Bailout: How Would You Vote?

[sonofccn]

this is what is wrong with so much of our current foreign policy. "Improvement of all" is propaganda, pure and simple. The Iraqis have gone from fearing that the Baathist police will take them to the torture chamber to fearing that they'll get blown up on the way to the bazaar. Real improvement there.

I see Iraqis don't deserve a democratic goverment, there are just distant people of no concern to anyone. They should live under thugs and be gratefull for it.

I'm curious, if you had a choice of living on your knees or fighting what would you choose?

Wind the clock back to 2001. We had elected what was arguably the most militarily experienced administration yet. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell. And yet, here we are. If our military is so all-powerful, why don't we just roll into North Korea and shut down Yongbyan ourselves?

Political realities are political realities. In Korea's case we have to weigh the damage they could inflict on South Korea, apparently thier capitol among other things is in easy range of missiles, as well as what China would feel about it's puppet being destroyed.

Why didn't we roll into Georgia to defend it? Because, despite our enormous military budget (some 600 billion dollars, larger than the next ten spenders put together) our military isn't implacable.

If it could be contained to a convential conflict the assets we had in the region, chosen by Russia because of it's hard to reach for us nature, the russian armywould have been decimated, correction reduced to scrap totaly. Thier equipment is old, many older soldiers were pulled back into service to fight, and had a relativly large millitia/bandits support. Thier army, in a preplanned invasion, took what three days to take half hte country. Do you really think if the US decided to invade Mexico with months of planning and troop preparment that we couldn't take the whole chunk of land in a fraction of that time?

And all the countries that stand up to us have a deadly trump card: insurgent warfare. As advanced as our technology is, our tactics have remained largely unchanged since World War II.

you realize that if the insurgents were inflicting todays death tolls on the Greatest Generation it wouldn't even have made the news reels right? It's effectiveness deals more with how soft mankind has grown. You also realize Iraq had improved remarkable since the surge, a change in tactics to combat insurgents right? So no, obviously tactics have changed.

So, if military power can't do the job with them, what's left? Diplomacy.

Diplomacy only works when the other side of the table knows they can not get everything they want. If you pose no threat to them why the hell should they stop conquring, enslaving, or A-bomb building? The likes of China, Russia, Iran will only listen to reason when they know the alternative means being hung in the public square.

If anything, the first years of the 21st century have proved that military power is virtually useless in a new order where insurgents armed with homemade bombs and 50-year old Russian antipersonnel equipment can resist the most advanced and powerful military in the world.

I may be wrong but I don't think Putin would enjoy that as he sits in a bunker. A country with assets generaly won't consider it a "Success" when those assets are converted into debris or captured. Obviously Insurgents are par for the course of 21th century warefare, but no more differnt then they have been through the ages. France lost spain because of such tactics after all so it's not like it's some brand new invention.

Ahmadinejad knows he can't defeat the US or Israel in a conventional war. We'd stomp the Revolutionary Guard flat, as would Israel.

Somehow I don't think it would please him much to kick the Great Satan out after his country has been destroyed and himself brought to justice so even if the Iranian insurgents could push us out the threat of war would wiegh heavy on his head, if he thought we would do it. The world opinon however prefer we talk to him so he knows are hands are tied. In the end Israel will nodoubt have to perform another bombing mission, get demonized for it while the rest of the world breaths a collective sigh of relief in secret.

If we'd have given our soldiers training in the customs, culture, and language of the Middle East, they could look like everyone else, speak like everyone else, and follow our enemies wherever they choose to run.

While obviously things could have gone better, overall the troops performed adrimaly with Iraqi forces working side by side with them as we stablize the wartorn nation.

But as it stands, our threat of force no longer carries any weight.

IF that was true Russia would be stumbling across Eastern europe, China would be gobbling up Tiwian and South Korea and in general the world would return to it's natureal order. Since such actions are not the case, there is still quite a healthy fear of being humilated on the battlefield. I mean your pinning it all on insurgents how have not won Iraq and in fact are losing in what was the central battlefield according to the terroists

The circumstances of warfare have changed, and our methods must change with them. People who believe they're unstoppable invite others to prove them wrong.

The whole if you fight us in battle you have already lost part I think strongly favors the unstoppable idea. Despite fighting with unbeliviable restrictions, rules and regulations we can smite just about any army that could dare oppose us. Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on have not yet won anything so military wise a dictators options would be to have his butt kicked, be captured and tried and hung leaving behind an insurgency that may or may not accomplish anything within the next few decades

[Jedi Master Spock]

Fine you nailed me on an exageration. The point remains there are evil men in power and the bulk of the world either doesn't care or sees it as a benifite.

The bulk of the world has very little contact with North Korea. The US has joined much of the rest of the world in supporting convenient but reliable dictatorships throughout recent history, so other nations supporting their own interests is hardly unusual. You might review the long and curious history of Saddam Hussein, a man often described as evil in the US - and a man who could not have managed to do a quarter of what he accomplished without US support.

How many deals did we make with Korea? Didn't they promise not to do it and then behold they went ahead and did it.

How much antagonism between Kim Jong Il and the Bush administration preceded that test?

Quite a bit. It started very early in the Bush administration, with the US stopping oil shipments in 2002. In response, North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors and put its nuclear program into high gear.

Following the test, we have seen substantial progress - as a result of heightened diplomatic (not military) efforts.

Works better then a UN resolution

UN resolutions took apart Iraq's active chemical and biological weapons programs quite effectively. As was confirmed pretty well in the wake of the invasion, when - surprise! - no WMDs.

:) If you want to call that diplomacy I have no qualms with it. I have nothing against diplomacy just people who think eveyr problem can be solved if we just ask nicely enough.

It was a complete surprise. Nobody expected Libya to have a program well under way.

As a result, it was also a diplomatic coup of sorts by Libya. They cut an expensive weapons program, and in return got a lot of immediate political capital, which has benefited them.

Considering the number of wars that have happened since 1945 (a fair number much bloodier), it's no wonder that North Korea's leadership concluded that owning a nuclear weapon was one way to avoid pre-emptive attacks by the United States. Perceived military threats have generated most of the world's nuclear programs, and accelerated the largest of them.

You are defending N. Korea? A two bit piece of {CENSORED} nation that is in dire straights but chose to develop nuclear weapons. You can not see the problem with a dictator possing nuclear weapons?

I simply explained why North Korea developed its nuclear weapons program. I can see why it is a potential problem, especially with Tokyo in striking distance. I also understand why Kim Jong Il might have deemed it necessary to demonstrate nuclear capability before the Americans were finished in Iraq, given Bush's rhetoric and foreign policy doctrines. Having that deterrent spelled security for him.

It's equally important to understand the whys and the hows as the whats here - because if you're not sure how things got this way, or why these nations act as they do on the world stage, you're not going to have a very good solution on hand to the problem.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to show. I used N. Korea and Iran nuclear goals as an example of what diplomacy,minus the threat of total obliteration if one did not comply, resulted in. The same can be expected over any peace treaty, negoations, etc.

Historical backdrop. Nuclear weapons are a very effective deterrent against organized military attack, as Oppenheimer predicted during the Manhattan Project. The idea of nukes flying around is utterly terrifying to most people.

Of course, he had more or less assumed that all countries would get their hands on it, and that we'd therefore pretty much see the end of war as we knew it, but I think he overlooked how expensive the bomb has remained to develop, or how tightly the nuclear club would control the technology.

I did actually miss one. There was a little war between India and Pakistan just after they both got the bomb. Everybody was very nervous. Oppenheimer also overlooked that people sometimes act irrationally.

[sonofccn]

The bulk of the world has very little contact with North Korea. The US has joined much of the rest of the world in supporting convenient but reliable dictatorships throughout recent history, so other nations supporting their own interests is hardly unusual. You might review the long and curious history of Saddam Hussein, a man often described as evil in the US - and a man who could not have managed to do a quarter of what he accomplished without US support.

This goes beyond mere Korea. When was the last time the world supported actually doing anything to fix the problems? They've signed resoultions but little else. As to Saddam yes we gave him support since he was against Iran which we viewed as the bigger threat. We chose the lesser of two evils, of course we weren't alone in that. I mean Russia, France, China etc sold large quanities of weapons and lent thier own support to Saddam, more then what we did.

How much antagonism between Kim Jong Il and the Bush administration preceded that test?

You mean after he had already broken his promises to Clinton? Kim Jong Il wanted to build a Nuke and talking to him wouldn't have changed a thing.

Following the test, we have seen substantial progress - as a result of heightened diplomatic (not military) efforts.

The give Kim Jong everything he wants and maybe....maybe he might acutally keep his word unless you know you don't give in fast enough or it's monday or if a thousand other things. That is not diplomacy that is being held over a barrel. He knows he has us exactly where he wants us and we are forced to accept it.

UN resolutions took apart Iraq's active chemical and biological weapons programs quite effectively.

Correction. The UN issued some resolutions, the US tore the country apart and secured it. Then maybe some UN offiacls wonder in. The pieces of paper wouldn't have been worth the paper it was made off if not for direct military force.

As was confirmed pretty well in the wake of the invasion, when - surprise! - no WMDs.

Correction. We found no atomic bombs. We did find toxic gas IIRC which falls under the WMD lable and was forbiden by the treaty. The UN must have missed it, being so busy with you know the oil for food thing or something. We also found several tons of yellowcake, enough to make a bomb or two. I seriously doubt Sadam planned peaceful thoughts with them.

It was a complete surprise. Nobody expected Libya to have a program well under way.

As a result, it was also a diplomatic coup of sorts by Libya. They cut an expensive weapons program, and in return got a lot of immediate political capital, which has benefited them.

The fact that one less unstable nation has nukes is cause enough to celebrate. If you disagree with how libya was handled after it's disarming I see no reason to quarrel. So the case is 1 nuke program scrapped by military intervention(even if indirect) and no succesful diplomatic action.

I simply explained why North Korea developed its nuclear weapons program.

Obviously N. Korea associated nukes with prestige and power. The question is why should we care why N. Korea wanted them, they shouldn't have them. They are a threat to the world.

It's equally important to understand the whys and the hows as the whats here - because if you're not sure how things got this way, or why these nations act as they do on the world stage, you're not going to have a very good solution on hand to the problem.

Kim Jong Il, like all evil dictators, craves power above all else. Nukes give him power, ergo he wants them. He will lie, cheat, and swindle to get his way up until he dies. At this point our best option would be fund internal unrest and hope a uprising takes him out.

Historical backdrop. Nuclear weapons are a very effective deterrent against organized military attack, as Oppenheimer predicted during the Manhattan Project. The idea of nukes flying around is utterly terrifying to most people.

Hence why guys like Kim jong should not have them. Once you become a member of the nuclear club you are defacto untouchable unless you do something stupid, on the lines of directly attacking another member of the nuclear club. I do not want an untouchable Iran, which is proceeding onward towards it because it knows we won't attack. That the world would prefer more UN meetings on the subject then take action.

In the end I find the world to be one funny drama. I keep thinking of the deals made with Hitler and the cost of blood and treasure needed to correct that mistake. I can't help but shake the feeling that fifty to hundred years from now we will be doing this all over again with todays politicians being refrenced... and so it goes.

One final note. I have watched you debate and sat in awe and respect for what you have done. I've seen you unravel illogical arguments seemingly effortlessly. The fact that you and I appear to be on differnt polars of the issue gives me great pause because I know you are a logical and fairheaded person. I know I can wrong, misinformed, or just bull headed, but you much less so. If you believe what you believe there must be a good reason, even if I can not understand it. Just something I wanted to add just for the record.

[Cocytus]

this is what is wrong with so much of our current foreign policy. "Improvement of all" is propaganda, pure and simple. The Iraqis have gone from fearing that the Baathist police will take them to the torture chamber to fearing that they'll get blown up on the way to the bazaar. Real improvement there.

I see Iraqis don't deserve a democratic goverment, there are just distant people of no concern to anyone. They should live under thugs and be gratefull for it.

I'm curious, if you had a choice of living on your knees or fighting what would you choose?

Wind the clock back to 2001. We had elected what was arguably the most militarily experienced administration yet. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell. And yet, here we are. If our military is so all-powerful, why don't we just roll into North Korea and shut down Yongbyan ourselves?

Political realities are political realities. In Korea's case we have to weigh the damage they could inflict on South Korea, apparently thier capitol among other things is in easy range of missiles, as well as what China would feel about it's puppet being destroyed.

Why didn't we roll into Georgia to defend it? Because, despite our enormous military budget (some 600 billion dollars, larger than the next ten spenders put together) our military isn't implacable.

If it could be contained to a convential conflict the assets we had in the region, chosen by Russia because of it's hard to reach for us nature, the russian armywould have been decimated, correction reduced to scrap totaly. Thier equipment is old, many older soldiers were pulled back into service to fight, and had a relativly large millitia/bandits support. Thier army, in a preplanned invasion, took what three days to take half hte country. Do you really think if the US decided to invade Mexico with months of planning and troop preparment that we couldn't take the whole chunk of land in a fraction of that time?

And all the countries that stand up to us have a deadly trump card: insurgent warfare. As advanced as our technology is, our tactics have remained largely unchanged since World War II.

you realize that if the insurgents were inflicting todays death tolls on the Greatest Generation it wouldn't even have made the news reels right? It's effectiveness deals more with how soft mankind has grown. You also realize Iraq had improved remarkable since the surge, a change in tactics to combat insurgents right? So no, obviously tactics have changed.

So, if military power can't do the job with them, what's left? Diplomacy.

Diplomacy only works when the other side of the table knows they can not get everything they want. If you pose no threat to them why the hell should they stop conquring, enslaving, or A-bomb building? The likes of China, Russia, Iran will only listen to reason when they know the alternative means being hung in the public square.

If anything, the first years of the 21st century have proved that military power is virtually useless in a new order where insurgents armed with homemade bombs and 50-year old Russian antipersonnel equipment can resist the most advanced and powerful military in the world.

I may be wrong but I don't think Putin would enjoy that as he sits in a bunker. A country with assets generaly won't consider it a "Success" when those assets are converted into debris or captured. Obviously Insurgents are par for the course of 21th century warefare, but no more differnt then they have been through the ages. France lost spain because of such tactics after all so it's not like it's some brand new invention.

Ahmadinejad knows he can't defeat the US or Israel in a conventional war. We'd stomp the Revolutionary Guard flat, as would Israel.

Somehow I don't think it would please him much to kick the Great Satan out after his country has been destroyed and himself brought to justice so even if the Iranian insurgents could push us out the threat of war would wiegh heavy on his head, if he thought we would do it. The world opinon however prefer we talk to him so he knows are hands are tied. In the end Israel will nodoubt have to perform another bombing mission, get demonized for it while the rest of the world breaths a collective sigh of relief in secret.

If we'd have given our soldiers training in the customs, culture, and language of the Middle East, they could look like everyone else, speak like everyone else, and follow our enemies wherever they choose to run.

While obviously things could have gone better, overall the troops performed adrimaly with Iraqi forces working side by side with them as we stablize the wartorn nation.

But as it stands, our threat of force no longer carries any weight.

IF that was true Russia would be stumbling across Eastern europe, China would be gobbling up Tiwian and South Korea and in general the world would return to it's natureal order. Since such actions are not the case, there is still quite a healthy fear of being humilated on the battlefield. I mean your pinning it all on insurgents how have not won Iraq and in fact are losing in what was the central battlefield according to the terroists

The circumstances of warfare have changed, and our methods must change with them. People who believe they're unstoppable invite others to prove them wrong.

The whole if you fight us in battle you have already lost part I think strongly favors the unstoppable idea. Despite fighting with unbeliviable restrictions, rules and regulations we can smite just about any army that could dare oppose us. Once again the insurgents you pin your hopes on have not yet won anything so military wise a dictators options would be to have his butt kicked, be captured and tried and hung leaving behind an insurgency that may or may not accomplish anything within the next few decades

"I pin my hopes on?!" You dare impugn my patriotism just because I don't agree with the party line? Worse still, you imply I'm antiamerican because I advocate caution and intelligence, rather than the empty chest-thumping bravado our farcically incompetent administration has given the world for 8 years? Because I think we could be doing much better than we are, because I think some things about America desperately need to be changed, all of a sudden I'm "palling around" with terrorists? IS THAT IT?

Surely you realize how offensive that statement was.

Getting back to the issue. The surge it not a change in tactics. It's just like the bailout. We're throwing money and troops at the problem. If we had considered how to wage the War on Terror from the beginning, we might have accomplished our goals without the loss of 4000 American troops, god only knows how many Iraqis and the destruction of most of Iraq's infrastructure. (That sure sounds like an antiamerican sentiment, right? Advocating proper training to limit the number of troop deaths?) The surge hasn't "worked." You see some signs of progress and you're quick to say "oh, it worked. And anyone who disagrees is antiamerican and wants us to fail." That's patently absurd and deeply offensive. That's Rush Limbaugh talking. The truth is, Iraq is riddled with antagonism between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as tribes. Without solving those inherent divisions, there's little hope of the country maintaining peace when we leave. I supposed you think we can do the same for Iraq we did for Japan after WW2. But Japan has no such deep cultural divisions. Unfortunately, the root of the Middle East's political problems go as far back as 1919, when the Ottoman Empire fell and the triumphant European powers carelessly divided the "sick man of Europe's" spoils without paying any attention to the cultures that were already entrenched there.

Reckless jingoism is a threat to the world whether you're Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or a SFJ debater. What was it Dick Cheney said, back in 2005? "The Iraq insurgency is in its last throes?"

[Who is like God arbour]

• • Let me refresh your memory: Your first sentence was:
    
    • • • • What is best for the individual is best for Mankind because Mankind is merely a way of referring to the individuals, all six billion of us.

  Yes. There is no "Mankind" in any meaniful sense, and I believe free people making thier own decisions will ultimatly lead to the best results. That doesn't mean mistakes won't be made however.

And as I have shown, it is not good for all, if everyone is doing, what would be good for oneself. It's not a mistake, if one does, what is good for oneself, but, because all are doing, what are good for themselves, it can - under certain circumstances - be bad for all. It seems, as if you have not understood the principle of a rationality trap. But I don't know, how I have to explain it else to you.

• • That's funny. I have always thought, that economics is done by human beings and that it is their greed and ruthlessness, that is especially promoted in a capitalism economy, which promotes competition, that leads to the disadvantages, the whole majority of mankind has to bear for the good of a minority.

  1. Free market is no more prone to human error then any other form so claiming that humanity makes mistakes and therefore free market is at an disadvantage is a mistake.
  2. You have yet to prove Free market causes more disadvantages then other systems.

I have already explained, that real free market results always in monopolies because, sooner or later, all competitors are squeezed out of the market. That means, that competition will result sooner or later in non-competition. There will be one company in an economic niche which will have no competitors and, if it offers goods, which are essential, can dictate the prices. Even the USA knows that and has turned its back on a real market economy by creating antitrust agencies to prevent, what is the logical result of a real free market.

Free market means also that companies are independent. But in a modern and globalised economy, no company is really independent. As we are seeing now, the failure of some companies can plunge the whole economy into chaos and, when it comes down to it, the community has to bear the risks. The now 800'000'000'000 USD are, when it comes down to it, taxpayers' money.

Free market is a wastage of resources because companies aren't working together although they are doing all the same and could save resources, if they would work together if the have the same goal.

• • Wrong with this is - among other things - that, as you have said yourself, humans are not perfect and will make mistakes. What would have happened, if such a mistake, a wrong decision, would have resulted in the obliteration of mankind?

  You can't get ride of risk, so yes there is a chance someone could start nuclear holocaust. The alternative would be to invite the invasion of less friendly nations so which is more preferable to you? The slight risk of total destruction or the very likely risk that should you disarm you will be conqured?
  
  
  

  • Instead of an arms race, as recent history has shown, diplomacy and cooperation is a better way to resolve misunderstandings and sort out differences. But that is a lesson, the USA has, as it seems, still to learn.

  To quote you there is so much wrong with this I don't know where to began but I'll attempt.
  
  1. I have news for you. Most nations on this world are run by evil men and just as you could not reason with Stalin or Hitler you can not reason with the leader of N. Korea or Iran without the threat of force.
  2. The latter half of the 20th century and the early 21th have blanantly shown that diplomacy is virtually useless, N. Korea develped nuclear weapons and Iran is running headlong towards them.
  3. The only reason the world is stable as opposed to it's normal state which is chaotic is because the United States spends a large,through in my opinion not large enough, amount of cash to maintain the greatest army Earth has ever seen and uses it for the improvment for all.
  4. Germany could learn a lesson from the US, as could the rest of Europe, and start building armies again. Okay the United Kingdom does have a decent armed forces, so to be clear I'm not refering to them in that statment through they could undoubtably build a larger one.

Do I understand you correct, that you think that the only alternative to having nuclear weapons would be an invasion (or a war)?

If that is so, I don't understand, why you can't understand, why nations (Iran, North Korea etc.), who are threatened by the USA are wanting their own nuclear weapons.

I understand, that it is a guarantee for sovereignty. No nation, that has nuclear weapons, will be attacked.

But that is exactly a rationality trap. From the viewpoint of each nation, it is the only and logical conclusion. But it leads sooner or later to nuclear weapons for all nations.

And that's exactly what we don't want. And how can we achieve our goal? By making nuclear weapons expendable. And we can do that, if we show all nations, that they won't be attacked because they have another opinion than we have.

The USA is making exactly the opposite of that and with that is fueling the need for nuclear weapons.

But I won't debate that point further. As I see, there are enough, who are arguing it already.

• • Ever heard of the Long Depression or the Great Depression?

  No I had not heard of hte long Depression, I thought all economic problems were refered to as Panics before the 30's era. Yes I have heard of the great depression through it was not caused by people saving and not spending as far as I know. However what is the point? Free market isn't perfect and yes you have down cycles, some quite sever but I don't see what this proves.

Read the sources, to which I have linked.
Dramatic drops in demand and credit were one cause for both depressions. But that was not the point. It was merely another example to illustrate the rationality trap:

• • • • Increasing saving (or "thrift") is obviously good for an individual, since it provides for retirement or a "rainy day," but if everyone saves more, it may cause a recession by reducing consumer demand.

You have doubted that everyone will save at the same time and have argued that while some are saving others are spending what they saved be it for a new car, bigger house etc. In a depression, the majority will save and, what the minority is spending, is not enough to prevent a recession.

• • The problem is, that not only the company will have problems, but the whole economy. The whole industry depends on energy - and oil is predominantly an energy carrier. If there is no oil and no ample alternatives, not only the oil company will suffer, but the whole industry and with it the whole economy and, when it comes down to it, innocent people.

  Yes. You would have another Great Depression, fortaunces would be lost and people will suffer but they will survive and prosper. Just as people lost, from the rubble new fortuances will be made. I didn't say I wanted this to happen only that if the worst came to worst it owuld be better for people to be burned and learn thier lesson and grow up then being babied thier entire lives by nanny government.
  
  
  

  • That's the problem in a globalised economy, as you are seeing in the current financial crisis. According to you, the banks should go down and the state is not supposed to help them. But that would mean the collapse of the whole banking system. That would be a catastrophe for the whole economy and could result in the insolvency of your employer and you, although you have nothing to do with the decisions, that were made by some bank manager, could loose your job. And that wouldn't only happen to you, but to millions. Please explain me, how that can be good for mankind.

  It would be better in the long run because the system would have been corrected, the mistakes,human error eliminated in the only fair and unbias way. Yes it would be bad, and no I don't wish it on anyone but in the long term man would survive and prosper off of the incident.

And what is with the innocents, who haven't made mistakes but are suffering nonetheless?

While you think, it is justified to intervene in a sovereign nation because there is a dictator, who violates what we think are human rights, you are saying at the same time, that it is okay, if millions starve to death because the decisions some manager in western worlds are making to heighten the profits of one company and their owners or common stockholders. Because that is exactly what happens for the time being as a result of free market economy. For most people it is not only a question if they loose their job or home. Their live is on risk.

All that starving people could have contributed to mankind. There could have been geniuses, who could have advanced makkind. But because we have let them die, we will never know. That's another example, what I mean with wastage of resources.

Excuse me, but I don't really understand your inherent logic.

• • No, that is not what I have said. I don't think, that the Government body should dictate to the companies to invest in alternative substances. I think, that the companies should do it by themselves and that they should cooperate when doing it.

  You do realize in this case your in the govermental role and telling the companies what they should do, invest in alterantive fuels, and get angry that they are not doing it. You believe you know what is better for them then they do, a most curious form of thought. So I have to ask, what would you do to encourage this investing in technolagy companies have discarded as a waste of time.

Excuse me, but I'm not sure that I understand, what you are saying.

I meant, that, if companies would work together to reach a common goal, there would be no need for state intervention.

It is unnecessary that several companies are doing research on one and the same substance when they can do it together. That would also mean, that all cooparating companies would share the profits, they are gaining from said substance.

The alternative now is, that several companies are investing huge amounts in the research but all are doing the same research parallel. When one company has a break through, it will patent it and the investmenst of all the other companies is lost. That's again another example for the wastage of resources in a free market economy.

• • But it is better, when they are cooperating and thus sharing their expenses than if each company is doing research alone and in the end all companies are doing research parallel in the same field because they are thinking, that it is the most promising. If they are sharing their funds, it is easier possible to do research in different alternatives and still save money.

  In this case the company would be lossing money since it would get less profits,therfore less incenitive to create. Ergo a nation that favors/forces this will almsot certainly lag behind in development of whatever the companies were supposed to invent be it a new fuel or a whatever.

No, see above.

1. The nation would loose in every case. All the other companies, who have conducted research are now at least weaker, if not inslovent, because they can not make profits because the one company, who has had - maybe per accident and not per cunning - first a break through, has the patent rights.
2. In a globalised economy, the profits of a company are not necessary the profits of the nation.

• • That assumes, that a manager acts long-term logical.

  If he didn't his company would collasp and would be absorbed by bigger better companies.

That's a circular argument. The manager, who don't consider the long term effects of his decisions don't care, what happens with the company in a long time.

But the heirs of the owners or common stockholders and the salaried personnel will suffer and, under certain circumstances, it will have effects on the whole economy.

• • The problem is, that investments in the research for an alternative are bringing profits only, when the alternative is needed. A manager who knows, that there is enough for substance A until he retires, will not see any reason to reduce the digging of said substance, what would reduce the profits of the company and invest the so saved money in research, that will not result in profits while he is in office.

  Since most owners of companies want it to continue after them, being the best that they could be, that alone would be enough to entince someone. Then there is also VP's who would then become the manager after the previous one left. It would be in thier best interest to invest in substance B to reap the windfall of thier foresight.

Most big companies are leaded by managers and not by their owners or common stockholders. Often, other companies are common stockholders, who are leaded again by managers. A manager is usually only interessted, what will happens to the company, while he is in charge and gets paid.

If common stockholders are natural persons, they often have not the ability to judge the work of their manager because they are no economists. They are not able to see, that, what a manager has done, is good for the company in the long run. Maybe they aren't interested in what is good for the company in the long run because they want profits while they are living. And they don't see the salaried personnel. They don't realy comprehend, that the suspension of staff, from which they have heard in TV, has anthing to do with the stock they have.

• • That's also a problem of the current western economy: The pursuit for fast profits. I don't know, what the media in the USA are reporting. But in Germans, that is diagnosed as one primary cause of the current financial crisis.

  It is a factor don't get me wrong. People saw an opertunirty for profit and went for it, then the bubble popped. This problem was however caused by Banks being forced to perform actions that went against the profit motive, namely giving loans to people who could not pay them back. The banks, and other people, should not have exploited it but the goverment should have kept it's nose out in the first place.

Excuse me, but who has forced the banks to give people loans, who could not pay them back. It's the first time, I have heard such a thing.

• • No system is perfect. But in such a system, check and balance is possible and such wrong decisions are easier to prevent than in a company, which nobody controls.

  You are correct, no system is perfect through you seem to require Free market to be. To move on you are suggesting that the Goverment body would be the more effiencent choice due to checks and balances. I'm afraid that just can't work. The goverment is a bloated, ineffecient, unfocused mess facing a multitude of problems. The commitee has no actual investment in what they are doing, it's not their money their spending. So they have no incentive to be effiecent because there is always more tax dollars to spend.
  
  Second the aformentioned corruption of pursuing dead ends for personal gain,providing no service but exploiting the common man, which once again he is selling your money not his so why should he care.
  
  Third goverment is much more concerned with "instant profits" then companies and since perform very few duties that can be rated and weighed like a company does panders to the voting public to win votes. So they can pursue a dead end just like before but this time becuase people want/think it's the correct path. To restate myself the commeetie doesn't care, it is not there money they are spending, and those involved get reelected for it.
  
  An example of both cases would be the Corn biofuel stupidity. The world couldn't grow enough corn to fuel America's current demands let along any growth yet we embarked upon it because... well no there was no rational reason for this.
  
  The goverment has limited accountablility. It's hard to displace politicans who promise the moon and the stars and who always place the blame on never having enough funding. A case would be the US's public education system. A corrupte, nigh useless institution that has reduced public schools to free baby sitting services for kids ages 5-18. The response? Politicans clammor for even further funding despite the ungodly sums already spent per student.
  
  The company spends it's own money. If it follows the follows the populare but useless idea track it will cease to exist and it's owner will end up in a cardboard box under the freeway. Since he does not want this he must always invest in the profitbal line. The option that promises him survival and he must do it constantly, forever until the end of time unless he wishes to perish. That is checks and balances.

You have again misunderstood me.

I have already said, that I don't think, that the government is supposed to do economic.

I argue for a system, in which not economic is not done by competition but cooperation. If there is only the government, than there is no cooperation.

I think, that companies can work together and can still make profits. Some companies will have surly less profit if they are can not follow their goals by ruthless cut-throat competition. But they will still have profit. And they will employ employees. And the employees will get theit fair salary and will be able to buy consumer goods, what will advance the demand and will advance the economy. There is no need to make huge profits, from which only a minority will really benefit and the majority will have nothing.

[Who is like God arbour]

• • As you can see, while cooperation is necessary, competition is merely, if at all, a motivator.

  I agree it is "only" a motivator, but for a lot of people, it is an immense motivator...

I agree. But that's why I have wrote:

• • • • The question is if that's a characteristic, which is pro- or demoted in a social system. In capitalism societies it is usually demoted. Capitalism promotes the survival of the fittest through cut-throat competition.

You will maybe say, that it is human nature. And that sentence already comes from my answer to that objection:

• • • • That's true, but not the entire truth.
        
        Altruism is also a characteristic to which humans are capable.
        
        The question is if that's a characteristic, which is pro- or demoted in a social system. In capitalism societies it is usually demoted. Capitalism promotes the survival of the fittest through cut-throat competition.
        
        But evolution shows, that this is not always the best way for a species. Altruism, although it is not always beneficial for all individuals, is often adopted by animals and has advantages for the whole species (pack, pride, drove, flock or herd) [1].
        
        Insofar, Altruism is not only a stupid human morally concept, but something, that really exists in nature and promotes the survival of a species.

I have the maybe idealistic hope, that a society can learn, that competition is not necessary to better oneself and that the latter is a goal, which one should follow, regardless if there is an award of some kind.

Human nature has many aspects and we, living in a society, don't follow each aspect because, living in a society would be impossible.

• • I don't see, what the gold rush has to do with the benefits of competition. I only see all the crimes, that were c omitted because of greed. But what good for mankind has it done?

  I never had it had anything to do with the betterment of mankind, it was only another example of competition.
  Although you could say that this gold rush did indeed open some American frontiers, allowed people to dream of bettering their lives either by finding gold and getting richer, or opening their own businesses and profit from others' (newfound) riches...

I agree, that some have made their profit. But how many have lost their lifes and how many have lost all, what they have possessed and how many have gained nothing?

Explain to me, why I should consider the profits of a minority an advancement for mankind, while the majority has no gains.

• • And here is, what the IOC has to say in its homepage about this:
    According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.
    Or what the Olympic Charta has to say about it:
    Fundamental Principles of Olympism
    Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.
    
    The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.
    
    The Olympic Movement is the concerted, organised, universal and permanent action, carried out under the supreme authority of the IOC, of all individuals and entities who are inspired by the values of Olympism. It covers the five continents. It reaches its peak with the bringing together of the world’s athletes at the great sports festival, the Olympic Games. Its symbol is five interlaced rings.
    
    The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The organisation, administration and management of sport must be controlled by independent sports organisations.
    
    Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement.
    
    Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic Charter and recognition by the IOC.

  OK, good definition.
  Now, let's see how it is applied today:
  Athletes compete against one another, in front of many people, and the best of them get great financial rewards which allows them to improve their situation.
  Which is why most Olympic athletes today cheat and use drugs to improve their performance.
  If athletes really were only interested in bettering themselves, then why would they need to use drugs?
  Why do we even have competitions at all?
  Why are all sports competitive?
  Why not practice all sports by our lonesome, run the 100 meter dash by myself and have my results compared only to my previous ones?
  Competition, that is why.
  
  People don't just want to improve, and better themselves, they all want to be the best they can, and they find out how good they are by competing against other athletes.
  Competiton can also be friendly, but it is there nonetheless.
  
  Also, WILGA, what in the modern Olympics does anything to, for example, "promote a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity"?
  How can athletes doping themselves help "create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles"?
  If there was no competition, then those lofty ideals might be indeed followed, but alas, it is not the case in our society.
  In fact, I'm pretty certain it wasn't even the case when the Olympic games were first created.

Can't you see, that the problems with cheating athletes is, that they aren't doing it anymore for sport and to better themself to be better but to get great financial rewards. It's greed. What happens has nothing to do with the idea of the Olympic games. And the success, they have, does nothing for mankind.

And, I concede, that friendly competition is not necessary bad because it is a motivator. The question is, how far one is willing to go to win that competition. And in a natural state, as some are wishing with levity, there wouldn't be rules. But there are rules, how far one can go, because we all know, that unrestrained competition, cut-throat competition, is bad.

Yes, I compete too with my friends. But it is a kind of game. If my friends are having problems to keep up, I wait and help them, for example by encouraging them, maybe by relieving some of their burdens. In the end, we all are reaching the goal. And that is, what counts to me.

Ask yourself, why that's also the ideology of each army of the world. Why not throwing them all in the battle and see, who survives?

Maybe it's a question, how serious one should take competition. And in economy, competition means the surviving or extinction of companies. That's why it is impossible, if there is competition, to not take it seriously and to it logical end.

• • But my argument still stands: With a rank, you won't know, if the pupil is good or bad. Maybe he/she is the one-eyed among the blinds or the cherry on the cake.

  No, with a rank, you will know exactly how good he is, for this very reason:
  He has a rank, and can be compared to the other students.

If one people is the best of his school, but only because all others were even worse than the one pupil, does that mean, that the one is good or does it merely mean, that the one is the best of his school?

By comparing, you only get a relative result but no absolute result. And as long as you have no reference, the relative result will have no use.

• • As long as a person is giving its best to better itself, it has no reason to be sad, if it is not the best because it is impossible, that all are the best.

  While I agree that not everyone can be the best, almost everyone is happy when they learn they are better then others.

• Look, I agree the drive to compete isn't the best human trait, but it is nonetheless a human trait found in the majority of humans, to different levels.
  It drives us, it pushes us to do our best and beat the rest, as they say...

Because egoism is promoted in society. But, as I have already explained, that can result in a rationality trap.

I don't advocate an ant colony, where we all are only stupid drone and are lucky to be able to provide something to the greater good.

There is a midway, where we are not as egoistical as we are now but have nevertheless our own identity and live but are considering the effects of our doing on the society, even if it has sometimes disadvantages for the individual.

[Jedi Master Spock]

This goes beyond mere Korea. When was the last time the world supported actually doing anything to fix the problems? They've signed resoultions but little else. As to Saddam yes we gave him support since he was against Iran which we viewed as the bigger threat. We chose the lesser of two evils, of course we weren't alone in that. I mean Russia, France, China etc sold large quanities of weapons and lent thier own support to Saddam, more then what we did.

"The world" does actively try to fix problems. The African Union has sent peacekeepers to Darfur and Somalia, for example. The US is not the only one who intervenes on the world stage; it is simply the most visible, and most effective. Many US interventions have happened with UN support and international backing, such as the first Gulf war.

You mean after he had already broken his promises to Clinton? Kim Jong Il wanted to build a Nuke and talking to him wouldn't have changed a thing.

Talking to him is changing things in the here and now. Every bit of progress - such as getting nuclear inspectors into the country in the first place under Clinton - has been the result of talking to Kim Jong Il's government.

Would invading North Korea full-force and taking out everybody in power do a better job of insuring that the nuclear weapons program there ends for good? Kim Jong Il can't break any promises if he's dead, but even the most successful take-down of the current North Korean government is likely to come with disastrous side-effects.

The give Kim Jong everything he wants and maybe....maybe he might acutally keep his word unless you know you don't give in fast enough or it's monday or if a thousand other things. That is not diplomacy that is being held over a barrel. He knows he has us exactly where he wants us and we are forced to accept it.

Not precisely. Having a nuke or two simply means he can maybe whack a target or two in Japan, and if he ever does that, North Korea can expect a resumption of the Korean War.

Correction. The UN issued some resolutions, the US tore the country apart and secured it. Then maybe some UN offiacls wonder in. The pieces of paper wouldn't have been worth the paper it was made off if not for direct military force.

Well, if the US hadn't flattened Saddam in 1991, we wouldn't have had UN inspectors in the country, true - but had Saddam not invaded Kuwait in 1991, the US would probably still consider Iraq an ally, and it's very difficult to push resolutions through the UN against US allies. The UN does very little without support and cooperation from the members of the Security Council, including the US.

Correction. We found no atomic bombs. We did find toxic gas IIRC which falls under the WMD lable and was forbiden by the treaty.

The headlines for the chemical weapons finds were a little misleading. US troops found a few old, misfiled, and essentially non-functional chemical munitions from before the Gulf War. Stuff that the Republican Guard apparently misplaced in the chaos of the first Gulf War and never found again, most of which was pretty much degraded beyond usefulness.

The UN must have missed it, being so busy with you know the oil for food thing or something. We also found several tons of yellowcake, enough to make a bomb or two. I seriously doubt Sadam planned peaceful thoughts with them.

Iraq actually had, at one point, a credible nuclear weapons program under way. The yellow cake recently sold and removed from Iraq was a long way from being useful to a weapons program, and it was stuff the UN and IAEA were well aware of.

It's hard enough to try to hide a nuclear weapons program when you control the country. If Saddam actually had a nuclear program, it would have been crystal clear in 2003. I think retrospectively, it's pretty clear he had been doing a pretty good job of complying with the UN demands to dismantle his WMD program.

The fact that one less unstable nation has nukes is cause enough to celebrate. If you disagree with how libya was handled after it's disarming I see no reason to quarrel. So the case is 1 nuke program scrapped by military intervention(even if indirect) and no succesful diplomatic action.

Well, look at the former Soviet republics. By and large, they gave up their nukes quite willingly without military action. The Ukraine was very briefly the owner of the third-largest nuclear arsenal (surpassing France) but was quite willing to get rid of them. South Africa dismantled its program, too.

While the invasion of Iraq encouraged Libya to dismantle its nuclear program, I think it's encouraged North Korea to take theirs much more seriously. I'm not sure that's a net gain.

Obviously N. Korea associated nukes with prestige and power. The question is why should we care why N. Korea wanted them, they shouldn't have them.
...
Kim Jong Il, like all evil dictators, craves power above all else. Nukes give him power, ergo he wants them. He will lie, cheat, and swindle to get his way up until he dies. At this point our best option would be fund internal unrest and hope a uprising takes him out.

Hence why guys like Kim jong should not have them. Once you become a member of the nuclear club you are defacto untouchable unless you do something stupid, on the lines of directly attacking another member of the nuclear club. I do not want an untouchable Iran, which is proceeding onward towards it because it knows we won't attack. That the world would prefer more UN meetings on the subject then take action.

In the end I find the world to be one funny drama. I keep thinking of the deals made with Hitler and the cost of blood and treasure needed to correct that mistake. I can't help but shake the feeling that fifty to hundred years from now we will be doing this all over again with todays politicians being refrenced... and so it goes.

I think there's a rather more direct cause-and-effect for North Korea than "Kim Jong Il wants more power." Nuclear programs, constantly being developed and un-developed, had been providing bargaining chips for getting people fed. Everybody knew that neither the Americans and South Koreans sitting across the border, nor the North Koreans, were willing to actually kick off a new war.

And then something changed. Bush took office, and took a new "hard line" with North Korea. No more bargaining chips. Oil sanctions. Naturally, North Korea would start building bargaining chips...

... and then something changed. Bush launched a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, putting his money where his mouth was. What was to prevent him from doing the same in North Korea?

Perhaps North Koreans have been this paranoid all along, but I strongly suspect that the Iraq invasion made pulling off a nuclear weapons test a high priority for North Korea. Suddenly it changed from being a bargaining chip to a necessity for surviving as a nation.

I think there are some good distinctions to keep in mind. Hitler needed to be stopped for several distinct reasons. One was his genocide program, which other nations didn't really know much about. This is the reason for modern-day intervention in Darfur, as limited as it is, and it was one of the reasons for intervention in the disintegrating Yugoslavia.

A second was his forcible expansion of his empire. Appeasement clearly didn't work, and ever since, the US and other states have always taken annexations seriously. Even when it's a small country like Kuwait or Georgia, not really that important in the global scheme of things.

They are a threat to the world.

Well, right now, they're a potential threat to Japan, South Korea, Siberia, and northeastern China. Realistically, they might be able to demolish a significant portion of Tokyo. If the US pulled out of South Korea and cut off all ties with South Korea, North Korea might try to "reclaim" South Korea by military force, but that's not about to happen either.

The biggest threat is that they might sell off a nuke, or a supply of fissionable materials, to someone with less to lose - and that is something worth worrying about, because North Korea has had a lot of trouble supplying its citizens with food and fuel.

I'm not going to claim that I'm sure I know the best way to prevent that. It's a sticky problem, but the entire Korean Peninsula is a sticky problem in the long term. Troops have been staring across the border at each other for generations now under a "temporary" armistice.

One final note. I have watched you debate and sat in awe and respect for what you have done. I've seen you unravel illogical arguments seemingly effortlessly. The fact that you and I appear to be on differnt polars of the issue gives me great pause because I know you are a logical and fairheaded person. I know I can wrong, misinformed, or just bull headed, but you much less so. If you believe what you believe there must be a good reason, even if I can not understand it. Just something I wanted to add just for the record.

Thank you. I'll take that as quite a compliment.

[Cocytus]

North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies, some 1.2 million troops, all fed and equipped at the expense of the North Korean people. From a tactical point of view, the People's Army is the only real credible threat to an invading force, since it's where all the research and development takes place, in addition to the nuclear and missile research. Yes, the People's Navy and People's Airforce would be a joke against the US Navy and Airforce. The People's Navy is pretty much limited to coastal operations, whereas the People's Airforce's stock of aircraft, mostly Russian and Chinese models from the 50s through the 80s, would do little more than provide target practice to the F18 Hornets which are the mainstay of the carrier fleet.

Unfortunately, the People's Army is what we'd have to contend with, all 1.2 million of them. Though the technology may be inferior, we'd be fighting on their land.

The irony of Iran is that here is a country which might serve as an ally to the United State, or the West in general, if certain conditions are met. The Iranian people are not generally anti-western. They may hold unfavorable opinions of the United States, but the Iraq war has done nothing but harm our image in the Middle East and frustrate attempts at diplomacy. Unfortunately, both Iran and the US elected confontational presidents. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not popular with the Iranian people, nor is Grand Ayatollah Khameini. Although the president of Iran is democratically elected, the Grand Ayatollah serves for life, something a number of Iranians resent and object to. The previous president, Mohammad Khatami, was a progressive who was frustrated in his attempts at legislation by Khameini. Taken together, what does this show? A genuinely favorable attitude towards progressivism and openness among the Iranian people. Meaning, that if our own policy were to change, we could secure an ally in the nation of Iran. The Grand Ayatollah remains a wrench in the works, admittedly, but the Iranian people are not enemies of the United States or the West in general. Yes, many may hold an unfavorable view of us, which is perfectly understandable given our management of the Iraq war and our unwillingness to abide by the rules of the United Nations.

The people of Iran largely favor better relations with the United States. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a popular president, and his term ends in 2009. If he is replaced, and if our next administration is willing to talk to Iran, we might be able to start along the path of patching up relations. Certainly military conflict won't do a damn thing for us, except turn 70 million Iranians into enemies of the United States. We need to talk to Iran. Period.

Here, sonofccn. This is the URL for the Terror Free Tomorrow telephone poll of Iranians. John McCain is a member of TFT's advisory committee. http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upima ... Report.pdf

[sonofccn]

I pin my hopes on?!" You dare impugn my patriotism just because I don't agree with the party line?

One calm down before you burst a blood vessel. Second next time could you quote the porton in question? You paraprhase a snippet of speech after quoting my entire post and it took me a couple of minutes just to see what you were talking about. Three you said and I quote "But as it stands, our threat of force no longer carries any weight." Your reasoning is that insurgents have rendered the US military as it currently is obsolete or something along those lines. It is core to your belief that the US military doesn't strike fear because insurgents using decades old munitions could turn the tide. You are pinning it all on insurgents unless you forget to mention some other factor. Fourth I did no say hopes or impune your honor or anything else. I was pointing out a flaw in your logic not your intergity. I didn't say you supported the insurgents or that you wanted to win just that it was the core of your theroy that they owuld turn the tide when in fact at best the game is still running.

Surely you realize how offensive that statement was.

You misquote and misunderstand a statement I made and nearly foam at the moniter in response. I fail to see how I made the offensive gesture.

Getting back to the issue. The surge it not a change in tactics. It's just like the bailout. We're throwing money and troops at the problem. If we had considered how to wage the War on Terror from the beginning, we might have accomplished our goals without the loss of 4000 American troops, god only knows how many Iraqis and the destruction of most of Iraq's infrastructure.

It was a change in our tactics from contact with the insurgents. Now there of course could be better tactics and I'm all open to your suggestions but you claimed we had not changed anything since WWII. We obviously have adn since it has brought victory something must be right.

That sure sounds like an antiamerican sentiment, right? Advocating proper training to limit the number of troop deaths?)

Once again I never claimed that, and chill. You'll live longer.

The surge hasn't "worked." You see some signs of progress and you're quick to say "oh, it worked. And anyone who disagrees is antiamerican and wants us to fail."

By just about any factor be it number of troosp dead, stability in unstablized area etc it appears to. Now is the road finished? No we still have a lot of work in the area. It's not the disagreeing we hate, if you have good ideas feel free to share. It's the constant complaints from people offering nothing but complaints. Who take almost perverse glee in the rising death toll. Now I am not saying you are one them merely clarifying a misconception on your part.

The truth is, Iraq is riddled with antagonism between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as tribes.

It's the middle East, everyone is riddled with antagonism with everyone else. It's a problem yes, and one not easily or quickly solved.

Unfortunately, the root of the Middle East's political problems go as far back as 1919, when the Ottoman Empire fell and the triumphant European powers carelessly divided the "sick man of Europe's" spoils without paying any attention to the cultures that were already entrenched there.

To be fair while colonial the problems were kept in check. It was only after they were freed in the 40's I think that the camel manure hit the fan.

Reckless jingoism is a threat to the world whether you're Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or a SFJ debater.

Reckless Jingoism? Patriotism? sure. Jingoism? Maybe a little but Reckless no I don't buy it. If you had said Reckless decision making I would agree with you but Reckless Jingoism? I just don't see it.

North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies, some 1.2 million troops, all fed and equipped at the expense of the North Korean people. From a tactical point of view, the People's Army is the only real credible threat to an invading force, since it's where all the research and development takes place, in addition to the nuclear and missile research. Yes, the People's Navy and People's Airforce would be a joke against the US Navy and Airforce. The People's Navy is pretty much limited to coastal operations, whereas the People's Airforce's stock of aircraft, mostly Russian and Chinese models from the 50s through the 80s, would do little more than provide target practice to the F18 Hornets which are the mainstay of the carrier fleet.

Unfortunately, the People's Army is what we'd have to contend with, all 1.2 million of them. Though the technology may be inferior, we'd be fighting on their land.

I didn't claim it would be a walk over campaing but baring outside influnce Korea would fall. The only creditibal deternce I've heard talked about would be the vicious rocket assault on south Korea, in essence banking on our hatred of seeing innocent civilians getting hurt/killed.

Complete control of the air, wile not a war winner by itself, would greatly hamper, detrain and disorganize the 1.2 million.

The irony of Iran is that here is a country which might serve as an ally to the United State, or the West in general, if certain conditions are met.

It's not ironic. Iran was our one of our best allies in the middle east until Jimmy Carter came along.

Unfortunately, both Iran and the US elected confontational presidents. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not popular with the Iranian people, nor is Grand Ayatollah Khameini. Although the president of Iran is democratically elected, the Grand Ayatollah serves for life, something a number of Iranians resent and object to.

We are only confrontational to people/countries which act up so to speak. If the country behaves we don;t have a problem with them. Mahmoud on the other hand should be sedated and put in a mental ward for being a loon. I also feel the need to state that since the religious leaders chose who can run for presidentcy the democratically elected bit is a stretch at best.

The previous president, Mohammad Khatami, was a progressive who was frustrated in his attempts at legislation by Khameini. Taken together, what does this show? A genuinely favorable attitude towards progressivism and openness among the Iranian people.

Who was replaced with a nutjob who dreams of world without America. It's not the people we have trouble with. They do have a more or less favorable opinion of the west it's the ruling goverment we have bones with and it's desire for atomic weapons.

Meaning, that if our own policy were to change, we could secure an ally in the nation of Iran.

That is an incorrect statment. Iran has been ruled by largely anti-American rulers because the actuall power behind the throne wants us dead and Islam to cover the globe, and not by peaceful conversion either. We could do nothing to aquire Iran as a friend by changing to a more Iran friendly posture. The best option is if the Iranian people don't want a war they need to remove the problem. Thier goverment. Then we can talk.

The people of Iran largely favor better relations with the United States. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a popular president, and his term ends in 2009. If he is replaced, and if our next administration is willing to talk to Iran, we might be able to start along the path of patching up relations. Certainly military conflict won't do a damn thing for us, except turn 70 million Iranians into enemies of the United States. We need to talk to Iran. Period.

Since the next president will likely be as mad and dangerous as the current one, in Iran, a more Jimmy carter style is only going to get something nuked. When real change has been conducted, a total stopping of thier nuclear program for a period of multipal years, prayers of Death to America are not done, etc then we can talk not before.

Also you do realize taht the Iraq war didn't turn it's population into enemies of America right? That the soldiers, once the natives got to know them, are either treated indiffernt or actually respected. So an attack would avert a nuclear horror, add another democratic nation to the MIddle east and possihble even earn the respect of those roughshod over Iranians.

JMS, WILGA I will post a response to your reponses sometime tommorow. I just don't like people claiming I did things I didn't do.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It is not their responsibility to assure the banks are lending on terms that are profitable in the long run; they enter into the bargain knowing that they get a house out of it, if they can keep meeting payments, or lose the house, if they can't.

Yes, it is.
It is the responsability of the person getting the loan to make sure he isn't getting over his head, and to live according to his financial means.

That wave of taking responsability off of the shoulders of those who should bear it gets on my nerves.
It is certainly not the fault of the bank if I'm stupid enough to load my credit cards, not make the payments, and spend every last cent I have on frivolous things, such a Home entertainment system, flat screen TV, and the like.

It is my decision, so it is my responsability, period...

Sure, the banks and financial institutions will do what they can to facilitate my spending ability, at the behest of their share owners, but I still have the choice not to accept what they offer.
Nobody's putting a gun to anybody's head and forcing them to spend more then they earn or can reimburse.

And then you think of the people who took a loan they assumed they could deal with, but then lost a portion or the totality of their purchase power due to the fluke of an economy driven down.

Honestly (and yes, I'm a subjective observer here), I think the best system is found in Canada.
Our economy is still going pretty well, despite the fact that our greatest economic ally and source of incom is facing an incredible recession.
Why?
Because we regulate the market, so that anybody has a chance at the top, but not at any price, or using any means.
We rarely give house loans to people who can't pay, and rarely loan more then the capacity to pay of a household.
The percentage of Canadiens living above their income level is lower then that of the USA because of this.
I'd say the place where we resemble the USA the mst is our huge dependency on oil.

Some Europeans countries have the same regulation systems, but it didn't save them. Arguably, they're also much less liberal.
Now, let's not forget that Canada exploits large oil resources at the expense of its own biosphere.

Sorry, but you're wrong.
In school, there are ranks, when you get your report card, and each of your marks are compared to the class average.
We have tried a system with no average and no marks for a while here, where we wouldn't even flunk kids, and what we noticed is that there was less interest, less efforts put in class.
When no rewards are bestoken to the best in anything, humans (the majority, at least) become lazy.

Possibly because the educational system failed at rerouting the interest; Instead of focusing on social superiority and reaching for the elite, it could have been geared to focus on the future within the society with a more concrete application of your knowledge? The greatest killer of knowledge is the impression that it serves no purpose.
Marks are part of a form of smoke screen. Once you remove that sole factor that generates a huge competition, there's no other direct purpose left for the school race.

2. The latter half of the 20th century and the early 21th have blanantly shown that diplomacy is virtually useless, N. Korea develped nuclear weapons and Iran is running headlong towards them.

North Korea seems to be doing it more for a defensive purpose than any preemptive strike it couldn't support anyway. Jong-Il even asked his cook at some point if they were doing the right thing by acquiring nuclear weapons. Of course, that was more like from a madman perspective who expected a resounding yes, but his (ex)cook was Japanese, so you understand the dilemma.
Still, all I've read and seen about Kim shows a state of great fear of being attacked up to the point they build build build that wall and sit behind it. They're certainly not capable of waging a decent war, it would be a joke, unless some bankers decided to push North Korea towards an agressive stance and attempted to have a war last as long as possible while knowing full well that the Korean army would just be expandable.

Wind the clock back to 2001. We had elected what was arguably the most militarily experienced administration yet. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell. And yet, here we are.

We have to consider that the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan are hardly managed in a way to end anytime soon. There's that sort of stupid list akin to that of Vietnam that all UN forces have to follow down to the letter in Afghanistan, which is downright absurd. That's not counting the severe lack of equipment and support (I read that not a single satellite is spared to monitor hot regions in Afg. nowadays). Remember the two British SAS officers shooting people and using bombs in their car, while dressed up like Muslim fundies, back in 2005, caught by Iraqi forces in Basra, only to be rescued out of jail later on by British Forces' mechanized units?

[Cocytus]

I pin my hopes on?!" You dare impugn my patriotism just because I don't agree with the party line?

One calm down before you burst a blood vessel. Second next time could you quote the porton in question? You paraprhase a snippet of speech after quoting my entire post and it took me a couple of minutes just to see what you were talking about. Three you said and I quote "But as it stands, our threat of force no longer carries any weight." Your reasoning is that insurgents have rendered the US military as it currently is obsolete or something along those lines. It is core to your belief that the US military doesn't strike fear because insurgents using decades old munitions could turn the tide. You are pinning it all on insurgents unless you forget to mention some other factor. Fourth I did no say hopes or impune your honor or anything else. I was pointing out a flaw in your logic not your intergity. I didn't say you supported the insurgents or that you wanted to win just that it was the core of your theroy that they owuld turn the tide when in fact at best the game is still running.

"I pin my hopes on," implies I'm hoping the insurgents win. Which I'm not. Your wording was, in a word, incendiary. Now, you may not have intended it that way, but that's how it came across. That's what that phrase implies. I may have overreacted, mainly because I've grown so tired of people questioning other's patriotism because they don't think we've won a victory. And they're right. We haven't.

First off, our threat of force carries no weight to insurgents. They don't care about tactical victories, they care about killing Americans. And they've succeeded. Our technology has evolved greatly, which is both a boon and a handicap, since insurgent groups revert to ancient methods of communication we can't track. For the insurgency, a victory is had in every American death. That's the way fanatics think. They don't care about tactical victories, they don't care about the nation of Iraq. They care about killing Americans. They have a frighteningly large pool of human resources to draw from. Impressionable youngsters, those with few prospects, the mentally handicapped and, increasingly, women. Women who have been victimized and oppressed by Islamic society, and will jump at the chance to do something they see as being "for the cause."

As for the rest of the world, our threat of force is lessened. We support the nation of Georgia, and yet Russia attacked it anyway. All we could offer were demands they cease and desist, because we're bogged down in the Iraq. The power of any military comes from its ability to respond quickly to any crisis. As its stands now, we're shackled to the current conflict.

Getting back to the issue. The surge it not a change in tactics. It's just like the bailout. We're throwing money and troops at the problem. If we had considered how to wage the War on Terror from the beginning, we might have accomplished our goals without the loss of 4000 American troops, god only knows how many Iraqis and the destruction of most of Iraq's infrastructure.

It was a change in our tactics from contact with the insurgents. Now there of course could be better tactics and I'm all open to your suggestions but you claimed we had not changed anything since WWII. We obviously have adn since it has brought victory something must be right.

Again, what victory have we won, exactly? This is one of my biggest problems. Every time something positive happens, you declare victory. The situation is improving, at least for the moment. But's it's delusional to claim a victory just because things happen to be going our way. Just look at Afghanistan. Once we were done "winning" over there, we started concentrating on Iraq, and, oh look. The Taliban is back. This is the problem that we have, and the reason I say our tactics are outdated. There's a wall between our troops and the terrorists we seek, and its the wall of common citizens. When the times are tough, the insurgents retreat into that wall and bide their time. Lo and behold, we declared victory and left, and they've since come back out of the woodwork.

That sure sounds like an antiamerican sentiment, right? Advocating proper training to limit the number of troop deaths?)

Once again I never claimed that, and chill. You'll live longer.

I'll live longer by not provoking people into attacking me out of fear.

The surge hasn't "worked." You see some signs of progress and you're quick to say "oh, it worked. And anyone who disagrees is antiamerican and wants us to fail."

By just about any factor be it number of troosp dead, stability in unstablized area etc it appears to. Now is the road finished? No we still have a lot of work in the area. It's not the disagreeing we hate, if you have good ideas feel free to share. It's the constant complaints from people offering nothing but complaints. Who take almost perverse glee in the rising death toll. Now I am not saying you are one them merely clarifying a misconception on your part.

Again, the Taliban is back at work in Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai has even offered them government positions in an attempt to staunch the bloodshed. All they said was "when the US leaves, we'll talk." You're incessant declarations of victory are one of the causes of our problems. You want a quick fix, which simply isn't possible. Whenever we commit troops to an area, the insurgents eventually recede. But they haven't gone away.

The truth is, Iraq is riddled with antagonism between Sunnis and Shiites, as well as tribes.

It's the middle East, everyone is riddled with antagonism with everyone else. It's a problem yes, and one not easily or quickly solved.

Which is why believing that we could quickly win in Iraq was so patently absurd.

Unfortunately, the root of the Middle East's political problems go as far back as 1919, when the Ottoman Empire fell and the triumphant European powers carelessly divided the "sick man of Europe's" spoils without paying any attention to the cultures that were already entrenched there.

To be fair while colonial the problems were kept in check. It was only after they were freed in the 40's I think that the camel manure hit the fan.

Funny, things were kept in check in Iraq by, you guessed it, Saddam Hussein.

North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies, some 1.2 million troops, all fed and equipped at the expense of the North Korean people. From a tactical point of view, the People's Army is the only real credible threat to an invading force, since it's where all the research and development takes place, in addition to the nuclear and missile research. Yes, the People's Navy and People's Airforce would be a joke against the US Navy and Airforce. The People's Navy is pretty much limited to coastal operations, whereas the People's Airforce's stock of aircraft, mostly Russian and Chinese models from the 50s through the 80s, would do little more than provide target practice to the F18 Hornets which are the mainstay of the carrier fleet.

Unfortunately, the People's Army is what we'd have to contend with, all 1.2 million of them. Though the technology may be inferior, we'd be fighting on their land.

I didn't claim it would be a walk over campaing but baring outside influnce Korea would fall. The only creditibal deternce I've heard talked about would be the vicious rocket assault on south Korea, in essence banking on our hatred of seeing innocent civilians getting hurt/killed.

So, does it bother you that innocent civilians get hurt or killed?

The irony of Iran is that here is a country which might serve as an ally to the United State, or the West in general, if certain conditions are met.

It's not ironic. Iran was our one of our best allies in the middle east until Jimmy Carter came along.

That's ridiculous. Iran became what it is today thanks to the 1979 revolution to overthrow Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Shah was pretty despotic himself towards the end of his rule. The point of the Revolution was to destroy a monarchy the Iranian people viewed as bloated and despotic. The referendum establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran was approved by the vast majority of Iranian people. What would you have had Jimmy Carter do?

Unfortunately, both Iran and the US elected confontational presidents. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not popular with the Iranian people, nor is Grand Ayatollah Khameini. Although the president of Iran is democratically elected, the Grand Ayatollah serves for life, something a number of Iranians resent and object to.

We are only confrontational to people/countries which act up so to speak. If the country behaves we don;t have a problem with them. Mahmoud on the other hand should be sedated and put in a mental ward for being a loon. I also feel the need to state that since the religious leaders chose who can run for presidentcy the democratically elected bit is a stretch at best.

"Acts up?" By doing what? Wanting nuclear power? Wanting a role on the world stage? This infuriating condescension is yet another problem with our foreign policy. The Middle Easterners aren't children whom we have to punish. Secondly, the Guardian Council, not the Grand Ayatollah, chooses who gets to run for president. Khameini can only directly appoint half the Guardian Council. If he wielded total control, Mohammad Khatami would never have won the presidency. But he did, by a landslide.

And Ahmadinejad is not a loon. You cannot simply dismiss him, or any other Middle East leader. Ahmadinejad is a shrewd man, however repressive he may be. Nuclear power is the RIGHT of any country which can develop the technology. What he's doing is calculated. He's daring the US to do something, and we can't, short of launching another offensive which will blow our international relations clean to hell.

The previous president, Mohammad Khatami, was a progressive who was frustrated in his attempts at legislation by Khameini. Taken together, what does this show? A genuinely favorable attitude towards progressivism and openness among the Iranian people.

Who was replaced with a nutjob who dreams of world without America. It's not the people we have trouble with. They do have a more or less favorable opinion of the west it's the ruling goverment we have bones with and it's desire for atomic weapons.

Again, your language is incendiary and ignorant, and does absolutely nothing to strengthen your position. You say you can't stand people who offer complaints? I can't stand people who bally around childish drivel, as if we could ever implement your "let's sedate Ahmadinejad." He's not a loon, he's not a nutjob, he's a leader of a country which we must deal with in a measured, mature manner.

Meaning, that if our own policy were to change, we could secure an ally in the nation of Iran.

That is an incorrect statment. Iran has been ruled by largely anti-American rulers because the actuall power behind the throne wants us dead and Islam to cover the globe, and not by peaceful conversion either. We could do nothing to aquire Iran as a friend by changing to a more Iran friendly posture. The best option is if the Iranian people don't want a war they need to remove the problem. Thier goverment. Then we can talk.

How do you know until you've tried. We sure as hell can't acquire Iran as a friend with sanctions and the threat of military action. Amusingly enough, I see a parallel between your refusal to talk to Iran until Ahmadinejad leaves, and the Taliban's refusal to talk to the Afghan government until WE leave. Rigid inflexibility is yet another problem with our foreign policy.

The people of Iran largely favor better relations with the United States. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a popular president, and his term ends in 2009. If he is replaced, and if our next administration is willing to talk to Iran, we might be able to start along the path of patching up relations. Certainly military conflict won't do a damn thing for us, except turn 70 million Iranians into enemies of the United States. We need to talk to Iran. Period.

Since the next president will likely be as mad and dangerous as the current one, in Iran, a more Jimmy carter style is only going to get something nuked. When real change has been conducted, a total stopping of thier nuclear program for a period of multipal years, prayers of Death to America are not done, etc then we can talk not before.

Also you do realize taht the Iraq war didn't turn it's population into enemies of America right? That the soldiers, once the natives got to know them, are either treated indiffernt or actually respected. So an attack would avert a nuclear horror, add another democratic nation to the MIddle east and possihble even earn the respect of those roughshod over Iranians.

How about this. Once America gets a calm, respectful president in office, one who is willing to engage world leaders and respect the world community, puts a stop to childish, simple minded rhetoric and starts behaving like the world superpower that it is, instead of threatening everyone who doesn't "behave" with attack, then they can talk to us. Middle Eastern views of the current American administration are abysmal. AMERICAN views of the current American administration are abysmal. And attacking Iran would not avert a nuclear horror, good God almighty. It would INVITE ONE.

And as far as the Iraqi opinion of us goes, they're pretty much evenly divided over whether the whole venture was a good idea or not. But when it comes to security deteriorating, they blame us more than anything else. They're impatient for us to get out of their country. And so are the majority of Americans.

I'm curious myself, sonofccn. If your impetus is to bring democracy to the Middle East, how do you feel about the legitimate election of Hamas?

[2046]

I don't have the time to fully engage, here, but Cocytus, just from reading your last post I am moved toward disagreeing with you.

0. You are not unpatriotic, but you do echo the anti-American critiques of those who, from within or without, seek to undermine the United States at every turn.

Criticism is not unpatriotic. Undue spin-doctored wild-eyed Code Pink criticism is. Those who seek to undermine the US at every turn employ the latter. Do not be quite so readily offended when the natural confusion appears.

0A. Aiding the spread of democracy is not wrong, nor wrong-headed, simply because some buttholes might be elected in an area. Popular support of foolish ideas has a long historical pedigree . . . folks loved Mussolini.

Such is the danger of democracy, but democracy is still a superior goal.

0B. You speak of incendiary rhetoric, then ask: 'So, does it bother you that innocent civilians get hurt or killed?'

Come now.

1. We won the Iraq war very quickly. Then there was an insurgency. I realize this is not the common parlance, but the common media parlance is a sort of historical revisionism while the events are in progress.

2. The insurgency brought our enemies to the field. Foreign fighters, Iranian assistance, and so on were all brought to bear. We also got a good glimpse of the enemies within.

3. The insurgency was troublesome for a time, moreso in the imagination of the press than in reality (compared to most such situations in history), but additional troops and a bit of game-changing strategy on our part have largely quelled the violence.

4. Nuclear power is not a right of any nation.

5. Mahmoud *is* frakking psycho, and serve as a direct conduit to invocations of Godwin's Law. Were he not leader of a country, he would be dismissed on that basis. But he is a leader, one who is psycho, and must be addressed on that basis.

6. You speak of a calm, respectful president willing to engage world leaders. Obama is such a person, willing to go anywhere and talk one-on-one, without preconditions, to any psycho-leader of any two-bit country in the world. When one large nation with a long history of aggressive action toward another smaller nation invades said smaller nation, he alone had the courage and wisdom to tell both sides to "show restraint" . . . he alone had the courage and wisdom to suggest that the matter be taken up before the UN Security Council, where (coincidentally) the larger nation has a veto vote.

The Star Trekkish naivete and doe-eyed ignorance inherent in such thinking has a certain nobility, after a fashion, but is based largely on a cultivated ignorance of how things work. It is childish emotionalism in the place of reason, the hope that everyone shares your worldview and will behave like totally rational actors . . . which seldom happens.

[Cocytus]

I don't have the time to fully engage, here, but Cocytus, just from reading your last post I am moved toward disagreeing with you.

0. You are not unpatriotic, but you do echo the anti-American critiques of those who, from within or without, seek to undermine the United States at every turn.

Criticism is not unpatriotic. Undue spin-doctored wild-eyed Code Pink criticism is. Those who seek to undermine the US at every turn employ the latter. Do not be quite so readily offended when the natural confusion appears.

0A. Aiding the spread of democracy is not wrong, nor wrong-headed, simply because some buttholes might be elected in an area. Popular support of foolish ideas has a long historical pedigree . . . folks loved Mussolini.

Such is the danger of democracy, but democracy is still a superior goal.

So the danger of democracy is that people might democratically elect those whom they feel might best protect them? Obviously the Palestinians put their faith in Hamas which, despite its status as a terrorist organization, has nevertheless made a concerted effort to improve the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, funding schools, orphanages, hospitals and other public institutions. We've tried to oust Hamas and install a U.S. backed government. Given how well we've kept up Iraq's infrastructure, it's no surprise the Palestinians collectively said "like hell" to that.

And as for getting offended, your statement "Barack-I-Make-The-French-Look-Brave-Obama" from the Energy Crisis thread positively reeks of Rush Limbaugh, whom I loathe.

0B. You speak of incendiary rhetoric, then ask: 'So, does it bother you that innocent civilians get hurt or killed?'

Come now.

Yeah, you've got me there I'm afraid. Sorry for that one, Sonofccn.

1. We won the Iraq war very quickly. Then there was an insurgency. I realize this is not the common parlance, but the common media parlance is a sort of historical revisionism while the events are in progress.

2. The insurgency brought our enemies to the field. Foreign fighters, Iranian assistance, and so on were all brought to bear. We also got a good glimpse of the enemies within.

3. The insurgency was troublesome for a time, moreso in the imagination of the press than in reality (compared to most such situations in history), but additional troops and a bit of game-changing strategy on our part have largely quelled the violence.

We won the part of the Iraq War we were prepared for practically effortlessly, yes. Unfortunately its the part we weren't prepared for which has exacted a toll. And the insurgency is still there and still a problem. If its anything like the Taliban, it will come back when we think we've gotten it beat. If, once we've left, no violence recurs, make a thread, call me out, and I'll concede.

4. Nuclear power is not a right of any nation.

Then we need to dismantle our arsenal and shut down our reactors.

5. Mahmoud *is* frakking psycho, and serve as a direct conduit to invocations of Godwin's Law. Were he not leader of a country, he would be dismissed on that basis. But he is a leader, one who is psycho, and must be addressed on that basis.

Which will not get us anywhere.

6. You speak of a calm, respectful president willing to engage world leaders. Obama is such a person, willing to go anywhere and talk one-on-one, without preconditions, to any psycho-leader of any two-bit country in the world. When one large nation with a long history of aggressive action toward another smaller nation invades said smaller nation, he alone had the courage and wisdom to tell both sides to "show restraint" . . . he alone had the courage and wisdom to suggest that the matter be taken up before the UN Security Council, where (coincidentally) the larger nation has a veto vote.

The Star Trekkish naivete and doe-eyed ignorance inherent in such thinking has a certain nobility, after a fashion, but is based largely on a cultivated ignorance of how things work. It is childish emotionalism in the place of reason, the hope that everyone shares your worldview and will behave like totally rational actors . . . which seldom happens.

Naive? Sonofccn supports attacking Iran, a nation of 70 million people, which has the Security Council support of Russia and China, and I'm naive. I can't wait to hear that one explained.

If anybody's out of touch with "the way things work" it's not those of us calling for greater understanding of the Middle East. It's those calling for continued conflict, which will only accelerate our enemies' attempts to procure and use nuclear weapons.

Oh, and for further history on Iran, 1979 wasn't the first time they tried to overthrow the Shah, who to them was indeed a dictator, especially in his later years. In the 1950s a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, the Prime Minister of Iran, known for his secular views and his attempt to nationalize Iran's oil industry, asked the Shah to step down and cede power to him. Mossadegh was a reformer who supported freedom of religion and transparency of government, and was understandably popular in Iran. We supported the Shah, and since oil nationalization would have jeopardized the AngloIranian Oil Company's profits, the CIA ousted Mossadegh, and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Once again, rather than support democracy, we squashed it.

By the way, here's the transliteration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement.

Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad"

Which literally means:

"The Imam (meaning Khomeini, the first Ayatollah) said the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time"

Now I'm sure some people (no-one on this board, I hope) would call for my immediate incarceration at Guantanamo, but the fact is, every professor who can actually speak Persian has agreed with the above interpretation. Yet "wiped off the map" is ubiquitous. There's media sensationalism for you.

Does that mean I don't think Ahmadinejad is potentially a dangerous man? No. But he has less than a year left in office. Given that Khameini himself has disagreed with Ahmadinejad over nukes and threats to Israel, there's a possibility he can be replaced in the 2009 elections. We'll still have to placate Khameini since, barring any significant Iranian uprising, it seems unlikely that he'll be replaced anytime soon. But if we can keep from going to war with Iran, there is still hope for a diplomatic solution.

I'm not unpatriotic. What I advocate is that we take a good long look at ourselves. We might find that we're not always in the right. I mean, look at Israel. If there's ever to be a two-state solution, Israel has to do something about their settlers encroaching into the West Bank. That is a perfectly legitimate complaint the Palestinians have against them. The more we adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, the more we will frustrate our own attempts at solving problems. "Us vs. them" is a video game mentality. The real world is much more complex.

[Praeothmin]

I have the maybe idealistic hope, that a society can learn, that competition is not necessary to better oneself and that the latter is a goal, which one should follow, regardless if there is an award of some kind.

I also have that hope, but we were not discussing whether we would like humanity to become as in ST: TNG, but rather we were discussing humans of today, and what motivated them.
But it's a good dream... :)

But how many have lost their lifes and how many have lost all, what they have possessed and how many have gained nothing?

It still helped to devellop the country, due to people going for the gold, then finally finding good lands inbetween the two coasts, and deciding instead they wanted to raise their families on a farm.
And even if they lost a lot, what drove them on was the dream, the dream that if they put more efforts then anybody else (i.e., competed), then they would reap the rewards they dreamed of...

Explain to me, why I should consider the profits of a minority an advancement for mankind

Again, we aren't talking about humanity as a whole, but rather the motivations of human beings as individual.
Every society is filled with individuals who, within the bounds socially acceptable, thrive to improve their lives.

Also, advancements for mankind have often been bi-products of the human drive to perform, to compete, to achieve.

If one people is the best of his school, but only because all others were even worse than the one pupil, does that mean, that the one is good or does it merely mean, that the one is the best of his school?

Our educational system has tests designed for the entire Quebec system, not just individual schools.
Grades are a very good indicator of how good your kid is.
If his class is filled with morons, then the class average will be a lot lower.

There is a midway, where we are not as egoistical as we are now but have nevertheless our own identity and live but are considering the effects of our doing on the society, even if it has sometimes disadvantages for the individual.

A midway the human race (well, a lot of humans anyway) aspire to, and have begun to reach for, but which we haven't attained yet.

And then you think of the people who took a loan they assumed they could deal with, but then lost a portion or the totality of their purchase power due to the fluke of an economy driven down.

And how many of those people had done an honest evaluation of their means not based on their whims and wishes?
I'd wager they're not many of them...

Now, let's not forget that Canada exploits large oil resources at the expense of its own biosphere.

It is true we are exploiting oil sands, but in actuality, although Canada has the second highest oil reserve in the world, we are far from the top exploiters in the world.
Our exploitations are still low compared to countries with smaller reserves and comparable populations.
We also exploit Hydro-Electricity a lot...

Possibly because the educational system failed at rerouting the interest; Instead of focusing on social superiority and reaching for the elite, it could have been geared to focus on the future within the society with a more concrete application of your knowledge? The greatest killer of knowledge is the impression that it serves no purpose.

Could be, although it is something that would be hard to do with kids.
Seeing the long term gains of anything is incredibly difficult for kids.
Having an immediate goal (having the highest possible mark) is an efficient motivator for most.

[2046]

And the insurgency is still there and still a problem. If its anything like the Taliban, it will come back when we think we've gotten it beat. If, once we've left, no violence recurs, make a thread, call me out, and I'll concede.

So wait . . . humanitarian concerns ought to produce our response, but we should also leave despite your wager that there will then be humanitarian concerns?

4. Nuclear power is not a right of any nation.

Then we need to dismantle our arsenal and shut down our reactors.

I don't even know what the concept of national rights means. Sounds like "states' rights", the rallying cry of modern-day Confederate States of America apologists.

The rights rest with the people. There are no technological rights that I am aware of.

Technological wants exist, and in some cases these could even be needs. But especially for rogue nations, you can't claim that their desire is a right for nuclear power, any moreso than you can claim that their desire for nuclear weapons is a right.

Naive? Sonofccn supports attacking Iran, a nation of 70 million people, which has the Security Council support of Russia and China, and I'm naive. I can't wait to hear that one explained.

So you'd rather let a "potentially dangerous man" and enemy to America like Mahmoud get the bomb? What the hell is that?

I favor the destruction of their nuclear facilities. Worked for Syria recently. Didn't see Russia and China go batshit then.

If anybody's out of touch with "the way things work" it's not those of us calling for greater understanding of the Middle East. It's those calling for continued conflict, which will only accelerate our enemies' attempts to procure and use nuclear weapons.

Once again, rather than support democracy, we squashed it.

So we should just get out of the region and allow other nations like Russia to play there, and allow all manner of local whackjobs to hang out unopposed, fostering terror that we should only defend against when it reaches our shores, right?

But if we can keep from going to war with Iran, there is still hope for a diplomatic solution.

If the Ayatollah is the power and didn't want nukes, they wouldn't be getting close to them.

The more we adopt an "us vs. them" mentality, the more we will frustrate our own attempts at solving problems. "Us vs. them" is a video game mentality. The real world is much more complex.

"Us vs. them" . . . intelligently, not some video-game knee-jerk . . . is why America became great. This nuanced complexity thing in absence of an "us" is what is killing us.

It leads to contradictory action (e.g. Pelosi's foreign visit) and general malaise.