I've often jokingly said that the major characteristic that seems to separate conservatives, particuarly Bush-supporters, from anyone who isn't conservative is the conservative's seeming total inability to recognize or to make subtle distinctions, and the ensuing tendency to rely much too strongly on simplistic explanations of the world and then insist that anyone who does not follow the same simplistic logic is either stupid, evil, or a communist. But I never thought I'd see anyone virtually admit to it! Maybe someone needs to point out that the world is far more complex than a two-pole system can possibly account for. But I'm sure the response to that statement would be something like this: "Your statement is just WRONG. There IS only GOOD and EVIL in the world, and I am GOOD, therefore anyone who opposes me or disagrees with me must be EVIL. You are either FOR the GOOD or you are AGAINST the GOOD and you are therefore EVIL. If you are FOR the GOOD and therefore RIGHT then you must not see ANYTHING in the GOOD but the GOOD. If you see any EVIL in the GOOD then you are obviously AGAINST the GOOD and therefore EVIL. This rationale is already well-known to anyone who isn't EVIL. I am wearing buttless chaps, and I am GOOD, therefore those who do not appreciate my buttless chaps must be EVIL."
The problem with this statement is that you've essentially conceded that the US has acted evilly when it doesn't suit our national interest. "Right thing" is generally considered the "good thing" so not doing the right thing is basically doing evil.
I'm not trying to make some kind of moral judgement here. I am able to realize when our nation has not done the right thing. But to say that we are on the side of evil in a war against another is power is unbelieveable. Of course we are the beacon of hope in a world of darkness.
The only reason this missile defense has legs is pork and conservatives deifying Reagan. With Reagan as their god, they want to fulfill his fantasy wish for the *cold war*. Plus there will be pork in a ton of states, just like the space program. No need to pay attention to rationale or need. The only ICBM defense systems that have a snowballs chance of working today have to be physically close to the launch, and we have to pray they don't launch a lot of missiles. So we essentially have to give a head's up to anybody we're suspicious about by surrounding their country with our hardware.
In war, both sides are acting in defense. Both sides are right and both sides are fighting for good. That's why there *is* war. If we're American, we think American policy is the most noble, and we have a terribly hard time realizing that billions of people feel the same way about their countries. Why are we right and they're wrong? Because of where we were born? -- that we were born in Texas instead of Pakistan? That's a dangerous way to approach foreign policy. This isn't a UT/A&M game. The stakes are so high that we are required to look beyond our hometown pride and see the issues that really need to be addressed. If we don't, problems will continue to mushroom. We dismiss other countries' nationalism as delusional fanaticism, but we refuse to turn such a skeptical eye on ourselves.
Applying different standards to your (or your country's) actions than you do to others is the definition of moral relativism. So for instance, a moral relativist would think it's okay if the U.S. doesn't do the right thing, or excuse our actions as long as it's in our national interest. A moral absolutist would use the same standard to judge the actions of the U.S. as they would to judge the actions of another country. The terms "moral relativism" as well as "historical revisionism" are often used by conservatives in direct opposition to their actual meaning.
Exxxaaccctllllyyyy! I've been making this point to so called conservatives all the time. That moral relavism means looking at the actions too and not just the sides.
If you think that way, you probably feel we started WWII and "pushed" Japan into action, right? So we were in the wrong and Japan was acting in self-defense when they bombed Pearl Harbor, right? Lunacy.
What does that have to do with anything? All he did was show you how the two principles that you are crowing about here are contradictory; You can't say that there are absolute rights and wrongs, and then define right as whatever you/we do. Either what we do is right, according to the absolute standards that you just said existed, or it was wrong. The fact that it is you/us doing it is inconsequential, by the precondition that you established You know, ironically, your belief system sounds like the official mythology of the wartime Japanese; that the Japanese were the chosen people led by the Emperor, descended from the Sun God, and were destined to conquer Asia and eventually the world.
It's in my blood, no really, it is. But I just can't say that I'm to ever say that our enemies are fighting us "in defense." Maybe we have a good reason to go to war. But I can't say that there will ever be a time that I'd rather us lose, because the enemies we are fighting are in the "right." If you believe that, you are crazy and not much of a patriot at all. When we lose, the world loses. I'm just tired of this constant concern for the wavering lunacy of global opinion. Most of the world hates us and has hated us forever. Jealousy of our wealth and power is such an ugly thing. We need to continue to put the word out on the streets, cooperate with our enemies and get flattened. I'm not embarassed by that statement, because I do bleed red, white and blue. Overcomplication of matters is a sin, my friend. You too often tend to look for innumberable shades of gray rather than seeing the black and white in front of you. We have enemies and to deny the evil of the whackoes who rammed airplanes into the Towers and Pentagon is a fool's errand. I don't give a flying **** what their reasons were. I don't care about their feelings or trying to feel their pain. All I want to do is see them mashed to a bloody, gristly pulp thanks to one of our wonder bombs. Oppose us and our efforts to purge them from the Earth and enjoy the JDAM crashing through your window.
Most of the world hates us and has hated us forever. This is simply not true. The world has FAR more distrust of us today than it did January 2002 or January 2000. Jealousy of our wealth and power is such an ugly thing. This is also just silly. The people that "hate" us generally are also the people who we've taken advantage of one way or another for our own economic or political gains in the past. I don't know of any substantial population that hates us being wealthy or free or whatever. (For example, many countries' people hate us because we prop up and support brutal dictators so that it helps us. Is it really surprising that the people that suffer because of that dislike us?)
I don't give a flying **** what their reasons were. You should, or you'll never win the war against terrorism. The military aspect is only a fraction of the problem, and you'll never win a military campaign against terrorists. You can slow them down that way, but it will be an endless battle with no endgame, because terrorists can spawn faster than you can stop them, and as technology progresses, that problem will only grow because fewer people will be able to cause more damage for less cost. Until you address the root causes, the fight will be hopeless. In the whole of history, ideas have never been destroyed by force - only by better ideas. You ultimately have to change the mindset of these people if you want to ever "end" this war.
This is just pure insanity on the part of the Bush administration; it’s fiscally irresponsible and will outrage our allies. Requesting a blank check for another attempt at a space based missile defense system – you’d think they’d try and curtail some of this massive spending with an election coming up… Bush moves toward 'Star Wars' missile defense Reuters, 02.02.04 By Jim Wolf WASHINGTON, Feb 2 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed. Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said. In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January 2012. In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said. Any such setup, whether space-based lasers or interceptor rockets in orbit, could give the United States the means to attack enemy satellites as well as incoming warheads. China, an emerging space power, has voiced strong objections to such "weaponization" of space as have Russia and some U.S. European allies. Although the heavens are already home to spy satellites and other military and intelligence sensors that help weapons work, no offensive or defensive arms are known to be in orbit yet. Last year, the Missile Defense Agency obtained an initial $14 million for research on a space-based interceptor "test bed," but no decision has been made yet to deploy it. The fiscal 2005 budget is the first to set aside funds to start developing the kind of weapons President Ronald Reagan had in mind when he called for a space-based Strategic Defense Initiative on March 23, 1983. Critics decried Reagan's vision as "Star Wars" for fear it would launch an arms race in space. GROUND-BASED MISSILE SHIELD By Sept. 30 of this year, Bush is set to put on alert several ground-based interceptor missiles at Fort Greely, Alaska, for an initial shield against limited ballistic missile attacks from countries like North Korea. By December 2005, this bulwark will consist of up to 20 ground-based interceptors in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, up to 10 based on U.S. warships at sea plus upgraded radar stations and communications links. The initial system is optimized to knock down any long-range North Korean missiles that could carry nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, though critics doubt the system -- such as it is -- could thwart a surprise attack. Overall, Bush is seeking to boost funding for missile defense by 13 percent to $10.2 billion next year, including funds for the Army's Patriot Advanced Capability-3 short-range missile interceptor program. Boeing Co. is the prime contractor for the ground-based leg of missile defense. Northrop Grumman Corp. is building the system's battle command, control and communications system. Raytheon Co. builds the interceptor's "kill vehicle" designed to obliterate its target by slamming into it. Lockheed Martin Corp. and Orbital Sciences Corp. are building booster rockets. Missile defense is the Pentagon's costliest weapons program. The new budget projects $53.1 billion in related spending for the next five fiscal years, up more than $3 billion for the five-year period projected a year ago. In addition, billions of dollars that had been earmarked for spending from 2006 to 2010 are now due to be spent sooner -- a sign critics said showed the program was behind schedule and over budget. "What they're doing now are the simplest efforts," said Philip Coyle, who stepped down in January 2001 as the Pentagon's top weapons evaluator. "The later years aren't going to be any less expensive (than forecast last year) -- and that's especially true because the system has become more complex," he said in a telephone interview. http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/02/02/rtr1238276.html
Obsolete already. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...19feb19,1,482069.story?coll=la-home-headlines Russia Tests Missile That Could Evade U.S. Defense By Kim Murphy, Times Staff Writer MOSCOW -- After two days of mixed results during high-profile military exercises, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin said Wednesday that Russia has successfully tested a new strategic missile system that analysts said could allow nuclear warheads to evade U.S. defenses. "Not a single country in the world has such a weapons system at the moment," Putin said, adding that the new "powerful means of warfare" would be deployed with Russia's strategic rocket forces "in the near future." Putin, who is running for re-election next month, did not identify the system. But Russian and U.S. military analysts said his cryptic description could mean that Russia has developed a successful maneuverable re-entry vehicle -- a technology under development for decades that could provide a rudimentary guidance system for intercontinental missiles and render them difficult or impossible to destroy. . . .
Is it my imagination or is the missile shield just a bunch of expensive BS that will never work and even if it did (breath) only serves to reassure an overly-paranoiac populace that China won't blow us up? Ever notice how often we see stories about China's surging economy, how great they're doing, blah blah blah. Maybe true, but let's make sure we build up the new great enemy so that we can justify this grotesque expenditure. But when a senator stands up and says we need money for education, he or she is labeled a tax-and-spend liberal.
Looks like Bush and company need to own up and follow the T_J rules... "I am accountable for my actions. I will never give excuses. I will make progress every day towards my goals." Progress of the [pResident] is checked. If the [pResident] completed his assignment, he writes on the board, OBJECTIVE ACHIEVED. If not, he writes on the board five times, I HAVE FAILED TO DO WHAT I SAID I WOULD DO. I HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO MY WORD. I HAVE LET MY MENTOR DOWN. tsk tsk, looks like he gets at least a verbal reprimand.
Russia has been able to defeat our 'anti-missile' systems since the 70's... "Secret Russian weapons" still terrify Americans These missiles terrify Americans, and US lobbyists do their best to force Russia to destroy these weapons. SS-18 Missile (Satan) Having Satan missile, Russia may not be afraid of the US withdrawal from the Anti-Missile Treaty and anti-missile systems. This missile has Multiple Independently - Targetable Reentry Vehicle and is still invulnerable for anti-missile systems. SS-18 missile bears 16 platforms, one of them contains false targets system. After reaching high orbit, all missile heads become hidden in the cloud of false targets and therefore invulnerable for radars. The missile heads are armored with the use of extremely dense and heavy metal Uranium-239. Such an armory cannot be burnt by laser in foreseeable future. http://pravda.us/main/18/90/363/11921_missile.html
