NationStates Jolt Archive

I like you. You think like me.

Well, I love gridlock. I think it just works well. :)

Let's all have a toast to gridlock! :D

Sweet gridlock that checks the extremes of both parties and yet still allows for important legislation and action when the people demand it!

Well, I love gridlock. I think it just works well. :)

Let's all have a toast to gridlock! :D

Sweet gridlock that checks the extremes of both parties and yet still allows for important legislation and action when the people demand it!

Kind of like 1994-2000? Considering the whole impeachment fiasco, I don't know how much the extremes were checked, but in general I agree with you. The biggest problem with the last 5 years is that there's been no checks or balances--one party should never have control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency at the same time.

I don't really believe Bush would say something like that. I'd have to see a video of it with audio, otherwise I won't believe it.

And come on people, can't we all just get along, liberals and conservatives, can't we all try to get along? I mean COME ON. Come ooon. You hippie douche bags you need conservatives, otherwise America would be taken over in a second. And you righteous nationalists, you need these liberals otherwise you wouldn't have such good foreign relations. Certainly you guys can all talk in a sophisticated and non-ignorant manner. You're an okay person as long as you think America kicks ass. If you don't, well, go suck Chiracs nuts.

Kind of like 1994-2000? Considering the whole impeachment fiasco, I don't know how much the extremes were checked, but in general I agree with you. The biggest problem with the last 5 years is that there's been no checks or balances--one party should never have control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency at the same time.

I propose that we go back to the way we used to do things. Two people run for president. The winner becomes president and the loser becomes vice-president.

Then, if we can institute something similar in Congress to keep the tickets mixed, we'd be in business. Somehow, we have to prevent either wing from getting too much heavier than the other.

Ha! No, you're not. What you're saying here is all they'd have to do is say "Convert or else" in a forceful manner and you'd hop right to it.

Well, I should point out that I'm an Athiest. I have no strong belief in any religion. If someone points a gun at my head and says "convert", well, I have no objection to lying through my teeth if it keeps me alive.
Mind you, I'll do my best to kill the sonofabitch if I ever get the chance. Payback's a bitch.


All I can say is, you must lead a sheltered life. (Note: the following is 20% bragging, 30% bitter nostalgia, and 50% reality check.) Having their houses broken into and getting their lives threatened happened nearly every month to my friends who had apartments near Alphabet City in NYC back in the 80s. I had a couple of friends who got violently mugged countless times (it was uncanny, but truth be told, they were tempting targets), and others for whom it was commonplace for thieves, drug addicts or just plain ranting lunatics to just climb into their houses through the perpetually broken windows even while they were sitting there watching them do it. None of them ever decided to join a gang or switch religions out of terror for their lives. Hell, most of them still live in the city. I lived in Queens, myself, where we had organized rings of professional burglars stalking the hallways of our apartment buildings and marking the doors of everyone who had a dog -- including one notation I saw, indicating that a neighbor's dog had died. One time, when I was kid, the apartments directly above and below me got robbed at the same time while I was home alone. We did not move out of that building. Why would we? It was a fantastic apartment. We never even got into the habit of closing our windows, even when, another time, more than half the apartments in the building got robbed in a single afternoon. Shit happens, and even burglars have to make a living, don't they? We saw no reason to deny ourselves fresh air. My neighborhood was also occasionally stalked by serial rapists (I got into a fistfight with one once, in a park), and we were even within Son of Sam's territory. I fit the profile of his victims in those days. Did I move? Nope, I just cut my hair, since he seemed to prefer shooting girls with long hair. In other words, I took a reasonable precaution and carried on with my life.

In addition, throughout most of my childhood, in the 70s and 80s, terrorists were bombing New York City. We had both the Weather Underground (commies who eventually blew themselves up) and Omega 17 (anti-Castro commie-haters who got broken by the FBI after 20 years), as well as numerous no-name gangs of wannabes. Omega 17 assassinated foreign dignitaries and bombed Cuba-friendly businesses in NY and Miami. The Weathermen sent bombs through the mail to random business offices. Did office workers quickly become communists to appease them? No, they just made the bosses open their own damned mail. A woman my mother worked for got her hands and part of her face blown off by a letter bomb. Every day, the bomb squad responded to suspicious packages abandoned on the street. Some were bombs, some not, but precautions were always taken, since abandoned package bombs were popular with the IRA and there was a famous IRA terrorist in prison in New York at that time (can't remember his name; Donovan, Donaghue, something like that). When I was a little kid, the cops would come to our classrooms to give talks about safety and what to do in an emergency and how we should never touch a package we found on the street but should go find a cop immediately instead. None of that stopped us from playing in parks and running around the streets with our friends.

Nowadays, these cowards who call themselves Americans hear about suspicious packages and freak out and cry about how they don't feel safe and how we have to kill the evil doers. Please. These people need to grow some balls. I lived for 31 years in that frigging war zone called New York, and I didn't leave until my paycheck got too small and the roaches got too big. If my pay had kept pace with the vermin, I'd be there still, and if I ever get rich enough to make it worthwhile I'll move back, and let the bombs fall where they may. It's New York, man. Where else would you rather die?


I've been to NY. Left nothing there, no reason to go back.
No, compared to that, I probably have led a sheltered life. A short stint in the Marines, one rather nasty experience with a Lion in Kenya - pretty much the extent of my flirtation with death. Oh, I have been robbed twice.
I'm glad people like you are around. You're not likely to panic in a crisis, you have the guts to act if action is necessary. That's good.


Oh, and of course, don't forget the first WTC bombing in 1993, during which decade the NYPD was fielding over 200 bomb incidents per week (I got that from the mouth of a bomb squad cop I knew). Yeah, but 9/11 was so unprecedented that nobody could have foreseen it, and now we have to shred the Constitution and declare war on the Middle East and start torturing prisoners to make up for it.


Yet, you seem to be arguing there was no destabilization of our way of life...



And then what happens? Hm? You still have not told me what you think would happen if Americans came to think that. So? Any ideas? Or are you ready to admit that this argument is just as nonsensical when it comes from you as when it comes from our enemies?


Traditionally, what happens next is the destabilization force gets together as impressive a number of troops as it can (training and active combat experience is irrelevant - you're going up against utterly demoralized troops if you've done it right), moves into the capital, and declares itself the new government.
Alternatively, a UN or regional peacekeeping force takes over. Either way, the country's fucked.


Which government? The US government? I knew that Bush and Cheney were a sniveling pair of spineless cowards, but I was not aware that they actually already believed bin Laden to be more powerful than the US.


Please pay attention. The government in question is one that has been on the receiving end of a full-scale destab attack, not an aborted start-up.
Examples: The pre-Sandinista government of Nicargua. Cambodia pre-Khmer Rouge. With a few odd filips of it's own (such as WWII), Nationalist China.


Well, then, why are you wasting our time trying to scare us about a thing that you admit could never possibly happen?


Did I say "it could NEVER happen?" I did not. Do not put words in my mouth.
Every country has fault lines, places where it could literally fall apart if the belief of it's citizens did not hold it together. A traditional destab attack is unlikely to work against any well established democracy, but it is not hard to consider one tailored for a specific nation being successful.
And even an unsuccessful one causes major, and often long term damage. Just ask El Salvador, or Columbia.


Please, try not to turn this into a soft-core drool thread for your personal hero. Instead, answer the question I asked earlier (several times): Precisely what do you think would have happened to the US if your golden boy, Bush, had not been president in 2001?

First, for your information, I don't like GWB. I think he's the worst president since Harding; maybe since Wilson, a man I despise with a passion. This asshole in the White House is the Golden Boy only of the Religious Right, another group I have no time for. But I am a firm believer in giving the devil his due, and Bush responded with considerable alacrity and decisiveness post 9/11. For that, if only for that, he is to be commended.

As to what would have happened: frankly, I do not believe Gore would have had the strength to act decisively enough to prevent the second, and possibly third, strikes, which I am reasonably sure were in the pipeline. Everything about bin Laden that I have seen shows a man of both conviction and intelligence, and I simply do not believe that he would have missed planning for a follow up to his master-stroke. More Americans would have died, and the possibility for real, long-term economic and social damage would have been increased markedly.

Well, I should point out that I'm an Athiest. I have no strong belief in any religion. If someone points a gun at my head and says "convert", well, I have no objection to lying through my teeth if it keeps me alive.
Mind you, I'll do my best to kill the sonofabitch if I ever get the chance. Payback's a bitch.
Then you did not answer my question. You've been carrying on about the damage terrorists can do to us as if they have some kind of power compared to us. I have asked you again and again, what damage can they do, and how much power do you think they have? You have done nothing but sidestep the questions. You seem to think that the terrorists can win. So I ask you yet again -- what will it take for you to say they have won against you? What will it take for you to say they've beaten you?

Is there nothing they can do to you that will make you give in to them? (I'm answering for you on the assumption that you won't answer me this time, either.) That's good. There's nothing they can do to make me give in to them, either, including killing me, the threat of which actually doesn't worry me all that much since (a) Nazz has already pointed out the extreme unlikelihood of this happening and (b) we all gotta die of something anyway.

So, since neither one of us is any danger of being defeated by terrorists, explain to us all exactly what it is we're supposed to be so frigging afraid of.

I've been to NY. Left nothing there, no reason to go back.
No, compared to that, I probably have led a sheltered life. A short stint in the Marines, one rather nasty experience with a Lion in Kenya - pretty much the extent of my flirtation with death. Oh, I have been robbed twice.
I'm glad people like you are around. You're not likely to panic in a crisis, you have the guts to act if action is necessary. That's good.
I'm not a panicker. I'm not a helper, either. You'd better be prepared to pull your own weight or get the hell out of my way in the event of an emergency, 'cause I'm not one to wait on either your sorry ass or FEMA's.

Yet, you seem to be arguing there was no destabilization of our way of life...
That would be because there wasn't any, which was kind of the point of my big long post. :rolleyes:

Traditionally, what happens next is the destabilization force gets together as impressive a number of troops as it can (training and active combat experience is irrelevant - you're going up against utterly demoralized troops if you've done it right), moves into the capital, and declares itself the new government.
Alternatively, a UN or regional peacekeeping force takes over. Either way, the country's fucked.
(Okay, this is the last time I'm going to point you to the exit from Fantasy Land. If you don't wake up this time, I'm going to assume you just like spinning bullshit stories.)

WHEN, precisely, do you expect to see this happening to the US? HOW, precisely, do you think it will happen?

Hm?

I'll wait.

Please pay attention. The government in question is one that has been on the receiving end of a full-scale destab attack, not an aborted start-up.
Examples: The pre-Sandinista government of Nicargua. Cambodia pre-Khmer Rouge. With a few odd filips of it's own (such as WWII), Nationalist China.
So, in other words, not the US. Ergo, something I don't need to give a shit about, because the US operates to a much higher standard of governmental function and social cohesion than Nicaragua, Cambodia or even China.

Perhaps you don't think so. Perhaps you are of the opinion that the US is a third world country lacking food, infrastructure, transportation, communications, education, private and publicly held resources, private and public social services, etc. Perhaps you think the US is a country populated by isolated pockets of uneducated, undernourished peasants interspersed with violent, anti-government factions getting their arms from foreign powers. You could be forgiven for thinking that after Katrina, but I think the US only looks that way when the people wait for their government to do something for them.

By the way, Nicaragua and Cambodia were both countries that were destablized by the US. Maybe what you're really afraid of is karma.

Did I say "it could NEVER happen?" I did not. Do not put words in my mouth.
Every country has fault lines, places where it could literally fall apart if the belief of it's citizens did not hold it together. A traditional destab attack is unlikely to work against any well established democracy, but it is not hard to consider one tailored for a specific nation being successful.
And even an unsuccessful one causes major, and often long term damage. Just ask El Salvador, or Columbia.
More countries that were destabilized by the US. Instead of comparing us to our own victims, why don't you answer my damned questions and point to the weaknesses that exist within the US itself, since you seem so confident that they are there?

First, for your information, I don't like GWB. I think he's the worst president since Harding; maybe since Wilson, a man I despise with a passion. This asshole in the White House is the Golden Boy only of the Religious Right, another group I have no time for. But I am a firm believer in giving the devil his due, and Bush responded with considerable alacrity and decisiveness post 9/11. For that, if only for that, he is to be commended.
I think he is the worst president ever. I think his performance on 9/11 was nothing but bullshit grandstanding that made me want to throw bricks at his worthless smirking head as I watched him gleefully march this country into hell. It runs in my family. The day it happened, my mom called me and said, "Shit. Now they'll attack Iraq." We were just surprised it took him so long to do it.

As to what would have happened: frankly, I do not believe Gore would have had the strength to act decisively enough to prevent the second, and possibly third, strikes, which I am reasonably sure were in the pipeline. Everything about bin Laden that I have seen shows a man of both conviction and intelligence, and I simply do not believe that he would have missed planning for a follow up to his master-stroke. More Americans would have died, and the possibility for real, long-term economic and social damage would have been increased markedly.
I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. You are basing your entire commendation of Bush on something not happening, that he did not stop from happening because it never started happening in the first place, and that you have no evidence ever would have happened. You also have no evidence that it will not happen at any moment in the future from this second on. This is relying on assumptions to the point of ridiculousness.

Also, those remarks about bin Laden are truly disturbing. It makes me wonder if your fear of him isn't tinged with a little admiration. Do you wish we Americans would be just a little more like him? Then I guess it really might not take all that much for the terrorists to make you bow before them.

For myself, everything I've seen of bin Laden shows me a self-serving egotist who gets off on being worshipped by people willing to blow themselves up in his name before even their god's. That man has an agenda against the Saudi government, which he has written about extensively and which is all about amassing personal power for himself. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the US except to the extent that he can use it to promote his personal agenda in Arabia. He's a cheap, greedy, murderous scumbag, like all the other scumbags in the world, and I care about him and his plans about as much as that remark implies.

EDIT: PS: You might want to delete those redundant posts.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW09-20-06.jpg

I saw this and thought I'd share.

Then you did not answer my question. You've been carrying on about the damage terrorists can do to us as if they have some kind of power compared to us. I have asked you again and again, what damage can they do, and how much power do you think they have? You have done nothing but sidestep the questions. You seem to think that the terrorists can win. So I ask you yet again -- what will it take for you to say they have won against you? What will it take for you to say they've beaten you?

Is there nothing they can do to you that will make you give in to them? (I'm answering for you on the assumption that you won't answer me this time, either.) That's good. There's nothing they can do to make me give in to them, either, including killing me, the threat of which actually doesn't worry me all that much since (a) Nazz has already pointed out the extreme unlikelihood of this happening and (b) we all gotta die of something anyway.

So, since neither one of us is any danger of being defeated by terrorists, explain to us all exactly what it is we're supposed to be so frigging afraid of.


I did answer your question; you didn't ask the question you thought you had.
But to answer your intent: I don't believe I would ever actually submit to their will. I would fight. You would too? Good, that's two of us.
The problem is, in the face of force or threat of force, most people fold. If that happens to the point where most of the country has surrendered, then unless you have one hell of a leader to pull you out of it, the COUNTRY surrenders. Then people like you and me wind up as "counter-revolutionary elements" or whatever label the new government ses fit to apply, and we A) are shot, or B) go into exile, or C)start an actual counterrevolution. I'd prefer C) myself.
CAN the terrorists win? Technically, yes. But the likelihood of such an attack being successful against a relatively stable, established democracy is quite minimal. I'm more afraid of the damage that an unsuccessful attack would do to our economy and society - such as the unPatriotic Act et al.


I'm not a panicker. I'm not a helper, either. You'd better be prepared to pull your own weight or get the hell out of my way in the event of an emergency, 'cause I'm not one to wait on either your sorry ass or FEMA's.


Then you're pretty useless, aren't you? In an emergency situation, just remember to get out of the way, since you'll just be another part of the problem.


That would be because there wasn't any, which was kind of the point of my big long post. :rolleyes:


Oh, really? I think I mentioned the unPatriotic Act, plus NoFly lists, armed military at the airports, illegal government bugging...dumbass.


So, in other words, not the US. Ergo, something I don't need to give a shit about, because the US operates to a much higher standard of governmental function and social cohesion than Nicaragua, Cambodia or even China.

Perhaps you don't think so. Perhaps you are of the opinion that the US is a third world country lacking food, infrastructure, transportation, communications, education, private and publicly held resources, private and public social services, etc. Perhaps you think the US is a country populated by isolated pockets of uneducated, undernourished peasants interspersed with violent, anti-government factions getting their arms from foreign powers. You could be forgiven for thinking that after Katrina, but I think the US only looks that way when the people wait for their government to do something for them.

By the way, Nicaragua and Cambodia were both countries that were destablized by the US. Maybe what you're really afraid of is karma.


I'm, not Buddhist. And that would be Dharma, I believe, since the US is still alive.
Now, do I have to say again that Destab Attacks are not usually effective against established democracies? Yes, it seems I do, since you don't seem to have noticed the last ten times. My worry is the side effects.


More countries that were destabilized by the US. Instead of comparing us to our own victims, why don't you answer my damned questions and point to the weaknesses that exist within the US itself, since you seem so confident that they are there?


Really? I wasn't aware that El Salvador's or Columbia's communist revolutionary groups were financed and backed by the US. Now if you were trying, in your own pathetic way, to say that the real damage was done by the ANTI-destabilization forces that WERE backed by the US, you'd be at least partially correct. WHICH IS WHAT I"VE BEEN POiNTING OUT FOR TWO POSTS, but then reading comprehension clearly isn't your thing...
As to fracture points in the US:

Social:
Rich-Poor divide is too great. People who can't live on their wages WILL start loking for a better deal.
Racial Animosities. Getting better, but still prety bad. The Hispanic-Anglo rift looks to be even worse than the Anglo-Black one currently.
Religious schism. The "christian country" argument is one aspect, as is the Abortion debate, of the growing rift between religious and secular thought in the US

Economic:
Over-Corporatization. Too many large "faceless" companies, insufficient mid-sized and small companies. This reduces competition and increases possibilities of collusion and price-fixing.
Over-reliance on fossil fuels. Mitigated by the existence of the Strategic Reserve, but still causes problems (such as the West Coast power shortage).
Severely overspending budgets. Not too much of a problem as long as we can service the debt, but a major one of something interrupts our ability to do so.

Political:
Red/Blue Divide. Unhealthy levels of partisanship on both sides are making party affiliation more important that the good of the country.
Litigation Syndrome. Candidates are forcing political issues and election results into the courts, increasing court politicization and potentially creating polarization on the bench.
Reduction in State importance. Federal government powergrabs have reduced the states' powers dramatically. This could lead to still more centralization (and the possibility of point-source failure) or to a serious backlash.


I think he is the worst president ever. I think his performance on 9/11 was nothing but bullshit grandstanding that made me want to throw bricks at his worthless smirking head as I watched him gleefully march this country into hell. It runs in my family. The day it happened, my mom called me and said, "Shit. Now they'll attack Iraq." We were just surprised it took him so long to do it.


Then your mother is to be congratulated on her prescience. I think you're selling some of the 19th century presidents short, though - check out Ulysses Grant's. Great general, an utter failure as President.


I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. You are basing your entire commendation of Bush on something not happening, that he did not stop from happening because it never started happening in the first place, and that you have no evidence ever would have happened. You also have no evidence that it will not happen at any moment in the future from this second on. This is relying on assumptions to the point of ridiculousness.


No, I'm basing it on my evaluation of Al Gore as a politician and a man. In general, I think he would have been a much better president than Bush has proven. But I do think he was not a good man in a crisis, and would have dropped the ball. Bush, like him or not, did not do that.
I could be wrong, of course. I'm not claiming my judgement is perfect. In many ways, I'd like to be wrong about Gore, not least being that I voted for him. But I do not believe I am


Also, those remarks about bin Laden are truly disturbing. It makes me wonder if your fear of him isn't tinged with a little admiration. Do you wish we Americans would be just a little more like him? Then I guess it really might not take all that much for the terrorists to make you bow before them.

For myself, everything I've seen of bin Laden shows me a self-serving egotist who gets off on being worshipped by people willing to blow themselves up in his name before even their god's. That man has an agenda against the Saudi government, which he has written about extensively and which is all about amassing personal power for himself. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the US except to the extent that he can use it to promote his personal agenda in Arabia. He's a cheap, greedy, murderous scumbag, like all the other scumbags in the world, and I care about him and his plans about as much as that remark implies.


My, you do live in a black and white world, don't you? I point out that he has one or two admirable traits, and you accuse me of admiring him as a whole. I suppose you also believe that FDR and Churchill were upstanding heroes who never got drunk or cheated on their wives...
I don't fear bin Laden. He's just a man. I fear what his organization could do to my country, and what my country will do to itself to stop him.

EDIT: PS: You might want to delete those redundant posts.

Sorry. Forum glitched as I was posting. Dealt with now.

I did answer your question; you didn't ask the question you thought you had.
:rolleyes:

But to answer your intent: I don't believe I would ever actually submit to their will. I would fight. You would too? Good, that's two of us.
No, there's you and there's me. No "us" because I don't think I could trust you. Sorry.

The problem is, in the face of force or threat of force, most people fold. If that happens to the point where most of the country has surrendered, then unless you have one hell of a leader to pull you out of it, the COUNTRY surrenders. Then people like you and me wind up as "counter-revolutionary elements" or whatever label the new government ses fit to apply, and we A) are shot, or B) go into exile, or C)start an actual counterrevolution. I'd prefer C) myself.
CAN the terrorists win? Technically, yes. But the likelihood of such an attack being successful against a relatively stable, established democracy is quite minimal. I'm more afraid of the damage that an unsuccessful attack would do to our economy and society - such as the unPatriotic Act et al.
You are still not answering my question. I have asked you point blank to lay out the scenario as you think it could unfold of the US "folding," as you put it, to terrorist pressure. You have not done so. I now think you have no such scenario in mind. Possibly this is because the idea is so unrealistic. Possibly you have been insisting on this notion of the US being destabilized by terrorists as just a type of alarmist propaganda.

The closest you have come to answering my question is your reference to that abomination, the Patriot Act. However, you seem to be trying to blame that on the terrorists. Something along the lines of, "If it wasn't for those filthy terrorists, we wouldn't be slowly turning fascist now." I think this is a faulty argument. Bush was in office before the terrorists attacked. He did not take over in response to them. Also, the neocons have been working in our government since Reagan, and extreme rightwing authoritarianism has been a low-profile feature of American politics and society since at least the Civil War. We may blame the terrorists for giving an opportunity to our inner evil twin, but we cannot blame them for its existence. That's our fault. Americans chose to support the Patriot Act. They choose to throw law and liberty out the window. They choose to start wars of aggression and make excuses for torture. None of this was forced on us by terrorists. That is why I do not say that the terrorists made us do any of it.

Then you're pretty useless, aren't you? In an emergency situation, just remember to get out of the way, since you'll just be another part of the problem.
Useless to you, perhaps. I care about the people I care about. I act with and for them and for myself. Anyone or anything that gets in the way of that, or that interferes with my vital interests (i.e. my life and the lives of those I care about) is a problem that I will deal with, not cooperate with or subordinate myself to. In an emergency any other person can either decide I look like I know what I'm doing and follow me and keep their mouth shut. Or they can decide I'm not a team player and go their own damned way. (Hint: There's no "team" in "I".)

Oh, really? I think I mentioned the unPatriotic Act, plus NoFly lists, armed military at the airports, illegal government bugging...dumbass.
Personal insult. How creative. Makes you look confident in your own argument.

So you equate the bullshit we're dealing with in the US government now to the destabilization of Central America or the violent upheavals and eventual destruction of Nationalist China? My, you have been sheltered. Trust me, friend, it could get a lot worse. Give it two more elections.

I'm, not Buddhist. And that would be Dharma, I believe, since the US is still alive.
Now, do I have to say again that Destab Attacks are not usually effective against established democracies? Yes, it seems I do, since you don't seem to have noticed the last ten times.
It hasn't been ten times, and I've noticed you saying it more than you seem to have noticed me acknowledging you saying it and dismissing it as irrelevant.

My worry is the side effects.
See my opinion above, that what we choose to do to ourselves is not something that is done to us by terrorists. We always have the choice of how to react. If we react poorly, that's not their fault.

Do you think Bush and Cheney quickly drafted the Patriot Act on 9/12? They had it ready and waiting. The NSA wiretap program was actually started years before 9/11 -- or did you miss that news report? The US has been flirting with the edge of fascism for over 20 years. I was in high school when Reagan was president, when greed became a virtue and corporatism a new kind of cult. I don't actually blame Reagan for the state of the country now. It wasn't him. It started in the private sector, with the people themselves. I said way back then that I thought it wouldn't take much for Americans to just choose to give up on democracy and self-government and go over to statist totalitarianism.

Really? I wasn't aware that El Salvador's or Columbia's communist revolutionary groups were financed and backed by the US.
Well, now you are.

Now if you were trying, in your own pathetic way, to say that the real damage was done by the ANTI-destabilization forces
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one!

that WERE backed by the US,
You mean guys like Noriega in Panama? You mean that Iran Contra thing? Yeah, way stabilizing that was.

you'd be at least partially correct. WHICH IS WHAT I"VE BEEN POiNTING OUT FOR TWO POSTS, but then reading comprehension clearly isn't your thing...
Another personal insult. Is that special vein in your temple starting to throb as you type?

As to fracture points in the US:

Social:
Rich-Poor divide is too great. People who can't live on their wages WILL start loking for a better deal.
Which they will probably get by moving to Canada or other countries that have jobs for them. That's what happened during the 90s recession. That does not necessarily lead to destabilization. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.

Racial Animosities. Getting better, but still prety bad. The Hispanic-Anglo rift looks to be even worse than the Anglo-Black one currently.
(A) American race relations do not need outside help to flare into violence.
(B) Racial tensions could be alleviated temporarily by a common enemy -- you know, the way Sunnis and Shiites united against the US in Iraq for a while there -- so that is not a reliable "fracture point."

Religious schism. The "christian country" argument is one aspect, as is the Abortion debate, of the growing rift between religious and secular thought in the US
(A) This is another internal issue that needs no help from bin Laden to turn ugly.
(B) What part of this particular problem has been calmed down by Bush's supposedly decisive actions after 9/11?

Economic:
Over-Corporatization. Too many large "faceless" companies, insufficient mid-sized and small companies. This reduces competition and increases possibilities of collusion and price-fixing.
What has this to do with the topic at hand? How do you see terrorists exploiting this?

Over-reliance on fossil fuels. Mitigated by the existence of the Strategic Reserve, but still causes problems (such as the West Coast power shortage).
Again, what has this to do with terrorism? Especially what has it to do with "destab" operations against the US? The oil is controlled by foreign powers, not by terrorists -- technically, but you know what I mean. Those foreign governments are not our friends -- they may even be supporting or even controlling terrorists -- but unless they cut off the oil, I fail to see how the terrorists will be able to exploit that weakness. Even when they did cut off the oil in the 70's the US was not destabilized in any way at all.

Severely overspending budgets. Not too much of a problem as long as we can service the debt, but a major one of something interrupts our ability to do so.
Another thing with which we need no help from terrorists. Bush is spending over a billion dollars a week on his vanity war in Iraq, which has not one blessed thing to do with terrorism or 9/11. He has also wasted billions on his domestic failures as well. Terrorism did not cause Katrina, after all.

Political:
Red/Blue Divide. Unhealthy levels of partisanship on both sides are making party affiliation more important that the good of the country.
"The good of the country" is a red flag phrase to me. What do you mean by that?

Litigation Syndrome. Candidates are forcing political issues and election results into the courts, increasing court politicization and potentially creating polarization on the bench.
Again, what has this to do with terrorism and how do you see terrorists exploiting it to destabilize us?

Reduction in State importance. Federal government powergrabs have reduced the states' powers dramatically. This could lead to still more centralization (and the possibility of point-source failure) or to a serious backlash.
Another "what has this to do with" issue. All I see here is a list of things that you don't like about the US. Hardly "fracture points," really.

Then your mother is to be congratulated on her prescience. I think you're selling some of the 19th century presidents short, though - check out Ulysses Grant's. Great general, an utter failure as President.
Grant was a drunken ass. Wilson was an authoritarian power-whore wrapped up in a flag of peace. Taft was one of the crookedest sons of bitches who ever walked. None of them was as damaging to this country as Bush, Cheney et al. But that's just my opinion, based on the fact that I'm here now, not there then. Guess which place and time I care about more.

No, I'm basing it on my evaluation of Al Gore as a politician and a man. In general, I think he would have been a much better president than Bush has proven. But I do think he was not a good man in a crisis, and would have dropped the ball. Bush, like him or not, did not do that.
I could be wrong, of course. I'm not claiming my judgement is perfect. In many ways, I'd like to be wrong about Gore, not least being that I voted for him. But I do not believe I am
That's odd, because you only mentioned Gore once in the whole paragraph but went on a bit about what you thought bin Laden was doing behind our backs and how Bush nipped his plots in the bud. Yet what evidence do you have that any other attacks were planned or were thwarted? What evidence do you have that terrorists do not have plans they simply haven't launched yet? In all this time, the public only knows of one major plan that was thwarted, and that was thwarted by the British, not by Bush.

My, you do live in a black and white world, don't you? I point out that he has one or two admirable traits, and you accuse me of admiring him as a whole. I suppose you also believe that FDR and Churchill were upstanding heroes who never got drunk or cheated on their wives...
Why would you suppose that?

I don't fear bin Laden. He's just a man. I fear what his organization could do to my country, and what my country will do to itself to stop him.
As I said earlier, those are two unrelated things to fear. I fear what my country may choose to do to itself. I do not blame al qaeda for the choices we make. I blame us. As for what al qaeda may do, it seems, no matter how I try, I just can't work up any fear of them. Perhaps the neocons have used up all the fear I had.

Shame I wasn't here when the OP posted. I'd have brought popcorn...

I still have some leftover. Want some?

The times finally posted the responses to the article. Thought I'd let you all read them.




Re "It's real, it's scary, it's a cult of death," Opinion, Sept. 18

Sam Harris articulated some painful truths that many are loath to acknowledge. There are millions of people in the world who honestly believe that God will reward them with paradise for acts of cold-blooded murder undertaken in the name of religion. And there are millions of others who, in the pursuit of inclusiveness and political correctness, refuse to accept that the problem is rooted in the religion itself.

San Pedro

•



Harris' definition of "liberal" is bonkers. Liberals do not advocate the decriminalization of drugs; libertarians do, and on most issues, libertarians tend to be on the right of the political spectrum, not the left. Liberals are not fomenting conspiracy theories about 9/11; the same right-wing, anti-government radicals who arm themselves in anticipation of a massive federal crackdown on their "liberties" are the ones blogging about planted explosives in the twin towers.

Harris uses suspect data and gross generalizations to flay at a nonexistent fly. I'm embarrassed that The Times published this thinly disguised polemic against Muslims.

SANDRA SUTPHEN

Yorba Linda

The writer is a professor of political science emerita at Cal State Fullerton.


The current conservative (neo or otherwise) long-term strategy for winning the war on terror is to spread liberal democracy and free-market economies throughout the Muslim world under the theory that "democracies don't attack each other."

Harris doesn't offer a winning strategy of his own other than to demonize liberal straw men out of the current political debate. He doesn't attack conservatives in this piece, but surely he must find their idea of modernizing the Middle East's political and economic systems an equally odious form of mollycoddling to any liberal attempt to understand the political and economic conditions that might have turned factions of these societies to violence in the first place.

Both liberals and conservatives have to take responsibility for what has been done in the past, as well as work together toward a future solution we will never reach if people like Harris are allowed to spread their destructively divisive poison.

MATT LOGAN

Santa Monica

Matt Logan is so sensitive to criticisms of liberals that he didn't notice the numerous criticisms of conservatives in the original article.

:rolleyes:

You are still not answering my question. I have asked you point blank to lay out the scenario as you think it could unfold of the US "folding," as you put it, to terrorist pressure. You have not done so. I now think you have no such scenario in mind. Possibly this is because the idea is so unrealistic. Possibly you have been insisting on this notion of the US being destabilized by terrorists as just a type of alarmist propaganda.


Ah, you don't like the answer so you edit the question, then claim I didn't answer your question. Stupid, obvious tactic.
I don't reward such idiocies with an answer. I have answered your question, and you have failed to refute my answer - or even address it. Ergo, you have no counter-argument to make, and must rely on silly debating tricks.


The closest you have come to answering my question is your reference to that abomination, the Patriot Act. However, you seem to be trying to blame that on the terrorists. Something along the lines of, "If it wasn't for those filthy terrorists, we wouldn't be slowly turning fascist now." I think this is a faulty argument. Bush was in office before the terrorists attacked. He did not take over in response to them. Also, the neocons have been working in our government since Reagan, and extreme rightwing authoritarianism has been a low-profile feature of American politics and society since at least the Civil War. We may blame the terrorists for giving an opportunity to our inner evil twin, but we cannot blame them for its existence. That's our fault. Americans chose to support the Patriot Act. They choose to throw law and liberty out the window. They choose to start wars of aggression and make excuses for torture. None of this was forced on us by terrorists. That is why I do not say that the terrorists made us do any of it.


In some ways you are correct; terrorists, by and large, cannot make us do things. But they can change the environment to make things easier for us to allow the erosion of our rights and freedoms. Had the unPatriotic Act been promulgated in 2000, opposition to it would have been so great that it would have been laughed out of Congress; NoFly lists would have had the ACLU in the courts in a heartbeat.
So, what happened? 9/11. An aborted, failed beginning of a destabilizaton campaign. And look at the damage it has done.


So you equate the bullshit we're dealing with in the US government now to the destabilization of Central America or the violent upheavals and eventual destruction of Nationalist China? My, you have been sheltered. Trust me, friend, it could get a lot worse. Give it two more elections.


I made no such equation.


It hasn't been ten times, and I've noticed you saying it more than you seem to have noticed me acknowledging you saying it and dismissing it as irrelevant.


What, like your entire LACK OF argument?


Well, now you are.


Now I see that you are full of shit. Put up or shut up: show proof.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's a good one!


Ah. So, the government/US backed death squads in El Salvador weren't the far worse problem than the people they were supposedly trying to stop? So the anti-revolution funding in Colombia didn't basically finance the rise of the drug lords? I find nothing laughable about US anti-destabilization policies that have left millions dead, homeless, tortured or enslaved.


You mean guys like Noriega in Panama? You mean that Iran Contra thing? Yeah, way stabilizing that was.


An anti-destabilization policy doesn't have to be successful, or anything like a good idea, to be an anti-destabilization policy. Now what was it I said before? Oh yes, "I fear the side effects." Well guess what, moron? BLACK OPERATIONS AND DICTATORSHIPS ARE SOME OF THOSE SIDE-EFFECTS.


Which they will probably get by moving to Canada or other countries that have jobs for them. That's what happened during the 90s recession. That does not necessarily lead to destabilization. In fact, it could have the opposite effect.


It could, yes. Or it could lead to radicalization and serious disenchantment with our form of government. Both are possibilities.


(A) American race relations do not need outside help to flare into violence.
(B) Racial tensions could be alleviated temporarily by a common enemy -- you know, the way Sunnis and Shiites united against the US in Iraq for a while there -- so that is not a reliable "fracture point."


(A) If they don't need outside help, how bad could they get if they received it?
(B) Any such alliance is, as you note, temporary. And when it breaks down, the gulf usually widens - "I helped them, but they still treated me like shit!" A well run destab campaign would take years, maybe decades, more than enough time for such alliances t fracture wide open again.


(A) This is another internal issue that needs no help from bin Laden to turn ugly.
(B) What part of this particular problem has been calmed down by Bush's supposedly decisive actions after 9/11?


(A) See (A) above.
(B) What the hell are you on about?


What has this to do with the topic at hand? How do you see terrorists exploiting this?


Again, what has this to do with terrorism? Especially what has it to do with "destab" operations against the US? The oil is controlled by foreign powers, not by terrorists -- technically, but you know what I mean. Those foreign governments are not our friends -- they may even be supporting or even controlling terrorists -- but unless they cut off the oil, I fail to see how the terrorists will be able to exploit that weakness. Even when they did cut off the oil in the 70's the US was not destabilized in any way at all.


First, you asked - no, DEMANDED - that I list the fracture points I see in the US today. So don't give me any shit about it being off topic.
Second, while the terrorists probably would find it hard to use these directly, indirectly they provide several axes of attack. At the very least, they could be used for effective propaganda.


Another thing with which we need no help from terrorists. Bush is spending over a billion dollars a week on his vanity war in Iraq, which has not one blessed thing to do with terrorism or 9/11. He has also wasted billions on his domestic failures as well. Terrorism did not cause Katrina, after all.


So what if it was going on pre-9/11? It's still a fault point.


"The good of the country" is a red flag phrase to me. What do you mean by that?


Oh, good, you do have a brain. When most politicians use that term it means they're going to try to shaft you.
In this case, I'm using it in it's straightforward and clear meaning. If the Democrats came up with a package that was clearly and without any doubt good for the people and society of the USA, the Republicans would oppose it anyway, and vice versa. This is what I meant by "making party affiliation more important that the good of the country".


Again, what has this to do with terrorism and how do you see terrorists exploiting it to destabilize us?


Oh, that's easy. Polarization of the bench would (A) make corruption more likely and easier to find, and (B) would reduce people's belief in the neutrality and fairness of the courts. Marvelous propaganda fodder.


Another "what has this to do with" issue. All I see here is a list of things that you don't like about the US. Hardly "fracture points," really.


Are you kidding? This would be one of the easiest to exploit of the lot. Conduct an assassination campaign against key individuals in the federal government. Where once we had vital and strong state governments to fall back on, today we have squabbling children, unable and unwilling to take on the burdens of leadership.


Grant was a drunken ass. Wilson was an authoritarian power-whore wrapped up in a flag of peace. Taft was one of the crookedest sons of bitches who ever walked. None of them was as damaging to this country as Bush, Cheney et al. But that's just my opinion, based on the fact that I'm here now, not there then. Guess which place and time I care about more.


"He who refuses to learn from the lessons of history is compelled to repeat them."


That's odd, because you only mentioned Gore once in the whole paragraph but went on a bit about what you thought bin Laden was doing behind our backs and how Bush nipped his plots in the bud. Yet what evidence do you have that any other attacks were planned or were thwarted? What evidence do you have that terrorists do not have plans they simply haven't launched yet? In all this time, the public only knows of one major plan that was thwarted, and that was thwarted by the British, not by Bush.


Evidence? None. I stated right at the beginning that I suspected the follow up attacks had been prevented by Bush's swift and decisive actions against Afghanistan. You're the one who's been demanding that back up my suppositions, and then more details, then even more details. Not that you've been able to refute any of my statements, or even tried to do so.
What is it? Are you so jealous and hate-filled that you cannot stand to hear one word of good about Bush?


Why would you suppose that?


Because, frankly, you seem to exist in a world of opposites and absolutes. I speak well of an aspect of Bush; therefore I must be a Bush toady. I acknowledge that bin Laden has certain admirable traits; therefore I must be secretly his supporter. You seem to see these people as caricatures, upon which you may heap your lavish praise or damning revilement.
Well, the real world isn't that simple. Stalin displayed love of family. Hitler clearly loved his dogs. That does not change that they were perhaps the two most evil men of the twentieth century, any more than Churchill's and Roosevelt's flaws made them less great leaders.
There are no absolutes.

Now, I have answered your questions, sometimes repeatedly. I have laid out my argument, and made it quite clear, I think. Frankly, I am tired of your childish demands for more detail and unwillingness to even try to see a point of view beyond your own blinkered existence. Your entire argument, if I may extend such a word to this twaddle, can be boiled down to "IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE." Well, I quite assure you, it can. The US can go the way of the Weimar Republic; or Alexander's Empire; or, yes, the western empire of Rome, lost, in the end, to the barbarians and to their own endless striving for stability.

Now, if you have a counter-argument, or a refutation, I shall be pleased to hear it. If not, please do us all a favour and shut up.

Ah, you don't like the answer so you edit the question, then claim I didn't answer your question. Stupid, obvious tactic.
I don't reward such idiocies with an answer. I have answered your question, and you have failed to refute my answer - or even address it. Ergo, you have no counter-argument to make, and must rely on silly debating tricks.
Now you're lying. Go back and read the thread. I have neither changed nor edited my question. I have only repeated it with increasing emphasis.

You are also showing how you are unable to follow the argument. I have indeed addressed your answer by calling it a dodge and asking for a better one. I did not refute it because it is not subject to refutation. I asked you for your belief or opinion, not for a statement of fact. Facts can be refuted. Opinions and beliefs cannot be.

Also, how can I possibly make a counter argument, when you still have not made an argument -- i.e. you still have not answered my question in the first place?

So, having failed both to answer me and to keep up with the argument in general, you rely on nothing but personal insults. This is the last answer you will get from me until you learn how to be polite. Note: I don't ask you to be friendly; just mind your manners.

In some ways you are correct; terrorists, by and large, cannot make us do things. But they can change the environment to make things easier for us to allow the erosion of our rights and freedoms. Had the unPatriotic Act been promulgated in 2000, opposition to it would have been so great that it would have been laughed out of Congress; NoFly lists would have had the ACLU in the courts in a heartbeat.
So, what happened? 9/11. An aborted, failed beginning of a destabilizaton campaign. And look at the damage it has done.
Yeah, sure, if your house is burned down by an arsonist, you are more likely to get paranoid around people with matches afterwards. But if you go about shooting smokers because of it, then you are no better than the criminal who harmed you in the first place. The gulf between his crime and yours is so great that any argument to say his crime caused yours is something that I personally will always reject. Al qaeda committed a grave crime when they hijacked those planes. But there was nothing in those crimes that necessitated the US's shift towards an extremist rightwing agenda. I will not accept any argument that says our downfall is their fault.

This is especially true because, as I said, the means by which this country is turning towards fascism were in place decades -- if not a whole century -- before 9/11 was even thought of, before bin Laden was ever born. If I allow my house to become infested with cockroaches, I cannot blame the problem on anyone else who happens to stir them up. It is my own fault that they exist.

I made no such equation.
Then why did you cite those countries as examples of what could go wrong in the US?

What, like your entire LACK OF argument?
Why would I argue with a statement I consider irrelevant?

All you keep doing is listing the steps of a "destab" program. So what? So, al qaeda tried those. So, let's say they'll keep trying them over and over. How does their effort imply their success? I maintain that they are not a destabilizing force for the US. They do not have that power. Therefore, no matter how many of those steps they follow, it has not had and will not have the effect you are claiming. So just listing the steps over and over is pointless.


Now I see that you are full of shit. Put up or shut up: show proof.
And you are ignorant of history. US intervention in Central America on behalf of US corporate interests directly destabilized local governments. Destabilization did not mean undermining the people's confidence in their government so that they would choose to change it. It meant economically weakening the country to the point where the people were more concerned with mere survival, and infiltrating it with spies and mercenaries in order to lay the groundwork for and then launch coups that put pro-US puppets in power who would be sure to give the US corporations anything they wanted, at the expense of the local people. Later uprisings against those puppet dictators led to further, even more violent revolutions, often made worse by yet more US meddling.

Don't believe me? Google "United Fruit." Here's just one source from the search I just made:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/united-fruit.html

Click on the link to the summary, too.

From the articles:
The United Fruit Company, a U.S. concern, is notorious for having economically colonized Central American in particular, using the support of the U.S. politically--and, on occasion, militarily--to ensure its taking of large profits in the region. Dissent within the U.S. against the U.S. government-United Fruit Company collaboration reached its peak in the second decade of the 20th century.
In Guatemala, in 1954, a legally elected government was overthrown by an invasion force of mercenaries trained by the CIA at military bases in Honduras and Nicaragua and supported by four American fighter planes flown by American pilots. The invasion put into power Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, who had at one time received military training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The government that the United States overthrew was the most democratic Guatemala had ever had. The President, Jacobo Arbenz, was a left-of-center Socialist; four of the fifty-six seats in the Congress were held by Communists. What was most unsettling to American business interests was that Arbenz had expropriated 234,000 acres of land owned by United Fruit, offering compensation that United Fruit called "unacceptable." Armas, in power, gave the land back to United Fruit, abolished the tax on interest and dividends to foreign investors, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of political critics.

Ah. So, the government/US backed death squads in El Salvador weren't the far worse problem than the people they were supposedly trying to stop? So the anti-revolution funding in Colombia didn't basically finance the rise of the drug lords? I find nothing laughable about US anti-destabilization policies that have left millions dead, homeless, tortured or enslaved.
So, what does this mean? Anti-destabilization is worse than destabilization? So then what is your beef with the terrorists? Obviously, by this reckoning, they haven't done as much damage to us as Bush has, and they are no more to blame for what Bush does than the El Salvadoran communists were to blame for the US-backed El Salvadoran death squads.

In other words, you agree with me.

Finally.

An anti-destabilization policy doesn't have to be successful, or anything like a good idea, to be an anti-destabilization policy. Now what was it I said before? Oh yes, "I fear the side effects." Well guess what, moron? BLACK OPERATIONS AND DICTATORSHIPS ARE SOME OF THOSE SIDE-EFFECTS.
"Moron"? How about "manners"? As of this point, I expect an apology.

As for the above quoted mini-rant, a policy has to have an effect or at least a chance at producing an effect for it to matter. You're so obsessed with these so-called policies that you apparently can't even keep track of whether we are talking about destabilization or anti-destabilization. Either way, they have no effect, so they DO NOT MATTER.

It could, yes. Or it could lead to radicalization and serious disenchantment with our form of government. Both are possibilities.
So is an invasion of space aliens. Some possibilities are more likely than others.

(A) If they don't need outside help, how bad could they get if they received it?
Not much worse than they already are.

How about this: Why don't you describe to the class how you imagine al qaeda starting a race war in the US. Lay it out for us so we can follow your reasoning.

(B) Any such alliance is, as you note, temporary. And when it breaks down, the gulf usually widens - "I helped them, but they still treated me like shit!" A well run destab campaign would take years, maybe decades, more than enough time for such alliances t fracture wide open again.
Years, decades. Maybe even centuries. Good thing there's no deadline, huh? In the meantime, I have things to do, so let me know when I should start worrying.

(A) See (A) above.
See my response, above.

(B) What the hell are you on about?
You have said more than once that Bush's actions after 9/11 have stopped the terrorists from succeeding in destabilizing the US. You list religious divisions as a "fracture point" at which the US could be destabilized by terrorists. Bush is possibly the most religiously divisive political leader this country has ever had. I want to know what you think Bush has done to make the religion "fracture point" less vulnerable to terrorists.

First, you asked - no, DEMANDED - that I list the fracture points I see in the US today. So don't give me any shit about it being off topic.
It's not off topic. My issue is that you just list these things that you think are problems, but you do not show any way that they are relevant to terrorism, nor do you describe how you think they could be exploited by terrorists. So what is the point of the list, then, eh? I could add Cheez-Whiz to the list and say the divide between people who hate it and people who love it, especially on crackers, is another "fracture point" in the US and it would be just as meaningful as any of your examples. How could terrorists use these weaknesses against us? That is what I have been asking you.

Second, while the terrorists probably would find it hard to use these directly, indirectly they provide several axes of attack. At the very least, they could be used for effective propaganda.
That seems somewhat anticlimactic, doesn't it?

So what if it was going on pre-9/11? It's still a fault point.
Once again, it's a fault that has nothing to do with the terrorists who are attacking or trying to attack us. Therefore, its effects are not their doing. It is not the fault of terrorists that Americans and American politicians can't stop spending money, so it will not be their fault if our economy collapses from too much spending.

Oh, good, you do have a brain.
Another backward insult.

When most politicians use that term it means they're going to try to shaft you.
In this case, I'm using it in it's straightforward and clear meaning. If the Democrats came up with a package that was clearly and without any doubt good for the people and society of the USA, the Republicans would oppose it anyway, and vice versa. This is what I meant by "making party affiliation more important that the good of the country".
Well, that also has nothing to do with either terrorism or the destabilization of the country. It's also not really a "fracture point." This is because the US government does not actually (no matter what it says or thinks) hold any power that is not granted to it by the people. If the federal government were to be so weakened or discredited that Americans did not trust the system anymore, it is in our power to change it. After all, that's how we got the country in the first place. But long before we got to that point, we would still be able to adapt because there are so many levels to US government and they are all based on a foundation of self-government. Thus, if the fed collapses, the states can continue, if the states collapse, the municipalities can continue, all jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and by the time the municipalities collapse, the people will be in a position to do for themselves, if we have not already rebuilt the higher tiers by then. There is little or nothing that the US government can do that the people cannot do for themselves in a pinch.

So, two questions:

Do you think the terrorists have the power to destabilize the US government for so long that it cannot adapt, given the organizational break-down outlined above?

And, what does destabilization look like in a country that was built on revolution?

Oh, that's easy. Polarization of the bench would (A) make corruption more likely and easier to find, and (B) would reduce people's belief in the neutrality and fairness of the courts. Marvelous propaganda fodder.
(A) Well, we're too late, then.
(B) And what do they do with that propaganda then? Put up posters saying, "Ooh, look, and your courts are crooked, too. Betcha didn't know that, huh? Well, Osama did!"

Are you kidding? This would be one of the easiest to exploit of the lot. Conduct an assassination campaign against key individuals in the federal government. Where once we had vital and strong state governments to fall back on, today we have squabbling children, unable and unwilling to take on the burdens of leadership.
Again, too late.

Also, I don't know where you live, but in my USA, we don't need strong leaders because Americans are not followers. We lead ourselves. We form our own teams, suss situations, and take action as needed. We are neither sheep in need of a shepherd nor children in need of a daddy. Our politicians can be as crooked and whiny as they like. We need them to pave roads, not stand up for us. In the US, politicians -- including the president -- are civil servants. Emphasis on "servant." And they serve us.

"He who refuses to learn from the lessons of history is compelled to repeat them."
And he who refuses to read his opponent's posts ends up making pointless comments.

Evidence? None. I stated right at the beginning that I suspected the follow up attacks had been prevented by Bush's swift and decisive actions against Afghanistan. You're the one who's been demanding that back up my suppositions, and then more details, then even more details. Not that you've been able to refute any of my statements, or even tried to do so.
What is it? Are you so jealous and hate-filled that you cannot stand to hear one word of good about Bush?
And I stated right at the beginning that your unfounded suspicions that something might have happened are not enough for me to give credit to Bush for having done anything at all. You're the one who made a lengthy argument out of that.

Because, frankly, you seem to exist in a world of opposites and absolutes. I speak well of an aspect of Bush; therefore I must be a Bush toady. I acknowledge that bin Laden has certain admirable traits; therefore I must be secretly his supporter. You seem to see these people as caricatures, upon which you may heap your lavish praise or damning revilement.
Well, the real world isn't that simple. Stalin displayed love of family. Hitler clearly loved his dogs. That does not change that they were perhaps the two most evil men of the twentieth century, any more than Churchill's and Roosevelt's flaws made them less great leaders.
There are no absolutes.
I expressed my opinion based on statements made by you. You expressed an opinion based on something I never said. You said certain things about Bush and bin Laden from which I drew a conclusion about your attitudes towards them. I said absolutely nothing at all about Churchhill or Roosevelt, or about Stalin or Hitler for that matter. Therefore, you have nothing on which to base any conclusions about my attitudes towards them at all.

Now, I have answered your questions, sometimes repeatedly. I have laid out my argument, and made it quite clear, I think. Frankly, I am tired of your childish demands for more detail and unwillingness to even try to see a point of view beyond your own blinkered existence.
Another collection of personal insults.

Your entire argument, if I may extend such a word to this twaddle, can be boiled down to "IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE."
No, you are wrong. My argument can be boiled down to: "Your explanation of what the terrorists are doing is wrong and your expectations of the effect they will have are off base. Therefore, you are worrying about the wrong things."

Well, I quite assure you, it can. The US can go the way of the Weimar Republic; or Alexander's Empire; or, yes, the western empire of Rome, lost, in the end, to the barbarians and to their own endless striving for stability.

Now, if you have a counter-argument, or a refutation, I shall be pleased to hear it. If not, please do us all a favour and shut up.
All of my posts have been counter-arguments to your statements, except for those that are pure opinion. If anyone has failed to counter, it has been you failing to counter me and instead responding to me only with irrelevancies and increasingly hostile personal attacks.

But if you are tired of making yourself look bad, by all means, let's drop it.

In some ways I would like to see this end, but I cannot allow your litany of lies and half-truths to stand.

Now you're lying. Go back and read the thread. I have neither changed nor edited my question. I have only repeated it with increasing emphasis.

You are also showing how you are unable to follow the argument. I have indeed addressed your answer by calling it a dodge and asking for a better one. I did not refute it because it is not subject to refutation. I asked you for your belief or opinion, not for a statement of fact. Facts can be refuted. Opinions and beliefs cannot be.

Also, how can I possibly make a counter argument, when you still have not made an argument -- i.e. you still have not answered my question in the first place?

First, you asked me what it would take to make me submit to them. I answered you. You then asked me how they could destabilize the US. In response, I showed how a destabilization campaign works. You ignored this, and chose instead to make an inane comment regarding relative powers of those involved. I pointed out that, in the face of force most people fold, and that if enough people do, the country does. So now you say that you want a scenario showing that.
That's three separate and only slightly related questions. Each time, I have given you an answer. Each time, you have claimed I have failed to answer "your real question". In other words, you have edited your question because you had no real response to my answers. Then you have the effrontery to call me a liar when I called you on it. Pathetic.

And you are ignorant of history. US intervention in Central America on behalf of US corporate interests directly destabilized local governments. Destabilization did not mean undermining the people's confidence in their government so that they would choose to change it. It meant economically weakening the country to the point where the people were more concerned with mere survival, and infiltrating it with spies and mercenaries in order to lay the groundwork for and then launch coups that put pro-US puppets in power who would be sure to give the US corporations anything they wanted, at the expense of the local people. Later uprisings against those puppet dictators led to further, even more violent revolutions, often made worse by yet more US meddling.

Don't believe me? Google "United Fruit." Here's just one source from the search I just made:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilre...ted-fruit.html

Click on the link to the summary, too.

From the articles:

Quote:
The United Fruit Company, a U.S. concern, is notorious for having economically colonized Central American in particular, using the support of the U.S. politically--and, on occasion, militarily--to ensure its taking of large profits in the region. Dissent within the U.S. against the U.S. government-United Fruit Company collaboration reached its peak in the second decade of the 20th century.

Quote:
In Guatemala, in 1954, a legally elected government was overthrown by an invasion force of mercenaries trained by the CIA at military bases in Honduras and Nicaragua and supported by four American fighter planes flown by American pilots. The invasion put into power Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, who had at one time received military training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The government that the United States overthrew was the most democratic Guatemala had ever had. The President, Jacobo Arbenz, was a left-of-center Socialist; four of the fifty-six seats in the Congress were held by Communists. What was most unsettling to American business interests was that Arbenz had expropriated 234,000 acres of land owned by United Fruit, offering compensation that United Fruit called "unacceptable." Armas, in power, gave the land back to United Fruit, abolished the tax on interest and dividends to foreign investors, eliminated the secret ballot, and jailed thousands of political critics.

Nice excerpt. Useful link too. Irrelevant, but nice.
You stated that the communist insurrections in Colombia and El Salvador were US backed. I replied: "You're full of shit. Put up or shut up. Show proof."
You've done a lovely job of showing US involvement - in Guatemala. Since I posted a while back that the US and the USSR had made Destab attacks something of an artform, then you might have realised I know that quite well. As I do US involvement in Nicaragua, Chile and Argentina. This has, however, nothing to do with Colombia and El Salvador.
You are, in fact, full of it. As you have just proved.

"Moron"? How about "manners"? As of this point, I expect an apology.


Well, you're not going to get one. If I insult someone without intent or accidentally, I apologize for it. I have said nothing about you I don't quite completely believe.

I could go on. For instance, I could point out that you asked for a listing of faultlines, then attempted to dismiss most of them as irrelevant to the discussion; if they were irrelevant, whay did you ask me to list them? But frankly, I can't be bothered. You aren't worth my time.

In some ways I would like to see this end, but I cannot allow your litany of lies and half-truths to stand.
How sad for you to be so burdened. You realize of course that we are now arguing about each other, not the topic? But in the interest of getting in the last word:

First, you asked me what it would take to make me submit to them. I answered you. You then asked me how they could destabilize the US. In response, I showed how a destabilization campaign works. You ignored this, and chose instead to make an inane comment regarding relative powers of those involved. I pointed out that, in the face of force most people fold, and that if enough people do, the country does. So now you say that you want a scenario showing that.
That's three separate and only slightly related questions. Each time, I have given you an answer. Each time, you have claimed I have failed to answer "your real question". In other words, you have edited your question because you had no real response to my answers. Then you have the effrontery to call me a liar when I called you on it. Pathetic.
No, dear, you are wrong again.

I originally asked you separate questions. You did not answer any of them. So I restated each of them in order to give you more information, guidance, or whatever was needed to coax a straight answer out of you.

In the question about what it would take for you to admit defeat at the hands of terrorists, you first said you'd give in if they threatened you. Then you said you would only be faking it if you did that. So I sent you back to the original question. If a direct threat is not enough, then what would it take? I was trying to make you admit that there is nothing they can do to make you admit defeat and give in to them. That would mean that you are in no danger of being defeated by them, and your argument that we should be afraid of being defeated by them are meaningless.

Then I asked you what it would look like if terrorists succeeded in destabilizing the US. You told me what it looked like when it happened in small Central American countries. That was not what I asked you. Thus, you did not answer me.

Then you said something about terrorists exploiting fracture points. I asked you to list them, but did I really have to also tell you to explain how they were relevant to the issue and how they were vulnerable to terrorists? You gave me a list of thing with no apparent connection to terrorism or national security and no apparent chink that terrorists could exploit. So what was I supposed to do with such a list but dismiss it as not relevant?

Nice excerpt. Useful link too. Irrelevant, but nice.
You stated that the communist insurrections in Colombia and El Salvador were US backed. I replied: "You're full of shit. Put up or shut up. Show proof."
You've done a lovely job of showing US involvement - in Guatemala. Since I posted a while back that the US and the USSR had made Destab attacks something of an artform, then you might have realised I know that quite well. As I do US involvement in Nicaragua, Chile and Argentina. This has, however, nothing to do with Colombia and El Salvador.
You are, in fact, full of it. As you have just proved.
Silly boy. I was being facetious when I said the US backed the communists. The US caused communist uprisings through their destabilization tactics, but those tactics were not meant to put commies in power. The commies were already in power, through legal elections. The US destabilized them in order to replace them with militaristic dictators who would be puppets of the US. The retaliation by the communists led to more destabilization, which has not settled down in many areas yet. Thus, while the commies were not in the employ of the US, the US is directly responsible for their revolutions. And it all comes home to roost in the person of Hugo Chavez.

Well, you're not going to get one. If I insult someone without intent or accidentally, I apologize for it. I have said nothing about you I don't quite completely believe.

I could go on. For instance, I could point out that you asked for a listing of faultlines, then attempted to dismiss most of them as irrelevant to the discussion; if they were irrelevant, whay did you ask me to list them? But frankly, I can't be bothered. You aren't worth my time.

Well, fuck you too, then.

And this is why I rarely post on these forums.