Then why did you say it?
That it also happens with comunism is besides the point, not that it happens with democracy.
So they'll completely disregard any systems that are already in place and working well? That makes loads of sense.
Not totally, but to a large extent.
Assuming large groups of people bent on change are intelligent is not the way to go. General rule of thumb, people in numbers get dumb. They're also focused on their own situation rather than the situaitons of others.
uhm yeh. That was a huge reason russions gave for voting for putin recently, that they wanted to be told what
to do because democracy brought the poor economy (it doesn't matter whether it did or not, that they blame it is enough).
Ok. Let's say we do allow the military free reign in intelligence gathering. They start arresting people that are innocent, unfairly interrogating them, and coercing confessions to crimes that they never committed. This, as history shows, is common practice when you remove the constraints on intelligence and military organizations. The rules are there not just to protect the people, but to provide reliable information as well. You've still yet to provide to me some evidence that military organizations actually need this freedom, though.
But so long as they are operating on foreign soil, which the prisoners from gitmo are from, they're only hurting foreigners, and if they round up everyone suspicious they're bound to catch some tuna in with the dolphins.
While we're on the subject, would you feel better if I used a third party like Murphy to verify my credentials? I mean, clearly you don't believe that I know what I'm talking about, so maybe I should provide a document to back it up.
unless you were director of intel I don't give a shit about your credentials. One emloyee doesn't provide reliable information. However a verifiable third party would be apreceated yes.
Due process I read that as more of a right than a process. But hey, call it whatever you want, Sid.
it's both. It's a proecss that grants roghts. Like I've been saying. You want the rights, you have to accept a process comes along woth them to ensure they are upheld.
Yet you're supporting the activities at Gitmo, which include violating the civil liberties of citizens. Which is it, Sid: kill all them ferrners and give everyone in the country, including domestic terrorists, rights, or strip the rights from everyone and commit the same atrocities on your own people?
The former, the domestic terrorists require rights becasue there is the danger of your own people getting caught up. Extend to one's allys, no need to piss of your friends, but there is no reason not to cause foreign colateral in contries that were never going to ally with you anyway.
I'm just going to go ahead here and call bullshit. I'm sorry if you don't like the comparison I'm making, but it is valid. It has absolutely nothing to do with who I do and do not like.
Americans live in a democracy, founded on the idea that this is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Oppressing our people by denying their rights has NO place in our system of government.
that's fine, call it undemocratic all you like as a reason for it's invalidity. That's diffrent from saying it's bad cos hitler would have liked it.
Let me retort by saying it's only undemocratic if you turn it on your own people.
Actually, they are all potential Americans and as for competition, America is a far greater competitor for resources than Arabs. Should the Americans be your enemy as well.
they're more of a threat, more in common and can be worked with, so probably not.
You've just rendered yourself obsolete. I wouldn't hire you or do business with you unless I had to. If you only look out for yourself, what good are you to society? I vote you off the island.
some of the best cooperation happens when each side recognises the other is only out for themselves. The good I am is that I can be useful even if I am only beiong useful because I'm getting somehting out of it. To disregard that on the basis of my motivation is short sighted.
So are conservative moral non-english speaking Europeans your enemy as well?
in some sense. In others we get on fine.
Have you ever lived in the middle east or in a muslim nation? They what do you know about how "They" will react, only based on your limited interactions with them?
You're unaware of the term jihad?
Godwin's law; That's what the NAZIs thought of the Jews. They contribute nothing to the world right?
you have to display it's invalid in another way. Simply displaying that it was something the Nazis did doesn't cut it. Hitler was also fond of dogs and small children. Does this make being fond of dogs and small children wrong too?
I wouldn't count on NATO. what do you have that Americans want, besides a cute little accent?
WTF Virgil? You obvioulsy have no concept of the U.S's actual place int he world. Nato exists because the U.S. and Europe are more than capable of holding each other up or tearing each other down and have enough comon ground to do the former rather than the latter.
Do you think the Americans will let you lay a foundation? You're competition. America's already laid a foundation. Why do you think China is so powerful? Now sit back and wait for the impending socialism to form. Because America needs natural resources more than you do. And they will take them by force if need be.
They'll let the U.K and Europe before others and it can't take the whole world on.
We'll see how that one goes, but not stamping on the middle east with the U.S. while we can is not the smart move.