n/t

Please feel free to start subthreads on specific topics if you wanted to continue, but right now this vague-ass thread tends to swamp out the other conversations.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Heard it read tonight on Coast to Coast AM with George Norry as I was in the middle of a 4 hour drive. Found it on the internet.

***********

This WAR is for REAL!

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001 with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World? 25%.

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see >http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?

2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorist to attack us, until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see, we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims.

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq.

And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are > defeated.


And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

After reading the above, we all must do this not only for ourselves, but ourchildren, our grandchildren, our country and the world.



http://www.patriotwatch.com/GeneralChong.htm

Wow. I'll never accuse you of thinly veiled racism again.

As an aside, you mentioned getting that essay from "Coast to Coast with George Norry". I hadn't heard of the show, but their recap of last night's show begins with "Author Jeff Danelek presented his research into ghosts and reincarnation. First hour guest, remote viewer Paul H. Smith shared an update....", and tonight's recap begins with "UFO researcher Richard Dolan will discuss the latest developments in the structure of secrecy in the government."

I suspect there are better sources of political analysis out there.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

He dug it up from:

http://www.patriotwatch.com/GeneralChong.htm

which is a biased pro-military(and apparently pro-war as well) source. Odrirg posted the same post to OT board in Dio's where it has been discussed to some extent(with Odrirg and Pro supporting the message in it). The discussion can be found from:

http://www.qhcf.net/cforum/ot/vpost.pl?61665

I reserve the right to tear this, and you for agreeing with it into tiny little piece at some future date, but right now, I'm mind numb from the stupidity of this essay.

The way to win any war is to remove the desire of the opposing force to fight. If you think you can do this through force when the opposing force is willing to commit suicide, you are mistaken. The only way this "war" will ever be won is by assimilation. We are the Borg, and resistance is futile, and our culture, which is really what we are fighting to instill in Iraq, is a war machine of unfathomable power.

You are Pro should get together and talk... the result would no doubt make Abot and Costello's who's on first sketch look like an intelligent flow of normal conversation. I worry about the universe imploding though...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Albert Einstein

Your point about culture is why I no longer worry about China's rapidly expanding military power, whereas your more isolationalist states (North Korea, and increasingly Iran) concern me. Intarwebs, blue jeans, and Hollywood have inadvertantly helped us a great deal in terms of "hearts and minds", whereas you can't really say that for a number of our recent military and diplomatic decisions.

The reverse is true about assimilation as well. People in the U.S. get a greater share of international news, cuisine, goods, and entertainment than ever before. It's also why attitudes towards foreigners tend to be more positive in large cities and universities, where people have more occasion to acquire this international culture, and more opportunities to meet people from other nations.

I work in the national security field. I know that it's dumb to stand around with your thumbs in your pockets, and it's sensible to do things like thoroughly check goods at the airport, the ports, etc. I also know that Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph, the Unabomber, and the still-uncaught anthrax mailer (recent terrorists who are conveniently unmentioned in Odrirg's post) caused a great deal of humanitarian and economic damage, and thus it's both sensible and moral to address actions rather than skin tones (or what Invisible Sky Wizard they like most).

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Apparently we share similar world views... so long as the world isn't CF.

Two of those three were Religious extremists, one a Political Hack (Left wing) and they represents a proportion of the population that would probably look something like this....300 out of 350,000.

Islam is a very real threat and it does have geographical centers.

As for assimilation this is often true, but people don't allways assimilate, they may marginalize (I.E. Reject/Rejected by Parent Culture and Local culture) or they can infiltrate.

There are other levels as well I;m not recalling but those will suffice.

The Mexican Invasion, and that is what it is -VIVA AZTLAN- is a concerted effort by the Mexican government to Populate and Separate our SW states. Their governments have stated it openly and it's seen in their Mexican Flag waving Demonstrations.

You've got to be trying to miss it if you don't see it or you may be one of those that just wish to see us fail.

I;ve never understood the hatred people have for a country that has done so much good for the world.

An Invasion is an Invasion with or without Guns.


Edit: Getting political info from a website that espouses the Merrits of UFO sightings does seem a bit odd.

"The Mexican Invasion, and that is what it is -VIVA AZTLAN- is a concerted effort by the Mexican government to Populate and Separate our SW states. Their governments have stated it openly and it's seen in their Mexican Flag waving Demonstrations. You've got to be trying to miss it if you don't see it or you may be one of those that just wish to see us fail."

I guess I fail to see the political point of an invasion where millions of Mexican immigrants sweep over the border, take largely menial jobs, and provide the backbone of the Southwest's economy. It's more believable to me that individuals see a chance to make 5x or 10x their current salary and are willing to do what they have to do to take it, border be damned. They're not gathering in El Secret Mexican Plotting Dome, hatching schemes to take hundreds of thousands of backbreaking agricultural jobs in a miserably hot climate, saying "That'll show those gringos!"

Their arrival doesn't make America "fail". Countless waves of previous immigrants (my ancestors included, and yours more likely than not) came here undereducated, with little grasp of English, but willing (or just forced, depending on their continent of origin) to work on farms, mines, mills, railroads, or whatever else was available. Just like the current Latino immigrants, they put up with xenophobic morons yelling "Go Back To _______". And we're the nation we are precisely because they didn't go back.

There's a reason Washington won't touch the illegal immigration issue. They know how much the country as a whole is strengthened by it.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I don't understand why unrestricted immigration is a bad thing. Can someone explain it to me?

Unrestricted legal immigration would mean paying the millions of currently-undocumented workers the minimum wage, enrolling them in certain benefits programs, permitting labor unions in their industries, etc. Big price tag. Right now, the employers in the Southwest readily use the threat of deportation to keep their employees silent and poor.

From a theoretical stance, I'd greatly prefer if we had a real system. People can come in on a work visa, and they can stay as long as they have steady employment and don't commit serious crimes. In addition, they would pass through the standard background checks and such that all legal immigrants undergo to make sure we aren't importing dangerous people, negating one of the significant drawbacks of the current (non-)system.

A variant on that would be low-restriction legal immigration with a point system, similar to Canada's. There, you get credit for work experience, education, and skills which make you attractive to prospective employers (including fluency in English/French). The more of that you have, the easier it is to enter. Not very Statue Of Liberty in philosophy, but apparently very effective in improving your bottom line.

But any of the above would cost a lot more money than the current "look the other way" system does, and that comes with a lot of inertia. Congress will put on a dog-n-pony show as needed, but I don't foresee any real changes in the short term.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The first thing that comes to mind is that it's a less chaotic process if there are limits on where and how fast it can occur, whether those limits are based in legal immigration quotas or illegal immigration being semi hard/dangerous so not everyone who might like to does it.

The other thing is that if you limit how fast immigration can occur, you more strongly preserve the 'base' culture.

See my post about healthcare. Our system has been strung together with too many assumptions made. Our tax system, our healthcare system, etc would fall apart.

Now, I'm all in favor of tearing apart the retarded system we have and going with a more practical, minimalist approach which may work better with an open border (fair tax comes to mind, as one step in the right direction), but there's far too much political intertia against changing what's there. The government likes the system the way it is, even if its inefficient. It gives them a lot of power to modify and tweak things to win elections and hook up their friends and it gives them a tight control over everything. The only problem is that, the system itself is flawed, because its based upon many assumptions related to our tax system. Thats how we determine employment rates, wages, etc. If you suddenly took the fences down, the whole system would crash.

On a sidenote, my belief of this is largely why I've withdrawn from the "right vs left" arguments or the "Democrat vs Republican" arguments. Frankly, if I'm going to argue against anyone, I'm going to argue against the concept of politicians altogether. Because arguing about 'what we can do with social security' is irrelevant, because even if the guy is selling that to get elected, that doesn't mean he'll actually put it into action when he's in office. Far more often, all these happy little ideas get talked about in the debates, then conveniently forgotten when its too much of a politcally turbulent issue.

nt

Given our current system of social benefits, the poor operate at a negative balance when it comes to "taxes contributed" vs. "tax-funded dollars consumed". The more poor people you add, assuming the programs and their parameters stay fixed, the more money needs to be paid in taxes by those who operate at a positive balance (i.e. paying in more than they take out). At some point, the system just breaks down. Imho if the level of social benefits in this country were similar to what it was during the last great wave of immigration, the power brokers would be alot more inclined to throw open the gates. Thing is, there's no going back.

(This is where I insert my plug for the FairTax, pointing out how it would mitigate the motivation for people to immigrate illegally.)

They won't come here for menial jobs. They will usurp the entire area.

If they are legal, why would they do hard jobs that before they could only get under the table.

They will vote in their leaders then secede and thus the birth of Aztlan.


It's going to happen because of a complete lack of understanding of the human condition. Unless we hammer people for hiring them, lock down the border to all but trade and let their numbles dwindle over time though the prosses of day to day deportation.

>They won't come here for menial jobs. They will usurp the
>entire area.
>
>If they are legal, why would they do hard jobs that before
>they could only get under the table.
>
>They will vote in their leaders then secede and thus the birth
>of Aztlan.

... what would be the point in that?

Illegal Mexican immigrants can get better jobs in America precisely because it IS America. If they were capable of setting up better wages in Mexico, they'd probably just do that.

Ca is the 10th largets economy in the world.

Mountains have metals

Ranch lands

Crops in fertile valleys

Oil,

Ready made cities with increadible import/export capability.

Cheap white and black laborers.

>"The Mexican Invasion, and that is what it is -VIVA
>AZTLAN- is a concerted effort by the Mexican government to
>Populate and Separate our SW states. Their governments have
>stated it openly and it's seen in their Mexican Flag waving
>Demonstrations. You've got to be trying to miss it if you
>don't see it or you may be one of those that just wish to see
>us fail."
>
>I guess I fail to see the political point of an invasion where
>millions of Mexican immigrants sweep over the border, take
>largely menial jobs, and provide the backbone of the
>Southwest's economy.

Well, obviously I don't see what the conspiracy is. However, there are unpleasant side effects to illegal immigration. For one, it wreaks utter havok on healthcare costs. For two, it lowers baseline wages for those 'menial' jobs, that many people depend on to survive. The combination of those two factors is why the % of people with no healthcare in this country is rising.

> It's more believable to me that
>individuals see a chance to make 5x or 10x their current
>salary and are willing to do what they have to do to take it,
>border be damned. They're not gathering in El Secret Mexican
>Plotting Dome, hatching schemes to take hundreds of thousands
>of backbreaking agricultural jobs in a miserably hot climate,
>saying "That'll show those gringos!"

To be fair, these are also not the only types of jobs that illegals work.

>Their arrival doesn't make America "fail". Countless waves of
>previous immigrants (my ancestors included, and yours more
>likely than not) came here undereducated, with little grasp of
>English, but willing (or just forced, depending on their
>continent of origin) to work on farms, mines, mills,
>railroads, or whatever else was available. Just like the
>current Latino immigrants, they put up with xenophobic morons
>yelling "Go Back To _______". And we're the nation we are
>precisely because they didn't go back.

Well, lets not glorify the past. Back in those times, the healthcare system wasn't as it was today. People used to get sent to Arizona as late as the 50's for having tuburculosis(sp?). I mean, it does certainly cause an effect on our *CURRENT* system, and a lot of that has to do with the fact that our *CURRENT* system is stupid.

Regarding healthcare, a few minor examples. The tax structure built to support our military spending and bloated federal/state governments have caused cost-of-living to grow exponentially since 'the days of yore'. How many jobs have pensions these days? Pretty much strictly government and union jobs. The operating costs, therefore, of places like hospitals, have driven drastically. Additionally, every step along the way has become more expensive, from drug research to packaging to shipping of pharmaceuticals to staffing pharmacies.

To add to that, other countries place limits on how much drugs can cost. Their share of the costs, therefore, get passed back to the US. This already creates a very expensive situation for our healthcare. Toss in that people typically live longer, yada yada yada.

Now enter into illegal immigration. In every place I've seen, you cannot be denied medical aid in a hospital emergency room. Illegal immigrants and people without healthcare therefore rack up large bills which then go into credit. However, people default, go bankrupt, or in the case of illegals, merely cannot be held accountable for those costs. Those hospitals still need to make bottom line, therefore, we foot the bill for those costs.

All these things drive the cost of healthcare so high, that you truly require health care insurance in order to adequately provide for your health services. The way health insurance companies get their premium pool for an area, is doubling what they spent last year. Medicare, additionally, regularly declines full payment for medical services, which causes doctors to raise their rates and 'up-code' more aggressively against other payers. The net result is exorbitant healthcare insurance costs that are padded by their near 100% profit margins.

And while illegals aren't the sole cause, they're certainly not an ignorable portion of the costs. The way our system is tightly strung together, imbalances like illegal immigration wreak financial havok on the low wage earning blue collar class in this country.

>There's a reason Washington won't touch the illegal
>immigration issue. They know how much the country as a whole
>is strengthened by it.

They don't touch it because its good for them. They aren't part of the population I stated above. The right benefits because big business benefits and upper middle class benefits. The left benefits because a large portion of their voters are so far into the low wage earning department that social programs take care of their medical coverage and many of them are tax exempt so this really doesn't apply. Like usual, the people who get screwed most are the ones just above that, who for pride or whatever reason won't play the system.

>valguarnera@carrionfields.com

The reason we don't have healthcare is because our government spends way too much on our military. Cut our defense budget a bit and you can easily handle healthcare.

Blaming illegal immigrants is hypocritical. Show me someone who can trace every ancestor back to a legal immigrant and I'll show you a native american.

According to the first geneology site to creep up in Google (http://www.baby-names-meanings.com), the poster you're replying to has a last name that means "son of the reddish-brown man".

On the flip side, Wikipedia the character from V for Vendettawho shares his last name.

Ah, Google.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I'm not Pro. Additionally, I didn't say anything remotely having to do with race/color/creed, merely simple, unbiased financials.

Thread is complicated.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

We are all son of Hairy Ape man.

How is that relevant to our current system. Aren't you guys supposed to be proggressive?

Learn from the past, don't live it.

> The reason we don't have healthcare is because our government spends way too much on our military. Cut our defense budget a bit and you can easily handle healthcare.

Except, in any socialistic form of healthcare, the prices skyrocket or are legislatively capped. This has the effect of either jacking up our taxes or stagnating medical research. Both of those are sucky alternatives. I agree we spend too much on military, but why not just give me my money back, altogether, and let me buy my own health insurance? How about a system where competition drives prices down so I don't even need health insurance? By making it part of a government program, you're now introducing inefficiency into the system. Effectively, you're adding a middle man, removing all competition, and I'm additionally paying extra for at no benefit to myself. Why would I want that?

>Blaming illegal immigrants is hypocritical. Show me someone who can trace every ancestor back to a legal immigrant and I'll show you a native american.

Did you actually read my post or just whip out this templated response? Our 'ancestors' weren't guaranteed medical care in hospitals, and the fees weren't nearly what they are today. They didn't have the system of credit/bankruptcy that we have today. My grandfather didn't abuse the emergency room situation, because for one it didn't exist, and for two he didn't have to. People today have to, because the prices are so incredibly high. Long story short, why don't you stop associating anything negatively said about illegal immigration with racism and hypocrisy and actually evaluate it on its own merits?

>Blaming illegal immigrants is hypocritical. Show me someone
>who can trace every ancestor back to a legal immigrant and
>I'll show you a native american.

Native Americans didn't have laws against immigration, so the European settlers can't really be described as "illegal".

I'm about as American as they come. My direct male ancestor immigrated to Virginia around 1650. You have to go back 5 generations in my family to find anyone who wasn't born in the United States. And I think Pro's insane.

Just not entirely articulate.

You are wrong.

Edit: Forgot to include military spending by non-DoD federal agencies.

The relevant comparison is the size of the federal budget, because that's the money the government controls, and can allocate. The GNP is a measure of the total value of goods and services produced by that country. The federal government can't allocate more money to healthcare because a factory sold a million extra TVs that year. (Beyond what they collect in taxes, which do end up in the federal budget.)

In 2007, we will spend $2.8 trillion. $244 billion gets taken right out, because it's interest on the debt, and therefore money we don't really have. Defense spending, military spending by non-DoD sources, and veterans' affairs total $653 billion of what remains, which is 25% of the total money we can spend. I'm being kind and pretending that we won't overspend the budget, even though the Iraq War has constantly done so for years, and will probably overspend by $100B (add +4% to above figure) in 2007 alone.

$653B is a ridiculous amount of money. We could more than triple our R&D budget (currently $25B) by slicing defense spending by a tenth. Your implication that the military budget is insignificant in the spending picture is completely laughable.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

And it's done largely in the Private sector... I site your own company as an example.

The US Military has allways been the Father of invention.

I think my figures were a spin on the total value of uour Hardware s Our GNP. I'm looking.

I'm all about Greater Tech. The more we have, the more lethal we become, the smaller our military can be, the less we consume, the longer we last.

hardy har har

Go back to Europe, pilgrim.

I don't cut and run.

Learn from the past. Don't live it.

#### white guilt.

There are two ways to win.

Physically and Moraly (Think Moral not Morality).

It's a military certainty that the ONLY way to defeat a fanatic is physically since he is dedicated to his ideology.

They can't be reasoned with. They can only be destroyed. Let peace fill in the vacuum of their absence.

>It's a military certainty that the ONLY way to defeat a
>fanatic is physically since he is dedicated to his ideology.

I'm going to try to keep this brief and not write 50 pages, because there's CF stuff I want to do yet tonight.

Simply, I think you underestimate the transformitive power of the American culture and way of life. The way you push that isn't invading some random country in the Middle East; that makes it a lot harder for it to do is job and spread freedom, ironically.

Is Osama Bin Ladin going to give up his way of life and start hanging out at a McDonalds, watching Friends reruns, and listening to Britney Spears? No, of course not. Guys like that, yes, you either need to kill or marginalize by forcing them to live in caves in the middle of bumble#### nowhere. Even most of the liberal Americans that you deride aren't arguing that one.

But, give it a generation or two. Let the greatness of the Western way of modern life (such as it is) work its miracles, there aren't going to be any more OBLs. Or, if there are, they're going to be guys like the Unabomber who are living in the midst of a population that does not support the stuff they want to do, and thus, are made much less dangerous as a result.

The Cold War wasn't won on a battlefield. Overall, this is no different. Soviet Union propaganda-dudes back in the day lied to their people about what life in America was like, just as many governments of the Middle East or clerical leaders do today. The world is getting smaller, and truth and freedom can't be held back forever, not by anyone.

I'm going to try to keep this brief and not write 50 pages, because there's CF stuff I want to do yet tonight.

Simply, I think you underestimate the transformitive power of the American culture and way of life. The way you push that isn't invading some random country in the Middle East; that makes it a lot harder for it to do is job and spread freedom, ironically.

Is Osama Bin Ladin going to give up his way of life and start hanging out at a McDonalds, watching Friends reruns, and listening to Britney Spears? No, of course not. Guys like that, yes, you either need to kill or marginalize by forcing them to live in caves in the middle of bumble#### nowhere. Even most of the liberal Americans that you deride aren't arguing that one.

Guys like "that" are the leaders. Don't you watch TV? Have you been over there where they go to a Mosque and do nothing but pray? Western culture and Eastern Culture both have attractive merrits to us. But to them it is denied because of the iron handed governments they have. And I don't give a ####. They canal desicate in the desert for all I care. The problem is, they've had Western/Eastern culture for Centries and it's never stoped the acts of Violence. Agression to US policy goes back to the 1800 with the Barbary Pirates.


But, give it a generation or two. Let the greatness of the Western way of modern life (such as it is) work its miracles, there aren't going to be any more OBLs. Or, if there are, they're going to be guys like the Unabomber who are living in the midst of a population that does not support the stuff they want to do, and thus, are made much less dangerous as a result.


There have been plenty of Generations. The last 75 years made them Rich beyond belief. Now in their free time they fund and export terrorism. What's more Saudi Arabia is a massive supporter of producer of them. 18 or the 19 were Sauds.



The Cold War wasn't won on a battlefield. Overall, this is no different. Soviet Union propaganda-dudes back in the day lied to their people about what life in America was like, just as many governments of the Middle East or clerical leaders do today. The world is getting smaller, and truth and freedom can't be held back forever, not by anyone.

That's just naive. Our cultures are breaking down in large measure because of Entropy. Western Societies are soft and weak and worried more about hurting an agressors feelings than defending their own people.

I don't believe I have to love anyone. I believe I have to shoot the ####er comming in my door to rape my daughters. I don't agree or disagree wih Iraq. I'm a soldier and I'm glad we are over there if only to disrupt them in that area so they can't mass against us. The turmoil you see in the news about us is nothing to the mayhem those ####ers are feeling. They are tribesmen and they all interpret the Koran their way. One thing rings true for all of them though. Christians, jews and everyone not Muslim must die.

That's not hype, that's notpropaganda, that's not a minority of their culture. It is their culture. Don't take my word for it look around the world at the major conlicts with nations other than our own and see who's involed...Islam. Muslims.

Islam means To Submit for #### sake.

The disconnect here, in essence, is that you need to think a certain way to be able to function as a soldier. I get that. If you think to yourself, this dude with a gun pointed at me might have a legitimate beef with my country, or, he might also have kids he really wants to see again, you can't function out there. You might hesitate when you should kill, and get yourself or other soldiers killed. So you end up in a mindset (which the U.S. Army, smartly, encourages) of thinking the other guy is a fanatical killbot who's just dying to murder and rape you and everyone you care about, because you'd never hesitate to kill that guy.

I get that these things are necessary, but they don't reflect reality.

>Guys like "that" are the leaders. Don't you watch TV? Have you
>been over there where they go to a Mosque and do nothing but
>pray? Western culture and Eastern Culture both have attractive
>merrits to us. But to them it is denied because of the iron
>handed governments they have. And I don't give a ####. They
>canal desicate in the desert for all I care. The problem is,
>they've had Western/Eastern culture for Centries and it's
>never stoped the acts of Violence. Agression to US policy goes
>back to the 1800 with the Barbary Pirates.

Well, let's just look at OBL for example. Where did that guy come from? Essentially, he was trained by the U.S. government to fight the Russians in Afghanistan for them by proxy.

From that, you might draw the conclusions:

1) Obviously, at that point, he wasn't uncompromisingly murderous towards America or the West as you're saying all Muslims are. And that's one of their leaders.

2) Maybe if we (and other governments) stopped creating guys like OBL to do our dirty work for us in other parts of the world, in a generation or two there would be... I won't say no guys like that, but certainly LESS of them.

The world is too small a place. You can't train terrorists and turn them loose on your enemies and think that in no way will that ever come back to you.

Dictators generally rise to power by blaming some external source or threat for all of the problems of a people. We should stop making it so easy for it to be us. That doesn't mean you give in to terrorists, but it also means you don't go out of your way to help them recruit.

>There have been plenty of Generations.

Well, ideally a couple of generations wherein we try not to #### with their countries too much and just let Desperate Housewives work them over for a while.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but think about it. How often do we fight countries that watch our sitcoms and have McDonalds?

How often did we fight those countries 50-100 years ago?

>The last 75 years made
>them Rich beyond belief. Now in their free time they fund and
>export terrorism. What's more Saudi Arabia is a massive
>supporter of producer of them. 18 or the 19 were Sauds.

I actually agree with you here to a point... I think it's ####ty that 9/11 blame went pretty much everywhere BUT there. I actually would have been much more behind invading Saudi Arabia than Iraq.

>Western Societies are soft and
>weak and worried more about hurting an agressors feelings than
>defending their own people.

That's not really how it is. That said, if you kill terrorists but do it in a way that, for every one you kill you convince 10 people who wouldn't have been terrorists that they should be, you can't ever win that war with anything less than genocide.

I know that sounds ridiculous, but think about it. How often do we fight countries that watch our sitcoms and have McDonalds?

Thomas Friedman actually wrote a book chapter about how no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war. (McDonald's entering a nation is in some way a yardstick of industrialization, the emergence of a middle class, positive attitudes towards foreigners in general, etc.) I found a quick summary of "The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention" here, though it was sadly damaged by the recent eruption of hostilities between Lebanon and Israel, and depends on how you classify the NATO action against McDonald's-having Serbia. (Regarding the former, Friedman loyalists will likely point out that it was Hezbollah, not the Lebanese government per se that provoked the conflict, and Hezbollah is essentially a proxy of Iran and Syria, both of which lack the McNugget technology.)

Later revisions have argued that McDonald's is too low-rent to be a good yardstick, and have suggested either Starbucks or Dell as a substitute.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

As it happens, I've read Lexus and the Olive Tree. I didn't bring up the Golden Arches Theory per se because I wasn't sure it had stood the test of time, but regardless the principle is pretty sound.

If we agree* that spreading our culture is the most effective way to win**?

My proposal would be completely unrestricted and non-government regulated trade and immigration between America and Iraq. Not to say security measure aren't taken, but something akin to the relationship between US/Canada.

Any other ideas?

Also, this is a random but not wholly unrelated question: Would it be cheaper to bring*** people from other countries to work jobs in the US for minimum wage with the idea that the infrastructure building and transport costs (for the end product) go to nearly zero, or build infrastructure and transport capabilities from the ground up, but pay the people 50 cents a day? Which is more morally acceptable?

(*) Obviously we don't all agree, but assume we do, like a math proof.

(**) I couldn't think of a better way to describe the desired end state.

(***) This would be an entirely volunteer action on their part. Perhaps with companies granting loans or somesuch so that people could bring their families. I don't, it's random.

My culture does not matter.

Why is it the left espouses erasing our borders?

There seems to be this mindset that every culture excet ours is good.

Free Trade zones are going to be the death of civilization.

Why does your "culture" require being in a bubble to survive?

I've never said that. Ever.

But I am for controlling our borders and trade. I for one see nothing wrong with being an American and letting the rest of the world be what they are.

We can make kissy kissy but at the end of the day I want the red right and blue.

I don't wan't to be European.

How does this question: "If we agree* that spreading our culture is the most effective way to win" (how do we go about doing it)?*

Evoke this response:

>My culture does not matter.

Is yours the culture of military conquest, in which case spreading culture through presumably non-militaristic ways means it is in danger? Honestly man I don't get it.

>Why is it the left espouses erasing our borders?

I am not left. I am not for "erasing" any borders. I also think that anyone who wants to come here should be able to. They should be documented, just as the thousand who came through Elis Island were, but they should be welcome, because it just plain makes sense.

>There seems to be this mindset that every culture excet ours
>is good.

And yet my mindset was that every culture except ours should be subverted by ours (or something like that). I mean I'm full on against MySpace, iPods, Reality TV, and many other things in our culture, but there is something underneath it (freedom) that is so strong, I think everyone should join in.

>Free Trade zones are going to be the death of civilization.

Please explain. If we opened up a free trade zone between here and a fictional third world south american country.... would not both places benefit?

(*) I should proofread as that is what my question was supposed to ask.

>I am not left. I am not for "erasing" any borders. I also
>think that anyone who wants to come here should be able to.
>They should be documented, just as the thousand who came
>through Elis Island were, but they should be welcome, because
>it just plain makes sense.

Immigration needs to be managed, and I don't just mean documentation and citizenship. Even in the Ellis Island days they were selective about who got in. And they were alot less PC than we would be nowdays. If you were diseased you might not get in. If you were uneducated you might not get in. If you had any sort of mental illness or "criminal tendencies" you might not get in. I'm not saying those should necessarily be our criteria, but it's a regrettable fact that the U.S. economy cannot support the near-endless addition of poor, unskilled citizens. At least, not without drastically altering (read: cutting) the sorts of social programs our govt. currently offers.

Imho the U.S. can support much higher levels of immigration than it currently legally allows. But I definitely disagree that the borders should be thrown open for anyone and everyone.

I'm ok with those criteria.

I'm ok with drastically altering (cutting) the sort of social programs our government currently offers.

I think combined with FairTax (which I've been trying to tell people about, but no one cares) things would balance out nicely.

Thrown open for anyone and everyone? No, perhaps I meant unlimited (based on numbers, but not on criteria*) immigration.

(*) Canada's point system seems like a good idea, but then I think you should have to take some sort of test before being legally allowed to breed. Ever hear the saying "Only stupid people breed"... Enough of my quasi-insane views for one day.

And I support it.

As someone else pointed out it would have the added benifit of keeping more Illegal money here.

Then don't tell anyone. I don't want it damned by association.

.

>I'm ok with drastically altering (cutting) the sort of social
>programs our government currently offers.

But most people aren't. Or, at least, there are enough people who aren't okay with it that you'll never see them get axed.

>Thrown open for anyone and everyone? No, perhaps I meant
>unlimited (based on numbers, but not on criteria*)
>immigration.

I agree with having criteria. But if you include "poor" and "unskilled" among the criteria that would exclude someone, then those people will just immigrate illegally. That is, assuming it's financially feasible for them. That's made less true with a FairTax, and with non-insignificant penalties for businesses that knowingly (or negligently) hire illegals.

Short of draconian measures (execution), the cheapest (and, really, the only effective) way to keep people from immigrating illegally is to remove their motivation for doing so.

>I think you should have to take some sort of test before being
>legally allowed to breed.

That's a terrible idea. Are you going to throw people in jail for having unprotected sex? Or will you sterilize people against their will? Or force women to have abortions? It's an incredible invasion of privacy any way you slice it.

>>I'm ok with drastically altering (cutting) the sort of
>social
>>programs our government currently offers.
>
>But most people aren't. Or, at least, there are enough people
>who aren't okay with it that you'll never see them get axed.

I'll agree that this is true, and be baffled by the why of it. IMHO most of our "social" programs actually help propogate the very things they were put in place to help alleviate.

>>Thrown open for anyone and everyone? No, perhaps I meant
>>unlimited (based on numbers, but not on criteria*)
>>immigration.
>
>I agree with having criteria. But if you include "poor" and
>"unskilled" among the criteria that would exclude someone,
>then those people will just immigrate illegally. That is,
>assuming it's financially feasible for them. That's made less
>true with a FairTax, and with non-insignificant penalties for
>businesses that knowingly (or negligently) hire illegals.

Neither "poor" nor "unskilled" were in your original list of criteria.

>>I think you should have to take some sort of test before
>being
>>legally allowed to breed.
>
>That's a terrible idea. Are you going to throw people in jail
>for having unprotected sex? Or will you sterilize people
>against their will? Or force women to have abortions? It's
>an incredible invasion of privacy any way you slice it.
>

No, I have no idea how to implement said idea, but I see quite a few people who are incapable of taking care of their own lives who insist on having children who they also cannot take care of, and make it that much harder for them to get their own life under control. These people aren't smart enough or careful enough, or don't care enough to prevent themselves from having children, and yet they are allowed to do so. I don't want to invade people's privacy, but I also have a hard time letting stupid people make bad decisions that make their lives worse. It is a terrible idea. There is no feasible way to accomplish it, but that really wasn't the point.

Do the math. That's a culture killer.

Where do you get your numbers? According to this site:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back1302.html

As of 2002, the total of all immigrants, legal and illegal, from all countries, is 33.1 million. They comprise 11.5% of the total population, which is the highest level in 70 years, but still shy of the all-time high of 14.8% in 1890. Basically the 2002 level was the same as the 1930 level.

Did the country collapse? Did the culture collapse? No, but it arguably became more diverse. Which imho isn't a bad thing. I like the fact that I can get decent enchiladas at umpteen different places within 15 minutes of my house. I like the fact that Italian food is now a "staple" genre that's ubiquitously available. I like the fact that I can buy a Shwarma from a middle-eastern guy, or Thai food from a Thai. Yay multiculturalism.

Populations on earth are too large as it is.

I for one am for a smaller more efficient nation.


I don't want us to go extinct. I want us in the stars.

With perhaps a few exceptions for Defectors or similar cases.

Immigration is just a way of feeding consummerism. It's feeding todays mouths t the expense of humanities future.

The US will take us to the star if anyone will, I believe this, if we ca reinstill a will to succeed in ourselves.

I don't need 20 more Haji's moving in next door so I can have 3 morte 711's.

Cause you sure as #### aren't a Native American.

Jeez. I think you have a very one sided view of cultural exchange.

Maybe because every 'industry' you've worked for involves violence, you haven't seen the good aspects of culture exchange. Regardless, I can say some of the most rewarding experiences I've had in my line of work is having met intelligent people from other countries and had the opportunity to learn about their culture.

I do not like the state the world is in. Our populations are growing and using up rescources at an enormous rate. Our current success is a short lived one if we do not preserve what we have.

As far as cultural diversity, I think it's safe to say I've travelled the world more than most here. I've circled it twice and been to more countries than I can remember.

I don't hate anyone except the Islamic radicals.

My dislike of the illegal invasion is just that, it's an invasion.

What you call a cultural exchange is all to often a matter of one population (In any area of the world) moving in until they shift the demographic through shear numbers.

I do not hold to the Idea that the United States is an evil Imperialistic nation, I believe we are a force for good. If it seems otherwise it's because our need to consume forces us to extend our influence out to other nations.

We need to learn from our own Aboriginal Ancestry and note that if you do not band together and stop it now, then it's over.

I'm not going to be hit with racial guilt and silenced through political correctness.

We have a problem, the world is about to die and I think the US is at a point where we can change gears and come out on top when Europe and the rest of the world sinks back into the Dark Ages.

It's not a guarantee that the Internet and working plumbing is going to be around in 100 years.

I have seen who regions where the cities look like our own beloved Ruined Keep.

I'm for defending and preemtivly acting on preserving and maintaining what we have. I would like to see our population drop to half of what we have, and I would like to see our national efforts make magor headway into the sciences.

The rest of the world can die around us for all I care. It's their responsibility t survive, not ours to carry them.

Who does it make sense to?

Where are you from, out of curiousity? We get plenty of culture from immigration. But, the way the system works, we also get the best and brightest from other cultures, often. I prefer it that way.

As an anthropologist, allow me to mention, you misuse or do not understand the proper use of the word 'culture'. The US does not have a 'culture' as you seem to believe, nor is this a disputed issue by academia. I would caution basing arguments on a shakey foundation.

Eshval's email
BlackMarquessa@gmail.com

Eshval's slightly off-center (unofficial) blog.
http://blackmarquessa.blogspot.com/
Carnivàle
http://cirquecarnivale.wordpress.com/

Then what is the correct word for the set of behaviors, attitudes, arts and beliefs that are demonstrated by the american mainstream and distributed to the rest of the world? I've always used the word culture to describe that, but is there another one?

Or are you saying that the heterogeneity of the population of the US means there's no single culture? If so, then you must realize that people say "US Culture" what they really mean is "mainstream culture" I.E. Mcdonalds, Britney Spears, The Simpsons. What do you call those things if not cultural fixtures?

I'm murderous about those behind the Insurgency and I recognize the paralels in my behavior and theirs. My ethics and sense of morality is such that I'm not going out to commit genocide. But under orders I have to be honest, short of killing women and children in a deliberate fashion. I'd line up everyone of those fighters and core their skulls and not lose a moments sleep.

And I'm so emotional just reading about it that I find myself reacting phisiologically.

That being said Valg and you are talking about What I have dubbed the Netenyahu (Sp?) Concept where in Benji said (Paraphrased) "Air Drop in televisions and pump in 97645 (Meaning 90210) to the Iranian youth." They will love it and move to change the government.

It's true, we soften them with Big Macs and they won't feel compelled to war.

I sense that Iran is going through a dynamic shift just as we are, but I'm afraid the old regime is going to blow us the #### up in order to force their younger generation into a militaristic mindset.

What's more I've long since been disillusioned with our own leadership across the board.

Good Read = Mackiavelli (Sp?) 'The Prince'

uyu

And if they do, it's because I will only cry if I did nothing to participate in my government.

"Going to war for peace is like ####ing to get your virginity back" I cant remember the source though. =)

Self defence is like sex, its only good if it is nasty.

Bigotry is not as hilarious.

I have to admit this is the most ignorant political thing I've read recently. No offense to Odrirg, but it is.

A few comments:

>We cannot fault
>either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no
>provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
>predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

From the perspective of some Americans this may be true. From the perspective of most people in the Middle East it really isn't, and not without some justification. It's not like America hasn't been involved in military actions in the Middle East during that time that have killed people, including civilians. It's not like weapons provided by Americans haven't done the same.

Now, maybe we did the things we did for reasons that seemed good to us, either just at the time or still. I'll buy that. But, you have to be pretty willfully blind to U.S. history to think that no one in the Middle East could have any rational justification for hating America. That's not to say that terrorist actions are justified, but there are a lot of explanations for the motives that, while not making these actions right, are a lot less silly.

>Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt
>that the predominately Christian population of Germany was
>peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who
>was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went
>along with the administration or you were eliminated. There
>were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for
>political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (see
>>http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm )

See this, or look up Godwin\'s Law via the source of your choice.

>No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of
>our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during
>this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of
>those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

You can't protect America by subverting civil rights or the Constitution. You can theoretically protect a piece of land and the people who live in it by doing so, but that place isn't America anymore.

>And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world
>that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of
>religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let
>alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that
>have been productive in one single way that contributes to the
>good of the world.

Yet this essay urges that we transform America into a country that doesn't have these freedoms.

>Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by
>some external military force. Instead, they give their
>freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically
>correct piece.

Or by a government that "just wants to protect" them?

A huge part of what makes America great is its freedom. This essay talks about how peaceful Muslims can't disagree with angry Muslims without being silenced or killed, but then in the next breath urges Americans who disagree with the actions of their government to be silent. That is letting the terrorists win -- letting them take away America's greatness and its culture.

People who disagree with you don't hate America. They don't "want the terrorists to win" -- they just have a different vision of what America is and what's to really be valued about it than you do.

IE Allowing our Government to slowly erode rights like freedom of choice and such (which most if not all of the Arab countries have beaten down) would do more damage to our Country then losing 1,000,000 soldiers in the Arab world. Losing would be presenting a demonstrative authority over these countries that we propose to help (IE our way or the highway) and making their citizens, who likely have never ever committed an act of terroism, find the US much like their old oppressors.

I am sick of people believing that this problem will be solved by giving our government MORE POWER. Jesus people, to use a CF analogy, it'd be like saying to the IMMs, well, you guys can hook up all your characters with God gear and extra quest skills, because they know the game better and can think about what we need if they play such characters...

Politics is not a good discussing point for a CF forum. Too many variables and strong feelings.

Let me suggest the following extremely generous summary of what Odrirg posted:

"Political correctness prevents government entities from utilizing profiling techniques that would serve to reduce the likelihood of future terrorist actions against the United States."

Now, for all those who dismissed Odrirg's post (myself included):

1. Are you against profiling?

2. If so, is it because you don't think it would be effective, or because it's "wrong" regardless of how effective it may be?

>Let me suggest the following extremely generous
>summary of what Odrirg posted:
>
>"Political correctness prevents government entities from
>utilizing profiling techniques that would serve to reduce the
>likelihood of future terrorist actions against the United
>States."

I'd say this is a summary of a part of the essay.

>Now, for all those who dismissed Odrirg's post (myself
>included):
>
>1. Are you against profiling?

No. I, infact think that profiling should be allowed. There would need to be a lot of oversight, however, because the line between profiling and racial discrimination is pretty slim. I also think that it is ridiculous for an 80 year old lady to be selected for random searches. If you are a young arabic man however, you should expect, and accept that you may face tougher scrutiny than the old lady. I could go on about my reasons here, but I don't have the time right now.

>2. If so, is it because you don't think it would be effective,
>or because it's "wrong" regardless of how effective it may
>be?

It *might* be effective... I don't think we should turn a blind eye to the problem. Some security measures are neccessary. The problem is that no security can be 100% effective (bet mouse trap etc.) so some risk has to be acceptable. I wish I had the time and desire to look up statistics, but I'd bet being injured (or worse) by a terrorist action (for an American) is right up there with getting struck by lightning, or eaten by a shark. Just above getting kill by a sting ray barb to the heart. It's an overblow issue. Step up security slightly to plug some of the obvious holes, then ignore it. Terrorism only works when it insights fear. So far 9/11 has been extraordinarily effective because people who (like me) have zero chance of ever even seeing a terrorist are afraid of terrorism (unlike me).

...so I'll just piggyback on Tac's post.

I'm not against racial profiling because it's proven effective. If you want references I'll provide them, but I'm not going to do so unsolicited.

However, it's a very slippery slope and I can provide you with anecdotal evidence of harrassment that I think should have been prosecuted as a hate crime. The problem with racial profiling is that there ISN'T any oversight and there's really nothing to prevent a police officer from venturing into unmitigated harrassment. Further, because racial minorities typically have a very negativistic view of the criminal justice system and government in general there's really no reason to fear litigiousness or any form of repercussions because the victims are unlikely to expect satisfaction if they were to pursue it. Call it a form of learned helplessness.

I was going to school within 3 miles of the Pentagon on the day it was hit. I had to evacuate Arlington on the very last train leaving the city on the Orange line. I know what fear caused by terrorism looks like firsthand. That said, I'm smart enough to realize that the true terrorists out there are the run-of-the-mill criminals wandering our streets on a daily basis. I'm far more afraid of being mugged (or shot by a crazed DC-area sniper) than I am of further terrorist strikes. The federal government has trumped up the threat to wag the dog and the unmentioned side effect is that increased monies for anti-terrorism initiatives steals monies from ordinary law enforcement and other public safety initiatives. We're all less safe as a result.

Sad but true.

Not in any order:

1) Any announced policy would be ineffective. Muslims, radical or otherwise, come in all colors. Changing one's name to make it appear less Muslim requires minimal effort, as does dressing generically, shaving, etc. Passports and other identification do not reveal your religious beliefs, if any. As a matter of fact, any announced policy might end up counter-productive, as groups choose members who are less likely to be stopped.

2) An unannounced program would be challenged in a court of law once someone watched who screeners were pulling. A secret program would also require the complicit silence of thousands of screeners and police, some fraction of which would be morally offended by it. In either case, it will leak, hit CNN, and you're back at #1.

3) Any such program is an ugly precedent. Statistically, African-Americans commit violent crimes at a higher rate than the baseline. This is not causative-- African-Americans are more likely than the baseline to be poor for historical/prejudicial reasons, and poverty is the dominant causative factor in violent crime, for obvious reasons. Yet it's the argument you hear for racial profiling, and (because prejudices run in all occupations, police included) why even wealthy African-Americans have frustrating encounters with police at an unacceptable rate.

4) A significant fraction (majority?) of terrorist acts perpetrated on American soil have been committed by white, American-born, middle-class men. Racial profiling isn't nearly as precise as behavioral profiling is. Put your resources in the latter.

5) Diplomacy matters. Muslim groups will (rightfully) feel slighted by government policies discriminating against innocent members. Muslims who are singled out for time-consuming and embarrassing searches will likely develop negative opinions of America. These negative opinions provide the support, funding, and manpower that terrorist organizations need to function.

By all means, profile by personal histories. Someone has three felonies? Someone is sweating in a cold airport? Someone just wired $50K to a group on the State Department's watch list? Someone went to flight school and didn't want to learn how to land? Check them twice. But leave the innocent people alone. (And give me back the soda I bought inside the sterile zone for $2.50. I'm not finished yet.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

4) A significant fraction (majority?) of terrorist acts perpetrated on American soil have been committed by white, American-born, middle-class men. Racial profiling isn't nearly as precise as behavioral profiling is. Put your resources in the latter.


This is dangerous thinking. it keeps us from focusing on our real enemy. Fundamentalist Islamic Radicals.

Unless of course you are taking about the Anti-Republican party, then I agree.

LOVE the white guilt that is just lavished on us by the left. LOVE IT!

Get over it.

And I gotta get off this RL ####. It's the devil for this game.

Why I said politics was a bad topic for this board.

And according to him, the best way is by physical force. So apparently we just need to find him, and beat him until he agrees with us. No fault in that logic. Nope. Will *definitely* get the desired result. No chance whatsoever of it having the oposite effect.

And you all are killing America with you trusting ignorance of how ####ing serious people are about killing us outside our borders and a lot of you see nothing wrong with letting them waltz on across. It's amazing the #### I'm seeing. It's like a movie where the hero is warning everyone but they are just stupidly noding their heads and acting condescending.

I've fought these ####ing bastards god damn it!

They have to ####ing die.

Man this is a bad subject for me because it takes me to some ####ed up places I thought I left in the desert.

I need out of this topic bad.


You people just don't know.

>And you all are killing America with you trusting ignorance
>of how ####ing serious people are about killing us outside our
>borders and a lot of you see nothing wrong with letting them
>waltz on across.

Here's the problem with your understanding of other peoples' views:

Hardly anybody wants "Fundamentalist Islamic Radicals" who want to "kill America" crossing the border into the United States.

Yet you contend, "alot of you see nothing wrong with letting them waltz on across."

That's just not true. What is true is that many people see something wrong with preventing Muslims who don't want to "kill America" from crossing the border. Or, making it unreasonably difficult for them.

>I've fought these ####ing bastards god damn it!
>
>They have to ####ing die.
>
>Man this is a bad subject for me because it takes me to some
>####ed up places I thought I left in the desert.
>
>I need out of this topic bad.
>
>
>You people just don't know.

You've experienced a trauma and now you can't see beyond it. This is no better than the white man mugged by a black guy who turns around and wants to lynch black people. Your experiences were far worse than mugging, of course, but it's the same basic idea.

Just because you went through something horrible doesn't mean you see the truth of the world better than anyone else. You just see a truth that's twisted by a personal hardship. PTSD is not known for bringing clarity of thought.

Muslims are not all bad people. I don't mean this sarcastically at all, but I think you should seek counseling if you aren't already. My understanding is that the military does pretty well at providing psychological services for veterans these days.

Muslims are not all bad people. I don't mean this sarcastically at all, but I think you should seek counseling if you aren't already. My understanding is that the military does pretty well at providing psychological services for veterans these days.


I don't care if they are bad people. They need to belly up and stop their Bad people from being what they are. If not, I don't feel bad when they get caught in the cross fire.

The Military does a horrible job at trauma counciling.

A good example is because of #### like those #### heads that raped and burned that girl.

One of them brought it up and it wasn't confidential. You think we talk to those guys?

A Shrink says, 'You okay Sergeant?'

You say, 'Yes Sir.'

A Shrink Says,I see you were in close proximity to the Enemy.'

You say, 'Yep.'

A shrink says 'That can be stressful, want to talk about it?'

You say, '....'

A Shrink stamps your file before ushering you out the tent.

And you all are killing America with you trusting ignorance of how ####ing serious people are about killing us outside our borders and a lot of you see nothing wrong with letting them waltz on across. It's amazing the #### I'm seeing. It's like a movie where the hero is warning everyone but they are just stupidly noding their heads and acting condescending.

I've fought these ####ing bastards god damn it!

They have to ####ing die.

Man this is a bad subject for me because it takes me to some ####ed up places I thought I left in the desert.

Bravery isn't the absence of fear. Bravery is the ability to do the right thing in the face of fear. Ask yourself if you can see any difference between your posts and what OBL says on his tapes, if you reverse who is being spoken about.

You've obviously seen some tough things, and I think they've gotten the better of you for now, because you're posting a lot of scary stuff that would make a KKK Grand Wizard blush. At the very least, I think you'd profit from seeing someone (or seeing someone more often) to talk about it, which I think veterans can do for free.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

*snip*

Yeah, at least seek consultation at the nearest VA.

So your response is that profiling "doesn't work", so there's no point in even discussing the ethical implications. Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree with that entirely, but it's a valid response.

Seems like you're setting up somewhat of a straw man w/ regard to profiling effectiveness, though. For instance the point that "if they know about it then it won't work". Sure, a terrorist group can disguise its operatives so they don't fit the profile or just choose people who genuinely don't fit. But that at least makes their job harder. Recruiting non-profile-fitting operatives gives them a much smaller pool to work with. Disguising profile-fitting operatives is non-trivial.

The govt. could also cast a wide net. Identify countries with sizeable Muslim populations, and increase the risk factor for travelers coming from those countries. Or flag certain first names, many of which are used by Muslims of all nationalities.

W/ regard to domestic terrorists and behavioral profiling, who said that couldn't be used in addition to other methods? You seem to be arguing that "profiling Muslims doesn't catch white, non-Muslim domestic terrorists, therefore we shouldn't do it because it's ineffective".

So much of that essay is completely ignorant, but this part is truly stupid:

>2. Why were we attacked?
>
>Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The
>attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents
>Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault
>either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no
>provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate
>predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.
>

Suicide bombers do not act out of envy.

Look for the real answers here, and you might start to unravel this blindness.

I'll share that I'm much more conservative than most people assume I am, but more liberal than most people think when they hear the word "conservative".

My dream presidental race would be Giuliani vs. Leiberman, and I'm not sure which I'd pick. Now that would be a breath of fresh air.

Uh, other than their different heritage, they are exactly the same.

Give me Clinton vs. Obama NOW that would be a race for the ages!


G.

>My dream presidental race would be Giuliani vs. Leiberman, and
>I'm not sure which I'd pick. Now that would be a breath
>of fresh air.

That doesn't seem like it'd be much of a race. . . considering I'd say Giuliani still has a lot of political capital left over from 9/11, and Leiberman can't even win a senatorial primary.

A primary is a completely different ball game than a general. He'd probably have to run as an independent though. Before you scoff at the idea, remember Ross Perot? He garnered quite an impressive amount of support for a psychotic rich guy out of nowhere.

In the end, Giuliani would win, but Lieberman I think would do well enough to chip away at the ridiculous two-party system.

But then, if we lived in a world where Lieberman and Giuiliani could both get nominations, I probably wouldn't be critical of the two-party system as it stands anyways.

Well, it is just my fantasy election, in any case. I do not understand politics well enough to comprehend why it is consistently the case that, out of all the potential people in the country, the parties cannot put forward half-decent candidates.

Well, it is just my fantasy election, in any case. I do not understand politics well enough to comprehend why it is consistently the case that, out of all the potential people in the country, the parties cannot put forward half-decent candidates.

Because it isn't a system that favors values we'd consider requisites for being 'half decent'. Such as, for instance, honesty.

Giuliani will never be president. If he wins the nomination, single-issue pro-life voters will either stay home or vote Constitution Party or Libertarian. So, Democrats win. Personally, though, I don't even see him getting the nomination.

A prime example of how utterly retarded people are.

Unless you equate abortion with murder, in which case it's a prime example of people voting according to their ethics. Which, really, is what almost every voter does.