fornuften

Thanks Evangelion!

Optional

No, I disagree. It doesn't matter how tight security gets, a determined terrorist will always get through eventually. The reason we have not been attacked, in PART and in MY HUMBLE OPINION, is because we managed to hurt international terrorism badly when we disrupted the al qaeda network based in afghanistan, and just as importantly if not MORE importantly, police forces all around the world have kept the heat up on anybody suspected of being a part of an international terrorist ring. We've caught a number of people this way, and we've prevented a number of attacks.

But that kind of thing absolutely and utterly REQUIRES the good-will and cooperation of as many nations as possible. We had that following 911, most every country in the world was ready and willing to help out. Bush has managed to fritter away ALL of that good will, and as a result the international effort to suppress al qaeda and other such terrorist networks has been WEAKEND, leaving us LESS SAFE.


How do you figure? First of all, it's looking more and more like Iraq had very few, if any weapons of mass destruction left, but secondly and most importantly, the terrorists had no way to lay hands on it as long as saddam was holding it. There was never any evidence of ANY link between saddam and international terrorism, and much circumstantial and logical evidence that there could be no such link.

Now, however, the country is in chaos.

If there are no WMDs anywhere, then the whole 'hurting terrorism' exercise was a bust from the beginning, but if there ARE some, the terrorists have had a week or two now to go in, grab everything they want, and get back out again.

And that's just the most immediate effect. The long term effects get a hell of a lot scarier.

First of all there's just the huge boost intl terrorism will get through hatred caused by this war. Secondly and more insidiously, though, is that the lesson the world is taking away from this is that if there is any reason to believe the USA will ever get pissed off at YOUR country, you better get some nukes PRETTY DAMN QUICK. You can no longer rely on the international community to reign us in, nor can you rely on any treaties or agreements you may have. Nukes are the only thing we listen to.

This could very EASILY cause a sudden explosion of nuke powers in a year or two. And the more nukes exist outside the hands of first world countries, the greater is the risk that terrorists will manage to lay hands on at least one and do some REAL damage to us.

The consequences of this have the potential to be absolutely DISASTROUS for the security of the US and the world.

Yay us, huh?

I can't tell, are you trying to make the argument that the WMDs must exist because everybody thought they did? If so, their continuing absence puts a little bit of a crimp in your argument... Or else... What?

That's been the biggest ongoing joke of the whole war. Our list of 'supporters' consists of (a) a bunch of fourth rate powers who (b) were either bribed with aid to join or (c) didn't actually say they were FOR the war as much as NOT say they were AGAINST it or (d) in at least one case, was not even asked at all before being put on the list.

You're correct in saying that diplomatic support is the crux of the matter. However, you've gotta admit that some sovereign nations are just a TAD more equal than others...

It's as if we have our king and *8* whole pawns left, while all the other side has is their king, one measly little queen, two pathetic little rooks, a laughable bishop and knight, and just *1* pawn. The sucker.

Um, defend ourselves from what, precisely? I never saw a single Iraqi paratrooper around here...

If we can actually pull that off, you're right, it would be a positive. The prospects, however, are not good. Our administration was apparently caught completely by surprise that a country with a Shi'a majority might want to have a Shi'a government, like their neighbors the Iranians. If their thinking really is THAT shallow, we have less than a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything constructive.

-me

Ultron

So you agree with me then we can vote for whatever we want, thank you.

OK so we are in total agreement here.

How so? I don't see any limitation in the Constitution that says that. Congress can pass whatever laws they want, unless it changes the Constitution (though actually the Amendment process and Constitutional Convention are signed/held by Congress)

OK fair enough I at least understand better what viewpoint you are coming from.

Sure they do, within limits set forth by local, state and federal law. Remember we have the 10th Amendment which guarantees the rights not spelled out by the Constitution, or by the states, are left to the people. As long as what is being taught is not illegal there is no reason any of those things can't be taught. The thing is, if you don't want your children being taught "X" then you have the right to move your child out of the school, or lobby for change, etc.

Optional

Yes, you're right, we do have very differing viewpoints. Mine is that the constitution is the basis of all laws in this country, and all laws should be manifestations of that constitution. There are a variety of rights and freedoms enshrined in that document, and ALL THE REST OF GOVERNMENT, top to bottom, exists ONLY to secure those rights and freedoms.

Yes, that is an ideal. However, if you have no ideal to live up to, you have no center, no point of reference.

Government should be as neutral as possible in securing these rights. Sure, different values and morals will effect the actual day-to-day means of doing so, but that is something to keep in mind, something to guard against, something to try to overcome, not something to revel in.

-me

fornuften

Loren Pechtel,

what appears to be a contradiction in my comments is probably based on our different ideas about the point of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech/ First Amendment has a to do with alot more than just what we say. I agree, anyone should be able to say what they want. However, that is not the problem. The problem lies in the application of the freedom of speech. For example, how do we represent the public places like Times Square, as was mentioned by the original poster, Optional. This is where it gets more complicated because you have a public place that will be represented one way or ther other based on SOMEONE's taste, morals, values, or ideals. Speech is free because everyone can say what they want but the governments inactment and application of that freedom must favor one view or the other. You can't have it both ways with, say, the destruction/preservation of a national park.

You mention that the point of free speech is to protect the "UNPOPULAR" speech. This I both agree and disagree with. Yes, the 1rst Am. is supposed to protect UNPOPULAR speech but it should also protect POPULAR speech from the tyranny of the minority. "True" democracy is not fair or fun for everyone. True democracy does the best it can for most of the people involved. There will ALWAYS need to be concessions and comprimises made in order to keep democracy functioning. The idea that everyone's rights and free speech (in more than just the "speech" part of that term, rather individual rights in general) can be protected and respected is false. Inevitably there will be conflicts of peoples abilities to use their free speech. You can't get away from that.

Sure, it's obvious what to do when someone violates someone else's rights by destroying their property or their life or depriving them of their general freedom, such as in the case of slavery. But, it gets much harder when it is a question of an individual's rights to have Times Square look the way they want it to (and thus a way that reflects their ideals and values) which in theory, they partially own because they are part of the public. When this individual's/groups will goes against that of another group, you have a problem.

In cases such as the one above, what pleases the most, not even a majority, of people in the given community should be the respected desire. Whatever happened to the rights of the majority? When one is in a society, one must CONCEDE certain rights in order to protect other rights. Not the U.S. constitution, not the U.S. government, or any government for that matter, can secure ALL rights for ALL people, it's impossible. So, some rights must be respected over others.

American society favors the underdog and this has, along with its many positive effects, proven a problem in regards to the protection of rights. When an individual goes up against the government or a corporation, for example, the American society tends to put a face on the individual and to dehumanize the organization. However, the organization is not just a great, evil enitity seeking to derpive the inividual of what is theirs but rather is a group of equally individual, real people with their own rights and concerns. So, in the sort of culture we have here in the U.S., we experience the positive and negative effects of this attitude. The negative is that an individual's/ small group's voice and desires can be heard and respected over the voice and desire of the greater portion of the community's, which is made up of individuals who must be equally respected.

The only rights that we are "inalienably" guaranteed are those that do not mutually excluce one another, namely: life, liberty and the PURSUIT (NOT the guarantee) of happiness. These are the most fundamental rights and are the ONLY rights that a truly democratic society (with its perpetually opposing views and values) can ever guarantee. The rest is the fortune of the part of the people in a community that agree the most.

Evangelion

No worries, mate.

Mind you, it's worth pointing out that if these latest posts of yours had not contained any paragraph breaks at all, I would have hunted you down to the ends of the earth and strangled you with my own bare hands.

Optional

I'd just like to clarify here that I don't think there's anything actually illegal about the Disneyfication of Times Square. I just hate the, for lack of a better term 'movement', that led to it.

I wish people would just live and let live, ya know? I like strip clubs. I think they're fun. Yet I live in something like the third largest city in the country, and I have to drive for an hour to get to a decent strip club, because puritans in city government decided to protect me from my disgusting vile urges, so to speak.

Bah. It's late on friday, clarity is getting more and more difficult.

-me

fornuften

Optional

I haven't necessarily seen any decrease in the amount of support the United States has received in hunting down terrorists and other activities that help the war on terrorism. It's not like France has said it will stop detaining and cooperating terrorists because of the war in Iraq. Remeber, they need us to be their friends as much, if not more than we need them (speaking in terms beyond war, such as economics). I don't think the war will have any practical ramifications in regards to other nations helping us hunt down terrorists. They need our good will as much as we need theirs.

In you second response, you only seem to be laying out a justification for our actions in Iraq. Just because WMD's aren'y laying out in the streets of Bagdad does not mean they aren't their. I believe that the logic behind the idea that other nations will scramble to get their own nukes to protect themselves from the U.S. is faulty because it is BECAUSE of the nukes/WMD's themselves that we would put pressure on a country to begin with. If a nation does not have WMD's or does not harbor/support terrorists, they do not have a reason to fear the U.S. In fact, the opposite is true. Take North Korea for example. Despite how well the talks are going, the very fact that NK agreed to talks with the U.S. AND China is, in all likelihood, motivated, at least paritally, by the consequences Iraq received fro producing WMD's.

The war in Iraq has set a precedent that will give fair warning to any would-be possesor of WMD's. You say that WMD's in the hands of 2nd and 3rd world countries only makes it more likely that terrorists will acquire "at least one and do some REAL damage to us." I agree. That is why we attacked Iraq.

Your analogy of the chess game also bears a little correction. The United States (some nations being a tad "more equal" than others) has more say and power (economically, politically, cuturally etc.) than any other country on the earth. If the U.S. is the king in the scenario you mentioned, the nearest country to us would perhaps be a knight, maybe (Germany/Russia). Great Britain is hardly something to be ignored either. In the terms mentioned above, I would rank her as a rook. That aside, if such ranking and value is to be assigned, realize that the U.S. in and of itself is THE power to be reckoned with in the terms you use.

The other countries who support us, while not super-powers, are roughly equivalent (again, in the terms mentioned above) to the countries that support the "axis of oppotunism" (France, Germany, Russia). And. you cannot deny that this trio didn't do any pressuring themselves on those who eventually supported them. (Not to mention Turkey who is currently trying to get a slot in the EU)

In response ot the next comment, as you mentioned, not a paratrooper in sight. But, as you also mentioned, the consequences of a nuke being detonated by a terrorist is soemthing to be taken into account. And, nuke set off in NY tommorow is certainly a greater threat than a paratrooper landing in D.C. today.

By the comment I just referred to, I meant that the U.N. evidently thinks it has the right to dictate when other countries can and can't use force to protect themselves and their interests. Iraq used the very structre whose rules we adhered to prior to the war, to go about thwarting those same rules. So, the very laws that we restained (notice past tense) ourselves with internationally, were the same laws that set Iraq free to do as it wanted. Iraq played the U.N. against itself.

Also, since when FR, GER and RUSS speak for the whole U.N.? the U.N. never passed a resolution requiring that the U.S. stay out of Iraq. The U.S. is just as much of a voice in the U.N. as any of these countries, with or without a unanimous vote of approval.

Finally, you mention the bleak prospects for the positive influence of the change in Iraq on the Middle East. Will Saudi Arabia fall tommorow? No. But, remember Russia and the East Block. These things take time. Those who want a Shi'a government in Iraq one of three things: 1-influenced by the Iranian gov. (as per recent new reports 2-a small group of Shi's leaders who feel that they could gain influence in this moment of opportunity 3-honest Shi'a who realize that democracy and Shi'a ideals and democracy can coexist, separation of church and state. You can have Shi'a muslims in office but that doesn't make the new gov. necessarily a religious dictatorship. The coexistence of Islam and Democracy is not only possible but necessary to the rebuilding of a sucessful future of Iraq.

I may or may not have the time to reply to any further comments this weekend, but I appreciate the comments, Optional, your views have helped refine and tweak my own. I really enjoy this forum even though I have only participated for the past couple days.

fornuften

Just one more bit.

Optional, I agree with you whole heartedly. You absolutely have the right to the entertainment you appreciate, as long as it does not end up depriving someone else of their life, liberty, P.O.H.

In you case with the clubs, as long as such entertainment is private (and thus, one needs to make a CHOICE to see it) then it is okay. If others might not like the same sort of stuff, then they don't have to see it.

Same goes with religious groups. Fine if they meet in a chapel. But neither the strip clubs nor the Churches have the right to receive public, government support of their private beliefs.

The only place such ideals come into conflict is in what the government DOES sponsor. Here, the sponsored activities/laws etc. should reflect what pleases the MOST people possible.

Farren

LOL!