred or anger to officially-sanctioned anti-Americanism for gain of special parties with their own interests. We couldn’t have avoided that anyway.

Ohh and no i fight against all that is wrong in the world, i just happen to also believe in the RULE OF LAW, and that the rule of law and long term interests take precidence over short term interests. You are arguing for what will benefit us short term and may hurt us long term, im arguing for what will benefit us long term and might hurt us short term. ITs a matter of whether or not you want "peace in our time" or to insure that your children and grandchildren live to know peace. And i dont mean peace just in the sense of fewer military actions, since i preach immediate end to most interventionist military action because i see it as causing more problems than it removes especially when directed at nations that pose no military threat to the US or really anyone anymore, like iraq, when all our actions will do is foster hatred, terrorism, unrest and unhappiness in that nation, and once the US backed government falls a massive anti-american outburst probably resulting in an Anti us government.

No. I’m arguing for what benefits us long-term. You’re just spinning bad yarns about what might and might not happen based on arbitrary pet scenarios you’ve cooked up to try and hurt my argument. Let me repeat it for you: I advocate what keeps me on top, long range or otherwise. So far, the best moves I can see include supporting democracy in the third world, developing free trade with up-and-coming nations, and stamping on “anarchic” governments (like Saddam’s, al-Qadhafi’s, Kim’s, etc.). But it’s not because it’s right. It’s because it works for me.

The rule of law is bullshit. It’s nice because the average Joe puts faith into it and most governments are obliged to listen to it for that reason. There is no actual rule of law. If you can get away with it, you can get away with it. If others play that game – and they do -, I gain nothing by sitting on my hands for morality and idealism’s sake. Especially if I have a good chance of making sure nobody knows anyway. And if they have to know, well at least I’ll have weighed my options.

“Peace for me” is different than “peace for us.” Like I said, my being on top will inevitable include somebody else’s being raised – and somebody else’s being lowered as well. My position carries more benefits than you know – a necessity because, as you’ve said, I have to deal with other people who have interests of their own.

Terrorism would have hit the United States even had we never saved Kuwait. And did you advocate letting them “go”, too? I’m just curious. It’s all about oil, Napoleon, and the fact that we can’t do without a cheap source. That’s where terrorism comes from. Throwing these people into the 20th century just so we can have crude.

I don’t think we’ll see an anti-American government in Iraq before things clam down for a good, long time. Just like you, I have my own opinions.

BTW you didnt mention a single thing in your little discussion of your political beliefs that deals with being Leftist (Beyond support for clinton) being leftist measn you prefer a more socialistic (depends very much on degree could be anywhere from regulating the size of buisniesses and their polution to wanting communal ownership and collectiveization) pracitices economically, whereas being of the right means you prefer more free market politics where you let buisness do what they want with anywhere from less to no government oversight. Liberal vs Conservative from my point of view is more along the lines of civil liberties vs civil safety, which is why im a leftist liberal, but you acn have a rightist liberal (like the libertarian party) leftist conservative (a decent description of stalinists if you think about it) and rightist conservative (facists, american Republican party, and basically most rightists who arent libertarians).

Now you’re playing the semantics game. The point is I have certain strains of stereotypically “leftist” – or at least democratic - thinking in me, even if I abhor most of what the left stands for – like Communism and socialism.

[NapoleonGH]

give me a SINGLE example of Saddam supporting anti-US terrorism. 1 single example of him directly giving money to an organization that purposefully and directly attacks the US and its citizens as its primary targets.


First off China, last I checked we take the legitimate DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government, remove it and replace it with a dictator. No we supported one of the two groups in their civil war, indirectly, and our side lost. And yes we DIDNT trade with china for years because they didnt like us and we didnt like them, that is why nixon had to open up relations with them, if you remember back that far to an applicable time period. Chile, lets see they had bad non-democratic government A, and we replaced it with bad non-democratic murdering government B. Not a massive difference, plus dont we still have pretty good control over their government anyway?

And no im not talking about what ifs, im talking about what has been shown to happen to interventionist nations and the US, we have interfered in many nations over the past 60 years and have had huge numbers of headaches because of that interference, from all the modern terrorist groups, to iranian hostility, to mass anarchy in africa, to mass murder in south america, all of which harms our world image, which is a vitally important thing to maintain if we wish to be able to lead the world. Basically do you want to be able to maintain our current position of strenght and leadership in the world through killing off people worldwide and loosing money on military endeavors that become constantly necessary, OR do you want to maintain the same position by investing in creating good PR that makes people willing to follow our lead? Parasites eventually kill their hosts regardless of how strong they hold or how capable they are of defending themselves against actions taken by the host against them, but symbiotes increase the life of the host and the symbiote itself benefits from this agreement, basically it is a mutually beneficial arangement. We are currently acting the parasite (in a way, though we are a damed strong parasite, perhaps we are more of a virus taking over other cells and making them serve out purpose) benefiting by taking from others, I advocate us being the symbiote promoting world prosperity and sovereignty so as to form mutually beneficial relationships while avoiding creating enemies (vietnam is another such case where we supported a dicatatorial jackass in the name of opposing an idealogy which the N. Vietnamese would have been more than willing to abandon in exchange for a mutually beneficial relationship with the US and unification of the country. Instead we supported several dicatorial jackasses in s. vietnam and faught against unification killed millions of vietnamese, lost 50,000 us soldier's lives, lost huge amounts of money, AND WERENT EVEN SUCESSFUL.

[Axis Kast]

give me a SINGLE example of Saddam supporting anti-US terrorism. 1 single example of him directly giving money to an organization that purposefully and directly attacks the US and its citizens as its primary targets.

First off China, last I checked we take the legitimate DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government, remove it and replace it with a dictator. No we supported one of the two groups in their civil war, indirectly, and our side lost. And yes we DIDNT trade with china for years because they didnt like us and we didnt like them, that is why nixon had to open up relations with them, if you remember back that far to an applicable time period. Chile, lets see they had bad non-democratic government A, and we replaced it with bad non-democratic murdering government B. Not a massive difference, plus dont we still have pretty good control over their government anyway?

And no im not talking about what ifs, im talking about what has been shown to happen to interventionist nations and the US, we have interfered in many nations over the past 60 years and have had huge numbers of headaches because of that interference, from all the modern terrorist groups, to iranian hostility, to mass anarchy in africa, to mass murder in south america, all of which harms our world image, which is a vitally important thing to maintain if we wish to be able to lead the world. Basically do you want to be able to maintain our current position of strenght and leadership in the world through killing off people worldwide and loosing money on military endeavors that become constantly necessary, OR do you want to maintain the same position by investing in creating good PR that makes people willing to follow our lead? Parasites eventually kill their hosts regardless of how strong they hold or how capable they are of defending themselves against actions taken by the host against them, but symbiotes increase the life of the host and the symbiote itself benefits from this agreement, basically it is a mutually beneficial arangement. We are currently acting the parasite (in a way, though we are a damed strong parasite, perhaps we are more of a virus taking over other cells and making them serve out purpose) benefiting by taking from others, I advocate us being the symbiote promoting world prosperity and sovereignty so as to form mutually beneficial relationships while avoiding creating enemies (vietnam is another such case where we supported a dicatatorial jackass in the name of opposing an idealogy which the N. Vietnamese would have been more than willing to abandon in exchange for a mutually beneficial relationship with the US and unification of the country. Instead we supported several dicatorial jackasses in s. vietnam and faught against unification killed millions of vietnamese, lost 50,000 us soldier's lives, lost huge amounts of money, AND WERENT EVEN SUCESSFUL.

It’s not whether Saddam supported terrorism against the United States. It’s whether he supported terrorism at all – which would, eventually, hurt Americans. Dozens of our citizens have been killed by Palestinian strikes in Israel. Not all terrorism, Napoleon, begins and ends with the American military presence. We’d face attacks even if our forces were not immediately deployed in the region. Like I said, it’s a reaction to the “rape mentality” borne by all sides.

Are you implying that a democratic government should always be left in place, no matter how repugnant? Hitler was elected to power in Germany, Napoleon. Even a system so morally bankrupt as my own recognizes the failings of a leader that arbitrarily murders millions. During the Cold War, Pinochet was from my point of view a necessary evil. We could have ousted Hitler around 1936 and still shored up Germany to face the Soviet threat anyway before 1941 when Stalin might first have reared his ugly head past his own borders.

We supported an idiot in Chiang. Most Chinese who can still remember him resent that. We didn’t trade with China for years because of it, though Nixon opened trade as an expedient (to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing) rather than as an economic necessity.

We have some control over Chile today, but that’s mostly because the American market is so powerful. As for Pinochet, I find him to have been a necessary evil.

“All the modern terrorist groups” began long before the Americans went into Kuwait and began a heavy presence anywhere outside Lebanon. Mass anarchy in Africa is often blamed on the US, but we can do nothing in a realistic context. Too dangerous and too few regional allies worth our time. Iranian hostility was the result of a failed gamble, but one that had at first seemed so solid. I would have taken that bet myself. Sometimes, bets fail. That one did so unexpectedly. In the same situation, I’d take that gamble again in a heartbeat. Mass murder in South American by Pinochet got us bad press but ultimately no meaningful financial or political woes. As you said, we’ve still plenty of influence in Chile. I don’t see any boycotts.

I don’t think “good PR” will work. I think others play with the cost-benefit analysis themselves (i.e. the Chinese, Russians, and the European Union, to some extent) and will use it to gain a superior foothold – and thus an easier way to the top – if we so let them. Don’t think anybody would willingly follow the American moral example were we to make one. No. They’d laugh happily in glee.

I’m in favor of symbiotes. But in every association, somebody gains the lion’s share. I want it to be me, myself, and I. Always. The point is that a symbiotic relationship is difficult to achieve. For most of those with whom we are classified as a parasite, there’s no way to fight back. That’s okay with me. It’s choosing your fight that’s so important.

I support our involvement in Vietnam to the hilt. The domino theory played out. The Soviets gained a huge victory. The country was a shithole after reunification – and still is. People were killed by the millions. The North liquidated whole groups when they came to power and consolidated their own government. What part of “Communist shithole” do you misunderstand? Again, a gamble is never made with knowledge of the consequences. Vietnam seemed like such a good bet at first. Just like Iran. And a South Vietnamese unification – or even stand-off like in Korea – would have been rather preferable to the alternative of a North Korean unification.

[NapoleonGH]

the country was a shithole while our patsys were running it too.

Yes and cars do eventually hurt americans as well, should be bomb the GM plant? See I differntiate between things that hurt americans because we are americans and things that hurt americans because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. You clearly do not.

Im not implying that a democratic government should be kept no matter what it does, im saying that a democratic government should be maintained if our only reason for not likeing it is that they wish to be neutral rather than pro-us in their policies. Thus your hitler example doesnt get supported.

nixon opened trade, exactly we were hurt by supporting chiang, as i stated until nixon opened trade.

Al-queda and binladin the only terrorist group/leader that has actually hit US targets in this modern terrorist activity was formed after we entered saudi, bin ladin's reason for opposing the US is our presense there in.

Iranian hostility was clearly going to occur and it wasnt a failed gamble, it was an inevitability. There simply was no way that the shah's government wouldnt fall and that an anti-us one would tkae its place after we supported such a tyrant and opposed their legitimate government.

The good PR angle does and has worked, and i am advocating playing the cost benefit analysis, and like most of the EU countries, when i play it out, i find interventionism and imperialism to have more costs for fewer benefits, long term, then keeping my military at home and not removing other legitimate governments.

[Axis Kast]

the country was a shithole while our patsys were running it too.

South Vietnam might have been “a shithole” before the American withdrawal. It was certainly “a shithole” after. Communism isn’t democracy. And while that of Rhee and others was imperfect freedom, it was always preferable to world Socialism – or hadn’t you noticed how many tens of thousands were “silenced” or tried to escape?

nixon opened trade, exactly we were hurt by supporting chiang, as i stated until nixon opened trade.

Nixon opened trade with China because Kissinger sensed fallout between Moscow and Beijing. It was so bad behind closed doors that Khruschev was asking the Politburo what they thought about a preemptive nuclear strike on the nuclear infrastructure of his Chinese neighbors. We didn’t restore ties because of economics. It was a purely political maneuver. The China of today is far different from the China of 1970.

Al-queda and binladin the only terrorist group/leader that has actually hit US targets in this modern terrorist activity was formed after we entered saudi, bin ladin's reason for opposing the US is our presense there in.

And why were our troops there in the first place? Because this nation – just like every other nation in the world – is married to oil. We were married before 1991 and we will be married into the near future – and probably the far future as well. Bush, Sr. had no choice but to defend Kuwait. The decision to base troops in Saudi Arabia was sound from a strategic perspective. Besides. Osama Bin Laden has bigger plans from what I can see. His “justifications” reach far beyond “infidels in the Holy Land.” Terrorism would still have come even without the Gulf War.

Iranian hostility was clearly going to occur and it wasnt a failed gamble, it was an inevitability. There simply was no way that the shah's government wouldnt fall and that an anti-us one would tkae its place after we supported such a tyrant and opposed their legitimate government.

Since when? The man had the best-trained army in the region and looked to be moving along the road to success. It certainly wasn’t preordained that he’d fail.

The good PR angle does and has worked, and i am advocating playing the cost benefit analysis, and like most of the EU countries, when i play it out, i find interventionism and imperialism to have more costs for fewer benefits, long term, then keeping my military at home and not removing other legitimate governments.

Where has the “good PR” angle ever worked without major outside factors in play?

Interventionism is superior to isolationism. We learned that on December 7, 1941. You can hide but you can't run.

“Legitimate governments?” Everything in this world is only as “official” as the power behind it. And you still have to prove that putting Pinochet in power has led Chileans to take meaningful action against the United States and its vested interests. Or anybody else for that matter.

[phongn]

the country was a shithole while our patsys were running it too.

It was a hell of a lot less of a shithole when Uncle Ho wasn't running things. I've got plenty of family over there; they'd take the old Diem regieme any day.

[NapoleonGH]

Axis, a little family history, my father's side of the family lived in Iran until my grandparents left about 2 weeks before the Shah went for cancer treatment and never came home. In iran, there were so many factors showing that his government was going to fall. Basically they lost control over the people and even at the height of its power the people resented and resisted his control. In the restoration monarchy (the rule of the last Shah, from the 1950s until 1979) particularily the muslim portion of the population was always in opposition towards the regime and the secularism/westism of said regime. They simply did not like it, and they mostly planned their opposition in the Mosques silently. Things came to a head in 1979 because the shah was at last begining to loosen his grip and the J curve set in, when things didnt go as far along the curve as the people wanted, they began their open resistance. I would say that the rule of the shah was as doomed to fail as the rule of the Party in eastern europe, something that was a still born baby.

[Axis Kast]

There was always resentment to the Shah, but that does not mean that from his first moment in power he was doomed to fail.

Even as late as January 1978, the Shah appeared viable. Remember that this man had successfully wrangled concessions from neighboring Iraq and was making himself a strong force in the Persian Gulf. He appealed strongly to Iranian nationalists as well as anti-Communists. And especially with the Soviet Union looming so large, Communism had its detractors (the Tudeh Party aside). The secular régime was never "destined" to fall.

[jegs2]

humane

Hard to say, but from what I've seen, they've been given all ususal aminities, including carpets on which to pray

legal,

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like every legal challenge to the camp has been shot down, so it appears to be.

good idea?

Depends on the value and accuracy of the intelligence we're getting from the detainees, and so far the number of folks complaining about their situation seems relatively insignificant. So yes, I think so -- they're still treated a good deal better than any American detainees have been and would be in hostile nations.