It should be "TURKS", not OTTOMANS

[aelf]

I've never lived in America, so I'm not too familiar with details of your social and political conditions. But if the status quo favours established and well-funded parties, it doesn't mean the status quo will never change. And I think one may even convince some wealthy people with some good political ideas. Not everyone is a bringer of change, though. In fact, few people are. But that doesn't mean nobody can change the system. That also doesn't mean pessimism and skepticism is the order of the day.

eric, I'm glad that you have an informed opinion about politics in your country. But if a farmer in the Midwest votes for the Republicans because he feels that the party represents him and his values, that is his choice. Is there a genuine case where people are press-ganged into voting for any party in the US?

Maybe it's good to take a quote from Churchill that is found in Civ4: Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried (I quote it from memory). The system in America may be flawed and partly self-serving, but it sure is one of the best in the world right now. Do you prefer any other political systems? You can criticise your system endlessly, but at the end of the day you must acknowledge that there can never be perfection. Then comes a compromise between the ideal and reality, which makes things run. You agree to play a role in your society/country but work towards making things better.

Here, where I'm living, there are many parts of the country that don't get to vote in an election. Why? Because there simply isn't enough opposition to the ruling party. There's an ultimate defeatist attitude towards opposition politics that is much fuelled by government attempts to legally stifle dissension that they view as dangerous to social stability. I'm not saying that this system is necessarily evil (I could get arrested for that here). There are tangible benefits to this system. But I'm sure as an American, you don't want this to be the case in your country. The government there probably can't stop dissent just like that right now, but if a majority of Americans are to be defeatist and think that there's no point to politics because it always turns out bad and don't participate, think of what would happen.

The only way to stop democracy from completely degenerating is to vote, whether you like it or not. If there's a lack of a better choice, vote for the party that represents you and your values the most. I'm sure things are not so hopelessly bad that it's impossible. If you do not vote, you are only giving the extremists (of whatever party) a chance to do so and dominate the government and then impose policies that you do not agree with.

Doing something positive is better than doing nothing. That's essentially my point.

 

[eric_]

The only way to stop democracy from completely degenerating is to vote, whether you like it or not.

I agree, and that's why I vote in every single election. But there's a reason why our representative democracy is in trouble: fewer than 50% of our voting-age population votes in any given election. The question is why, and the answer is disillusionment. People have lost faith in the integrity of those they vote into power. I can't say I blame people. The "party" has trumped the people. I'm not saying I'm OK with this and I'm going to stop voting. Quite the contrary. A midwestern farmer votes for a Republican either because of what he says (gay marriage bad!) or because of the promise of continued subsidies, which of course just boils down to money and soundbytes, and rarely actual representation.

But I'm sure as an American, you don't want this to be the case in your country. The government there probably can't stop dissent, but if a majority of Americans are to be defeatist and think that there's no point to politics because it always turns out bad and don't participate, think of what would happen.

These days I'm very worried about what's going on. A man was arrested a couple of years ago for telling Dick Cheney that he thinks the Iraq war was a grave error. Protesters during the 2004 election cycle were relegated to "free speech zones" (Can you say "doublespeak"? Was Orwell a prophet?) where they were cordoned off to a remote part of town where the person they were protesting against were sure to not hear them. Our government is spying on us. It has just granted the President the power to use "harsh" interrogation methods on "unlawful enemy combatants, a categorization decided upon by, you guessed it, the President.

Meanwhile, 40% of our population votes.

The intent implicit in the foundation of our government is noble and powerful and something I wish guided its modern manifestation.

Doing something positive is better than doing nothing. That's essentially my point.

Sure, but on a message board it's hard to convey action . Also, considering that the framers of our government saw fit to include Free Speech as the very first protected right in the bill of rights, I strongly feel that our first duty as Americans is to speak our opinions boldly, especially when they are in opposition to those in power.

Do you mind if I ask where you're from, aelf?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

...The only way to stop democracy from completely degenerating is to vote, whether you like it or not. If there's a lack of a better choice, vote for the party that represents you and your values the most. I'm sure things are not so hopelessly bad that it's impossible. If you do not vote, you are only giving the extremists (of whatever party) a chance to do so and dominate the government and then impose policies that you do not agree with.

Doing something positive is better than doing nothing. That's essentially my point.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this point (quoted above) you make. The only way to stop the degeneration of democracy, is to have an informed public that doesn't vote based on pretty colors they see on Fox News, CNN, and other partial-truth based mass media. The defeatist attitude comes in voting for the party that represents you and your values most because there is a lack of a better choice.

No one on this post as said they don't vote, and in this point I agree. The freedom to vote must be utilized if you have any opinion or concern at all. Even if this means a write-in vote.

However, every American who posts on these forums (IMO) has a deep appreciation for the freedom we have to vote. To advertise our freedom is pretty much a moot point. America should be the exempliary country of democracy (considering it is forcing this "democracy" on others), but instead, it is a two-party system of mudslinging, lies, and pandering for votes. It is not really an example, whatsoever, of an ideal democratic republic system.

 

[eric_]

The only way to stop the degeneration of democracy, is to have an informed public that doesn't vote based on pretty colors they see on Fox News, CNN, and other partial-truth based mass media. The defeatist attitude comes in voting for the party that represents you and your values most because there is a lack of a better choice.

Well said.

America should be the exempliary country of democracy (considering it is forcing this "democracy" on others), but instead, it is a two-party system of mudslinging, lies, and pandering for votes. It is not really an example, whatsoever, of an ideal democratic republic system.

And again, well said. But we apparently project quite the image of ourselves. I wish we were half as good as we appear to you, aelf. And we of course have noone to blame but ourselves (40% voter turnout).

 

[eric_]

God help you if you say the wrong thing now...

 

[Abegweit]

How would you propose dealing with those who are ideologically opposed to you and don't share your belief in nonviolence? Either on an individual/personal level or on a national level? Just curious.

On a personal level, I opt out. I refuse, as far as I can, to take part in the violence. I engage in voluntary relationships with my grocer, my neighbour, my family, my friends. I refuse to engage in politics. Take the Amish as an inspiration for your conduct.

On a national level, dismantle the armies. They serve no purpose other than to create enemies. Nuclear weapons are useful, as a deterrent. It's interesting to note that the only country that avoided the civil strife in Central America in the 70s and 80s was Costa Rica. It doesn't have an army.

In fact, no nation needs an army any more, other than those which are attacked by major powers, primarily the US, Russia and Israel (as well as nations which the US manages to bully or bribe into joining its wars). It's curious that you don't hear aelf saying that we should "help" Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others. Instead we are supposed to help places which don't need help like Germany, South Korea and Japan. Helping really means meddling in their affairs and creating enemies for them.

The reason, of course, is that the purpose of an army is to wage wars. If the American army is to exist, Americans have to find enemies. And they do. As Mad Maddy Albright famously said to Colin Powell, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it"? Indeed. What is the point? If you stopped using it, people might start preferring butter to guns and life to death.

 

[eric_]

I think a standing defensive army is necessary, otherwise I agree with the general principle. Nukes should never be the only deterrent and the only defensive option available.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

On a personal level, I opt out. I refuse, as far as I can, to take part in the violence. I engage in voluntary relationships with my grocer, my neighbour, my family, my friends. I refuse to engage in politics. Take the Amish as an inspiration for your conduct.

On a national level, dismantle the armies. They serve no purpose other than to create enemies. Nuclear weapons are useful, as a deterrent. It's interesting to note that the only country that avoided the civil strife in Central America in the 70s and 80s was Costa Rica. It doesn't have an army.

In fact, no nation needs an army any more, other than those which are attacked by major powers, primarily the US, Russia and Israel (as well as nations which the US manages to bully or bribe into joining its wars). It's curious that you don't hear aelf saying that we should "help" Lebanon, Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others. Instead we are supposed to help places which don't need help like Germany, South Korea and Japan. Helping really means meddling in their affairs and creating enemies for them.

The reason, of course, is that the purpose of an army is to wage wars. If the American army is to exist, Americans have to find enemies. And they do. As Mad Maddy Albright famously said to Colin Powell, "What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it"? Indeed. What is the point? If you stopped using it, people might start preferring butter to guns and life to death.

I agree with you on the whole. However, I think if we were to dismantle the world's armies (which is quite feasable in today's world) there would have to be some sort of joint international force made up of all countries. ALL countries. You need SOMETHING to protect the nations from rogues and non-sponsored militant groups. Rebel groups, breakaway nations, and generally unpeaceful people prevent an uncontested suggestion of universal military decommissioning(sp?).

 

[aelf]

My location is given on the left. And it's not that I view America in an overly positive light. I think Americans getting disillusioned over their political system right now is like someone saying that he's considering not eating because his food tastes bad to someone who is starving. You have something. Work on it, don't stop believing in it. I'm glad you do participate, but this is what I have to say to your disillusioned countrymen.

Anyway, to address another post, the issue of the Koreas is quite different from the issue of Lebanon and Palestine. In Korea, there's a clearer picture of good and bad and what is worth defending. In the Middle East, it's so much more convoluted. That's why I didn't use it as an example. If you only defend Lebanon or Palestine, do you also defend terrorism commited by parties from that region? If you only defend Israel, do you condone its questionable policies? Indeed, the US seems to be veering towards the latter and I totally disagree with the sanctioning of the use of disproportionate force by Israel in the recent war against Hizbollah. But I never claimed that the world is perfect. I only said that there are ideas worth defending, even if you have to fight for them.

And aren't NATO/US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to help keep the peace (you would be naive to say that the chaos in these countries are purely the result of the presence of foreign troops, since there are serious sectarian/tribal conflicts there)? I, too, disagree with the decision to invade Iraq, but Saddam's regime was certainly not worth defending. Neither was the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. And what is the free world supposed to defend in Iran right now?

The notion of dismantling armies is just absurd. That is like communism. Such an attempt would only be abused by certain parties. And in the end the ideal would never be realised, just more chaos and suffering.

The people who say that they can opt out of conflict and not fight for anything are usually people who have it good and have no need to make a serious choice in that respect. Like somebody had asked earlier, if your family is threatened, would you not fight for it? If your freedom is threatened, would you not fight for it? I, too, think that it would be so good if there was no need to fight in this world. Sadly, that is not the case and I won't pretend that it is.

By the way, I find it ironic that one could be opposed to armed forces but not to nuclear weapons. You are effectively saying that it's okay to have an nuclear arms race involving every country in the world that wants to deter aggression. What kind of pacifism is that?

 

[Abegweit]

I think a standing defensive army is necessary, otherwise I agree with the general principle. Nukes should never be the only deterrent and the only defensive option available.

The purpose of nukes is to prevent other people from using them. They fundamentally are a defensive weapon. Other than that, none of the western countries especially the US need armies. The American founding fathers were right - the purpose of a standing army is tyranny. If a new Hitler appeared, there would be time enough to re-arm. As it is, I see no sign of one emerging anywhere other than in Washington DC.

Now the South Koreans would be crazy to disarm. But I suspect that, without American belligerence against the north, the dynamic would change quite rapidly.

 

[eric_]

And aren't NATO/US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to help keep the peace

Yeah, with trying being the operative word.

The biggest issues I--and many other Americans--have with Iraq are:

-Diversion of troops from Afghanistan, where militant force made a kind of sense.
-The asinine suggestion that it has ANYTHING to do with terrorism. If Bush had said, "we're invading Iraq for strategic purposes, including securing a friendly, oil-rich ally, and setting up staging grounds on both sides of Iran," I still would have disagreed with the wisdom of the Iraq war, but I would have a LOT more respect for the man.

 

[eric_]

Abegweit, what you're proposing would necessarily rely on good faith across the entire breadth of all humanity. International disarmament is just like democracy and communism: great theory, impossible reality.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

...The American founding fathers were right - the purpose of a standing army is tyranny. If a new Hitler appeared, there would be time enough to re-arm. As it is, I see no sign of one emerging anywhere other than in Washington DC...

If people would just step back and take a look at the world the way it is now, they would see that the only "military" that is truly necessary (at least in countries like the U.S.) is a defensive militia. Even in the world as it is today (well, if we still had good relations with our European friends thanks Georgie boy). As to the Hitler comment , God, we couldn't agree more with each other. I would love for someone to try and refute the similarities in policy (besides genocide)between Hitler/current U.S. administration. However, perhaps genocide isn't a policy of the current administration, but tell me what Guantanamo Bay resembles? High fences, half naked prisoners on their knees, hands bound behind their backs, hungar strikes, torture... hmmmm. Maybe they aren't being gassed, but do they have to go to that extreme before someone says "Hey... something isn't right here..."

 

[Swedishguy]

A truly broad view, if ever there was one.

I agree we spend way too much energy on foreign entaglements, something our first President warned against.

And I'm sure your respective countries are beacon lights of moral perfectitude.



I apologize, but I still am not following your questions, nor the impetus for them. Whose border cities and under what circumstances?

Almost, if Sweden could stop craving such sick amount of taxes! 9 million people paying 12 billion! Hello? Duh.

 

[eric_]

Almost, if Sweden could stop craving such sick amount of taxes! 9 million people paying 12 billion! Hello? Duh.

Holy sh*t!

But then, I can't fairly criticize that without knowing what you get in return. Do you feel government services approach repayment to the citizens?

 

[aelf]

The purpose of nukes is to prevent other people from using them. They fundamentally are a defensive weapon. Other than that, none of the western countries especially the US need armies.

But if you abolish armies but not nukes, all the countries in the world must have nukes to defend themselves against each other. I'm not sure that it is in any way better than having standing armies around as an alternative to weapons that can actually render the human species extinct.

The American founding fathers were right - the purpose of a standing army is tyranny. If a new Hitler appeared, there would be time enough to re-arm. As it is, I see no sign of one emerging anywhere other than in Washington DC.

I don't think they ever claimed that it's wrong to have an army. How are you going to respond to a determined aggressor with the skills and resources if you have no armed forces of your own? Is sudden mass conscription going to solve everything? Who's going to operate the complex equipment that is important in modern warfare?

Now the South Koreans would be crazy to disarm. But I suspect that, without American belligerence against the north, the dynamic would change quite rapidly.

So the North is not belligerent to begin with? Without American involvement in the first place, would there be a South Korea now? And why does America need to 'belligerent' towards the North if it's a peaceful country? Is America 'belligerent' towards China now? And there's no oil in North Korea, AFAIK.

I disagree with many American policies and do not think that it is the author of all that is good in today's world, as some hawks may think. But I do not think that America is equivalent to Nazi Germany. Nor do I believe that an isolationist policy by the world's major powers is going to help alleviate the world's problems. I believe a scenario of global anarchy (every country for herself) is not preferable to rational people. I prefer a policy of involvement in this world, not disengagement.

 

[eric_]

Uh, well, there are more similarities between the Nazis and the neocons than I'd like, but there is also a world of difference.

 

[Abegweit]

Anyway, to address another post, the issue of the Koreas is quite different from the issue of Lebanon and Palestine. In Korea, there's a clearer picture of good and bad and what is worth defending. In the Middle East, it's so much more convoluted. That's why I didn't use it as an example. If you only defend Lebanon or Palestine, do you also defend terrorism commited by parties from that region? If you only defend Israel, do you condone its questionable policies? Indeed, the US seems to be veering towards the latter and I totally disagree with the sanctioning of the use of disproportionate force by Israel in the recent war against Hizbollah. But I never claimed that the world is perfect. I only said that there are ideas worth defending, even if you have to fight for them.

The issue is clearcut. Palestine is an occupied country. Israel is not. Chechnya is an occupied country. Russia is not. You don't have to support murdering school children in order to recognise the basic facts. Why don't you support helping the oppressed instead of the rich and comfortable?

And aren't NATO/US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to help keep the peace (you would be naive to say that the chaos in these countries are purely the result of the presence of foreign troops, since there are serious sectarian/tribal conflicts there)? I, too, disagree with the decision to invade Iraq, but Saddam's regime was certainly not worth defending.

Who's defending it? There was little sectarian violence in Iraq until the Americans intervened. You don't have to support Saddam Hussein to recognise that two wars, years of bombing and a brutal blockage have destroyed what was once a modern country - and perhaps the most secular Arab country. The Americans have caused the deaths of a million Iraqis and the destruction of the entire country. What they have created is infinitely worse than anything Hussein ever did.

Neither was the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

The Northern Alliance is, if anything, even more beastly. The Taliban is a creation of the US - and so is bin Laden. In any case, it was better then what what we have now.

And what is the free world supposed to defend in Iran right now?

Who exactly is this "free world"? The one which overthrew the democratically-elected Mossadegh in 1953 and installed the savage regime of the Shah? The one which backed Hussein in his war against Iran? The one which shot down an Iranian airliner during that war? The one which threatens and bullies the country, driving people away from liberalising forces and towards the mullahs?

When have the Iranians ever done anything to anyone? What did they do to deserve this treatment?

By the way, I find it ironic that one could be opposed to armed forces but not to nuclear weapons. You are effectively saying that it's okay to have an nuclear arms race involving every country in the world that wants to deter aggression. What kind of pacifism is that?

Well, I admit to being somewhat less than consistent in this regard. Pacifism is an ideal which I try to achieve. It certainly is not possible in the world as it is. I have no problem with people who advocate self-defence, but that means real self-defence, not going around the globe picking fights with people you don't like. The Swiss example is instructive. The only country which Hitler never dared to attack even though he had it completely surrounded. Both sides in WWI considered end runs through the country. Both sides realised that it would be an enormous error.

The people who say that they can opt out of conflict and not fight for anything are usually people who have it good and have no need to make a serious choice in that respect. Like somebody had asked earlier, if your family is threatened, would you not fight for it? If your freedom is threatened, would you not fight for it? I, too, think that it would be so good if there was no need to fight in this world. Sadly, that is not the case and I won't pretend that it is.

My family is under attack and my freedom is threatened. Among others, the people who go around looking for terrorists under every bed use it as an excuse to take away my liberties and freedoms. To take a banal example (but then, most evil is banal), some thugs at a tiny Canadian airport stole a bottle of scotch from me. Did I fight back? No I didn't, and the reason wasn't because I am a pacifist.

 

[Swedishguy]

From Turks to neocons! One wonder...

 

[eric_]

I don't think they ever claimed that it's wrong to have an army.

The debate was part of the Federalist/anti-Federalist debate that occurred primarily between the end of the revolution and the ratification of the Consitution in 1789, by way of the Articles of Confederation.

The anti-Feds wanted a very weak central government that was not responsible for creating an organized army to protect the states on the whole. They also wanted very strong state governments that had their own militias. The fear of the Feds was that the lack of a strong, centrally controlled army would leave the the loosely-knit country vulnerable. "United we stand, divided we fall."

The Feds obviously won. The fears of the anti-Feds included the fear of a standing, centrally controlled army leading to tyranny of the masses. The 2nd Amendment was meant to assuage this.