 |
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Lincoln, What would those decisions be that the state would make for you? |
After someone (in this case the state) has most of your money they make the decisions on how to spend your money. These decisions range from how to raise your children to what you can do on your own property.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
There is a huge social network in the United States (a supposed non socialist country) that dictates how you can raise your kids. They have the power to take your kids at any time if a neighbor complains. You cannot confront the witness that is making the complaint and you can only regain custody of the kids when you alter your methods to comply with what the state determines are appropriate.
The decisions regarding property are in respect to zoning regulations and restrictions on building, cutting down trees and otherwise using your own property. Of course some restrictions are in order but as socialism gains more of a fooothold the restrictions increase and are supported by law. In efect you have to ask permission from the government to use your own property. I am talking about the US here which supposedly is not socialist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
On topic:
What is wrong with trying a 'soft' approach? So far the 'hard' approach hasn't worked out very well.
In any case negotiating with terrorists can always buy some time, if nothing else.
Actually, I have a question. More like a thought experiment really. Why is it always presented in such a way, that making a deal with al- quada is impossible? The way I see it continuing in the same mode will only cost more lives.
Say for instance. Ok we will withdraw completely from the Mid east. Give the Palestinians their homeland. And pay the proper price for oil. This would include a new international monetary and financial order.
These 3 things, if they were implemented will have immensely little negative impact on the daily lives of the citizens of the western world. In fact in the long run it would make sense.
I know some might complain that it is unwise to make deals with terrorists. But the argument that giving in to terrorists will only mean more terrorists is not a good one, because combating terrorists also creates more terrorists. Perhaps quite a few more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dannubis
|
 |
Ghent
Apr 2002
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
I don't think by core socialism is bad. It doesn't count out the capitalist thinking and implementation.
I would say as far as socialism goes, we do have pretty working system, but it is starting to crumble. I think we could keep some of the socialist ideas, but change the system more that it would generate more money. Generating money is only possible when you have big corporations doing business beyond borders, so that's where we need to put some more light. If we had many more succesful businesses, it could be different situation.
But as for now, there is not enough money and everyone suffers from it. The system is expensive, and if it's not working, there's no value to your system because the benefits of it are non existent, but you still pay for the system. Some ideas of socialism just needs to be dumped, but I think we could still keep the healthcare etc. We just need to step it up, generate money so it would actually work.
Call it capitalism with care. |
nice, we find ourselves in agreement
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
First, I disagree with negotiating with terrorists. I think the problem would be much worse if terrorists were able to gain negotiations more often. |
The war against Muslim hardliners is often referred to as the war on terrorism, but it is really more resembling a low intensity war, not localized to a specific geographical place. So if one accepts that it is a war, and not simply instances of random terrorist acts, then one can view the issue differently.
First, there have in the west been a tendency to consider diplomacy and warfare as seperate issues. Starting with the demand for unconditional surrender during the Second World War everytime the West has intervened the war would not end before the West had achieved all objectives, which, however, would often change over time. This was IMHO a chief reason behind the prolongation of the Vietnam War.
But this 'unconditionality' is really an historical anomaly.
From the Middle ages to the First World War diplomatic agreements have often prevented one side from completely annihilating the other.
quote:
However, al-Qaeda doesn't really seem to care about negotiating. They just want the West to crawl into a hole. So either you crawl into a whole or you hunt them down and eliminate them. |
I disagree. Al-Qaeda's chief aim is to reform the political process in the Arab world. Now when the West is attacked, it has been because the West supports the present regimes in the Muslim world.
Actually when the West calls for democratic reform in Arab countries they are actually giving in to al-Qaeda demands, so in a sense there is a diplomatic game going on. The problem is that the Western diplomacy and the current Arab regimes both refuse to take into account the wishes of the fundamentalist
muslims, of whom many are in fact peaceful. But such an approach of ignoring the religious right is hardly democratic, in that in a democracy all views are equally respected, and some sort of consensus is achieved.
So the question is why western leaders seek to shortcircuit the political process, by going over the heads of the Muslim right and yet still seeks to impose political reform on the Arab regimes, which invariably must lead to the Muslim right gaining more influence?
Direct negotiation with the al-Qaeda network would also greatly benefit the ordinary citizen, because it seems to me that there are too many contradictions in the way Western leaders seek to combat terrorism. Most notably in how the rigts of citizens is being eroded. One example is how in the EU far-reaching measures have been taken in violating the privacy of citizens. Yet no substantial measures are being taken in furthering the intelligence sharing among EU member countries. Would it not be logical first to share the intelligence one has, before giving the green light for each state to gather more intelligence on it's own citizens? So what you end up with is a larger amount of information, which is only useful for each member country's own powers of state. This is basicly a mechanism for the containmnet of domestic dissent, and does not help in combating international terrorism in any meaningful sense. But maybe the EU is mostly afraid of terrorism which is specifically anti-EU or anti-state?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
My operation I needed was done in Thomson Hositap in El Paso than taxpayer support hositipal in the top 100 out of 5000 hosit in USA. Orginate it was than **** hole hostip untril Texas Tech took it over. Texas Tech I believe was started bu some millionair who where tire of being double or tiply bill by hositpal that must care for needly people who need than operation. One of then was than member of the same computer user group I was than I told him you are paying for health care of needed people one way or another. They took over Thomson Hositipal which by state law give health care only matter the abilities to pay for it. They found that doctor have to much paper worked to do to get foundinate money to help pay for operation and health care programs, so he hire bussien admin to most of the nonmecidal part of the paper work while the doctor only have to fill in the part they are needed to fill in. Then they sue the USA government for back medical care payment due and not pay and won in court, the USA government owe the hosipal 40 to 50 million dollar in medical treatment done and bill than late in paying. They put the money back into improvern health care for everyone and better medical equipment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Makes you wonder who won the cold war? |
No, not really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
The war against Muslim hardliners is often referred to as the war on terrorism, but it is really more resembling a low intensity war, not localized to a specific geographical place. So if one accepts that it is a war, and not simply instances of random terrorist acts, then one can view the issue differently.
First, there have in the west been a tendency to consider diplomacy and warfare as seperate issues. Starting with the demand for unconditional surrender during the Second World War everytime the West has intervened the war would not end before the West had achieved all objectives, which, however, would often change over time. This was IMHO a chief reason behind the prolongation of the Vietnam War.
But this 'unconditionality' is really an historical anomaly.
From the Middle ages to the First World War diplomatic agreements have often prevented one side from completely annihilating the other.
I disagree. Al-Qaeda's chief aim is to reform the political process in the Arab world. Now when the West is attacked, it has been because the West supports the present regimes in the Muslim world.
Actually when the West calls for democratic reform in Arab countries they are actually giving in to al-Qaeda demands, so in a sense there is a diplomatic game going on. The problem is that the Western diplomacy and the current Arab regimes both refuse to take into account the wishes of the fundamentalist
muslims, of whom many are in fact peaceful. But such an approach of ignoring the religious right is hardly democratic, in that in a democracy all views are equally respected, and some sort of consensus is achieved.
So the question is why western leaders seek to shortcircuit the political process, by going over the heads of the Muslim right and yet still seeks to impose political reform on the Arab regimes, which invariably must lead to the Muslim right gaining more influence?
Direct negotiation with the al-Qaeda network would also greatly benefit the ordinary citizen, because it seems to me that there are too many contradictions in the way Western leaders seek to combat terrorism. Most notably in how the rigts of citizens is being eroded. One example is how in the EU far-reaching measures have been taken in violating the privacy of citizens. Yet no substantial measures are being taken in furthering the intelligence sharing among EU member countries. Would it not be logical first to share the intelligence one has, before giving the green light for each state to gather more intelligence on it's own citizens? So what you end up with is a larger amount of information, which is only useful for each member country's own powers of state. This is basicly a mechanism for the containmnet of domestic dissent, and does not help in combating international terrorism in any meaningful sense. But maybe the EU is mostly afraid of terrorism which is specifically anti-EU or anti-state? |
I agree we can talk to AQ and reach than agreement with them but the far right wing doesnot like that idear at all. They would rather have than religious war with Islam and they are afraid of the growning number of muslim in the USA and of new convert being make.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Bill O'Reilly - is a douchebag
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
The question you should be asking is how a less than intelligent religious fundamentalist is supportive of communism when other less than intelligent religious fundamentalists of his ilk come to the opposite conclusion. |
There was temple communism way back in man history which wasnot the same as communism of the Soviet Union. The temple saw to fair distr of foods and other material to take care of all member od socierty while preventing social disorder breaking out in societry.
The poor tax was than billiant idear which make the Islamist Empire every stable for along time. While the Roman Empire has many cival wars and major period of social unrest in it history. Serbism start in the 2nd century Roman Empire which by the 7th or 8th century lead to the Serb being bound to the land not slave but not free either more like animal
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2004 18:42
|
|