The war on terror is over officially \o/

Sorry that I ever doubt your sincerity, Mr. President Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/24/AR2009032402818.html

I will definitely take part in your manditory "Volunteer Service Corp".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288

Just hope that I am not too old for this since I was born in 1984

The first one is typical politi-speak, with the change being unworthy of ink necessary to make it happen. Harmless Washington waste of time, that.

That second one is a little more interesting. I'd be curious how some of our resident Obama apolog---errr, supporters would like to spin it.

Waitwut?

No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:

Ummm. NO....Hell no....hell hell no.

I saw this in a movie once. The kids who proposed this DIED. Both of them horribly dead.

So NO double hell no and triple hell no.

You want to see a civil war in the making just try to force us to do this. I would rather buy a gun and hole up in the woods with the rest of the extremists than be drafted into gods knows what.

I see where he is going with this and they do this over in Taiwan. Every male is to give 2 years of his life to either the army or other government jobs including police work. But they do it right out of highschool and have China as a constant threat.

First he wants the power to take any BIG bank or any company that has to do with money. Now he wants a National Civilian Security ForceWe already have the cops FBI CIA Homeland Security and now this. Can we say big brother.....Hey I wanted him to bring Reps and Dems back to the middle not this.

Keep it up Obama and you are on your way out and what is left of the Reps are back in. I do not know which is scarier....this plan or the extremist Reps back in power.

DTE I am no apologist. I support the middle which is where I desperatly wish the country would get back to. I still hope that Obama is going to keep trying to bring the parties together to fix problems in America. But this ......I do not see Reps going for this idea...I dont even see some dems going for it either. This is not bringing us closer together.

Given the source, I'd take that with a grain of salt about the size of Gibraltar.

The one fact in the story is that the House renewed an act that's been in force since 1973, and threw in some more funding. (And that with 70 Republican votes, for what it's worth.)

From that, WND spins it into a sinister attempt to reinvent Hitler Youth and the Arbeitsdienst.

That would be so utterly idiotic politically, never mind any other concerns, that there's no way it's going to happen.

IOW, my "spin" is that the article is a typical piece of right-wing paranoia that's almost completely disconnected from anything resembling reality, good for entertainment value at most.

Yay for democrats!

PS. You should have picked Ron Paul .

Prime Junta said:

Given the source, I'd take that with a grain of salt about the size of Gibraltar.

The one fact in the story is that the House renewed an act that's been in force since 1973, and threw in some more funding. (And that with 70 Republican votes, for what it's worth.)

From that, WND spins it into a sinister attempt to reinvent Hitler Youth and the Arbeitsdienst.

That would be so utterly idiotic politically, never mind any other concerns, that there's no way it's going to happen.

IOW, my "spin" is that the article is a typical piece of right-wing paranoia that's almost completely disconnected from anything resembling reality, good for entertainment value at most.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with PJ on this one. If I recall that quote WAS explained and what he meant was basically an alternative to signing up for the military to pay for college. Like, expand Americorp's funding, do volunteer work in the states, help pay for college, etc. I'm actually fine with some sort of mandatory federal service for all young citizens. Hell, even putting them through Army boot camp and then sending them off to college would probably do wonders for our physical fitness and health.

Edit: On the change of the "war on terror" branding of the conflict - Completely fine with it. I've talked to multiple national security officials who hate that term; they said it was nonsensical as (in their words) "it's a war on a tactic".

I'm not sure I understand this. Is this just some year or so of volunteering where you choose what you want to do ? Like instead of going to the army, you can decide to do some work to help the country ?

Or is this forced upon everyone ? Anyone mind explaining this ?

And what does the name of something matter ? It's a fight against everything that is anti-American (and ready to act on it in a real bad way), if it's called a fight against the whoopsie-doopsies or a war on terror doesn't matter. They're trying to stop acts that can lead to the deaths of American citizenry. How does the name change anything ?

Pladio, it is all about A is non-A...

For human only...not for sheep or herders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0&NR=1

Pladio said:

I'm not sure I understand this. Is this just some year or so of volunteering where you choose what you want to do ? Like instead of going to the army, you can decide to do some work to help the country ?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Or is this forced upon everyone ? Anyone mind explaining this ?

Click to expand...

No, but WND makes it sound like it is, in order to make Obama look sinister.

And what does the name of something matter ? It's a fight against everything that is anti-American (and ready to act on it in a real bad way), if it's called a fight against the whoopsie-doopsies or a war on terror doesn't matter. They're trying to stop acts that can lead to the deaths of American citizenry. How does the name change anything ?

Click to expand...

Names matter a great deal. Language encodes power. For example, if you're doing a "war," criticism of the conduct of that war can easily be branded "unpatriotic" or "defeatist," and of course all kinds of "extraordinary measures" at home and abroad become justified. You can't have a war without an "enemy." If you're merely "conducting operations," you can't appeal to these kinds of things.

Prime Junta said:

Given the source, I'd take that with a grain of salt about the size of Gibraltar.

The one fact in the story is that the House renewed an act that's been in force since 1973, and threw in some more funding. (And that with 70 Republican votes, for what it's worth.)

From that, WND spins it into a sinister attempt to reinvent Hitler Youth and the Arbeitsdienst.

That would be so utterly idiotic politically, never mind any other concerns, that there's no way it's going to happen.

IOW, my "spin" is that the article is a typical piece of right-wing paranoia that's almost completely disconnected from anything resembling reality, good for entertainment value at most.

Click to expand...

I feel sorta like an idiot now, but thanks PJ. I don't really read anything other than MSN or watch CNN. So I get suckered into the right wing paranoia spins quite easily.

Biological anthropology wasn't available to Ayn Rand, thus she wished to sacrifice the strengths of mankind which she identified as it's weaknesses.

The natural state of humanity are the wish to be sheep, the wish to be herders and the wish to be neither and the final two groups are a minority. This is the fact which Ayn Rand couldn't accept. To "disagree" with this rule of nature is as futile as disagreeing to evolution or gravity.

She wish to sacrifice the developed state.

With the state goes protection against abuse of power. The natural progression of a free population is to elect a new chieftan or one will take that role.

With the state goes the right to freedom. Without a right-giver there are no rights, not even the right to freedom. Without the developed state there's no right to oppose the state, the right to question the state, and the right to question what you are taught.

With the state goes humanity's greatest strength, the ability to over generations accumulate and use insight. Because without state there are no schools to teach a new generation past generations insights and mistakes. This ability to grow knowledge over time is what separates mankind from animals. There are also no protection against those who would like to sacrifice or destroy truth for power.

Even worse, without schools there are noone to make sure children are taught the value of freedom.

Without a state, administration falls. Without administration no simple access to food. The competition to just get your hands on food alone will take so much time that there would be no time for philosophy, no time to enjoy life.

Even worse, the constant state of competition leaves no rest, the competition doesn't allow any freedom to rest or for leisure. You would be more free as a slave in ancient greece than in an environment without a state.

Without administration, without education and in constant competition with your neighbor is a constant state of fear. Fear is what make people elect the wrong leaders. Fear is what make mankind agree to have protection they do not need. Fear is the furthest from freedom you can go. Fear is what creates what Ayn Rand despises. Ayn Rand wishes to abolish the systems which opposes fear.

Without a state Ayn Rand wouldn't be. Without a state Ayn Rands dreams and wishes wouldn't be. Ayn Rand wanted to sacrifice everything that made her.

Libertarianism is as self sacrificing as anarchy and communism. It doesn't understand the basis for the values they hold. They attack the very mechanisms that protects them from they loathe the most.

That's a rather a charitable view. A less charitable one is that Ayn Rand simply had a massive self-esteem problem combined with a massive ego (a seemingly paradoxical but not uncommon combination), and her philosophy constitutes one huge attempt at rationalizing away that cognitive dissonance.

This theory also explain Rand's appeal to a certain personality type.

Or a rather Swedish view.

Jemy said:

The natural state of humanity are the wish to be sheep, the wish to be herders and the wish to be neither and the final two groups are a minority. This is the fact which Ayn Rand couldn't accept. To "disagree" with this rule of nature is as futile as disagreeing to evolution or gravity.

Click to expand...

Evolution and gravity can be explained and reasoned based on facts. Is it possible to explain that "sheep rule" based on facts as well?

In my opionion it's a huge understatement and underestimate of people's own consciousnesses and intellect to say most of them want to be herded like farm animals.

Prime Junta said:

Yes.

No, but WND makes it sound like it is, in order to make Obama look sinister.

Click to expand...

So it's basically an organised national volunteering service ?

Names matter a great deal. Language encodes power. For example, if you're doing a "war," criticism of the conduct of that war can easily be branded "unpatriotic" or "defeatist," and of course all kinds of "extraordinary measures" at home and abroad become justified. You can't have a war without an "enemy." If you're merely "conducting operations," you can't appeal to these kinds of things.

Click to expand...

In this context then ? What does 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' change to 'War on Terror' ?

mudsling3 said:

Pladio, it is all about A is non-A...

For human only...not for sheep or herders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0&NR=1

Click to expand...

Didn't watch the movie yet, but I don't get what you meant.

Pladio said:

So it's basically an organised national volunteering service ?

Click to expand...

From what I've gathered. It doesn't really change anything; it just continues and slightly expands funding for various government-sponsored volunteer programs. Obama has talked about expanding the program so that kids could finance their college through the system, instead of joining the army (which is currently one of the top options for young people who are from poor families to do that).

In this context then ? What does 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' change to 'War on Terror' ?

Click to expand...

It tones down the language. A lot of Bush's excesses -- especially ones related to executive privilege, erosion of civil rights, and stuff like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, and what not -- were justified by saying "the nation is at war." By changing the label, Obama is sending a message that he doesn't consider the nation to be at war, and therefore doesn't consider such measures justifiable or justified. At least that's my interpretation of his intent.

Of course, this cuts both ways -- often benign-sounding labels have been used as cover for very dirty work. In and of itself this kind of thing doesn't mean much, but it's consistent with his stated concerns about civil liberties and such.

Prime Junta said:

It tones down the language. A lot of Bush's excesses -- especially ones related to executive privilege, erosion of civil rights, and stuff like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, and what not -- were justified by saying "the nation is at war." By changing the label, Obama is sending a message that he doesn't consider the nation to be at war, and therefore doesn't consider such measures justifiable or justified. At least that's my interpretation of his intent.

Of course, this cuts both ways -- often benign-sounding labels have been used as cover for very dirty work. In and of itself this kind of thing doesn't mean much, but it's consistent with his stated concerns about civil liberties and such.

Click to expand...

Obama isn't really changing most of Bush's policies - other than announcing a date for closing Guantanamo, which is something Bush wanted to do anyways. But Obama's reserved the right to use extraordinary rendition and pretty much everything else Bush has done - I don't think even he's argued terrorists have civil rights.

Surlent said:

Or a rather Swedish view.
Evolution and gravity can be explained and reasoned based on facts. Is it possible to explain that "sheep rule" based on facts as well?
In my opinion it's a huge understatement and underestimate of people's own consciousnesses and intellect to say most of them want to be herded like farm animals.

Click to expand...

Psychology, statistics and history.

Thing is, not needing to take care of aspects of your life is a freedom in it's own. Not needing to be your own police officer, not needing to be your own doctor, not needing to be your own seeder or harvester, not needing to be your own pharmacy or your own store, not needing to make sales, not needing to take care of things in your life. Being a child is being free because your parent take care of life for you so you can play. Being control over every aspect of your life means more work than you have time for. Giving up your decisions to someone else is thus paradoxically a way to be really free.

Think for awhile what you depend on for having the freedom to sit here and speak on the net and what you give up to others to have that freedom. I know plenty of things that I depend on. Even if I happen to be an existentialist who are trying to control as much as possible of my destiny, I am still dependent on much much more than I can even imagine.

Rithrandil said:

Obama isn't really changing most of Bush's policies - other than announcing a date for closing Guantanamo, which is something Bush wanted to do anyways. But Obama's reserved the right to use extraordinary rendition and pretty much everything else Bush has done - I don't think even he's argued terrorists have civil rights.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about that as well. Some of his folks have asserted executive privilege very much by the Bush precedent -- it's quite possible the damage done to American democracy has become permanent. Levers like that are very, very tempting if you have big things you need to do, and he most certainly does.

Prime Junta said:

Yeah, I'm a bit concerned about that as well. Some of his folks have asserted executive privilege very much by the Bush precedent -- it's quite possible the damage done to American democracy has become permanent. Levers like that are very, very tempting if you have big things you need to do, and he most certainly does.

Click to expand...

Some of this is Clinton precedent, remember. Extraordinary rendition was created under Clinton, and every President engaged in some sort of illegal wiretapping. I'm probably going to be shouted down by about three-fourths of the board for saying this, but the Clinton (and now Obama, I guess) policy of extraordinary rendition is FAR less humane than the one Bush ended up doing. Waterboarding is torture, but we only used it on three people. If we just render these people to other countries, they will be treated far, far worse than they would have at Gitmo; hell, Gitmo actually had pretty good conditions unless you were one of the three chumps that got waterboarded.

I'm just hoping Obama doesn't go back to the Clinton/every pre-9/11 president policy of "terrorism is a law enforcement issue".