Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 239 240 [241] 242 243 244
3601
3DHS / Re: Proposed 700-mile wall on the U.S.-Mexico border & the Berlin Wall
« on: October 19, 2006, 08:30:49 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:01:05 PM

Gorbachev, 75, who lives in Moscow, said the Oct. 7 assassination of journalist Anna Politkovskaya bodes poorly for the advent of democracy in the Russian Federation. Noting she worked for a newspaper in which he is part owner, Novaya Gazeta, he said her unsolved shooting death in the apartment building where she lived was related to her work.


Cathy Young has an article about Anna Politkovskaya's death at Reason Online.

3602
3DHS / Re: New Democrat Slogan....'Common Good'
« on: October 18, 2006, 09:24:53 PM »
Quote

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community--sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."


This reveals a lot about how Mr. Halpin thinks of the American people. Apparently he thinks we need government to enforce a shared sacrifice and to return us to the ethic of service and duty. Why do we need this? Because, according to Mr. Halpin American society is becoming more materialistic, greedier and more corrupt. Mr. Halpin apparently believes it is okay for "progressives" to do what he and others would scream about if conservative Christians were to do it. And that is, to impose their moral preferences on everyone else. And it is just as wrong for "progressives" do this as it is for Christians. Indeed, Mr. Halpin's vision of America seems little different than that of the fundamentalist Christians who see America as carnal, self-centered and morally corrupt. And his solution is basically the same as that of the "religious right", to forcibly remold society to suit his moral preferences. And his reason is almost exactly the same, to "return" to a society that better reflects his moral preferences because it's good for people. The problem with this, whether from Christians or "progressives", is that it is not a selfless attitude but one of selfish desire for control over others. And there is nothing progressive about that. Quite the opposite, it is regressive and oppressive.

3603
3DHS / Re: If defeat is inevitable in Iraq
« on: October 18, 2006, 08:52:43 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

It is becoming clear thatl defeat is inevitable, in the sense that: Iraq has not become a democracy, might become an islamic republic, might fall apart, might get into an increasingly bloody civil war.


The question I want to ask is, why have we set ourselves up in the position that these things are a defeat for us? Setting aside the Iraq/Saddam/WMD as threat to America reason for attacking Iraq, because we did defeat Iraq's military and topple their government, why are we now facing defeat if Iraq does not become a democracy and/or end up in civil war? Why did we have to enforce an American guided nation building program in Iraq?

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

But maybe scenes like the fall of Saigon can be avoided, if we tell the Iraqi leaders that: 1) We will leave 1. december 2007 - no matter what.


Why wait till December of next year?

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

2) "All your airspace are belong to us"


What would that do for us?

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

3) We will pay xxxx $ for any foreign islamic fighter delivered to our forces (if they know they will be free, they have no need of Al-Qaeda),


You might as well offer money for any political opponent, because that is what we would get. I see no point in setting up a system of corruption for them.

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

4) You will not export oil, if Al-Qaeda operates in Iraq.


How would you enforce this?

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

5) If you want to divide the country - fine - but if you can't agree on the borders, then we will draw them, and bomb those who try to invade.


Why would we want to do that?

Quote from: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM

6) If you want to export oil, you will have to share it fairly between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.


Again, why would we want to do that? Leave it to the private sector to deal with the oil.

Why do we have to tell them how to run their country? We don't let other countries tell us how to run our country. Can't we let them do the same?

3604
3DHS / Re: Pride, Honor, Culture and War
« on: October 17, 2006, 07:02:32 PM »
Quote from: domer on October 17, 2006, 03:09:24 PM

First, I reject the very categories the author constructs. "Interest" and "honor" are not incompatible; indeed, their coalescence depends upon how broadly, yet cohesively, we can define the terms, indeed, identify the intellectual and kinetic fields in which they play out.


Then again, perhaps we don't need to see how broadly yet cohesively we can define the terms. How we define 'honor' may color how we discuss the way in which interest and honor relate to one another, but the important defintion of 'honor' in the context of this discussion is the definition given to it by the Muslims who live in the Middle East. If we ignore that so we can play semantic games, we might as well not bother because we've already missed the point.

Quote from: domer on October 17, 2006, 03:09:24 PM

The very narrowness -- blindness -- of the jihadists' conception of their motivation is precisely one prong of their arsenal we should attack vigorously. A closed-system falls most surely to an exposure to openness, an exposure that not only ameliorates the harsher elements of the radicals but subsumes their worldview in a larger, TRUER (and demonstrably so) reality.


That assumes they would listen to what we have to say. While we look at them and wonder why they are so harsh, they are are looking at us and wondering why we are so soft. From their point of view, as best I can tell, we hold the weaker position not in terms of physical strength, but in terms of righteous philosophy. You speak of a truer reality, but by their worldview we are the ones who need to be subjugated to what they consider a truer reality. And attacking that 'reality' vigorously could easily feed their view of us as attacking their religion and their honor. Yes, we should seek to undermine the narrow rigidness of their concept of honor, but they are not likely to listen to us if they think we're lacking in understanding of the nature of honor, no matter how vigorous we might be.

Quote from: domer on October 17, 2006, 03:09:24 PM

This is but one aspect of comprehensive offensive against violent, radical Islamic extremism, but it is crucial. Turning the enemies' bloodthirsty hate and anger into a dysfunctional atavism is a core enterprise in the struggle. Yet, we fight on all fronts, including the military (et al.) battlefields where tthe "sense of honor" the author speaks of not only is a helpful store of information for our troops, but is indeed matched and surpassed by them. A battle rightly joined among "honorable" men has as one of its basic currencies the "honor" of which we speak. The winner will use it as a tool rather than let the concept run an unguided course, subsuming interest.


You appear to be assuming the Islamic extremists' idea of honor and the American military idea of honor are somehow fundamentally similar. The point of the article, and I tend to agree, is that they are fundamentally different. We do not have a conflict between men with similar codes of honor. We have a conflict between men of radically different codes of honor. Indeed, it is perhaps those differences that lie at the heart of the conflict. A conflict between similar codes of honor would indicate a conflict merely of interest, which could perhaps be resolved with some sort of compromise or an evolution of ideas. A conflict of honor, on the other hand, means there is no compromise possible because to compromise is to capitulate. This is not a fight for honor but a fight of honor, which is to say the honor is in the fight, in the conflict, and so to give up the fight is to surrender the honor. And again, if we ignore this to play semantic games about what honor "really" means, then we will have missed the point.

3605
3DHS / Pride, Honor, Culture and War
« on: October 17, 2006, 02:41:05 PM »
Excerpts from "Pride Goeth Before A Brawl: The terror war is an honor war" by Jonathan Rauch

                                                    Boiling Bowman's richly nuanced 327 pages down to four paragraphs does the book a cruel disservice, but this is journalism, so here goes. Honor, for Bowman's purposes, means "the good opinion of people who matter to us." The basic honor code requires men to maintain a reputation for bravery, women a reputation for chastity. If a man is insulted, injured, or disrespected, he must avenge the offense and prove that anyone who messes with him (or "his" women) will be sorry.

The West's history is rich with traditions of honor, and equally rich with examples of its dangers and follies, among them the duel that killed the most brilliant of America's Founders. Singularly, however, the West has backed away from honor. Under admonitions from Christianity to turn the other cheek and from the Enlightenment to favor reason over emotion, the West first channeled honor into the arcane rituals of chivalry, then folded it into a code of manly but magnanimous Victorian gentlemanliness—and then, in the 20th century, drove it into disrepute. World War I and the Vietnam War were seen as needless butcheries brought on by archaic obsessions with national honor; feminism and the therapeutic culture taught that a higher manly strength acknowledges weakness.

[...]

Thus, Bowman writes, "America and its allies are engaged in a battle against an Islamist enemy that is the product of one of the world's great unreconstructed and unreformed honor cultures." Jihadism wages not only a religious war but a cultural one, aiming to redeem, through deeds of bravery and defiance, the honor of an Islam whose glory has shamefully faded. It aims, further, to uphold a masculine honor code that the West's decadent, feminizing influence threatens to undermine.

Whether or not Bowman has the whole story right, the prism of honor brings puzzling elements of the current conflict into sharper focus. Americans are baffled that Western appeals to freedom and prosperity get so little traction in the Arab and Muslim worlds. America's example as the "shining city on a hill" inspired liberalizing movements from Eastern Europe to Tiananmen Square; why should the Middle East be different? One answer is that traditional honor cultures value vindication over freedom and wealth. Militant Islamism and Baathist-style national socialism offer narratives of restored greatness and heroic resistance. Ballot boxes and shopping malls offer neither. If freedom brings humiliation, what good is it?

[...]

In the modern West, interest trumps honor (or subsumes it). We don't shoot ourselves in the foot to prove we're tough and fierce. Or, if we do, we expect to be ridiculed, not admired. If interest trumps honor, a country will swallow its pride in the face of a defeat or setback and make the best of its lot. For Germany after World War II (and for Japan, which was quick to adopt Western ways), getting rich was the best revenge.

In a traditional honor culture, that sort of pride-swallowing compromise may not be possible. Honor trumps interest (or subsumes it). The well-educated and talented Arabs of the Levant might today be enjoying the same prosperity and security as Spain or South Korea if years ago they had accepted Israel as a fact of life, made peace, and moved on. To Hamas and Hezbollah militants and their supporters, however, Israel's continued existence is a standing humiliation, and the debt to honor must be paid, never mind the cost.

Nor can militant Islamists settle with the West. When the post-honor West says, "Come, now, give up this foolishness, join our club, be free and rich," they hear something more like, "Be our poodle, sit at our feet, enjoy the fruits of capitulation." Admonitions that bellicosity accomplishes nothing miss the point, which is that the very act of fighting ("resistance") redeems honor and therefore accomplishes what matters most.		                                                   

Whole article at Reason Online

3606
3DHS / Re: Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here
« on: October 16, 2006, 11:18:58 PM »
Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 12:03:37 PM

One's germain to Pro Baseball, the other to a global governance agenda.  Conceptual comparison is accurate however.  Just because you say so, doesn't mean you're correct


You must have a more flexible concept of 'accurate' than I do.

Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 12:03:37 PM

ha ha ha, how come I knew you were going to flip it.


I have no idea. How did you know?

Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 12:03:37 PM

And here I am willing to acknowledge you were right in the 1st place.  Go figure.


Yeah. Whatever.

Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 12:03:37 PM

I'm sensing your shift in such a prevous position occured around the same time the Iraqi war got into full gear.  If so, interesting coincidence, doncha think?


I don't know what time you think that was or why it would be interesting. But then conversations with you have become confusing. If you say something and I say the same thing back to you, I've misrepresented your opinion; and there is something wrong with me if I admit I was wrong because you think I was right; and your comparisons seem flawed, but you keep saying they're accurate. I must be really stupid because I am apparently unable to comprehend your wisdom.

3607
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 16, 2006, 09:49:23 AM »
Quote from: domer on October 16, 2006, 08:45:39 AM

It's like saying, in so many words, "male bovine excrement," one of your favorites.


A term I use for ideas, things people say, et cetera, not of people themselves. And no one is asking to produce commentary on everything said. All I'm suggesting is that you should criticize the ideas, not the insult the messenger. You know, elevate the debate.

3608
3DHS / Re: Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here
« on: October 16, 2006, 05:47:06 AM »
Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 01:07:35 AM

The terrorists as fascists idea might be convenient for some, and it might even be logical depending on one's premises, but that doesn't mean it is correct

Yea, and you could be an Oakland native, and believe that the Athletics are a better team than the Tigers, but that doesn't mean it's correct either


Apples and oranges.

Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 01:07:35 AM

It just seems that despite the ample circumstantial evidence provided that could easily be deduced as X, but someone keeps saying it's Y, does tend to make be believe that indeed their mind is made up.


Perhaps because your mind is already made up.

Quote from: sirs on October 16, 2006, 01:07:35 AM

And the ironic thing is that your commentary early on played a large part in helping to form my conclusions on this subject.  Go figure


It is indeed ironic because I was willing to recognize that I was wrong.

3609
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 16, 2006, 05:35:43 AM »
As I said before, Domer, your post fits the very definition of 'faux intellectual'. If such comments seemed on the mark and appropriate to you, then perhaps that says something about your status an intellectual.

As for you demaning my ideas, you didn't even address my ideas. Yeah, I get that you're saying my ideas are childish, but again, where I discussed ideas, you turned to name calling, personal insults, and self-righteous verbal bullying. Of the two of us, Domer, the one acting childish is you. You insulted me, made a couple of insulting comments about me and my relationship with my parents, and then insulted me again. If you could be said to have addressed my ideas at all, you did so indirectly at best, and even then you could not bring yourself to say they were bad because they were wrong but merely to imply they were bad because they came from me. Indeed, rather than stripping any nonsense away, you in fact unloaded steaming pile of unnecessary nonsense.

Your pseudo-psychological babble was not a substantive appraisal of anything, but rather a directly insulting comment about me and not my ideas. It was nothing if not a gratuitous ad hominem and served no point, except perhaps to inflate your view of yourself as an intellectual superior.

If you really want to keep this psychological analysis on the table, I can start talking about how your comments reveal in you some serious self-esteem issues and a desire to compensate by trying to make yourself appear intellectually superior to anything you are unable and/or afraid to confront honestly. I could also explain that while I have ideas, am willing to support my ideas and willing to let my ideas come into discussion because I am also willing to be proved wrong, you, Domer, are apparently afraid to discuss my ideas or any ideas contrary to your own because you are afraid to have your comments submitted to any scrutiny that might prove you are wrong. Of course, none of this would be an attack on you, Domer, but rather a sober and substantive appraisal of both the origin and the stature of your childish comments about me.

If you were to actually demean my ideas, I would welcome it. At least then your comments would have some relevance to the discussion. By all means, demean my ideas, but leave your personal issues out of it.

3610
3DHS / Re: Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here
« on: October 16, 2006, 12:47:53 AM »
Quote from: sirs on October 15, 2006, 11:58:13 PM

Quote from: Universe Prince on October 15, 2006, 09:53:39 PM
No, this still doesn't make them fascists. Yes, they are bad people who want to conquer the world, but that isn't enough to make them fascists.

Of course not.  That'd be just too damn logical & convenient.


The terrorists as fascists idea might be convenient for some, and it might even be logical depending on one's premises, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

Quote from: sirs on October 15, 2006, 11:58:13 PM

Especially when one's mind is made up.


You sure you want to go there?

Quote from: sirs on October 15, 2006, 11:58:13 PM

Of course it was never argued that that NWO goal in and of itself was the only measure of their fascist agenda,


No, but you clearly presented it as evidence thereof, via your sarcastic subject line. But it really isn't a measure at all of whether or not someone or some group is fascist.

Quote from: sirs on October 15, 2006, 11:58:13 PM

but let me not get in the way of logical deductions


Now, now, no need to be snippy.

3611
3DHS / Re: Big Government
« on: October 15, 2006, 10:28:09 PM »
Agree.

3612
3DHS / Re: So, seriously.....any ideas on how to deal with North Korea?
« on: October 15, 2006, 09:56:38 PM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 15, 2006, 01:07:04 PM

1. UP would say we are being too interventionist.


I'd appreciate you not talking for me. Thank you.

3613
3DHS / Re: Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here
« on: October 15, 2006, 09:53:39 PM »
Quote from: sirs on October 15, 2006, 03:49:06 PM

Naaa, no Islamofascist goal here


No, this still doesn't make them fascists. Yes, they are bad people who want to conquer the world, but that isn't enough to make them fascists.

3614
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 15, 2006, 09:43:42 PM »
Quote from: domer on October 15, 2006, 06:41:44 PM

Prince, I'll say two things, premised by my observation that you're a faux intellectual with actually very little of substance to say.


This from Mr. Smartass Peacock himself. Your post, Domer, fits the very definition of 'faux intellectual'. Make no mistake, I think you're a intelligent guy, Domer. But sometimes you're an asshole, pretending to be smarter than people with whom you disagree, because climbing on your high horse is easier than mounting an actual substantive counterargument.

Despite your attempt to put me in my place, Domer, I can't help but notice that while I argued about the actual ideas involved in the issue, the best you could muster up was a self-righteous ad hominem attack. Take your own advice, and try to elevate the debate. The pseudo-psychological analysis bullsh-- not only makes you look pharisaic, it is a personal attack that adds nothing to the conversation (or to the forum for that matter) but animosity. There is no need for you to stoop to such tactics. The conceited demeanor of your post is beneath your character, and your refusal to discuss libertarian ideas is beneath your intellectual stature. To persist in both damages you and drags down the forum. Rise above, my friend, and elevate the debate.

3615
3DHS / Re: Will the West survive?
« on: October 14, 2006, 12:20:55 AM »
Quote from: The_Professor on October 13, 2006, 07:05:55 PM

JS, my view, and only my view, is that application of your libertarian views might result in anarchy.


Since JS is not libertarian, I am going to guess that you're talking to me. And I agree with you that at some point my views could lead to anarchy. And I'm okay with that because I agree with Henry David Thoreau. He says, right at the top of his "Civil Disobedience" essay, "I heartily accept the motto,—'That government is best which governs least';  and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." I realize that for most people the term 'anarchy' means some sort of frightening chaos where there is no social order resulting in murder, rape and the like going unpunished; and I am guessing that your use of it here is intended to carry some similar meaning. I'm not sure why people seem to think that protecting the free exercise of the rights of individuals must lead to no protection whatever for the liberty of individuals, except that it must be fear.

Quote from: The_Professor on October 13, 2006, 07:05:55 PM

Where is order? Where are hthe times where the right of society must triumphed over the rights of the few?


And there it is. There are no times when the right of society must triumph over the rights of the few. I realize that this is a frightening concept for some. We, that is we as Americans and even as Westerners, have been taught for decades that we need government, that we need government to decide for us when the so-called "right(s) of society" must trump the rights of the few. We have been taught that with without government protect us from economic depression and robber barons, from slavery and the break up of the Union, from Nazis and communists, from terrorism and whatever horrible threats to civilization that government may tell us lurks out there, without government to protect us from these things civilization would die, chaos and death would run rampant, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. The basic idea is that without government there is no social order. The problem with that idea is there is no reason whatever to believe that is the case.

Personally, I cling to the hope that idea will someday start to fade the way that other stupid ideas taught by societies have begin to fade. The inferiority of women, the inferiority of people with darker skin, that there is something wrong with interracial relationships, that sexuality is something to hide, these are ideas that are fading from our world. That they are not yet gone is to our shame. Some day the notion that without government there is only chaos and no order, I hope, will also begin to fade. I hope that one day the extraordinary failures of government and the abuses of power and rights will no long be presented to children as proof of our need for government but for the ways in which government can be and has been used for damage.

But there is a more fundamental issue here. You speak of the rights of society. What rights does society have? To exist? To pursue what it feels is best for itself? Okay, let's say that society has such rights. Why does it have these rights? Because individuals have these rights. Society is individuals. And to protect the rights of individuals is to protect the rights of society. There is no point at which the rights of society outweigh they rights of individuals because to protect society is to protect the rights of the individual. This the is path of liberty. The path of society's rights outweighing that of the individual is the path of subjugation of individuals to the state, in short, the path of totalitarianism. As I have pointed out before, adopting the methods of totalitarian regimes does not keep a society free. It only makes that society more totalitarian and less free.

I'm not looking for a utopia, and I'm not saying we should eliminate all social structures. I'm not even saying we should abolish all government. I do believe we need social structures, and I think as long as there are humans about there will be social structures. One of the reasons I support liberty is that I believe people should be free to create their own social structures. And no, that doesn't mean murderers, thieves and rapists getting to do whatever they want. Protecting the rights of individuals means protecting them from being abused or taken away by murderers et al and by people in power. I think government is one way to handle protecting the rights of people, but not the only way.

Quote from: The_Professor on October 13, 2006, 07:05:55 PM

I agree with Sirs. This is my last post on this subject. The feldercarb is simply too daunting.


The feldercarb? If you think discussing liberty is feldercarb, that's too bad. But perhaps you meant my comments are feldercarb. In which case, well, you can just frak off. I make no apologies for arguing the case of liberty and peace.

Pages: 1 ... 239 240 [241] 242 243 244