h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Rocket Rod,

When have I ever advocated that the United State should intervene in foriegn affairs? The answer would be that I haven't.

I don't want to bother the rest of the world.

Flinch,

Have you read the Constitution? What industry did the Constitution nationalize? The government was set up to have 'minimal state control' over the lives of citizens. That's virtually the definition of capitalism.

Now we've come to a point where the federal government is creeping into more and more places where it doesn't belong. It took over a hundred years to start that process. We are becoming more and more socialistic.

I think its great when I run into someone who has more than I do. It reaffirms my belief in the system. One of the perks of my profession is that I get to cruise through expensive neighborhoods, and occasionally go through million dollar homes. They have rooms whose purpose I can't even fathom. I think it's great.

If you don't have a job in this country, you don't really want one. I see help wanted signs everywhere. My agency can't find enough people to employ. We have to send recruiters out of state.

I don't think anyone is entitled to a comfortable living. I think you should earn it. I live a comfortbale lifestyle, but both my wfie and I work over 40 hours a week to maintain it. Why should someone get what I have for nothing?

>Socialism is when society is ordered for the benefit of its citizens.

That definiton is so broad that it is useless.

So we were the aggressors when the North Koreans invaded South Korea? When Iraq invaded Kuwait?

I don't know enough about the causes of Vietnam. We clearly took over in Panama, although I think we were justified.

>>Socialism is when society is ordered for the benefit of its citizens.
That definiton is so broad that it is useless.<<

But that is the definition of the aims of socialism, if you can see that, maybe it's you that's useless. I mean that in the nicest possible way of course.


>>'minimal state control' over the lives of citizens. That's virtually the definition of capitalism.<<

Not at all, look at an advanced capitalist society and you see the state organised to aid industry, business and capitalist institutions to the expence of the citizen, the individual, the worker. Therefore terrible and strict controls are imposed on their lives, in order to stifle disent and advance profit.

Capitalism looks to the state to bolster its power.

'minimal state control' is a anarchist / libetarian communist ideal.

Mosambique, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Laos, Cuba, yes Vietnam, Bolivia, Libya, yes Iraq (certainly the second time - along side the brits - way the agressors).

I grant you, by that definition the United States is set up as a socialist nation. That's absurd.

I don't really see the controls of this nation as being all that strict.

Iarq, what do you mean second time?

Aw c'mon Two Bit you're an ex marine from the Gulf War aren't you? I too was a participant in an economic war called Viet Nam, that too was all about OIL. Check it out, Standard Oil(esso, exxon etc.)knew all about the China Sea oil before WWII. I spent an absolutly 'orrible time jumping out of choppers picking up the detrius of war as a medic/rescue specialist. And quite honestly, I've seen enough of American Imerialism. Always it seems that America(the state) is looking for an excuse to keep the military/industrial complex viable.
Bombs = Balanced Economy
Oh that's right who said "We aught to bomb them back to the stone age?" points for correct answer
Rocket

I was a soldier, not a marine. I am a veteran of the Gulf War.

Vietnam really has never interested me all that much, except for the music of the era. I just slap don't know all that much about it. I recall hearing that it was about oil or tin. I thought it was more of a mineral wealth thing.

"We aught to bomb them back to the stone age?" I don't know, but I have a feeling they were talking about an enemy that wasn't much past the stone age.

Two Bit my friend you really should read more of your own history, it's a very intriguing story. Full of pirates and invasions of other peoples lands(Hawaii & Phillipines spring to mind), it's wonderfully revealing. I mean, who else but the US could declare that all guano(bird s**t) in the Pacific belonged to US corporate interests? And then enforce it by sailing into Tokyo(then Edo)harbour to fire a couple of shells at the palace?
Rocket
Individuals are cool, states suck

Well, there's a lot of it, and some of it isn't all that interesting. I don't find Vietnam to be terribly interesting.

And Grenada, Sudan, the Philippines, Dominican Republic, Chile, Angola, Mexico, Lebanon...

Second Time? The way i remember it:

Iraq - Invaded Kuwait (fairlly peacefully as invasions go, and with fairly good justifications, and after asking washington if it would be ok - of all the reasons to go to war with Iraq this was one of the poorest), the US led force (desert shield / sword) went in, with some UN support.

Than a copule of years later there's some domestic upheaval when some guy gets his cock caught in his flies and some woman forgets to launder a dress, all of a sudden it's carpet bombing and strategic strikes all over again. The second time.


And that's just military intervention, what about all the covert terrorism on the part of the CIA, all the Christic Institute stuff, what about the economic blockades, and Reagan's beautiful phrase "Food Aid is our most powerful weapon".

This is all being done in your name.

flinch,

I've actually re-read this 2-3 times, I wanted to make sure that I took in the entire scope of the post, to be fair to the thought you've put into it.

SO, responses:

No I do not have a problem with those who have more wealth than I do, irregardless of how hard they work now. As long as that money is earned legitemately. I have an obvious problem with illegal riches.


"1. That there just aren't enough jobs in an industrialised society to employ everyone. Someone has to be on welfare (equally do you grudge the elderly, children or the infirm the right to sit on there a**es and rake it in?)" I don't know that there aren't enough jobs so much as their isn't an adequate training system in place. High School does little to prepare our children for the workplace. They are graduating without skills. Actually I would venture to say that many of them graduate without any kind of desire to excel in the workplace and that is Really what the problem is, however that is a different topic altogether.

"2. That many people on welfare may be constructively unemployed, perhaps they are carers, artists, mothers, community leaders" If you lead my community you'd better not be feeding off of it I'll tell you that much. But as far as being actively employed...I don't know I just find it hard to understand how you can not make ends meet. There were times in my life when I worked three different jobs and STILL went to school. Why three, they didn't want to accomadate my schedule as a student and still give me a full time work schedule, so I wound up juggling all three...Not to tout my own horn(although I guess that I am) I did it, so can someone else. I didn't have outside help, I lived on mac and cheese for almost two years (oh yeah, its possible). When someone has the drive, there will be a way. I could have asked for wellfare, I would have qualified, but I chose not to, let those who REALLY need it have it. So this is precisely one of the situations that p**ses me off. A mother on the other hand is something else again. There is quite a bit of leeway there in my mind, and that is part of the problem when talking about this sort of thing, every case is different.

"3. That most people on welfare probibly don't behave anything like that, and that most do not have lifestyles immediately comparable to your own. However i would imagine that you're lifestyle is not outrageously extravagant or lavish, just normal, and isn't everyone entitles to a normal, comfortable lifestyle?" Let me clarify a little, or rather I've said it already in my answer to two. Comparable to my lifestyle as a young man trying to straighten my life out...hey nothing wrong with that standard of living. I learned a lot, and am better for the experience. I think everyone should go through that. Comparable to my standard of living now, well I don't know about that, I earned everything around me.


About the free choices,

You sure can choose not to follow the laws, and then you are free to accept the consequences of that. I think what you are getting at though is that you don't have the choice to not participate in our society. And I can't help anyone there, blame you parents maybe. But you can leave whenever you want and go somewhere else to live without government intervention. Maybe the forests of Africa or something. But, there is still the choice.

On the sound of freedom,

The planes remind me of the soldiers and the nation they stood for in time of need, to buy us our freedom. That is the sound of freedom. As far as what it means to a Kosovar...I concede that you are probably right, but I'm staying away from that because I don't know much about the conflict. Other than I think that our military had been tied up in other countries way to long, particularly in places where we aren't doing any apparent good, and it is my opinion that they should come home. I'm not against sending the military in to intervene(should the cause be just or honorable) but I am against our soldiers being police officers.

To answer my own question back in post 407.
Who said "We should bomb them back to the stone-age"
Said by H. Kissinger just prior to Arc Light
About Cambodia a non-beligerant
Why? ask Kissinger and Standard Oil
Amazing isn't it that the US only gets involved where there is OIL?
Stuffed a whole civilization and caused directly or indirectly the Khemer Rouge devestation
Now that's politics US style and Collon POWELL is still playing that same old tune

Oil is pretty important to the United States. Things that threaten the oil supply threaten the economic stability of the United States.

So what are you upset with Colin Powell for?

If I remember correctly,

Vietnam was a French Colony. They had tried and tried to get us to give them military aide in defending their colony from their rebelious population. As it turned out we refused, and continued to refuse right up until the point that it became obvious the rebels were of communist inclination, and the French were leaving. It is also my understanding that there were pro-democracy sentiments also, and thus the split. So I don't really believe that it was about it oil so much as it was about power plays between two schools of thought, communism in corner one and democracy in corner two. Although I think it is probably one of many motivations for the prolonged nature of the conflict. The original intent was to train them how to fight their own wars.

Been (for me) an interesting night I'll get back to you tomorrow as it is now 3.30AM local. Good night
Rocket

Middle of the day 1230.

I spent an entire day here. Currently, it's 1558. I need to go run some errands, and be ready for work at 2200.

So use your own oil.

And get yourself an economic system which is more sustainable.

Don&#8217;t go steaming round the world stealing everyone else&#8217;s oil just because everyone in the US thinks they have the god given right to run not only a car but the biggest car possible. If you can&#8217;t produce it yourself, and you can&#8217;t get it without military intervention, then you&#8217;re going to be in big trouble sooner or later.

So if say a company employs a private army to shoot workers who are not working in the prescribed manner, who are refusing to work or are protesting about working conditions?

You wouldn't say that that was overly strict, or an example of the state legislating to allow capitalism to flourish at the expense of the people.

That's just reasonable is it?