Letters to the Editor
walter_map
Published Letters: 1444 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Martin Gifford
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spreading happiness is the very best way to increase security. Happy people do not want war.
Not exactly true. Cheney wants war, and he's very happy. The happiness of common people is not a factor. The people can be dragged into war whether they're 'happy' or not:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
Hermann Göring
The neocons have it wrong. The reason previous empires fell is that they failed to progress to spreading happiness, not because they failed to maintain military strength.
Empires have fallen because of a conjunction of many reasons, mostly related, either directly or indirectly, to the fact that in the long run empires cost more than they're worth. Which is of no concern to neoconservatism, since wealth is a means to an end and is not their motivation, which is only the lust for power:
Although there are probably as many different interpretations of Strauss's teachings as there are Straussians, the three basic principles that the neocons glean from Strauss and Wohlstetter are:
1) There are a few superior people born to lead and the rest are merely followers who must be deceived and lied to if necessary by these leaders to be directed to the "right" path.
2) The powerful have the right to rule, and America must use its unchallenged power to control the rest of the world in order to enforce our own best interests and prevent any future rivals from emerging.
3) Religion is essential in the masses, as it makes them far easier to manipulate and control, but the true leaders should be free of religion and morality.
Neoconservatism, therefore, is inherently totalitarian and fascist, and it makes no apologies for it.
Neoconservatism is the philosophy and pursuit of megalomania, by any and all means necessary. 'Happiness' is no way enters into the equation, either for its proponents or its victims. Neither does greed, or morality, or any other common motivation, but only power for the sake of power.
-
Mike Sulzer
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you still owe me an explanation of why you chose to misunderstand my statement on measuring the errors in determining the value of Planck's constant. And is it not amusing that Droogoy made a little blooper on the significance of errors very similar to your misunderstanding?
The misunderstanding was on your part. Droogoy and I put you in your place as compassionately as we could. I find it unfortunate that you can't appreciate that, but only for your own sake.
You're welcome to revisit the thread to trace your mistake if you like, but I've wasted enough of my time attempting to correct you, and shall not be wasting any more of it.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As trolls go, you're not particularly amusing.
I'm up for a laugh, so try to do better.
-
Proximity Warning
[Read the article: The bipartisan consensus on U.S. military spending]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"When did we get elected World Cops?"
When we became a superpower . . . the US cannot be a continental fortress. Her economic and politcal fortures are too enmeshed in those of the rest of the world for her ot simply be a bystander in global affairs.
Translation: "What we cannot get by cooperation, we will get by coercion. What we cannot get by coercion, we will get by force. But we will get it. What is ours remains ours. What is yours remains negotiable."
We've seen this kind of self-aggrandizing trash talk before, and know a neocon when we see one:
jgg1000a - 11:49am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 61637 of 61644)
American Idealism mixed with Islamic Idealist can bring peace if we the people in both lands talk with each other
unamericano_v - 11:41am Jul 22, 2003 EST (# 61630 of 61632
Your approach has more dead Americans
True. It also gives a better chance of sucess. Power requires sacrifice. Like it or not the world over the last century entrusted us with power.
http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?14@208.50MfbjU5rPw.367931@.f3ea8d1/64334
Is that you, jgg1000a?
It certainly smells like you.