Title: personal attacks, new world order
/=-=-=-=-Click Here & Support Our Sponsor-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
Special Holiday Offer for your friends & family!
Give them the Gift of Free Long Distance calls using Tellme.
Click for details:

> I will not read any responses to what I write that begin with
> an attack
> on my character or what I know.  If you want me to read your
> opinion, you
> will be as respectful of me as you want me to be respectful
> of you.  CS

Assuming this is directed in part to me, since you've accused me of this before, I'll offer a small explanation.  I frequently attack your ideas, and some of them I dismiss without much thought, but asking you to rigorously defend your thoughts is neither an attack on you as a person or upon your character.  You may consider the "crackpot" remark an attack on your person, and I appologize for that because it was unprofessional and added no value to the debate.  However, if you're offended because we ask you WHY you think something, and then point out the inconsistencies/lack of evidence upon which you base those thoughts, this is certainly not the forum for you.  I enjoy finding inconsistencies in my thoughts because it means I'm learning, and I think many here would agree.

> The problem I see is the specialization and the military order which
> results in a mechanical society.  In a modern bureaucracy people are

Perhaps you should change your term from military to fascist.  The military bases its organization on efficiency and order, much like fascism.  Indeed, in many countries this leads to a close association with the military and fascist dictators.  However, by equating the military of a democratic country with fascist ideals you often make completely indefensible claims against those sworn to protect your right to make such claims.  (Support and defend the constitution...)

By the way, the Air Force's core values are "Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence in All We Do."  In my experience, that is the way we do business.  That certainly doesn't make military members out to be the inconsiderate warmongers you describe.  If you are going to criticize the military, which is completely acceptable in this forum, please base your information on credible facts and examples rather than vague opinions about our personal character.

As for your claims about the term "New World Order" that Bush used, as I said I think that was bad word choice and he did not mean that we are adopting a fascist society.  Consider the following quote from my college American Government book about labels.

        "The definition of these words has changed since they first came into use in the early nineteenth century.  Then a liberal was a person who favored personal and economic liberty--that is, freedom from the controls and powers of the state.  An economic liberal, for example, supported the free market and opposed government regulation of trade.  A conservative was originally a person who opposed the excesses of the French Revolution and its emphasis on personal freedom, and favored instead a restoration of the power of the state, the church, and the aristocracy.

    "Beginning around the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, the meaning of these terms began to change.  Roosevelt used the term 'liberal' to refer to his political program--one that called for an active national government that would intervene in the economy, create social welfare programs, and assist certain groups (such as organized labor) to acquire greater bargaining power.  In time the opponents of an activist national government began using the term 'conservative' to describe themselves.  (Barry Goldwater, in 1964, was the first major US politician to proclaim himself a conservative.)  In general a conservative favored a free market rather than a regulated one, states' rights over national supremacy, and greater reliance on individual choice in economic affairs."

If something so ingrained in American politics as the terms "liberal" and "conservative" can completely exchange meanings, is it possible that Bush intended to convey a different meaning for "New World Order?"

(CS) Reagan then slashed domestic budgets and poured money into military spending

This was also accompanied by the constant threat of nuclear holocaust.  Many argue that he ended the Cold War by outspending the Russians.  Do you think the Russians would have "spent their economy into the ground" if our money was spent on welfare?


--- Support our Sponsor ------------------------------------
eTour is your personal web tour guide, matching the best sites
with your interests.  eTour is free and easy, and you can earn
rewards discovering great new sites. Visit today!
To Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Make A Buck Or Two @ TheMail.com - Free Internet Email
Sign-up today at http://www.themail.com/ref.htm?ref6357
    referrer name ohn_t    Check it out! It works!
T O P I C A  http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics

Reply via email to