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.

The biggest problem in Western politics is the generally passive nature of the Left compared to the more active nature of the Right...Ergo the Right find it easier to garner attention, thus promoting their own thoughts, the Left rarely gathers enough momentum within itself to bother arguing back.

Sad huh?

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

That is certainly true and is more of a cure for a symptom (poorly informed potential voters) and not the cause (poor education standards and a broken system of news media)

The biggest problem in Western politics is the generally passive nature of the Left compared to the more active nature of the Right...Ergo the Right find it easier to garner attention, thus promoting their own thoughts, the Left rarely gathers enough momentum within itself to bother arguing back.

Umm... Thats incorrect? The civil rights movements, the anti war movements in vietnam as well as Iraq, the climate initiatives. The left pushes considerably harder for its initiatives than the right does largely because the left is progressive whereas the right tends to resist change. The biggest failing of the left is that its too easy to paint using cold war rhetoric which still has a deep seated place in the psyches of many Americans.

For a dude with an IQ of 147 you're missing a lot here.

I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

Doesn't help that many times the Left is represented by Wackjobs (technical definition).

CodePink, Michael Moore, Sean Penn et all make the Left look like hypocritical, moronic, whiny weenies. better representatives (Obama, Biden) win elections.

The right is the same. Coulter, hannity et al-bad. Reagan, Buckley, good.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

...


You should either stop posting or start supporting your wacky viewpoints with.... Well anything.

More evidence that socialist ties exist.

Ahtman wrote:More evidence that socialist ties exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxifu8or4AM

Not as damning as this!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I blame a State Education system far more concerned with class reproduction, social elitism etc than actually teaching you anything vaguely useful in life.

...


You should either stop posting or start supporting your wacky viewpoints with.... Well anything.

Well, I had the pleasure of dating a former Public Schoolgirl for a good few months once upon a time.

What was I taught? Precious little. Information was scant, funding was criminally short. The History I was taught was definitely non Political. Even the Sports chosen were meant to engender success in the middle class, as traditionally the working class do not indulge in Tennis, Cricket, Hockey, or even Rugby. Me, I didn't like Sports in the least. I was refuse entry to any Grammar School as I did not sit the 11+ Exam, seeing as it doesn't exist in Scotland, and even in England only a few counties and local authorities continued to do so. Despite being 11, aid exam was then refused to me, leaving me no option but to be enrolled in one of the local Comprehensives.

As I said, education was patchy at best. Bit of French here, bit of Geography there. Yet rarely anything of any practical use (Technology to us...build a wooden box. Grammar School? Creatin circuit boards, electronics etc)

So despite being an intelligent fella, I simply never received the education to help my achieve my full potential. I left school at 17, as I had no direction in mind, so Uni seemed largely pointless. The Careers advice I got, bearing in mind I fancied Directing or Stand Up Comedy....'Have you though of joining the Army'?

So please, don't mistake my lack of academic achievement as a lack of ability, so much as a lack of will. There are only so many hours you can have wasted whilst the other members of the class read the same fricking page time and again before your brain switches off.

I learned the vast majority of what I know by arguing with people on the internet and looking things up on my own. I failed geography and was a pretty poor history student. I never took an economic class in high school, and I took remedial english on my senior year because I couldn't be bothered to do work. I'm now running A's and B's at a relatively prestigious state university and I'll hopefully have three degrees by the end of next year.



Don't expect me to be particularly forgiving when you complain about poor schooling. You clearly have the internet. Learn something. A "smart person" shouldn't make excuses for a general lack of knowledge, especially when that person chooses to comment on events and situations he/she knows seemingly nothing about. There is nothing I like less than a "lazy" smart person that doesn't seem to know a whole lot of but loves to talk up their intelligence.

What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

Frazzled wrote:What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

They help redistribute the weight.

Ahtman wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What? no socialist suspenders? that would be so cool to wear to the office...

They help redistribute the weight.

So, because I switched off from Education and went into the workplace instead, I am now disallowed from any opinion, simply because I haven't studied certain areas?

If you are commenting on those areas that you haven't studied (like the chinese socialism/democracy/capitalism thing).

ShumaGorath wrote:If you are commenting on those areas that you haven't studied (like the chinese socialism/democracy/capitalism thing).

Attempt to deny the ability to comment...denied!

I support the great unwashed masses...er MDG's statements, even when I disagree with them (or can't understand what he's saying...)

Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

The post I was referring to in my original statement stated that Socialism had lost etc. China is still a Socialist State. And it is bank rolling the Capitalist States. Seems fairly clear which one failed to me. Yes, China does have a Capitalist market, which once again is a major flaw in many Americans understanding of Socialism...

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.

Informed by who though ?

You're not seriously advocating this are you ? You don't for one moment think that the "honourable" representatives we elect understand every single thing they decide upon do you ?

The fact is that sometimes the Emperor wears no clothes, and ultimately the safeguard we have against this is that anyone can point this out.

Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

No. No it is not. It is but one nation buying from the pot. We owe a considerable amount to japan as well. Also if I recall correctly saudi arabia.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Both are incorrect.

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

I say you don't know anything about the subjects because you don't seem to know anything about the subjects. Not because you "never studied them".

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

China is not capable of feedings its own people successfully. Especially without the surplus of goods and capitol it has experienced over the last few years. It can barely even feed its rural population now, let alone after an economic collapse that would almost certainly follow a global economic downturn.

China is still a Socialist State.

Except its not. Travel around rural china and ask a villager about what the social state is giving him. Its a tightly controlled semi totalitarianism with a popular government comprised mainly of civil engineers. It is quite different from the maoist or marxist socialist state.

Seems fairly clear which one failed to me.

And when asked a child will say that a heavy object falls faster. Intuition doesn't replace knowledgeability.

Informed by who though

I want people to know the political platforms of those they vote for. Statistically most can't be bothered to learn them. If you don't know the issues then your vote is a shot in the dark.

You're not seriously advocating this are you ?

Its a pipe dream and I've already stated that its a cure for a symptom and not the problem.

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

That the Machiavellian model is what is in place. Now do not take that as a criticism. Just as much harm has been done in this world by those attempting to do the "right thing" as by those amoral Machiavellian leaders. I think what's truly important is that we recognize and call it for what it is. No sugar coating, no politically correct terminology, just bare bones truth.

@ Everyone
I, like many of you, understand the enviroment in which nations exist internationally. My view point does differ in that I view these governments as amoral and can aknowledge the need for some of the less tasteful things our governments do. Now my next statement will inevitably spark a knee-jerk reaction because I am viewing these actions from the amoral view point. When examining the Iraq issue, from a Machiavellian point of view. My main problem with the whole mess wasn't so much that we did it. It's that we did it under false pretenses and somewhat poorly. I see the Iraq invasion and occupation as empire building. My problem is that we didn't call it that. To use a lie as pretense and then to let the lie be discovered, thus damaging our standing internationally and losing the support of the people, is very poor leadership in a Machiavellian model. Either come out and call it what it is or if your gonna lie you sure as heck better not get caught.

Now, from a moral point of view. Hussien should have been removed in the first conflict where we had the moral justification on our side. He had invaded a peaceful neighbor. The fact that we left him in office was our bad. To come back later and manufacture a means to invade was wrong. We had lost the moral imperative.



As to the x,-x y,-y concept. I think its to simplistic and limiting. There is no place for the 70% that usually don't vote because they feel unrepresented. The model deals in extremes and the majority of the people are middle of the road. The model also leaves no room for advancement. The current political models are not the only ones that are ever going to exist.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

I agree to a point. You are certainly correct that Rummy was one of, if not the biggest, proponent of a quasi-professional armed service in that administration. However he, though more often Wolfowitz, was also a major advocates of need based recruitment initiatives. The kind of policy that opens a conflict with minimal expenditure of force, and therefore loss of life, in order to generate public support so that it might be brought to a close through the deployment of additional troops transferred from the reserves. Troops that would then be replaced through reserve based recruitment initiatives. Trouble is, the services aren't exactly at the height of their popularity as a career path, and participating in an active war has not recently been a boon to recruiting. Hence my point that the misunderstanding was a matter of propagandic failings, and not necessarily specific strategic/tactical matters.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The civilian placement of ideologues instead of capable or experienced individuals is the strongest mark against the administration.

The difference between an ideologue, and a capable individual can often only be written after the fact. Especially when the actual differences in policy leanings are very small, and primarily built around an understanding of sustainable force levels with respect to the overall bottom line.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

Upper level replacements are par for the course in changes of military direction. Remember the controversy regarding Clinton's circumvention of the Pentagon through Clark?

I do agree on civilian mismanagement though. I noted as much earlier.

focusedfire wrote:
@ Everyone
I, like many of you, understand the enviroment in which nations exist internationally. My view point does differ in that I view these governments as amoral and can aknowledge the need for some of the less tasteful things our governments do. Now my next statement will inevitably spark a knee-jerk reaction because I am viewing these actions from the amoral view point. When examining the Iraq issue, from a Machiavellian point of view. My main problem with the whole mess wasn't so much that we did it. It's that we did it under false pretenses and somewhat poorly. I see the Iraq invasion and occupation as empire building. My problem is that we didn't call it that. To use a lie as pretense and then to let the lie be discovered, thus damaging our standing internationally and losing the support of the people, is very poor leadership in a Machiavellian model. Either come out and call it what it is or if your gonna lie you sure as heck better not get caught.

Finally someone who shares my view on the matter.

focusedfire wrote:
Now, from a moral point of view. Hussien should have been removed in the first conflict where we had the moral justification on our side. He had invaded a peaceful neighbor. The fact that we left him in office was our bad. To come back later and manufacture a means to invade was wrong. We had lost the moral imperative.

It also bears mentioning that most of the 'dissident groups' were those organizations that we encouraged to rebel against Hussein during, and after, Desert Shield/Storm. One can't really expect a warm welcome when the people that are forced to provide it were left to suffer under chemical attacks, and attack helicopter fire.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is China, or is China not, largely Bankrolling the West at the present moment in time? Yes, yes it is.

Democracy is not equal to Socialism. Correct?

Capitalism is equal to Socialism. Correct?

Whether or not you agree with my conclusions is you own business, but to say I know nothing about them because I haven't studied them is untrue.

These are largely true, though 'bankrolling' is probably a little misleading.

China, for example, is arguably well placed to ride any global financial meltdown, as it is more than capable of feeding it's own population, and has enough natural resources to cut any imports to an absolutel minimum.

No, it isn't well placed. There's been a recent increase in unemployment of somewhere around 40 million people. There's been rioting. The Chinese economy is far more dependent on US markets for its good than the US is dependant on Chinese money.

ShumaGorath wrote:No. No it is not. It is but one nation buying from the pot. We owe a considerable amount to japan as well. Also if I recall correctly saudi arabia.

I said earlier in the thread the other nation is the UAE. But the most important thing to remember when it comes to govt debt is that it isn't just purchased by other nations. Most US debt is purchased by US companies or, weirdly enough, other parts of the US govt.

focusedfire wrote:That the Machiavellian model is what is in place. Now do not take that as a criticism. Just as much harm has been done in this world by those attempting to do the "right thing" as by those amoral Machiavellian leaders. I think what's truly important is that we recognize and call it for what it is. No sugar coating, no politically correct terminology, just bare bones truth.

Oh, alright. I thought you meant we should aspire to Machiavellian govt, and was already to write a lengthy rant when I read it again and thought 'is that what he meant?'

I don't completely agree with you, we don't have the two faced govt that will kill to ensure power that Machiavelli argued for, but there is certainly a lot more realpolitik going on than a lot of people assume.

sebster wrote:Oh, alright. I thought you meant we should aspire to Machiavellian govt, and was already to write a lengthy rant when I read it again and thought 'is that what he meant?'

I don't completely agree with you, we don't have the two faced govt that will kill to ensure power that Machiavelli argued for, but there is certainly a lot more realpolitik going on than a lot of people assume.

We will have to mildly disagree on this note. I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.



Hey, Sebster, care to debate whether socialism is harmless or destructive to democracy? Don't have a lot of time for it tonight but am willing to start.

focusedfire wrote:We will have to mildly disagree on this note. I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Didn't mean to suggest there weren't govts out there like this, I mean... Stalin.

But I don't think it applies to all people in all governments.

Hey, Sebster, care to debate whether socialism is harmless or destructive to democracy? Don't have a lot of time for it tonight but am willing to start.

If you want, but it depends on what you mean by socialism and hamful. 'Destructive' could probably be interpreted in different ways as well

Socialism in terms of progressive taxation, socialised medicine, welfare, public education... at that level it isn't harmful. I'd argue it's beneficial.

But if you're talking about socialism in terms of the state owning the means of production, well it gets a lot more tricky. I guess the short answer is that theoretically there's inherent in socialist theory that prevents it being democratic, but it never seems to work out that way.

I said earlier in the thread the other nation is the UAE. But the most important thing to remember when it comes to govt debt is that it isn't just purchased by other nations. Most US debt is purchased by US companies or, weirdly enough, other parts of the US govt.

Are you sure? For some reason I had the strongest memory of Japanese foreign investment, as well as Saudi. I may be mixing up facts though. Japan previously filled the role china does now when it comes to buying US assets did it not? My memory about things that happened worldwide when I was 15 or younger are kind of shifty.

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Are you sure? For some reason I had the strongest memory of Japanese foreign investment, as well as Saudi. I may be mixing up facts though. Japan previously filled the role china does now when it comes to buying US assets did it not? My memory about things that happened worldwide when I was 15 or younger are kind of shifty.

They run about even, with China having just passed Japan in total ownership. The Saudis and the UAE tend to get rolled together in terms of overall debt ownership. Not surprising given their degree of interconnection. Though the UK actually holds more of the debt than they do, and recently the Caribbeans passed them as well.

Of course this is all before our upcoming debt expansion

ShumaGorath wrote:

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

I think he means Bikini Atoll, and the Trinity test.

dogma wrote:They run about even, with China having just passed Japan in total ownership. The Saudis and the UAE tend to get rolled together in terms of overall debt ownership. Not surprising given their degree of interconnection. Though the UK actually holds more of the debt than they do, and recently the Caribbeans passed them as well.

Of course this is all before our upcoming debt expansion

Thanks for the correction. I must have been thinking of current buyers instead of holders.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I live in a country that dropped A-bombs on its own troops just to secure the scientific lead in the cold war.

Wait.. What?

I think he means Bikini Atoll, and the Trinity test.

I was thinking more of the tests where they would drop/set off a nuclear device and then had soldiers walk through/near the area to practice military movements after such attacks to see what would happen. Oddly enough, many of the soldiers became very sick. I can't recall the specifics, I'll have to research it a bit.

This is also an interesting link on along the same lines.

I thought that was Bikini Atoll/Operation Crossroads. I could be wrong though.

However, I do know that the Trinity test involved the use of under-protected observers, and poor site contamination control.

Actually it was more like the Tumbler-Snapper and PlumbBob Operations. Check out the Desert Rock exercises, especially VII ans VIII.

http://www.dtra.mil/newsservices/fact_sheets/print/index.cfm?factsheet=ntpr_plumbbomb.cfm

These are where those old classic civil defense films where the Marines and Army troops are in trenches during detonation come from. It's funny how innocent they make manuevers sound.

Btw, it used to be a lot easier to get info on this and from more credible websites. Used to be able to get the images, also. Maybe my research skills are slippin'.



@Sebster, I see that we somewhat agree on a few things already. Btw, nice catch on my propagandized statement.

I will counter with that Taxation, without strong civilian oversite, becomes a tool for maintaining class distinction. That if the wealthy are in power they will benefit to a greater extent from the tax codes enacted and enforced. If the poor get in power they will quickly be made a part of the upper class so as to protect the status quo.

Socialized Medicine in its pure form will cripple even the most robust economy. I think a dual system would be more appropriate, we should be offering increased choices not restricting them. I would argue that Dr.s and Nurses that recieved govt loans should have the option to work those loans off in free clinics if they so choose.

The other two I will leave till later. Must leave for now. Sorry, I forgot to ask before jumping off, Which side of the debate do you wish to take? Seriously, take the side you think will produce the more enjoyable discussion. later