haven, stop insulting me. I'm really tired of it and you should have out-grown it by now. I celebrated the American military not the Founding Fathers. Those military men and women have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, and grandparents who they think deserve the kind of freedoms that Americans have long suffered and died for. I think you get off track when you lump American leadership and American military with every tinpot dictator that ever stalked the earth.
giddy...can you name a few societies in history who invested that much power in the military under the belief that they know what's best, and are out for our best interests? If not...I can. Or do you again believe that we are just inherently better than everyone else, and won't go down the same path as all the rest?
Sure... Sparta, Carthage, etc...leaping ahead, Revolutionary France during the transfer to Empire...Nazi Germany. I think the most defensible, as in turned out best, for a while, was Napoleon's 'betrayal' of the Revolution in favor of expediency and security. That said it was definitely as much a step backwards morally as it was forward pragmatically. But the reasons why I feel it turned out best, in the short run, was that it imposed a backbone to the principles of the Revolution that was otherwise drowning in conflicting priorities and factions. Napoleon has been accused of being more Egalite than Liberte, and it was probably true. He did prioritize, as he called it, a system which allowed everyone to have access to a career equal to their talents, and as such seemed to promote a meritocracy...but the sacrifices he made on behalf of the liberties of French citizens assured the eventual, if not immediate, onset of hierarchial power which contradict this premise. As with Alexander or Louis the XIV, and Napoleon, a system which gives extreme power to the ruler can, when lead by an individual of extreme talent seem to justify that disparity of power. Same goes for investing power in the military...It works, to a degree, and that can be confused with being justified. Were you a German in 1929, your immediate concerns would be starvation, crime, Communism, and military security. Hitler provided answers to them, and the price was an acceptance of his positions on race, and surrendering power into the trust of their military elite. Considering the extreme nature of the concerns at the time, the sacrifice seemed reasonable to those people. And they were, for a time, spectacularly successfull. But like with Louis XIV, the system dpependant of the ability of an individual is as succeptible to regression as that individual's abilities. As with Alexander, a system built around an individual relies on an individual of similar ability to surrvive him, else it fails. As with Napoleon, a society which sacrifices certain elements of it's values to maintain others is no longer the same society. As with Nazi Germany, a society which puts increased power into the hands of the military in order to improve certain aspects will invariably be also surrendering others, and be as succeptible to corruption and oppression as the nature of humans are succeptible to failure. If we did something as extreme as the abortion of Habeas Corpus for the sake of assumed expediency and safety in the face of fear, we are making the same mistake. As we know, history will not excuse us for our fears.
Do we invest that much more power in the mililtary than anyone else... or do we just do it better? Yes, I think we are better. We have maintained a free republic for over two centuries in spite of having diverse cultures and enemies both internal and external. I don't mean to say that our citizens are more valuable or anything like that. We have an American character. We have a proven judicial system. People will die trying to come to our shores to live. Is that true anywhere else? We had a controversial election which was settled without bloodshed. I'm not saying any of it is perfect, but it still stands upright for the world to see!
Do you happen to know how long the Roman Republic lasted before it gave more power to it's military leaders under Marius, and how long it lasted as a Republic afterwards? 'American character'? Seriously? Wow..." British civilization'...giddy, seriously, you are ascribing a lot of faith to a few vague symptoms of what you see as superiority of system, but even though I disagree with those, think about this: What if the reason for this supposed superiority is the very system you are now suggesting we alter?
New laws and enforcement powers don't help that much. Especially when we don't care enough to invest in human intel to find out what we are trying to prevent in the first place. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/17/MN151670.DTL U.S. had no spies in al Qaeda camps, 9/11 probe reports Officials say study confirms agencies lacked vital sources David Johnston, New York Times Thursday, July 17, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Washington -- American intelligence agencies failed to obtain reliable human sources inside the Afghanistan training camps run by al Qaeda before the September 2001 attacks, according to government officials who have read an unreleased congressional report on intelligence lapses in the months before the hijackings. The absence of such sources inside the camps left counterterrorism officials largely blind to Osama bin Laden's specific intentions before the attacks and contributed to what the joint intelligence committees concluded in their report was a lack of knowledge about al Qaeda even as the agencies for years collected information that showed the terror network hoped to strike inside the United States. The failure of human intelligence is a new finding from a report that, according to some people who have read it, will provide many important new insights into the activities of American intelligence agencies before the attacks. Other officials, including some from intelligence agencies criticized in the report, said it would shed little new light on the events leading up to the attacks. The CIA has long disputed that it had problems obtaining high-quality human intelligence in Afghanistan. Asked to comment on the report's findings, a CIA spokesman referred to testimony by George Tenet, the agency's director, last Oct. 17. Tenet said the agency put in place in 1999 an intelligence collection program against bin Laden. The operation included "a blend of aggressive human source collection -- both unilateral and with foreign partners -- and technical collection." The result, Tenet said, was "a large stable of assets." The nearly 900-page joint committee report is scheduled to be made public on July 24 after months of delays caused by disagreements over how much of the report could be declassified. The report is based on a lengthy inquiry that included nine public hearings and 13 closed sessions conducted last year by a joint panel of the House and Senate intelligence committees. The report is the product of months of sometimes rancorous negotiations between the committee's staff, the Bush administration and intelligence agencies cited in the reports, among them the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Nearly one entire section of the report, describing the actions of foreign governments in advance of the attacks, has been cut from the final report at the insistence of the intelligence agencies, officials said. Unlike most government intelligence reports, how much has been edited out will be publicly known because the final report shows the deleted material, with the actual words blacked out by a marker. "It's a solid report," said Eleanor Hill, the staff director of the investigation who supervised the writing of the report. Referring to the lengthy negotiations, she said: "We prevailed on some issues. They prevailed on others and there were some areas in which I felt they could have declassified more information. But in general it will give the public a pretty clear picture." Some mysteries that lingered after the attacks will apparently remain unexplained, like the question of how 15 young men from Saudi Arabia could join in a suicide conspiracy to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon without the knowledge of the Saudi government. Congressional officials had hoped that the report would provide the first authoritative assessment of whether Saudi Arabia played any role, even unwittingly. But the intelligence agencies were aggressive in their efforts to limit how much the report would disclose about the issue. Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., who was chairman of the Senate intelligence committee during the inquiry, has said that the question of the role of Saudi Arabia and other countries would remain secret. In an appearance on Monday on CNN, Graham said in response to a question that the report would provide only "very shrouded coverage of the role played by foreign governments." Graham, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, added: "Unless there is a change at the White House between now and the release day of this report, the American people will again be denied access to information that in my judgment they deserve to have." After last year's hearings, the committee concluded that the FBI and the CIA had missed warning signals of the attacks and focused too much attention on threats overseas rather than on the possibility of an attack in the United States. The hearings provided a much fuller account of the hijacking plot and the 19 hijackers than the Bush administration has ever revealed. In part, the tone of the debate over the final report mirrors the disagreements between the committee staff and intelligence agencies that raged throughout the inquiry when a series of combative and critical interim reports by Hill's staff infuriated senior officials at the FBI and the CIA.
How can I say this: a lot can change in a couple of millenia! I'm not full-throttle endorsing the "abortion" of this writ. Good choice of words, BTW!!! It is a bit of a pickle-- ripe for abuse. But we are likewise vulnerable as a nation from these terrorists. What are you going to do? It's not just a different era, it's a different AGE. I'm not sure how closely we can get away with comparing them side-by-side. If it is better that some criminals go free so that no innocent gets punished (guilt beyond a reasonable doubt), maybe it is likewise better that some few innocents lose their liberty so that some few thousands (or more) don't lose their life. It's pragmatic.
1) Perhaps, though I'd argue, but it's enough to say that human nature is not among the things whoich may have changed in two thousand years, and that is the continual flaw in placing power into the hands of the few. It is not possible that it will be exploited, it is a virtual certainty. 2) Face up to the dangers while maintaining what we are. That is what defending freedom means, not cowering behind the military while sacrificing the tenets of our political beliefs. We have had it so easy for so long that we have forgotten what courage it takes to be free...and if we cave in now when it gets a little tough, we have lost the war. People of courage have faced death and defeat before while not bowing before the alter of expediency out of fear. In fact, the only time when courage is needed in the defense of freedom is when it risks more immediate dangers. Our expectation of creature comfort and cush internal safety has surely not replaced our supposed devotion to freedom as the spine of our people, has it?
giddyup: Let's take your first post on the topic (the last one is an improvement, which is yet more frustrating in a way - why couldn't the one that actually makes some sense have come first?). So far, we have: 1. A statement (albeit disingenuous and roundabout) that Bush is not as bad a guy as Saddam Hussein. 2. A proclamation that the US military will guard our freedom. 3. A personal opinion that the situation doesn't stink. Yep, you deserved every bit of my insult. I post a rational thread, and you respond with pointless gibberish. And then you tell me to grow-up. Don't grown ups use logic? I'll stop insulting you when you do one of two things: 1. Start arguing logically or 2. Don't bother posting in threads that proceed logically. You seem to have "inclinations" that you pass of for reasons. They're not really the same thing. To be honest, people like you are the reason that I disappear from the forum for prolonged lengths of time. I feel the need to compulsively respond, and get invested in threads, and take the time to rip apart your illogical spew... and it just makes me angry to be honest. Why do you have such an aversion to logic? I don't understand it. I don't think you're actually stupid - you just don't think before you post. And there are logical retorts to most of what me (or anybody else says). But you ignore your sides "best" arguments and go straight for pure opinion. What's the point in voicing such things? It makes real discussion impossible
giddyup: If you're truly limited to statements of the "big picture" (a euphemism, often, for incapable of dealing with the fundamentals of argument)... why bother posting in threads? You're not being rational. I mean, essentially, any debate w/people posting in your style is going to degenerate into: "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" Because that's all that's left. If you debate logically, there's clash. I can point out fundamental flaws in your assumptions and conclusions, and others can in mineMake simple assertions of opinion... and you're left with nothing. So yes, it is useless. The place of such argument is on worthless CNN programs, not a thread where the thread starter is honestly making a reasonable proposition, and seeking reasonable comments. By derailing my thread and encouraging "yes, no" disputes, you're being insulting towards me by failing to respect my thesis. So if I become insulting afterwards... well, you've earned it. The irrational has its place... but it's not in a forum of debate and discussion. There are plenty of threads centered around such, unfortunately... but this wasn't one of them. "Heartfelt" declarations are all well and good, but out of place when 1. they're not even topical and 2. they provide no avenue for reasonable response or analysis.
So why does the King of Rationale stoop to insults? I'm not limited to anything; I may prefer one angle over the other. There's not a thread in here that doesn't get hit and distracted tangentially. I guess you want special treatment... In my first post that you so object to, I asked three questions and made two assertions. That is overwhelming isn't it? I've been in more debates here than you and few of them have degenerated as simplistically as you describe. Look, you be the law student and approach the world and problem solving in any way you see fit. So will I. If you can't live with it, I hope you study hard and eventually find a lot of billable hours to keep you busy and happy, apparently. There is much more to life than "being rational." I think I'll go back to the pool with my girls....
So little true clash, again. Because I'm perfectly entitled to come to conclusions. Based on your responses, I come to negative judgments about your posting in the hang-out forum (though it's always a mistake to conclude real things about a person based on how they post on a bbs, and I do apologize for any remarks that exceed my appraisal of your bbs persona). Oddly, I happen to almost always agree with you in the basketball forums. Strange, eh? Not what I said. And once again, you refuse what you *can* do with what you *should* do. You have every right to make any post that a moderator lets through. That doesn't mean it's a good idea or is respectful. It's pointless to get in "yes! no!" arguments. Nothing is ever learned through such talk, especially when the position is as basic and stale as those here. Overwhelming? The first assertion was disingenuous nonsense. Nobody was comparing Bush to Hussein (that'd be r****ded). The rest of it wasn't really on-point. There was no contribution, other than the fact that we all know your opinion. You didn't offer any reasons, just preference. How does this offer meaningful contribution to a thread? I've been in more debates here than you and few of them have degenerated as simplistically as you describe. Umm, I hope that you're happy too . Regardless, the issue isn't really how one approaches life. I have certain perspectives on how one should approach the world, but I'm certainly not going to thrust mine upon you here. However, when you can offer nothing to a particular discussion, why not remain silent? If you start a thread entitled "how do you *feel* about Bush and do you trust him?" I hereby promise to limit my responses to the germain topic. What a coup de grace! Of course there's more than life to being rational. Only an awfully boring person would invest his entire self into rationality. However, decisions of government that do not involve expressly moral content (as this one does not, since whether tyranny is good or bad was never a topic, simply whether the administration's behavior is conducive to tyranny) should be based on rational thought only. Other moral, preferential factors are relevant to other discussions, such as what we should value and love. However, there was no value based argument in this thread. PS - your obvious love of your daughters has always been my favorite thing about you. It's truly genuine, and I hope every father is as loving. As far as your concern for your children goes, I hope I one day mirror that. (although very likely w/different methods!)
<b>haven</b>: I think with that "entitlement" thing you hit it right on the head. Your pursuance of this argument with me has significantly more derailed this thread than anything you want to accuse me of doing. You wrote, "If you're truly limited to statements of the "big picture" (a euphemism, often, for incapable of dealing with the fundamentals of argument)... why bother posting in threads?" That is an issue of "can" rather than "should." You put it rhetorically rather than outright asserting it. Sneaky. "Overwhelming" was meant as sarcasm. My first assertion was not disingenuous. It cut to the heart of your argument. Yes, your argument has a heart! What good is rational discourse if it doesn't pass The Smell Test? My point was that we have over 200 years of American Tradition which precludes my pulling my hair out about some temporary abridgements of the liberty of the few (probably deserving such abridgement) in favor of the security of the many. That there was no "value based argument" in your original thread is one of its weaknesses. You can't argue in a vacuum. Your point is so obviously true when you argue in a vacuum, but when you bring it out into the light of the world, it's not that clear. On the other hand, it becomes very clear that the superiority of the American Tradition and Character weakens your concern about abuse. I won't say eliminates it because I think it deserves scrutiny and consideration. It must be you who love the Founding Fathers so because they might have their britches in a knot if they knew how long ago the cannon was left behind as a WMD. LOL! Sorry but I never expressed my "feeling" about Bush, I expressd what I "thought" about the logical extension of the argument you were setting up. Good luck bringing your kind of discipline in <b>The Hangout</b>! Kowabunga....
EDIT: Giddyup, I thoroughly enjoyed this post. See? We can come to dispute things with clash. It just takes a while... Of course, but that's always true. Policing a thread always disrupts it more than the original disruption. Deterrence is the hope . Not really. Your ability to post in threads which interest you is unquestioned. Form and content are both essential. However, form must first be "correct" in order for the content to be relevant. Hence, once it passes the "entry way" we can consider further. But that's not really the issue. To be honest, the temporary abridgement of the liberty of a few bothers me, but not all that much. It's the potentialiaty of the argument that frightens me. You're jousting with a straw man. See above. Form must be correct. Then you can discuss content. The form argument is always more important, because it's the only true objective measurement of an argument. You and I can disagree about content to our hearts content, and neither one of us is ever likely to "win." While multiple logical structures may be coherent, most are not; hence, it is appropriate to start at the point where we *may* get somewhere. An issue of pragmatism versus philosophy. I think the "Founding Fathers" were very smart men, but not perfect. I suppose most people feel the same, though there are a few (mostly conservatives) who revere every thought any of them ever hard (or rather, their own interpretation of it...). Your trust of the Bush administration was an implicit assumption necessary to make your argument meaningful. W/o it, you might as well have conceded. Trust me. I know its hopeless. Poor Mango... he tires at the same task. Incidentally, we've developed a decent discussion here. If I did derail my own thread in the pursuit... isnt' a little meaningful discussion in the end worth the price? Thanks for arguing with me .
Originally posted by haven Not really. Your ability to post in threads which interest you is unquestioned. <b>That's not what you or I said. Your "if you're truly limited to statements..." was clearly about ability not preference.</b> Form and content are both essential. However, form must first be "correct" in order for the content to be relevant. Hence, once it passes the "entry way" we can consider further. <b>Can I take this debate class on a Pass-Fail basis?</b> But that's not really the issue. To be honest, the temporary abridgement of the liberty of a few bothers me, but not all that much. It's the potentialiaty of the argument that frightens me. You're jousting with a straw man. <b>Slippery slopes abound.</b> See above. Form must be correct. Then you can discuss content. The form argument is always more important, because it's the only true objective measurement of an argument. You and I can disagree about content to our hearts content, and neither one of us is ever likely to "win." While multiple logical structures may be coherent, most are not; hence, it is appropriate to start at the point where we *may* get somewhere. <b>The dog ate my homework.</b> An issue of pragmatism versus philosophy. <b>I think cannons versus bio-terror is a hugely significant difference.... so call me pragmatic but keep my family alive.</b> I think the "Founding Fathers" were very smart men, but not perfect. I suppose most people feel the same, though there are a few (mostly conservatives) who revere every thought any of them ever hard (or rather, their own interpretation of it...). <b>Dadgum, we agree here although your dig at Conservatives is probably true of all people. Most people revere the Constitution.</b> Your trust of the Bush administration was an implicit assumption necessary to make your argument meaningful. W/o it, you might as well have conceded. <b>I said American so, yeah, Bush is included. It was only "necessary" because Bush is the president at this time in history. However, I only mentioned Bush in the leading question I asked about him becoming another Hussein.</b> Trust me. I know its hopeless. Poor Mango... he tires at the same task. <b>I believe that Mango is famous for "Wrong Forum" not "Form over Content." He has either succeeded or given up.</b> Incidentally, we've developed a decent discussion here. If I did derail my own thread in the pursuit... isnt' a little meaningful discussion in the end worth the price? Thanks for arguing with me . <b>Gee, I think I'll dig out the yellow pages and look into going to paralegal school! :=) </b>
