<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Iraq would vote for McCain</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/</link>
	<description>She escaped from the belly of the liberal beast</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:21:05 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21057</link>
		<dc:creator>Ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21057</guid>
		<description>Not to mention putting Obama or the Democrats into power.

Since classical liberals believe in bringing justice, prosperity, security, and progress to every human being, this necessarily requires a focus on also bringing the best political system to those in need. Given such a goal, it does not really matter whether that goal is accomplished through empire. I do not love empire or monarchy or war. Yet if it comes to be that such things are the best ways to accomplish what I believe to be the best humanity can achieve, then those are what I will support.

It is a similar epistemology compared to the Democrat's support of wars based upon the benefit of those wars to them. However, on the standard of ethics, it could not be anymore different. The Democrats and Leftists support war and suffering because of the power it gives them. They decry war and suffering because of the power it gives them. They motivate others into slaughter and warfare because of the power it gives them. Their intentions and the consequences of their actions do everything possible to degrade and corrode mankind's capability of reaching our ultimate potential. 

They have no intention or need to use their power to help anyone except themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to mention putting Obama or the Democrats into power.</p>
<p>Since classical liberals believe in bringing justice, prosperity, security, and progress to every human being, this necessarily requires a focus on also bringing the best political system to those in need. Given such a goal, it does not really matter whether that goal is accomplished through empire. I do not love empire or monarchy or war. Yet if it comes to be that such things are the best ways to accomplish what I believe to be the best humanity can achieve, then those are what I will support.</p>
<p>It is a similar epistemology compared to the Democrat&#8217;s support of wars based upon the benefit of those wars to them. However, on the standard of ethics, it could not be anymore different. The Democrats and Leftists support war and suffering because of the power it gives them. They decry war and suffering because of the power it gives them. They motivate others into slaughter and warfare because of the power it gives them. Their intentions and the consequences of their actions do everything possible to degrade and corrode mankind&#8217;s capability of reaching our ultimate potential. </p>
<p>They have no intention or need to use their power to help anyone except themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21056</link>
		<dc:creator>Ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21056</guid>
		<description>One of the reasons that the Colonies revolted, even though they still felt they belonged to the British Empire, was because the policy of colonialism disenfranchised and exploited the people of the 13 Colonies simply for the benefit of an oligarch back in Britain. The rule of the few, the King and his Parliament.

Without representation, there was no legal method of achieving any kind of solution acceptable to the Colonies. Thus if the Colonies could not become equal members in the Empire, which Colonialism was never intended to create, then the Colonies will make their own nation, for success or defeat.

The two philosophies are interesting in a fashion. America, who believes in the self-destiny and self-determination of all people because the Founding Fathers believed it of Americans, compared to the European colonialist philosophy of white man's burden. Colonialism put people under lock, stock, and barrel as if they were children that needed care taking. Except Britain never actually did anything to help their colonies mature politically. They became so dependent upon British rule that when British rule went away, chaos ensued like in Iraq and Judea and South Africa.

America, however, took the entirely opposite approach with Iraq. They gave everything unto the Iraqis, as fast as they could. For the Kurds that had a history of self-rule, they thrived on this policy. For the Shia and the Sunnis that had no history of self-rule, different things happened. Disastrous things.

So you can see the disaster that is the extreme of the spectrum either way. The optimum strategy would be MacArthur's in Japan. A transition period in which America takes unto itself the responsibility of caring for the child that is Japan, writing their Constitution for them, but also accepting and cultivating the help of adults, such as Emperor Hirohito, who knew that Japan's destiny was with the US, not with war or conquest.

Any organization that denies the colonialist mentality that more primitive cultures need a bootstrap up, is an organization that will keep humanity mired in the sickness that is war and poverty. Any organization that denies the need of indigenous people for self-determination and self-governance and equal representation is an organization that will keep humanity mired in the sickness that is war and poverty.

Regardless of whatever good the British Empire did in the world, all of it was erased because they didn't finish the job. They withdrew. They wasted their resources fighting local wars cause they were unworthy of being rulers if they could put faith in a Chamberlain or Socialist government after Churchill.

Such can easily be the fate of America, given Mexico.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the reasons that the Colonies revolted, even though they still felt they belonged to the British Empire, was because the policy of colonialism disenfranchised and exploited the people of the 13 Colonies simply for the benefit of an oligarch back in Britain. The rule of the few, the King and his Parliament.</p>
<p>Without representation, there was no legal method of achieving any kind of solution acceptable to the Colonies. Thus if the Colonies could not become equal members in the Empire, which Colonialism was never intended to create, then the Colonies will make their own nation, for success or defeat.</p>
<p>The two philosophies are interesting in a fashion. America, who believes in the self-destiny and self-determination of all people because the Founding Fathers believed it of Americans, compared to the European colonialist philosophy of white man&#8217;s burden. Colonialism put people under lock, stock, and barrel as if they were children that needed care taking. Except Britain never actually did anything to help their colonies mature politically. They became so dependent upon British rule that when British rule went away, chaos ensued like in Iraq and Judea and South Africa.</p>
<p>America, however, took the entirely opposite approach with Iraq. They gave everything unto the Iraqis, as fast as they could. For the Kurds that had a history of self-rule, they thrived on this policy. For the Shia and the Sunnis that had no history of self-rule, different things happened. Disastrous things.</p>
<p>So you can see the disaster that is the extreme of the spectrum either way. The optimum strategy would be MacArthur&#8217;s in Japan. A transition period in which America takes unto itself the responsibility of caring for the child that is Japan, writing their Constitution for them, but also accepting and cultivating the help of adults, such as Emperor Hirohito, who knew that Japan&#8217;s destiny was with the US, not with war or conquest.</p>
<p>Any organization that denies the colonialist mentality that more primitive cultures need a bootstrap up, is an organization that will keep humanity mired in the sickness that is war and poverty. Any organization that denies the need of indigenous people for self-determination and self-governance and equal representation is an organization that will keep humanity mired in the sickness that is war and poverty.</p>
<p>Regardless of whatever good the British Empire did in the world, all of it was erased because they didn&#8217;t finish the job. They withdrew. They wasted their resources fighting local wars cause they were unworthy of being rulers if they could put faith in a Chamberlain or Socialist government after Churchill.</p>
<p>Such can easily be the fate of America, given Mexico.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ymarsakar</title>
		<link>http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21055</link>
		<dc:creator>Ymarsakar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/03/17/iraq-would-vote-for-mccain/#comment-21055</guid>
		<description>Then it is &lt;I&gt;a very good thing&lt;/i&gt; for the Democrats that Iraqis don't get to have a vote and be represented in the United States, isn't it. It is very good for the Democrats extorting money from America that other people's concerns in this world can be deprioritized due to the fact that America is no expansionist empire.

Democrats don't give a damn about anything that won't provide them power and luxury. Taxation without representation is a staunch principle of that party. Going back to when slaves only counted as a percentage of a white person in terms of population count. That way the South could get more reps in the House but didn't have to actually, you know, represent the slaves they were beating.

They're a bunch of oligarchs, that had they the power, would never have ended slavery because of the cost. They believe in nothing related to freedom or justice for all of humanity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Then it is <i>a very good thing</i> for the Democrats that Iraqis don&#8217;t get to have a vote and be represented in the United States, isn&#8217;t it. It is very good for the Democrats extorting money from America that other people&#8217;s concerns in this world can be deprioritized due to the fact that America is no expansionist empire.</p>
<p>Democrats don&#8217;t give a damn about anything that won&#8217;t provide them power and luxury. Taxation without representation is a staunch principle of that party. Going back to when slaves only counted as a percentage of a white person in terms of population count. That way the South could get more reps in the House but didn&#8217;t have to actually, you know, represent the slaves they were beating.</p>
<p>They&#8217;re a bunch of oligarchs, that had they the power, would never have ended slavery because of the cost. They believe in nothing related to freedom or justice for all of humanity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
