Let's OUTSOURCE the draft!

[shereads]

It's telling that the only fact with which Amicus defends his worldview is that he owns things that amuse him, and that are nice to have, and that would not have been possible without a system that encouraged innovation. Like McDonalds pressuring the Bush administration to punish meat inspectors who slow down the line at the packing plant, Amicus believes that a 65 cent hamburger is worth the risk to the consumer of the increase in food poisoning fatalities. A $1600 computer now costs $1100. Whatever sacrifices had to be made on the part of human rights were well worth it.

I'm reminded of someone in another thread who gave an impassioned defense of the Iraq invasion and summed it all up with, "I happen to like living in a country where I can drive a sports car."

It's all a matter of perspective. The parent of a dead soldier might be less likely to appreciate that this person can buy cheap gas for her sports car. The government meat inspector whose job is threatened if he reduces the profitability of the meat packing industry by stopping the line "for any reason other than fecal matter with a visibly fibrous nature" might be more likely than Amicus to see the sense of government regulation.

I'm not wealthy, but I'm willing to pay a little more for beef with NO visible fecal matter before it was ground up.

If I had the power to make one change in the world, it would be that every person has to be personally confronted with the ills of the world that he considers inconsequential. For Amicus, there would be some tough times ahead.

 

[Xelebes]

The ongoing hysterical (research the word) outcry against, 'unbridled' Capitalism...goes on and on and on...

There are only two market systems available to mankind; one in which 'Adolph' tells you where to work and what to work at, Stalin tells you where to live, Mao tells you how many children to have, Saddam tells you which way to face when you pray, and Pope John Paul who tells you what is right and wrong. And a hundred other examples throughout the ages....

That is one system...and variations on a theme, (not Paganini) and not Opus 51

The other system...(the one that works), is the 'free market' system, where people work at their chosen profession, for a wage or salary they agree to accept. Where they are free to buy and sell and save or invest, with total free choice.

A free market system that manages, when an undertaker dies in a small South Dakota town, to find a new undertaker the next day in that amazing way that a free market, operating in a 'for profit' system, magically manages to accomodate.

There is a debate here? I have sufficient excess funds to provide economy class tickets to about a hundred if you would like a passage to a country burdened with a command economy.

amicus

I'm not agreeing with you here. Adolph was a staunch Capitalist - his rise to power was from the industrialists and it was not Adolph who told you where to work, it was free choice where to work but the industrialists had all the power. That was why Britain, France and the US all let Germany rise to power until 1940. The Nazi Germany were considered the epitome of a capitalist state that was succeeding in the 30's.

 

[Remec]

But if A's definition of a communist is someone who empathises with the poor and powerless, then I guess I am one. So are you. So is nearly everyone except the lower primates, and lizards, and this {edited to delete the obvious; let's just say he's a frightened little man.}

I won't claim to have a really strong understanding of any of this. Political Thought and Theory was always something I meant to take as an elective, but never got around to because I changed majors and lost some of my space for incidental course-work. But, it has always been my thought that the reason the Soviet model failed...and others have done, or are doing, likewise...is that they moved away from a pure system.

If everyone truly worked together for the good of everyone else, Communism might be a viable way to run things. But, human nature being what it is...both on an individual level as well as the "mob mentality" that can arise from both chaotic masses and sheep being manipulated by those who would be shepherd and/or wolf...that system isn't going to work.

However, it seems to me that the same failings that prevented Communism from being successful are also at the root of what is wrong with full scale, unrestricted Capitalism. Greed, lack of sincere concern for what is best for consumers, employees, and/or the environment, and a bit of...for lack of a better term...economic narcissism are just examples of the sort of things that anecdotes could be found regarding most industries in most eras of the industrial world. (Not just in the US, mind you.)

 

[rgraham666]

Capitalism was reasonably content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirous under General Pinochet.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

Why do you think so many businesses are moving to China? No unions there. At least not for long.

Economic narcissism, I like that phrase Remec. Nicely sums up the mind set of the employees who have deluded themselves into thinking they're capitalists.

 

[smutpen]

Any thinking person knows that the extremes of either system are foolish. Not since the neocon movement have I heard anyone state seriously that the only alternative to absolute government control is the absolute freedom for the capitalist to do as he pleases, without regard to worker safety, clean air and water, hiring practices that discriminate based on race or religion. Almost everyone except neocon extremists agrees that some regulation is necessary; we differ, often widely, on where those lines need to be drawn...

I thought this was very well put.

Extremists, for obvious reasons, are particularly prone to the logical fallacy called "The False Dilemma" or "The Excluded Middle."

If you don't support completely unregulated free-market economics, well, you must be a dyed-in-the-wool Communist.

Perhaps we should have waited for market forces to end rampant discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 took several premises which had been central to Communist thinking since Marx, and made them the law of the land.

Was this meddlesome behavior a terrible travesty?


What about the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery? Was Lincoln a commie?

 

[cantdog]

more data about the need to draft

Erik Marquardt's artiocle

"Occupation of Iraq Causing Intense Strain to the U.S. Military"
Drafted by Erich Marquardt on June 03, 2004

Washington's recent decision to withdraw an army brigade of approximately 3,600 soldiers from South Korea in order to redeploy it in Iraq emphasizes the strain on the U.S. military caused by the Bush administration's March 2003 decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The decision to redeploy the brigade, part of the U.S. Army's 2nd Infantry Division, will make little tactical difference to Washington's ability to defend South Korea from a North Korean attack; nevertheless, the decision has symbolic importance since it demonstrates Washington's continued difficulty in stabilizing Iraq in addition to highlighting the strain that the occupation is causing to U.S. soldiers.


While it was expected that contingents of U.S. troops would remain in Iraq for years after the U.S. invasion was completed, it was not expected that over 100,000 troops would be necessary for this mission. The U.S. military, which is composed of an all-volunteer force, is not suited to handle large-scale missions for long periods of time. As U.S. Representative John Spratt of South Carolina warned late last year, "We are pushing the envelope. We are using our troops pretty much to their maximum utility."


Indeed, U.S. troops are spread so thin that the Pentagon announced on June 2 that the Army would expand its "stop-loss" program, meaning thousands of soldiers who planned on retiring from the military will now be forced to extend their terms of service and join their units in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. This controversial decision raises broad implications since it challenges present conventions of an all-volunteer military force.


Criticism of the "stop-loss" program was most publicly aired in a recent edition of the New York Times, where a former Army captain, who recently served in Afghanistan, stated, "Many, if not most, of the soldiers in this latest Iraq-bound wave are already veterans of several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have honorably completed their active duty obligations. But like draftees, they have been conscripted to meet the additional needs in Iraq."


Furthermore, since U.S. troops are being used to their "maximum utility," the Pentagon has been forced to rely on reserve and National Guard soldiers for combat missions, rather than for their traditional combat support roles. The duration and danger now involved in reserve and National Guard deployments has angered many segments of the military, since these soldiers usually have full-time civilian jobs and only perform military training one weekend a month and for two weeks in the summer. While their employers are obliged by law to take them back once they return from duty, they often find that their work opportunities suffer as a result of their extended time away. In a conflict as bloody as Iraq, the psychological damage on these soldiers can also be quite severe.


But it is the symbolism involved in Washington having to pull troops out of South Korea which has the most significance. This decision will spark many to argue that the Bush administration has made ill-fated policy choices that are causing damage to the U.S. military establishment and also to U.S. interests. Present conditions in Iraq mean that there will be no reduction in U.S. troop levels there for some time; if anything, there will need to be an increase in troops. On May 19, General John Abizaid, the chief of U.S. Central Command, warned that the U.S. "might need more forces [in Iraq]." Such an increase will add even further strain to present U.S. military deployments throughout the world.


The explanation for why there is such a strain on U.S. forces lies in the Bush administration's miscalculation of how easy it would be to administer the occupation of Iraq. From the start of the invasion there were a number of similar miscalculations, such as the failure to anticipate the extensive looting that took place after the fall of Saddam, the level of support U.S. soldiers would receive from the Iraqi population, and the ferocity and diversity of the insurgency.


What the Bush administration now faces in Iraq is far different from what it had planned for. It has been over a year now, and the insurgency has grown in size, and its strength has not been diminished. And now, even though Iraq may achieve some level of sovereignty on June 30, U.S. military commanders are predicting that the insurgency will likely become more deadly after that point. Abizaid recently announced, "I would predict ... that the situation will become more violent even after sovereignty because it will remain unclear what's going to happen between the interim government and elections. So moving through the election period will be violent and it could very well be more violent than we're seeing today."


Abizaid's prediction is right on the mark. The fact remains that the most difficult stages in Iraq's post-war development have yet to occur. Since the end of the U.S.-led invasion in May, Iraq's three main ethnic/religious groups -- Sunni Arabs, Shi'a Arabs and Sunni Kurds -- have largely waited to see what the future political structure of the country would be. Up until recently, the three primary parties involved largely refrained from violence and waited to see whether their interests would be realized through the U.S.-led coalition's policy decisions. Of course, violence did occur -- most likely from former members of the military establishment and discharged Ba'athists -- but, by and large, no general uprising took place until later in the occupation when some of the country's Shi'a, led by Moqtada al-Sadr, revolted against U.S. rule.


Therefore, because the most difficult decisions have yet to be made -- involving the exact nature of Iraq's new government structure -- it is uncertain how intense the level of violence will become. Once the moment of final judgment arrives, then the parties involved who disagree with the outcome will begin to resist that conclusion, most likely through violence. That day may start on June 30.


If June 30 marks a new date of increased violence and chaos within Iraq, U.S. forces are going to be incredibly taxed. Not only will they face violence from at least two of Iraq's main ethnic/religious groups, but U.S. troops could also face a nationalist uprising if Iraq's various insurgents unite together in a marriage of convenience to attack occupation forces. There has already been evidence of this in the al-Sadr uprising. While such cooperation is currently limited, it could easily expand if hatred of the U.S. continues to spread.


- The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.

 

[amicus]

Ahhh Remec...was it...'Pure Communism?'

ahhh, yes, if only every persona would give up his or her individual identity and conform to the amorphous "Platonic" ideal that we only exist in the minds of others.

I thought this claptrap was long dead, egads.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ahhh Remec...was it...'Pure Communism?'

ahhh, yes, if only every persona would give up his or her individual identity and conform to the amorphous "Platonic" ideal that we only exist in the minds of others.

I thought this claptrap was long dead, egads.

amicus

Why do I keep doing this...? Because I'm a masochist.

Okay, man. So you love capitalism and believe it can never do harm. Fine. Whatever.

But man you are so far off on communism it's not funny. No wonder you call everyone, their goat and their dead uncle fred a communist. Communism is a bad economic system because the greedy turn the political system to fascism in order to regulate it and the economic system thus changes to feudalism.

Communistic Anarchy under perfect human conditions would work. If people are willing to leave each other alone, help each other out in lean times, and overall not try to get greedy and hoard resources, then it would work. People aren't like that, so it doesn't work. Don't diss Remec for saying exactly what I said. He's not saying he wants everyone to be communistic, he's saying it could work if people were perfect. That's why communism is perfect in theory not practice.

Honestly man, how'd you become a supposed academic with such basely false presuppositions and such utter misinterpretations of other's opinions.

Please once, just once mind you, think loogically before posting. Use that grey matter in your skull. Just once, honey. Do it for daddy.

 

[shereads]

If I had the power to make one change in the world, it would be that every person has to be personally confronted with the ills of the world that he considers inconsequential. For Amicus, there would be some tough times ahead.

Think about it. Just once, think about what's being said before you think of how to twist the topic to your liking.

Your experience of the world is the experience of someone born to privilege: the privilege of being white and a man, at a place in history that gives any healthy person with those two attributes an enormous head start. Rather than being grateful, you're proud of having achieved your white maleness. Consider what your life might have been like if you had been born the wrong sex and color, and had to conform to the world's low expectations of you - or fight them, tooth and nail, to achieve freedom.

You talk about freedom as if it's something available equally to every American. It's more available to any one of us than it is to people in the third world. But, all else being equal, freedom is a damn site freer for white male adult Americans than for anyone else on the planet.

When people ask if I'm proud to be an American, I say I'm grateful, not proud; I didn't achieve our freedom. I am proud that I've fought to expand and strengthen my freedom to be a woman in a man's world, self-supporting and without having to rely on anyone else to give me grocery money or a clothing allowance. I can't see how that makes your life any tougher, but if it does, then so what? Isn't that only evening the playing field by a fraction of an inch?

I love men, not just in the obvious way but many as friends, mentors and respectful adversaries. When I'm with a man of substance, his strength is thrilling to me. I get to relax and enjoy being weak and feminine for a few hours, before I go back to paying the mortgage. I learned that strong men enjoy the company of strong women. Weak men rely on weaker women to make them feel strong; more dangerously, there are weak and needy men who want to be taken care of by someone stronger, and to trap her they'll pretend to be something they're not. A woman has to learn the difference. Thanks to the women's movement, it's easy.

Never more so than now.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Sher...let's not give him two forums with which to have a debate on men vs women. One is way more than enough. This should remain about the draft because that's what's important here, that people will be sent over to die who don't want to fight and who believe the war to be immoral.

As for my lover, I'll work on keeping his communist rants to a minimum.

 

[amicus]

Lucifer...."Communistic Anarchy?"

now...that is an oxymoron if ever I saw one...

The fatal obscene flaw to your socialist dream is that the system, like many others, does not acknowledge the psychological and philosophical malaise created when one advocates sacrificing the 'one' to the greater good of the whole.

It is not that 'humanity is not good and pure enough' to allow itself to be enslaved by the group, it is that the nature of life is that it resides in the 'one'

Socialist advocates make the same error as do the Christians; people will not sacrifice their life or the choice in how to live it to some grey ghost beyond the sky, much less to some Platonic ideal brought back to life by Marx and Engles

Far from not being good enough, man is better than such a sorry system of sacrifice.

I feel proud to add my words to those who honor and defend the concept of human freedom. I cannot even imagine how those who advocate slavery must feel.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer...."Communistic Anarchy?"

now...that is an oxymoron if ever I saw one...

The fatal obscene flaw to your socialist dream is that the system, like many others, does not acknowledge the psychological and philosophical malaise created when one advocates sacrificing the 'one' to the greater good of the whole.

It is not that 'humanity is not good and pure enough' to allow itself to be enslaved by the group, it is that the nature of life is that it resides in the 'one'

Socialist advocates make the same error as do the Christians; people will not sacrifice their life or the choice in how to live it to some grey ghost beyond the sky, much less to some Platonic ideal brought back to life by Marx and Engles

Far from not being good enough, man is better than such a sorry system of sacrifice.

I feel proud to add my words to those who honor and defend the concept of human freedom. I cannot even imagine how those who advocate slavery must feel.

amicus

Sonuvadiseaseddonkey! C'mon man, once, that's all I asked for. One god damned time. Here you want a billboard, I'll give you a god damn billboard.

WE AREN'T COMMUNISTS!!!!!

There. Listen up and listen good. Since you are too lazy to look up even the most base facts about your greatest fear, i'll synthisize. Communism is an economic, not political system. It demands that everyone is equal, and thus prosperity and resources must be shared among everyone. It was common in medieval and primitive towns because if you helped one man when his crop failed, he might help you when yours did. Anarchy is a political system based on there being an absence of authority. Thus, man rules himself, again, primitive villages utilized this sometimes, though their usually was a chief to deal with the problems of other tribes and wild animals. However, in relatively peaceful lands, you'd get that sort of system. Power vacuums are difficult, humans want to rule, to be more proserous. Thus, these systems all fail.

You hear me:

WE'RE SAYING THESE SYSTEMS FAIL!!!

Now, read, dummy and if you post without thinking the next time, i'll be forced to spank you most erotically.

 

[shereads]

I cannot even imagine how those who advocate slavery must feel.

amicus

You advocate slavery in one form or another in any number of your posts. Make up your mind.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

...interruption:

Sher's box has been full for a week!


resume...

~lucky

 

[shereads]

Sher...let's not give him two forums with which to have a debate on men vs women. One is way more than enough. This should remain about the draft because that's what's important here, that people will be sent over to die who don't want to fight and who believe the war to be immoral.

As for my lover, I'll work on keeping his communist rants to a minimum.

Sweetie, I'm sorry. He's not debating anything at all. I think we've both realized that, but it's hard to watch circular logic and not be tempted to reach in and try to disrupt the spin; to see if it's even capable of trying another path.

This thread, or a thread started by the lord Jesus Christ, announced by trumpeting angels and verified with the Good Housekeeping Seal; it won't matter. Bigots are deaf to reason. Colly challenged him to attempt to prove even one point, and he ignored her, as he ignores any specific question or challenge.

We're witnessing a social sickness that is exactly like religious fundamentalism. It neither sees nor hears anything it can't negate simply by changing the subject.

 

[shereads]

...interruption:

Sher's box has been full for a week!


resume...

~lucky

That explains the numbness.



Thank you, Luckster. How's your dadster? Back to near-normal?

 

[amicus]

Shereads....

Nice post...I have the greatest respect and always have had, for a woman that succeeds in a 'man's' world.

And yes, I have considered what it might have been like should I have been born female or in another place in this world, or black or yellow.

I love women just as you love men but you might re consider how, 'weak women' and 'weak men' relate to each other.

The old addage, 'opposites attract' comes into play, at least that has been my observation.

Not sure I can explain this to your satisfaction if you do not 'see' what I 'see' as I observe those around me.

It seems to me that nature intended the sexes to 'compliment' each other, not compete. In competition, one will overcome the other, it is just the nature of things. And, in any group of two or more..there will be 'one' who leads and the other, or the rest, who follow. Again, it is the nature of things.

There is nothing finer in the entire world than the company of an intelligent, educated, knowledgeable woman who carries her sex with pride.

To see, time and time again, that lovely vision of the ultimate female, dip into the ranks of the males far below her for a mate, puzzled me for the longest time.

There is an advertisement running on television, about home appliances, I think, where a gorgeous 'super model' coming out of a store is run into by a geeky little nerd who is awkward and fearful of the ocean waves....of course they marry and have children.

The moral of that story, if there is one, is that opposites attract, the gene pool compliments and the offspring get the best of both worlds.

Again, I fear not being able to communicate this idea to you, but, in terms of feminism, the 'best' things a 'woman' can be, are being wasted and frustrated as she competes in a 'man's' world. I think it is a loss to all.

Instead of the sexes complimenting each other as they go hand in hand through life, the compete and destroy each other.

Again, to beat a dead donkey, I think the experiment with feminine equality has about run its course. What comes next, I do not know.

regards, amicus

 

[shereads]

Sonuvadiseaseddonkey! C'mon man, once, that's all I asked for. One god damned time. Here you want a billboard, I'll give you a god damn billboard.

WE AREN'T COMMUNISTS!!!!!

There. Listen up and listen good.

Are you saying you are not a member of the American Communist party, but you would like to become one? Or that you're a Communist, but just not a "joiner?"

Are you sort of a Communist?

Just a teensy bit Communist?

C'mon, you can tell me.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Slightly better, at least you're showing respect. You're still using paradoxes and bizarre logical leaps, but...eh, rome wasn't built in a day (it was destroyed in one but that's a different story entirely).

Now, before this becomes rantfest about feminism 2, shoo, over to the other post. This is about guns and bombs and things that make pretty lights and dead bodies that used to be your friends and neighbors. No more all you communisting, no more feminism rants, talk about young people being pushed into tracer fire. Is that okay everyone? Please don't make me break out mr. pleady face.



don't make me do that again. shoo, to the other thread, depart.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Are you saying you are not a member of the American Communist party, but you would like to become one? Or that you're a Communist, but just not a "joiner?"

Are you sort of a Communist?

Just a teensy bit Communist?

C'mon, you can tell me.

Nice.

 

[shereads]

It seems to me that nature intended the sexes to 'compliment' each other, not compete. In competition, one will overcome the other, it is just the nature of things. And, in any group of two or more..there will be 'one' who leads and the other, or the rest, who follow. Again, it is the nature of things.

You unforunately see everything as an abstraction, whether it's the loss of someone's ability to support his family because his job has been outsourced overseas ("ultimately a win/win," you reply) or the fact that women must either be self-sufficient, which requires us to participate equally in the free market you so admire, or we must rely on often unreliable men to take care of our most basic needs. Thanks, but no thanks.

Equality is not "sameness." Demanding an equal right to participate in the experiment of freedom, does not mean that everyone has a sex change operation. Sadly for you, the movement toward equality in the workplace is not an experiment, it's the inevitable response to a technology-driven world that has a decreasing need for superior physical strength. That, dear, is the only advantage that an average male has over an average female when it comes to marketable skills.

You want a free market? You got one. In addition to competing with foreigners who earn a fraction of their salaries, American men are competing with women who earn a larger fraction of their salaries. About 70 cents to the dollar.

Look how much you save!

Deal with it. Until you take over the world and bend it to your will, you're stuck with some things you don't like. And we're stuck with you.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Sigh, no one wants to talk about the young dead people it seems...

There, mr. pouty face. You may continue the across forum feminism debate now.
I'll just sit here and wonder about tracer bullets spilling the guts of many of my friends and their kids all over the nice desert sand.

 

[shereads]

Sigh, no one wants to talk about the young dead people it seems...

There, mr. pouty face. You may continue the across forum feminism debate now.
I'll just sit here and wonder about tracer bullets spilling the guts of many of my friends and their kids all over the nice desert sand.

Can't your friends get jobs in the Defense Department or the White House so their children can stay home?

<--- Mr. Pleady Face before contact lenses and dermatology

<---- Mr. Winky Face humoring Mr. Pleady Face

<----What Mr. Pleady Face is invited to do to Shereads' cute behind if he thinks anyone who's attempting to understand Amicus can spare a thought for which thread is which.

EDITED TO ADD: If you acknowledge that there are dead people, you dishonor our troops...Or did I imagine that?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Can't your friends get jobs in the Defense Department or the White House so their children can stay home?

<--- Mr. Pleady Face before contact lenses and dermatology

<---- Mr. Winky Face humoring Mr. Pleady Face

<----What Mr. Pleady Face is invited to do to Shereads' cute behind if he thinks anyone who's attempting to understand Amicus can spare a thought for which thread is which.

EDITED TO ADD: If you acknowledge that there are dead people, you dishonor our troops...Or did I imagine that?

Nah, you see they're sane. Instant disqualification.

<emoticon of sher's sexy ass>

Okay, now what?

 

[shereads]

Now, before this becomes rantfest about feminism 2, shoo, over to the other post.

Is it already time for Rantfest? The enormous gathering in the Nevada desert, with costumes and music and performance artists and all manner of strangeness and pharmaceuticals?

Or is that Burning Man.

Amicus and the president have dumbed me down.

It's like a stun-gun to the brain.

Which thread is this?