Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein has been hanged.

[280plus]

What does militarize mean? Apparently the dictionary is saying it's not a word, however...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=ADBS%2CADBS%3A2006-42%2CADBS%3Aen&q=militarize&btnG=Search

Sorry my schedule doesn't afford me sitting here and reading this Charter all in one shot. I'll read it like I read everything else, a bit at a time when I can. If you're telling me I should be recognizing some big global socialism conspiracy in what I've read so far, I don't see what your talking about. Unless you want to call peace and equality among all people global socialism. Which you have yet to define in any certain terms. Capitalism seems alive and well to me and that's the only thing my mind associates as being the oppsite of socialism right now.

How are we going to meet the troop needs to do all that we may need to do? That goes back to the part about militarization. Maybe a word, maybe not, but I believe you get my meaning. More and more people are going to have to step up and help defend this country. Last I heard, and who know's if it's BS or not, the Generals and Admirals are not in favor of a draft. Right now, all they've got is people who believe in what they're doing and want to be there to help and they feel that's all they need. These Demorats force us to ease up the pressure on those other rat bastards that want to kill us all and we are in big trouble my friend. Global socialism will be the least of your worries.

[CAnnoneer]

If we militarize any further, we will surely follow Rome, Byzantium, etc. We cannot and should not invade every hellhole toilet out there that needs flushing. I would advocate cultural, political, and behavioral changes at home before more boots on foreign soils. See earlier post.

[280plus]

Possibly, but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?

[LAK]

but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?

It is not referred to as the Roman Empire for nothing.

What does militarize mean? Apparently the dictionary is saying it's not a word, however...

If we accept it's current popular common use, it implies a sort of general and open-ended military build up. It can also be applied in the cultural sense - still also somewhat undefined, as in open-ended.

Korea has a very militant political culture. Is that good? Yes, and no. If the invasion of your country is imminent it is probably a good thing. However, once in such a state of borderline frenzy, things might change considerably if the leadership suffers a great fall, and the bogeyman of focus is re-directed.

Let's say you just want to raise an army large enough to conquer and hold, stabilize and "rebuild" central asia. How many troops is it going to take, with what support and resources, for how long - and what are you going to use to pay for it? How is a nation that is already many trillions of dollars in debt going to pay for it?

If you're telling me I should be recognizing some big global socialism conspiracy in what I've read so far, I don't see what your talking about. Unless you want to call peace and equality among all people global socialism. Which you have yet to define in any certain terms. Capitalism seems alive and well to me and that's the only thing my mind associates as being the oppsite of socialism right now.

You keep mentioning this word "conspiracy" as if it has some bearing on this subject. Perhaps you know something we don't and can elaborate.

Peace and equality are tangible within the realm of a nation state that has sufficient resources and the unified or stable civilized culture as the foundation - for perhaps a limited amount of time. This is an oversimplification and does not include but two important elements. And there are others. Attempting to bring this about over the entire globe is pure fantasy. Thus when one sees this at the forefront of a geo-political agenda involving governments of over a hundred nations one must immediately assume one of two things: these people are insane - literally - or they have something else in mind. You be the judge.

Global socialism is simply the political front vehicle, socialism applied in a somewhat homogenous form - globally by a central governing body. In this case "the United Nations".

Capitalism has always been alive and well and is hardly in reality any antithesis of socialism - except on the surface. Capitalism never died in the former soviet union, nor in communist china. Political front systems do not change the way money is made, nor do they eliminate private ownership and wealth. It merely changes the surface of things. There is an element of redistribution in socialist systems, but the very rich - get richer. Underneath it is still very, very wealthy people who control the most wealth, and run the show. Just because the state owns something on paper does not mean it is somehow out of the control of and does not profit those who control it.

How are we going to meet the troop needs to do all that we may need to do? That goes back to the part about militarization. Maybe a word, maybe not, but I believe you get my meaning. More and more people are going to have to step up and help defend this country. Last I heard, and who know's if it's BS or not, the Generals and Admirals are not in favor of a draft. Right now, all they've got is people who believe in what they're doing and want to be there to help and they feel that's all they need. These Demorats force us to ease up the pressure on those other rat bastards that want to kill us all and we are in big trouble my friend. Global socialism will be the least of your worries.

Two problems; first and less - no, not subjective at all - is money. Who is going to pay for this, with what?. Secondly, and argueably subjective is compliance. A draft would certainly be necessary for even the invasion and occupation of iran. To conduct such a wide campaign into a dozen or more countries would take a draft of millions. I am certain, personally, that there will be mass non-compliance to such a thing.

And thus the reason most of the brass are smart enough to not want any draft, which would fill the ranks with a great number of very reluctant, if not outright defiant, people. Definately bad news on any battlefront of any kind. Not to mention cut the political division in this country even deeper. It is a recipe for more bad news at home. Add a "militarized" culture and you have a potentially explosive environment right here on home soil.

The "democrats" are going to carry on with the same geo-political agenda as the "republicans". Just as William Clinton did in Yugoslavia. This idea that "the democrats" - their leadership at party level - are against this is a media illusion. A big show. You might recall that the "republicans" all fell down at William Clinton's feet in the end when it came to the attack and invasion of serbia.

There are in fact a great number of conservatives that oppose the geo-political agenda in the middle east, and would likewise oppose any expansion of this insanity into central asia. Regardless of the next bogeyman erected for the purpose.

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

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

[280plus]

You keep mentioning this word "conspiracy" as if it has some bearing on this subject. Perhaps you know something we don't and can elaborate.

I'm assuming YOU are inferring that the UN, Bush and others are somehow conspiring to bring about this "global socialism". So then, there is no conspiracy to bring it about, it's just happening all by itself? 

I also recognize that without the blessing and cooperation of the general population of any country we go into to "flush the toilet" the efforts would be fruitless.

And what of the picture the media is painting of the situation in Iraq? I hear again and again from informed sources, meaning people who have been there, that things aren't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe. What is the MEDIA'S agenda? That's what you should be asking.

Who's going to pay for it and with what? I'd say it's a global concern. All peace loving nations should ante up. If we fail, it won't be pretty for anybody, anywhere.

Why should we be concerned with being the world's toilet flusher? I think that's a great analogy. I used to work as a maintenance man at a nursing home, maybe 150 double occpancy rooms. You know what I would come to work to every Monday mornig? At least 5 toilets packed to the top with paper and human waste. You know why? Because those toilets stopped flushing and didn't get flushed all weekend and a toilet that doesn't get flushed collects more and more crap until it pretty much overflows. That's what happens in the various global toilets. That's why there are pirates off the coast of Somalia and terrorist gatherings within. All the crap is collecting there because nobody's flushing the toilet and it'll overflow sooner or later and we darn well might get some on us. This is what you want?

[CAnnoneer]

Possibly, but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?

Funny that you should mention that. It was a long-standing tradition with the Romans to wait for a good pretext, or provoke one, so that they appear the wronged party. Then they invade the particular location and establish Roman rule and society to cultivate the barbarians and thus stop the attacks. In many cases, invasions (such as ones in Gaul earlier and Germany later) were "reprisals" operations against barbarians that attacked Roman provinces. Curiously, the Byzantines and especially the British adopted the same practices. In some cases, all three would wait for a proper escalation before responding, so that they have more apparent justification to do so and rile up their own political camp.

The problem with all three empires was that eventually historical and ecological changes, economic and political decay, and the sheer costs of militarization rotted their structures to such extent that collapse was inevitable. In addition, in the later stages of their existence, they first switched to professional indigenous troops, and later, to foreign mercenaries. In fact, the Turks that utlimately wasted Byzantine were initially paid and invited to come by a Byzantine emperor who needed them as mercenary troops against enemies foreign and domestic...

There are remarkable parallels among the above and what we seem to be doing right now. We waste our own money to militarize to put boots on the ground of foreign lands to cultivate them to be more like us, so they do not grow barbarians/terrorists to come and attack us in our own provinces. We have a crippling liberal/multicultural rot that spreads across our society and civilization. We spend far more than we make. We get dragged in other people's problems (e.g. Israel). We already are at the stage of professional armies while the citizenry is being turned into a scared, dumb mob that would follow anyone. We even have started recruiting foreign and domestic mercenaries, e.g. security companies and foreign troops we pay for. Instead of the Coliseum, we have Hollywood and American Idol. Instead of opium pipes, we have natural and synthetic drugs. In many respects, we are even worse and more decadent than Rome itself. At least the Romans, Byzantines, and British did not teach their children to hate and despise their civilization, race, history, and culture in favor of barbarian races and cultures.

I see no reason why history would not repeat itself and therefore urge we hit the brakes on imperial world-policeman ambitions while there is still time. The added challenge is that now we have even stronger political and economic forces that NEED a world policeman, just like a mafia boss needs an enforcer. Free capital cannot awash the world if political instabilities can wreck or rogue states can confiscate properties at whim.

[LAK]

280plus

I'm assuming YOU are inferring that the UN, Bush and others are somehow conspiring to bring about this "global socialism". So then, there is no conspiracy to bring it about, it's just happening all by itself?

Why are you assuming that?

Why not instead simply say .... "They are bringing it about"? I do not see them trying to hide what they are doing. Do you?

Of course it happens all by itself. Like the progression of socialism in this country - it just happened all by itself  

I also recognize that without the blessing and cooperation of the general population of any country we go into to "flush the toilet" the efforts would be fruitless.

This makes sense. So what makes you think that the general populations of the countries of central asia have the slightest blessings or intend to co-operate with us flushing their toilets with thousands of them likely to get "flushed" along those bogeymen and "terrorists" - based on their observations of our "efforts" in say yugoslavia and iraq?

And what of the picture the media is painting of the situation in Iraq? I hear again and again from informed sources, meaning people who have been there, that things aren't nearly as bad as the media would have you believe. What is the MEDIA'S agenda? That's what you should be asking.

I do not need to be asked. The media is there to obligingly report and present the picture required on the day concerned. Like when Mr crook Chalabi's hired thugs were made to appear to fill Baghdad square when Saddam's statue was pulled down. And that half of Baghdad was thronging through the streets welcoming their "liberators". How so very co-operative of the we-hate-bush-liberal-left-oppose-the-war-media.

How many iraqi civilians in total have been murdered, maimed, tortured, raped, robbed, displaced, had their homes destroyed - or have had friends and or family that have experienced the same fate - from day one to present? What exactly is life like for the average iraqi - christian, sunni or other - in the areas not controlled by our military now?. Why are CNN reporters not randomly conducting live unedited interviews with iraqis on the streets all over iraq asking them what the story is? Many iraqis speak english, and even those who do not could be subtitled, with the original audio intact and unedited for those who can to verify the entire translations? Not such a rosey overall picture I suspect.

Do you think you're the only person who knows people who have been or are in iraq?

Who's going to pay for it and with what? I'd say it's a global concern. All peace loving nations should ante up. If we fail, it won't be pretty for anybody, anywhere.

You did not answer my question. Who is paying now? Who is going to pay for the conquest of central asia? Not who "should"; who is going to pay, and with what?

Why should we be concerned with being the world's toilet flusher? I think that's a great analogy. I used to work as a maintenance man at a nursing home, maybe 150 double occpancy rooms. You know what I would come to work to every Monday mornig? At least 5 toilets packed to the top with paper and human waste. You know why? Because those toilets stopped flushing and didn't get flushed all weekend and a toilet that doesn't get flushed collects more and more crap until it pretty much overflows. That's what happens in the various global toilets. That's why there are pirates off the coast of Somalia and terrorist gatherings within. All the crap is collecting there because nobody's flushing the toilet and it'll overflow sooner or later and we darn well might get some on us. This is what you want?

One man unclogging five toilets in a nursing home is not quite the same as conquering, occupying and rebuilding a major portion of planet earth with no army and no money.

Do you know, or do you think for a second that he combined brains of the entire U.S. gov know, what the militant populations of all the middle eastern and central asian "problem" nations of the world are? How many people who are not so now, but will be - when their first son, daughter, father or mother is murdered, raped, or has their homes flattened?

What would you do if a foreign military force ran roughshod over your state, town, or neighborhood - and killed half your family "in the chaos of war"?

Or occupied the state capitol, leaving your town wide open - and in a racial feud over the local areas, rival thugs raped, tortured and murdered their way through your household? Would you just shrug it off and say, "I know guys, you meant well - it was terrorists who did this to my family. You guys have my full support."

You have not thought this out very well.

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

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

[Ezekiel]

"Damn."  (From the thread that will not die.)

Good stuff, CAnnoneer.

[280plus]

One man unclogging five toilets in a nursing home is not quite the same as conquering, occupying and rebuilding a major portion of planet earth with no army and no money

You miss my point. The point is if it doesn't get done it only gets worse.

I understand all of what you say but simply believe that while yes, these are all very unfortunate things you are talking about, it is all necessary for our long term survival. Would I have liked to seen a better outcome thus far? Of course. I never wanted to go in there to begin with but now that we are there I recognize that it is very important to finish what we started. Whatever it takes. To say I haven't thought it all out is a pretty good sized assumption on your part too. 

"Damn."  (From the thread that will not die.)

I agree. I have neither the time nor inclination to continue so I'll leave off here.

[LAK]

Not even a good cop out. Did not address anything in particular and finishing with; "I have neither the time nor inclination to continue." - this exactly is the driving force for what is coming to this country just over the horizon.

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

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

[280plus]

I've said what I had to say, my views haven't been swayed nor will they be. Apparently yours will neither. Why go over and over it ad nauseum?

[LAK]

In order for a discussion to be objective, for some kind of conclusive end, the specifics of contention must be tabled, then addressed and resolved. If they are not, the discussion is indeed pointless.

[The Rabbi]

I'll mention that "tabled" in America means to put off something.  "The bill was tabled" means there was an agreement to put off debate for some future time.

[K Frame]

In order for a discussion to be objective, for some kind of conclusive end, the specifics of contention must be tabled, then addressed and resolved. If they are not, the discussion is indeed pointless.

I arrived at that conclusion at the bottom of page 2.

[K Frame]

Possibly, but did Rome , Byzantine etc militarize and foray out into the world to DEFEND themselves or add to their empires?

BOTH.

[280plus]

OK, that's fine, now, are WE trying to expand our empire. Is that why we're there? That's the point I was trying to make, Mike. 

I've answered enough of LAK's points to feel like I made a decent effort to explain my position. I simply don't have the time or feel the neccessity to go through these posts point by point trying to refute them one by one, it accomplishes nothing. I agree war and all it entails is a horrible thing but, sadly, sometimes it's necessary. I was a peace loving hippie pre 911, so don't think all this doesn't tear me apart inside.

[K Frame]

"OK, that's fine, now, are WE trying to expand our empire. Is that why we're there? That's the point I was trying to make, Mike."

Honestly?

I don't really care one way or the other.

[LAK]

Rabbi,

Pardon my english. In a debate, in english, "tabled" does not mean "put off". It is when a matter is brought up for discussion.

Of course all political jargon is not necessarily the same

[LAK]

280plus

I agree war and all it entails is a horrible thing but, sadly, sometimes it's necessary. I was a peace loving hippie pre 911, so don't think all this doesn't tear me apart inside.

Justifying necessity is only one side to this. You have not even touched the arguements regarding it's feasability - even it's possibility.

Murder is murder, theft is theft, and lies are lies. A campaign of war is either feasible, possible, or it is not. The occupation and control of any given number of square miles of a nation, region or continent can be acheived, or it can not. I've never been a peace-loving hippie, and these are not emotional issues. They require resolving objectively, conclusively, based on history and known fact. Not verbal fencing.

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

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

[280plus]

Well, you see, I believe it is both feasible and possible, but only if we act in concert towards the common goal of this nation surviving through the whole mess that now exists. When people become naysayers and fight the process every inch of the way as the Dems have these last 5 or so years we are up the creek. They have undermined all the actions of the current administration continously, at a time when ALL the people should be rallying behind it because if we don't the terroists win. Dividing us politically is tops on their agenda and they have achieved their goal. Right now the media blitz and the Democratic blitz against being on the offensive to protect our interests has eroded the resolve of the people to see this all through to the end. So, in a psychological sense anyways, the terrorists are gaining ground. I'm telling you, as soon as people who think along the same lines as you get their way and force us to back off, we are screwed my friend, screwed. Don't think the enemy doesn't know this, they are just biding their time waiting for just the right moment to make their move and if we don't kill them all first, before they get a chance to act, they will have their day. So go ahead, rail against the war, call it murder, theft and lies, aid and abet the enemy, it'll all come back to haunt you or your children or your grandchildren or their children. My only hope is that when it does, should I still be here I have enough skills and ammo to survive in the new stone age world that the USA will become should our enemies have their way. The idea of having to live off the land at my age, because the infrstructure is gone, is very frightening. Feasibilty, possibilty? Moot points. We have no choice but to strive toward our survival and it should be our one and only concern, regardless of what it takes. You're putting the lives of those people above your own as far as I'm concerned.

[CAnnoneer]

Murder is murder, theft is theft, and lies are lies.

Nope. All three categories are subjective, and therefore they are not absolute.

You kill somebody. Some might call it murder. Some - self-defensive killing. Some - an accident. The objective observation is that you were involved in somebody's demise. Further interpretation is generally subjective. Same with theft and lies.

Finally, as 280plus pointed out, you basically consider our enemies and bystanders to be of equal value or rights as we are. That attitude has never had a good ending in human history. The reality is that looking out for Number One is generally a far more prudent strategy. We should toss out the silly globalist/multiculturalist/kumbaya attitude and get into the business of ensuring the survival of our civilization and way of life. But my guess is we won't, because the liberal rot has taken too deep and strong a hold on our societies. The difference in reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is ample proof of that sad realization. Only a much larger blood-letting may snap us off the road to oblivion.

[Perd Hapley]

Hey now.  Terrorists have rights.  They just don't have a right not to be shot dead when they threaten me and mine.

[CAnnoneer]

Hey now.  Terrorists have rights. 

Nope, they don't. Any convenience, civility, or mercy extended to them is something we do for ourselves, rather than something they are entitled to. That train left a long time ago, when they decided uniforms and conventional warfare are things of the past. A rabid dog garners more sympathy than a terrorist, for it is not the dog's fault it is rabid.

[LAK]

Nope. All three categories are subjective, and therefore they are not absolute.

You kill somebody. Some might call it murder. Some - self-defensive killing. Some - an accident. The objective observation is that you were involved in somebody's demise. Further interpretation is generally subjective. Same with theft and lies.

Very sound philosophical base for civilization. Down that path, should last another ten years. At least.

Very happy to report that despite some lunatics, perverts, and other dangerous types, they still have a long way to go before they become a majority.

Finally, as 280plus pointed out, you basically consider our enemies and bystanders to be of equal value or rights as we are. That attitude has never had a good ending in human history. The reality is that looking out for Number One is generally a far more prudent strategy. We should toss out the silly globalist/multiculturalist/kumbaya attitude and get into the business of ensuring the survival of our civilization and way of life. But my guess is we won't, because the liberal rot has taken too deep and strong a hold on our societies. The difference in reactions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is ample proof of that sad realization. Only a much larger blood-letting may snap us off the road to oblivion.

Yes, a good many germans - but thankfully not that many - were lulled into tossing out that troublesome old fashioned morality and justice. And decided, at the urging of some very skilled talkers, that some people did not share the same status as they did - and therefore were quite happy to pass off any scrutiny of the official process as a hindrance.

Of course germans have not been the only ones to have been steered this way at one time or another. 

fistful,

It is not just a matter of terrorists having rights - it is a matter of defining "terrorist" - and being absolutely certain that your target is actually a terrorist and engaged or about to engage in some deadly or sverely injurous act before simply deciding to snuff them out.

Every man woman and child in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and a dozen or two other countries could be termed "suspects" - just by their geographical locations. Right here at home "terrorist" and "terrorism" are terms have been and are being inserted into a number of more than questionable legislative acts.

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

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

[LAK]

280plus

Well, you see, I believe it is both feasible and possible, but only if we act in concert towards the common goal of this nation surviving through the whole mess that now exists. When people become naysayers and fight the process every inch of the way as the Dems have these last 5 or so years we are up the creek. They have undermined all the actions of the current administration continously, at a time when ALL the people should be rallying behind it because if we don't the terroists win.

Really? You mean like Chalabi's hired thugs' performance in Baghdad, and CNN's co-operative film editing? The "liberal-we-hate-bush-and-the-war-left-media"?

It is very clear that you have not really any idea what it takes in manpower and resources to occupy and control an area the size of central asia - from the middle east clear across to China. From southern Russia right down to central Africa and Indonesia. And stamp out the resistance of what would inevitably amount to the sustantial portion of something like 1.2 billion people.

Your reasoning is as far out as the so-called "dems" you say are stalling the great conquest. The fact is, the "dems" are as behind this insanity as the "republicans" - as was the case visa versa in Serbia and elsewhere.

Tony Blair and his government are "dem" - leftist. As far "leftist" in western politics as you can get. Are you really so naive as to think that somehow the errors and perversions of liberal and socialistic ideology and thinking uniquely affect those in american politics - and not the UK and elsewhere?

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

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