ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

[lord_casek]

for me to poop on

[Soup]

So, what you're telling us in not so many words (not your own words, anyhow) is

that you have no argument for this and resort to amazon.com copy/pasting?

 

hahaha what? You just posted a book. I posted a review of the book. You didnt write the book, and I didnt write the review. How is it you think I have no argument but you do?

 

 

Here if you really recommend that i read this I will and give you a full synopsis. Gimme a day.

[lord_casek]

hahaha what? You just posted a book. I posted a review of the book. You didnt write the book, and I didnt write the review. How is it you think I have no argument but you do?

 

 

Mine has proof.

[Soup]

Can't wait to hear it.

[lord_casek]

Can't wait to hear it.

 

 

Why not read the book? Maybe you'll learn something?

[Soup]

Im sure I would, but instead of reading this thing tonight because it's late I decided to do research on Charlotte instead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2022216775239993744#

 

So I watched that, and her interview with Alex Jones and clearly she's a very passionate woman who's very educated and such, and while I can see the truth in some of the things she says, other things she says make absolutely no sense to me, so here you go:

 

1. During the regan administration the united states educational system has been designed to move america towards being more compatable with the soviet union.

 

Ok, i see that we are on better terms with Russia now than we were back then, but since then we have had a serious cold war with them and fought to keep them out of the middle east. So it seems to me that we've been trying to make them more capitalistic, not us more socialistic.

 

2. We are turning our educational system into the exact same educational system in soviet russia.

 

First off she said we're doing this by making our students fail and making them illiterate. [Aside from the fact that it's the kids parents and their home economic issues that are the main reason for innercity kids failing,] The soviet's educational system is better than ours. Their kids are ranked the 3rd smartest kids in the world. If we're 4th, how's failing our kids socialism? Even CUBANS are smarter than your average americans. I'm saying that because i've been to cuba, U of Havanna, their grade schools. Their literacy rate is higher than america's. They're poor but their 14 year old kids can all sing, dance, play an instrument, tell you every nation's capital, speak in 3 different languages. I think i went to five different schools in Cuba, probably because that's the big thing Cuba's got going. Americans used go to Cuba to become doctors because college only cost 5 grand. For cubans it's free. They know all about america and yet we know shit about Cuba. Its fucking amazing. And while Charlotte is trying to tell everyone that the government of socialist countries forces you into jobs, you find doctors in cuba who are your hotel maids because that's where the money is, so people can still take up any job they want they're just at least guaranteed a job somewhere.

 

3. Barack Obama launched his campaign in Bill Ayers' living room, has both been apart of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge which was a challenge of how to reform the educational system into a socialist regime.

 

THIS one right here is very interesting because i cant find that much info about the CAC. And Bill Ayers is a very cool guy to me. I for a while was very interested with the weathermen, which he co-founded, and I cannot for the life of me see him wanting to turn americans into socialist robots as Charlotte has expressed. This was a guy who was willing to bomb corporate and government buildings in the name of free speech and civil rights. Now he wants to take them away from us?

 

 

Go for it casek. It's your book. Learn me. Honestly tho I believe Charlotte has good intentions and i think some of the reforms she's asking for are great ideas. I just dont understand why she's vilifying the socialist school system. That shit is like the LEAST of my worries. I'd rather the educational system institute a cirriculum of wonderment and phenomenology at a young age instead of telling kids what shit is, and what it isn't.

[christo-f]

I always get amused when stuff like fire departments, schools, health care, water basic living requirements that are provided by the state from our tax dollars in Australia are referred to as Soviet style socialism in the US.

 

I've used ambulance and emergency services before and I am a product of the public school system. The health system helped me out more than once, I'm not illiterate, I went to subsidised university (one year is about US$2200, second best uni in Australia) and I sure as fuck wasn't pissing it away partying, getting indocrinated with socialist crap or Maxism (sure we learned Marxism but it's pretty hard to understand modern history without learning it) and all the other strange ideas AOD has on college. As a matter of fact, a good 95% of people that I met at uni were all studying well doing everything from science, to politics, to agriculture and economics. Don't know what kid of college you went to AOD but it doesn't sound real crash hot.

 

I've never had to use the fire department, I rarely drove my car as I prefer to cycle, I rarely use the water ways and I sure as fuck don't use the power systems that keep the county towns running. But I have no problem in paying for others that need it as I'm sure they've paid for some of my education and medical bills. I have a decent job, I have my own house and a bright future, all the while paying for things that I don't own or benefit from. The government is by no means overly intrusive in my life (although a little bit too nanny like when it comes to safety) and I certainly have enough freedoms in my life to choose pretty much how I live it.

 

I understand, AOD that you may not have the freedom to live your life 100% how you choose to. But I think that there is still a MASSIVE amount of bandwidth to live a way that will make you happy enough to have a good life and if you did get the country that you wanted that was 100% capitalist then YOU would be forcing others to live a way that they would not be comfortable. I know that I prefer a social democrat system like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. and I'd be totally pissed if a minority of people wanted to turn it in to some Darwinian system of free for all.

 

You sound like you want to push your standard on to people just as much as you accuse them of doing to you.

[angelofdeath]

Reality is tho any reason you can name to abolish these institutions aren't things that would go away with private companies. In fact it would be worse because they would doing this shit for a profit.

 

let me see here. do you really mean this? so, let me get this straight. if public schooling was abolished and laws against compulsory schooling were abolished, people would still get thrown into jail for refusing to send their kids to school or to fund public schooling?

hmmmm.

 

why is profit so bad? dont you profit off of your employer? you are a greedy capitalist arent you? why is it ok to 'profit' off of your employer but not ok for an employer to make a 'profit?'

it is how people cooperate. do you think grocery stores exist because they only want to feed people? no, they exist to profit off of peoples hunger. and look. damn near everyone gets fed. as a great economist once said...'its not from benevolence that we expect service from the butcher, the baker or the candle stick maker, its out of a keen understanding of his own self interest.'

 

 

1. Gas and electric companies around the country are using 50 year old powerlines. This causes:

• 25% loss of energy in conversion
  
• Higher power bill
  
• Power companys have absolutely no idea when and where there are blackouts
  
• Companies lose their efficiency due to blackouts

 

and this has WHAT to do with the topic at hand? im lost. what is this trying to prove or deny. that either government owned or government protected power monopolies cannot manage their way out of a wet paper bag? that is all i see.

 

2. The californian public school system had to make enormous cutbacks and fired 1/3 of their teachers, but it wasnt because they lacked the funding. It was because all that funding was tied up in an ancient contract with the textbook publishers to replace their books for identical editions every 5 years.

 

this is a classic example of the inefficiencies of socialism. socialism cannot calculate. when the berlin wall fell, mises' argument was finally verified truth. almost everyone agreed with him, except for a few die hard commies who will never give up ship. they will go down with it when the rest of it sinks.

 

what idiot in a free market would want text books updated with identical editions every 5 years? no one. no one except government would make any decisions like this. the same government that buys the military 300$ claw hammers. why? because when governments fail they dont lose money, they get MORE funding. it is 'proof' that they need more money because they arent getting results. it is how every level of government works. the incentives are backwards. if a private school was doing this idiocy, they would go broke.

and its not even that the contract with the text book companies is the whole issue. people make mistakes. to error is human. but atleast the private company goes broke for their mistake. the government gets to stay in business, being financed through stolen money from the population that has no recourse of action against it.

 

interesting you bring up california though.... you denied one of my reasons public education should be abolished. it was about schools teaching obedience to the state. allow me to quote, since you love cites. even for things everyone knows like that the iraq war is happening, that there is a secret prison called gitmo, and that there is such a thing as the patriot act. but i digress.

 

in february of 2008 california's second district court of appeal essentially ruled that most of the states 160K plus home schooling families to be outlaws. they ruled that you must send your kid to state certified public or private school or have them taught by state certified tutors.of course most parents do not qualify.of course they didnt rule this because home schooled kids are dumber. of course everyone knows that home schooled kids beat the pants off of public schooled kids any day. in fact 30-37 percentile points higher. so why ban home schooling if the results are heads and tails better?

 

the judge explained: “a primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

 

ah yes. conspiracy theories abound! AOD is a tin foil hat wearer! he is so idiotic i cant even comment! 'HAHAHAHAAHA'

 

 

in fact if you crunch numbers, you find that in a place like DC they spend 26K per student, yet you can send your kid to a school that is atleast 3 times as good as a public school for half of this.

if you also look at the numbers you would be led to conclude that if you want a better education, you should simply cut the budget it half of public schooling. shut down some departments and auction of the properties.

 

These are the real issues. The problem with the argument "It's unfair to force people into private schools so we should abolish the public option" can be made both ways;"It's unfair to abolish the public option and force us into private schools."

 

no it cant. do you understand logic? do you understand what negative rights are?

there is no force in giving someone a choice to go to a school or not.

 

public schooling: funded by 'tax payers.' no choice is given in the matter of paying for schooling, sending your kids to school at all, no school choice. and to top it off, if you dont pay for public schooling, you to go jail. if you dont send your kids to school, you go to jail.

 

private schooling: total choice in everything. if you want to send your kids to school you can, if not, you dont. given that home schooled students score 30-37% higher than public school attendees, if you value education you would home school. you are not forced to pay for other kids to go to school. people without children arent forced to finance the schooling of other peoples kids. there is no coercion. but to hit the last point... if we had a private education system... there is nothing wrong with soup, michael moore and keith olbermann all setting up a private 'public' school system that is funded through voluntary contributions and tuition. it would operate like the red cross or good will. private organizations that do 10 times better than what the government equivalents do.

 

do you see the difference? or do you still believe in the orwellian notion that freedom is slavery?

 

 

 

And your argument that "Public schools unconstitutionally indoctrinate kids" Well, private schools do the same thing. You can argue that "Well at least the parents chose what school they wanted their kids in." Preeety sure they did the exact same before putting them in public. Like you said private schools aren't that much more expensive. And many of them aren't.

 

Then your statement about the federal government controlling the content of public education. That's not even true. Curriculum is decided on a state level. Some states teach evolution. Some dont.

 

 

sure, private schools can indoctrinate, no doubt. but if we had a totally private education system without compulsory schooling laws, if you dont send your kids to either school you will not get thrown in jail.

you keep making your same point and disregarding the fact that 1. you are forced to pay school taxes. 2. you have to send your kids to school or you go to jail.

 

look. lets make another analogy. supposed me and a bunch of people get together and force you to pay us to 50K a year in taxes to fund your transportation. and if you dont use the transportation or another form of state approved transporation...you go to jail. you dont make that much, so 50K a year is a lot of money. now, will you just shrug your shoulders and say..'well that is what the collective decided, but i still have a choice in transportation. i could go out and buy a 20K dollar car as well. hmmm let me decide.'

or will you just use the transportation your tax dollars pay for?

 

state's do decide alot of the curriculum. you are right. but if it is totally true that localities decide this stuff... what happens if a county in alabama wants to teach creationism? after all, the localities control the studies, right? the feds have no say at all in what is taught. the dept of education lets states and counties do what they want, right? what if a county in massachussetts decides to teach that all native americans are the white mans worst enemy? will the federal government really just sit back and say...'oh well, thats what they want to teach, that is what they want to teach.'

 

what about school prayer... what if a jewish boy wants to pray in school on his own time or read the torah? will the federal government not say anything about this, even if the locality decides this is perfectly fine?

 

what if a teacher, is teaching curriculum approved by the county that God created the earth? will this go over fine and everyone will leave him alone?

 

you see, with public schooling, you constantly have these debates. you have one group trying to force their will on the other. and the minority is still forced to pay for the majorities view point being taught and must send their kids there or face jail time. kids could be subjected to things that the parents dont want them taught.

its not that fact that hokey schools exist, its the fact you want them financed no matter what.

if a christian family wants their kids raised in a christian way, why not allow them not to pay public school tax and allow them to be taught how they want to?

 

in a free market, you will have a choice to send your kids to the what ever school you want to. the hokey schools might have low attendance or go out of business in favor of better schools. and you will finance the school voluntarily.

 

Then your statement about how public schools are dumbing kids down. My 7th grade brother is learning college algebra and speaks French. Go figure.

 

the public school system is probably the biggest make work jobs program in american history.

 

i've heard education expert types describe algebra 1 and algebra 2 as 'block building class.'

 

if you ask a recent college graduate when the treaty of paris was signed, where and with whom, i wonder what response you will get by most of the population. most kids cant even remember what they did last weekend, let alone what they were taught in school. not to mention, the things that are taught. they teach that the greatest presidents are the ones that abused the most civil liberties, trampled the constitution the most and increased the size of government the most.

 

i know i know... 'they teach those things because they are true, you idiot!'

this reminds me of the guy at the end of every matlock show. after cross examination, he yells....'thats right, i did it, and i would do it again! wouldn't you!'

 

bailiff.... release the defendant. case dismissed.

 

trying to make yourself into an opressed white man in the greatest country by default is fucking retarded.

 

why do you feel the need to keep talking about 'white men' and 'oppression?'

im not making myself out to be oppressed anymore more than any other american. im talking about things that affect all americans, black white yellow or blue. i dont like talking terms of racial groups. racism is nothing more than an ugly form of collectivism.

 

i find it troubling that you are such a die hard egalitarian and marxist but yet you want to lock people up for not send their kids to school, paying taxes, or violating some insignificant federal environmental law. you are probably against slavery, but yet you want everyone to be a slave to the state. to pay for your services and your goods. to force them to 'uplift' the poor under penalty of law.

you support slavery through income taxation and coercive laws and regulations.

but this is ok... as long as its for the good of the masses, right?

you have no problem forcing your view on others, but look how hostile you are to a view of liberty. and the funny part is, you can still believe what you want and organize things how you want in a free society. but people cant organize things and live how they want in your society.

how thoughtful of you.

[angelofdeath]

I always get amused when stuff like fire departments, schools, health care, water basic living requirements that are provided by the state from our tax dollars in Australia are referred to as Soviet style socialism in the US.

 

I've used ambulance and emergency services before and I am a product of the public school system. The health system helped me out more than once, I'm not illiterate, I went to subsidised university (one year is about US$2200, second best uni in Australia) and I sure as fuck wasn't pissing it away partying, getting indocrinated with socialist crap or Maxism (sure we learned Marxism but it's pretty hard to understand modern history without learning it) and all the other strange ideas AOD has on college. As a matter of fact, a good 95% of people that I met at uni were all studying well doing everything from science, to politics, to agriculture and economics. Don't know what kid of college you went to AOD but it doesn't sound real crash hot.

 

I've never had to use the fire department, I rarely drove my car as I prefer to cycle, I rarely use the water ways and I sure as fuck don't use the power systems that keep the county towns running. But I have no problem in paying for others that need it as I'm sure they've paid for some of my education and medical bills. I have a decent job, I have my own house and a bright future, all the while paying for things that I don't own or benefit from. The government is by no means overly intrusive in my life (although a little bit too nanny like when it comes to safety) and I certainly have enough freedoms in my life to choose pretty much how I live it.

 

I understand, AOD that you may not have the freedom to live your life 100% how you choose to. But I think that there is still a MASSIVE amount of bandwidth to live a way that will make you happy enough to have a good life and if you did get the country that you wanted that was 100% capitalist then YOU would be forcing others to live a way that they would not be comfortable. I know that I prefer a social democrat system like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, etc. and I'd be totally pissed if a minority of people wanted to turn it in to some Darwinian system of free for all.

 

You sound like you want to push your standard on to people just as much as you accuse them of doing to you.

 

nope

you are misinterpreting what im saying christ-o. and i know you are a smart guy so i want you to understand.

 

libertarians like myself just want out. just let us out. remove us from government jurisdiction. that is what all of this debate is about. there would be no debate if we are not forced to pay into the system or are controlled by it. make it voluntary. but then you do realize that if it is voluntary, it wouldnt be government, it would be the market. it is not bad, it is a great thing. the only difference between commerce and government is the government forces you into the transaction where as a business doesnt.

 

this is why i support decentralization and secession. if you keep government as local as possible it is easier to control.

 

that being said, im fine with a limited state. i do believe in the classical liberal notion that governments are legit if they exist to protect property rights. i dont want them to affect me in any other way. i'll gladly throw out some dough for a military, and a peace keeping force that is controlled locally. hell i might even throw in for a fire department if they can do their job. but if you take away the mandatory nature of funding these things you are left with just about any other business.

 

if you dont pay for the fire department, you dont have their protection. just like if you dont pay for food you dont eat. but who is to say the fire department wouldnt be set up with some charity in mind? lots of companies engage in it.

 

i just wanted clarify in saying that if you want a socialized system, by all means have at it, but dont force me under it. that is essence of the entire debate. the proponents of the socialized system will not let the people who want nothing to do with it, just live their lives in peace. but i am all for letting them set up their society however they want.

 

if this change were to allowed to come to the US which it never will absent a major self defensive action by the people who want liberty... 'free states' would be set up. socialist states will still exist. places like new york and california might even become all out collectivist societies. but we'd all still be americans just like all the greek city states were still greek. this was supposed to be the american system. a government that only provided for the national defense, worked foreign treaties, and did little else. all other tasks were left to the states. there was supposed to be 50 varieties of ways to handle things in the 50 states. not just one uniform way of life. the american system sounds fine in theory, but the government in DC has erased all local rights and most of the freedoms of the american people.

[christo-f]

As divided by states, this is the most cogent argument I've seen you put forward. You may have said it like this before but I haven't seen it.

 

As long as the libetarian states still paid for defense, the foreign service, basically the elements of a federalised system that cannot be don without such as property law, security (sorry but 50cal won't save you from planes at 50 000 feet with precision guided munitions and I doubt enough private citizens can afford PAC-3 systems, costal radars, satellite, surveillance and guidance systems enough to defend against off shore attacks. Neither could they afford nor should they have strategic weapons such as ICBMs. Then there are the trade and finance issues that have to be dealt with etc etc.) then I truly would have no problem with it. As long as the libs also paid for the border services that would be needed so your RPGs, anti-armour mines and mortars wouldn't leak in to the other controlled areas and also pitched in for the environment, etc. then it's all fine by me.

 

However, if you come outside that state you have to pay to travel on roads, drink water, etc. etc. So, therefore all libs would be required to have LIB tattooed on their forehead to make sure they aint sneaking in to steal our tax dollar benefits......, I joke.

 

I wonder, though, whether it would be the life you think it would. There would be quite a few things that you would have to forego in this fashion of existence. there would be no access to GPS services or the products that use it would have to have their price factored in to the product to pay for the GPS sats that have been put up on govt money. Any medical advances that have come from publicly funded med labs and universities would also have to have these costs factored in. Any local products that are made under subsidies in the US or are protected through duties/tariffs would have to have that reflected in the pricing.

 

The list would go on for ages and I think that the cost of living in a lib state would be extremely high compared to the semi-socialised states being that when resources are somewhat pooled under expert guidance costs are minimised.

 

Would also be EXTREMELY expensive to set such a system up in the first place, and of course you would have to be taxed for this until those who want to change the system from its current state have paid off the costs of the change they wish for....

 

 

Ok, I need to do some work now.

[angelofdeath]

As long as the libetarian states still paid for defense, the foreign service, basically the elements of a federalised system that cannot be don without such as property law, security (sorry but 50cal won't save you from planes at 50 000 feet with precision guided munitions and I doubt enough private citizens can afford PAC-3 systems, costal radars, satellite, surveillance and guidance systems enough to defend against off shore attacks. Neither could they afford nor should they have strategic weapons such as ICBMs. Then there are the trade and finance issues that have to be dealt with etc etc.) then I truly would have no problem with it. As long as the libs also paid for the border services that would be needed so your RPGs, anti-armour mines and mortars wouldn't leak in to the other controlled areas and also pitched in for the environment, etc. then it's all fine by me.

 

i think a common pact for defense, which is what the US constitution was supposed to be... is alright. the states wouldnt all be viable by themselves so they would want to contract for a common defense.

 

i think the constitution turned into something it was never meant to be, but if we still had a central government like the articles of confederation (pre constitution) we would probably be ok on both sides of the argument.

the central govt didnt have the power to tax. the common defense was paid for by the states. to me, if the government under the articles of confederation could beat the worlds super power, it is fine by me.

 

as for your comments about borders...yes. property rights would have to be protected. this is part of a free society. if someone pollutes for example or if your rpg rounds are going into someone else's house, then you have violated the other persons property rights. the person firing rpgs into someones house is then responsible.

 

However, if you come outside that state you have to pay to travel on roads, drink water, etc. etc. So, therefore all libs would be required to have LIB tattooed on their forehead to make sure they aint sneaking in to steal our tax dollar benefits......, I joke.

 

more or less you are right. theoretically. but lets look at it. in the US most roads are paid through taxation of fuel. if a person is not driving a car, but say he walks, he isnt paying for the roads. but he is using them. my wife went to scotland for a while when i first met her. she used medical services once in the socialized UK system and didnt pay for them. i thought this was the main tenet of the system, to provide the services for everyone no matter what?

but i digress.

it could be up to the states as to who they want to be let and who they dont and who can do what. i mean we have foreigners coming to the US and using our roads and not paying for them. i dont think the socialized system could be viable if they tried to track each and every person and how much they paid for it. i thought the goal of socialism was to provide for everyone regardless.

 

but this brings the question, if you want to track who can and cannot use the services, by if they paid for them or not, why not just privatize everything anyway? it will be much more efficient and much cheaper.

 

There would be quite a few things that you would have to forego in this fashion of existence. there would be no access to GPS services or the products that use it would have to have their price factored in to the product to pay for the GPS sats that have been put up on govt money. Any medical advances that have come from publicly funded med labs and universities would also have to have these costs factored in. Any local products that are made under subsidies in the US or are protected through duties/tariffs would have to have that reflected in the pricing.

 

why does the gps services have to be run by the government?

that being said, im not against paying for services i use.

sure, if a public university discovers something, it can be sold or with held. same as with a private institution. no big deal here at all.

 

import tariffs raise the price of goods. for instance sugar is much more expensive in the US than most other parts of the world because of sugar tariffs to protect the sugar growers. if the tariffs were abolished we would not be drinking corn syrup laced coca cola. sugar prices would plummet. i dont see your argument on this.

subsidies and tariffs raise the prices of things to protect the producers. farm subsidies exist to prop up food prices so producers make more money. they pay producers to limit the supply and pay them way above market price for the product.

 

 

The list would go on for ages and I think that the cost of living in a lib state would be extremely high compared to the semi-socialised states being that when resources are somewhat pooled under expert guidance costs are minimised.

 

in most ways it wont. i wont be paying for other peoples retirement, roads, schools, medical services, welfare, etc. i wont have to deal with super high medical prices because a free market will result in low medical prices. i dont have food insurance and im sure i wont have medical insurance unless its a policy like a home owners policy. you dont use your home owners insurance for a leaky faucet you use it when you house burns down. catastrophic insurance in another words.

 

Would also be EXTREMELY expensive to set such a system up in the first place, and of course you would have to be taxed for this until those who want to change the system from its current state have paid off the costs of the change they wish for....

 

i dont think you understand. you wouldnt have to be taxed until the system is changed. the government just sells off everything to the highest bidder that is under government control. no cost whatsoever. you wouldnt have to pay for anything you didnt want to.

[Decyferon]

Well, everyone knows what my views are, I agree with what Christo is saying, I have been brought up in the UK under socialised schooling, healthcare etc etc and I havent been indoctrinated into anything, I havent been forced into any particular job and have never really felt that the government is intruding into my life, I think a lot of the America viewpoints are due to the traditional nature of the commie and socialism being the enemy of america, when in reality a socialised system is nothing like the horror which a lot of Americans have been raised to believe.

 

I have no problem paying my taxes, I wouldn't be able to afford to send my son to school if I had to full ypay everything myself, why should he lose out on an education because of that? I have no problem paying for the NHS even though I havent had a trip to the hospital in over 10 years, why? because it is better than private healthcare, if you have an emergency in the UK your better off in an NHS hospital than a private hospital because they are set up to deal with those things, provate hospitals quite simply arent, they can just do regular procedures the things that make them money, Care is the number one issue in the NHS, profit is number one in provate healthcare. To me care handsdown takes priority over some fat cats wallet.

 

I don't see a problem with AOD's idea of free states, but if they are to be free then why should they get anything from the government, whether aid, defense or anything if they are opting out of it. If you don't want to be part of the system then you cannot pick and choose the things you want to benefit from. Your either in it or not, that is my view.

[angelofdeath]

Well, everyone knows what my views are, I agree with what Christo is saying, I have been brought up in the UK under socialised schooling, healthcare etc etc and I havent been indoctrinated into anything, I havent been forced into any particular job and have never really felt that the government is intruding into my life, I think a lot of the America viewpoints are due to the traditional nature of the commie and socialism being the enemy of america, when in reality a socialised system is nothing like the horror which a lot of Americans have been raised to believe.

 

I have no problem paying my taxes, I wouldn't be able to afford to send my son to school if I had to full ypay everything myself, why should he lose out on an education because of that? I have no problem paying for the NHS even though I havent had a trip to the hospital in over 10 years, why? because it is better than private healthcare, if you have an emergency in the UK your better off in an NHS hospital than a private hospital because they are set up to deal with those things, provate hospitals quite simply arent, they can just do regular procedures the things that make them money, Care is the number one issue in the NHS, profit is number one in provate healthcare. To me care handsdown takes priority over some fat cats wallet.

 

I don't see a problem with AOD's idea of free states, but if they are to be free then why should they get anything from the government, whether aid, defense or anything if they are opting out of it. If you don't want to be part of the system then you cannot pick and choose the things you want to benefit from. Your either in it or not, that is my view.

 

i was wondering where you were man...

 

agreed. if the 'free states' dont want to pay for defense for example, then they wont get it.

the US system under the articles of confederation had a system that forbid the central government from taxing and defense was funded by the states. if you didnt want defense, you didnt get it.

[Decyferon]

I have stayed out of crossfire for a bit, we both debated the same issues over and over and I thought I would step back a bit, been working as well so havent really been motivated to discuss crossfire topics on the evenings.

 

I do completely co-sign with Christo on the US not just pulling out of the middle east, you owuld create such a power vacuum and the view of the more moderate muslims would be that the US had abandoned all their promises which is just going to further incite the hatred. The middle east would become a hub for terrorism and extremism. Also, before you are able to just pull out of that area and focus on your own borders then you will need to stop the dependancy on oil, because you know sure as hell that when the oil is taken over by the more extreme governments like Iran etc then they will either cut AMerica off or charge you exhorbitant prices.

 

We now live in a world economy (whether we like it or not) and we cannot just bury out heads and focus on what is solely best for us in the short term because in the long term we need to look at the bigger picture.

[angelofdeath]

I have stayed out of crossfire for a bit, we both debated the same issues over and over and I thought I would step back a bit, been working as well so havent really been motivated to discuss crossfire topics on the evenings.

 

I do completely co-sign with Christo on the US not just pulling out of the middle east, you owuld create such a power vacuum and the view of the more moderate muslims would be that the US had abandoned all their promises which is just going to further incite the hatred. The middle east would become a hub for terrorism and extremism. Also, before you are able to just pull out of that area and focus on your own borders then you will need to stop the dependancy on oil, because you know sure as hell that when the oil is taken over by the more extreme governments like Iran etc then they will either cut AMerica off or charge you exhorbitant prices.

 

We now live in a world economy (whether we like it or not) and we cannot just bury out heads and focus on what is solely best for us in the short term because in the long term we need to look at the bigger picture.

 

to me the argument against pulling troops out of the middle east is sort of silly. i know christo's occupation and where he is coming from. i used to hold the same position. pat buchanan a guy who is a fierce critic of the war holds the same position. however, i maintain that we have already incited hatred from being there. from occupying these countries for decades we have main reason why terrorists attacked the US. by their own admission. so no matter what we do, we have hatred of the US. there is violence going on with the US there. its a war zone. what do you expect. iraq didnt have all these bin ladens in there until we went in there.

 

the argument for continued occupation of foreign countries on the grounds that things will get worse if we withdraw is like someone making the argument that we cannot allow african slaves in bondage their freedom because they will engage in violence and get all uppity. we have to think all this through and not just all of a sudden give them their freedom. that would be insane. it would be a calamity.

 

i agree that everyone needs to focus on the long term in terms of trade. but you can bet the farm that the US occupying 170 countries around the world acting like the worlds policemen is not the way to engage in peaceful free trade.

[christo-f]

I wouldn't take much of what I said seriously here, mate. A lot of it was said with a healthy dose of tongue in cheek. Of course the basis of what I was saying is relevant that these issues would have to be addressed, although my outcomes may be well off point. I also agree with what you are saying when you say trade protectionism often leads to higher prices on the domestic market.

 

I'm sure that you are aware, but I'll say it anyway. Property rights refers a lot more to contract law and ownership. If you have a free market there has to be a legal base for contractual agreements so as contracts do not become irrelevant and trade breaks down in to power relationships (much alike China) rather than the free flow of capital/goods/services. If property rights/contact law is not enforced then you have basic anarchy and power becomes the currency and civilisation is at risk.

 

GPS satellites were built, launched and administered by the federal government. So using it means that you would have to pay for the public outlay.

 

As for socialised/state system, I'm not sure if they are modeled on the theory that everyone is provided for regardless. I think there is the basic premise that everyone is to be a productive citizen through taxation and involvement of the economy. I don't think its general idea is that everyone can just come in and use what they want without any responsibility.

 

I really haven't studied much of this kind of stuff. I know Marxism and Communism simply due to political and historical studies. Pretty much all of my sociology studies were based on Chinese history and the terrorist phenomenon, I actively avoided the more light and fluffy shit like economic and social philosophy.

 

 

Anyway, I have a respect for your argument as you have placed above, people should have freedom to choose a way of life as long as it is not to the detriment of others. Nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

Getting the thread back on track again, anyone that supports a political party or political figure (which includes Ron Paul) is, I think, missing the realities of the global structure. I am also going to come back and address the idea of the US pulling out of the M/E. AOD you seem to be focused on the non-state threat that (possibly) results from US intervention. You are missing the more important element of state behaviour in then equation.

 

 

 

i think a common pact for defense, which is what the US constitution was supposed to be... is alright. the states wouldnt all be viable by themselves so they would want to contract for a common defense.

 

i think the constitution turned into something it was never meant to be, but if we still had a central government like the articles of confederation (pre constitution) we would probably be ok on both sides of the argument.

the central govt didnt have the power to tax. the common defense was paid for by the states. to me, if the government under the articles of confederation could beat the worlds super power, it is fine by me.

 

as for your comments about borders...yes. property rights would have to be protected. this is part of a free society. if someone pollutes for example or if your rpg rounds are going into someone else's house, then you have violated the other persons property rights. the person firing rpgs into someones house is then responsible.

 

 

 

more or less you are right. theoretically. but lets look at it. in the US most roads are paid through taxation of fuel. if a person is not driving a car, but say he walks, he isnt paying for the roads. but he is using them. my wife went to scotland for a while when i first met her. she used medical services once in the socialized UK system and didnt pay for them. i thought this was the main tenet of the system, to provide the services for everyone no matter what?

but i digress.

it could be up to the states as to who they want to be let and who they dont and who can do what. i mean we have foreigners coming to the US and using our roads and not paying for them. i dont think the socialized system could be viable if they tried to track each and every person and how much they paid for it. i thought the goal of socialism was to provide for everyone regardless.

 

but this brings the question, if you want to track who can and cannot use the services, by if they paid for them or not, why not just privatize everything anyway? it will be much more efficient and much cheaper.

 

 

 

why does the gps services have to be run by the government?

that being said, im not against paying for services i use.

sure, if a public university discovers something, it can be sold or with held. same as with a private institution. no big deal here at all.

 

import tariffs raise the price of goods. for instance sugar is much more expensive in the US than most other parts of the world because of sugar tariffs to protect the sugar growers. if the tariffs were abolished we would not be drinking corn syrup laced coca cola. sugar prices would plummet. i dont see your argument on this.

subsidies and tariffs raise the prices of things to protect the producers. farm subsidies exist to prop up food prices so producers make more money. they pay producers to limit the supply and pay them way above market price for the product.

 

 

 

 

in most ways it wont. i wont be paying for other peoples retirement, roads, schools, medical services, welfare, etc. i wont have to deal with super high medical prices because a free market will result in low medical prices. i dont have food insurance and im sure i wont have medical insurance unless its a policy like a home owners policy. you dont use your home owners insurance for a leaky faucet you use it when you house burns down. catastrophic insurance in another words.

 

 

 

i dont think you understand. you wouldnt have to be taxed until the system is changed. the government just sells off everything to the highest bidder that is under government control. no cost whatsoever. you wouldnt have to pay for anything you didnt want to.

[Soup]

Look AOD man you gotta be able to write more concisely.You also need to be less subjective. This shit is getting so repetitive, so retarded and so personal with all your namecalling etc that it's just pointless to continue. I dont even want to quote what I'm replying to because it adds such enormous lengths of text to this thread that I have no interest in reading it for fear of losing my sight. That's not how you want to win this debate, is it? Not by logic but by making everyone else quit for medical reasons?

 

That and you're evasive with some questions, deliberately read into statements the wrong way, go off-topic into discussions about your own collection of vehicles and how your family lives in the woods, and then when I point out the inefficiencies in these "socialist" institutions are the same inefficiencies in private institutions, you say I'm off topic. It's ridiculous. If you were a politician you'd be sacked for being so evasive, so choosy in what you decide to rebute, what you try to twist, and what you pretend you didnt hear. If any more of your posts turn into 2400 word-long ramblings without even the common courtesy of a basic 3rd grade level essay format and bibliography, I'm not going to continue.

[Soup]

Also, before you say some stupid shit like "You're an idiot who's just trying to dismiss my entire perspective on the grounds of MLA format." I read everything you write. I understand it. I empathize with it. It just makes my eyes bleed and frustrates me how many times you repeat yourself, how much of my posts you miss, and how many time I then have to repeat myself too. What could be a fresh stream of courteous debate is a stagnant pool of muck.

 

So here's the thing if you want to expatriate yourself like Hemmingway or live by the code of the 1960's movie cliche outlaw: you can't do it within the boundaries of the united states. You gotta leave and create your own utopia elsewhere. Unless you go balls deep into the woods like a bunch of Cynics where no one can find you and you have no contact with the outside world, establishing your off-grid communion of likeminded "libertarians" who go grocery shopping down the mountain is cheating. So I salute you for fighting the good fight, just dont make fun of me for enjoying the creature comforts of civilization. Shit I'll pay my taxes just because it means I can live somewhere that mountain lions won't eat my dog. Those are my priorities.

[christo-f]

I think we can all be 100% assured that the US/administration would be VERY fucking happy to extricate itself from Afghanistan. Just have to remember that it must be done with close strategic concern as we all know what happened last time the US just up and left South Asia. Either way, it is quite clear that they are working very decisively towards a settlement that keeps regional players happy, stops extremists and Iran from moving in and taking the place, keeps India and Pakistan from nuking each other and above all, is acceptable to the voting public of the USA.

 

 

 

 

McChrystal focuses on peace with Taliban: report

 

 

Buzz up!1 vote

SendSharePrint

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100125/pl_afp/afghanistanunrestmcchrystalmilitaryusbritain;_ylt=AvuolCrsk3smAZlTaqTR.HIBxg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNqbzg

5c2I1BGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDEyNS9hZmdoYW5pc3RhbnVucmVzdG1jY2hyeXN0YWxtaWxpdGFyeXVzYnJpdGFpbgRwb3MDNgRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVf

c3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNtY2NocnlzdGFsZm8-

 

1 hr 47 mins ago

LONDON (AFP) – The NATO commander in Afghanistan said his troop surge could lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban, in an interview published Monday ahead of a major conference this week on the war.

US General Stanley McChrystal also told the Financial Times he hopes his allies will leave Thursday's meeting in London with a "renewed commitment" to the increasingly bloody conflict.

By using the 30,000-strong surge in US troops to secure territory stretching from the Taliban's southern heartlands to Kabul, the general said he aims to weaken the insurgency so much its leaders would accept a political settlement.

"As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting," said McChrystal.

"I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome," he added.

Asked is he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in the country, the general said: "I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past."

The US troop surge, announced by President Barack Obama in December, is pouring tens of thousands of extra troops into Afghanistan this year on top of 70,000 already there.

More than 113,000 international soldiers are fighting the Taliban under US and NATO command and losing soldiers almost daily, in the conflict which started with the US-led invasion of 2001.

As major powers prepare to map the way forward in Afghanistan at the London conference, McChrystal urged: "I'd like everybody to walk out of London with a renewed commitment, and that commitment is to the right outcome for the Afghan people."

[Soup]

I think it's very weird that the Taliban are legitimizing themselves and actually working on their public image. It will be interesting to see if Afghanistan turns into a middle eastern Cuba where we recognize them as a government but maybe bar them from any trade agreements.

 

Reality is I think America is realizing that we cant keep fighting other country's battles. Every time I hear of potential conflicts between two countries I immediately think we'll soon be involved militarily, if we're not already.

[christo-f]

The Tban have always looked at this fight the same way they looked at the fight with the Soviets. They have the initiative being that they know the terrain and have the home ground advantage and also have covert regional support from Pakistan. They can wait it out as long as they want and have turned it in to a classical insurgent war of attrition on the coalition. They are fighting an insurgency battle against a largely conventional force. If it was the US' home ground the ISAF would be able to play it differently being that it is their own people that have war forced upon them. But it isn't so the classical COIN tactics are much harder to employ because you alienate the local populace eventually pushing them toward supporting the Tban.

 

The locals also know that the US has to eventually leave and the Tban will always be there so they are fearful of what supporting the coalition will bring in the mid-term. Now that the ISAF have been talking of a negotiated settlement and allowing the bulk of the insurgents a place in the society instead of being eradicated the Tban leadership knows that they have the initiative. Start a hearts and minds campaign, create the image of an acceptable political force and with the US's obvious goal of getting the fuck out of there ASAP they can create an opportunity of getting a serious place at the table.

 

Iraq was a perfect example. THe US wanted a US installed government, they didn't get it and had to compromise and the Shi'ites are now slowly pushing the Sunnis out. The same will happen in Afghanistan for the simple reason being that the US obviously doesn't want to be there.

 

Obama is much more interested in domestic issues and this shit is a time and money black hole. THe US will create the minimal acceptable political/security environment and then get the fuck out. The Tban is moving to capitalise on this and Pakistan is rubbing its hands together.

 

Look for India maneuvering to undermine the strategic depth that Pakistan wants to create in Afghanistan. They know that this will strengthen Pakistan vis-a-vis India and will also create a region for which Pakistan can build a proxy force with which to attack India from (think the Mumbai attacks, the attack on India's parliament by Let) but also afford them deniability because it doesn't come from Pak soil.

 

And to be honest, this actually benefits the US to a large degree. Both Pakistan and India will be focused on their own region and their military and intelligence resources will be spent creating a capability to combat each other. This then stops them from creating a military that projects its force out of the region (such as aircraft carriers, subs, long range bombers, air refueling, etc.) and a capability that could eventually be turned against US interests.

 

IT also has the possibility of drawing other regional players in like Iran. It would also ensure that Russia would have to give it some attention being that the forces that could grow in Afghanistan would largely be ideological forces (Islamic extremism) that comes with an expansionist agenda. That means that the Muslim populations of the Central Asian states are at risk of that extremism bleeding in to the region and Russia does not want that as it already has its own Islamo-headache in the norther caucuses and will not want to rick that flaring up even more. However it would then also mean that India doesn't focus on China, as they have traditionally leaving China to build on its power projection capabilities as they already are.

 

It's a pretty big play going on in Afghanistan when viewed from a regional perspective and if the US plays it right it can keep the region tied up in knots for another few decades. And that would make the whole adventure VERY much worth the effort.

[Soup]

I dont know if the mumbai attack was related at all to the Pakistani government. Pakistan has charged 7 Pakis for connections to the mumbai attacks but strangely a Pakistan-born Chicago businessman is being charged for funding it. You could just as well assume America was behind the attacks as well. (No no, we weren't) The Kashmiri militant group "Lashkar-e-Toiba" (LeT) that attacked Mumbai were Pakistani kids from such impoverished and fucked-up households that their parents sold them to the LeT. Who helped fund the LeT is another story.

 

While your theory explains why Pakistan is refusing any and all involvement in the Surge, I seriously doubt it's going to pan out in Pakistan's favor since India is funding the taliban too, likely for the exact same reasons. I also have a hard time believing that their "anonymous" proxy war is going to work. The CIA has been on top of India and Pakistan's want for war since the 80's and is back to telling them, in so many words, to, "Cut that shit out." American Defense Secretary Robert Gates talked them out of war in 1988, 1990, and the CIA is doing the same now.

 

America wants India and Pakistan to settle their differences so the two countries can fight the mutual enemy of insurgency. If we can do that then we can bounce on the middle east without fear of those gung-ho Paki/India morons giving Taliban dirty bombs or nukes.

[christo-f]

Chicago businessman[/url] is being charged for funding it. You could just as well assume America was behind the attacks as well. (No no, we weren't)

 

The Pak government is factionalised. The ISI and elements in the military are supportive of LeT and the afghani Tban. They have been using the LeT element to fight in Kashmir/Jammu for decades and some will privately argue that the LeT has grown powerful enough that they are flipping the control and it is them that controls elements in the ISI/military now. The arrests that were made were token efforts and one of the main planners has since been released (can get his name and the details if needed).

 

While your theory explains why Pakistan is refusing any and all involvement in the Surge, I seriously doubt it's going to pan out in Pakistan's favor since India is funding the taliban too, likely for the exact same reasons.

Neither is the Tban one single entity. The Pak Tban are not the same as the Afghan Tban. They have separate agendas and there is minimal cross over in the whole scheme of things. The Paks have long complained that the Indians are providing weapons to the TeT and have shown pics of Indian weapons that they claim to have confiscated. However there is no way that the Indians would be sending their own kit in. They would be getting Russian or Chinese kit from a secondary source and using them to support the effort..., which I have no doubt they are doing. Of course they are, they very much want to internally destabilise Pak because it forces PAk to concentrate their military and intel internally rather than across the border at India. India is also very active in Afghanistan for the exact reasons that I mentioned before.

 

If Afghanistan goes to PAkistan that is huge strategic depth in terms of terrain, man power, cross land routes, etc. India is trying to break down Paks influence there. But it's not going all the Indian's way, don't forget that the Indian emabssy in Afghan was bombed not long ago as well.

 

Also, you've quoted Dawn up there, a Pak news paper. South Asian media is not renowned for its quality and certainly not objectivity. Both Indian and Pak media are constantly pumping anti-each other articles out. FT, on the other hand aint so bad.

 

 

I also have a hard time believing that their desire for an anonymous proxy war is going to work. The CIA has been on top of India and Pakistan's war since the 80's and is back to telling them, in so many words, to, "Cut that shit out." It wasnt in America's interest for them to go to war in 1988, and it doesnt seem to be now.

Just because the US is telling them what to do doesn't mean it will happen. Don't forget that the US needs India as a balance against Pak (for good times and bad) and also China..., not to mention removing them from the Russian sphere. That's what the whole nuclear material transfer deal was about that essentially destroyed the NPT. The US doesn't necessarily want them to go to war, but it does want them to focus their energies regionally, balancing each other in order to preclude a victor that can eventually grow to challenge the US. It's called offshore balancing and basically means that if there is managed chaos in the other regions creating a balance of power that doesn't favour a victor then a regional power will not emerge and no one will be in a position to challenge US interests.

 

America wants India and Pakistan to settle their differences so the two countries can fight the mutual enemy of insurgency. If we can do that then we can bounce on the middle east without fear of those gung-ho Paki/India morons giving Taliban dirty bombs or nukes.

 

I'd argue that the US would rather India and PAkistan balance each other and also CHina and Russia to the greatest degree possible. The insurgency is a problem and that will want to be dealt with from the US perspective, agreed. But the differences between India and Pak don't have to be settled for that to happen. The US has been working SUPER fucking hard to keep India's response to Mumbai restrained so the Paks can move their troops from the Eastern border to the western tribal regions to battle the insurgency. Once that happens, the US is more than happy for them to go back to balancing each other and taking up all their resources on weapons and capabilities that have a regional focus rather than international.

[Soup]

Not that i don't believe you, but I would like to see where much of this comes from. I can find supporting articles myself but im interested what your personal sources are. Also im on a hunt for something that thoroughly explains the intricacies of the Middle East, particularly explaining how any of their fucking governments 'work.' ISI in a factioned country supporting factions of factions of Taliban, but also the Taliban allegedly controls factions of the pakistan government that controls ISI. WHO'S FUCKING WHO, GUY? WHO'S FUCKING WHOO.

 

It's late. im tired. this shit doesnt fit in my brain, and I dont get how someone can even say there's Pak TBan and Afgh Tban when each of those factions of TBan have factions inside those factions and some are supported by ISI, some are not, some are funded by India... and geographically they're all in the same place in only a few different villages.... I ONLY HAVE A SOCIALIST EDUCATION. GIVE ME A BREAK. lolololol.

 

 

Also I have no idea what the TeT is (unless you misspelled LeT) and I want news links to everything you mentioned in the second paragraph. The only supporting articles i can find are from the one newsource you claim is incredulous.

[christo-f]

Sorry about the wall of text but complex issues require a lot of reading. This was one item that covered or at least alluded to most of what I have claimed above (underlined within the text). The source is a private intelligence group that also publishes some of its material to a subscriber base. Their clients are are a range of public and private organisations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S., Afghanistan: Pakistani Concerns, Indian Skepticism and the Jihadist Wild Card

View

Revisions

STRATFOR TODAY » December 2, 2009 | 2315 GMT

 

 

 

Summary

U.S. President Barack Obama’s long-awaited announcement on U.S. strategy for the war in Afghanistan is not sitting well in Islamabad or New Delhi. While Pakistan now has to figure out how to keep American forces from taking more aggressive action against jihadists in Pakistan, India does not want to deal with the messy aftermath of a U.S. military exit from the region in two years. Meanwhile, the jihadists operating in Pakistan have a greater incentive to create a crisis on the Indo-Pakistani border through rogue attacks in India — a scenario that could well upset Obama’s exit strategy from Afghanistan.

 

Analysis

U.S. President Barack Obama announced Dec. 1 the broad strokes of his administration’s strategy for the war in Afghanistan. In short, he said there are three main objectives: deny al Qaeda a safe haven on the Afghan-Pakistani border, halt the momentum of the Taliban offensive in Afghanistan with an additional 30,000 troops, and train and build Afghan security and civilian forces to deal with the jihadist threat themselves. Notably, Obama also refused to commit to a long-haul nation-building strategy in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he defined the endgame for the war and specified that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan could begin as early as July 2011.

 

Pakistani Concerns

 

Pakistan’s primary concern with the strategy has to deal with the first objective: denying al Qaeda a safe haven. It is well known that al Qaeda’s safe haven is not in Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are concentrated, but in Pakistan, where Pakistani forces employ a much more nuanced method of distinguishing between “good” and “bad” jihadists.

 

Under the Obama plan, the U.S. military is evidently working on a tight timeline to demonstrate (prior to the 2012 U.S. elections) that al Qaeda has been defeated. The United States needs results and it needs them fast. Pakistan can thus assume that the United States is about to apply a lot more pressure on Islamabad to dismantle al Qaeda in Pakistan.

 

But Pakistan’s definition of “bad” jihadists does not mesh with that of the United States. Indeed, the targets of Pakistan’s offensive in Swat and South Waziristan have been those Taliban militants who have clearly turned against the Pakistani state, namely the Tehrik-i-Taliban movement. Al Qaeda and its allies, on the other hand, have strategically kept their focus on Afghanistan while maintaining a safe haven in Pakistan. If Pakistan widens the scope of its counterinsurgency efforts to include the militants on Washington’s hit list — particularly the Haqqani network, the Mullah Omar-led group of Afghan Taliban, Maulvi Nazir, Hafiz Gulf Bahadir and other high-value targets with strong linkages to al Qaeda — then the Pakistani military will be forced to deal with a bigger backlash.

 

Pakistan continues to deliberate over how the United States actually intends to achieve its objective of denying al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan. In private discussions with Pakistani leaders, the United States has delivered an ultimatum to Islamabad: either give up its militant-proxy project and enjoy the political, economic and military benefits of an enhanced relationship with Washington or the United States will take unilateral action on Pakistani soil. Such unilateral action would go beyond the CIA’s unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in the borderlands and likely entail sending in fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft with special forces for quick “get in and get out” operations against al Qaeda targets deep inside Pakistani territory. The United States carried out such an overt incursion in Pakistan in September 2008 in South Waziristan, which led to widespread popular backlash inside the country.

 

This type of unilateral U.S. military action is a redline for the Pakistani military. The impression STRATFOR has gotten from Pakistani military sources is that Islamabad is still quite confident that the United States won’t risk a serious destabilization of Pakistan in pursuit of its counterterrorism objectives. In fact, Pakistani officials have made it a point to paint a doomsday scenario for the United States should the Pakistani military be pushed to the edge in its fight against Pakistani jihadists while trying to hold a feeble government and shaky economy together.

 

Pakistan will thus try to hedge as best it can to keep U.S. forces at bay. The Pakistani military has a strategic imperative to continue along the current path and engage in limited military offensives against those jihadists who have turned on the Pakistani state while turning a blind eye to those jihadists whose efforts are focused on Afghanistan and/or India. But the United States is unlikely to tolerate Pakistan’s way of handling its jihadist threat, particularly now that U.S. forces are under a tight deadline to neutralize al Qaeda in Pakistan.

 

As U.S. pressure on Islamabad and the threat to Pakistani sovereignty inevitably increase in the months ahead, Pakistan will rely more heavily on intelligence cooperation with Washington to manage its relationship with the United States. STRATFOR’s Geopolitical Intelligence Report this week discusses in depth how the U.S. battle against al Qaeda and its jihadist allies is largely an intelligence war, one in which Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate could play a crucial role in penetrating al Qaeda and the Taliban. The more reliant the United States is on Pakistani intelligence to achieve its aims in Afghanistan, the better able Islamabad will be in convincing Washington that it’s better off leaving the Pakistani segment of the U.S.-jihadist war to the Pakistanis — or so Pakistan hopes. At the end of the day, Pakistan cannot escape its fear that the United States will take more aggressive action on Pakistani soil with or without Islamabad’s consent.

 

Pakistan also has a deeper dilemma to contend with concerning its relationship with the United States. Though Pakistan’s alliance with the United States has often left Pakistan feeling betrayed, Pakistan still needs a great power patron with enough interest in the region, like the United States, to counter India. During the Cold War, Pakistan was the key for the United States in containing Soviet expansion in South-Central Asia. Today, Pakistan is the key to containing radical Islamism. In both cases, Pakistan has benefited from U.S. political, economic and military support in its attempts to level the playing field with India.

 

Though the U.S. partnership with Pakistan against the jihadists is fraught with complications, Pakistan still does not want the day to come when U.S. forces draw down from the region and leave it to Islamabad to pick up the pieces of the jihadist war. If the United States is sufficiently satisfied with its mission in the region by the summer of 2011 to draw down forces according to the timeline Obama laid out, U.S. interest in Pakistan will wane and Islamabad will be left in a difficult position. Pakistan is feeling especially vulnerable these days considering the United States’ growing strategic partnership with India next door.

 

Pakistan can therefore be expected to lay heavy demands on the United States to restrain India if Washington expects greater cooperation from Islamabad. Pakistan is already urging the United States to restrict Indian influence in Afghanistan, which is viewed by Islamabad as nothing short of an Indian encirclement strategy. Whereas India has been careful to specify that its support for Afghanistan is primarily economic, Pakistan remains convinced that the Indian presence in Afghanistan, whether in the form of consulates or construction companies, is simply a front for Indian Research and Analysis Wing intelligence agents to exploit the Baloch and jihadist insurgencies in Pakistan.

 

Moreover, Pakistan will continue to insist to the United States that it cannot devote more forces to combating the jihadist threat in its western periphery as long as it has to worry about the high concentration of Indian troops along the Indo-Pakistani border to the east. New Delhi, however, remains convinced that Pakistan continues to support militant proxies against India and is unlikely to heed any U.S. request to back off the border with Pakistan to assuage Islamabad’s concerns when the threat of another militant attack remains real and near.

 

Indian Skepticism

 

Obama telephoned Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the eve of his Dec. 1 speech to brief him on his strategy for Afghanistan. India publicly expressed support for the strategy, maintaining the image that U.S.-Indian relations are tightening following Singh’s official state visit to the United States the previous week. Privately, however, India has reason to be skeptical of Obama’s plan.

 

There is no getting around the fact that Obama is attempting to define an endgame for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, recognizing the need to free up the U.S. military for crises beyond South Asia. This is not to say that the United States will completely abandon the region or that the threat of militant Islam will not persist, but removing thousands of U.S. troops in the region certainly changes the equation in New Delhi’s mind. The last thing India wants is for the United States to draw down its commitment to Afghanistan (and thus ease up pressure on Pakistan) in two years, leaving New Delhi to deal with the aftermath. Indeed, when Singh met with Obama at the White House, he told the U.S. president to stay resolute on his mission in Afghanistan, warning that a U.S. defeat there would have catastrophic consequences.

 

India sees the benefit of developing a closer partnership with the United States but also wants Washington to do its part to convince Pakistan to give up its decades-long policy of supporting proxy militants against India. Now that Pakistan is experiencing the side effects of its own militant-proxy strategy, India’s hope is that with enough U.S. pressure, Pakistan can be induced to clean up its militant landscape. Yet if the United States is preparing its exit from the region, India may end up losing a valuable lever to use against Pakistan.

 

Jihadist Wild Card

 

New Delhi and Islamabad have different reasons to be concerned about U.S. strategy in the region, but there is one area of concern that is common to both: rogue jihadists operating on Pakistani soil.

 

Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies are examining Obama’s strategy just as intently as everyone else. These jihadists can quite easily deduce that more pressure will be brought to bear on their safe havens in northwest Pakistan, thus threatening their survival. There is a clear intent, therefore, for these jihadists to keep Pakistan focused on the Indian threat on its eastern border in order to alleviate the pressure on their jihadist bases in the northwest. The best way to do this is to create a conflict between India and Pakistan through a large-scale militant attack in hopes of inducing an Indian military response and possibly triggering another near-nuclear confrontation on the border.

 

Pakistan wants to avoid getting bogged down in a fight with India while trying to deal with its jihadist problems at home. Though Pakistan is trying to rein in many of its former militant proxies, it still has to worry about a number of rogues that could embroil Pakistan in a conflict that it did not ask for. The 2001 bombing of the Indian parliament and the 2008 attacks in Mumbai revealed signs of jihadist involvement that may not have been under direct Pakistani control. Pakistan can attempt to stave off such a crisis by sharing intelligence on militant plots and actors with India through a U.S. channel, but even with enhanced intelligence cooperation, an attack could still happen.

 

India is already bracing itself for such a scenario and is still grappling with the dilemma that any Indian military response inside Pakistan — even limited strikes — would risk emboldening the jihadists, seriously destabilizing Pakistan and bringing the region to the brink of a nuclear conflagration. India struggled with this issue in the wake of the Mumbai attacks and it appears undecided on how to react to another major attack. In any case, a crisis along the border can be expected, and it would be up to the United States to put out the fire.

 

The United States is already giving itself a limited timetable to complete its objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it needs Pakistan’s cooperation to make its strategy work. A crisis on the Indo-Pakistani border would certainly jeopardize those plans, since Pakistan would devote its energy to dealing with India (its primary existential threat) rather than al Qaeda and the Taliban. Throw the threat of nuclear war into the equation, and the United States has an entirely new challenge.

[angelofdeath]

Look AOD man you gotta be able to write more concisely.You also need to be less subjective. This shit is getting so repetitive, so retarded and so personal with all your namecalling etc that it's just pointless to continue. I dont even want to quote what I'm replying to because it adds such enormous lengths of text to this thread that I have no interest in reading it for fear of losing my sight. That's not how you want to win this debate, is it? Not by logic but by making everyone else quit for medical reasons?

 

That and you're evasive with some questions, deliberately read into statements the wrong way, go off-topic into discussions about your own collection of vehicles and how your family lives in the woods, and then when I point out the inefficiencies in these "socialist" institutions are the same inefficiencies in private institutions, you say I'm off topic. It's ridiculous. If you were a politician you'd be sacked for being so evasive, so choosy in what you decide to rebute, what you try to twist, and what you pretend you didnt hear. If any more of your posts turn into 2400 word-long ramblings without even the common courtesy of a basic 3rd grade level essay format and bibliography, I'm not going to continue.

 

 

you have not rebutted one point with me yet. all your responses consist of is posts like this.

i immediately bit on your posts because i thought we could have a good back and forth, but i guess if you cant debate my points, you cant debate my points.

[angelofdeath]

I'm sure that you are aware, but I'll say it anyway. Property rights refers a lot more to contract law and ownership. If you have a free market there has to be a legal base for contractual agreements so as contracts do not become irrelevant and trade breaks down in to power relationships (much alike China) rather than the free flow of capital/goods/services. If property rights/contact law is not enforced then you have basic anarchy and power becomes the currency and civilisation is at risk.

 

you are totally correct in this. 100%

i generally favor a 'ayn rand' size state. which is one that solely exists to protect property rights. that is catch murderers, settle property disputes, and army, etc.

but there is a lot of theory being thrown around in certain circles of how a private court system would work. i sympathize with the argument and even take that position in some debates, but i just dont know that much about it.

 

 

As for socialised/state system, I'm not sure if they are modeled on the theory that everyone is provided for regardless. I think there is the basic premise that everyone is to be a productive citizen through taxation and involvement of the economy. I don't think its general idea is that everyone can just come in and use what they want without any responsibility.

 

the main tenet of the socialist redistributionist state is 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need.' granted SOMEONE has to pay for the others goods and services, but most agree that the rich and upper middle class are the ones to pay the most for others peoples services. i do not hold this belief, but most americans do. there are some taxes that are fair across the board. like the fuel tax to fund roads. everyone pays the same fuel tax when they buy a gallon of gas.

i have less of a problem with this than i do the income tax for example. even though i know the bad effects of trade tariffs, i would rather see the US government funded by import tariffs than by income taxes. tariffs for the most part financed the US government until the progressive era.

 

the reason progressive income taxation (a plank of the communist manifesto) is wrong is because if we base things on what people use... the poor person gets the same benefits from the defense department that a rich person does. but the government has decided because the rich guy makes more money, he will pay much more in taxes to pay for the poor persons defense who is not paying in at all.

 

in the US if you make less than 50K a year, you hardly pay any taxes compared to what the 'rich' are paying. we also have a welfare system that pays people who do not pay in. social security pays people on the system much more than they paid in. if you earn under 15K a year you basically dont pay any taxes at all, yet you get to use the libraries, the side walks, get on welfare, unemployment insurance (most unemployment insurance is paid by employers only in most states, not employees) police, fire and ambulance protections.

i dont think when the police respond to a call they ask to see there tax bill stub before they investigate a crime scene or shoot a criminal trying to kill a hostage.

just sayin'

 

but that being said, there is no reason at all that a state cannot limit immigration to 'protect what is their's' like you pointed out, even if it was tongue in cheek.

 

for example if a 'free state' was ever set up in america, they would almost have to limit immigration in some way otherwise in a few years everyone would move to the state that doesnt hold the same belief in limited government and they will 'democratically' take over the government and turn it into every other state in the US.

[Soup]

Hahah I love how i knew you were going to say that. Gee wiz you're so much smarter than me and you've been able to prove im wrong and you're right time and time again without you ever being evasive on subjects, responding to select points, twisting others, and avoiding the rest.

 

Here's what I want you to do: In outline format, as concisely as you can, write up every point you've ever made on every topic you've ever discussed in this thread. Then I'll do the same and that'll be the end of it.

[christo-f]

Soup, you need to sleep more than you do!

[Soup]

In soviet russia, sleep needs more of you! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM BEFORE THEY REDISTRIBUTE MY HARD EARNED Z's AMONGST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS! THEY TOOK ER JOBS!

 

 

You know what aod? you're absolutely right. America's wealthiest cannot stand idly by while the injustice of high taxes opress the whiteman. They should rise up and create an independent state, ridding themselves of their Mulatto overlord once and for all!

 

I'm serious. That shit would be hilarious, because if america was really socialist we'd reclaim all the companies that they bankrupted and not have to reimburse them. If our educational system was the same as Cuba's, compulsory schools would assure we had our own labor force and could kick out all the immigrants. The once-terrible jobs like "meatpacking" (that were outsourced to illegal immigrants working at shoddy factories built along the mexico-texas border) will return to being one of the most prestigious professions in america, thanks to our glorious socialist labor unions.

 

Our once giant conglomerate farms will be reclaimed into smaller socialist farms with no required quotas, therefor no pesticides would be needed. Overcrowding of livestock will vanish. Cows will be raised in healthier conditions and the need for billions of dollars in antibiotics--JUST FOR THE COWS-- to fight off ecoli would vanish. Our food would be healthier so our healthcare could be more affordable. Education would go up because as well all know socialist countries have smarter kids than americans. They also can sing, dance, and play instruments better than them too. They're also better at math and know things american kids don't like who the president of Iran is.

 

Crime would go down too since class issues (the number one statistical cause of crime in America) would disappear. All communities would be integrated, allowing for greater growth in cultural diversity and the arts, and the entire restructuring of the costs of our food, health, housing, and education would actually become cheaper than it was before. On top of all that, the life I currently lead wouldn't change a fucking bit. Then all those american elitsts who left can come back once in a while to outsource some work to our strong nationalistic and educated labor union, sign a few of our musicians to record companies, borrow a couple comedians and actors and do what they did before they left the country: leech off the poor people.

 

So in conclusion, I agree with AOD 100% in what must be done. Get the rich out of here and on tropical islands where they belong and leave america to REAL people.

 

Ok im going to bed.