What form of government would you like to see?

[eyeball]

Somalia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia were immoral embarassments.

That's because our political system is so FUBAR, unfortunately we can't do anything about that because its also the best political system in the world.

And no, I'm not making this stuff up.

[bloodyminded]

Like it or not, the pointing the guns and RPGs, and planting the bombs will be the sons, brothers, cousins and husbands of all the women in bedsheets and the rest of their particular clan, and will be steadfastly supported by that clan/tribe in all they do. You cannot EVER win hearts and minds in a society like this because their hearts are devoted to their clan/tribal chiefs, and the complexity of their minds are barely above the level of their cattle.

For Christ's sake, Argus; rhetorical exaggeration like this, whatever your intent, is what has generated such terms as "knuckledragger" in the first place.

Western troops in Afghanistan have increasingly been fighting with one arm tired firmly behind their backs by rules of engagement which won't tolerate the slightest possibility of a civilian (even a civilian who actively and knowingly supports the taliban) getting so much as a scratch by one of our bullets, rockets, shells or missiles.

Yes, and the successes in this are overwhelming, since even military Commanders point out that massive civilian casualties are one of THE major problems we face in "winning hearts and minds," as the phrase goes.

Surely you don't consider the widespread Afghan rage at such horrific errors to be ridiculous or unjustified? It shouldn't take much imagination to consider how such things make these "cattle" feel.

[bush_cheney2004]

Great Godzilla on His Throne, BC, but we already agree on that point.

It's your delicacy about the well-known topic of American ignorance that is at issue here.

"We" agree on nothing....it's more fun that way. "Any club that would have me as a member...."

I am reporting on the sexual petulance, not indulging in it. And yes, it's predictable; see how easily I predict it?

It's your last resort retreat from any engagement....so we get different flavors of "dainty" and "masturbation" when nothing of substance is available.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

"We" agree on nothing....it's more fun that way. "Any club that would have me as a member...."

I understand, but you're wrong. We mostly agree on Canadian hypocrisy, Canadian ignorance, and Canadain naivete.

It's only the American varieties of these which you are blind to.

It's your last resort retreat from any engagement....so we get different flavors of "dainty" and "masturbation" when nothing of substance is available.

I'm only reporting, on the masturbation and on the lack of substance.

[bush_cheney2004]

I understand, but you're wrong. We mostly agree on Canadian hypocrisy, Canadian ignorance, and Canadain naivete.

No we don't...your excuses point right back at America...same as your cable television converter box.

It's only the American varieties of these which you are blind to.

Hardly...I champion and embrace an American legacy that you can only peek at with Google (also made in America).

I'm only reporting, on the masturbation and on the lack of substance.

Whatever...it's your obsession, not mine. Some people like you just like to watch.

[bloodyminded]

No we don't...your excuses point right back at America...same as your cable television converter box.

No, it's you who are obssessed with your neighbouring country, not me.

Hardly...I champion and embrace an American legacy that you can only peek at with Google (also made in America).

Right. You're consumed by the character weakness of extreme patriotism.

Whatever...it's your obsession, not mine. Some people like you just like to watch.

No, it's your obssession. As usual, you're pissed at the messenger.

Edited July 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it's you who are obssessed with your neighbouring country, not me.

Yet the topic(s) remain America....even in that "neighbouring country".

Right. You're consumed by the character weakness of extreme patriotism.

No, I am consumed by American exceptionalism...there is no Canadian equivalent, so you watch from afar.

No, it's your obssession. As usual, you're pissed at the messenger.

Correct...it is mine...not yours. So why do you care so much about that which is "mine".

Edited July 17, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

For Christ's sake, Argus; rhetorical exaggeration like this, whatever your intent, is what has generated such terms as "knuckledragger" in the first place.

I'm an elitist, a snob. I don't believe I've ever made much effort to conceal that attitude. I have scant respect for most of the morons in THIS country. I mean, seriously, just what do you imagine my attitude would be towards a bunch of illiterate, stone-age religious fanatics in the ass end of nowhere?

Yes, and the successes in this are overwhelming,

Underwhelming is no doubt what you meant to write. Since as xenophobic as you might imagine me to be, these people are far, far and away worse.

Surely you don't consider the widespread Afghan rage at such horrific errors to be ridiculous or unjustified? It shouldn't take much imagination to consider how such things make these "cattle" feel.

Funny how that "widespread rage" is ENTIRELY absent when the Taliban slaughter innocent men, women and children, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a hint. People who express anger towards the Taliban for, say, blowing up a school bus full of children, have their own homes blown up and their families slaughtered.

Hearts and minds? Some American once said "When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

The Taliban have won this conflict, hands down. In a few years the western troops, whose populations are already disheartened and impatient to see it over, will be gone, and the Taliban will be in power in Kabul once again. We have built absolutely nothing that will endure. We have done absolutely nothing to put together a stable, capable government which can survive even a single day without tens of thousands of western troops surrounding it.

We've been there propping up that incompetent crook Karzai for almost ten years now. On the day that western troops leave, 99% of all Afghan police and military personnel will cast away their uniforms and desert. The Taliban will walk into the empty offices of government the next morning. Karzai and his family will turn up in Switzerland where they'll live the rest of their lives as billionaires on the money they've stolen.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

We've been there propping up that incompetent crook Karzai for almost ten years now. On the day that western troops leave, 99% of all Afghan police and military personnel will cast away their uniforms and desert. The Taliban will walk into the empty offices of government the next morning. Karzai and his family will turn up in Switzerland where they'll live the rest of their lives as billionaires on the money they've stolen.

And then Al Qaeda will move back in again. All for the lack of will of a people whose grandfathers saw it as worthwhile to battle tyranny.

[eyeball]

No, I am consumed by American exceptionalism...there is no Canadian equivalent, so you watch from afar.

You've obviously never met Mr. Canada.

[Jack Weber]

You've obviously never met Mr. Canada.

Ahem...He's no longer worthy of the monicker,"Mr.Canada".

He is now Mr.Falange,based on his being consumed by Franco Fascism...

[bloodyminded]

I'm an elitist, a snob. I don't believe I've ever made much effort to conceal that attitude. I have scant respect for most of the morons in THIS country. I mean, seriously, just what do you imagine my attitude would be towards a bunch of illiterate, stone-age religious fanatics in the ass end of nowhere?

A case of agree to disagree, then. Perhaps a slightly different worldview.

Underwhelming is no doubt what you meant to write.

No; "underwhelming" was implied by my sarcasm.

Funny how that "widespread rage" is ENTIRELY absent when the Taliban slaughter innocent men, women and children, isn't it? Why do you suppose that is? I'll give you a hint. People who express anger towards the Taliban for, say, blowing up a school bus full of children, have their own homes blown up and their families slaughtered.

That's certainly true, and certainly has no bearing whatsoever on my point.

Hearts and minds? Some American once said "When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

And yet they don't collapse in grateful praise at the razing of wedding parties and the salughter of children. Odd...you'd think the "Made in the West" killings would garner some appreciation from these benighted savages, who simply can't look beneath the carnage to the benevolence underneath.

The Taliban have won this conflict, hands down. In a few years the western troops, whose populations are already disheartened and impatient to see it over, will be gone, and the Taliban will be in power in Kabul once again. We have built absolutely nothing that will endure. We have done absolutely nothing to put together a stable, capable government which can survive even a single day without tens of thousands of western troops surrounding it.

We've been there propping up that incompetent crook Karzai for almost ten years now. On the day that western troops leave, 99% of all Afghan police and military personnel will cast away their uniforms and desert. The Taliban will walk into the empty offices of government the next morning. Karzai and his family will turn up in Switzerland where they'll live the rest of their lives as billionaires on the money they've stolen.

I really feel you are right about this. It would be genuinely excellent if I were proven wrong. Sincerely.

Edited July 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bebe]

Does anyone mind if I return to the topic?

The form of "government" I would like to see would serve interests and needs of the people, not the corporations. I'm not anti-capitalist as capitalism is essentially free enterprise and I'm all for that. However, I'm opposed to megacorporations swallowing up everything in their paths including our governments.

Anybody have any idea how to reverse the process?

[ToadBrother]

Does anyone mind if I return to the topic?

The form of "government" I would like to see would serve interests and needs of the people, not the corporations. I'm not anti-capitalist as capitalism is essentially free enterprise and I'm all for that. However, I'm opposed to megacorporations swallowing up everything in their paths including our governments.

Anybody have any idea how to reverse the process?

Yes, invent a human that isn't greedy.

[charter.rights]

And then Al Qaeda will move back in again. All for the lack of will of a people whose grandfathers saw it as worthwhile to battle tyranny.

Nah. We not fighting a tyranny for their sake, but only because the US thought it profitable to settle the middle east conflicts.

We are attempting to fight a feudal society that has for most the history of the middle east, worked. If we can have a thread and decide what kind of government we would like, then why is there a need to interfere with someone else's government?

[bebe]

Yes, invent a human that isn't greedy.

Good point!

But isn't the issue not greed itself, but what we value?

Do we value excess wealth or disdain it?

If we disdain excess wealth ... can we make it obsolete?

[ToadBrother]

Good point!

But isn't the issue not greed itself, but what we value?

Do we value excess wealth or disdain it?

If we disdain excess wealth ... can we make it obsolete?

We like to think we disdain, but humans fundamentally are greedy animals, if not for the sake of possession, then just as often as not for the sake of status.

[bebe]

We like to think we disdain, but humans fundamentally are greedy animals, if not for the sake of possession, then just as often as not for the sake of status.

I don't really agree. I think most of us just want to 'live and let live'. However, the greedy do manage to grab the power along with the money. Can we change that by changing our view of wealth? Perhaps seeing hoarding of wealth as the anti-social disease it is?

Then the Forbes 500 list becomes tainted. I'd love to see that!

Edited July 18, 2010 by bebe

[ToadBrother]

I don't really agree. I think most of us just want to 'live and let live'. However, the greedy do manage to grab the power along with the money. Can we change that by changing our view of wealth? Perhaps seeing hoarding of wealth as the anti-social disease it is?

Then the Forbes 500 list becomes tainted. I'd love to see that!

I think a quick review of the history of our species, and even a general overview of our closest relatives suggests that your view is outrageously naive. People like stuff. Some of it they like for what they perceive as comfort and the easing of the difficulties of life (something most living organisms share at a basic level), and some of it is status. Hominoids; humans, chimps and gorillas in particular, are status crazy, building up dominance hierarchies as an instinctive matter of course. While the scorekeeping for different societies over time and space has been different, in pretty much all urban societies since urbanization began it has been the accrual of wealth. This accrual serves the dual purpose of satisfying the base need for comfort, safety and pleasure, as well as increasing our status among the members of our society.

You can change the scorecard, maybe, but you can't change the fact that great apes like humans keep score.

[bloodyminded]

I don't really agree. I think most of us just want to 'live and let live'. However, the greedy do manage to grab the power along with the money. Can we change that by changing our view of wealth? Perhaps seeing hoarding of wealth as the anti-social disease it is?

Then the Forbes 500 list becomes tainted. I'd love to see that!

I think Toadbrother is right. Status is, I think, a form of power, and as such it's seductive. Most people without means desire wealth for the sake of comfort, security, pleasure...but once it's achieved, the power element tends to come into play.

Donald Trump does not continue to accrue wealth because of greed.

[charter.rights]

We like to think we disdain, but humans fundamentally are greedy animals, if not for the sake of possession, then just as often as not for the sake of status.

I would qualify that with "western humans" are greedy. There are lots of cultures in the world who are not greedy

[Jack Weber]

I would qualify that with "western humans" are greedy. There are lots of cultures in the world who are not greedy

Really?

Have you seen crypto-Fascist China's upwardly mobile,materialistic middle class recently?

Not exactly what I would call inconspicuous consumption....

[eyeball]

Does anyone mind if I return to the topic?

The form of "government" I would like to see would serve interests and needs of the people, not the corporations. I'm not anti-capitalist as capitalism is essentially free enterprise and I'm all for that. However, I'm opposed to megacorporations swallowing up everything in their paths including our governments.

Anybody have any idea how to reverse the process?

Subject politicians to the sort of surveillance that would make B-B himself blush.

I'm all for free enterprise too. I don't think I've ever seen it but it sure sounds good in theory.

[eyeball]

I don't really agree. I think most of us just want to 'live and let live'. However, the greedy do manage to grab the power along with the money. Can we change that by changing our view of wealth? Perhaps seeing hoarding of wealth as the anti-social disease it is?

Then the Forbes 500 list becomes tainted. I'd love to see that!

No, no, no... all you need to do is see wealth, and more to the point, specifically where money rubs up against power. Letting wealthy and powerful people near each other without adequate public oversight is like allowing people to work around a nuclear reactor without adequate shielding.

We're just asking to much of these people, it's really not fair, in a weird inverse sort of way.

[Jack Weber]

Does anyone mind if I return to the topic?

The form of "government" I would like to see would serve interests and needs of the people, not the corporations. I'm not anti-capitalist as capitalism is essentially free enterprise and I'm all for that. However, I'm opposed to megacorporations swallowing up everything in their paths including our governments.

Anybody have any idea how to reverse the process?

I don't mind at all...

I'm not anti-capitalist,either...But I'm not for unfettered free markets.I believe if that were to happen that over time,most people would be reduced to animals living like Medieval serfs.I believe that anyone advocating for some sort of Von Hayek version of global free market is advocating for a wealth redistribution plan as horrible as any Marxist nightmare one can think of...

As to you're megacorporation(multinational globalist corporations) comment,I agree 100%.The problem is we have'nt seen a global check and balance to counter what you speak of.Ideally,this should have come from the labour movement,but the labour movement has let people down in at least 2 ways:

1.In the '80's,there was a shift in attitudes of union leaders to get away from being antagonistic and demanding to trying to work in partnership with big business.This was a horrendously wrong approach because the goals of organized labour and the corporate world are completely opposite.It has weakened the labour movement over the last 30 years.

2.In that time,the labour movement has become insular and defensive.While Big Business got (bought) the ears of politicians,the labour movement complained.When poorly worded free trade deals were signed,the labour movement became insular,instead of being internationally proactive.

What do I mean?

If you want to fight global coporatization,you must think like your opponents.In otherwords,the problem is not the Chinese coal miner who is seemingly willing to work in subhuman conditions for next to nothing.It's the system that Chinese coal miner is forced to work under that's the problem.

That's just one example of many...

So what's the answer?

Well the labour movemet has to truly go international.Alot of unions claim to be international,but they are only that way in the sense of western,developed democracies.The case has to be made that if we no longer want our standard of living to decrease in the West,then the standard of living in poorer areas of the world must be raised.Because if that does'nt happen,then we should be prepared to be at the whim of every corporation that wants concessions from everyone involved with them,so they can "compete" with lower standard of living jurisdictions.Basically what I'm saying is that the labour movement has to take the fight to the very people who perpetrate this in the places they are playing us off against.That means going to China and creating a $#!+storm for the crypto-Fascist Chinese government AND the global coporatists taking advantage of that situation.That means going to other countries and offering people a choice between government run unions,which are bascally extortion(sp) bodies of governments to keep discipline and order amongst the working class rather than true representatives of those workers,and independent unions which are'nt under any government orders at all.

Is this going to cause violence and probably bloodshed and death?

I'm afraid so because those who want to control everything never want ot give up anything.

It means stop buying the neoliberal free marketeer's line of tax cuts and free market theories increasing wealth.It hase'nt happened in the intervening 3 decades since these ideas began to take hold in the West.

It means understanding how we arrived at our standard of living,and understanding where we would go if we went back on those things...

Edited July 19, 2010 by Jack Weber