They shoot children, don't they?

[rtwngAvngr]

Your argument is flawed. You point at the US democracy as, pretty much, your sole example of a successful democracy. Look at how many have failed!

It was the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish. If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.

The problem with democracies in an established society are that they have no means of redressing past wrongs or redistibuting wealth and property. If they do incorporate the means to do this, they also incorporate the very seeds of their own devolution into dictatorship. It takes two steps to get from an entrenched dictatorship (for instance a monarchy) to democracy, the first step requires land reform and wealth redistribution, followed by a period of about a generation of social recovery. Only then will a nation be ready for democracy.

Just watch in Iraq - our attempt to force democracy on them is going to fail. The only way to avoid this would be to institute some kind of forced land and wealth redistribution upon them, followed by a generation of education for all - but that is not going to happen.

Wade.

The values of individual responsibility made us great. The fact that strong individuals left an old overstructured europe to succeed based on their own merits and not according to the whims of an aristocratic church and state made us great.

Wealth redistribution is not an admirable goal.

Redressing past wrongs? Social recovery? You're a terminal kool aid drinker.

Socialism is stealing, covetousness run amok. Quit trying to infantilize society, daddy-o.

 

[wade]

The values of individual responsibility made us great. The fact that strong individuals left an old overstructured europe to succeed based on their own merits and not according to the whims of an aristocratic church and state made us great.

Wealth redistribution is not an admirable goal.

Redressing past wrongs? Social recovery? You're a terminal kool aid drinker.

Socialism is stealing, covetousness run amok. Quit trying to infantilize society, daddy-o.

Socialism is stealing? You have no problems with socialism when it involves buiding and maintaining roads. You have no problem with it when it comes to funding the military. You have no proble with it when it comes to enforcing the laws that protect the property you so covet.

You only have problems with it when it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the cold, or caring for the sick.

Do you not think that the people have a right to take back what has been illegaly gotten? This is what land reform and wealth re-distribution are about. Kings and dictators establish the ruling class, and afford the riches of the land to them. Eventually the people must rise up and correct this. It is only fair and right.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Socialism is stealing? You have no problems with socialism when it involves buiding and maintaining roads. You have no problem with it when it comes to funding the military. You have no proble with it when it comes to enforcing the laws that protect the property you so covet.

You only have problems with it when it comes to feeding the hungry, housing the cold, or caring for the sick.

Do you not think that the people have a right to take back what has been illegaly gotten? This is what land reform and wealth re-distribution are about. Kings and dictators establish the ruling class, and afford the riches of the land to them. Eventually the people must rise up and correct this. It is only fair and right.

Wade.

I'm not an anarchist, I believe in government. Your hyperbolic rhetoric is unneeded. I believe some endeavors are handled best by government. Personal fiscal success is not one of them. Individuals must be stimulated to achievement and hard work. Lying to them and teaching them to pilfer public coffers to sustain their own personal lifestyle is an irresponsible lesson, a false guarantee, given by envious, power hungry politicians seeking to use a lazy mob to dominate the truly industrious members of society with onerous confiscatory taxation.

 

[Zhukov]

the unique circumstances of being on a realtively unihabited continent rich in resources and having a diverse ethinic population, that allowed the US democracy to establish itself and flourish. If the USA had been born in Europe, particularly in 1917 Russia, it would have failed too.

Eastern Russia is relatively uninhabited, rich in resources, and in possession of a diverse ethnic population.

 

[5stringJeff]

Moved to Global Topics, as there was little (if any) dicussion of religion left in this thread.

 

[Comrade]

But the same thing can and has happened in "Democracies". For democracy or any other political system to hold to its ideals it requires that those ideals be laid down and that the people understand and defend them against all threats - internal and external. Any failure to protect the principals upon which the government is founded, especially from the government itself, will almost invariably lead to dictatorship - a lesson we seem to need a refesher course in here in the USA.

If this is a US hosted site, and if the government comes busting in, email us with your story. Until then I will roll my eyes.

I agree. But that is an implementational issue really. Had communism in the Soviet Union (for instance) laid out firm limitations for the power of the state and rights for the individual, and had the people insisted those rules be followed, it might have worked. I personally believe that communism as an overall system might be workable if properly implimented.

Communism is not a half way step along to true Democracy.

When you grant the state ownership of all property and wealth under a single party revolutionary movement the idea of personal rights cannot coexist in the primacy of the Marxist state.

From the beginning of the process in siezing all personal property for the state, the rights of the individual are subect to mob rule barely bound by the will of crony favoritism among the revolutionary command structure.

That's the nature of all Communist reality as we've seen it unfold in history.

At some point why don't you just give up the hope?

However I also think that this system would probably not lead to most people being happy. is focused on the idea of individual sacrifice for the good of the many, while that is acceptable when things are bad, it is overly restrictive to the human spirit when things are good.

That presumes the good of the many is based upon stripping all wealth and property from individuals and that bestowing all means of production and sustenance into the hands of a core of revolutionary leaders for eventual distrubution based on their direction is a good idea in general.

Wrong - 4 block total area. Neutron bombs can be made that have a 200 meter radius of effect - and it is quite possible they can be made to have an even smaller radius of effect. The article I referenced refers to a baseball sized bomb with about a 200 meter radius, but by reducing the hydrogen content of the fusion mass, the radius should be able to be reduced to almost any size desired.

It is very likely that at least one of the spawn would have perished as well, and probably both if the palaces were hit as well. But even if they did surivive, with the removal of the Baath party and the Republican gaurd, they'd have been running for their lives - not trying to step into Saddams shoes.

Something about this whole plan begs the question, what do you know about Saddam's location the US intelligence failed to connect on?

I got news for you Comrade - THE "WORLD" IS MIGHTLY PISSED OFF AT THE US!

Nukes are not supposed to be popular, are they?

Qusay would not be in charge. As for gauranteeing that Kerry would win - I don't think so. I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.

Americans are not ready to accept first use of neutron bombs and the logic of this proposition is not convincing based on the motive and the effect of using them.

Furthermore - there is no reason we would have had to admit we'd done it. The world might highly suspect this was the case, but we are not the only one's capable of such action.

However, you said in this same post:

I think Americans would support such a strike given the anger level immeadiately after 911, especially if the collateral damage (civilian causualties) was very low.

You don't get to have two position in one post. Both are wrong, the world would be outraged along with most Americans, over Bush's 'wink and nod'.

Actual neutron bomb attacks have never been carried out in the past, only the USA and the SU really have any experiance with these weapons at all. And they leave very little evidence of what actually happened - especially if red mercury triggers are used. We could just have said "Allah smote the evil" with a wink and a smirk and leave it at that.

It would be a big question mark as to who really did it. Certainly the Israelis, British, Russians, French, Germans, and Chineese have the capability. Hell, we could even setup Iran as the fall guy - blame it on them and turn the Arab world against their own! LOL

Dr. Evil did it!

And another thing - this is not beyond the capacity of certain private parties in the USA. William Swanson (Raytheon) could probably pull this off all by himself if he were willing to risk the consequences should he get caught. The hardest part would be getting the mini-neutron bomb - but an enraged private citizen might not be quite so concerned with civilian casualties.

It is even possible for much less well positioned people to have done it. I think I could build a cruise missile with a limited range (lets say 200-300 miles) for under $50,000 (including 2 tests). GPS makes it very easy to do the guidence system. Before you laugh, read this:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-3-2003-41208.asp

YOU can build your own cruise missile! And all the parts are available off the shelf!

This opens the door to all kinds of cover stories and misdirections.

On the one hand you distrust US motives and its role in spreading Democracy by conventional warfare.

On the other you suggest using a first strike WMD to depose a foreign regime and then denied, is fine by your book.

Conventional weapons do not have the sudden kill power of a neutron bomb. Neutron bombs would kill everyone within the target structure, and below it down to the 3rd basement. To achieve the same kill % on a 200 x 200 meter area using 2000 lbs JDAM's would require a minimum of 300 JDAM's dropped in 2-3 salvos. While this might be possible, pulling something off using B2 bombers, it would require our entire B2 force (21 - see http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm), and it is questionable they could pull off the harmony of attack needed to prevent Saddams having a good chance of being wisked away after the first bomb hit. And their would be no capacity remaining for the palaces or the Republican Gaurd. Furthermore, there is a good chance they'd be detected heading into Iraq - while the Iraqi's could not pinpoint them, suspicious radar readings would likely end up with Saddam in a bunker, and possibly the Republican Gaurd depolying into a state of "readiness" making its total destruction much less likely.

The point was always why a four block area of death via a WMD was needed to create a national security outcome based on specific intelligence that a JDAM never could achieve. And that this was worth the political consequences for our government in the administration.

If we were to have done something like this it would have needed to be achieve total surprise and near total destruction of the target objectives, and conventional bombs just do not pull off that trick (at least not until we have a lot more B1 bombers than we do now).

Finally, there would have been no denying we'd done it.

And the point being why do we need take out 4 square blocks instead of a single buidling? And how would the highly advanced nuclear attack be less of a giveaway then a conventional strike? Or why would it achieve advantageous results? And why does the world like us better for it? And are Americans who behind it from 9/11 anyways?

 

[wade]

If this is a US hosted site, and if the government comes busting in, email us with your story. Until then I will roll my eyes.

The government is already starting to quell the voices of dissent. It will only increase until the people take a stand.

Communism is not a half way step along to true Democracy.

When you grant the state ownership of all property and wealth under a single party revolutionary movement the idea of personal rights cannot coexist in the primacy of the Marxist state.

From the beginning of the process in siezing all personal property for the state, the rights of the individual are subect to mob rule barely bound by the will of crony favoritism among the revolutionary command structure.

That's the nature of all Communist reality as we've seen it unfold in history.

At some point why don't you just give up the hope?

I have no such hope. I think that in the current world this step should not be necessary. When a country has a revolution we (the international community) should step in and help them to restructure their country fairly, including wealth and land reform where appropriate. Only when the international community fails to do this, and instead supports and sustains the status quo in such a nation does communism make sense. But communism is a risky thing - it too easily turns totalitarian.

That presumes the good of the many is based upon stripping all wealth and property from individuals and that bestowing all means of production and sustenance into the hands of a core of revolutionary leaders for eventual distrubution based on their direction is a good idea in general.

This is exactly what is done during in the USA periods of total war (Civil War, WWII).

Again, look at Vietnam. Vietnam is an example of Communism headed toward democracy. If the system works right, the proletariat have control of the leadership. The leadership is selected to pursue the best interests of the people, and when the society is ready for it, the best interest is democracy and capitalism.

Something about this whole plan begs the question, what do you know about Saddam's location the US intelligence failed to connect on?

The US intelligence was unable to track Saddam's location over time. But there were occassions when it was known to a high degree of certainty. Given no immeadiate external threats, he was almost certain to preside over a meeting of the Baath party congress - his ego demanded it. But, even if Saddam somehow escaped, with the Baath party gone, the Rep. Gaurd gone, Saddam's palaces gone, and his sons dead, Saddam's days in Iraq would be over anyway.

Nukes are not supposed to be popular, are they?

Of course not. But neither is pre-emptive unilateral war. No matter what course we followed it was going to be unpopular. But a neutron bomb attack cutting off the head of the tyrant would have been over and done with 2 years ago, and the world would forget that all too quickly. An extended invasion with all its implications and secondary consequences gets burned into the minds of everyone over time.

Americans are not ready to accept first use of neutron bombs and the logic of this proposition is not convincing based on the motive and the effect of using them.

I dissagree. Within 3 months of 9/11 I am confident Americans would have had no problems with this at all. Even within a year it probably would have been acceptable.

On the one hand you distrust US motives and its role in spreading Democracy by conventional warfare.

On the other you suggest using a first strike WMD to depose a foreign regime and then denied, is fine by your book.

There is no "war for oil" implication with a neutron bomb attack. There is no political implications either, beyond "piss us off and your neck will meet the axe".

The point was always why a four block area of death via a WMD was needed to create a national security outcome based on specific intelligence that a JDAM never could achieve. And that this was worth the political consequences for our government in the administration.

And the point being why do we need take out 4 square blocks instead of a single buidling? And how would the highly advanced nuclear attack be less of a giveaway then a conventional strike? Or why would it achieve advantageous results? And why does the world like us better for it? And are Americans who behind it from 9/11 anyways?

Four blocks just happens to be the size quoted in the mini-neutron bomb literature I read. It does not go into sufficent depth for me to know if smaller areas of effect could be impimented. I believe from what I've read that the size could indeed be made smaller, and the size relationship given of a baseball sized weapon taking out a four city block area was just an example (of what terrorists might have).

However, the kill zone has to be large enough to take out a small stadium (the Iraqi congress hall) and the entourage area around it, since Saddam would not always be within the hall itself. So while 4 city blocks seems reasonable to me, if a smaller bomb could not be built, this would be acceptable. Ideally something tailored to take out just the desired area (the congressional hall and supporting strurctures) would be preferred.

The advantage to the US is that it takes out Saddam (and the rest of the Baathist regime) and forces a restructuring of the Iraqi government without requiring an invasion or occupation. It saves the USA a trillion dollars and several thousand lives too.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade. How do you deem a society to be "ready" for capitalism?

 

[wade]

The distrubution of wealth has to be sufficent that more than the top few percent have any power. The population has to be educated enough to understand what democracy is and how it will work.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The distrubution of wealth has to be sufficent that more than the top few percent have any power. The population has to be educated enough to understand what democracy is and how it will work.

So according to you, is america ready now?

 

[wade]

So according to you, is america ready now?

LOL! Now that is funny

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL! Now that is funny

But seriously, wade. Do we fulfill your criteria in our current state?

 

[wade]

I believe so RWA. The concentration of wealth is no where near as lop sided as it is in most dictatorship/monarchy nations which need land-reform, where generally speaking the top 1/2% hold about 30%, the next 4.5% hold about 50%, the next 10% hold about 15%, and the remaining 85% hold about 5% of the land and wealth.

But if things continue as they have been going for the last 30 or so years...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe so RWA. The concentration of wealth is no where near as lop sided as it is in most dictatorship/monarchy nations which need land-reform, where generally speaking the top 1/2% hold about 30%, the next 4.5% hold about 50%, the next 10% hold about 15%, and the remaining 85% hold about 5% of the land and wealth.

But if things continue as they have been going for the last 30 or so years...

We will no longer be ready for capitalism? You're intellectually subpar.

 

[wade]

We will no longer be ready for capitalism? You're intellectually subpar.

LOL - no RWA, we will be ready for fascism or revolution, I'd bet in that order.

I wish there was an intelligence test we could use that cannot be easily cheated on. It'd be fun.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL - no RWA, we will be ready for fascism or revolution, I'd bet in that order.

I wish there was an intelligence test we could use that cannot be easily cheated on. It'd be fun.

Wade.

Oh silly, silly wade.

Determining the depths of your mental dysfunction would be quite entertaining.

Your "sky is falling" outlook belies your dogmatic belief in every dem talking point. You wrap your stuff in the deli paper of contrived verboseness, but we can all see it's just an ignorance strudel.

 

[Annie]

Oh silly, silly wade.

Determining the depths of your mental dysfunction would be quite entertaining.

Your "sky is falling" outlook belies your dogmatic belief in every dem talking point. You wrap your stuff in the deli paper of contrived verboseness, but we can all see it's just an ignorance strudel.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

I'm unsure of all that you just said, but I liked the way you said it! :halo:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

I'm unsure of all that you just said, but I liked the way you said it! :halo:

Thanks K, everything I do is for the people!

 

[Comrade]

The government is already starting to quell the voices of dissent. It will only increase until the people take a stand.

I wish the government would indeed quell this four year old caniption fit and actually live up to your assertations, just to prove you right.

I have no such hope. I think that in the current world this step should not be necessary. When a country has a revolution we (the international community) should step in and help them to restructure their country fairly, including wealth and land reform where appropriate.

Wishfull thinking about the almighty international community is a leftist fantasy.

Only when the international community fails to do this, and instead supports and sustains the status quo in such a nation does communism make sense.

Communism doesn't make sense, period. The international community always failed to do a damn thing.

But communism is a risky thing - it too easily turns totalitarian.

It always turns to totalitarianism, period.

This is exactly what is done during in the USA periods of total war (Civil War, WWII).

Hogwash. A 40% tax rate, is not communism. A working US democracy, guaranteeing private ownership, is not communism.

Again, look at Vietnam. Vietnam is an example of Communism headed toward democracy. If the system works right, the proletariat have control of the leadership.

If the tyrant in control of a comminist state says he speaks for the proletariat, why would we believe him, huh?

The totalitarian communist party leadership always controls from the top down, in every case. The proletariat are extinct after communism makes them equal, remember?

The leadership is selected to pursue the best interests of the people, and when the society is ready for it, the best interest is democracy and capitalism.

That kind of claim makes me want to blow chunks.

The dear leader is being so benevolent by acting in the 'best interests of the people' and you buy this line in a heartbeat, don't ya?

The US intelligence was unable to track Saddam's location over time. But there were occassions when it was known to a high degree of certainty.

Specifically that would be ... ?

Given no immeadiate external threats, he was almost certain to preside over a meeting of the Baath party congress - his ego demanded it.

As if like Saddam cares what his congress thinks? C'mon! A poser speech to his 'Congress' is definately a job for one of his doubles. Congress was a puppet of Saddam and knew damn well they were.

But, even if Saddam somehow escaped, with the Baath party gone, the Rep. Gaurd gone, Saddam's palaces gone, and his sons dead, Saddam's days in Iraq would be over anyway.

There you go with nuetron bombs an pinpoint intelligence all all of the regime again.

And if you amazingly succeed despite all odds, how could you expect something better, let alone something remotely democratic?

Of course not. But neither is pre-emptive unilateral war. No matter what course we followed it was going to be unpopular. But a neutron bomb attack cutting off the head of the tyrant would have been over and done with 2 years ago, and the world would forget that all too quickly. An extended invasion with all its implications and secondary consequences gets burned into the minds of everyone over time.

Nuking Iraq isn't more effective or more popular. It's just silly.

How could you possibly stand there and tell us you'd be happy with Bush after he nuked and murdered thousands to get at Saddam, and that something good would have come from the regime after it was 'purged' and left alone to stabilized from the lower echelon of the corrupt regime.

No, you'd be pissed as hell about it. We know your type.

I dissagree. Within 3 months of 9/11 I am confident Americans would have had no problems with this at all. Even within a year it probably would have been acceptable.

Why don't you start a poll and we'll see how acceptable it was to all of us here, if you want to speak for Americans. I wonder how many think casually tossing a few nukes out just to get Saddam would serve any eventual goal or help world opinion on the US overall. I'd oppose it, based on principle and on effectiveness.

There is no "war for oil" implication with a neutron bomb attack. There is no political implications either, beyond "piss us off and your neck will meet the axe".

There is no 'war for oil' implication, no free Iraqi oil.

Four blocks just happens to be the size quoted in the mini-neutron bomb literature I read. It does not go into sufficent depth for me to know if smaller areas of effect could be impimented. I believe from what I've read that the size could indeed be made smaller, and the size relationship given of a baseball sized weapon taking out a four city block area was just an example (of what terrorists might have).

If they have it they'd use it.

However, the kill zone has to be large enough to take out a small stadium (the Iraqi congress hall) and the entourage area around it, since Saddam would not always be within the hall itself.

Why should he? WTF did Saddam ever care for the Congress? Apparently you have timetables or something.

So while 4 city blocks seems reasonable to me, if a smaller bomb could not be built, this would be acceptable. Ideally something tailored to take out just the desired area (the congressional hall and supporting strurctures) would be preferred.

Neat. But irrelevent.

The advantage to the US is that it takes out Saddam (and the rest of the Baathist regime) and forces a restructuring of the Iraqi government without requiring an invasion or occupation. It saves the USA a trillion dollars and several thousand lives too.

You took a dab of international intrigue and a smatter of wishfull thinking to use nukes to 'decapitate' the regime. Saddam is GONE and what-ifs and should-haves by now are moot, who cares? And the one hand you make pains to point out 'international law' and on the other propose the proper solution would have been to use nukes in a casual was and that would somehow satisfy every party concerned.

That's ridiculous.

 

[wade]

I wish the government would indeed quell this four year old caniption fit and actually live up to your assertations, just to prove you right.

Then you are a fascist.

It always turns to totalitarianism, period.

This does not appear to be the case in Vietnam. And it certainly had no signs of going that way in Chile.

Hogwash. A 40% tax rate, is not communism. A working US democracy, guaranteeing private ownership, is not communism.

Ummm.. 40% was the minimum corporate tax rate. 40% was also about the average personal tax rate, but the rate did go as high as 90% at the top bracket.

If the tyrant in control of a comminist state says he speaks for the proletariat, why would we believe him, huh?

The same can be said of tyrant leaders in control of "democracies". Hitler and Marcos are two examples.

The totalitarian communist party leadership always controls from the top down, in every case. The proletariat are extinct after communism makes them equal, remember?

What? Under communism everyone is a member of the proletariate. The system is supposed to be an effective republic, with the collectives voting on issues.

That kind of claim makes me want to blow chunks.

The dear leader is being so benevolent by acting in the 'best interests of the people' and you buy this line in a heartbeat, don't ya?

You refer to one example, Kim of NK. You have a double standard. When communism degenerates into authoritarian rule, you still want to call it communism. But when democracy degenerates into authoritarian rule, you wish to reclassify it as dictatorship.

There are many examples of Democracies, which have reverted to dictatorships. Germany, Italy, the Phillapines, El Salvador, etc...

Today, something like 40% of the UN membership are considered to be failed democracies (from S. America, Africa, and indochina).

----

You seem to think it is a given that democracy will work in Iraq. Everything in history is against it. Of the 121 nations classified as democracies in the world today - NOT ONE IS ARAB!

Already something around 12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war as the immeadiate result of allied military action. Fewer would have been killed by a neutron bomb attack. Furthermore, the infrastructure of the nation would have been virtually untouched. Water and power would have continued to flow.

I do not say we would have know exactly where Saddam was. I say we would have had a very good idea where he would have been - we we would have had a very high chance of getting him by hitting the Baath Party congress while it was in session and Saddams palaces in a simultanous strike. And even if we had somehow failed to get him, without the Baath's or the Republican Gaurd, his power would have been ended.

Finally, why the kit gloves? These people allowed a terrorist and harborer of terrorists to rule thier country for decades. Don't you think it is about time that we put the Arab world on notice that to do so is to invite ruin? It is time to start making the Arabs realize that they cannot look the other way while Al-Queda and other terrorists operate in their midst, and that if they do the consequences are grave.

Face it, the Iraqi's are never going to be grateful for their liberation. The truth is the Arabs hated us before, they hate us now, and they will hate us tommarow. The idea that we are going to make friends of the Arabs in our lifetimes is pure fantasy. We need to make them respect and fear us. They think differently than we do, they do not value individual life the way we do. Simply invading and occupying their countries is not going to do the trick - as soon as we are gone they will revert right back to their old ways. They will say what you want to hear to your face, make promises, whatever to appease you, never meaning even one word of it. Only by demonstrating absolute power are we ever going to get them to realize they must change or die. And that is not going to be accomplished using conventional tactics.

Wade.