Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein has been hanged.

[280plus]

From Wikpedia under Socialism:

"For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of money, markets, capital, and labor as a commodity."

I'm just not seeing all this happening LAK.

[Perd Hapley]

There's no need to get hung up on semantics.  "Socialism" may be a little over-used, just like "fascism" has come to mean dictatorship.  We can call it statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, etc.  The growth in American govt. interference may not be "socialism," exactly, but it's close enough.  At least we're not calling it communism. 

The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence.

Which idiocy, precisely? 

Do you consider yourself a "conservative," in any sense? 

[LAK]

Fistful

That's right.  It really doesn't matter what Bush does.  If he brings the troops home without accomplishing the mission, he will never hear the end of how he wasted our time, talent, troops and treasure in Iraq.  If he decides to send in a few more soldiers, he's "escalating the conflict" and/or "expanding the mission."  What nonsense.

Many of us, based on some very basic history and what for the sake of arguement I will refer to as general knowledge - along with some people with excellent credentials - warned that this would not work either way when the invasion was to take place. Since then there have been some excuses rendered up as to say that there were some "mistakes" etc.

I do not buy this. Even if George Bush alone had planned this whole fiasco from the start, I do not believe he could have been that naive and or careless. We have been committed to a folly knowing full well later on we can not rightly just pull out and leave some millions of people to more catastrophy - and that a longterm occupation was the only logical outcome.

There's no need to get hung up on semantics.  "Socialism" may be a little over-used, just like "fascism" has come to mean dictatorship.  We can call it statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, etc.  The growth in American govt. interference may not be "socialism," exactly, but it's close enough.  At least we're not calling it communism.

Very true. Global socialism is perhaps the most accurate term for the overt system. One must only read the U.N. Charter and U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and give cursory examination to the plethora of programs and NGOs affiliated to this cartel to summize that global socialism is the vehicle being used. There are some elements of fascism and communism in the mix though too. 

LAK: The latter is not new either, as many so-called conservatives have embraced this idiocy and wittingly or unwittingly driven this progression leftward and much of it's acceptence. [end]

Which idiocy, precisely?

I recall hearing the speech George gave after the "democrats" took back the majority which sums it up rather well, during which he explicitly stated his appeal to "put away partisanism and address the problems that face the nation".

As I said on another post here - or maybe it was THR - it is partisan issues that separate what is destroying this country one chunk at a time from what is required to put us back on course. For Bush to utter this idiocy would be incredible to me if I were not expecting it from him already.

Precisely? Every socialist program and bureaucracy currently administered by the federal government, and on a larger scale in the form of overseas aid. No greater single example of the latter is there than our funding and participation with the United Nations.
 

Do you consider yourself a "conservative," in any sense?

How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.

How about you? Do you consider yourself a conservative?

--------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[The Rabbi]

There were people who said an invasion of Afghanistan would not work either and would quickly become a "quagmire."  They had solid historical evidence of the Brits and Russians. 
They were wrong.

[280plus]

I'm not talking semantics, I'm talking definitions. I understand socialism as one thing, you guys are discussing it as if it were another. Define this "global socialism" in your best terms.

How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.

You mean way back when the streets were quagmires of mud and manure? I'll pass... 

[The Rabbi]

How about a rollback of the Federal government to about 1850. I do not think that you can get much more conservative than that.

You mean way back when the streets were quagmires of mud and manure? I'll pass... 

It would work if we could roll back society to 1850.  That also won't happen.  Nor would I really want to see quack medicines hawked everywhere or appalling conditions in the food industry.
That said, of course there are many areas where the Federal gov't would serve the consumer best by getting out of the way.  I would name the mortgage industry as a great place to start.  Get rid of FhA, cut the implied support to Fannie and Freddie, eliminate the mortgage deduction, and treat a personal residence like any other investment.

[LAK]

The Rabbi

There were people who said an invasion of Afghanistan would not work either and would quickly become a "quagmire."  They had solid historical evidence of the Brits and Russians. 
They were wrong.

Are you trying to say that we are getting control in Afghanistan? Pray tell, when are they pulling our troops out of there - I hadn't heard that George had set the date already. You must have been smoking some of the stuff the big cartel is moving out of there.
 
280plus,

Read the UN Charter and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. There is global socialism in a structured nutshell for you.

Quagmire and mud? Quack medicine? I read almost daily of quack medicine peddled by some company, rubberstamped by some ex-company FDA official, that has killed a bunch of people. And an innumerable number of "syndromes" which can not be pathologically defined by the all-knowing all-seeing and all-wealthy federal government.

You can believe what history you like, but popular history is not a reflection of the life in general in the 1800s - nor for that matter has it been the federal government that has brought the few real and defineable improvements since then. Nor are paved roads and sanitation some sort of modern federal invention.

It is private expertize that has given us some modern comforts. Not the loving bureaucrats in Washington DC.

Society is not the same as in 1850 because a good number of poeple have been brainwashed into believing much nonsense, and being drawn into a state of psychologcal dependence on our glorious central government.

-------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[280plus]

Will do...

[The Rabbi]

The Rabbi

There were people who said an invasion of Afghanistan would not work either and would quickly become a "quagmire."  They had solid historical evidence of the Brits and Russians. 
They were wrong.

Are you trying to say that we are getting control in Afghanistan? Pray tell, when are they pulling our troops out of there - I hadn't heard that George had set the date already. You must have been smoking some of the stuff the big cartel is moving out of there.
 

You're right.  It was a total failure.  The US was wiped out when the war turned into a quagmire, with large casualties.  The Taliban remain in control of the whole country, providing al Qaeda with terrorist training bases.  bin Laden roams freely at will, unmolested and unafraid. 
The US maintained troops in China for about 100 years.  I dont recall anyone saying the mission was a failure because we hadnt left.  The US maintained troops in Europe for 50 years (and still do).  I guess we lost WW2 as well.

[Perd Hapley]

Let's stop thinking that we will, or should, totally withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq anytime sooner than two or three decades from now. 

[280plus]

We DID lose WWII and Hitler is alive and having a cheesburger with Elvis and JFK as we speak. They're all hidden away on a secret island you know... 

[Ezekiel]

"Wow."  I didn't realize it was possible for any two humans -- you and I -- to be further apart on ideas.

Go Team America!, I guess... 

Let's stop thinking that we will, or should, totally withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq anytime sooner than two or three decades from now.

[CAnnoneer]

Many of the points that you guys seem to argue so belligerently about are ultimately not mutually exclusive.

There are a dozen reasons why Iraq had to be invaded, and I would submit to you that getting rid of Saddam or grabbing some expired chemical weapons were among the least. But you cannot go in front of the American public, benighted as it is with entertainment and softcore internationalist socialism, and tell them that hard times are ahead and tough decisions need to be made.

So the people in charge decided to scare everybody with WMD to garner the support to do what needed to be done. Does this make GWB a liar? I don't know, and in the big scheme of things that makes little practical difference. What does make a difference is that Saddam was taken out before he undermined our economy by switching to petroeuros. What does make a difference is that there is still a small chance for things in Iraq to work out for the better, in establishing a limited democracy with chronic but controlled security problems. What does make a difference is that invading and holding Iraq is by far the least bloody practical solution of the situation in the entire region.

What also should make a difference to anyone with half a brain that is at least half awake is that the leftist media and most of the Dems since Day One have been breaking their arms, tongues, and legs to do absolutely everything they can to sabotage the war effort. There was and is nothing loyal about the "loyal opposition". In fact, any reasonable person would consider them traitors in times of war. It is a sad comment about our society and the power of corrupt leftist media that these traitors won the elections in November, instead of losing even worse than before.

This latest instalment about "opposing escalation", while they vehemently thump their chests about "supporting the troops" is yet another example of a bizarre, grotesque dance.

I don't care about the bonesmen, conspiracies, liberal lies, etc. I trust neutral facts and the immutable laws of the flawed human psyche. If you want to make a difference, have kids and educate them to love freedom and think for themselves. If there is hope for retaking this country from all sorts of crappers, it lies in grounds-up changes, rather than playing betting games with a failing political system.

[LAK]

Rabbi,

How many troops did we have in China all those years doing exactly what on how many square miles of ground?

We had troops, armor and aircraft in europa for a specific and tangible purpose for fifty-odd years. Before that happened, even at Normandy, there were troops and personnel that followed the invasion force earmarked to replace the outed gov's where applicable, perform administrative functions, maintain order, prevent looting, rape and murder. They were not assigned to combat units or used for anything else, and were not an afterthought years later. They were in sufficient numbers to maintain order over the entire country later known as west germany, and all the others until the respective civil governments took over.

This is in stark contrast to what took place in the invasion of Iraq. We - to include the new Iraqi police forces - are actually in control of a fraction of Iraq all these years later. The new Iraqi police are not even in control of themselves with more than alittle activity been atributed directly to some of them. And we are in control of no more than a fraction of afghanistan with ongoing engagements.

This is certainly not the fault of our military. Our military does what it is supposed to do as it is told to do it. General Shinseki was not the only one who stated the obvious at the beginning of this fiasco, and it was no small number of average people who predicted the obvious that would come later on.

So this is all no surprize, and no bad reflection on our military. The rest lies squarely at the feet of those who were and or are running the WH, and their cronies in London and elsewhere that have engineered this folly.

fistful,

And just how many other countries are we going to occupy for the next twenty, forty, fifty years? With whose army? At what cost in blood and resources? To what tangible end?

----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[280plus]

To what tangible end?

Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.

I've read a few of the first articles of the UN Charter. So far I'm not seeing the big conspiracy. Have I missed anything or does it get better?

[280plus]

OK, I'm finished through Chapetr 8. Are you saying nobody's playing by the rukes of the charter?  I found this to be interesting:

"The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.[/quote]

Then Japan, Germany and Italy are defined as enemy states? 

[CAnnoneer]

Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.

There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices, which I support, but most Americans do not have the stomach for them. And that is why we will likely decline and fail as a nation, while a nationless world order emerges to match the global economy.

[280plus]

There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices,

Such as...

[Perd Hapley]

Wrong question, 280.     If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out!   

[CAnnoneer]

There are more efficient and possibly longterm-better choices,

Such as...

Method 1

We are being forced to spend like an empire but disallowed from earning like an empire. Iraq is only the beginning. Every scatological two-bit turd-world country that gets "radicalized" will need to be invaded and put on "democratic track" to prevent terrorists from coming to the homeland. That will surely bankrupt us in the next 20 years tops, regardless of the outcomes in the particular countries.

So, I support a radicalization of our own. If we are forced to be an empire to defend ourselves, then we should act like one. Go where we need, take what we want, kill whom we must. Start with Saudi Arabia and go down the list. Any opposition is brutally crushed, like the Brits did in India and Africa. Countries that want to pull us into a quagmire or bleed us by conventional warfare (Iran), will be nuked beyond recognition. If we control most of the world oil in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Quweit, and Iran, nobody will day say zilch, or it will be WE who turn off the spiggot on THEM.

Method 2

An armed neutrality. We pull back to our borders, militarize them, racially profile any visitors. We refuse to get involved with regional conflicts, leave Israel to their own devices, let Africans and Arabs slaughter themselves and each other. Let Europe and Japan defend themselves with weapons we sell them. Prohibit the development of strategic weapons by scatological countries on pain of utter obliteration by "clean" fusion bombs, chemical, and biological weapons. We become the North American giant equivalent of Switzerland. We invest heavily in alternative energy sources while we make maximal use of our own supplies, a patriotic propaganda campaign on conservation, emission and mileage legislation, etc. We welcome only the best and brightest of the outside world, subject to scatological screenings to prevent infiltration. We get rid of leftist liberal pinkworld blissninny nonsense by education based on facts, not wishful thinking. Etc. etc.



What we are doing right now is bankrupting ourselves to fix a scatological world and we get blasted and shot at for our troubles. One might call us marxist-internationalists...

[280plus]

Wrong question, 280.     If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out!   

Did ya hear Saddam got hanged? 

So we should stop pussyfooting around trying to fight a "nice" war and get down to business. Be the annihilator instead of the annihilatee. Pre-emptive annihilation. Interesting approach, I must admit.

Oh wait, that's just a rehash of "Kill them all and let God sort them out". It is a bit tough to get the average America on board with that particular idea. 

[Matthew Carberry]

Wrong question, 280.     If you thought this thread was off-topic already, look out!   

Did ya hear Saddam got hanged? 

So we should stop pussyfooting around trying to fight a "nice" war and get down to business. Be the annihilator instead of the annihilatee. Pre-emptive annihilation. Interesting approach, I must admit.

Oh wait, that's just a rehash of "Kill them all and let God sort them out". It is a bit tough to get the average America on board with that particular idea. 

Not if we preempt a lot of dissension by selectively killing some media elites.  Without competent opposition leadership, the mass of the proletariat (average American) is usable by whoever wants to wield it.

Think of the recent premiere of "Rome" this season.  The mob is always there, it's all about swaying them to your side and eliminating or rendering ineffective those who can/would counter-sway.

[CAnnoneer]

Not if we preempt a lot of dissension by selectively killing some media elites.  Without competent opposition leadership, the mass of the proletariat (average American) is usable by whoever wants to wield it.
Think of the recent premiere of "Rome" this season.  The mob is always there, it's all about swaying them to your side and eliminating or rendering ineffective those who can/would counter-sway.

That is a practical solution, which alas will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The Roman crowd promoted tyrants as much as tyrants promoted the power of the crowd. They catalyzed one another. If we promote a similar solution, we will end up with a similar result. Besides, there would be no guarantees that the leftists would purge conservative movers significantly less than conservatives purging leftist movers. (Note that in 1920s Germany, commie assasins were about as murderous and effectual as stormtrooper assassins.)

The true win over liberal media would be to counteract their influence by convincing one person at a time, and ultimately by outbreeding the liberals. When fewer and fewer people listen to NPR, read New York Times, or watch CNN/BBC, those voices will be marginalized into insignificance.

[Matthew Carberry]

Killing's faster, and has a certain cathartic appeal. 

I'm just hoping that in the end my low opinion of the common sense of the average American will be proven wrong.

[LAK]

280plus

Obliteration avoidance would be my guess. I've known since 911 that this country was going to have to militarize and like it to survive. Is it really what I want? No, but I personally believe we have no choice.

"Militarize"? What does that mean?

How many troops will it take to invade and occupy between thirty and fifty countries on the scale we have in iraq and afghanistan combined indefinately? When you have answered that question - tell us all where you are going to find them all?

I've read a few of the first articles of the UN Charter. So far I'm not seeing the big conspiracy. Have I missed anything or does it get better?

The subject was global socialism. Funny you have such a hard time recognizing what the United Nations is all about, and recognizing what socialist ideology it represents.

However, if it takes you this long to read a couple of articles of the U.N. Charter you are in for a long course. Perhaps next month you'll be able to read their wonderful articles of "Human Rights".

---------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org