Even more Omnibus Reply Post

Mike, you're right about Iraq and the British - but there were German troops in Vichy-run Syria, just not in significant enough numbers to affect the war in North Africa. A great fear of the allies was that the Germans would move East and take the Mosul oilfields. The Baath party was founded by Michel Aflaq, who was influenced by the Nazis. While the Ba'ath party was anti-colonialist, it was also Arab nationalist, and socialist. 

Yes, Syria still rules most of Lebanon. While the risk of more terrorist attacks may increase in the short term, bringing democracy and freedom to the middle east would dramatically decrease the risk of attacks in the long term. I don't believe we will need to invade Iran, because I think the large democracy movement there - with perhaps some aid and encouragement, will handle the job nicely. The people of Iran hate the mullahs, and its only a matter of time. 

As for Syria, it is a much more entrenched totalitarian state - much like the similar Ba'athist state that existed up 'til recently in Iraq. There is no organized resistance or opposition in Syria that we could negotiate with. BTW, we did make the Germans and the Japanese into democrats at the point of a gun. I think that the fact that Saudi Arabia is not on our list is merely a tactical move, until we have another secure base from which to operate, and another large, secure source of oil. They will appear on the list, the sooner the better. 

(I used Mohammedan because I was tired of writing Islam and Muslim. Poetic license. They can call me a white trash cracker in retaliation if they wish.) 

How free are the Germans with our planes and tanks in their country? I never suggested that we attack every repressive government in the world. But the fact that we don't attack that one is not a reason we can't attack this one. And, although given the current world situation, it might not be wise to attack our god friends the British; we're 1-1 against them so far. Everyone else on your list is open season as far as I'm concerned. Castro just sentenced another 75 journalists and dissidents to quarter century prison terms. Fucker. Who decides what is an oppressive regime? It's fairly obvious, unless your head is so full of ethical relativism that you can't tell the difference between a nation like, say Finland, and another like Cuba. 

Also, most slippery slopes aren't terribly slippery, at least in this country. It's the one thing that gives me hope in regards to the whole Patriot Act thingie. 

I did generalize about the left for the sake of brevity. But are you saying that there have been no communists since Engels died? Because every time someone who thought they were communist got power, millions of people died. The Black Book of Communism lays this out rather starkly. The central feature of every leftist regime is the total unconcern for the rights and lives of its citizens. No one has freedom, and those who argue become dead. 

Even among the socialists forced to work in societies like ours where there are inconvenient things like the Bill of Rights, the goal is regulation. Every liberal policy seems to center around restricting my freedom to act. Or at least taxing me so much that I can't afford to do anything. You cannot maintain liberty when you are restricting people's liberty - even when its for their own good. The regulatory state is just a watered down version of the ideas that led to five year plans, forced collectivization and the famine in the Ukraine. You suggest (hopefully jokingly) that we forbid capitalism to get a space program. But of course, we'd have to get everyone to do it. That scheme is more ambitious than my cunning little plan to take out a few odious fuckwit dictators. But yet, that is the communist world revolution. I can make many practical arguments for keeping capitalism around for a while longer. It has produced the economy of the United States, where even the poor live better than kings in almost any other country. Capitalism made that possible. But the key reason that I support Free Markets is that they are, well, Free. People choose - what they want to buy, and others choose to take risks forming companies that they think will supply consumer needs. 

The socialist economies of Europe are (slowly) going down the shitter, while despite war, terrorist attack, and cyclical downturn ours is still performing better. Because we are freer than they are.

Posted by Buckethead Buckethead on   |   § 0

[ You're too late, comments are closed ]