The best example of micro nations we have is the Greek polis.
All kinds of government worked somewhat well there; democracy,
oligarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy.
However, with so many national egos, there was not much peace
between the states and they where easily taken advantage of. (i.e. the
Athenian Empire).

Another interesting post Samurai, but firstly may I suggest that you read it again and then go back and read your first post in this topic.
Secondly I would like you to focus on that first post of yours and then re-read the posts I wrote.
Can you then combine the two stages and apply the criticisms in your last post to your first post.

But I think the problem is illustrated by
so you were writing in a topic but not about the topic, yet were criticising what was written in the topic because of who had written it not what was written.

Nice to see you again, Tribesman. How was your trip?

I have to confess, I'm a little honored by the fact that you took the time to compose such a thorough response. :salute:

Alright, here we go.
Lol. I don't think there are many groups that aren't viewed that way by some group or the other.:03:
I get your point, but I think you're making a bit of a logical leap, there. I can't recall any information suggesting that theocracy and suicide bombings are indicative of Rednecks(or Christian Fundamentalists, whicever you prefer), nor are they generally guilty of trying to impose their religion upon others by force. Certainly there are some who do that, I've met a couple, but most of them don't. The fact that they are politically (if not morally) tolerant of other religions suggests that they might not be so impervious to reason as you suggest.

Etymology notwithstanding, modern "rednecks" are generally independent persons with strong moral convictions (amongst other things), but they rarely assault others' beliefs or freedoms with anything more dangerous than sermonizing or general b-ing.
I suppose the argument could be made that their vehement defense of anti-abortion and anti-biomed research laws could be construed as an assault upon the freedoms and beliefs of others, but it is still a far cry from trying to massacre people in defense of forced religious rule.

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

I am a redneck. I ride horses and shoot guns. I know how to steer-wrestle and tie a calf. My mom lives in a trailer. I have a personalized "yee-haw" and a rebel yell that I am particularly proud of. I have a reasonably developed work ethic. I strongly believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and merciful. I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom. Does this somehow equate me with radicals who blindly seek to impose their societal and belief structures upon everyone without exception through the indiscriminate use of deadly force?

Call them what you will, but "rednecks" are remarkably prevalent in the central and southern US - regions which are, coincidentally, considered economic powerhouses, even within the US. Ironic, considering that the more liberal, and therefore, "educated" regions have suffered from a mass migration of industry, commerce, and the associated prosperity, don't you think? Do you suppose that may be due to the backwards and strange views that rednecks held, reflected in their legislature? Very curious.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the General was either Stuart or Forrest; Stuart, because of the Scottish name, or Forrest, because I suspect you might seek to equate rednecks with the KKK. How far off was I? I enjoy a bit of trivia.

Back to the etymology question. During your absence I actually found two credible references to the term "redneck" that pre-dated my supposition, so I'm going to give you that point. It seems that you've learned this redneck something.

I found a white supremacist site, which appears to be the political face of the KKK.
I deduce from your statement that you are equating the actions of Scottish clergy with those of extremist groups in the US. May I humbly suggest that the work of clergymen in a relatively racially homogenous nation might not reflect the political attitude of a completely different group of people in a much larger and racially, politically, and ethically heterogenous nation?

I'd like to read that post. Skybird's contributions sometimes exceed the text limit, and I've had the privilege of reading some of his .pdf essays, which are much longer, I assure you. I have no fear of reading.

I would be very interested in a post which somehow divorces the cause of the Three Kingdoms' Wars from the political desire to impose universal religious beliefs.

If you have the time to write it, I have the time to read it.

No, Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a recruiting incentive for the war. The North was not willing to go to war over slavery, as had been demonstrated on numerous occassions, not the least of which was the Northern tolerance of slave states within its' alliance well after the war had begun, and finished.
The North went to war because the state-industrial complex would not tolerate dissent when it came to eliminating competition from foreign enterprise in the form of a tariff. Special interests were proportionately just as active then as they are today, my friend, as was the inherent immorality of fiat power. Men of power were willing to send other men to their deaths for the preservation of their own selfish interests.


But you have written things about it. Many of your previous posts indicate that you believe in socialist or centrist ideals. In fact, you support that hypothesis in your next paragraph.

Please allow me to stop you right there. I have no doubt that corruption is a problem in Ireland but why is it a problem? What caused it? What kind of a problem is it?

I'm going to hazard an educated guess and suggest that most of the corruption involves the principle political party and parties that are a lot like it or directly support it. I'm also going to guess that the corruption generally falls under the category of "bribes and political favors". I'll bet that a lot of it also involves corporations "skirting the rules" and using or somehow ignoring legislative barriers to further their own agendas, and I'll bet that most of those actions ultimately serve the purpose of outlawing competition in production, trade, and labor.

I say this because I know that Ireland is a notoriously centrist nation, almost on par with what the US is rapidly becoming. Where political harmony reigns, there is power. Where there is power, there are those who seek it. Where those who seek power are present, there are invariably a number of them who seek it for personal gain, if not all of them. Where power is used for personal gain, there is immorality, because the use of power over others to further one's own agenda is immoral. Where there is immorality, there is corruption.

That is why I say that there is no "third way", an ideal that I know must be championed in Ireland simply because of its' political structure, which I I have deduced from the opinions you have heretofore presented. Isn't it interesting that I could know all that with a very limited understanding of Ireland beyond its' geographical location and government?

Corruption or no, Ireland still ranks somewhere in the 30's for GDP, worldwide. Pretty impressive for such a small nation with such limited resources. The Asian Tiger economies are similarly impressive, despite their vulnerability to global economic trends. The standards of living have been improved a great deal, even if they are not yet on par with the US. The US has spent most of its two hundred and thirty-three year history fostering a free market economy. It has spent all of that time fostering a more free-market than nations with comprable resources, so the discrepancy is understandable.

Thatcher's Britain continues to suffer from the exact same malady that your nation does: the continued and increasing presence of an overbearing and corrupt state made of people who seek to impose their will upon others. Economic freedoms can only do so much in the face of overtaxation and plutocracy. Sooner or later, they will slow down and be reversed as an established power structure takes root and grows.


That is because your position is ultimately the same. You can spout ideals and legislative initiatives all you want, but at the end of the day you are still trusting the person who does the best job of asking you to cede your money and your freedom to them in exchange for the promise that they will "make it all better".

They may seem cryptic to you, but they aren't to some of us. They are just evidence of your inability to defend your position and a perversion of Socratic method. If you're going to use questions to teach, you should probably make them more clear, or at least discontinue the use of emoticons as responses. People aren't going to respond to :har: with introspection, they'll just think you're a dick.

Not specifically, but you treat me as such, on occasion, including most of this occassion.


See above.

That's probably the wisest thing I've ever seen you type.:salute:

Question the state. Question others. Question me. Question yourself. As biological machines, we are only as good as the information we posess. Querying others is sure to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world, so long as we have the proper means of filtering information.

My worry is that you lack those means. Your consistent and casual disregard of others' views on this forum suggests that you do not question or even believe your own views by virtue of the fact that you can't be bothered to defend them with anything more than insult, real or implied. What you usually post implies that you are a product of indoctrination, seeking to prove the truth you have been taught and oblivious to outside influence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'd like to see a little proof. The virtues and failings of any person or group are ultimately defined by their actions (heh, kind of like rednecks and jihadists). Show me some real proof of the validity of your views, logical or emprical, and I, as well as others, will be more inclined to adopt your perspectives.

Two quick things Samurai.
If you look at the 3 sources I put as preceeding Hackett then you should see Longstreet was the general and his uncle was the writer.
Secondly, that racist political site you found, was it run by a "christian" pastor who came out of the rocky mountain gospel institute?

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

Are you referring to the OP?

Not in particular but people here do seem to be rather free with using it as a disparaging term don't you think?

Oh right, sorry, I thought you meant something else entirely.

Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.

I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.

Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.

For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.

Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.

One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.

In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.

Just to add my 0.02€:

Keep in mind that many 'isms" lie at the root of American society, among them concepts such as liberalism (meaning Classical liberalism, not the present-day 'liberals'), republicanism and individualism. An 'ism' in itself does not necessarily denote excess or radical... well, ism.
Concerning socialism: The whole idea of socialism can't be separated from the industrial revolution, and it's no coincidence that Marx wrote his major works in the country that set the whole revolution in motion. Though it had a heavy impact on both Europe and North America, it's essential to realize that the circumstances under which that process took place were different in some crucial areas:
While Europe had to deal with the fact that its population grew steadily in an already populated country, the US - despite immigration - were almost virgin soil by comparison. The result was a worker surplus Europe, but a worker shortage in the US. Thus, work in Europe was ridiculously cheap while comparably high wages in the US led to a process of steady rationalization.

All of the major problems socialism sought to adress - the most severe of them being mass poverty - were a direct result of the worker surplus. The root of socialism is, in a sense, humanitarianism. To say that it was simply some clever spin by a lazy bum who sought to increase his personal power (as some have suggested) is missing the point by a couple of leagues (in which he didn't succeed, by the way). As I've said before - good analysis, bad prognosis. And if I might add, some of the most brutal and inhuman regimes implemented by the very people that claimed to bring its goals about. The charming thing about socialism is that it lends itself so wonderfully to abuse in a humanitarian disguise.
I'm not trying to defend socialism or any ideology here. I just want to say: Credit where credit is due.

Just wanted to point it out. (I know it's a simplification and way OT.)

That, and human dignity.

Make no mistake - freedom has always been fragile and delicate, and I would agree that Islamic fundamentalism could well be its largest threat today. But speaking about government and trust in it: I'm uneasy about people who seek to defend "Western civilization as we know it" through questionable means. The moment we are willing to take this bait and stop asking these questions, we have done more for the fundamentalists than they could hope for.

@Lance: By the way, I don't know how long it takes you to write these posts, but I think most of them are really well composed.

Thanks for the clarification!

Ugh... don't get me started on Thatcher. Some of her changes were good/necessary but others had nothing to do with free-market economy. The poll tax for example (which caused riots and was replaced by council tax, which we still have) was/is just a way to rape the proletariat. You say people became "disillusioned" (with capitalism, if I'm not mistaken) but I don't think that's accurate. What they became was hungry. Thatcher didn't break illusions, she broke wallets - but only wallets below a certain size. I think that here in Britain "capitalism" is almost synonymous with "aristocracy", thanks to people like Thatcher. Perhaps that's the disillusion you refer to.

I debated replying to this, as honestly I think you are being somewhat disingenuous and trying to sidestep and avoid what I said. Both my comments to you were generalized observations on your posting methodology overall (of all of the posts I have read of yours on this forum) and not the specific content contained within or of the person behind the posts.

As for applying my criticisms from my second post to my first post. Well let's see. I did not ridicule or insult you or your ideas, though perhaps you feel that I did; if is so that was not my intent and I apologize for any harm done. I do not see any hints or use of cryptic messages in my first post and I feel that my post had plenty of substance behind it. I also do try to foster a positive intellectual environment with my posts, that one included.

Are my posts effective? I think they generally are. I don't expect total agreement with what I say, and I am not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But I feel that what I say tends to be respected by the other members here, even if they do not agree with a single word of what I said. With a little luck perhaps some of my words have a positive effect on others.

My posts though not entirely on the original topic, did follow the general flow of the thread (the topic in this thread has branched in several different directions). I commented on some of the different branches ongoing in this thread, in each post. Furthermore I did not criticize what was written in the topic by you, or who had written it, but rather how you present your arguments in general. Those criticisms were intended to be constructive, as I do not feel that your current methodology is very positive, constructive, or effective. So I offered a few suggestions that could enable you to have a more satisfying intellectual experience here. Whether you pay attention to my suggestions or not is your problem; I don't foster any emotion towards you in any direction, or any ill will.


Anyhow I am done commenting on your posting methodology.


I think you got me and lance mixed up :DL

:damn:

You're right and I seem to have misspoken myself. I should have said "a variety" rather than "the variety". My own linguistic inadequacies aside, the point stands.


Well said. I don't really see anything to disagree with other than the supposition that Europe had a glut of workers whilst the US had a shortage. That's another debate for another time, perhaps.


I always kind of thought that dignity came with freedom. There's something to be said for making one's own life and accepting the consequences of failure with your head held high.
I suppose it all depends upon how you define "human dignity"

I assume that by "fundamentalists" you mean Islamic Fundamentalists, in which case I tend to agree. One of the main failings of my redneck bretheren, and other groups with individualistic ideals (and myself) is their propensity for overreaction. The moment they percieve a threat to liberty, real or imagined, they are all set to go and kick somebody's arse all over the place, whether that is the best course of action or not.

If the US hadn't been so determined to intervene in the affairs of Europe and the Middle East during and after WW2, there would be no conflict with the jihadists. They would have no reason, even in their bizarre mindset, to target the US, at least for the forseeable future.

But no, we had to go and help the British erase a 2,500 year-old Muslim nation to establish and sustain a homeland for the Jews, the ancestral enemies of the Muslims. No wonder the Muslims are pissed at us.

IMHO, we would have been better served by leaving Europe and the Middle East to their own devices. If they want to fight to establish political hegemonies and screw around, let them. The US can only stand to benefit from their silliness.

Unfortunately, we did get involved and we did incur the wrath of nations by doing so. The question now is how to address the current situation. On the one hand, we have the warhawks who want to deploy more troops with the aim of quelling what amounts to a cultural ideal, which is going to be difficult, if not impossible. On the other, we have peace adovcates who want to reconcile our differences with Islamic nations, which is also difficult, if not impossible, given the strict moral code that defines Islamic law.

As much as I hate many of his domestic policies, I think Obama is on the right track with international diplomacy. He is trying to portray the US as a neutral entity, one that is ready and willing to establish peace with any nation that desires it. I don't entirely agree with his methodology because I think it could be done in a better fashion, but again, I think he is on the right track.

Ideally, I'd like to see him divert Islam's attention away from the US and onto Europe, but that's almost another discussion entirely.

Thanks, Shearwater. That means a lot coming from you.

As for the time it takes to write my posts, I can only say that it varies.

Ok there is a lot that you wrote that I must take issue with Lance

If the US had not entered WW2 (assuming of course Japan had not attacked). I don't want to imagine what would have happened. Germany probably would have won in the end due to many reasons (their manufacturing would have been more intact due to the lack of constant US bombing raids, they probably would have succeed in starving out England, and they would have had far more resources to conquer Russia). If Nazi Germany had won they would have finished the final solution and murdered all the Jews in Europe and the middle east, then moved on to wiping out all the Baltic and other 'inferior' races. They would have also gained the nuclear bomb before anyone else (they were very close at the end of the war, there was even some evidence that they did have an early working prototype).

Second the US got involved in the middle east after the war primarily for its own selfish interests (principally oil). Furthermore the jihadists still would have had plenty of reason to target the US for it's, in their view, corrupt and immoral ways, not to mention being infidels etc. I can cite many examples of attacks by Islamic people, on countries and peoples which have had nothing to do with the middle east or Islam other then to refuse to convert. I could expand further on this but I'll leave it for now

Ok... what 2,500 year old Muslim nation exactly? Islam hasn't been around that long (Islam is about 1600 years old). Second the Jewish people have a much older claim to the land (going back at least 4000 years from archeological evidence), and were there well before the desert tribes (which became Muslim) came to the area. They also never left; there has always been a strong Jewish presence in the region of Israel/Judea, in spite of all the massacres and invasions, and repeated enslavement. Third the US and Britain governments did nothing to create the state of Israel, in fact they did their best to prevent it happening, and tried to stop it when it did. The Jewish people created Israel themselves, which was not very surprising after what was done to them during world war 2 (aside from the rest of history). The US and Britain only very grudgingly recognized Israel as a state after many years of war between the Jewish people and surrounding Muslim countries (which by the way happily increased their own borders from the aftermath). Palestine was never a country, or an identifiable people, Its borders, name, and existence were created by the British when they partitioned off the middle east I believe after WW1. Finally it's the Christians who are the ancestral and principle enemies of the Muslims. The crusades, the inquisition, etc, along with the colonization of the middle east by France and Britain, makes it so. It was the crusades that spawned the Muslim concept of Jihad.

I don't ever see this changing unless the US looses its dependence on oil. Oil is the key reason the US involves itself with the middle east. It is also a key reason why the US supports Israel (aside from the Christian and Jewish lobby groups), as they want a solid base from which they can operate from if needed.

No real comment here, other then the US stuck its nose into things (like the first gulf war) mainly for its own interests. The United States rarely gets involved in things unless it (or the power people behind it) has a stake in things, can gain financially from it, or it is forced to.

I don't see why Europe should bear the brunt of it frankly. The US is plenty responsible for its own situation and have done plenty on its own to tick off the Muslim population aside from supporting Israel. 'Radical' Islam would still hate the US even if it did nothing, just as it hates Canada which has done far less then the US.

I really only skimmed the surface with this, as the whole thing is rather large and complicated.


I was going to write something rather long here about Jewish people and Israel: why it should exist, it's right to exist, about Jewish history, the holocaust and other similar events which have happened to them through out time, and anti-semitism. Also about why certain large primarily fundamentalist christian groups particularly in the US support Israel. But I don't have the energy to launch into it right now. Perhaps later on I will.

I think that's rather unlikely. A more likely end result would have been Europe conquered by Russia.

The vast majority of German forces in WW2 were defeated by Russia long before the US took part in the invasion of Normandy, in which the US sent a relatively small force (in comparison to the number that had already fought and died in Europe and Russia) to join other relatively small forces gathered by the Allied nations, resulting in one medium sized force which invaded Normandy and basically mopped up what was left of the German forces there. I'm not saying it was easy for the western allies to do that, but I reckon it was a picnic compared to what the Russians had already gone through. I think it likely that without our mopping up exercise Russia would still have eventually beaten Germany without any assistance from us, and then they would probably have claimed Europe as their own.

As for the point you make about the US getting "dragged in" to foreign affairs by Europe... I suspect you've swallowed the US government's marketing a little too easily, but I lack the knowledge to back up that opinion with facts. What I will say is that most people learn at an early age that pointing a finger at someone else and saying "he made me do it" does not rid a person (or a nation) of responsibility for their actions.

You're forgetting that the US also fought in North Africa, Sicily, Salerno and up the boot of Italy long before the Normandy landings. You're also forgetting the huge air war over Germany and occupied Europe. I don't recall hearing about thousand plane SOVIET bombing missions against the nazi industry.

AND lets not forget that while all this was going on the US was also involved in a titanic struggle in the Pacific against the Japanese.

Speaking of the Japanese. How well do you think Russia would have done if it had to fight them at the same time as Germany? A definite possibility if the US had never entered the war.

Stalingrad, considered by many to be the turning point in the European war, was finally won because the Soviets were able to strip their troops from the east and use them as reinforcements in the west. Without them the 6th Army might well have been victorious.

We can debate levels of contribution all day but bottom line here is that it was an ALLIED victory in WW2. Without any part the Axis just might have won.

If their performance in '45 is anything to go by; they would have
done well.
The Russian army took a slice of Japanese territory larger than
Germany, France and Spain combined in less than a month.
This wasn't a result of chucking huge force in the area either. The
majority of the soviet army remained in Europe.
Neither was it a result of the Japanese not expecting the attack.

The incredible speed of advance may not have been matched before
the fall of Germany, but they certainly would not have been on the
defensive.

Japan and mobile land warfare just wern't compatible.


I think we might have managed without the French.

No I'm not; it all adds up to a tiny fraction of the war between Germany and Russia. Kid yourself if you like but the facts speak for themselves: the US and all other western allies were bit players in the war against Germany.

Fair points, although I think that describing the US vs Japan war as "titanic" might be a bit of an exaggeration from a certain perspective. Germany was the primary threat, and Russia was their primary foil. Those two nations lost each more lives in one battle than the US lost in the entire war. Your struggle against Japan was difficult and valiant but not, I think, the most significant victory. That belongs to Russia.

Ahh, now that's not quite true.

It may appear that way if you look at the UK/US/Commonwealth
contribution compared to the Russian contribution, but I think you get a
better picture if you look at the volume of resources the Germans sent
to each front.
Russia is clearly still the main ingredient in the soup, but the other
fronts are far, far from 'bit parts'.

I think you might be overstating your point a little.