What, exactly, is objectionable about "socialism"?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

In other words, the world needs me, not you!

that was smarts, not smarts asses.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

oh, yeah? Well I bet Archaea, like, totally didn't even have a car! He like had to borrow his dad's!! And not even the Mercedes, either...the domestic. How awful is that??

You stop that. I had several cars which through my own thrift and industry magically gifted me one right after another. And these were not Porsches, or MBs, I was subjected to cars of the plebeian variety, how horrific was that. My friend with his Porsche laughed at my car.

It was horrible. Only years of counseling got me through the experience.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

You were a Jet weren't you?

correction! you ARE a Jet. Cause everyone knows if your a Jet, you're a Jet till your last dying day.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

that was smarts, not smarts asses.

lemming.

[Colly Wolly]

The existence of this thread is proof that the American education system is derelict in its duties. Less artsy fartsy drama crap, more fundamental economic theory. How can we expect to remain competitive as a nation when such ignorance exists in the minds of the masses?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

correction! you ARE a Jet. Cause everyone knows if your a Jet, you're a Jet till your last dying day.

The funny thing about Action.....he may be the only gang member in the history of cinema to wear a striped sleeveless cardigan.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

lemming.

Only on my bad days, SU.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Show me any time in the history of nations when this has not been so? I recognize the rational, European approach, but it has never really worked. Armies open doors for their own nations or for those that follow. German, Sweden and France have gone through the doors opened by the US in China.

History teaches me, the more things change the more things remain the same, and at no time in the history of humanity or civilizations have martial forces not be involved in procuring commercial channels. So why should things change?

And another fundamental disagreement, societies at large in dealing with other nation states do not behave nor should they be expected to behave as we expect individuals to behave. It doesn't happen and only Jimmy Carter introduced that failed notion. Emotionally I can see its appeal, but my left brain tells me that approach will not work.

Ultimately, might-makes-right, which, unfortunately is more true than anyone would like to believe. But what we've had trouble with historically is grossly underestimating the total cost of interventions.

"Trouble with access to oil in Iran? Well, let's topple this Mossadegh guy and put the Shah back in..." A few years later, BOOM - the embassy's been taken over, which became the basis for foreign policy that prompted us to prop up Saddam. Then...

"That Saddam has gone bad on us. Let's just do a little regime change here... HOLY SHIT! It wasn't supposed to be like this!"

Kennecott copper wanted Kissinger & the CIA to bump off Allende in Chile, but that fiesty Pinochet... well, he got a little out of hand and killed thousands. Ooops!

And so on...

Yo Seattle - how does this military-economic, one-two punch square with those lofty ideals we export around the world?

It means when Russia invades Georgia, we really don't have much moral authority to stand on, and everyone stands around looking to see how we'll react, since we're the cops. See, if McCain was in the office instead of Obama, we would commit the budget resources to fight THREE wars at once!

Many outside the US want Obama to win because they hope a "regime change" will diminish the "do as we say, not as we do" posture that has caused a whole bunch more trouble for everyone than the economic advantage provided us.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Ultimately, might-makes-right, which, unfortunately is more true than anyone would like to believe. But what we've had trouble with historically is grossly underestimating the total cost of interventions.

Bush was myopic and clumsy, his interventions did not benefit us.

Afghanistan could have benefited us, if he had continued only there with more emphasis on rebuilding it.

But the threat of might is important. And curtailed use of it is also important. Invading Grenada who threatened us so mercilessly was courageous and demonstrative.

Imagine if Bush had continued only through Afghanistan and continued to engage NATO further while using the funds of the Iraq war to stabilize Afghanistan. If he had that vision, things could be quite different today. Imagine the good will generated if a Muslim country had seen us as effective rebuilders who exercised restraint, bringing peace, good schools, a better economy and chances for a better life.

You don't intervene just to intervene, which appears to have been Bush's philosophy. We don't need to spread representative government, that's bs. And Iraq was strategically contained.

The threat and appearance of being willing to use it makes it powerful, but if you overuse it or refuse to use it, you dissipate your power.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by archaea

invading grenada who threatened us so mercilessly was courageous and demonstrative.

lol