More general left-wing ranting and raving

[Nessus]

So Finland is having a bit of a thing lately, about whether faggots should be allowed to marry in church, whether faggots should be allowed in church, and so on. And there's a few books out now in direct opposition to one another, about whom Kekkonen was serving, and why, exactly. Which are all nonsense IMO, because history is the only real vindicator.

It has been explained, no, I should say spoon-fed, to me several times by Dreadnaught that the Nordic states are an aberration, really an abomination that should not even be. We don't have international power projection, we don't have huge honking carriers, we don't have millions and millions of young boys singing Erika with the Fatherland gleaming in their eyes. What right do we even have to exist? It is at the mercy of the Big Two, but now that the globe has de-polarized, whose mercy are we existing upon?

So, in my wildly mis-upbrought eyes, it looks like the next election cycle in the US is pretty simple. Either you vote for the we-won't-do-nothing-for-fear-of-upsetting-the-bear Democrats, or you vote for the we-will-gleefully-piss-on-human-rights-GOP. The GOP is about three steps away from organizing summertime happy fun camps of extermination and glee.

The thing about American politics, the thing Hazir for example can't fathom, is that the voting system is geared towards pissing on human rights. The Democrats are afraid to do anything, at all, because they're afraid of pissing off the voters who want to do away with human rights. That's why it's okay to bully gay students. And that's why we can't have gay soldiers. Because Billy-Bob in fuck-offs-ville might vote against someone. Note the might.

The rubric of deservance just seems so crude and useless to me. "How can you say the GOP is against human rights when brah-rah-rah?" Well let's talk about human rights. American posters, right here on this board, were shocked, shocked, that health care or housing could be declared human rights by European tea-sippers. What the fuck are those guys smoking, anyway? Who's gonna pay for that?

The other side of that coin is. It is ugly. It is unfathomably terrifying. And yet it is reality, even after all the shit that we saw through the Middle Ages.

The other side is, a person has to show himself worthy of housing, and of healthcare. That's right boys and girls, you have to demonstrate to an arbitrary death panel that you're worthy of having around.

That attitude is sickening. You hear me? You disgust me, you filthy pigs. You are asking for credentials from a person who just wants to sleep his night in a warm closet.

It is unfathomable that a person needs to demonstrate some rank before he is allowed a bed and housing.

In the heat of the Cold War, this kind of thinking would've been used as ammunition against the Commies! You have to work for the Evil Communist State or they slaughter you! So how is it okay that today the right-wing ding-bats get to say "you have to work for the Evil Corporate State or your children starve!" and they're the good guys?

They're the guys you have a beer with. And doesn't it just make you think, anyway, and all that Devil's advocate bull-shit Dread's on and on about? The GOP stands for some values the US public loves. Those values amount to asking people for their papers when they want shelter and food.

I cannot reconcile these values with what I perceive to be a good person. Wiggin was crying for more carrier fleets from the UK, and he made a guilt-laden argument that providing health-care to useless Pakis should've been cut instead of naval threats to the Chinks. He acted as a moral authority doing that, too.

The right likes to demonize the unwanted segments of society as an endless gaping maw asking for food. To them, I would extend my arm and help them. Forget about the bull-shit deserve and denigrate apparatus the right-wing ding-a-lings love. We exist, and that alone, DO YOU HEAR ME, that alone creates the moral imperative that we help. THAT WE HELP.

Is that really so much to ask?

Apparently it is, because the right-wing demagogue Lewkowski is allowed to preach his beer-drinking bull-shit in Debate, and his ilk will be voting for Palin come 2012. I look forward to all the rationalizations and pat-me-downs from Wiggin, Dread and other forum econ Intelligentsia. They're the "political realists" who understand that it is necessary to cater to Bubba-Joe in the US political system. And that system does good to whom, exactly?

[Dreadnaught]

Ignoring your characterization of conservatism for a moment, is it really that outlandish or cruel to assert that not building military defenses to protect your country/values means someone else will build a military to impose their values on you?

[Nessus]

Ignoring your characterization of conservatism for a moment, is it really that outlandish or cruel to assert that not building military defenses to protect your country/values means someone else will build a military to impose their values on you?

It is outlandish and it is cruel. Which does not make it any less true, objectively. Finland was a-okay to try and gain ground from Satanic Russia when we were backed by the Third Reich, but after that fizzled out, we have to play on a foreign policy of neutrality so as to not attract unwanted attention.

Really, your hawkish views would be more warranted in late 19th century courts, not nations with nuclear capabilities. It is a sickening trend where people pooh-pooh away the existence of weapons of this magnitude. We can never have Hitler's war ever again.

[Loki]

You exaggerate the cohesion of either the right or the left. There are groups on the right that aren't fans of human rights, and there are groups on the left that like pandering to the same groups. You also have groups on both sides that support human rights, despite the costs, and groups on both sides (probably the largest ones) who are fairly pragmatic and choose whichever policies enjoy widespread public support. In case you haven't noticed, various minority groups in America have been gaining rights over the last half a century, not losing them. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to point to instances where people lost rights that they previously had. So instead of taking the rhetoric seriously, do look at the actual policies that are being passed. Coincidentally, there have been a wave of new anti-bullying laws passed in the country recently, and many of those are aimed at people who bully gays.

[Nessus]

You exaggerate the cohesion of either the right or the left. There are groups on the right that aren't fans of human rights, and there are groups on the left that like pandering to the same groups. You also have groups on both sides that support human rights, despite the costs, and groups on both sides (probably the largest ones) who are fairly pragmatic and choose whichever policies enjoy widespread public support. In case you haven't noticed, various minority groups in America have been gaining rights over the last half a century, not losing them. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to point to instances where people lost rights that they previously had. So instead of taking the rhetoric seriously, do look at the actual policies that are being passed. Coincidentally, there have been a wave of new anti-bullying laws passed in the country recently, and many of those are aimed at people who bully gays.

And yet you and Dread will vote for Palin 2012 because gosh darnit she'll lower taxes and make for more jurrrbs?

[Loki]

And yet you and Dread will vote for Palin 2012 because gosh darnit she'll lower taxes and make for more jurrrbs?

I don't want another incompetent demagogue in the White House. Having two in a row is more than enough for me. I'd also put the odds of her getting nominated as less than 1 in 100. She might have strong support from a sub-section of the Republican Party, but she scares a far larger portion of the party. I think the GOP will end up nominating some decent center-right governor.

As for the military, it has a purpose beyond fighting wars. The main purpose is to improve one's position during negotiations. When you consider the interests of countries like China, Iran, and Russia, I don't think it makes sense to artificially weaken your bargaining position just because you're afraid of a nuclear war. Let's be honest here: there are currently no issues on the international agenda that anyone would fight a nuclear war over.

[Nessus]

And when the British carriers Wiggin was ejaculating about shoot on Chinese vessels, the Chinks respond, then what? The nuclear escalation is just a logical follow-through in this mind-set.

[Loki]

And when the British carriers Wiggin was ejaculating about shoot on Chinese vessels, the Chinks respond, then what? The nuclear escalation is just a logical follow-through in this mind-set.

A) It won't happen. Countries have professional militaries. A mistake of this magnitude is highly unlikely.
B) It would take many steps to go from an incident like the one you mention to a nuclear war. It's in no one's interest to have a nuclear war. You're far more likely to see economic retaliation than a military one. And the favored Chinese tactic is provoking domestic nationalism against whichever country they have a dispute with, leading to perhaps some minor attacks on foreigners within China. The Chinese government makes sure it never escalates beyond that.

[GGT]

The thing about American politics, the thing Hazir for example can't fathom, is that the voting system is geared towards pissing on human rights. The Democrats are afraid to do anything, at all, because they're afraid of pissing off the voters who want to do away with human rights. That's why it's okay to bully gay students. And that's why we can't have gay soldiers. Because Billy-Bob in fuck-offs-ville might vote against someone. Note the might.

The thing about American politics is.....it's all about the money. Campaigns, advertising, lobbyists, PACs, corporate contributions. It's been deemed a form of constitutionally protected free speech by SCOTUS, and everyone is ready to throw millions (totaling billions) into the game. As long as they can be anonymous. Principles end up being deferred or delayed, until after elections cycles, because the money might dry up.

That attitude is sickening. You hear me? You disgust me, you filthy pigs. You are asking for credentials from a person who just wants to sleep his night in a warm closet.

It is unfathomable that a person needs to demonstrate some rank before he is allowed a bed and housing.

I agree with you Ness. But again, the US today is mostly about capitalism, taxes and money flows. Not sure how this happened, coming from people who had federally susidized public education, federal loans to go to college, drive on federally funded highways, take pills researched and approved by the FDA, eat food stamped safe from FDA, drive cars made safe by federal standards or EPA, live in homes with FHA loans, put money in FDIC protected banks, investments made with SEC regulation ..... there's a disconnect.

The right likes to demonize the unwanted segments of society as an endless gaping maw asking for food. To them, I would extend my arm and help them. Forget about the bull-shit deserve and denigrate apparatus the right-wing ding-a-lings love. We exist, and that alone, DO YOU HEAR ME, that alone creates the moral imperative that we help. THAT WE HELP.

Is that really so much to ask?

Apparently it is, because the right-wing demagogue Lewkowski is allowed to preach his beer-drinking bull-shit in Debate, and his ilk will be voting for Palin come 2012. I look forward to all the rationalizations and pat-me-downs from Wiggin, Dread and other forum econ Intelligentsia. They're the "political realists" who understand that it is necessary to cater to Bubba-Joe in the US political system. And that system does good to whom, exactly?

The political right has taken a scary steer toward an extreme. I don't know why, other than the last few years have shaken people. It's a combination of a values shift, hope, and fear. It's been most noticeable (to me) after 9/11.

[agamemnus]

The problem with your moral outrage, Nessus, and I'm sure you know this (so why am I even posting it?), is that things aren't free. Education? Fine, up to high school. Health care? Ok, here are your basic pills and check-ups. Housing? Sure, we'll give you a place to live if you help out and you're homeless.

Where does it stop? Free (and actually expensive) university education?? Check. Enormous health care costs due to a low standard of personal responsibility? Perhaps. How about free apartments? (well, you euros can't really afford free houses, yet, right?...)

I'll tell you where it stops. It stops at bankruptcy, and a state that gradually panders more and more to poor, uneducated people who themselves don't really cherish your values of education, or minority rights, or even intellectual and economic freedom in general. And they are uneducated because, in a free society, they have the right to be uneducated (they can go through school but still you can't force them to think). The great mass does not calculate that education gives them an enormous advantage, and handouts don't help that image. In fact, in recent years I think that it is more and more the case that education is seen as and in fact is less and less valuable to those in developed countries.

After a few generations of this, we're just left with a tiny middle class, a miniscule enormously wealthy group, and the rest of society as an uneducated mob willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

More about intellectual freedom. Why is it that liberals seem to want to blast every teeny-tiny conservative thought so much as to make it Hitler-esque?

[Nessus]

A) It won't happen. Countries have professional militaries. A mistake of this magnitude is highly unlikely.
B) It would take many steps to go from an incident like the one you mention to a nuclear war. It's in no one's interest to have a nuclear war. You're far more likely to see economic retaliation than a military one. And the favored Chinese tactic is provoking domestic nationalism against whichever country they have a dispute with, leading to perhaps some minor attacks on foreigners within China. The Chinese government makes sure it never escalates beyond that.

I find this attitude amusing and morally abhorrent given the current nuclear track record. But it's okay to paint all those mistakes as whoops, won't happen again, because you have to pressure the Chinks! By Jove, pressure them enough and US citizens won't have to pass arbitrary guilt checks (in your case, alcohol intake) before they're granted status of human beings!

[Loki]

Actually, American politics, like politics in every democratic country, is about getting reelected. Money helps you get reelected, but so do plenty of other factors, many of them being as "unsavory" as money. The fundamental problem in America is the unwillingness of the voter to acknowledge fundamental economic truths, along with the media aiding and abetting in that process. Our political system is actually pretty well geared toward preventing idiots from taking away the rights of other people.

I find this attitude amusing and morally abhorrent given the current nuclear track record. But it's okay to paint all those mistakes as whoops, won't happen again, because you have to pressure the Chinks! By Jove, pressure them enough and US citizens won't have to pass arbitrary guilt checks (in your case, alcohol intake) before they're granted status of human beings!

It's morally abhorrent to believe that countries aren't morons and won't fight unless there's something worth fighting over? Can you please find me some examples of recent wars that escalated out of the kind of misunderstanding you mentioned?

[GGT]

The problem with your moral outrage, Nessus, and I'm sure you know this (so why am I even posting it?), is that things aren't free. Education? Fine, up to high school. Health care? Ok, here are your basic pills and check-ups. Housing? Sure, we'll give you a place to live if you help out and you're homeless.

The rest of your post is related to our crappy public education, because we don't fund it properly by paying teachers to be excellent (like they do in Finland):

Where does it stop? Free (and actually expensive) university education?? Check. Enormous health care costs due to a low standard of personal responsibility? Perhaps. How about free apartments? (well, you euros can't really afford free houses, yet, right?...)

I'll tell you where it stops. It stops at bankruptcy, and a state that gradually panders more and more to poor, uneducated people who themselves don't really cherish your values of education, or minority rights, or even intellectual and economic freedom in general. And they are uneducated because, in a free society, they have the right to be uneducated (they can go through school but still you can't force them to think). The great mass does not calculate that education gives them an enormous advantage, and handouts don't help that image. In fact, in recent years I think that it is more and more the case that education is seen as and in fact is less and less valuable to those in developed countries.

After a few generations of this, we're just left with a tiny middle class, a miniscule enormously wealthy group, and the rest of society as an uneducated mob willing to sell their votes to the highest bidder.

More about intellectual freedom. Why is it that liberals seem to want to blast every teeny-tiny conservative thought so much as to make it Hitler-esque?

[Loki]

America actually spends a lot of money on education (we spend a larger portion of GDP on education than Britain or France, both of whom have significantly better primary/secondary education systems than us). And our teachers are far from underpaid. Believe it or not, money isn't always the problem.

[GGT]

America actually spends a lot of money on education (we spend a larger portion of GDP on education than Britain or France, both of whom have significantly better primary/secondary education systems than us). And our teachers are far from underpaid. Believe it or not, money isn't always the problem.

We spend more money on education (and health care) than other nations, without better results. Our recurring problem seems to be a belief that throwing money at something makes it better, without improving fundamental or systematic flaws. Because we value money most.

From what I've read, compared to places like Finland, we pay our teachers to be mediocre, not excellent. The US would never think an excellent kindergarten teacher is worth a $100,000 salary.

[agamemnus]

Except for the second paragraph, I was just giving a hypothetical and not basing it on any particular country...

In the second paragraph I was discussing what Europe/America (partially) was giving out and America/Europe might be giving out soon.

America actually spends a lot of money on education (we spend a larger portion of GDP on education than Britain or France, both of whom have significantly better primary/secondary education systems than us). And our teachers are far from underpaid. Believe it or not, money isn't always the problem.

Could be somewhat ironic, then, that the strongest part of the US educational system vis-a-vis other countries is the private (and hugely personally expensive) university system, which attracts millions (?) of foreign students yearly from around the world.

[Loki]

We spend more money on education (and health care) than other nations, without better results. Our recurring problem seems to be a belief that throwing money at something makes it better, without improving fundamental or systematic flaws. Because we value money most.

From what I've read, compared to places like Finland, we pay our teachers to be mediocre, not excellent. The US would never think an excellent kindergarten teacher is worth a $100,000 salary.

It's a bit of an unfair comparison considering that Scandinavians are very generous with public funds. Again, if you compare the salaries of American teachers to those in the rest of Europe, you'll see they're far from underpaid. It's a myth that American teachers are underpaid, especially considering that they don't work for most of the summer.

Nessus, getting back to your point, what do you think Russia would do if the US and the EU didn't have sizable forces stationed in Western Europe? What do you suppose would happen if ethnic Russians were mistreated in Latvia or Estonia? What would happen any time Russia gets into a spat with Poland or Ukraine? Sticking your head in the sand might work for Finland (probably because Russia already got what it wants from you), but it doesn't work for everyone else.

[GGT]

It's morally abhorrent to believe that countries aren't morons and won't fight unless there's something worth fighting over? Can you please find me some examples of recent wars that escalated out of the kind of misunderstanding you mentioned?

Although you posed that question to Nessus, mind if I mention Iraq? Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out to be false intelligence? How about Afghanistan, an escalating war that has no attainable goal or end point?

[GGT]

It's a bit of an unfair comparison considering that Scandinavians are very generous with public funds. Again, if you compare the salaries of American teachers to those in the rest of Europe, you'll see they're far from underpaid. It's a myth that American teachers are underpaid, especially considering that they don't work for most of the summer.

But we are talking about public funds, and what's considered fair or generous. I never said US teachers are underpaid. Just that they're paid to be mediocre, while Scandinavian teachers are paid to be excellent. It's a matter of priority and value.

[GGT]

In the heat of the Cold War, this kind of thinking would've been used as ammunition against the Commies! You have to work for the Evil Communist State or they slaughter you! So how is it okay that today the right-wing ding-bats get to say "you have to work for the Evil Corporate State or your children starve!" and they're the good guys?

They're the guys you have a beer with. And doesn't it just make you think, anyway, and all that Devil's advocate bull-shit Dread's on and on about? The GOP stands for some values the US public loves. Those values amount to asking people for their papers when they want shelter and food.

I cannot reconcile these values with what I perceive to be a good person.

We also had the post WWII McCarthy era, where everyone was considered a pinko commie to be black listed. Conspiracies all around. It was based on fear, stoked by a very few that had power and money. That's why this time around it's doubly disturbing. When guys like Beck or Limbaugh have more listeners than established news sources, when Fox News boasts more viewers than a couple of networks combined, we should wonder why and maybe worry.

Because millions of people are finding a comfort in the haters, bigots, sexists, homophobes, fear mongerers. Us against Them. Be very afraid. Come to our side, we'll fight against the evil government that helps brown babies, malingerers, illegal immgrunts, stupid people, non-English speaking people. 300 million teat sucking slackers, stealing your money.

In a country that values money like the US does, all they had to do was mention money. Quickly it became wealth redistribution, forced wealth extraction. Less money for YOU. Money taken out of your paycheck to pay for civilization. Taxation itself became the big bad ogre, with the big bad government the puppet master. Forget a space program, a national health initiative with R & D, a national goal to improve education for a new millennium....no, it was all about taking your money.

It was better to tell everyone to kiss your kids and go shopping. Boost consumerism, buy a bunch of crap from WalMart, imported from China. Buy a house with a mortgage, rely on the professional bankers to help with that. Take a home equity loan to help pay for your kid's college, or your hip replacement, or watch your retirement vanish.... ha ha ha .... did I say money mattered?

[Nessus]

It's morally abhorrent to believe that countries aren't morons and won't fight unless there's something worth fighting over? Can you please find me some examples of recent wars that escalated out of the kind of misunderstanding you mentioned?

Thankfully I am not one of your students, and I don't have to. But we are both children of the 80s and hopefully equally aware about how unlikely our births really were.

Nessus, getting back to your point, what do you think Russia would do if the US and the EU didn't have sizable forces stationed in Western Europe? What do you suppose would happen if ethnic Russians were mistreated in Latvia or Estonia? What would happen any time Russia gets into a spat with Poland or Ukraine? Sticking your head in the sand might work for Finland (probably because Russia already got what it wants from you), but it doesn't work for everyone else.

In a thread sparked out of emotion, this is not an unexpected avenue. Of course the miracle of the Winter War would not happen again; the racial purity of Finland is not enough against the nuclear threat of the Rushki. I spit on you out of principle for saying Finland has ever placed its head in the sand, and we can be done with that. The more general point, that everybody needs a big stick to secure their well-being, has to be discussed in a larger context. If it ever came to it, your government decided in the 60s that Finland was a "months-threat"; we could create a nuclear weapon in the time-scale of 2 or 3 months. If it ever came to that, Finland and more significantly the other democracies of the world would have failed. This isn't Germany in the 1920's, or a game of civilization. We keep some force, nationally and as the EU, but if the Red Beast decided to awaken anew, Europe has a very limited nuclear option. The Nordic countries in particular would be occupied within weeks. (Like Af-ghay-nestan is occupied, but you get the idea).

In addition, it would behoove you, as a student of political science, to occasionally pluck your head outside of your own buttocks and realize that the USSR was not some Satanic entity bent on global domination. If you want to suckle on the penis of Joe McCarthy and Strauss, you are quite welcome, but I for one will not celebrate your hawkish attitudes and will find you a grade-A moron. The USSR did not "get all it wanted" from Finland, the post-WW2 political situation played out as it did mostly due to the wisdom on our part. We remained neutral on paper to calm the nerves of the USSR, who were as concerned with their own existence as everyone else! It is GOP dick-suckery of the first order to suggest that everyone not shooting at commies all the time is a moral failure. It is argumentation I would expect from Lewkowski, not someone claiming to give a rat's ass about scientific integrity.

The road you, Dread and Wiggin are so fond of, the road to increasing armaments, nationalism and greater fire-power, is the same road my beloved uncle Adi took in the 30s. It failed for him. And Europe was laid in ruin because of it. I suppose it makes for a more viscerally satisfying policy to go on that road again; the extreme right is gaining in Europe. We have a hope of seeing warfare and genocide on European soil again. But do not pretend, for a second, that you're some voice of reason or morality, Loki. You are a hawk, and you want to pave the way for another global war. Hitler's ambitions only cost Europe some millions of lives, 30 years of rebuilding infrastructure and the continued existence of the Red Beast. The war you're gunning for would be fought with nuclear arms, and its resolution would take human civilization back thousands of years. For what? Being a stand-up guy? Believing in Christian morals? That is worth the lives of billions, and keeping the US people today locked in poverty and misery?

[Dreadnaught]

The road you, Dread and Wiggin are so fond of, the road to increasing armaments, nationalism and greater fire-power, is the same road my beloved uncle Adi took in the 30s. It failed for him. And Europe was laid in ruin because of it. I suppose it makes for a more viscerally satisfying policy to go on that road again; the extreme right is gaining in Europe. We have a hope of seeing warfare and genocide on European soil again.

I was going to try to get into specifics into this idea that any of us are inordinately hawkish, but I have to ask about this.

You think Europe is risking a rightward shift that will lead to a world war? Seriously, what does that mean? The rise of some anti-immigrant parties hardly looks like Sweden starting a Beowulf Nationalist Party to settle their historical beef with the Jutes down south before moving on to take over France.

[']['ear]

Hearing the two sides natter about this is perfect justification for steering a middle course. As I said in 2007, I knew how I was going to vote in 2008 regardless of who the candidates were. The balance had swung too far to the right. And in spite of the Dems having the edge in power right now, this is still true: the right has to much power. The whole country has swung far to the right, dragging the formerly very liberal Dems with them, such that the Dems are pretty much a moderate party, and the GOP an extremist one.

How do I know this? We have seen what is essentially the rise of the John Birch Society. This was a far right group that at the time was excoriated by rational conservatives like William F. Buckley. The fact that their modern equivalent is essentially calling the shots on the right tells us where America is.

And Loki, you are sleeping with the devil. You rationalize it to yourself and others by saying "I won't vote for a demgogue," and then lump Obama in with Bush. But you know as well as I that the candidate doesn't really matter. It is the center of gravity of parties that matter, and dislike it as I may, because of our two-party system Americans have to choose a side each election day. It's a binary switch (or you can blow your vote as a protest vote.) You have chosen to throw your lot with the John Birchers. William F. Buckley, whom I think you would respect, is rolling in his grave. Fact is, he was repudiating W when he was still alive. At least some conservatives have the intellectual integrity to feel fear, and say so.

[Nessus]

I was going to try to get into specifics into this idea that any of us are inordinately hawkish, but I have to ask about this.

You think Europe is risking a rightward shift that will lead to a world war? Seriously, what does that mean? The rise of some anti-immigrant parties hardly looks like Sweden starting a Beowulf Nationalist Party to settle their historical beef with the Jutes down south before moving on to take over France.

I said we have hope, not that it's bound to happen. The anti-immigration parties in several countries are gaining momentum, this week our Christian Democrat party figurehead (ptui) caused an uproar when she suggested we take in only Christian asylum-seekers. And so on. They're in the fringe, but everyone has to start at the bottom.

Europe isn't the center stage that it used to be during the Cold War, but you yourself have warned me on several occasions that Russia will bully us and the rest of Eastern Europe with the prospect of war. It does not seem far-fetched to me that the same idea has not occurred to right wing leaders in Europe now, which in turn could quite easily ignite old feuds. I have no illusions about people having learned anything from the failures of Napoleon and Hitler.

I'm not hoarding canned goods or wearing a tin-foil hat, but it would behoove people to remember that their stupidity can manifest as actual human pain. And it's somewhat bizarre that you're painting me with the nut-ball-brush for suggesting wars could happen when your own nation is currently waging two. But meh.

[Nessus]

Hearing the two sides natter about this is perfect justification for steering a middle course. As I said in 2007, I knew how I was going to vote in 2008 regardless of who the candidates were. The balance had swung too far to the right. And in spite of the Dems having the edge in power right now, this is still true: the right has to much power. The whole country has swung far to the right, dragging the formerly very liberal Dems with them, such that the Dems are pretty much a moderate party, and the GOP an extremist one.

How do I know this? We have seen what is essentially the rise of the John Birch Society. This was a far right group that at the time was excoriated by rational conservatives like William F. Buckley. The fact that their modern equivalent is essentially calling the shots on the right tells us where America is.

And Loki, you are sleeping with the devil. You rationalize it to yourself and others by saying "I won't vote for a demgogue," and then lump Obama in with Bush. But you know as well as I that the candidate doesn't really matter. It is the center of gravity of parties that matter, and dislike it as I may, because of our two-party system Americans have to choose a side each election day. It's a binary switch (or you can blow your vote as a protest vote.) You have chosen to throw your lot with the John Birchers. William F. Buckley, whom I think you would respect, is rolling in his grave. Fact is, he was repudiating W when he was still alive. At least some conservatives have the intellectual integrity to feel fear, and say so.

The Dems are so pathetic and weak because they're constantly afraid they'll piss off someone in the we-will-demolish-human-rights-and-civilization-GOP. They can't even let faggots marry, lest some evangelical nut-jobs stop their kiddy-raping long enough to vote GOP in the next election cycle. It's a fucking circus.

[Loki]

Although you posed that question to Nessus, mind if I mention Iraq? Weapons of Mass Destruction that turned out to be false intelligence? How about Afghanistan, an escalating war that has no attainable goal or end point?

Really? So the Afghan and Iraq wars arose due to misunderstandings? You know, Hussein accidentally killed a few people we liked and Al-Qaeda accidentally killed a few Americans, to which we overreacted and invaded the place?

Good to see Tear become the kathatsung of American politics. People he doesn't like have "too much power" (I wonder how one quantifies that in a democracy?), and every one of them is an extremist, unlike him, who is just a moderate of course. How someone like that can actually believe that is beyond me.

[Dreadnaught]

I simply don't see how the immigration strife itself will lead to a war. Your immigration problem has arisen from countries that are far away. You're not going to wage war on Algeria and Pakistan, are you?

Except you seem to be saying that simply arming oneself to be reasonably fierce in an armed conflict increases the likelihood that social change will make more war acceptable. And that arming a nation is only what warmongers do. Which sorta leaves you at the mercy at the actual warmongers, doesn't it?

I think us "hawks" are actually calling for Western and Northern Europe to be able to defend themselves in some nominal way and not be Poland in 1939 with soldiers on horseback.

[Nessus]

I simply don't see how the immigration strife itself will lead to a war. Your immigration problem has arisen from countries that are far away. You're not going to wage war on Algeria and Pakistan, are you?

Man, I wish

(not really)

Except you seem to be saying that simply arming oneself to be reasonably fierce in an armed conflict increases the likelihood that social change will make more war acceptable. And that arming a nation is only what warmongers do. Which sorta leaves you at the mercy at the actual warmongers, doesn't it?

Well yes, that is the conventional wisdom, isn't it. But as was evidenced in the Cold War, it was the work of the peace-mongers that kept us from igniting the globe. In order to create an army with public money (private armies are the way of the future, I suppose), you have to explain to the people how it is a good thing, which has to mean turning the public opinion to view warfare more positively.

I think us "hawks" are actually calling for Western and Northern Europe to be able to defend themselves in some nominal way and not be Poland in 1939 with soldiers on horseback.

Can we be Finland in 1939, with soldiers on skis?

I'm not against joint defense-ventures and the NATO, but that's about it. I'm not convinced Europe is integrated enough to be a force that can project military influence around the globe like the US does; you've been a federation for centuries, we've had genocidal wars in recent decades.

The role of nuclear arms has changed the face of warfare. Having conventional forces is important to keep neighbouring war-mongers out, as you say, but any real conflicts will have to be settled with the nuclear option. And I'm not sure there's any scenario where that'd be morally acceptable. Might be necessary, though.

[agamemnus]

Can we be Finland in 1939, with soldiers on skis?

Your ski soldiers are no match for my Arnold Schwarzenegger clones.

[Nessus]

They're no match for nukes, which is the point.