Commissar

Maybe my fellow countrymen will finally stop buying big-ass SUVs. I grant you they're crucial for navigating from work to the grocery store to home, due to all the off-road conditions one's likely to encounter along the way, but still.

Incorrect. I mocked you for suggesting that the US is more "free" than any other society on earth, and that the US has done more to spread democracy than anybody else, times two, or whatever.

You are saying that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts are only found in America? You're kidding me, right? There are fundamentalists all over the world. Athenian Democracy is popular to discuss, and while they innovated, they did not spread Democracy to the rest of the world. Some historians credit the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but really the two documents have next to nothing in common. I would argue that we pulled more so from the Constitution of the Iriquois Nation though our founding fathers would be unlikely to admit it. The documents read very similiar. Either way, I can present an academic arguement about how the USA is in fact the most free nation on this planet and futhermore how we have done more than any nation on this planet to further democracy. If someone wants to test this, I would challenge them to first offer up a nation which is more free and which has done more to spread democracy. I'm taking all commers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tomorrow. I've had a long day.

... Or freedom in general? :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's what they hate us for.

No, they're city folk. Beslan's southwest Russia, which, like the majority of Russia, is a place you wouldn't want to go to. Anything south or east of Moscow I wouldn't consider a vacation spot.

Thought I'd offer a heads-up to those interested. HBO's going to be airing a documentary tonight on the children of Beslan, the Russian town where the Chechens took over a school for three days. Supposed to include footage shot by the actual terrorists themselves. On at 8PM EST.

But, Foxnews is prolly THE media juggernaut night now. In my expirence, they tend to be farther from the middle than CNN. I think MSNBC and CNN are equals on the right and left respectively. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If people can say with a straight face that Fox News isn't biased towards the conservative position, they're better liars than I am, and I'm a damn good liar. People like to call MSNBC liberal, but I really don't see it. Not when you've got guys like Joe "News Your Family Needs To Know" Scarborough and Tucker Carlson hanging around. I don't watch domestic CNN enough to know whether it's liberal or not, so I might have to try tuning in now and again to check it out.

I actually have yet to hit the Report button on this forum throughout the entirety of my stay here, so try again. Edit: And Eldar can actually confirm that, since he's the one I talked to via PM. All I asked of him was what Lucius had done to get on moderated status since I heard you were involved in that, too, and made it clear that if you happened to be Eldar's pet project, he ought to let me know. I believe I even made it clear that I had no wish to report you (Right, Eldy?).

Worse. I mean, I'm sure I probably said something more disconnected from reality than Ender's statement while under the influence, but for the life of me I can't think of what it would've been.

If you don't like what I have to say, don't read it. After all no one is forcing you to click the button. Saying "ban plz" is just childish and immature. Add to the discussion at hand or don't respond. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're talking to Captain Kneejerk. He thinks he's won an argument if he successfully manages to report your post. Just ignore it and move on.

God, you just made me remember what it's like to do shrooms.

Ah, see, I thought you were criticizing.

Nope. You don't take an oath to defend Iraq when you enlist/get commissioned. Trust me. But you're right, higher-ups have indeed committed the military to George's Middle Eastern Adventure, and I have little doubt that we're going to try and make it work. What I'm telling you is that from my vantage point, I don't see how it can, at all. So the real choice is, do we gut it out until we're either obliged to admit we can't do the job or have to resort to a draft, or get out now?

I only know what I see in TV, but apparently they are stabilizing the region. Slowly, but steadily. You know, all that stuff about their autonomous government and elections and whatnot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are still large parts of the country that have power for three or four hours out of the day. A government is being put in place - yes, put in place, not "formed by the people" - but it's not the sort of government that's going to be able to weather these attacks - which are not decreasing in number, by the way - without massive US involvement. The Iraqi security forces are good guys, but there's not a chance in hell they can handle the insurgency by themselves. And as far as the government itself goes, we're going to have to see if it actually does take shape. Consider everything right now provisional; the Sunnis could easily nullify the entire constitution in the referendum if they're really that unhappy with it, and then we're back to square one.

If I'd been down there, I probably wouldn't have left, either. On the other hand, I'm a strong swimmer with small-boat experience. But seriously, I've lived (and occasionally slept) through three or four hurricanes, and they're never as bad as the folks say they will be. This one wasn't, either, but it was a hell of a lot worse than anything else we've seen, apparently. So the idea of evacuating everytime a named storm looks like it's going to come ashore doesn't cut any ice with me, either, so I don't necessarily blame the folks trapped.

To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the best interests of the American people was served by the region being stabilised, and not left with a power vacuum like, um, when the British pulled out of the Middle East and Afganistan after WW1 ... then what should those armed forces do? Serve their own immediate needs, or the needs of the many? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair point. But if that's where your argument's coming from, then you need to make the logical conclusion; we don't have the force in Iraq at the moment to accomplish that goal, no matter what Georgie might say, and if we're to have any chance at all of cleaning up our own mess, as numbers put it, we need to get more guys in-country. Except we don't have the people.

Yeah, in fact he appointed our present king to be his successor. The king, however, thought (very sensibly might I add) that people would not stand for another dictator, so he arranged for change to a democratic government. He's a cool guy, our king. This, in turn, pissed off a lot of fascists, and gave birth to a whole new generation of flat-headed, ignorant fascist whelps. Some of the people I have to deal with on a daily basis really nauseate me. <_< LOL In fact they aren't. They existed long before him, and they were in turn the evolution of a law enforcement body for the country from the XVI century. Their only peculiarity is that they are a police force, but with a military organization. They don't have tanks, though. But basically, yeah. If you piss 'em off, there will be hell to pay. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you...are you arguing with yourself?

The reason I said "no" to military service as a requirement for citizenship earlier, a la Heinlein, is because it comes much too close to resembling a conscript army, especially if the service requirement is only something like two years. I'm against two-year enlistments, period, but that's for different reasons. I think everyone would agree that it's better to have a hard-charging, squared-away true volunteer force to do the dirty work rather than a bunch of guys who are just doing their time in order to run for President. Now, the obvious argument is that despite what we'd like, there are plenty of people in today's American armed forces that are neither hard-charging nor squared-away, and that there are plenty more who are just treading water until they can get back to the civilian world. That's profoundly true, but the ratio isn't as high as you'd think. Besides, with only a two-year requirement, you'd barely have time to finish yer schoolin' (depending on the branch) before you were set free. As for Volo's points about voting and whatnot being an unassailable right...yeah, it is. Right now. And I'm not entirely sure that it should be. I'd take a well-informed, highly-educated, very intelligent electorate over the mix of the best and the worst we've got today. And not just because government policies would all of a sudden get a hell of a lot more liberal.

To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place.

I profoundly disagree.

The bottom line that everyone seems to be missing is that we cannot combat this sort of thing with our current policies and force structure. Doing what we're doing now, we couldn't possibly stop this from happening again tomorrow.

Democracy ensures that the people are governed no better than they deserve. I support a meritocracy. You can vote if you pass certain tests. You can run for office if you pass certain tests. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Begs the age old question: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Me.

I actually agree with this. Particularly, I'm thinking of something similar to Heinlein's take on the matter in Starship Troopers. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What, service guarantees citizenship? I'm not sure I like that. I'm thinking more along the lines of a general knowledge test.

Crass? Howso? Profanity wasn't invented in 1979, you know.