[MonteQuest]

Well, the empire has a new Emperor. The question is what he will do with his victory; and also how the rest of the world, which had been praying for a Kerry victory over the uncomfortably imperilistic Texan, will react. Bush’s success was the unexpected appearance of “moral valuesâ€

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

Here's another comparison of Bush and Caesar by Richard Heinberg
Behold Caesar

[Jack]

Caligua said it best - oderint dum metuant

Or, if you prefer the English version, "Let them hate as long as they fear".

[gg3]

Don't let the phrase "moral values" be co-opted by the Dominionists.

Someone please explain to me the moral value of denying 12- to 24- million Americans the right to legal monogamy.

Someone please explain to me the moral value of forcing rape victims to bear the offspring of their rapists.

Can't be done. Both propositions fail on both a-priori grounds (the Categorical Imperative) and on empirical grounds (Consequentialism). There's no moral logic that will support either proposition unless it precedes from assumptions that are provably false (factually incorrect).

There was a time when the prevailing prejudices held that inter-racial marriage was "immoral," since "God put the races on separate continents and intended for them not to mix." There was a time when the prevailing prejudices held that contraception was "immoral," since it would disconnect sex from reproduction.

When you hear the phrase "the public isn't *ready for* (whatever)," what that really means is, "reason hasn't yet overcome prejudice." Okay, so you choose: should we live by reason, or by our baser instincts?

When you hear the phrase "moral values," reason it out: what is the implied causal relationship? How is it supposed to work? Does it really work that way? Or is it just another case of a "Patriot Act" where the touted brand-name betrays the real purpose?

[Vexed]

Montequest wrote:

We may also see a new military draft soon. By the end of the Roman Empire, the citizens were loathe to join the legions and defend their country—the wars were fought with slaves.

What if Bush really doesn't see a need for a draft in the United States?

What if he thinks Americans do have slaves?

What if Bush imagines those slaves under the right conditions can be properly motivated to be an army?

Just a thought.

------------------

It Can't Happen Here - Sinclair Lewis

[pepper2000]

If you ask me, you can't talk about moral values without talking about the growing gap between wealthy and poor in America, or about the 100,000 dead in Iraq. I think gay marriage is trivial in comparison to these things.

But the buzz phrase "moral values" covers a set of issues that are relatively easy for people to understand and form strong, if irrational, opinions about.

[Kingcoal]

A concise analysis Monte, the way the neocons look at it, Americas job is to regulate oil commerce, to provide cheap oil for the world. America needs cheap oil in order to keep oil being traded in dollars and those petrodollars drive the US economy. That means the US has to stabilize the Middle East economies and make sure they are run by rational, pro-commerce regimes.

A very tall order. This bunch in the Whitehouse is very bold. If they pull it off, they will go down in history as the most productive executive branch ever. However, it's doubtful that even Iraq can be brought under control.

The interesting part is that all of the above requires draftees, money the US doesn’t have and a national stomach for casualties. How did Rome handle this? They conquered, turning the citizens of the conquered lands into slaves and forcing them into service for the empire. How will the US finance it’s empire?

[StayOnTarget]

It is apparent that the greater majority of Americans are no longer interested in Democracy, human rights or any semblance of morality, if in fact they ever were. Most are pre-occupied with a manufactured lineup of straw men and red herrings that maintain the role of this two party system as theatrical as a regional sports rivalry, and about as relevant. However, there are also many folks I talk to who are acutely aware of the crimes being committed in our names that keeps the energy flowing, that keeps the markets open. They whole-heartedly buy into the necessity of empire for the sake of sustaining the American way of life at any cost.

They see anyone who isn't American as somehow less than human and undeserving of any life that doesn't perpetuate their subservience to commercial interests (generally with racist overtones). I do not know how one overcomes such beliefs with reason. It seems to be rooted deep in the European history of our forebears, only the strong survive. That somehow, if America weren't the nation perpetuating a brutal system for our own benefit, then others would perpetrate such against us. History teaches us that there is some validity in this argument, though it chills my blood to admit it. It draws me back again and again to that essential human question: Mankind, inherently good or evil? Virtuous self-sacrifice is the exception that leads me to believe proves the latter. The very institutions of human management favor its servants with profit motive, people remain loyal to the institutions that support wealth accumulation which in turn keeps alive the ongoing humanitarian tragedy.

I used to joke that people are smart, and organizations are big dumb animals. I now see it is for the most part the people who are dumb and numb, and it is the organizations that are surely the animals, unable to reflect much if any of the flesh and blood virtues that individuals can and do express in this world. It seems ironic that not being a particularly religious man I find comfort in a biblical analysis of the human condition: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world...

It is the rulers, the powers that support those rulers, and the governments and by extension the corporations that administrate human interaction with which we ultimately struggle. Can we but hope to change the paradigm in a land that offers no leader for the people, a land that provides a choice only between representatives of dominant institutions?

[trespam]

Ok: Let's start bit by bit SpecOps_007. I take it your approach is to baffle them with bullshit.

So a couple questions:

1. What steps did Bush take against Al Qaeda when he discovered that they were responsible for the Cole Bombing?

2. What specific contributions do you think you can make to the peak oil discussion other than your frequent knee-jerk nationalistic rants?

[Matrim]

I find it interesting how Bush can win the 2000 election by the narrowest margin possible, then proceed to rule as though he won a landslide. Then (somehow) he wins the next election, basically proving to the rest of the world that 51% of Americans don't know shit. Meanwhile George and the boys and all 51% of you, are strutting around like you just took over the world. Specop I want you to pay real close attention to this, you can't win. America doesn't have the power to control the world, it's leaders seem to think they do but they're wrong. American dominance, as I see it, has already passed it's peak; readying us for the next phase: Global Gov't.

As the American empire, as Monte has properly labelled it, grasps at ever more tenuos strings of power they provide an excellent example to the rest of the world of a true rogue state. That is, a state whose leadership and population, are both in support of furthering their own advancement at the expense of the world at large. As America continues it's decline over the next four years (as it clearly will under the horrid leadership of Dubya and his Administration) I fully expect a massive push towards a global governing system, I also expect most countries to go right along with it except the states. At this point I think it more than likely that a global force will likely seize the territory of the united states and place it under marshall law. And geuss what specop......there won't be a damn thing you can do about it.

The reason you won't be able to do anything about it is that the world will be massively in favor of this action. Multi-lateral action against a state which has proven itself to be a danger to the national security of unhostile states. Faced with the duel threat of American imperialism, and peak oil, and possibly a financial collapse on a global level, it won't be hard to convince the world community to band together. Just remember when they throw you in the concentration camp specop, it's all you folks who voted for Bush who made it possible. Had you voted in Kerry, it would've been clear to whoever really is in charge that the American people aren't quite dumb enough to set up for the fall just yet. You could've bought yourselves a few more years, but you blew it.

Hello New World Order, Goodbye rights.

Thanks specop.

[Specop_007]

Ok: Let's start bit by bit SpecOps_007. I take it your approach is to baffle them with bullshit.

So a couple questions:

1. What steps did Bush take against Al Qaeda when he discovered that they were responsible for the Cole Bombing?

2. What specific contributions do you think you can make to the peak oil discussion other than your frequent knee-jerk nationalistic rants?

1) Nothing. USS Cole happened on Clintons. Watch. So, back at ya. What steps did Clinton take?

2) As much as you it seems....... Most of my contributions are in the planning section. I dont see you there much, actually trying to give advice on planning...... Strange that, isnt it.

[Matrim]

P.S.

If you want peace, you have to do the unthinkable. Kill everyone not of YOUR mindset. That means if your a white christian, you kill all blacks, hispanics, muslims etc. If your Muslim arab, kill all whites, christians etc.
As long as people exist who are different, you will not have peace. As unfortunate as that may be.

I just wanted to point out that this sort of thinking is insane, and heavily racist/intolerant, despite the "As unfortunate as that may be" at the end.

Specop let me just say that if the 51% who voted for Bush hold views even similar to your own, then Nov.2 2004 should go down as the most tragic day in american history. Far worse than either 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

I'm done, time for bed

[Specop_007]

My question for you trespam,
Why is it ok for liberals to spout of crap and carry on, but a conservative cant return fire? Is this a political discussion board? I dont believe it is.... If you want to spout of anti Bush crap and pound your chest on the merits of Communism, go here
http://www.democraticunderground.com
They'll welcome you with open arms. THIS board is about Peak Oil. So, if you think you can pour your heart out about how evil Bush is, how Socialism is the way of the future and how the world is doomed with Republicans at the helm, you better damned well expect a Republican to stand up and point out some of your glaring flaws.

Either discuss Peak Oil or discuss politics. I care not. On Peak Oil we can all have good discussions. On politics, you'll have opposing views, becuase this isnt a liberal policital board.

Now, I realize as a liberal you think its always everyone elses fault, and your not to blame one bit. I'm very well used to that attitude when dealing with liberals. Your also a victim, its the corporations fault etc etc and so forth. But fact is, you have more liberals going on about the whole political arena then you do Republicans.
So, better think of breaking the liberal code of conduct and blaming some of your own kind for this whole mess as well.
But that would be too difficult wouldnt it? So, lets put facts to the side and continue on as traditional liberals always do.

[trespam]

Ok: Let's start bit by bit SpecOps_007. I take it your approach is to baffle them with bullshit.

So a couple questions:

1. What steps did Bush take against Al Qaeda when he discovered that they were responsible for the Cole Bombing?

2. What specific contributions do you think you can make to the peak oil discussion other than your frequent knee-jerk nationalistic rants?

1) Nothing. USS Cole happened on Clintons. Watch. So, back at ya. What steps did Clinton take?

2) As much as you it seems....... Most of my contributions are in the planning section. I dont see you there much, actually trying to give advice on planning...... Strange that, isnt it.

1. Though Cole happened on Clintons watch, the proof that it was Al Qaeda happened right before election. That information was handed to Bush. And Bush did nothing. Absolutely nothing.

2. Your contributions to planning. Planning for what? Survivalism? How does that saying go: the best laid plans of mice and men... I've done the planning that I think is necessary for peak oil as I believe it will play out. I've moved money into oil companies, commodities, and will soon find some non-dollar denominated investments. The US has a come-uppance coming regarding its borrow-and-spend philosophy (a favorite of Reagan and Bush) but peak oil is going to play out over a much longer time period than many people on this board believe.

[trespam]

My question for you trespam,
Why is it ok for liberals to spout of crap and carry on, but a conservative cant return fire? Is this a political discussion board? I dont believe it is.... If you want to spout of anti Bush crap and pound your chest on the merits of Communism, go here

The problem with you SpecOps is that you are so buried in the language and ideology of conservative versus liberal that you cannot at all see the truth. Everything is conservative versus liberal to you.

As Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[Specop_007]

My question for you trespam,
Why is it ok for liberals to spout of crap and carry on, but a conservative cant return fire? Is this a political discussion board? I dont believe it is.... If you want to spout of anti Bush crap and pound your chest on the merits of Communism, go here

The problem with you SpecOps is that you are so buried in the language and ideology of conservative versus liberal that you cannot at all see the truth. Everything is conservative versus liberal to you.

As Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Haha, touche.
You win this round.

[Specop_007]

Ok: Let's start bit by bit SpecOps_007. I take it your approach is to baffle them with bullshit.

So a couple questions:

1. What steps did Bush take against Al Qaeda when he discovered that they were responsible for the Cole Bombing?

2. What specific contributions do you think you can make to the peak oil discussion other than your frequent knee-jerk nationalistic rants?

1) Nothing. USS Cole happened on Clintons. Watch. So, back at ya. What steps did Clinton take?

2) As much as you it seems....... Most of my contributions are in the planning section. I dont see you there much, actually trying to give advice on planning...... Strange that, isnt it.

1. Though Cole happened on Clintons watch, the proof that it was Al Qaeda happened right before election. That information was handed to Bush. And Bush did nothing. Absolutely nothing.

2. Your contributions to planning. Planning for what? Survivalism? How does that saying go: the best laid plans of mice and men... I've done the planning that I think is necessary for peak oil as I believe it will play out. I've moved money into oil companies, commodities, and will soon find some non-dollar denominated investments. The US has a come-uppance coming regarding its borrow-and-spend philosophy (a favorite of Reagan and Bush) but peak oil is going to play out over a much longer time period than many people on this board believe.

1) As did the WTC attacks and a few other attacks abroad. And Clinton did nothing. The proof Al Queda was behind Cole was most likely readily apparent as soon as it happened. But what was Bush going to do? Come out and say Well, Clinton didnt do anything but I will? It was Clintons responsibility to take a stand, not hand it off to the next guy to deal with.

2) Right back atchya. Best laid plans.... Hope your investments work out for the best for you. But if they dont... Might wanna read some of my threads.

Still, why denounce the war in Iraq? Thats what I'venever understood. I shouldnt have to tell you this (You seem surpisingly in the know, even for a liberal ) but it was the UN's very own inspectors that laid the groundwork for an invasion.

[gg3]

Specop, re items on 1st page: cut the hyperbole.

I saw an analysis of Kerry's proposals which showed that they were pretty damn close to those of GW Bush Senior. I suppose if Kerry is a communist, then so was GWB 1, in which case the subsequent elections prove that we can, after all, liberate ourselves from communist tyranny!

Also, GWB 2 said, on 9-11, that our enemy isn't Islam, it's a specific subset of evil men. So your item about slaughtering all the Muslims is way beyond the Administration's position. In the *wrong direction.*

What I see in your postings in this topic, is unrestrained anger of a type quite similar to that which motivated the 1960s radicals. All the quoted-in "you! you! you!" rhetoric is emblematic of that, and an ironic counterpoint to the issue of liberals always pointing the finger at someone else.

Matrim, re. item on 1st page: you can't be serious.

Despite whatever policy excesses occur, and despite nationalistic rants about the world needing us for our money, the fact still remains that the world needs us as an example of a place where individual liberty is of supreme value.

This came home to me powerfully one day on this very board, when I was reading a topic where a few folks from Europe were discussing concepts of basic liberty and equality with a few of us Americans. I got the distinct impression that some of the European postings were of the nature of questions: the type of questions that someone asks an elder expert. Apologies if this sounds like condescension by implication, believe me it's not that.

But it hit me then & there that we, here, are seen in this way by many around the world: as elder experts in the ways of democratic governance and individual liberty. The "American ethnicity," composed as it is of all the world's ethnicities, has one very special component: a birthright to liberty and justice for all, which was nearly unique in the world until very recently. This is more than a set of rights, it's a set of responsibilities.

We're at our best when we lead by example. We're at our worst when we lead by the crass coersion of economic power. We're at our best when we deploy our military in the name of liberty, and at our worst when we deploy it in the shadows to prop up convenient regimes. In any case we're always seen in broad daylight, and occasionally in the spotlight; and that fact alone should give us cause for humility rather than hubris.

At one time we were the *only* such example. Today there are many more, and the values of liberty and equality and a republican form of government are shared by most of the world's peoples and by governments throughout the world. So we are no longer unique in this regard.

At one time our primary foe *and* primary "ideological competitor" in the world was communism. I will suggest here and now, that we are in a new competitive environment. Our primary foe is religious-fanatic multinational terrorism with a marty complex: more dangerous in some ways than Soviet communism precisely because a) it does not have a defined national territory against which deterrent force can be aimed, and b) martyrdom is a "perverse incentive" that renders obsolete the notion of deterrence, requiring instead a combination of preventive diplomacy and proactive warfare. But our primary *ideological competitor* is now our very own ideology: democracy as practiced in other countries around the world, notably those of Europe and the UK. *They* will hold our feet to the fire and compel us to remain true to our ideals. And we should of course return the favor.

This new competition, to strive to perfect the ways of democracy, could become an irresistable syntropic force for good in the world.

Re. the Cole:

IMHO both Clinton and Bush get a pass on that one. The information came out at a point where there was a change of administrations underway. Neither would have been in a position to act quickly, decisively, and conclusively enough that the results would have prevented 9-11.

And for those who think the above paragraph is a wimp-out, remember the Christian value of forgiveness.

[MonteQuest]

P.S.

If you want peace, you have to do the unthinkable. Kill everyone not of YOUR mindset. That means if your a white christian, you kill all blacks, hispanics, muslims etc. If your Muslim arab, kill all whites, christians etc.
As long as people exist who are different, you will not have peace. As unfortunate as that may be.

I just wanted to point out that this sort of thinking is insane, and heavily racist/intolerant, despite the "As unfortunate as that may be" at the end.

Specop let me just say that if the 51% who voted for Bush hold views even similar to your own, then Nov.2 2004 should go down as the most tragic day in american history. Far worse than either 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

I'm done, time for bed

And as a reminder to those who post here, hate speech and racist remarks will also get you deleted.

[trespam]

Several responses to above threads:

Cole: I think both administrations can get a pass in the sense that 9/11 would not have been prevented. But the Republicans are just as guilty of inaction as the Democrats when it comes to terrorism. Reagan looked for ways to negotiate with the terrorists and also ran from Lebanon. Bush Jr had a chance to get Zarqawi but passed for political reasons.

Iraq war: The inspectors had not finished before the war started and they were making progress. The sad fact is that Saddam was spent by the time the war was started. Reports indicate he was largely innocuous after the cruise missile attacks that Clinton launched after the attempt on Bush Srs life in Kuwait. I am opposed to waste and ineptitude. The Iraq war appears to fit both categories. It's still not clear that any good will come of it. Much bad could come of it.