quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Oh boy... 11 mechanized brigades of 1960's and 70's weapons they can't even get parts for against a group that is holding off the Israelis that spend $9 BILLION a year on their military.

Israel managed to kick just about everyones a$$ in the mideast with WW2 vintage hardware and a well planned air attack, most all of the countries they faced were supplied with newer soviet equipment. A well thought out planned preemptive strike with well trained motivated citizens using what they had at hand. The difference here is that Lebanon (people/goverment/military) does not want to lose their miitia.

Where there is a will there is usually a way, my take is that the goverment/military/people of Lebanon do not want to see the milita gone, they see it as part of their goverment and the first line of their military. I would be hesitant to accept Lebanon's military moving into the south, this may be paranoind, but who is to say that they will not simply join the militia to destroy the invaders. Syria is now removing landmines to open lanes just in case they need to jump into the fray.
Seems to me Israel has shown overwhelming restraint and have paid a price for it, I don't think they will continue to play so nice if the conflict is not resolved soon, and I honestly cannot see a workable solution that will be acceptable to both or all parties involved.How do you negotiate with someone that comes running at you with a bunch of explosives strapped to them, maybe offer them a Coke?
Bottom line I see is that anything Western must be expelled from the middle east, then from everywhere else. Now how do you negotiate with that being the only outcome the extremist will accept?

Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

Give me a break guys I hardly ever post over here so please be gentle!

------------------
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out if it alive.

quote Originally posted by DRA: Bottom line I see is that anything Western must be expelled from the middle east, then from everywhere else. Now how do you negotiate with that being the only outcome the extremist will accept?

I've been trying to make this point since day one. Yet others insist we should negotiate. Riiight.

quote Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

Heh heh. I like it.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Exactly what is the point of the Lebonese government? Governments FIRST job is to protect it's citizen.

I thought it was the responsibility of the people to protect it's goverment if in fact they endorse and support that goverment. I sometimes think that we as Americans sometimes put to much responsibility in the hands of our Goverment, letting it run us instead of us running it. I didn't see the president, congress, senate, and local/state goverment officials loading up in planes and ships to go fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.
And that does not mean that I do not support our troops and their objectives, I do for the most part, thats kinda my point.

Nothing personal though, your just as welcome and free to present your opinion as I hope I am to present mine.

A diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you will look forward to the trip.

[This message has been edited by DRA (edited 08-11-2006).]

Diplomacy is the act of saying "nice doggy" while you look for a big stick.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Diplomacy is the act of saying "nice doggy" while you look for a big stick.

Hey, this ain't China man!

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: Oh boy... 11 mechanized brigades of 1960's and 70's weapons they can't even get parts for against a group that is holding off the Israelis that spend $9 BILLION a year on their military. Lebanon spends about a 1/2 billion a year and hardly any of that is on equipment. Then the issue of who makes up their military... during the civil war there were about 40 armies duking it out.

Israelis? We are talking about HEZBOLLAH....the bad guys. Lebanon vs Hezbollah. Israel has nothing to do with it.

And you still don't seem to understand. It has nothing to do with the size of the dog in the fight it has to do with the size of the fight in the dog. Eitehr Lebanon CHOOSES to be a free self governing society or they choose to be a puppet of the Iranians through Hezbollah. It's that simple. So far they have chosen the cowards way out.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: DRA, protecting us is the reason they exist. Why else do we even need a government? You are talking apples and oranges. I don;t want my government telling me where I can work and what neighborhood I can live in but when it comes to keeping me safe they have Carte Blanc.

By your reasoning they should be able to tell you what neighborhood to live in and where you work because it is their responsibility to insure your safety, they may deem that you live in an unsafe area and your job is just way to dangerous. So if some goverment official decides it's dangerous for us to eat fries and burgers it's okay with you if the goverment bans these items and imprisons anyone found with said items. Hey don't take it personal but it sounds like you think of the Goverment as a babysitting service. In my opinion the goverment should do the bidding of the people not the other way around. You'll have to forgive me but I am having problems conveying my opinion in written text.

I really would rather not give my Goverment carte blanc to do anything, in an ideal situation the people as a whole would vote on everything themselves, basically remove the middle man. There are plenty of things the Goverment do beside "protecting" us. They are hired or elected by us to manage social programs, utility services, highway/roads/transportation services, basically be ceos and managers of a big company that we all own. Military branchs fall under this and should not be able to protect us from something they percieve as a threat and we, as a majority or whole, do not. In the end these CEO's or managers should have to answer to the majority of the "stock holders", in this case the people they were elected by.

In short, I don't feel like "my" goverment's reason to exist is to protect me. And as much as I disagree with the way the goverment operates on many levels, if I feel the goverment is threatened I would be willing to fight to protect that goverment because right now I don't see a better or more viable option to the current system.

I'm rambling on mainly because I do have strong feelings about the issue, just not that great at conveying them.

Oh and PS I'm not trying to change anyone elses way of thinking, I'm just giving my opinion.

[This message has been edited by DRA (edited 08-11-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: DRA, protecting us is the reason they exist. Why else do we even need a government? You are talking apples and oranges. I don;t want my government telling me where I can work and what neighborhood I can live in but when it comes to keeping me safe they have Carte Blanc.

I'd have to draw the line there, too, Todd. I'm not willing to sacrifice my freedom for the illusion of safety. While I want the government to do what they can, I understand we will NEVER be totally safe. There will be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil - it's just a matter of time. The government's efforts to insure my safety cannot supercede my personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

And yes, most would agree that we've already past that point and we're already losing some of our freedoms. That doesn't make it right.

And never, EVER, give any government entity carte blanche for anything.

quote Originally posted by DRA: By your reasoning they should be able to tell you what neighborhood to live in and where you work because it is their responsibility to insure your safety, they may deem that you live in an unsafe area and your job is just way to dangerous.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "I don;t want my government telling me where I can work and what neighborhood I can live in"

You still haven't answered my question. What are governments for?

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "I don;t want my government telling me where I can work and what neighborhood I can live in" You still haven't answered my question. What are governments for?

"By your reasoning they should be able to tell you what neighborhood to live in and where you work because it is their responsibility to insure your safety, they may deem that you live in an unsafe area and your job is just way to dangerous."

I am just saying if they are responsible for your safety and protection then they should be able to dictate where you live as in a safe area and where you work as in a safe job. And to a point they do already, there are govermental agencies set up to insure safety on many different types of job sites and if the Goverment deems a company or individuals work as being dangerous to a certain point they do have the ability to shut that down. You can be made to move from your current home or land by the Goverment if they so deem the area as unsafe or pehaps needed for the greater good of a local economy. This happens more than we would like to see already.
One of the points I am trying to make, and am obviously not doing a good job of doing so, is that the Goverment can do these things because we the people have allowed them to do so via the represenatives we have elected either on a local, state, or federal level. Eventually the responsibility for our level of protection and services provided by various govermental agencies fall back on the people.

What are goverments for?

"I really would rather not give my Goverment carte blanc to do anything, in an ideal situation the people as a whole would vote on everything themselves, basically remove the middle man. There are plenty of things the Goverment do beside "protecting" us. They are hired or elected by us to manage social programs, utility services, highway/roads/transportation services, basically be ceos and managers of a big company that we all own. In the end these CEO's or managers should have to answer to the majority of the "stock holders", in this case the people they were elected by."

Seems to me we have goverments to insure we have adaquate services and oversight of those services for the people of our nation and yes one of those services is national defence. If we were not a united people who supported the current Goverment (united is stretching it a bit I admit), then there would be chaos, and eventually a ruling group would emerge. We have our current system of goverment here because we chose to have it. The alternative of not having a govermental system is that someone or some group will eventually energe to take control of the population and that is a form of goverment I do not want to see here in my lifetime or my childrens. I still stick by the comparison of a large company with management elected by the majority. Imagine a company where everyone does what ever they want, no organization or disipline, no goals or objectives, how long would that entity exist? We are the stockholders and ultimately responsible for who we chose to represent our wishes and needs on the board of directors.

Without some sort of organization, as in goverment, we would not be living the lives we lead now, the opportunities we have would most likely not exist, the advances in technology would most likely never have happened. When people come together and work together anything is possible.

Now the real question I have is why do so many different forms of Goverment exist?
Answer to that may be that we are not perfect, none of us are, and we are still learning what works and what doesn't. Maybe there is no perfect form of goverment, maybe there never will be, but to move forward and prosper people must work and live together, and to do that there must be some oversight. Preferably that oversight would come from a group or someone the people choose and not from a person or group that is imposed upon them (we see how successful that route can be).

If I haven't answered the questions you posed then I guess I just don't fully understand the questions as simple as they seem to be. Maybe I'm just an ignorant redneck from Georgia thats trying to mess with your head, who knows.

Disclaimer:... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer,
my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any
resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the
existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god
coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism
is beyond the scope of this article.)

quote Originally posted by DRA: I am just saying if they are responsible for your safety and protection then they should be able to dictate where you live as in a safe area and where you work as in a safe job.

To be blunt, that is illogical. If my Constitution says I can live "here" then the government has to find a way to protect me..."here". Their job is to protect.Pperiod. Not to tell me how to live my life to make the job of protection easier for them. I can't imagine how you can read that into my statement.

quote And to a point they do already, there are govermental agencies set up to insure safety on many different types of job sites and if the Goverment deems a company or individuals work as being dangerous to a certain point they do have the ability to shut that down. You can be made to move from your current home or land by the Goverment if they so deem the area as unsafe or pehaps needed for the greater good of a local economy. This happens more than we would like to see already.

Indeed it does. But the mechanism for such change is in the Constitution and our laws, not "the government". You speak of the government as if it was some entity that controls our lives. It's not. It's us. We can change the laws if we like. And the way things are going, we may have to.

quote One of the points I am trying to make, and am obviously not doing a good job of doing so, is that the Goverment can do these things because we the people have allowed them to do so via the represenatives we have elected either on a local, state, or federal level. Eventually the responsibility for our level of protection and services provided by various govermental agencies fall back on the people.

here here

quote What are goverments for? "I really would rather not give my Goverment carte blanc to do anything, in an ideal situation the people as a whole would vote on everything themselves, basically remove the middle man.

OK, I actually disagree with that but I am a Jeffersonian. I honestly think the biggest problems we have in this country are cause by ignorant people voting for ignorant people for ignorant reasons. I appreciate that every man has a RIGHT to vote but I am ashamed that so many do not consider it to be a RESPONSIBILITY to educate themselves on the issues and then vote. The people doing the loudest yelling are the ones who've never been to a polling station. Makes me sick.

quote There are plenty of things the Goverment do beside "protecting" us.

Tragically so. They should not be in the savings and loan business, utilities, etc. I believe in TRUE free enterprise. i don't mind the government REGULATING utilities, health care, social security, and so on, but RUNNING those programs has led to finacial catastrophe for America. they should stick to what they are supposed to do; fire, police, military, laws, etc. to protect us (from within as well as outside forces).

quote Now the real question I have is why do so many different forms of Goverment exist? Answer to that may be that we are not perfect, none of us are, and we are still learning what works and what doesn't. Maybe there is no perfect form of goverment, maybe there never will be, but to move forward and prosper people must work and live together, and to do that there must be some oversight. Preferably that oversight would come from a group or someone the people choose and not from a person or group that is imposed upon them (we see how successful that route can be).

This is true. But the problem is that the "oversight": you speak of has to have its foundations in some sort of value system. The value systems of Americans are vastly different from an Islamic Republic, for example. In Amercia, all citizens have agreed to subordinate their religous convictions to those of the US Constitution. so even though we have different faith we have a common set of "policies" to regulate behavior. where we come into conflict is with a country whose policy is determined by a 2000 year old book on how to kick ass in the name of God. Has America got it right? Perhaps not. But as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".

quote If I haven't answered the questions you posed then I guess I just don't fully understand the questions as simple as they seem to be. Maybe I'm just an ignorant redneck from Georgia thats trying to mess with your head, who knows.

You've answered it. We are not as far apart as I thought. i think you just misunderstood my curt reply.

BTW, I am a Georgia Redneck too. East Point born and raised, Ga Tech Grad class of '87.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: You've answered it. We are not as far apart as I thought. i think you just misunderstood my curt reply. BTW, I am a Georgia Redneck too. East Point born and raised, Ga Tech Grad class of '87.

By not as far apart as you thought, do you mean geographically or as in philisophical views?

Oh and forgive my spelling, I was a COBOL and RPG programmer for about 6 years.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Never said they would. Naturally they must work within the frame work of the Consitution. But you are missing the point, what is a government for. That was the question. Why do they exist?.....the answer is to protect us. That is all.

True, you didn't say specifically what frame work, but offering carte blanche typically means there is no required framework. At least that's how I read it. If I misread your post, I apologize.

I do disagree with your reason for government's existance. They exist to protect us, true, but that is far from all of it. The government has many military and non-military jobs. Basically the military's job is to protect us. The non-military job is to run the infrastructure of the country. It's not all corporations (yet). The interstate highway system, interstate power grids, incentives to businesses to develop new technologies that won't turn a profit yet (i.e. hybrids, etc.) Local towns have their leaders that deal with the local infrastructure issues, then it moves up to the state and federal level. There has to be some way to coordinate all of these "united" states to be able to work together to common goal. Otherwise, you end up like much of Eastern Europe with many small nation states, each on their own in the world. In that scenario, California would probably be our nation's superpower, if nothing else based on the size of it's economy. Much of the mid west would be third world because of a lack of resources, or industry.

I don't have a problem with my government trying to protect me. I do have a problem with how they've chosen to do it.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 08-11-2006).]

quote Originally posted by DRA: By not as far apart as you thought, do you mean geographically or as in philisophical views? Oh and forgive my spelling, I was a COBOL and RPG programmer for about 6 years.

COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language)...my ass! I programmed in it for Rockwell in Duluth, Georgia way back when. Had an old IBM 360 and needed to code my own batch cards too.

I mean philosophically. We have a couple of differences but overall I think we have been doing a lot of typing to say pretty much the same thing.

My main issue is that no government of the people can take control of our lives without our permission. When I say Carte Blanc I mean, if the government sees an eminent threat to US security, I have no problem with them calling up the armed forces and saying, "go get 'em"! I am not a big fan of Senate debates and UN resolutions while the missles are falling. That was what I meant.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language)...my ass! I programmed in it for Rockwell in Duluth, Georgia way back when. Had an old IBM 360 and needed to code my own batch cards too. I mean philosophically. We have a couple of differences but overall I think we have been doing a lot of typing to say pretty much the same thing. My main issue is that no government of the people can take control of our lives without our permission. When I say Carte Blanc I mean, if the government sees an eminent threat to US security, I have no problem with them calling up the armed forces and saying, "go get 'em"! I am not a big fan of Senate debates and UN resolutions while the missles are falling. That was what I meant.

No wonder your so warped... everyone knows that Fortran 4 is the only real computer language I used to program in PL1, Sunny, Cobol, Fortran 4, and played with various assembly languages and even some straight machine code (z80 microcode). Ok, I'll admit I used Basic in high school on a DEC PDP10. Still, input was through a teletype or cards until we upgraded to a Hazeltine 2000 green screen smart terminal... woohoo... nothing will ever beat that Back in the day of S100 motherboards and 120 baud communications.

I should have probably turned computer programmer for a career... but I have gone through a lot of twists and turns instead and am back working on cool cars for a living.

This thread seems to have left the original subject in the dust! LOL
I guess I'll try to stir the pot some.

The resolution presented by the UN to end the fighting between Israel and the terrorist in Lebanon shows the absolute uselessness of the UN in such situations. They have no teeth or claws, they do absolutely nothing to solve the underlying problem. I just don't get it, what is their purpose! I do beleive Israel is doing the right thing to reject the crap that was put on the table.

I totally support Israel in the action they have taken, my only criticism would be that they should have been more agressive in their initial attacks.

By the way I do agree if there are was an eminant threat to the safety of US citizens health by an outside group or goverment, as in death and destruction, I would not expect even a local military commander to have to get approval for action to be taken. I think people that think every problem in the world can be worked out by just talking and making a few concessions, in many cases the concessions demanded are not only your way of life but your actual life, are idealistic/naive/foolish (take your pick).

And on a side note, all goverments throughout history have had a finite lifespan whereever and whenever they have been implemented with most of them being very short in terms of history, not saying a particular form of goverment has not been more popular or less popular. Can anyone name the oldest standing goverment today ? Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, etc, etc, etc, are all actually much younger than the United States. Seems people give these older Nations some kind of respect for being "older" but their established forms of goverment are actually fairly young. (probably a good topic for a seperate thread if it has not been discussed to death before!) I'm just curious how long it will be before there is a major change here in America, think we'll last anothe hundred years?


"Speaking as someone who has delved into the intricacies of PL/I, I am
sure that only Real Men could have written such a machine-hogging,
cycle-grabbing, all-encompassing monster. Allocate an array and free
the middle third? Sure! Why not? Multiply a character string times a
bit string and assign the result to a float decimal? Go ahead! Free a
controlled variable procedure parameter and reallocate it before
passing it back? Overlay three different types of variable on the same
memory location? Anything you say! Write a recursive macro? Well,
no, but Real Men use rescan. How could a language so obviously
designed and written by Real Men not be intended for Real Man use?"

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: No wonder your so warped... .

Not really, I just need to go through several subroutines to get where I am going.