Smitty City

The US funded, and supplied arms to Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran as well. And I'm sure we are currently arming and funding a nation that will be a rusty nail in our foot down the road at some point. War is profitable because the companies paying for it see nothing but profit because it's the tax payers that end up paying for it in the end.

Yep, that's well documented. And we recruited fighters from radical mosques here in the U.S. to send them to fight the Russians as well.

We supplied Saddam with some of the chemical and biological weapons that we "discovered" later on. And also intel. 2 guys who were direct handlers of the goods: George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney.

Apparently, we are talking out both sides of our mouth. But does the end (?) justify the means?

The end justified the means at the time for the people involved in the deals. It's all selfish endeavors if you ask me, because regardless of who's side we're on at whatever point in history....we're still funding wars for profit(mostly conflicts the American public wouldn't agree with).

It's just bad karma/irony that these weapons are now being used against us.

it's common knowledge that we funded and supplied arms to bin laden's anti-communist wars. i remember that being a topic of discussion after 9/11. Things change.

I think I ignored salient media back then. Of course, at seventeen, I ignored a lot of important things.

We historically have funded a lot of wars.
One difference between this Bush administration and previous administrations is the greater emphasis on promoting Democracy. We used to prop up ruthless dictators just to fight Communism. Now, we support fewer dictators and call for more democracy and freedom.
(this doctrine doesn't apply to Saudi Arabia, however).

Tappdaddy...would you say that democracy is the foremost (most efficient and effective) system of governing?

I am jumping in the fray and answering your question smitty.

I think not democracy is not, and for one major reason: democracy presupposes literacy. Yes our population is 99% literate, but that means they can read "See Dick Run".

It is a good thing we do not have a democracy per se in American but a republic, where we do not make the decisions directly but vote for the individuals to make them for us. At times it can be daunting, but it seems to work fine.

Democracy vs. Republic... splitting hairs there.

"Efficient" form of government... there are so many different definitions for "efficient," would you like to tell me what you're thinking of when you use that word?

I don't have a problem with assuming literacy.

I think clearly our Republic has plenty of inefficiencies. Earmarks the most recently famous one. When too much of a good is supplied than what is demanded (or even socially optimal), like pork projects, then that's inefficient.

But if it was one man, one vote for every issue then sub-optimal policies would be passed. Literacy isn't enough, most of the people are literate but uneducated.

So, I'll go with Sok, a Republic is better.

I guess my issue is with representation. It's clear that those voted it office do not represent the people, but rather, they represent the organizations that supply them with funds to put them and keep them in office. Those are the voices they are listening to.

Also, are you sold on capitalism? What about the theories of Jeffrey Sachs (applied in America)? Do you really think Jesus would have stood for capitalism?

I'm absolutely for capitalism. I think Jesus is neither for it nor against it in Scripture.

Free markets are often the best way to organize activity. Free markets and capitalism existed from the earliest days of man, and were present in Jesus' day.

What we call "pure" capitalism, or a "pure" free market doesn't exist anywhere, because government has some useful roles, which i occasionally point out on my blog.

What we see in Leviticus 25 is a sort of capitalism without greed mandated. The whole Jubilee, and giving your land back to whoever you bought it from, and freeing your slaves. I think it was so that we'd be dependent on God, and not make wealth or possessions our idol. But, the market activity (buying/selling) was all free market capitalism.

Some of Sach's ideas I've soured on as I've read other rebuttles of him, particularly by Bill Easterly. But Sachs promotes capitalism and free trade, do you think otherwise?