Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Americans best chance to end terrorism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Americans best chance to end terrorism
    Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 07:48
Hi, Panther,

I know this may make your head spin, but please read the next paragraph or so. Let me say that there are two kinds of conservatives: the vast majority of conservatives, who are pretty decent people, and the conservative leadership. I believe that Bush and the modern GOP in Congress have hurt both the perception of US conservatism with abroad and in the US. I would add that the main problem was that they didn't want to listen to other people or ideas. The second problem was the reliance on hate issues to get people to the polls.

Let me explain why I feel this way

Let me focus on how they operated in the U.S. to explain this. Within the U.S., the GOP leadership decided on stressing vote discipline. If you didn't, the leadership denied campaign money for the dissenting senator or congress person. This created a strong bloc in Congress, but it shut out moderates and liberals within the Republican Party. If Republican moderates and liberals were not listened to within the party, it follows that everyone else was shoved to the sidelines. This also solidified the Republican Party as being the conservative party, even though there are many conservatives in the Democratic Party as well.

The decision of the GOP leadership to run on hate issues was a pact with the devil. It has been delivering victories to Republican candidates for almost 40 years, but it has killed the conservative brand in the process. By having the conservative leadership in the media focusing on divisiveness and hate issues, it abandoned the many positive values that it has to offer.

So the healthy skepticism of government became hatred of government. The   demand for human dignity in the welfare system just became hatred towards it. The respect for family as an institution became hatred of the gay lifestyle(?!).

The reality is that most day-to-day conservatives are pretty inclusive and tolerant. Many have looked at the picture made by the leadership, and they don't recognize their values with what is presented as true conservatism today.

Hopefully a new William F. Buckley Jr. (RIP) will soon come along and will refocus the conservative movement on what really matters, as he once did back when he started the National Review: liberty, human rights, respect for tradition, strengthening of the family, and a healthy skepticism on bureaucracies, be it government or private ones.

As for why the U.S. ended up as a world power, it may have been discussed already, but we may as well go ahead and discuss it again. People leave and come, so there will be new perspectives on it if we start a new one now.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 09:30
Originally posted by Brian

But to imagine that this "phenomena" is solely a US issue is astoundingly ignorant. This holier-than-thou-because-my-government-isn't-American stuff here on AE is self-deceptive, to say the least, and downright misguided in many notable cases.
Brian, my avatar is a cartoon of my current Prime Minister, dressed as a Chinese Emperor, with our former prime ministers head on a bamboo spike. I have not been, and never will be, kind to any government which doesn't deserve it, whether it is mine, yours, or anyone elses. If I, or most people on this forum, are more anti-american than anti-someone else, it is probably because the american government has done something to deserve it.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 28-Feb-2008 at 09:32
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 11:11
Originally posted by hugoestr

Hi, Cezar,
You are right to a certain extent. Americans do have a responsibility for electing their own government. At the same time most common Americans don't have too much influence over the matter. As it happens in most countries, the elites actually run the place and make most major decisions.
Yes, but I don't think those elites would last long should the people get more involved in the political process
It is hard to stay engage in civic life. One must have to have a lot of time and money to do it correctly. And many people have more pressing issues to deal with. And it is outright confusing how to do it. I believe that I have an unusually high interest in politics in the U.S., and I am often lost in the process (thank God there are people who are even more interested than I am to guide me )
 I gues everywhere most people say that they have more pressing issues to deal with. Why not add another one, like a non representative leader? I don't remember who said it but I've read this somewhere: "The difference between Hitler and Bush is that the former was elected"  
Voting every 4 years for the leader and every two for congress doesn't give a person too much control.
Change the voting system.
I don't think that this is the place to dissect how the U.S. government works, but if you want, I could write an article on this
Need a scalpel? My brother is a doctor.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 15:27
He, he, Cezar,

You may not believe this, but there are a lot of Americans whose main worry is paying the bills due in a week. One needs a certain amount of free time to participate in the political process.

As for changing the voting system, that is practically impossible to do at the federal level. Constitutional changes were designed to be extremely difficult, and the U.S. has only had about 25 changes to its constitution in about 220 years.

Also, the size of the country makes it difficult to organize an effective mass movement. It took the Great Depression of 1929 to create mass movements with enough reach for national changes.

Again, if you want me to describe in detail the U.S. political system, I will be happy to do that.

Say hello to your brother
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 02:17
Well Hugoestr my friend... if i may call you my friend? If not then i will continue calling you by only your screen name?
 
By that same standard as you applied too the conservative leadership, then the very same can be applied to the liberal leadership as well! For an example, look at what happened to Mr. Leiberman a couple of years ago. A staunch social liberal if i ever saw one, was left out to dry by his own party because of a few differing views, yes the Iraq war being one of them! If that isn't a good enough case of strict voting disciplanary action by just another political party, then nothing is or ever will be good enough to promote any type of standards, simply because we let it, or that is exactly what we want, too hate one another over trivial political beliefs?
 


Edited by Panther - 29-Feb-2008 at 02:20
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 10:13
Hi, Panther, my friend,

Lierberman was a special case. He has a terrible character. He lost a primary in the Democratic race, and decided to run in any case. He actually lied to his constituents on where he stood on Iraq during the race. And he is caucusing with Republicans on issues of security with the Republicans.

And he also has been pretty spiteful about his losing that primary. He has been hinting many times that he would run as Vice President for a Republican candidate. That is problem with him.

But there is a lot of flexibility in the Democratic Party to this day in Congress.

Here is the link to our conservative democratic caucus in the House:

Blue Dog Coalition

Furthermore, Congressman Murtha, a pretty conservative member, is widely respected. And Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is also liked a lot, and he pretty conservative when it comes to military issues and gun ownership.

And many Democrats often vote against the party line when they feel like it, either in the direction of the right or the left.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 11:43
Originally posted by hugoestr

You may not believe this, but there are a lot of Americans whose main worry is paying the bills due in a week. One needs a certain amount of free time to participate in the political process.
 Well, maybe instead of using free time to complain about the goverment it will be more productive if they use the same ammount by getting more implicated in the process.  
As for changing the voting system, that is practically impossible to do at the federal level. Constitutional changes were designed to be extremely difficult, and the U.S. has only had about 25 changes to its constitution in about 220 years.
Also, the size of the country makes it difficult to organize an effective mass movement. It took the Great Depression of 1929 to create mass movements with enough reach for national changes.
The US Constitution is a example of something great from the past that is used in the present. Though it represents a steptsone in history it should be more flexible. Put it in a museum and create a new one. Should Iraq use Hammurabi's code just because it was very important a a time in the past?
The size of the country will make an event such as the Great Depression even worse than it was. USA is not just US citizens. For too many times I've witnessed any critic regarding US qualified as "another US bashing". No matter how good is the average american it won't matter if he isn't able to realize that isolation isn't insulation. My opinion is that the worst about your contry is individualism.
JFK did said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". AFAIK americans are very patriotic. But that usually translates by praising the USA and be ready to fight for her any moment. That's not enough.
 
*Kurt Vonnegut said that thing about Htler and Bush.
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 23:52
Hi, Cezar,

Actually, I am doing something about changing the system. But we got to give a break to those who don't participate because they have a lot in their lives. Also, no one ever does anything by browbeating them into it.

The worst about the U.S. today is alienation from other human beings. Being lonely, and being afraid to reach out to others. When these barriers have fallen down, amazing change has happened in the U.S.

And as for being an apologist for the U.S., I am sure that other American members can say that I try to keep a pretty balanced view of the U.S.
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 05:46
Originally posted by hugoestr

Hi, Panther, my friend,

Lierberman was a special case. He has a terrible character. He lost a primary in the Democratic race, and decided to run in any case. He actually lied to his constituents on where he stood on Iraq during the race. And he is caucusing with Republicans on issues of security with the Republicans.

And he also has been pretty spiteful about his losing that primary. He has been hinting many times that he would run as Vice President for a Republican candidate. That is problem with him.
 
Well, let's by honest my friend, there is alot of spitefullness in American politics today. I pointed out Mr. Lieberman as an example of such a case that reflects both sides of the political divide. Also, we need to be honest about this as well, Mr. Lamont wasn't the paragon of sweetness and light in that race! I know quite a few liberals who were disappointed in this case, who see the hypocrisy of the Democrat party wasn't any different from what is usally applied against the Republican party.
 

But there is a lot of flexibility in the Democratic Party to this day in Congress.
 
Both parties have flexibilites, it's just seems that it is us who are more stubborn at the moment? Anyway, thanks for the link.


Furthermore, Congressman Murtha, a pretty conservative member, is widely respected. And Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is also liked a lot, and he pretty conservative when it comes to military issues and gun ownership.
 
I don't hold Mr. Murtha's current record in very high regard, though i do hold his past in high esteem as well as his own right to an opinion. As far as being respected, maybe in his district, but beyond it, he is seen as one of the most porked-up current members of congress with a high penchant for double standard's that most people would only ascribe too the most  hypocritical amongst us, and also who was ready and willing to dump and forget about the American way of "innocent before being found guilty" of a squad of marines in the Haditha case! There are respectable members within the Democratic party, but Mr. Murtha i wouldn't consider an excample worth holding up as the high virtue of the party that many wish too impress upon others in this country!
 

And many Democrats often vote against the party line when they feel like it, either in the direction of the right or the left.
 
In a way, you are right to a point, except both parties have enough lee-way to do just that. However, when it comes too the more controversial party platforms, as usal in US politics, both would be or is expected by many within their party of voting along party lines!
 
Anyways, i had a thought that might help too explain how i veiw radical terrorists of any stripe. The easy way too explain it would be too look upon them much like we look upon the past actions of the KKK, except with the appearnce of the media falling upon themseleves too help them get their message out! Though, i'm now taking the position that the media are more unwitting accomplices, instead of the actual instigators of what has incredibly helped too drive the more barbaric actions of the current radical Islamic terrorism, to such an powerful extent all across the world!
 
Now, it didn't take the US a few years to stamp out our problems with the KKK, they had too continuously confront it too limit the violence and hatred it was trying too spread for roughly a hundred years within our border's; That is....  until our society was ready and willing too destroy it, by finally seeing it for what it really was, instead of the romantic ideas of peace and purity they supposively believed. Both forms of extreme radical terrorism isn't that far separated from each other, in fact... the only difference between the two is in name only, everything is else they do is petty much the same! That is just another reason why i have a difficult time understanding why people choose too ignore it's existence; Especially those who hold liberal belief's, which run absolutely counter to any extremist ideas that exist in the world today!
 
I still like too believe well meaning people across the globe, have the courage too stand up against such a monstrosity of what is currently confronting it today. Instead of cowering against those who are always ready too destroy those who disagree with them, while easily standing up against the governments who actually let themseleves be condemned, exposed and ridiculed on a daily basis!
 
If nobody can see this as just another difference between these two types, then i'm afraid somebody is bound too be rudly pretty darn so again. I don't mean for that too sound like a scare tactic, it's just the experience i've learned studying this particular problem. If the recent past is any guide for us, then the terrorist are somewhere in the middle or beyond that, of carrying out another plan of more spectacular attack's somewhere across the world. The US can only do so much, and the fact that many of us who advocate cracking down on terrorism and state sponsors across the world, can never stress the need enough for international cooperation for the long term. President Bush has been sadly unable too get that point across! Hopefully, who ever comes next will have an easier time of making a go at it then he did?
 
Best regards,
 
Panther
Back to Top
erkut View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Persona non Grata

Joined: 18-Feb-2006
Location: T.R.N.C.
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 965
  Quote erkut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 08:33
Well if US stops feeding terorists, they could stop terorism too. They created the taliban for heavens sake....
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 12:24
 The US doesn't feed terrorism anymore than any other regular state has been feeding into it over the decades! Terrorists have been creating themseleves rather easily in today's extremely passive atmosphere, in fact they thrive best when any society is at it's most permissivness to it's existence; And yet... alot of people have yet too acknowledge it as a problem! Why??? Should it be any wonder that the problem of terrorism is still around?
 
The US creating the taliban... that's a new one? But, i most respectfully disagree! If you meant Al Qadea, then i have heard that one everytime i've gotten on the internet for seven years now! In fact, if i got a penny for every time i've heard that comment, i would be an extremely rich man!
 
Still, i would greatly appreciate it from anyone, some proof to back that up!
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 14:49
We did contribute them several million dollars in the early 90s, and after a deal broke through to push the pipeline that Cheney's company wanted the relationsip soured.

Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 15:49
Pakistan was the country that created and supported the Taliban under Bhutto's regime. They used some tribal people in Kashmir as well, against the Indians.
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan

Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2252
  Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 22:23
Originally posted by vulkan02

How do you end it when everyone else is getting a piece of the capitalist action. America does what it does to try to preserve its supremacy. Other "Communist" states such as China and also Russia are using capitalism as well - albeit state capitalism which arguably benefits their people better.
 
What you say is true and I accept that there is no such thing as 100% collectivism or capitalism. But when you consider the extremes, at one end you find the communist USSR model, and at the other the laissez-faire US model. China can never be considered capitalist unless the military junta behaves in the same way as the cabal in the US, but the fact that the party system is yet intact means that it is not possible.Therefore the state appoints the chief executives of companies and patronizes industry. In the US the opposite is true. However China's break from it's economic isolation in terms of opening it's markets and in fostering international trade will certainly exhibit very minor streaks of capitalist cronyism.
 
A key feature of the Capitalist model is the disconnect between private wealth and public wealth, therefore it's hallmark is wealth disparity and unequal opportunities. The sole purpose of capitalism is to generate profit, hence wealth, and not satisfy 'needs'. ''Needs Creation' is the job of the marketing departments. The Chinese to a larger and Russians to a lesser extent are not 'as' Capitalist as the US. Since big business, banks, and military/industrial complex do not affect state politics and hence society to the same extent. Although with the capitalist intervention in Russia in the form of 'Yeltsin the Drunkard', Russia was definitely placed on the path to ad hoc capitalism. Which is what fueled the Russian Billionaires/oligarchy. Had it not been for the timely God sent Putin, prime Russian state assets would have been sold into foreign ownership of the multinationals that were in collusion with the oligarchs.
 
The goal of productivity is to increase profits and this dictates an ever increase in growth, to shore up national income and hence technically personal wealth(through the trickle down effect!). Hence capitalist need to grow their markets and secure resources, not to sustain but to profit . After internal saturation, other options are colonization, imperialism, and globalism. Globalism is not an unmanaged ethereal state of affairs, without rudder, or helm. We are still living under the shadows of the Bretton-Wood and it's revamped successor the WTO. Therefore markets are directed by greed, rather than need. Which ultimately leads to exploitation of every conceivable type and magnitude.
 
If you remember the iron curtain fell very nicely along the general fault line of western, and eastern Slavic orthodox Europe, as later accepted by Samuel Huntington. He held the view that NATO membership should be closed to 'countries that have historically been primarily Muslim or orthodox', and thus non-western 'in their religion and culture'. It is therefore possible to see the cold war in Europe as a gentleman's agreement between the Allies and Soviets to mark out their areas of influence, and spare Europe the rush for resources or direct competition. The real cold war(or hot war) was to be fought for the resources and domination of the 'third' world. That is why there was no 'active discouragement' of the Soviet advance in 1956 Hungary or later in the Chzeck republic. In fact the 'NATO's new Secretary-General Paul-Henri Spaak glumly called the Hungarian revolt "the collective suicide of a whole people.". and 'The immediate problem was Hungary, where, since neither the Russians nor the Hungarians can subdue the other, a dangerous and wasting anarchy prevails. Searching for a way to help the Hungarians, the U.S. and the West were trying to assure the Russians that the U.S. will not move its military frontiers that much closer to Moscow if the Russians agree to move their troops out.'
 
So where in the Soviet model the beneficiaries of that model would be by inclusively, in the capitalist model it would be by exclusivity. So the level of capitalist dominance in Govt would be reflected by the degree of wealth disparity internally, as well as exported disparity across the globe. I think it is summed up in the words of the US cold war planner, George Kennan(1948): "we have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of it's population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality... we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization"
 
Since the 70s IMF and world banks have done exactly that. Their goal to expand debt(hence profit), often at the convenience of periods of dictatorial rule, that bypass, democratic and therefore more accountable processes of national borrowing. 
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1211
  Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:55
Originally posted by hugoestr

Actually, I am doing something about changing the system. But we got to give a break to those who don't participate because they have a lot in their lives. Also, no one ever does anything by browbeating them into it.
Don't take my words literally. I do think that people (not in the USA only) should care more about politics. On the other hand, I remember the days when I was having those darn political classesDead... That's when I've learned to sleep with eyes wide open.
The worst about the U.S. today is alienation from other human beings. Being lonely, and being afraid to reach out to others. When these barriers have fallen down, amazing change has happened in the U.S.
Let's hope this will happen worldwide
And as for being an apologist for the U.S., I am sure that other American members can say that I try to keep a pretty balanced view of the U.S.
I'm not saying that being an apologist for your country is automatically a bad thing. Nobody likes to be criticized.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.