Blackwater, etc.
Hey, everyone: there's already a a comment thread (h/t missliberties) on this, but I wanted to pull the Blackwater discussion into its own section so we can pull apart some of the many issues involved here. Iraq's demands that Blackwater leave the country immediately
are highlighting some of the complex issues involved in outsourcing military functions to private firms, and the legal implications of doing so.
First, for the purposes of context, here are some important tidbits of info before we proceed:
*The executives from Blackwater are ex-Navy SEALS, so we're talking about a high level of professionalism.
*The funding for Blackwater is not determined by Congress, but by the State Department's own discretionary spending. Because of this, the actual legal status of contractors has never sufficiently been determined, although a number of pending lawsuits may change that in the near future.
*The number of Blackwater employees in Iraq has not been made public, but the most conservative estimate [edit:] of total private contractors is 20,000. The most liberal estimate of total private contractors
is 100,000. For comparison's sake, the number of U.S. troops has consistently fluctuated between 100,000 and 200,000. This is a marked increase
over typical usage:
In the first Gulf War 15 years ago, the ratio of private contractors to troops was 1 to 60; in the current war, it's 1 to 3.
It's the combination of the second and third bullet point that really bothers me. The use of a private military force, combined with an extra-legal status that allows them to operate outside military regulations, lies far outside the Constitution's framework for warfare. I think any reasonable reading of the Constitution does not support a military force that is not subject to some form of Congressional check/balance, although the vagueness of the language has not stopped some of the cleverer word-parsers.
There are two conceivable checks, neither of which is practical in application. The first is investigation, although given the Administration's refusal to hand over information in something so (seemingly) trivial as Pat Tillman's death, I cannot imagine that we'll see any Blackwater information made public in our lifetimes. The second is budgetary, although the nature of Blackwater's funding would require Congress to defund the entire State Department, and I think it's safe to say that that's an impossibility. For all intents and purposes, there is no way to regulate or investigate Blackwater - this in a nation whose very design is based on a philosophy of mutual regulation.
But even if this weren't the case, I'd still worry about a private military for other reasons: our military is public so that it cannot be abused or exploited, and conversely so that people within the military cannot abuse or exploit their power (because having bigger guns than the civilian population is indeed power). As a citizen, I feel I can trust members of the military because I know their code of justice, because I know they operate within a particular legal framework, and because I know that the President cannot ask them to perform acts that are legally and morally prohibited. Are the folks at Blackwater held to the Geneva Conventions? Do they get pulled in front of a court for shooting civilians, even if on accident? Are they a military without all the regulations, or a private firm with all the duties?
Most importantly, if Blackwater's no big deal, then why have a military at all? If we can do the same job without the inconveniences of a military code of justice, why not privatize the whole shebang? Given the upward surge in contracting, this seems to be the end goal. Would you support a private national military over a public one?
Either way, the heavy use of Blackwater has given us one gigantic potential problem: if Iraq stands firm in its order and Blackwater is forced to leave, we're facing a de facto 1/3 reduction in security forces from the country. What kinds of results do you expect from that?
As Purpleface said in that comment thread, "This is going to get interesting."
Thoughts?
Comments :
Apologies for the absence,
but I just got back from my first anti-war protest, in Washington D.C. Phew! Interesting crowd, on both sides of the fence (although I wouldn't call the others a crowd... more a thin sprinkle of crazies). If I can steal some pics from the other blogs, I'll post a couple here, as well.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I saw a few pics
To be fair, all the screaming about media non-courage is not warranted because the protest was much smaller compared to the previous large Washington DC protest. Last one was about 100,000 while this one was closer to 10,000.
No offense, but that is pretty small for an organized and well publicized (in the Leftysphere) protest.
I did actually see a few articles on MSNBC, CNN, and WaPo about it.
Also ANSWER is a radical organization.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Quite a bit more than that,
although not nearly 100,000. I'd guesstimate 30k, which isn't bad, but certainly not a sea of people. Somehow a bunch of conservative anti-protesters got arrested, too, which is kinda funny.
And so what about Answer? Lots of groups were there.
Most hilarious moment: anti-war libertarians crossing paths with anti-war socialists. High comedy!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
didn't ANSWER organize the whole thing
That's like KKK organizing a big march in support of GWB and then me marching along and saying - eh, there were many groups there. Sorry but ANSWER is plenty evil.
Did the libertarians have fun with the clash?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't understand
your analogy. Can you explain it in further detail?
what's not to understand?
ANSWER is a far-left hate group (Commies and whatever other scum they have are pretty vile). KKK is a (I hate using the far-right label on that bunch of socialist racists) far-right hate group. It's hard to excuse being in a march organized by either one of them by shrugging off their participation.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think you are overstating
ANSWER's positions just a wee bit. I don't think historically Answer has ever hung anyone from a tree and killed them.
So as far as extremes go the KKK is much more extreme, im my humble opinion.
It is the economy, stupid.
do you deny that
they include a bunch of Stalinists? I think quite a lot more people died under Stalin (you know like millions upon millions) than from all of KKK's history. ANSWER jerks themselves might not have killed anyone, but their ideology is that of some of the biggest murderers in Human history.
They might be similar to a Neo-Nazi group that praises Hitler, but has never actually killed anyone themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Still not clear
Do you have any proof that they are Stalinists, or is it that anyone who believes in socialism is a Stalinist?
Most people who might
have some stalinism in them probably don't realize it. They misread history and what led to stalinism...snd Nazism.
I suggest the "Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. Even if you don't read it. Read about it in the form of book reviews and basic summaries to get an idea.
Ok,
but I still don't understand if some socialist beliefs = 'some stalinist in them'. If that is true then anyone who harbors nationalist feelings has some Hitler in them. Don't you think that comment, and what Ender is alluding to, is a bit reductive take on the situation, and furthermore a huge jump in logic then to compare ANSWER to the KKK.
I do.
see below
they might not be true "Stalinists" in that they were critical of Stalin, but they are true Communists and do not just have "some socialist beliefs". Read up on them.
So a comparison to Neo-Nazis is valid. I view nazi and communist parties with the same contempt.
These ANSWER leaders supported USSR, one of the vilest dictatorships on Earth, until the bitter end.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You should
also see below for my answer.
Listen, I'm not a communist, and I have a few socialist sympathies, but i believe in a well-regulated capitalistic market.
Now with that said, to compare Nazis who have a very specific platform with a general 'communism' which does not have a specific platform (there are hundreds of varieties of communism and maybe three versions of Nazis) is simply shallow thinking.
You can say that dictatorial systems in general lead to bad results, but to tie the marchers in a parade to a group (ANSWER) to its leaders (some socialist and communist sympathies) to Stalin all in an attempt to make a comparison to the KKK is, again, ridiculous.
I am not trying to
imply that anyone here, or that liberals who march in those protests, are somehow communists or socialists.
I am however saying that those who actually belong to ANSWER and are communists/socialists of whatever variety, are all willing believers in an ideology that demonstrably caused some of the most repressive/murderous regimes in Human History.
[Edit] And another minor thing: those actual specific leaders of ANSWER supported one of the most repressive/murderous regimes (USSR) until the bitter end.
That's all. Nothing major.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
All I'm saying Specter is
Socialism has inherent flaws in its implementation...I don't care how it's used. It doesn't work and makes no sense.
ANARCHISM is more philosophically viable than socialism and I'm no anarchist either....but I do see the logic. There is no "good way" to do socialism. It's harmful, corrupt and leads to enslavement.
And yes, Nationalism is an ingredient of any totalitarian government....whether it's popular or cultural nationalism makes no difference. They lead to the same place and need to watched with great care. Nationalism allows for the consolidation of power to unfree ends.
National goals that infringe on individual freedom are very suspect to me and I usually don't take to them because I don't trust collectivist ideas to NOT sprout beyond their "harmless" initial intent. They always do.
I'm not a nationalist. I support my country so long as I support what it does. So, I proud of some things and embarrassed by others....all at the same time.
True
Now you just need to learn that that statement applies equally to capitalism and your journey to the dark side (black bar) will be complete.
I've frequently said libertarians are people who see half the problem. they get that government is a problem but they don't get that corporations are too. It's sort of funny how they mirror the communists so much.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Tlolac, you are a BBINO!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why do you ...
keep calling him "Tlolac" when his handle is "Tlaloc"?
Am I missing something?
It's not a one-time typo either. You do it in every reference to him that you've made over the past few weeks.
More passive/aggressive bullsh*t, GR?
If not... what? Why?
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Not again Tlaloc.
Did you see your little bait and switch there? The way you subtly said one thing and then another while trying to convey the same quality to them?
Capitalism (any form thereof) and corporations are two totally independent things and are mutually exclusive and do not need to exist at the same time. You can have one without the other.
Corporations can exist without a free market (my kind of capitalism) and a free market can exist without corporations.
Libertarians see the whole problem. You blend problems together in ways that are logically invalid.
The kind of capitalism that leads to the problems you like to blame on the whole of capitalism in any form is state capitalism, socialist-tinted capitalism or crony capitalism...all the same thing to me.
You will continually blame on capitalism in general what is really rooted in the political system that we use to "govern" it on the people's behalf. Therein lies the problem. The state is so intertwined in so many dangerous ways in the business world. THAT'S the problem. The state becomes a weapon of those who do not want to respect the free market and the fight over the state's influence causes so much damage.
We have so many unneeded and unwise laws and constructs that detract from the efficiency of the free market and create problems that wouldn't be there.
It's in the political system where we find the root of the problem, not the economic system.
Bull.
Corporations are the virtual embodiment of capitalism. They are economic entities given civil rights, the promotion of financial interests to equality with humanity.
:)
See what I mean about you guys and the commies mirror each other. Ask pretty much any communist about the failure of the USSR or Maoist China and you'll get an argument exactly paralleling yours: it isn't the system that's at fault just the application.
And both of you are equally accurate (which is to say not at all). You can only make that argument so many times before you have to conceed that, no, actually the system itself is flawed. That's why the implementation always goes wrong.
If you weren't, well, you I'd accuse you of trying to undercut libertarians by exposing just how perfectly symmetrical your thought processes are with the communists.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Capitalism rules! It has not failed.
So your point is completely moot.
Also, you are, in typical Tlolac fashion, willfully misreading what was quoted above. The point is NOT that "state capitalism, socialist-tinted capitalism or crony capitalism" are examples of misapplied capitalism, the point is that they are misnomers in the sense that they are not even valid forms of capitalism in the first place.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Pretty sure Stalinism
isn't a valid form of socialism, either.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yes it is.
nonesense.
I explained how communism is flawed and it goes beyond it application...all the way down to its basic tenets.
You have done no such thing with capitalism or free market capitalism or any capitalism. The best critique of capitalism with sense of reasoning came from me.
You remind of Peter Jackson's King Kong in that scene bashing everything in sight but never laying a hand the woman.
Actually I have
because the flaw in both is precisely the same: they both require people to play by the rules while giving them every incentive not to (and more importantly undercutting their capacity to do so even if they wanted to).
Your denial that anyone has found a real problem with your ideology is yet another similarity to the communists.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Nonesense again. total nonesense.
You're treading into deeper water here. Go back to the beach.
Does anyone know where I can
get some Stalinist spot remover, or some Stalinist cleanser agent.
I had no idea that I had Stalinist sympathies, and was prone to be a murderous dictator enabler any second.
Meanwhile in the real word..... compassion is still alive and well without fears of the rise of extreme Marxism.
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes,
So if you attend a march against the war, you support mass exterminations from a Russian dictator close to 70 years ago.
Way to go pico, you jerk. :-)
Ha ha!
It is the economy, stupid.
Actually, listening to Rush Limbaugh weekdays
does a pretty good job as well. He'll point out all those pesky Stalinist spots you are worried about so you can just get rid of 'em.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sometimes the sociopaths are the last to know.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Sometimes
bullies think they are brave.
It is the economy, stupid.
from the wiki page
ANSWER
Party for Socialism and Liberation
- website
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yuck,
these people never learn. Again, "The Road to Sefdom" is an 800lb Gorilla in the room for these people...not to mention a clear view of history.
Such ideas are economically impossible, socially harmfully and politically destructive because it leads to totalitarianism.
The "Dark Side" looked alluring too. Such possibilities!! Ask Anakin how that turned out....
to be fair
they are a tiny tiny minority on the Left. At the same time I do not understand why liberals participate in events organized by these bastards.
Create your own Marches against War!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes, they are a minority
but they are merely extremes of larger ideas. This is why I have no place to lean against and rest politically in this country. All sides have spiked and jagged walls.
Poor fellow.
Perhaps there is another country more to your liking.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Nope.
I'll keep wrestling my way through all the semi-authoritarians who pretend to speak for a free society and fight on.
A noble battler.
Good on ya'!
Will you libertarians be organizing protest marches anytime soon?
Or just whine-ins?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
pointless taunting, CLC
If you think I'm wrong, just say so.
If you find it quaint that I'm clear and consistent yet vastly outnumbered, then you aren't really anything other than implying that I should give in and pick a side i don't agree with.
I didn't say you should pick a side.
We've been over this before. The best the libertarians ever did in a presidential election was 1% in 1980. You get a lot of room to post your economic thoughts here as a front-pager. Great. It's nice that a one-percenter gets his say on a regular basis.
You're the fringe. And what fringe groups do (as is seen in the discussion of ANSWER which you joined), is promote some loony ideas. Then you claim that there is no place for you between liberals and conservatives. But the ironic thing, of course, is that the political views you espouse are just as fringe as the ideas espoused by ANSWER.
So when you want to complain that -- poor you --
... it comes across as whining.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
My views are far from loony
They exist in both parties bases for the most part....just not in one party.
Then why don't more people see the genius that is
... libertarianism?
One percent in 1980 is the best ever?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Very dishonest CLC
libertarianism is much more than the libertarian party. acknowledging that obvious point would move things along more quickly.
I'm not speaking about this on your narrow terms.
Libertarianism in part of modern liberalism as well as conservatism. It exists in both parties.
The fact that it's basically split in two instead of being one unified party is a mystery I wish I could solve.
Those who are part of third parties like the libertarian party are mostly purists who simply refuse to compromise....but they are far from being all the libertarian-minded people in this country.
Many simply make peace with what they don't like and prioritize by voting D or R. Many still are independents like me.
that's BS
Libertarian ideas are fairly spread out through the political spectrum - they are simply not concentrated on one political side. The fact that their party was not able to get above 1%, in a System specifically skewed towards two-party rule, is not an indicator of being on the fringe. Most of the Libertarian Economic ideas have a very wide audience on the Right, and their social ideas on the Left.
The popularity of specific ideology's ideas is a much better indicator of being mainstream or fringe. In that respect Libertarians are a whole lot more popular than those fringe commies.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So how does this popularity of libertarians show, exactly?
You claim "Libertarians are a whole lot more popular than those fringe commies."
And how do you prove that, Ender? Just curious...
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
popularity of IDEOLOGY
read the sentence BEFORE it, that you QUOTED. Libertarian economic ideas are popular in the GOP, and social in the DEM party. Are communist ideas popular in either party?
What's to prove?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Pfft.
Anyone reading this thread can see who the Looney Tune is, and it ain't John. I think you may have actually lost touch with reality there for a moment, you better get that checked out.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No, it is the left that hates America as it is ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
My, my, nasty little boy.
You're out of your stall again?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
This doesn't even make sense. Braindead - try to avoid it!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I have the power
to censor you. IN fact I already have deleted some of your ugly comments!! :)
So you better watch yourself there Mister.
It is the economy, stupid.
Really? Which ones?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
you are welcome
in my new major third party. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Drop the nationalism and its related defects
and beer military-muscles and we may be on to something.
:P
So you do
equate socialism automatically with Stalinism?
BTW, Marx (and Lenin to a lesser extent) are worlds apart from Stalin. That is like saying Jesus is guilty of child molestation because of a few Catholic priests.
If simplistic thinking floats your boat, keep on grouping. I'm sure we can take this 6th degree of guilt game and tie it to Hillary somehow a la GoRight tactics. You guys are so reductive it is ridiculous.
you are the one
who keeps trying to alleviate their views. They are COMMUNIST not SOCIALIST.
While it is true that not all communists are the same (I am well aware) - they are far different from "socialists".
And I call BS on saying that Lenin is worlds apart from Stalin. The documents that came out after the fall of USSR showed him to be as much of a murderous animal as Stalin, but it's just he didn't have the time to play.
Poor comparison of Marx/Lenin to Jesus. That is truly not in the same ballpark.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
As far as I know
Lenin did not have designs for exterminations like Stalin did beyond the Russian revolution. I may be wrong on this, but I really don't care as I am neither a communist or Stalinist.
As far as my comparison, I am glad you think it is bad due to my intention of it being bad so you could see how ridiculous your example analogy is.
(Edit): I was not trying to imply that Jesus = Marx or anything. I was attempting to point out the ridiculous attempt at guilt by association in your first analogy.
your analogy was bad
because Marx is guilty. It wasn't just his followers who f'd up. So there is no guilt by association going on there. Marx deserved both Lenin and Stalin and Mao as the logical successors.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Guilty of what
Mr. Thought Police?
heh
now I am "Mr. thought police"? Why?
Marx is guilty of being an inventor/catalyst of a flawed and profoundly evil and anti-human ideology which logical conclusion screwed up most of the 20th century.
That's quite a lot of guilt there.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Holy lack of history, batman!
I no fan of marxist history, but to blame Marx for Lenin and Stalin involves a pretty gross misreading of history. For one thing Marx was responding to a very real social crisis in England - the Industrial Revolution had created an urban poor class that was kept on the verge of starvation and in conditions that make our current American poor look like kings. He correctly recognized that notions of ownership were partially to blame, and he tried to formulate theories of how to escape that. If others spun that into genocidal fantasies, there's no WAY you can blame him for that: it's like blaming Jesus for the Inquisition.
Incidentally, Engels once wrote that the greatest disaster for communism would be for it to develop in Russia.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Cripes, Specter. That's the point!
Of course not! They never do! Their ideas are flawed before they start. They erred in not seeing the eventual end of their ideas.
Marx had a dream...built of poorly reasoned ideas. The result of his inability to see the conclusions of his ideas was the USSR. It doesn't work! For all the noble intentions, it doesn't work on any level. It's basic building blocks are WRONG on an economic level and many vestiges of his ideas persist to this day!
Anything sounding even remotely related to anything having to do with the Labor theory of Value is WRONG because the basic premise is WRONG. It's WRONG....as WRONG as saying the earth is flat.
Ideology did not lead me to that, learning (not brainwashed into believing but LEARNING) that it was wrong did. And when you learn why it's wrong, you make a mental adjustment and refuse to go near it. you sense any faint whif of it.
Beyond the economic impossibility of it (because it's basic tenet is WRONG), it's socially impossible to sustain and is very damaging in the process. And the government that we think can sort it out and "make it work" will always be abused and corrupted because of human nature. This corrupt power begets more corrupt power and WILL trample on people to sustain its role in enforcing the people's will.
Bad, bad stuff. There is no right way to do it.
Listen,
I'm not here to defend Marx. As I stated, I'm not a communist, Marxist, Stalinist, or pure socialist so I do not feel it is my duty to defend strawmen which were not my arguments.
If I stop at your second line ("Of course not! They never do!"), then I would say we are in agreement. The rest does not concern me as it is not my argument.
OK
but read it nonetheless and keep it in mind when you sense its machinations brewing up a "great idea".
I appreciate your concern
but if I'm that interested, I will read the material myself and make my own judgment call. Thanks though. :-)
*cough cough*
good ideas = badness. My that IS embodiment of optimism.
It is the economy, stupid.
SHOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!
DID YOU SEE THAT, MISSL?
It went right over your head. You play with fire and think it's cool as water.
I guess Lenin was just efficient.
Let's kill 'em all up front rather than spreading it out like that dufus Stalin did!
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Grandpa Lenin
did not play around. He got unlucky with his health or he woulda showed Stalin how it's done.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes and no:
Lenin was the creator of the authoritarian state, and he did found the system of cruel penal camps in Siberia. Post-Stalin scholars were trying to rescue Lenin from the shadows of Stalin's legacy, but Solzhenitsyn put them in their place with his history in The Gulag Archipelago. Definitely worth reading, and this from someone who generally doesn't like Solzhenitsyn.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Maybe we could just simply generalize
this less to any ideology, than to the leaders who use power unwisely and betray the principles of their governing with authoritarian rule.
The abuse is less a symptom of whatever the ideology, which in some aspects can have interesting high minded principles and elements, and more a symtom of meglomanical leaders who abuse their power and become drunk with it.
It is the economy, stupid.
No, MissL
It's like The Ring. And the Ring is the ideology. The transformation of those who carry it is not soley inherent in the people but in the ring itself.
You are subtly saying that Marxism and his related "isms" do not necessarily lead to corrupt and abusive totalitarianism. You are blaming the individuals and implying that the system is not responsible.
It's 100% responsible. And those who think "we just need the right person" are commiting the same fatal error as those who've suffered already.
Again, people NEVER learn.
Yes Mr.J
Maybe you should stop being so afraid of everything and saying NO. No. No.
Your pessimism wears thin.
Frankly I don't give a sh*t if you call me a communist, or a pinko, or a marxist or whatever, as if you think it is some sort of bat that you can beat people over the head with.
The world will go on and good progressive ideas, are still good ideas. And I can have sympathy and compassion for other humans without being labeled a damn communist by fear mongerers.
I do believe in leaders. I do believe in good ideas. And I do believe in democracy with checks and balances. If we can just get back to it. And yes that is government, as in we the people, not money that we are looking to for answers.
It is the economy, stupid.
That's fine, MissL
but you didn't respond to my point.
You chose to interpret what I said in a way that allowed you to respond the way you wanted to.
I'm not calling anyone here anything.
My bottom line point is that you blame the people and not the socialist system they flourished in. That is wrong.
You said many things in your post that answered your own stretched ideas of what I said but you said nothing to that point above.
No MrJ I blame
the bullies that come to power, that take good ideas and abuse them.
The issue isn't the ideas. It's the fricking bullies. Ambitious power hungary wolves in sheeps clothing.
And what is worse than a bully, than a bully that comes from a rich family with political connections enabling a sweep into power, ala senor Bush, that doesn't give two whits about people, only if the economics are in his favor.
It is the economy, stupid.
OK
If you're right, then we have nothing to fear....accept bullies.
And your last paragraph is a red carpet invitation for a nice intelligent and well-meaning BULLY to run amok with your ideas of justice.
actually no
I can't simply generalize. It is the ideology of communism that is evil. The leaders simply grew the ideology to its natural conclusion.
There is nothing redeeming about Communism. It leads to dictatorship, repression, and zero individual rights. What objective high minded principles and elements do you see?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The only aspect
I like is supporting labor. I think working people should be justly rewarded for their contribution to society.
Wages for workers are the enemy of the rich. But this is a struggle that has gone on throughout the ages.
And I do think the Soviets were insane taking people's farms etc, which is the anti-thesis of suppor