Sake White

1. jimfocus Says:
   December 5th, 2007 at 8:03 pm Re: Iraq vs. the inner cityStumbley, Grace–why do you make it so easy for me? Of course, I don’t think much of what’s going on in Iraq, I don’t think we should have been there in the first place–the money and resources thrown away there should have been invested in this country. OK?

   Securing ME oil reserves and protecting Israel (I’m pro Israel) have been the stated foreign policy goals of the neocons for years–don’t you guys read Podheretz, Kristol. Commentary–this is no mystery.

   So Stumbley, Grace, would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you? What’s good for Baghdad ought to be good for STL. Be sure to plan for a sectarian insurgency (I’d worry about the Shabazz Eastside Bloods). It’ll be a cakewalk.
   

2. Ymarsakar Says:
   December 5th, 2007 at 8:59 pm Why, in the wake of 9/11, did they go there, especially with Afghanistan unfinished, and now unraveling?Unraveling from what? Do you think it is that easy to unravel a regime? NOt even the United States could get rid of Saddam with a simple unraveling of the orders.

   I think a lot of it has to do with Bush’s and Rummy’s incompetence, and a heavy dose, sorry Stumbley, of flawed neocon orthodoxy about the ME,

   You mean people prefer to use violence over using the courts. Such things have nothing to do with neocons, orthodox or not.

   You confuse those with different philosophies, those that don’t follow the rules quoted in a book, with followers of a religion. There is no organized neo-con movement as there is an organized FBI, CIA, NSA, CAIR, ACLU, and Leftist membership group.

   To create something that does not exist, may be a worthy goal. To create it simply for arguments has no substance.

   the money and resources thrown away there should have been invested in this country.

   If you will not allow us to arrest, try, and execute threats to the United States, things even the Patriot Act does not authorize, then what makes you think any amount of money or resources can save the lives that would be lost in another attack? Or do you believe 9/11 was a fluke, something that can only be done once.

   Such considerations are critical given that what you wish to funnel funds towards is based upon your own analysis of the needs. If the FBI has not solved inner city crimes in the decades they have been given, then what use would hypothetical funds be to them? If America has been growing economically and in the areas of civil rights, then who will benefit from the increased largesse of more resources and funds?

   The question always ends with humans. The FBI as well as everyone else must deal with human flaws, even when they are trying to correct it. It is not and has never been about resources and funds, rather it has always been about who gets those resources and funds. And so we see the age old need for territory played out in the modern bureacracies of the world. People want funds diverted from the military in Iraq, to their own projects that have higher priority. The military disagrees. DoS wants more funds for their own projects and so would see a weakening of the DoD position as preferable given that if things can’t be done with military power then DoS can supply a diplomatic illusion for a solution; these circumstances would ally DoS with any faction that wants to divert more resources and funds to the United States.

   These are the power plays and the turf wars that go on when people talk about should have had more funds over here than there. Such things are not a solution to problems, whether they be Iraq or criminal in nature. Such things are problems in their own right.

   So Stumbley, Grace, would you support an amphibious invasion of North STL by the Marines, w/ coordinated air strikes, to remove the VandeVenter St. Crips from their northside strongholds…would that work for you?

   People would be categorically safer under Marine Corps martial law than they ever would be under civilian control. The National Guard obviously proved that in New Orleans after civilian authorities prevented them from deploying when Katrina hit.

   It may not always have been true, but it is true today, if only because civilian methods of controlling chaos is predicated upon the existence of a military to bail them out.

   Petraeus has already proven that counter-insurgency is far more effective in combating crime and terrorism than any kind of occupation by only local police or only army units.

   The laws in this country and the politicians don’t really allow any truly effective actions to be taken for the benefit of those without the power to secure their neighborhood.

   And of course every city and state settles their own local concerns. Much better than city-states, but Los Angeles is only as well run as the people running it. That is always the weakness of self-rule or rule by elites. Things are good if the rulers are good and they have powerful backing and reserves. Things are bad if the rulers are bad. Democracy and republics moderate the cycle by trying to kick out bad rulers as often as they can. But such systems cannot eliminate pernicious institutions such as the mob or gangs. It was never designed to combat internal insurgencies.

   The FBI needed a witness protection agency to protect witnesses from being silenced by the Mob. Without such a program, would there be rule of law as applied to the mob? Yet a witness protection agency is only as good as the word and security of the central federal government. That is the reserve and backing that allows the rule of law to function. Without that bulwark and reserve, you could not combat organized crme effectively.

   When local security forces fail, as they have in dealing with the gangs in Los Angeles, then the Marines and National Guard are always the logical choice. It can only be the logical choice in a functioning Republic.

   Even the laws and the rules allow for that, cause if they didn’t, the Republic would never have stood this long.

   It’ll be a cakewalk.

   The FBI as well as every other police group knows that military power and martial law is always the most effective for maintaining law and order as well as finding and eliminating criminals before they strike.

   However, the people of a Republic must willingly give away such security in favor of liberty, otherwise the system cannot be sustained.[Not just that though, but civil authorities also must cede their power and the liberty of the people for security; it can work no other way than through teamwork]

   You should not treat such subjects with the usual unseriousness. The fact that military rule is always more efficient is already understood to be true. It is also understood to be true that people can’t live forever under martial law. Not and still call their country theirs.

   A state of temporary emergency that becomes a state of permanent emergency is no longer the original “state” at all. Then it becomes the tyranny of whomever is currently in control of military forces.

   The fundamental difference in how the military or conservatives treat matters of civil law, civil strife, domestic problems, and foreign problem in relation to the Left is that the former treats seriously the idea of using violence and killing while the latter sees the only true solution as following the status quo, the book, the rules, or the agreement of a collective for dividing up the responsibility for decisions made.

   Conservatives, as a matter of generality, do not automatically discount martial law, executions, countering the domestic insurgency, or any other thing that might be necessary to ensure the wellfare and tranquility of a state’s citizens. If there is a reason why such things are better or worse than alternatives, then those alternatives and reasons will be openly described, accepted, or rejected.

   The Left, as a general rule, automatically rule out options as being either critically unorthodox or philosophically mutually exclusive with the aims that the Left wishes to engender.

   However, the solution to a problem should not be beholden to ideologicaly constraints such as the Left’s abhorrence of violence. Abhorrence of violence equals incompetence at managing, dealing with, and counteracting violence. Such things are never good traits when dealing with a nation’s security and prosperity.

   It is very understandable why local cops prefer to deal with local matters by themselves, without the FBI interfering. It is a turf war really, and it is also why the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi Army were often at odds, even if you exclude problems with Americans.

   However, if any problem is to be solved, then people have to pull together into a team. They can’t simply divide into factions and base their decisions and choices upon what would benefit their faction over the other factions. Nothing productive would get done in such a climate.

   That is why the Left’s abhorrence of violence and preference for a society ruled by order and obedience is such an obstacle to solving any kind of problem, social, economic, or military.

   If there is a problem to be solved, then the solution should be tailored to actually solving the problem. It should not be sublimated to some turf war, personal ambition, or need to create a utopia on earth.

   I don’t see conservatives actually there, with their sleeves rolled up, it’s mostly libs and progressive types (some evangelicals), who, like I said before, are gutsy people, no matter what you think of them politically.

   Those that support an American victory in Iraq see people like you the way you see those that aren’t there with rolled up sleeves.

   Surely, you understand the social dynamic.

   Just as you see Iraq as a misadventure that may or may not be well intentioned, so do we see your attempts as inevitably going nowhere. It may help temporarily or some people, an admission few will make about the military in Iraq, but in the end the problem will still remain. After all, the goal is not to eliminate crime but to eliminate the payout for crime or to increase the risk of those conducting criminal actions. It is a matter of psychology and perception, not a matter of perfection. Until the people in the inner cities become organized and empower themselves, no amount of foreign assistance can create a permanent solution. Meaning, a solution that evolves and grows just as problems change and grow.

   As for the whole oil deal with Bush, that is simply the price of being a compassionate conservative. If Bush was more politically manipulative, like Clinton, Bush can get more popular support. Clinton, after all, negotiated a price drop in gas prices with oil companies because he knew that people dont’ like high prices. And it would reflect badly on him, as President, because people expect the President to “do something” with the power the President has been given.

   It doesn’t actually have to be effective in the long or short term, nor does it actually have to have been a problem that was related to what the President was going, but the President has to be seen as exercising authority, promoting loyalists, punishing dissidents and enemies, as well as looking out for the pocketbooks of the common man and woman.

   This is just the basic psychology of ruling a nation, which hasn’t changed regardless of what a nation calls itself and its system of governance.

   People are still people, with the same flaws, greed, ambition, etc. as those that lived 2,000 or 5,000 or 10,000 years ago. The fundamentals don’t change, even if the superficial skin (color) does.

   If the President does not exercise his power, then people will see him as weak. What that means is that they will then accuse him of using too much power, of being too corrupt or whatever. This is just what happens when there is a power vacuum. People will do almost anything to grab power that is there for anyone in range. If the President doesn’t use his power, then he will lose that power because other people will divide it up amongst themselves. Regular people don’t really care about such things, but without central authority, strong and effective authority, people will side with whomever they most like or agree with or are taken care of by.

   It isn’t as bad as Praetorian Rome, for example, in the Western Empire’s fall. It isn’t as bad as banana republics, Chavez’s Venezuella, or Musharaff’s Pakistan. But just because it isn’t bad, doesn’t mean that such problems cease to exist for Americans.

3. Ymarsakar Says:
   December 5th, 2007 at 9:11 pm Yeah… Actually it would.* Once you provide security, there is a chance for progress, education, jobs, families, playgrounds, community, and a better standard of living. All the things we are doing in Iraq.I only read Gray’s response after I posted my comment.

   Obviously conservatives or most of the military believe in discipline and security as being the primary foundation for liberty, prosperity, and all the other fruits of American civilization.

   Just as obviously does anti-war and those that support a more domestic, or socialist, agenda favor liberty, repect, and social harmony as being the foundation to security, prosperity, and etc.

   Does not those that join the FBI believe in the rule of law and in the system of justice that they fight for and under?

   It is the fundamental question of which is more important. The First Ammendment or the Second?

   Which forms the foundation that America rests upon?

   Thomas Jefferson believed it was the First. Jackson believed it was the Second.

   Really, if you distill it down, the basic question becomes “which should come first, liberty or security”. We say security. Somebody else says jobs or liberty or prosperity or something else. Even Marxism for that matter.

   Only one philosophy is right, because humanity has stayed the same. Only one set of ideas has helped humanity progress from the ancient days of cruelty to the current days of decadence and opulence.

   Can it be any other way? The only thing left to be asked is: which philosophy is the right philosophy.

Some argument that went on at Neo-Neocon’s blog. There were a couple of explanations and distinctions, that I made, which I thought was worth saving.

The whole idea of the divide between the Left and the right is not so much political, although it is that, as it is philosophical. There are two different world views, but philosophy is more than simply metaphysics. It is more than simply the agreement on what is or is not “real”. Rather, philosophy also deals with how people know that they “know”. The theory of knowledge, or epistemology, also factors into how conservatives and the Left treats the same information. That is, in fact, why people look at the same problem and come up with different proposed solutions. It is also why two members of a team may see two different ways to solve a problem. One may be right, both may be right, or both of them may be wrong.

The divide is rather simple. Even if the intentions at the same, people come about their beliefs because of their personal experiences. Those that experience high gas prices and then see all these media stories about lost jobs, economy tanking, and Bush being corrupt or whatever, then what do you expect that person to start believing? Such things don’t require a propaganda master to figure out.