I Will Not Go Quietly!

The Doctor wrote:  I'm becoming more and more conservative regarding international policy.  And I'm beginning to think maybe it is time we kicked the U.N. out of New York.  Tis a blight on my home, it is.  There is no reason the U.S. should continue to house what is starting to amount to an enemy of the U.S., at least not in my home city.

Whooooo! What's this?!

So this is what it all boils down to really,isnt it? Anyone who disagrees with the US is an enemy. Because some on the UN Council choose not to kow-tow to the Big Apple,the UN should be expelled from your country?

Remember we are talking "Big Issues" here in the good ole "United Nations".Do you really think that American foreign policy should be allowed to go unchecked? Let your country ride rough-shod over the World on the basis of protecting American interests,I dont think so!

As for United Nations, you havent even got 50 United States singing off the same hymn sheet.Florida run like some local Bush fiefdom,Southern States still deeply entrenched in racism and bigotry,and California dragged back into the Dark Ages by an ex-"actor" who is soft on sexism, and hard on male rights as long as they are heterosexual.

"The Doctor"-answer me this: do you care about the thousands of innocent Iraqis who were killed by "Coalition" Forces during the taking of Iraq?

Let's face it they have far more reason to be full of hatred than you have.Afterall they had no input whatsoever into their "choice" of dictator!

NJNF:

"Enjoy" finding fault?  No.  However, neither will I pretend that those faults don't exist, or that many of them could not be corrected, but those in power are making no efforts to do so - and are, in fact, only worsening the situation, both here at home and abroad.

You say I am not offering "explanations" or "alternatives."  Re explanations, I think if you go over my posts, you will find that I have offered continuous explanations for my words and "attitude."  If not, I am not sure what "explanations" you are looking for.

Re alternatives, short of impeaching Bush, Cheney et al, I see few alternatives right now - other than speaking plainly, boldly, loudly and often, and protesting the diminishing of our freedoms and civil liberties - yes, even in the name of "security."  Because, as I have said, that "security" is not simply illusory, it is not achievable even with progressively more intrusive police state tactics.  And yet that is exactly what we will see going forward: increasingly intrusive police state tactics, all in the name of "security."

Let me put it this way - and I know I'm going to get alot of flack for this: I would rather be blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber on a NYC subway knowing that the freedoms and civil liberties that I "enjoy" (and that our soldiers died defending) were intact and unblemished - that the "terrorists" were not able to affect those freedoms - than to give up those freedoms (or have them diminished or curtailed in any way) in order to (maybe, possibly, but not in any truly appreciable way) lessen my chances of being bown to bits by that bomb.

Can I make it any plainer than that?

Peace.

Hey Maani, it's very interesting how you change positions from thread to thread:

Manni wrote in http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7503&a mp;a mp;KW=Jackson:

And contrary to Ivan's assertion, I believe that this case shows that the U.S. judicial system can and does work

But on this thread you post:

And you think that "the Supreme Court and public opinion" will have any effect? It was the Supreme Court that "coronated" our commander-in-thief after the 2000 elections.

So Maani, as I know The Supreme Court is part of the Judicial system, so does it works, does not works or does only work to support your position?

Iván

maani wrote: NJNF: "Enjoy" finding fault?  No.  However, neither will I pretend that those faults don't exist, or that many of them could not be corrected, but those in power are making no efforts to do so - and are, in fact, only worsening the situation, both here at home and abroad. You say I am not offering "explanations" or "alternatives."  Re explanations, I think if you go over my posts, you will find that I have offered continuous explanations for my words and "attitude."  If not, I am not sure what "explanations" you are looking for. Re alternatives, short of impeaching Bush, Cheney et al, I see few alternatives right now - other than speaking plainly, boldly, loudly and often, and protesting the diminishing of our freedoms and civil liberties - yes, even in the name of "security."  Because, as I have said, that "security" is not simply illusory, it is not achievable even with progressively more intrusive police state tactics.  And yet that is exactly what we will see going forward: increasingly intrusive police state tactics, all in the name of "security." Let me put it this way - and I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this: I would rather be blown to smithereens by a suicide bomber on a NYC subway knowing that the freedoms and civil liberties that I "enjoy" (and that our soldiers died defending) were intact and unblemished - that the "terrorists" were not able to affect those freedoms - than to give up those freedoms (or have them diminished or curtailed in any way) in order to (maybe, possibly, but not in any truly appreciable way) lessen my chances of being bown to bits by that bomb. Can I make it any plainer than that? Peace.

Maani, I am sorry if I came off as a bit rash in my post, but I just always get the feeling that you get extreme pleasure out of bashing the US.  I agree, this administration is one of the worst in history, not necessarily because it is conservative, but because it is deceptive and incompetent.  Back to the point.  I hate when Republicans call Democrats the "Blame America First Crowd" since it is far from the truth, and America does need some domestic criticism, but I feel like you are in that crowd.

And agreed, Bush is not making us much safer, but you have to pick your battles.  Fighting with the NYPD is simply not worth it.  And I DOUBT you would rather be murdered than give away your freedoms Mr. P. Henry, but who am I to speak for you.

Anyways, don't think I am attacking you, just your views.

The Doctor wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: The Doctor wrote: stonebeard wrote: Cygnus X-2 wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: Please excuse my moment of Star Wars geekiness: Luke could never have wielded that kind of power that early in his training even if he did turn to the dark side.In the books that continue the story from the end of Return of the Jedi he is able to wield power like that about 25 years later.He ripped the engines out of a Star Destroyer and closed a mini black hole by using the force.But he never could have done it back then. Nice to see someone else reads the books following Jedi! took my advice, eh Cygnus? I believe I have read every star wars novel published.  Hell, I think I've even read all the comic books.  I must say though that I prefer the prequel era to the original era, both in terms of novels and movies.   Yeah, I'm a nerd.  What's it to you?  I haven't read to that extent, but I've read a plenty amount of the novels. My favorites are Dark Saber and the fan favorite Shadows of the Empire. What are yours? (Sorry to get off topic) My favorites would have to be Cloak of Deception (it's more political, but really gives an insight into the genius of Palpatine in setting up his rise to power), Darth Maul (even though this one has a rather tragic ending - but so did RoTS and that was my favorite movie), and Jedi Trial (about Anakin becoming a Jedi). I guess for the original trilogy timeline novels I would have to say I, Jedi (although it got some things wrong about how Anakin became Vader and the background of the Old Republic) and Shadows of the Empire.  I'm really looking forward to Dark Lord - The Rise of Darth Vader coming out in October.  It's not really all that off topic if you think about it.  Some are accusing Bush of being this great mastermind who has plotted to make himself emperor by starting a war.  Holy sh** batman, Bush is Darth Sidious.

Ok,I have read all the prequel books so far and have read from Truce of Bakura to the New Jedi Order(I am about halfway through that cycle)

Faves:I,Jedi,Shadows of the Empire,the whole X-Wing series,The Bounty Hunters Wars trilogy,Darth Maul:Shadow Hunter,Labyrinth of Evil,The Thrawn Trilogy,The Hand of Thrawn Duology.

The 2 best ones I have read are prequel books:Shatterpoint is incredible,deals with Mace Windu,if you have not read this run to your local bookstore and buy it immediately!!!!!

The same applies for Yoda- Dark Rendevous

James Lee wrote: ^ you mean that didn't occur to you the first time you saw the films? I thought Lucas & co. were pretty heavy-handed about the social commentary. It was almost too pointedly relevant.

I never thought of it like that (although something like that had occurred to me awhile back, just remembered it now).

stonebeard:

"Calling abu graib and guantanamo bay "atrocities" is a huge overstatement.  They are horrible exhibitions that americans do not know how to handle the war on terror, and choose to desecrate the religion and stature of the islamist fundamentalists we are trying to gain "valuable information" from."

Overstatement?  Possibly.  Huge?  Nope.  The definition of "atrocity" is in the eyes of the beholder.  And if you think all it was was "desecerating the religion," you clearly do not understand what was being done, especially at Abu Gharib.  These atrocities were in fact frighteningly similar to what was done to the Jews by the Nazis (not including the actual killing).  In the camps, Jews were also subject to humiliation, both physical and other.  Nazis "toyed" with Jews the same way that U.S. soldiers were "toying" with Arabs.  There is not one iota of diffrerence here (again, absent the actual killing).

MtS:

"I can't help but think, Maani that your thoughts on these matters are nothing but politically motivated. I wonder what your views would be if a Democrat were in office doing the same thing. And there have been. Ever heard of Trumann, JFK or LBJ? All have sent troops to outside countries to liberate them and promote democracy. Korea worked, Viet Nam may have worked if we didn't have our hands tied behind our backs. I still think it's just revenge for Fla 2000."

Politically motivated?  Isn't any socio-political opinion "politically motivated?"  But, no, mine are no more politically motivated than that.  Yes, I hate Bush - with a passion that I did not even hate Nixon.  However, I am rational and clear-headed enough to know if and when I am crossing the line into irrationality...

And yes, my views would be exactly the same were a Democrat doing what Bush & Co. are doing.  Yes, Truman, JFK and LBJ all sent troops to outside countries.  But was their motive really to "liberate them and promote democracy?"  Or was it something else?  You can choose to put on blinders if you wish, and take a "my country, right or wrong" attitude.  But to ignore the history of imperialism, hegemony, arrogance and "protecting our interests" (other than democracy, which is only in our interest when it protects our interests...) is not an answer.

Korea worked?  Really?  Is that why North Korea now has nuclear weapons pointed at the U.S.?   Hooray for our side!

Vietnam may have worked?  You are in such a state of denial that it is almost pointless trying to get through to you.  Vietnam could never have worked - short of another atom bomb.  There is almost no respected historian who would agree with your assessment, with the exception of the neocon types who now surround our commander-in-thief.

Ivan:

You got me on this one.  What I should have said originally was that "most aspects of the U.S. justice system work most of the time."  That said, I have always felt that life terms for Supreme Court members - and the near-impossibility of their removal, even "for cause" - are unjustified and dangerous.  Yes, their terms should "overlap" more than one president.  However, life terms are absurd.  Personally, I think 16-20 years is more than sufficient.

MtS:

"Some people like Maani think the US Supreme Court "coronated" Bush. When in reality all they did was PREVENT the Fla. Supreme Court from legislating from the bench, which resulted in the halt of recounts that would've gone forever."

No, they would not have gone on forever.  They would have gone on just long enough to show - as we now know from myriad sources, both partisan and independent - that Gore won Florida, and thus the election.

TB:

"There has to be a delicate balancing act. In the current situation, to say there cannot be reasonable precautions is imo ludicrous. Here in the UK you are regularly searched entering sports stadia,pubs/clubs, musical and arts venues, and have for many years. I may agree with you on the point that I would rather be "blown to bits" than change our way of life.But I would be unwilling to lay down the lives of my children!. This is a new, unknown, world."

"Balancing act?"  I think not.  After all, how does one decide where to stop?  How much "security" is enough vis-a-vis your Constitutional rights?  So bag searches at subways and buses are okay, because they give you a false sense of security.  Fine.  What about random searches in the parking lots of malls?  Is that okay?  "Well, sir, we have reason to believe that terrorists are going to attack shopping malls."  Or what about random searches on the street?  How much is enough?  Where does it end?  And if we acquiesce to the first "police state" tactic ("for our own safety," of course...), how can we then say, at a later date, enough is enough, and be believed?

"Reasonable precautions?"  Why are bag searches at NYC subways "reasonable?"  First of all, there have been no threats,, or even "chatter" or intel in this regard.  Second, it is a prima facie farce.  For example, The Daily News sent 37 staff members out to test the system, carrying large bags full of heavy stuff.  Every single one was able to enter the subway without being searched, either by sheer "luck" (e.g., not being the 10th person in line) or by deliberately avoiding stations with police personnel.  In this regard, if you believe that 19 Arabs working for a backwoods outfit like Al Qaeda were able to penetrate the security systems of three airlines at three airports, then do you realy think they are simply going to walk into stations where they know they might be checked?  Or are they going to study the subway system, and know where the "holes" are?  Please.

Yes, bags are searched when entering stadia, etc. even here.  However, that is private property and First Amendments rights (including the right of free movement) are not guaranteed between individual persons (except in extraordinary circumstances, such as civil rights violations), but only between individuals or groups and the government.  The subways are a public space.  Thus, First Amendment rights are protected.  Indeed, according to federal and local law, what is occurring right now - law enforcement preventing access to the subway to people who refuse searches - is absolutely illegal: there is no law - federal, state or city - that permits this.

"Unwilling to lay down the lives of [your] children?"  Although I understand and respect that, consider what you are saying.  Is that the lesson you want to teach your children about the values, freedoms and liberties that this country was founded on, and that so many died so that they could enjoy?  Yes, this one is a toughie, no doubt.  Parents love their children, and don't want any harm to come to them: they will protect them even at the cost of their own lives.

However, we also want our children to have solid values, as well as an understanding of what those values, freedoms, etc. cost.  This, in turn, means instilling in them the same values and understanding and respect for their freedoms that you have as a parent.  True, they will not understand that at young ages, and we therefore feel that their potential death at the hands of terrrorists before they are cognizant enough to make their own decisions in this regard - i.e, to be ready to lay down their own lives - are doubly tragic.  It is hard to disagree with that.  This is to my mind the only dilemma in the offing.

As for a "new, unknown world," this is and was ever so.  It is always a "new, unknown" world compared to the past.  And "new" and "unknown" are also in the eyes of the beholder.  After all, the reason (among others) that Londoners are having less "problem" with the recent attacks is that they lived through almost constant bombings during the IRA era, and are thus more "inured" to them (though no one is ever totally inured, much less sanguine).  Certainly those living in Jerusalem would find nothing "new" or "unknown" about what is occurring.

I remain unconvinced that there is any reason whatsoever for the diminishment or curtailing of even a small part of our freedoms or civil rights despite current world affairs.  Indeed, as stated earlier, it is because of current world affairs - and our claim to be fighting to protect the very freedoms that are being eroded - that I remain steadfast in my position.

Peace.