The most brutal repression occurred as a direct result of the destabilisation of Iraq caused by international interference. What else can a warlord do but crack down on dissenters?

The bulk of Saddam's political opponents weren't supporting western-style democracy; they wanted to topple a comparatively secular government and replace it with an Islamic theocracy. His efforts to hold Iraq together may have been vicious, but they weren't entirely without merit.

Of course you protect sovereign nations from aggression, of course you oppose genocide, but look at Saddam in the context of contemporary Middle-Eastern rulers and you see a dictator at least moving his country in the right direction.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Fast forward 100 years. Nanotech and robotics will likely make virtually every product, good and service affordable worldwide...free peoples working in free markets will be the fastest path to that goal, not nanny-state governments, theocracies or monarchies.


Now that's interesting. When we reach that state will we then have, as chilaxe put it, our natural socialist utopia?

Have you ever considered that plutocratic, kleptocratic, oligarchic, oiligarchic, fascist, technocratic "money" is a social construction to restrict the people's inherent right to 21st century medicine, information techology, and other fruits of...our natural socialist utopia?

Short answer: no.

Expanded answer: People in free societies nor anyone else have a natural "right" to take goods and services created by others without fair, agreed-upon terms of compensation. Karl Marx thought that profits were invented by greedy capitalists and therefore unnecessary to run a viable economic system. He was wrong.

Succinctly: There is no free lunch.

Fast forward 100 years. Nanotech and robotics will likely make virtually every product, good and service affordable worldwide...free peoples working in free markets will be the fastest path to that goal, not nanny-state governments, theocracies or monarchies.

Though I'll disagree that the reasons for the Iraq war were intentionally dubious, I'll agree with just about everything else you said. This is a very nice essay, Farhad. Though the retaliation against Al Qaeda was unarguably unavoidable, I've said that the Iraq war was the "right war in the right place at the wrong time" and I still think it was. The intel community failed in ... intel ... and Bush and congress and the CIA and generals and the whole F-ing Government failed in judgment. And now, politicians are failing in comparing Russia's incursion into Georgia with the US incursion into Iraq so they can, as you said, avoid the comparison in general. It IS comparable in a number of ways, though I'm seeing the Russian move as one to actually CLAIM new territory... territory it BITTERLY lost, while America would love to get the F out of Iraq and let them rule themselves. Of course we want them to remain friends... a democratic foothold in the middle east... a chance to somewhat westernize a part of the middle east that is not Israel, Qatar, or UAE. I also think Russia and hard-line Putin in particular wants to send a message to the Ukraine (especially) and other nearby ex-USSR nations, that Russia is MOTHER Russia and they are just ex-Russian provinces allowed to exist by the Mother. A bit of psychological warfare in action.

You are damn right that interventionism has been on the hot seat lately and no one wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole and especially when it comes to messing with a superpower like Russia... a country with more thousand nukes than I have fingers.

(sidenote)
I AM in fact a nationalist, not because I was born here and think it is innately superior for that reason... that's just ridiculous, but because I LIKE it here and I respect it most of the time above what I see elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that attitude. If you like your country, its [at least foundational] ethics, and its freedoms, don't be afraid to cheer for it... say at the Olympics for example. ahem.

I do think you're right about China and the Chinese in general as well Farhad. China is oppressive, but increasing economic prosperity and popular control should blunt the blade of their government. Still, at the moment, their treatment of the "usual folks" and their treatment of those who believe in a particular faith other than is approved by the government is detestable. I have a very close friend who worries sickly for his missionary friends who risked going there to offer Christianity to those who wanted desperately to find out more about it.

The world government idea is problematic mostly due to issues like African warlords and Islamic theocracies... as well as Catholic theocracies for that matter. I don't see Vatican City teaming up with Iran in other words any time soon, but specialization sounds like a reasonable idea. The US specializes in technological development, science, and innovation. China specializes in production. Korea is in tech as well. The UK is in... jeez I don't know, surveillance camera tech? Canada could be in oil shale and land. Most of the desert countries in sun power? Problems arise with destitute countries, but those regions could be supported by us (correction, you) rich folk. There is hope yet, just distant. First we gotta stop killing each other.

What if the US donated its missile defense rockets and its laser-equipped missile-defeating jumbo jet tech to the UN to universalize it so-to-speak to keep the thought of at least nuclear war impossible? That might ease tension... a sort of universal deterrent to ANY ICBM launch. That or all these countries could just trade more and whine less. Team up against obvious terrorists (or if you want, mass murderers in general) maybe, but otherwise communicate FAR more. Get to know each other. Learn to speak a common language on common terms.

In my opinion, the LARGEST barrier to peace is that people simply have different RULES to live by in this world. Some are faith-based. Some are science-based. Some are philosophy-based. They are not often compatible and no one has the authority but a real GOD to say what rule systems are acceptable and what are not. And don't blame just religion for it. If you do, you need to study philosophy for a bit and you'll find that religion is by far not the only obstacle to agreement on "rules of life." That my friends is the problem on this planet.

Best thing that could happen is a freaking alien attack at this point lol. Team our shit up.

That or simply let economic development go as it is going... Have you seen the talks on the increasing GLOBAL prosperity?!! They are VERY hopeful! At the rate we are going, things may get better before they get worse. Charity is often a good way to have an effect btw.

States and local governments can run schools without any federal help, and they did in the past. Most public schools get only a small percentage of their funding from the federal government. Local boards of education are elected locally without much interference by the federal government.

As soon as any school takes so much as a penny from the federal mafia, they are forced to play by the feds' rules. And even if they don't, they are weighted down by edicts from on high, including the NCLB baloney. Local schools boards with electable positions? Sounds like more of the same-o. Compulsory state education means no ingenuity or merit for finding better ways to teach and learn; making sure everyone is doing the exact same thing even when it doesn't work. Schools should be like restaurants...with many trying to make it and the most successful doing so by offering something of measurable quality.

Show me competitive private services that can deliver your letters anywhere in the USA for 41 cents and I'll support your plan to scrap the USPS. There's nothing preventing Fedex and UPS from trying that right now, except that they can't do it that cheap.

Actually, the post office monopoly prevents FedEx and UPS from delivering any letter-sized envelope for the present rate or less; one of postal inspectors' major tasks is to make sure their monopoly is protected by spying on UPS and FedEx. You wouldn't have to disband the post office, just by ridding its artificial barrier I think it would die out on its own.

Your argument against the infrastructure and such has some merit, I'm sure it was used when FedEx got started. Yet here they are, competing with one of the world's largest government boondoggles. FedEx and UPS either turn a profit or die. The USPS, without any incentive to do better, loses BILLIONS of dollars every year. They would not last a year without the law.

This is the same congress that pays a chaplain tens of thousands of dollars a year to lead a prayer every time Congress is called in to session. This is the same congress that almost unanimously passed a condemnation of Newdow's legal attempt to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version (the Pledge didn't say "under God" before 1954). This is the same congress that funds Bush's OFBCI. The supreme court has been very clear that students can pray by themselves as much as they want on their own lunch break but official prayer-times when taxpayer-funded teachers entice students to pray are unconstitutional.

And these are things that truly offend you and depreciate the quality of your life? Freedom FROM religion is a gross distortion of the Founders' intent. Tyranny of the minority. I hate to say it like this, but atheism does not represent something "better" than religion. It doesn't offer any moral foundation or transmit societal values. That's why IMAO, there's never been a successful majority atheist society (I'm aware of). I write this as a former atheist. I know what is to be gained by being free of superstition, but I also know society is extremely fragile, and will die without its delusions. If atheists succeed in "getting rid" of religion, life will be worse for them as well.

We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.

Those aren't even mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ was a socialist. Jesus Christ gave all kinds of handouts to the poor and asked something in return. He asked people to give all they could to the church and the poor. That's a taxing-and-spending entitlement system. Huckabee, the Christian fundamentalist, was also in agreement with the Democrats on most economic issues. Iran, which is officially a Theocracy ruled by the Ayatollah, also heavily subsidizes the cost of food, which you might call Socialist.

Jesus gave handouts but did not take them from others by force beforehand. He asked people to give, but did not threaten or curse them for not doing so. Most importantly, Jesus did not ever say that government's role is providing the means to help the poor.

Despite its failures due to humans being imperfect, (moderately regulated) free market capitalism has done more to lift the poor out of poverty than any other system. And I'm speaking from near the bottom of the ladder, my friend. I know times is tight for you too right now...

In reply to this comment by jwray:

#1 was part of Bush's platform and one of the first things he did after his inauguration, and #5 has little to do with the federal government or the commerce clause of the federal constitution. #5 is about local elections being influenced by religious extremists who believe the world is 6000 years old and vote Republican in part because Republican-appointed judges are less likely to see the establishment clause violation in replacing part of the science curriculum with the Old Testament.

It has everything to do with the federal mafia's "education" racket. If education was completely privatized the way it should be, all these activists and do-gooders--including the federal mafia--would be sh't out of luck. All the activists could do is start schools of their own. Wouldn't you like to see if an atheistic academy can compete with a religious one?

The OFBCI has never given a grant to a non-christian religious organization. It's purpose is very clear: to provide federal funding for Bush's version of Christianity.

What can I say, the government creates something and says, "Here are the self-imposed limits" and then crosses the line the next day. Plenty of government entities are unconstitutional by their very existence. You happen to have a problem with the OFBCI, I'm ready to see the NEA scrapped along with the post office monopoly, among others.

3. The "meddling" failed, nor was there any change in the laws.

Republican meddling failed because of public opposition to it, but the public hadn't the consistency to take anti-euthanasia laws off the books.

Schiavo was a confusing, horrific affair. Euthanasia laws are more complex than a religious view versus, what exactly? It's very easy to make the leap to the State deciding to pull plugs on costly coma patients. Even if Republicans instigated the interference, a majority opposed federal intervention which probably included conservatives as well.

#4 and #6 are the result of the values of the majority of the people. I don't necessarily agree with them. There are other reasons besides religious ones for the banning of gay marriage.

The bill of rights exists to prevent tyranny of the majority. More than 80% of US Citizens are christian, therefore we must be very careful not to create a christian theocracy.

I see no immediate danger of that happening with a Congress and Supremes hostile to even the mention of religion in schools and public arenas. We're in far more danger of becoming a socialist state than a theocracy. It may happen peacefully and even "legally" if enough people are convinced (to their detriment) that socialism is the way to go.


Global warming has been steadily taking place since the last Ice Age. Nothing so far is outside the normal range of expected activity. Even the scientists who believe GW is man-made or influenced admit the effects of wrecking the world's economies with Kyoto and other protocols would not make a significant difference in the warming trend, nor do they predict seas rising more than a foot by 2100. What other logical conclusion could one reach then, except those foisting the hysteria on the world are seeking power?


In reply to this comment by jwray:
Well, #'s 1. and 5. I have to dismiss out-of-hand...

>> ^quantumushroom:
He's a great man, this video proves it.
America was founded on Christian principles yet remains a non-theocracy. It's as atheistic as it can be without sending people to Siberian labor camps like they did in the Atheist Union.

hehehehe...I love your thick ignorance.

Blah blah Christ blah blah America blah blah.

The United States has been a theocracy for the last 8 years, people just don't know it yet. If McCain becomes president the US will continue its slide down wash-out lane.

He's a great man, this video proves it.

America was founded on Christian principles yet remains a non-theocracy. It's as atheistic as it can be without sending people to Siberian labor camps like they did in the Atheist Union.

Brave and honest lady. The dangers of theocracy well illuminated. Men that mustn't be tempted. Right. It's about men who mustn't be challenged.

>> ^Names:
Somebody needs to go look up the word "theocracy". The governing church in an American theocracy would be who, the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?


Theocracy is a government ruled by or subject to religious authority. Nothing about that definition requires choosing a specific sect of Christianity.

The USA has:
1. "In god we trust" on the currency
2. "under god" in the pledge of allegiance
3. Government-funded monotheistic prayers before every session of congress
4. Monotheistic oaths of office ("so help me god")
5. The declaration "god save the united states and this honorable court" before every session of the supreme court
6. Monotheistic oaths in court administered with a Bible.
7. Government-funded christmas decorations.
8. Government-funded stone engravings of the ten commandments displayed prominently in government buildings.
9. Zero openly atheist people in national elected offices because of bigotry and dispite the fact that American atheists are similar in number to African Americans.
10. Candidates who feel the need to wear their religion on their sleeve to get elected.
11. Rednecks who think this is a "Christian Nation" and atheists should GTFO.
12. Government funding for religious organizations to "rehabilitate" criminals by brainwashing them with right-wing fundamentalist Christianity.
13. A sitting president who said atheists are neither citizens nor patriots
14. Preachers who control how millions of people vote

Somebody needs to go look up the word "theocracy". The governing church in an American theocracy would be who, the Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism?

How republicans get elected:

1. Tax cuts (especially for the wealthy, and especially if there's already a huge deficit). Reward people who already have millions more money than they could possibly spend in any responsible way.

2. Bigotry. Anti-gay, Anti-atheist, Anti-immigrant, Anti-cultural-change, pro-theocracy. "Family Values" is a euphemism for all of these.

3. Anti-abortion. A single cell fertilized egg smaller than a grain of sand has a soul because some ancient myths in the bible tell me so.

4. More-patriotic-than-thou and more-religious-than-thou pissing contests. Includes support for imperialism and overlaps with bigotry against atheists and pro-theocracy.

The candidate's record of procuring pork for a locality is a plus in that locality.

That "pressure" Wentworth describes has always been around. The Founding Fathers were geniuses to divorce religion and government, and when there is an unholy marriage of the two, it's religion that loses the most.

I don't think the religious (im)posers in the West are trying to get government to back their religion because they fear its decay. (If any religion would collapse without a theocracy carrying a sword to back it up, it's Islam).

The funda-mental-cases in politics do it for the same reason the GREENvangelicals force their BS on the public: they seek power and have no other means to get it.

Jefferson was a scholar, who believed in separation of church and state, and minimizing the power of the presidency.

Bush is an ignorant redneck, who believes in theocracy and maximizing the power of the presidency.

They both waged wars of aggression. Jefferson did not just against the Barbary Pirates, but also against the Native Americans.