Scott Weiser says:
===================
Liberty is good for us, and the freedom to choose Coke is an excellent
exercise of that liberty.
======================

We could have a more meaningful discussion of "liberty" if we are able
to define what limits, if any, there are on liberty. And exactly "who"
has this liberty?

For example, is a woman at liberty to choose what happens to her body?
Am I at liberty to hold loud parties which distrub my neighbors' sleep?
Am I at liberty to operate a car repair service in an otherwise
residential neighborhood?

Can we really say, as a blanket statement, with no caveats, that,
"Liberty is good for us...."

Cheers,
frtzw906
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases [historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT said:
==============
But I also know that some bearded warlord in Afganistan does affect
us
as well. I suspect that was part of the biggest shock to many
Americans
on 9/11. Our bubble burst. We all live in a world where we affect one
another.
=================

I don't mean to appear callous, but I think part of the problem lies
with a nation that has lived virtually untouched by the reast of the
world for 2 centuries. A nation that could afford to practice
isolationist policies. When your "bubble burst", you couldn't believe
it. And you likely over-reacted (see other posts putting the
casualities into perspective -- and I truly mean no disrespect to the
innocent victims of the bearded warlord).

Other nations, not isolated from neighbors by a huge ocean, better
understand the interconnectedness. By all means, go after the warlord
(as you know, most other nations supported you in those efforts). But
don't try to con the world into believing that a secular dictator has
anything in common with a religious fundamentalist (in this case, I'm
referring to Osama) who despises secularism. That, and WMD were
thinly
veiled excuses to gain control of oil.

TnT says:
===============
That does not mean that we should just go along with the other parts
of
the world, but that we should attempt to influence them with what we
believe.
==================

That's a tad arrogant, don't you think? When should I expect American
troops strolling down my boulevard and knocking on my door so as to
"influence" me to "believe" in the American dream?

Cheers,
frtzw906

I thought we were talking primarily about political differences and
activities, not military actions. For most of the two hundred years of
our country, we have been involved with the rest of the world as they
sent immigrant to our shores. My heritage is Scotch-Irish, German,
French, and a few others thrown in. My wifes grandparents were
Norwegian and Slavic. And that is just my family, there are millions of
families. We have folks here from all around the world affecting our
politics, and outlook on politics "back home." Now that they are
citizens of US they vote also, and a majority of them voted for Bush.

Obviously the isolation of distance across the ocean, is not as much
these days, and we are being impacted daily by the EU, South America,
Africa, and Asia. The days stockmarket start in Japan, and go on around
the world from their. My in-laws have a sugar beet farm in Mn, and the
price they get for their sugar is determined by world markets. The
price of surgar is down, they don't buy the tractor. Down even more,
they could lose the farm. Many have lost their farms and had to find
work elsewhere because of the price of sugar in South America.

The N. Korean Nuclear threat is very real, but we have not gone
storming in there, and are trying to get them to the negotiating table
with their neighbors such as S. Korea, China, and Japan. No one here
wants to fight that battle, but we cannot be held hostage either, but
we would rather see the asiatics solve the issue.

I do not expect to see our troops marching down the EU boulevards,
since they are civilized and appear willing to solve their own issues.
However they were not so willing to stop the fighting in Bosnia, or now
the Sudan. It is easy to set in your Ivory Palace, and say that you are
above getting your hands dirty with all this military stuff. But where
would you be if the US had not spent Billions if not Trillions after
WW2, maintained troops in Europe, and political pressure on the Iron
Curtain countries to take down the Wall.

We eventually saw the Wall come down, and recently we have see historic
elections where they have never been seen before. Perfect, no! But a
big step forward for mankind.

The safety in isolation we felt because of the ocean was burst on 9/11.
It is not that we were unaware of you. Now we are even more on guard!
We understand our vulnerability to oil supplies, and will attempt to
protect them from tyrants. Oil recently in history has been a big
factor for fighting wars as countries became more industrialized. Which
sort of brings us back to the OP of this thread.

The Middle East is central in any discussion of oil, I don't care where
on earth you are politically. And the Middle East is central in many
religious issues, including Christianity, and in particular
Fundementalist Christianity. So the stage is being set for a titan
struggle like the world has never seen before. Are you ready? TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
================
But I would be interested in knowing how your world view
would define the various political systems if not capitalism and
socialism
================

What you're referring to are not political systems but, rather,
economic systems. IMHO, it is dangerous to confuse the distinctions.


I see them as two sides of the same coin, you don't have a political
system without an economic system. They are joined at the hip. You
can't deal with one, without dealing with the other. Though I can
understand your fine line distinction.

Further, I think it useful to begin by agreeing that no economic
system
exists in a pure form. We might put the systems on a continuum from
less socialist to more socialist, but most developed nations --
including the USA -- would be located on this continuum.

I would agree with you on this one, though the identifying
characteristic of the US indicates stronger individual participation in
the social model. It may be in individual corruption, instead of mass
corporate corruption, but even that is changing as we watch Enron, etc.

Most right-wing Americans, for example, are reluctant to admit that
the
defense industry is one of the most socialistic endeavours to be
found
on this globe. If you don't believe it, ask yourself how many
research
facilities are propped up by government money. How many firms in the
munitions and aircraft industry would not exist were it not for
massive
government funding?

Marx talked about "government (the people) owning the means of
production." In the USA, the government may not "own", but it
certainly
"controls" the means of production in more than a few cases
[historical
note: what was the deal with the Krupp industries in the Germany of
the
1940's? Is that or is that not a parallel?] The control is clear:
without government monies, these firms go under.

And where are the right-wing Americans when government money is doled
out in corporate welfare to huge agri-business concerns? This money
comes, too often, in the form of cheap water sold (given?) to these
businesses at prices way below the market price.

Why is it that the American right-wing can get their knickers in a
knot
over welfare to unemployed poor people, but thinks nothing about
cramming more money than they need into the pockets of agri-business
executives.

Now that's socialism! Capitalism is a long lost and forgotten ideal
(not a very practical or viable one either, BTW).

Cheers,
frtzw906

Eisenhower warned us of the growing military/industrial complex after
WW2. We have seen creeping socialism more and more in USA. Not just
Defense, but Education, Arts, Interior resources like national forest
and oil. All we need to do is go out and try to drill an oil well on
your own land, and we would have all kinds of federal visitors telling
us we can't do that. Or try starting a grade school without approval of
some agency. Try starting a resturant, and here come the food
inspectors. And anyone can get a grant for some crazy scheme as long as
you are willing to have Uncle Sam looking over your shoulder.

I am self employed small business owner. If I get too big, I would have
to incorporate, which is just another way that Uncle Sam is always
there. So yeah there is plenty of social involvement in our government.
I choose to stay small and below the radar. I don't take any handouts,
which may mean I will never make the top 500 companies, but that is the
price of freedom, but then my knickers are not in a knot!

I also find that generally the conservatives try to go down the
socialistic slide slower than the liberals, at least in areas that
normally affect me on a daily basis! Selfish isolation, I know, but I
just want to be left alone. Red or Blue, I really don't care the color
of the hat of the task masters! TnT

Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What
suddenly
brought that up? Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by
"socialism"?

He usually does... That's his way of labelling everyone who's not as
explicitly extreme right wing politically as he is.

Wilko, are you acknowledging that you are right wing, not just
"explicitly extreme right wing?" TnT

Don't dare to point out the obvious wrongs and shortcomings of the
U.S.,
or he'll take this we're "superior" stance... and he probably
believes
it as well. :-)

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
===============
You say though that we are out of step with the prevailing global
position. Can you share what you feel that opinion generally would
amount to. I have heard so much scuttlebut about left and right, red
an
blue, that I am interested in your fresh insight. That way we could
discuss specifics.
==================

There is too much to comment on. Let's start by recalling polling
done
in many (I can only assume all) western, developed nations. In not
one
poll did the people of these nations prefer Bush over Kerry. In fact,
had the election been global, it would have been a clear landslide
for
the Democrats.

But now, even Sorros, the arch Democrat and supporter of Kerry in the
last election, has come out and acknowledged that Kerry was not the
right man for the job.

As to polls in general, they only show what the pollsters are trying to
present. We had a poll recently, it was called the election, and it is
the only poll that counts, at least as far as we are concerned.

As to specifics, there are too many to mention. Here's a few
(comparing
Republican doctrine with prevailing western attitudes outside of the
USA): abortion, capital punishment, decriminalization of recreational
drugs, gay unions, possession of unnecessay firearms, Kyoto,..... and
on, and on, and on....

Other than Kyoto, these are all internal issues that are our business.
How are they your concern. Try abortion, or capital punishment,
decriminalization of rec drugs, gay unions, or firearm unless you plan
on invading us. How do thes affect world politics.

Regarding Kyoto, it would have been a terrible treaty for us to become
a part of, and even the recent blue president recognized that, and
luckily the Congress as well. Should we just agree to something because
the rest of the world says it is good for them if we are hamstringing
ourselves. Come up with a win/win treaty and you may get more support.

What else is in the "on, and on, and on?" I would still like specifics
that affect the global position. TnT

Cheers,
frtzw906
==========

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Scott Weiser says:
============
We are under no obligation to conform to your liberal
socialist agenda
================

I don't recall having said anything about "socialism". What suddenly
brought that up?

It's implicit in your arguments.

Oh, and by the way, what do you mean by "socialism"?

Go find a dictionary.


Further, you're right: you are not under any obligation to conform to
anyone else's agenda. And, for that matter, neither is the elected
government of Afghanistan, for example, under any obligation to conform
to western ideals of human rights (including those of women and gays).

Quite right.

Or, maybe they are? What say you Scott Weiser?

Depends. If we view the government of another country as being dangerous to
our national interests, or if we feel that the government is a totalitarian
regime that oppresses people, we may choose to intervene and facilitate a
regime change.


All of the above notwithstanding, please do the rest of the world a
favor; don't foist your notions on us.

Why not? Our notions are good ones, and I have no compunctions about
"foisting" them upon tyrants and totalitarian regimes in order that the
people who live under oppression are given the opportunity to choose freely
what form of government will best security the blessings of liberty for
them. Nor will I shrink from "foisting" them upon nations that pose a threat
to the security or national interests of the United States. If you don't
like that, too bad. If you threaten us, however indirectly, we will act.

If that ends up being, for example, a democratically-elected theocracy, so
be it. All we require is that the people be given a legitimate opportunity
to make that choice freely and that the resulting government not threaten
world peace, regional stability or US strategic interests, and that it
continue to regularly provide for free elections to validate the choice.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

are trying to export that what they call "democracy".

Wah. Democracy works. Socialism doesn't.

The irony is that you didn't even get what he said.

Oh but I did.


We care deeply what you think. We just think you're deluded and oppressed,
and we want to educate you about the benefits of representative democracy
and capitalism, which is what makes the US the most powerful, influential
and free nation on the planet.

So Americans are free and everyone else is oppressed?

Pretty much.

I guess you've never
read the Patriot Act of other gross abuses of freedom.

Actually, I have. Have you? Can you cite the "gross abuses of freedom" you
claim the Patriot Act includes?

American influence
is waning because of your arrogance and gradually declining economic status.

Every nation has its ups and downs. Still, people are clamoring to get here
and buy our products.

100 years ago, Britain was the world power; fifty years later it was broke
and losing influence. Why should anyone believe the yanks will last any
longer given that they pay almost no attention to the reality of what's
going on around them?

Not subscribing to the political dogmas of the rest of the world is
different than paying no attention. We pay close attention. We choose not to
subscribe to policies that we believe are harmful to liberty and freedom.


To assume that the US is the only free and democratic nation is both naive
and a grotesque misrepresentation of facts.

Really? Cite me one single nation other than the US that is both democratic
and protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

If you don't have a right to keep and bear arms, you are not, ipso facto,
free, you are a slave to your government because you do not have the
capacity to overthrow it should it become a tyranny.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

TnT says:
=============
I would still like specifics that affect the global position
================

Look, your initial question was not about "global positions". You
simply asked how or where global public opinion differed from
Republican doctrine. I gave you examples. Now you tell me that's not
ood enough. Well, why don't you clarify what you want to discuss to
begin with.

As to your election and polls. Of course it was YOUR election to
decide. And, as you'll recall, that was my starting point in this
thread. I simply pointed out that the "rest of the western" world would
have elected Kerry and the Democrats. I don't need you to point out
that our opinion carries no weight in the USA. That's a fact but,
more's the pity IMHO. As to whether Kerry was a good candidate or not:
that's irrelevant. In the eyes of the "rest of the western world" (and
surely also in the eyes of Soros), Kerry, for all his deficiencies, was
preferable to Bush. We don't need to argue this as there are plenty of
polls which attest to this fact.

If you doubt the polls, try listening to media from around the world.
Try BBC. Try Deutsche Welle. Try Radio Nederland. Try CBC. Listen not
just to the commentators, but listen to the voices of the people (BBC
has call-in talk radio). The disdain for your president is palpable.

OK. you want one specific. The mood in Canada wrt to drug
legalization/decriminalization is light years (editorial opinion on my
part) ahead of the USA and fairly close to attitudes in much of Europe.
Whenever Canadian politicians make noises about enacting more
progressive legislation, Canada needs to listen to "warnings" from the
US ambassador about how such policies might have dire consequences for
Canada-US trade. You ask me, " How are they your concern." I'll turn
that around on you: How or why is Canadian drug policy a concern to the
USA.?

Cheers,
frtzw906
++++++++++++++++++++++

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 10-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Are you stating that merely because conservatives of various political and
religious persuasions work steadily and organize to achieve their common
political objectives that this makes them all members of the "Christian
Right?"

No but Viguerie includes the Christian Right in the groups that he lumps
together. They exist as organized groups that are able to be represented
when they whole mess work together.

And that's a problem because....?


Are you claiming that there is no Christian Right? All Christians are
left wingers?

No, I merely point out that there is no such thing as the "Christian Right"
as an organization. It's a sound-bite label attached to conservatives in
general that is used as a device of demonization by the left.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser