Elite Troops Get Expanded Role on Intelligence

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Just taking the fight to the bad guys. I have no problem with it. Glad they are doing it. I still don't buy the "death squad" lable.

You don't buy the 'death squad' label because like a good extremist conservative, you therefore magically know? You need not say why you know. Because you are an extremist conservative, then we should trust you to know? Others have suggested 'death squad' simply by using lessons from history. But TheMercenary magically knows 'death squads' will not happen. Zieg Heil? Is that why you magically know? Is that why you repeatedly ignore the question?

As piercehawkeye45 demonstrates, only you can be trusted to know which are the good guys and which are the bad.

[Aliantha]

tw, the bad guys are the ones who don't agree with you (collective you).

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

tw, the bad guys are the ones who don't agree with you (collective you).

Which to the George Jr administration (especially Pres. Cheney) means most of the world (including American allies) are evil.

No wonder this administration must wiretap anyone without judicial review - even when a secret court was established to maintain security. So who is the enemy - the evil one? We (collectively) are. We have met the enemy and he is us. How many remember evil created by "The Best and the Brightest" ... or remember enough of history to appreciate the meaning behind those various expressions.

How many reacted to the phrase 'big dic' in emotional terms - or instead recognized the 'evil' behind such mentalities?

Gen Curtis LeMay feared containment; advocated pre-emption. He decided the US and USSR would go nuclear anyway. Therefore America should unilaterally attack ('Pearl Harbor') the USSR before that war started. Gen Curtis LeMay was a good guy. Right? Yes, according to reasoning by TheMercenary who somehow automatically knows who the good guys are. One need only return to reasons presented many years ago by MaggieL to attack Iraq. Again, she *knew* who were the good guys meaning a unilateral attack ('Pearl Harboring') of Iraq was completely justified.

One way to identify the 'evil' ones? They view the world in simplistic (and extremist) terms of 'good and evil'.

What does a 'real' good guy know?

I get very suspicious when there is a clear cut good versus evil.

So why does TheMercenary automatically assume these are not 'death squads'? He does not even reply with a sophomoric insult. Demonstrated is a symptom of extremism where even our overt (France, Turkey, etc) and covert (Syria) allies get accused of 'evil'.

Trying to know by learning 'why' is just tooooo hard. Easier is when Rush Limbaugh tells us who is good and who is evil. Hitler's Brown Shirts also knew using same logic.

Those who ask embarrassing 'why' questions such as "what is the strategic objective?" or "when do we go after bin Laden?" .... must be evil.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw's working assumption here seems to be that all anti-Americans are, by virtue of this, highly intelligent. Just like him!

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw's working assumption here seems to be that all anti-Americans are, by virtue of this, highly intelligent. Just like him!

But he is not.

[piercehawkeye45]

What is an anti-American?

It seems the anti-Americans are the ones the most symbolize the Americans during the revolutionary war. They are rebellious, don’t like the current regime, and are looking for a better way to live. Basically the biggest difference is the "anti-Americans" of today aren't doing it for capitalism.

[Aliantha]

They'd be the 'rebels' pierce. lol

Careful, you're heading for another revolution. I hope UG has plenty of ammo. Scarlet's gonna get him.

Ironic how much these little teams sound just like a terrorist cell, huh?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Basically the biggest difference is the "anti-Americans" of today aren't doing it for capitalism.

And there would be their grossest and chiefest error. Capitalism is what humans do with their wealth when freed of gross governmental interference. People try to alienate business from humanity -- and the damn fools forget or never knew that business, simply put, is humanity. The activity and the identity cannot be separated.

An eternal dance, if you will, between wealth and force. But act against capitalism and you act for impoverishment. That is what the fall of communism explicitly shows us, and also, though less clearly, the departure from socialism and the welfare state.

You can organize scarcity or you can create wealth. Creation of wealth is the capitalist approach.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

But he is not.

I see I've made my point.

One way to identify the 'evil' ones? They view the world in simplistic (and extremist) terms of 'good and evil'.

Here is encapsulated tw's habit of playing the snake in Eden. It is illustrative of his want of something essential -- penetration? perspicuity? people skills? -- that he doesn't know we can see him doing it. The evil ones will tell you, straight faced and expecting to be credited, that there is no good and evil. And they'll insist on repeating it, believing apparently that value, or credibility, will go with repetition. That this belief is pathological remains unknown, unconceived -- to them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That is what the fall of communism explicitly shows us, and also, though less clearly, the departure from socialism and the welfare state.

The fall of communism has made a small group of people very wealthy, a large group of people have more money, but it's more than offset by inflation and another group that's poorer and getting desperate.

[piercehawkeye45]

UG, you are only thinking in modern history.

Did the people 100,000 years ago use capitalism when there was no government? No, of course not.

We are taught to have a capitalistic mentality and that is why communism failed. We are taught to be selfish, it is not a human trait or life as we know it would not exist because the tribes of a million years ago would have fallen apart instantly.

There are alternatives to capitalism that could work if we had the mentality, but we are taught not to have that mentality so those systems will inevitably fail.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You don't believe some of the cavemen had more spears, more pelts and more women?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

There are alternatives to capitalism that could work if we had the mentality, but we are taught not to have that mentality so those systems will inevitably fail.

Ummm... ok mention one more successful or one that has been tried and worked better or failed that would work here? I have studied politics for quite a while and have not seen anything that would be better but I would love to hear your views.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You don't believe some of the cavemen had more spears, more pelts and more women?

That’s not capitalism though. People worked with the community to get their needs, not pure competitiveness like capitalism is. You don’t have to have perfect equality to be a non-capitalist society.

As for selfishness, there is a difference between working for the best for an individual and working for the best of the community. I was talking non-selfish by saying we can work for the best of the community and not the individual as we normally do now. Sorry if I explained that badly.

Ummm... ok mention one more successful or one that has been tried and worked better or failed that would work here? I have studied politics for quite a while and have not seen anything that would be better but I would love to hear your views.

Capitalism has been the best system so far for capital gain but it is showing some major flaws and now we need to look forward and find a system that can replace capitalism to accomplish what the people want. It might not produce as much capital gain but it can work on many different aspects of society.

Everyone is not going for the same thing as well, take Venezuela for example. The class inequality was enormous and now they are trying to close the gap while still proceeding forward. These arguments are all perspective because I am sure we have different ideas of what a better system is. If we are looking at different endings, we will never find something we both like.