A Legit Question

[TheScotsman]

(Keep in mind, just about every Canadian wants Ron Paul to win nonetheless... whereas every other candidate wants to intensify NAFTA, which fucks us royally, Paul wants to withdraw from it completely. So I'm arguing against my own national interests )

Come on down and vote!

Just practice a cheesy Mexican accent, and head to San Franfreako, they let anyone vote there.


I can't believe Canada let themselves get roped into NAFTA. Or stay in it for that matter.

[gaia.plateau]

I'm really not very knowledgeable about Canadian politics (have always taken classes in international politics instead), but most people I talk to about it speak like we had/have a gun to our head on the matter, and when I've chatted with Mexicans they seem to feel the same way. I know that if we break any of its agreements (like selling you guys water), it's officially an act of war.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=6859

But yeah, we're pretty retarded up here. We pay a 27% duty to sell you our lumber... I don't know why we don't just process it ourselves and ship it to China. I guess we're just colossal pussies and don't want to offend anyone Edited March 2, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[J-thehookaholic]

The economic factors behind Germany's mobilization to war are just that. Global attitudes toward war and absolutely atrocious statecraft were much more to blame. The League of Nations (and it's brainchild, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928) was arguably the institution most detrimental to peace, which was its mandate, in the history of the world (the World Bank and IMF might give it a run for its money though). The main reason for the failure of the League was that the US was outside of it, making it illegitimate. Now, that's fine- the imperative of state sovereignty means you didn't have to, and WW2 turned out spectacularly for you in a certain way of thinking. The point is that now you depend on collective security for your survival, and just like the democratic states of Europe in 1939, if collective security fails now you'll be the one to feel the ultimate brunt of it in the late-post modern era.

2) Iraq is a complex one, while I don't think we should be in the middle of a civil war and meddling in their internal politics, we do have responsibility to rebuild as we said we would. Militarily we should get out, if they want to kill eachother so be it, I'm tired of seeing our men and women comming home because they got caught in someone eleses civil war. We tired that once in Vietnam, it didn't turn out to well. they used the domino theory there and all of asia didn't go to shit.

They want to kill each other because they live in a culture of violence, the seeds of which were planted by the Brits in 19th century and watered and fertilized by Reagan in the 80s. It was a powderkeg, but a contained one, until the Coalition of the Willing dropped a few matches into it. If Ron Paul had his way and pulled your forces out, you would see an international fallout that would make you look fondly back to 2004-8 when, relatively, you had a shining international reputation. Not to mention the millions of dead Iraqis, a great percentage of which would likely be innocent Kurds.

4) Isereal does not need our military or financial support, they're quite capable of taking care of themselves.

5) The UN and NATO are a joke, the only purpose they serve is to bring about a one world government. and we've been giving up our national sovereignty to those two bodies. No one pays their fare share in either one and I'm tired of money being taken out of my pocket for it.

You're not seeing the point... the UN means and is representative of collective security, which means that if any nation aggresses against another, all other nations will defend the aggressed-upon. Now whether this works, or whether what we really have is selective security, thinly disguising a continued Great Powers system, is another topic of discussion. The point is that it's a hell of a lot better than what we had before, when war was generally considered to be a political instrument.

It's not about Israel needing the US's protection, it's about the states involved (Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, potentially Pakistan and others) needing at least the pretension to collective security to keep one another from blowing the hell out of the Middle East. Even if you don't care about the hundreds of millions of lives at stake, its the warlords that would pick up the pieces, and they could very possibly still be willing to aggress against the Westerners that oppressed them for over a century.

6) It really isn't short sighted. Its a return to the policies that founders of this country touted and worked well for us. What we're doing now is exactly what the founders said not to which is get entangled in a web of alliances and meddle in other countries affairs. We should not be the world's policemen.

No one wants that, but you can't sit outside the circle commanding the largest military on the planet; that makes you the world's bully. There are a lot of policies that you had in America in the 1700s... one was shitting in the bushes and wiping with pinecones. Another, as you may recall, was an absolute aversion to standing armies. Those both worked well then. It's one thing to stay out of countries affairs, it's another to pretend to do this while continuing to exploit the political and economic resources of the Global South and while continuing to use the most technologically powerful military on earth to your own purposes as the international order crumbles.

I'm not disputing that the league didn't work b/c we weren't in it, I just think there other factors that contributed to WWII just as much.

As for "If Ron Paul had his way and pulled your forces out, you would see an international fallout that would make you look fondly back to 2004-8 when, relatively, you had a shining international reputation." I don't think our reputation is all that stellar right now, we started a preemptive war and lied to the world about the reasons for war. Things could always be worse, but things are far from stellar and I don't think under any circumstances anyone would look the past 8 years as a stellar moment in America's international Relations.

I just think its highly hypocritical to sit there and constantly say how we want to promote democracy and freedom, meanwhile we force these countries to do our bidding and prop up regimes that the people don't want. I'm sorry but to thats anything but democracy. Our foreign policy is severely flawed, we need to step back and really look at what we are doing in the world and whether what we are doing is really beneficial, not just for us, but for all sides. If we want to promote peace, lets promote peace, usually that doesn't involve starting preemptive wars. If want to promote democracy, by all means lets do so. Promoting democracy doesn't mean we get to go into another country and tell them what to do, nor does it mean we subsidize regimes that no one wants.

[gaia.plateau]

I don't think our reputation is all that stellar right now, we started a preemptive war and lied to the world about the reasons for war. Things could always be worse, but things are far from stellar and I don't think under any circumstances anyone would look the past 8 years as a stellar moment in America's international Relations.

That's my point... if you pull out of Iraq as Ron Paul would have it immediately done, your reputation as it is now will be remembered as more than stellar, compared to what it will become.

I just think its highly hypocritical to sit there and constantly say how we want to promote democracy and freedom, meanwhile we force these countries to do our bidding and prop up regimes that the people don't want. I'm sorry but to thats anything but democracy. Our foreign policy is severely flawed, we need to step back and really look at what we are doing in the world and whether what we are doing is really beneficial, not just for us, but for all sides. If we want to promote peace, lets promote peace, usually that doesn't involve starting preemptive wars. If want to promote democracy, by all means lets do so. Promoting democracy doesn't mean we get to go into another country and tell them what to do, nor does it mean we subsidize regimes that no one wants.

I don't disagree with you, but this is hardly anything new. Look at Honduras in 1903, Mexico in the 30s, Spain in 1935, the Phillipines 1948-54. Especially look at Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954. Lebanon 1958, Iraq 1963, Indonesia 1965, Iran 1970, Chile 1973, Angola 1976-92, Iran 1980-90, Nicaragua 1981-90, Panama 1989, Kosovo 1999, Haiti 2004.

All illegal military operations, and the bolded examples are direct overthrowings of democratic regimes- in every example (exceptions of Iran in the 80s, who survived, and Spain, which was allowed to fall), brutal autocratic dictatorships were set up.

Your positive attitude toward democracy and peace is fine, just don't think that this turn toward the undemocratic and bellicose is a new thing Edited March 3, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[J-thehookaholic]

I don't think our reputation is all that stellar right now, we started a preemptive war and lied to the world about the reasons for war. Things could always be worse, but things are far from stellar and I don't think under any circumstances anyone would look the past 8 years as a stellar moment in America's international Relations.

That's my point... if you pull out of Iraq as Ron Paul would have it immediately done, your reputation as it is now will be remembered as more than stellar, compared to what it will become.

I just think its highly hypocritical to sit there and constantly say how we want to promote democracy and freedom, meanwhile we force these countries to do our bidding and prop up regimes that the people don't want. I'm sorry but to thats anything but democracy. Our foreign policy is severely flawed, we need to step back and really look at what we are doing in the world and whether what we are doing is really beneficial, not just for us, but for all sides. If we want to promote peace, lets promote peace, usually that doesn't involve starting preemptive wars. If want to promote democracy, by all means lets do so. Promoting democracy doesn't mean we get to go into another country and tell them what to do, nor does it mean we subsidize regimes that no one wants.

I don't disagree with you, but this is hardly anything new. Look at Honduras in 1903, Mexico in the 30s, Spain in 1935, the Phillipines 1948-54. Especially look at Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954. Lebanon 1958, Iraq 1963, Indonesia 1965, Iran 1970, Chile 1973, Angola 1976-92, Iran 1980-90, Nicaragua 1981-90, Panama 1989, Kosovo 1999, Haiti 2004.

All illegal military operations, and the bolded examples are direct overthrowings of democratic regimes- in every example (exceptions of Iran, who survived, and Spain, which was allowed to fall), brutal autocratic dictatorships were set up.

Your positive attitude toward democracy and peace is fine, just don't think that this turn toward the undemocratic and bellicose is a new thing

I never claimed it was new, its something we've been doing since the early 20th century on a regular basis. And I think we need to step back and seriously look at the policies we've been using and their effects, b/c I think its far more detremental than its made out to be by the media and gov't to the common man on both sides and only benefits a few rich elite. I think what I'm to high light and point out is that the Ideals that this country has always held and stood for and our policies since the early 20th century are two very different things. Its like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth and that is a huge piece of why we are not liked and why we are attacked in the middle east.

[gaia.plateau]

I misunderstood the chronological application of your ire

It's more than just policy though... look at your average Christian in North America, just for example. Racist, homophobic, self-serving, and babbling on constantly about how great Jesus was with his messages of tolerance, compassion and selflessness. Edited March 2, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[jayson]

I guess we're just colossal pussies and don't want to offend anyone

I'm tempted to say +1 but I think I will restrain myself.

But seriously. This is one of those shitty pieces of legislation that everyone hates, but continues to live with. Few Americans like the idea of NAFTA. It sounds like our neighbors think the same way. Why the FUCK do we still have it in place then? Because the talking heads think they know better.

Free trade is never free.

[J-thehookaholic]

I guess we're just colossal pussies and don't want to offend anyone

I'm tempted to say +1 but I think I will restrain myself.

But seriously. This is one of those shitty pieces of legislation that everyone hates, but continues to live with. Few Americans like the idea of NAFTA. It sounds like our neighbors think the same way. Why the FUCK do we still have it in place then? Because the talking heads think they know better.

Free trade is never free.

The talking heads always think they know everything, and time and time again, they in fact prove they know nothing.

PS. I don't know if this has pissed anyone else off during the primaries. But, where does Wolf Blitzer and CNN get off calling a primary literally seconds after the polls close and with 0%.....ZERO FUCKING PERCENT! of the polls reporting. Now maybe its just me, but I thought in a democracy we actually had to count the votes cast.

[gaia.plateau]

No one was watching it anyway. It's CNN.

[J-thehookaholic]

No one was watching it anyway. It's CNN.

(sigh) sadly I was

[NoPeace]

The question I want to pose is do we even have democracy in this country anymore or just the illusion of it? And how free can we really be with 6 companies controlling the media and a private bank (the Fed Reserve) printing (or if you like, conterfieting) money and controling the money supply of this country with little or no over sight?

now...discuss

coming from the DC area which is an extremely political area ( no shit!!) and having a gf who's father is one of the leading chairmen for the WTO as well as a lawyer for companies like Nike, etc. i have to ultimately say that it is because of the Bush/ Cheney's economic philosophy of complete incompetent monopolization and they can slack off as long as they have some major corporation do it. Ultimately they want to rid the US of the middle class. THEY ARE BEYOND RETARDED.

[J-thehookaholic]

spot on

[ryno]

It's more than just policy though... look at your average Christian in North America, just for example. Racist, homophobic, self-serving, and babbling on constantly about how great Jesus was with his messages of tolerance, compassion and selflessness.

I could not have said that any better my self. I don't mind you if you are religious, but the minute you start to try and force your beliefs on me, I just can’t take it. I've never been a religious person myself (only been to church twice) and I have respect for the people that are religious and follow theirs and respect my or others opinions about religion.



This kind of goes on how the U.S. tries to put democracy on people. I see Vietnam all in Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, I support our troops, but I’d like to know ALL the reasons we are there. The one I remember was getting Saddam out of power, which we have. I hate how the U.S. government keeps many secrets from the people. I really do wonder what the founding fathers would say if they saw their country now… That topic about who you’d want to smoke hookah with, I’d have to pick the founding fathers to see what they actually meant for the states to be like.

[end my rambling rant!]

[gaia.plateau]

having a gf who's father is one of the leading chairmen for the WTO as well as a lawyer for companies like Nike, etc.

Assassinate him. You'll be doing a greater amount of good for the world than the vast majority of people accomplish in their lifetime, plus I'll buy you any hookah you want!

[Voski]

I didn't read any of the posts in the thread except the first one but I think that the electoral college is unnecessary and lets people win when they really didn't.

[J-thehookaholic]

I didn't read any of the posts in the thread except the first one but I think that the electoral college is unnecessary and lets people win when they really didn't.

I too have some problems with the electorial college, but in its supposed theory it does have its merits. It is there to keep the country from being swept away by a demigoge. Which in theory is cool, kinda makes sense b/c whereas the person is smart, people are mindless idots, its supposed to help prevent a Hitler situation. However, I think its the last line of defense for the powerful interest in this country. A change I would love to see made is that states not be winner take all, I think a proportional system would be better, more representative and make election night far more interesting to watch.... kinda like most primaries for the most part. And yes the electorial college does let people win when they really see didn't (Bush in 2000). Edited March 3, 2008 by J-thehookaholic

[MechAnt]

Proportional system is the way to go. I like the Electoral college EXCEPT for the winner takes all thing. +1 for J

[gaia.plateau]

I like the Aussie preferential voting system.

[J-thehookaholic]

I like the Aussie preferential voting system.

Which is?

[gaia.plateau]

I like the Aussie preferential voting system.

Which is?

As I understand it, on the ballot you pick your top 4-or-however-many out of the 7-or-however-many choices... your first vote is the only one that immediately counts... if no one candidate gets more than 30% of the popular vote, they tabulate the second choices... then the third... etc.

[ahwahoo2006]

Unfortunately, The US only has a 2 party system, which would not be compatible with preferential voting. The best change, IMHO, would be to expand the number of parties in this country and go to proportional representation. However, the downside to that is that if you think nothing gets accomplished now, wait until there are several more factions. The Electoral College is certainly not the best system, but it is the system we have - changing it would require a Constitutional Amendment, the chances of which happenening are slim to none. As someone previously mentioned, the College functions as a check to what Alexis de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority" - the mob mentality that often prevails. It also had the practical function of enabling representation for all people when all people could not get to a poll (in times before cars and the information superhighway).

What is important to remember, though, is that politicians serve their true constituents (i.e. those corporations and individuals who give them money). Changing parties just changes the places that money goes - the majority of people still get the shaft.

[J-thehookaholic]

What is important to remember, though, is that politicians serve their true constituents (i.e. those corporations and individuals who give them money). Changing parties just changes the places that money goes - the majority of people still get the shaft.

There needs to be away to stop corporate donations. And I don't think Corporations can use a free speech arguement on this since the corporations do not have a vote as you or I do, nor should they ever. When you have corporations giving money to candidates that then means those candidates are beholden to corporate interest and not the interest of the common man.

[J-thehookaholic]

Utterly stunned no one has commented on this link http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/paul...sshairs119.html
since I posted it.

[mushrat]

it's all an illusion.....but it could be worse.

[J-thehookaholic]

it's all an illusion.....but it could be worse.

It is worse. If anyone has any doubts about it, or that country is financially fucked read this.

http://counterpunch.com/whitney03132008.html