Re: WTHOT: Left, Right, Whatever

On Jun 21, 7:49?am, "Willow Arune" <panga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You must have been living in a different world than I was. For
most of the time I was living abroad, I was subjected to a nearly
endless stream of anti-American crap, most of it with only tenuous
relation to the facts.

It is only natural to be critical of any superpower.

Sure. It's annoying to be told that a) American's don't know
anything about the rest of the world and then b) handed a bunch of
nonsense that makes it clear that the speaker knows nothing about
America.

But I was simply countering your assertion that before Bush,
American was seen as a "beacon of freedom" by the rest of the world.

?Frankly, Bush, Cheny and Co.
shodl be tried as war criminals after you get around to impeaching them. A
little blue dress is one thing. Using the horror of 9/11 to push for an oil
grab is much worse.

Oh, we won't impeach them. And Iraq was not about the oil--if it
had been, we'd have the oil.


In my opinion, a very shallow view.

In other words, an opinion that makes you uncomfortable because
it's true.


?Bush managed to present Iraq
as the backer of 9/11 (most Americans still believe Iraq was behidn 9/11)
and lied directly about WMD (please read Paul William Roberts or Gwynne
Dyer).

Well, I could, but I doubt that they'd be much different from Noam
Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Michael Moore, and Kevin Phillips' American
Theocracy, which all present exactly the same case, in exactly as
wrongheaded a way.

I really do read a lot. And I really do read both sides of every
issue I take up.

??While it is true
that the countires you named, and others, have now large Islamic immigrant
populations, I doubt that prevented them from joining "The Coalition of the
Willing". Good sense did.

Cowardice did--fear of reprisals, fear of domestic terrorism, fear
of having their oil cut off.

?It was the action of a rogue state invading
another country for no valid reason. Simply put, the invasion was wrong
under international law and othes saw this clearly, Canada included.

Actually, it was no such thing. After the Gulf War, part of
the treaties signed by Saddam included full and free access for UN
inspectors on pain of being reinvaded and deposed. Once Saddam threw
thew inspectors out in--1998?--any one of the Gulf War coalition could
have legally invaded to retaliate, and the UN could have done the
same.

Why didn't the UN do it?

Remember, Bush did nto even want to wait for the UN inspectors - he had hsi
mind set and wanted that oil (Iraqi freedom? Nonsense. Ther ar many
dictators around the world, msot supported by the USA. Regime change is
false; oil is hte name of the game. "It's the crude, Dude".

The UN inspectors were only in Iraq at the time because the
Bush administration provided a credible threat that if they were not
admitted, we would invade.

For four years prior to that, Saddam had been thumbing his nose
at the UN and keeping the inspectors out.

Um...evangelicals are not the same thing as fundamentalists.

The US is the only overtly religious country in the G8. Frankly, the
dogmatic views expressed in the name of religion in the USA are downright
scary. That bush joins in, visits Bob Jones Univeristy and panders to
this voting block is horrid.

The fact remains that evangelicals are not the same thing as
fundamentalists. Bob Jones is a fundamentalist university.
Fundamentalists claim to believe in the literal truth of the Bible,
most evangelicals do not.

And on and on and on. One of the causes of "alarm" may be not
understanding what you're in fact seeing.



Liberty means the right of every individual to make his own
decisions about his own life--and to go to hell in his own handbasket
if he makes the wrong ones.

We differ on that. If you don't want to wear your seat belt, fine by me.
But seriously, I think the state has a larger role in affairs that you seem
to want.

Most Canadians do. Which is one of the reasons--weather
notwithstanding--I wouldn't want to live in Canada.


Is wearing a seat belt such a big deal? Oh well, again we differ. I assume
you refuse to hock up in an airplane as well, and leave your laptop on jsut
to show you are free to do so...

Nope. I ALWAYS wear my seat belt. I wear them on airplanes,
too, unless I'm lying sideways and trying to sleep. And I keep the
laptop and the cell phone off.

It's the principle of the thing--how far should government be
allowed to invade the private choices of individuals?

And I say, not much.


Government action should be limited to intervening when one
individual or group INITIATES the use of force or fraud against
another and carrying out those activities necessary for the
functioning of a society that CANNOT be carried out in any other
way.

A very libertarian viewpoint with which I differ. Government has a much
greater role in a modern society. I do not want a private company supplying
my water - a growing concern - and many other such things.

I agree. Water should be a municipal responsibility. Please see
my actual post quote above--water is indeed necessary for the
functioning of society and in most places it cannot be reliably
delivered (in such a way as to prevent the spread of disease, etc)
except through government services.

A lot? I believe the polls show the majority of Amerians in favour of
universal health coverage and gun control too. It is the lobby groups who
prevent the "will of the people" form being exercises.

Uh, no.

First, the gun control thing is a second amendment issue. Our
Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms, and no research
into the writing of that amendment comes out any way but to show that
the people who wrote it assumed that individuals would own guns. To
get rid of that would take a Constitutional amendment, which would
mean that it would have to pass by a two thirds majority of both
houses of Congress and then be ratified by three quarters of the
states. Enough LIBERALS oppose such an amendment so that you don't
need "special interests" to explain why stricter gun control isn't
happening.

Second, the health care thing is a hat trick. Ask Americans if
they think there should be universal coverage, and they'll say yes.
Ask them about a SPECIFIC plan for such coverage, and they'll say no.
Americans support universal insurance IF a) it does not result in wait
times; b) it does not result in gatekeepers and rationing; c) iit does
not restrict their choices of doctors, etc, etc, etc.


What was? I agree--we should never invade another country
without cause. But of course, I also think that there was plenty of
cause for the invasion of Iraq, and I think that even though I DON'T
support the war.

Just what are those causes that justify invasion.

I'm going to answer this in a separate post, because the answer
is long.

?Was there an immediate


Well, again on that point we differ. Frnakly, the very idea of some parent
shanding down their barbarid ideas to children is downright crazy. Take the
immigrant population. Do you really want to hand down "honour killings"?

The rule of thumb is that a parent may make any decision for a
minor child that will not most likely result in significant physical
disability or death--so no, I don't support a parent's resort to honor
killings.

But to hand down the IDEA of honor killings? Yes. Or any idea
at all. Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience mean what they
say--freedom, not "freedom" to choose what the state approves of.

No, it does not stop it, but it is a matter that needs to be addressed and
"freedom" subject to other rights of individuals.

Individual rights are not in conflict. Rights are negative
only and only apply to restrictions on GOVERNMENT action. The
government must not penalize my speech, but you can throw me out of
your living room for supporting Howdy Doody for President.

?How, I don't know. ?We
limit certain speech here and no government has gone further than our laws
(I am thinking of our hate crimes legislation).

Yes, I know. In Canada, you do no have free speech. You're
only free to speak what the government does not disapprove of.


?On the other hand, the
Patriot Act and other measures in the USA seem to have done away with "free"
speech to a much greater degree.

Untrue. In fact, the PA has not impinged on freedom of speech
at all, and the worst parts of it were knocked down by the courts in a
few months after passage, which is about par for the course.


And? Nothing the US has done, even in Iraq, contravenes
Nuremberg.

Oh dear. You are in a fantasy.

No, I was just actually paying attention.


I shall not bother to cite the writers - the many of them - who have
denouced the war and the media means used to start it.

Well, we're back to Chomsky, Vidal and Moore again--but so
what? Anybody can denounce anything. That's part of what free
speech is all about.

The fact that they do doesn't make them right.

Jane Haddam
http://www.janehaddam.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Most hated {Old thread revisited}
    ... also be treated as freedom of speech, ... to see such freedom from their view... ... way of curtailing the government. ... " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Electoral Campaigning Reform
    ... You want all these curtails on freedom of speech because you hate ... Terrible restrictions on freedom of speech exist in Malaysia. ... How can we call ourselves a democracy if the people ... To make the government, to make the ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: A Moment Of Silence
    ... This is what America is all about. ... We also have freedom of speech (well, ... government' argument a bit specious nowadays. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding
    ... that DARPA was wrong for politicizing a technical project, ... Lott if there is a price for speech. ... > It does not mean the government is required to continue to pay you to do ... > We must bear in mind that free speech exists within a context of freedom; ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: A Moment Of Silence
    ... This is what America is all about. ... We also have freedom of speech (well, ... freedom of speech is like pregnancy. ... government' argument a bit specious nowadays. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)