Aeri,

If you happen to make it back here, I would like to ask you a couple of questions:

One thing I'm trying to understand (and this is sincere) is...if I'm not mistaken, you think that a person noticing a child being abused in any way should intervene. Is this correct?

Then, if that's correct, why shouldn't the US intervene when it sees that 1. Her people are in jeopardy, 2. The world may be in jeopardy (still waiting on the final word of that, of course) and 3. the people of that nation are being sorely abused, subject to torture of every kind...rape, beatings, mutilation USA Today

Also, you mentioned a book you read. Have you read others along this line, and books that oppose that view? I would like to know, because I would like to understand your view better. I would like to read these, and even more, because this has become a subject of extreme interest to me. I would like for Zorweb and Slappy, and others still to share what books they have read as well.

Aeri, I've got to be honest with you. I don't know how you have drawn your conclusions. I do see some of the issues you talk about. I feel so bad for that boy who lost his arms, and many other people who have died in this war...and for those who died on 9-11, and those who died under Saddam's rule. Any way you look at it, this is a bad situation.

I took American Gov't in middle school, high school, and college. But, I still feel like there is a hole in my understanding of our gov't...particularly as it pertains to current events. That is why I'm asking what you read, and not for any ulterior motives you might think. I do not wish to defame you here.

Thanks,

Petals

<small>[ April 18, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Zuzus_Petals ]</small>

Petals, your link to USA today goes to an advertisement, not a the article.

Thanks, Zorweb. Does it work for you now? I think I fixed it.

Zuzu:

First of all, I'm looking at this situation in the same light as you are, I think. The only difference between us is that you support one side and I support the other. I don't blame you for that, it's just your opinion.

In terms of the books I've read, the most INSIGHTFUL one I've read, that's worth mentioning is one I've mentioned before: The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson I know I talk about this book A LOT, but it is WORTH reading. It's a book about HISTORY, that explains how the government works. Of course you see holes in your government--we all do! That's why I read this book--it opened my eyes on the other perspective. THings aren't always what they seem. Over the years, I've read tons of articles and books on U.S. policies and government, but it always seemed like bunk to me. I read lots of books on libertarianism and free market societies, which aren't exactly political books, but do figure into my opinions on the current world affairs.

For a better understanding of my views, please visit:

http://www.lewrockwell.com

I'm disgusted by my own government's actions---we have troops in Iraq, yet out government supposedly doesn't "support" the war--try to figure *that* out!!! This is why I'm more against government than I am against *people*. I'm not Anti-Canadian for going against MY government just as I'm not Anti-American for going against yours.

I have difficulty supporting any one government---I've said time and again--I no more support Iraq's government than I do the US. IF you read the book, you'll understand. You seem pretty open minded----please read it and let me know what you think. It's available at Amazon.com.

Another great book by A. Ralph Epperson is The New World Order. This is a commonly heard phrase in governments .....at the very least, it's an interesting read.

As for my position on Iraq, I just don't want to argue it anymore--my views are pretty clear and I don't like having enemies. I will leave you with this article that appears on my CANADIAN MSN page, but not the AMerican one.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2003/04/18/iraq_bgddprtst030418

I started checking these links (I did the Lew Rockwell one already) and will, when I get to it, read more. Politics has never really interested me, but I can't stand going to the voting booth in a cloud of ignorance.

One thing I do think has been a supreme tragedy of this war, short of the loss of life, is the loss of artifacts <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Mad]" src="images/icons/mad.gif" /> . Boy, does that chap my hide!!! How could any Iraqis steal and destroy them, and how could our military overlook protecting it?!

Whether I choose to believe the best about our gov't right now, or whatever, I still believe this isn't about US getting Iraqi oil. I think the reason we chose the oil fields as a priority for protection is because that will be the lifeblood of the Iraqi economy.

I hate to think that my gov't played any part in the loss of these great artifacts though. I feel like Napoleon's soldiers shooting the nose off the Sphinx. I hate that feeling. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" />

Aeri, if you're saying that all gov't is bad, and that we'd be better off without it, I would have to disagree with you. Even though people do bad things, gov't does help keep us in line.

It's like creating a margine of error. Well, for me, it would be shooting for an appointment time at say, 10:30. I might write it down in my book as 10:00 so that I would be there on time. The higher the standard, the less likelihood of utter chaos, and vice versa. That's just my opinion, as you said.

I guess I'm saying that that is fundamental for me. If we disagree on that, then we'll probably never agree. But that doesn't mean we have to be enemies. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Like I said, I have family members with whom I disagree...a lot. One, in particular, is my Gma. She was influential in my Christian beliefs. My father was too (and she taught my father, of course). We agree on how life should be lived...mostly <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> ...but politically, its mish-mash. Part of that is that I'm still finding my "political self" *giggle*. The other part of it <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> I have no idea. It's just the way it is. But I still love her very much. I admire her in many ways.

So, even though we disagree on many points, Aeri, I'm sure that we can find common ground <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> .

BTW, I like your spunk. You seem to have a fire about you, and a unique knowledge of things. By this, I mean you have brought up things I'd not been exposed to before. Anyway, I appreciate that.

Petals

Petals,

I too am angered by the looting of the Iraqi museums. It appears that the ‘looters’ had keys to the safes and rooms. My take on it is that it looks like an inside job either by crooks that know what they got or it was the exiting regime taking as much as they could get with them. Seems that someone should have thought about securing the museums in all that chaos… be it American, English or Iraqi.

I really do not believe that the USA went into Iraq for the oil. Our government as already asked the UN, on more than one occasion to please do what is necessary to enable Iraqi oil to restart the oil for food program. The Iraqi people need the income survive. It is their lifeblood.
If this was only about oil, seems it would have been a whole lot cheaper to just buy the oil on the black market at 50% off as the French, Germans, Syrians and Russians were doing. If we wanted to take over a country for their oil, it would have been a lot cheaper and easier to take over an oil producing country in the western hemisphere. JMHO

There are two different perspectives from which I always look at anything I read about politics and world events. The first are the ‘facts’, what I’d call time, place, participants, and happenings. The second is interpretation and/or analysis. The problem with any written material that moves beyond ‘facts’ is that the author puts his/her spin on their written word. It’s almost impossible for any human to avoid this when writing.

For me, one of the most important measures of a book (or any writing) being little more than a ‘spin’ job is when the author distorts the facts to fit their argument. For example: I was reading something this week about how the USA, using the CIA, is an evil empire hell bent on taking the world over. The writing said that the USA put the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Raza Shah , in power in a 1953 coup c'etat(Background on the coup and historical dates). This spin on the story ignores that he ascended the throne on September 16, 1941 not 1953. At the time Iran was the oldest monarchy in the world having been one from 1501 – 1979. In bringing this up I’m not ignoring the part that Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States played in supporting him against communist, nationalist and fundamental Islamic factions. Almost every ‘fact’ in the article was so twisted to support the author’s argument that he lost all credibility with me.

An aside: (By the way, the web sites I linked here are the sites for the Palavi family and their supporters who have been in exile since 1979 just so you know the site’s point of view.) Before 1979 Iran was the most modern and progressive country in the Middle East… starting with the father ‘Reza Shah the Great”. It of course does not mention the more repressive side of the monarchy in dealing with many nationalist, communinist and fundamental Islamic factions of the time.

Here is some info about Ralph Epperson and his books. They are interesting reading.

Ralph Epperson, a member of the John Birch Society, is an historian, author, and lecturer who has been researching the CONSPIRATORIAL VIEW OF HISTORY for some 30 years. CONSPIRATORIAL VIEW OF HISTORY is the view that the major events of the past, the revolutions, the wars, the depressions and the revolutions, have been planned years in advance by a central conspiracy. He has written or produced two "best selling" books entitled THE UNSEEN HAND and THE NEW WORLD ORDER, six booklets, and eleven videos. He is a graduate of the University of Arizona but freely admits that what he has learned since graduation has taught him that most of what he learned in college in History and Political Science simply is not true. He proudly states that his research has proven to him that there has been an active conspiracy in the world planning major wars, depressions, and inflations years in advance.
Many of those who have read his material and viewed his videos state that they are the best in the market on this subject. If you want to know how this conspiracy has operated in the world from one of the theory's best teachers and writers, you will want to obtain some or all of his materials.

The book “The New World Order” - Ralph Epperson has spent years researching the history of the two sides of the Great Seal , and has discovered that those who designed them committed America to what has been called "A Secret Destiny". This future destiny is so unpleasant that those who wanted the change it entails had to conceal that truth in symbols.

Basically this is a rather old and overworked theory that says that the founding fathers of the United States started it all in a plan to prepare the world for the coming of the anti-Christ, that they were basically devil worshipers ready to deliver the world to the demonic. There are tons of books, articles and web sites that explain how we are all being used and blindly being led to accept the anti-Christ.

My take on the CONSPIRATORIAL VIEW OF HISTORY is that it’s not very likely to be true. Sure there are big money and influential people who seem to be above the law and above the government. But who they are changes constantly over time. In this world there are so many factions in every country that it’s impossible for any one person or group to control all things. People just don’t get along that well… there is always infighting and back stabbing with each person having their own agenda.

<small>[ April 19, 2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: zorweb ]</small>

Petals.. will get back with you on book titles.

Wow Zorweb--I'm curious---have you read either book?

Aeri,

I am currently reading both books, the first at your suggestion. Though I’ve not finished them … I’m stuck doing a huge ‘homework’ assignment this Easter weekend for a class we have to take at work. Basically my family will have Easter without me. I’m more than a little ticked off. So further reading will have to wait a few days.

The stuff I included about the books in my previous post was the result of the searching on Epperson and his books. It’s not meant to pass any judgment, but just to post what I found.

Wow---excellent!

Since some of you are actually *interested* I got all excited and decided to post another book which is more along the lines of politics:

Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

This gives another insight as to why I'm particularly against government....

Let me know what you think : )

Another rather interesting viewpoint:

Liberate America First

by James Ostrowski

Aeri,

In his article, Mr. Ostrowski defines freedom as:

” Freedom is a very simple concept. It means doing what you wish with what is yours. It takes years of post-graduate study under PhD’s to unlearn what freedom means. Freedom means that when you wake up in the morning, your life, liberty and property are yours to do with them what you will. Of course, that means that no one else’s life, liberty, or property is yours. That’s freedom. It’s real simple. It’s also a state of being I have never experienced. And I have no reason to believe that any Iraqi under American rule will ever experience it either.”

Apparently he does not seem to know it, but if he wishes he does not have to pay taxes in the USA. There now he has the freedom he wants. The trick is that if a person does not want to pay income tax, they can sign a contract with the government saying that they will not pay taxes and therefore will not attempt to benefit from any services or benefits paid for by federal taxes. Hence the signer of such a contract will not get social security for retirement for disability. They cannot get Medicaid or Medicare. The list of services they cannot use goes on and on. In reality they should not have access to public roads, parks, etc. If they do not pay for such things, they should then not have access to the things paid for by the property of others. By his definition of freedom, this will set him free.

” I am not free and none of my fellow-citizens is free either. For one thing, we are compelled to pay for America’s global and growing military empire even though it makes us sick.”

The idea that the USA is a growing military empire is an entire other argument… one that is just not supportable when the facts are brought forth. Though the facts are easily twisted to support such an argument.

On the other hand, if we did not have a strong military we would probably not be a democratic country today as there have been and still are many who would like to removed our current form of government to one closer to that ‘enjoyed’ by the Soviet Union, China or North Korea. I share the desire to fight that off with most of my fellow citizens.

” That most Americans think they are free is the result of the revolution of 1861–1865, which changed our fundamental law from individual rights to the will of the majority. The vast majority of Americans, utterly ignorant of their founding history, believe that whatever the government does is right because it is the "will of the majority." I pity their unwitting nihilism.”

This statement astounds me, the only laws that changed as a result of the revolutionary war is that citizens of the USA could no longer own slaves. So it seems that Mr. Ostrowiski is a little irked that he cannot own slaves. If you read our constitution and our bill of rights, the USA has always been ruled by the will of the majority with individuals having in deniable individual rights. I suppose he is also referring to the idea that a state cannot succeed from the union.. That was not addressed in our constitution. In a large part the war was fought to settle that argument.

” Sorry, Abe, but freedom has nothing to do with elections and voting and majority rule; rather, these charades have become an all-purpose excuse to deprive us of our freedom. Freedom is personal immunity from election results. I exercised more control over my life when I ordered off the menu at the local diner last week than I had with all the votes I ever cast in an election since 1976. If you give an inmate in a maximum security prison the right to vote, have you liberated him?”

This fellow really has a problem with President Abe Lincoln. He talks a lot about what he does not like. It’s easy to take pot shots at a government. He does not offer a solution, well except for perhaps anarchy. I wonder what system he’d would allow him his freedoms while protecting him and his positions from mob rule?

That inmate in a maximum-security prison is very liberated. He had a choice of what to do with his life, he choose to commit a crime which he darn well knew would get him locked up if caught. So he obviously wanted to be locked up. Would a vote help him? Well it will not get him out today, but perhaps he could start a grass roots movement of maximum security inmates and get released…. To get rid of all laws against taking away the person liberties of life, property and the pursuit of happiness of others. But then we’d all have to hire personal guards to protect us from these predators.

He is right that a vote in and of itself does not give a person freedom and liberty. It does however go a long way to letting a person have a voice in their own government. Add to is a constitution that protects basics rights and liberties and we are a long way ahead of many countries. There are many countries in this world who share the same level of liberties and freedom. And there are many who have none what so ever. The USA government is far from perfect. There are no, and have never been, a perfect government on the face of this earth. But we can strive to improve as time goes on. We also have to fight to keep our government from slipping into anarchy, mob rule, totalitarianism, monarchy, or any other form of government that will give us even less than we have today.

Aeri, all of the material you have suggested as reading material is very negative towards the USA and democracy. In “ Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order”, by Hans-Hermann Hopp, he seems to suggest that monarchy is the best form of government. From what I have read he thinks that monarchy is the best form of government as someone who is wonderfully altruistic and benevolent will rule kindly over all their people. How does he balance this against the abysmal record monarchies and dictatorships have had through out the history of mankind? I’ve not read the entire book… is this what he is suggesting?

It seems that since anarchy is not a viable solution for government, what form of government and what form of economic system do you think is the best?

<small>[ April 22, 2003, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: zorweb ]</small>

Zorweb:

It's unwise to post critiques of books you haven't read.

You admitted that you weren't finished the first two that you critiqued and now you're commenting on Democracy: The God That Failed without having read it at all?????

I gave you the benefit of a doubt the first time, but this is incredible! How can you comment and say that a book is ANTI-AMERICAN if you haven't read it? Could it be that you commented based on the title and the name of the author?

Please tell me that you're *NOT* that closed-minded.

Your review of James Ostrowski's article only proved to me that you don't know anything about any other political system EXCEPT democracy--so how can you possibly comment? Have you read anything on Libertarianism?

Before you scream that it's Anti-American, please check out the last stats on your Presidental election---the Libertarian party was represented.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

I respect those who actually wish to understand another point of view---but I sense that you're just attempting to be the "contrarian"...so be it.

I'll respond to those who are genuninely interested in furthering their knowlege. I have no interest in arguing on a personal level with ANYONE.

Aeri,

It's unwise to post critiques of books you haven't read.

I was not critiquing his book, I was asking you a legitimate question I have based on several things written my Hans-Hermann Hopp and articles written about him and his works (all praising his support or monarchies and his distain for American democracy.) Apparently you are offended by being asked a legitimate question.

While I have not read the entire book by Hans-Hermann Hopp I did read some of the book, several of his other writings and articles others wrote about him and his ideas. I did not critique the book I was asking you a question about things he said. This and other material I have read... that he is not overly found of the USA. Indeed in the article I linked to above he basically says that the entire sorry state of the world since WWI is the doing of the USA. The USA has its faults, it has not always done the right things but it is not responsible for all ills in this world.

"As an increasingly ideologically motivated conflict, the war quickly degenerated into a total war." Hans-Hermann Hopp This quote, in which he is saying that an “old-fashioned territorial dispute” turned into total war once the USA showed up in April 1917 is an example of distortions of history. Yet it was the Europeans who were in ‘total war’, total bloody war long before the USA ever joined the conflict. Let me throw in some more of those pesky facts. The USA did not enter WWI until the Spring of 1917. Yet WWI was already a ‘total war’… as an example the Battle of the Somme, July 1st – Nov 13th 1916 was fought by the British, French, Germans over a million soldiers were last on all sides. Perhaps those millions of soldiers who lost their lives in the long battle would have been interested to know that they were not fighting a ‘total war’. After all the USA would not arrive for several months. The great numbers of people, soldiers and civilians who lost their lives in WWI are not the fault of the USA as he says. The war was well underway and millions upon millions had already been killed before the USA landed. WWI

The great number of deaths in WWI and WWII were not due the rise of democratic-republican but to the great strife that had built up over many years prior to the wars and due to the technological advances in war fare such as the machine gun being used against troops who still fought in the old formations.. Making them all easy targets.

As for his claim that these were the first wars in which great numbers of civilians died from starvation, desease, etc The 1870 Franco-Prussian war trigg...ghout Europe that claimed 500,000 lives. During the Spanish invasion an occupation of the Aztec’s lands… 1518-1610, The New World, 28.4 Million Aztecs die of Small Pox brought in by the Spaniards. And these are just two examples I found in a quick search.

Secondary Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century

Governments Kill More People Than Wars

Since he blames every world problem to include much of the world suffering under communism to be the fault of the USA, it sounds to me like he does not really like the USA very much.. by saying that his writing is anti-USA I don’t mean anything like he is trying to overthrow the government, only that he has little respect for it or for it’s people. That is how I interpret his writing. I am entitled to my opinion. It is, I am sure, the way his writing comes off to many. Again, when a person can only find bad things to say about a subject, they are very biased against it.

You admitted that you weren't finished the first two that you critiqued and now you're commenting on Democracy: The God That Failed without having read it at all?????

Again I did not critique the first two books. I did some research on the author and his books.. what I posted here was directly from his own books and web sites of those who sell his books. I found the material interesting.

Now I did include some comments on my basic thoughts about conspiratorial history and the evils of the Great Seal of the USA, but that was not based on the book. Just something that came to mind.

I gave you the benefit of a doubt the first time, but this is incredible! How can you comment and say that a book is ANTI-AMERICAN if you haven't read it? Could it be that you commented based on the title and the name of the author?

Again, I made the anti-American comment based on many things I have read by the author and about the author. The title of the book and the name of the author have nothing to do with my opinions.

Please tell me that you're *NOT* that closed-minded.

Of course I’m not that closed-minded. And don’t tell me that you are so closed-minded that you are offended because I asked you a real question.

Your review of James Ostrowski's article only proved to me that you don't know anything about any other political system EXCEPT democracy--so how can you possibly comment? Have you read anything on Libertarianism?

“…about any other political system EXCEPT democracy ... Have you read anything on Libertarianism?” Are you saying that the American Libertarian party does not support democracy? Does that mean that they are running for office only to dismantle our system? I think not. That might be news to them.

Because I do not agree with Mr. Ostrowski and I find his article to be more than nieve, it does not mean that I know only about democracy. Don’t forget I’ve lived under other political systems in my life… I’ve lived in several types of democracies and monarchy and in the oldest empire on earth. At the time, the empire was being overrun by a communist government. I’ve a clue. I also understand the the Libertarian Party and like many of their ideas.

By your way of thinking, that fact that you have not lived under the USA form of Democracy, under communism, under a monarchy, etc means that you have no right to comment on any of them. Does, then the fact that you have never lived under the US form of democracy mean that you have not the knowledge to comment?

What you are saying is that since I do not agree with you and those you quote, I have no right to comment. Not very egalitarian, Rather elitist actually.

I am taking time to understand other points of view as I always do. I even took the time to read and discuss the material you suggested. That I do not agree to every word does not amount to a personal attack. On the other hand you are not returning the respect… I ask a valid question and you attack me personally.

I'll respond to those who are genuninely interested in furthering their knowlege. I have no interest in arguing on a personal level with ANYONE.

What you are expounding here is not knowledge but points of view. As are mine. Neither is more right or wrong than the other, except to the holder. Have you ever considered that perhaps you too could further your knowledge as well?

And with this I am done talking to you as every time a person does not agree with you totally you attack them personally. “

One thing about the current world events that has really caught me off guard is how polarized people all over the world are on these topics. So I am interested in information on all sides. I certainly do not want to be misled into any one opinion. But when anyone, one any side, starts spouting views that distort the facts I cannot give their points of view much credence.

I have never attacked you personally. I have stood up to some of your totally disrespectful putdowns of the other American members of this board and me. I don’t know so how could I attack you personally?

I am done talking to you as you will not accept any point of view or discuss anything that is not in line with your way of thinking. Don’t bother answering.

<small>[ June 05, 2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Eleonora ]</small>