Time to see the Watch's majority . . .

[Guest]

well put!

[Brinn]

Money is a tool, nothing more. Would everything be different without it? Certainly. Better? I'm not so sure. In the hunter/gatherer society you imagine would physical strength rule the day instead of monetary wealth? I can just see these hunter/gatherers crowded around the campfire extolling how beaver pelts are "the root of all evil" or venison steaks are "our God".

Selfishness, greed, materialism, all those thing that I believe you associate with evil/money...would they disappear if money disappeared or would they manifest in other ways through other means? Would the Have's and Have-nots disappear if there were no money? Show me this utopian society in the history of earth.

Ultimately it is the individual decisions that we make and the reasons behind those decisions that can be characterized as good or evil and I'm not yet ready to believe that human nature is inherently evil. Like you said, we've had our moments of achievement and infamy but I believe that humans aspire to goodness and compassion. Call me naive or optimistic if you will.

[Worm of Despite]

Show me this utopian society in the history of earth.

History ain't the key, cause it's the future we should look to, if utopia's the watchword! Look at the world now, then 2,000 years ago. Look at if 40 years ago. We've improved in every facet. It will only get more utopian-like! You know what--maybe a long, long time ago, the world today was thought of as a utopia? I don't know!

But, look, I'm just saying evil is in human nature, not money. I never said money as the root of all evil, although I didn't disagree with who said it, cause I didn't want to begin arguing over it with said person, even though I forget who said it! *slaps forehead*

And I didn't say that humanity is inherently evil. Maybe I did say that--maybe I said it word for word! Maybe I did! But, BUT--I did go on, like you pointed out to say, that we're everything! And hey, I'm optimistic too! The good's taking over! On a pie chart, I see humanity in general composed of more than 50% good! We don't want a Hitler to win--we want a Christ to win. That's obviously a good sign, but that's not the sign I'm looking for, exactly. We'll evolve from signs of Hitler and Christ to push us forward, I hope.

Like you said, we've had our moments of achievement and infamy but I believe that humans aspire to goodness and compassion. Call me naive or optimistic if you will.

So you see the world improving, do you not? You see us moving forward, aspiring to the said goodness, yes? Yet you do not believe in us achieving our ultimate goal: a utopian-like society? You do not see that in our evolution? Where has our history gone but up? Do you see us going down somehow, like in a World War III or something, or is it just that because of your religious beliefs, you see humanity incapable of such perfection? Don't you think millions--no, billions--of other Christians believe in that?! Billions believing that . . .denying their selves perfection . . .that stifles our progress, don't you think?!! I'm sorry, but perfect is a word in the dictionary, and I'm not letting it be limited to just God, no matter how defunct Christianity has made that word for us infidels.

[[Syl]]

just reminded of this

In the world I see -- you're stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You will wear leather clothes that last you the rest of your life. You will climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. You will see tiny figures pounding corn and laying-strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of the ruins of a superhighway.

It's getting exciting now.
Think of everything we've accomplished, man.
Out these windows, we will view the collapse of financial history.
One step closer to economic equilibrium.

Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk

Would also throw in Tyler's comment about self perfection, but would only be relevant to those who know the quote already.

I am not a unique, beautiful snowflake. I am the all-singing, all-dancing...

Time to change my sig.

[Worm of Despite]

I don't envision a Disney-like Utopia. Folks got it all wrong! If we're going to reach any kind of height, it's going to assert itself and install itself very slowly, over several centuries maybe, and it's going to be NATURAL, so no society falls over or financial problems occur. Isn't that the way, anyway? Stuff coming in naturally? We won't even notice it changing! Future generations will have lived a lifetime thinking nothing of it. But nothing is going to change the world to where everything collapses--unless it's a Revolution or something, like a bang. But I don't see change of Utopian-like qualities coming with a bang! Geez, evolution is SLOW, folks. It'll all work out for the better, mark me word.

[[Syl]]

Money is a tool

Hey, Brinn, can I borrow some of your tools?

[Brinn]

Sure Syl. I'm a commercial lender...All I'll need is three years tax returns (both personal and corporate), a personal financial statement, and um...Will you guarantee the note personally? I've never lent to a forestal so structuring this deal might be a bit tricky! ;^)

Foul,
I guess I did misread your intentions. I see that you do have some hope for society, mankind and the future. I agree that mankind is progressing and I am encouraged. I only objected to the cynicism I perceived in your quote...but as I said, I misinterpreted your intention. I was just concerned that someone your age could be that jaded! Aren't you supposed to be idealistic and hopeful at 18!!

P.S.
Can we get back to some nice war-talk now?!?!?!

[Worm of Despite]

If it helps you understand my view on life, I read Catcher in the Rye when I was 15 and completely agreed with its narrator. I read it now, at 18, and I see what was wrong in Holden's thought process and how he was such a walking contradiction. But look, I have hope for mankind--but the mankind that I have hope for is NOT this generation. In fact, I see no hope in any generation, as for as generations go. I see hope for us as a collective race; each generation is but a stepping stone up. But the stepping stones themselves I have no hope for--they're just inanimate stepping stones, anyway. We're just stepping stones in history, or will be, eventually. Don't get me wrong--I'm truly either a cynic or a disappointed idealist. I feel like I'm 118 instead of 18.

Aren't you supposed to be idealistic and hopeful at 18!!

Well, my society expects me to be bone-crunching happy, just like they expect you to smile-smile-smile at Disney World, but I'd rather be me than live a cliche like the "hope-filled spring of joy" that is a teenager. Seems there’s millions of those, so I’d rather stick out like a sore thumb than fit in, like some brick in the wall. Being another "eighteen- year-old" is too easy, and less individualistic.

See, I'm one of those guys who feels once you become an adult you become one with the workforce, like a Hindu becomes one with their whoever-He-is-God. And when you make that transition into the "real world", I see it as a spiritual and intellectual devolution. I see that adults are less introspective, less honest at heart than they were when they were simply kids. Seems the "system" complicates things, and they give up on inward thought completely. That's my view of the world, anyway, from behind my tinted eyeballs.

And I want it to stay that way, and here's my reason, however childish it may sound: the best writers seem to be the ones that either EXPERIENCE what they write (in my case, depression)--or are always pessimistic. I think I'll bear the weight of both, because otherwise, my writing style would be much, much different. Like the lead singer in Metallica said: "Some folks just can't sing about happy stuff and flowers". Well I can't write care-bear either! It's too easy, as TC said.

[[Syl]]

You don't have a problem with your neighbor returning your hammer, I take it?

Damn thing about being a Forestal, no taxes and no idea what to put on a financial statement. It's ok, though, because I have no idea what I'd spend the money on.

Catcher in the Rye was great. I own three copies. heh.

[kevinswatch]

Yeah, I read Catcher in the Rye years ago and loved it. I forgot most of what happens. I have a copy here at school with me, I've been meaning to read it again, heh.-jay

[Brinn]

Coincidently, when a lender sets periodic financial performance goals for a company (basically to make sure the company is performing to a certain level) and makes them a part of the legal documentation it is known as "Covenanting"...So I guess maybe a loan to a forestal wouldn't be so far fetched after all!

[Guest]

my government will act on behalf of its people.

..as you would hope to be true of any government no?

but do governments really act on behalf of the people or is it more accurate to say on behalf of the economic imperative? Who is it that elect leaders and governments?

I certainly will not say that the US has always been in the right (although I do think that moral justification and not just protecting our self interests has always played a major role in US policy) .

is certainly a measure of self interest that you cannot take away. Aside from this self-interest the US has always espoused more noble goals as well. We promote freedom and democracy and human dignity and these ideals are often piggy-backed onto our interests. Occassionally our foreign policy puts us in a position where we ally ourselves with the lesser evil.

like supporting the Pinochet regime? .. There was nothing noble or morally justifiable in supporting that regime!! And the US involvement in the Guatemalan coup over their domestic land re-distribution .. the US was determined to prevent .. and ofcourse theres the involvement in Nicaragua and Brazil .. and well .. *shrugs* US involvement in Sth American states has been pretty appalling .. and mostly having nothing to do with noble endeavours or moral justifications .. but pure and simple preserving and promoting economic imperatives .. and often entwined with the fiasco's of cold war determinations .. but not always

If you want to look earlier in history .. when one may expect to see more pure and noble expressions of righteous leadership .. then a quick visit to the Phillipines will clear up any misconceptions of higher moral positions.

At the end of the day .. a realistic appraisal of the situation .. is not imho one where we can in all hoensty laud self-righteous moralities to defend one's governments actions .. to claim that it could do no ill .. The fact is the US is not standing on THE 'moral high ground' .. in truth very few nations hold such footing .. and we have to be honest about that imho.

Instead of stating we [the US] stand for human dignity .. tell that to the thousands of chileans slaughtered under Pinochet .. the US imperialist colonisation of the Phillipines .. and application of the genocide strategem.

Although this is common knowledge to me .. [school/education] .. I went in search of an article that you could peruse at your own leisure .. and I easily came upon a number .. here is one .. and from it I have cited the author quoting Mark Twain regarding the Phillipene colonisation.

But for the moment I want to cite here Twain's comment on the U.S. (mis)adventure which (in Carey McWilliams' s view) prompted the government to "guide the natives in ways of our own choosing," especially when the "lesser breeds" or "little brown brothers occupied a potentially rich land."(11) The ironic resonance of this self-proclaimed "civilizing mission" is registered in Twain's inimitable idiom:

We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields, burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God--and the phrase is the government's, not mine--we are a World Power. (12)

In his nuanced satire, Twain marvelled at the report that thirty thousand American soldiers killed a million Filipinos: "Thirty thousand killed a million. It seems a pity that the historian let that get out; it is really a most embarrassing circumstance."(13 ) In February 1899, the month in which the Filipino-American War began and the U.S. Senate ratified the treaty formalizing the annexation of Spain's former colonies, Rudyard Kipling's poem, "The White Man's Burden," appeared. In it the poet echoed U.S. Senator Albert Beveridge's claim of "the mission of our race, trustee under God, of the civilization of the world." (14)

www.boondocksnet.com/centennial/sctexts/esj_98a_b.html

another paper from your own Stanford University is also worth a gander
www.stanford.edu/~flsamson/american-democracy.html

The glaring hypocrisy of a nominally democratic American republic in light of its imperial actions in the Philippines brought forth strong public criticism

And that is always the strength of any western democracy .. its people .. people who can think for themselves and critically assess government action .. this is the strength of the US .. It is public opinion that keeps a government honest and accountable .. questions their consistent assertions of 'necessity' and 'rightness' etc..

Social commentators and artists like Twain Emerson and Kipling .. political accountants like James, MLK, etc .. .. throughout history it is the likes of these that call for responsibility and correctness in government .. and for the upholding democratic principles ..

Whether it be the asserted noble pursuits of civilising and christianising heathen nations .. or bringing contrived and limited democracy to rogue states .. or eliminating the anti-capitalist 'evils' of - COMMUNISM - from the world!! .. even if communism is the chosen preference of the majority .. as in Cuba .. .. or wiping out evils wherever they are percieved to exist .. ironically such pursuits will always claim the moral high ground ... and utilise all the rhetoric so commonly associated with the promotion of such campaigns ..

and per an earlier comment: it is interesting to me .. this notion of 'democracy' .. when even nations who claim to be democratic are not truly representative democracies .. but .. well .. what the hey .. thats another discussion for another time

When Iraq invaded Iran, US policy viewed Iran as the larger threat and therefore chose to support Iraq.

Thats not entirely accurate .. Iran was a target because of a desired 'pay-back' following the Iran hostage crisis. The US supported Hussein/Iraq in its provocative and unjustified regional border aggression against Iran .. the US was wholly an outsider and an unrelated party .. and mmm .. an active suporter of this dispute .. by supplying intelligence and arms .. despite public proclamations of 'neutrality' .. making under any normal parameters the US an accomplice to this unlawful act of aggression against Iran. It was not a matter of situational logic. It was pure and simple 'point making and payback!'!

At the time it appeared to be the best option although hidsight is always 20/20.

It was not a matter of being 'the best option' .. the US didn't even need to involve itself in any degree, and lawfully they should not have .. there involvement no matter how large or small didnt even need to be an option .. it was a determined choice of US intervention. However, past is past. As you say sometimes even 'message sending' and 'point making' is worth the slaughter of thousands and the active backing of a known rogue militant like Hussein.

cheers

sky!

[Lord Mhoram]

US involvement in Sth American states has been pretty appalling .. and mostly having nothing to do with noble endeavours or moral justifications .. but pure and simple preserving and promoting economic imperatives

Pursuing economic imperatives is not necessarily noble, but is for the good of the good of the country. I don't think Brinn is saying that every act that the US pursues is supposed to be noble; after all, few wars are considered noble.

It was pure and simple 'point making and payback!'!

Clearly, US policy-makers at the time would not have supported Iraq if they didn't think it was in their best interests. I agree, it was payback. But I feel that it was also strategic too. There's no doubt in my mind that the leaders at that time would take back what they did then. Not that it matters. :rolleyes:

[Brinn]

Welcome back Sky! I Missed you.

And your right Mhoram. My point is that any nation is going to act in their own best interests however it seems that the US needs to have additional reasons that are morally justifiable to act. I concede that this has not been the case in every circumstance but more often than not. What other countries are commonly ctriticized for acting in their own self interests?

[Skyweir]

Welcome back Sky! I Missed you.

ahhh what a warm welcome!! I am greatly honoured to be reunited with my fellow Watchmen!!

My point is that any nation is going to act in their own best interests

I acknowledge/d this .. but question who's interests governments really serve.

however it seems that the US needs to have additional reasons that are morally justifiable to act.

this is an unreasonalbe assessment and retort .. the US is held to the same need to be correct as any other nation. Sour grapes does not become you .. Australia has been condemned for its various abuses of power as are nations throughout the globe.

I concede that this has not been the case in every circumstance but more often than not.

I challenge that assertion .. and in my previous post I listed but a few examples of morally unjustifiable action .. taken not for US domestic interest .. and in some cases with great public outcry for these cited actions.. the Phillipenes is a prime example of this at a time when the US assertedly opposed colonialisation .. nevertheless pursued hegemonic ends.

What other countries are commonly ctriticized for acting in their own self interests?

Criticism befalls any nation that departs from accepted/lawful/moral standard .. there are some that depart more than others ..

as per Iraq .. who can claim to be under the microscope more than them and we wouldnt argue with the Iraqi government being held accountable? Now some of you will jump up and down in gingoistic fervour .. at the very thought of being compared with Iraq .. it is an extreme example to illustrate that any state is open to international scrutiny.

We have international systems of redress and they exist to keep sovereign states honest and accountable .. upholding that democratic process that kthe west claim to revere.

As I said in my last post the strength of any nation is its people .. not its government .. that is true of Australia and the same is true of the US.

We are both rich nations .. and our wealth is in our human resources .. anyway .. its late and i am tired and cant be bothered to launch into copious research and writing to set out the shortfalls of governments .. but suffice it to repeat .. it is futile and arrogant to claim for the government, a moral high ground ..

The administration's agenda is rarely about public interest and more accurately about economic imperative .. monopoly and dominance if it is achievable .. from time to time .. but if not .. then the employment of the more limited ends justifies the arguable risk of the means

g'night ..