Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 Articles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2 Articles

    Gulf War 2, Act 2?

    http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.05.16/news2.html

    New Front Sets Sights On Toppling Iran Regime
    By MARC PERELMAN
    FORWARD STAFF

    A budding coalition of conservative hawks, Jewish organizations and Iranian monarchists is pressing the White House to step up American efforts to bring about regime change in Iran.

    For now, President Bush's official stance is to encourage the Iranian people to push the mullah regime aside themselves, but observers believe that the policy is not yet firm, and that has created an opportunity for activists.

    Neoconservatives advocating regime change in Tehran through diplomatic pressure - and even covert action - appear to be winning the debate within the administration, several knowledgeable observers said.
    I wonder if this is what happened to the WMD.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0302/S00271.htm

    Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed:
    Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press

    February 27, 2003

    On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
    Contains a link to the "sensitive" transcript UNSCOM made of their interview with this guy.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    Re: 2 Articles

    Originally posted by MikeJ
    Gulf War 2, Act 2?

    http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.05.16/news2.html



    I wonder if this is what happened to the WMD.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0302/S00271.htm



    Contains a link to the "sensitive" transcript UNSCOM made of their interview with this guy.
    Also, the US say they have captured all these 'key players' in the WMD programme who in theory should be able to lead the US straight to the WMD's, but no, there is still nothing even after the capture of so so many 'key players'. Lets face the truth.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't expect the "key players" to do much talking without some major concessions being granted. Many of them are facing serious charges both within Iraq, and possibily internationally. All you have to do is open up a newspaper from anywhere to see the US might be more interested in capturing the WMDs, than prosecuting war criminals. The US is already beaming CBS and NBC news into Iraq. These high officials would likely have access to these programs. They understand the political situation, and are likely using it to their advantage.

      Either the US cuts some real good deals, or face a political nightmare.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        A budding coalition of conservative hawks, Jewish organizations and Iranian monarchists is pressing the White House to step up American efforts to bring about regime change in Iran.
        That's got to make for some strange meetings. It is always disturbing to see America "conservatives" voicing support for a monarchy.
        Get the US out of NATO, now!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by SparceMatrix


          That's got to make for some strange meetings. It is always disturbing to see America "conservatives" voicing support for a monarchy.
          Well, strictly speaking, liberty is more important than democracy.

          But it's somewhat unlikely that a monarchy will better provide liberty than a democracy, unless of course the democracy we're talking about puts Islamic radicals into power, then it's certainly up in the air.
          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

          Comment


          • #6
            But it's somewhat unlikely that a monarchy will better provide liberty than a democracy, unless of course the democracy we're talking about puts Islamic radicals into power, then it's certainly up in the air.
            Somewhat unlikely? Although that does help to explain this ...

            Well, strictly speaking, liberty is more important than democracy.
            I suppose if you think a monarchy has some even a remote chance of preserving liberty, you are bound to make democracy a low priority.
            Get the US out of NATO, now!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SparceMatrix


              Somewhat unlikely? Although that does help to explain this ...

              I suppose if you think a monarchy has some even a remote chance of preserving liberty, you are bound to make democracy a low priority.
              Liberty means the right to order your property and person as you see fit, not to do what you want.

              Liberty and democracy are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. Democracy just seems to be the best way of attaining liberty, from a pragmatic perspective. But it is by no means the only way.

              Mind you, I'm a fan of John Locke.
              Last edited by MikeJ; 20 May 03, 01:11.
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                Oh, so I guess freedom of expression or association or any of the other basic social freedoms that have never been secure under any monarchy qualifies as "liberty" to your way of thinking. Actually, I am quite certain that your concept of "property and person" never saw anything like liberty under monarchies either. Property has never been more secure that it has under modern democracies. Not only is it secure, but it is capable of growth as well.
                Get the US out of NATO, now!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Oh, so I guess freedom of expression or association or any of the other basic social freedoms that have never been secure under any monarchy qualifies as "liberty" to your way of thinking
                  It does, you just don't understand what I'm talking about I guess.

                  Actually, I am quite certain that your concept of "property and person" never saw anything like liberty under monarchies either.
                  Well you're "quite" wrong.

                  Property has never been more secure that it has under modern democracies. Not only is it secure, but it is capable of growth as well.
                  Do you even read the posts you're replying to?

                  Rather than try to explain this in two paragraphs (which will fail miserably and just confuse you more), load up a search engine and search for "John Locke". Specifically, look for his Second Treatise on Government (but I recommend reading his other works as well).
                  "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                  – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
                    n. pl. lib·er·ties

                    The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                    The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                    The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
                    Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                    A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

                    A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
                    A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
                    An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
                    A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
                    "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kid kool
                      lib·er·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-t)
                      n. pl. lib·er·ties

                      The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                      The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                      The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See Synonyms at freedom.
                      Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                      A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

                      A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
                      A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
                      An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
                      A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.
                      I presume you had a point somewhere in there?
                      "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                      – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Rather than try to explain this in two paragraphs (which will fail miserably and just confuse you more), load up a search engine and search for "John Locke". Specifically, look for his Second Treatise on Government (but I recommend reading his other works as well).
                        Thanks, that's mighty regal of you.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SparceMatrix


                          Thanks, that's mighty regal of you.
                          Regal? Perhaps. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to appreciate the irony (or perhaps sheer absurdity, depending on how many stereotypes we were to follow) of the last few posts.

                          For a nation that espouses liberty (in theory anyways) to an almost obsessive level as the USA does, it should really incorporate classical liberalism into its high school curriculums. Or at the very least, they should put more emphasis on the fact that tyranny of the majority is not conducive to liberty, hence why the founding fathers of the US decided on a republic.
                          Last edited by MikeJ; 21 May 03, 02:36.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            For a nation that espouses liberty (in theory anyways) to an almost obsessive level as the USA does, it should really incorporate classical liberalism into its high school curriculums. Or at the very least, they should put more emphasis on the fact that tyranny of the majority is not conducive to liberty, hence why the founding fathers of the US decided on a republic.
                            Liberty means being able to make up your on mind on things free of indoctrination and interruption from the state. It also means being able to decide what your own status is and your relationship with the state is within the law. The people who founded this government did not leave us with a republic, they left us with a constitution. The constitution is the last word on the state in the US and it says nothing at all about whether the state is a democracy or a republic. It merely sets the instutitions by which we govern ourselves. And that much is clear. We do govern ourselves. And the constitution strictly excludes the potential for monarchy in the US. It is more hostile towards a monarchy then it is relgion. The people who founded our government understood what a threat to liberty a monarch is.
                            Get the US out of NATO, now!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SparceMatrix


                              Liberty means being able to make up your on mind on things free of indoctrination and interruption from the state. It also means being able to decide what your own status is and your relationship with the state is within the law. The people who founded this government did not leave us with a republic, they left us with a constitution. The constitution is the last word on the state in the US and it says nothing at all about whether the state is a democracy or a republic. It merely sets the instutitions by which we govern ourselves. And that much is clear. We do govern ourselves. And the constitution strictly excludes the potential for monarchy in the US. It is more hostile towards a monarchy then it is relgion. The people who founded our government understood what a threat to liberty a monarch is.
                              The constitution is the last word. You are correct. Why do you think a constitution exists?

                              Because a democracy can trample liberty just as an authoritarian government can.

                              Abstract concepts like self-government, freedom and liberty have to be taken from a practical perspective.

                              You'll notice that even in your definition of liberty, my original post that brought this about holds true. Democracy can trample your definition of liberty, hence the constitution and the establishment of a republic. Monarchy can handle your definition of liberty, it's just less likely, as any realist will tell you that power corrupts.

                              To put it another way, governing yourself does not necessarily ensure liberty. These are not inclusive concepts.

                              The people who founded your government understood what a threat any kind of government was. That is why you have the second amendment. That is why you have a constitution of inalienable rights. That is why it was seemingly perfectly correct, int he eyes of the fonding fathers, to overthrow the established government, no matter its type, if it oversteps its mandate and begins to dismantle liberty.

                              This is also where the idea that "patriotism" means an unrestricted right to bear heavy arms has come into play. I don't necessarily agree with rocket launchers and assault rifles in peoples homes, but the near psychosis in the US surrounding this issue stems precisely from a cultural emphasis on liberty and an understanding that virtually any government type, be it "self-governed" or at the whim of an elite few individuals, can trample and destroy individual liberty.

                              Locke does a good job of putting all this into perspective. Particularly the role of institutions of government. He can explain it better than I, so I'll leave that to him if you ever decide to read up on him.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X