Is war becoming an acceptable policy in america?

[Oozlefinch]

Misterveritis, et al,

Yes, I've heard something similar to this time over objectivity as a basis for not challenging the decision.

Whether the US intervenes or not, all governments over time evolve. Objectively, who is to say that, given time, Iraq would not have changed on its own?

To me, the biggest problem in Iraq, as well as big parts of Africa, Europe, and other regions of the world can be described very simply with one word,

Tribalism.

This is something that sadly affects far to much of the planet to this day. The habit of far to many people to seperate people into groups of "us" and "them", and that anything can be done to "them" simply because they are not "us".

This is something that is pretty natural to humans. In more "advanced" nations, this tends to be connnection to a nation. But it can also be connection to an ideology, be it political or social. American, Germany, Soviet Union, these all can be considered tribal on an international level. And far to often, people will look at the other and see they are "bad", just because they are not us.

And the same also happens all to often with politics. Democrats, Republicans, Fascists, Tories, Socialists, Communists, we see this on an almost daily basis. People that so identify with an ideology that it in effect becomes their tribe. And they will attack anybody that they think threatens it.

In Iraq and great areas of the Middle East, that is still the standard. You can tell a lot about what a person believes and where they come from just by looking at their turban, taqiyah, or keffiyeh and agal. These are almost universal headware, but each group uses different forms of wraps, colors, patterns, and designs. And when times are troubled, you will normally see tribes and other family groups banding together. This can be good, but sadly in places like Iraq, they are also often times useing this to try and solve ancient tribal hatreds.

And this is not just limited to the Middle East and Africa. The US around 150 years ago had the same problems. People prior to the Civil War had very little connection to the nation. To them, they were united States, and their devotion was to their particular home state much more then to the nation as an entity. But after the Civil War, this mostly turned to Nationalism, where the connection was to the country more then the region they came from.

In Iraq, they have never really formed a nation. From 1968-2003, power was held by members of the Al-Bu Nasir tribe. And to most other tribes, they had a reputation of being fierce and warlike, cunning and secretive, but also decietful and not to be trusted. This is the group that really held power during the Ba'athist regeime, and a lot of the highest members in the government and military come from this tribe and related tribes.

And a lot of the fiercest tribal fighting in the country has been around Tikrit, where the Al-Bu Nasir Tribe is based. And like most groups in the region they used to add "al-Tikriti" to their names to show this connection. But there were so many "al-Tikriti" in the Saddam government that in 1977 he outlawed the use of place names in a persons name to help hide the fact that most of the highest members of the government were tied to him by tribal connections.

So to answer the question after all that build-up, I do not think things would have really changed short of revolution or overthrow. The Iraq government was not just a government, it was a family and tribal business as much as any of the Royal Families of Europe at the start of the 20th century. The government was run along tribal structures, and that would not have changed any time in the near future.

 

[Oozlefinch]

ill explain it in lamens terms,our money is made of paper,and is only worth paper unless people decide they want it.oil is part of the dollars backing as well as debt and it being used as the worlds reserve currency.oil in itself being eliminated wont destroy the dollar,but hurt its value greatly.if one of the 2 other factors dissappeared the dollar would pretty much be worth the paper its made from.

when the gold standard ended inflation was imminent as well as countries refusing the dollar.using oil as a backing guaranteed that the dollar could hold its value,and both the us and oil producing countries benefit from the deal.iraq and iran switched to euros for oil trading and venezuala has threatened it.and its no surprize all three were viewed as enemies.the war was the result that would be expected out of a drug dealer,when someone tries to mess with your profit,make them an example to everyone,and thats pretty much what we did to iraq.

I will make this simple, but there are very good reasons why the majority of nations have left the Gold Standard decades ago.

The problem with useing a commodity as a standard fo currency should be painfully obvious. What happens to your currency if the value of the commodity you pick (be it gold, silver, coffee beans or left handed spanners) raises or lowers drastically in value?

Well, that should be painfully obvious. You either have megainflation, or megadeflation. And it also only works if you believe in a closed circle economy, where there is only a fixed amount of money, and no more money can ever be made.

Let's make this simple and maybe this will show why this does not work. Suppose your currency is a Century, and it is based on a base where a single pound of Bacon Grease is worth 100 Centuries. But for some reason the supply of Bacon Grease has vanished, so the value of it has gone up so that on the International market, a pound of it is worth the equivelent of 200 Centuries. This may sound good, since you are now worth more. But what you have done is added in deflation. What cost 2 Centuries before now costs 1 Century because it is worth more. Sounds good, right?

Since companies are now getting paid less for their goods, the economy in large is in a deflationary dilema. Do they lower wages to still make a profit? Do companies start to lay off workers, since they can't afford to pay people as much? This is an example of what one of the major factors were in the Great Depression. The US Dollar was tied to Gold, and as gold became more valuable, so did the dollar. This lead to people being able to buy a lot with less money, but less money circulating through the economy.

Then you have the opposite. Since Bacon Grease is a commodity, you may suddenly find a new supply of Bacon Grease, or even another nation might start to flood the world economy with Bacon Grease. This causes the value of the Century to plumet, as instead of being worth 100 Centuries, a pound of Bacon Grease is now worth 10 Centuries. Now everything costs 10 times what it used to, and the 100,000 Centuries you had in savings for your retirement is now only worth 1,000 Centuries.

And think of what the last decade would have been like for our economy if we were still tied to gold. The average gold price in 2002 was $310 an ounce. Today, it is worth $1,711. That would be an almost 6 times deflationary value if it was still our standard.

And no, oil is not a standard of currency value either. The "Petrodollar" is simply an accepted universal exchange rate, nothing more, nothing less. And the value of the oil does go up and down with the value of the US Dollar. Oil is not backed by the dollar, the dollar is not backed by oil. OPEC simply settled on the dollar as a way to keep al oil sales to a standard.

 

[ecofarm]

I think Kenya will defeat tribalism (the 07-8 violence was enough for everyone), but it is and probably always will be a problem everywhere. When politics transcends party, home team, etc and becomes a matter of issues, mankind prospers.

There is only one problem perhaps greater than tribalism in democracy... career politicianing. The latter is easy, a 2-term limit on every office (and moving 'up' required to seek another election). The former is a matter of equal opportunity and education.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I think Kenya will defeat tribalism (the 07-8 violence was enough for everyone), but it is and probably always will be a problem everywhere. When politics transcends party, home team, etc and becomes a matter of issues, mankind prospers.

There is only one problem perhaps greater than tribalism in democracy... career politicianing. The latter is easy, a 2-term limit on every office (and moving 'up' required to seek another election). The former is a matter of equal opportunity and education.

In the US, I have to agree. But instead of making it "2 terms", it would be better to give it a year limit, say 8-12 years. Because not every politician serve the same number of years in office. Some serve 2, some 4, and others 6 years. But I am fully in support of term limits for all political offices.

 

[presluc]

ill explain it in lamens terms,our money is made of paper,and is only worth paper unless people decide they want it.oil is part of the dollars backing as well as debt and it being used as the worlds reserve currency.oil in itself being eliminated wont destroy the dollar,but hurt its value greatly.if one of the 2 other factors dissappeared the dollar would pretty much be worth the paper its made from.

when the gold standard ended inflation was imminent as well as countries refusing the dollar.using oil as a backing guaranteed that the dollar could hold its value,and both the us and oil producing countries benefit from the deal.iraq and iran switched to euros for oil trading and venezuala has threatened it.and its no surprize all three were viewed as enemies.the war was the result that would be expected out of a drug dealer,when someone tries to mess with your profit,make them an example to everyone,and thats pretty much what we did to iraq.

Question ; if in fact the American dollar is backed by oil, who owns the oil?eace

 

[RoccoR]

Oozlefinch, et al,

While I like your rebuttal, it having a certain elegance to it, I don't necessarily agree.

To me, the biggest problem in Iraq, as well as big parts of Africa, Europe, and other regions of the world can be described very simply with one word,

Tribalism. ... ... ...

So to answer the question after all that build-up, I do not think things would have really changed short of revolution or overthrow. The Iraq government was not just a government, it was a family and tribal business as much as any of the Royal Families of Europe at the start of the 20th century. The government was run along tribal structures, and that would not have changed any time in the near future.

(COMMENT)

Your position certainly has some very strong and powerful concepts within it. I will agree that you make a great case for a prolonged despot tribal leadership and it stability, but history has seen too many of these types of regimes fall --- or made impotent. Yes, the Regime of Saddam Hussein would have probably passed into the hands of his sons, it would not have lasted for ever. And even though the Hussein regime was characterized as a tyrannical and dictatorial governance, it had the by-product of being relatively stable. While we had a tendency to emphasize the harsh and brutal treatment of his people, the death rate and lawlessness under his tenure was nothing in comparison to the summation of the devastation and lawlessness, since the liberation.

NOTE: I am not counting the losses as a result of the Iran-Iraq War, or the casualties suffered as a direct result of the combat engagements prior to the end of hostilities in the liberation effort.​

As you can see from my previous post, even with the bulk of the US Forces gone (as of December 2011), the fighting still goes on.

It is not reasonable to assume that, as sheepish as they are, the Iraqis would have allowed the status quo to maintain intact, for much longer. Just as the "Arab Spring" infected a number of Middle Eastern/Persian Gulf countries, just as Iran suffered through an uprising, and Syria is still fighting, so it would have been in Iraq; if it had been left to its own devises.

Again, having said that, your "Tribal Theory" has, within it, a very important impact statement: The Hussein Regime was largely supported and stablized through tribal allegiance. But it would have not lasted indefinitely. It would have come to a gruesome end, probably not as treacherous as the Faisal II Royal Family met, but every bit as traitorous an end. It is the Arab way; they demonstrate it every day.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kane]

Now don't go logging into blogs, radio websites, Huffington Post, etc., to comment using your Yahoo/Google/Facebook/Twitter ID because that goes directly into Total Information Awareness. If the site asks you to log in using these spy tools, don't comment at that particular site.

"The actual creation of Facebook is attributed to one of America’s most valued military scientists, and former head of the IAO, Dr. Anita Jones who through the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agencies (CIA) venture capital company In-Q-Tel provided Facebook with its initial funding and has since then channeled hundreds-of-millions of dollars into it."

Russian Intelligence Calls Facebook ?Information Warfare Weapon? | EUTimes.net

 

[Catawba]

Do you believe the participants are in a better position to discern the worth of the conflict than anyone else? I believe you and the left are willing to inflate the value of a few veterans who oppose our involvement.

Its not a few, its the majority of post 9/11 Veterans that agree with the majority of the country that the war in Iraq was not worth it.

 

[Catawba]

Other then during the OPEC oil embargos and the era of the Gulf War embargo, can you please provide me a list of when we did not buy oil from Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or any other country? I would absolutely love to see that.

That was not my claim, my claim was that our invasion/occupation/regime change enabled big oil back in Iraq for the first time in over 3 decades:

"Next week, Iraqi officials plan a welcome-back party for Big Oil.

The government intends to auction off oil contracts to foreign companies for the first time since Iraq nationalized its oil industry more than three decades ago."
Big Oil Ready for Big Gamble in Iraq - WSJ.com

Now I am going to throw out a complex word here, but it is important. Crude oil is probably the most highly traded fungible commodity on the planet. And because it is so fungible, where it comes from really does not matter.

Only to those that do not respect property rights of others.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Question ; if in fact the American dollar is backed by oil, who owns the oil?eace

The American Dollar 1s not backed by oil. It is backed by the economy and value of the nation itself.

No nation would be stupid enough to tie it's currency with a commodity that fluctuates as much as oil. Just look at the rollercoaster ride oil has had in the last decade. Putting your currency on that as a basis would be economic suicide.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Now don't go logging into blogs, radio websites, Huffington Post, etc., to comment using your Yahoo/Google/Facebook/Twitter ID because that goes directly into Total Information Awareness. If the site asks you to log in using these spy tools, don't comment at that particular site.

"The actual creation of Facebook is attributed to one of America’s most valued military scientists, and former head of the IAO, Dr. Anita Jones who through the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agencies (CIA) venture capital company In-Q-Tel provided Facebook with its initial funding and has since then channeled hundreds-of-millions of dollars into it."

Russian Intelligence Calls Facebook ?Information Warfare Weapon? | EUTimes.net

I think you made a wrong turn back there.

Conspiracy theories is over that way:

<-------->

 

[Oozlefinch]

"Next week, Iraqi officials plan a welcome-back party for Big Oil.

The government intends to auction off oil contracts to foreign companies for the first time since Iraq nationalized its oil industry more than three decades ago."
Big Oil Ready for Big Gamble in Iraq - WSJ.com

"Next week?"

ROFL

Did you even look at the date of that article? Did you?

24 June 2009

That's right, almost 3 years ago.

And tell me, what are the "Big Oil" companies that got the contracts?

I can tell you quite easily. The vast majority went to Sidanco of Russia, and Total S.A. of France. Lesser contracts went to BP of the UK and Shell of the Netherlands.

Well, if we went in there for "Big Oil" to take over, we sure did a pretty bad job, did we not? Because not a single US company got any oil contracts even worth mentioning.

 

[RoccoR]

presluc, et al,

I think there is a false assumption here.

Question ; if in fact the American dollar is backed by oil, who owns the oil?eace

(COMMENT)

The American Dollar is not true money, as in backed by Gold or Silver. The US is not that rich. The Federal Reserve Bank (The FED) calls it "Fiat Money." It has no hard backing except for the words "Full Faith and Credit." In other words, it is backed only to the extent that all assets in America, starting with those owned by the US Government, back the dollar; theoretically along with the labor, wealth and property of the US Citizen held privately.

If the US defaulted on its world-wide loans (the dollar becomes worthless), it might, as an example, be forced to sell off the components that make up the Smithsonian Institute for it break-up value. Fore instance, the Hope Diamond might be sold off for about $250M. Not counting the property or structures, at a Fire Sale, the American People might get about a Trillion Dollars (today's value) for the more rare items. Some items, like The Constitution, only have value to Americans --- and would actually be worthless. But if the US sold-off all its holdings and assets, public lands, research and development, weapons and arsenals --- it could easily buy back (redeem) all the Fiat Dollars it printed.

The dollar is not backed by oil, except as an asset within American oil fields. But instead, the various cartels have adopted the US Dollar as the universal currency to the transaction. That could change tomorrow, should the cartels decide to change. The linkage between the dollar and oil is merely transaction oriented, a show of faith and trust in the US Governments monetary system.

The dollar is just a piece of paper. It is not real money. The dollar, like the EURO, is only worth something because a Treasury Authority claims it so.

Just My Thought,
R

 

[Catawba]

"Next week?"

ROFL

Did you even look at the date of that article? Did you?

24 June 2009

That's right, almost 3 years ago.

Yes, 3 years ago, thanks to our war on Iraq, big oil was back in Iraq for the first time in 38 years. That was the point that you somehow missed.

And tell me, what are the "Big Oil" companies that got the contracts?

The big oil companies that had been banned for the last 38 years after Iraq Nationalized their oil. It had nothing to do with getting American oil companies back in. That is your strawman.

Oil is bought and sold on a world market. Iraq has the second largest, some experts say possibly even the largest, remaining reserves of cheap oil left on the planet. As Cheney and his Energy Task Force made clear in their report 2 years before our invasion, with Iraq being able to hold back production or even withhold oil altogether from the world market, made the price of world oil more expensive than Americans would accept, so military options needed to be included if necessary.

The rest is history, as they say.

 

[presluc]

The American Dollar 1s not backed by oil. It is backed by the economy and value of the nation itself.

No nation would be stupid enough to tie it's currency with a commodity that fluctuates as much as oil. Just look at the rollercoaster ride oil has had in the last decade. Putting your currency on that as a basis would be economic suicide.

No nation would be stupid enough to tie it's currency with a commodity the fluctuates.

Your words correct?
However, the American dollar has tties to foreign labor, foreign oil, foreign imports, as well as foreign loans.
Question; What's to keep them from fluctuating?

 

[Oozlefinch]

No nation would be stupid enough to tie it's currency with a commodity the fluctuates.

Your words correct?
However, the American dollar has tties to foreign labor, foreign oil, foreign imports, as well as foreign loans.
Question; What's to keep them from fluctuating?

Go back and re-read what Rocco just said. That is exactly the thing that backs up the value of the dollar.

Tell you what, why don't you provide proof that what you think is correct? We have tried to explain it to you, and you don't seem to get it at all.

In fact, there was a show on recently where Donald Trump spend 2 hours explaining what exactly backs up the value of the Dollar, and how much the United States was actually worth. He broke down everything in the country, computed what it's value was, and totaled it all up. I seem to remember that the figure was in the $500 trillion range.

That is what backs up the value of the dollar. Much like the Euro, the Ruble, the Yen, and every other form of currency in the world.

 

[American]

The U.S. spends a lot of time in war. It is one of our favorite activities.

Timeline of United States military operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So do many other countries. Read a history book. Anyone that think war appears to be acceptable now, is shortsighted and hasn't followed history.

 

[presluc]

Go back and re-read what Rocco just said. That is exactly the thing that backs up the value of the dollar.

Tell you what, why don't you provide proof that what you think is correct? We have tried to explain it to you, and you don't seem to get it at all.

In fact, there was a show on recently where Donald Trump spend 2 hours explaining what exactly backs up the value of the Dollar, and how much the United States was actually worth. He broke down everything in the country, computed what it's value was, and totaled it all up. I seem to remember that the figure was in the $500 trillion range.

That is what backs up the value of the dollar. Much like the Euro, the Ruble, the Yen, and every other form of currency in the world.

Oh I understand the part about what backs the value of the dollar now.

My question is does America have to have it's currency backed by foreign products?
If my history serves me correctly, at one time the White house was sacked and destroyed in the war of 1812, America recovered
San Francisco was destroyed by earthquake Americans rebuilt it.
The depression who backed the American dollar then?
The destruction of PearlHarbor and the Naval base on Dec. 7th 1941. what country backed the American dollar then?
Now correct me if I'm wrong about history.

Yet today the American dollar is backed by foreign oil, foreign labor and foreign products as well as foreign loans.

I ask a simple question Does the value of the American dollar have to be backed by the kindness of foreigners?
Is that how America does business from now on?eace

 

[Wiggen]

That is an extreemist view of pacifism, as I already stated. As I said, a true definition "Pacifist" would not even try to defend himself if attacked, nor will they try to protect somebody else. That kind of pacifist just does not exist outside of a few rare people.

Once again, you are taking something that has black white and grey, and ignoring the grey. Trying to make it black or white. To a true pacifist, Hitler should have been alowed to conquer Europe, and China should still be under slavery by Japan to this day. And that is simply unrealistic. Even such organizations as The Quakers recognized several times that war was evil, but sometimes nessicary.

Of course, this can branch off into a giant arena of other philosophies and theories. Consequentialism, Passive Resistance, even Social Defence and Jainism (which is so pacifistic, it is wrong to even brush off or kill an insect).

Stop trying to make everything Black and White. Because by any definition of "Pacifisim" you think is right, I can bring up yet another that says it is not, and barbaric.

There are no gray pacifists. If you are a pacifist, you do not believe in war under any circumstances. If you believe that there is justification for war on occasion, then you are not a pacifist. It gets no simpler than that. Now if you want to call yourself a pacifist, yet believe in war, be my guest.

 

[presluc]

There are no gray pacifists. If you are a pacifist, you do not believe in war under any circumstances. If you believe that there is justification for war on occasion, then you are not a pacifist. It gets no simpler than that. Now if you want to call yourself a pacifist, yet believe in war, be my guest.

Just guessing here but I think what Ozzlefinch is trying to say reverts back to one of the first American flags flew over a battlefield.

A rattlesnake coiled with the phrase "DON'T TREAD ON ME" above it.

Now rattlesnakes live in the woods or rocks they don't hunt nobody except what they eat which is mostly rodents they don't look for trouble might say they were a bit of a pacifist, but if you see a rattlesnake and pick it up and start shaking it, well the need for survival kicks in.
Unless you have a kit for snake bite handy you have a problem.

So I don't think this is about being a pacifist and not believing in war but survival, and perhaps on occasion doing the right thing even if you think it's wrong.
I know I never believed in War but when I got my draft notice I went.
FYI, I still don't believe in war. WAR SUCKS

I don't even believe in trouble won't start any.
However if somebody starts trouble with me , I don't back down either, SO IF NOBODY STARTS NOTHIN THERE WON'T BE NOTHIN.eace

 

[Paralogic]

What post did I say I didn't know who Dwight D. Eisenhower was?

In my day he was called Ike by most people.

...

He also was the last true conservitive president, a man, if he was running for president today I would vote for.eace

He wouldn't survive a campaign for president with this group of blood thirsty jackals, rabid warmongers and sell-out fascist degenerates that the Republican party has become in the last 50 years.

Ike explained all about wars in his famous last speeches. Your questions are all answered there.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oh I understand the part about what backs the value of the dollar now.

My question is does America have to have it's currency backed by foreign products?

Yet today the American dollar is backed by foreign oil, foreign labor and foreign products as well as foreign loans.

I ask a simple question Does the value of the American dollar have to be backed by the kindness of foreigners?
Is that how America does business from now on?eace

Once again, the power and value of the US Dollar is based upon the value of the nation itself.

Not it's imports, not it's exports. But the value of the nation itself.

And just think of how much in assets we have. It is astonishing.

Think of the value of just our military alone. Trillions of dollars.

Then there is the land still owned by the government. Hundreds of trillions of dollars there. And you can also throw in the value of land owned overseas, like our embassies. One example was one I remember from the 1980's. One foreign nation (I seem to remember it as Australia, but I could be mistaken) saw the huge increase of land value in Tokyo, so made the decision to sell their embassy complex and build one far out in the suburbs. They were able to pay for a significant part of their national debt with the money made.

Then you have the value of buildings the Government owns. The Pentagon, the White House, the Capital Buildings, Post Offices, Federal Buildings, the list goes on and on again. A huge bulk of assets owned by the Government directly.

Then throw in if some things were nationalized, like utilities, oil production, mining, transportation, etc, etc, etc.

The US Dollar is not backed by trade, but by the assets of the nation. Much like your credit rating is impacted by your assets like your house or a business you may own.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Just guessing here but I think what Ozzlefinch is trying to say reverts back to one of the first American flags flew over a battlefield.

A rattlesnake coiled with the phrase "DON'T TREAD ON ME" above it.

Now rattlesnakes live in the woods or rocks they don't hunt nobody except what they eat which is mostly rodents they don't look for trouble might say they were a bit of a pacifist, but if you see a rattlesnake and pick it up and start shaking it, well the need for survival kicks in.
Unless you have a kit for snake bite handy you have a problem.

I honestly believe that there are no more then a handfull of true pacifists on the entire planet.

The problem is that people look at historical "Pacifists", and think that is the only definition of the word. They look at people like Ghandi

However, then you have other major issues.

For example, he believed against the war in Germany. He even believed that the Jews in Germany should have simply submitted, allowing the Nazi's to slaughter and massacre them.

If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy which no number of resolutions of sympathy passed in the world outside Germany can. Indeed, even if Britain, France and America were to declare hostilities against Germany, they can bring no inner joy, no inner strength. The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing, death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep.

GANDHI: “THE JEWS” 1938 | Veterans Today

However, nothing is said about how the Jews would be liberated from this slaughter.

To me that kind of belief is not Pacifism, that is invitation to slaughter.

And it also goes right back to the use of force. If you are a true pacifist, then you must walk right by and ignore a woman being raped, because in order to stop the rape you must do violence to the perpetrator, ot cause violoence to be done to him by calling the Police.

"True Pacifism" may be a nice theory. But only if the entire world is as peacefull in return. I however live int he real world, where bad people do bad things to others on a constant basis.

Otherwise, give me the address of a true pacifist, and I will move into his house and kick him out of it. After all, if he truely believes in pacifism, then he will not kick me out of his house, that would be the use of violence. I will also take all of his money, his car, his wife, and make his children my slaves. Because to resist me would have to involve violence.

Even his "Passive Resistance" program would have worked on very few nations other then the United Kingdom. Could you imagine "Passive Resistance" against the Germans or Japanese governments of the WWII era?

"Oh, you do not want to do what we say? That is fine, we have lots of graves we can throw you all into."

So I don't think this is about being a pacifist and not believing in war but survival, and perhaps on occasion doing the right thing even if you think it's wrong.
I know I never believed in War but when I got my draft notice I went.
FYI, I still don't believe in war. WAR SUCKS

I don't even believe in trouble won't start any.
However if somebody starts trouble with me , I don't back down either, SO IF NOBODY STARTS NOTHIN THERE WON'T BE NOTHIN.eace

It's funny, but I find many more pacifists who are or have been in the military then anywhere else. After all, it only makes sense. We are the ones that have to go and fight and suffer in wars. We all generally hate war because we are the ones that fight in them (I am not going to discuss the occasional psycho, who is normally snapped out of his fantasy when things really start). We are the ones that know what is involved, especially in a 100% volunteer force.

And without the use of force, we would still have slavery in this nation. I guess you can take my beliefs in this area from the philosopher John Stewart Mill:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Which also dovetails into a poem by Charles M. Province:

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

 

[RoccoR]

presluc, et al,

Well, you might be on to something, but it is not this.

If my history serves me correctly, at one time the White house was sacked and destroyed in the war of 1812, America recovered San Francisco was destroyed by earthquake Americans rebuilt it. The depression who backed the American dollar then?
The destruction of PearlHarbor and the Naval base on Dec. 7th 1941. what country backed the American dollar then? Now correct me if I'm wrong about history.

Yet today the American dollar is backed by foreign oil, foreign labor and foreign products as well as foreign loans.

I ask a simple question Does the value of the American dollar have to be backed by the kindness of foreigners?
Is that how America does business from now on?eace

(COMMENT)

War of 1812: The US was on a 1785-1861 - FIXED Gold standard 76 years, including the War of 1812. It was interrupted by the Civil War.

The Great SF Earthquake was in 1906. The US was on 1880-1914 - FIXED Gold standard 34 years; including the period covering the Great SF Earthquake.

When Pearl Harbor came, the US was not on the Gold Standard. And it was not again until the conclusion of the War (1945). The US Debt-to-GDP ratio was about 100%; slightly less than it is now (101% and the US lost its AAA rating). The Dollar was Fiat and it was backed by a mighty US Economy, the strongest manufacturing and production capacity on Earth at the time. Something we no longer have.

Two completely separate questions:

• Does the value of the American dollar have to be backed by the kindness of foreigners?

The value of the Dollar rests on what it will buy. When I was assigned to Europe and President Reagan devalued the dollar, I had to send my wife home. I went from being able to afford a little VW Bug and an apartment to being bankrupt. The exchange rate went from 3DM+ to the dollar to almost 1.75DM. They devalued the money because it made US good manufactured in the US cheaper to buy.

The dollar is not backed by foreigners any more than the EURO is. And to that extent, they are the same type of paper.

ANSWER: NO! They are going to bleed us dry first.​

• Is that how America does business from now on?

American business is all about maximizing the wealth of the shareholders. It has been exporting the property values of "productive manufacturing" overseas for nearly a century; but more so in the last half century. Who would guess that Anheuser-Busch, (Budweiser Beer) is owned by a Belgian company, InBev.

The U.S. net international investment position at yearend 2010 was -$2,471.0 billion (preliminary), as the value of foreign investments in the United States continued to exceed the value of U.S. investments abroad (table1). At yearend 2009, the U.S. net international investment position was -$2,396.4 billion (revised).

SOURCE: News Release: U.S. Net International Investment Position at Yearend 2010

ANSWER: The TOP 1% of (Wealthy) Americans will break-up America and sell it off until there is nothing of value left that is owned by America.
​

As Gordon Geco says: Greed is Good. American Business has no loyalty. It doesn't matter if you are ExxonMobil (organised into 11 separate global businesses) or Frigidare (Swedish Electrolux), they pay homage to gold.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[presluc]

He wouldn't survive a campaign for president with this group of blood thirsty jackals, rabid warmongers and sell-out fascist degenerates that the Republican party has become in the last 50 years.

Ike explained all about wars in his famous last speeches. Your questions are all answered there.

Sadly, I agree but Ike would not go down easy.

I was just a lad when I grew up and Eisenhower was still president.

The first presidential campaign I remember was between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson.
Eisenhower won., but his VP. looked a bit nervous. loleace