I read Foreign Affaires regularly thats all you get...........

I'm sorry, are you referring to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/ ?
If so, I would advise you against basing your judgement on any single news source. I tend to read a variety of news sources both US and International and then compare and contrast to fill in the blanks and remove what intentional or unintentional bias exists in all reporting.

Either way, it doesn't seem that you want to discuss this further in an adult manner, so I'll drop it.

Bale this is totally off subject but what do you think of Blair, I have read that he is blaming bad intel on his decision to join the US in Iraq. I personally think he is full of it and he and Bush knew all along there were no WMD's in Iraq. Curious to see what you think since you are a bit closer to the issue.

Yes, I have good reason and your still out of your depth kid.

Wow Lothar way to be a dick

I don't know if Blair/Bush recieved bad intelligence due to mistakes, recieved intentionally bad intelligence, recieved correct intelligence but the WMDs were removed/hidden during the buildup, or if they knew all along that there were no weapons. All of the scenarios are possible, and really, there is no way for anyone (independant of how intelligent or well connected they believe they are) to know the absolute truth in complex situations like this. That being said, I am not a Blair supporter, but that is more because of his policy towards Europe and his domestic policies than because of any relationship with the US.

You might be interested in reading some of the artciles by Philip Bobbit (Biography) which are avaliable on the web or pick up one of his books, as I think he has one of the more realistic and balanced views on the Iraq war and war in general. Unfortunately, the specific article I was going to link you to has wandered off the web, but I'll see if I can find it.

Yeah sorry, from my end it like discussing the theory of flight with a peasant from the middle ages. No one gains anything.

Need I remind you of "Colon"'s speech to the UN where he labeled overhead photos of Iraq and showed where they were transporting nuclear weapons?

I can just see him sitting there...

"And over here we have a silo, possibly used for grain or DEATH, and over here we have the new Optimus Prime doll with real laser-shooting action."

some people feel he was put up to it...

Bx, cs
you are ignorant, citing the bleating of other sheep is not 'intellectual'

L5 is a military professional, he cannot say many things (not that you 2 would believe anything you chose not to anyway)

I was in the military in the '60s, and McNamara caused me to remain in a while longer. You guys lack perspective. L5s MAD description is correct.

but DO continue to post, you are proving how limited is your knowledge
semantics ? yea, why not reduce to to the arraignment of characters ?
yarrow stalks ?

If L5 is a professional in what he is discussing maybe he should have said that and given his point of view. Rather than calling the other guy a name.

Im a good programmer, when someone wants to debate whether a quicksort is a better algorithm than say a select sort on a set of data I don't just state my opinion and tell the other guy hes a kid and out of his depth... I would instead show him how the dataset may break down and turn the sort into an O(n^2) on the quicksort. Then explain why and how to avoid it. I wasn't saying anthing about his data, just that he was being a dick.

What "Bleating of other sheep" have I cited.

By the way a liberal point of view is not ignorent its just different than yours.

cs
not interested in a debate, BX was also addressed

no, L5's posts stand, or fall, on their own merits
over time an observant viewer may conclude that the poster is 'qualified' or not

all history is revisionist; participants however will have a view depending on their experience and objectivity (a very difficult abstraction there) and subsequent reflection - and the filtering begins right there

but on a factual basis 'right' and 'wrong' are merely 'correct' and 'incorrect'
a half-assed characterization of MAD then becomes a vehicle for the author's bias and propaganda
one MUST get the factual basis correct or its GIGO

I apologies for the Ad Hominem gents. It was late.

Cybrsamurai define liberal for me. Over the last few years, this word has been made in to a pejorative term and I am not sure people use it correctly anymore.

Personally, I think most people use the word to describe only the very far left wing. Conversely the term conservative seems only used for the far right wing.

I would define liberal as believing that government is the answer to problems. Poverty? Let's raise taxes and redistribute the money to the poor until everyone has enough. Crime? Obviously our wealth redistribution hasn't gone far enough because there are still disparities in outcome. Squandered your salary for 40 years? We better have some sort of social security to make sure this doesn't happen again! Poor education system makes your citizens uncompetitive in a global market? Better levy duties on imported goods and pass laws to prohibit foreigners from holding that job. In general, let's just trust in the government and that they'll do a better job with deciding what's best for society than what individuals ever would do.

To me THAT'S liberalism. But my thoughts are colored by being a libertarian in the most socialist province of Canada.

To me conservatism is believing that the individual should have the right to succeed or fail on their own merit and that getting government involved in day-to-day life of citizens is a huge mistake. But as I said I'm a libertarian. I actually like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights quite well, have no suggestions for improvment, and just wish federal govt would limit itself to the rights actually granted to it by those documents.

Could you imagine how retarded a US constitution drafted today would look? It boggles the mind...

Sure thing: " Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

That all together is what I understand Liberalism to be. thank you dictionary.com

Yes Liberal has been turned into a "bad word" even last night Bush used it to label Kerry as someone that is far outside of the social norm. However the term isn't used only for someone with beliefs on the far left. It seems that even the smallest views of economic left or libertarianism and you are labeled a liberal. I personally believe that lately liberals have brought this on them selves by being afraid to stand up for the way they think politically.

I think your view of current financial liberalism is close, but your view of current political conservatism is a bit askew.

Both parties want to impose federal government into people’s lives it’s all a game for power and money.

The current administration takes huge authoritarian stances. The only thing that is traditionally conservative about them is that they are on the financial right end of the spectrum.

pHaestus-I think you have described the "Neo-Liberal" view on domestic issues.

cybrsamurai- I think you defined classic liberalism. Which is more a philosophy of approaching issues vice a specific stand on issues.

I find it very interesting that pH’s definition of conservative is very closely matched with cybrsamurai's strict definition of liberal

I vote for reality

pH's description of liberal is a functional one - how it is applied in practice
cs's dictionary.com definition is the same woolly headed crap about the way some people wish to describe their imaginary world

any equating of the 'liberalism' between the UK, Canada, and the US is a pitiful claim to a greater group for 'moral right', its bullshit

behaviorism really does work, observe any child

"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual"
natural goodness ? this is real ****ing bullshit
civilization is the imposed veneer differentiating us from animals

autonomy of the individual ? study some psychology, focus on parental programming
you do not know what you are quoting, that it is a notion only

get real

I wouldn't call the current GOP "conservative" either cybersamurai. Their expansion of the size and role of government runs exactly counter to conservatism.

Yea Lothar it is interesting that people think of social liberalism as "wanting the government out of my personal life" when actually that's a very conservative stance. Things got screwed up in the US due to the religious right who identify themselves as conservatives but who are actually very much in favor of government involvement in moral issues (prayer in schools but not evolution, prohibiting abortions, prohibiting gay marriage, big penalties for drug use, etc etc). All involve the expansion of government into areas not really their business.

I have studied psychology, I don't see where you are going with this... Just because you believe in a different ideology doesnt mean mine is wrong. For all i know you are a sociopath and have no reason to believe what you belive other than that you are angry with the world, you sure sound it. I'm glad I don't live in your reality :)

BillA:
Your comments about behaviorism and parental programming are the reason we are choosing to home school our kids here. Fundamentally I just don't believe in the system and I know that public schools are far more about making good citizens than they are good thinkers.

cs
look into TA, transactional analysis; its about how people actually 'work'
then you will know what I'm talking about

"I'm glad I don't live in your reality"
clinically delusional

EDIT
am I angry ? for sure, at the sorry state of this world, at the wasted generations due to bullshit 'education'
at 19 I concluded that the world was an abattoir and I would not contribute to the carnage, and my view has never wavered
I have 2 wonderful adopted children, no biological ones

Take a look at our foreign policy. Traditional conservative views were non-interventionist.

I'm with you Bill, the one aspect of the liberal definition I don’t like the natural goodness...in my opinion one should be an "...Optimist without illusions" (JFK)

Hey Bill if the world is a slaughterhouse and you are angry with the state of the world why not help change it. It will make you happier to help some people, or do you blame the helpless for the world?

Good for you adopting is awesome. I'm not ready for kids but when I am I don't plan to make my own when there are more than enough to go around.

you know the old saw
If you're not a liberal at 20 you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at 40 you have no head.

but I agree, we have to keep trying
the alternative is the slide back to savagery
- that so many seem to think is ok 'for others'

cs
how do conclude that I do not help ? your bias/agenda is showing
('conservatives' are ....you fill in the blanks)

as usual, you missed the most interesting part
racially (the human race), I made a negative contribution

now imagine if a significant number of (very ?) intelligent people did the same

Churchill, very appropriate for these times.

Bill you said "at 19 I concluded that the world was an abattoir and I would not contribute to the carnage, and my view has never wavered" which implies that you remove your self from contribution to the world... thats how i concluded that you don't help.

jeez
and the rest of the words ?

a common 'cheap debating trick', consider only those word groupings to support your view

L5, I do wish I had your mastery of quotations

Bill you need to relax. I didn't intentionaly missunderstand your vague implication that you meant you would not contribute genetically to the world because you were angry.