Is this Americas future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Although I do know that unions can use tactics that could be described as "strong-arm," in my experience, they pale in comparison with what the corporations will do on the opposite side. Besides that, it's not a fair fight. Management holds a person's job in the balance. What does the union have to compare with that? That's why fair labor practices have always regulated mostly on the side of labor. Management actually needs very little protection. They already hold most of the cards, and as I know from sad personal experience, they're not afraid to use them. And I was management!

In my opinion, the Republican Party abandoned its principles a couple decades ago. That's what it's all about. If they became what they once were, I'd be happy to go back. The Democrats are far from a comfortable fit for me. But I'm not holding my breath. Nothing I see indicates that the GOP is suddenly going back to defense of personal liberty, small government, and fiscal responsibility.

There was no "ideal candidate" for the GOP this time around. They drove the country into a very deep ditch, and were bound to get spanked. Personally, I think McCain was the only candidate they had who could possibly have made a race of it.

j

---

Jim,
Our experiences on this issue are from completely different sides of the track. Your experience is that of a large corporation, mine is that of small business. By trying to pass a legislation that may curb the stuff you are speaking of, it will impact many small businesses in a negative way. I think that a solution may be out there, but EFCA is not it.

I had to laugh at the statement of the GOP going back to its roots, especially the smaller government part. The big D party it definately not that. I have enjoyed the debate, but in the end I think we must agree to disagree.

The problem with this tough, is that since ww2, 70% of COW has been civilians....The times when soldiers stod in lines facing each other and opened fire went out of fashion after your civil war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

The problem with this tough, is that since ww2, 70% of COW has been civilians....The times when soldiers stod in lines facing each other and opened fire went out of fashion after your civil war.

---

it's not just that, but the difference in a lot of wars between a civilian and a combatant is a compulsory draft. I dont' feel any better about the idea of mowing down a line of "martyrs" if they were forced to throw on a uniform weeks before than I do about bombing civilians. Life is precious, you do what you can to minimize the loss of life in war, but you do what you have to do. Noncombatant immunity is a crock - it made sense maybe back in like the rennaisance age, when war was a contact sport and you played or didn't, but in the modern era it just doesn't apply anymore. I wrote an honors paper on this once for a war studies degree - my socialist cambridge university trained professor loved it because he thought he was going to cream me and admitted he couldn't crack my argument. Gotta dig that back up sometime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

If you look at our history, you'll notice that we've been at war with ourselves for over a 1000 years, culminating in 2 world wars.
We now have an unprecedented 64 years of peace, only because we decided after WWII that talking was the only long term survival strategy.



Black and white as in Iraq?
The US went into Iraq alone because we didn't want any part of it, seeing as there was no proof to start it.
Sure, Saddam gave the UN the finger. So we put sanctions in place and talked, and he still gave us the finger. But he was contained. Whatever it was he was doing, he was doing it inside his borders, he had no WMD, and he was not involved with Al qaeda.

In afghanistan the Us had massive European support and goodwill. And Europe is still involved in Afghanistan with the UN troops that are now keeping the peace there.
If the US wants Europe to take action, it has to come with proof, not with unsubstantiated claims and the question to start a war that will destabilize the entire region.

Non violent conflict is orders of magnitude better than violent conflict.
You won the cold war on talking and spending, not with fighting.

---

No, not as in Iraq. I agree, in hindsight, that going into Iraq was a mistake. Iraq does not define the international issues faced by the world since the end of the cold war.

Why do we have to be the ones to lead in Afghanistan? Why did we have to lead in the Balkans? That's Europe’s backyard. We begged Europe to take the ball and run with it there. We went war there to defend Muslims. I don't see anyone mentioning that.

Instead of always pointing the finger and criticizing, how about stepping up and offering actual solutions besides sticking our heads in the sand. When was the last time Europe really dealt with a security problem?

The cold war was won peacefully because we also had a nuclear arsenal and demonstrated a willingness to fight if pushed, despite the weakness shown by some.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but I get tired of being criticized when no other real options are put on the table.


Jordan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

And at this point I would have to say sorry to Mark/JMS for some serious off topic :OT discussions in his thread but it has been interresting... and the most gentlemanly one I have seen of this type.... :D

---

And I have enjoyed every deviation in this thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jnich67

No, not as in Iraq. I agree, in hindsight, that going into Iraq was a mistake. Iraq does not define the international issues faced by the world since the end of the cold war.

Why do we have to be the ones to lead in Afghanistan? Why did we have to lead in the Balkans? That's Europe’s backyard. We begged Europe to take the ball and run with it there. We went war there to defend Muslims. I don't see anyone mentioning that.

---

I cannot comment on the balkans. That happened when I was still in highschool, not giving a fig about politics. I am afraid I don't know much about what happened in the aftermath of the USSR collapse.
You did have to take the lead in afghanistan because it was your war after all. But Europe did give plenty of assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gssixgun

...Now lets take it a step farther, and discuss torture.....

Is it wrong to use torture????
Is it wrong to use torture to save a life????

I would be the first to say that torture just for the sake of inflicting pain is wrong, BUT torture to save a life ?????

Now before you answer out of a false sense of morality, you know where I will take this if you just say No... I will get personal with it, so really think about the answer, how far are you willing to go to save a life????

---

Wow this thread has run far afield.

The problems with torture are many but I will list the issues I have with it:

1. I am a big supporter of The Golden Rule. I don't expect our people to be tortured and therefore I cannot condone our people doing the torturing.
2. Studies tend to indicate that the reliability of information gained via torture is questionable.
3. What torture methods are acceptable? There are some that would be considered "torture lite" such as sleep deprivation, extreme hot or cold environments, waterboarding, stress positions.What if they don't get your desired result? Do you then proceed to thumbscrews, the rack, branding, flaying, vivisection, disembowelment? I guess then you may very well torture your prisoner to death. Then rather than torturing to save a life, what have you accomplished?
4. There is a definite danger of the torturer deciding he/she enjoys torturing another human being. This was proven is a famous prison experiment.

I was attached to a ship that was in drydock getting a missile system upgrade. Someone was sabotaging the work being done to the submarine by cutting cables associated with the weapons systems. I was accused of being the sabotuer and taken by NIS (Naval Investigative Service) to a little unmarked room and beatn up for a while by two guys. The threatened to make me disappear and that my family and neighbors would be told I was a deserter. They burned me with cigarettes and stuck a .357 in my mouth and squeezed the trigger on an empty chamber. They hit me with a telephone book. I was made to stand at attention for seven hours. Then they let me go. I was re-assigned to another ship before they found the civilian yard worker that was cutting the cables. Torture sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icedog

Wow this thread has run far afield.


The problems with torture are many but I will list the issues I have with it:

1. I am a big supporter of The Golden Rule. I don't expect our people to be tortured and therefore I cannot condone our people doing the torturing.
2. Studies tend to indicate that the reliability of information gained via torture is questionable.
3. What torture methods are acceptable? There are some that would be considered "torture lite" such as sleep deprivation, extreme hot or cold environments, waterboarding, stress positions.What if they don't get your desired result? Do you then proceed to thumbscrews, the rack, branding, flaying, vivisection, disembowelment? I guess then you may very well torture your prisoner to death. Then rather than torturing to save a life, what have you accomplished?
4. There is a definite danger of the torturer deciding he/she enjoys torturing another human being. This was proven is a famous prison experiment.

I was attached to a ship that was in drydock getting a missile system upgrade. Someone was sabotaging the work being done to the submarine by cutting cables associated with the weapons systems. I was accused of being the sabotuer and taken by NIS (Naval Investigative Service) to a little unmarked room and beatn up for a while by two guys. The threatened to make me disappear and that my family and neighbors would be told I was a deserter. They burned me with cigarettes and stuck a .357 in my mouth and squeezed the trigger on an empty chamber. They hit me with a telephone book. I was made to stand at attention for seven hours. Then they let me go. I was re-assigned to another ship before they found the civilian yard worker that was cutting the cables. Torture sucks.

---

:eek::eek::eek: When was this??!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadduck

"If somebody comes into your home on your soil with the intent to do harm to you or yours, do you do everything in the realm of possibilities to protect your family or do you worry about the law????"

I like this arguement. So, if you thought your next door neighbor was in cahoots with bad guys, but then found out he wasn't, but then thought he was collecting weapons to use against you, would you be justified in invading his house and butchering his family? And then when you found out he didn't have any weapons, would you be aquitted of all charges by raising the defense, "Well gee, we're better off without him"? Not so simple after all, I guess.

---

If you like this argument so much, why not respond to it instead of changing it into a completely different argument/scenario? Apples and oranges.

LOL, I guess the topic did go off; not that that's a bad thing in this particular instance, but I'll comment on the original post.

I just glanced at the Morris article. It seems to me he is saying Obama will do this and Obama will do that, all of which will make us a Socialist country. He further says that if Obama does all of these things, then the Republicans will win in 2010 and 2012.

Unless Morris has some source somewhere that knows what Obama is going to do, Morris is speculating and trying to scare people. I do agree with him though that if Obama does do all of these things it will prove to be a disaster for his Presidency and his Party. Obama won the election due to moderates; they will abandon him in a second if he abandons them. I think he knows that- he is no dummy. The danger I think comes if he gets elected to a second term. Then he can do pretty much what he wants without fear unless there is a Congress that won't go along with his every whim and can put a check on anything extreme he might want to do. Historically the Party in power loses influence in the mid-term elections so there is hope that the next Congress will act as a check on anything extreme. There is also a fairly solid conservative Supreme Court that can do the same.