Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Taco_bat wrote:If its not worthy of your time then why start in the first place unless you actually don't have any references and are merely stating an opinion which may or may not have any basis in reality?

None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

Taco_bat wrote:The whole 'human nature/history' arguement is extremely ambiguous unless you actually can point out to specific examples of where requirements/costs for Universities has been increased in paralell to increased social responsibilities.

We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Taco_bat wrote:Strawmanning won't help your arguement.

Saying an internet argument isn't worth the time or trouble to pretend I'm getting a grade or writing to be published isn't a strawman, it's just being honest.

If anything, at least in Australia, requirements for admittance to university have become increasingly relaxed.

In the US the BA has become severely devalued, but that is for a different thread.

Ahtman wrote:

None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you can't reject it without first testing it (ie references)

Ahtman wrote:
We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Social responsibilities...as in ...you know.... the responsibility of voting falls upon the well educated. Reading comprehension is the dark side of Ahtman.

Ahtman wrote:

Saying an internet argument isn't worth the time or trouble to pretend I'm getting a grade or writing to be published isn't a strawman, it's just being honest.

no but focusing on the use of :eng101: as if it was anything more the a quirk in jest is!

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:None of this has a basis in reality, it's all speculation. I didn't present any more references for my little idea than you did. In Comp101 you still have to back up your thesis when presenting something, which you didn't either. Don't hold people to standards you aren't following either.

A hypothesis is a hypothesis, you can't reject it without first testing it (ie references)

Do you have trouble telling the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis? Well, if you don't even know that, the fact you keep bringing up English 101 is even more amusing.

Taco_bat wrote:

Ahtman wrote:We never said anything about general social responsibilities, the discussion was about voting specifically. Since you were there I thought you would know what it was about and what you said. Don't accuse people of using a strawman argument if you yourself are going to do it to. Increased education does show a significant correlation to political efficacy, but that isn't what was being discussed. Hypocrisy is the ugly side of Taco_bat.

Social responsibilities...as in ...you know.... the responsibility of voting falls upon the well educated. Reading comprehension is the dark side of Ahtman.

Still sticking to your strawman. We aren't, and have never been, talking about social responsibilities in general, we are talking about voting specifically. You are trying to artificially broaden the scope of the inquiry now. This is about suffrage.

Ahtman wrote:
Do you have trouble telling the difference between a thesis and a hypothesis? Well, if you don't even know that, the fact you keep bringing up English 101 is even more amusing.

Based on observation and common sense I hypothesized that restricting voting to those with university degrees would equate to a voter base with a larger capacity to critically think. Beyond that I cannot move to the next step due to there being no way to currently test this hypothesis given the current state of politics.

This is a scientific hypothesis, not a thesis.

You jump straight to attempting to reject said hypothesis by citing that requirements for universities admittance would increase exponentially, therefore drastically reducing the avaliable voter population, providing no references and when pressed dismiss it as 'not worth your time' or something similar.

At this stage it can be neither proven nor disproven, which is why I have put it out as something to think about rather than a dogmatic statement of fact. If you do wish to disprove it the burden is on YOU to provide evidence to support this rejection rather than trying to sophistize your way around by somehow 'discrediting' me.

Taco_bat wrote:

Still sticking to your strawman. We aren't, and have never been, talking about social responsibilities in general, we are talking about voting specifically. You are trying to artificially broaden the scope of the inquiry now. This is about suffrage.

Since I clarified that my use of the term 'social responsibility' was in reference specifically to voting I really have no clue why you are continuing to try and argue this semantic beyond strawmaning yourself and distracting away from the main hypothetical that is "would a higher educated voter base provide a more logical basis for voting".

Stop cluttering up this thread with your own feelings and personal attacks and either do some research on the matter or stop posting.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the actions on the ground were well planned and implemented. There's good reason for that too, as the ground actions of the last five years since major combat actions were declared over have been fraught with mismanagement unrealistic expectations and a general lack of clear leadership and an understanding of mission.

I think you're missing the larger purpose of my comment, which was the proper contextualization of Bush's choices.

The armed services draw down under Clinton left our military a much smaller animal than it had been previously. It was a force built on the assumption of consensus amongst the primary Western powers with regard to how, and where, force should be used in the larger world. It was not a force built to sustain a long term occupation of a state the size of Iraq. Least of all one which involved the heavy integration of, and therefore direct risk to, civilian contractors who serve as incredible targets of opportunity for those attempting to attack national morale.

Certainly the Bush Administration's inability to accurately assess the capabilities of our armed services is a mark against it, and I'm not trying to claim otherwise. However, to say that the military itself was culpable for the failure of certain on the ground practices is to misunderstand its role. The services follow the orders of the President, unquestioningly. That is is their duty, and purpose. Only in extreme circumstances, far more extreme than any imposed during the course of the Iraq campaign, can this central truth be called into question. When Bush made the decision to invade Iraq it was their duty to fulfill his orders to the best of their ability, and they did precisely that. When the call for more soldiers, and therefore more money, came through to Congress the initiatives were largely blocked by a coalition of Democrats and Northern Republicans reticent to spend more money on the war. As such, the viable options on the ground were directly limited by the availability of funds such that success was largely illusory.

Now the obvious critique here is that Bush failed to properly justify the war, and that may well be because the war was largely unnecessary in the contemporary context. Another clear point can be made with respect to the obvious, and nonsensical, trend towards manipulation of information in the age of the internet. But neither of those critiques are matters of on the ground military policy, but the larger issue of grand strategy.

ShumaGorath wrote:
For an administration to fire senior military officials for little more than voicing a dissenting opinion outside of party line (when the military is supposed to be non political) smacks of incredible mismanagement and disrespect for the office of the president and the role of the military.

The public dissent of ranking military officials speaks to a similar misunderstanding of the role of the armed services with respect to politics.

ShumaGorath wrote:
People knew how hard Iraq was going to be once Sadaam fell, and those people were silenced so that the public could feel that our troops would be greeted with flowers (which they were until it was revealed that they had no idea what to do once the easy part of governmental disassembly was finished). The first few years of bush military doctrine failed completely in understanding how nation building is done.

If you read anything written by men like Wolfowitz, or Rumsfeld you'll realize how untrue that is. The matter was never properly appreciating the difficulty of nation building, though certainly there was a tendency to err on the side of optimism, but understanding how difficult selling the American public on such a conflict was going to be.

Taco_bat wrote:
You can't seriously compare somone who has spent their life studying religious texts that dissuade critical thinking to somone with a degree in physics.

Oh, but I can. Especially if you want to run this into the territory of string theory, quantum tunneling, or some other esoteric nonsense. Any overly constricted paradigm of inquiry dissuades critical thinking. Richard Dawkins is every bit as subject to tunnel vision as Rick Warren, probably more so.

wait did you just say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were credibly sources on why the reconstruction effort was so poorly executed.

cause if so....wow....just wow

The public dissent of ranking military officials speaks to a similar misunderstanding of the role of the armed services with respect to politics.

heh, yea man, the public outrage of those officers whos job it is to serve the nation's best interests is outrageous! ACHTUNG!

Oh, but I can. Especially if you want to run this into the territory of string theory, quantum tunneling, or some other esoteric nonsense. Any overly constricted paradigm of inquiry dissuades critical thinking. Richard Dawkins is every bit as subject to tunnel vision as Rick Warren, probably more so.

Yea bro, those cutting edge scientific theories are total garbage cause I don't really understand them therefor texts written hundreds of thousands of years ago when we had very little scientific understanding of the worldare just as relevant!


Richard Dawkins bases his arguements on scientific observation, not belief. He might find religion foolish but his own outlook doesn't detract from the fact hes in all likelyhood, correct.

Taco_bat wrote:wait did you just say that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were credibly sources on why the reconstruction effort was so poorly executed.

cause if so....wow....just wow

No, I said that based on their body of published work they clearly understood the challenges of state building. Despite what you may want to believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not stupid men. They attained their position because they have a large body of knowledge available to them, and the minds to put that knowledge to work. The fact that they underestimated the inquisitiveness of the public is a count against their Cold War mindset, not necessarily their poor understanding of military policy.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea bro, those cutting edge scientific theories are total garbage cause I don't really understand them therefor texts written hundreds of thousands of years ago when we had very little scientific understanding of the worldare just as relevant!

If you don't understand the theory, but believe it anyway, what are you basin your position on except faith?

Taco_bat wrote:
Richard Dawkins bases his arguements on scientific observation, not belief. He might find religion foolish but his own outlook doesn't detract from the fact hes in all likelyhood, correct.

Dawkins derives his arguments from a ridiculous strawman construction of religion that hinges on the idea that the only people who are truly religious are the nut job fundamentalists who reject empirical observation. That's exactly like saying all Marxists are evil because Stalin was a Marxist.

dogma wrote:

No, I said that based on their body of published work they clearly understood the challenges of state building. Despite what you may want to believe Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not stupid men. They attained their position because they have a large body of knowledge available to them, and the minds to put that knowledge to work. The fact that they underestimated the inquisitiveness of the public is a count against their Cold War mindset, not necessarily their poor understanding of military policy.

Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be corrupt and overly idealistic (see the concept of the battlefield network and the idea of extremely small attack forces to occupy a country)

Taco_bat wrote:
Being intelligent doesn't mean you can't be corrupt and overly idealistic (see the concept of the battlefield network and the idea of extremely small attack forces to occupy a country)

No, but it does mean you probably have some insight into what it is you're talking about such that total dismissal is not possible.

Also, you mean the battlefield network that has been in place within the US military to a deepening extent for roughly 20 years now? And the one that every credible military analyst recognizes as a necessity?

Also, the theory that a small attack force can occupy a country is valid. Occupation does not necessarily equate to peace, or stability.

Taco_bat wrote:
heh, yea man, the public outrage of those officers whos job it is to serve the nation's best interests is outrageous! ACHTUNG!

Outrageous? No. Sufficient for either termination, or reassignment? Probably.

dogma wrote:
No, but it does mean you probably have some insight into what it is you're talking about such that total dismissal is not possible.

Also, you mean the battlefield network that has been in place within the US military to a deepening extent for roughly 20 years now? And the one that every credible military analyst recognizes as a necessity?

Also, the theory that a small attack force can occupy a country is valid. Occupation does not necessarily equate to peace, or stability.

Yea those Iraqis will just embrace American freedom amirite?

The battlefield network was a majority reason why Rumsfeld believed that Iraqi could be defeated and occupied with such a small amount of troops.

Oh ok so basically its ok to occupy a country even if the natives are killing each other as a result of the power vacuum your country created?

If you don't understand the theory, but believe it anyway, what are you basin your position on except faith?

who says you have to have an opinion one way or another about a scientific theory you don't understand....? I haven't done enough research into string to think its legitimate or not, but thats the great thing about science, its not infallible if you can produce enough evidence to the contrary.

Dawkins derives his arguments from a ridiculous strawman construction of religion that hinges on the idea that the only people who are truly religious are the nut job fundamentalists who reject empirical observation. That's exactly like saying all Marxists are evil because Stalin was a Marxist.

Uh no he doesn't try reading one of his books.

Outrageous? No. Sufficient for either termination, or reassignment? Probably.

Yea officers who wordlessly help errode the principles of a nation on the whim of a bunch of neo-cons rule.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea those Iraqis will just embrace American freedom amirite?

Way to throw out a sock-puppet response. It would be difficult to make the case that people will not take the opportunity to govern themselves when that opportunity is given, which is why there was no implicit lean on explicitly 'American' governance in the state building operation in Iraq.

Taco_bat wrote:
The battlefield network was a majority reason why Rumsfeld believed that Iraqi could be defeated and occupied with such a small amount of troops.

And he wasn't entirely wrong. The state was defeated, and occupied, with a very small number of troops. The failure was in the assumption that Saddam's regime was a terribly oppressive thing for the majority of the population, and that the American public could be held in check long enough to secure significant progress.

Taco_bat wrote:
Oh ok so basically its ok to occupy a country even if the natives are killing each other as a result of the power vacuum your country created?

That depends on what your objectives are.

Taco_bat wrote:
who says you have to have an opinion one way or another about a scientific theory you don't understand....? I haven't done enough research into string to think its legitimate or not, but thats the great thing about science, its not infallible if you can produce enough evidence to the contrary.

You don't, and most religion works that way as well. Two different people can have two very different understanding of the Jesus' divinity, and still be equally correct with respect to their available sources of information. Not unlike much of science.

Taco_bat wrote:
Uh no he doesn't try reading one of his books.

I've read all of this books, and met him twice; including a 45 minute closed lunch session with 8-10 other people. He's a smart guy, but philosophical argument is not his thing.

Taco_bat wrote:
Yea officers who wordlessly help errode the principles of a nation on the whim of a bunch of neo-cons rule.

And you're the one criticizing the politicization of the military?

dogma wrote:
It would be difficult to make the case that people will not take the opportunity to govern themselves when that opportunity is given, .

Uh.....Afghanistan?

(the secret is the Taliban isn't the only faction the ISF is fighting)

And he wasn't entirely wrong. The state was defeated, and occupied, with a very small number of troops. The failure was in the assumption that Saddam's regime was a terribly oppressive thing for the majority of the population, and that the American public could be held in check long enough to secure significant progress.

There was basically no contingency plan after the occupation, Germany and Japan were occupied with a clear set of objectives lined out and handled to a very large degree by the military and not outsourced companies. There is no excuse for the US's half cocked invasion plan. Again, moronic idealism.

That depends on what your objectives are.

Wow, what is wrong with you?

You don't, and most religion works that way as well. Two different people can have two very different understanding of the Jesus' divinity, and still be equally correct with respect to their available sources of information. Not unlike much of science
I've read all of this books, and met him twice; including a 45 minute closed lunch session with 8-10 other people. He's a smart guy, but philosophical argument is not his thing.

Sorry but this just seems like either a blatant lie, or you're so biased against him its really pointless to argue it further, I'm going to assume A. If you actually read Dawkins you'll realise he doesn't oppose religion when it is a personal thing, what he opposes are the institutions that come with it and Fundamentalism.

Considering his philosophical arguement are extremely coherent in nature I can't really respond to your final statement there.

And you're the one criticizing the politicization of the military?

No I'm not?

Taco_bat wrote:
Uh.....Afghanistan?

(the secret is the Taliban isn't the only faction the ISF is fighting)

Clearly there was an implicit assumption of a common 'people' in my comment. You also made the assumption that government is always peaceful, which isn't true at all.

Taco_bat wrote:
There was basically no contingency plan after the occupation, Germany and Japan were occupied with a clear set of objectives lined out and handled to a very large degree by the military and not outsourced companies. There is no excuse for the US's half cocked invasion plan. Again, moronic idealism.

Sure there was, send in more troops in order to engage in classical counterinsurgency tactics. In fact, that had been the plan all along. Its all outlined quite thoroughly in some of the stuff put out by the Project for the New American Century.

Oh, and, incidentally, Germany and Japan were not occupied with a clear set of objectives beyond 'oppose the Soviet Union'. Which is about as specific as 'control the oil' or 'oppose Iran'.

Taco_bat wrote:
Wow, what is wrong with you?

I'm not under the illusion that morality has any impact on the world beyond its relevance to the creation of consensus.

Taco_bat wrote:
Sorry but this just seems like either a blatant lie, or you're so biased against him its really pointless to argue it further, I'm going to assume A. If you actually read Dawkins you'll realise he doesn't oppose religion when it is a personal thing, what he opposes are the institutions that come with it and Fundamentalism.

Assume what you want. I really don't care. But I will say that its a very difficult thing to pare away the institution from the religion. Especially insofar as one of the major draws of organized faith is the community which it provides. I think that Dawkins really believes that he is arguing against general close-mindedness, but I don't think his arguments are particularly indicative of that belief. Especially when he takes potshots at an entire discipline, theology, for being 'irrelevant'.

Taco_bat wrote:
Considering his philosophical arguement are extremely coherent in nature I can't really respond to your final statement there.

In the God Delusion he spends at least 2 chapters explaining how his being 99.9% sure that God does not exist is not a leap of faith even though he operates under the pretense that he is correct. That's a logical inconsistency in that it requires one presume faith be somehow certain, which is not at all consistent with the nature of the concept.

That isn't sound argument.

Taco_bat wrote:
No I'm not?

Ah, I see then, more of the 'I'm right, he's not' syndrome our nation is so fond of.

Yea we're not going to agree on anything and just keep sniping at each other pointless so I'm done you win bro.

Who spent their life studying religious texts and who has a degree in physics? I can't imagine an ad hominem attack being brought into this, and I don't recall anyone saying they spent their life reading religious texts or anyone else bragging about a science degree.

focusedfire wrote:Attempt to apply Good & intelligent governance to what we've seen, in gerneral, in the last few presidencies.

The reason why I believe in the Machiavellian style of government is because, I percieve, the political creature to be the definition of self-centered. I believe some start off as visionaries or of having a genuine concern for the public. But with time and typical human complacency they join the rest up on the hill, playing the same game as the rest. Yes, as far as politicians go, I am cynical.

As you saying you believe that the Machiavellian style is what we should aspire to? Or that Machiavellian politics are currently in place?

ShumaGorath wrote:The american populace and for that matter the australian populace isn't smart enough for compulsory voting. Candidate popularity is already defined more by mudslinger "framing" and personal attractiveness and likability then it is by political and social issues or realistic views of a candidates career. Those that do vote can barely be asked to understand what the foundation of their views are, just ask any bush voter why they didn't like kerry. It won't be an informed viewpoint consisting of candidate views or worthiness it will be an issue that was framed by the 2004 mudslinging campaign. Likewise most can't be bothered to comment intelligently on bushes career or legacy, instead focusing on a few inaccurate but repeated keyframes such as WMDs or "general stupidity".

Compulsory voting would just decrease the accuracy and intelligence of the overall vote. If anything there needs to be a standardized bipartisan (or tri) test to estimate voter eligibility. Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Big problem here is the assumption that the people who aren’t voting at present are less informed or less capable of deciding who should run the country than the people who do vote. Having spoken to a long list of mad keen Democrats and Republicans, I’m confident in saying they’re no different to mad keen Liberal and Labor supporters here in Australia. That is, they’re generally about as poorly informed as the non-voters. So on that level there would be no change.

However, there’s a massive difference between US and Australian politics. We’re no better informed or educated, and if anything are less interested in politics here in Oz. But because we have compulsory voting the election is focussed on capturing the middle ground of voters, policy and debate is focussed on areas of broad appeal to the middle of Australian politics, economic management, sustainability, that kind of thing.

In the US electioneering has less focus on persuading undecideds to vote for you guy, and more on firing up the base to get out and vote. As a result there’s little focus on persuasion, and lots more time spent on vilifying the other guy and raising irrelevant wedge issues like guns and abortion.

While voters here are no more informed, the level of political debate is a lot more substantial.

Taco_bat wrote:Socialism is pretty cool tho

It is indeed, unfortunetly, the only "socialism" Obama carries is his empty rehtorics.

I don't know what the topic is on this thread anymore...

Just a few general observations, then.

I believe the role of government is twofold - first, to ensure the freedom of the individual (that's not an anarchist argument, by the way, I think strong law enforcement is essential to ensure nobody else impinges on my freedom).
Second, to manage those structures collectively deemed necessary for the functioning of the state.

The main argument against socialism seems to be that not everyone agrees on what structures are necessary. As a UK citizen I think that the National Health Service is necessary, while I know that the concept is anathema to many US Republicans who would view me as a 'Socialist' because of this issue.

Essentially, all political theory can divide people into 4 camps based on their views on these two duties of government.

The 'socialist' scale goes (-X to X) from Anarchy (no state intervention in anything) to Communism (state intervention in everything).
The 'liberalist' scale goes (-Y to Y) from Anarchy (everyone is free to do and believe as they wish) to Facism (everyone is expected to confirm to certain state-sponsored views, beliefs and behaviours)

In General this gives rise to:
-X/-Y: Lawless nations such as Somalia or for a benevolent version think hippie communes or (in fiction) Iain M Banks 'Culture'
-X/Y: would correspond to groups like Republicans, who object to state governance but expect moral leadership, nations such as Israel
X/-Y: would correspond to liberal-socialists, most European governments, US Democrats, etc.
X/Y: corresponds to most religous or military dictatorships, nations such as North Korea, Iran, China


Where you fit personally in these groups will depend on your own beliefs, society and upbringing. There are pros and cons, of course, to all points of view but I'd sit myself in the X/-Y camp and am happy enough

I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Ghetto_Fight wrote:I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Indeed. Tell me more, tell me more, tell me more.Uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.


Is this right ?

reds8n wrote:

Ghetto_Fight wrote:I agree with those kids in Greece!!!! Real Anarchism!!!!

Indeed. Tell me more, tell me more, tell me more.Uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.


Is this right ?

I definetly want to throw molotov cocktails at the Grease set!!!!

Anyway, here is a thread about those punk kids in Greece!!!
http://revolutionaryhiphop.org/forum/index.php?topic=2149.0

Taco_bat wrote:except that Marcist doctrine states that ultimately all systems will end with communism which is extremely unlikely given its performance in the 20th century.

So this leaves me to my own Humble Opinion, that a responsible & self reliant person will view socialism as wrong or bad. While a decadent individual, that has become dependent on the system and luxuries it provides, will see socialism as the next logical step in social engineering.

your own 'Humble Opinion' that you just happened to subconsciously capitalize. Amazingly enough, most occupants of socialist countries aren't a bunch of lazy lay abouts!

Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Always try to remember just which side your bread is buttered....

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Always try to remember just which side your bread is buttered....

Not really. They can't just 'call in' the debt, these are fixed term bills with specific end dates. China could stop buying more (and the UAE, the other major buying nation) but it wouldn't be in their interest. Chinese economic development is very dependent on US demand.

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

Yeah, that's about it. I think it has a lot to do with Americans learning about the non-democratic USSR, and never finding out about the non-democratic capitalist states around the world, half of which were heavily backed by the US during the cold war. Or the democratically elected socialist parties, some of which were later overthrown by US sponsored coups.

Well, do tell that the China, the country which is bank rolling the West at the moment. IF they wanted to, they could call in the debts and send the entire Western World into total financial meltdown, neatly taking capitalism with it as a failed experiment in greed. Ergo we end up with Communism.

Except china is a largely capitalistic economy (thoroughly state regulated but capitalistic none the less) with a mulitparty system of governance which is in many cases representative. It's a country that has been in transition from failed maoism to state regulated capitalism for the past few decades. If they ceased purchasing american assets their currency would cease to be buoyed and as our economy and the world economy slumped into depression the lack of demand for manufactured goods (which is what banks the chinese economy) would launch them into one just as fierce.

I think the problem with Socialism in the US is that it is quite bizarrely seen as 100% undemocratic. Which is nonsense. It's an alternative to Capitalism, not to Democracy. Facism, Dictatorships, Junta's and other thing are an alternative to Capitalism.

The problem with socialism is that its a blanket term that still means a state run economy in full with seizure of personal assets. Socialist leaning policies advocate the redistribution of wealth through taxation and social programs, not the destruction of capitalist markets. Economic demagogues and conservative pundits.

The armed services draw down under Clinton left our military a much smaller animal than it had been previously. It was a force built on the assumption of consensus amongst the primary Western powers with regard to how, and where, force should be used in the larger world. It was not a force built to sustain a long term occupation of a state the size of Iraq. Least of all one which involved the heavy integration of, and therefore direct risk to, civilian contractors who serve as incredible targets of opportunity for those attempting to attack national morale.

The small elite US force was also strongly advocated by Rumsfield as the new face of warfare. It functioned under clinton as clintons view of national military was one of decisive actions and not campaigns, leaving occupations to UN and NATO forces. The bush administration embraced the high tech low headcount approach but utilized it improperly.

Certainly the Bush Administration's inability to accurately assess the capabilities of our armed services is a mark against it, and I'm not trying to claim otherwise.

The civilian placement of ideologues instead of capable or experienced individuals is the strongest mark against the administration. Toeing the party line was far more important than experience or knowledge, and ground level civilian mismanagement and upper level replacements (shinseki) were failings of the strongest degree.

Taco_bat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Thats both nonsense and elitist. Some of the most idiotic close minded people I ever met were college graduates, including those with advanced degrees. Some of the smartest people I met didn't have degrees.

Limit voting to college graduates and watch the revolution occur overnight.

I have the intelligence to garner a Univeristy Degree, but not the direction or the compulsion.

My IQ is 147, and I know better than to trust *anything* even slightly political (i.e. the entirety of) said by the media.

But because I didn't go to Uni, and didn't get the degree, I somehow lose my voice....

See Frazz about the revolution.

Frazzled wrote:

Taco_bat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Not everyone deserves to be able to vote, too many squander the right with idiocy and ignorance.

Agreein' with dis.

The majority of the populace lacks the ability to critically think, and therefor sift through the BS of campaigns and projected policy.

A university degree should p much be a requirement for voting imo.

Thats both nonsense and elitist. Some of the most idiotic close minded people I ever met were college graduates, including those with advanced degrees. Some of the smartest people I met didn't have degrees.

Limit voting to college graduates and watch the revolution occur overnight.

I believe voting rights should be based upon knowledge, university degrees don't show this. A biology major isn't likely to be well versed in history and I've met homeless men who know more than some of my classmates (I'm currently attending a university). A well designed test released for review before voting occurs would be my preferred method of ascertaining an informed voter populace. Unfortunately the tests would likely be prone to attempted manipulation, or at least the perceived fear of such.

I have the intelligence to garner a Univeristy Degree, but not the direction or the compulsion.

You also don't seem to understand foreign politics or economic systems judging by your post about capitalism and chinese involvement in currency markets.

Thats unconstitutional in the US. Limitations on voting are strictly minimal and cannot impact the right to vote.

Again if SCOTUS is ignored look to the evil mouthbreathers correcting the situation quickly. The universities that survived "Night of the Bubba" would quickly tow the line.