mavtek
09-28-2007, 10:01 AM
At the time when Gandhi was leading Hindus, England was at basically the end of its colonial period. Its not like they were exactly trying hard to hold onto that country, and thus that was the right move for those people at that time. The example of china doesn't exactly ring true as they are still to this day extremely oppressive of personal freedoms (i.e., speech, assembly, etc...). Yes they have become much more capitalistic, but that seems hardly what someone would risk their lives over. Finally, in Burma, there is violence - at least 9 people killed and many dozens wounded at last count I heard. That's not exactly a peace movement. BTW, MLK was not trying to overthrow an oppressive government regime, but rather affect equality for a particular group in an already democratic nation, IMHO.
As for the questions at the end, I thought I answered, but let me try again from the bottom up. I believe that there are time and situations in which we need personal responsibility and other time when we need communal responsibility. I believe there are some programs in government that should be secret, but in general, I feel we need to have as much transparency/honesty as possible. There are situations were as much freedom as possible is good, but other time that more authority is needed. I believe the bumper sticker that says "was is not the answer" is stupid, because sometimes it is the answer. But, obviously, I would rather live in peace when possible. As for who is going to pay for it, we all pay for things in government we don't like, is the best answer I can give you. IMO, we went into this was with the right intentions, but it was terribly executed. That doesn't mean we should abandon the mission now that things haven't gone to plan. We need to get on the right path, get the job done, and leave a militry presence there for about 50 years or so - maybe longer. ;-) Just my thoughts though.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
You forget the many examples of Peaceful revolution that have happened in our own century. Gandhi led the Hindu's and India into freedom from the English. The "Tank man" and the protest at Tianmen Square led to real reform and a capitalist movement in China. Right now while there is some violence in Myanmar, the people are mobilized in great numbers. Through peaceful protest they may spur change. So you may think it rare, but regardless of how often it has happened, it has worked. In our own country Martin Luther King brought about real reform regarding race in America with peace. You forget your history, often times when a country revolts or has a coup it is spurred by the people, and it is backed from within. Think about who the Military is in a country. The military for a given country is generally a group of volunteer patriots who want to do something right for their country. A large majority of them feel this way, and if you look throughout history Armies have been very unsuccessful when trying to target their own citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
So many examples of peaceful revolutions working all over the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_Revolution
Also I don't feel like you answered any of the questions I laid out for you. So I will pose them again.
How are you going to pay for it? Also with 2 out of every 3 people saying that they don’t want war and they don’t want higher taxes how could we pretend to be a government of the people if we continue on this course?
War or Peace?
Freedom or Authority?
Honesty or Secrecy?
Personal responsibility or Communal Responsibility?
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
You know, I was thinking about the whole topic of promoting freedom by example, and letting oppressed people of another country overthrow dictator themselves. And, what struck me was the difference between when our country did it back with Great Britain and now. Back then, people were fighting with muskets, bayonets, and inaccurate cannons, but now we have automatic machine guns, grenades, shoulder fired rockets, missiles, etc. Even a numerically superior, lightly armed, civilian population could not overthrow a government with modern-day weapons. That is why, we must step in, selectively, to "even the playing field." Do you honestly believe that the population of Iraq would have ever overthrown the monsters that Hussein and his sons were? Just something to munch on.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
Promote freedom all you want, but enforcing it with violence and oppression is not promoting freedom. Promote freedom by example, understanding, communication, and education. Also Freedom and Liberty are often viewed as separate things, when they are in fact one and the same. The founding fathers were Libertarians, that often gets tossed under the rug, but it’s true.
If you believe it is ok for America to police the world and use our military to enforce democratic regime changes all over the world, I only have 2 questions for you. How are you going to pay for it? Also with 2 out of every 3 people saying that they don’t want war and they don’t want higher taxes how could we pretend to be a government of the people if we continue on this course?
Naïve? I don’t think you’re naïve, misled maybe…….
Answer a few questions for me:
War or Peace?
Freedom or Authority?
Honesty or Secrecy?
Personal responsibility or Communal Responsibility?
I support Ron Paul because he would answer Peace, Freedom, Honesty, and Personal Responsibility and he has a record to back it up. A lot of people might answer this quiz the same way, but do they have the record to back it up?
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
I read the article below, and actually his views on foreign policy are very much Libertarian from my understanding of it, and I agree with Prager on this one. I do believe we have a moral obligation to promote freedom and liberty throught the world. Perhaps I am nieve about this, but I try to look at the big picture as best I can.
-----Original Message-----
From: 's where I get a lot of my news
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38624
A good article regarding some that don't like Dr. Paul.
Evidence is not the only thing lacking when I refer to belief in G-d. I have an alternative belief that essentially man needs no religion, he only needs faith in his fellow man. The nice thing about my belief is that it rarely conflicts with anyone.
Oh and tomorrow is fine.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: FW: Here's where I get a lot of my news
Thursday lunch again? Around 12-12:30?
BTW, "I have also read politico, although I can’t say I agree with everything they say." I don't know anyone's writing who I agree with completely. Somewhere, somehow everyone disagrees about something. Anyway, you had thrown in some quotes at the bottom of your email, and I thought of one for your enjoyment... I don't know the contributor...
"For the believer, there is always just enough proof that G-d exists, but for the non-believer, there is never quite enough."
-----Or
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
I have also read politico, although I can’t say I agree with everything they say. I believe Mr.Podhoretz to be a nut, which is scary considering he’s guiding the possible next president on Foreign Policy. I give politico credit for calling a Pecan a Cashew and informing people on what is really going on. I find the Neoconservative movement to be Un-American and that’s something that I along with several other conservatives, some call us Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, are fighting against. I have to question the original foundations and creators of the Neoconservative movement, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and numerous others like Paul Wolfowitz. If you read what Strauss documented as his vision of moral decay through liberalism, it is very similar to what Hitler documented as non unification of the state in Mein Kampf. Strauss dictates that totalitarianism maybe the only end result to continue managing a moral society unified by a common enemy. These are views I can only describe as Fascists, especially when you look at the definition of the word. I don’t think we got to discuss the topic of Straussian or Neoconservative views or movements, as you can see I’m not a supporter of this movement. I hope not to sound anti-Semitic or contrite toward Zionism, but in effect I see little difference in what we are doing in the middle east to Muslims, or should I say doing and have been doing, to what Hitler initially did to Jews in Germany. We haven’t gotten to the point of the Holocaust, but I for one don’t want to see it reach that point. There are estimates coming from several independent sources that we have killed millions in Iraq through sanctions and now war. It would seem the very thing we fought so hard against 60 years ago we have now let ourselves and our country become. While many come out and tell us that the Muslims are crazy and they will do anything to unseat us and our ways, I know a few Muslims and I have a temple down the street from me. These people have done nothing to me, nor have I done anything to them. I think we as Americans should stand up to this threat as Americans and realize that peace is what brought us our prosperity and our liberty. Yes initially we fought for liberty, but that is something we as Americans did, we can not fight this fight for others. We must lead by example, not by the sword. I believe that a common unifier for a society can be the cause of Liberty, and that Liberty can never be fully achieved so it is a fight that keeps on fighting, a fight that unites those who want Liberty for themselves and others. I am not the only one who believes that following Straussian ideals is madness though <<<http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mdolin10.html>>>
What do you believe? Is it ok for us to force freedom upon others? Is it ok to deceive the masses so that the few can rule and keep everything and everyone in line? Do you believe that like Chimpanzees our animalistic nature of attacking a common enemy to bring cohesiveness to the pack is a necessary evil? As you can see I think we have evolved beyond the point of the chimpanzee and I think it’s about time we started acting like it.
From the comments section: Yet more signs that Americans are waking up to this very UnAmerican Neocon agenda.
“I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to Cheney as a paleoconservative. How uninformed can a journalist be? Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative. Cheney is a neocon lock, stock and barrel.”
<< OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>
I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html
Interesting article, enjoy....
http://www.crooksandliars.com
Great site, they go both liberal and conservative.
Here's a good story.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19/hardball-the-assault-on-free-speech-in-america/
Watch the video
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
As for the questions at the end, I thought I answered, but let me try again from the bottom up. I believe that there are time and situations in which we need personal responsibility and other time when we need communal responsibility. I believe there are some programs in government that should be secret, but in general, I feel we need to have as much transparency/honesty as possible. There are situations were as much freedom as possible is good, but other time that more authority is needed. I believe the bumper sticker that says "was is not the answer" is stupid, because sometimes it is the answer. But, obviously, I would rather live in peace when possible. As for who is going to pay for it, we all pay for things in government we don't like, is the best answer I can give you. IMO, we went into this was with the right intentions, but it was terribly executed. That doesn't mean we should abandon the mission now that things haven't gone to plan. We need to get on the right path, get the job done, and leave a militry presence there for about 50 years or so - maybe longer. ;-) Just my thoughts though.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
You forget the many examples of Peaceful revolution that have happened in our own century. Gandhi led the Hindu's and India into freedom from the English. The "Tank man" and the protest at Tianmen Square led to real reform and a capitalist movement in China. Right now while there is some violence in Myanmar, the people are mobilized in great numbers. Through peaceful protest they may spur change. So you may think it rare, but regardless of how often it has happened, it has worked. In our own country Martin Luther King brought about real reform regarding race in America with peace. You forget your history, often times when a country revolts or has a coup it is spurred by the people, and it is backed from within. Think about who the Military is in a country. The military for a given country is generally a group of volunteer patriots who want to do something right for their country. A large majority of them feel this way, and if you look throughout history Armies have been very unsuccessful when trying to target their own citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
So many examples of peaceful revolutions working all over the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulldozer_Revolution
Also I don't feel like you answered any of the questions I laid out for you. So I will pose them again.
How are you going to pay for it? Also with 2 out of every 3 people saying that they don’t want war and they don’t want higher taxes how could we pretend to be a government of the people if we continue on this course?
War or Peace?
Freedom or Authority?
Honesty or Secrecy?
Personal responsibility or Communal Responsibility?
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
You know, I was thinking about the whole topic of promoting freedom by example, and letting oppressed people of another country overthrow dictator themselves. And, what struck me was the difference between when our country did it back with Great Britain and now. Back then, people were fighting with muskets, bayonets, and inaccurate cannons, but now we have automatic machine guns, grenades, shoulder fired rockets, missiles, etc. Even a numerically superior, lightly armed, civilian population could not overthrow a government with modern-day weapons. That is why, we must step in, selectively, to "even the playing field." Do you honestly believe that the population of Iraq would have ever overthrown the monsters that Hussein and his sons were? Just something to munch on.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
Promote freedom all you want, but enforcing it with violence and oppression is not promoting freedom. Promote freedom by example, understanding, communication, and education. Also Freedom and Liberty are often viewed as separate things, when they are in fact one and the same. The founding fathers were Libertarians, that often gets tossed under the rug, but it’s true.
If you believe it is ok for America to police the world and use our military to enforce democratic regime changes all over the world, I only have 2 questions for you. How are you going to pay for it? Also with 2 out of every 3 people saying that they don’t want war and they don’t want higher taxes how could we pretend to be a government of the people if we continue on this course?
Naïve? I don’t think you’re naïve, misled maybe…….
Answer a few questions for me:
War or Peace?
Freedom or Authority?
Honesty or Secrecy?
Personal responsibility or Communal Responsibility?
I support Ron Paul because he would answer Peace, Freedom, Honesty, and Personal Responsibility and he has a record to back it up. A lot of people might answer this quiz the same way, but do they have the record to back it up?
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
I read the article below, and actually his views on foreign policy are very much Libertarian from my understanding of it, and I agree with Prager on this one. I do believe we have a moral obligation to promote freedom and liberty throught the world. Perhaps I am nieve about this, but I try to look at the big picture as best I can.
-----Original Message-----
From: 's where I get a lot of my news
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38624
A good article regarding some that don't like Dr. Paul.
Evidence is not the only thing lacking when I refer to belief in G-d. I have an alternative belief that essentially man needs no religion, he only needs faith in his fellow man. The nice thing about my belief is that it rarely conflicts with anyone.
Oh and tomorrow is fine.
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: FW: Here's where I get a lot of my news
Thursday lunch again? Around 12-12:30?
BTW, "I have also read politico, although I can’t say I agree with everything they say." I don't know anyone's writing who I agree with completely. Somewhere, somehow everyone disagrees about something. Anyway, you had thrown in some quotes at the bottom of your email, and I thought of one for your enjoyment... I don't know the contributor...
"For the believer, there is always just enough proof that G-d exists, but for the non-believer, there is never quite enough."
-----Or
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
I have also read politico, although I can’t say I agree with everything they say. I believe Mr.Podhoretz to be a nut, which is scary considering he’s guiding the possible next president on Foreign Policy. I give politico credit for calling a Pecan a Cashew and informing people on what is really going on. I find the Neoconservative movement to be Un-American and that’s something that I along with several other conservatives, some call us Paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan, are fighting against. I have to question the original foundations and creators of the Neoconservative movement, Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and numerous others like Paul Wolfowitz. If you read what Strauss documented as his vision of moral decay through liberalism, it is very similar to what Hitler documented as non unification of the state in Mein Kampf. Strauss dictates that totalitarianism maybe the only end result to continue managing a moral society unified by a common enemy. These are views I can only describe as Fascists, especially when you look at the definition of the word. I don’t think we got to discuss the topic of Straussian or Neoconservative views or movements, as you can see I’m not a supporter of this movement. I hope not to sound anti-Semitic or contrite toward Zionism, but in effect I see little difference in what we are doing in the middle east to Muslims, or should I say doing and have been doing, to what Hitler initially did to Jews in Germany. We haven’t gotten to the point of the Holocaust, but I for one don’t want to see it reach that point. There are estimates coming from several independent sources that we have killed millions in Iraq through sanctions and now war. It would seem the very thing we fought so hard against 60 years ago we have now let ourselves and our country become. While many come out and tell us that the Muslims are crazy and they will do anything to unseat us and our ways, I know a few Muslims and I have a temple down the street from me. These people have done nothing to me, nor have I done anything to them. I think we as Americans should stand up to this threat as Americans and realize that peace is what brought us our prosperity and our liberty. Yes initially we fought for liberty, but that is something we as Americans did, we can not fight this fight for others. We must lead by example, not by the sword. I believe that a common unifier for a society can be the cause of Liberty, and that Liberty can never be fully achieved so it is a fight that keeps on fighting, a fight that unites those who want Liberty for themselves and others. I am not the only one who believes that following Straussian ideals is madness though <<<http://www.swans.com/library/art11/mdolin10.html>>>
What do you believe? Is it ok for us to force freedom upon others? Is it ok to deceive the masses so that the few can rule and keep everything and everyone in line? Do you believe that like Chimpanzees our animalistic nature of attacking a common enemy to bring cohesiveness to the pack is a necessary evil? As you can see I think we have evolved beyond the point of the chimpanzee and I think it’s about time we started acting like it.
From the comments section: Yet more signs that Americans are waking up to this very UnAmerican Neocon agenda.
“I think this is the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to Cheney as a paleoconservative. How uninformed can a journalist be? Pat Buchanan is a paleoconservative. Cheney is a neocon lock, stock and barrel.”
<< OLE Object: Picture (Metafile) >>
I believe a self-righteous liberal or conservative with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude.
_____________________________________________
From:
Subject: RE: Here's where I get a lot of my news
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5964.html
Interesting article, enjoy....
http://www.crooksandliars.com
Great site, they go both liberal and conservative.
Here's a good story.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/19/hardball-the-assault-on-free-speech-in-america/
Watch the video
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.