I posted the following on the Yahoo NFI board, and lived to regret it. I then created this forum for political and social discussion, mainly to keep it from clogging the Yahoo boards.

In order to clarify my personal views, for many years I was a republican, mainly favoring the conservative rhetoric of less government, and fiscal responsibility. I disagreed with many of the party's choices (religious and moral) and favored a more liberal approach to human rights and freedom of expression. But I believed in the idea of a republic, not a democracy, and the right of the individual, and responsibility for one's actions.

Now, I suppose I am a libertarian, or rather, simply disgusted with what I perceive to be government by special interest, serving the moneyed elite (which I aspire to, but not badly enough to cheat grandma out of her pension).

That is the context of my post. So here it is, and anyone that wants to tell me I'm full of shit can have at it - without any hard feelings. I am sort of used to it by now...

The topic was related to an individual who maintained that we were justified in invading Iraq, as there have been no more terrorist attacks here since then. Here is the post where I responded to that, followed by the one that cause all the problems.

"Nope. Instead, we will invent a justification to go after some more major oil producing nations, liberate them, lend them the cash to rebuild their infrastructure while directing the rebuilding to US companies or other interests we support, and then claim the moral high ground as our young die in an endless defense of special interests and corporate colonialism.

Eisenhower had it right. Next stop, Iran and Venezuela. Once you start overthrowing sovereign nations under false pretenses and violating international law (or selectively applying it, as the US does with war crimes, which apply to everyone but us, or nuclear weapons, when we are the only nation to ever use them in war...) it gets easier with time, especially if you can whip up an environment where dissension is anti-patriotism or treason, and might ultimately is the determinant of right.

The ultimate irony will be when the Chinese kick the chair out on our currency - although what is more likely is that they will simply become our new owners, along with the current special interests. "

Followed by a post that basically said I was wrong. To which I replied:

"Iraq was a vicious dictatorship. We supported that for years. We turned on it for reasons that are unknown, but we did.

We claimed it was because of WMDs we have never located. The new theory is that they were shuttled elsewhere. That logic would say let's invade those places too. Again, we weren't wrong, we were tricked. Fine. What happens when China takes over Taiwan because they were tricked? Or Pakistan nukes Israel because they were tricked? Apparently all you have to do is violate international law, and later claim you were tricked - not wrong, mind you, but duped.

Huh.

Maybe that is why it is a bad idea to invade sovereign nations without provocation? Just an idea.

"I shot him because he looked at me in a threatening manner, and I thought he had a gun."

"Uh, he didn't have a gun, and told you that."

"His kind always have guns. He probably just used some trick to remove it so I would look bad for shooting him in the back."

And so on.

As to a link between the terrorists who blew up the WTC and Iraq, no link has ever been shown. None. They both have populations with brown skin, but other than that, the terrorists were mostly from Saudi Arabia, a totalitarian theocracy that is one of the most rigid and restrictive in the world, and that we support enthusiastically. Not from Iraq.

And guess what? North Korea has nukes. But they don't have oil. Africa is filled with vicious dictators who prey on their populations and commit genocide, which we ignore. They don't have oil.

Again, this isn't political. The Indians didn't have WMD and weren't terrorists, but they had something we wanted - their land and resources. We took it, unanimously violating every treaty we ever wrote with them, because we wanted it. Simple. The papers at the time were filled with accounts of the vicious Indians who were attacking, in terrorist-like fashion, our innocent populace. That allowed us to commit effective genocide on most of the North American Indian population, and feel good and justified about it. That is history. Not fiction. But even that isn't politics. Before we did that, Cortez did the same thing to much of Latin America.

Again, not political.

Every group that has ever invaded another country on false pretenses has claimed that they were doing so to defend themselves. Hitler used that claim. We used in in the Spanish American war. The history of Europe is littered with examples. It is nothing new, or unique to America. It is human nature. An ugly part of human nature. And part of our written history as far back as you choose to read.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would argue that with the fall of the Soviet Union, we have become absolutely powerful. Nobody dares oppose us. We have double standards for our behavior internationally, and we have double standards for our own population. It is easily proved and seen, and it is wrong. Just as it would be wrong if China took over Japan claiming a threat, without provocation, over terrorist attacks sponsored and carried out by Korea - hey, but to China they all kind of look alike, and Japan, Korea, what's the difference - they felt threatened, and were attacked.

This isn't politics, it is an argument of secular nationalism and the notion that one power can be trusted to apply that power fairly in international forums when no contra-balance exists. It isn't about patriotism - more deaths can be attributed to patriotism and religion than any other cause, bar none. I have no truck with that. What I am saying is that the same double standard you see in the markets, and in our political system WRT special interests, carries forward into our international arena. Simple. And we are not alone. All governments are power-mongering entities who are dangerous to their populaces, and anyone else within reach. That is why the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are written the way they are. Our forefathers understood the danger. It was nothing new then, and it isn't new now. It has simply become unpopular to voice the notion that we aren't perfect, and that our leaders are often-times as crooked and malleable as the special interests they represent.

People don't like unpleasant truths. Here are a few: Shelby, and the rest of our government, know full well what is going on in the markets, and have done nothing to stop it. Our elected officials knew full well that the S&L bus was running off the cliff, and did nothing to stop it. The Federal Reserve banks are owned by special interests, many of them international, and we pay dearly for them to run our money and create it for them - a private group. That makes no sense. We did sponsor decades of war in central America. We did embark on a stupid and ugly war in Vietnam. We did support Saddam when Iran was the great devil. We support some of the nastiest groups in the world for political reasons. Our banks are routinely caught laundering money for criminal syndicates. Our Congress is routinely bought by special interests. You can buy a presidential pardon if you have the right connections (Marc Rich).

Bad people are doing bad things right now, both Americans, as well as Muslim, and Buddhist, as well as Atheist bad people, all in the name of greater goods.

It is the human condition. It is not nation-specific.

Selectively filtering history, and behavior, and applying a religious or national special exemption to it is a lousy way to go through life. If my brother commits murder, he committed murder. If I can come up with some reason that it was OK because HE would never do anything bad (he felt threatened, he was tricked, there must be some other explanation than he is a murderer), and yet condemn everyone else who does the same thing, then I have become a menace to my own ability to reason, as well as to any sense of justice.

That is why I am universal in my condemnation of aggression, wherever it comes from. If you are going to have international law, then everyone should follow it, not just everyone else.

You make a mistake when you think I mean it is exclusive to us. You make a bigger mistake if you assume it can never happen here. It has in the past, and it is happening right now.

It is the human condition.

Now the question is, can you see what is in front of your face, or do the special exclusions and exceptions come into play - because it is us?

If China invaded Saudi Arabia tomorrow, citing a perceived threat, would that be OK? Even if most of the rest of the world said they didn't see that threat? Yes? No? How about Israel? If Russia invaded Israel, to free them from their oppression, citing the ties with the Russian mob that have developed there and the Chechnya terrorist attacks that have killed thousands in Russia, and further said that even though Israel wasn't Chechnya, they suspected strongly that Israel was supporting Chechnya terrorists - would that fly with you?

No?

Now insert the words US in place of Russia, and Iraq in place of Israel, and then try that out.

These are my last words on the subject in this forum.

And again, it is not a US or political thing. It is a human nature thing.

If you can honestly look at our history as a nation, or any other nation's history, and claim that somehow we are excluded from the human condition, then you have far greater and different wisdom than I. I think we have many positives, and many negatives, and the problem is that we are slowly but surely creating an environment where it is considered bad, or stupid, or unpatriotic, to recognize the bad. I find that disturbing.

Again, I advise you to consider the closing address of Eisenhower. I don't think he was a fool, nor unpatriotic. I think he was a very smart guy, who had fought and won a war against an aggressive, evil force, and gone on to run our country, and became intimately familiar with the power behind the scenes, and he was telling us in no uncertain terms that the greatest threat to our nation was not from without, but from within - the military/industrial/financial complex.

I'll go with his observations, as he was far more eloquent than I.

Just as I recognize that pump and dump is bad, I also recognize that short and distort is bad. If it is only bad when you lose money on the opposite side of the bet, we have a disagreement. They are always bad, all the time, even if it is a company you like doing it. Even if it is your brother, or son, or friend. It is never right. Ever.

So that is what started the current maelstrom. Hopefully everyone will debate it here, rather than on the boards.