The war in Iraq and the history of USA

[Mireille]

If someone from Europe would like to describe the definitions of "liberal" and "conservative," it'd be better than me trying to pretend I know what they are, though I have a rough idea.

 

OK, so this is how we understand it in Europe:

 

Liberal - as little government intervention as possible, the market works best if untouched (if it still does not ring a bell, I need to remind you that "libertas" in Latin means "freedom" - how can governemnt interventionism be called "economic freedom"?)

Conservative - this is a political, not economic term and comprises a whole set of values. Conservative parties support strong government, however, their economic ideas are in fact taken from liberalism. Remember Margaret Thatcher and her crackdown on labour unions? Well, she was (and still is) a conservative.

 

What Arnie calls "liberals" would in Europe be called "social democrats". Liberal countries in Europe are, e.g. Ireland or the UK. "Social" countries are the Scandinavia, France or Belgium.

[crusadingknight]

how can governemnt interventionism be called "economic freedom"

Being a slave to the rich is not freedom...

[Mireille]

how can governemnt interventionism be called "economic freedom"

Being a slave to the rich is not freedom...

 

Eh? Please expand.

[Entropy]

Liberal is, in the US, applied both to social liberalism (euthaniasia, drugs, gay marriage, etc.) and economic liberalism, where the governmet has high taxes, everyone has free medical coverage, etc.

[Arnieman]

Yeah, that's kinda what I was meaning, US views and European views arent the same.

 

"Liberal" (generally tied to the Democrat party) in America generally means stuff like "Let's slaughter babies and old farts, but not murderers!", as well as the government having it's hands in everyone's pockets to pay for welfare, health care, etc. for everyone. Also bundled here is gun control and the ACLU (wow, let's defend rights by removing rights?)

 

"Conservative" ("Republican" mainly) means that the government lets you keep your money so you can pay off already rich old farts to not do the jobs the government wouldn't be doing if it taxed you for them, as well as being anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, pro-death penalty, pro-guns...

 

There are "third parties" - but for the most part, these are smaller parties, and less involved in US politics.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Arnieman

[Mireille]

Liberal is, in the US, applied both to social liberalism (euthaniasia, drugs, gay marriage, etc.) and economic liberalism, where the governmet has high taxes, everyone has free medical coverage, etc.

 

Economic liberalism means that goverment doesn't meddle with the economy and that taxes are LOW. And so is social coverage. I recommend Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" on that matter.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Mireille

[Arnieman]

Economic liberalism means that goverment doesn't meddle with the economy and that taxes are LOW. And so is social coverage. I recommend Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" on that matter.

Yeah, that's a "conservative" idea in America.

[Entropy]

Yeah, that's kinda what I was meaning, US views and European views arent the same.

 

"Liberal" (generally tied to the Democrat party) in America generally means stuff like "Let's slaughter babies and old farts, but not murderers!", as well as the government having it's hands in everyone's pockets to pay for welfare, health care, etc. for everyone. Also bundled here is gun control and the ACLU (wow, let's defend rights by removing rights?)

 

"Conservative" ("Republican" mainly) means that the government lets you keep your money so you can pay off already rich old farts to not do the jobs the government wouldn't be doing if it taxed you for them, as well as being anti-abortion, anti-euthenasia, pro-death penalty, pro-guns...

 

There are "third parties" - but for the most part, these are smaller parties, and less involved in US politics.

 

Oh, for fucks's sake!

The Republicans are for much more than that. They are pro murder, pro rape, pro torture, pro fascism.

And would you mind explaining hoe the Liberals are for: "Let's slaughter babies and old farts, but not murderers!" ?

Edited February 8, 2006 by Entropy

[Mireille]

 

The Republicans are for much more than that. They are pro murder, pro rape, pro torture, pro fascism.

 

 

Oh please, Ent, you are a game developper, you are intelligent, and yet you talk such crap... Sometimes when I read your messages it reminds me of the worst years of communist propaganda (in Poland 1945-1956). And the strangest thing is that you actually come from a country which experienced the most grotesque form of communism in Europe.

 

 

And would you mind explaining hoe the Liberals are for: "Let's slaughter babies and old farts, but not murderers!" ?

 

I think Arnie means that US liberals support abortion and euthanasia, but oppose death penalty.

[Arnieman]

Oh, for fucks's sake!

The Republicans are for much more than that. They are pro murder, pro rape, pro torture, pro fascism.

And would you mind explaining hoe the Liberals are for: "Let's slaughter babies and old farts, but not murderers!" ?

Admittedly, I could have dealt with the Republicans a bit harder than I did, but those accusations? Prove to me that it really is the party line and not just a fringe movement (or an unfortunate set of events that happened by people poorly trained given poorly written orders in a WAR).

 

As for the Liberal line, Mireille hit that one on the head - what I meant is that they generally are pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, and anti-death penalty. I did write that a bit harsh, but still...

 

Personally, I'm not really into any legalized form of murder (except maybe euthanasia, but it should be up to only the most terminally ill patients to determine when it's time). However, if you really want to keep murderers locked up forever on your dime, go right ahead. (If I wrote the death penalty, I'd make the punishment so grotesque that people think twice before sending people to die. If you ask me, the current form is about the same as you'd use to put down a dying pet, and I don't feel the condemned deserve such humane treatment in most cases. Not to mention I feel we send far too many people to legalized murder pits each year because it's not such a big deal anymore...)

[Entropy]

Well, yeah, that's what Euthaniasia is for, is not like young healthy people would get one, no?

As for those accusations about the republican party, aren't they repsonsible for the murder of about 250K civilians in the last invasion?

And don't tell me that's what happens in a war, because this is not a war, it's just an illegal invasion.

[Arnieman]

Euthanasia - you'd be surprised - I'm certain there are people not even out of high school trying to get euthanized without any real reason other than that they are sick of living.

 

Again, you are grouping - show the proof that the party wanted to rape, muder, etc.; NOT just a few.

[Entropy]

I think you got your terms wrong.

eu·tha·na·sia (yū'thə-nā'zhə, -zhē-ə)

n.

 

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

 

I think you mean suicide, which was never endorsed by any party, at least not AFAIK.

 

I am grouping? What about you? Didn't you group all the liberals into "slaugheters of young and old, lovers of the criminals"?

As for the proof, google for the list of people who voted for Bush to use his power to invade Iraq. And FFS, don't tell me that Kery voted for that too, because it's not like if Kerry voted for it it makes it excusable or something.

[Arnieman]

I think you got your terms wrong.

eu·tha·na·sia (yū'thə-nā'zhə, -zhē-ə)

n.

 

The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment.

 

I think you mean suicide, which was never endorsed by any party, at least not AFAIK.

yes, you got me on the first part - doctor-assisted suicide is kind of what I meant. What's to say a bad case of the blues couldn't be construed as an incurable condition, same as cancer, and many other medical conditions?

I am grouping? What about you? Didn't you group all the liberals into "slaugheters of young and old, lovers of the criminals"?

As for the proof, google for the list of people who voted for Bush to use his power to invade Iraq. And FFS, don't tell me that Kery voted for that too, because it's not like if Kerry voted for it it makes it excusable or something.

Yes, but I used the grouping they already selected for themselves - pro-choice, pro-euthanasia, anti-death penalty. Last I checked, neither party EVER added it to their platform to "rape, murder, and commit war crimes against another nation".

 

While we're on proof... here's a couple links I just googled:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm - 3 years after 9/11, and after the "supposed" links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are "disproven", US House votes with an overwhelming bipartisan majority that Iraq and the war on terror are linked.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0301-01.htm - Interesting note about Kerry.

 

Maybe if Kerry voted for it, he should also be facing these same charges that you want Bush facing?

 

And one more link:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/ - Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence.

 

Spin it however you want, but it also took a couple hundred other people to vote for Bush to go to Iraq or not - where's their accepting of responsibility? Where's the cries for their immediate trials?

 

I said it before - If you are willing to clean house, get ALL the dirt.

[Entropy]

Oh, I do want ALL of them who voted for the invasion of Iraq to be punished for the death of so many people. I have no particular love for Kerry.

 

And BTW, I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian. I am all for social freedom, and for less taxes/small government.

[Jaha]

However, if you really want to keep murderers locked up forever on your dime, go right ahead.

 

two pieces of information related to that I would like to pull up.

1. The United States the ONLY non-third world country to have exucutions. *edit* Canada has death penalty as well, sorry about that

2. It's actually cheaper to keep someone in jail for life than to proceed through the legal steps before the exucution.

 

Also, I got a recruitment thing today in the mail (I am 16). There are many ways to describe it, none of which are good. They have a picture of crosshairs on a vehicle with people on top of it with guns, with the caption "Put your 2,436 hours of video game time to good use." I seem to remember politicians being against games like GTA, now they say put the hours of playing them to good use. It also says "Get behind the controls of the world's most advanced technology." They forgot the *body armor is not included. They then go on to list some of the more glamorised possible jobs that you can do in the army, such as a guitar player. It might just be me, but I can't imagine someone standing in the middle of a gunfight, playing a guitar. If I'm missing something there, please tell me. Oh yeah, almost forgot about the "gift offer inside" talked about on the outside. You can get a free duffel bag if you agree to have them send you more info. yay! </rant> well, I'm done with that for now

Edited February 10, 2006 by dutchman21

[sparhawk]

1. The United States the ONLY non-third world country to have exucutions.

 

Actually canada has them too. The punishment is for being a traitor in a time of war.

[Jaha]

1. The United States the ONLY non-third world country to have exucutions.

 

Actually canada has them too. The punishment is for being a traitor in a time of war.

ah... whoops... my bad... ah well... still, only two countries do thanks though for correcting me :-D

[Arnieman]

However, if you really want to keep murderers locked up forever on your dime, go right ahead.

 

two pieces of information related to that I would like to pull up.

1. The United States the ONLY non-third world country to have exucutions. *edit* Canada has death penalty as well, sorry about that

2. It's actually cheaper to keep someone in jail for life than to proceed through the legal steps before the exucution.

1.) 2 countries - most have indeed given it up (still, my idea is that the death penalty should be kept, but made so cruel, unusual, and heinous that people are afraid to use it, except for the most heinous crime.

2.) Yeah, paperwork, more paperwork, chemicals, and a sterile needle (why does it need to be sterile if we are gonna kill them?) all add up. I personally wonder how a rusty knife could be more expensive (and if not, why we can't just do that).

[sparhawk]

Well in canada, when we give out life sentances they usually are cut with half the time. This is because every so often they are allowed to have the case retried...

[Arnieman]

Well in canada, when we give out life sentances they usually are cut with half the time. This is because every so often they are allowed to have the case retried...

We have about the same thing here - I think every death penalty case (not sure about all the state laws) have automatic appeals - regardless of automatic, people still appeal almost every major sentence to death in this country...

[omfug88]

Oh, I do want ALL of them who voted for the invasion of Iraq to be punished for the death of so many people. I have no particular love for Kerry.

 

And BTW, I am not a liberal, I am a libertarian. I am all for social freedom, and for less taxes/small government.

 

sry to just barge in and speak my mind, but without the invasion of iraq, terrorism would be at an all time high. as long as we are interfering, we are a thorn in the side of terrorism. 40% percent of the the people in iraq feel that it is ok to use car bombs against the US troops. that in itself is just morally wrong. the least you could do for the president is support him wether you like him or not. i doubt you could ever do a better job with the pressure he has on him. so just stop complaining. this is his last term anyways.

[ttlanhil]

sry to just barge in and speak my mind, but without the invasion of iraq, terrorism would be at an all time high.

terrorism is using fear in order to acheive political goals. except that the term isn't usualy applied to governments. it should be, of course, but isn't. how much terror over in the middle east do you think has been caused by the americans? and no, I don't think it's all their own fault. but people need to accept that there's more than one side to the story

as long as we are interfering, we are a thorn in the side of terrorism.

as long as you're interferring with violence or using fear, you're causing more terrorism(or using it, if you prefer)

40% percent of the the people in iraq feel that it is ok to use car bombs against the US troops. that in itself is just morally wrong.

using military force against the military? no it's not. whether you agree with the invasion or not, using car bombs against military is part of the war that the americans have started

the least you could do for the president is support him whether you like him or not.

wrong. so very wrong. being at war is not an excuse to get people to accept what you're doing. those who claim it's unpatriotic to criticize during wartime totally miss the point. the freedoms of the people that the americans claim to hold dearly are most important during times like this. the right to speak your mind can't be taken away because the country is at war (don't agree? some of americas founding fathers did. go google)

i doubt you could ever do a better job with the pressure he has on him. so just stop complaining.

that's the thing, though... maybe we could. maybe we couldn't. irrelevant. he is doing it, and many feel he's doing a poor job. and critizicing the government isn't just the right of the people, it's a responsibility (look at how many human rights or even american laws have been circumvented or removed in the name of the war of terrorism)

[anthropologist]

 

sry to just barge in and speak my mind, but without the invasion of iraq, terrorism would be at an all time high. as long as we are interfering, we are a thorn in the side of terrorism. 40% percent of the the people in iraq feel that it is ok to use car bombs against the US troops. that in itself is just morally wrong. the least you could do for the president is support him wether you like him or not. i doubt you could ever do a better job with the pressure he has on him. so just stop complaining. this is his last term anyways.

 

 

This kind of thinking frightens me.

 

Job pressure = excuse for immoral war/misleading and lying to population/causing death of thousands of innocents, not to mention U.S. troops kia for no acertainable reason??????

 

 

Ok...moving on

[omfug88]

aimed at ttlanhil

 

terror in the middle east. so technically what you are saying is what we are doing is equivilant to that which terrorists do. wrong. terrorists have no limitations. each action that the US army carried out when we invaded iraq was directly involved with stopping terrorism and overthrowing a dictatorial government and was limited in the actions it could carry out. also every military branch has a code of honor. there is nothing honorable in using car bombs.

 

and also about you doing a better job than the president. i didnt say we. soi have no idea where u got "we" from. i said you. and even though many people feel that he is doing a poor job, whats the use of complaining. its not like your mindless whining is going to suddenly make the US troops magically appear back home and everyone can be happy again.

 

and also, i would love for you to tell me what human rights have been circumvented or removed according the constitution.

 

and aimed at anthropologist

 

job pressure as an excuse? excuse? where did u get that from. it is really sad to know that you feel that way about the president. i may not like everything he has done, but im not complaining about it. and also i would rather it be thousands of innocents and some deaths in the US troops than thousands of civillians later on due to the acts of terrorism. people know before joining the army, or army guard, national guard, air force, navy, and marines that there may be a chance to be called up to serve. and a chance that you may die. and its sad to see that you feel that troops die for "no acertainable reason".

Edited March 1, 2006 by omfug88