USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[denoir 0]

That's merely logic, but your Stalinist comparison was pretty extreme and not exactly relevant. Of course it can be worse.... it can always be worse.

Of course it was extreme. That was the point. If you wish 100% security, then a police state is a splendid choice for you.

Point being that everything that you do to increase security isn't necessarily a good thing.

Quote[/b] ]Apparently, the sticking point was the Chilean president being checked for weapons. ALL the news reports I read on this said that the dinner guests were to be asked to go through a metal detector (not just the Chilean president perhaps) and that was unacceptable so the dinner was cancelled.

How much do you want to bet that Bush wouldn't be going through any metal detectos and that he wouldn't be searched for weapons?

The relevance to this story isn't what happened, but the way you are trying to justify it.

I mean, it was a fairly nasty insult: he comes there as a guest and then starts demanding that the Chilean president and his staff be searched for weapons. I can't imagine a worse diplomatic insult than that.

What is interesting however is how people are defending it by saying that since it was a security issue, that it was ok. And I'm saying, that if you are willing to justify anything by "security" that you are asking for a police state.

The broader context of it is of course stuff like the Patriot Act (yeah, privacy is nice, but screw privacy if we can get security), Gitmo (yeah, proper courts of law are good, but this is a security issue) or Abu Ghraib (yeah, torture is bad in principle, but we're talking about our security here) etc

[General Barron 0]

Ah, I guess I'll pop in here for a little bit... although if this is anything like the Presidential election thread, then this is just a bunch of Europeans trying to talk about US politics...

@denoir

I'm confused. At first the topic was a country president having bodyguards, but then you are talking about a police state? Are you saying that a president having a bodyguard or two is excessive security? Or are you saying that having ANY security is the equivalent of a Stalinist police state?

If it is the former, then I'd wonder what the historical standard is for this kind of event, and what kind of security the other VIPs at the event had. If it is the latter, then I wonder what you are smoking...

Quote[/b] ]Why or how does liberalism scare some of you people so much?

To almost quote Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who sacrifice essential economic liberties for a little

temporary economic security deserve neither liberty nor security"

The problem I have with liberalism is its economic views. Liberals think that if you give up your economic freedom (in terms of higher taxes, regulations, etc), in return, you will recieve economic security. Actually, it is worse than that: in most cases, it isn't a matter of giving up your OWN economic freedom, it is a matter of taking someone ELSE'S freedom.

"I don't want to pay for (my library, my tuition, my insurance, etc), I want YOU to pay for it"

I generally have no problems with the "social" side of liberal philosophy, except when it involves taking away someone's rights (smoking bans, censorship, etc).

[General Barron 0]

Okay, now I see you are talking about things that aren't in the article that was posted a couple pages ago. But still, while we're in the "extreme comparison" mode, I'll just say that you must live in a police state, because I'm sure you have things like, well, police, roaming your cities.

[EiZei 0]

To almost quote Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who sacrifice essential economic liberties for a little

temporary economic security deserve neither liberty nor security"

The problem I have with liberalism is its economic views. Liberals think that if you give up your economic freedom (in terms of higher taxes, regulations, etc), in return, you will recieve economic security. Actually, it is worse than that: in most cases, it isn't a matter of giving up your OWN economic freedom, it is a matter of taking someone ELSE'S freedom.

Mmh, when I pay taxes I dont do it to get economic security, I am doing it to guarantee everybody a right to have an education they are capable of getting, not capable of paying or somebody to have a right to a decent healthcare even if one is unemployed.

Sacrifing economic freedom for some kind of security might be a correct analogy when tax money is being used on military, police or a vast prison system, which right wing does not seem to mind for some reason.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sacrifing economic freedom for some kind of security might be a correct analogy when tax money is being used on military, police or a vast prison system, which right wing does not seem to mind for some reason.

What arguments do I hear all the time against privatizing the social security system? "It's too risky! There is no security in private investments!"

What arguments do I hear all the time against de-regulating various over-regulated industries? "It's too risky! X or Y could happen!"

What arguments would I hear if I suggested we allow drugs to be sold that aren't FDA approved (but specificially label them as such)? "It's too risky! People might die from the drugs!"

Quote[/b] ]when I pay taxes I dont do it to get economic security, I am doing it to guarantee everybody a right to have an education they are capable of getting, not capable of paying or somebody to have a right to a decent healthcare even if one is unemployed.

That's all fine and dandy, but what if someone DOESN'T want to pay for those things? Obviously you are going to have to take the money away from them by force, or else you might not have enough money to pay for all these things. You shouldn't legislate morality. Better to let people choose which causes they think are worth funding, instead of forcing YOU'RE views on them.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]Point being that everything that you do to increase security isn't necessarily a good thing.

Not everything, but the U.S. has been a "wide open" country for years. We need to take our own security a little more seriously.

Quote[/b] ]I mean, it was a fairly nasty insult: he comes there as a guest and then starts demanding that the Chilean president and his staff be searched for weapons. I can't imagine a worse diplomatic insult than that.

My understanding of this (from the various news service stories I read) was that the requirement was that the dinner guests pass through a metal detector before being allowed into a large, state dinner. That was unacceptable to the Chilean government so there was no large state dinner, only a small dinner with the Chilean President and other government officials. That's where my confusion is coming from when you say it was the Chilean President and his staff that were to be searched. Every article I read said that the dinner was to be a large, formal gathering with many guests and the Chilean government did not want security measures taken to ensure these numerous guests were unarmed.

As for the Patriot Act it has it's good points and bad. Hopefully it will be modified at some point to improve it.

As for Gitmo, the United States is cursed with having more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. We need to overhaul our court system, and legal system, to streamline and limit our criminal and civil systems. That's why the detainees were taken to Gitmo. The hope was to actually accomplish something, instead of spending the next 20 years in the quagmire of the American legal system trying to figure out if every detainee got a new toothbrush on the first of the month and if not who can he sue....

As for Abu Ghraib and torture.... hopefully that was an aberration and not the norm. But let's not climb on too high a horse of self righteousness here. So high that we can pretend that this sort of thing isn't commonly ignored by various august bodies such as the U.N. when it would be disagreeable to actually commit troops to stop it.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sacrifing economic freedom for some kind of security might be a correct analogy when tax money is being used on military, police or a vast prison system, which right wing does not seem to mind for some reason.

What arguments do I hear all the time against privatizing the social security system? "It's too risky! There is no security in private investments!"

What arguments do I hear all the time against de-regulating various over-regulated industries? "It's too risky! X or Y could happen!"

What arguments would I hear if I suggested we allow drugs to be sold that aren't FDA approved (but specificially label them as such)? "It's too risky! People might die from the drugs!"

You know, corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve the same rights for obvious reasons.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]You know, corporations are not people and therefore do not deserve the same rights for obvious reasons.

If I am a single person trying to sell something, I should be given my full set of economic rights. Corporations are made up of a number of individuals. Why should you take away their collective rights?

And on a legal note, corporations (in the US, at least) actually DO have rights as a person does.

But corporations aside, 2/3 of my examples still stand:

Social Security is taken out of individual's pockets, even if they think they could make a better retirement by putting that money elsewhere

Drugs and other medical things cannot be sold in the USA without FDA approval, which in many cases has caused the deaths of thousands of people who otherwise could have been saved. Even if you wanted to "take a risk" on an un-approved drug, the government will not let you.

These are examples of "trading economic freedom for security (even if it isn't your own freedom)" that liberals seem all too fond of.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]Social Security is taken out of individual's pockets, even if they think they could make a better retirement by putting that money elsewhere

To be frank, I dont know what to think of the privatization, would investing be mandatory or could the payer choose? Would people preferring ordinary social security get screwed if the stock market goes down the toilet?

Quote[/b] ]

Drugs and other medical things cannot be sold in the USA without FDA approval, which in many cases has caused the deaths of thousands of people who otherwise could have been saved. Even if you wanted to "take a risk" on an un-approved drug, the government will not let you.

I think allowing unregulated medicine on the market will kill more people than save them. Corporations are not working for the common good and cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, especially if we are talking about products essential for human welfare.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Point being that everything that you do to increase security isn't necessarily a good thing.

Not everything, but the U.S. has been a "wide open" country for years. We need to take our own security a little more seriously.

The problem is that you are trying to treat the symptoms and not the disease. The actual problem you should be considering is not how to prevent people from blowing you up, but how to prevent people of wanting to blow you up.

(Hint: foreign policy)

Any form of definitive security is very difficult to achieve in the limits of a normal western open society. Killing people is not difficult, the whole system is based on the assumption that people in general don't like to kill each other. Unless you plan to radically change your soicety, it's pretty much a fuitile project. More or less anyboyd can Just go to a mall or a train station, strap on some explosives and blow himself up. Unless you want armed guards at every street corner, random house searches, the complete tracking of everybody's movement, people reporting what their neighbours are up to etc, it's nearly impossible to prevent all forms of terrorist threats.

Second, you must ask yourself how real the threat is and how far you are willing to go to try to remove it. Sure, the WTC attacks were an awful thing, but you have to put it into relation with the rests of the dangers in society. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents each year in the US. Hundreds of thousands die of heart attacks etc

At the same time, all the terrorists are capable of doing to America is to scare you shitless. And I'm sorry to say, but you are playing right into their hands by letting their relatively minor activities become the focus of the entire nation. They have you changing your open system, reducing your freedoms and liberties. Could they in any way succeeded more?

Bin Laden has managed to form American policy on a very large scale. And it wasn't because of the 3,000 dead Americans, but because of what the rest of you did after the attacks. "It's a "post 9/11 world" " - sound familiar?

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think allowing unregulated medicine on the market will kill more people than save them. Corporations are not working for the common good and cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, especially if we are talking about products essential for human welfare.

True, but merely being a corporation does not mean that they should not have rights and protections. Nor does corporation = evil. Without corporations many would not have jobs nor would we have affordable, mass produced consumer items. So they are necessary and they are regulated as well.

I understand that individuals need protection from corporations that act negligently, but the converse is true as well. Should McDonalds be liable because a consumer buys a cup of hot coffee, in the drive through, and burns themselves because they keep it between their legs while driving? Corporations need protection from the individuals who want to be paid because they do stupid things.

[denoir 0]

Social Security is taken out of individual's pockets, even if they think they could make a better retirement by putting that money elsewhere

The problem there is two-fold:

1) Unfortunately people can't be trusted to invest their money in a smart way. (Lottery anybody?)

There's a high risk that they'll blow the money on other stuff and won't have anything when the shit hits the fan. So the government is in the not-so-nice position of paying up (which again encourages people to spend their money) or letting people starve to death.

At least in Europe, the general thinking is like this: We as a society have enough money to ensure that each and every citizen gets a decent quality of life. That's the requirement. From that point you work out an economic and social solution that will guarantee that.

2) There are people that don't have any money to put aside in the first place. Say you have an accident and can't work or get a disabled child and your income can't cover all the additional costs.

(This is again assuming that you don't want your citizens starving, dying of trivial diseases etc)

[EiZei 0]

I understand that individuals need protection from corporations that act negligently, but the converse is true as well. Should McDonalds be liable because a consumer buys a cup of hot coffee, in the drive through, and burns themselves because they keep it between their legs while driving? Corporations need protection from the individuals who want to be paid because they do stupid things.

.. and yet this stuff only happens in the US which seems to have the most relaxed attitude towards corporations. The problem lies with your culture and not with legislation.

[denoir 0]

True, but merely being a corporation does not mean that they should not have rights and protections. Nor does corporation = evil. Without corporations many would not have jobs nor would we have affordable, mass produced consumer items. So they are necessary and they are regulated as well.

Law-suits does not equal to regulation.

I think the point however is that there is need for government regulation. It's simply from the fact that the priority of the companies is to earn money and not to make the society a better place. Sometimes these goals coincide, but sometimes they don't. The role of the government on the other hand is to defend the interest of the people in the society.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Denoir,

I agree that not having people want to blow you up would be a good thing. However, the United States has interests that are varied and far flung (as has every super power). It is not even remotely possible, for nation of this size and position, to make everyone happy. If we were a smaller nation, with limited world influence, it would be much simpler to keep most people happy with our foreign policy. We have, and will continue to have, enemies.

Unfortunately, that means there will be those who will hate us. You cannot blame this situation on Bush. He inherited this mess. It was a long time coming and the initial moves were made way back during Clinton's reign. He may not be the best man for the job, but he has the job. Not by his choosing, but it is his all the same.

Definitive security is virtually impossible to achieve. Bin Laden has changed our policies for good or for ill. I have heard it said that we should just close our borders and enter a more isolationist stance. Would this be the right path? I don't know. It makes sense if you look at it from a certain standpoint.

The terrorist attacks have scared our population, partially because we arrogantly believed that we were pretty much untouchable. I have also heard it said that the best way to achieve a level of security is to make the response to attacking us so terrible that any sane person would pause before considering it again. Is that the right path? I don't know. It also makes sense if you look at it from a certain standpoint (Machiavelli said that it is far better to be feared than loved).

Another interesting hypothesis I have read is that this is not a "new war"  but merely a rekindling of the hatreds that sparked the crusades. Muslims Vs. Christians and all that.

I agree that many more people die in auto accidents/health problems etc., but having a group physically attack us is an assault upon us at a very visceral level. It makes us want to strike back and to strike back hard. This may end up being a long drawn out war of attrition. Hopefully, we can put an end to this without it having to turn into a true bloodbath.

It IS a post 9/11 world. Things changed and they are not likely to change back.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Law-suits does not equal to regulation.

I must not have made my point very clearly. Corporations are regulated by government here in the U.S. We do not rely on the lawsuit as our regulation. If anything, the sheer number of lawsuits filed in the U.S. only hurt us by driving up the prices of everything.

[denoir 0]

I agree that not having people want to blow you up would be a good thing. However, the United States has interests that are varied and far flung (as has every super power). It is not even remotely possible, for nation of this size and position, to make everyone happy. If we were a smaller nation, with limited world influence, it would be much simpler to keep most people happy with our foreign policy. We have, and will continue to have, enemies.

Unfortunately, that means there will be those who will hate us.

I'm not very convinced of that theory. Take a look at Spain - they're for the most part insignificant in international matters. But they got hit because of their involvement in the Iraq war.

On the other hand, you can take a look at China, a true power player both politically and economically. Yet, through their moderate style of foreign policy they have not made too many external enemies.

So I'd say that it's quite possible in principle to be an influential player on the world scene without pissing people off to that extent that they want to kill you.

Quote[/b] ]You cannot blame this situation on Bush. He inherited this mess. It was a long time coming and the initial moves were made way back during Clinton's reign. He may not be the best man for the job, but he has the job. Not by his choosing, but it is his all the same.

It goes way back before Clinton. If my memory serves me correctly it was with the Spanish-American War in 1898 America switched from an introvert-pacifist policy to an extrovert-imperial one.

The current batch of policy with raw realpolitik has been going on basically since after WW2.

That policy is more or less a direct copy of the European one during the 19th century: you look after your current interest and the enemy of your enemy is (at least temporarily) your friend. Of course, when you have been doing it for a number of decades, it's bound to blow up in your face. This happened in Europe as well. The difference is that now we are talking about a global scale.

As a very blunt example - It is unlikely that Bin Laden would have been able to do anything today, had America not armed him during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

When you over decades constantly switch sides, use nations and make no attempt to hide that you are operating out of pure self-interest, some people are bound to get pissed off.

That it came from the Middle East shouldn't come as too much of a surprise either.

Now, Bush isn't responsible for Bin Laden and the legacy of the US foreign policy. He is however certainly not helping. You're not very popular with the Arabs to beign with (among other things due to various meddling in their business), so invading an Arab country was probably not a move in the right direction. On the contrary, it's just a repeat of the same old policy: to through military and economic means change the world to fit your interest.

Quote[/b] ]I have heard it said that we should just close our borders and enter a more isolationist stance. Would this be the right path? I don't know. It makes sense if you look at it from a certain standpoint.

Some form of middle road is probably desirable. For instance the EU manages to get involved just about everywhere in the world and has opinions on everything - and yet we're for the most part not on people's death lists. And the countries that are, are so because of their cooperation with America and its foreign policy. China is another fairly good example. They have lots of opinions, and they always only look after their own interest - yet they manage to do so in a non-intrusive way.

Quote[/b] ]I have also heard it said that the best way to achieve a level of security is to make the response to attacking us so terrible that any sane person would pause before considering it again.

It's certainly possible in principle, but you have to put it into context with who you are dealing with. Perhaps if you wanted to force a country to do something, terror is a good option. But you have to remember that you are dealing with extremists and fanatics here. Striking against the general population will only help them recruit more people.

Quote[/b] ]Another interesting hypothesis I have read is that this is not a "new war"  but merely a rekindling of the hatreds that sparked the crusades. Muslims Vs. Christians and all that.

I doubt that very much. At least it certainly wasn't the case a few years ago. Bin Laden is an extremist who did not have much support. Now, the Iraq war has changed the board somewhat, as the muslims are feeling really threatened. It was AQ that attacked you - not Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other muslim country.

I may be naive, but I really do think that true global understanding and cooperation is possible. I think that unless we are willing to stop the progress of our civilization (social, cultural, economic and technological), we have no other choice. I think that the internet is a wonderful example of how it is possible in practice. Take a look at just this forum. We have people here from most parts of the world. I'm from Europe but I have no problem talking to people from America, Asia or the Mid East. We may disagree on a bunch of things, but we can discuss them freely and with mutual respect. There is certainly no indication that we have to fight or kill each other over some form of dominance - economic, culutral, religious or otherwise.

That's why I really resent Bin Laden, Bush et al. In my opinion they are ruining something that could really work: a global unity.

Anyway it's getting late (early actually), I'm off to bed.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm not very convinced of that theory. Take a look at Spain - they're for the most part insignificant in international matters. But they got hit because of their involvement in the Iraq war.

This is true. And they promptly reversed their involvement in middle eastern affairs after a terror attack. Lesson learned: blow up something in Spain and they back down.

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand, you can take a look at China, a true power player both politically and economically. Yet, through their moderate style of foreign policy they have not made too many external enemies.

So I'd say that it's quite possible in principle to be an influential player on the world scene without pissing people off to that extent that they want to kill you.

Very true as well. China has chosen to involve themselves in world affairs on a very limited basis. Recently at least. Prior to that they chose to oppose the U.S. on numerous fronts.

Quote[/b] ]That policy is more or less a direct copy of the European one during the 19th century: you look after your current interest and the enemy of your enemy is (at least temporarily) your friend. Of course, when you have been doing it for a number of decades, it's bound to blow up in your face. This happened in Europe as well. The difference is that now we are talking about a global scale.

As a very blunt example - It is unlikely that Bin Laden would have been able to do anything today, had America not armed him during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Also true. We chose to assist the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion. The best fighters were often the religious extremists. So they did get aid and materials. Of course, that was back when the Soviet Union was an active threat and our various "allies" in Europe wanted the United States to help them keep from becoming eastern block countries. Was the U.S. "the enemy of your enemy" to Europe and thus your friend at that time? Because it seems the U.S.-European relationship has declined proportionately along with the Soviet threat to European nations. I guess without that enemy, you no longer need this friend.

China tends to be somewhat isolationist. They definately aren't what anyone could reasonably call an "open society." We are not China nor do we desire to be. You say that we are moving towards a police state through the patriot act, but then bring forth China as a good example of how to run policy???

The EU does hold many opinions and does, on a limited scale, get involved in many areas. Maybe we are trying to change things we see as wrong, globally, far too often. Perhaps isolationism is the best route. Our markets could definately use protection from this global economy. We would benefit greatly from that. Maybe China does have that one right.

As to this not being a christian vs. muslim war, I don't think the invasion of Iraq is what brought this about. Khomeini, Qaddafi, etc. have all been anti-western for years. They haven't been to adverse to killing westerners when the opportunity presented itself either. True, we were not attacked by a specific country, but instead by a group (Al Qaeda) which has been sheltered, supported, and tolerated by these countries. These counrties couldn't attack us directly and have any hope of victory, or frankly survival, so they instead have encouraged and supported a proxy war through "extremist groups." Either way, they still maintain a level of responsibility for the attacks.

[Sgt. Jones 0]

I agree with you 100% on this Denoir. I sincerely hope that some sort of global understanding is possible. I may be cynical about human nature, but that would a great place for my children to grow up.

These forums are a good example. People can talk and express ideas without having to fight. Unfortunately, my country is involved in a deadly struggle which may expand far beyond it's current scope. Bush is doing what has historically been expected of an American president responding to an attack, dealing with it immediately and from a position of strength.

The internet is a great place for people to meet. I just wish that the people that want to kill us had the education/resources to seek it out.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway it's getting late (early actually), I'm off to bed.

Good night. I've enjoyed the conversation

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think allowing unregulated medicine on the market will kill more people than save them.

Wait a minute. I just said that such medicine would be SPECIFICALLY LABELED that it hasn't passed FDA tests. Therefore, it would be a case of "let the buyer beware". Of course, private certification organizations could be developed, much like organic food used to be certified. But when it comes down to it, it would be a person's choice whether or not to use the product.

I'll dig up a nice article on a little CPR device that could have saved thousands of lives, while the FDA waited years and years to approve it. But when it comes right down to it, it's my body, god damn it, and if I want to put a drug in it (medicinal or recreational), that should be my choice.

Quote[/b] ]To be frank, I dont know what to think of the privatization, would investing be mandatory or could the payer choose? Would people preferring ordinary social security get screwed if the stock market goes down the toilet?

It would be optional, theoretically. I would like to see this: you can either choose to NOT be in the SS program, and invest in the stock market or in a savings account (which has the same or higher returns than SS); or you can choose to be in the SS program. If my stocks/bank account goes to hell, then too bad for me. But on the other hand, if the SS program can't support itself soley on the money paid into it by the people who choose SS, then too bad for them.

But in reality, SS is nothing more than a ponzi/pyramid scheme. Anyone who knows just a little bit about SS or investing knows that. Hence, the reason why the system is failing. Pyramid schemes always end up collapsing, and crushing those who got in on it last. It is just a matter of time.

I prefer to invest my money in actual investments (which help the economy), NOT pyramid schemes, which produce nothing.

Quote[/b] ]1) Unfortunately people can't be trusted to invest their money in a smart way.

THAT is the thing I hate the MOST about liberalism. I hate that elitist BS:

"People are too stupid to run their own lives"

Except for you enlightened liberals, of course. You guys are so smart, that you should decide things for us knuckle-draggers. God I can't stand that. I'll live my own life, thank you very much. Of course, just look at the BS that is social security, which barely keeps up with inflation, and you see how smart you people really are...

Quote[/b] ]2) There are people that don't have any money to put aside in the first place. Say you have an accident and can't work or get a disabled child and your income can't cover all the additional costs.

That is welfare, and it should be labelled as such. All such expenses should be removed from the social security program, and moved into the welfare program.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]HAT is the thing I hate the MOST about liberalism. I hate that elitist BS:

"People are too stupid to run their own lives"

Except for you enlightened liberals, of course. You guys are so smart, that you should decide things for us knuckle-draggers. God I can't stand that. I'll live my own life, thank you very much. Of course, just look at the BS that is social security, which barely keeps up with inflation, and you see how smart you people really are...

Such enlightened response from the "open-minded" one. Thanks.

And the fact is MOST people can not invest their money in an intelligent matter. There are still people giving their bank info because of an email from Nigeria for god sake. How many times a week do we hear stories of people being rooked by one scam or another, and then bitching about it on the news?

Other than that I agree with you

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]THAT is the thing I hate the MOST about liberalism. I hate that elitist BS:

"People are too stupid to run their own lives"

You should do a course in political science because what you say is wrong. I suppose you use the word "liberal" as a way of cursing people who are in opposition to Republican?

If not you should know that Liberalism is something that has everything to do with your ability to have a public meaning, being able to vote in your country etc. As an ideology it implies pluralism with the goal of equelibrium - as something being in a homeostatic state - and all the superior consumers deciding among providers. The providers in the market sphere as well as in the political sphere are denied the ability to dominate each market by consumers constantly choosing between the best of the always compeeting providers.

In short, if you hate liberalism you are bound to love: monopoly, cartells, illegal price setting etc. that makes sure you as a consumer (both politically and in the market) always have to pay more than you should.

Liberalism is YOUR choice. The opposite is denying you the very same choice!

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Some form of middle road is probably desirable. For instance the EU manages to get involved just about everywhere in the world and has opinions on everything - and yet we're for the most part not on people's death lists. And the countries that are, are so because of their cooperation with America and its foreign policy. China is another fairly good example. They have lots of opinions, and they always only look after their own interest - yet they manage to do so in a non-intrusive way.

But then again we have to bear in mind that the hatred of Bin Laden towards  USA has roots leading to the US military presence in Saudi-Arabia the first Gulf War which pissed off many Saudis and Arabs. The other course of action would have been letting Saudi-Arabia defenceless and most of world's oil supply within Saddam's reach, uninterrupted. Far worse choise in my view and 'middle-road' of EU-China-Russia certainly would not have worked in that case and US was left no other option than do the dirty work. And that path has eventually taken into 9/11, sadly.

Quote[/b] ]China is another fairly good example. They have lots of opinions, and they always only look after their own interest - yet they manage to do so in a non-intrusive way.

They would project their power overseas militarily if they could but their navy is weak therefore their sphere of influence is concentrated more on continental and internal issues (except Taiwan of course). I have no doubt that invasion of Taiwan would have taken place long time ago had China had better air force and navy. I believe China would make it's presence felt in equal manner but they lack the leverage and means to do so. The fact that China's bloody suppression of Tibet, incursions into Vietnam, etc. have not put them on 'suicide attacker hit list' is more of a cultural thing I believe rather than fruit of their extraordinarily wise foreign policies...and opposing US policies certainly helps avoiding islamic terrorism.

[theavonlady 2]

and opposing US policies certainly helps avoiding islamic terrorism.

Move along. Nothing to look at here.

Quote[/b] ]Ethnic Clashes Erupt in China, Leaving 150 Dead

October 31, 2004

By JOSEPH KAHN

BEIJING, Oct. 31 - Violent clashes between members of the Muslim Hui ethnic group and the majority Han group left nearly 150 people dead and forced authorities to declare martial law in a section of Henan Province in central China, journalists and witnesses in the region said today.

The fighting flared late last week and continued into the weekend after a Hui taxi driver fatally struck a 6-year-old Han girl, prompting recriminations between different ethnic groups in neighboring villages, these people said.

One person who was briefed on the incident by the police said that 148 people had been killed, including 18 police officers sent to quell the violence.

Chinese media have reported nothing about unrest in Henan. But a news blackout would not be unusual, as propaganda authorities routinely suppress information about ethnic tensions.

Although most Chinese belong to the dominant Han ethnic group, the country has 55 other groups, including several Muslim minorities and others who have ties to Tibet, Southeast Asia, Korea and Mongolia.

Ethnic Muslim Uighurs in China's northwestern region of Xinjiang have led sporadic uprisings against Chinese rule and authorities maintain a heavy police presence there to prevent an Islamic insurgency.

Hui Muslims, scattered in several provinces in the central and Western part of the country, are more integrated and generally are not considered a threat to social stability.

But outbreaks of Hui unrest were not uncommon in the 1980's and tensions can bubble to the surface after even minor provocations.

Many Hui areas remain economically impoverished despite rapid economic growth in China's urban and coastal regions, and some members of minority groups say the Han-dominated government does little to steer prosperity to them.

Friday's road accident set off large-scale fighting after relatives, friends and fellow villagers of the young victim, most of them Han, traveled to the taxi driver's village, home mainly to Hui, to demand compensation.

The rival villagers failed to settle their dispute, which quickly grew to involve thousands of people in Zhongmou County, located between the cities of Zhengzhou and Kaifeng, according to two accounts of the incident.

Local police failed to contain the unrest and authorities deployed the quasi-military People's Armed Police to restore order. Martial law was declared over the weekend, people in the area said, adding that the situation has since stabilized.

One person briefed about the clashes said that authorities may have been particularly alarmed after police stopped a 17-truck convoy carrying Hui men to the area from other counties and provinces as it passed through Qi County, near Zhongmou. Road blocks were set up on major roads in the area and some bus services were halted.

The incident suggests that word of the violence may have spread through a network of Hui and perhaps other Muslim groups and that mutual support among them is relatively strong. But the details were sketchy and difficult to confirm.

A police officer who answered the phone in the Zhongmou County public security office tonight declined to comment on the matter.

China's countryside and second-tier cities are rife with unrest among peasants and workers complaining about corruption, unpaid wages and a host of other issues. Violent protests, once extremely rare in the authoritarian country, now are frequent occurrences.

Last week rioters looted and set fire to police cars and a government building in Wanzhou, Chongqing, after an argument among several people triggered a mass riot involving as many as 10,000, residents, Western news agencies reported.

The uprising came after one local resident identified himself - apparently falsely - as a government official and beat another man who offended him, prompting numerous bystanders to spread the word that a local official had abused his authority.

Chris Buckley contributed reporting from Beijing for this article.

And two weeks later, this report on the same incident:

Quote[/b] ]Muslim conflict now hits China as 148 die in ethnic violence

By Damien McElroy in Zhengzhou

(Filed: 14/11/2004)

A convoy of military lorries roared along the dirt track leading to a fertile valley of rice paddies and ridges of garlic shoots in central China. Green-uniformed soldiers equipped with razor-wire and cannons stared out blankly at Chinese police, who stood to attention as they passed through a checkpoint.

They were heading for two neighbouring villages, Nanren and Weitang, which have co-existed peacefully for centuries - but where, earlier this month, martial law was abruptly declared after a row over a traffic accident escalated into pitched battles that left 148 people dead.

 

The soldiers' mission was to prop up the facade of ethnic harmony, constructed by the country's Communist dictatorship over the past 55 years but dramatically undermined by the eruption of conflict between Hui Muslims and their Han Chinese neighbours. The troops sealed off the villages to prevent other militants coming to the aid of their fellow Muslims and stop the fighting spreading across China.

At a checkpoint near the villages, a policeman boasted of his efforts to keep out "foreign" agitators and admitted that the situation was tense. "Our leaders are still holding talks between the two sides but there has been no resolution yet," he said. "Relations are very bitter. Too many people have died in a bad way."

Just 10 days since China's worst outbreak of inter-communal violence in more than a decade, Communist Party officials fear that the unrest in Henan province - the birthplace of China's 4,000-year-old civilisation - is a worrying sign of trouble to come.

The country's politburo security chief has made the rough 400-mile journey from Beijing, an unusual foray by a senior Communist official to such a poor outpost - a collection of ramshackle brick buildings, where dogs hunt for food in piles of rubbish strewn around the pot-holed streets.

In the nearby provincial capital, Zhengzhou, a city of skyscrapers and more than two million advertising hoardings, officials are perplexed by the sudden detonation of violence in the hinterland. As he plucked at a designer-label cashmere sweater, a Hui Communist Party official said: "There were hundreds of people stopped on planes and buses, attempting to travel to Nanren before the army was deployed."

The violence is a setback for the Chinese government's policy of permitting a modest Islamic revival among the Hui, one of the country's most moderate Muslim minorities. It was also a sign that underlying ethnic tensions across China's teeming territory are a continuing challenge to Beijing's rule. At stake is the imperative set out in the official government slogan, "The 56 ethnic groups are one family."

The fighting broke out after a Han youth crashed his motorcycle into a Hui builder's tractor, tipping it over. The confrontation soon escalated into pitched battles between mobs armed with shovels and hammers. Molotov cocktails were launched across the river between Nanren and Weitang - the former predominantly Hui, the latter Han - and Huis from around the country flocked to assist their beleaguered brothers.

A local imam said that one of his followers was found beheaded in rice paddy ditches, a Hui official told The Sunday Telegraph. "They share the same market, but the Hui people are insulted by the Han's behaviour," he said. "The Han stallholders try to sell them pork, pushing it in front of their faces all the time. Now the imam says the Han in Weitang are savages who mock our traditions by cutting our throats."

By appearance there is nothing to distinguish the 10 million Hui from other Chinese: only their faith sets them apart. They are descendants of Muslims who traded along the Silk Road between Europe and Asia, and married local women. In Henan province they number 900,000 among a population of 95 million.

Unlike China's other sizeable Muslim minority, the Uighurs of western Xinjiang, the Hui have never been involved in separatist violence. Now, however, they are becoming increasingly militant in asserting their Islamic identity - partly to prevent their assimilation into the rest of the population, 93 per cent of whom are Han.

Yet many Han are critical of the Hui claim to a separate identity. "They are not a real minority," said Liu Yue, a portrait artist in Zhengzhou. "They don't have their own language, they don't have their own customs, all they do is refuse to eat pork.

"Our government gives them too much favourable treatment. If a Hui is caught speeding, he'll just show his skull cap and the officer will let him off."

At an Islamic centre in Zhengzhou, where writing on the wall is in both Arabic and Chinese script, passions were clearly aroused by the trouble between Nanren and Weitang.

Perhaps ominously, the mosque leaders appear sympathetic to the insurgents in Iraq. The mosque's Ramadan letter declares: "In our Muslim world, our brothers are suffering a great disaster.

"Their actions in self-defence have been judged to be extremist terrorism, but they are struggling in an imperialist war that is killing people and rotting modern civilisation."

The defiant mood in Iraq is apparently shared by mosque elders, a foretaste of further problems ahead for the Chinese authorities. "If our brothers are being attacked," said one elder, Lao Mai, "it is a duty in our religion to join them in the fight."

Hopefully this part of China won't turn into Chechnya.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Hopefully this part of China won't turn into Chechnya.

Especially since China won't show the restraint Russia did