I agree with or accept everything you say here except I'm not clear on your meaning re: socialism vs. fascism. I'm not sure where your reference to fascism comes from. Are you saying that the Western countries are fascist, or that Libya will become a fascist state now that Gaddafi's gone? Also, do you consider ruling as a dictator and militarily crushing dissent more like socialism or fascism? You can't have fascist democracy, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. And as I said before, the country is still oil-rich, and may choose to continue to distribute the wealth in the form of free health care and so on as before.

I have little respect for the UN myself, and don't support their intervention in this case, so no, I wouldn't be OK with getting the UN to militarily support reel groups in the US.>> ^marbles:
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^messenger:

I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.

It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.

Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.

Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.

If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.

I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.

Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?

You like the piechart because you already agree with the author. I wish people would stop letting others do math for them. I can claim that defense is 100% of federal spending by making up some reason that all the other programs "don't count". And why does it even matter? Look at the dollar amount. We have a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. Your exceedingly inclusive anti-war activist source says we spend 1.449 trillion on "defense." But even if we fire every soldier, cancel every pension, and shut down the VA, we're still hosed. All the defense contractors will stop paying taxes, and all the veterans will just collect medicare/medicaid.

I am totally sick of the the whole attitude of "We can fix our finances by cutting my pet peeve." It goes right up there with "I pay plenty of tax, someone else should be paying more," and "I should get $20 and hour plus benefits with my GED." McCain's strategist was right: we're a country of whiners.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
One thing that's never mentioned in these cases is that the majority of our taxes goes to militarism, nation-building, corporate welfare and wars.
I haven't actually read all the comments on this thread yet, but I already see you've repeated this line twice here, and recently aimed it at me elsewhere, so let me just step in and point out that it's "never mentioned" because it's utterly and completely false.
Here's a breakdown of what our taxes go to. You'll notice that the slice of the pie for defense (including the wars) is 20%. That's not a "majority".
If you add together Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other safety net programs, you get 55%. That happens to actually be a majority.
Also keep in mind that the Republicans don't want the defense budget cut at all, while the Democrats are putting most of their proposed cuts in defense.

The great thing about statistics is they change depending on where you get them. Here's one that claims defense spending is 25%.
But then there's this piechart which not only accounts what they claim to be 36% current defense spending budget (based on 2009), but also the past military expenses plus interest on that debt. That brings the percentage up to a majority of money spent on militarism. As I said.

For better or worse, finally a republican candidate who wants to challenge the status quo.

It's amazing he's even allowed to be nominated.

Let me get this straight, Dr. Paul.

You want to close all the military bases, end the wars, hobble the defense contractors, slash the budget to nothing, fire all the federal employees nation wide, then hold to a sort of good neighbor policy in terms of pollution and regulatory abuse in the Laissez faire right wing utopia you unleash on the world for four or more years.

A crack-pot Texas gynecologist who isn't Ivy League, and doesn't carry a Skull and Bones card in his wallet.

I was thinking that said something positive about America until I remember the last Republican vice presidential nomination.

Anyone who is a member the Republican party for any semblance of ideals and philosophy will vote for Ron Paul. The rest of them just like country music, kevin costner movies, flashy advertisements and anything else that doesn't require their concentration for more than five minutes.

bob,
did you just defend "trickle down economics"?
even after it has been shown time and time again to be an absolute and utter fallacy?
good god man get off the political polemic machine and realize our politicians have sold us ALL out for their own interests and the interests of their corporate overlords..
which means those who are NOT you or i.

cut corporate taxes?
have you even been paying attention?
and have you SEEN where that 5.8 trillion is being produced from?
it aint corporations nor military defense contractors.
no.
it is going to be coming from people like you and i and from those programs that are integral to a good society
i.e:education,health and social security.
food,gas,clothing.

i do not know where you are getting your information from but it is clear that you have been given false information.
unless you are a multi-millionaire then your comment makes sense otherwise you are cutting your nose to spite your face.

"cut corporate taxes,jobs will come back and bring more opportunity for all of us"
suuuuure..if you are willing to work for 40 cents and hour,no breaks and your 8 yr old daughter can work right along side of you.
yaaaay for 1880 labor practices and the 75 hr work week!
thanks for caring bob.

Empire is a new monthly segment on Al'Jazeera, covering more than just the US.

See a list of the previous episodes here.
>> ^Kalle:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^Kalle:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Couple years ago, I submitted this documentary which looks at how the militarization of popular culture -- including reality shows and video games -- has turned war into a spectacle of entertainment.

Thx for that link its quite interesting to watch especially the part about military tech fetishes...
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
now I'm not going to watch it.
Someone want to tag it propaganda for me?

You haven`t watched it but you wanna tag it as propaganda???

As I've stated I find the title insulting and offensive. It would be like me starting a news segment on Faux news channel titled,
Terrorists: Muslim religious groups and Al Qaeda Media. Terrorists examines the symbiotic relationship between the Middle Eastern religion and the IED and sniper videos filmed for the internet.
The title of the program already has made the statement that the U.S. wants to take over your country. EMPIRE! Being a prominently Muslim based News organization it its telling everyone in the middle east that.
This is the same reason I won't watch Fox News. So while they may be trying to get my attention and prove a point. Insulting the country I live in is not a good way to start. So lets continue to look at the title. Hollywood and the War Machine. Wow so its not the U.S military or Defense contractors. Its the WAR machine.... So now the men and women in uniform serving my country are no longer doing so. They are there for the express purpose of starting wars. Great 2 insults and I've not even started watching the video yet but I've got a good Idea where its going. SO no i'm not going to watch it. The Propaganda in the title alone has stated enough already.

Thats a good point youre making, the title really sends out a certain anti american message..
But its still quite interesting to watch and not really comparable to fox news from a intellectual point of view.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^Kalle:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Couple years ago, I submitted this documentary which looks at how the militarization of popular culture -- including reality shows and video games -- has turned war into a spectacle of entertainment.

Thx for that link its quite interesting to watch especially the part about military tech fetishes...
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
now I'm not going to watch it.
Someone want to tag it propaganda for me?

You haven`t watched it but you wanna tag it as propaganda???

As I've stated I find the title insulting and offensive. It would be like me starting a news segment on Faux news channel titled,
Terrorists: Muslim religious groups and Al Qaeda Media. Terrorists examines the symbiotic relationship between the Middle Eastern religion and the IED and sniper videos filmed for the internet.
The title of the program already has made the statement that the U.S. wants to take over your country. EMPIRE! Being a prominently Muslim based News organization it its telling everyone in the middle east that.
This is the same reason I won't watch Fox News. So while they may be trying to get my attention and prove a point. Insulting the country I live in is not a good way to start. So lets continue to look at the title. Hollywood and the War Machine. Wow so its not the U.S military or Defense contractors. Its the WAR machine.... So now the men and women in uniform serving my country are no longer doing so. They are there for the express purpose of starting wars. Great 2 insults and I've not even started watching the video yet but I've got a good Idea where its going. SO no i'm not going to watch it. The Propaganda in the title alone has stated enough already.


Thats a good point youre making, the title really sends out a certain anti american message..

But its still quite interesting to watch and not really comparable to fox news from a intellectual point of view.

>> ^Kalle:
>> ^Trancecoach:
Couple years ago, I submitted this documentary which looks at how the militarization of popular culture -- including reality shows and video games -- has turned war into a spectacle of entertainment.

Thx for that link its quite interesting to watch especially the part about military tech fetishes...
>> ^skinnydaddy1:
now I'm not going to watch it.
Someone want to tag it propaganda for me?

You haven`t watched it but you wanna tag it as propaganda???


As I've stated I find the title insulting and offensive. It would be like me starting a news segment on Faux news channel titled,
Terrorists: Muslim religious groups and Al Qaeda Media. Terrorists examines the symbiotic relationship between the Middle Eastern religion and the IED and sniper videos filmed for the internet.

The title of the program already has made the statement that the U.S. wants to take over your country. EMPIRE! Being a prominently Muslim based News organization it its telling everyone in the middle east that.

This is the same reason I won't watch Fox News. So while they may be trying to get my attention and prove a point. Insulting the country I live in is not a good way to start. So lets continue to look at the title. Hollywood and the War Machine. Wow so its not the U.S military or Defense contractors. Its the WAR machine.... So now the men and women in uniform serving my country are no longer doing so. They are there for the express purpose of starting wars. Great 2 insults and I've not even started watching the video yet but I've got a good Idea where its going. SO no i'm not going to watch it. The Propaganda in the title alone has stated enough already.

>> ^Mashiki:

What are you talking about? The parent companies of NBC, CBS and ABC all do the same thing. The only difference is they're happily lying to your face about it.


Bzzt. Completely wrong. First, this is all a matter of public record, both on the part of Fox, and the parent companies of the other three major networks.

Second, there's a big difference on the partisan split (and total amount) of money being spent. According to CNN, we're looking at numbers like this:

News Corp (owner of Fox): $1,074,700 to Republicans, $105,500 to Democrats
(91% to Republicans)

GE (owner of NBC/MSNBC): $410,100 to Republicans, $688,900 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Viacom (owner of CBS/Comedy Central): $64,000 to Republicans, $108,700 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

Disney (owner of ABC): $95,000 to Republicans, $110,500 to Democrats
(46% to Republicans)

Time Warner (owner of CNN): $41,500 to Republicans, $70,500 to Democrats
(37% to Republicans)

But wait, you're saying, doesn't this go to show there's a liberal bias in all other forms of media? No, not really. It's pretty normal for companies to tilt their spending to the party in power, especially when they hold the White House, and large majorities in both chambers of Congress.

You can identify partisan organizations by the way they always lean toward one party, regardless of their level of control over congress, or merely by the naked one-sided nature of the tilt (like 91%!). In the case of News Corp, you have both.

Oh, and a final point about the quantity of contributions. I'd note that while GE's total donation amount is comparable to News Corp's, GE isn't just a media organization, it's also a major manufacturer, and a defense contractor. If you compare them to just the pure media companies, you see that News Corp donated nearly ten times as much just to the Republican party as the next largest media company's total spending on campaign contributions.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

Who's lying to themself? You think Obama would extend the war indefinitely to enrich military contractors? The ones he's been constantly pissing off by killing their pet projects like the F-22 and C-17?

I'm suggesting that it's quite possible that Obama actually thinks America's national security interests demand that we try to address the continued existence of Al Qaeda.

I'm personally in total agreement with Zakaria that the war seems wrongly disproportionate, but I refuse to categorically declare that there is no possible sense in doing anything to go after Al Qaeda, and that therefore Obama is only interested in enriching future campaign donors.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation.

Okay, so what are Republicans arguing we should do with the war? End it, or ramp it up and keep it going as long as it takes?

Aside from Ron Paul, is there anyone in Congress speaking against the war who isn't a Democrat? Hell, what's Rand Paul saying? More war, or less war?

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign. Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.


You sorta point out the problem with your own logic here. If the whole reason for the war is because the military-industrial complex demands a war, and the conservative majority of the Supreme Court wants to systematically eliminate limits on corporate money being used to influence elections, then having more or even just new parties won't fix a damn thing.

People who refuse to get partisan about what's going are the ones who are deluding themselves.

I never think of the Democrats as perfect -- they're most certainly flawed in all kinds of ways -- but the story always comes out the same, no matter the issue.

Democrats may be split on whether to do the right thing or the expedient thing, but the Republicans all scream and howl for the wrong thing to be done and done immediately.

@NetRunner - You're quoted comment went haywire, so I removed it.

Who has extended the predator strikes into Pakistan? Don't lie to yourself. Democrats are not as clean as you imagine them to be, they are politicians; with a healthy taxpayer income. Not to mention the proceeds they incur from your plutocratic partners.

I have a hard time respecting your arguments when they come from absurdity, eliminating republicans would stop the wars? I've got a hard time believing that especially when there is no empirical evidence to prove it; just speculation. Given that defense contractors can contribute as much as they like now, to anyone's campaign.

Although I would like a literate third, fourth, fifth party to come in and marginalize the republicans.

NAw BF, not about moonshine, was hammered though.


I tried to quote ya dag, to respond (quote still only works intermittently)I have for the reality of an alien presence is the same as anyone has-First-hand accounts (my own included) of phenomena, and the testimony of air-traffic, ex-military and employees of defense contractors employed by the blacker segments of the MIC.

For all you StarTrex® fans out there Gene's vision of our entry into the galaxy's established traveler's club may not be far from wrong. They have monitored our progress for some time and hackles were raised when we began tweaking the atomic structure in the 40's-Since then they have a vested interest in our continued forward progress. Defective examples of the human species, who would that all stay hidden and controlled-hoarding resources and power for their little cabal, are kept in check.

All is connected vibrationally, dimensionally, and there are ways of interacting with the whole of our universe. We'll find out soon enough-

I tried to quote ya dag, to respond (quote still only works intermittently)I have for the reality of an alien presence is the same as anyone has-First-hand accounts (my own included) of phenomena, and the testimony of air-traffic, ex-military and employees of defense contractors employed by the blacker segments of the MIC.

For all you StarTrex® fans out there Gene's vision of our entry into the galaxy's established traveler's club may not be far from wrong. They have monitored our progress for some time and hackles were raised when we began tweaking the atomic structure in the 40's-Since then they have a vested interest in our continued forward progress. Defective examples of the human species, who would that all stay hidden and controlled-hoarding resources and power for their little cabal, are kept in check.

All is connected vibrationally, dimensionally, and there are ways of interacting with the whole of our universe. We'll find out soon enough-

In reply to this comment by dag:
I'd like to explore this- as it's a topic I'm interested in. What evidence do you have that aliens are living among us - and what's their agenda?

And another thing why an "inside job" makes so much more sense than the "terrorist conspiracy" - Bush & Cheney blocked the 9/11 investigation every step of the way.

From day one.

And all of the people involved in the so-called glitches in the system were protected and promoted.

And as a result of the war, Boeing and all of the other defense contractors like KBR started making money hand over fist again.

And the Pentagon was about to be investigated for 2.3 trillion dollars that it couldn't account for, and I believe the investigation was subsequently dropped after the attack.

I'm sorry, but there are just too many aspects of this event that don't make sense.